# Epidemic Sound and P.R.O licenses



## Markrs (Jul 28, 2021)

So I am very new to library music, PROs (Performing Rights Organisations) and quite clueless about it all. Recently I have been hearing these terms in regards to a company called Epidemic Sound, and why a lot of composers are not fans of the organisation. 

Well the video below helped a lot with understanding this a bit better and I think it is well worth a watch.


----------



## J-M (Jul 28, 2021)

For anyone new into this thing thinking about writing for Epidemic sound - please don't. Just don't. Your music is worth more and not only are you hurting yourself, you're also hurting the community.


----------



## gtrwll (Jul 28, 2021)

It’s disgusting that the Finnish Broadcasting Company uses Epidemic Sound to cater for its music needs. I would expect more from a company that’s run solely with taxes.


----------



## J-M (Jul 28, 2021)

gtrwll said:


> It’s disgusting that the Finnish Broadcasting Company uses Epidemic Sound to cater for its music needs. I would expect more from a company that’s run solely with taxes.


Yeah, exactly. I never know whether to laugh or cry when I see where the music came from...


----------



## rgames (Jul 30, 2021)

I didn't watch the video but am familiar with the problems people have with ES. Ultimately it's a business decision. I'm a member of a PRO and, therfore, do not have music with ES.

There's this feeling among some (especially many on this forum) that ES and the non-PRO model are "Evil". They're not. Well, not any more evil than a PRO.

Here's something to think about: PROs are old school. They're not necessary anymore and ES is one of the businesses that is working in the new world. The vast majority of the working world outside the music biz uses the ES model (i.e. no PROs). The PRO model is the exception, not the rule.

For example, engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties. In fact, they get paid a *lot* more in royalties than composers. Soooo... no PROs but really good royalties.

I'd bet that PROs will eventually disappear completely. I just don't know when.

PROs were appropriate for the time when they were created. Just like typewriters and buggy whips. Times change...

rgames


----------



## lokotus (Jul 30, 2021)

rgames said:


> I didn't watch the video but am familiar with the problems people have with ES. Ultimately it's a business decision. I'm a member of a PRO and, therfore, do not have music with ES.
> 
> There's this feeling among some (especially many on this forum) that ES and the non-PRO model are "Evil". They're not. Well, not any more evil than a PRO.
> 
> ...


 "PROs are old school."
Yes, but the fact that they take the fees from different sources does still make them extremely important. Its would be impossible for every composer to make their own contract and individual fees structure with every radio station, broadcaster, cinema etc...

"engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties."
Are you talking about producers, mixing engineers ?

"I'd bet that PROs will eventually disappear completely. "
The fact that it is becoming more difficult to receive upfront payment for the creative composition of music makes the PRO still very important. Don't you think composer would fight for the PROs to stay in this market with hard fights over decreasing creative fees ?
Cheers, lokotus


----------



## rgames (Jul 30, 2021)

lokotus said:


> Its would be impossible for every composer to make their own contract and individual fees structure with every radio station, broadcaster, cinema etc...


That was true 50 years ago. But not today. That's the point. Take a look at the stock photo/video market: no PROs and they license content to all sorts of broadcasters, cinema, etc. You set your rates for licenses given a bunch of standard use cases and then adapt to special cases as needed. It's easy to do.

Regarding engineers - no, I'm not talking about mixing engineers. I'm talking about mechanical engineers and electrical engineers and software engineers and those kinds of engineers. They don't have a PRO. And they deal with vastly more licenses than ASCAP or BMI or PRS or whoever. As with stock photo/video they have standard licenses for standard use cases then adapt to others on a case-by-case basis. You don't need a PRO to do that.

You *can* do that with a PRO but it's not necessary and, in fact, they're by far the least common way unless you're in the music biz.

rgames


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 30, 2021)

rgames said:


> For example, engineers don't have PROs but they collect royalties.





rgames said:


> Regarding engineers - no, I'm not talking about mixing engineers. I'm talking about mechanical engineers and electrical engineers and software engineers and those kinds of engineers.


Who is it that signs their checks?


