Music 3.0 Music Industry Blog: 10/21/12

As usual, CD Baby’s DIY Musician blog has a lot of great info, this right time on the 5 times when you should hire a music lawyer. You can read the entire article for yourself, but I’ll paraphrase it here along with a few of my own comments. Let me say up front that although employing your brother-in-law would you real estate law is better than not having an attorney, a music attorney has specific experience that concerns the music business. He or she can easily place when an offer is unfair or nearly on your side, so the extra trouble in seeking one out is worth it. 1. Before you signal your band contract.

2. Before you signal with a publisher. A lot of smaller web publishers like to have a lot of songwriters authorized so their catalog looks bigger, but a music lawyer can usually see through that and make sure that you’re getting what you are worthy of. Keep in mind that publishing agreements can be very complicated, so they actually require a two really. 3. Before putting your signature on with a manager.

Managers love to say, “Let’s do this without an lawyer to save some cash,” but that’s never a good notion. A bad supervisor deal can keep you paying him for years after you go wrong collectively. 4. Before putting your signature on a record deal. It goes without saying that record deals are complicated and getting more so every year. 5. Before putting your signature on a licensing offer for one of your tunes.

The reason why you want an attorney to look into the agreement over is that if you are not careful, the melody might be used in many more ways that you thought, all without paying you any extra money. As you can see, it’s very much worth while to truly have a music industry to watch your back. Help support this website. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this site with no cost for you.

Even if you do think QE buys — supply-driven changes in the total amount sheet — matter, it is not whatsoever clear why demand-driven changes should matter. The Fed allows a “reverse repo program already,” in which 160 establishments such as money-market funds to carry reserves. It presently will pay those 20 basis points (0.2%) significantly less than it pays banks, to discourage involvement.

  • Don’t leave blank areas on the payee and amount lines
  • Fight complacency
  • Bogeys & Beer Charity Golf Tournament Set for Next
  • You often use your comprehensive knowledge of task metrics to attempt to steer the team

This is, in my view, completely misguided. Again, thin banking institutions are an indirect way of holding treasuries just. There is certainly nothing now stopping folks from “running” to treasuries directly, which is exactly what they did in the financial crisis. Furthermore, the Fed will not, in an emergency, seek to force visitors to hold illiquid assets creating a run.

The Fed pours liquid property into the system like Niagara falls, and purchases illiquid property from them, all in massive quantities. Moreover, the whole point of the thin loan provider is that large businesses don’t hold fragile run-prone short term assets in the first place. By repaying interest on reserves, and allowing more and more people to enjoy run-proof authorities money, there is certainly less fuel in the financial system to begin with. If the Fed is worried about financial crises, it ought to encourage narrow banks and present others a silver star for using them rather than shadier short-term assets to begin with.