Comments on: Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/ The brains of the music industry. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:43:48 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: losupreme http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-12404 losupreme Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:08:10 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-12404 I have songs that pump audio did this to as well. At first I was concerned, but when I check my BMI account it clearly shows that those songs still exist in my account under the same name with all of the info correct. The only difference is the fact that there is also another entry for that song that is registered to Pump. While this seems a bit shady there are ways to get around this. The main way to do this would be to create a publishing company and sign yourself. Pump audio is able to get a hold of your publishing royalties, because you don't have a publishing company listed. When you don't have a publishing company listed BMI assumes you are the publisher and you are supposed to get that money by default. If, however Pump Audio comes and says 'hey, we are the publishing company' and has papers signed by you, guess who now gets that publishing money? Basically, people need to do all of thier research and actually read and understand your contracts. I have songs that pump audio did this to as well. At first I was concerned, but when I check my BMI account it clearly shows that those songs still exist in my account under the same name with all of the info correct. The only difference is the fact that there is also another entry for that song that is registered to Pump. While this seems a bit shady there are ways to get around this. The main way to do this would be to create a publishing company and sign yourself. Pump audio is able to get a hold of your publishing royalties, because you don’t have a publishing company listed. When you don’t have a publishing company listed BMI assumes you are the publisher and you are supposed to get that money by default. If, however Pump Audio comes and says ‘hey, we are the publishing company’ and has papers signed by you, guess who now gets that publishing money?

Basically, people need to do all of thier research and actually read and understand your contracts.

]]> By: Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy | The Music Snob http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9946 Pump Audio Music Licensing Controversy | The Music Snob Tue, 06 Oct 2009 10:41:15 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9946 [...] split from 50/50 to 65/35 in their favor. The post I wrote (holy sh*t!) exactly a year ago today Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing and Pump Audio Reduces Artist Licensing Payments from back in May are still getting pretty frequent [...] [...] split from 50/50 to 65/35 in their favor. The post I wrote (holy sh*t!) exactly a year ago today Pump Audio’s Re-Titling of Songs for Publishing and Pump Audio Reduces Artist Licensing Payments from back in May are still getting pretty frequent [...]

]]> By: JILL Cohn http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9942 JILL Cohn Tue, 06 Oct 2009 02:10:26 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9942 Hi pump audio /getty images are crooks. i've hired a lawyer to fight them, nearly 1 1/2 years after i terminated my agreement with them, they are still licensing my music. while everyone is belly aching over the 50% to 30% thing, no one has failed to realize the whole business model is to kill what little revenue we can make as song writers. they have licensed my music for 5 to 20 dollars, for major uses.. so, really 50% or 30% makes no difference. there are other issues with their contract, and the more artists we have join our law suite the better. i have a lawyer who is taking it on pro-bono, and he is ready to fight. he won a land-mark case against AOL for copyright infringement 5 years ago. this is no joke. please email me your story, and or you can call me to varify that this is real. thanks. we need you to take a stand, so we can WIN rights back to the songwriter. thanks. JIll Cohn www.jillcohn.com (206)954-1893 Hi
pump audio /getty images are crooks.

i’ve hired a lawyer to fight them, nearly 1 1/2 years after i terminated my agreement with them, they are still licensing my music.

while everyone is belly aching over the 50% to 30% thing, no one has failed to realize the whole business model is to kill what little revenue we can make as song writers.

they have licensed my music for 5 to 20 dollars, for major uses.. so, really 50% or 30% makes no difference.

there are other issues with their contract, and the more artists we have join our law suite the better.

i have a lawyer who is taking it on pro-bono, and he is ready to fight. he won a land-mark case against AOL for copyright infringement 5 years ago.

this is no joke.
please email me your story, and or you can call me to varify that this is real.
thanks. we need you to take a stand, so we can WIN rights back to the songwriter.
thanks. JIll Cohn http://www.jillcohn.com (206)954-1893

]]> By: JILL Cohn http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9691 JILL Cohn Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:47:08 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9691 yes, we are putting together a Class Action Law suite. i have a great entertainment Lawyer and he want to take on Getty on behalf of the artists who have gotten screwed. put your stories together, and EMAIL them to: jillcohnmusic@yahoo,com and JhCLAW@gmail.com yes, we are putting together a Class Action Law suite. i have a great entertainment Lawyer and he want to take on Getty on behalf of the artists who have gotten screwed.

