Martyn Ware tells Rockstar Games to do one!

[Caracus2k]

It's whinging to want a fair deal for his product?

Fair?

Let's be realistic low ball maybe but what's "fair"?

Because when it comes to money most of the usual factors are present for a hypocritical, aging, champagne socialist.

A social media feed full of the expected....

"Free Palestine" (but not apparently from Hamas) in the "Palestine will be 'free' from the river to the sea" sense where it's clear this would result in the few remaining Jews left in wider area of North Africa, Arabia, the Levant and Middle east being killed/ driven out.

Criticising Trump for disinformation whilst re tweeting other nonsence (a long since debunked edited photo purporting to show Kier Starmer with Saville)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1834020220052164922

Attacking 'austerity' and politicians with second jobs, with David Lammy being a recent target (well at least he's still working for his money!).

But yet he's a literal rent seeker himself expecting ££££'s for something he knocked up over 40 years ago and offering out his foreign properties for rent!

https://twitter.com/x/status/167651823971348480

And then doing the usual nonsence of claiming almost all of the people disagreeing with him and mocking him for whinging online are 'bots'.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833432195647643860

And really what sort of scum bag re tweets this sort of garbage?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1833686898209878271

I'm glad he won't see a penny of money from GTA VI now.

 

[Bassmansam]

One of the best things about the digital revolution of the past 30 years of so is the way it's affected the revenue models for music.

Frankly there's few people less deserving of the obscene sums of money that the music firms and some musicians used to be able command for simply putting out something, often knocked up in one afternoon in a drug fuelled haze, on yet another physical format.

At least footballers have to put a bit of ongoing work in to maintain fitness for the large amounts of money they are paid for kicking a ball about.

I think the current situation is far preferable where such artists make most of their money from actually putting in the work and touring.

At least then there's a more direct relationship between what's being paid and what's being provided.

I think this is just a generation clash. As has been pointed elsewhere in the thread Ware earned a lot of his money during the heyday for music sales. His track was no doubt on a list of possibles for GTA6 that they were working through and I doubt R* cared much when he said no and moved onto the next song.

People claiming its an insulting offer need to consider and contrast the thousands of people working for years that it will have taken to produce GTA6 well before any already existing works are incorporated into the finished product.

Expecting a % of the sales for such a bit piece of a works is laughable.



As others have said its really a case of what's the typical offer elsewhere for similar use.

Comparing use in a streaming service to GTA6 is apples to oranges for example as the revenue model for streaming often means more tracks played are tied to more advertisements sold hence why payment per play makes more sense.

Why aren’t musicians deserving of making lots of money from their art?

 

[Caracus2k]

Why aren’t musicians deserving of making lots of money from their art?

Ones that criticise other people working for their money whist rent seeking themselves based of decades old work that didn't require much effort to start with?

No they don't deserve all that much money in my view. Hence my comments on what I perceive to be the improvements that digital distribution has made to the music industry.

 

[Diddums]

Ones that criticise other people working for their money whist rent seeking themselves based of decades old work that didn't require much effort to start with?

No they don't deserve all that much money in my view. Hence my comments on what I perceive to be the improvements that digital distribution has made to the music industry.

You should probably take on the patent industry too then.

 

[Caracus2k]

You should probably take on the patent industry too then.

Certainly not free from criticism but there's a difference say between IP protection for a drug that cost millions to develop for a disease and a catchy tune made decades ago.

The standard protection for afermentioned drugs inventions is 20 years (max) in the UK as well....

How Long Do Patents Last in the UK? - LegalVision UK

This article will discuss the process of patenting products, the requirements you must meet and how long the protections last.

legalvision.co.uk

 

[Diddums]

Certainly not free from criticism but there's a difference say between IP protection for a drug that cost millions to develop for a disease and a catchy tune made decades ago.

The standard protection for afermentioned drugs inventions is 20 years in the UK as well....

Maybe songs need expiration dates too then. I also wonder who gets the royalties from dead artists, probably the record labels? Dunno.

Thing is, if I made a song from scratch, I'd also want royalties for as long as it's played, and I'm sure you would too. Justified? Probably. You made it after all.

 

[Raymond Lin]

One of the best things about the digital revolution of the past 30 years of so is the way it's affected the revenue models for music.

Frankly there's few people less deserving of the obscene sums of money that the music firms and some musicians used to be able command for simply putting out something, often knocked up in one afternoon in a drug fuelled haze, on yet another physical format.

At least footballers have to put a bit of ongoing work in to maintain fitness for the large amounts of money they are paid for kicking a ball about.

I think the current situation is far preferable where such artists make most of their money from actually putting in the work and touring.

At least then there's a more direct relationship between what's being paid and what's being provided.

I think this is just a generation clash. As has been pointed elsewhere in the thread Ware earned a lot of his money during the heyday for music sales. His track was no doubt on a list of possibles for GTA6 that they were working through and I doubt R* cared much when he said no and moved onto the next song.

