# What's the future of streaming royalties? specifically hulu, netflix, amazon?



## chillbot (Dec 17, 2014)

It seems like this is a very tumultuous time for specifically BMI/ASCAP... (I really have no idea what it's like outside the US). Royalties have been essentially unchanged forever with some of these agreements going back decades and decades, now I'm wondering if it's a source of income that can be depended upon in the future.

Things like sony pulling out or threatening to pull out from BMI/ASCAP. (I read the thread on here about this.)

Composers leaving BMI/ASCAP for GMR. (I read the thread on here about this.)

Songwriters pulling their catalogs from Pandora.

Spotify's business model. (I read the very interesting thread on here about this.)

Now this thing I've seen a ton going around facebook (including on Frederick's wall) about Pharrell getting only $2,700 for 43 million streams on Pandora....

Here's the link: http://fusion.net/story/33442/pharrell-made-less-than-3000-from-43-million-pandora-streams-of-happy/ (http://fusion.net/story/33442/pharrell- ... -of-happy/)

The link made me start searching threads here, I was wondering if this had been discussed before. Though Spotify and Pandora don't really affect me, things like Hulu and Netflix and Amazon do and I don't see anyone talking about them. Has there been a discussion on the future of these, whether they will ultimately affect or hurt television royalties?

I have some numbers/data I want to pull from my statements... will post in a bit after I look them up.

Here's a real specific question: have any of you ever gotten paid royalties (from any PRO) from Amazon?


----------



## rgames (Dec 17, 2014)

chillbot @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> I'm wondering if it's a source of income that can be depended upon in the future.


I wouldn't bet on it.

And yes, this topic has come up a number of times over the years. The discussion usually goes like this: someone says FIGHT for your performance royalties, then someone (usually me) says yeah, but there's not much to be had in the future, so why not just get paid up front when you finish the work, like 99.9% of other professions? Then people start talking about work for hire and how it's the worst form of evil and it's all downhill from there.

If nothing changes, fighting for royalties is pointless and composers/musicians need to come up with a different business model (assuming they want to keep making a living). Unfortunately people are so used to the (archaic) royalty system that they respond purely emotionally when they think about it going away. Of course, it's the way a lot of folks make a living, so that response is understandable because it affects their livelihoods. But if you think about it rationally then you realize there are other options.

As I've always said: the royalty system is one system. It's not the only system. In fact, I'd argue it's not even the best system.

Here's the bottom line:

1. Traditional broadcast royalties are going away - everything will be on the internet in 20 years or so.

2. Internet royalties (per current standards) are not sufficient to make a living.

So you have two choices: either fight for higher royalties or get paid more up front. (Well, I guess there's a third choice: don't make a living from your music.) I prefer the latter because it's much easier to implement.

rgames


----------



## chillbot (Dec 17, 2014)

rgames @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> 1. Traditional broadcast royalties are going away - everything will be on the internet in 20 years or so.



This scares me because I think it's true... maybe 20 years maybe less probably more but it has to happen. Another part of me says there will always be those that want their ol' fashioned tv but I would guess at some point even direct tv could stream everything over the internet. There will still be a system of some sort in place though so I hope they get it figured out soon. I mean there still has to be a first time shows become available and there still has to be advertisements somewhere and... I dunno my head hurts. I'm looking up some numbers right now to post.


----------



## chillbot (Dec 17, 2014)

Here’s some actual numbers. I am fortunate to have a show that has aired on network tv, cable tv, and is available on netflix, hulu, and amazon, so I can give some specific numbers from a BMI standpoint:

I took an episode of the show that has pretty close to exactly 30 minutes of music in it.

On Hulu, 50,000 streams of this episode made me $25 (this quarter). Or 0.05 cents (0.0005 dollars) per stream. That is a ton better than Pharrell on Pandora. If 2,700 is true for 43M streams, that means Pharrell would need 160 streams to make one cent. Well I only need 20 streams to make one cent. But, mine is almost 10x the amount of music. So on a per-minute basis he needs to steam 600 minutes of music (based on the 3.75 minute song) to make one cent and I also need to stream 600 minutes to make one cent. Interesting.

On Netflix, I have no way to tell how many times any given episode was watched/streamed. The BMI statement has no data it just says "1" next to every episode. For this particular episode I was paid about the same, $25... but there is another episode with the same amount of music I got only $6 for and another episode I got $120 for! The last one being a major outlier... the average was somewhere around $15 per episode.

I’ve never seen a cent from Amazon on any of my BMI statements even though the show is available. This epsiode, for example, you can buy on amazon for $1.99. (Or the whole season for $27.99.)

During the same quarter this particular episode reran 6 times on a cable channel and I made $240, or $40 per airing.

By comparison when this episode aired for the first time on a network I made roughly $3,000.

The first airing on a network got around 2M viewers, that translates to .15 cent (0.0015 dollars) per "stream" which is pretty good. But the rerun on cable probably only got 100,000 viewers, which would translate to 0.04 cents per "stream" which is actually *less* than the Hulu rate, or at least it’s pretty much in the same ballpark depending on the amount of viewers.

If you consider Hulu to be a "rerun" of sorts and not a first-run, the money doesn't seem that far off. In fact check my math because at first glance it looks like I’m saying that as bad as Pharrell’s situation looks, it’s only about the same or maybe even worse than cable tv if you were to consider it on a per-minute basis. Though I’m not sure the two are comparable, one is a pop hit and the other is just a bunch of background music.

Anyway right now I’m more interested in the amazon thing. I’m going to contact BMI about it.


----------



## David Donaldson (Dec 17, 2014)

This is in reply to "rgames" above. My reply thing doesn't seem to have worked.

That would be OK if I thought I would get payed properly up front but in my experience I won't. The amount of times I have been offered a job with "we'd love to be able to pay you more but we have already gone over budget" or "We really only have a budget for production music but would love you to score it for us" or "the pay is shit and we still expect a buyout" or the many variations of something like this. This won't change if royalties go.
For me I don't think it would be worth carrying on if i lost most of my royalty stream. 
About half my income is from Royalties and I'd be pretty stuffed without them.
We took a punt on a not so well payed pilot for a tv show that looked like it could do OK. One hundred and fifteen episodes later they would never have payed me up front for what I have earned in royalties from it. It sure helps through the quiet weeks.
Fight like hell for your royalties and support the collection agencies to figure out the way forward.
I'm in New Zealand so it might be different here but we won't take on any job that is a buyout, if we do the job we want the credit and the royalties if it earns them.


----------



## rgames (Dec 17, 2014)

David Donaldson @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> I'm in New Zealand so it might be different here but we won't take on any job that is a buyout, if we do the job we want the credit and the royalties if it earns them.


That's the usual reply - but think about this fact: They'll give you all the royalties you want because there won't be any. See the dilemma?

The promise of back end must go away unless we get higher rates for internet streams, so it's all very simple: figure out what you must charge up front to match what you would have gotten on the back end. Then don't take the gig if the up-front offer is less than that.