----------



## dhmusic (Jul 30, 2021)

rgames said:


> I didn't watch the video but


okay i told ASCAP to go fuck themselves

what do i do next?

btw i am (sometimes) very lazy


----------



## rgames (Jul 30, 2021)

The other weird thing about PROs is that the license fee is paid by someone who doesn't actually make the product. The broadcaster pays the fee, not the production.

That's like you paying Goodyear for the right to use their patents in the tires for the car you buy from Ford. It's silly and inefficient and, more importantly, incentivizes a "pass-the-buck" mentality in your customer. It also leads to a lot of unfair practices in distributions because the PROs treat royalties in aggregate across broadcasters (EDIT: and payout is based on aggregation at the time of payout, not performance, also unfair).

That's the source of a lot of the complexity and unfairness in the PRO system. Just get rid of that model and have the productions pay, like they do in the photo/video world. And the rest of the world other than the music biz...

If you want to license something from Apple they don't let some PRO decide what you should pay for it. Absurd, right? Well, that's how the PRO model works. I have never once had any say in what ASCAP charges, and the result is statements with hundreds of pages of TV shows that use my music for next-to-nothing. And a bunch of uses that never even make it to my statements, so ASCAP is letting those go for free. What can I do about it? Nothing. They don't care.

I guarantee you Epidemic Sound isn't giving away its composers' music for free. So, are you really better off with a PRO? Maybe not.

rgames


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 30, 2021)

rgames said:


> The other weird thing about PROs is that the license fee is paid by someone who doesn't actually make the product. The broadcaster pays the fee, not the production.
> 
> That's like you paying Goodyear for the right to use their patents in the tires for the car you buy from Ford. It's silly and inefficient and, more importantly, incentivizes a "pass-the-buck" mentality in your customer. It also leads to a lot of unfair practices in distributions because the PROs treat royalties in aggregate across broadcasters (EDIT: and payout is based on aggregation at the time of payout, not performance, also unfair).
> 
> ...



you ve been adamant about this sort of practice for a while. I do understand but still, one main issue is that composers have been able to get paid about 70% of the overall fee through ryalties. 
So everyone has been charging the upfront fee for the the longest time to be small in context because the PRO would pay about 50-70% of the rest. 

Now all these types of royalty free libraries are going for even lower upfront fees. at like $20 bucks per track. the chances theyll buy more than a few times is very low. 

Normally rates to sell a track are based on the exposure and revenue said media will have. if you sell to a cable network then you kinda of know. but with amazon self publish, youtube movies, hulu only releases etc its all murky. 

We do know these tech companies are making gazillions of dollars. and we know that each stream can be counted exactly in terms of duration, composers, etc. 
So now these facebook videos or tick tock that get rehashed in instagram reels, and snapshat whatever is not paying anything. some blanket back end we dont know about. 


I think we should be pushing for the oposite. that there was some sort of metadata that can even be lke crypto to make sure its your track and not a retitle and get a few pennies each stream on social media. or youtube, netflix. etc. 

btw- now in july 2021, Youtube is as big as netflix. And we know the future is streaming. Yet getting paid in roaylties seems to be the hardest. or getting paid in a better way. right now we are turning into uber drivers. but uber drivers that drive mercedez benz since we have to spent a ton of money in equipment and leanring the craft 

maybe Ai will take the place of corporate music for facebook article videos. but other than that there is no real reason we composers shoudlnt be getting paid more via upfront or royalties. yes , there is a lot more composers but there is a ton more content out there.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 30, 2021)

I had to mix a tv show that used some epidemic sound music and i have to say that there are composers out there not really caring about the PRO thing. or epidemid sound is not really checking Some of these tracks where top level action movie sort of thing that could eaisly be on a broadcat tv show. Not only that but it seems they where cues for other movies that got retitled and placed in epidemic music. So not sure whats happening but maybe its foreign composers not caring about their countries pro.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 1, 2021)

Of course when you accept advice from a composer, do remember that a lot of the advice may depend on the level at which they work, and also on how successful they are. Someone who is a hobbyist (not that there is anything wrong with that) may have totally different experiences with a PRO from someone who composes for a living, and whose yearly income is regularly into 6 figures.


