In Letterman's last season, he wanted the band to play an Eagle's song. The producer just about hit the ceiling; "Absolutely not!" she screamed.
Letterman: "Why? The royalties? What could it be, a few thousand bucks?"
Producer: "No."
Letterman: "Ten thousand? Twenty?"
Producer: "Two hundred thousand."
Then Dave just about hit the ceiling.

Playing a major artist's song, even a cover version, to a TV audience of millions can get quite expensive, yes.

Beepster
@Dave...
 

 

 

and yes that's hotlinked...

 

Try and sue me you handsome and astoundingly brilliant fellow who TOTALLY should not have been banned a dozen times over in the past year or so!

Well you should get it right... I was only banned in January 2015 over the membership crap... many others that are still here where as well... it was a big fight! I admit I took the dumb side, and the rest is in my apology... at which time you graced me in a "grand motion" to unblock me and give me a new chance like you where the gate keeper to the forum... ;)    
You may not like what I say and do here and you are only p.o.ed now because I don't like your....  music... ? and that you have been trying to twist what I say in your favor for over 24 hours but have been unsuccessful... You can't beet the truth... 
 
You can ask yourself and everyone here who makes that call to ban people, why I'm still here... ? because one, you are really no better then me and because maybe I say what I mean and don't beat around the bush... I do that because that's who I am... it has nothing to do with you or anyone else here! you and a few others seem to have made it your mission to point me out as a bad apple and badger me at every opportunity... and it's just an excuses to show your true colors! If I see an issues that looks hinnky I say so! if I see something ugly I say so... many here avoid me just because they don't want to get a bad rap hangin with the Dave ;) others just join the joke brigade at my expense...  "duh" I had just talked about wires and cables and called a cable a wire" really?  get over your self.... I have :)  people may think this its funny but at the end of the day when they open their eyes they will see the cruelty within those who bash... as the truth of how all of you, and you all know who you are... truly are...
 
Now for, who knows how many times in the last 36 hours... Peace!
 

*Simplicity is not a desideratum on a par with conformity of observation* <W. Quine>

Beepster
Oh, Dave. Back to playing the poor widdle victim again I see (and seemingly confusing me with a SLEW of other members... lol).
 
Don't you see? All I do is give you enough rope.
 
What you do with it is all you, bud.
 
My work here is done.
 
buhbye
 
;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jenWdylTtzs

soens

slartabartfast
Although you can request that SoundCloud remove your work from public access at any time, under 17 U.S. Code § 203 (b) (1):
"A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant."

...HUH???!? I have no idea what that even means!

OK. In even plainer English and with some background:
 
Congress is trying to protect two artists in this clause. The first artist is the original author/composer of a work or art. He is granted the sole right to make a "derivative work" i. e. to include it in a compilation like a best of CD, to change the words or music, to sample small portions to put in another song etc. This is an exclusive right not subject to a compulsory license, so only the original author can grant a license (the "grant" above) to anyone else to do any of those things, without which the second artist cannot make a derivative work without infringing the first artist's copyright. 
 
The second artist buys a license from the first that enables him to make a derivative work of the original, or allows him to make derivative works for a period of time after which he must stop making new derivative works (the termination of the grant).  The second artist alters his work from the original sufficiently or puts it in a creative context that allows him to claim his own copyright to the portions of the original work that are his unique contribution. He cannot claim any rights in portions of the work that were created by the original artist, but he has expended effort to create the derivative work for which he expects to be compensated. He then begins publishing the derivative work, which he created under license (the authority of the grant), and is making a money off it. The first artist decides that he wants to take back the license (terminate the grant) he sold to the second artist. If he could simply do that, he could stop the second artist from selling any more copies of the second artist's creation--the derivative work. 
 
The section above protects the second artist from losing his work, by saying that the first artist cannot do a take back. Once the derivative work has been created it is out of the original artist's control, and the rights in the new portions of the derivative work belong to the second artist. the original artist can prevent the second artist from creating any new derivative works, by terminating his grant of a license, but any work that was created while the license is in effect belongs to the second artist exclusively.
 
In the context of the SoundCloud TOS, once you have uploaded your song, agreeing to the TOS grants users the right to make derivative works of your song for free if they find it there during the time when it is covered by the licensing provisions of the TOS. So if you decide to tell SoundCloud to take your song off the service, even assuming that such action would terminate a grant of the license, anyone who has already made a derivative work based on your song can do anything he wants with it until the copyright the user obtained by creating the derivative work expires, after which he can still do anything he wants because it has entered the public domain (which lasts forever).

I'm still trying to figure out how this works with cover bands (there's a few of those around, eh?).  Besides the live performances, there's demos to get the gigs.  If most of the above were followed, the wouldn't be any cover bands (or tribute bands!). None could afford it.

