Very interesting read regarding streaming services.

[ras52]

Here's another (long) article from this weekend's Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/17/postcapitalism-end-of-capitalism-begun

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1437388835' post='2825479']
So musicians become the employees of wealthy benefactors...and churn out elitist nonsense for the musical equivalents of Charles Saatchi. OR, they have to work for a closed shop run by the taste police. How would a body like the MU or Arts Council decided whether they should 'employ' a musician or no? Would it be if a board of knowledgable muso journalists like their music? Or would they just employ everyone who decided they wanted to be a musician?

How many people have become 'rich' by penning a hit song? Really, how many? And in what way is that much different than someone coming up with a business idea, say like an internet 'business', and cashing out as soon as it became popular?




Other models have all failed.
[/quote]

OK then, carry on with the present system. If all is well, there's no requirement for change, everyone is 'hunky dory'. I'm just an old buffer with strange ideas on several subjects, many of which are not popular today, or which imply a change in the [i]status quo[/i]. No matter; let the music play and ignore me. If there's no problem, there's no need for any solution. As you were.

[Lw.]

As a side note but kind of related; actors (and writers) on TV programs get paid a royalty for uses after the initial broadcast of a program - there's a set of rules negotiated by their union (Equity in the UK) that apply to all featured actors (ie not including extras), for their version of a streaming service, say Netflix, the actors each get their pro-rata'd share of a percentage of gross revenue from that sale so they're not paid on a per-stream basis either (though I accept that some musicians royalty statements will show them getting a per stream rate, it's generally not worked out like that which is why the rate looks like it changes on a monthly basis).

[wateroftyne]

[quote name='Lw.' timestamp='1437400197' post='2825631']
As a side note but kind of related; actors (and writers) on TV programs get paid a royalty for uses after the initial broadcast of a program - there's a set of rules negotiated by their union (Equity in the UK) that apply to all featured actors (ie not including extras), for their version of a streaming service, say Netflix, the actors each get their pro-rata'd share of a percentage of gross revenue from that sale so they're not paid on a per-stream basis either (though I accept that some musicians royalty statements will show them getting a per stream rate, it's generally not worked out like that which is why the rate looks like it changes on a monthly basis).
[/quote]

That's a good point.

A question to Dad3353: As I understand it, you don't think artists should benefit from repeated plays of their work. Do you think it's acceptable that the likes of Spotify etc. benefit from repeated plays of their work?

[Marvin]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437392001' post='2825519']
OK then, carry on with the present system. If all is well, there's no requirement for change, everyone is 'hunky dory'. I'm just an old buffer with strange ideas on several subjects, many of which are not popular today, or which imply a change in the [i]status quo[/i]. No matter; let the music play and ignore me. If there's no problem, there's no need for any solution. As you were.
[/quote]

People making money isn't the issue for most, as it seems to be for yourself. The issue with regards musicians is that a third party is making a lot of money out of their efforts. Many on here, it seems, feel that if money is being made then the split should be swing more to the person or persons whose music it is.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1437401086' post='2825648']
That's a good point.

A question to Dad3353: As I understand it, you don't think artists should benefit from repeated plays of their work. Do you think it's acceptable that the likes of Spotify etc. benefit from repeated plays of their work?
[/quote]

I've maybe not made myself clear enough. The crux of the matter, to me, is that: anyone producing goods and/or services should be paid for their work. That's simple enough, I'd have thought. Once the work is finished, however, and has been paid for, then that's the end if it for that person. If someone else is providing a service, then of course it should be paid for.
So, to answer your question, It doesn't bother me that Spotify, or whoever, are providing a service, they should be paid for it. The musicians that have finished their work, and are now either resting by the pool or, even better, creating even more music (and getting paid for it...) don't deserve paying for what they've done in the past. I see no difference between a sportsman/woman getting paid for their efforts whilst they're practicing their sport, or an architect designing an edifice, a bus driver and a musician. All should be paid for their work. I'd include training in there. I wouldn't include monies for doing nothing, once the work is finished, that's all. I don't believe that any one person on this planet can possibly be worth a million. Nobody, whatever their role or responsibility. Bill Gates, the Pope, the King of Morocco, 50 Cents... None of them. No, it's not jealousy, it's my sense of values and justice which differ from others, that's all. I value the time of a refuse collector as having the same worth, and so value, as a top surgeon, bank clerk or composer.

