LivePhish boards and (generic city) jams

[PIE-GUY]

Mattstick is right - it's not about the royalties on that livephish release at all... If it were, you would see "XXcity Jam" after tunes that were Anastasio/Marshal penned that then went into group improv that should be penned by all 4 band members.

It's really about control of your copyright and the ability to use it in the future. Royalties for recorded music are very straightforward. Anyone can record a cover of any song as long as they pay royalties to the copyright owner through ASCAP, BMI, etc.

It gets a ton more complicated when we're talking about music used along with motion picture in any format - DVD, TV, Film, etc. In motion pictures, each song used is a separate negotiated deal. It is not a flat rate like a recording. This is why they were never able to release Mike's 20th Anniversary video. It was impossible or perhaps just too expensive to get all the music rights for it. This is also why Dazed and Confused feature zero-point-zero Led Zeppelin songs... Zep wanted way too much money for the rights.

So, it simply comes down to exercising control over music created by the band. If you do not make efforts to control your copyright, you lose the right. Basically, Pete Townshend could claim that he is owed money for a snippet of a jam out of a Drowned that ended up on the DVD menu (as Matt suggested) of some release. By calling it "XXCity Jam" and claiming copyright, Phish can use it as they please.

[Hicks]

If you sell digital copies of a cover song you pay royalties by the minute, so that's probably also why they make the jams a separate track.

Do I think Phish thinks about that when they are playing?

No freaking way.

[kellerb]

Mattstick is right - it's not about the royalties on that livephish release at all... If it were, you would see "XXcity Jam" after tunes that were Anastasio/Marshal penned that then went into group improv that should be penned by all 4 band members.

It's really about control of your copyright and the ability to use it in the future. Royalties for recorded music are very straightforward. Anyone can record a cover of any song as long as they pay royalties to the copyright owner through ASCAP, BMI, etc.

It gets a ton more complicated when we're talking about music used along with motion picture in any format - DVD, TV, Film, etc. In motion pictures, each song used is a separate negotiated deal. It is not a flat rate like a recording. This is why they were never able to release Mike's 20th Anniversary video. It was impossible or perhaps just too expensive to get all the music rights for it. This is also why Dazed and Confused feature zero-point-zero Led Zeppelin songs... Zep wanted way too much money for the rights.

So, it simply comes down to exercising control over music created by the band. If you do not make efforts to control your copyright, you lose the right. Basically, Pete Townshend could claim that he is owed money for a snippet of a jam out of a Drowned that ended up on the DVD menu (as Matt suggested) of some release. By calling it "XXCity Jam" and claiming copyright, Phish can use it as they please.

This is all correct, although I wasn't aware that phish was doing that specifically for potential-future-movie/dvd uses.

But yes, using music in any motion-picture format is extremely complicated.  For instance, even if you license a song for use in a TV show, that license does not carry over to the DVD sales for the show.  Its pretty common to see entire tv seasons released on DVD with original music replaced by filler/soundalike stuff.  Or, look at Beavis & Butthead on DVD.  Those episodes are all cut up because of the mess of trying to license a music video that was shown on tv for a dvd release.  Mike judge/mtv at least threw some of those classic videos on the dvd releases, but probably only the ones they could get easy/cheap licenses for.

[PIE-GUY]

It's not actually by the minute - it's by the track.

[PIE-GUY]

I wasn't aware that phish was doing that specifically for potential-future-movie/dvd uses.

It's not just about DVD or whatever... it's just about exercising control from square one. If you don't do so, you lose the right to do so later. They made it a policy from the beginning to do it every time so that it never becomes an issue later.

[Hicks]

It's not actually by the minute - it's by the track.

Nope.

http://www.soundclick.com/solutioncenter/default.cfm?subOf=134

3. Paying the Publisher
You must pay the publisher on a monthly basis for every download (not stream) according to these statutory royalty rates:
If the playing time for the song is longer than five minutes, the rate is 1.65¢ per minute, rounding up to the next minute.

under 5 minutes = 8.5¢ per copy
5 to 6 minutes = 9.9¢ per copy (6 minutes x 1.65¢)
6 to 7 minutes = 11.55¢ per copy (7 minutes x 1.65¢)
7 to 8 minutes = 13.2¢ per copy (8 minutes x 1.65¢)
etc.
On January 1, 2006, the rates go up to 9¢ per song or 1.75¢ per minute. (As described above.)

[Alumni]

Those explanations are just crazy.  Now I agree with Alumni's theory of them specifically planning it out.    :-P

Hey, to be fair to the tin-foil hat theory, they'd only need their manager to explain it once. The rest would be habit.

But . . . yeah . . .  :hereitisyousentimentalbastard

[PIE-GUY]

It's not actually by the minute - it's by the track.

Nope.

I stand corrected - I still maintain it's more about the control of the music than it is the money on the recording. If it were money they would do it for Anastasio/Marshal songs not just covers. Don't you think?

[Hicks]

It's not actually by the minute - it's by the track.

Nope.

I stand corrected - I still maintain it's more about the control of the music than it is the money on the recording. If it were money they would do it for Anastasio/Marshal songs not just covers. Don't you think?

Nah, all Phish songs use the same Who Is She publishing, regardless of who wrote them.

I bet they have a deal where they just split all the royalties four ways (with Tom getting a chunk too), even though Trey writes the bulk of the material.   But that's just my gut feeling.

[PIE-GUY]

Not a chance - there is no way they're paying Marshall for songs he didn't write! Plus you know Dude of Life gets royalties, as does Jeff Holdsworth for their contributions!

Plus, these pennies are small compared to what they get for the performance piece of the puzzle (which is the piece that Mockingbird gets a chunk of).

[gah]

You guys think too much.  :-P

[mattstick]

Apparently I went to school before digital downloads.

[Hicks]

Not a chance - there is no way they're paying Marshall for songs he didn't write! Plus you know Dude of Life gets royalties, as does Jeff Holdsworth for their contributions!

Plus, these pennies are small compared to what they get for the performance piece of the puzzle (which is the piece that Mockingbird gets a chunk of).

I wasn't saying that Tom gets royalties for every song, but that I think the other guys in the band might. 

But that's just speculation on my part.

[PIE-GUY]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Who Is She? Music was an LLC in which all four owned shares. That way, they could leave those shares to their kids, etc.

[Hicks]

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if Who Is She? Music was an LLC in which all four owned shares. That way, they could leave those shares to their kids, etc.

Right, that's along the lines of what I was thinking.  Then if someone else has a songwriting credit, they cut them in on that particular song.