nonexclusive beats?

[Magnitude9Ent]

All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

[as20gp]

All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

i take offense to that statement.. some of the best hip hop songs of all time are loops wit drum samples..

nd non exclusive beats arent just offered by kids who use illegal software...

i guess uve never had an artist come in and take an unfinished beat then?.. cause i sure have.. had an artist spit ova a beat wit just a loop and some drums.. sold that **** non exclusive

nd then gave the finished beat to somebody else exclusive.. so wat r u talkin bout

[junebugz]

All the artists that want to be an artist buy exclusive beats. All this bull**** that people want to sell the same beat over and over is stupid. lol I mean if my beat blows up I want that artist that bought it to be like yea this **** right here is mine not have 20 other dudes running around with it. Non exclusive beats are offered by (kids) that want to be a producer that use illegal software and virus infested PC's that have no clue about this. For the real producers we create exclusive original material that's unique and alot of time went into it making it sound professional not a loop with drums samples that took 5 minutes of our time.

YOUR NOT selling the BEAT over and over you are LICENSING the beat over and over again with a non exclusive LICENSE .........dugh!!!! That is what Big time Publishing company's do. They exploit their copyrights and collect income from doing it. That is SMART AS HELL.

Publishers get multiple income streams from one song and........that is SMART.

If you create the Character "Gambet" and a movie company wants to use your character in a movie you don't have to EXCLUSIVELY SELL the character, but LICENSE the character NON EXCLUSIVELY for use in the movie. You could allow other artist to make COMIC books with your character also NON EXCLUSIVELY. So you could get paid more ways using a Non Exclusive license........

This is done by professionals all the time.
You can sell a beat or song exclusively but it is CLEARLY not the only or best choice (concerning publishing income).

Tell me this….if you had a beat you knew was worth $50 would you sell it exclusively for $50 to one person only or non exclusively for $50 to 20 people ($1,000). Non exclusive is CLEARLY better (for most people) in that you have a made $1,000 instead of $50 and you can still license the beat to 20 other people and collect another $1,000 and so on. And you know that MANY underground artist (as a whole) searching for beats ARE NOT willing to spend much more than $50 for a beat.

You can do whatever the fu@k you want with your own music though. If you want to sell exclusively do it........but it is not the BEST or SMARTEST choice for everbody, even those who are full time in the business (such as myself).

[dvyce]

YOUR NOT selling the BEAT over and over you are LICENSING the beat over and over again with a non exclusive LICENSE .........dugh!!!! That is what Big time Publishing company's do. They exploit their copyrights and collect income from doing it. That is SMART AS HELL.

Publishers get multiple income streams from one song and........that is SMART.

If you create the Character "Gambet" and a movie company wants to use your character in a movie you don't have to EXCLUSIVELY SELL the character, but LICENSE the character NON EXCLUSIVELY for use in the movie. You could allow other artist to make COMIC books with your character also NON EXCLUSIVELY. So you could get paid more ways using a Non Exclusive license........

This is done by professionals all the time.
You can sell a beat or song exclusively but it is CLEARLY not the only or best choice (concerning publishing income).

Tell me this….if you had a beat you knew was worth $50 would you sell it exclusively for $50 to one person only or non exclusively for $50 to 20 people ($1,000). Non exclusive is CLEARLY better (for most people) in that you have a made $1,000 instead of $50 and you can still license the beat to 20 other people and collect another $1,000 and so on.

You can do whatever the fu@k you want with your own music though. If you want to sell exclusively do it........but it is not the BEST or SMARTEST choice for everbody, even those who are full time in the business (such as myself).

No offense, but you are a bit confused regarding how these things work.

I will try to explain this to you.

Publishing companies: Yes they license the same song for multiple uses, but that does not relate to this situation. Publishing companies do not license original backing tracks for artists to put their own melodies and lyrics on. They license existing songs for use in films, TV, commercials and the like... they may also be involved in licensing samples for new works, but that is completely different for reasons that are both obvious and which have already beed discussed.
____________________



The cartoon character example: This is not a proper analogy either. If you have created a cartoon character and you have created a following for that character and built up some equity and value in that character, then you have opportunities to license the image of that character. For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. Because of the success of "Micky Mouse" people want to license the character for use on t-shirts, lunchboxes, watches, movies, etc, etc. People want to license it because they know people want "Micky Mouse" merchandise. The character is always "Micky Mouse". The do not license "Micky mouse" for use in a movie as some other character.