The argument is, of course, that many productions haven't paid in the past - the broadcaster did. And that argument is, of course, correct. But, if royalties are no longer being collected, then the broadcaster is not paying blanket license fees and has more cash to pay for the production. That "more" is your fee. And because you're not paying the overhead for ASCAP/BMI/whatever, there's actually more money available for the composer. You've removed a middle man, or perhaps replaced him with the production, so the system is at least as efficient and, more likely, more efficient.

Plus, it's a heck of a lot more fair: you negotiate your own rates and don't get paid less because someone put an "Ooh" vocal on top of an instrumental track or because of the stupid sampling structures or any of that other BS. Your gig. Your rates. No PRO mafia to get in the way. When that becomes the new norm, you have a lot more control.

Consider this example: a VFX guy is hired on to a production just like a composer is. He adds his creative element to the production just as the composer does. Does he collect royalties every time someone sees his lens flare or motion graphics? Of course not - he gets paid up front and then that's it. Composers can do exactly the same. In fact, the back-end royalty model is the exception, not the norm, so there's plenty of precedent out there that you can make a living without royalties. The *vast* majority of professions work that way - painters, plumbers, lawyers, engineers, etc.

So, again, moving away from the royalty model is neither good nor bad. It's just different.

rgames


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 17, 2014)

> But, if royalties are no longer being collected, then the broadcaster is not paying blanket license fees and has more cash to pay for the production.



That doesn't meant the production company will pay more for the composer. They will always want to get the music as cheaply as possible. Even if they do pay a little more upfront it won't anywhere in the ballpark of what performance residuals pay. Also since most composers are independent contractors, we have to pay for all our own gear and expenses, taxes, medical, etc... so without the backend, the sample library companies will be out alot of customers as well as alot of working musicians. I spend a lot of dough every year for libraries, musicians, studio costs, etc...

I should also add that production companies will WANT the performance residuals in the publishing, so this would be a losing scenario for them as well. 

Most of my income is from performance royalties, without that, there is no way I could make a living. I've been getting some residuals from Netflix, but haven't seen anything from any other internet sources so far. 

It's going to be interesting to see how this all plays out.


----------



## rgames (Dec 17, 2014)

And one more thing - every quarter I get my ASCAP statements that show some uses that generate no more than a few dollars (including both broadcast and internet plays). Now would I have chosen to give my music to those productions? Absolutely not, but since they have some kind of deal with ASCAP, I have no choice.

If I have control (or, more likely, my publisher has control) of the use then I get to dictate when and where my music is used and for how much. And I can avoid those uses that generate only a few dollars. This is exactly how the RF market works: I (or my publisher) sets the fee I am willing to accept for a certain type of use, so if you want to use it, you pay me that fee up-front or you don't get the license. In the blanket royalty model where you get promised "back-end" payments, that control lies with the PROs. And I've not seen any evidence that they have my best interests at heart.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Dec 17, 2014)

passenger57 @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> > Even if they do pay a little more upfront it won't anywhere in the ballpark of what performance residuals pay.


In that case, the composers won't take the gigs and they'll be forced to offer more, right?

You see, you're in control!

rgames


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 17, 2014)

There are different experiences of PROs for everyone. 

One guy could have a couple pieces placed on cable tv movie and make a few hundred or a thousand bucks. He isn't going to think much of PROs

On the other side of the fence someone like Danny Elfman makes millions a year from the two days he worked on the Simpson's theme in the late 80s. Then again he also makes millions for his upfront fee. 

Many of us are somewhere in the middle, not rich, not struggling but for sure are grateful for what the PROs do for us. Spotify, Pandora and the like could give a crap about musicians, PROS are all thats left in my experience.


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 17, 2014)

> In that case, the composers won't take the gigs and they'll be forced to offer more, right?
> 
> You see, you're in control!



There will always be some collage kid who will offer to do if for free. It seems to be all about underbidding and lack of quality these days. 

But I've been VERY lucky because I've been hired by people that believe in me and give me a fair deal, so I always feel inspired to do my best work. But I know thats not everyones experience.


----------



## rgames (Dec 17, 2014)

passenger57 @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> > In that case, the composers won't take the gigs and they'll be forced to offer more, right?
> >
> > You see, you're in control!
> 
> ...


That's true but it's a separate issue. Whether or not there are PROs and back-end royalties there will be people who don't care about being paid for their work, up-front or otherwise. Those people have every right to work for free and the market will dictate whether or not their product is good enough. There's lots of non-PRO music that gets licensed.

If the quality of music degrades below what the market will bear, then viewership will decrease and the productions will be forced to pay more for music to maintain their viewership. That's how markets work.

It is entirely possible, of course, that the quality of music will be degraded because nobody cares about the music. If that is true, do we, the composers, have the right to deny the market what it accepts as "good enough"? We can certainly wish that the market's preferences were different, but don't the people in the market have the right to choose? If they're OK with the guy who provides free music, don't both the free-music provider and his market have the right to exist?

Here's a related example: I'm a clarinetist and have always made a few bucks as a freelancer. When I was in college, I worked some gigs around the city where I was going to school. However, I could never get the better gigs because they were controlled by the AFM. It didn't matter that I had the chops and was willing to play for beer money - you had to join and pay the dues and all that other BS. Well, clearly I wasn't going to do that because I was a full-time student with a job outside the music world, so I was denied the opportunity to charge less for the same gig. Didn't I have the right to compete for that gig? Of course I did, but I couldn't because it was controlled by a mafia that I was not part of.

Likewise, the guy who's willing to compose for free has every right to do so. But, again, it's mostly OT - it has no bearing on the points I made above.

rgames


----------



## markwind (Dec 18, 2014)

Richard, well said. Pretty much agree on all accounts, well balanced perspective between what's being dictated by the market and how various options to manuever within it. 

I'm all for balanced perspectives - it always allows room for growth in one area or another.

Also if there are any folks here who want things to change in some manner, you're not going to get it by discussing it on a forum, even an awesome forum such as this one .


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 18, 2014)

chillbot @ Wed Dec 17 said:


> I was wondering if this had been discussed before



Ohhhhhhhhh yes. It's one of those perrenials. The last good one was here - http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39673

And in each of those threads, Richard pops up with alarming speed to encourage us all to get our heads out of the sand, stop thinking emotionally and accept that licensing is over. This despite no arguments that make sense, and repeatedly ignoring all contrary arguments and evidence.

What Richard suggests is that composers live in some strange archaic bubble, with no relation to any other industry (soon we'll be talking about how plumbers don't have royalties). Of course, what this actually does is ignore the entire world of IP - authors, writers, artists, designers, songwriters... the basic principle that the author of a creative work is assigned a royalty for using that work. Even actors for crying out loud - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_% ... ndustry%29 - that would seem lower hanging fruit, not that I wish to take it away from them. So in no way are we in isolation. And if you're talking about dismantling IP in its entirety, well good luck with that against the corporations.

