What's new

Discovery Networks (& Netflix) Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle

I wish I could say all of this is unbelievable. Thanks for sharing the information. Hopefully this thread will end up with a massive amount of views.
 
As someone who has provided the underscore for the music for a lot of these shows, not sure if I should be insulted. No worries, I'm not.

Good to hear that you understand what i am saying.
There is also a lot of quality music being produced, but most of it is wallpaper, because that's what the networks want.
 
Wow this is sad! It’s unbelievable how this companies became so greedy and trying to destroy the art of a score.
It’s also very very sad that this post won’t even get attention from most of the composers here, busy arguing if Spitfire has a new player or OT came out with Sine player:)

Ben

Absolutely!

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THREAD FAO ALL PRO COMPOSERS HERE!

I beseech the administrator to make this a sticky please!
 
For those companies who become obsessed with earning money over the backs of the very people who help create their products in the first place I can only quote their own favourite moto:

"WAKE UP! THERE"S NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH!"

This is yet another example of how the man made concept of money could eventually bring the thorough demise of all human integrity.
 
Last edited:
There will always be people who will take jobs that don't pay well. The question is how much of the market composers will allow to go that way.

This is the same argument that recording musicians face in their negotiations. Someone, maybe not as good, will always take the job. It is by pulling together that people are able to change the math on that dynamic.

If composers think it's hopeless, then the answer is simple. Do nothing, watch passively, and accept whatever the outcome is. If composers aren't willing to accept that, then spread the word and together figure out what to do next.

The article landing in Variey raised a lot of awareness. That's the kind of collective action that moves in the right direction to combat the practices of Discovery and others.
First it was libraries attempted "dividend pay" to their composers then the appearance of the ugly head of royalty free music, now it's no pay music!

One always hopes that integrity will win out and I for one would wholeheartedly support any rally against these practices.

I won't be surprised to see a huge surge against this kind of greed in the years to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tsk
If companies like the Discovery Channel continue to bleed the livelihoods of composers their TV content will plummet in production value. Period.

However this obviously falls on deaf ears with the fat monkeys sitting at the top of these trees as they invariably have no integrity - I think the only way to stop them is to boycott composing for them... that means library composers stipulating in their contracts that their music shall not be placed with companies adopting such practices.
 
Last edited:
Great post by Stephen Robert froeber in Facebook in regards to someone saying that if u where a good ceo then you should also be earning $128 million (a year) for discovery channel and if u don’t like the (discovery new deal) just don’t take, simple.



Response:

It is, decidedly, not that simple.

You are hinting at the fantasy that floats around as "aspirational reality" for many freelancers and entrepreneurs: that making lots of money automatically means that 1) you are successful, 2) that your success comes directly from some intrinsic virtue that you must have, that others who are less wealthy do not, and 3) that anyone who critiques you for having money must immediately be jealous, lazy, insert-personal-moral-failings-here.

On top of it being untrue, the line of reasoning is meant to discourage any valid criticisms of wealth inequality, consolidation of income streams by oligopoly, etc.

It is, of course, quite valid to bring up the income level of a CEO that is pushing for a particular business strategy that affects someone else's work and well-being.

It is absolute nonsense to insinuate that a composer can arbitrarily decide on any value for their music, immediately start demanding that value, and then have an expectation of continued income at the new value level with no consideration of the other party in the negotiation.

Regardless of what guru, positive thinking, next level, supercharge your business strategy now, self help authors want you to believe, there are actual economic factors at play that are truly outside of your control.

To ignore this person's income, in a discussion about a company that is affecting other people's income, is disingenuous, naive, capitalist evangelism at its finest.
 
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT THREAD FAO ALL PRO COMPOSERS HERE!
I’m no pro but I totally second this and I’m supporting the cause.
Besides, I hate playing in a venue with no income, even with my amateur band (charity events aside).
I cannot imagine when this “slave trading” attitude is affecting your income & career.
 
There´s always a greedy corporate ahole on top of the food chain willing to screw the little guy over some big bucks. Like if those calling the shots weren´t filthy rich already.

We artists make the Discovery channels of the world while executives sit on their fat asses doing absolutely nothing other than profiting on us. The nerve to pick our pockets like that...

Where´s cancel culture and outraged ´´influencers´´ when you need them? Make some noise people!!
 
If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.
 
If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.
Yep. That’s that whole business disruption tech thing Silicon Valley seems to be hated for nowadays.

since 2012 I saw those licensing contracts to show a fox / Disney etc on Netflix and was very surprised that it was the same as a broadcaster like hbo/skyitalia/nbc etc . Same show, same time period and same window showing. Broadcasters of course where not too happy either.
so the sales folks at Disney figured out the streaming giants where making the same amount as broadcaster. Which means that in theory the streaming companies should be paying the same amount. There was never a real reason to pay less. Not a “streaming is calculated differently” , not a “subscription pays less”or home entertainment so it’s dvd” thing.
there was always money but they decided to pay for million dollar tv episodes instead. Several times over.
 
Last edited:
If streaming is supposed to the #1 model for film and TV then paying ongoing royalties is the fair way of compensation towards those who create it. Trying to cut that off is flat out robbery and even worse it is a display of unspeakable disrespect towards creative work and its - not only monetary but also artistic value.

The bosses of these companies that are threatening to enforce this malpractice have no interest in art: in fact they only ever see art as another product on the supermarket shelf to be manufactured as cheaply as possible for maximum profit. These kind of human beings only care about their own "material wealth": acquiring as much money as possible is their only raison d'être. Therefore it is futile to try and appeal to any possible artistic sensitivity here because there is none!

