House of Drumming.com

YamahaPlayer wrote:The library, radio and TV. All forms of media contain massive amounts of free music. There's internet radio as well, ever heard of Pandora?

Having Pandora in my truck is any different then my iPod how?

Oh and all music becomes public domain after a period of time. That period of time is a completely arbitrary time frame, and the laws of which were written a very long time ago.


And really, how greedy. All the fuss about royalties, and how many are upset about music programs being cut in public schools? Which do you think will effect the future of music more?

Ok, let's focus for a bit.

1. Music on television, radio, etc. all fall under licensing with ASCAP/BMI.
2. Organizations/businesses pay ASCAP/BMI for the right to play said music.
3. ASCAP/BMI distributes the royalties to the copyright holder.
4. The artist is paid for his work.
5. While it's free for you to listen on these mediums, it's legally paid for by the organizations that use the recorded music.


Re: Pandora

Yes, I'm a happily paying customer.

1. You don't own the music that plays from Pandora.
2. Pandora pays licensing fees to ASCAP/BMI/Soundexchange in order to play those songs online.
3. ASCAP/BMI/Soundexchange pays the royalties to the artists.
4. see #5 above.
5. It's very different from music you load in your iPod.


Public domain was set up with the intention of the owner getting a chance during their lifetime to be paid for the work(s). It's hardly arbitrary.


Greedy? Can you send each of us on the forum 5 cents of your paycheck? What, are you greedy?


The music programs in schools is not even related to what we're talking about. But it's due to Federal/State budgets, not stealing music. AFAIK anyway.

YamahaPlayer wrote:But I make money off the music.

Post some links to the music that you offer to the world completely free. I can't wait to completely ignore it.

YamahaPlayer wrote:

deseipel wrote:The BMI/ASCAP fees aren't a joke, I've run into many owners who tried not paying them (the fees vary on club capacity). The owners are required to pay those fees. It's all part of the law. They are large companies that can sue the pants off of small clubs.

Yes, no doubt, but I don't pay those fees. Nor am I responsible for them being paid.


But I make money off the music.


How's that any different?

We're just talking about listening to the music, and here it is perfectly fine for all of us to profit from others music. Seems a little odd. Doesn't Jazz Standards count as well, who's not playing those at a gig?

You getting paid to perform at a bar/club is not stealing money that would've gone to the artist directly. That's how it's different. ASCAP collects fees from business owners directly and not cover bands because it's easier and makes more business sense. ASCAP pays the copyright owner instead of you paying the artist directly (which is apparently what you're suggesting?).

In summary:
1. cover bands get paid by the owner to perform at a club
2. club owner pays a yearly fee to ASCAP/BMI
3. The fee for live performance is distributed to the copyright owner.
4. The cp owner is paid for your perfomance at the club.



btw, I never use this as much as other people, but

DSOP wrote:

Post some links to the music that you offer to the world completely free. I can't wait to completely ignore it.

I can't wait either!

YamahaPlayer: it appears that your opinions are written in stone in your mind, but they are based on very limited actual facts/knowledge. I would ease up on the gas sir and open yourself up to the concept that you don't know everything there is to know about this topic.

Yamaha Player..

Radio isn't free..... You get to listen to music at the cost of hearing adds payed for by businesses.
That money is used to run the radio station of which each song that is played on the radio has to be payed for for each play..

In Canada Socan is the royalty company that distributes royalties and a few of the Bars I play pay Socan a fee to have cover bands...

As far a Dj's go nowdays most of them make a living off of downloaded music.. but before the net they had to own physical albums..
And they are technically breaking the law by using copied mp3's ect in a public place.. Just like airing a UFC in bar that isn't a legit licensed broadcast..
Just cause you can go there and listen to music for free somewhere doesn't mean that someone else isn't breaking the law..

There was always pirating previous to the Internet.. But not even close to this scale...
Someone had to own an album for you to copy it.. and even if you did get an album off a friend who had it on tape from a record..after a couple generations it sounded like crap..

With the internet, one person can buy and album,, and millions can download it for free. Millions...

15 years ago Alanis Morrisettes album sold 27 million copies..
Now a best selling artist sells 3 or 4 million at best..

The insane amounts of money the label made off of artists like Alanis was spent to develop new bands, bands would get large advances, and multi album deals..
Paid for by aprox 3% of the successful acts that were profitable for the labels...

Now, due to the stealing of music... What little breadcrumbs were out there to support artists are gone...
And the music we get now is predominately formulated shit...
Check out the movie "Before the music Dies"... Great story of how an A&R guy who loved a Blues artist,, wanted to make him the next Clapton,, couldn't because the label cut back on everything but garbage crap music...