----------



## SamC (Aug 4, 2021)

I echo Daryl. I know a fair few composers writing library music who don’t earn upfront fees but they’re pulling in upwards of $50k a *quarter*.

Ive never heard any of them say, “you know, we should be more like those stock video guys, that’s where the *real* money is.” 

Everyone’s path is so vastly different in this business and take everyone’s experience - even the good - with a pinch of salt. Most would find it impossible to live without PRO’s and would deem it economically and physically impossible, but it’s clear from Epidemics roster that they have a never ending line of people who feel otherwise.

I would be interested to know how many of those composers actually make a living with their music, especially on that platform.


----------



## rgames (Aug 5, 2021)

SamC said:


> Ive never heard any of them say, “you know, we should be more like those stock video guys, that’s where the *real* money is.”


Again, engineers make a *lot* more money from royalties than composers. That’s a fact.

They don’t have a PRO. That’s also a fact.

The photo/video example is just a more accessible counter-argument to the “too many licenses” argument. Dealing with a large number of licenses can be done and it’s easy to do. Fact.

You can make money with a PRO. Fact.

You can make money without a PRO. In fact, that’s how most royalties are collected: without a PRO. Fact.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 6, 2021)

Daryl said:


> Of course when you accept advice from a composer, do remember that a lot of the advice may depend on the level at which they work, and also on how successful they are. Someone who is a hobbyist (not that there is anything wrong with that) may have totally different experiences with a PRO from someone who composes for a living, and whose yearly income is regularly into 6 figures.


Personal computers began as a hobby. Typewriters were the real deal.

I think the hobbyists took over at some point. And became vastly more successful.

I‘m pretty sure typewriters are the hobby nowadays.


----------



## Daryl (Aug 6, 2021)

rgames said:


> Personal computers began as a hobby. Typewriters were the real deal.
> 
> I think the hobbyists took over at some point. And became vastly more successful.
> 
> I‘m pretty sure typewriters are the hobby nowadays.


Except that the people using the "personal computers" are actually professionals, so your statement makes no sense.


----------



## GtrString (Aug 6, 2021)

For broadcasters, Epidemic Sound is not cheaper than any other competitor. They make their money from taking composers’ rights, so they make more from the exact same deals other libraries do. How composers can accept that, beats me. You can just get a better deal elsewhere.

PROs are taking care of composers rights, so of course ES don’t want to deal with them. But let the PRO’s do their job for you, and they will have to, or go out of business. They probably get a lot of one-finger stuff from inexperienced composers anyway, as what do you get for nothing..

With library music, you basically need to be 100% self-sufficient, so even libraries taking half with standard deals is pretty bad for the most part. It only pays off to sign away rights if the library can deliver a ton of placements, which means the top quartile of companies. There are so many bad bunnies. ES is definitely not a moneymaker, they are rather an experimental deal for beginners, which you will grow out of, fast. You will learn what not to do..

Take care of business, and business will take care of you. If you don’t, it won’t take you anywhere.


----------



## Henu (Aug 6, 2021)

It's also good to point out that there is a WORLD of difference in quality between Audionetwork and Epidemic. I've been working at the both sides of the table (both composer and supervisor/ licencing) and there's absolutely no way in hell I'd use anything from Epidemic any more than say, from Pond5 or any equivalent oversaturated cesspool of loops and four-chord ostinatos.


----------



## SamC (Aug 6, 2021)

I don’t feel I’m biased or have an old guard attitude towards PRO’s like some. I’ve always been a proponent of following the money and adapting to industry change. PRO's have room for improvement to better benefit the composers, but models like Epidemic are just the other side of the extreme.

I would say follow the money in whichever path your music falls. If you're an instrumental underscore or trailer/promo writer, Epidemic makes little financial sense. Like I would literally lose tens of thousands of dollars a year if I was with Epidemic instead of libraries that require a PRO membership.

If you're a singer-songwriter and happen to get placed in their Spotify playlists, maybe that can be a good thing? They only share streaming royalties, but that's like splitting a shit sandwich. If your music is used in a Nationwide ad or opening titles/scene bumpers for a syndicated series, you get a lot of plays and earn zero. In the UK, I also get Mechanical/Synchronisation royalties - Epidemic don't pay them either - nor public performance.

