Wednesday, February 22, 2017

How Do Bands Effectively Manage Their Royalties And Contracts? | Music Think Tank

When a band begins to achieve success, money will start coming in. Young members of a band and people who are new to earning an income through music may not know how to manage the income from royalties and contracts. These four tips will help you to effectively manage your income.

Hiring an Accountant

Once money starts rolling in from your band, it is important to hire a financial advisor or an accountant that is independent from your record label. This finance professional can help you to manage your income from contracts and royalties. You may wish to divvy up your income into money that you can use now for your living expenses and money to invest for the future. An investment account could help to grow your income so that even if you take an early retirement from music, you will still have some money.

Song Royalties

With luck and great marketing, you may be able to collect song royalties for decades. Some agencies, like ASCAP or BMI, know that every time your song is used or played, you should be able to receive royalties on it. The terms of your royalties will be included into your recording contract. You could have your royalties diverted directly into an investment account or a trust for future use.

Making an Artist Bio

Making an artist bio is an important part of the documentation you will need for future contracts. Your bio may include the instruments you play, your song credits and some details about yourself, such as what got you interested in music. Your artist bio can also be included in interviews and written articles about you or your band. You should also think about getting your band name trademarked, because another band could have the same one as you.  By trademarking it, you keep yourself safe from legal repercussions and other potential problems.

Setting up a Trust

Setting up a trust is another great way to manage your royalties and contract income. A teenage band can benefit from a trust because the income will be set aside and slowly distributed in the future. A trust can be invested and managed by an independent third party. Trusts must be set up with the assistance of a lawyer. Any money in the trust is protected from lawsuits and other claims against you.

Earning a living by doing what you are passionate about is a wonderful experience. By wisely managing your royalty and contract income, you can also set yourself up for financial success. With the help of an accountant, financial advisor and lawyer, you will be able to manage your band income without worrying too much about your financial future.


Spotify's Most Streamed & Viral Tracks US, UK, Global | hypebot

Spotify chartsThe Spotify Weekly Charts highlight top artists by listener along with the past week's most streamed and viral songs in the US, UK and around the world. 

Spotify Global Top Artists (by Listener)
  Rank Artist Monthly Listeners
1 Ed Sheeran 42.18m

2 The Chainsmokers 37.80m

3 The Weeknd 37.67m

4 Drake 34.56m

5 Major Lazer 29.48m

6 Maroon 5 29.22m

7 Rihanna 26.55m

8 Bruno Mars 26.35m

9 ZAYN 26.17m

10 Sia 25.58m

  Rank Artist/Track Streams
1 Ed Sheeran
Shape of You

I Don't Wanna Live Forever (Fifty Shades Darker)

3 The Chainsmokers

4 Luis Fonsi

5 Martin Garrix
Scared To Be Lonely

6 Katy Perry
Chained To The Rhythm

7 Ed Sheeran
Castle On the Hill

8 Clean Bandit
Rockabye (feat. Sean Paul & Anne-Marie)

9 James Arthur
Say You Won't Let Go

10 The Weeknd

US Top 10
  Rank Artist/Track Streams
1 Ed Sheeran
Shape of You

Bad and Boujee (feat. Lil Uzi Vert)

I Don't Wanna Live Forever (Fifty Shades Darker) 

4 Big Sean
Bounce Back

5 Kyle
iSpy (feat. Lil Yachty)

6 The Chainsmokers

7 Drake
Fake Love

8 Migos

9 Katy Perry
Chained To The Rhythm

10 The Weeknd

UK Top 10
  Rank Artist/Track Streams
1 Ed Sheeran
Shape of You

2 Ed Sheeran
Castle on the Hill

3 Jax Jones
You Don't Know Me

4 The Chainsmokers

5 Rag'n'Bone Man

6 Little Mix

I Don't Wanna Live Forever (Fifty Shades Dark)

8 Starley
Call On Me - Ryan Riback Extended Remix

9 JP Cooper
September Song 

10 Clean Bandit 
Rockabye (feat. Sean Paul & Anne-Marie)

GLOBAL Viral 10
Rank Artist/Track
1 Prince
Purple Rain

2 Katy Perry
Chained To The Rhythm

3 Francesco Gabbani
Occidentali's Karma

Not Today

5 Avelina

6 Prince 
Let's Go Crazy

7 Mon Laferte

8 Prince

9 Prince
When Doves Cry

10 Sigrid
Don't Kill My Vibe

US Viral 10
Rank Artist/Track
1 Riskay
Smell Yo D*ck

2 Prince
Purple Rain

3 Prince
Let's Go Crazy

4 Mac Ayres

5 Sigrid
Don't Kill My Vibe

6 Prince
When Doves Cry

7 Prince

8 Luwten
Go Honey

9 Katy Perry
Chained To The Rhythm

10 Prince
I Would Die 4 U

UK Viral 10
Rank Artist/Rank
1 Avelino 

2 Prince
Purple Rain

3 Sigrid
Don't Kill My Vibe

4 Prince

5 Daniel Wakeford
Playboy Girls

6 Katy Perry
Chained To The Rhythm

7 Prince
Let's Go Crazy

8 Prince
When Doves Cry

9 Prince
Raspberry Beret

10 MysDiggi x Sainsbury's 
Food Dancing (Yum Yum Yum)
Related articles

Eric Church Cancels Tickets | Lefsetz Letter

“Eric Church’s Manager Explains How He Cancelled 25,000 Tickets Held By Scalpers”

This is not about letting 25,000 fans in.

This is about letting fans and potential fans know that Eric Church is on their side, and we haven’t had that spirit here since the MTV era, not in someone who can sell out arenas.

The acts are all about the money. They say they’re about the music, give lip service to their fans (and God!), but the truth is they’re eager to climb out of the trough of the nobody and into the land of the billionaire, go to charity balls and live the high life. When did music become about the economics as opposed to the tunes, when did it become about fame as opposed to the music, when did it become about subterfuge as opposed to honesty?

And the truth is not only can you not get a good ticket to a show at face value, by time the public on-sale happens fewer than a thousand tickets can be available. After the fan club and credit card pre-sales, the holdbacks, anybody who goes on a regular basis knows you don’t wake up and click on Ticketmaster on Saturday morning in your underwear, that if you’re complaining about not getting a ticket then you’re an amateur.

To tell you the truth, dedicated concertgoers prefer StubHub. Because they can wait until the last minute, when they know they’re free, and get a good ticket. People are willing to pay beaucoup bucks for that, as indicated by Church’s $260 platinum tickets being sold for much more on resale sites. The problem isn’t money, but ACCESS, AVAILABILITY, people just want to be inside, the cost is secondary.

But the game is rigged. All insiders know this. It’s about extracting the most dollars as opposed to transparency. The acts hate the labels for false accountings? They should look at themselves regarding concert ticket sales. All the kickbacks, the credit card dollars…

Is this the future, Church’s solution?

Each and every story about this mentions the cost involved, the labor. Nobody else is willing to put in the effort. And there you’ve got your modern music business right there. The acts don’t want to spend a dime. That’s why the major labels still exist, they’re willing to open their wallets, managers are not. If it’s hard, and it doesn’t go straight to the bottom line, today’s acts are out.

But Church is playing a long game. One wherein he knows it’s about good will as opposed to upfront bucks. You want a career, right? You want to be able to do this forever, right? So why are you whoring yourself out to the corporations as opposed to your fans?

It’s not that hard to break the paradigm. Hell, Church released his last album without pre-fanfare, the endless hype we all abhor, and shipped it initially to his fan club members. Forget what’s in the grooves, this bonds listeners to you.

We all want people to believe in.

We used to believe in musicians.

But now they’re seen as part of the endless rigged system.

When they used to be a voice for truth, justice and the American Way.


What do Don Henley, Glenn Frey, Deadmau5, Sam & Dave and The Beatles Have in Common with Hotel California? Facebook is Selling Their Names as Keywords | MUSIC • TECHNOLOGY • POLICY

MTP readers will recall that there is a long history of Internet advertising companies selling keywords under dodgy circumstances.  We have some documentation of this practice–starting in 2003ish an affidavit from the “DownloadPlace” litigation documents that Google suggested artist names as Google Adwords.  In the Google drugs non prosecution agreement case, Google representatives sold drug-related keywords in an FBI sting operation that resulted in a multi-year grand jury investigation and Google paying a $500,000,000 forfeiture.

But there’s a new bad boy on the block–Facebook.  Not only has Facebook refused to get music licenses, Facebook is actually selling artist names as keywords.  You can determine this yourself by “boosting” any post and setting the “Create Audience” filter to include artist names or song titles under “Interests”.