put your stories together, and EMAIL them to:
jillcohnmusic@yahoo,com

and JhCLAW@gmail.com

]]> By: JILL Cohn http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9688 JILL Cohn Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:41:37 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9688 YES, it DOES matter, and if you haven't signed up with this horrific company, i would reccamend to NOT work with them. They put your music on what they call a pump box, and then grant what seem to be unedning licenses to the music supervisors that they sell the box to. Meaning even if you terminate your agreement with them, they continue to grant new licenses, saying that they are "old" licenses, because they were granted several years ago, and so the music director can decide to use somethig, from the box, even if the intial license he got was several years old. THIS is how Getty Iages continues to license material from contracts, (like mine) that was terminated over 1 1/2 years ago, When i confronted them about now re-naming my songs, and listing themselves as publisher, when they NEVER did this WHILE they had a valid contract with me, from 2002 until 2008...,.. but now, in 2010 they have begun to re-name my song, and claim publising, eventhough I TREMINATED my ageement with them over 1& 1.2 years ago. They said something about ;perpituity right to do so.. but it SHOLUD ONLY be on existing licenses that they granted during a VALID term of a contract.. EVERY re-named and claime to my publishing has taken place 1 &1/2 years since I ENDED my agreement with them.. now they are saying it 'could have been an older license', and they have to check into it. Funny, but when i terminated with them, was when they "amended" their agreements giving them the rights to publishing & renaming songs. That's when I BAILED.. and UP to the date that i Terminated, there were NO renamed songs nor claims to my publishing.. .so, why they are showing up over a year and a half i ILLEGAL. I"m putting together a LAWSUIT against Getty Images for unfair business practice & copyright infringement. I'm working with a Lawyer who SUED AOL for ARTISTS RIGHTS, and he won! WE WANT other artists who have been victimized by pump audio and Getty images decietful practices and unfair contracts, in which they continue to have right survive, long after the artes has wanted to Stop the contract thanks. this is a legitimate law suit.. WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMPLAINT. MY Lawer is working on retainer.. meaning, he beleives in this fight, and is willing to wait and get paid from the settlement. he beleives that this WILL be a FEDERAL COPYRIGHT CASE, and one that will CHANGE the way buisnesses like pump audio and Getty images take advantage of artist. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN JOINING US, PLEASE WRITE ME THANKYOU!! JILL COHN JILLCOHNMUSIC@AOL.COM YES, it DOES matter, and if you haven’t signed up with this horrific company, i would reccamend to NOT work with them. They put your music on what they call a pump box, and then grant what seem to be unedning licenses to the music supervisors that they sell the box to. Meaning even if you terminate your agreement with them, they continue to grant new licenses, saying that they are “old” licenses, because they were granted several years ago, and so the music director can decide to use somethig, from the box, even if the intial license he got was several years old. THIS is how Getty Iages continues to license material from contracts, (like mine) that was terminated over 1 1/2 years ago,
When i confronted them about now re-naming my songs, and listing themselves as publisher, when they NEVER did this WHILE they had a valid contract with me, from 2002 until 2008…,.. but now, in 2010 they have begun to re-name my song, and claim publising, eventhough I TREMINATED my ageement with them over 1& 1.2 years ago. They said something about ;perpituity right to do so.. but it SHOLUD ONLY be on existing licenses that they granted during a VALID term of a contract.. EVERY re-named and claime to my publishing has taken place 1 &1/2 years since I ENDED my agreement with them.. now they are saying it ‘could have been an older license’, and they have to check into it. Funny, but when i terminated with them, was when they “amended” their agreements giving them the rights to publishing & renaming songs. That’s when I BAILED.. and UP to the date that i Terminated, there were NO renamed songs nor claims to my publishing.. .so, why they are showing up over a year and a half i ILLEGAL.
I”m putting together a LAWSUIT against Getty Images for unfair business practice & copyright infringement. I’m working with a Lawyer who SUED AOL for ARTISTS RIGHTS, and he won! WE WANT other artists who have been victimized by pump audio and Getty images decietful practices and unfair contracts, in which they continue to have right survive, long after the artes has wanted to Stop the contract
thanks. this is a legitimate law suit.. WE WANT TO HEAR YOUR COMPLAINT. MY Lawer is working on retainer.. meaning, he beleives in this fight, and is willing to wait and get paid from the settlement.
he beleives that this WILL be a FEDERAL COPYRIGHT CASE, and one that will CHANGE the way buisnesses like pump audio and Getty images take advantage of artist.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN JOINING US, PLEASE WRITE ME
THANKYOU!! JILL COHN JILLCOHNMUSIC@AOL.COM

