This is JeffCore's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following JeffCore's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
JeffCore
Recent Activity
Well, I respect where Mr. Sevier is coming from, but I disagree with many of his statements and assumption. But one in particular stuck out.... According to the article, Mr Sevier indicates that: "the potential revenue is so minuscule that it likely won't even be worth taking the time to deal with the accounting, much less making up for piracy rates of 1,000 percent." Here is where I disagree but do really understand. Administration of payments is a huge pain in the butt. But that’s the job of a record label. This is a really slippery slope argument as, based on what Sevier is saying, if an artist or songwriter earns money, Sevier gets to determine at his own discretion if it's enough earned to justify him paying his artists or songwriters. How much money does someone need to earn for Servier to pay them? In my opinion, artist and songwriters deserve to get paid every fraction of penny, nickel, dime, penny, quarter, dollar etc. This is the burden of being a label, publisher or PRO. To be blunt, this argument frustrates me, why should an artist or songwriter not get paid simply because it’s a pain? I sympathize, but its more important that the artist or songwriter get their money. Mr. Sevier then goes on to state: "It's not going to be enough to matter," Sevier said, noting that he estimates that each iTunes Match user would be contributing fractions of a cent per matched song. "I don't think that any of this will even filter down to artists. It doesn't matter what kind of label it is, it's just going to be an administrative mess dealing with all these micropayments. There's no way it's going to cover the hourly wage of someone working in the accounting department to even deal with." He is dead dead wrong. This money will filter down to the artist/label/songwriters – at least the over 600,000 who use TuneCore whose music is accessed via iMatch. The system we invested in and built does not round – artists and songwriters get every penny or fraction thereof. Artist deserve every penny or fraction thereof. A system just needed to be built to allow them to get it, so we built it. Jeff Price TuneCore
1 reply
I understand my position. That's why I took it. My label spinART was the first record label in the history of the music industry to put its entire catalog up on-line for paid download as MP3s in 1997. In 1996/97, I contributed to the business plan for eMusic and was interim VP of Content Licensing. I ran its NY office for awhile. I watched Napster climb off the backs of songwriters, bands and artists to allow people to get their music for free without the artist or label's permission. By doing this Napster raised over $85,000,000. This $85,000,000 was used for to pay its employees salaries, overhead, legal expenses, health care and more. Napster effectively "sold" your music for money and then paid employees, provided healthcare, covered expenses. You got none of it. The least they could have done is shared some of that money with the entities that helped them earn it. After all, its software was a means to an end, free music. It was this free music that made it have value. I believe your music and songs and copyrights have value. I believe you should have the power to decide if you want to give it away or not. I do NOT believe someone else has the right to make that decision for you. I believe if there is a physical store that buys one copy of your album, burns 1,000 copies and then sells these CDs you should be paid. If not, that store should be fined and/or shut down. I believe if the sole purpose of a website is to take other people's property and give it to millions of people without the permission of the copyright holders, that that website should stop. No I do not think this was solve the problem any more than a sign on the side of a road will cause someone to drive the speed limit. But that sign does have some impact. The real trick is how to harness the energy of the technology to your advantage. However, this does not mean ignore an entity whose only purpose is to give away what is not theirs to give. Jeff
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2010 on Take Action: Stop Online Music Piracy at TuneCorner
1 reply
I think there is some confusion here. this is not about regulating what content can/cannot be displayed this is about if a site is giving away someone else property for free without their permission, and that person is required by law to be paid for that property, that the site should stop giving it away this is not about what you can/cannot view, talk about and/or an invasion of privacy its important not to lump these two things together jeff
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2010 on Take Action: Stop Online Music Piracy at TuneCorner
1 reply
HI Charley Just an FYI - it's $47 flat rate to distribute an album with as many songs as you like to as many stores as you like A customer also has the option to go al-la-carte if they prefer TuneCore has direct deals with all the digital stores it works with - others do not. In addition, with many of the digital stores, the payout rates are higher. Jeff Price TuneCore
1 reply
TO CHIP: I believe its inappropriate for TuneCore to claim artists as "TuneCore's" and claim market share. However, any artist can register their UPCs with Soundscan if they like - they then get the credit (after all they are also the "label") That being said, Neilsen takes other entities data (the labels, the artists, the retail stores, the distributors) adds value to it and then with no permission or ask from the artist or labels sells it - however, they keep all the revenue. At the very least, in my opinion, they should be sharing some portion of that revenue back with the entities that created the thing they are selling - this includes the artists. Finally, Soundscan has little relevancy these days - most of TuneCore's customers are not going for commercial radio play, physical shelf space or MTV play. And the Billboard charts (created from Soundscan's data) no longer accurately reflect the reality of the music business And to get on my little soapbox, I believe Soundscan needs the artists data more then they will need them. I am not in business to help and bolster Neilsen's marketshare on data that they can package and resell.
