Ruling raises songwriter royalties from Spotify, Apple Music by 44%

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 29 Jan 2018

Anyone here have their stuff up on Spotify and/or iTunes? I do, and I'm wondering how this will affect things:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01 ... sic-by-44/
The new ruling will also make it easier for them to get paid quickly.

The mechanical royalty rates from streaming—royalties paid out to songwriters and publishers, as distinct from those paid out to performers—will increase by nearly 44 percent over the next five years. This comes as a result of a ruling from the United States Copyright Royalty Board after hearings that were held from March through June of last year.

Currently, 10.5 percent of streaming services' monthly gross revenue is assigned to be paid to songwriters and publishers; the payouts are determined by the number of streams in that period. That will rise each year until it reaches 15.1 percent in 2022. This year, the rate will be 11.4 percent; it will be 13.3 percent in 2020, and so on.

Songwriters and publishers have long claimed they've gotten the short end of the stick with regard to streaming music royalties. One songwriter, Nashville-based Kevin Kadish, claimed in 2015 that he received only $5,679 from 178 million Pandora streams. In 2016, the National Music Publishers' Association settled a deal with Spotify to help music publishers and songwriters claim royalties, as the messiness of the current system has led to lawsuits and other negative outcomes.

The National Music Publishers' Association was also involved in the fight for this ruling, alongside the Association of Independent Music Publishers. Variety reports that writers were looking for a per-stream rate but did not achieve that goal. However, higher rates are still seen as a victory. That's partly because of the significant rate increase, but also because the ruling further simplifies and streamlines the terms by which the rates are paid out.

Writers will now receive royalties calculated from the new percentage on whichever is higher—the revenue or the total content costs. This ruling also removes previously existent caps on what publishers and songwriters could receive, and it applies a late fee to streaming services that don't make payments in a timely manner.

The decades-long process of transitioning digital music from a law-bucking disruption to a stable business in which all actors are compensated fairly and in a timely manner has been slow. But this is not the end of the story, either; the US Congress is reviewing a new bill called the Music Modernization Act. The act would base mechanical royalties around rates in an open market, change the rules of court cases regarding royalty rates, and form a collective for managing all of the above.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 29 Jan 2018

Well... 44% of a fraction of a cent added to a fraction of a cent is still a fraction of a cent... So not a huge improvement at all, but progress I guess? I think you mentioned iTunes by mistake and meant Apple Music. With iTunes you keep the majority of the profit.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 29 Jan 2018

Yeah, Apple Music. With iTunes, you keep 70%.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
Kalm
Posts: 221
Joined: 03 Jun 2016
Location: Austin

Post 30 Jan 2018

Had a friend just talking about this. Well, I don't work with many hands so I'll be fine for now.
Courtesy of The Brew | Mac Mini Intel i7 Quad-Core | 8 GB RAM | Apple 1 TB & Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB | Reason 10 | Studio One 3 Professional | Ozone 7 | Pro Tools 12 | Adobe CC | Presonus FireStudio Project | M-Audio Axiom | And many plugs

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 980
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

Post 31 Jan 2018

EnochLight wrote:
29 Jan 2018
One songwriter, Nashville-based Kevin Kadish, claimed in 2015 that he received only $5,679 from 178 million Pandora streams.
So Kevin would now get $8173.

Seems fair. :puf_bigsmile:

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 31 Jan 2018

stratatonic wrote:
31 Jan 2018
EnochLight wrote:
29 Jan 2018
One songwriter, Nashville-based Kevin Kadish, claimed in 2015 that he received only $5,679 from 178 million Pandora streams.
So Kevin would now get $8173.