]]> By: Paul Grenier http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9529 Paul Grenier Sun, 20 Sep 2009 23:11:24 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9529 You can count me in L.C.!! You can count me in L.C.!!

]]> By: L. C. http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-9425 L. C. Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:06:02 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-9425 For those musicians who have entered into an agreement with Pump Audio, and whose music has been placed in their catalog, there is protection from the revision to the original contract that Pump Audio is trying to force on current clients. Regardless of the fact that the aforementioned contract contains language which indicates it can “remove any music at any time,” the fact that they are threatening this removal "if the contractee does not agree to the new 65% / 35% split, is a punitive action which constitutes extortion. The key to this legality is the letter that Pump Audio sent out. The letter acts as an admission to the fact that Pump Audio are using punitive action, after the fact, to force clients into an unfair and unethical disadvantage. All be it a subtle form of extortion it is none the less illegal. In the letter Pump Audio states that they will "remove the music of anyone who does not agree to the new ration/split." While they can legally enforce a new ratio scheme on new clients who choose to enter an agreement under the new terms, what they cannot do is alter an existing legal instrument without the consent of the musician with whom they are engaged in contract. Threatening to remove content due to a musicians unwillingness to accept new terms or amendments is punitive, is a breach of the agreement and is illegal. Again: The circumstances of removal of content are relevant. If they have already accepted your music, and entered it into their catalog, this serves as a good faith contract regardless of the, non-specific language they used in the original agreement with regard to using music at their sole discretion. Pump Audio is clearly indicating that removal of "previously accepted" music is based solely on a contractee not accepting the new licensing ratio. Thus, they are breaking the law, regardless of any alleged rights they claim to have. The cause of the removal is what stands as germane to this issue. Punitive action taken in order for a conglomerate to force a contractee into a particular financial arrangement is unethical, illegal and prosecutable. There is ground for legal action but the only way that will work is if everyone, who is signed with Pump Audio enters into a class action suit against Pump Audio / Getty Images. The class action can be certified on the grounds of specific corporate and contractual misconduct constituted by the punitive actions threatened by Pump Audio. For those musicians who have entered into an agreement with Pump Audio, and whose music has been placed in their catalog, there is protection from the revision to the original contract that Pump Audio is trying to force on current clients. Regardless of the fact that the aforementioned contract contains language which indicates it can “remove any music at any time,” the fact that they are threatening this removal “if the contractee does not agree to the new 65% / 35% split, is a punitive action which constitutes extortion.
The key to this legality is the letter that Pump Audio sent out. The letter acts as an admission to the fact that Pump Audio are using punitive action, after the fact, to force clients into an unfair and unethical disadvantage. All be it a subtle form of extortion it is none the less illegal.
In the letter Pump Audio states that they will “remove the music of anyone who does not agree to the new ration/split.” While they can legally enforce a new ratio scheme on new clients who choose to enter an agreement under the new terms, what they cannot do is alter an existing legal instrument without the consent of the musician with whom they are engaged in contract. Threatening to remove content due to a musicians unwillingness to accept new terms or amendments is punitive, is a breach of the agreement and is illegal.
Again: The circumstances of removal of content are relevant. If they have already accepted your music, and entered it into their catalog, this serves as a good faith contract regardless of the, non-specific language they used in the original agreement with regard to using music at their sole discretion. Pump Audio is clearly indicating that removal of “previously accepted” music is based solely on a contractee not accepting the new licensing ratio. Thus, they are breaking the law, regardless of any alleged rights they claim to have. The cause of the removal is what stands as germane to this issue. Punitive action taken in order for a conglomerate to force a contractee into a particular financial arrangement is unethical, illegal and prosecutable.
There is ground for legal action but the only way that will work is if everyone, who is signed with Pump Audio enters into a class action suit against Pump Audio / Getty Images. The class action can be certified on the grounds of specific corporate and contractual misconduct constituted by the punitive actions threatened by Pump Audio.

