U.S. Record Stores Get No Satisfaction from Stones

[Rob Adelman]

More bad news for ailing record stores.

<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/music_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>

"The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
store owners are seething."

[Chris T. Young]

With all the "shenanigans" that go on in the music/entertainment business
(and practically everywhere else), why are we all still even in the music
business?
I remember back to a time when I used to listen to an AM radio and it was
pure "magic". Now it's just another area in life, where the suits and bean
counters, totally call the shots and big business force feed's the people
what they want to sell them.
Where and when exactly did the magic go?
For me, I think by time I was 28, the thrill was gone and it just became a
job...


-Chris
Talk about a "hard rain"...
"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind...."
-Dylan


"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
> More bad news for ailing record stores.
>
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/musi
c_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>
>
> "The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
> mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
> its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
> store owners are seething."
>

[Chris T. Young]

With all the "shenanigans" that go on in the music/entertainment business
(and practically everywhere else), why are we all still even in the music
business?
I remember back to a time when I used to listen to an AM radio and it was
pure "magic". Now it's just another area in life, where the suits and bean
counters, totally call the shots and big business force feed's the people
what they want to sell them.
Where and when exactly did the magic go?
For me, I think by time I was 28, the thrill was gone and it just became a
job...


-Chris
Talk about a "hard rain"...
"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind...."
-Dylan


"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
> More bad news for ailing record stores.
>
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/musi
c_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>
>
> "The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
> mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
> its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
> store owners are seething."
>

[Chris T. Young]

With all the "shenanigans" that go on in the music/entertainment business
(and practically everywhere else), why are we all still even in the music
business?
I remember back to a time when I used to listen to an AM radio and it was
pure "magic". Now it's just another area in life, where the suits and bean
counters, totally call the shots and big business force feed's the people
what they want to sell them.
Where and when exactly did the magic go?
For me, I think by time I was 28, the thrill was gone and it just became a
job...


-Chris
Talk about a "hard rain"...
"The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind...."
-Dylan


"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
> More bad news for ailing record stores.
>
>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/musi
c_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>
>
> "The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
> mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
> its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
> store owners are seething."
>

[S O'Neill]

I have a client who did a great medley that included "Paint it Black". They
can't release it because the owner of the rights is a dick. A REAL dick.



Chris T. Young wrote:
> With all the "shenanigans" that go on in the music/entertainment business
> (and practically everywhere else), why are we all still even in the music
> business?
> I remember back to a time when I used to listen to an AM radio and it was
> pure "magic". Now it's just another area in life, where the suits and bean
> counters, totally call the shots and big business force feed's the people
> what they want to sell them.
> Where and when exactly did the magic go?
> For me, I think by time I was 28, the thrill was gone and it just became a
> job...
>
>
> -Chris
> Talk about a "hard rain"...
> "The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind...."
> -Dylan
>
>
> "Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>More bad news for ailing record stores.
>>
>>
>
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/musi
> c_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>
>
>>"The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
>>mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
>>its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
>>store owners are seething."
>>
>
>
>

[S O'Neill]

I have a client who did a great medley that included "Paint it Black". They
can't release it because the owner of the rights is a dick. A REAL dick.



Chris T. Young wrote:
> With all the "shenanigans" that go on in the music/entertainment business
> (and practically everywhere else), why are we all still even in the music
> business?
> I remember back to a time when I used to listen to an AM radio and it was
> pure "magic". Now it's just another area in life, where the suits and bean
> counters, totally call the shots and big business force feed's the people
> what they want to sell them.
> Where and when exactly did the magic go?
> For me, I think by time I was 28, the thrill was gone and it just became a
> job...
>
>
> -Chris
> Talk about a "hard rain"...
> "The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind...."
> -Dylan
>
>
> "Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>More bad news for ailing record stores.
>>
>>
>
> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=769&e=1&u=/nm/20031006/musi
> c_nm/leisure_rollingstones_dc>
>
>>"The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
>>mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
>>its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
>>store owners are seething."
>>
>
>
>

[EggHd]

<< "The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
store owners are seething." >>

Best Buy has a very active record buying business. There are some labels like
drive Thru that put bounce back cards in their CDs. The stack from buyers at
Best Buy is like 50 to 1 over other record retailers.

On the other hand, The Eagles released their last single/DVD whatever it was
through best Buy only and didn't really do much compared to other eagles
releases.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< "The British band snubbed U.S. record stores late last week by anointing
mass market electronics chain Best Buy Co. Inc. as the only seller of
its new DVD, "Four Flicks," for four months, and independent record
store owners are seething." >>

Best Buy has a very active record buying business. There are some labels like
drive Thru that put bounce back cards in their CDs. The stack from buyers at
Best Buy is like 50 to 1 over other record retailers.

