Burnlounge deemed a Ponzi scheme

Recording Techniques, People Skills, Gear, Recording Spaces, Computers, and DIY

Moderators: drumsound, tomb

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Burnlounge deemed a Ponzi scheme

Post by @?,*???&? » Thu Jun 14, 2007 9:42 am

I've had this concept for a while and it developed because I get so many requests from 'supposed students' calling or e-mailing the studio who want desperately to learn how to record.

Why not make the students pay for the studio time and then bring bands in to record during that time at not charge and then have the studio end up owning the masters?

Obviously, there are many moral questions involved with that idea. It may or may not fluorish and may or may not be a good idea.

Here's another thing that did not fluorish and seems to be have based around a classic pyramid scheme:

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/06/burnlounge.shtm

MoreSpaceEcho
zen recordist
Posts: 6671
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am

Post by MoreSpaceEcho » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:52 am

doesn't seem right that the studio should own the masters.

you get paid for the studio time, the students get to record in a 'professional environment', give the masters to the bands. no?

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:34 pm

MoreSpaceEcho wrote:doesn't seem right that the studio should own the masters.

you get paid for the studio time, the students get to record in a 'professional environment', give the masters to the bands. no?
Well, technically I guess, the students would 'own' the masters- no?

Copyright wise, the band obviously owns the songs, just not this recording of the songs.

It's the studio (and in my case label) that could potentially distribute and promote the recording for the band. The band gets to record- which they want to- the students get to learn how to make records- which they want to and the studio facilitates all of it.

Good cheese or bad cheese?

User avatar
Randy
tinnitus
Posts: 1078
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Post by Randy » Thu Jun 14, 2007 12:45 pm

I personally feel that any time somebody doesn't own and control their own performance is very stinky and putrid cheese. For all the effort and expertise a studio and its people put into a work of art, the real draw is the performance and the music. The folks who help record the performance are, of course, an integral part of the process. But you have to admit that if the performer is great and the song is great, the production plays a small part in whether the song sticks in people's heads.
not to worry, just keep tracking....

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:00 pm

Let's look at it from another angle: what benefit comes to the studio from owning the masters?
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

User avatar
Jeff White
ghost haunting audio students
Posts: 3263
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:15 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Post by Jeff White » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:07 pm

I believe that this thread could benefit from...

Ethics

User avatar
darjama
tinnitus
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:11 pm
Location: East SF Bay

Post by darjama » Thu Jun 14, 2007 1:36 pm

What, no one's made a $35 joke yet?

I don't see how the studio would own the master if someone's paying to record it, even if a "recording lesson" is included.

Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. I'd suggest having the "student" and the band split the studio rate. It might be a way to bring in some bands that can't afford your normal rate the first time out.

Also bands that pay nothing once might expect to pay nothing again.

cgarges
zen recordist
Posts: 10890
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

Post by cgarges » Thu Jun 14, 2007 2:33 pm

If the "label" owns the masters and the label will actually distribute the record and promote it to the band's liking and everyone agrees to the conditions, I don't see any problem with this. In fact, I think it's an interesting idea. Perhaps there are a few bugs to be worked out, but I think it may be worth pursuing.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

djimbe
tinnitus
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:55 am
Location: chicago
Contact:

Post by djimbe » Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:42 am

cgarges wrote:If the "label" owns the masters and the label will actually distribute the record and promote it to the band's liking and everyone agrees to the conditions, I don't see any problem with this.

Nor do I. However, this seems slightly different that what Jeff is proposing. Let's work with the rash assumption that the "students" pay for the studio time. Are the "students" employed by the label? Is there an employment contract that suggests the employees are responsible for the capital outlay with the expectation that if their work results in a profit making venture for the label (the employer) they will get some sort of remuneration? I could see that working out such an arrangment would be complicated, but would have an opportunity to fairly compensate the labor force for the risk of the capital outlay.

Contrast that with the "students" paying for studio time, and then turning the product of that over to a third party for no compensation other than whatever "education" in the art of recording they may receive. The third party now "owns" the product with no capital risk and all the profit potential. I wouldn't willingly be part of such a scenario. Perhaps others would, but I wouldn't. Under this scenario, the third party (the label or studio owner) needs to specifically spell out that the "education" is the compensation for the "students" (an education that they paid for in the form of a studio use fee) and the loss of the ownership of the sound recording is the cost of the session imposed upon the client by the studio owner. If everyone that is a party to the agreement signs off on this arrangement, then fine. I'd consider it a bad business deal to be a part of, but perhaps those itching to learn how to record or get their music promoted might consider it as valuable.