[ras52]

So putting together Marvin's and Dad's comments above, should Spotify only have the right to profit from distributing works which they themselves have commissioned, i.e. directly paid the creators?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1437401662' post='2825651']
People making money isn't the issue for most, as it seems to be for yourself. The issue with regards musicians is that a third party is making a lot of money out of their efforts. Many on here, it seems, feel that if money is being made then the split should be swing more to the person or persons whose music it is.
[/quote]

... and I hold that music has no intrinsic worth, it's the production of music that needs paying for. A loaf of bread costs the labour and raw materials involved in its manufacture. Carrots cost what it takes to get thel to grow, and thence to market. The value of these is the effort that's gone into them, not the item itself. One pays a waiter a salary for serving in a restaurant. If he's at home, resting, he's not providing that service, and so doesn't get paid. An actor in the theatre play gets his/her salary, and rightly, too. A musician, playing music, deserves pay, also. I have no problem with folks getting paid for their work. I advocate limiting revenue to that, that's all.

[ambient]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437402193' post='2825665']
I've maybe not made myself clear enough. The crux of the matter, to me, is that: anyone producing goods and/or services should be paid for their work. That's simple enough, I'd have thought. Once the work is finished, however, and has been paid for, then that's the end if it for that person. If someone else is providing a service, then of course it should be paid for.
So, to answer your question, It doesn't bother me that Spotify, or whoever, are providing a service, they should be paid for it. The musicians that have finished their work, and are now either resting by the pool or, even better, creating even more music (and getting paid for it...) don't deserve paying for what they've done in the past. I see no difference between a sportsman/woman getting paid for their efforts whilst they're practicing their sport, or an architect designing an edifice, a bus driver and a musician. All should be paid for their work. I'd include training in there. I wouldn't include monies for doing nothing, once the work is finished, that's all. I don't believe that any one person on this planet can possibly be worth a million. Nobody, whatever their role or responsibility. Bill Gates, the Pope, the King of Morocco, 50 Cents... None of them. No, it's not jealousy, it's my sense of values and justice which differ from others, that's all. I value the time of a refuse collector as having the same worth, and so value, as a top surgeon, bank clerk or composer.
[/quote]

It's not work though is it ?

A piece of music that you've composed, arranged, recorded and produced, possibly over many, many hours and days, or even weeks or months, is a product. I hate to use that term, but once it's finished, that's what it becomes.

It's like if you design something and build it, then someone else comes along and copies your design, and sells the same thing under their own name, and makes loads of money.

Edited July 20, 2015 by ambient

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437402585' post='2825670']
So putting together Marvin's and Dad's comments above, should Spotify only have the right to profit from distributing works which they themselves have commissioned, i.e. directly paid the creators?
[/quote]

That wouldn't trouble me at all, in the same way as supermarkets charge customers for the goods they've bought in plus their costs and profit margin. Why music should be any different in principle escapes me. The mechanism has to differ, as the product is intangible, but the principle of Spotify (or any other commerce...) earning their living is fine by me.

[Marvin]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437403091' post='2825680']
That wouldn't trouble me at all, in the same way as supermarkets charge customers for the goods they've bought in plus their costs and profit margin. Why music should be any different in principle escapes me. The mechanism has to differ, as the product is intangible, but the principle of Spotify (or any other commerce...) earning their living is fine by me.
[/quote]

How are you going to pay the musician they're making money from?

[Marvin]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437402841' post='2825675']
It's not work though is it ?

A piece of music that you've composed, arranged, recorded and produced, possibly over many, many hours and days, or even weeks or months, is a product. I hate to use that term, but once it's finished, that's what it becomes.

It's like if you design something and build it, then someone else comes along and copies your design, and sells the same thing under their own name, and makes loads of money.
[/quote]

Exactly

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437402841' post='2825675']
It's not work though is it ?

A piece of music that you've composed, arranged, recorded and produced, possibly over many, many hours and days, or even weeks or months, is a product. I hate to use that term, but once it's finished, that's what it becomes....
[/quote]
Yes, it is work, if time has been spent on it.

It's a product if you want to make it one, in the same way as carving furniture is a hobby for some, but a livelihood for others. For the latter, it's a product. However many hours or weeks is, to me, irrelevant; it only changes how much money it is worth, in the same way as a hand-crafted bass is worth more than a simple slab model. A symphony takes, usually, longer to compose than a 3-minute song. Both deserve reward; I have no problem with that.

