- ArtistshouseMusic -

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?

cathy — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:46:43 -0700

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?I get asked this question (or a variant on it) more than just about any other music business related topic. I get it; it ain’t easy to understand, but it’s not that hard, and, understand it you must. Also, as much as I believe that the “music business” is dead, and it’s all just business; the one thing that is unique to the music business is how copyright is handled. That’s not to say that you have different intellectual property interests in music than in other businesses; you don’t. Rather, there are just various “terms of art” related to © that are unique to the music business. So…here we go: an attempt to explain the rules and licenses around songs being used in films, tv, and ads. Let me know if you have any questions; I’ll try to answer them in the comments, and maybe this can be an evolving document that we can reference. Any time a song is used in a film, tv show, ad there are two licenses required: 1. A synchronization (synch) license: This is a license the producer of the above must obtain from the writer of the song (if the writer has assigned her © to a publisher, the producer must go through the publisher).   This license gives the producer of the above the right to synchronize the ©’d song (important: not the recording of the song, but the underlying composition - the lyrics and melody) with the moving images in the tv show, ad, or movie.  2. A master usage license: the producer of the above must negotiate a license with the person who holds the © to the recording of the above underlying composition (i.e. the version of the song found on the CD).  Typically, the master usage holder is the label. If there is no label (i.e., it’s self-released by the artist), then the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates directly with the artist who self-released.  Thus, in the case of an artist who has not assigned their publishing rights to anyone and self-releases their own record, the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates “both sides” (i.e. the synch and the master usage) with the artist herself.  If the artist has done a publishing deal and a record deal, the producer negotiates with the publisher for the synch rights and the label for the master usage rights.  Unlike with mechanicals (i.e. the payment labels make to songwriters for the rights to mechanically reproduce a ©’d song on the album the label releases), there is no compulsory license for either synch or master licenses. Because there is no compulsory license for the synch or master usage, the producer must negotiate both of these licenses, and either the master holder or the publisher can deny the request.  In reality, the producer will approach one of the parties (the label or publisher - typically, publisher first - see below for why), and see if they can get the writer interested in the synch (most writers, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used). The producer makes the publisher/writer an offer, and then tries to shift the burden of the master clearance to the writer/publisher. At that point, they (both producer and the publisher/writer) push on the label to clear the master side (most labels, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used), and a deal is struck.   The fee is divided (typically evenly) between the publisher for the synch rights and the master holder for the, er, master rights.  Sometimes, the publisher will want to do the deal, but the label won’t. In this case — as you saw, for instance in I am Sam, where the publisher for the Beatles cleared the synch rights for the song, but the label wouldn’t make a deal for the master usage — the producers used different masters (i.e. they had artists cover the songs).  It doesn’t work the other way; if the publisher won’t grant the synch license, the party is over - this is why producers go to publishers first: they’re the dispositive party.  Importantly, in the US, when the Ad or TV show or Movie is publicly performed on TV (i.e. it’s broadcast), a performance royalty is generated for the writer and publisher of the song (often the same person). The performer (i.e. the person on the master) sees none of this performance royalty. Do note, that no performance royalty is generated from public performance in movie theaters, as they are (wink, wink, nod, nod) exempt from paying public performance royalties. Additionally, in 1995 Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA). This act — in conjunction with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1995 — created a performance royalty obligation to be paid by webcasters whenever they broadcast a ©’d work over the Internet. Significantly, this performance royalty compensates the performer and content owner (i.e., label) of the work. The publisher and writer are still compensated when their ©’d works are publicly performed online via the Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), but now — due to the DPRA — the featured performer and content owner are also compensated. This brings the US in line with the rest of the world (with some glaring exceptions, like North Korea) with respect to paying a performance royalty to both the writer and performer. Of course, to date (though efforts are afoot to change this) this only applies to public performance when it is digitally transmitted; for terrestrial radio (i.e. FM/AM), only the writers are paid a performance royalty. SoundExchange collects from webcasters on behalf of their registered members. SoundExhchange's authority to collect for/distribute to these SRCOs comes from a designation by the Librarian of Congress and the US © office. So, when you’re watching Hulu and an ad comes on with music underneath that has been licensed by a producer of the ad from a label/artist, both the performer and the writer of the song are paide a performance royalty. Please note, the above really only scratches the surface with respect to licensing. There are, of course, complexities. For instance, when doing a deal for a TV show, you also have to factor in home video, etc. However, if you don’t understand the above, you sure won’t be able to dive deeper. Hope this helps.