People claiming its an insulting offer need to consider and contrast the thousands of people working for years that it will have taken to produce GTA6 well before any already existing works are incorporated into the finished product.

Expecting a % of the sales for such a bit piece of a works is laughable.



As others have said its really a case of what's the typical offer elsewhere for similar use.

Comparing use in a streaming service to GTA6 is apples to oranges for example as the revenue model for streaming often means more tracks played are tied to more advertisements sold hence why payment per play makes more sense.

One of the best thing about making his own music is being able to tell Rockstar to do one and he did and nothing you or Rockstar can do anything about it it, no matter how much you laugh at him.

So laughable? Sure, keep laughing.

 

[Caracus2k]

Maybe songs need expiration dates too then. I also wonder who gets the royalties from dead artists, probably the record labels? Dunno.

Thing is, if I made a song from scratch, I'd also want royalties for as long as it's played, and I'm sure you would too. Justified? Probably. You made it after all.

I think the protections for 'artistic' works is far to generous in general. The fact that 'steamboat Willie' era Mickey Mouse has only recently fallen out of copyright highlights this.

That said obviously R* are looking to profit over inclusion of artists works and i don't think they should be able to do so for nothing.

 

[Caracus2k]

One of the best thing about making his own music is being able to tell Rockstar to do one and he did and nothing you or Rockstar can do anything about it it, no matter how much you laugh at him.

So laughable? Sure, keep laughing.

And here's another 'artist" annoyed that digital distribution has reduced his ability to leverage copyright for 'rent seeking' behaviour for works long since completed with not that much effort in the grand scale of things needed to make them in the 1st place and very little done to justify any ongoing high prices years later (unlike say actual rent seeking for properties were there can be significant ongoing costs of maintenance, insurance etc)

Personally I'm glad Ware will now earn nothing from R*

 

[Stumble Bum]

One of the best thing about making his own music is being able to tell Rockstar to do one and he did and nothing you or Rockstar can do anything about it it, no matter how much you laugh at him.

So laughable? Sure, keep laughing.

One of the best things about supply and demand markets is being able to offer what you think is appropriate and if this is rejected to approach other artists instead. There is nothing you or Martyn Ware can do about it, no matter how much you or he moans about it online.

Rockstar are probably laughing yes, I doubt it's even an issue for them in the slightest.

 

[Raymond Lin]

And here's another 'artist" annoyed that digital distribution has reduced his ability to leverage copyright for 'rent seeking' behaviour for works long since completed with not that much effort in the grand scale of things needed to make them in the 1st place and very little done to justify any ongoing high prices years later (unlike say actual rent seeking for properties were there can be significant ongoing costs of maintenance, insurance etc)

Personally I'm glad Ware will now earn nothing from R*

Great for you, he is also happy Rockstar is not getting a life time licence for pittance.

 

[Werewolf]

Maybe songs need expiration dates too then. I also wonder who gets the royalties from dead artists, probably the record labels? Dunno.

Thing is, if I made a song from scratch, I'd also want royalties for as long as it's played, and I'm sure you would too. Justified? Probably. You made it after all.

It's actually really easy to check.

IIRC the law for copyright is that it passes on to the rights holders, normally that's split between the writer(s) of the lyrics, the writer(s) of the score, the performers of that version (with the exception of IIRC "session" musicians who will often only get a higher one off fee and are not normally part of the main band etc) and the mechanical rights holders (IE who recorded it), but the rights can be sold outright or passed on/assigned to the heirs.
IIRC typically the writers of the lyrics and the score get the largest part of it unless they were working "for hire" (they were paid as a one off to write it) as opposed to doing it freelance and then licencing it.

And the songs do have an expiration date, it's the same as books etc in terms of copyright at the moment largely thanks to Disney that's life of the creator + 75 years which I think is far too long*.

Whether the current copyright terms are too long is a different argument, but I would say it's definitely needs to be a minimum term such as life of the author + X, if just because a lot of the time most artists don't get mega rich off their work and for most authors, musicians and artists tend to rely on the ongoing payments as their long term income and pension.



*I'd personally say life of the creator and their spouse + say 25 years with a max of about 100, that way the creator and their family are covered until any potential children are adults (at the moment it can be closer to 150).

 

[Caracus2k]

I would say something far more reasonable for music would be the life of the artist or 60 years whatever comes first.

Maybe 20 years if the rights are held solely by a music company and not the artist.

That would allow artists to still make money of touring by singing their own songs with exclusivity for what in most circumstances will be their whole working life.

I don't see any reason why artists who may be in their 20's or younger should have potentially a full life time of benefits for their works and then their descendants another quarter of a century thereafter.

Maybe all subject to a minimum term to cover any circumstances where an artist dies young or the works are made when they're already quite old of around 20 years to match the duration previously for music companies and which matches that mentioned for patents.