The royalty system is very complex to set up. If you proposed it today and it didn't already exist, it probably wouldn't get made because of the sheer complexity involved. However, that complexity is just about the setting up - in use, its a piece of cake. I work for the BBC a lot, they pay a blanket amount to the PRS for all their music use every year. Every show has a music sheet that is fed into the system (along with dozens of other compliance documents that have to be in pace), that sheet gets fed into the PRS computers along with the channel schedules, and hey presto, everyone's share pops out the other end Richard's bizarre proposal that everyone makes an individual deal is pure fantasy. Any one TV show might use 30 pieces of music - the idea that every piece of music would have different deal about whom could sell on to whom is absurd. The complexity of that compared to the status quo is unimaginable.

In fact, the royalty system is not only our friend, it is the production company's friend. I don't know how you guys find it, but every year the shows I work on have their budgets slashed. One just got recommissioned at a 30% budget cut, on a show that was cut to the bone already. Now, we can invent a moral high ground where we fight for our ever dwindling share (doing that wonderful composers thing of believing every other department is swimming in cash except us - not in my experience they're not), or say "don't worry about it, the broadcaster will pay the lion's share and not your production" (nb - this only makes sense when you know both transmissions and royalties are guaranteed). The show is happy, and the composer is happy (well I am, anyway).

The problem with regard to streaming etc is not the system, it's the maths. So far the maths has been very wonky indeed. This thread looks at a far better model for artists re Spotify et al - http://www.vi-control.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42004 . I thoroughly recommend you read the article linked there - I'm still trying to get the best way in to bring this up with the PRS, who I believe should be lobbying for these changes. Hopefully something similar can also be worked out re Netflix, iPlayer etc.

Dismantling the royalty system would be an absolute disaster. Reforming it, tweaking the formulas - absolutely the way forward.


----------



## markwind (Dec 18, 2014)

As a laymen, newcomer, and unknown. I am more then a little curious to know how would reformation be achieved of the current systems.

Does anyone know?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 18, 2014)

markwind @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> As a laymen, newcomer, and unknown. I am more then a little curious to know how would reformation be achieved of the current systems.
> 
> Does anyone know?



Start with the 2nd link I posted, Mark (near the bottom of the post).


----------



## chillbot (Dec 18, 2014)

Guy, I read both of the threads you posted in their entirety before I created this one... both very interesting to me.

I guess maybe I am confusing the topic by bringing up too many issues. There is the perennial issue, as you put it. (I agree with you that we and the production companies can not possibly license every piece of music but I agree with Richard that the system is changing and possibly everything will be streaming within 20 years. No more royalties is obviously not the answer we are looking for I just hope we can just get a new system in place quickly for digital streaming. Also yes there is zero chance anyone will ever pay me on the front end what I earn on the back end.)

That's not why I started yet another thread, I was looking to discuss specifically Hulu and Amazon and Netflix and others as it relates to us.

And lastly: why aren't I getting paid for Amazon streaming? Is anyone?

Back to my numbers I posted. The show I selected made me about $3k when it first aired on FOX in the US with roughly 2M viewers. Then I got $30 in one quarter when 50k viewers streamed it on Hulu. Now let's pretend the system has evolved and there's no more TV, only streaming. Those 2M viewers are now streaming the show, plus the 500k or so people that watched it rerun on cable that quarter, plus the 50k people that streamed it on Hulu. At the current Hulu rate that I received, I would have made $1,275. So that's not paying nearly as well per viewer... but... it's not all that bad, actually. I mean if they ended TV royalties right now and went with the current streaming rates, you could live on the Hulu rate... which is more than I thought before I did the above math.

The other thing is the TV rate doesn't distinguish ratings (in most cases, some exceptions). I had a show on FOX once that had 30M viewers in the US. Well now I could have made a cool $15k off of that one episode if all those viewers streamed it on Hulu. I know that's rare and an extreme situation but still. I recently had a show cancelled on FOX because it was only getting 500k viewers per week... so it goes both ways.

I'm waiting to hear back from BMI about the Amazon thing...


----------



## Daryl (Dec 18, 2014)

There are various scenarios and not all of them are bad for everyone. For example if there were no Broadcast Royalties, then composers would have to be paid. If the production company wants to get someone for nothing, because their show is terrible or the music doesn't matter, or both, they could. Just as they can now. If they want something from a professional they will have to pay, and can't use the "back end" argument.

Obviously when it comes to library companies, all that will happen is that the Royalty free Internet companies will disappear, as all the income would be from the licencing of the tracks, an no production company is going to spend money on that rubbish.

So to composers, it will make a difference, but the people in the middle to lower end of the profession will probably feel it the most, although it will affect everyone up to a point.

D


----------



## JohnG (Dec 18, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ 18th December 2014 said:


> Richard's bizarre proposal that everyone makes an individual deal is pure fantasy. Any one TV show might use 30 pieces of music - the idea that every piece of music would have different deal about whom could sell on to whom is absurd. The complexity of that compared to the status quo is unimaginable.



100% true. I appreciate Richard's devotion to capitalism, but this is one knot that even Ayn Rand couldn't speedily undo.



Guy Rowland @ 18th December 2014 said:


> Dismantling the royalty system would be an absolute disaster. Reforming it, tweaking the formulas - absolutely the way forward.



I'd like to underline the expression, "absolute disaster" in Guy's excellent post. 

For those who ever expect to retire, or have come to realise that, at some point one's grey hair and warbling voice will not be the best presentation at a pitch for cutting-edge shows, it is worth remembering that as we get old, even quite old, we will still want marmalade on our toast. I don't see anyone coming to offer me free groceries when I turn 60 or 70, so I'm really hoping royalties stick around.

Not counting on it though. I've seen the appallingly low rates for streaming. If that's it, I will need a paper route.


----------



## chillbot (Dec 18, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Not counting on it though. I've seen the appallingly low rates for streaming. If that's it, I will need a paper route.



But have you calculated your rates if everyone watching television started streaming instead? I'm wondering if the rates are bad but not as bad as we think?


----------



## JohnG (Dec 18, 2014)

What I know is that I've been living for a long time with BMI being a big part of my income, and that it appears that some large catalogues are making special deals with the performing rights organisations such as BMI.

I'm also mindful that in book publishing the money is all flowing to the very, very top -- 1% or less. That's what "the market" does there and I fear the same will happen here. Of course, royalty rates for some kinds of sync is much higher (dance numbers) so preference to people like The Beatles and Michael Jackson is not all new, but if the big guys make their own deals in the new era of streaming, the tiny guys like me risk getting erased.

Short version: when the ship is taking on water, people in steerage are last in the lifeboats.


----------



## jeffc (Dec 18, 2014)

Could not agree with John and Guy more and am afraid to even join this conversation, because there will no doubt be some 'utopian' response from Richard. But, utopia and the real world aren't really the same. And if you would ever even suggest getting rid of royalties, then you obviously haven't seen how important they can be to you making a living.