On the other hand, The Eagles released their last single/DVD whatever it was
through best Buy only and didn't really do much compared to other eagles
releases.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[P Stamler]

>I have a client who did a great medley that included "Paint it Black". They
>can't release it because the owner of the rights is a dick. A REAL dick.

Huh? What about compulsory licensing?

Peace,
Paul

[P Stamler]

>I have a client who did a great medley that included "Paint it Black". They
>can't release it because the owner of the rights is a dick. A REAL dick.

Huh? What about compulsory licensing?

Peace,
Paul

[EggHd]

<< What about compulsory licensing? >>

Is it the same when it's a medley?




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< What about compulsory licensing? >>

Is it the same when it's a medley?




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[S O'Neill]

Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go to court
before you could get that changed.

Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...


EggHd wrote:
> << What about compulsory licensing? >>
>
> Is it the same when it's a medley?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[S O'Neill]

Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go to court
before you could get that changed.

Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...


EggHd wrote:
> << What about compulsory licensing? >>
>
> Is it the same when it's a medley?
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> "I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Scott Dorsey]

S O'Neill > wrote:
>Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go to court
>before you could get that changed.
>
>Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...

If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

S O'Neill > wrote:
>Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go to court
>before you could get that changed.
>
>Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...

If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[DavidMackBlauvelt]

S O'Neill > wrote in
:

> Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go
> to court before you could get that changed.
>
> Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...
>
It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

Best,

Mack

[DavidMackBlauvelt]

S O'Neill > wrote in
:

> Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go
> to court before you could get that changed.
>
> Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...
>
It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

Best,

Mack

[Rob Adelman]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? No wonder
there are so many retched remakes, I never understood why artists
allowed their songs to be butchered.


> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.

When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?

-Rob

[Rob Adelman]

Scott Dorsey wrote:


> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? No wonder
there are so many retched remakes, I never understood why artists
allowed their songs to be butchered.


> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.

When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?

-Rob

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
>> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
>> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>
>Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
>a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? No wonder
>there are so many retched remakes, I never understood why artists
>allowed their songs to be butchered.

Yes, and it's a fairly reasonable fee.

>> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
>> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
>When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?

That is a question for a lawyer. There is some grey area.
It is also possible to pass some adaptations off as "free use parodies"
which do not require permission, but the line there is also fairly grey
and it is fairly easy to land in court if there is a disagreement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Rob Adelman > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
>> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
>> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>
>Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
>a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? No wonder
>there are so many retched remakes, I never understood why artists
>allowed their songs to be butchered.

Yes, and it's a fairly reasonable fee.

>> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
>> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
>When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?

That is a question for a lawyer. There is some grey area.
It is also possible to pass some adaptations off as "free use parodies"
which do not require permission, but the line there is also fairly grey
and it is fairly easy to land in court if there is a disagreement.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[EggHd]

<< Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? >>

The only time the writer has the "power" to refuse a cut is the first time the
song is recorded and released. Once a song is released commercially, then as
long as you pay full rate, you can cut the song.






---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? >>

The only time the writer has the "power" to refuse a cut is the first time the
song is recorded and released. Once a song is released commercially, then as
long as you pay full rate, you can cut the song.






---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>
> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
> --scott

Scott,
Is the fee a fixed/standard amount, or is the fee established by the copywrite
holder/publisher? Like, can I do "Dirty Laundry" on my next album for $500.00?

DaveT

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>
> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
> --scott

Scott,
Is the fee a fixed/standard amount, or is the fee established by the copywrite
holder/publisher? Like, can I do "Dirty Laundry" on my next album for $500.00?

DaveT

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> << Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
> a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? >>
>
> The only time the writer has the "power" to refuse a cut is the first time the
> song is recorded and released. Once a song is released commercially, then as
> long as you pay full rate, you can cut the song.


Great info. Maybe I'll re'cut a few :)

Here is a timely article: 'Cyndi Lauper Records Albums Of Standards'
<http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=214809>

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> << Wow, I was not aware of this. You mean I can take any song I want and do
> a remake and the artist cannot stop me as long as a pay a fee? >>
>
> The only time the writer has the "power" to refuse a cut is the first time the
> song is recorded and released. Once a song is released commercially, then as
> long as you pay full rate, you can cut the song.


Great info. Maybe I'll re'cut a few :)

Here is a timely article: 'Cyndi Lauper Records Albums Of Standards'
<http://launch.yahoo.com/read/news.asp?contentID=214809>

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

Scott,
This is what I found on the internet: The compulsory mechanical
license fee - also called the statutory rate - is currently 7.55¢ per
song per record distributed for recordings of up to five minutes. If
the recording is more than five minutes, the statutory rate is 1.45¢
per minute per record.

Sound about right? Sorry, should have looked before I asked.

DaveT

[Deaf Mellon MESA]

> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.

