MOTUnation.com

Remember, that is only ONE revenue stream. There are potentially many possible and once a song becomes part of the culture, all sorts of handsome spinoffs take effect. I'd be happy with just a couple of moderately popular properties.

Oh yeah... I'm just trying to find the most effective argument to make to other musicians who aren't necessarily making a living at this, NOT to sign these agreements.

Now I must qualify any remarks that I make: I am not an attorney and I never attempt to practice law without a license. Likewise, I never speak for anyone but myself and never for my employer.

Having said that, one of the goals of the 1976 Copyright Law was to eliminate the practice of people signing away their rights.

In context, it doesn't matter what the piece of paper says. I can't sign away my rights because they aren't mine to sign away.

As an artist, I played with others - I can't sign away their SoundExchange rights. Likewise, I can't sign away the ASCAP rights of any of my collaborators. My publisher won't let me sign away their rights.

If I was the sole author and composer (it happens now and then)... and the sole artist (sometimes)... and the sole owner of my recordings (again, sometimes I am) and the sole owner of my publishing rights... (ah, that never happens).

mikehalloran wrote:If I was the sole author and composer (it happens now and then)... and the sole artist (sometimes)... and the sole owner of my recordings (again, sometimes I am) and the sole owner of my publishing rights... (ah, that never happens).

Well, in this instance, that's sort of the case. I own all the rights and although I'm not the sole musician on the recordings, the writer and publisher rights are mine alone. I still wouldn't do it though.

although I'm not the sole musician on the recordings

If you have even a casual agreement on the recordings ("hey, if I ever make some money from this, I'll share"), it could be argued that you don't have the rights to sign away their rights for SoundExchange royalties.

When I write, could be argued, the usual disclaimers apply.

mikehalloran wrote:

although I'm not the sole musician on the recordings

If you have even a casual agreement on the recordings ("hey, if I ever make some money from this, I'll share"), it could be argued that you don't have the rights to sign away their rights for SoundExchange royalties.

When I write, could be argued, the usual disclaimers apply.

That's not a problem. Although, I am surprised. I didn't realize that musicians who didn't actually contribute to the songwriting and are not listed as co-authors on the copyright had any claim whatsoever.

The lack of knowledge regarding certain basic definitions has caused much confusion.

The performers are called Artists, they are not the songwriters.

Unlike Europe, broadcast radio in the US does not pay Artists.

The PROs pay Composers & Authors (aka songwriters) and publishers. They never pay Artists in the USA.

Effective July, 2007, the USA joined the rest of the Berne Convention in agreeing that Artists should also be paid for internet radio and streaming audio. This is done through SoundExchange.

Spotify, Pandora etc. must also pay SoundExchange - again for the Artists. SoundExchange gets a lot more out of those services than the PROs who pay the songwriters.

mikehalloran wrote:The performers are called Artists, they are not the songwriters.

Unlike Europe, broadcast radio in the US does not pay Artists.

The PROs pay Composers & Authors (aka songwriters) and publishers. They never pay Artists in the USA.

So far I'm with you. That was my understanding.

Effective July, 2007, the USA joined the rest of the Berne Convention in agreeing that Artists should also be paid for internet radio and streaming audio. This is done through SoundExchange.

Spotify, Pandora etc. must also pay SoundExchange - again for the Artists. SoundExchange gets a lot more out of those services than the PROs who pay the songwriters.

Right. so if I wrote the song and am also the artist and played all the instruments except for bass and paid a bass player to come in and record, that bass player is eligible to receive royalties from SoundExchange?

So, in theory, if you had a verbal agreement that the session fee was going to be the sum total of compensation, the musician could come back and claim they were entitled to royalties from SoundExchange... lacking any written agreement expressly stating that the session fee would be the only compensation and they would not be entitled to any future royalties?

I'm just trying to understand. Not that I have any sort of real money coming in, just curious. I hired backup singers once, but did get a written artist agreement signed by each stating that what they were being paid for doing the session was pretty much all they were entitled to make.

Interesting.

paid a bass player to come in and record, that bass player is eligible to receive royalties from SoundExchange?

That's between you and him.

Normally, when one pays for a session, that's it - unless there is an AFM agreement in place. Selling into a different market calls for paying AFM musicians again. I no longer maintain active status in the AFM so I haven't looked at the current agreement.

My original example is all too common these days. It's the "you get paid if I do" kind that attorneys love to hate and everyone else just hates. It could certainly be argued that waiving your rights to be paid through Sound Exchange waives their rights, too, and those aren't your rights to waive.

Again, "certainly be argued" by someone else. I am neither an attorney nor a spokesperson for my employer.

You were looking for sound reasons not to sign those disingenuous, garbage agreements. I have given you some.