fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I almost invaded another thread to write this, but figured that would be rude and intrusive. I use youtube regularly, and post links from it just as regularly. The problem is that I am torn because youtube is iffy at best re paying royalties to composers and musicians. The musicians are often co-conspirators in this, opting to get paid in exposure rather than $. I have a friend whose dad was composer of world-renowned songs such as Try a Little Tenderness and I'm Looking Over a Four-Leaf Clover. This fellow used to earn a healthy salary from commissions on his father's songs. Now, with all the Internet theft (and I do believe it is theft) he is near-destitute, putting his home up for sale. I wonder what people think about this matter, and whether they would be willing to pay a small monthly fee to youtube to subsidize royalty payments. If I am wrong, and youtube does in fact pay royalties, someone please straighten me out. It is my understanding that outside of licensing agreements for use of films they don't pay.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 To make it clear, I mainly refer to live performances either musicians post themselves or someone else does. When they play standards, etc., I'm pretty sure the composers get screwed... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 When you play a gig, does somebody keep a tab of what tunes are played and then send money to the publishers? Or does the venue do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 4 hours ago, JSngry said: When you play a gig, does somebody keep a tab of what tunes are played and then send money to the publishers? Or does the venue do that? Actually, in Europe they do. We're backwards in many ways. Some friends of mine lost a long term gig, because ASCAP came around and wanted to collect from plays on their piped-in music. The owners got really nervous and got rid of the live music. To be honest, I felt for them too. Overhead in a restaurant can be high, and practically nobody has live music anymore anyway. Those who do are heroic to me. This issue is complicated and Janus-faced... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I think a venue can just pay a blanket fee for a license to play any damn thing. But maybe not. I don't really play those type places anymore. either way, though, if somebody has a complaint against YouTube and wants to have a performance pulled, that mechanism exists and is enforced. Of course, that's a process, and it puts the onus of highest-level proactivity on the complainant, and allows youtube to be lowest-level reactive in their enforcement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 4 hours ago, JSngry said: I think a venue can just pay a blanket fee for a license to play any damn thing. But maybe not.... I don't believe most joints pay any such fee, actually... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 Then is it ethical for you to play other people's songs on your gigs there? Just saying, yes, it is complicated, and riddled with unsolvable contradictions. So I just say, everybody do your best, give more than you take, and definitely leave it better than how you found it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Bresnahan Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 2 hours ago, JSngry said: if somebody has a complaint against YouTube and wants to have a performance pulled, that mechanism exists and is enforced. Of course, that's a process, and it puts the onus of highest-level proactivity on the complainant, and allows youtube to be lowest-level reactive in their enforcement. I highly doubt that the guy fasstrack is talking about wants any of his father's compositions pulled from youtube. He wants to get paid when they're played is all. In fact, if he was getting paid when they're played, the last thing he'd want is to have them pulled, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I think youtube has some really arcane, piss-poor micro-royaly plan in place, but...maybe not? Maybe it's just one of those "fund" things where micropennies get paid to a generic publisher fund who then "distributes" them. Either way, if the objection is at not getting paid for being played, then the options are two-fold - either get the paying or stop the playing. Either way involves attorneys and YouTube, pretty sure about that much. Now, why is it like this? Because everybody looks for the lowest price, always, for every damn thing. And free is about as lowest as it gets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I'm an ASCAP member. There's a tune I co-wrote with a guy that's up there. I admit I posted it myself. Just for fun I called ASCAP and asked how many hits on there would it take before we earned something. With a straight face the guy told me 250,000, and then it would earn us like 7 cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 5 hours ago, JSngry said: Either way, if the objection is at not getting paid for being played, then the options are two-fold - either get the paying or stop the playing.... At the risk of repeating myself, a lot of exposure-hungry musicians are their own worst enemies by posting such a glut of their own tunes, etc. It sets a bad precedent for everyone, especially listeners who believe they are entitled to get everything free---and, much worse, it really hurts the pocketbooks of composers and their heirs... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted August 18, 2016 Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 I think you gotta look at this stuff as potential leverage towards something that actually pays. Now, whether or not there really are such things is another matter... If you think about it, though, how much music - from all time - exists that if nobody knew it existed, they'd have to discover it just out of the sheer physics of inevitability? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 4 hours ago, JSngry said: I think you gotta look at this stuff as potential leverage towards something that actually pays. I guess that's how they think about it. I understand that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fasstrack Posted August 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted August 18, 2016 To be more positive, I can share one very guilt-free use of youtube: I have a job interview shortly with the C.E.O. of a non-profit that gets at-risk teens involved in learning music and sports. I wanted to find out more about the guy and his organization so I would be prepared. Sure enough, there were interviews with him on youtube. FWIW, I'm glad I watched. He seems dynamic and a visionary, and even if I don't get the gig I would like to know him... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.