# Another royalty statement another disappointment on streaming



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

My rants comes every quarter 

ITs hard to believe we are getting such low royalties from Hulu, Netflix and amazon when their licensing deals with the studios is as much as a cable deals.
What has the studios figure out that BMI and Ascap hasn't?
doesn't BMI and Ascap see that TV and film deals go for the billions?
did you see the hulu exclusive for Seinfeld? $120 billion!
but there is no money to get better royalties?

I can tell you for a FACT that a studio like disney and warner charge the same amount for a license to Netflix than they do to a cable channel. and that's only for one country. Netflix is paying huge for their new expanding territories. aka/the world. they have SOOO much money,, yet BMI and ascap cant get a piece of that?!?!?
the whole thing that streaming is not as much is BS!!! if a license for a movie is the same amount for cable and streaming then STREAMING IS THAT MUCH!
Hulu has commercials and subscription and Netflix has subscribers.
its simple math. 30 million subscribers x 7 bucks each. 210 million dollars EVERY MONTH. yet, there is no fukin money to pay up for better royalties.
BMI is bareley doig anything with Pandora. but nothing against Netflix.

in matter of fact - Netflix is suing bmi
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/atr/legacy/2014/08/20/307908.pdf
for antitrust. im sure it has nothing to do with them trying to pay less for music streaming.... suuurree its not. Netflix wants to negotiate better rates. and they barley pay anything!!
these tech companies are devaluing more and more the value of music.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2016)

Nobody actually has to be a member of a PRO, so how can it be anti trust? This whole streaming thing doesn't work at all for composers.

Spotify is another one that is totally screwed against composers. However, the only way out of it is not to allow your music on Spotify.

In terms of movies, I guess that the answer is that you've already been paid, so anything else is extra. Of course when it becomes Netflix rather than cable TV, there is an argument to say that your fee was negotiated in part based on estimated future Royalties. However, the people with the power are the studios, so the are partially to blame for allowing their product on a channel that doesn't care about composer Royalties.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

well, no. the studios license their content. but then the cable and or streaming companies have to pay royalties in their territory based on their laws. I guess that's good that there is only a few PRO.
I think it would be great if there were some legal mesures to help us out. maybe this
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
?


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

found this...
http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/congresswoman_carolyn_maloney_lends_her_support_to_songwriters
cool.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

actually seems BMI is trying to get more support
http://www.bmi.com/advocacy
I suggest we all write about streaming royalties


----------



## chillbot (Jan 27, 2016)

I've been fighting that fight forever... not sure what else to do and they are tired of hearing from me. I do think they're trying to do everything they can do. BMI just made a deal with amazon was suppose to be retroactive, was hoping for big things. One episode of a show was watched by 73,000 people and I got $0.78 cents for about 1/3 of the music. Oh well. I have a lot of tracks out there... all told I had 300+ pages of amazon on my statement and made about a thousand bucks. Hulu and Netflix were about the same.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> well, no. the studios license their content



And that's exactly where we should get help. They could insist on proper payment to composers before allowing licensing. It's been done before.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1283/text


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

chillbot said:


> I've been fighting that fight forever... not sure what else to do and they are tired of hearing from me. I do think they're trying to do everything they can do. BMI just made a deal with amazon was suppose to be retroactive, was hoping for big things. One episode of a show was watched by 73,000 people and I got $0.78 cents for about 1/3 of the music. Oh well. I have a lot of tracks out there... all told I had 300+ pages of amazon on my statement and made about a thousand bucks. Hulu and Netflix were about the same.


its amazing.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Daryl said:


> And that's exactly where we should get help. They could insist on proper payment to composers before allowing licensing. It's been done before.


do you have examples?
all contracts ive seen don't mention the royalties part.
you say that when providing music, the contract has to say something about it?
or that somehow we get together and talk to the studios? well im guessing the heavy hitter composers like HZ, Williams, Remote control guys.. etc


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

well, for example. the Brazilian dubbers are a tight group. so when the new streaming companies got to town and they saw their materials being used again, they sued the studios. now, every time there is a new deal with vod/streaming they have to get paid a fee again because their initial contract only said for tv and not any other service.
so maybe making the libraries and productions have contracts with musicians and production companies that include this type of deals might work?


