[Fmpro] Retitling -- Copyright

[LesHurdle]

Hi Gael,

Hate to disagree, but it IS the upfront sync fee's etc..... mostly  
blanket licenses which is the Library co's cash cow.........  
performing rights are the cherry.

However, come the digital broadcast world and the onset of all  
'downloaded' broadcasting....... the Library Cos' who finagled the  
sync/blanket license rights [mechanicals in the EU] away from  
composers will make out like bandits.... composers back end  . 0 ,

L

On Jul 8, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Gael MacGregor wrote:

> A traditional music library exists because it collects back-end on  
> an extensive catalogue, not because it receives massive, up-front  
> license fees for its many placements (and rates continue to drop  
> because of how many people can provide cheap, usable music, and  
> "royalty free" libraries that are undercutting everyone, much to  
> the detriment of music's value as a whole). Their ideal situation  
> is to either require that a work be exclusive to them and retain  
> all or part the publishing, or have the composition created as a  
> work-made-for-hire and own the composition's publishing and track  
> outright (because they also pay for the recording costs). They  
> don't want to have to administer a lot of publishing rights for a  
> stable of writers and composers. They don't want to have to  
> administer artist rights for a stable of angsty chick singers or  
> brooding emo guys, so they also do the "artist-for-hire" scenario,  
> where all players & singers are given "side man" status
>  and not entitled to any further compensation for their work. I'm  
> not defending the practice, merely stating the "why" of it.