1 reply
and that link should work now - if not it's located here http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/companies/am_octone_music.fortune/?section=magazines_fortune
1 reply
And to Adam as well The headline of this article was meant to be sarcastic. There is no way TuneCore is responsible for 100% of the releases in 2009 -by stating this I am attempting to show how wrong Neilsen's stats are. I thought I had done a good job doing that (and tried to drive it home with the "oh yeah, we are a major record label!) - as we are not a major record label Man, getting sarcasm to shine through is harder for me than I thought!
1 reply
The reason I posted this blog posting is out of frustration with Neisen, and the media, misrepresenting the truth. Based on Neilsen's statements - taken as the only source of information by the media as true - if an artists' release is not counted by Neilsen than it is not actually released - you have, in effect, been de-legitimized, With all due respect, I dont believe an artist's release should not "count" if not recognized by Neilsen as this closes off possible opportunities based on the perception that your release is not "real" I also find it distressing that the media, and other outlets, turn to Neilsen as the definitive source to determine what is occurring in this industry thereby decreasing the opportunities for musicians and artists that are not part of this old school system. The reality is the majority of music is now being created, released and sold outside of the traditional system. Ad agencies, music supervisors, video game manufacturers, radio programmers etc turn to Neilsen for information to discover music in an attempt to use/license it. They need to understand that the Neilsen information is an incomplete and an inaccurate portrayal of reality. This inaccurate perception is holding back opportunity and validation for others. So yes, I want the world to know the truth, I want fans and businesses to understand that this information being touted as the end all be all is actually extremely inaccurate and I intend to broadcast the truth as loudly as possible to as many people as possible. It is TuneCore's job to provide opportunities, access, knowledge and information, I will use every outlet I have to make certain there is truth in the marketplace - based not on my, or someone else's opinion, but based on hard empirical data. And to that end, and to answer your question, yes, TuneCore is working on creating a solution to correct this problem.
1 reply
Hi Alexendra I was trying to be sarcastic in regards to Neilsen. My point was there is no way TuneCore is responsible for almost 100% of the releases... You absolutely got the point I was trying to make - that point is Neilsen has no clue what is going on and the info they are compiling and reporting is way off the mark. I stated if Neilsen numbers hold true from 2008 that in 2009 TuneCore would have ~100% market share. Music fans buy by the song, not by the album. Neilsen is indeed in a fantasy land of inaccuracy. It is not a album buying world any longer....
1 reply
Just providing some facts TuneCore does take in or out DRM from any songs. We distribute the music to the digital stores and each digital stores decides at their own discretion how they are going to sell the music - some sell with DRM, some without etc Actually, at this point, iTunes, Amazon, Napster etc sell music for download with no DRM.