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?

cathy — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 08:54:05 -0700

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?________________________________________ George Howard is the former president of Rykodisc. He currently advises numerous entertainment and non-entertainment firms and individuals. Additionally, he is the Executive Editor of Artists House Music and is a Professor and Executive in Residence in the college of Business Administration at Loyola, New Orleans. He is most easily found on Twitter at: twitter.com/gah650 ________________________________________ I get asked this question (or a variant on it) more than just about any other music business related topic. I get it; it ain’t easy to understand, but it’s not that hard, and, understand it you must. Also, as much as I believe that the “music business” is dead, and it’s all just business; the one thing that is unique to the music business is how copyright is handled. That’s not to say that you have different intellectual property interests in music than in other businesses; you don’t. Rather, there are just various “terms of art” related to © that are unique to the music business. So…here we go: an attempt to explain the rules and licenses around songs being used in films, tv, and ads. Let me know if you have any questions; I’ll try to answer them in the comments, and maybe this can be an evolving document that we can reference. Any time a song is used in a film, tv show, ad there are two licenses required: 1. A synchronization (synch) license: This is a license the producer of the above must obtain from the writer of the song (if the writer has assigned her © to a publisher, the producer must go through the publisher).   This license gives the producer of the above the right to synchronize the ©’d song (important: not the recording of the song, but the underlying composition - the lyrics and melody) with the moving images in the tv show, ad, or movie.  2. A master usage license: the producer of the above must negotiate a license with the person who holds the © to the recording of the above underlying composition (i.e. the version of the song found on the CD).  Typically, the master usage holder is the label. If there is no label (i.e., it’s self-released by the artist), then the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates directly with the artist who self-released.  Thus, in the case of an artist who has not assigned their publishing rights to anyone and self-releases their own record, the producer of the movie, etc. negotiates “both sides” (i.e. the synch and the master usage) with the artist herself.  If the artist has done a publishing deal and a record deal, the producer negotiates with the publisher for the synch rights and the label for the master usage rights.  Unlike with mechanicals (i.e. the payment labels make to songwriters for the rights to mechanically reproduce a ©’d song on the album the label releases), there is no compulsory license for either synch or master licenses. Because there is no compulsory license for the synch or master usage, the producer must negotiate both of these licenses, and either the master holder or the publisher can deny the request.  In reality, the producer will approach one of the parties (the label or publisher - typically, publisher first - see below for why), and see if they can get the writer interested in the synch (most writers, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used). The producer makes the publisher/writer an offer, and then tries to shift the burden of the master clearance to the writer/publisher. At that point, they (both producer and the publisher/writer) push on the label to clear the master side (most labels, of course, are falling all over themselves to have their music used), and a deal is struck.   The fee is divided (typically evenly) between the publisher for the synch rights and the master holder for the, er, master rights.  Sometimes, the publisher will want to do the deal, but the label won’t. In this case — as you saw, for instance in I am Sam, where the publisher for the Beatles cleared the synch rights for the song, but the label wouldn’t make a deal for the master usage — the producers used different masters (i.e. they had artists cover the songs).  It doesn’t work the other way; if the publisher won’t grant the synch license, the party is over - this is why producers go to publishers first: they’re the dispositive party.  Importantly, in the US, when the Ad or TV show or Movie is publicly performed on TV (i.e. it’s broadcast), a performance royalty is generated for the writer and publisher of the song (often the same person). The performer (i.e. the person on the master) sees none of this performance royalty. Do note, that no performance royalty is generated from public performance in movie theaters, as they are (wink, wink, nod, nod) exempt from paying public performance royalties. Additionally, in 1995 Congress enacted the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA). This act — in conjunction with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1995 — created a performance royalty obligation to be paid by webcasters whenever they broadcast a ©’d work over the Internet. Significantly, this performance royalty compensates the performer and content owner (i.e., label) of the work. The publisher and writer are still compensated when their ©’d works are publicly performed online via the Performance Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), but now — due to the DPRA — the featured performer and content owner are also compensated. This brings the US in line with the rest of the world (with some glaring exceptions, like North Korea) with respect to paying a performance royalty to both the writer and performer. Of course, to date (though efforts are afoot to change this) this only applies to public performance when it is digitally transmitted; for terrestrial radio (i.e. FM/AM), only the writers are paid a performance royalty. SoundExchange collects from webcasters on behalf of their registered members. SoundExhchange's authority to collect for/distribute to these SRCOs comes from a designation by the Librarian of Congress and the US © office. So, when you’re watching Hulu and an ad comes on with music underneath that has been licensed by a producer of the ad from a label/artist, both the performer and the writer of the song are paide a performance royalty. Please note, the above really only scratches the surface with respect to licensing. There are, of course, complexities. For instance, when doing a deal for a TV show, you also have to factor in home video, etc. However, if you don’t understand the above, you sure won’t be able to dive deeper.