It's not all doom and gloom though because although I think the situation is worrying and definitely needs to be addressed swiftly by the professional creative community, the reality is that this mal practice in the long run would implode on Discovery and others that think they could make more profit by it.... However the point is that if such practices were to start taking place it would create a lot of problems for many before that implosion occurs.

The irony is that these executive "businessmen" would see far less profit coming from cuts in composer wages than continuing to pay them because without quality music, particularly bespoke composition to picture, the production quality of their programs will diminish- fewer film makers will want to work with them and TV networks won't want to broadcast under par program content. Their returns will crumble hand in hand with the lack of artistic merit to the products they produce. It's as if they don't understand the true meaning of one of their favourite phrases: "quality product"!

However it is imperative that all bodies and institutions involved in the creation of TV and film are made fully aware of this prospective can of worms!

As such the only way to combat companies that are trying to cut off composers earnings is to ace them on the same court they like to "play ball" on. For ace them we must to make sure this prospective practice does not become yet another "norm" in our industry.

For that serve to become an ace a combination of things must happen:

1. All composers must now boycott any financial association with the Discovery Channel and any others who are no doubt going to try to follow suit. Basically refuse any work from them including use of any library music.

If they are going to drop all bespoke composition commissions and revert to using strictly "music off the shelf" and (the ****ing cheek of it!) refuse to continue paying licenses even for that! it is imperative that composers speak up for their 50% right to forbid library music companies they share published works with to do business with the likes of the Discovery Channel... in other words: no buy outs!
Unfortunately library companies can be just as sneaky and ruthless but this is where the PRS and all copyright bodies could step in also...

2 (a) In turn the PRS (British copyright society) and all other associated copyright bodies around the world must support their associated composers in the fight against this potential threat.
The "world copyright guild" must refuse to pay out any royalties to library companies continuing to do business with the likes of the Discovery channel.

(b) (hear me out on this one!) In reality the Discovery Channels belief that they will continue to sell programs who's quality filmography is no longer supported by any bespoke music whatsoever is a joke! They will soon realise they need some bespoke music to keep up a modicum of class to their productions. Even if this type of commissioning has been officially cut from their budget they will still approach composers. And as they are hoping to commission music royalty free there will still be composers out there who will secretly offer their bespoke music services royalty free to the likes of Discovery no doubt succumbing to miserly music production fees to boot! I think the PRS should actually strike any composer from their books found composing royalty free music for the likes of the Discovery Channel. In fact any composer who does accept commissions for royalty free music production from any company is undermining the royalty payment system anyhow.

This is a controversial point but I think it would be necessary to discourage any composer from accepting royalty free commissions from Discovery Channel and in turn this stringent rule would bring composers together on this issue which is clearly no longer an "I'm alright jack" situation.

3. Film companies must also support the composers cause as it reflects on their own quality of work: they too must boycott working with the likes of the Discover channel.

4. TV distribution networks must be made fully informed of the issue and encouraged not to buy Discovery productions.

In short, should this practice ever become apparent the likes of the Discovery Channel must be financially frozen out of business.

It's such a pity that the foundations of a production company like Discovery that has produced some of the most spectacular and informative programs of our generation are being dismantled by ignorant executive decision.

This issue is potentially far reaching and could actually effect all warps of the film and TV industry if it isn't nipped in the bud.

I hope Discovery read this thread and I always hope, because I'm an optimistic kind of guy, as much as I have bashed those working at executive level at The Discovery Channel, that there is one of them who can at least see that it does not make business sense to axe a composers wages let alone recognise the downright insult it hurls at the composer, a skilled worker, who is a vital pillar in the creation of quality TV and film production.
 
Last edited:
And why wouldn't they take the royalties from composers? If I'd be a little sarcastic I'd say, they should do so. Composers have no one else to blame but themselves, there is no loyalty, I'm pretty sure there is always a line of them ready to accept this and happy to get their "break". There is no way to stop this for any of us individually. If you think you are clever to accept a deal lower than the next guy there is always that guy behind you who will still accept a lower fee. Unless composers value their own music this is going on and we all have the AI breathing down our necks.
 
Very worried about this - literally family incomes relay on PRO royalties.
I just dont understand the business model. Are Discovery paying composers (for example) $200 per track and that's it. no royalties whatsoever? And then they use that track over and over again?
 
This day has been coming a long time but sorry to see it arrive.

FWIW, I don't think it's useful or persuasive to cast aspersions on the character and motivations of corporations or executives; expressions like "greedy" attribute motives to people whom we don't know.

And, anyway, that's capitalism. If we're not going to have a union (and we're not), we have to vote by saying, "no." From a financial point of view, I find these shows' upfront payments are minuscule already, so without royalties, I don't see how they attract anyone who's not a rank beginner.
 
I know that the many of the top sample library developers are also composers who depend heavily on income from royalties, so here's a drastic idea:

Change your license agreements going forward to prevent your libraries/software from being used in certain work-for-hire situations.
 
It's a move which I think is an affront to composers.

I do believe it's a targeted response to Music Modernization Act (MMA) as NMPA spent a tremendous amount of time pushing for that legislation; and it's not legislation favorable to licensees.

The most extreme response to MMA is for licensees to circumvent it by removing royalties from their equation, such as in this case. I think it was a gap that wasn't considered in forming the legislation.

There are probably convincing legal arguments to pursue in the area of restraint of trade or antitrust but I know PMA has taken notice of this, as I'm sure NMPA also has.

I think the best path forward is actually a legal response...unfortunately.
 
Top Bottom