Hard News: Press(ure) Play
30 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Meanwhile, LCD Soundsystem are streaming their new album, This Is Happening, in advance of its May 17 release. Sweet.
Soooo good. That really made my Friday.
-
LOL @ Iggy. Needs a mouse to toss around.
-
So is IMNZ going to collect and distribute royalties on behalf of its members instead of PPNZ ?
-
So is IMNZ going to collect and distribute royalties on behalf of its members instead of PPNZ ?
Not sure. There is an agreement, but I can't work out exactly what it is..
-
Snoop Dogg with a live band and slowly morphing into George Clinton could be the surprise hit on Friday at the Pyramid stage I reckon. Would love to be there.
-
Not sure. There is an agreement, but I can't work out exactly what it is..
Yeah i cant see Mediaworks or IMNZ would want the details in public before the tribunal findings are released.
It could compromise collection of IMNZ artist royalties in territories outside NZ. Sure the PPNZ affiliated members in other countries would still collect but they might not want to pay and without access to the books theres no recourse for enquiry.
Copyright collection agencies aren't known for being open and forthright in their dealings. Even more so now the'd want to close up shop and lock down their monopoly by calling broadcasters bluff.
-
Someone wants to be careful - enough high-tech tools that don't need thumbs, we humans might not be all that useful any more.
-
Hey Robbie: check out this brilliant graphic on what artists actually earn online.
-
re: PS3 and playtv... PLEASE let it be that.
Ondemand is pretty cool, but freeview is what I want, and what Sony promised years ago.
-
Hi Russell, I wrote about this on the c42 royalties issue....
http://dubdotdash.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-music-channel-on-freeview.html
also see The Corner blog, which wuotes official email on c42 that confirms "there will be no direct public performance royalties payable to content owners as attributable to play on C42."
From NZH's Drinnan column today... "Chris Hocquard said he had concerns about the terms of the deal which implies airplay for music had a promotional value"
Its certainly an interesting idea.
-
going to be a very dull & repetitive channel if IMNZ members are contributing 60% of all videos played as the corner's quote suggests - no offence to IMNZ nor its members artists work
if correct accepting no royalty payments is just stupid
-
Cats don't even need expensive doohickeys to keep them happy. A helpful human hand will do:
-
Cheers Russell, it sux eh ?
I know first hand how little on line artists get paid and how hard it is to get actual figures and payment from agents in other countries. For us it was never about making money on line, so were prepared to write it off, especially for the boutique beats we were pimping.
Even big labels who deal with shifting serious units are dodgy as to get info and payment from and if english is their second language...good luck
And on the other note, whooop de fucking dooo... free advertising !!! I think i still got some B-net ad space from licensing tracks to 'loop' aaaages ago which i will never use.
In NZ, videos are just an ad/promotional vehicle for the artist and I doubt anyone could re coup the cost of a vid from royalties given the shelf life of your average pop song. Or that vids would ever get made without the NZoA handout and dont get me started on their selection process :)
As it stands you could just embed whatever you wanted to advertise in/under your vid.
So will artists be able to on sell their ads in exchange for product placement/ embedded logos and cash ?
and can artists use the ads to make political statements ?
-
Update: spoke to Damian Vaughn from IMNZ about how the C42 deal works.
No money changes hands -- the quid pro quo is a share of C42 advertising inventory on the channel, which can be used by members of IMNZ and PPNZ.
The arrangement was Mediaworks' initiative -- they brought it to IMNZ, who consulted with PPNZ (which collects on behalf of IMNZ members).
It now forms part of PPNZ's blanket TV deal with Mediaworks, but this particular agreement applies only to C42.
Damian couldn't confirm the exactly level of the "high proportion" of IMNZ member artists to air on the channel, but said the arrangement is favourable to IMNZ, whose members want their music videos played on a music channel.
It seems like a practical arrangement.
-
I think I like the sound of this C42 deal. Mainly because it should mean more good content!
I wonder what it will mean for non IMNZ artists (um like me I guess).
By a share of advertising, does that mean a cut of the advertising revenue or like contra spots to promote yourself?
The APRA royalties for getting played on Juice TV or C4 are generally much better than say Bnet royalties. So for songwriters in 'alternative' bands (ie non commercial Hip Hop, Rock, Folk, Country, electro, um everything) music video plays can be a small but helpful lump of your bi-annual apra payments.
So I guess my concern would be for independent artists who perhaps don't get any commercial radio play, or sell many records but do maintain a high standard of cool videos (and good music). If this model crossed over to the other channels (where they may get less but still SOME play) would they then be missing out on an income stream they once had?
Well, thats a total hypothetical, based on very little grasp of what's actually happening!
