copyright and indie CDs

[fronobulax]

I just want to see the musicians at the bottom of the income ladder have the ability to play and record whatever they want.

A noble sentiment with which I agree so long as the composers get compensated as well. The fact that you say "bottom of the economic ladder" and I don't suggests different understandings of fairness.

 

[adorshki]

I agree with all of that, Addie. I just want to see the musicians at the bottom of the income ladder have the ability to play and record whatever they want.

And I'm definitely in that category..with a pipe dream of maybe collectin' some royalties offa composing someday.... 8)
From what I'm gathereing here, the issue seems to be that venues may be the "choke point" for performing, if they aren't paying the performance rights fees.
That reminds me of a new paradigm, however, which is how the internet may be coming into play. I heard something on a college station about a year ago and I wanted to buy it, but lo and behold, I couldn't purchase a CD on the web via the usual sources like Amazon or Tower. The ONLY distribution format besides the (out-of-print) artists's self produced cassette tape was (artist provided) mp3 format.
I don't do mp3 downloads so I didn't get the material, but I could have bought it directly from the artist. Just sayin' it looked like a whole new marketing method which appeared to cut out the traditional royalty/payment structure.
On further reflection though, I suddenly realized "I wonder how (or even if) they're preventing massive free duplication/distribution of their product?"

 

[adorshki]

The people that own the rights to songs should get compensation when their song is played by someone that is making money playing it.
Sounds simple but it isn't.
How does ASCAP know who to pay royalties to?

I support the idea of the owner of a song getting royalties from it.
It just needs to be fair to everyone.
I just don't know if that's possible.

The answer to your question and others can be found at the ASCAP web site.

Thanks for taking the time to look at that in the interest of furthering of fact-based discussion. :wink:

 

[adorshki]

They are providing me a service. I could enforce my legal right to be compensated for performances of my copyrighted material by knocking in the door of every club owner in town and waving a contract in their face, but wouldn't I rather outsource that and spend my time composing and playing?

That's how it looks to me, and yeah, I would rather let them do it.

 

[jmac]

I got a little more info on ASCAP from a friend. According to him, its not just live music, but every bar with a jukebox needs to pay ASCAP. He also said that the annual fee is pretty small (a few hundred dollars), BUT, if ASCAP comes after you for not paying, then they're going to hit you with a big fine. He went on to say that every bar owner should know that if you're going to have music you should pay ASCAP. You need all sorts of licenses to operate a bar, and getting a license to play music from ASCAP is essentially the same thing.

So the couple of venues that I played that had trouble with ASCAP, really only had themselves to blame.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

A couple of steel players told me that copyright for recording costs 9.1 cents per song for each CD. So making a thousand copies of a ten-song CD would cost $910.00 just in copyright fees. This situation makes it hard to turn a decent profit on indie CDs and thus puts a dampener on the number of them produced.

 

[fronobulax]

A couple of steel players told me that copyright for recording costs 9.1 cents per song for each CD. So making a thousand copies of a ten-song CD would cost $910.00 just in copyright fees. This situation makes it hard to turn a decent profit on indie CDs and thus puts a dampener on the number of them produced.

Are you talking about mechanical licenses which are what is required to make a legal recording of someone elses copyrighted material or are you talking about the costs someone would incur in order to copyright and protect their own material on their recording?

If the former then your $910 figure is for an indie CD that contains ten songs and they are all covers - a situation that is quite unlikely given my understanding of the motivations for creating and distributing indie material.

"profit" also depends upon the other costs involved. I've been told duplicating CDs with cases, covers and provided artwork can be done for $1 a CD. If I do all of my own recording, engineering and production work and sell my CDs for $10 each, I'm still pocketing $8 per CD which superficially sounds pretty good if I only laid out $2 per CD. Whether that is a decent profit depends upon how much I value my time or what else I could have been paid to do instead.

Since you specifically talked about "a decent profit" I presume your concern here is only for the performer and not for the composer? It is hard for a composer to make any money, let alone a decent profit, if everyone who records their songs does so without compensation.

