Finance

390 posts
Elm Park Kid
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2053
Joined: 05 Feb 2013 10:45

Re: Finance

by Elm Park Kid » 06 May 2020 15:15

SCIAG
Franchise FC
Elm Park Kid Edit - I suppose that Brexit does give us the opportunity to create some new migration rules preventing players from leaving.


How could any migration rules stop people from leaving ?
It's the receiving country that have the sole jurisdiction on migration

There are several historical and a few current examples of countries restricting emigration. They’re all tyrannical regimes that there is very little appetite for the UK to emulate.


I agree - but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the government introduces some kind of regulation making it harder to sell players to foreign clubs.

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10856
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: Relocated to LA

Re: Finance

by Franchise FC » 06 May 2020 16:02

Elm Park Kid
SCIAG
Franchise FC
How could any migration rules stop people from leaving ?
It's the receiving country that have the sole jurisdiction on migration

There are several historical and a few current examples of countries restricting emigration. They’re all tyrannical regimes that there is very little appetite for the UK to emulate.


I agree - but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the government introduces some kind of regulation making it harder to sell players to foreign clubs.

How exactly ?

User avatar
One87One
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 28 Nov 2016 12:04
Location: The Fields of Norfolk Road

Re: Finance

by One87One » 06 May 2020 17:11

Of all the suggestions, I love the "we should put less money as fans into the club to bring the wages down". You then attract a lesser quality player to the club, and ultimately play at a lesser level.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 06 May 2020 19:11

Forbury Lion
SCIAG
Forbury Lion If I wrote a book over 20 years ago and it was still selling reasonably well, wouldn't that just mean the publishers pocket what would have otherwise gone to me as a royalty?

I'm more inclined to go the otherway and suggest royalties should remain in place for at least the life of the person who wrote the book/song

If it's in the public domain then anyone can access it for free.
For enjoyment/entertainment/personal use purposes that may be reasonable (like none of us ever paying royalties when they sing happy birthday to a family member), but what if they were to profit from it by releasing a cover version of a song written by someone else or by printing and selling copies of someone elses book, maybe selling prints of someone elses artwork?

That sounds like stealing a living if you ask me.

I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.

Unless you’re adding value then there’s no reason why someone would buy what you are selling.

You can download most of Darwin’s work for free as a pdf, or if you want a physical copy of the Origin of Species you can pick one up for £1, or you pick up a really fancy leather bound copy or an illustrated copy for a bit more if that is what you want.

On the other hand you need to pay full price for an ordinary copy of The Selfish Gene because Dawkins and his publishers have a monopoly.

Legally people like Dawkins and Cliff Richard have control of their works but they’re not adding anything on an ongoing basis. A couple of decades of monopoly to make it possible for them to make money would be justified but the current “lifetime plus seventy” rule is horrific.

Put it this way: Lennon-McCartney songs will be under copyright until at least 2090, by which point I will almost certainly be dead, despite John Lennon dying before I was born. I don’t see any moral justification for someone at Sony Music Publishing or even McCartney’s grandchildren continuing to get fat off that teat in the manner that Marvin Gaye’s estate is.

Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8640
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 07 May 2020 09:05

Ascotexgunner
Forbury Lion
Emmer Green Royal
There are (at least) two types of copyright. Copyright in the song , usually owned by the writer or their publisher, and copyright in a performance of the song, usually owned by the artist or their record label. Both last 70 years after the death of the artist. Cliff may have written some of his songs prior to this being the case.
Looks like the story I recalled was over 9 years ago and prompted a change in the law
https://www.nme.com/news/music/cliff-richard-20-1282122
A new EU ruling is set to see copyright for music performers extended from 50 to 70 years. The ruling has been dubbed Cliff Richard's Law, as it will see older musicians such as Richards still able to profit from their music long after it has been recorded and released.


Have I missed something? Has Cliff bought the club?
Team coming out to Wired for Sound, half time guitar solo from Hank, or singalong with Cliff if its raining and theres a threat of Hanks guitar shooting him into row z of 1871?
How did we get to this?
He's doing the half time entertainment next season


Forbury Lion
Hob Nob Subscriber
Hob Nob Subscriber
Posts: 8640
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 08:37
Location: https://youtu.be/c4sX57ZUhzc

Re: Finance

by Forbury Lion » 07 May 2020 09:13

One87One Of all the suggestions, I love the "we should put less money as fans into the club to bring the wages down". You then attract a lesser quality player to the club, and ultimately play at a lesser level.
Ultimately, that's what has already happened - revenue has dropped but overheards (player wages etc) have not... that's why there is a crisis. Yes, they were too high before and were not at all linked to revenues so that may need to be addressed, but the clubs all spend far too much on wages. If you cut revenue it will be worse initially and the the same as before further down the line with a wage bill the club can not afford to maintain.