Can you honestly tell me the quality of mainstream music is better than before?

The internet is a great tool for communication and getting info on new bands ect, great promotional tool..
But realistically there's no way to make enough money to survive just using the internet..

For a band that has 4 members to make 25 grand a year..
They need to sell 273 $1 itune songs per day or 27 albums at $10 a day.. Minus the cost to make the albums..

Good luck with that... without some serious promotional backing...

The only way to really fix this problem, and I hope they do it.. is to estimate a normal usage of bandwidth for an average person, who checks out youtube, forums ect.. and have a rate for that.. say 10 gigs a month... If you go over... you internet bill is 300 bucks.. cause unless you own a business, you're downloading something most likely illegal...and the isps's can figure out what you are doing anyway..

Then the isp's will have to pay out to royalty companies.. Because they're ultimately are the ones profiting from the pillaging of music and movies and software..

Oh,, ya for every Ipod sold, Apple Zune or whomever else makes mp3/mediaplayers needs to pay $20 a week every week for a year and a half / the life of an average unit..
Cause that's what it's costing the recording/movie industry....
I can't believe the mass production of a product who's sole purpose is to store 1000's of songs/movies without having to have the original media was allowed..
I can't believe that you can legally buy software that allows you to rip a movie/song whatever and copy it...

Forget Carbon Taxes,,, there needs to be Data transfer taxes...

Alas.. It will never happen....

chris perra wrote:Check out the movie "Before the music Dies"... Great story of how an A&R guy who loved a Blues artist,, wanted to make him the next Clapton,, couldn't because the label cut back on everything but garbage crap music...

Yes....that's a BRILLIANT documentary! >>>

What I see are a bunch of guys wanting things to be a certain way that they think it was in the past. Do you think that distribution of recorded music was always an effortless proposition?

If you go into music trying make a living you are facing a tough road, and it has always been that way. Music is for rich kids. It is a possibility that because of the internet, more people are selling music than before, and that because this is so, there is the same money going around for more musicians.

There are more things to be considered than greed.

YamahaPlayer has some good points. say you shut down the internet, then what? Go back to when people were still not making any money at music? Jeezis.

And DSOP you are a dick, you want to physically attack someone over this, that was a pretty provocative post. Do you make your living through music? I don't think you do, Trio of Stridence...I guess you're a pretty hard guy to be in a band with if you're threatening people all the time.

Internet tough guy...

The only way to really fix this problem, and I hope they do it.. is to estimate a normal usage of bandwidth for an average person, who checks out youtube, forums ect.. and have a rate for that.. say 10 gigs a month... If you go over... you internet bill is 300 bucks.. cause unless you own a business, you're downloading something most likely illegal...and the isps's can figure out what you are doing anyway..

that is WAY to much to police. i pay plenty for internet connection. no company is going to throttle my connection or have me pay EXTRA! i have an ipod touch, two iphones (one is the wifes), ipad and a laptop. i could be downloading something on the computer or just mindless surfing all while the wife is on the internet via my wifi connection on the ipad and the kids are on their ipods surfing also. so there is broadband being used here. not lots but enough to maybe warrant my internet connection to be throttled cause i'm download to much. hell to the no. ISP's can see every little spec of the internet you view. there are tons of customers to police and to have someone go through this data via filters is just crazy. do you want the government to take control of ISP's. it's just a matter of time really. lobbyists are paying obama as we speak for this to transpire.

the industry has changed. deal. move on. if you want to change it all the power to ya. if you can't change the world change yourself.

DSOP is insane. WTF

langmick wrote:If you go into music trying make a living you are facing a tough road, and it has always been that way. Music is for rich kids. It is a possibility that because of the internet, more people are selling music than before, and that because this is so, there is the same money going around for more musicians.

Sorry but that's a pretty bold statement to make. You can say what you want about record labels, the state of the industry, the change of business model, etc, but music is NOT for rich kids. My family is a pretty big one, not poor but certainly not rich by any means. And music has been around for generations as a simple hobby. Be it singing in a choir, playing guitar, piano, flute or whatever. Only two of us (my uncle and I) are pro and let me tell you the only thing you need is a certain ammount of talent, will, dedication, and balls of steel to do whatever it takes and move to another place if necessary.
You can pretty much tell the rich kids who play emo crap on expensive ass guitar rigs with no personality from the people who actually worked their asses off to make a tough living from music. No one can buy becoming a respected musician. Absolutely no one.