Nobody is creating a random cartoon character and licensing it use as a bunch of random unrelated characters. You do not see the same visual cartoon character as a part of multiple cartoons as different characters. Let's use "Fred Flintstone" as an example (but pretend that "Fred Flintstone" was not a real cartoon character for this example.)

You do not have 10 unrelated cartoons with characters that look just like "Fred Flintstone" but are NOT "Fred Flintstone"... you will never see a cartoon and see a character who looks just like "Fred Flintstone" but it being a modern day superhero who fights crime in the big city.

"Fred Flintstone" is always "Fred Flintstone"

"Fred Flintstone" is not an actor who plays different characters...

"Fred Flintstone" IS the character.


Do you understand the difference?
____________________



relating this to music: The stage at which you begin issuing multiple licenses is not as a generic piece of music for multiple to sing their own songs over. People start issuing multiple licenses when the song has become popular and has become valuable as a particular artists song. At that point, people license the song for use in movies, commercials, TV, etc. Those licenses are generally non-exclusive, or exclusive for a defined period of time or for particular uses. But the artist generally is the only one using that backing track in their original piece of music. The artist has that music exclusively. The further licenses are based on that new song which used your backing track, and THAT is what people will be licensing. You, as the writer (or whatever you did on the track), will be paid accordingly if the song is licensed...

[junebugz]

Wow you are a lawyer. Thanks for the info.

[Hosey]

... For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. ...

I don't know if this is supposed to be as clever as it seems. I know Disney is murderous in their protection of their IP, are you misspelling "Mickey" so as to avoid infringement?

"Mickey Mouse hates children!"

Didn't some comment like that get someone sued years ago?

Just thought it was humorous, not meaning to rag you on the misspelling (Micky is a common spelling of that name anyway).

[dvyce]

I don't know if this is supposed to be as clever as it seems. I know Disney is murderous in their protection of their IP, are you misspelling "Mickey" so as to avoid infringement?

"Mickey Mouse hates children!"

Didn't some comment like that get someone sued years ago?

Just thought it was humorous, not meaning to rag you on the misspelling (Micky is a common spelling of that name anyway).

I am tempted to say that i did misspell it intentionally for the reason you described... but in reality, I simply misspelled it.


And, yeah... Disney is known for suing people who use their characters without consent.

I vaguely even remember some case we dealt with in law school about Disney suing a mother for painting Mickey Mouse on her childs bedroom wall, or something like that.

[zionproductions]

No, you actually don't understand what I am saying.






This is not about "cover versions"...

Not in any way whatsoever.

(and, by the way, the songwriter does not re-sell it or have to give permission for an artist to cover a song... once a song is out there, anyone can do a cover of it and just pay a mechanical royalty... even if the songwriter hates the cover version, he can't say anything about it.)


There are plenty of great covers that have been done throughout the history of music. But that has absolutely zero to do with the topic at hand.



This is about selling a "beat" on a "nonexclusive" basis.

Meaning: a "producer" makes a "beat" and sells it as is to several different artists. Now, each of these artists have the same exact backing track for their individual songs with different lyrics and vocal melodies. So if any of those songs comes on the radio, it will take you 30 seconds to figure out what song you are listening to because you have to wait for the vocals finally start due to the fact that is the only part that varies from one song to the other.

Yeah...so I confused my point with a bad example and info (distracted at work when I posted)...The point is...using your example: for the first 30 sec of said song using said recycled beat, people are listeing to see if it is the version they like or are used to. Bingo as to why someone may want to re-use said beat. In a day when attention spans are ever shorter, it is a bit of an edge for an artist seeking that type of attention. While I think it is silly, I do see how it can be beneficial, especially for an up-and-coming artist seeking to capitalize off the popularity or sound of a particular producer.

So forgive me for a poor example and explanation, but hopefully my point is clear now.

As far as re-selling said song--you cannot just re-record someone else's music and only pay mechanical royalties...you need to check that yourself--I didn't word what I meant precisely so I stand corrected, but your facts aren't exact either.

[dvyce]

Yeah...so I confused my point with a bad example and info (distracted at work when I posted)...The point is...using your example: for the first 30 sec of said song using said recycled beat, people are listeing to see if it is the version they like or are used to. Bingo as to why someone may want to re-use said beat. In a day when attention spans are ever shorter, it is a bit of an edge for an artist seeking that type of attention. While I think it is silly, I do see how it can be beneficial, especially for an up-and-coming artist seeking to capitalize off the popularity or sound of a particular producer.