I can see wages in future being aligned to fixtures played, then they automatically get deferred when games get postponed.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39404
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 07 May 2020 11:07

SCIAG
Forbury Lion
SCIAG If it's in the public domain then anyone can access it for free.
For enjoyment/entertainment/personal use purposes that may be reasonable (like none of us ever paying royalties when they sing happy birthday to a family member), but what if they were to profit from it by releasing a cover version of a song written by someone else or by printing and selling copies of someone elses book, maybe selling prints of someone elses artwork?

That sounds like stealing a living if you ask me.

I think Sir Cliff Richard said that he's going to lose ownership of some of his own songs because he wrote them so long ago, Perhaps the rule should be that they become copyright free after something like x years or x years after the artists dies, whichever is the longer.

Unless you’re adding value then there’s no reason why someone would buy what you are selling.

You can download most of Darwin’s work for free as a pdf, or if you want a physical copy of the Origin of Species you can pick one up for £1, or you pick up a really fancy leather bound copy or an illustrated copy for a bit more if that is what you want.

On the other hand you need to pay full price for an ordinary copy of The Selfish Gene because Dawkins and his publishers have a monopoly.

Legally people like Dawkins and Cliff Richard have control of their works but they’re not adding anything on an ongoing basis. A couple of decades of monopoly to make it possible for them to make money would be justified but the current “lifetime plus seventy” rule is horrific.

Put it this way: Lennon-McCartney songs will be under copyright until at least 2090, by which point I will almost certainly be dead, despite John Lennon dying before I was born. I don’t see any moral justification for someone at Sony Music Publishing or even McCartney’s grandchildren continuing to get fat off that teat in the manner that Marvin Gaye’s estate is.

Amen

Millsy
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10024
Joined: 16 Jul 2004 18:36
Location: Running from The Left

Re: Finance

by Millsy » 07 May 2020 15:17

I've just had a thought. Suppose we get some sort of a bailout and the season.. um... bollox I lost forgot what I was going to say. Sorry.

Emmer Green Royal
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 May 2006 11:57
Location: St Johann in Tirol, Austria

Re: Finance

by Emmer Green Royal » 08 May 2020 14:25

SCIAG The people who are really stealing a living:

- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.


Musicians are highly skilled, often highly qualified, and usually not paid very much. The average income of a professional musician according to the UK Music report was £23k in 2019, against a national average of almost £30k.

If a musician usually works in a function band playing covers, but has recorded and released an album that generates a few thousand pounds a year in sales and radio plays - why should that revenue stop after 20 years (or, indeed, ever) if people enjoy listening to the music?

If a banker buys a big house he can leave it to his kids. If a musician's only asset is the on-going income from their album, why can they not leave this asset to their kids?

P.S. I'm a musician working on the final dissertation for my Music MA course, and I haven't earned anything since the lockdown started as all gigs have been cancelled. :cry:


User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10856
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: Relocated to LA

Re: Finance

by Franchise FC » 08 May 2020 15:19

Emmer Green Royal
SCIAG The people who are really stealing a living:

- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.


Musicians are highly skilled, often highly qualified, and usually not paid very much. The average income of a professional musician according to the UK Music report was £23k in 2019, against a national average of almost £30k.

If a musician usually works in a function band playing covers, but has recorded and released an album that generates a few thousand pounds a year in sales and radio plays - why should that revenue stop after 20 years (or, indeed, ever) if people enjoy listening to the music?

If a banker buys a big house he can leave it to his kids. If a musician's only asset is the on-going income from their album, why can they not leave this asset to their kids?

P.S. I'm a musician working on the final dissertation for my Music MA course, and I haven't earned anything since the lockdown started as all gigs have been cancelled. :cry:

I'm not a musician or writer but I can't see an argument for stopping royalties at an arbitrary 20 years.
The books/songs are still being sold or played and therefore the only 'winners' are the big businesses selling them as they would have lower costs and hence higher profits.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 08 May 2020 16:06

Franchise FC
Emmer Green Royal
SCIAG The people who are really stealing a living:

- Anyone who wrote a song or book more than twenty years ago and is still claiming royalties.


