Comment Of Artist Rights and Such (Score 4) 122
Comming from an Audio Engineer's point of view, and being given an overview of Copyright Law by one of the best legal minds in the enterntainment industry, I think we need to evaluate what the artist's interests are. We all know that the record label's interests are to make money. Consequently, they are the ones that are initiating SMDI specification. The artists still don't see half of all the money that the record company generates on the sales of the albums.
The current process for a signed artist for creating a record and making money follows. The record company gives the artist a loan (for a secular artist starting out, it can be upwards of $500,000) to create this album in the studio. The record label usually assigns a producer--but artists with more clout can choose their own. The producer collects an up front fee for his services, and a percentage on the net sales of the songs he works on. The artist spends the next few months in a studio coming up with new songs. While the artist collects performance royalties on all the songs they record, that money is used to pay the record company back for there overly generous loan. They probably won't see any money from that set of royalties for two years. If the artist actually writes the song, then they will actually receive royalties on that right away. The real money the artist sees is from touring. That is where any artist worth their weight will cash in.
If the artist wants to see more money in their pockets, they can become their own record label. The artist formally known as Prince is a big advocate of this. The problem is getting the distribution channels open. If you already have a name established, then you should have comparably fewer trials in this area.
Royalties are payed each time the song is played on the radio, performed live, or sold in a CD. The standard royalties are ~6.9 cents per five minute song. If a song is over five minutes, it will receive an additional 1.5 cents per minute (rounded up to the full minute, so one second over five minutes is considered a 6 minute song). The actual numbers I gave you are a few years old, but they are in the ball park. That makes roughly 70 cents per CD (or $1.40 if they also wrote every song on the CD). When you have sheer numbers, the royalties can really add up.
I am a firm believer in keeping the royalty scheme intact. I don't believe that the record companies have anybodies interests but their own in tact. The royalty scheme was created along with the original Copyright Act to protect artists from being exploited by the record companies--much like unions were created to protect the worker from the abuses of large manufacturing companies. That is why all record company contracts (to my knowlege) are decidedly written in their favor. Only a fool would never negotiate over even one point on the contract.
The royalty payment scheme is enforced by one of three bodies (if the artist registers with them): ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. There may also be a couple other smaller companies to perform this function. Basically, if ANY venue plays songs protected by their repetoir, the venue must pay a standard fee. Clubs, radio stations, and stores have a set yearly fee they have to pay (along with web sites that play songs in their repetoir--which includes an independant band's cover of a song they protect). Juke boxes and such have a per use fee. (here is a little known fact that I learned: any magnetic digital media has a small digital 'tax' that goes into the music industry--every disk, dat, or backup tape--regardless of what it is actually used for) (that was introduced when the record industry was afraid of consumer DAT tapes and drives).
It all comes down to a big racket. The artist and the consumer are the two big losers. So how do we fix the problem and keep artists and consumers happy? I don't know. Releasing a single on MP3 to generate interest in buying a CD is an excellent idea. It gives the consumer a taste of what the artist can do. The gain in good will offsets the loss in revenues, and consequently the artist will get a larger following. The Greatful Dead are testimony to that with their liberality in letting the consumers tape their shows.
While the artist is in control of the copyright (this also applies to software), they can use it as real property (like real estate). They can buy, sell, and bequeath it. American copyrights (after 1970) are good for 50 years after the death of the author. If they so choose, they can grant the general public the LISCENSE to freely copy and distribute any song they choose. That distribution does not include performance rights which would be a separate liscence. That way the artist holds on to the copyright so they can collect from radio stations and CDs, but still allow the net to distribute that song freely without fear of litigation. If the artist so chooses, they could even donate the song to the public domain, thereby releasing their right to the copyright.
Remember that once a song, software, or any creative work is written--it is copyrighted (In American copyright law--I can't say for international copyright law). The only thing registering it at the Library of Congress does is provide definitive proof that you came up with that creative work first. They don't perform any checking whatsoever. If someone tries to sue you for violating their copyright, that registry is the proof of the date that you created it. Sometimes you came up with it first, sometimes you didn't. Either way, if they didn't register it, then the case is thrown out because they have no proof.
