Ableton Forum

tinymachines wrote:Yup, yet for some reason, so many people still do, supporting this violence.

One reason for that is that it's a big job to establish an entirely new system of property and law (or some appropriate replacement) for the whole world while also trying to record music.

-Luddy

luddy wrote:

tinymachines wrote:Yup, yet for some reason, so many people still do, supporting this violence.

One reason for that is that it's a big job to establish an entirely new system of property and law (or some appropriate replacement) for the whole world while also trying to record music.

-Luddy

You don't need one. I know plenty of musicians who give away their tracks for free. The tracks are just treated more like incentive to go see the live show. There are many ways around this though that don't involve creating a new system. (By the way, no system would solve this problem. It would only recreate it. Hence, the solution is a simple and common one.)


Of course, you don't even have to go that far. Many websites allow you to self-sell your music. Bandcamp is a common one for smaller musicians and a few really big ones. You can also accept donations for the tracks, a la Radiohead. Bands one bandcamp who do that method make significantly more money than the bands that sell their tracks for, say $0.99 a track. Bandcamp does analysis on this and does their own blog and newsletter on the most successful promotion methods for their site.

First off you need to join the musicians union or get a music solicitor. If they are expecting you to sign that contract with out advising you to get legal advice, they are actually breaking the rules, and it cannot be their legal team that advises you either.

If they've paid for the recording, they own the copyright to all recordings anyway. If you've paid for it all, then they are essentially buying the rights off you, or at least they should be.

Seriously. You need legal advice. Anyone tells you other wise, ignore them, and don't let anyone force you into anything

Yes well i made all the recordings and they are kind of claiming they get the rights to the masters because they are paying for getting it mastered, all the press and promotions for it.

Re the system - Whereever there is money involved, then whatever system exists will serve to ensure that money to as few people as possible simple because those with actual influence will ensure that.

Re original post - of course they want right to the master. The real question is about whether the contract is for exclusive rights or not and over what term (or endless).

it is common practice for a label to 'own' the master recordings for the period negotiated.

the words you need to look out for in the contract are: "in perpetuity" : that is they own them forever... which is something you don't want to sign away... negotiate for a term of say 3 years.

the other thing to watch for in contracts is that you don't sign away your publishing rights. This is a very very bad idea, unless they are going to give you a bucket load of money.

tinymachines wrote: You don't need one. I know plenty of musicians who give away their tracks for free. The tracks are just treated more like incentive to go see the live show…...

to be clear, I think there are 2 different conversations going on here - what you're saying is true for bands and artists with "songs" in the conventional sense….. but in dance music it's a different story - if the OP is looking at putting out house tracks or whatever that are just aimed at clubs then it's really no big deal and you are much better off getting your tunes out on a label so it makes you a bit more appealing than the 50 billion other DJs out there - there's not usually any real money in it anyway, and eventually if you climb up the label ladder you will get paid for remixes and be able to ask for advances, which is way less common these days

but if it's more of a "serious" project like a band where you will have proper songs you will be precious over for a long time and you want to gig with as a band then you might want to negotiate it a bit more….

even still I think being too precious is more of a hindrance than anything…. But then I have band type songs that are still on my hard-drive that I haven't released yet but are probably more the stuff I'd like to be remembered for if I suddenly dropped dead, while the dance tracks I have had out I probably couldn't give a fuck about…

cacti wrote:Yes well i made all the recordings and they are kind of claiming they get the rights to the masters because they are paying for getting it mastered, all the press and promotions for it.

This isn't something they should be 'kind of claiming'. They either do or they don't, but they will own the copyright for any part of the recording production process they pay for. They're not going to give you money for nothing. That's not how it works. They spend money to achieve something, they own, you all get money out of it, but they get most because they've invested the money. You need to think of a recording contract more like a loan to make the recording, not a free wad of cash. You still own the rights to the publishing though.

If they paid for the whole thing, they would own the rights to all of the recorded materials, but you would get money from royalties agreed in the contract and from sales and it being played in various places after deductions like breakages and promo stuff. If you don't have a publishing contract, you will own all rights to the 'written' song bringing in royalties from other avenues, but, it might not be easy to do it yourself. If you get a record contract, you should be able to get a publishing contract.

You also need to know if the contract is exclusive or non exclusive, whether it has a time limit etc.

You really need some proper legal advice on this. Don't compromise yourself.

alex.the.forge wrote:

tinymachines wrote: You don't need one. I know plenty of musicians who give away their tracks for free. The tracks are just treated more like incentive to go see the live show…...

to be clear, I think there are 2 different conversations going on here - what you're saying is true for bands and artists with "songs" in the conventional sense….. but in dance music it's a different story - if the OP is looking at putting out house tracks or whatever that are just aimed at clubs then it's really no big deal and you are much better off getting your tunes out on a label so it makes you a bit more appealing than the 50 billion other DJs out there - there's not usually any real money in it anyway, and eventually if you climb up the label ladder you will get paid for remixes and be able to ask for advances, which is way less common these days

I totally forgot! Violence is okay, as long as it's what best for your career!

tinymachines wrote:

alex.the.forge wrote:

tinymachines wrote: You don't need one. I know plenty of musicians who give away their tracks for free. The tracks are just treated more like incentive to go see the live show…...

to be clear, I think there are 2 different conversations going on here - what you're saying is true for bands and artists with "songs" in the conventional sense….. but in dance music it's a different story - if the OP is looking at putting out house tracks or whatever that are just aimed at clubs then it's really no big deal and you are much better off getting your tunes out on a label so it makes you a bit more appealing than the 50 billion other DJs out there - there's not usually any real money in it anyway, and eventually if you climb up the label ladder you will get paid for remixes and be able to ask for advances, which is way less common these days

I totally forgot! Violence is okay, as long as it's what best for your career!

what the hell are you talking about - violence?

alex.the.forge wrote:what the hell are you talking about - violence?

tinymachines wrote:If you really want me to go into what I mean with that...

Believing the system we have to be based on theft, perpetrated either through coercion or direct violence, the system itself is immoral. Using money that was stolen is immoral. Therefore, using a court that costs countless tax dollars is immoral. There is no other way to uphold property rights in the modern world, than through a legal system that is based on violence and theft.
That's why I don't sign contracts that are meant to enforce for one side, or another, the terms agreed upon. If one doesn't comply, they are literally dealt with violently. That is the method used by a morally backward system.

It's an ableton forum thing, just nod and move on

alex.the.forge wrote:what the hell are you talking about - violence?

alex, if you check the fine print at the bottom of your recording contracts you'll see some language about the label being allowed to bludgeon you to death if they don't like your music. you probably missed that, lots of folks don't catch it until it's too late.

-Luddy

luddy wrote:

alex.the.forge wrote:what the hell are you talking about - violence?

alex, if you check the fine print at the bottom of your recording contracts you'll see some language about the label being allowed to bludgeon you to death if they don't like your music. you probably missed that, lots of folks don't catch it until it's too late.

-Luddy

yep you're right, I missed that bit!

Tarekith wrote:It's an ableton forum thing, just nod and move on

yep.

labels will typically need to own the master, common practice. have the contract looked over by a legal professional (or two, or more, whichever) to make sure no sneaky clauses exist and if all is well, sign it and send it in. then finally move on to another record.