Musicians are highly skilled, often highly qualified, and usually not paid very much. The average income of a professional musician according to the UK Music report was £23k in 2019, against a national average of almost £30k.

If a musician usually works in a function band playing covers, but has recorded and released an album that generates a few thousand pounds a year in sales and radio plays - why should that revenue stop after 20 years (or, indeed, ever) if people enjoy listening to the music?

If a banker buys a big house he can leave it to his kids. If a musician's only asset is the on-going income from their album, why can they not leave this asset to their kids?

P.S. I'm a musician working on the final dissertation for my Music MA course, and I haven't earned anything since the lockdown started as all gigs have been cancelled. :cry:

I'm not a musician or writer but I can't see an argument for stopping royalties at an arbitrary 20 years.
The books/songs are still being sold or played and therefore the only 'winners' are the big businesses selling them as they would have lower costs and hence higher profits.

As already explained, take away the monopoly of IP and the big businesses wouldn't easily be able to make money off them either. I suppose commercial radio stations would pocket some money along with other businesses who presently have to pay royalties, but if they're adding enough value to keep making money then good for them.

Regardless of how much skill something takes to make, intellectual property generates a deadweight loss. It's probably an acceptable deadweight loss for a short period because it incentivises production. If you make music that people like then you should be paid for it! In the long term though it stifles creativity and frankly is the definition of stealing a living - you're making money from exploiting a position of power rather than from adding anything.

Can understand how it might not feel like that to the honest journeyman and it's fair enough that you defend it. Ultimately the music teacher who had a minor hit once is causing a tiny economic inefficiency but you could hardly say they were hurting anyone. But this was sparked by someone accusing footballers of stealing a living because they get paid to entertain. To my mind, if you can convince someone to pay you to perform for them then you deserve to be paid. But old recordings shouldn't be the property of any one person; after a certain period of time they should become shared property between everyone. Currently we say lifetime plus seventy, which frankly is practically forever. Twenty is, to me, a pragmatic balance between the status quo and abolishing IP altogether, but I don't base that on anything solid. Maybe a longer or shorter period would ultimately find that balance better.

Inheritance tax in this country is also too low. Never mind the deadweight loss - it is fundamentally unjust that having rich parents should give children such a big advantage. Two wrongs do not make a right.

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2781
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Finance

by tmesis » 08 May 2020 17:35

SCIAG
Franchise FC
Emmer Green Royal
Musicians are highly skilled, often highly qualified, and usually not paid very much. The average income of a professional musician according to the UK Music report was £23k in 2019, against a national average of almost £30k.

If a musician usually works in a function band playing covers, but has recorded and released an album that generates a few thousand pounds a year in sales and radio plays - why should that revenue stop after 20 years (or, indeed, ever) if people enjoy listening to the music?

If a banker buys a big house he can leave it to his kids. If a musician's only asset is the on-going income from their album, why can they not leave this asset to their kids?

P.S. I'm a musician working on the final dissertation for my Music MA course, and I haven't earned anything since the lockdown started as all gigs have been cancelled. :cry:

I'm not a musician or writer but I can't see an argument for stopping royalties at an arbitrary 20 years.
The books/songs are still being sold or played and therefore the only 'winners' are the big businesses selling them as they would have lower costs and hence higher profits.

As already explained, take away the monopoly of IP and the big businesses wouldn't easily be able to make money off them either. I suppose commercial radio stations would pocket some money along with other businesses who presently have to pay royalties, but if they're adding enough value to keep making money then good for them.

Regardless of how much skill something takes to make, intellectual property generates a deadweight loss. It's probably an acceptable deadweight loss for a short period because it incentivises production. If you make music that people like then you should be paid for it! In the long term though it stifles creativity and frankly is the definition of stealing a living - you're making money from exploiting a position of power rather than from adding anything. .

If music royalties ended after 20 years, who would benefit?

In what way would creativity increase?

I'd say the ability of a record company to include somebody else's song on an album, and make money from it without giving the artist a penny, is far more "stealing a living" than him receiving royalties would be.

Emmer Green Royal
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 May 2006 11:57
Location: St Johann in Tirol, Austria

Re: Finance

by Emmer Green Royal » 09 May 2020 08:30

SCIAG ... intellectual property generates a deadweight loss.


I understand why you might want to get rid of market inefficiencies - but I'd argue that there are many more important problmes to fix than depriving musicians of income. For example, is it right that Jeff Bezos is worth over $140 billion while his staff are paid minimum wages?