An Introduction to Music Publishing

admin — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:08 -0700

An Introduction to Music Publishing

Former President of the storied Rykodisc label and founder of Slow River Records, George Howard is an accomplished musician, producer, executive, and educator. He is also the author of several books, including Music Publishing 101. In this video tutorial, George demystifies the crucially important segment of music publishing.

An Introduction to Music Business 101

tessa — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:59:08 -0800

An Introduction to Music Business 101

One thing that all creative and business types must understand is that disruption equals opportunity. We enter 2008 with an abundance of both. Certainly the disruption is clear: the four remaining major labels (Warner Music group, Universal, EMI, and SonyBMG) are all struggling with a landscape that has completely disrupted their business models.

As one major label executive has asked, “What would you do if the product you had been selling for the last 80 years suddenly began self-replicating and delivering itself to people’s homes?” Of course, the answer is to either find another product, or find new ways to make money off this new iteration of the old product. The major labels, in their lumbering way, are attempting to do both of these things. For example, the majors have changed their historical deal structures from one where they only had a stake in the sales of the records their signed artists sold, to a model where they now want a piece of all the revenue their artists generate; from touring to merchandise to publishing. This is called a 360 deal because it’s so all encompassing.

It’s not just the majors who are struggling with trying to find opportunity from the disruption. The independent labels, the retailers, the technologists, and, of course, the artists themselves are all viewing a landscape that resembles what America must have looked like to Columbus: familiar but also frighteningly different, and one with both tremendous potential and risk.

In this Artists House series, that we’re calling Music Business 101, I’ll attempt to play the role of Mason & Dixon and head into the hinterlands with my surveying tools in order to present an accurate perspective on the industry, and provide you with some strategies that (to push the metaphor) will hopefully give you a map or compass to find your True North.

To be clear, True North in the music business for me means being able to make enough money with your music (or the music of the artist on behalf of whom you work) in order to keep doing it. Additionally, my True North is to make records that impact the culture in a positive way, and thus can stand the test of time. When you combine these two things—make enough money to keep creating music, and create music that can stand the test of time—you succeed both financially and artistically. However, when you fail at either of the two, you ultimately fail completely. For example, you may make records that are artistic successes (critics love them, etc.), but if you can’t generate enough money to keep making more records, you fail. Similarly, you may make music that is profitable, but, because it’s not able to stand the test of time (it’s a fad or novelty), you will not be able to sustain the financial success, and—again—you will fail.

Because of this definition of True North, I will only provide strategy that will help you build a long-term success. After twenty years in the business I know a few things for certain; one of them is that there are no short cuts. These lessons will not guarantee success on any terms, but they certainly will not guarantee short-term success. You must be willing to put the time in and avoid the temptation to look for magic bullets promising quick and easy successes; they don’t exist. For those willing to put the time in, I still can’t guarantee you success. However, I can guarantee to increase your odds of success. In a world as competitive as today’s music business is, these slight advantages are truly what allows some to succeed while most fail.

So, let’s get going. Let’s find the opportunities in all this disruption, and let’s increase our chances of success so that we can make more of the music we love on our own terms.