]]> By: Arp http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-7646 Arp Tue, 28 Jul 2009 21:31:59 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-7646 I'm going to give Musicsupervisor.com a look-see, along with YouLicense. I haven't signed Pump's amendment yet, and I was *not* aware of this bullshit. If there's any hint of a class-action suit, I am down. I’m going to give Musicsupervisor.com a look-see, along with YouLicense. I haven’t signed Pump’s amendment yet, and I was *not* aware of this bullshit. If there’s any hint of a class-action suit, I am down.

]]> By: Paul Grenier http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-4541 Paul Grenier Tue, 12 May 2009 21:18:31 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-4541 To me they have no legal right to simply make such unilateral changes to a signed contract without your consent. My contract with them states 50/50 split... period. Signed sealed delivered as they say. I have yet to receive any notification from them regarding their "new terms", but once I do, I'm pulling out due to breach of contract. You simply cannot sign a contract with someone and then go and change it one or two months later just because you feel like it and without agreement and a signature from the other party. I'm not a lawyer, but I know enough about contracts to know what you can and can not do. Has anybody contacted anybody for a legal opinion on this? As I've said before, if they do this without my permission or notifying me, and they make use of my material and collect monies, I'll sue them. And everyone else signed with them should threaten to do the same. It's your right. I just signed with Musicsupervisor.com and they charge NOTHING, take only 50% of the licensing fee, and don't re-title or touch your publishing revenues. And they shop your stuff like crazy. I suggest everyone take a serious look at them as an alternative. I think they're less of a corporate machine than Pump, so you get a better feeling dealing with them. To me they have no legal right to simply make such unilateral changes to a signed contract without your consent. My contract with them states 50/50 split… period. Signed sealed delivered as they say. I have yet to receive any notification from them regarding their “new terms”, but once I do, I’m pulling out due to breach of contract. You simply cannot sign a contract with someone and then go and change it one or two months later just because you feel like it and without agreement and a signature from the other party. I’m not a lawyer, but I know enough about contracts to know what you can and can not do. Has anybody contacted anybody for a legal opinion on this? As I’ve said before, if they do this without my permission or notifying me, and they make use of my material and collect monies, I’ll sue them. And everyone else signed with them should threaten to do the same. It’s your right.
I just signed with Musicsupervisor.com and they charge NOTHING, take only 50% of the licensing fee, and don’t re-title or touch your publishing revenues. And they shop your stuff like crazy. I suggest everyone take a serious look at them as an alternative. I think they’re less of a corporate machine than Pump, so you get a better feeling dealing with them.

]]> By: blindkarma http://www.themusicsnob.com/2008/10/06/pump-audios-retitle-publishing-music-licensing/comment-page-1/#comment-4535 blindkarma Tue, 12 May 2009 15:57:56 +0000 http://www.themusicsnob.com/?p=541#comment-4535 I too just received Pump Audio's new fee announcement that changes the split to 65/35 in their favor. This was obviously a unilateral decision on their part. How do people feel about that? The announcement is rather arrogant, stating basically "no one can stop us" and "we are on the verge of taking over the music licensing world." It literally says this is going to help them grow much faster. No sh_t. So what about the artists? The ones who submitted music to the library because the creators of Pump Audio claimed they were musicians looking out for other musicians? Oh yes, that's right... they sold the company to Getty Images, the big corporation. Now that corporation is reducing the artist fees unilaterally. Sound familiar to anyone? I too just received Pump Audio’s new fee announcement that changes the split to 65/35 in their favor. This was obviously a unilateral decision on their part. How do people feel about that? The announcement is rather arrogant, stating basically “no one can stop us” and “we are on the verge of taking over the music licensing world.” It literally says this is going to help them grow much faster. No sh_t.

So what about the artists? The ones who submitted music to the library because the creators of Pump Audio claimed they were musicians looking out for other musicians? Oh yes, that’s right… they sold the company to Getty Images, the big corporation. Now that corporation is reducing the artist fees unilaterally. Sound familiar to anyone?

]]>