|
Why I Could Never Use the MP3.com Licensing Program as a Music Publisher
At one point, I had two immediate needs on a project
I was working on, so I thought I'd go to MP3.com and surf
the files, just to see if I could find something different.
(This is a bit of a pain, as my neighborhood doesn't
have DSL, so it takes awhile between songs.) To
save time, I thought I'd go to the "pre-screened"
licensing area where producers and publishers can
listen to "selected material."
After reading the MP3.com Licensing agreement applying
to those who WANT to license an MP3.com Artist's work
in any traditional business sense, I think the artist is
going to pretty much be out of luck (as usual).
I will tell you right now that if there is a big film or
TV use offered for your song, the following conditions
will probably NOT be met, nor be able to be negotiated
under some of the terms, in the deals that our company
makes. The following is only one small part of what
is being required from the person TRYING to license MP3.com artists' songs:
"Subject to our prior written approval of such use,
you agree to prominently display our logos, trademarks,
artwork, designs, banners and the like that may be
provided to you by us ("Our Material") in promotional
venues such as, without limitation, movie credits,
tv show, game, and/or website where song is used, and
other promotional context where the song is being used."
Yeah, Paramount's gonna love to do that for you. I
cannot believe that a legitimate publisher/producer
would even think of diluting their own project, logo,
branding to carry MP3.com's trademarks (in whatever size,
shape or form MP3.com chooses), let alone expect such from
a company who was BEING pitched. Can you imagine
a hit network TV show agreeing to run a big MP3.com
banner on the credits?? I want to see that blanket agreement. Maybe it
would be allowed in a song
contest or something.
"You agree that any benefits and goodwill arising
from your use of Our Material shall inure solely to
our benefit. We may revoke your license at any time
by giving you notice in accordance with the provisions
of Section 15 of this Agreement."
Oh, right...I place a song in a network situation and
the artist license or lease license is revoked. Just
the kind of liability my company needs to grow on (not).
And the following must be included in my licenses, so
that all royalties earned go directly to MP3.com, not the
artist, writer or publisher.
"We hereby irrevocably and unconditionally sell,
assign and transfer to MP3.com, Inc. [or the designated
Licensing Services Provider, if applicable] and hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally authorize and direct
you to pay to MP3.com, Inc. [or the designated
Licensing Services Provider, if applicable ] the
"Licensing Service Fees" [as defined below] payable
by you to us under this Licensing Agreement. Such
amounts payable to MP3.com, Inc. [or the designated
Licensing Services Provider, if applicable] shall be
paid no later than the date on which the "Licensing
Fee" [as defined below] becomes payable to us, and
shall be deducted from the entire Licensing Fee
otherwise payable to us under this Licensing Agreement.
Until such time as MP3.com shall notify you in
writing of a new address, all payments to MP3.com
pursuant to this Licensing Agreement shall be sent
to the following address: MP3.com, Inc...(etc)."
Does this leave any traditional (and in place,
standard industry rate) payment tree, such as
Harry Fox for mechanicals or a recognized PRO for
performance royalties? Who polices and/or audits
the MP3.com rates and payments? Do they increase to
the writer in the future? Where is there ANY room
to negotiate in this contract? Do I have the right
to audit their books? I would be reluctant to ever
place such an agreement on my contract, simply to
PROTECT the writer and myself.
In this case of take it or leave it, I leave it.
Also, if the person who wants to license this music
DOES agree to these (and other) terms, they are
LOCKED INTO a three-year agreement with MP3.com,
at a cost of $100.00 per year, just to listen to
songs. Not for me. I won't even take a three year
phone plan.
If you are an MP3.com artist and expect licenses
from there, they won't be from my company and
probably not many traditional music sources. The
agreement is just too demanding, has no protections
for anyone but MP3.com, and there's no room to adapt
on a deal-to-deal basis any of the blanket policies.
Of course, as in every deal out there, one must
consider their own needs, obligations, future
and morality. My sets of rules and criteria may
not be the same as yours. But I know how hard so
many of us, (writers, musicians, producers,
publishers, labels, etc.), have fought for what
rights we have, and I see NOTHING being offered
(especially CONSISTENTLY) that's bettering the
actual system we have in place.
Don't get me wrong, what DOESN'T need improving
in this world? But I see no Internet-related
earnings that overwhelm, or even rival, the
traditional business in percentages of
artist/writer opportunities and success, and I
see many fewer ways to track the uses. Yes,
more Indy artists have a "storefront," for
viewing, I love that part. But in looking at
numbers, percentages and the realities of
EARNING A LIVING strictly from music, I don't
see any sort of major gain. Examine percentages
of artists on MP3 vs. percentages of artists in
traditional situation.
Those who have earned royalties on MP3.com, how
many hours did you spend promoting (and possibly
spending dollars) to earn those tiny checks?
Remember, there is such a thing as a "good deal"
and a "fair deal" out there among the "bad deals"
that are so highly profiled these days. One first
has to recognize what one's OWN needs are, what
goals one is trying to accomplish; and then, by
doing the math, see where the returns will
realistically come from. That being established,
it is a relatively simple matter to make sure that
a competent attorney or representative reviews
your contract, not only for its own soundness,
but in case an area not addressed may be brought
to your attention.
EVERY deal is different (or should be) based on
all parties individual needs and goals, but you
must be able to define specifically what those are. Related MusicDish e-Journal Articles:
» MP3.com Becomes Pay-To-Play (2001-03-19)
back
| top
|