Here’s a few examples–my bet is that none of these are protected by any safe harbor (DMCA or CDA) as the selling of the artist names and song titles is likely not avoidable that way.  Also–it’s important to note that all these artists and songwriters no doubt have heavily negotiated restrictions on the use of their names for advertising purposes so it’s not like they didn’t think about it.

Don Henley:


Glenn Frey:


Hotel California


Sam & Dave




The Beatles



Google: 99.95% of Recent ‘Trusted’ DMCA Notices Were Bogus | TorrentFreak

Under current legislation, US-based Internet service providers are not expected to proactively police infringing user content. They are, however, expected to remove it, if a copyright holder complains.

The so-called ‘safe harbor’ that providers enjoy as a result of such cooperation is currently under the microscope, following rightsholder complaints that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is failing them.

To address these concerns, the U.S. Copyright Office has been running an extended public consultation. As noted earlier, the RIAA and other music groups just submitted their comments and Google have now added theirs.

In contrast to the music groups who believe that the DMCA is “failing”, Google believes otherwise. Noting that rogue sites have been driven out of the United States by an effective DMCA, the search giant suggests leaving the law intact while encouraging voluntary mechanisms between content owners and providers.

“In short, the DMCA has proven successful at fostering ongoing collaboration between rightsholders and online service providers, a collaboration that continues to pay dividends both in the U.S. and in international contexts,” Google writes.

The company highlights its YouTube-based Content ID as one such collaboration, with the system helping creators take down or monetize infringing content, as they see fit. Google also cites the benefits afforded by the takedown tools it provides to rightsholders in respect of Google search.

“First, in recent years, Google has streamlined its submission process, enabling rightsholders to send more notices more easily (while still continuing to reduce the average time to resolution to under six hours),” the company notes.

“Second, Google has provided new incentives to make heavy use of the DMCA takedown system. We now use the number of valid DMCA requests a domain has received as one of the inputs in making ranking determinations in search results, so rightsholders seeking to take advantage of this signal have further incentive to file notices.”

But while Google supports the current takedown provisions, there are problems. The company says that a significant portion of the recent increases in DMCA submission volumes stem from notices that are either duplicate, unnecessary, or bogus.

“A substantial number of takedown requests submitted to Google are for URLs
that have never been in our search index, and therefore could never have appeared in our search results,” Google states.

“For example, in January 2017, the most prolific submitter submitted notices that Google honored for 16,457,433 URLs. But on further inspection, 16,450,129 (99.97%) of those URLs were not in our search index in the first place.”

This kind of rampant abuse was highlighted in our recent report which revealed that one small site had millions of bogus notices filed against it. But, according to Google, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

“In total, 99.95% of all URLs processed from our Trusted Copyright Removal Program in January 2017 were not in our index,” the company reveals.

But despite the abuse, Google is apparently giving these ‘trusted’ submitters some wiggle room to be creative. In a rather unexpected move, the search giant says that it now accepts takedown notices for URLs that don’t exist, to ensure that they never appear in future search results.

While copyright holders will presumably enjoy that feature, it is a fairly curious move. A proactive takedown of a non-existent URL necessarily happens in advance of any determination of whether that URL is infringing, which goes way beyond any legislation currently being demanded.

That being said, some of these non-existent (and essentially fabricated) URLs do eventually turn up in Google search, albeit at a tiny rate.

“Of the 35,000,000 URLs we processed in the latter half of September 2016 that were not in our index, fewer than 2% of those would have made it into our index in the intervening four months; notices for the other 98% therefore were at best unnecessary,” Google says.

“Many of these submissions appear to be generated by merely scrambling the words in a search query and appending that to a URL, so that each query makes a different URL that nonetheless leads to the same page of results,” it adds, referencing an earlier TF report.

Overall, however, Google seems comfortable with the current notice-and-takedown framework, noting that a “robust ecosystem” of companies with expertise in sending takedown requests is being bolstered by voluntary service provider measures that already go beyond the requirements of Section 512 of the DMCA.

“While stakeholders can be expected to disagree about the details of these voluntary efforts, it cannot be said that the DMCA safe harbors are failing in the face of this overwhelming evidence that these voluntary measures continue to grow both in number and diversity,” Google concludes.

It’s crystal clear from Google’s submission that it sees the DMCA as a law it can work with, since it enables service providers to innovate without fear while simultaneously addressing the concerns of copyright holders. The latter see things quite differently though, so expect the battles to continue.

Google’s submission can be found here, via Michael Geist.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.