Scott,
This is what I found on the internet: The compulsory mechanical
license fee - also called the statutory rate - is currently 7.55¢ per
song per record distributed for recordings of up to five minutes. If
the recording is more than five minutes, the statutory rate is 1.45¢
per minute per record.

Sound about right? Sorry, should have looked before I asked.

DaveT

[Scott Dorsey]

Deaf Mellon MESA > wrote:
>> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
>> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
>> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>>
>> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
>> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
>Is the fee a fixed/standard amount, or is the fee established by the copywrite
>holder/publisher? Like, can I do "Dirty Laundry" on my next album for $500.00?

It is a fixed amount and for albums it is licensed by the number of albums
you release. For other uses (use of the sound in a film or television, etc.)
the amount is figured differently.

As I recall, it is $80 for each song on every thousand albums you manufacture.

In most causes it's easier to go through Harry Fox than to deal directly with
the rights holders, although sometimes talking with them directly you can
get them to drop their fees below the standard compulsory rates.

www.harryfox.com should have all kinds of info.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Deaf Mellon MESA > wrote:
>> If you are performing a cover of a song, you can pay the standard compulsory
>> license fee and release it legally. The songwriter cannot prevent you from
>> doing this as long as you pay the compulsory fee.
>>
>> If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you have
>> to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
>Is the fee a fixed/standard amount, or is the fee established by the copywrite
>holder/publisher? Like, can I do "Dirty Laundry" on my next album for $500.00?

It is a fixed amount and for albums it is licensed by the number of albums
you release. For other uses (use of the sound in a film or television, etc.)
the amount is figured differently.

As I recall, it is $80 for each song on every thousand albums you manufacture.

In most causes it's easier to go through Harry Fox than to deal directly with
the rights holders, although sometimes talking with them directly you can
get them to drop their fees below the standard compulsory rates.

www.harryfox.com should have all kinds of info.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hal Laurent]

"DavidMackBlauvelt" > wrote in message
54.203...
> S O'Neill > wrote in
> :
>
> > Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go
> > to court before you could get that changed.
> >
> > Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...
> >
> It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

It's up to 8 cents currently.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[Hal Laurent]

"DavidMackBlauvelt" > wrote in message
54.203...
> S O'Neill > wrote in
> :
>
> > Well, they called it a "derivative work", and I guess you'd have to go
> > to court before you could get that changed.
> >
> > Anyway, what about compulsory licensing? Tell me more...
> >
> It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

It's up to 8 cents currently.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

[EggHd]

<< 'Cyndi Lauper Records Albums Of Standards' >>

Ya think it has anything to do with Rod Stewart selling almost 2 mil of his
standards album?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< 'Cyndi Lauper Records Albums Of Standards' >>

Ya think it has anything to do with Rod Stewart selling almost 2 mil of his
standards album?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Hal Laurent" > wrote in message
...
> > It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> > Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

Didn't some people who had never had a record before make millions doing
this and selling the albums on late night TV as if they were some huge star
who was apparently a hit all over the world EXCEPT in the city where you
lived?

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Hal Laurent" > wrote in message
...
> > It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> > Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.

Didn't some people who had never had a record before make millions doing
this and selling the albums on late night TV as if they were some huge star
who was apparently a hit all over the world EXCEPT in the city where you
lived?

[MikeK]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> > If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you
have
> > to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
> When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?
>

Think Weird Al...

[MikeK]

"Rob Adelman" > wrote in message
...
>
> > If you are performing a derivative work like a parody or adaptation, you
have
> > to get permission from the folks holding the rights. They can say no.
>
> When would it be considered an adaption as apposed to a cover?
>

Think Weird Al...

[MikeK]

"Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
news:32Ogb.62902$%h1.45679@sccrnsc02...
> "Hal Laurent" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> > > Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.
>
> Didn't some people who had never had a record before make millions doing
> this and selling the albums on late night TV as if they were some huge
star
> who was apparently a hit all over the world EXCEPT in the city where you
> lived?
>

Boxcar Willy? Slim Whitman (who actually is popular in England, I believe)?

[MikeK]

"Ricky W. Hunt" > wrote in message
news:32Ogb.62902$%h1.45679@sccrnsc02...
> "Hal Laurent" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > It's about 7 cents per song per record made. 1000 cd's = $70.00
> > > Now if they have allot of covers on the Cd it could add up.
>
> Didn't some people who had never had a record before make millions doing
> this and selling the albums on late night TV as if they were some huge
star
> who was apparently a hit all over the world EXCEPT in the city where you
> lived?
>

Boxcar Willy? Slim Whitman (who actually is popular in England, I believe)?

[Tom Loredo]

Deaf Mellon MESA wrote:
>
> This is what I found on the internet: The compulsory mechanical
> license fee - also called the statutory rate - is currently 7.55¢ per
> song per record distributed for recordings of up to five minutes. If
> the recording is more than five minutes, the statutory rate is 1.45¢
> per minute per record.
>
> Sound about right? Sorry, should have looked before I asked.