Eyes open for everyone and in writting that everyone signs off on. If that's the case, I don't consider it unethical. A bad business deal? Maybe. Bad business deals in the music industry are par for the course. Those that sign off on them have no one to blame but themselves...
I thought this club was for musicians. Who let the drummer in here??

User avatar
@?,*???&?
on a wing and a prayer
Posts: 5804
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Just left on the FM dial
Contact:

Post by @?,*???&? » Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:38 am

It's the book keeping here that would be a major pain. Following up with every student on their investment would be painstaking- and they probably wouldn't even be thinking of their long-term future with regards to earning money from a record like that.

The studio provides the education. That's what the student expects.

The studio provides album production. That's what the band expects.

The studio pays for the recording. Insanely. Who expected that?

The only logical compensation to the studio is owning the masters. It has to come down to that.

User avatar
tonejunkee
gettin' sounds
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 5:32 pm
Contact:

Post by tonejunkee » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:01 am

this reminds me of the old bluesman (whose name escapes me now). He was paid to record in one studio (they owned the masters) then he went to another one right down the street and recorded the SAME album!

I've read that BB king is still trying to get the rights to some of his earlier songs that were recorded and taken from him. pure greed.

User avatar
JGriffin
zen recordist
Posts: 6739
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:44 pm
Location: criticizing globally, offending locally
Contact:

Post by JGriffin » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:04 am

dwlb wrote:what benefit comes to the studio from owning the masters?
"Jeweller, you've failed. Jeweller."

"Lots of people are nostalgic for analog. I suspect they're people who never had to work with it." ? Brian Eno

All the DWLB music is at http://dwlb.bandcamp.com/

djimbe
tinnitus
Posts: 1179
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:55 am
Location: chicago
Contact:

Post by djimbe » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:42 am

@?,*???&? wrote:The studio provides the education. That's what the student expects.

The studio provides album production. That's what the band expects.

The studio pays for the recording. Insanely. Who expected that?

The only logical compensation to the studio is owning the masters. It has to come down to that.

And this makes sense for the most part...however...

It sounds like you have both a business known as "studio" and a business known as "label", Jeff. In that case I would suggest that the entity "label" owns the masters. Presumably, your vision is that "studio" exists to make sound recordings and "label" exists to promote recorded works.

Two examples:

1.) I have a studio and label with a few guys. The label's principle band makes a recording in the studio. The studio gets no compensation. The label promotes and distributes the recording. The label owns the sound recording since the label owners essentially paid for the recording by providing studio time. It's all on paper nice and legal-like.

2.) My label's principle band recently released a recording on a different label. The recording was made in my studio. The releasing label paid for the recording. The composer of the work (the "band") arranged deal whereby the releasing label paid for the recording, and the cost of the investment was to cede ownership of the sound recording to the releasing label. Again, it's all on paper, legal, agreed to by all parties, and non-disputable. Simple...
I thought this club was for musicians. Who let the drummer in here??

cyantologist
gettin' sounds
Posts: 135
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 8:15 am
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Post by cyantologist » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:51 am

seems pretty pointless to me, because no matter how many "masters" you own, it's still going to be (for the most part) some lame high school screamo crap anyway. especially if students are in charge of bringing in the bands. I also doubt that any halfway serious or talented band would go for it. Even if you have hard drives full of this stuff, you're still not going to make that much money selling penumbrae records.

User avatar
jv
pushin' record
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by jv » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:25 am

milhouse wrote:seems pretty pointless to me, because no matter how many "masters" you own, it's still going to be (for the most part) some lame high school screamo crap anyway. especially if students are in charge of bringing in the bands. I also doubt that any halfway serious or talented band would go for it. Even if you have hard drives full of this stuff, you're still not going to make that much money selling penumbrae records.
I agree. And how good are the recordings going to be with students producing them? It seems like the chances would be small that anything worthwhile would come from this sort of arrangement.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests