JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum Apple Proposes Simplified Statutory Licensing

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...es-simplified-statutory-licensing-scheme

This is beneficial to only Apple. This is a horrendous proposal for artists, writers, and publishers. Here's Why:

One thing very few people here seem to understand is the actual math involved. I can explain how the math would work out. So here we go:

A stream is worth anywhere from about $0.00071 (on the low end free accounts) to about $0.0126 (on the upper end paid premium accounts, it can be even higher on hi-def tiers) - on average for the complete stream. Some paid accounts pay more. Out of that amount, roughly 70% goes to the entity that owns the master rights of the recording and roughly 30% gets divided up between writers, publishers, mechanicals and performers.

On the low end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.01 per 100 streams. Obviously it would be a hell of a lot better if it was the $0.091 Apple currently proposes - and a freemium tier remained. But at 9x that, I can't imagine a freemium tier could remain, unless they did way more advertising in the playlists.

On the high end of a stream - the current rate would pay about $0.188 per 100 streams. Obviously the $0.091 Apple Currently proposes would be horrendously bad. Artists (writers/publishers) et al would be getting roughly slightly less than half as much as they currently do from streaming, which technically isn't all that much as it is. But to reduce this to half as much is highway robbery.

This all comes down to Apple making an attempt to get rid of free tiers on other services and lining their own pockets at the same time. However, if this proposal were accepted, this would ruin how much artists would make from Premium tiers. Which is currently more than the proposed rate Apple is suggesting, by 2x as much.

Thus this proposal benefits one entity - Apple. It will not benefit artists in any way if it gets everyone to go to Premium accounts and then the rate ends up going down to $0.091 for 100 streams (that's a whole lot of bad)!!

Personally, I hope the CRB does not implement this concept. Its a terrible idea. Not to mention, streaming services currently enjoy a discounted royalty rate as it is. What the CRB really needs to do is to do away with the discounted streaming royalty rate.

Everything on the public domain seems to be geared towards promotion. If some poor sap bought any of my recordings from I tunes, I already figure I might be lucky to see 3 cents on that dollar.

But that is probably how it should not be both morally and ethically.

I saw a topic on here to where there is a charge for streaming a song and the artist gets paid. I hav'nt been able to bring myself yet to try that.
I am thinking of these self publishing alt musicians I knew from my youth that just perform on whatever the hell they have and pass out cd's.
Because these major market cats are not going to look at the bottom line of the originator.

Apple and others like them represent a "slippery slope" and eventually, they will collapse from within. Money is their only "driver" and music is only a commodity to them.

Apple want a lot of money for what they are good at. If only that would apply for music creators as well. Fair compensation is thE problem now.

This is all fine and dandy, but it won't amount to much for the vast majority of songwriters until it's a penny a stream, which doesn't seem likely, but if that were teh rate, it would give streamers more incentive to pay the buck for a download to own it, so they don't have to pay to listen to it all the time. I had 10,000 spins in some latin country, and I got about 2 bucks or so a couple of years later. Even radio doesn't pay a lot, unless you are a megahit songwriter.

You are correct. It's all evil empire stuff and the truth is Apple (or someone similar) will likely bribe their way to first this then worse (if it even matters at that point)

Here is my solution, if the world was fair: END ALL statutory uses of music. Require one at a time license deals then let the free market work BOTH directions. Sure, it can't stop piracy, but Apple and their ilk are the worst pirates! Let creators negotiate their own deals, it is the only truly free market solution (which the right should support) and FREEDOM/non forced slavery solution which the left should ALSO support. If people want to give stuff away, go for it. If you want to only sell direct and not allow ANY "service" or entity other than you to make your music available, that should be your right. It is the ONLY truly fair to all solution.

Whatever happened to this Jody?

Haven't heard a thing - it might be tied to the consent decrees.

The people using music to make money should not be involved with forcing a government enforced rate that helps them and screws musicians. That is corruption of the most brazen kind. It's like me going to congress and forcing my local restaurant to not charge me more than a few pennies for a family meal and having the government force them to do it for that price at the end of a gun.