The upfront fee's I get from the libraries I write for can go up to $1200k per track, before royalties. Even if Epidemic matched that, I'd be losing out on mech, broadcast, public perf, etc. I get to keep my tracks, but Epidemic wouldn't want me to be a PRO member, so I couldn't take them to boutiques or the AAA libraries anyway.

I'm struggling to see the benefit in Epidemic, writing the kind of music I and many others do.

Maybe others music would make more from Epidemic than in other places. I wouldn't say it's impossible. But if someone is eager to deprive or buy me out of my rights, there's usually a reason. That's why royalties are enshrined by law here and UK writers are banned from Epidemics roster.

My concern going forward is streaming being classed as broadcast (as it should), and if not that, the fee's will have to grow tenfold. Both shrinking is totally unsustainable.


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

SamC said:


> The upfront fee's I get from the libraries I write for can go up to $1200k per track


That's the other reason why PROs will eventually go away: why do composers even need royalties? Do the gig, get paid up front, and move on. There's an entire planet's worth of people who make a living that way, including most in the music biz, but because of the history of royalties in the music biz, composers don't.

For example, VFX/CG artists don't have a PRO and don't collect royalties. They do the same kid of job as composers: work with the director to help him realize his vision through their craft. They sign a contract, do the gig and get paid. Done. Next. It's a vastly more efficient model.

And outside the music biz the royalty model is exceedingly rare. Every royalty payment could go away and the world economy wouldn't notice. Almost nobody gets paid in royalties. But composers have to get paid via roylaties? I've never understood why.

The only argument I've ever seen for a "why" is "well, we've always done it that way." This thread is a great example - nobody is addressing the fact that most royalties get paid without PROs. Nor is anyone addressing the fact that royalties aren't even necessary.

People got paid in chickens and corn and whatever for most of human history. Should we have avoided currencies because barter was the existing system? Of course not. That's not justification to keep doing it.

When something better comes along, adopt it. Or get left behind.

The royalty model is complicated and inefficient, especially for composers. And economies do a good job of weeding out complexity and inefficiency. So consider that fact when considering the future of PROs and, more generally, royalties in music.

rgames


----------



## SamC (Aug 7, 2021)

rgames said:


> That's the other reason why PROs will eventually go away: why do composers even need royalties? Do the gig, get paid up front, and move on. There's an entire planet's worth of people who make a living that way, including most in the music biz, but because of the history of royalties in the music biz, composers don't.
> 
> For example, VFX/CG artists don't have a PRO and don't collect royalties. They do the same kid of job as composers: work with the director to help him realize his vision through their craft. They sign a contract, do the gig and get paid. Done. Next. It's a vastly more efficient model.
> 
> ...


Being a VFX artists is some of the most under-valued, border-line slave labour style work in this industry. It isn’t at all efficient. Open letters from the VFX/CG community have literally requested a royalty or “points” on films because of this.

What do you think would happen if you went to all these creatives who work on films and offered them a royalty for their work. Do you think they’d turn it down or do you think they’d say yes?

People have reiterated on this board that royalties can vanish, but upfront fees would have to grow. The reason royalties are more important now is because *both* clients and composers are relying on royalties to pick up the slack. I’m following the money…and *for now* the money is still in royalties. When it isn’t, I’ll adapt.

You’re asking me why I “even need royalties” — It’s tens of thousands of dollars a year that pays my bills and feeds my family.


----------



## Bighill (Aug 7, 2021)

rgames said:


> That's the other reason why PROs will eventually go away: why do composers even need royalties? Do the gig, get paid up front, and move on. There's an entire planet's worth of people who make a living that way, including most in the music biz, but because of the history of royalties in the music biz, composers don't.
> 
> For example, VFX/CG artists don't have a PRO and don't collect royalties. They do the same kid of job as composers: work with the director to help him realize his vision through their craft. They sign a contract, do the gig and get paid. Done. Next. It's a vastly more efficient model.
> 
> ...


