[Fmpro] Pump and $MTV$

[Pete]

Thanks Kerry! I hope I'm not putting you on the
defensive with Pump. I'm just trying to exchange info
and points of view. I'm not saying Pump is a bad deal.

I wasn't talking about BMI/ASCAP broadcast license. I
meant Sync/Master Licenses. Unlike other networks,
MTVN doesn't pay those to composers or libraries. I'm
glad Pump is able to at least squeeze something out of
MTVN.

If you figure a show like Room Raiders might generate
$200 in publishing royalties over the years that it
plays over and over. You've just sold half the $200
publishing royalties for $17. I've already got my
music in the MTVN system, and I don't wanna hand over
that money so easily.

Unless of course, Pump places music in a lot of other
places. But from what you're saying it seems to be all
MTVN. Yes?

(I think you know MTV, VH1, Nick, Nick at Nite, Comedy
Central are all part of MTVN.)

Thanks,
Pete


--- kirbyko3 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Hi Pete,
> I don't know what you mean by MTV not paying license
> fees... do you mean to ASCAP and BMI?? That's
> incorrect.?And MTVN does pay an annual blanket fee
> to Pump Audio for use of their library. At the end
> of the calendar year, Pump pulls together all of the
> cuesheets generated by all of the MTV Networks, and
> then divvy up the per-cue royalty accordingly. This
> year's MTV rate wasn't high -- I think $17 per cue
> used -- and I had cues used all over the place, on
> MTV, VH1, Nick, Nick at Nite, Comedy Central.? So
> $17 for a cue on "Room Raiders" doesn't sound like
> much... but when that same cue appears in 10
> episodes, and they play the hell out of those shows
> over and over,?the ASCAP money stacks up. I've been
> very surprised at just how much the ASCAP payouts
> were for MTV shows (pleasantly so!)? And with Pump
> you don't sacrifice your publishing performance
> money: Pump keeps 50% of it and you get the other
> 50%. You keep 100% of your writer's share of the PRO
> money.
> 
> I'm sure that library deals aren't for everyone. I
> tend to think of Pump more like an agent deal, where
> they keep a percentage of what they place.? And
> their penetration into every aspect of the media
> world has been impressive: something I never
> could've done on my own. The result for me,
> personally: it has helped me tremendously on the
> financial front because two years ago I left my
> music biz job and made the jump to composing full
> time. It's nice to be getting the additional PA and
> ASCAP $$ every couple months, for music that would
> otherwise be sitting in my hard drive somewhere.
> 
> I'm not a salesman for Pump, just a satisfied
> participant in their business. If it's something
> you've thought about, I think you can download their
> artist agreement from their website and pick it
> apart for the specifics.
> 
> Kerry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete <musical411 at yahoo.com>
> To: fmpro at nxport.com
> Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 4:37 pm
> Subject: Re: [Fmpro] Pump and $MTV$
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing your knowledge Kerry!
> 
> I've been holding off going with pump. One of their
> main customers is MTV. MTV doesn't pay any license
> fees (unless pump is the only one with a better
> deal).
> 
> So, I figure I could just give it away myself to MTV
> and keep all the publishing royalties. What do I
> need
> pump for? I'm curious what percentage of your pump
> placements end up on MTV/VH1 etc?
> 
> Also, for the same matter if they are going to
> license
> a cue for just $10, is that worth giving up your
> publishing royalty? What's the usual pump payment on
> a
> cue? High, low, average? I heard $8 is average.
> True?
> 
> Thanks Again!
> P e t e
> S u r d o v a l
> 
> 
> 
> --- kirbyko3 at aol.com wrote:
> 
> > I did ask a PA?artist relations person about a
> > History Channel doc that used a couple of my cues,
> > about two years ago.? I was curious why I only
> made
> > $10 per drop, and she told me what THC paid for a
> > 1-hour program & explained that they used so many
> > cues that?each composer involved didn't get much
> > upfront.? She didn't have any qualms about telling
> > me what that show paid for its rights.? I'm sure
> if
> > a composer had a question, they would answer it. I
> > don't have any special standing or status with
> them.
> > 
> > Yes, Pump does do the retitling thing where your
> cue
> > becomes something like PA12345689 on a cuesheet.?
> > I'll take a look at the contract and report back
> > about notification periods & whether or not they
> > continue to collect publishing income after that
> > piece has been taken from the catalog.? In all
> > honesty, I wouldn't care if they did continue to
> > collect that money: they placed the cue
> originally.
> > 
> > I think a healthy skepticism of all things
> > music-business-related is good, and certainly
> > warranted in the case of the PRO's and music
> > publishers. But as a frequent reader of all the
> > posts on this list, I sometimes feel like people
> get
> > very conspiracy-theory about everything, and I
> think
> > that when conversations reach that point, it may
> > tend to invalidate the legitimacy of other
> arguments
> > that people on this list make.? It's sort of like
> > Ahmedinijad's speech at Columbia last week: a lot
> of
> > people found themselves saying, "You know, he's
> > saying some things that are true... he kinda makes
> > sense" until he said "There are no gays in Iran"
> and
> > then you would've been hard-pressed to take ANY of
> > his statements seriously.
> > 
> > - Kerry? 
> > 
> > 
> > Yes, but it's the classic "trust me with no way to
> > verify the numbers" music
> > library problem. You get a number on your
> statement
> > with no way to
> > independently verify it back to the payor, the
> music
> > user.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Northam <mnortham at gmdgroup.com>
> > To: fmpro at nxport.com
> > Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 3:51 pm
> > Subject: Re: [Fmpro] Getty Images Launches Music
> > Licensing Service
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 10/3/07 12:34 PM, "kirbyko3 at aol.com"
> > <kirbyko3 at aol.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Excellent questions!? I'll tell you what I know
> > based on my agreement with
> > > them, which is just the standard Pump artist
> > agreement.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 1. What does (did) Pump Audio "own"? Do they own
> > copyright to the music in
> > > their library? If so, is it a derivative
> > copyright?
> > > *** No, their agreement is a non-exclusive
> > licensing arrangement with the
> > > writers and master owners. They act as
> > > agent for your work that's in their catalog.
> They
> > keep 50% of the licensing
> > > fee and 50% of the publishing PRO income.
> > > You keep 50% of the PRO income and 100% of the
> > writer's share of PRO. No
> > > different from some of the other music
> > > libraries out there, and certainly a much better
> > deal than some of them, which
> > > want to make you sign a work-for-hire
> > > agreement with no upfront money, where they own
> > everything outright but will
> > > give you 50% of the licensing fee if they
> > > should get it placed. In the meantime, you're
> dead
> > in the water and can't
> > > exploit the work.
> > 
> > Don't get me wrong - PA sounds like a good deal,
> but
> > one work looking
> > closely at like any deal.
> > 
> > This sounds like the "derivative copyright model"
> > where they rename the cue
> > and get 50% of the publisher's performance
> royalties
> > from any placements
> 
=== message truncated ===



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7