1 reply
There are some very strange thoughts in Tom's posting, but the bottom line is I can completely understand why he is so frustrated. On occasion, an artist will have music distributed to a digital store like iTunes etc that has "samples" in it - for example, if an artist literally takes a recording from an Eminem song, or any song they did not record, and use it in their own recording, its called Sampling. To legally use a sample you MUST clear the rights from the entity that controls the master recording (usually a record label) AND the entity that controls the publishing. If you have your music go live in a digital store, and it has "uncleared" samples (meaning you did not get the official legal rights), and the record label and/or publisher discovers it, they will notify the digital store and ask the store to take the music down claiming copyright infringement. When this happens, the digital store will take the music down, contact the distributor and ask for proof that the rights to the sample have been legally cleared. If they have, the legal paperwork is provided and the song(s) go back up. If not, the stores will not make them live again as they could get sued for copyright infringement. Any money generated from the sale of the music is put on hold until the dispute is resolved. The distributor - for example TuneCore - could also get sued as it distributed the music to the store. In some cases, and this might apply to Tom, an artist could be told by a producer, or someone else, that the samples they are using were legally cleared when they were not. I would normally just take these sort of postings down, but I want to leave it up as it allows us the opportunity to give those of you reading a heads-up. Make certain that if you use samples from other people's music, you clear the rights. In my opinion, the laws and rules should be easier and clearer to figure out. I suspect they will be changing over the next years to keep up with the changes in the world. As far as the FBI...ummm, no. And no, TuneCore does not pay any digital store a fee. Actually, I started TuneCore three years ago in reaction to middleman that would get music into digital stores and in return wanted the artists' rights and money, that was just dead wrong. Actually, its such a bizarre posting, if I wanted to, I am not sure I could even figure out how to respond to some of the other points. Jeff
1 reply
I think you are going to be stunned by what music surfaces - it varies a lot from zip code to zip code and I can attest first hand, it sure isn't Beyonce. I have been putting in lots of different zip codes and its fascinating to see what the top sellers are where... lots and lots of variation.
1 reply
Hi All Just wanted to make sure you knew that we wanted all TuneCore customers to be able to be discovered and promoted via the TuneCore Discover Music iPhone App. To that end, there are three tabs on the App that allow users to discover music - one of them is "Random". The Random tab surfaces playlists of randomly selected music from TuneCore customers - everyone is eligible and anyone can be in the playlists We submitted the App yesterday, now we need Apple to accept it and make it live... fingers crossed.... We will keep you posted
1 reply
Thank you for the info. Guilty as charged. I did not know Tech Crunch nor Michael. I ran a record label for 19 years called spinART Records (released bands like the Pixies, The Eels and 200 more) and helped to launch eMusic in 1997 I came up with the idea for TuneCore in 2005 and got it live in 2006. No one ever showed the site to me and I never tripped over it. Just one of those things
1 reply
Soundscan does attempt to collect digital sales data - its not accurate, particularly at the individual song level It also do not display the information down to each individual zip code of each individual sale nor does it include information on sales outside of the US. And is very expensive.
Toggle Commented May 21, 2008 on Apple changes the rules again..... at TuneCorner
1 reply
Thanks very much for the kind words. I have to say, Izzy is just a straight up nice human being - and makes great music. I feel very honored to have been able to interview him.
1 reply
Hi Michael It's the exact right question to ask, and one I asked myself about a year go. Record labels make their money by selling music, if everyone can get the thing labels sell for free, how will they survive? My thoughts - record labels help to cause ALL income streams. That is, labels cause: music sales ( sell CDs, songs etc) performance royalties ( we mail to radio and then promote to radio, with each play a performance royalty is earned) gig income ( labels provide tour support and promote gigs with ads, posters etc causing people to go to a gig - and all the other promotion it does causes gig ticket sales as well) Merch income ( for the above reasons as well) Mechanical royalties ( when an album or song is replicated, the owner of the copyright gets paid the mechanical royalty) Master Use Placement and Synch Fee ( music gets placed in a a film, TV show etc, a license is paid for the master and for the publishing) Distribution ( each time a record ships out the distributor makes money, each time a song sells digitally, the digital store makes money, these sales are caused in large part due to a labels work) Manufacturing ( each CD made has the manufacturing plant make money) However, labels ONLY get to make money from Music Sales and just the master part of the Master Use Placement and from none of the other income streams they help produce. Managers get to take between 15 - 20% of the money generated from ALL of these income streams. In my opinion, spinART Records - my label - does at least as much as a manger if not more. The label is at least as important as the band in causing all the income across the board. I believe the new model has to allow the label to participate in all of the revenue streams. The label is part of the team, it drives the machine that causes everything else, at the very least it should be able to participate in what it helps to create. Imagine it this way, you are a management company with in-house marketing and promotion, that has access to distribution and cheap manufacturing, You are part of the team that can help the band grow. You front money and take risk and pour your heart, soul, money and resources into helping the band have a career. Why should you be limited to income from just one source? It's weird, band's and lawyers have little problem with the manager taking money across the board, but a label......?
1 reply