Music Business 101: The Essentials

tessa — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:47:24 -0800

Music Business 101: The Essentials

We began this series with the idea that because of the tremendous amount of disruption that currently exists in the music business, there is also a tremendous amount of opportunity. While it’s easy to state that there is opportunity out there for musicians and those who want to work in the music business, it’s also sort of a vague statement. The goal of this series is specificity, not vagueness. To that end, we’ll begin with some specifics that you as a musician or participant in the music business must face head on. Put simply, if you don’t address the issues addressed in this segment, you have little to no chance of succeeding in the music business. These specific details can be referred to as the sine qua non of the music business. That roughly translates to, “without this there is nothing.”

There are two specific details that you must address immediately. The first is a concept that Jim Collins outlines in his fantastic book, Good to Great. It’s called the Hedgehog Concept. The second is an internal factor. Specifically, it’s the belief that your own music, or the music of the artist on whose behalf you work, must be heard. I’ll explain both in some depth, beginning with the latter.

Kurt Cobain and the Drive to Have his Music Heard

To illustrate the importance of the belief that your music, or the music of the artist on whose behalf you work must be heard, it’s instructive to look at the career path of Kurt Cobain from Nirvana.

Recalling his time before starting a band, Cobain sums up much of what I’m trying to convey. He states:

I had this feeling all the time—I always knew I was doing something special.… I knew it was better, even though I couldn’t prove it at the time. I knew I had something to offer, and I knew eventually I would have the opportunity to show people that I could write good songs—that I could contribute something musically to rock and roll.

Cobain had these insistent thoughts in that hotbed of creativity, Aberdeen, WA, a remote, lower-class logging town. And yet, Cobain somehow managed—even in this creative wasteland—to find ways to get his music out. He gravitated to the only band in the area that he felt an affinity for—the ultra-heavy Melvins—and began hanging around with them, while he honed his guitar and songwriting skills. Additionally, through his connection with the Melvins, he was able to occasionally escape Aberdeen for the far more hospitable Olympia, WA.

Olympia is a college town, with a large bohemian contingency, many venues for bands to perform, a great indie radio station (KAOS) as well as a record label that so represented Cobain’s ethos that he eventually tattooed its name and "K" logo on his forearm.

Nirvana—as they were now called, after wisely ditching their first name, Fecal Matter—recorded a demo tape in January of 1988 at Reciprocal Recordings in Seattle. It was not a coincidence that they chose to record there, as some of Cobain’s favorite bands had done so as well.

The owner of Reciprocal, Jack Endino, engineered the early Nirvana demo tapes. He played them for Sub Pop head and founder Jonathon Poneman. It is not surprising or coincidental that Endino played the Nirvana demos for Poneman. In fact, two EPs that Endino had previously recorded were for the bands Soundgarden and Green River, which were released by Sub Pop. Clearly, Endino and Poneman had a rapport. And Cobain, who was aware of the scene that he aspired to become a part of, wisely chose to find a way—however tangentially—to make a connection to it by selecting this studio to record his demo.

Sub Pop is a Seattle-based label that, at the time, was specializing in a relatively specific genre of music that came to be known as "grunge." This music, in some ways, reflected the regional climate of Seattle: dark, thick, somewhat gloomy. The label became known for releasing records by artists that defined this type of sound. Nirvana was making music that fit—and soon defined—the description of this sound. At the time, Sub Pop was actively looking for artists to help grow their label, and Cobain realized this.

Cobain believed that his music had to be heard. This need forced him to assess how to get it heard. He educated himself about the industry that he wanted to be a part of, and found ways to connect his music to it. He did not simply let his undeniable talent stay in his room unheard. Instead, he learned who the players were, and directed his energies towards appealing specifically to them.

What we see from this case study is that while Cobain’s musical talent ultimately played a huge role in Nirvana’s success, it wasn’t this talent alone that got him signed. We also see that he was forced to really persevere—funding his own demos and finding backers, while the label waffled, in order to bring his music to a larger stage. Additionally, it was his desire to have his music heard that drove him—gave him the fuel—to contextualize it and find other participants in the business who he hoped would grant him entrée into the record industry.