A few issues to clear up:

Ascap (I assume BMI) don't pay royalties based on individual show ratings. A minute on NBC primetime is paid the same regardless of ratings of the show. Same whether it's 1 million or 20. No, the exception is they will pay a 'bonus' for a highly rated show, but that's a whole other story. So trying to do the math based on ratings is misguided.

Also, royalties are the same if it's the first run or the 20th, if on the same channel or time. Granted, when a show syndicates, it ends up on local channels and cable and foreign, all of which pay different amounts (much lower). But again, when Richard says he wouldn't license a track to a use that pays such a low royalty - well, it pays many different royalties through the various places it's broadcast. And you never know where they will be when you write for a show. 

Also, saying that we should hold out for higher upfront to make up is incredibly naive. Can't really say how naive and unrealistic that is. I've been with some pretty big agents and even they have very little leverage for most of us. A network 1 hour has a pretty set fee, indie film feels are way low for all levels of composers. To somehow think that anything to do with royalties will somehow make these producers decide to start paying more is pure fantasy. If this was your main source of income, you would understand. Now if it's a side thing where you make a few bucks on the side, well that's great, but again you can't use these arguments that you make with no basis in the real world.

I sadly believe that the broadcast royalties will start to go down. It seems like it has to as audience size has gone down as more people stream. But Ascap/BMI/ et all are aware and trying to fight for our futures. These are billion dollar companies with legislative power and money behind them. Don't you think the best way forward is with them, then saying they should go away and we all fight for ourselves? Again, pie in the sky. For many of us, we can't set these idealistic lines and just say no. There is a rationale to every decision, but we have to make a living if this is all that we do. Nobody wants to lower the bar or lowball, but if you think any of the numbers are determined or negotiated by composers, again you don't really know what's going on out there.

Obviously the Spotify/Netflix/Hulu license fees are way lower than any of us like, including the PRO's. But it seems a hell of a lot more realistic and beneficial to all of us to try and change that. Modify what's already working. And give ourselves a chance at some type of future / retirement /longevity. And for those of us that do this as a full-time career, I believe that is the way we must focus or energies. Not on dismantling something that has been so good to all of us.

Jeff


----------



## rgames (Dec 18, 2014)

Here's the question I've never seen answered in any thread on the topic: if the up-front system is good enough for VFX guys and painters and architects and electricians and lawyers and engineers and plumbers and and and and, then why not composers?

There's an ENTIRE PLANET worth of examples of up-front payment systems that work perfectly fine for all involved. It absolutely can work for composers, too.

rgames


----------



## chillbot (Dec 18, 2014)

jeffc @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Ascap (I assume BMI) don't pay royalties based on individual show ratings. A minute on NBC primetime is paid the same regardless of ratings of the show. Same whether it's 1 million or 20. No, the exception is they will pay a 'bonus' for a highly rated show, but that's a whole other story. So trying to do the math based on ratings is misguided.


No one on here has (yet) gotten involved in what I had hoped would be a discussion about Hulu and Netflix, oh well. Of course the current royalties don't care about viewers.... but the current Hulu payments are based on streams. 10,000 streams pays a heck of a lot different than 10,000,000 streams. Isn't this the direction we're heading? In any case all the math I was using is assuming that in a streaming business model, viewers = streams.


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

> Here's the question I've never seen answered in any thread on the topic: if the up-front system is good enough for VFX guys and painters and architects and electricians and lawyers and engineers and plumbers and and and and, then why not composers?
> 
> There's an ENTIRE PLANET worth of examples of up-front payment systems that work perfectly fine for all involved. It absolutely can work for composers, too.



Yea but they don't make MUSIC. Music is already being HUGELY devalued and a terrifying rate. Lets just not pay for music at all, you can download it FREE right? 
The perception of magically getting more upfront so we can pay for an orchestra, musicians, medical, insurance, taxes, etc... is not there. 

Many production companies just want it cheap and if they don't get it cheap they goto the lowest bidder or just use library. Get it? Thats the cold hard reality, I know this because I've been in LA working my ass off EVERY DAY ALL DAY since 1996. 

The upfront money I get to score films would never support living here in LA. The residuals and ASCAP help pay for supporting my family and in turn I purchase sample libraries to keep those companies going, I hire other composers and musicians so they can support their families, etc...

So I should just give that up because you say so in the hopes that we will magically get more up front? It's not going to happen. Sorry end of story. Music is already too undervalued now. Once someone is used to paying very little for something they will never go back to paying more. The perception of value has changed.

Here is another real world example - I placed a friends song in a lifetime movie in 2013. A few months ago she told me she was dead broke one month and got a residual from that placement that helped her pay her rent and groceries. I've heard a similar story several times from people I've helped get placements.


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

> No one on here has (yet) gotten involved in what I had hoped would be a discussion about Hulu and Netflix, oh well. Of course the current royalties don't care about viewers.... but the current Hulu payments are based on streams. 10,000 streams pays a heck of a lot different than 10,000,000 streams. Isn't this the direction we're heading? In any case all the math I was using is assuming that in a streaming business model, viewers = streams.



Sorry for getting off subject, I always get worked up when people attack my livelihood and want to take food off my families table for some utopian dream thats never going to happen. 

Anyway, Netflix pays decent. I with I could be more helpful with how it works but I can't make heads or tails of how they calculate the statements. Haven't seen anything from HULU but I know ASCAP was working with them last time I asked.


----------



## Daryl (Dec 18, 2014)

Richard, it seems as if you want to dismantle the IP Royalty system. That's not going to happen. Ever. There are two many rich players who would never let that happen. Apple, for example. :wink: 

However, you are quite correct that other industries that create IP don't necessarily get Royalties for the person who creates them. However, in those industries people are employed, and paid a salary, whereas composers aren't (unlike during the old studio days). In those other industries the Royalty is paid to the person who paid for the IP creation, so Royalties are still paid.

D


----------



## David Donaldson (Dec 18, 2014)

I totally agree with passenger57. I also suspect rjgames is not in the same situation as me, a gigging soundtrack composer. I just don't reckon you would be suggesting this if you were living in my world. I'm also not sure why you would compare us to plumbers and builders etc as there is no intellectual property involved in what they do.
If as rjgames seems to be suggesting the existing system gets completely reworked, the people with the most power will gain the most benefits and it won't be the composers. 
I've also been doing this since the mid 90's and in that time have seen no real rise in fees, less if anything but have seen the development of production companies insisting on being the publishers, and taking half the royalty stream, the introduction of buyouts, production libraries etc


----------



## Guy Rowland (Dec 18, 2014)

rgames @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Here's the question I've never seen answered in any thread on the topic: if the up-front system is good enough for VFX guys and painters and architects and electricians and lawyers and engineers and plumbers and and and and, then why not composers?
> 
> There's an ENTIRE PLANET worth of examples of up-front payment systems that work perfectly fine for all involved. It absolutely can work for composers, too.
> 
> rgames



Yay, I knew we'd get on to plumbers! Surprised it happened this quick though.