Composers are envied by all other creative professions for our extremely efficient (comparatively, though,) way of getting money back to the actual makers of creative works. Working for a one time payment when the product is that is sold is partly your creation, and thereby being locked out of the potential success the product can have, simply does not work. It´s not an old fashioned model. Look at the software industry. The companies are moving to subscription models one after another. Why mr Games wants to return composers to feudalism is beyond me. I doubt his music has generated significant value. If it had, he would have understood the true value of performance rights 
organizations. Which, by the way, are gradually becoming extinct by breaking income records every year He is right about Pandemic music, though. They are not giving their music away for free, but they are not sharing the proceeds with their composers. (Exept for those curated spotify playlists.)


----------



## muk (Aug 7, 2021)

Doing away with royalties would be an immense mistake for composers. In a few fields, maybe you could make up for it with one-time payments aka upfront fees. Film and game composers, these fields could maybe work. In other fields, it would be a catastrophe. How would pop/rock bands get paid when their music is being played by radio stations around the world? Their songs being used in commercials by big brands? Or are you of the opinion that radio and tv stations should be able to use any music they want for free? Where do these bands get their upfronts from? Should they survive on cd sales and touring only?
Also, if there are no royalties, could bands cover any songs they want without asking for permission and paying anything?

Do away with royalties, and you did away with the concept of intellectual property. If that happens, the media will stop commissioning new music because they can simply use whatever music they want, for free. You can not treat music like physical property, because it isn't. If you build a house and sell it, only the buyer can use it. If you write music for one particular buyer, if there are no IP laws, the whole world can use it. And in that case it makes little sense for a buyer to buy something that then everybody else gets for free.

There are very good reasons why composers fought for royalties over a hundred years ago. Get rid of that law, and writing music would not be sustainable anymore in most fields. Basically, you are wishing for the laws of the time of Mozart and Beethoven. That didn't work for composers. At least not the ones without a potent patron or three.

Whether PRO's are the best means to collect royalties for composers, and whether they are doing a good job at distributing them justly, that's another discussion altogether.


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

muk said:


> Do away with royalties, and you did away with the concept of intellectual property.


That's not true - there's a lot of IP licensing, maybe even most, that does *not* involve royalties. IP is often licensed with a one-time, up-front license or an annual license or some other non-royalty approach.

There's IP in your DAW. Do you send a check to the developer every time you boot up the software? I doubt it - odds are you paid once for the license. I don't know any DAW developers that license their IP via a royalty model.

How about your OS? Do you send a check to Apple or Microsoft every time you turn on your computer? No. You pay the license fee up front and then go forth and do great work.

Ever seen artwork hanging on a wall? Did you insert a nickel into the wall after you took a look? No, the artist got paid to do the work and then... that was it. No royalties.

Therefore: no, IP is not inherently tied to royalties. That's a common belief in the world of composers but it's not backed by reality.

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

Also, I'm assuming people reading this thread are in the know but maybe not: at several points over the last several years there have been major networks that tested the non-royalty waters (I think Discovery was the most recent, I think Fox was going to do it for themes a while back).

I haven't seen any network make the switch but the conversations have definitely started, at least for US markets.

Networks are not *required* to pay for blanket licenses to ASCAP/BMI/etc. They're only required to do so if they use music from composers associated with those PROs. So.... just get the music elsewhere (or direct license for PROs that allow it) and you don't have to pay PRO royalties.

And if the non-PRO approach is faster, cheaper, less complicated, more fair, etc... then don't you think they'll all eventually go that way?

Seems to me that writing is on the wall.

rgames


----------



## Bighill (Aug 7, 2021)

rgames said:


> That's not true - there's a lot of IP licensing, maybe even most, that does *not* involve royalties. IP is often licensed with a one-time, up-front license or an annual license or some other non-royalty approach.
> 
> There's IP in your DAW. Do you send a check to the developer every time you boot up the software? I doubt it - odds are you paid once for the license. I don't know any DAW developers that license their IP via a royalty model.
> 
> ...


You don´t get royalties every time someone who has bought a copy of yor album a spin, either. Neither have anybody asked for it. You just got a bit of the sum the copy was sold for.