 

[SimonRigga]

I think for the rights they supposed asked for it's a pittance.. but if they made it clear it was just one of the 400 songs that could appear on one of the radio stations within the game.. and made the rights so that was all they could use it for.. then the offer would have been fair.. to offer that for then unlimited use is a bit out of order to me anyway.. It could have been used as the "Main" song in the game.. which then the offer was poor.. so I think it's the rights thing more than the offer that would bother me.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I find the argument "but you get exposure!" is a non-starter. There is no guarantee that his song being in the game = some kind of explosion of streams. There is a chance, sure, but it is not a guarantee. You cannot guarantee me that is going to happen. Rockstar can't either. Just because it happened to other songs doesn't mean it will happen to his. So without that guarantee, then they need to up their offer.

It really is that simple.

 

[arknor]

And really what sort of scum bag re tweets this sort of garbage?

wow what a disgusting tweet.


followers are the new money.

your not rich so your opinion is invalid.
you don't have followers so your opinion is invalid.


These people do realise in the real world people don't care about follower count? and opinions aren't a popularity contest.
real people don't need validation, I bet the majority of real people on twitter who actually use the platform to engage with other users as it was intended, will have less than 50 followers, most people don't have 5 real friends in the real world either.

does that mean their opinions are invalid? they just want to get something off their chest. usually what they really feel.


I'm sick of this everyone is just bots, just review bombing nonsense.

criticism is verboten even if it's valid.


What they really mean is yort worthless and have no value to them because your not connected and you don't have money.

Be a sheep and do as your told.

I think for the rights they supposed asked for it's a pittance..

7.5k x3 for one song from over 40 years ago is a pittance?

then you get 10 y ears of it being advertised to people.
instead hes relevant for 5 minutes.

maybe if they weren't so greedy they'd get their music in a lot of other games too and combined would make a tidy sum.

how many games can afford to drop 22.5k on a song? that's a years wages to some people.


Rockstar might as well just sample a bunch of old songs and remix them on the cheap doing their own music that fits the period.

 

[Werewolf]

wow what a disgusting tweet.


followers are the new money.

your not rich so your opinion is invalid.
you don't have followers so your opinion is invalid.


These people do realise in the real world people don't care about follower count? and opinions aren't a popularity contest.
real people don't need validation, I bet the majority of real people on twitter who actually use the platform to engage with other users as it was intended, will have less than 50 followers, most people don't have 5 real friends in the real world either.

does that mean their opinions are invalid? they just want to get something off their chest. usually what they really feel.


I'm sick of this everyone is just bots, just review bombing nonsense.

criticism is verboten even if it's valid.


What they really mean is yort worthless and have no value to them because your not connected and you don't have money.

Be a sheep and do as your told.


7.5k x3 for one song from over 40 years ago is a pittance?

then you get 10 y ears of it being advertised to people.
instead hes relevant for 5 minutes.

maybe if they weren't so greedy they'd get their music in a lot of other games too and combined would make a tidy sum.

how many games can afford to drop 22.5k on a song? that's a years wages to some people.


Rockstar might as well just sample a bunch of old songs and remix them on the cheap doing their own music that fits the period.

Lets put it this way, this isn't just "any game", GTA 5 apparently made something like £7 billion, on a dev and marketing budget of £170m.

It's almost like a big budget game has a well, bigger budget and people who are licencing stuff might take that into account.

 

[arknor]

Lets put it this way, this isn't just "any game", GTA 5 apparently made something like £7 billion, on a dev and marketing budget of £170m.

yea and it's a massive risk for them, the next game could easily flop.

It's not guaranteed they will make billions again and the music in reality adds little value to the game, it just triggers nostalgia in older people, the younger generations likely don't care at all.

wonder how much a movie would pay for the same song.


googles suggesting 15k to 70k USD per song, so rockstars offer seems more than fair if that's true.

 

[StriderX]

Apparently people should be pleased with the tuppence charity they get for the lifetime use of their creation, in fact they should bow down to the gods of equity for being so gracious.

yea and it's a massive risk for them, the next game could easily flop.

It's not guaranteed they will make billions again and the music in reality adds little value to the game, it just triggers nostalgia in older people, the younger generations likely don't care at all.

wonder how much a movie would pay for the same song.

Then make it performance based and it resolves itself.

Sharing revenue of 0.01% for each artist at the level of the previous game sales would equate to around $300-400 million overall (or how about 0.005%, still a lot of money for the artists if the game succeeds), of course it won't happen because we love billion dollar companies round ere.

 

[arknor]

how much of rockstars revenues for the previous game were from game sales, and how much was for selling coins and other crap?

it seems rockstar were making hundreds of millions of dollars a year from subscriptions, so most of that 8billion likely came years after release.

if you do revenue sharing then its likely for a limited time period , so they wouldn't have got a percent of 8 billion.

if you play GTA5 online does it still have radio stations and do people use them?