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> do you have examples?
> all contracts ive seen don't mention the royalties part.
> you say that when providing music, the contract has to say something about it?
> or that somehow we get together and talk to the studios? well im guessing the heavy hitter composers like HZ, Williams, Remote control guys.. etc


I think that it's a conversation between ASCAP/BMI and the studios. For example I know for a fact that Sex and the City was shown on a cable channel that didn't pay Royalties, and PRS/ASCAP/BMI negotiated a rate so that it could be shown. So they have influence. I'm sure that the studios would talk to them and then could insist on a higher rate. The trouble is that they don't care, unless they get their money.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

chillbot said:


> I've been fighting that fight forever... not sure what else to do and they are tired of hearing from me. I do think they're trying to do everything they can do. BMI just made a deal with amazon was suppose to be retroactive, was hoping for big things. One episode of a show was watched by 73,000 people and I got $0.78 cents for about 1/3 of the music. Oh well. I have a lot of tracks out there... all told I had 300+ pages of amazon on my statement and made about a thousand bucks. Hulu and Netflix were about the same.


I wrote my congress rep. for Pasadena
http://ziplook.house.gov/htbin/findrep?ZIP=91106&Submit=FIND+YOUR+REP+BY+ZIP
you are in Flintridge right? I think that's another one.
its hard to even figure out were to even start.
I just know that a licence deal from Disney to give Netflix/amazon/google a semi good movie is about 70k-100 for a year.
same amount for a cable company. that's one country.
so at least we can say, well there IS money... the issue is that no one seems to be listening to us.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

Every time there is a change in technology, musicians get ripped off: radio, TV, streaming...
You'd think that winning the courts fight once would clearly establish our rights once and for all...
Nope.
The decades that it takes for legal justice means more money in corporate pockets in the meantime.
Same old song...
Also pissed at the music super stars that collectively could have some weight for our voice to be heard, but that don't give a shit because they made it big BEFORE the whole industry collapsed.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 27, 2016)

Sure... I can write to her. Would you mind terribly forwarding your letter to me maybe via PM to save me actually having to use my brain today? I can reword it a bit....?


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> do you have examples?
> all contracts ive seen don't mention the royalties part.
> you say that when providing music, the contract has to say something about it?
> or that somehow we get together and talk to the studios? well im guessing the heavy hitter composers like HZ, Williams, Remote control guys.. etc



Do you mean contracts between client (film /tv producer) and composer? If so,every contract Ive seen and signed always has a remuneration section including lengthy details re royalties/splits and so on. Again,if you're talking about something else then my bad of course.  

D


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I think that it's a conversation between ASCAP/BMI and the studios. For example I know for a fact that Sex and the City was shown on a cable channel that didn't pay Royalties, and PRS/ASCAP/BMI negotiated a rate so that it could be shown. So they have influence. I'm sure that the studios would talk to them and then could insist on a higher rate. The trouble is that they don't care, unless they get their money.



that's a good point. that's why Netflix is suing for anti trust laws.. because they cant win if there is only two PROS. they are trying to get rid of a hurdle that has leverage.

ithink it should be a law to have to pay royalties. I know there are some channels that still get away with it.

seems bmi and ascap are trying on the streaming side but not too well. in the news is shown as "they are trying to get the price of services higher for consumers... and they ask while jayZ gets millions a year." you know.. the yellow journalism that nowadays is standard.

not sure how else to pressure bmi/ascap to talk to studios and or do something more about it.

maybe if we all went to our other forums and kind of spread the word more and with good timming ... like a scheduled
promotion or campaign , maybe our voice might pass through to the news.


I added this thread in gearslutz.com but I think I someone just said hardware royalties are better


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

chillbot said:


> Sure... I can write to her. Would you mind terribly forwarding your letter to me maybe via PM to save me actually having to use my brain today? I can reword it a bit....?


here:

Hi Judy, Songwriters and composers are not getting good royalty money from streaming services like Netflix, amazon and hulu. The same tv show I do music for pays 50 times better in cable TV royalties than in amazon/Netflix/hulu. this is the same for millions of musicians. Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney is helping BMI and ascap get better royalties and compensation for our work. here is the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1283/text if you could please help us musicians out, it would be great!. Or any other way of helping small musicians vs big business that would be great! Thanks! 

I might of waited a little to maybe write something better out of the group. oh well.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Every time there is a change in technology, musicians get ripped off: radio, TV, streaming...
> You'd think that winning the courts fight once would clearly establish our rights once and for all...
> Nope.
> The decades that it takes for legal justice means more money in corporate pockets in the meantime.
> ...



true they could def help out. they might also not be aware of this 
since they getting PAID!