----------



## Bighill (Aug 7, 2021)

rgames said:


> Also, I'm assuming people reading this thread are in the know but maybe not: at several points over the last several years there have been major networks that tested the non-royalty waters (I think Discovery was the most recent, I think Fox was going to do it for themes a while back).
> 
> I haven't seen any network make the switch but the conversations have definitely started, at least for US markets.
> 
> ...


Yes, but Discovery had to pull back, at least for now. Of course non pro is faster, cheaper and less complicated for the bic companies. And extremely unfair to the composer. Let´s hope nobody are signing those shitty contacts.


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

Bighill said:


> And extremely unfair to the composer.


Why?

Take the example I gave above: engineers don't have a PRO. They do just fine licensing their IP. In fact, the average engineer who licenses IP makes a *lot* more money than the average composer.

If engineers can license IP and make a good living without a PRO, why can't composers?

rgames


----------



## Troels Folmann (Aug 7, 2021)

Imagine what would happen ... If all major sample devs prohibited licensing specifically for entities that were destructive to the business ...


----------



## South Thames (Aug 7, 2021)

> Why?
> 
> Take the example I gave above: engineers don't have a PRO. They do just fine licensing their IP. In fact, the average engineer who licenses IP makes a *lot* more money than the average composer.
> 
> ...



Licenses for IP will generally be granted and paid on the basis of how widely dispersed/used/sold the product/s employing that IP will be. That itself will require complex data collection and collation if the products are sold at any kind of volume. Of course it's not done by a PRO (and your overall framing of the comparison is kind of silly), but it is done and it is complicated, and it's not something the engineer could do his/herself.

PROs (or something of the sort) are necessary if there is to be a link between performance and payment for composers, because it is simply logistically not possible for composers to track and collate this information themselves, at least if they enjoy any amount of success.

It seems you are happy to relinquish this link though.

To take your engineer example, this is the equivalent of saying that the engineer's license payments should have no connection to how widely sold/used the products in which his/her IP is used is. I don't think many engineers would be up for it.


----------



## South Thames (Aug 7, 2021)

> The companies are moving to subscription models one after another. Why mr Games wants to return composers to feudalism is beyond me. I doubt his music has generated significant value. If it had, he would have understood the true value of performance rights



There was a very smug chap on the Discovery channel thread, seriously pleased with himself that he'd shunned the royalty model and was earning 'all he needed' from upfront money, and telling us we should all do the same. 'All he needed' turned out to be 40K euros a year, which he supplemented with two other businesses. I don't really think he had any idea.

Of course, those who feel undervalued by the PROs might find have some sympathy with the idea of killing them off. But for that to be practical the massed-ranks of professional composers and songwriters would have to be drawn away from PROs, and, generally speaking, people who are actually good at music benefit from PROs to one extent or another, so I don't see it happening. This was ultimately one of the things that stopped Discovery in its tracks -- it became clear that they weren't going to be successful in dislodging their quality writers from their PROs and/or the complications entailed in avoiding PRO-writers' music became apparent, so the assumptions on which they'd based their plan began to crumble.


----------



## SamC (Aug 7, 2021)

rgames said:


> Also, I'm assuming people reading this thread are in the know but maybe not: at several points over the last several years there have been major networks that tested the non-royalty waters (I think Discovery was the most recent, I think Fox was going to do it for themes a while back).
> 
> I haven't seen any network make the switch but the conversations have definitely started, at least for US markets.
> 
> ...


Since you brought it up, maybe people should check out the reaction to that.

The likes of John Powell, Hans Zimmer and Carter Burwell were even vocal about that discovery deal and made:









Your Music, Your Future: A Community of Composers and Creators


Your Music, Your Future is dedicated to educating composers and creators about their options when it comes to compensation. Sign up here: yourmusicyourfuture.com #yourmusicyourfuture



yourmusicyourfuture.com





It’s a good resource for younger composers to learn about IP, royalties and the value of their music.


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

South Thames said:


> I don't think many engineers would be up for it.


They are, and they do. Already covered - see the examples above.