Are you doing the same for your music? Do you have that belief that your music must be heard? It is only this belief that will sustain you during the inevitable indignities that accompany you on your way from obscurity to popularity. If you don’t have this belief, you will not be able to persevere.

The Hedgehog Concept

The second critical foundation element you must confront is discerning your inner Hedgehog. As mentioned, this is a concept that Jim Collins articulates in his book Good to Great. To find your Hedgehog you must determine:

what you are passionate about
what you can do better than anyone else
what will be your economic driver

You must have all three of these elements defined in order to become great at what you do. The Hedgehog Concept forces you to focus on three crucial elements, and, importantly, to be sure that you don’t focus on things outside of these three elements. As Collins says, “The key is to understand what [you] can be the best in the world at, and equally important what [you] cannot be the best at….The Hedgehog Concept is not a goal, strategy of intention; it is an understanding.”

As we embark on our journey, I’d like you to think about this Hedgehog Concept as it relates to yourself and your goals. Consider what it is that you’re passionate about; consider what it is that you can do best or could do best; consider how you will make your money.

We will constantly refer to this Hedgehog Concept as it lays the foundation for three crucial management elements: mission, vision, and values.

Certainly, your passion will revolve around music, but you need to determine precisely what your “wedge” or competitive advantage is in the music business. If you're a performer, what precise element of performing are you most passionate about; is it writing the songs you perform, is it playing in front of the audience, etc.? If your passion involves working with musicians in order to get the music you believe must be heard heard, you must identify precisely how you will do this: managing artists, booking artists, financing artists, producing music, or some combination of each?

Importantly, this idea of doing what you're passionate about is not as simplistic as doing what you love. Unfortunately, many of the things we are passionate about are not things we can be the best at, nor are they things that can generate income for us. The genius of the Hedgehog Concept is that it requires you to make some difficult choices, and even some trade-offs. We all know people who have decidedly found their economic driver, and have made more money than they can ever spend, but who are miserable. In essence, while they have at least one (the economic driver), and maybe two (what they can be best at), they are missing the crucial third circle (what they are passionate about). By not having each of the circles, they can never truly be great. More frequently, of course, people know (or think they know) what they are passionate about, and tend to believe that they can be the best at this thing. However, they can’t figure out a way to make a living doing this thing. The sad consequence of this is that, because they lack the economic denominator, they are not able to truly focus on doing what they are passionate about and what they believe they can be best at, because they are too busy doing all sorts of unrelated things (“Would you like that coffee as a grande for only a dollar more?”) in order to pay the rent.

The challenge, therefore, is to balance the three circles. You may, for instance, find that you must re-evaluate your passion in order to make it overlap with an economic driver. While this may seem as if you're compromising your dream, the reality is that it represents the first step in a theme we will be examining throughout: a strategic approach towards monetizing your passion.

To conclude, before we can begin delving into actual practices for getting your music, or the music you work with heard, you must address two essential issues. First, you must make certain that you have the unwavering belief that your music (or the music on whose behalf you work) must be heard. Second, you must begin reconciling the three elements of the Hedgehog Concept: a. What you are passionate about. b. What you can do best. c. What your economic driver is. When you combine these elements you drastically increase your odds of success.

BostonPops.TV

tessa — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 18:11:24 -0800

BostonPops.TV

Article:

Very cool to see some innovation come to the Classical world. BostonPops.TV is a recently launched site that allows you to go behind the scenes at the Pops, and hear some of their wonderful performances; the first episode is full of great music from Emmy and Oscar winning plays and films, such as Chicago and Lawrence of Arabia. Conductor Keith Lockhart provides commentary on the performances, and really pulls you into the music. I’ve been begging—begging, I say—artists to provide commentary for their live shows (or music in general) via podcasts, blogs…whatever, forever. How can it be that it took the Boston Pops to do this!

As impressive as the content is, the tech is equally fine. The viewer pops right up in your browser…no installation required. Additionally, it’s very easy to share the concerts. Finally, given the fact that many of their customers likely want CDs rather than downloads, they give you the option to purchase a CD of the performance.