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

I just wanted to add that I have noticed that the US seems to have the worst deal when it comes to Royalties.In Europe royalties seem to be ALOT better (Im based in Dublin.) I scored a major Disney series and song that aired on the Disney channel 7 days a week for a few years and they've been amongst the worst royalties Ive received, maybe this is due to 'sampling' (if you are'nt on in that 'sampling' period then you get zero) also upfront deals/licenses. D


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Dean said:


> Do you mean contracts between client (film /tv producer) and composer? If so,every contract Ive seen and signed always has a remuneration section including lengthy details re royalties/splits and so on. Again,if you're talking about something else then my bad of course.
> 
> D



yes, those are ones. they mention the splits but I think to Daryls point, I might envision that these should also have a stipulation on how much the royalty should be for streaming royalties.
Daryls point is that studios and PROS should pressure the streaming sites to give more. with that in mind, a way it could be done is at the contract level between the composer and the production or the music library and production and at the same time the production with the studios. just a thought.


----------



## rpaillot (Jan 27, 2016)

Dean said:


> I just wanted to add that I have noticed that the US seems to have the worst deal when it comes to Royalties.In Europe royalties seem to be ALOT better (Im based in Dublin.) I scored a major Disney series and song that aired on the Disney channel 7 days a week for a few years and they've been amongst the worst royalties Ive received, maybe this is due to 'sampling' (if you are'nt on in that 'sampling' period then you get zero) also upfront deals/licenses. D



Yeah same thing.


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> yes, those are ones. they mention the splits but I think to Daryls point, I might envision that these should also have a stipulation on how much the royalty should be for streaming royalties.
> Daryls point is that studios and PROS should pressure the streaming sites to give more. with that in mind, a way it could be done is at the contract level between the composer and the production or the music library and production and at the same time the production with the studios. just a thought.



I see your point re streaming,..most contracts cover cable/satellite/radio/live etc,

Not sure how relevant it is re Netflix /Hulu streaming but I was quite surprised by royalty payments I received from Youtube recently (based on some trailer work), takes millions of hits though. D


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

the youtube I think is a little different. mainly because its not fill program material but trailers and such. I guess that's why everyone is jumping and doing their own videos.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

rpaillot said:


> Yeah same thing.



so in EU when you see your royalty statements from cable vs streaming, is it about the same?


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2016)

I just had a thought regarding anti trust. How can those laws be brought against ASCAP. ASCAP isn't strictly speaking a business. It has no money. All the income belongs to other people. It's more like a cross between a collection agency and a Union. Can Unions be taken before court for going on strike? I would have thought not. So if ASCAP goes on strike, Netflix can't show any films using their members' music.


----------



## rpaillot (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> so in EU when you see your royalty statements from cable vs streaming, is it about the same?



Hmm no sorry I was only talking about TV royalties. Much less USA royalties compared to EU


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

Dean said:


> I just wanted to add that I have noticed that the US seems to have the worst deal when it comes to Royalties.In Europe royalties seem to be ALOT better (Im based in Dublin.) I scored a major Disney series and song that aired on the Disney channel 7 days a week for a few years and they've been amongst the worst royalties Ive received, maybe this is due to 'sampling' (if you are'nt on in that 'sampling' period then you get zero) also upfront deals/licenses. D



Most definitely.
I have been represented by la SACEM and now by ASCAP: HUGE difference!
I do the score for this historic series (13 episodes of 25 minutes; score is wall to wall)
It goes on prime time 7:30pm on 6ABC, the mid-Atlantic region, local market.
So sure, it's not a national show, but we always have the highest ratings against all other networks.
So far, I have had a solid 250 minutes of music on the air.
It is a STRUGGLE to get ASCAP to even bother looking into it.
Not worth their time.
But by principle, even it is only for a few hundred $ or not, they ought to pay me something.
Something is wrong if those guys (ASCAP, BMI...etc) are not fighting for us.
They get their administrative costs for that sole purpose: to represent us.

From past experience, la SACEM was way more pro-active.
Talking about Disney, in 1987, I did the music for a 200 episodes cartoon series, Le Piaf, that turned out to sell well internationally.
I got excellent residuals from that.
The music economy crashed since then so this may explain that.
But even with de-valuation of the economy, the income curve of residuals since the digital age is not aligned with previous systems.
Our day in court has yet to arrive, to change that, and give us back what we are entitled to.
This is our fight to fight.
The shares are shrinking, or should I say they are siphoned upward.


Another funny anecdote when talking to ASCAP recently:
me: -so, i'd like to know if a movie I did last year (and went direct to stream and DVD sales) has already generated some $?
him: -oh no!
Streaming residuals are insignificant!
me: how about mechanical rights on the DVD sales
him: we don't take care of that
me: can you tell me who does?
him: don't know...

[email protected]#$
This is ASCAP?!
So, and that's a question: is there a way to perceive mechanical rights from DVD sales?
I would hope so.
If not, what the fu*k are we doing?

