Simon Wise wrote:
On 05/05/11 00:28, Daniel Worth wrote:
I think as long as people are aware at what point they need to license
the
patent then they should be fine. If you are making $100,000+ a year
from my
music a $2,000 per year fee isn't the end of the world. Likely if you are
generating that kind of income you can partner with a distributor who
pays
this fee for you and so it isn't actually and issue either way.
Consider a fictional band working here in Australia, trying to get to
the point they may be able to actually pay themselves more than a bit of
beer money, or perhaps even interest the distributor mentioned above. 5
musicians, doing some live gigs, sometimes touring interstate, paying
for someone to mix and the travel costs from the fees they are paid
before they get to pay themselves. They rent a place to rehearse,
covering some of that rent by sharing it with other bands who pay them
when the need it. They have some merchandise and cds they are selling at
gigs etc, and are using that revenue to pay for studio time and someone
to record them. To make some live opportunities for themselves they
organise some events where they hire the venue and pay the technical
costs, as well as organising several other bands to play, they pay these
costs out of the door takings, and pay themselves and the other bands a
split of what is left.
The band will quite easily be over the $100,000 revenue while they are
just earning pocket money as actual income for themselves. That $2000
would be much more usefully spent paying an engineer to help get a
recording done than paying for the right to have mp3s on their laptop to
play (or send) to someone who may be interested in their work.
Mostly such a group chooses the 'pirate' path, but perhaps it's more in
their interests to use a format that isn't considered illegal here
without the $2000 payment to an organisation who are paying their
employees and shareholders much more than pocket money.
Way back when I was in high school, there was a 7-man local band in my
home town that was regularly taking in about US$100000 per year playing
clubs, appearing as opening acts for touring name bands, doing small
local tours, etc. This was in the pre-digital days, so they had no CDs
or downloads or even tapes for sale. Their live show was an entertaining
blast, so wherever they played, they got a good crowd.
$100000 divided by 7 = about $14,286 per year per person. I don't know
what their net (if any) was, but that wasn't much to live on even back
in the early 70s.
There's a good Celtic band here in Hawaii, Celtic Wave. They play 3-5
nights a week in local clubs, have a CD for sale, etc. To stay alive,
they all do other things, too - teach music, work other jobs, etc. I
have no idea how much they make. But present-day Hawaii is a LOT more
expensive place to live than early 1970's northern California!
--
David
gnome@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
authenticity, honesty, community
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