Seems fair. :puf_bigsmile:
That’s about $8025 more than I get for my streaming royalties currently! :lol:
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 925
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 21 Dec 2018

Mikssa wrote:
21 Dec 2018
Thanks for your nice sharing. My trouble about Spotify and Apple music is about how to play these audio on any devices without limitation. We know all Spotify free users can play online, no right to download and play offline on any devices freely. Now there are so many Spotify music converter on the Internet can help us remove DRM protection and [spam link removed] convert Spotify to MP3, AAC, M4A, M4B, WAV, FLAC, etc at 30x speed with lossless quality.
it sounds like your “problem” is that you want to listen to whatever you want whenever you want without paying for it. that’s called stealing, and it’s illegal.

seriously, it’s $10 a month, and you can download as much as your device can hold to listen offline. ad-free. don’t be cheap. 🙄

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 22 Dec 2018

guitfnky wrote:
21 Dec 2018
it sounds like your “problem” is that you want to listen to whatever you want whenever you want without paying for it. that’s called stealing, and it’s illegal.
That's not(!) stealing but under-licensing. If you steal something, the former owner does not have it any longer. That's not the case when creating another copy of the same bits that just got sent to your universal copy and computation machine. Thus the whole concept of "intellectual" or "immaterial property" is fundamentally flawed (esp. in the digital age).
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
guitfnky
Posts: 925
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

Post 22 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
22 Dec 2018
guitfnky wrote:
21 Dec 2018
it sounds like your “problem” is that you want to listen to whatever you want whenever you want without paying for it. that’s called stealing, and it’s illegal.
That's not(!) stealing but under-licensing. If you steal something, the former owner does not have it any longer. That's not the case when creating another copy of the same bits that just got sent to your universal copy and computation machine. Thus the whole concept of "intellectual" or "immaterial property" is fundamentally flawed (esp. in the digital age).
fair point, but I guess I was making more of a semantic argument than a strictly legal one. either way, it’s a shady thing to do.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 22 Dec 2018

guitfnky wrote:
22 Dec 2018
fair point, but I guess I was making more of a semantic argument than a strictly legal one. either way, it’s a shady thing to do.
Yep, I'm in the camp of "If you like the work of somebody, give them a) credit, b) exposure and c) some kind of resources (eg. money) so they can keep doing whatever you're liking."
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 23 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
22 Dec 2018
guitfnky wrote:
21 Dec 2018
it sounds like your “problem” is that you want to listen to whatever you want whenever you want without paying for it. that’s called stealing, and it’s illegal.
That's not(!) stealing but under-licensing. If you steal something, the former owner does not have it any longer. That's not the case when creating another copy of the same bits that just got sent to your universal copy and computation machine. Thus the whole concept of "intellectual" or "immaterial property" is fundamentally flawed (esp. in the digital age).
No. Wrong. What he is suggesting is STEALING. He’s suggesting ripping songs from a subscription service like Spotify or Apple Music so he can copy and play it on whatever he wants whenever he wants.

If he wants to do that, he needs to buy the track, which is normally .99 cents USD at least. What he’s suggesting is circumventing copy protection which only nets the artist a fraction of a cent - at most.

That’s theft.

And as an artist who has tracks on Spotify, Apple Music, as well as for sale in all the typical store fronts - FUCK THAT GUY. (Mikassa)
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 24 Dec 2018

EnochLight wrote:
23 Dec 2018
jam-s wrote:
22 Dec 2018


That's not(!) stealing but under-licensing. If you steal something, the former owner does not have it any longer. That's not the case when creating another copy of the same bits that just got sent to your universal copy and computation machine. Thus the whole concept of "intellectual" or "immaterial property" is fundamentally flawed (esp. in the digital age).
No. Wrong. What he is suggesting is STEALING. He’s suggesting ripping songs from a subscription service like Spotify or Apple Music so he can copy and play it on whatever he wants whenever he wants.

If he wants to do that, he needs to buy the track, which is normally .99 cents USD at least. What he’s suggesting is circumventing copy protection which only nets the artist a fraction of a cent - at most.

That’s theft.

And as an artist who has tracks on Spotify, Apple Music, as well as for sale in all the typical store fronts - FUCK THAT GUY. (Mikassa)
No it's not. Look up the definition of theft. It's just license fraud.