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

"Why mr Games wants to return composers to feudalism is beyond me. I doubt his music has generated significant value."

That's the problem with these threads: they always turn the focus away from facts and devolve into statements that have no basis in reality.

At no point have I said that PROs or royalties *should* go away. I simply have given factual evidence that they *can*. And I certainly said nothing along the lines of "composers shold return to feudalism".

Read what's written, not what you wish was written, and stick to the facts so we can have a rational discussion.

"Other people think it's a good idea" or "That's the way we've always done it" are not rational arguments.

Other people thought the world was flat for a long time. Does that mean the world is flat?

rgames


----------



## rgames (Aug 7, 2021)

South Thames said:


> PROs (or something of the sort) are necessary if there is to be a link between performance and payment for composers, because it is simply logistically not possible for composers to track and collate this information themselves, at least if they enjoy any amount of success.


Not true - covered above.


----------



## asherpope (Aug 7, 2021)

Every single time PRO royalties are mentioned here rgames chimes in with his confusing stance about composers being naive and archaic for relying on performance royalties to survive. I'm guessing no one has actually been convinced to cancel their membership and forfeit any future royalties after reading his rants


----------



## Bighill (Aug 8, 2021)

rgames said:


> Not true - covered above.


Not really covered, is it?


----------



## SamC (Aug 8, 2021)

rgames said:


> Not true - covered above.


But that’s the thing, it’s not covered.

It’s an interesting topic to discuss, but all you ever say is “Engineers don’t have PRO’s.” Okay:

- How do engineers collect royalties on their IP?

- How can it be implemented by every composer and songwriter?

- How practical would it be to make a switch from PRO’s to this system?

- In terms of numbers, would we be better off financially? By how much? (Is it worth such a monumental switch?).

- Do you know for sure that all of our clients are happy to scrap the PRO model?

- Is it possible that creative IP needs something else altogether?

- What would it actually take to bring about this change to an engineer-type royalty model? Would you not need the entire global community of composers, songwriters, publishers, producers and music supervisors etc to agree?

You keep drawing comparisons between PRO’s/royalties to ‘using corn as currency’ or ‘believing the Earth is flat.’ With respect, it’s hard to take your stance seriously with such glib and hyperbolic statements.

You keep suggesting the only reason composers hold onto the royalty model is through some shallow stubbornness or ignorance. If you want to talk reality, then this just isn’t it. It’s insulting to boot. For example, you claim the only argument you hear for “why” is “it’s always been done this way.” But all I can glean from your argument is “this other profession has always been done this other way.” If you aren’t paying your mortgage with royalties, I can see why you’d think that though.

It would be interesting to be convinced, but I’m not. I just don’t see where the money is in your position. For me, No PRO and Epidemic-type models make no financial sense. If it does for you, great. Quit your PRO, relinquish your royalties and direct license your music somewhere or negotiate buy outs for scores.

Sorry, I generally have a hard time following you as you seem to bounce between “we should be collecting royalties in a more effective way,” to “we don’t even need royalties.”


----------



## Henu (Aug 8, 2021)

There's also the fact that with the current oversaturation of the market, the upfront fee is peanuts compared to what it could had been 20 years earlier. Being a part of a PRO compensates this to an extent as well.


----------



## Bighill (Aug 8, 2021)

rgames said:


> "Why mr Games wants to return composers to feudalism is beyond me. I doubt his music has generated significant value."
> 
> That's the problem with these threads: they always turn the focus away from facts and devolve into statements that have no basis in reality.
> 
> ...


I have carefully read what you have written, for instance this:

_"That's the other reason why PROs will eventually go away: why do composers even need royalties? Do the gig, get paid up front, and move on. There's an entire planet's worth of people who make a living that way, including most in the music biz, but because of the history of royalties in the music biz, composers don't.

For example, VFX/CG artists don't have a PRO and don't collect royalties. They do the same kid of job as composers: work with the director to help him realize his vision through their craft. They sign a contract, do the gig and get paid. Done. Next. It's a vastly more efficient model.