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1437402841' post='2825675']...
It's like if you design something and build it, then someone else comes along and copies your design, and sells the same thing under their own name, and makes loads of money.
[/quote]

We do this every time we go out as a band. We play covers (Radiohead, RATM, REM and more...), and pay no-one for the privilege. It's also true that we play for free, for our own pleasure and that of our audience. I've no qualms about that; I would have if I was offered loads of money, though. If I was paid (as I was, as a drummer, some decades ago...), I would expect being paid for the time spent behind the drums, including my practise/training/rehearsal time, which I was. That's a wage for working, in my view; I would expect no more, and no less.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1437403278' post='2825682']
How are you going to pay the musician they're making money from?
[/quote]

OK, we can go into the mechanics of [i]how [/i]to do it (and I agree that it's not as easy as all that...), but can we agree that the principle is worthwhile or not..? If (and it's a big 'if', I grant...) the musicians and composers can get paid for their time, can we then agree to scrap this notion of royalties and intellectual property..? I still maintain that having monies come in when the work is over is not right. Is that a reasonable starting point from which to discuss [i]how [/i]to get folks paid for their efforts..? If, whatever I come up with is to be systematically throw out, there's not much point in commencing, is there..? There has to be at least a bit of willing, or suspension of belief at worst, to even begin.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[ras52]

A few of us are suspending our disbelief, and wondering [i]how [/i]this could work... It seems to me that this model would only be possible in a benign Utopia or an iron-fisted dictatorship.

[Marvin]

So, I'm a musician (we can all suspend our disbelief a little further), who is going to pay me, and possibly the members of my band, whilst I am writing, practising, recording, producing, mastering, marketing etc etc...the music I/we're recording? And, assuming we can work out who is going to pay me and my band, what hourly rate are we to receive? Are all musicians to receive the same hourly rate?

Intellectual property rights, copyright, whatever one wishes to call it, commodifies creative works, whether that be an invention, a piece of music, a book...whatever. It provides the 'creator' with a future income for the time they are not getting any income from the creative process (writing, inventing, recording, prototypes etc etc). That's how it works, that's the world we live in.

There are many instances of people receiving or earning money when no work is being done. Pensions are a proportion of wages forgone for future income, copyright is wages for having no wage when you're actually working.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437404679' post='2825693']
A few of us are suspending our disbelief, and wondering [i]how [/i]this could work... It seems to me that this model would only be possible in a benign Utopia or an iron-fisted dictatorship.
[/quote]

You mean I can't have both..?

Let's take the case of a sculptor, who spends a certain amount of time, firstly learning his (implied: 'or her'...) craft, then in producing sculptures. If they're for sale, he'll have to fix a price; I'd suggest costing up the time spent and dividing that up amongst the pieces created. If someone buys his work, that's fine. If his client is an interior designer, the pieces may be sold on to individuals, or offices; even museums. It matters little; as long as the artist has had his work recompensed, all is well. If asked (commissioned...) to create a piece, he'll estimate the cost on a similar basis. Once delivered, he's paid; again, all is well.
Can this not hold true of a composer..? He'll sell the piece to someone wanting his work, for the cost of having produced it. If it's then sold on to others, that doesn't prevent the songster from creating further works, or accepting commissions, which should equally generate payment. A long work would by its very nature, cost more than a short one. How the commissioner recovers his 'investment' (assuming that he wants to...) is not really the concern of the creator. A statue bought for one's home, or for display in a public park, or sold on again; none of this affects the payment the creator has received. With music, then, thusly... Once acquirer has been found, and the piece paid for, the matter ends for the creator. Is that so wicked..? One pays a taxi driver for his time, including his costs. So with a musician, paid for playing, or a composer, paid for composing. The rate could be variable, but should, imo, be commensurate with the time invested. A small statue would likely cost less than a monster one; a short taxi ride costs less than a long one. Time is time.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Dad3353

[Marvin]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437407561' post='2825732']
You mean I can't have both..?