So forgive me for a poor example and explanation, but hopefully my point is clear now.

Your point is clear.

You still do not get it, though.

I never said people would not want to use a popular beat from another song for his own song. You are completely missing the point.

Allow me to go back to my "Mickey Mouse" example...

Many people want to use the image of "Mickey Mouse" on their products (...obviously.) People like "Mickey Mouse" and the image sells products.

But the owner of the "Mickey Mouse" character does not want everyone using the "Mickey Mouse" image.

"Mickey Mouse" is Disney's identity. Disney has valuable ownership in the "Mickey Mouse" image.


Of course people want to associate themselves with this popular valuable recognizable commodity.

That is the same reason people sample music.

But, once again, your example shows you are not clear on what we are talking about here.

If you re-read my previous post, maybe you will gain a better understanding of this concept.

As far as re-selling said song--you cannot just re-record someone else's music and only pay mechanical royalties...you need to check that yourself--I didn't word what I meant precisely so I stand corrected, but your facts aren't exact either.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

(aside from the fact that we have not been talking about "cover versions" and "re-selling" has nothing to do with this)

The only thing you need to do a cover version of a song is to pay the statutory rate.

There is something in Copyright called a "compulsory license" which allows for this.

You can pay this statutory rate through the Harry Fox Agency or you can directly attempt to negotiate a reduced rate.


once the song has been on 1 album, anybody is free to do a cover version of it for their own album... you do not have to ask... you cannot be denied permission.

These are the facts.

You do not understand the facts, but that does not make them any less factual.

[KomplexBeats]

No offense, but you are a bit confused regarding how these things work.

I will try to explain this to you.

Publishing companies: Yes they license the same song for multiple uses, but that does not relate to this situation. Publishing companies do not license original backing tracks for artists to put their own melodies and lyrics on. They license existing songs for use in films, TV, commercials and the like... they may also be involved in licensing samples for new works, but that is completely different for reasons that are both obvious and which have already beed discussed.
____________________



The cartoon character example: This is not a proper analogy either. If you have created a cartoon character and you have created a following for that character and built up some equity and value in that character, then you have opportunities to license the image of that character. For example, you have a cartoon character like "Micky Mouse". That character is already successful. Because of the success of "Micky Mouse" people want to license the character for use on t-shirts, lunchboxes, watches, movies, etc, etc. People want to license it because they know people want "Micky Mouse" merchandise. The character is always "Micky Mouse". The do not license "Micky mouse" for use in a movie as some other character.



Nobody is creating a random cartoon character and licensing it use as a bunch of random unrelated characters. You do not see the same visual cartoon character as a part of multiple cartoons as different characters. Let's use "Fred Flintstone" as an example (but pretend that "Fred Flintstone" was not a real cartoon character for this example.)

You do not have 10 unrelated cartoons with characters that look just like "Fred Flintstone" but are NOT "Fred Flintstone"... you will never see a cartoon and see a character who looks just like "Fred Flintstone" but it being a modern day superhero who fights crime in the big city.

"Fred Flintstone" is always "Fred Flintstone"

"Fred Flintstone" is not an actor who plays different characters...

"Fred Flintstone" IS the character.


Do you understand the difference?
____________________



relating this to music: The stage at which you begin issuing multiple licenses is not as a generic piece of music for multiple to sing their own songs over. People start issuing multiple licenses when the song has become popular and has become valuable as a particular artists song. At that point, people license the song for use in movies, commercials, TV, etc. Those licenses are generally non-exclusive, or exclusive for a defined period of time or for particular uses. But the artist generally is the only one using that backing track in their original piece of music. The artist has that music exclusively. The further licenses are based on that new song which used your backing track, and THAT is what people will be licensing. You, as the writer (or whatever you did on the track), will be paid accordingly if the song is licensed...

Thank you for clearing up the false information people keep spreading around here...

no serious artist independent or major is going to want a beat that has been used by another artist for a major/independent release.

Tell me this though dvyce isn't it possible to put a clause in the contract that states the artist may use a beat for a certain time period and after the time period if they haven't released the record you may re-sell the instrumental? Also I've seen several situations where the producer has bought back the rights to the track...

There are a couple producers I know of that have sold beats to nobodies for a really low price then sold the same beat to a major. The majors never heard the independents version and the ones that have really didn't care either...

More information would be greatly appreciated