But if you want to get rid of IP, what do you replace it with? Benjamin Roin argues that "The consensus view is that if the government can set prizes that offer equivalent incentives for innovation as intellectual property, it should grant prizes instead of intellectual property"

I look forward to receiveing the prize for the song I wrote yesterday. :wink:


Norfolk Royal
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 3537
Joined: 30 Apr 2004 16:07
Location: Carrot juice is the elixir of the Gods.

Re: Finance

by Norfolk Royal » 09 May 2020 08:45

Have read quite a lot of stuff about football having to recalibrate its finances, wage ceilings, etc etc.

It's nonsense really. There may be a short term shock for some clubs but when football restarts proper the same economics will be in play as ever.

That being that the clubs with the most money will pay the most, get the best players, and likely rise to the top.

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 09 May 2020 08:53

Why would someone pay for said album when they could legally stream or download the song for free?

The big winners would be the public, who could easily access old music for free without needing to worry about artificial scarcity.

Relaxing copyright would make sample clearance much easier and remove the omnipresent threat of copyright claims from predatory rights holders. Both of these things are presently major checks to creativity in the music industry. If someone wants to use music in a short film then they don’t need to use a big chunk of the budget on licensing. Places like Wikipedia would benefit hugely.

The big losers would be the likes of Disney, Universal, Sony, Nintendo, Warner, etc. who would no longer be able to bleed their goldmines dry.

Put it this way - patents currently last 20 years. Inventors deserve to be rewarded for innovation, but we recognise that it shouldn’t be forever and after a while we need to be able to build on their inventions. Why shouldn’t it be the same for entertainment?

SCIAG
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 6362
Joined: 17 Jun 2008 17:43
Location: Liburd for England

Re: Finance

by SCIAG » 09 May 2020 09:09

Emmer Green Royal
SCIAG ... intellectual property generates a deadweight loss.


I understand why you might want to get rid of market inefficiencies - but I'd argue that there are many more important problmes to fix than depriving musicians of income. For example, is it right that Jeff Bezos is worth over $140 billion while his staff are paid minimum wages?

But if you want to get rid of IP, what do you replace it with? Benjamin Roin argues that "The consensus view is that if the government can set prizes that offer equivalent incentives for innovation as intellectual property, it should grant prizes instead of intellectual property"

I look forward to receiveing the prize for the song I wrote yesterday. :wink:

Make an offhand remark about footballers earning their pay and suddenly you’re asked to defend Jeff Bezos...

I’m not running for Parliament here so asking me for my solutions to every problem in the world seems a bit... I don’t know. My views are entirely irrelevant unless you make the mistake of finding them interesting :wink:

I think Bezos deserves a very high wage because he’s a brilliant CEO who continues to expand Amazon into new markets.

Having said that, many similar arguments I’ve made about IP can apply to stocks and shares. Investors make a lot of things happen and would have more ways around any law, but I guess a smarter person than me could dream up a system that encourages investment without allowing, say, the founder of a major company to indefinitely make money off the work of his or her successors.

Minimum wage workers deserve to have their needs met. Personally I think it would be better if the government did this through UBI rather than relying on businesses, but the UK’s minimum wage seems to work really well. Insert Mandleson quote.

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2781
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Finance

by tmesis » 09 May 2020 11:07

SCIAG Why would someone pay for said album when they could legally stream or download the song for free?

The big winners would be the public, who could easily access old music for free without needing to worry about artificial scarcity.

They do that already, with spotify. If ever a company was stealing a living, it's them.

I really don't get why some people think getting something for free is some kind of right.

Relaxing copyright would make sample clearance much easier and remove the omnipresent threat of copyright claims from predatory rights holders. Both of these things are presently major checks to creativity in the music industry.

In what way would removing copyright improve creativity? Musicians hate the current state of affairs with streaming, as it's killed a huge chunk of their revenue. It takes a lot of time and effort (and money) to produce an album, yet you think people should be able to download it for free.

It's why the charts now are full of autotuned dancers, miming and dancing to music created on a computer, rather than people with actual talent and ability.

Really, who are these musicians calling for an end to copyright, to aid their creativity?

Yes, there are some times where it can go too far, with unknown artists claiming established acts owe them royalties because of a similarity to something they wrote, but those cases are rare.

If someone wants to use music in a short film then they don’t need to use a big chunk of the budget on licensing.

What if somebody doesn't want that film using their music, because they don't want their music to be associated with that film?

