So in a nutshell, music streaming service like Apple Beats, Google, Grooveshark and others, that plays certain pre-1972 music are more than likely only paying the publishing rights royalty to the song writers, like the way radio does. But are required in some States to also pay the performace rights royalty to the performer. Which means that these streaming service must keep track of not only how many times these pre-1972 songs are streamed but in which State it was streamed in. So does that mean that the pre-1972 songs whose writers and performers are the same, that receives the publishing rights royalty from streaming services, are also entitled to receive a performance rights royalty when ever the song is streamed (in certain States)? And may be due some back pay for how many times the song already been streamed, with the streaming service only paying the publishing rights royalty.
Now why aren't we hearing about the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Dionne Warwick, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkle, Doors, Supremes and the likes suing for their pre-1972 songs performance rights royalty when their songs are streamed? I'm sure their pre-1972 music are streamed much more often than that whatever music is owned by Zenbu. Or are they being paid for the performance rights and only certain performers, for some reason, weren't paid.
So in a nutshell, music streaming service like Apple Beats, Google, Grooveshark and others, that plays certain pre-1972 music are more than likely only paying the publishing rights royalty to the song writers, like the way radio does. But are required in some States to also pay the performace rights royalty to the performer. Which means that these streaming service must keep track of not only how many times these pre-1972 songs are streamed but in which State it was streamed in. So does that mean that the pre-1972 songs whose writers and performers are the same, that receives the publishing rights royalty from streaming services, are also entitled to receive a performance rights royalty when ever the song is streamed (in certain States)? And may be due some back pay for how many times the song already been streamed, with the streaming service only paying the publishing rights royalty.
Now why aren't we hearing about the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Dionne Warwick, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkle, Doors, Supremes and the likes suing for their pre-1972 songs performance rights royalty when their songs are streamed? I'm sure their pre-1972 music are streamed much more often than that whatever music is owned by Zenbu. Or are they being paid for the performance rights and only certain performers, for some reason, weren't paid.
(Again, I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I have designed software that details and clears rights, so I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.)
I don't think anyone is getting paid yet for pre-1972 digital performance rights under state law as all the cases are in the process of being appealed.
And yes, if the claimants win, and the writer and performer are the same, they would receive both publishing and performing fees, but note that only some performers own their publishing. Publishing rights are generally paid via an organization like ASCAP, BMI or SESAC to the publishing company. The publishing company would then pay the performers. Even that can be complicated because frequently there are separate administrating organizations who handle the rights for the publishers.
It's possible that some streaming organizations are already paying for pre-1972 recordings as the payments to Sound Exchange are generally based upon total streaming hours/streams. If they pay under that method, they don't have to detail individual tracks. For most organizations, it's probably not worth the effort, especially since oldies formats are quickly disappearing as the Demo ages out. Also, some formulas are based upon a percentage of total revenue. I suspect that the Turtles lawsuit against Sirius/XM must have been because Sirius/XM was detailing individual tracks.
Few used to care much about this because U.S. radio generally sold records. But now that streaming, satellite and other services are replacing record sales, record companies and performers are freaking out because there's far less revenue in spite of the new revenue streams. The record industry as a whole is about a third of its former peak size if you adjust for constant dollars, even including all the new revenue streams. Seems like only Taylor Swift is still able to sell records. I think over the next few years, we're going to see more acts refuse to permit their music to be streamed.
Pop groups used to tour to support a record release. The money was in the record. Now they say, "oh..you may not make any money from the streaming, but the publicity will make it so you can tour." But unless you're playing large venues and/or stadiums, it's pretty hard to make any money. Typical clubs are 150 seats, charge $10-$15 a show, the band gets 70% of the gate and none of the bar/food net and so the band must split $1050 to $1575 and also pay for roadies, guitar techs, equipment rental and travel expenses and that's if they're the only act and don't have to pay managers or agents. It's a rough life.
So in a nutshell, music streaming service like Apple Beats, Google, Grooveshark and others, that plays certain pre-1972 music are more than likely only paying the publishing rights royalty to the song writers, like the way radio does. But are required in some States to also pay the performace rights royalty to the performer. Which means that these streaming service must keep track of not only how many times these pre-1972 songs are streamed but in which State it was streamed in. So does that mean that the pre-1972 songs whose writers and performers are the same, that receives the publishing rights royalty from streaming services, are also entitled to receive a performance rights royalty when ever the song is streamed (in certain States)? And may be due some back pay for how many times the song already been streamed, with the streaming service only paying the publishing rights royalty.
Now why aren't we hearing about the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Dionne Warwick, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkle, Doors, Supremes and the likes suing for their pre-1972 songs performance rights royalty when their songs are streamed? I'm sure their pre-1972 music are streamed much more often than that whatever music is owned by Zenbu. Or are they being paid for the performance rights and only certain performers, for some reason, weren't paid.
(Again, I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I have designed software that details and clears rights, so I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.)
I don't think anyone is getting paid yet for pre-1972 digital performance rights under state law as all the cases are in the process of being appealed.
And yes, if the claimants win, and the writer and performer are the same, they would receive both publishing and performing fees, but note that only some performers own their publishing. Publishing rights are generally paid via an organization like ASCAP, BMI or SESAC to the publishing company. The publishing company would then pay the performers. Even that can be complicated because frequently there are separate administrating organizations who handle the rights for the publishers.