Let's take the case of a sculptor, who spends a certain amount of time, firstly learning his (implied: 'or her'...) craft, then in producing sculptures. If they're for sale, he'll have to fix a price; I'd suggest costing up the time spent and dividing that up amongst the pieces created. If someone buys his work, that's fine. If his client is an interior designer, the pieces may be sold on to individuals, or offices; even museums. It matters little; as long as the artist has had his work recompensed, all is well. If asked (commissioned...) to create a piece, he'll estimate the cost on a similar basis. Once delivered, he's paid; again, all is well.
Can this not hold true of a composer..? He'll sell the piece to someone wanting his work, for the cost of having produced it. If it's then sold on to others, that doesn't prevent the songster from creating further works, or accepting commissions, which should equally generate payment. A long work would by its very nature, cost more than a short one. How the commissioner recovers his 'investment' (assuming that he wants to...) is not really the concern of the creator. A statue bought for one's home, or for display in a public park, or sold on again; none of this affects the payment the creator has received. With music, then, thusly... Once acquirer has been found, and the piece paid for, the matter ends for the creator. Is that so wicked..? One pays a taxi driver for his time, including his costs. So with a musician, paid for playing, or a composer, paid for composing. The rate could be variable, but should, imo, be commensurate with the time invested. A small statue would likely cost less than a monster one; a short taxi ride costs less than a long one. Time is time.
[/quote]

What you've described is royalties.

I'm Spotify and I want to use a band's music. Rather than pay them, and negotiate on a band by band basis, an up front fee, instead I pay them a much smaller fee, for their time, every time I actually 'use' their track, tune, song or whatever.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1437408202' post='2825741']
What you've described is royalties.

I'm Spotify and I want to use a band's music. Rather than pay them, and negotiate on a band by band basis, an up front fee, instead I pay them a much smaller fee, for their time, every time I actually 'use' their track, tune, song or whatever.
[/quote]

We're not seeing eye to eye here, are we..?

[tauzero]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437402604' post='2825673']
... and I hold that music has no intrinsic worth, it's the production of music that needs paying for. A loaf of bread costs the labour and raw materials involved in its manufacture. Carrots cost what it takes to get thel to grow, and thence to market. The value of these is the effort that's gone into them, not the item itself. One pays a waiter a salary for serving in a restaurant. If he's at home, resting, he's not providing that service, and so doesn't get paid. An actor in the theatre play gets his/her salary, and rightly, too. A musician, playing music, deserves pay, also. I have no problem with folks getting paid for their work. I advocate limiting revenue to that, that's all.
[/quote]

What happens to record labels then? Record label puts money into production of a record, then how do they recoup the money? They provide the masters to whoever will burn the CDs for them, sort out whoever will do the artwork, and provide the record to Spotify et al. That's it then, isn't it? They're not doing anything further, so they don't get any more money. Presumably the money flow now moves to the CD factory, where they'll churn out as many CDs as they want to and when they don't sell any more, they stop, and to Spotify, who keep supplying the music stream until no-one wants it any more. So where will the risk move to? Who will decide the value of the record? Do all records have the same value?

You perhaps need to consider composition and production of material as an IP version of capitalism, insofar as one invests one's efforts in the production of something in the hope of future reward.

[tauzero]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1437407561' post='2825732']
Let's take the case of a sculptor, who spends a certain amount of time, firstly learning his (implied: 'or her'...) craft, then in producing sculptures. If they're for sale, he'll have to fix a price; I'd suggest costing up the time spent and dividing that up amongst the pieces created. If someone buys his work, that's fine. If his client is an interior designer, the pieces may be sold on to individuals, or offices; even museums. It matters little; as long as the artist has had his work recompensed, all is well. If asked (commissioned...) to create a piece, he'll estimate the cost on a similar basis. Once delivered, he's paid; again, all is well.

Can this not hold true of a composer..? He'll sell the piece to someone wanting his work, for the cost of having produced it. If it's then sold on to others, that doesn't prevent the songster from creating further works, or accepting commissions, which should equally generate payment.
[/quote]

You seem to be overlooking the elephant in the room. The sculpture is a unique object of which ownership can be transferred, and once the new owner has it, the previous owner is deprived of it. A musical work can have its rights transferred, but can be readily copied, either the idea or the recorded sound. How many Mona Lisas are there? And how many "Mona Lisa" by Nat King Cole are there?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1437574661' post='2827196']
What happens to record labels then? Record label puts money into production of a record, then how do they recoup the money? They provide the masters to whoever will burn the CDs for them, sort out whoever will do the artwork, and provide the record to Spotify et al. That's it then, isn't it? They're not doing anything further, so they don't get any more money. Presumably the money flow now moves to the CD factory, where they'll churn out as many CDs as they want to and when they don't sell any more, they stop, and to Spotify, who keep supplying the music stream until no-one wants it any more. So where will the risk move to? Who will decide the value of the record? Do all records have the same value?

