That is some folding money...

[K Frame]

The rock band Queen has sold its music catalog to Sony for over... $1 BILLION dollars.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/queen-could-sell-music-catalog-record-breaking-deal-report

Three of the members are still alive -- Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon.

Deacon, who has been something of a recluse since Freddie Mercury died, has still been handing the band's financials, so my guess is that he brokered this deal.

[230RN]

Yawn.  That and inflated real estate prices are an indication of how worthless folding money is.

[HankB]

The rock band Queen has sold its music catalog to Sony for over... $1 BILLION dollars.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/queen-could-sell-music-catalog-record-breaking-deal-report

Three of the members are still alive -- Brian May, Roger Taylor and John Deacon.

Deacon, who has been something of a recluse since Freddie Mercury died, has still been handing the band's financials, so my guess is that he brokered this deal.

I'm (slightly) curious about how the money is going to be split and which taxing authorities are going to be making a grab for a chunk of it . . .

[K Frame]

Yawn.  That and inflated real estate prices are an indication of how worthless folding money is.

Go crank your Edison Victrola, grandpa...

[230RN]

Go crank your Edison Victrola, grandpa...

Is there untruth in my remark?  And why do you have to attack on the basis of physical characteristics?  Is that allowed on APS now?

Yeah. I know.  You were just kidding... can't I take a joke?

Terry, 230RN

[JTHunter]

Is there untruth in my remark?  And why do you have to attack on the basis of physical characteristics?  Is that allowed on APS now?

Yeah. I know.  You were just kidding... can't I take a joke?

Terry, 230RN

Isn't K Frame in a similar situation to you?
Would this be the "pot calling the kettle black"? 

[230RN]

^I don't know where you got that from.  I didn't do any calling.

[230RN]

Go crank your Edison Victrola, grandpa...

I don't know how old K Frame is, so I have no referent to any humorous attempt by the remark.  It was just pretty sharp-edged, to my mind, which I have seen before in various posts.

If I am wrong, I am wrong, if I am right, it doesn't matter.  I have stated my objection and my viewpoint on the dollar amount  involved.

[K Frame]

I'm 59. Just turned.

"And why do you have to attack on the basis of physical characteristics?"

I didn't.

You made a comment about the valueless nature of folding money.

Which infers that money was actual worth something "back in the bygone years," you know, when Victrolas and cars had to be hand cranked and refrigeration came courtesy of ice deliveries.

People far younger than we here at APS have lost their nut about "fiat currency" and gone on protracted screeches demanding a return to the days of the gold standard, measles, and whooping cough.

[230RN]

I'm 59. Just turned.

"And why do you have to attack on the basis of physical characteristics?"

I didn't.

You made a comment about the valueless nature of folding money.

Which infers that money was actual worth something "back in the bygone years," you know, when Victrolas and cars had to be hand cranked and refrigeration came courtesy of ice deliveries.

People far younger than we here at APS have lost their nut about "fiat currency" and gone on protracted screeches demanding a return to the days of the gold standard, measles, and whooping cough.

Acknowledged as having been read.

[MechAg94]

I am curious what they were making off the music just from play on radio stations, stadiums, and such.  Or what is the company expecting to make off that investment.

[HankB]

I am curious what they were making off the music just from play on radio stations, stadiums, and such.  Or what is the company expecting to make off that investment.

Sony? Maybe they have plans to incorporate the music into big-budget movies, TV shows, and such. Or licensing it to other movie and TV show makers. I know some people (notably actors) get "residuals" based on how much a program or movie airs, whether first run, rerun, or in syndication - I don't know if it applies to sound tracks and other music as well. Maybe Sony is anticipating a steady but growing trickle of revenue over time?

It still seems to me that a billion dollars is a lot of money to pay up front for that.

[MechAg94]

I realize it can be a money maker, but I didn't know it was that much.

[Perd Hapley]

Wouldn't this mean that hundreds of radio stations and streaming services will now pay Sony for the privilege of playing Queen's music? I don't know if that's per play, or an annual fee, or what. Either way, that has to add up to quite a haul.

[K Frame]

Obviously there's money to be made if Sony is willing to pay this much money for Queen's catalog.

Exactly how they make that money or how much they make a year? No clue.

[230RN]

Did the group sign over all their residual rights?  That would fatten the pot.

[K Frame]

Did the group sign over all their residual rights?  That would fatten the pot.

Are residual rights a thing in the music industry? I thought that was mainly films and TV...

Hum... digging into it... in music it's more royalties, it would appear, for the creators, song writers, composers, etc. I'd assume that in some cases performers might get royalties for perform.


And, since Queen created mostly all of their own work, I guess theirs would be royalties, and I suspect that that is where a lot of the value is. If Sony isn't having to pay out royalties to the members, that increases the value of their tender... So, I'm guessing, but not 100% sure, that yeah, that $1 billion includes full control of the catalog with not further royalties to Queen.


