[Fmpro] Fwd: This Week in FMW: FTV Music Conf, NeKo Demo, New SESAC Office, ASCAP UK Awards

[kirbyko3@aol.com]

Sounds like a great idea. However, how would you categorize libraries that
share no sync fees with their composers (they keep all the sync fees)?

That would be in the "avoid like the plague/do not participate with these libraries" category, just like the No-Fee Library that just advertised in the latest issue of FMW.

I feel like you're saying a lot of "Yes, but..." to justify supporting libraries that don't pay you anything for the use of their music. "Yes, they don't pay you anything... BUT ascap is even worse because they're in cahoots with the major broadcasters..."?? I totally get that, but a second evil shouldn't be used to dwarf or justify the first one.? I don't think you can justify saying that it's OK to participate with those libraries just because the PRO's are already taking you for a ride.? Any forward strides will be made with baby steps, which calls for drawing a line somewhere.? I would suggest that a line be drawn here at giving music away for free.

Do you think that's a fair place to draw the line?

Kerry


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Northam <mnortham at gmdgroup.com>
To: fmpro at nxport.com
Sent: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:40 pm
Subject: Re: [Fmpro] Fwd: This Week in FMW: FTV Music Conf, NeKo Demo, New SESAC Office, ASCAP UK Awards



Hi Kerry -


On 10/24/07 5:04 AM, "Kirbyko3 at aol.com" <Kirbyko3 at aol.com> wrote:

> What I would love to see on
> this list is perhaps a breakdown of the music libraries that are out there and
> what their biz model is.   I'm not talking about a contact list or compendium,
> just a list with several categories, like A = preferable biz model, B=
> questionable biz model, C= avoid like the plague (for the copyright grabbers).
> So 
> No-Fee Music Library would fall into "B" -- they don't pay you anything, but
> at 
> least they don't take your copyrights. TRF would fall under "C" -- a Pump
> Audio or APM or Killer Tracks would fall under "A" -- a breakdown like that.

Sounds like a great idea. However, how would you categorize libraries that
share no sync fees with their composers (they keep all the sync fees)?

> Is there anyone else out there that would be interested in seeing something
> like that? I can't be the only one who's put off by this issue.   As bad as it
> is to get $.20 on the dollar from the PROs, the only thing worse is to have
> your music used without any payment at all.

Like it is by multi-million dollar highly profitable broadcasters when the
PROs decide not to track certain types/times/channels. It's effectively free
music, plain and simple, because the writer/publisher is not compensated for
the performance. And make no mistake - it's a choice by the PROs. The
technology exists to track far more music than they track now. The real
question is: who would benefit from more tracking, and who would lose?

Mark Northam


---------------------------------
Mark Northam, CEO
Global Media Development Group

http://www.FilmMusic.net - Film & TV Music Job Listings

1-800-774-3700 ext. 702 / 310-645-9000 ext. 702
http://www.gmdgroup.com
Yahoo/Skype: marknortham  /  AIM: mnortham



_______________________________________________
The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -  
http://www.filmmusicmag.com

To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro


________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com