IP, Richard. That's the difference. Authors, Songwriters, Artists... you keep acting as if it's composers vs everyone else. Broadly it's artists who create original artistic work vs non-artists (and no, "artists" here does not denote not all workers who are creative). I throw that back at you - I and others have made this exact point many times, but you seem curiously unwilling to engage with it.


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

This thread is actually endangering my health, blood pressure off the charts


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 18, 2014)

rgames @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Here's the question I've never seen answered in any thread on the topic: if the up-front system is good enough for VFX guys and painters and architects and electricians and lawyers and engineers and plumbers and and and and, then why not composers?
> 
> There's an ENTIRE PLANET worth of examples of up-front payment systems that work perfectly fine for all involved. It absolutely can work for composers, too.
> 
> rgames




The last time that I hired an electrician or plumber, they charged $85 per hour. When I was practicing law, the firm that I worked for charged significantly more for my time. 

However, in my pre-law composing career, I charged per project, no matter how many hours it took. I think sometimes it worked out to minimum wage. To offset that, I kept the iP rights, which are now the basis of my post-law composing career.

The point is that no one is going to pay a reasonable hourly wage to composers. Royalties, cover the gap between what the client is willing to pay, and what the work is worth.


----------



## gsilbers (Dec 18, 2014)

chillbot @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> jeffc @ Thu Dec 18 said:
> 
> 
> > Ascap (I assume BMI) don't pay royalties based on individual show ratings. A minute on NBC primetime is paid the same regardless of ratings of the show. Same whether it's 1 million or 20. No, the exception is they will pay a 'bonus' for a highly rated show, but that's a whole other story. So trying to do the math based on ratings is misguided.
> ...



turns out that republicans might be helping. who would of thunk?!?
http://theweek.com/article/index/261725 ... c-industry


the Netflix and hulu's have huge deals with the studios for distribution. they pay millions for content. but this royalty thing is not good for them. these are huge companies (studios+VOD+SVOD+AVOD+EST) etc. and they for sure don't want to share part of the money making process with ascap and bmi or royalty collection. so its up for bmi and ascap to fight for the piece of the pie .and competing against apple (EST) and amazon (SVOD+EST) is not going to be easy. no one is saying anything. 
their side of course is that they place ads to make revenue like hulu and subscription based streams (SVOD) and thus pay based on views or more precislely - monetary views - views with ads, watch the whole ad or not etc while svod pays to studio bases no how many strems it got. but we all know how much money those companies are making. and its not only those famous ones. its also broadcasters who also stream which is a different pay structure and license. its smaller companies that stream in each company. its direct tv on its streaming area on the site etc. there is plenty of streaming going on .. but if no one is saying anything cause everyone thinks those services is not making money... and the isps, the tech companies and government collecting taxes on those companies don't want to share that money and want to keep more profits then we are the ones loosing. demanding your congressman, asking bmi and ascap and even asking hanz zimmer and remote to pressure on the top I think will help.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 18, 2014)

Daryl @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> Obviously when it comes to library companies, all that will happen is that the Royalty free Internet companies will disappear, as all the income would be from the licencing of the tracks, an no production company is going to spend money on that rubbish.




I have to disagree Daryl, to the extent that the lion's share of RF internet clients are not broadcast producers. Most are corporate / industrial types and other small producers who would rather pay $49.95 for a perpetual sync license than pay needle drop fees to a traditional library every time they want to use the same cue. 

The trend that I've seen in that world is that better composers getting into the game, which will only make it harder for the people producing rubbish to remain. I'm really quite surprised at what I'm hearing these days.


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

> The point is that no one is going to pay a reasonable hourly wage to composers. Royalties, cover the gap between what the client is willing to pay, and what the work is worth.


Not to mention the countless hours we have to do revisions, address notes, re-writes...



> Yay, I knew we'd get on to plumbers! Surprised it happened this quick though.



If a plumber was like a composer.. 

Day One.. 
"Thanks for replacing that toilet and pipe. Since we already paid you for that original four hours, mind if you come back and do more work for free? My wife wanted a different model and we would like to try copper piping from Italy instead of Spain" 

Day Two.. 
"Thanks for doing all that work again... for free...can you come back and make a couple more changes? We decided we don't like the shade of white on the toilet... it's seems incongruous with the way the light shines on the brass sink fittings..Won't take long promise" 

Day Three - you get the idea...


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 18, 2014)

JohnG @ Thu Dec 18 said:


> For those who ever expect to retire, or have come to realise that, at some point one's grey hair and warbling voice will not be the best presentation at a pitch for cutting-edge shows, it is worth remembering that as we get old, even quite old, we will still want marmalade on our toast. I don't see anyone coming to offer me free groceries when I turn 60 or 70, so I'm really hoping royalties stick around.




Brilliant, John! I've got a few grey hairs, but no warbling yet. A few years ago as I sat around a table with a bunch of 20 something hipster editors, who were working on a few shows that I was composing for, I had two thoughts 1) I could be their dad and 2) I really have no interest in writing the music that they want. I had the distinct feeling that I didn't belong there. 

The point is I guess that's inevitable to some extent, as you observe.

Pass the marmalade.....I'm already getting used to the fact that it's more likely to be Trader Joe's marmalade than Dundee.


----------



## MichaelL (Dec 18, 2014)

Passenger 57 , you forgot day four:

"Never mind, we found somebody cheaper."


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

:lol:


----------



## passenger57 (Dec 18, 2014)

> demanding your congressman, asking bmi and ascap and even asking hanz zimmer and remote to pressure on the top I think will help.


Agreed! 




> turns out that republicans might be helping. who would of thunk?!?
> http://theweek.com/article/index/261725/how-republicans-are-trying-to-obamacare- (http://theweek.com/article/index/261725 ... obamacare-) the-music-industry



Very interesting, thanks so much for sharing! :D


----------



## chillbot (Jan 16, 2015)

Here's the response I got from BMI:

We’re currently in negotiations with Amazon. Should have a deal this calendar year. Like our previous deals, it’ll be retroactive once we’ve finalized our deal. 

As part of our Netflix deal, performance data isn’t made public. If a writer wants to question performances, they’ll have to wait 24 months before submitting an inquiry. This data is so precious to Netflix, and it was a major negotiation point with our licensing team.

The strategy we’ve taken is to go after the “big fish.” It was significant when we signed Netflix and Hulu. Once Amazon’s in place, we would have licenses with the top three streaming services setting a precedent for all future services that pop up.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 16, 2015)

that's great news!

did they mention any numbers to go by? 

my hulu royalties suck big time, therefore if that's the "deal" then im not sure im into it.