Besides if the artist only gets a fraction of a cent, who is the real victim here? The artist or the streaming service?
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 25 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
24 Dec 2018
EnochLight wrote:
23 Dec 2018


No. Wrong. What he is suggesting is STEALING. He’s suggesting ripping songs from a subscription service like Spotify or Apple Music so he can copy and play it on whatever he wants whenever he wants.

If he wants to do that, he needs to buy the track, which is normally .99 cents USD at least. What he’s suggesting is circumventing copy protection which only nets the artist a fraction of a cent - at most.

That’s theft.

And as an artist who has tracks on Spotify, Apple Music, as well as for sale in all the typical store fronts - FUCK THAT GUY. (Mikassa)
No it's not. Look up the definition of theft. It's just license fraud.

Besides if the artist only gets a fraction of a cent, who is the real victim here? The artist or the streaming service?
Theft of a license or theft of a freaking coffee cup is still theft. You are taking something that you didn't rightfully pay for. By your definition, fraudulently acquiring a software license isn't the same as taking something by theft. If that's true, then every software dev on the planet can just give away licenses to use their software and continue to operate as usual, which is obviously not true. By your definition, if I subscribed to Prop's RE subscription service, yet were able to circumvent the copy protection and use any RE I wanted anytime I want for as long as I want - by only paying the subscription cost for 1 month - then that's not theft? I can't wait to see how many RE devs agree with you... (newsflash: none who are sane)... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm guessing you don't have any of your music on streaming services, correct? Additionally, whether the artist or the streaming service is the "victim" is immaterial. The point is that taking something without paying for it is theft, plain and simple. If you want to buy a track so you can play it on anything and use it anywhere, then buy the track. If you want to rent the track with limits, then subscribe to a streaming service.

Let's just call this what it is: theft. It's stealing. It's taking shit you didn't pay the agreed upon price for.
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
Exowildebeest
Posts: 1515
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

Post 25 Dec 2018

EnochLight wrote:
25 Dec 2018
jam-s wrote:
24 Dec 2018


No it's not. Look up the definition of theft. It's just license fraud.

Besides if the artist only gets a fraction of a cent, who is the real victim here? The artist or the streaming service?
Theft of a license or theft of a freaking coffee cup is still theft. You are taking something that you didn't rightfully pay for. By your definition, fraudulently acquiring a software license isn't the same as taking something by theft. If that's true, then every software dev on the planet can just give away licenses to use their software and continue to operate as usual, which is obviously not true. By your definition, if I subscribed to Prop's RE subscription service, yet were able to circumvent the copy protection and use any RE I wanted anytime I want for as long as I want - by only paying the subscription cost for 1 month - then that's not theft? I can't wait to see how many RE devs agree with you... (newsflash: none who are sane)... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm guessing you don't have any of your music on streaming services, correct? Additionally, whether the artist or the streaming service is the "victim" is immaterial. The point is that taking something without paying for it is theft, plain and simple. If you want to buy a track so you can play it on anything and use it anywhere, then buy the track. If you want to rent the track with limits, then subscribe to a streaming service.

Let's just call this what it is: theft. It's stealing. It's taking shit you didn't pay the agreed upon price for.
You never taped tracks from the radio as a kid? Or taped a movie on VHS?

I have a hardware audio loopback cable on my interface so I can record anything I want. I regard my computer's memory as an extension of my own brain and body - making me no different from somebody with a photographic memory. Watcha gonna do, tax my memories? :lol:

I can't wait for neural implants to appear to make what I'm saying sound less like a philosophical exercise.

But the reality is that here in the Netherlands we already pay taxes on all digital information carriers, like USB sticks, when you buy them, regardless of what you use them for. The money from this tax goes to (certain) artists. A highly dubious arrangement if you ask me.

