"Reggie Smithers" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
news
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
RCE wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..
What the music industry needs is a copyright pricing structure
that fairly compensates the actual producers of music AND doesn't
rip off consumers of that product...and they don't have it yet.
One of the reasons midi sequencers like myself stopped sharing some
files on the 'net is because of the threat of lawsuits. Actually,
not threats, but real litigation in some cases that shut down most
sites that featured midi files. Midi files are not music
recordings like mp3s or .wav files. They are a series of
instructions to a sound board, card or instrument that can receive
midi instructions. The sound card or instrument then plays the
sequence using it's own, on board voices.

Royalty collectors like ASCAP and BMI quickly (and perhaps
correctly, depending on your personal feelings on the subject)
started to threaten web site owners that had midi files of popular
music considered to be subject to copyright protection. Even
though it was not technically a recording or performance by a
musician, the fact that someone sequenced a series of instructions
for a midi compatible instrument to reproduce, they claimed
copyright infringement. Original, copyright free compositions are
encouraged of course and often stolen as a basis for new music by
songwriters in the industry.

RCE



Sheesh.

Well, most of the music I like was written by guys who have been
dead for more than 100 years, so I assume any MIDI sequencers who
code it are beyond the reach of the ASCAP liars, er, lawyers.

My understanding, based on really limited info, is that iTunes forks
over 70 cents of each 99 cents collected, to the "owner" of the
tune. That's waaaaay too high. A dime is more like it, with a nickel
on top of that for administration, and a nickel on top of that for
Apple's profit...twenty to twenty-five cents a tune is sufficient.

What a silly thing to say. How do you know what's "way too high"?
Based on what?
IF a CD has 12 tunes on it, and the royalty is 70 cents a tune, that's
what, $8.40 in royalties for a CD download? Any bets that on a CD
selling for $12.00 at a store, the artist is getting 75% of that? If
the typical hardcover novel is selling for $25 these days, how much of
that do you think the typical author receives? And I know it costs
more to physically produce a book than a CD, but even so, a typical
author's deal might work out to a buck or two a book, maybe a bit more
for a proven best-seller type author, and even more for a major
leaguer. But nothing approaching 70% of gross selling price.



I have absolutely no idea about any of these numbers, and how they
filter down to the artists (writer, performer, band members, etc).
Neither do you. So, I choose not to engage in any conjecture.

Apple states it forks over 70 cents of the 99 cents collected to the
"owner" of the tune.

Yes, but who really is the owner? The song writer? The publishing company
who represents the song writer? The artist who performs it? What cut does
the band get, if any? What about the agent?
The owner is normally the record label (though there are exceptions for
very popular performers, such as Ray Charles), and the artist, the band
and the song writer all have agreements as to their cut.

Right. We can only guess. And, it would vary widely depending on the band's
"culture". I suspect the Grateful Dead's arrangement was problem different
from other bands. The bulk of their income came from concerts. In
interviews, they said that albums were made largely to satisfy contractual
obligations with the record company.