----------



## Jeremy Warmsley (Jan 15, 2019)

Hi, just bumping this thread to ask if anyone has ever managed to get any Amazon royalties?


----------



## StevenMcDonald (Jan 16, 2019)

Jeremy Warmsley said:


> Hi, just bumping this thread to ask if anyone has ever managed to get any Amazon royalties?



My last statement had 37 pages of Amazon VOD royalties for a grand total of...

$90


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 16, 2019)

StevenMcDonald said:


> My last statement had 37 pages of Amazon VOD royalties for a grand total of...
> 
> $90


A similar pathetic experience. :(


----------



## rgames (Jan 16, 2019)

Amazon VOD royalties are not so great for me either but they don't get a lot of plays compared to network/cable. Of course, I don't have the option to prevent them from using my music unless I get some minimum payout. I've always had a major issue with that fact (not just streaming - the same thing happens on cable and local channels). Imagine if BestBuy told Apple that it was going to sell some iPhones for $0.01, so suck it up. Stupid, right? And yet ASCAP does exactly that.

But I digress... The absolute bottom of the barrel for me is PlayStation.


----------



## Rob Elliott (Jan 16, 2019)

PlayStation royalties = tipping your server with 'coupons' (from the very same restaurant THEY work at.) :(


----------



## dgburns (Jan 16, 2019)

All I can say is - no performance royalties (enough to make a living wage) , no David. Ya’ll can go climb over each other to write music for the shows that don’t pay. I’m outta here. I’ll go do something else. 

seriously.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 16, 2019)

One unfortunate thing is that this fight is out of our hands. It's teams of lawyers negotiating deals for months or years. Another unfortunate thing is that these sorts of huge, industry-wide trends tend to go one way -- once they start moving in a given direction, it's very unlikely that they'll switch and go the other way.

I saw the early writing on the wall a few years ago and changed my career trajectory in response (that's not the only reason, but it was a consideration). I view royalties as nothing more than "hey, cool" money now.

Of course, for now and the foreseeable future, sure, you can build a nice TV career just like before, and the royalties are good and reliable. Ditto (but increasingly less so) ditto for library/trailer/ad work. And of course film composers can still make a good chunk of money from royalties. But honestly I could see that as changing at the drop of a hat -- _one day_ -- because the trend is already there, and all evidence points to the trend just continuing, with composers drowning like turkeys in rain_. _It'll be a while, but I fully expect, say, CBS to suddenly announce~, "We're cancelling all broadcasts and are going internet-only. We're pulling all content from Netflix/Hulu/etc and are starting our own streaming service for $9.99/month." We already know a few companies are doing this, and there's no reason to expect the other not to follow suit.

I expect the above to be the norm by the time I'm roughly retirement age, and since a lot of us (myself included) historically view royalties as a sort of "retirement fund," it just doesn't make sense to bank on it. 

And yeah, as we know, internet royalties blow. My gut tells me it'll be _decades _before that mess gets figured out, and even if/when it is, it won't be even _close _to the hey-day of days gone by. See the record company -> Napster -> Spotify transition, for example.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jan 18, 2019)

I think @rgames may be on to something.

My broadcast royalties are shrinking, but my streaming royalties are growing. All in all, backend royalties are not enough for me.

I’d rather get upfront money for a reasonable fee instead of wait for backend royalties which go up and down at a whim.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 25, 2019)

So i guess the real issue would be WHY streaming show royalties doesnt pay well. any guesses?


----------



## robgb (Jan 25, 2019)

The future of ANY royalties is whatever the people who have the power of distribution want it to be. It has always been and probably will always be a middle man's game.


----------



## ghostnote (Jan 25, 2019)

Either we come to the point where streaming gets on pair with performance royalties or performance royalties will shrink till they disappear. I wouldn't dare to be optimistic.


----------



## givemenoughrope (Jan 25, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> So i guess the real issue would be WHY streaming show royalties doesnt pay well. any guesses?



Two guesses:

1-New avenue, new rules/rate (which means new way for tech companies to screw the musicians/composers/etc).

B-Maybe it’s closer to a more accurate survey method. 

Pt. III- A little or much of or neither of the above.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 25, 2019)

gsilbers said:


> So i guess the real issue would be WHY streaming show royalties doesnt pay well. any guesses?


I've said this a bunch on here. It's not exact, but if you take it on a 'per-viewer' basis, streaming really pays just fine. As @rgames said above, they don't get as many plays. Has anyone had something on Amazon/Hulu/Netflix get streamed 10M times?

The most I've had is a show streamed about 10K times, for which I got about $.50 cents per minute. If that same show had been streamed 5M times (network TV show) by that math it would have paid $250/minute which is right on par with broadcast royalties.

At some point if real TV dies out, my hopes is that streaming income will pick up from an influx of new viewers/streams, but who knows. There's a lot more to it than that... Netflix is trying to pay zero royalties at all for their production shows, but that's another topic.

For what it's worth, I get roughly $15k per quarter solely from streaming royalties, so it is possible to make a bit of money from it.


----------



## AlexRuger (Jan 25, 2019)

chillbot said:


> At some point if real TV dies out, my hopes is that streaming income will pick up from an influx of new viewers/streams, but who knows.



I can see it now: "Scaling up to meet the additional demand put on our servers by ever-increasing traffic requires us to cut costs. Unfortunately we cannot afford to pay royalties at this time."


----------



## chillbot (Jan 25, 2019)

chillbot said:


> And lastly: why aren't I getting paid for Amazon streaming? Is anyone?



I responded to this thread having no idea that I was the one that started the thread. Four years ago. Awesome.

OK past chillbot: to answer your question... yes, future chillbot will get paid for Amazon streaming. Thanks. Last statement was roughly 500 pages of Amazon VOD and amounted to about $5k. They eventually will figure/figured it out.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 25, 2019)

chillbot said:


> I've said this a bunch on here. It's not exact, but if you take it on a 'per-viewer' basis, streaming really pays just fine. As @rgames said above, they don't get as many plays. Has anyone had something on Amazon/Hulu/Netflix get streamed 10M times?
> 
> The most I've had is a show streamed about 10K times, for which I got about $.50 cents per minute. If that same show had been streamed 5M times (network TV show) by that math it would have paid $250/minute which is right on par with broadcast royalties.
> 
> ...



ok... let now let me ask you from a different and odd point of view... 

IF you where a sales agent from disney or fox or sony and you license 1 season of a TV show (like the ones you have music on for example). And you had to give a license that tv show to netflix, amazon, starz, hbo, bbc and skynetworks in EU... 
how much would you charge netflix/amazon (streaming) vs bbc starz and hbo (braodcast)? for that show for 1yr. 
and how would you based that license price?


----------



## T-LeffoH (Jan 25, 2019)

I imagine it will be another ~5 years before any real change is seen in digital streaming revenue for artists as implementation of Music Modernization Act plays out.