I think that Hans should be our voice.
If he puts his weight behind it and we all pushed we could get traction.

With my French revolutionary background, I call this EXPLOITATION


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> So, and that's a question: is there a way to perceive mechanical rights from DVD sales?
> I would hope so.



(why did you change to ASCAP? ),..anyway mechanicals are handled and collected by other agencies,in Ireland IMRO collect tv/radio royalties and MCPS collect mechanical royalties? In the States its the HFA I think http://www.harryfox.com/ more info here http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/royalties.htm give em a call? D


----------



## mverta (Jan 27, 2016)

I used to count on my royalty stream to provide a base level of income, but that's dwindled over the years, steadily. I moved my model to cash-on-the-barrel-head; as though what I get paid for the gig is all I'm going to get, and all royalties are extra. My price had to go up, and it became harder to get clients for a spell, but ultimately it works out better, I feel, at least until such time as I hit such a major, undeniable vein that it makes sense to have those avenues. I have also just negotiated my own IF/THEN clauses from time to time, and basically left the PRO out of it, because I don't trust them.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

Daryl said:


> So if ASCAP goes on strike, Netflix can't show any films using their members' music.


Good point Daryl!
If ASCAP, BMI etc... could block usage of their film catalogs, a lot of people would lose money


Dean said:


> (why did you change to ASCAP? ),..anyway mechanicals are handled and collected by other agencies,in Ireland IMRO collect tv/radio royalties and MCPS collect mechanical royalties? In the States its the HFA I think http://www.harryfox.com/ more info here http://www.songwriteruniverse.com/royalties.htm give em a call? D


Thanks for the tip Dean!
I'll check it out.
I still think it's sad that the guy at ASCAP couldn't tell me where to turn to for DVD mechanicals...
I switched because I moved to the US in 1993...
And for game work, you'd better not be represented by a PRO that asks residuals and mechanicals. So SACEM is out of the question in that case.

Games: other clear slight BTW
Don't tell me that they don't make enough money to spread it around a bit more...

Whether a game or a stream, or a DVD sales, I want the same residual that I used to make for records, CDs ...
This right was hard fought for 
Here, it is the distributor (the merchant) that gets to keep the whole pie, and dictate the market value. 
The possibility that the distributors will voluntarily give us our due is nil.
We need to reclaim what was won and lost over and over.
Change of technology shouldn't equal change of moral ethics...
Greed needs to be kept in check!


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Daryl said:


> I just had a thought regarding anti trust. How can those laws be brought against ASCAP. ASCAP isn't strictly speaking a business. It has no money. All the income belongs to other people. It's more like a cross between a collection agency and a Union. Can Unions be taken before court for going on strike? I would have thought not. So if ASCAP goes on strike, Netflix can't show any films using their members' music.


good point. antitrust is normally to get all business power among a few so others can compete in the business.
since ascap is non profit AND a different business entirely.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Most definitely.
> I have been represented by la SACEM and now by ASCAP: HUGE difference!
> I do the score for this historic series (13 episodes of 25 minutes; score is wall to wall)
> It goes on prime time 7:30pm on 6ABC, the mid-Atlantic region, local market.
> ...



I guess that's the part were the non-profit hurts us. (bad reps)


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Good point Daryl!
> If ASCAP, BMI etc... could block usage of their film catalogs, a lot of people would lose money
> 
> Thanks for the tip Dean!
> ...



Godspeed sir. 
D


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

gsilbers said:


> I guess that's the part were the non-profit hurts us. (bad reps)


Yes, but they get a salary, don't they?
And if they were for profit, they may work for the bad guys anyway.
They need to be accountable to us!
Like our house of representatives, we'd be better off with a clean slate, and an agenda that these folks would have to bust their asses on...


----------



## Daryl (Jan 27, 2016)

One more point, and I'll promise that I'll stop pontificating.

Why aren't the Music Publishers hassling ASCAP? After all they're losing money as well. I'm going to start on PRS as soon as I can get a meeting and see if I can get the ball rolling there. I don't have much on Netflix (apart from the odd bit of music in a TV series) but as both a Writer and Publisher full member, I think that I have a right to know what they're doing.


----------



## pkm (Jan 27, 2016)

In general, there are no mechanical royalties for composers for DVD sales in the US.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

pkm said:


> In general, there are no mechanical royalties for composers for DVD sales in the US.