This is right, but perhaps it's worth noting that there can be a
minimum license. As I recall, when I was part of a newsgroup CD
project a while back Harry Fox would only license multiples of 500
recordings. So you can't just make a couple dozen CDs for your
friends (legally) for just a few bucks in license fees; you'd have
to license every song for 500 copies, at least if Harry Fox handles
the rights.

-Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

[Tom Loredo]

Deaf Mellon MESA wrote:
>
> This is what I found on the internet: The compulsory mechanical
> license fee - also called the statutory rate - is currently 7.55¢ per
> song per record distributed for recordings of up to five minutes. If
> the recording is more than five minutes, the statutory rate is 1.45¢
> per minute per record.
>
> Sound about right? Sorry, should have looked before I asked.

This is right, but perhaps it's worth noting that there can be a
minimum license. As I recall, when I was part of a newsgroup CD
project a while back Harry Fox would only license multiples of 500
recordings. So you can't just make a couple dozen CDs for your
friends (legally) for just a few bucks in license fees; you'd have
to license every song for 500 copies, at least if Harry Fox handles
the rights.

-Tom

--

To respond by email, replace "somewhere" with "astro" in the
return address.

[Chris/Power Salad]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:09:21 -0400, Tom Loredo
> wrote:

>So you can't just make a couple dozen CDs for your
>friends (legally) for just a few bucks in license fees; you'd have
>to license every song for 500 copies, at least if Harry Fox handles
>the rights.

On a few occasions I've found some publishers to be amenable to the
idea of only licensing 100 copies or 75 or whatever; if I have a small
project (HS or church) I start by faxing the publishers asking nicely
if they'd consider blah blah blah as it's a small
community/church/school project etc...Some publishers have been OK
with this, mailing or faxing me the agreements that I'd send back with
a check (one is even under MPL believe it or not!) - - a few out and
out refused (in a detached corporate way) and one lady called me on
the phone to apologetically turn me down, that they only go thru Harry
Fox..

I think it is ridiculous to have to pay such a huge amount (500 copies
worth) if only a few copies (20-100) are being pressed, makes one
wonder if it's worth it to try and be legit (of course it does, but
the math says otherwise) - 40 bucks a tune doesn't sound like much but
when you take your typical CD with 12-18 tunes on it (especially the
stuff I do), makes it real hard to make one's nut on the deal without
ballooning the price to the client. I have often emailed HFA
complaining about this - I mean statutory means statutory, and I'm all
for getting composers and artists their fair due (heck, I'm a
"starving" one myself), but why should we pay Composer A's estate X00%
of what they are entitled to??

Makes it more work but might save a few bucks in the bargain.

[Chris/Power Salad]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:09:21 -0400, Tom Loredo
> wrote:

>So you can't just make a couple dozen CDs for your
>friends (legally) for just a few bucks in license fees; you'd have
>to license every song for 500 copies, at least if Harry Fox handles
>the rights.

On a few occasions I've found some publishers to be amenable to the
idea of only licensing 100 copies or 75 or whatever; if I have a small
project (HS or church) I start by faxing the publishers asking nicely
if they'd consider blah blah blah as it's a small
community/church/school project etc...Some publishers have been OK
with this, mailing or faxing me the agreements that I'd send back with
a check (one is even under MPL believe it or not!) - - a few out and
out refused (in a detached corporate way) and one lady called me on
the phone to apologetically turn me down, that they only go thru Harry
Fox..

I think it is ridiculous to have to pay such a huge amount (500 copies
worth) if only a few copies (20-100) are being pressed, makes one
wonder if it's worth it to try and be legit (of course it does, but
the math says otherwise) - 40 bucks a tune doesn't sound like much but
when you take your typical CD with 12-18 tunes on it (especially the
stuff I do), makes it real hard to make one's nut on the deal without
ballooning the price to the client. I have often emailed HFA
complaining about this - I mean statutory means statutory, and I'm all
for getting composers and artists their fair due (heck, I'm a
"starving" one myself), but why should we pay Composer A's estate X00%
of what they are entitled to??

Makes it more work but might save a few bucks in the bargain.

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Chris/Power Salad wrote:

> I think it is ridiculous to have to pay such a huge amount (500 copies
> worth) if only a few copies (20-100) are being pressed

One might consider the business overhead costs associated with keeping
track of this stuff.

If it costs too much to license material, write new material.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Chris/Power Salad wrote:

> I think it is ridiculous to have to pay such a huge amount (500 copies
> worth) if only a few copies (20-100) are being pressed

One might consider the business overhead costs associated with keeping
track of this stuff.

If it costs too much to license material, write new material.

--
ha