However, I think that in this day and age the problem of people 'ripping' music from streaming services is a non-problem. The vast, vast majority of people don't do that. A lot of people these days just have a smartphone and maybe a laptop. The days of mass mp3 hoarding are long gone. Most people just stream. The losses from people ripping are surely minimal compared to the big picture.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 25 Dec 2018

EnochLight wrote:
25 Dec 2018

Theft of a license or theft of a freaking coffee cup is still theft. You are taking something that you didn't rightfully pay for. By your definition, fraudulently acquiring a software license isn't the same as taking something by theft. If that's true, then every software dev on the planet can just give away licenses to use their software and continue to operate as usual, which is obviously not true. By your definition, if I subscribed to Prop's RE subscription service, yet were able to circumvent the copy protection and use any RE I wanted anytime I want for as long as I want - by only paying the subscription cost for 1 month - then that's not theft? I can't wait to see how many RE devs agree with you... (newsflash: none who are sane)... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm guessing you don't have any of your music on streaming services, correct? Additionally, whether the artist or the streaming service is the "victim" is immaterial. The point is that taking something without paying for it is theft, plain and simple. If you want to buy a track so you can play it on anything and use it anywhere, then buy the track. If you want to rent the track with limits, then subscribe to a streaming service.

Let's just call this what it is: theft. It's stealing. It's taking shit you didn't pay the agreed upon price for.
Sure, we're arguing semantics here, but theft has the element of depriving the former owner of the stolen thing. If anything you could argue that the chance of a potential sale got "stolen" from the artist. But the actual digital music file (=a sequence of bits) was certainly not stolen but merely copied.

To answer your question: I've got most of my music in the web for anybody to download licensed under a creative commons license. Of course I'm just a hobbyist and I'm making music primarily for my own enjoyment. But if I'd try to professionally make some money from it, I'd rather use social media and streaming services for exposure (only) and then rely on gigs, merch and subsriptions (like twitch or patreon) and also play the youtube game.
Last edited by jam-s on 25 Dec 2018, edited 1 time in total.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 25 Dec 2018

just to be clear: I'm all for paying artists and developers if you like the work of them. But I'm opposing the spin of the media industry to label and thus equal license fraud with the (violent) act of stealing/theft, because copying and remixing is a universal principle which drives biological and cultural evolution.
The M.A.F.I.A (music and film industry association) is just happily exploiting the actual artists by giving them some peanuts while they are not all that needed anymore in the digital age as new ways to build your fanbase and steady stream of income are available now.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7692
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Dec 2018



“In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
25 Dec 2018
EnochLight wrote:
25 Dec 2018

Theft of a license or theft of a freaking coffee cup is still theft. You are taking something that you didn't rightfully pay for. By your definition, fraudulently acquiring a software license isn't the same as taking something by theft. If that's true, then every software dev on the planet can just give away licenses to use their software and continue to operate as usual, which is obviously not true. By your definition, if I subscribed to Prop's RE subscription service, yet were able to circumvent the copy protection and use any RE I wanted anytime I want for as long as I want - by only paying the subscription cost for 1 month - then that's not theft? I can't wait to see how many RE devs agree with you... (newsflash: none who are sane)... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm guessing you don't have any of your music on streaming services, correct? Additionally, whether the artist or the streaming service is the "victim" is immaterial. The point is that taking something without paying for it is theft, plain and simple. If you want to buy a track so you can play it on anything and use it anywhere, then buy the track. If you want to rent the track with limits, then subscribe to a streaming service.

Let's just call this what it is: theft. It's stealing. It's taking shit you didn't pay the agreed upon price for.
Sure, we're arguing semantics here, but theft has the element of depriving the former owner of the stolen thing. If anything you could argue that the chance of a potential sale got "stolen" from the artist. But the actual digital music file (=a sequence of bits) was certainly not stolen but merely copied.