The current process for a signed artist for creating a record and making money follows. The record company gives the artist a loan (for a secular artist starting out, it can be upwards of $500,000) to create this album in the studio. The record label usually assigns a producer--but artists with more clout can choose their own. The producer collects an up front fee for his services, and a percentage on the net sales of the songs he works on. The artist spends the next few months in a studio coming up with new songs. While the artist collects performance royalties on all the songs they record, that money is used to pay the record company back for there overly generous loan. They probably won't see any money from that set of royalties for two years. If the artist actually writes the song, then they will actually receive royalties on that right away. The real money the artist sees is from touring. That is where any artist worth their weight will cash in.
If the artist wants to see more money in their pockets, they can become their own record label. The artist formally known as Prince is a big advocate of this. The problem is getting the distribution channels open. If you already have a name established, then you should have comparably fewer trials in this area.
Royalties are payed each time the song is played on the radio, performed live, or sold in a CD. The standard royalties are ~6.9 cents per five minute song. If a song is over five minutes, it will receive an additional 1.5 cents per minute (rounded up to the full minute, so one second over five minutes is considered a 6 minute song). The actual numbers I gave you are a few years old, but they are in the ball park. That makes roughly 70 cents per CD (or $1.40 if they also wrote every song on the CD). When you have sheer numbers, the royalties can really add up.
I am a firm believer in keeping the royalty scheme intact. I don't believe that the record companies have anybodies interests but their own in tact. The royalty scheme was created along with the original Copyright Act to protect artists from being exploited by the record companies--much like unions were created to protect the worker from the abuses of large manufacturing companies. That is why all record company contracts (to my knowlege) are decidedly written in their favor. Only a fool would never negotiate over even one point on the contract.
The royalty payment scheme is enforced by one of three bodies (if the artist registers with them): ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC. There may also be a couple other smaller companies to perform this function. Basically, if ANY venue plays songs protected by their repetoir, the venue must pay a standard fee. Clubs, radio stations, and stores have a set yearly fee they have to pay (along with web sites that play songs in their repetoir--which includes an independant band's cover of a song they protect). Juke boxes and such have a per use fee. (here is a little known fact that I learned: any magnetic digital media has a small digital 'tax' that goes into the music industry--every disk, dat, or backup tape--regardless of what it is actually used for) (that was introduced when the record industry was afraid of consumer DAT tapes and drives).
It all comes down to a big racket. The artist and the consumer are the two big losers. So how do we fix the problem and keep artists and consumers happy? I don't know. Releasing a single on MP3 to generate interest in buying a CD is an excellent idea. It gives the consumer a taste of what the artist can do. The gain in good will offsets the loss in revenues, and consequently the artist will get a larger following. The Greatful Dead are testimony to that with their liberality in letting the consumers tape their shows.
While the artist is in control of the copyright (this also applies to software), they can use it as real property (like real estate). They can buy, sell, and bequeath it. American copyrights (after 1970) are good for 50 years after the death of the author. If they so choose, they can grant the general public the LISCENSE to freely copy and distribute any song they choose. That distribution does not include performance rights which would be a separate liscence. That way the artist holds on to the copyright so they can collect from radio stations and CDs, but still allow the net to distribute that song freely without fear of litigation. If the artist so chooses, they could even donate the song to the public domain, thereby releasing their right to the copyright.
Remember that once a song, software, or any creative work is written--it is copyrighted (In American copyright law--I can't say for international copyright law). The only thing registering it at the Library of Congress does is provide definitive proof that you came up with that creative work first. They don't perform any checking whatsoever. If someone tries to sue you for violating their copyright, that registry is the proof of the date that you created it. Sometimes you came up with it first, sometimes you didn't. Either way, if they didn't register it, then the case is thrown out because they have no proof.