Not surprising and not fair.
Once again, we get shafted as soon as new technologies allow a legal argument against giving us what had been granted to us in previous legal amendments.
We are weak because we are individualistic by nature.
No mechanical rights for DVD or games sales is a rip off


----------



## pkm (Jan 27, 2016)

There aren't even royalties for theatrical releases in the US because the studios used to own all the theaters and didn't want to have to pay twice for the same thing.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

And i'd say that if younger composers don't get onboard, they are digging their own graves, or at least watching passively, while they are getting buried...
Your future is gonna get bleaker as computers prowess keep improving...
Funny, how despite the centuries that go by, the condition of most composers doesn't improve a whole of a lot in times of economic trouble...
There was a general golden age post second world war, where the economy was booming and everyone had work.
And then, this:
7 billion people on the planet, the oil supply dwindling, as usual in dire times: a radicalization in society, a bigger pool of composers (and fortunately larger demand, thanks to the proliferation of media), computers taking over a lot of roles that used to be musicians' turf... mmmmm ....
well , at least such conditions usually are fertile ground for strong musical movements, but shit, things are not looking up, especially if we stay passive.

Sorry for the dark picture


----------



## Dean (Jan 27, 2016)

Picture this,.......



Patrick de Caumette said:


> 7 billion people on the planet, the oil supply dwindling, as usual in dire times: a radicalization in society, a bigger pool of composers (and fortunately larger demand, thanks to the proliferation of media), computers taking over a lot of roles that used to musicians' turf... mmmmm ....



Great opener for a movie!  D


----------



## germancomponist (Jan 27, 2016)

Dean said:


> Picture this,.......
> 
> 
> 
> Great opener for a movie!  D


+1


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

Dean said:


> Picture this,.......
> 
> 
> 
> Great opener for a movie!  D



Haha!
The only problem is that we ARE in the movie, and I'm not sure we get to stay until the final act...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Yes, but they get a salary, don't they?
> And if they were for profit, they may work for the bad guys anyway.
> They need to be accountable to us!
> Like our house of representatives, we'd be better off with a clean slate, and an agenda that these folks would have to bust their asses on...



Dont get me wrong. they do need to be better, my point is that with more money they can get more talent and poeple that can do a difference both internally and externally. 
the customer rep is probalbly one step close to being sent to india.  
I also talked to BMI and ascap reps and its defenilty a wall they are trying to build so we don't harras them. 
they might get a hundred calls about calculating royalties, didnt get royalties etc, and with their VOODOO calculations on royalties, im guessing they dont want folks to know more about wat goes on.


----------



## rgames (Jan 27, 2016)

mverta said:


> I moved my model to cash-on-the-barrel-head; as though what I get paid for the gig is all I'm going to get, and all royalties are extra.


This is the most logical solution and how 99.9% of businesses work. Of course, it's never been popular on this forum...

I strongly believe that our interests would be MUCH better protected if there wasn't the false promise of royalties hanging around. Those endless pages of placements that pay almost nothing would be gone and I'd be all the happier for it. And, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, those placements that pay even less - nothing - because you missed the sampling period would be gone as well.

Of course, the royalty system *can* work, and it has for many decades. But I don't think it's wise for anyone just starting out to consider royalties in his long-term plans. Get paid up front and leave with a handshake and a full wallet. Just like nearly every other business out there.

The royalty system is the exception, not the rule. There are plenty of other business models, the vast majority of which work much better than the royalty system.

rgames


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (Jan 27, 2016)

rgames said:


> This is the most logical solution and how 99.9% of businesses work. Of course, it's never been popular on this forum...
> 
> Get paid up front and leave with a handshake and a full wallet. Just like nearly every other business out there.
> 
> ...



"Get paid up front and leave with a handshake and a full wallet. Just like nearly every other business out there."

full wallet: hahaha


There certainly are other business models, and the royalties system often doesn't work and there are reasons why: see arguments above.
Your music is the musical thematic backbone of a game that make 100 million $ in a week, and you get zilch from it: no matter how you look at it, it's not a good system.
Nearly every business out there doesn't involve intellectual property.
The royalty system doesn't preclude getting paid up front: it is a fair way to make sure that the artist is proportionally rewarded in case of great success. Even if by a small percentage, it goes a long way in helping the artist survive and makes up potentially for a lack of retirement funds.
I don't know about you, but I have no savings for retirement.
Royalties could help in that regard.
You may not have a problem with it, but personally, I feel that royalties are a composer's legitimate right, and obviously so did the legal system until greed took over the world in a much more systematic way than it used to...


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 27, 2016)

well, both positive balance would be the best. getting paid good upfront and in the back end. which now its only about 5% of the composers.


----------



## milesito (Jan 27, 2016)

Never thought I would be for unions but this may make sense.... Like the teachers union that you must pay into even if you are or a member...

The free market is a bitch sometimes  low barriers to entry ... Are we really a dime a dozen?