To answer your question: I've got most of my music in the web for anybody to download licensed under a creative commons license. Of course I'm just a hobbyist and I'm making music primarily for my own enjoyment. But if I'd try to professionally make some money from it, I'd rather use social media and streaming services for exposure (only) and then rely on gigs, merch and subsriptions (like twitch or patreon) and also play the youtube game.
It’s not semantics. It’s theft. A fraction of a cent is still payment and by ripping you are choosing not to buy it, which is the solution for offline listening without a subscription. Unauthorized copying at expense of the owner is still theft. Copying a cd for personal use is one thing. Ripping a song off a streaming service so you don’t have to pay is piracy.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 25 Dec 2018

selig wrote:
25 Dec 2018
“In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Emphasis added to the important part of the Wikipedia quote.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Dec 2018

Choosing not to pay is in fact intent to deprive...

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 25 Dec 2018

QVprod wrote:
25 Dec 2018
Choosing not to pay is in fact intent to deprive...
Ok, then explain to us how the artist does no longer have access the content/music/file when some one creates another copy of it with or without paying for this, please.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

User avatar
selig
Moderator
Posts: 7692
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 25 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
selig wrote:
25 Dec 2018
“In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.
Emphasis added to the important part of the Wikipedia quote.

Perfect example - you’re depriving the rightful owner of their right to charge for their service. IMO, and maybe others disagree, it’s downright disrespectful to take something for free that the creator chose to charge for. I would think that all that create would agree with this basic concept, but it seems otherwise.

Bottom line, I feel those who create should decide whether their work is free or not. But I also know nothing I say will change anyone’s mind here, so carry on.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
EnochLight
Posts: 5468
Joined: 17 Jan 2015
Location: your mom

Post 25 Dec 2018

selig wrote:
25 Dec 2018
Bottom line, I feel those who create should decide whether their work is free or not. But I also know nothing I say will change anyone’s mind here, so carry on.
Wiser words have not been said. Pretty much, thieves are gonna thieve! :?
Windows 10 64-bit | Reason 10.4 |  Studio One 4.5 | Asus Sabertooth Z77 | Intel i7 3770k Quad-Core @ 3.5 Ghz | 16 GB RAM | Mushkin Reactor 1TB SSD | RME Babyface Pro| Nektar Panorama P-4 | Akai MPC Live

User avatar
QVprod
Posts: 2226
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

Post 26 Dec 2018

jam-s wrote:
25 Dec 2018
QVprod wrote:
25 Dec 2018
Choosing not to pay is in fact intent to deprive...
Ok, then explain to us how the artist does no longer have access the content/music/file when some one creates another copy of it with or without paying for this, please.
I leave with you the definition of piracy as it pertains to intellectual property

: the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright

Piracy is theft. Ripping music off a streaming service is unauthorized use. Theft doesn’t only apply to physical items . Artists wouldn’t make a living if everyone ripped their music for free. And before touring is mentioned, sales and regions of where those sales or streams occur determine whether or not there’s even a demand for a tour. If you can’t see that , I’m afraid there’s nothing more I can say.

User avatar
jam-s
Posts: 668
Joined: 17 Apr 2015
Location: Aachen, Germany

Post 26 Dec 2018

I don't get how so many of you cannot see the fundamental difference between theft (= taking something from person A so that person A doesn't have it any longer) and creating an unauthorised copy (= person A still has his something).

When you think that ripping a track from a streaming service equals the content creator not having his file any longer you should really learn how digital media or a PC works. Also if you assume a ripped track would directly translate to a lost sale, you're pretty naive, as studies showed the net effect of piracy is pretty hard to estimate.

The main problem with enforcing strict IP laws is that those can only be enforced when fundamental freedoms (like privacy or customer rights) are heavily damaged. But saying something simple and uninformed like "piracy is theft" or "ripping streams is theft" is sure en vogue when you do not want to think a little further about the fundamental differences between physical and "intellectual" property.

Looks like it's time to link to this series again:

https://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

And as everything is a remix of a remix of a remix of a ... should there still be the unnatural concept of intellectual property?

EDIT: Also I'm not advocating for people to rip streams from subscription services, but I oppose the fallacy of calling this an act of theft. As it is not. It is an act of fraud.
If you're in Aachen, come and visit us at the Voidspace.

  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 0 guests