Dave000

craigb
I'm still trying to figure out how this works with cover bands (there's a few of those around, eh?).  Besides the live performances, there's demos to get the gigs.  If most of the above were followed, the wouldn't be any cover bands (or tribute bands!). None could afford it.

I kind of think it's not that much... .01 cents in a bar that holds maybe 200 people... cover charge... hum? maybe that's what "cover charge" means? .01 x 200 = $2. per song. 50 songs... 2 x 50 = $100.00 all and all, and how much did the bar make off 200.00 people? $40.00 off each person low end... 200 people X $40.00 = $8,000 overhead - 20%... $1,600. still a profit of $6,400 profit. oh maybe  the bar will pay the band... lol $200.00 big ones...
Seems that more bands have to pay to play these days though... I did this without a cover charge....
*I'm in a small town north of the cities in MN, so how many people that can fit in a bar is maybe 200. plus .
LA or NY.... ??? cost of living... ?
 
 
There are also jukebox royalties.....

It's always been *pay to play*.  It's always been somebody's money.  Maybe not yours, but somebodys.  

bitflipper
Beepster and Dave000: this is an interesting topic to the rest of us, and we'd prefer to discuss it like adults. If you've got personal issues to work out, I understand. Talk it over. Just do it somewhere else, please.

 
!!PM!!

soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

Beagle

soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

Yeah I realized that and changed my post... a little.
 
So it seems the "law" is one-sided then. Hire a GOOD lawyer before anything else.
 
Is there a minimum estimate, or can it be as low as 1?

soens

Beagle

soens

Guitarhacker
With a copyrighted song, it doesn't matter whether you plan to use the song to make money....as in including it on a CD for commercial release, or if you post it to a forum site like our Songs Forum and let a few people hear it for no financial gain..... you still owe the royalties to the folks who own the rights to the song.

Based on what? How many times is it played/listened to? Who keeps track of that if it's a download from my site? Maybe it just sits there and no one ever listens to it. What then?

from HFA, you estimate how many streams and/or downloads and pay based on that per year.  if you end up streaming or downloading much more than you estimated, you have to pay the difference.
 
if it sits there and no one ever listens it doesn't matter, you don't get a refund.  

Yeah I realized that and changed my post... a little.
 
So it seems the "law" is one-sided then. Hire a GOOD lawyer before anything else.
 
Is there a minimum estimate, or can it be as low as 1?

there is a minimum, or at least there used to be, I don't remember and don't see it with in a quick search of HFA.  it's been a long time since I paid for a cover. (4 or 5 years?)
 
here's some info on the cost of putting a cover on a CD or a digital download, but it doesn't seem to have the streaming info in this section.
 
http://www.harryfox.com/license_music/what_mechanical_royalty_rates.html
 

craigb
I'm still trying to figure out how this works with cover bands (there's a few of those around, eh?).  Besides the live performances, there's demos to get the gigs.  If most of the above were followed, the wouldn't be any cover bands (or tribute bands!). None could afford it.

The UK situation is that there is a difference between playing a cover or your own arrangement of someone else's work and releasing or distributing it as a recording.

Live royalties are not paid by the cover performer but come from the fees collected by the Performing Rights Society in exchange for granting licenses to venues to put on live music. So the artist should put in a list of material performed to PRS who then process the royalties. So the venue is paying, not the performer.

Unfortunately many small venues don't bother getting a licence, even though they are supposed to and it can be surprisingly inexpensive. And many musicians don't join PRS, especially at the lower earning end of the market. Which is a pain because some venues are run by the kind of people who don't see why they should pay anything for anything if they can get away with not paying. Including not paying towards the composers of the music that brings income to the venue.

If you write/arrange and perform in public for anything other than private functions PRS membership can be a very good idea. Because if your list of songs or works performed includes ones you have registered as your original work or arrangement, PRS will pay you the live royalty rate when you perform them.

Recordings are dealt with completely differently by the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society. Many pressing plants, especially the big ones, will want to know you've MCPS clearance for all the material on the master before they commence work. Including licences that cover your own original work, this being because while you may have written the song you may have assigned the publishing rights elsewhere.

And digital distribution is different again.

This is why good music industry lawyers are scarce and tend to be expensive, but money spent with them to get a recording or publishing deal checked over before signing is often a good investment, or at least get your Musician's Union or Association to give the contract a once-over to check you don't need an expensive lawyer.

No-one likes the lawyers, but the horror stories of bands from the 60s and 70s who sold shedloads of LPs and did hundreds of gigs only to end up with nothing or years of litigation to get what they are owed have at bottom the same moral. The industry is full of sharks at every level and good legal advice at the start can save a lot of anguish later.