I wonder what HZ would say/suggest ... As I am sure he is solicited like crazy!

At the end of the day there is the whole range of composers - bad good great! The bar is also lower in terms of what a producer / director expects imho and it continues to go down. But is that the directors fault or is it the audiences fault ? If the audience wanted good music and valued it more directors would have to pay for it to be successful.. So if we want to really fix this, where do we start??????

Also what percentage of Ascap or bmi revenue comes from source versus score? Or film versus radio? Maybe the motivation is not there??


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

milesito said:


> The free market is a bitch sometimes  low barriers to entry ... Are we really a dime a dozen?


What you have to remember is that music is seen as being subjective, and consequently there are hoards (or should that be a bunch of...?) of talentless would be composers doing the job for nothing. Because most of the populations can't tell the difference, and many so-called creatives are equally clueless, the cheaper they can get the music, the more money for their own pockets. Richard is right. It's exactly the same in all industries, except that in some, results or lack of them, can have dire consequences, which is why people have to be qualified and also often carry insurance.

As far as Royalties, we are pretty much an anomaly. In other creative industries a company pays you to create, you get paid and they collect the Royalties. We expect to get paid, and collect the Royalties. This may or may not be a sustainable model for film and TV composers. I don't know. However, the fact remains that streaming is the biggest threat to composers' income at the moment.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

Dean said:


> .. maybe this is due to 'sampling' (if you are'nt on in that 'sampling' period then you get zero) also upfront deals/licenses. D


Sorry Dean, I meant to reply to this earlier. You are quite correct about sampling, and in this day and age there is no excuse for it. We have Google ID, TuneSat and many others, so there is no reason that all Broadcasters can't give and accurate list of what is used and for how long. It should also be the case that programmes without a proper cue sheet (and yes this does happen) shouldn't be allowed to be broadcast, and if they are, the broadcaster should be fined. How they pass this fine onto the programme makers is up to them.


----------



## gsilbers (Jan 28, 2016)

someone seems to have figured out that it was 14% difference between hulu royalties than cable. he is ascap so it seems they have better tracking/information. or maybe ascap is doing a better job than bmi on streaming?


_My memory card ran out halfway through the video so i have to re-do the vid so here are some numbers in the mean time..


On my ASCAP statement it showed that i received $3.16 for a placement on Hulu that ASCAP says streamed 301,000 times (now is this number accurate? who knows..)

Then I found the same placement which aired on its original cable channel. The prime time premiere episode brought in 1.00 million viewers according to the nielson ratings (is this accurate?? who really knows). That brought in $10.80

301,000 / 1million = 30.1% meaning hulu had 30.1% the audience in total as ONE primetime airing of this show on broadcast..

I took 30.1% of the $10.80 (to adjust for the viewership difference), and got $3.60..

The difference between $3.16 and $3.60 is 14%_


source:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mus...atement-another-disappointment-streaming.html


----------



## Dean (Jan 28, 2016)

I gave up chasing my royalties and how it all works long ago,..thats a jungle you could get lost in,..like Willard said, "never get out of the boat"

Like Mike said I also consider royalties the icing on the cake,I switched musical paths from working on tv animation series to trailers/feature film so my income has completely switched from the back end to being all about the upfront fee.
Royalty wise a tv animation series is a gold mine (in Europe)that can keep paying out for years,I mean tens of thousands per year,if you get enough of them going/overlapping its great but on the other hand its a gilded cage that doesnt lead to anywhere except more pre-teen animation (repeat,repeat).I literally had to get down off that ladder and start over on the bottom rung of the live action film / trailer ladder.I lost a small fortune for a few years but its payed off now. D


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

Dean said:


> I gave up chasing my royalties and how it all works long ago...


Unfortunately if it's 100% of your income, you can't do that.


----------



## chillbot (Jan 28, 2016)

Here’s some more data (from my BMI statements). No idea if my math is right I’m kind of winging it. I knew I had some music that had aired on network, cable, amazon, hulu, and netflix... though wow it took a ton of digging through a ton of quarters to find it. Here’s what I came up with:

total music in one specific episode (background instrumental) that I'm tracking: 3m37s (3.62m)

amazon 3,712 views $0.65 / 3.62 = $0.18/minute ($0.05 per 1,000 views)

hulu 7,929 views $0.75 / 3.62 = $0.21/minute ($0.03 per 1,000 views)

netflix ?? views* $2.07 / 3.62 = $0.57/minute

cable (discovery fit health) aired 2x
$5.04 / 2 airings = $2.52 / 3.62 = $0.70/minute

cable (oprah winfrey network) aired 7x
rough estimate viewers = 100,000
$135.61 / 7 airings = $19.37 / 3.62 = $5.35/minute ($0.05 per 1,000 views)

cable (discovery) aired 1x
$77.13 / 1 airing = $77.13 / 3.62 = $21.31/minute

network aired 2x
rough estimate viewers = 5,000,000
$716.58 / 2 airings = $358.29 / 3.62 = $98.96/minute ($0.02 per 1,000 views)


*BMI doesn't show any streaming info for netflix on the statement.