It should also be noted that CDs are fading fast as a mechanism for delivering music from producer to consumer.

 

[Default]

I believe that Walter weighed in on this in the past, namely, to keep the cost of mp3's at a dollar, they reduced the amount paid to the artist.

 

[ladytexan]

I believe that Walter weighed in on this in the past, namely, to keep the cost of mp3's at a dollar, they reduced the amount paid to the artist.

This is a slight veer (from the original question posed), but this infographic is a telling tale based upon Steve's comment. Here is a link to the full article. Now, back to the topic.

 

[fronobulax]

I believe that Walter weighed in on this in the past, namely, to keep the cost of mp3's at a dollar, they reduced the amount paid to the artist.

This is a slight veer (from the original question posed), but this infographic is a telling tale based upon Steve's comment. Here is a link to the full article. Now, back to the topic.

Very interesting. Thank you. That suggests my estimates for the cost of a self-pressed CD are off by about a factor of two.

I'm not quite sure of The Hatted One's points and I wonder if we are just disagreeing over core political philosophies, but in context there is an interesting question. If I am a starving musician who just happens to have some serious background in economics, optimization and/or game theory and want to support myself by releasing music to the public, what is the impact of recording covers?

Using the self pressed CD as an example, I sell 268 (per month) and pocket $4.34 for $1163.12 per month. If I pay $.10 to include one cover, then I pocket $4.24 per CD and need to sell 6 more (274) each month to break even. If I have no composing talent and license 10 covers I net $3.34 per CD and need to sell 348 to have the same minimum wage income.

To maintain this meager level of existence over a year I need to sell 3216 CDs if I am coverless, 3288 with one cover and 4176 if I'm selling a tribute.

So when I look at all this I would suggest that licensing fees are not keeping folks from recording an occasional cover and the presence or absence of a cover is unlikely to be the difference between a starving artist and one with a full belly.

 

[adorshki]

... a starving artist and one with a full belly.

Ya lost me there. What's a "full belly"?






:lol:

 

[fronobulax]

... a starving artist and one with a full belly.

Ya lost me there. What's a "full belly"?






:lol:

It's what makes it hard for some of us to play our B-50's. It's also something musicians with day jobs often have.

 

[idealassets]

OUCH! I finally got a facebook ASCAP notice, as a participant of Mid-Michigan Musicians & Songwriters. In many years of playing music, this is the first time I have ever been on circulation for a bulk notification such as this. ASCAP must be suddenly becoming much more regimented to this end.

For our local "Songwriters' Group" held at pubs and micro-breweries, 1/2 of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet stares "NO COVER SONGS ALLOWED". Then in small print it states the possibility of a lawsuit against the establishment, if the rules are not adhered to.

Previuosly cover songs were allowed as fill in material, if a performer did'nt have a lot of original songs to play. But beginning today cover songs won't be allowed any further.

Meanwhile at most venues other than "Songwriters" events, the usual ASCAP rules apply.

Craig

 

[idealassets]

1/2 of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet stares "NO COVER SONGS ALLOWED".

Should read ...8 1/2 x 11 sheets states.....

Craig

 

[Scratch]

Craig; No hassles on your originals though? i.e. no pressure to join... Hopefully not...

 

[idealassets]

Craig; No hassles on your originals though? i.e. no pressure to join... Hopefully not...

Apparently almost all of the other players have not copywritten their songs. No problem since these songs will most likely never be stolen, or replaid by anybody ever. I don't see it as a big deal, since I have noticed a local craze for "original" material. It may stem from the 1960's fame of all the Motown creativity, and other Michigan bands such as Bob Seeger and Grand Funk.

But in my opinion those Motown bands truly had lots of talent, whereas most "originals" that I see today are folks open mic'ing for free, playing a 3 chord song, just like 1000's of other songs, already made. You may see an obvious differnece between the 2, such as I do.

When I get a group of songs finished I will copyright them, just "because". In each song I attmept to construct a little something in attempts to make it unique.

Craig

Craig