5 May
2011
5 May
'11
2:54 p.m.
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.
Simon