I did some research trying to track down viewership, but it's still just a really rough estimate. Unfortunately my rough data appears to be showing that streaming is right along the lines of network and cable for me, if you go by viewers...?


----------



## Dean (Jan 28, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Unfortunately if it's 100% of your income, you can't do that.



True!  
D


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

mverta said:


> Who was it who said the surest sign of slavery is to have a price and be bought for it?


Pretty much every media composer, I would have thought.


----------



## rgames (Jan 28, 2016)

Patrick de Caumette said:


> Nearly every business out there doesn't involve intellectual property.


That's a good point - royalties are not really the issue. PROs are the issue. It's the PROs that are the odd element. Royalties are fine when you have control of them. But that's not how the music royalty system works - they're handled via a third party.

If you want to license something from Apple, whom do you pay? You pay Apple, of course. And Apple makes sure that their price is met. Do you think Apple would relegate the duty of assigning the value of their patents to a third party? Hell no! Same for any other business, whether it makes money on IP or not. The business (almost always) controls the price of its product.

The absurdity of the royalty/PRO system is hard to understand if you've lived with it for your entire professional life. But here's an example that might make it clear:

Let's say you own the patent to a technology that makes tires better. Ford wants to license that patent. But Ford doesn't pay you for the patent. Instead, the people who buy Ford vehicles pay a THIRD PARTY for the right to use your technology in the vehicle that Ford sells. Furthermore, the third party is subject to rate court decisions about the value of your patent - you have no say in the value of your own product.

What would you think if you went to buy a new car and you were handed a sheet of technologies that you had to pay for via a third party? Absurd, right? Well, that's exactly how the PRO system works. The composer is the technology owner, the production company is Ford and the network is the buyer.

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for Ford (the production company) to just pay technology owner (the composer) directly then pass the fee on to his customer (the network)? That does two things: first, it eliminates a third party, so there's more money to go around, and it gives the composer (or, more likely, his chosen representative) control over his prices.

Of course it makes more sense. And that's how it works in the 99.9% of the rest of the business world that doesn't have PROs.

And again, yes the PRO system can work. And it has. But, wow, what a complicated, inefficient and unfair system.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

Realistically there needs to be a collection agency because of the way broadcast reporting is done. Theoretically it could be done on an individual basis, but as it's a global issue that just wouldn't be practical. Or are you suggesting that there should only be a licence free and not any broadcast Royalties?


----------



## rgames (Jan 28, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Realistically there needs to be a collection agency because of the way broadcast reporting is done. Theoretically it could be done on an individual basis, but as it's a global issue that just wouldn't be practical. Or are you suggesting that there should only be a licence free and not any broadcast Royalties?


Getting rid of the royalties is the simplest solution. Strictly speaking you could just get rid of the PROs and come up with a system to monitor the plays that determine royalties that are calculated based on individual contracts. But it's much easier to just get rid of the royalties.

Do visual effects folks get royalties? I don't think so. The production pays them up front for an agreed-upon fee and then everyone moves on. Nice doing business with you.

What about the artist who is commissioned to do a painting for the entry to a building? Does he get a royalty every time someone looks at the painting? Of course not. He gets paid up front and moves on.

How about a plumber? Does he get paid every time you flush the toilet? Nope. He does his work, charges you and leaves you to do your business.

Of course, we already have the option to work this way - we all have the right require license fees for our music and we can set them as high as we want. The problem is that so long as the music royalty system exists then the productions will include it in their calculations of how much you get paid. The music royalty system needs to disappear entirely for the up-front-only system to provide the most benefit to the most people.

rgames


----------



## Daryl (Jan 28, 2016)

Richard, I think the problem arises because Royalties have been going on in music for over 500 years. Whole organisations are based upon the premise. I also like the idea that a composer shares in the success of a product. What you suggest could work, but would require production companies to come up with much more money for the music, which in itself is not a bad thing, but in the end would probably preclude risk taking, so it would actually make it harder for young composers to get into the business.

Interestingly enough, the Industry is actually going in the opposite direction, so there would be a lot of major players fighting against your suggestion.