And, I just just remembered a story I heard about Dolly Parton...

She had written and performed "I Will Always Love You" and it was a pretty big hit for her.

Big enough that Elvis was apparently really interested in doing a cover of it, so his manager, Tom Harker, contacted Parton to cut a deal.

Only, the deal was that if Elvis covered the song, Parton would sign over half the publishing rights.

Dolly Parton essentially told Elvis to take a hike.

[HankB]

Wouldn't this mean that hundreds of radio stations and streaming services will now pay Sony for the privilege of playing Queen's music? I don't know if that's per play, or an annual fee, or what. Either way, that has to add up to quite a haul.

I was under the impression that anyone who publicly played copyrighted music - even if it's only piped into a barber shop - is supposed to pay "license fees" to ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) for the rights to play that music. I very much doubt that it's "per play" across the board, the record keeping would be horrendous. Some small businesses get around this by setting a boom box or some other device on a shelf, but if it's being played over a hard wired system and ASCAP hears about it, expect a lawyer letter either demanding license fees or that you cease and desist.

What the fees are or how this works for music in the public domain (e.g., Mozart sonatas) - I don't know. Nor do I know how ASCAP distributes the proceedings.

[230RN]

I guess that's why there are lawyers specializing in intellectual property.

It's like water law... you think it's simple 'til you brush up to it.  And that's why there are "water lawyers" and "divorce lawyers," etc.

I have to laugh at the expression, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."  That implies that each of us should keep a trailer full of law books with us when we drive around.

I also laugh when I see a pic of a lawyer with yards of law books in the background.  Ignorance whereof is no excuse.

             
                                   

Terry, 230RN

Pic credit in Properties... :)

[MechAg94]

I was under the impression that anyone who publicly played copyrighted music - even if it's only piped into a barber shop - is supposed to pay "license fees" to ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) for the rights to play that music. I very much doubt that it's "per play" across the board, the record keeping would be horrendous. Some small businesses get around this by setting a boom box or some other device on a shelf, but if it's being played over a hard wired system and ASCAP hears about it, expect a lawyer letter either demanding license fees or that you cease and desist.

What the fees are or how this works for music in the public domain (e.g., Mozart sonatas) - I don't know. Nor do I know how ASCAP distributes the proceedings.

I always assumed radio stations do pay per each time they air a piece of music.  They are better able to track that info.  I have heard that is why some songs/bands got played more, the rates are cheaper.  I don't know how big or small music radio is anymore with cell phone streaming and digital music. 

I saw an interview with a guy who does cover songs on youtube.  He sells digital copies of his cover songs online (and Amazon).  He said he doesn't have to deal with the licensing as long as he stays digital and all the sound is his own voice and music.  If he tries to sell a CD, all the license rules come into play.  Not sure how that works legally, but his stuff is on Amazon. 

[HankB]

. . .
I have to laugh at the expression, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."  That implies that each of us should keep a trailer full of law books with us when we drive around . . .

I've decided that if a law is SO complex only a judge or lawyer can understand it, then it clearly applies ONLY to judges and lawyers. Of course, the only way I'll ever make this opinion felt is if I'm on some jury dealing with some obscure law.

About 30-40 years ago a jury in NYC acquitted someone on all charges because the more the lawyers and the judge talked about the law, the less they understood it. They said they HAD to acquit because they couldn't figure out what happened or what the law said, and the judge would only read the text of the law - written in dense, grammatically incorrect legalese - in response to their questions.

[K Frame]

"About 30-40 years ago a jury in NYC acquitted someone on all charges because the more the lawyers and the judge talked about the law, the less they understood it. They said they HAD to acquit because they couldn't figure out what happened or what the law said, and the judge would only read the text of the law - written in dense, grammatically incorrect legalese - in response to their questions."

IIRC that also happened in a RICO case that dragged on for over a year. The jurors took less than, IIRC, 2 days to come back innocent on all counts. One juror said that the case presented by the prosecution was so hyper legal and so obscure that they couldn't determine that laws had actually been broken, so... innocent.

[230RN]

I've decided that if a law is SO complex only a judge or lawyer can understand it, then it clearly applies ONLY to judges and lawyers. Of course, the only way I'll ever make this opinion felt is if I'm on some jury dealing with some obscure law.

That's why there's "Jury Nullification," and that's why legal people hate it.  It's actually against the law in some places.

So if you think "jury nullification" is called for, don't say anything, just keep voting "not guilty" and stick to your (figurative) guns regardless of pressures put on you until either the eleven others agree with you or they have to report a hung jury.  But that's for me, with a fixed income and no pets and hotel food ain't bad.

(Hey, don't take that as advice as much as an idealized theoretical  situation, OK?)

:)

Terry, 230RN