And outside the music biz the royalty model is exceedingly rare. Every royalty payment could go away and the world economy wouldn't notice. Almost nobody gets paid in royalties. But composers have to get paid via roylaties? I've never understood why."_

What I read from the statements above is that you are advocating for a return to a one time payment for the "job", and no further part taking in the success of a project. "Because the rest of the world works that way" This is the really old fashioned thinking. It´s also lazy, and short sighted.


----------



## South Thames (Aug 8, 2021)

rgames said:


> They are, and they do. Already covered - see the examples above.


Uh, no you haven’t. Your engineer example is flawed, ill considered and silly for reasons I’ve explained and you’ve ignored - do better.


----------



## muk (Aug 8, 2021)

@rgames If there are no royalties, how do composers/bands/performers get paid when their music is aired on radio/tv? Not at all? Is that what you suggest? I am still of the opinion that your idea is very narrowly focused on film and game composers, where your idea might work. In countless other fields it certainly won't, and you seem to patently ignore that.

Royalties are paid when music is being used commercially. You seem to advocate that music should be free for commercial use, and that composers only get paid for commissions. Again, that may work in the field of film music. In almost all other realms of music it doesn't. 

And again, that's exactly the rules that existed in the times of Mozart and Beethoven. They were paid for commissions, and else made no money at all from their music. In these times there was no way to survive on the income of your music. You had to have a) wealthy patrons, b) earn your money by giving lessons c) have a well paid position at a royal court. Basically you had to have circumstances that allowed you to write music. There was no way to earn a normal living income simply by writing music. I fail to understand how you can realistically want to go back to that model.


----------



## tsk (Aug 8, 2021)

Guys, please, in case you haven't read posts over the years from rgames, save yourself the trouble and just ignore him. I figured out he was a troll some time ago and blocked his posts so I don't see them coming up.

I feel sad for those of you e.g. SamC that are posting such thoughtful debate points. You are wasting your time.

You know what - maybe rgames's plan is to bog you all down so much in internet wars that you don't write as much music?

Or maybe he just read an Ayn Rand novel for the first time and decided to try out some logical fallacies on us (his favorite seems to be the "false equivalence").

Anyway, let's all save ourselves the trouble and get back to writing music.


----------



## Bighill (Aug 9, 2021)

tsk said:


> Guys, please, in case you haven't read posts over the years from rgames, save yourself the trouble and just ignore him. I figured out he was a troll some time ago and blocked his posts so I don't see them coming up.
> 
> I feel sad for those of you e.g. SamC that are posting such thoughtful debate points. You are wasting your time.
> 
> ...


I guess you´re right


----------



## SamC (Aug 9, 2021)

tsk said:


> Guys, please, in case you haven't read posts over the years from rgames, save yourself the trouble and just ignore him. I figured out he was a troll some time ago and blocked his posts so I don't see them coming up.
> 
> I feel sad for those of you e.g. SamC that are posting such thoughtful debate points. You are wasting your time.
> 
> ...


Maybe you’re right. Unfortunately, this side hustle culture we have now gives rise to Epidemic-like models that prey on people like rgames. I figure he’s just frustrated his music isn’t bringing him the income he thinks it should - we’ve all been there at some point. I still believe industry-wide Epidemic-type models will just ensure hobbyists remain hobbyists forever. The current paradigm is probably not what’s holding him back.

I think what Daryl said earlier in this thread is important. It’s to be mindful of who you listen to in this industry - Especially as there seems to be so much more noise now. Everything should be taken with a pinch of salt, but when I started, I would personally pay less mind to people who had a day job selling insurance and spent all their free time comparing string libraries and acoustic panelling. There’s nothing wrong with it, but they’re just not the best repository for hands-on industry and business advice.

A good rule of thumb is ‘insecurities are loud, confidence is silent.’ The most helpful people in this industry are usually the quiet ones. The companies who shout from the rooftops about how many composers they have on their roster, how much money they pull in every year, how glamorous it is to have your music on tv, blah blah blah usually have an agenda. Epidemic spends an awful lot of money advertising; not to clients, but to composers. Go figure!

Agreed, back to writing music 

p.s. I’m just another guy giving advice. Please take with lots of salt.


----------