The big losers would be the likes of Disney, Universal, Sony, Nintendo, Warner, etc. who would no longer be able to bleed their goldmines dry.

The big losers would be the artists themselves.

Put it this way - patents currently last 20 years. Inventors deserve to be rewarded for innovation, but we recognise that it shouldn’t be forever and after a while we need to be able to build on their inventions. Why shouldn’t it be the same for entertainment?

The difference there is that a patent is really to stop somebody cashing in by just copying somebody's idea. Music isn't like that. There's nothing to stop anybody writing a song that sounds reminiscent of another song or artist.

User avatar
Snowflake Royal
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 39404
Joined: 20 Jun 2017 17:51

Re: Finance

by Snowflake Royal » 09 May 2020 11:28

Independent content creators would massively benefit on streaming and video services.

There's absolutely tons of copyright abuse stifling creativity there with big rights owners taking revenue from them.

Tom Scott has a pretty good video on why copyright law is horrendous given modern technology and industry.

User avatar
tmesis
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2781
Joined: 16 Aug 2013 20:26

Re: Finance

by tmesis » 09 May 2020 12:11

Snowflake Royal Independent content creators would massively benefit on streaming and video services.

There's absolutely tons of copyright abuse stifling creativity there with big rights owners taking revenue from them.

Tom Scott has a pretty good video on why copyright law is horrendous given modern technology and industry.

It can be pretty draconian on youtube, but part of that is the inability to mediate. If a rights holder claims copyright infringement then that's it.

Get hit with three strikes and your channel is taken down.

There have even been videos where people have been talking about abuses of copyright law, and defending musicians who've been accused of copying, and been told their video is infringing the copyright of the band they were defending.



The principle of it though is that some people think they should be able to take somebody else's work without credit or payment, or even make money from it. And that's what it boils down to. Songs aren't just things that bands happen to own, that they can exploit. They created it. If you don't want to pay the price for an album, or even 99p for a digital download of a song, then don't pay it. Just don't whinge that it's your right to able to get it for free, because it isn't, nor should it be.


I bet if I started a channel on youtube, and just lifted the content of one of these independent creators, and monetised it, they'd be furious.

muirinho
Hob Nob Regular
Posts: 2075
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 12:10

Re: Finance

by muirinho » 09 May 2020 16:46

Snowflake Royal Independent content creators would massively benefit on streaming and video services.

There's absolutely tons of copyright abuse stifling creativity there with big rights owners taking revenue from them.

Tom Scott has a pretty good video on why copyright law is horrendous given modern technology and industry.


I know a professional, award-winning, musician who has toured the world and played in huge arenas.

But she has another full-time job, because she can't live off her earnings from music.

When she makes a track, she pays for recording time, producers, backing musicians, promotion etc. It costs money. When people download her stuff for free, everybody gets paid except her. When her music is streamed on Spotify, she'd have to have more than a million listens to make £50 - and out of that £50, she has to pay a distributor to get the music onto Spotify. (spotify don't deal directly with artists). Think how many millions of listens would be required to pay for the recording equipment, the other musicians etc. Before she gets any money.
I don't know how the youtube figures add up, but trust me, it's not much.
When she tours (god knows when that will happen again), she pays for the backing band, for visas, for travel arrangements, for accomodation (if accomodation is arranged, it effectively comes out of the concert fee) and so on.

Independent content creators do not benefit from exposure. They die of exposure. Exposure costs money - and if no-one is willing to pay for that content, because they think they can should be able to get it for free, then you won't get professional musicians doing their own thing "independently". Because they'll decide that the need to eat trumps the need to do what they do best.

Obviously huge artists with massive worldwide followings will earn enough to make a very good living from what they do. But not everybody wants to listen to Coldplay, or Drake, or whatever the cool kids are at now.

I'll tell you what stifles creativity - it's being forced to appeal to the lowest possible denominator, in order to be popular enough to survive on your earnings.
And you know what else stifles creativity - it isn't "copyright abuse"- it's ACTUAL copyright abuse, as in, refusing to pay for stuff that has been created, because you think they should be glad you like it, and that's enough. It's difficult being creative if your creativity is being squeezed into the corners of your everyday life, because of the time you've got to give over to earning enough to live on.

I'm sure there are things that are wrong with current copyright law. But at least it is making some attempt to get the money made from content, to the people who made that content.

390 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ankeny, Crusader Royal, Franchise FC, Horsham Royal and 431 guests

It is currently 29 Mar 2024 11:16