TimR

It's about how we value other people's time. Some people are worth more man hours than others. They're mire valuable. I can fit a new back door. It will take me all day. I'm not great at it but I have the tools and I can do it. My friend can do it in two hours. How many man hours is fitting a back door worth? The problem comes when he needs me to play bass, which he can't do at all. Now if I play bass for two hours in his band, is this the two hours that he spent fitting my door, or two of the six hours I saved when he fitted my door? Do I owe him 4hours? I think I should it's only right, but then he can't play bass at all so I'm saving him hundreds of hours of learning. This is where we remember that money is a tool to be exchanged and not hoarded. My vision would have a limit put on profits, a tax if you like to be paid to the unemployable, but the limit wouldn't be absolute, it would be relative to the number of people you employ. I think it's being proposed in the form of pay ratios between directors and employees. Eg. You cannot pay a director more than 200x the lowest paid employee. I think my idea is better, (of course)

Maybe we're missing the point here. A musician has two choices. He either sells his record to one person for a couple of thousand pounds who then packages and sells it to others, or he waits to see how many units he sells and makes money that way. He takes the gamble and is rewarded. The chair designer designs the chair but usually someone else takes the risk. They buy the design off him and build the factory and employ the workers and sit back and watch the profits roll in. Once the factory is paid for and the original design what should he do? Has Sting really just written and performed a tune and sat back and waited? Has he promoted it by going round the world and attending interviews and playing stadiums? Has he had to stand in a TV studio miming? The idea of copyright is to protect the interests of someone whose creativity is worth more than the actual physical product. That creativity is a difficult thing to put a value on based on 'human endeavour' as there is an unidentifiable quality in it other than pure hard work. If it was something we could all do given the same timescale we wouldn't need Sting and we would just do it ourselves

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389477072' post='2334683'] Continuing the 'get paid for the actual work' theme, the writer has already been paid for his song, after which it becomes public domain (yeah, I know, contentious). The covers band is being paid for their performance, not for the song. I'm warming to Dad's theme. After all, the concept of royalties is a fairly recent thing isn't it? It's just a made up convention enabled by recording technology - certainly a nice little earner if you can get away with it, but that's not the same as genuine fairness. [/quote] Copyright has been around since the 18th century. It's not a concept dreamed up by the recording industry. We use it to reward people's creativity and encourage them to create more. Sting has proved his creativity is more valued than mine.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389474383' post='2334639'] Yes. Strictly speaking, some venues require a set list which needs to be sent to the PRS. There are various different public performance tariffs and pricing issues to be taken into consideration. [url="http://www.prsformusic.com/users/businessesandliveevents/livevenuesevents/concertvenues/Pages/concertvenues.aspx"]http://www.prsformus...certvenues.aspx[/url] [/quote] Since most of us play in pubs it's 3.11 here: http://www.prsformusic.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/PPS%20Tariffs/P-2013-10%20Tariff.pdf

[quote name='Marvin' timestamp='1389473865' post='2334626'] It'd be interesting to guage how many contributors, who make money from playing in covers bands, don't think that the person whose work they are using to get paid should also not receive something. After all, if they had not written the song covers bands would have nothing to play and not get paid themselves. [/quote] They do. It's called a PRS licence.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389470722' post='2334580'] ... Yes, it's now free. It has been paid for. Who does one pay when sitting on a chair that's been bought..? The designer..? No, it's been paid for. ... [/quote] That copy of the chair has been. What happens when it breaks and you need a new one? Or Your brother wants one to sit on?

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389470218' post='2334572'] Ignoring the actual opinion, what about the inconsistency? Why single out song writers and similar for this sort of deal but not apply it to everyone? What makes writers so special? Why don't we pay royalties on the wheel? or knives and forks? Or shoes? Or maybe we did but they're now out of copyright? [/quote] Or middle C?

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389464732' post='2334472'] ... Once that's been paid up, that's it. ... [/quote] That's the tough but to understand and regulate. It would also mean that some tunes would cost more/take longer to pay for depending on how many musicians made the music and how long they took to create the music. How long does it take from coming up with an idea to realisation?

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389447089' post='2334236'] Precisely my point. It's a finite resource that comes out of the ground. There is no 'virtual' gold. [/quote] Having currency based on a finite resource doesn't work. We don't all need the same amount of money all at the same time. Sometimes we need lots of it, sometimes we don't need any. It's just a tool. I firmly believe we are going though a very complicated point in history where the wealth is slowly being balanced out across the world. This may take a 100years or more but it will happen. In the mean time those of us who had huge sums of wealth are going to suffer for a bit. Dad has a point in that so what if Sting has millions of pounds and big villas? He still only has a finite amount of time. If he uses his time productively to create and inspire and presumably he redistributes his wealth on a regular basis, that's fine by me.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389446512' post='2334228'] That's where you're going wrong. [/quote] Good news. When are you going to pay me to sleep on your sofa, I'll be straight round.