It's possible that some streaming organizations are already paying for pre-1972 recordings as the payments to Sound Exchange are generally based upon total streaming hours/streams. If they pay under that method, they don't have to detail individual tracks. For most organizations, it's probably not worth the effort, especially since oldies formats are quickly disappearing as the Demo ages out. Also, some formulas are based upon a percentage of total revenue. I suspect that the Turtles lawsuit against Sirius/XM must have been because Sirius/XM was detailing individual tracks.
Few used to care much about this because U.S. radio generally sold records. But now that streaming, satellite and other services are replacing record sales, record companies and performers are freaking out because there's far less revenue in spite of the new revenue streams. The record industry as a whole is about a third of its former peak size if you adjust for constant dollars, even including all the new revenue streams. Seems like only Taylor Swift is still able to sell records. I think over the next few years, we're going to see more acts refuse to permit their music to be streamed.
Pop groups used to tour to support a record release. The money was in the record. Now they say, "oh..you may not make any money from the streaming, but the publicity will make it so you can tour." But unless you're playing large venues and/or stadiums, it's pretty hard to make any money. Typical clubs are 150 seats, charge $10-$15 a show, the band gets 70% of the gate and none of the bar/food net and so the band must split $1050 to $1575 and also pay for roadies, guitar techs, equipment rental and travel expenses and that's if they're the only act and don't have to pay managers or agents. It's a rough life.
Comments
What an incredibly insightful post!
^ post
What an incredibly insightful post!
Also an incredibly good example of the new AppleInsider posting guidelines in action.
All posts have to be this informative and in-depth now? (I'm sure they don't)
...
So in a nutshell, music streaming service like Apple Beats, Google, Grooveshark and others, that plays certain pre-1972 music are more than likely only paying the publishing rights royalty to the song writers, like the way radio does. But are required in some States to also pay the performace rights royalty to the performer. Which means that these streaming service must keep track of not only how many times these pre-1972 songs are streamed but in which State it was streamed in. So does that mean that the pre-1972 songs whose writers and performers are the same, that receives the publishing rights royalty from streaming services, are also entitled to receive a performance rights royalty when ever the song is streamed (in certain States)? And may be due some back pay for how many times the song already been streamed, with the streaming service only paying the publishing rights royalty.
Now why aren't we hearing about the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Dionne Warwick, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkle, Doors, Supremes and the likes suing for their pre-1972 songs performance rights royalty when their songs are streamed? I'm sure their pre-1972 music are streamed much more often than that whatever music is owned by Zenbu. Or are they being paid for the performance rights and only certain performers, for some reason, weren't paid.
So in a nutshell, music streaming service like Apple Beats, Google, Grooveshark and others, that plays certain pre-1972 music are more than likely only paying the publishing rights royalty to the song writers, like the way radio does. But are required in some States to also pay the performace rights royalty to the performer. Which means that these streaming service must keep track of not only how many times these pre-1972 songs are streamed but in which State it was streamed in. So does that mean that the pre-1972 songs whose writers and performers are the same, that receives the publishing rights royalty from streaming services, are also entitled to receive a performance rights royalty when ever the song is streamed (in certain States)? And may be due some back pay for how many times the song already been streamed, with the streaming service only paying the publishing rights royalty.
Now why aren't we hearing about the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, Dionne Warwick, Carol King, Simon and Garfunkle, Doors, Supremes and the likes suing for their pre-1972 songs performance rights royalty when their songs are streamed? I'm sure their pre-1972 music are streamed much more often than that whatever music is owned by Zenbu. Or are they being paid for the performance rights and only certain performers, for some reason, weren't paid.
(Again, I'm not a copyright lawyer, but I have designed software that details and clears rights, so I have just enough knowledge to be dangerous.)
I don't think anyone is getting paid yet for pre-1972 digital performance rights under state law as all the cases are in the process of being appealed.
And yes, if the claimants win, and the writer and performer are the same, they would receive both publishing and performing fees, but note that only some performers own their publishing. Publishing rights are generally paid via an organization like ASCAP, BMI or SESAC to the publishing company. The publishing company would then pay the performers. Even that can be complicated because frequently there are separate administrating organizations who handle the rights for the publishers.
It's possible that some streaming organizations are already paying for pre-1972 recordings as the payments to Sound Exchange are generally based upon total streaming hours/streams. If they pay under that method, they don't have to detail individual tracks. For most organizations, it's probably not worth the effort, especially since oldies formats are quickly disappearing as the Demo ages out. Also, some formulas are based upon a percentage of total revenue. I suspect that the Turtles lawsuit against Sirius/XM must have been because Sirius/XM was detailing individual tracks.
Few used to care much about this because U.S. radio generally sold records. But now that streaming, satellite and other services are replacing record sales, record companies and performers are freaking out because there's far less revenue in spite of the new revenue streams. The record industry as a whole is about a third of its former peak size if you adjust for constant dollars, even including all the new revenue streams. Seems like only Taylor Swift is still able to sell records. I think over the next few years, we're going to see more acts refuse to permit their music to be streamed.
Pop groups used to tour to support a record release. The money was in the record. Now they say, "oh..you may not make any money from the streaming, but the publicity will make it so you can tour." But unless you're playing large venues and/or stadiums, it's pretty hard to make any money. Typical clubs are 150 seats, charge $10-$15 a show, the band gets 70% of the gate and none of the bar/food net and so the band must split $1050 to $1575 and also pay for roadies, guitar techs, equipment rental and travel expenses and that's if they're the only act and don't have to pay managers or agents. It's a rough life.
Indeed.
It's a hard knock life.