----------



## Baron Greuner (Jan 29, 2016)

edited


----------



## Daryl (Jan 29, 2016)

Baron Greuner said:


> Talking of royalties, the PRS site are really slow with the MCPS showing for January this month Daryl.


Yeah, I have nothing to do with them normally, apart from the distribution periods, but think that I might have to start being more pro-active.


----------



## Morodiene (Jan 29, 2016)

Daryl said:


> Richard, I think the problem arises because Royalties have been going on in music for over 500 years. Whole organisations are based upon the premise. I also like the idea that a composer shares in the success of a product. What you suggest could work, but would require production companies to come up with much more money for the music, which in itself is not a bad thing, but in the end would probably preclude risk taking, so it would actually make it harder for young composers to get into the business.
> 
> Interestingly enough, the Industry is actually going in the opposite direction, so there would be a lot of major players fighting against your suggestion.


As a long-time business owner and new composer, I find this whole royalty stuff very confusing. When my husband was starting out his web development company, we would get approached by other start-ups wanting to do trade outs or a share in profits. Since we were new, we had agreed to a few of them. Then we realized we would much rather have cash to buy food and pay our bills than 200 mugs with our logo on them. Or in the case of profit sharing, once the site was done, it was really out of our hands as to how the owner of that business would promote their products and their site to get the most sales. We quickly put an end to those kinds of arrangements. 

I'm sure there are reasons for how it is, but this royalty system seems to be designed to keep composers at the bottom. Why should composers invest in the future of a company/project? Sure you want to do your best and see the project succeed. But you're not invested in the company like an employee might be (and oh, they get paid for work done too).

How would a change like this make it harder for young composers to get into the business? Wouldn't they just be like any other young company and price themselves accordingly? So those companies with a low budget would be a perfect target market for a young composer.


----------



## milesito (Jan 29, 2016)

PROs used to and still function as a collection agency. Historically everyone was making money both the pros and the artists. nobody wants things to change when things are good. Everyone was happy...Now that things have changed (namely the release of content through avenues that pros cannot collect on) artists are making only a fraction of what they made to the point where it is hard to survive...and we find ourselves saying to ourselves -we need to keep every cent to survive and keep the lights on-I.e. Pros do not deserve anything so why do we have them anyways?....however I am not sure the pros are to blame...other than the fact that now we have to do work on negotiating ourselves more and we cannot focus on composing. I think it is a dangerous proposition to simply say we should get rid of the pros .. Do we all really want to start tracking sales and revenues from production companies and all of our producers for traditional distribution channels too? Who has time for that Or do we want to spend time composing? I think we need a new pro to collect negotiate and track for the new mediums (YouTube etc) and do what the traditional pros did for us artists. And to succeed where they are failing (if they are even trying to track Internet and online sales) but they have no clout and as long as all of us artist do not band together and join and not work unless we are represented by the new pro (whatever that may be) we eill always undercut us....and since with the Internet everyone is an entrepreneur and can do it on their own...there will always be a lot of people undercutting each other...


----------



## rgames (Jan 29, 2016)

milesito said:


> Do we all really want to start tracking sales and revenues from production companies and all of our producers for traditional distribution channels too?


You don't have to - if you're writing specifically for a production then you already have a contract with them that defines what/how you get paid. Alternatively, If you're working with a library then the library will collect the fee, as they do now (when there is a fee...).

Either way, there's no extra work for you.

To Daryl's point about capturing a successful production: there's nothing stopping you from doing that without the PROs. You just write some kind of producer points into your contract that links to the production's revenues. You can even do that in lieu of a license fee. There are all sorts of options available without PROs. Again, as I mentioned, lots of other businesses collect royalties without a PRO to manage them. And the people in those businesses tend to make a lot more money than composers!

rgames


----------



## milesito (Jan 29, 2016)

rgames said:


> To Daryl's point about capturing a successful production: there's nothing stopping you from doing that without the PROs. You just write some kind of producer points into your contract that links to the production's revenues. You can even do that in lieu of a license fee. There are all sorts of options available without PROs. Again, as I mentioned, lots of other businesses collect royalties without a PRO to manage them. And the people in those businesses tend to make a lot more money than composers!
> 
> rgames



Thanks rgames for the great insights. So I am currently being asked to score a feature length documentary. The producer said they would give me "4% of what they make"...how do I know how much they make? Is it reasonable for me to ask them every quarter or every 6 months what the latest numbers are? Do I do this forever until I die and can I pass this along to my next of kin? Just curious what is typically done in this case.


----------



## Desire Inspires (Sep 21, 2018)

My TV royalties are going down and my streaming royalties are going up. But overall, the money is decreasing.


----------