A pessimistic view is that - in the hands of digital streaming service providers - any reduction in their overhead costs for these services will unlikely be redistributed as increased revenue to composers & publishers.

And a fuzzily optimistic view is that the elements of the bill targeting improvements of how Copyright Royalty Board is to consider royalty rates, especially with respect to digital streaming services, will see the judges on the board actually take into consideration the gross disparity between broadcast and streaming royalties which currently exist.

I'm choosing to be somewhat optimistic that NMPA is going to push hard on this issue as the next few years pan out.


----------



## Pudge (Jan 26, 2019)

We need a new standard, a way to collect and distribute royalties which empowers the musician more by giving them more control over the process.

Some body needs to develop a new tech based ecosystem which handles EVERYTHING. From contracts to royalty collection and payment. Replacing royalty collection agencies or by providing tech for them to standardise.

Musicians create the music, then use a program to invisibly watermark their music, embed necessary data, register their works and provide licensing details.

Intelligent contract builder which provides simple check box based building to cover usages etc... these contracts can also be sent off to be reviwed by a music lawyer who will communicate with you through the program.

The licensee can log on to view the track, agreement, sign, pay and download the watermarked track to use (as agreed) through the software.

Broadcasters, video streaming services etc... all use a program which tracks the watermarked tracks and communicates with the software. It reads the data and the license agreements enmbeded within them to calculates royalties.

Musicians log into the software, view active licenses and statistics on how their music has been used, where it has been used, how many times it's been used and what royalties have been generated.

Royalties are then deposited into into your account. Its all 100% completely automated.

Just pay me £1,000,000 for this idea and i'll be happy for anyone to use it.


----------



## T-LeffoH (Jan 26, 2019)

Pudge said:


> We need a new standard, a way to collect and distribute royalties which empowers the musician more by giving them more control over the process.
> 
> Some body needs to develop a new tech based ecosystem which handles EVERYTHING. From contracts to royalty collection and payment. Replacing royalty collection agencies or by providing tech for them to standardise.



I've had a quite a few conversations with publishing executives about these topics in attending industry events and doing various business analyst consulting work but, from my perspective, the underlying problem seems to be not necessarily in the possibility of more diverse execution in licensing & rights management, but the reality that the paradigm of the entire business has historically developed in such a way that operational functions are independent of each other.

A production music library, publisher, sub-publisher, PRO, content services like YouTube, the Harry Foxes...they all have their own interests. And aside from all wanting to prosper, it's not like they are required to be accountable for each others' operations like an IT department would be for a Production department in a traditional corporate structure.

There is a lot of longer-term expectation around utilization of things like blockchain technology to be incorporated into dispersion of copyright, licensing, and other information. However, I am very skeptical of it, even though the underlying idea of its utilization is to make the hand-off of information with copyrighted content and licenses to be almost impossible to mistake.

I do think composers of any level of experience should reach out to organizations like NMPA with their thoughts & concerns, as the only way to have an impact on the current environment as a composer/songwriter is to express this type of meaningful feedback to organizations that are working to make changes to benefit songwriters & composers.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Jan 26, 2019)

Pudge said:


> Some body needs to develop a new tech based ecosystem which handles EVERYTHING.




Yeah, but who?


A tech company may do it, but they are going to take their cut first. And rightfully so. No company in their right mind would build up this system and just give out all of that money to musicians only to break even.


----------



## Pudge (Jan 26, 2019)

Desire Inspires said:


> Yeah, but who?
> 
> 
> A tech company may do it, but they are going to take their cut first. And rightfully so. No company in their right mind would build up this system and just give out all of that money to musicians only to break even.



They would have to charge something. I mean PRS amd MCPS are £100 each to join. Then they take a % cut of royalty colletions depending on where in the world your music is being used and which company they are working with to collect said royalties.

So maybe charging a small join fee + a small % for covering everything is viable.


----------



## GtrString (Jan 26, 2019)

Recording is over. nobody pays for recorded music anymore. It's all about live gigs and merc.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 4, 2022)

As it happens I have a spreadsheet that charts my streaming royalties with BMI from the time this thread was started. If that google drive link doesn't work I attached it as a graphic file.

Yes eventually Amazon started paying!

It's interesting to see the same arguments still going on in this recent thread were getting beaten around eight years ago (and probably since). I would say my chart gives some weight to @Jeremy Spencer and @JohnG's arguments of not ever giving up your writer's share. I have been doing this for a while (20+ years) and have a lot of tracks out there in a lot of things, so I think my numbers represent a kind of dow jones industrial average/trend for streaming royalties.

Some things to keep in mind if you look at this:

- My royalties have been consistent over this time they've hardly fluctuated. So while streaming is going UP significantly, network and cable tv is going DOWN the same. For the people saying that streaming only pays pennies, it's true... but the pennies add up. Unless you are talking about Spotify.

- These numbers fluctuate a lot as new agreements are made and new streaming services are created and others die out. CBS All Access, for example, became part of Paramount+, which I haven't seen any $$ from yet but I'm hoping will pay as well as CBS did. A lot of the agreements get paid retroactively to a certain date so you'll see a higher lump sum. When Amazon finally started paying it covered from 2009-2014. Same thing happened with Hulu and Microsoft VOD, etc. Sometimes the payouts don't line up with BMI's quarterly statements so there are gaps.

- Netflix used to pay more for me, I think it's because they were the only streaming game in town, and with Amazon were the only places to get TV shows (where most of my music is) before they switched to almost entirely original programming (of which I have very little music).

- These numbers are not going up because I have more music or I'm being more productive (the opposite is true), they are going up because either of two things: more people are streaming and/or they are paying better. But as mentioned, my other numbers are going down to compensate. I think it's just a switch in how people watch.

- Without looking at the pages and tracks it's hard to say definitively which of these numbers are good or bad just from the numbers. (Hoopla, for example, looks bad but I only have a couple of tracks and have no idea what Hoopla is.) I can say from my experience in going through statements:

Above average: Hulu, CBS All Access (hopefully also Paramount+)
Average/decent: Amazon, IMDB TV, Netflix, Peacock, Xumo
Terrible: Apple+, Disney+, HBO Max, Spotify, Youtube

- The last row is the amount of physical pages that list streaming on my statements.


----------



## rgames (Mar 4, 2022)

chillbot said:


> As it happens I have a spreadsheet that charts my streaming royalties with BMI from the time this thread was started. If that google drive link doesn't work I attached it as a graphic file.
> 
> Yes eventually Amazon started paying!
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point of the other thread.

Everybody agrees that avoiding buyouts is a better deal for some people. Also, you can do a buyout and still keep the writer's share (as I also pointed out). So you're kind-of mixing two issues.

For the vast majority of ASCAP members, though, ASCAP's own numbers indicate that buyouts are a better deal, even if it means giving up writer's share. So it's bad advice (and factually not true) to make a blanket statement that avoiding buyouts and/or maintaining writer's share is better for everyone. It's better for some, but clearly not for most.