-
Roger Troutman, the late founder of funk masters Zapp, recorded this killer version... ...Roger was shot dead by his brother the following year but the track is a monster.
Killer? monster?. Obviously not monstery or killery enough.
-
Someone wants to be careful - enough high-tech tools that don't need thumbs, we humans might not be all that useful any more.
My cat would certainly enjoy a device upon which she could play Planet Earth on demand. So many edible-looking birds, so little control over her viewing of them.
-
Speaking of overseas festivals - Coachella is on right now (day 2 of 3 on NZ Sunday) and they're webcasting on facebook & myspace;
http://www.coachella.com/broadcast/webcast
Hoping to catch Sly Stone (!?) and Gorillaz tomorrow, and whatever I can see today. Looks like webcast starts at 7pm EST, which is noon NZ time.
-
A stuff review of Coachella referred to Gil Scott Heron as a homeless man and got his name wrong (Gil Heron Scott).
OOh that made me mad!
-
I am freaking out about this. Juice and C4 are basically the only avenues the artists I work with actually get any royalties from as commercial radio won't touch them.
With C42 starting it means C4 have carte blanche to take anything they deem slightly alternative and relegate it to the less (obviously will be) watched C42.
Where do APRA stand on this? At the moment, any alternative artist in this country stands to lose 50% of their possible income from video play, will they lose 100% if APRA have signed the same backdoor deal?
I really don't understand the whole thing. PPNZ get all up in arms over downloading and file sharing between individuals online, saying they are working on behalf on artists, but in this circumstance they decide to cut a COMMERCIAL Australian company a huge break and allow them access to tons of videos at bargain basement prices, taking artist revenues away a minimum of 50% in excahnge for a couple of free ads? Really, who gives a fuck about getting advertising?
This whole deal confuses the heck out of me.
To me it appears to be a similar deal to Kiwifm...basically Mediaworks creating a system in which they appear to be supporting local music, but actually relegating local artists to smaller and less important networks, so they can pump more international mainstream content into their main money earners
I'm sure C42 will be a great station, hell Kiwi is actually pretty decent, but really, does it help local artists who once had the chance to be played to a large audience to now, the best they can aim for is to be played to a small audience?
PS. Russel, that online money earning graph is total bollocks, it neglects to show oncome earnt through sales of entire albums/eps in mp3 formats through bands own websites or sites like bandcamp etc... as that figure would skew the results in totally the other direction, ie, it would be the very top figure.
-
thankfully it seems there is no way that APRA can do a similar deal as they are efectively owned by the singwriters who are members...so at least some royalties will be collected...but yeah, pretty dissapointed at PPNZs stance, seems kinda hypocritical
-
I just still don't think I understand how the deal actually works.
Who gets the contra advertising stuff? How?
-
Russel, that online money earning graph is total bollocks, it neglects to show oncome earnt through sales of entire albums/eps in mp3 formats through bands own websites or sites like bandcamp etc... as that figure would skew the results in totally the other direction, ie, it would be the very top figure.
As much as I admire Bandcamp and use it, the percentage of worldwide sales it transacts is at best insignificant when put next to the big online guns, and the likes of Amazon, Barnes & Nobles, HMV, etc and the thousands of retail stores shipping physical orders garnered via their online businesses.
They, including sales from band sites, would be unlikely to skewer those figures much.
What was missed from that data were two important bits that do have the potential to skewer:
1) The figures sidestepped recoupment and the fact that most acts pay for the cost of the recordings and much more from their small share, given that 70% of record sales are by acts are still signed to majors and the bulk of the balance to indies who still structure their deals much like majors.
2)publishing income was omitted, which, in some cases, and assuming the artist was the writer, pushes the figure back towards the artist, although with noxious 360 deals and increasing cross collatoralisation that benefit is somewhat negated and subject to 1) above. -
But thats not what the graph is representing. Its showing how much of certain elements it takes to attaint that particular wage. If they had shown that it would only take 116 sales of an album online (@$10USD) per month (on own label) to attain that wage than the whole chart would be different... and i am SURE that there are many artists selling 100 odd mp3 downloads of an album through their own sites/bandcamp per month.
If they bother showing a self pressed CD...i'm not sure why they would bother not to show a self released mp3 download unless they purposefully left it out to skew results in the favour their skew of the results.
but hey, still interesting to see a graphical interpretation of these relatively incomplete figures.
-
and i am SURE that there are many artists selling 100 odd mp3 downloads of an album through their own sites/bandcamp per month.
I think the data that came out after the Long Tail showed quite the opposite. It's incredible how few acts reach any sales momentum at all, and how many self released acts sell almost nothing.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.