This is precisely the type of model that gives me hope for the future of the music business. The people who put this together figured out not only what they valued, but what their customers valued, and have provided a way to give it to them in a very efficient manner. Will it help spread the word about the Pops? Check; I’m doing it now. Will it help them monetize their music? Check; people who view on-line will want the in-person experience; not to mention the CD sales. Can it be accomplished without breaking the bank on development costs? Check; Fidelity is sponsoring the venture in another example of smart value-alignment.

Leave it to classical musicians to show up those so-called innovative other forms of music.

Attachment	Size
ghpic.jpg	19.48 KB

Critical Metrics

tessa — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:08:58 -0700

Critical Metrics

Article:

Critical Metrics is a very interesting (if unfortunately named) site focused on dealing with a problem I've been wrestling with forever; basically that the algorithms that iLike and last.fm and amazon, et al. use sort of suck. BusinessWeek's story on CM puts it this way:

Current CM competition, like iLike and Last.fm, are dominated by what Anuff terms "social metrics": They mostly point out what other music the fans of your favorite band dig. "I don't think they're garbage," says Anuff, but "I don't believe [social metrics] have the same level of authority" as critics' opinions. For this reason, he says, they do a poor job of solving "the programming problem every single purveyor has: How do you turn anyone on to new music?"

This is the holy grail for music in some respects, and I'm frustrated that it's taking so damn long to figure it out. I think CM brings us a step closer. [found via my favorite new blog, fistfulayen]

best,
George

Attachment	Size
ghpic.jpg	19.48 KB

The Importance Of Setting Goals And Tracking Progress For Entrepreneurs

sabaffon — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:48:38 -0700

The Importance Of Setting Goals And Tracking Progress For Entrepreneurs

Once an entrepreneur has identified the problem she holds a solution to, and developed a general business strategy, it’s imperative to then begin thinking specifically about goals. From a broad perspective, these goals must all connect to the core values of the entrepreneur. These values, which are given form via an entrepreneur’s mission statement (or, better, mantra) provide the guidance and drive for the attainment of goals. Importantly, by connecting your goals to these values, you reduce the chances of falling into one of the worst things you can do as an entrepreneur: engaging in random acts of improvement. I’ve seen so many good ideas never result in anything because, while the entrepreneur is working hard, she is not working efficiently. Random acts of improvement are actions intended to accomplish a goal that is not connected to any other goal. While these random acts of improvement can result in short-term accomplishments, they have a negative correlation to success over time. Essentially, random acts of improvement pull the entrepreneur away from the core of their enterprise.

When developing your strategy for setting goals and tracking progress, it’s essential to find the core and constantly ask whether the strategy and the goals that lead to accomplishing that strategy relate to the core. In their book Made to Stick Chip and Dan Heath relate the story of how when a Southwest Airlines executive was questioned about why Southwest didn’t serve food on their flights, the executive responded that adding meals would not help Southwest be the low-cost air carrier. Being the low-cost air carrier is Southwest’s core; anything that diverts from that core is to be avoided. Keeping this idea clear in mind acts as a very effective filter when determining goals. This step alone will aid you in accomplishing goals. It’s far better to have a small amount of very focused and germane goals than it is to have a laundry list of random acts of improvement.

An important additional step in setting goals is to be certain that, as Jim Collins says in his fine book Good to Great, you confront the brutal truth without losing faith that you will succeed. The music business is both full of challenges and full of opportunity. When setting goals, you must be certain to examine both the challenges and opportunities. Too often entrepreneurs see the opportunity, but fail to accurately assess the challenges. Don’t fall into this category. Instead, be sure to create goals in a manner where you face your challenges head-on. Again, as with avoiding random acts of improvement, facing the truth and developing strategies will enable you to maximize opportunity filters and focus your goals.

In terms of more specific strategy for accomplishing these goals once set, you should—of course—be certain that any short-term goals align with your long-term strategy. More specifically, your goals should have the following characteristics, they should be:

Difficult but achievable
Observable and measurable
Specific, with a target date
Participatively set, when possible (assuming, of course, you’re not working alone; if you’re participatively setting goals when working by yourself, you may have some other issues to sort out)

In terms of tracking your goals, once they’ve been created using the principles above, again you must remember to confront the brutal truth. Resist the temptation to hedge on your evaluations of the efficacy of your progress. For instance, if you had a goal to draw 100 people to a gig, and you got 50, it’s important to attempt to figure out why you didn’t hit your goal. Only by assessing the outcome of your goals by tracking them, you can continue to evolve your strategy. Over time, you begin to gather data which enables you to revise your strategies and achieve your goals.