Maybe it's different for BMI - I don't know. But I doubt it.

Regardless, you can't present a spreadsheet describing one person's experience and assume it applies to all 850,000 ASCAP members, especially when ASCAP's own numbers indicate otherwise.

rgames


----------



## kenose (Mar 4, 2022)

chillbot said:


> As it happens I have a spreadsheet that charts my streaming royalties with BMI from the time this thread was started. If that google drive link doesn't work I attached it as a graphic file.


Serious props for posting this data. It lines up pretty well with my own streaming royalties over the years.



rgames said:


> I think you missed the point of the other thread.
> 
> Everybody agrees that avoiding buyouts is a better deal for some people. Also, you can do a buyout and still keep the writer's share (as I also pointed out). So you're kind-of mixing two issues.
> 
> ...



How many of those 850k are active library music composers though? I can actually imagine some other situations where a buy out could work out favorably for a composer, but not with library music.

You're signing your music over to a company whose express purpose is to exploit that music and make money. If the library is any good, and your music is any good, then they should be landing placements that generate publishing royalties. The buyout numbers you threw out in the other thread are easily eclipsed by the publishing royalties that a good track in a good library can generate.

I think you would have to 5x (probably even more...) those numbers to make any composer regularly writing for solid publishers even consider a full track buyout where writers share is relinquished.


----------



## gsilbers (Mar 4, 2022)

chillbot said:


> As it happens I have a spreadsheet that charts my streaming royalties with BMI from the time this thread was started. If that google drive link doesn't work I attached it as a graphic file.
> 
> Yes eventually Amazon started paying!
> 
> ...



Its defintly a wishy washy thing nowadays. From you average list it can be that hulu, cbs might still be under paytv/broadcast model. Hulu has a streaming tier and a cable tier. so bascially its like cable.. but streamed.

which is the odd thing about all these services. there is paytv, free air tv (broadcast), there is AVOD, VOD, SVOD, and also tv networks have their own version of streaming. Amazon could have different models at once just like hulu and others.

All streaming still falls under the "home entertainment" umbrella. sounds obvious but its a whole branch of entretainment where before it was DVD. And with dvd there was no way of knowing how many times it would be "performed" and watched so royalties where based on sales of each dvd and it was peanuts.
And later netflix came along and said... we belong to HE and therefore will pay peanuts. and no one cared cux broadcast was king. and other platforms where like heeeyyy.. thats an interesting idea of paying peanuts.

But the amount of streaming companies is far bigger than it appears. And each country has these as well as their local ones.

Bad thing is that its only BMI/pro vs all those mega tech companies who really dont want to pay royalties.

There is absolutly no reason streaming should pay less.
Say you make music for a fox show which ends up in several streaming and channels etc.
fox licenses the show for the same amount of money and duration to streaming than to broadcast.
a season would cost netflix about $1 million for one year. Itll cost the same if it airs in the BBC, or starz channel or whatever.
The show is making money regardless of ads or subcription network or streaming.
Therefore imo it should be paying the same amount of money to composers in royalties.
For u it seems thast the way but again, the different models would depend where it was seen. As a hulu streaming or hulu under a cable channel. but they should defenitly pay a lot more imo

well.. not much i can add or say besides my captain hindsight we should paid more attention to dvd royatlies back in the day. video games apply this same technique. they havet he upfront pay w/o royalties and they seem happy so maybe it pays better?


----------



## chillbot (Mar 5, 2022)

rgames said:


> So you're kind-of mixing two issues.


Not trying to mix issues.. this thread is supposed to be about streaming and the future of streaming royalties. I only mention buyouts in connection to streaming because had I gotten $1,000 up front for each and every track I've ever written, not only would I have lost money (not even accounting for future earnings), but I'd be setting a really bad precedent for myself and all other composers.



rgames said:


> Regardless, you can't present a spreadsheet describing one person's experience and assume it applies to all 850,000 ASCAP members, especially when ASCAP's own numbers indicate otherwise.


I'm posting actual real numbers... you pulled numbers out of thin air and decided the majority of ASCAP members make $765 a year? So random.

I have zero issue with you (or anyone) taking buyouts if you believe that's in your best interest. Do what you gotta do for you. I do take umbrage with statements like these, especially from someone with your experience, especially to beginners, because ultimately it hurts all of us. But even worse the person starting out that may not know any better:



rgames said:


> I'd say buyouts are definitely worth considering, especially if you're just starting out.


----------



## rgames (Mar 5, 2022)

chillbot said:


> you pulled numbers out of thin air


No, they are from ASCAP’s annual report.


----------



## chillbot (Mar 5, 2022)

rgames said:


> No, they are from ASCAP’s annual report.


I read ASCAP's annual report. Where does it say that 1,000 members account for half of all royalties?


----------



## rgames (Mar 5, 2022)

chillbot said:


> I read ASCAP's annual report. Where does it say that 1,000 members account for half of all royalties?


See the other thread.


----------



## Kyle Preston (Mar 7, 2022)

rgames said:


> See the other thread.


Your quote from the other thread:


> For example, ASCAP just sent out their annual report. They hit a record-high $1.3B in payouts (or thereabouts) for 850,000 members. If you do that math, that's only $1500 per member *if* the payouts were evenly distributed. But they're not - I bet there at least half of those payouts are going to no more than 1,000 people (that would be an average of $650k/yr). That means the other $650M is distributed to 849,000 members, or about $765 each (again, if evenly distrubuted).


So to set the record straight, for this thread, you actually _did _claim an "average" of $765 per ASCAP member, out of thin air. Which may or may not resemble reality -- the Pareto Principle certainly applies to the streaming world so I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that 20% of ASCAP artists earn 80% of the income. 

But regardless, it doesn't defend (well) your position that buyouts are favorable. What @chillbot is getting at, is _how _and _why _buyouts are likely a bad precedent to set, for yourself and for others. 

It's a modern miracle, to me, that composers earn royalties over and over. Passive income that accumulates while you sleep, it's wizardry. 

For most of us, taking a buyout caps all that potential and traps it inside a (typically) smaller number. And the only reason someone would offer a buyout is if they were betting that they could make _more _money than that buyout payment (on average). So unless you desperately need the money, why on earth would you give all that future potential up?

Again, no shame trying new things. Years ago, I wrote a few pieces for libraries specifically as a buyout, to get my own data. And I regretted it, every. single. time. All of them have made literally nothing in over 5 years (I kept my writers share for all but one), other than a crappy buyout (far lower than $1000 per track). 

Some sort of hybrid as a compromise, I could see working, but again, as a composer, you're still giving up your earning potential for a finite number. Which means you're failing the marshmallow test.

_Don't fail the marshmallow test. _


----------



## Kyle Preston (Mar 7, 2022)

Also, @rgames, I think comparing PRO's to Russian Oligarchs is pretty boneheaded. Your assumption is a classic example of why correlation isn't causation.


----------

