Jimmy Page demands fair pay for musicians from streaming companies
- Thread starter zebra03
- Start date
Bill S
Thread Killer
Its also because tastes in music have changed. When I think of rock music, I picture verse, chorus, obligatory guitar solo, end. Obviously there are many sub-categories like metal, prog, etc but for the most part, alternative and indie as well as urban and hip hop, don't necessarily follow this format.
There still are some rock bands out there that are doing good. Greta Van Fleet comes to mind but there aren't many super bands. I'd even say The Strokes, The Shins, My Morning Jacket, Kings of Leon, etc are examples. They won't ever achieve Zeplin status - no one ever will. There are too many other music formats vying for all that attention.
You mean Orson Orwell? ;-)
Lavane
Lunatic Member
Blame it on auto correct. I do.
ASCAP and BMI take the royalties from public performances (radio and streaming into companies that sell services like MUZAK etc) and takes their cut then gives money to the artists. Individual streaming users are also considered public but are paid at different rate. When a CD gets sold the artist gets paid once.
"
So what is a ‘public performance,’ exactly? It’s fairly simple: a public performance occurs when a song is played in front of a substantial group of people. This includes recordings of songs, or live performances of them, at places like malls, elevators, bowling alleys, restaurants, and sporting events.
Every time that occurs, a royalty needs to be paid to the copyright owners of the music played.
A radio broadcast, either traditional or digital, also constitutes a public performance even though the listeners are geographically dispersed. Essentially, a large crowd is listening at the same time, just not in one place.
In total, this adds up to a lot of money. In the United States alone, more than $3 billion of revenue is generated by public performances alone! That includes collections from airports to Pandora, radio stations to cafes — it’s a very long list, and all of it generates revenue.
Please note that a public performance is not occurring when only one person is listening (for example, to an mp3 download through headphones or a vinyl record at home). Similarly, a small gathering of family members or acquaintances does not merit a public performance.
Streaming on Spotify does count as a public performance, for a series of complex reasons (and litigations) that go beyond this comparison. Just know that you should be getting a publishing performance sights organization (PRO) check from Spotify (and other streaming service) streams, though in general, those payouts are extremely low when compared to other mediums (like terrestrial radio and TV).
Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or their representative."
There is so much mis-information on this subject. I am not sure how much people think that a 50 year old song streaming on Spotify should pay to an artist or artist's estate per performance. If I play a 50 year old album or 45 rpm record they get nothing. If I stream that same song at least they get something. Art museums dont pay royalties to the estate of dead artists when people go to see that artists' paintings or sculptures. Maybe they should but they don't.
This issue is a lot more complicated that most realize.
"
So what is a ‘public performance,’ exactly? It’s fairly simple: a public performance occurs when a song is played in front of a substantial group of people. This includes recordings of songs, or live performances of them, at places like malls, elevators, bowling alleys, restaurants, and sporting events.
Every time that occurs, a royalty needs to be paid to the copyright owners of the music played.
A radio broadcast, either traditional or digital, also constitutes a public performance even though the listeners are geographically dispersed. Essentially, a large crowd is listening at the same time, just not in one place.
In total, this adds up to a lot of money. In the United States alone, more than $3 billion of revenue is generated by public performances alone! That includes collections from airports to Pandora, radio stations to cafes — it’s a very long list, and all of it generates revenue.
Please note that a public performance is not occurring when only one person is listening (for example, to an mp3 download through headphones or a vinyl record at home). Similarly, a small gathering of family members or acquaintances does not merit a public performance.
Streaming on Spotify does count as a public performance, for a series of complex reasons (and litigations) that go beyond this comparison. Just know that you should be getting a publishing performance sights organization (PRO) check from Spotify (and other streaming service) streams, though in general, those payouts are extremely low when compared to other mediums (like terrestrial radio and TV).
Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or their representative."
There is so much mis-information on this subject. I am not sure how much people think that a 50 year old song streaming on Spotify should pay to an artist or artist's estate per performance. If I play a 50 year old album or 45 rpm record they get nothing. If I stream that same song at least they get something. Art museums dont pay royalties to the estate of dead artists when people go to see that artists' paintings or sculptures. Maybe they should but they don't.
This issue is a lot more complicated that most realize.
So much truth in that statement.. I enjoy what I do, sometimes it gets frustrating, but I don't ask for more on those days..(I earn more than I need to eat, wasn't always that way)
I like fishing, but would never try to make a living from it.. I enjoy working in my yard, and actually worked in that field for awhile, but it isn't my dream job..
And honestly can't think of any one thing that would be the end all be all profession for me..
I like music, wish I had the talent to create, or even play it, but I don't.. My musical talent is limited to listening to it and enjoying it(and that is further limited, by a somewhat closed mind)..
Bill S
Thread Killer
Porn star might do it for me. Before you tell me its not healthy, I'm 62. What a way to go though. I also said "star" not to be confused with low budget cell phone video.
Last edited:
Bill S
Thread Killer
The thing is, many of these stars got to be rich several times off the same old shtick. They made a fortune, lost it and then went on a reunion tour to boost the coffers. Lather rinse and repeat.
What is it about recording artists (not all perhaps) that seem to have had a creative burst where they put out 5-6 albums in a relatively short period of time and then zero, zip, nada for 30 years except for touring when they need another $100M. Eagles come to mind.
sKiZo
Hates received: 92644 43.20°N 85.50°W
I believe the public feels they “know” the entertainers in a personal way. Business pros are generally unknown and easy to assign an opinion based upon personal bias or perception. Just look at the 2-3 posts in this thread bemoaning “rich” people as greedy and selfish.
I've said for many years now that it's better to be an old famous musician than old famous athlete.
Problem would be putting on a good performance after the "Fluff" finishes with you.
Also, your career will be of short duration..., it won't last long.
jcg1112
Active Member
Gimme a break. I’ll be glad to trade places with Jimmy and get f’d over. Poor millionaire. One reunion tour and these folks make more than 99.99 of the population will make in multiple lifetimes. I have to think that streaming helps many of the smaller/unknown artists get discovered. The big guns, they’ve made their bucks.
Now, back to Qobuz....
Now, back to Qobuz....
I wonder if Zep got paid for every band that sampled their music ?Maybe Jimmy Page could also demand fair pay for all those Blues Artist who had their riffs stolen by popular Rock Bands.
wmgwizard
Addicted Member
That is the crux of the issue and why artists are surrendering the rights to their intellectual property.
The publishing companies get paid every time a song streams. The artist is supposed to get a cut of that fee. Their cut keeps getting smaller and smaller as more and more streaming services battle to reduce the royalties paid to the publishers.
Get while the getting is good.
George Orwell maybe?
No Money
Super Member
The concept you are talking about here is known as droit de suite, (translates as "right to follow) which is where, when an artwork is sold, a portion goes to the artist, or the artists estate. There currently is no mechanism for payments for viewing in a museum, being that most museums aren't for profit organisations. Droit de suite is slowly gaining ground and is being practiced more and more by ethical collectors of art, particularly art where the artist is still alive. My wife and I collect art on a smallish scale with no intention of reselling, but if we did then the artist would receive a percentage of the sale.
Royalties for performance of music are a form of droit de suite.
Remember when Garth Brooks and later Taylor Swift were promoting the notion that royalties should be paid to artists for the sale of used CDs. Didn't go over too well considering they'd already been paid once. Who do they think they are, the government?