Dad's point of having wealth based on time works to a point but the thing he is missing is my time is worth different amounts at different points in time depending on the benefit it is to others. Not to ME.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389445293' post='2334209'] That must be why it's so valuable at the moment. [/quote] Yes. It's more useful in electronics than being used as a 'token' indication of wealth. There will come a time when we laugh about wearing it on our fingers.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1389444281' post='2334195'] All wealth ultimately comes out of the ground - it is finite. [/quote] No it doesn't. It isn't. That's why we moved away from the gold standard. There's not enough gold to go around.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389438001' post='2334102'] ... To me, 'wealth' is a closed system. There is a finite amount, ... [/quote] That's where you're going wrong.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389378208' post='2333654'] Fair point, but surely a truly fair scheme of things should be above personal opinons? Also, and I hesitate to defend banking, but I seriously doubt that banking has no benefit to society whatsoever. The trouble with such 'cheap shots' is that when the cheers and laughter die down nothing has been achieved. [/quote] I don't think people really know what bankers do. It's just fashionable to beat on the guys who gambled on the mortgage markets. It's like saying all sculptors are evil because they carve ivory.

If everyone's time is equal. How do you work out how much a 10mile taxi ride is worth? It takes a half hour if the taxi drivers time but saves the passenger 2.5 hours of walking time. What about the doctor who diagnoses something in a 5minute consultation that results in the patient living many more years. Surely there is wiggle room or I think it's called barter.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389372874' post='2333546'] It's perhaps just as well that truck drivers, spot welders and sundry other industries have not (yet..?) cottoned on to 'earning' a life-long revenue for work already achieved and paid for. [/quote] But they do. If their work lasts a lifetime, they should be charging such. Single one offs that last forever but are enjoyed by many should get more reward than something you knock out day after day and only one person gets the benefit for maybe 5 years before additional work is necessary.

As is usual with 'creative types' http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar04/articles/classictracks.htm

[quote name='peteb' timestamp='1389359718' post='2333255'] Some people seem to be very much undervaluing signwriting here, because somehow they van not equate it with a 9 to 5 job. I struggle to understand this – surely if you create something of value then you should continue to benefit from it for as long as it is of value! It is irrelevant if it took you 30 minutes or three months to write that song, the only thing that matters is how good that song is ! I thought that the point of the OP was about Sting / Andy Summers and how different parts of the process are rewarded? Why does the guy who writes down the lyrics and melody get 100% of the spoils and the guy who came up with the guitar hook that turned it from just another pop song into a massive hit get nothing?? [/quote] Because he failed to convince the band that the hook was part of the melody. All these comparisons never work. People should be rewarded if they provide something of value. If they are rewarded everytime something is used that's ok. If you want to listen to music then you should pay for it. The only difference is in recent history instead of paying a musician to play it, you can get a recording of it being played.

He probably would have if we used his CDs to buy our food.

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1389351214' post='2333084'] I know that musicians were less business savvy back in the late 70s when the Police formed, but Andy Summers having been a professional musician since the mid 60s was hardly a wet behind the ears newbie at the time. TBH he's got no-one to blame but himself (or maybe his manager/legal adviser) if he didn't get a share of the songwriting credits and royalties from all the Police songs. ... [/quote] They've also produced every album. So they'll all still be getting royalties in some form.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389308627' post='2332813'] You may be right, maybe these lines from the article are an attempt by the journalist to jeuje it up a bit: "Andy Summers is still understandably bitter about what happened with "Every Breath You Take" " and " "Every Breath You Take" was discussed and it was clear that emotions were still unresolved:" [/quote] Obviously they're going to be touchy about it but as the journalist says at some point they'll have gotten over losing sleep about it. A few sarcastic comments maybe. I think one of the comments in the article alludes to the fact they've all made a lot of money out of each other.

I think they're just messing around aren't they. They're all multi-millionaires. It's like Brian May arguing with Freddie Mercury over one particular song. I heard a story where someone saw some royalty cheques sitting on a desk at a record company. They were waiting to be 'picked up'. One was for 'sting' for several thousand pounds. According to the date, it had been on the desk for a few months.

Cool.

In rock the guitar is a phallic symbol. It's height is important. Too high and it looks like you're stroking your beard, too low and it looks like you're scratching your nuts.