Epidemic Sound and P.R.O licenses

[rgames]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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

 

[South Thames]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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

 

[rgames]

"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]

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]

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]

Not true - covered above.

Not really covered, is it?

 

[SamC]

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]

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.