In terms of specific goal tracking mechanisms, there are quite a few tools available for free online. Basecamp is a wonderful tool for creating a list of goals, and keeping track of progress. Similarly, Google sheets is a very good way to list a series of goals that can be shared by all parties involved.

Good strategies evolve over time via an ongoing process of iteration and analysis. Remember, while you cannot measure and track your way to business excellence, you can certainly increase your odds of success.

RIAA Wins a Key Suit

Gah650 — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:26:24 -0700

RIAA Wins a Key Suit

Article:

The verdict is in for the first unauthorized peer-to-peer file sharing suit to have reached trial. While all other suits of this kind have either been dropped, settled, or are still pending, Jammie Thomas – a single mother – who decided to fight the suit brought by the RIAA on behalf of the four major labels has lost.

The jury found Thomas liable for copyright infringement, and ordered her to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that were the subject of the lawsuit. The total penalty Thomas must pay is $220,000.

While this verdict is certainly a victory for the labels, and, as RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel announced after the verdict, “This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” the jury is still very much out with regards to the overall efficacy of the approach of the RIAA. According to research group Big Champagne, the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully swapping files has nearly tripled since the RIAA began filing lawsuits against individuals.

That said, we now have legal precedent on the books awarding the labels a hefty dollar figure from an individual, as well as some defined elements – such as the fact that the RIAA does not have to prove that anyone downloads the files that one shares on p2p networks, only that they’re shared – which will likely lead to quicker turnaround on future cases.

Examining the Radiohead move

Gah650 — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:14:19 -0700

Examining the Radiohead move

Article:

Updating an earlier story, according to a Radiohead spokesman, the majority of people pre-ordering the new Radiohead record at what he describes, “normal retail price.” Very few people, the spokesman continues are opting to purchase Radiohead’s new release, In Rainbows, for a penny.

While it’s still very early days, it appears that from a financial perspective, and certainly from a publicity perspective, Radiohead’s pay-what-you-will gambit is wildly successful.

There are, however, wider-reaching implications. It’s important to remember that Radiohead can bypass major label and publishing deals at this point in their career precisely because they reaped the benefits of the efforts of these major labels and publishers for many years.

It is too easy to blame the majors and the RIAA for all that ails the music business; even though they certainly are to blame for much of it, and are feeling the consequences of their mistakes. But, as pointed out in an earlier news report, the idea of customer-selected pricing is not new. It’s getting the attention it is now because it’s Radiohead opting for this route and not some independent artist whom no one has ever heard of.

While it is clear that Radiohead’s move will establish a model for many established artists moving forward, and that this model will present another death-blow to the majors, many, many artists need and rely upon the majors to establish the type of fan base required to pull a move like Radiohead has. Think of the amount of money, time and effort that was (and continues to be) put into a major-label artists such as Modest Mouse. Without this major-label push it’s unlikely that a band like Modest Mouse would have ever attained the level of success they have.

This is not an argument for major labels. The issue is really one of concern over how many new artists will be able to pull off a Radiohead move with any degree of success, without first having been marketed and promoted by a major label. In other words, while an important step, I'm not sure how instructive Radiohead's move is to the masses.

Attachment	Size
georgeh.jpg	19.48 KB

- ArtistshouseMusic -

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?

Songs in movies, TV shows, and ads: How do the licenses work?

An Introduction to Music Publishing

An Introduction to Music Business 101

Music Business 101: The Essentials

Kurt Cobain and the Drive to Have his Music Heard

The Hedgehog Concept

BostonPops.TV

Article:

Related Links

Critical Metrics

Article:

Related Links

The Importance Of Setting Goals And Tracking Progress For Entrepreneurs

RIAA Wins a Key Suit

Article:

Related Links

Examining the Radiohead move

Article:

Related Links