A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old June 27th 15, 07:53 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck:
...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the
artists get depends on their contract with the record company
and publishers. Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her
own record company and publishes her own music.


PAS:
Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.


...and guess who publishes Swift?s music, Taylor Swift Inc. That
is a very sharp young lady, or she has very sharp handlers.


http://www.bigmachinelabelgroup.com/...chine-records/

--
Sandman
  #112  
Old June 28th 15, 06:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
George Kerby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,798
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wantedeven more




On 6/26/15 11:20 AM, in article , "PAS"
wrote:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
s.com...
On Jun 26, 2015, PAS wrote
(in ):

wr ote in message
news:2015062309232646865-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-06-23 16:02:00 +0000, said:

In , nospam
wrote:

Sandman:
Of course not. Apple made a policy to share 70% of their
revenue with the artists, which meant that if there was
no
revenue, there was nothing to share.

nospam:
71%

Sandman:
70% - 73%

actually 71.5% according to reports

In the states, it differs from country to country. Average is
about
73%

...and that is what is paid to the record companies. What the
artists
get depends on their contract with the record company and
publishers.
Swift gets a bigger slice because she has her own record company
and
publishes her own music.

Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.


...and guess who publishes Swiftąs music, Taylor Swift Inc. That is a
very
sharp young lady, or she has very sharp handlers.


Most artists own the rights to their own songs. That was not the case
in the 50s and 60s for many popular artists. Little Richard has been in
litigation for decades over his music. He wrote most of the songs he
performed but was taken advantage of and had his publishing rights
taken. He said that as a poor boy from Georgia, when "they" promised to
give him a house and new Cadillac, he would sign anything they asked him
to. There were no lawyers advocating for the artists. Fortunately,
that is not as prevalent anymore. The record companies still manage to
wring every penny out of artists. A new band can have a gold album and
not make much money off of it after the creative accounting by the
record company is finished.


Google the name "Don Robey" and you will have the DEFINITION of what you
describe above. If you get a chance, read "Down in Houston Bayou City
Blues".

  #113  
Old June 29th 15, 03:44 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PAS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 480
Default Horribly greedy Apple, not satisfied with $164 billion wanted even more

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2015 2:24 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 6/26/2015 11:58 AM, PAS wrote:

snip


Publishing rights is where the money is. For broadcast radio, the
artist doesn't receive any compensation when his/her/their song is
played, the entity that owns the publishing rights gets paid.

Depends on the contract. Both ASCAP and BMI have a formula to
calculate the royalties. There is no question that a portion of the
royalties, under a properly drafted contract, goes to the artists.
In
quite a few cases the artist has been given a flat fee, in lieu of
royalties. If the work becomes a super hit, the artist sometimes
forgets that the royalties have been sold.


BMI and ASCAP serve songwriters and publishers, they don't serve
performers or pay royalties to performers unless they are the writer
and/or publisher. Performers get no royalties from their songs being
played on broadcast radio unless they happen to be the
writer/publisher
and then, in that case, they receive royalties as the composer and/or
publisher, not the performer.

From
https://www.futureofmusic.org/articl...und-recordings


No Royalties to Performers for Terrestrial Radio Play

Although royalties are distributed to songwriters and publishers for
public performances for terrestrial radio play, this right does not
extend to the performers or the sound recording copyright owner
(usually
the record label). So, when you hear Patsy Cline singing “Crazy” on
the
radio, songwriter Willie Nelson and his publisher are compensated
through BMI, but the estate of Patsy Cline receives no pay for the
performance. Neither do the studio musicians, backing vocalists, or
the
record label.

This arrangement is the result of a long-standing argument made by
terrestrial broadcasters that performers and labels benefit from the
free promotion received through radio play. Broadcasters contend that
airplay increases album sales, which leads to compensation for
performers and record labels. As a result, broadcasters have, for
decades, convinced Congress that they should be exempt from paying
the
public performance royalty for sound recordings. But the broadcasters’
argument is steadily losing relevance, and their exempt status
becomes
more questionable when compared to other countries’ broad
requirements
for performance royalties.



I was mentally directoward the owners of the copyright. At one time
the stations were paid to play and promote a song or alblum.


Ahh, the old "payola" scandals!

If the performer has a proper contract, the performer will get a share
of the royalties. There was a time when TV actors did not get paid for
reruns. Now, most do. It is all a matter of negotiation.


--
PeterN


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GREEDY Apple wanted 30% of sales for doing almost NOTHING PeterN Digital Photography 15 September 5th 11 09:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.