You perhaps need to consider composition and production of material as an IP version of capitalism, insofar as one invests one's efforts in the production of something in the hope of future reward.
[/quote]
[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1437575027' post='2827201']
You seem to be overlooking the elephant in the room. The sculpture is a unique object of which ownership can be transferred, and once the new owner has it, the previous owner is deprived of it. A musical work can have its rights transferred, but can be readily copied, either the idea or the recorded sound. How many Mona Lisas are there? And how many "Mona Lisa" by Nat King Cole are there?
[/quote]

Let's take an artist, painting a picture. He can sell it, as a finished original, to anyone who wants to buy it. He charges the time (including his instruction and apprenticeship needed to become good...). Someone buys it. The artist carries on painting further works.
The buyer of the painting could have been an individual, looking to decorate his salon, but is, instead, a buyer for a manufacture of jigsaw puzzles. The painting he had bought is to be copied, reproduced several thousand times, cut into pieces and sold as jigsaw puzzles. The buyer (or,in this case, his company...) have taken on the 'risk', and hope to get their money back from puzzle sales. Maybe they will.
Back to our music example. If Spotify wish to make a composition available for download, they should pay the musician(s....) for that, at the rate they demand. This rate would take into account the time taken (and acquired expertise, investment and consumable costs of the band...); a long,complex piece from experienced folks may well cost more than another work, just as a hand-beaten Bentley has had more hours put in than a Twingo. Spotify then sell on their service, charging their customers (you and I..?) the amount required to recover their investment, their running costs and a profit. The musicians have earned their payment, and continue to produce future works, paid for in a similar fashion. Once they've produced their work, they receive no further monies, whether they've a major success, downloaded millions of times, or no sales at all. That, now, is out of their hands, in the same way as the artist. Everyone working gets their due for the work and service they provide. Their may be details or exceptions to be considered, but is it really as daft as all that..?

[ras52]

So let's say the jigsaw-maker buys the painting, at great expense. Then they discover that a rival jigsaw-maker has copied the painting and is making a huge profit by undercutting them in the marketplace.

[ras52]

Actually, there's already the option to operate in the manner Dad suggests. E.g. I could write some music and sell it lock-stock-and-future-royalties to e.g. a library-music vendor.

Just as the painter could sell his painting to the jigsaw-maker, or license its reproduction in return for a share of the sales.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437580964' post='2827276']
So let's say the jigsaw-maker buys the painting, at great expense. Then they discover that a rival jigsaw-maker has copied the painting and is making a huge profit by undercutting them in the marketplace.
[/quote]

I'm sure that happens all the time. I see, in a baker's window, a lovely wedding cake. I think to myself: 'I could make that, and cheaper, too..!'. I do so, and sell many more than the baker whose 'design' I've been inspired by (or 'nicked'; you choose...). Is this not common practise in many walks of life..? Even in music and composition, there is 'inspiration' all the time from others. A well-known bass player starts using a chorus-wah, and everyone jumps on the bandwagon, until the next fad. The disco beat..? There's only one..? No, there're everywhere. What's so special about simply the melody..? A chord structure can be a unique creation too, as can a distinctive rhythm. Why is it only the song that's held as special..? No, work is work, and should be paid for, that's all.

[quote name='ras52' timestamp='1437581097' post='2827281']
Actually, there's already the option to operate in the manner Dad suggests. E.g. I could write some music and sell it lock-stock-and-future-royalties to e.g. a library-music vendor.

Just as the painter could sell his painting to the jigsaw-maker, or license its reproduction in return for a share of the sales.
[/quote]

I'm not happy with the 'licensing' part, for the same reasons. The artist (in the example...) is, indeed, 'sharing' financial risk (ie: no sales, so no revenue for all those past years...),but he'll start getting paid for doing nothing if sales take off. I'd rather he worked out his rate correctly and got his earnings from work he's done, not for watching sales figures by the pool. That is indolence, in my book; worthwhile in its own right, but not to be paid for. It's OK if there's a 'cut-off' sum agreed, I suppose, equivalent to the one-off sale price or similar. I could accept that.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Dad3353