Archive by Author

Sticking with Plan A

6 Feb

A thoughtful post about being an artist.

Melissa Giges

The other day I was hanging out with a friend of mine and a few of her friends that I had not met before.  They were lovely.  We got to know each other a little bit. After they learned that I was a musician, we started talking about having a career in the arts. One of the guys in the group told me he was in a band many years ago and that he had been pursuing music full time.  But after several years, he realized it wasn’t going in the direction he had hoped for so he decided to stop making music and went to law school to become a lawyer.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard a story like this. My reaction is always the same.  At first, I think about if I would ever be able to do that. Immediately, I remind myself that…

View original post 635 more words

Advertisements

Compilation Producers vs. Spotify, Round One

29 Sep

Chris has a guest post in Billboard about the Ministry of Sound lawsuit:

Dance music label Ministry of Sound has reportedly sued Spotify in the United Kingdom over playlists of MoS’ well-known compilation albums — even though MoS doesn’t license to Spotify. How can you tell it’s an MoS compilation? Because Spotify’s playlists say so.

And therein lies the rub.

Read the post here!

A Guide to Music Performance Royalties, Part 2

12 Sep

Music Technology Policy

[Editor Charlie sez:  This continues from Part 1]

We saw in Part 1 that a sound recording is comprised of two separate and distinct copyrights: The copyright in the song (“©”) and the copyright in the recording of the song (“℗”).   We also saw that the two fundamental divisions of each of these separate copyrights are (1) who owns (or controls) the copyright, and (2) who gets paid, or who has a “financial interest” in the copyright (sometimes the same person).   We will be focusing mostly on the song copyright in this Part 2, continuing to address primarily the basis for public performance royalties and the mechanical royalties that currently form the basis for the “streaming mechanical” payable for on-demand streaming services in addition to the public performance royalty.  We will return to the public performance royalty for sound recordings in Part 3.

Payment Streams–Pre Digital

Because we are…

View original post 1,629 more words

Five Things Congress Could Do for Music Creators That Wouldn’t Cost the Taxpayer a Dime Part 3: Create an Audit Right for Songwriters

3 Sep

Music Technology Policy

[This post originally appeared in the Huffington Post]

Once a song is distributed to the public with the permission of the owner of the copyright in the song, the U.S. Copyright Act requires songwriters to license songs for reproduction and distribution under a “compulsory license.” This license is typically called a “mechanical license” because it only covers the “mechanical reproduction” of the song and does not, for example, include the right to use the song in a YouTube video or a motion picture, create a mashup or reprint the lyrics of the song.

When the Congress first developed the compulsory mechanical license in 1909, the concern was that “the right to make mechanical reproductions of musical works might become a monopoly controlled by a single company.” This monopoly never came to pass, and given the fragmentation in music licensing in the current environment, is unlikely to ever come about.

View original post 1,115 more words

Artist Only Poll: Does online music discovery drive your fans to your shows?

12 Jul

Poll: Pandora Takes Money it Makes from Music and Lobbies Congress to Pay Artists Less

3 Jul

Music Technology Policy

A new poll from Damn the Science!

Copyright 2013 Semaphore Music LLC

View original post

Artist income poll

20 Jun

Music Technology Policy

We’re partnering with @DamntheScience for something new for MTP–polling. We’d like to get some idea of what you think about a variety of music-related subjects.

square-root3_bigger

@damnthescience

View original post