Coming from a musician, that wishes he was a rockstar (pun intended); Musicians that think they’re going to have an endless stream of income solely from a song that hits the charts for the rest of their life are completely out of touch with reality. It’s like me quitting my job, releasing an indie album with one hit, and hoping it’ll pay my rent for the rest of my life.
On Spotify, a billion streams is worth $ 4.370,000 🙂 But I agree you cannot compare this. This guy first needs lots of exposure to get people to stream his long-forgotten song, and having it in GTA 6 would help that a lot.
you are completely stupid. the song was most likely gonna be for radio you dont GO and open GTA to stream songs. You play the game, listen through the radio randomly and if AND A MAJOR "IF" you like a song-you check its name and go stream it. Songs like "lady hear me tonight" get popular THIS exact way. So no it was not a terrible deal in the slightest. and ranting bout it on twitter and sayin that they dont need exposure while tweeting FOR exposure-is so hypocritical.
@@ronald3836 it was stated in the video that they get 300k listeners per month, and even the money that they get from those listeners split to the members of the band.
It's a standard fee for video games. I was the publisher for an independent artist named Suni Clay. We sold a song to Microsoft "my hood" for need for speed 3 back in like 2004 for $3500. It makes sense that rockstar is paying $7500 in 2024. They don't own exclusively. It's a license fee to play it publicly. That's it. This guy is a clown and has no clue how licensing works. Imagine a wrestler has to pay $75k every time he walks out to the ring having his theme song played. Ridiculous.
I searched if I was seeing things, just a funny bit: NFS "3" is Hot Pursuit from 98, then High Stakes a year later, then Porsche Unleashed/(PU 2000 in Europe)- a Porsche only special, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground 1 and 2, then Most Wanted, which is the 9th installment in the franchise. There 22 mainline NFS games, 25 NFSs to date overall, of which 2 are Android games, and an Online only NFS World that didn´t last very long).
7500 for a 40 years old song, no extra work needed, and it wont take away people who are already listening to the song but if anything it will get more listeners. This dude is like the worst businessman in the world.
That song Temptation was a 1 hit wonder for Heaven 17. As a Brit I completely forgot the song and band exists and only remember it until it pops up in something.
Having your music in a game is like the best kind of advertising there is. I don't know how many bands I found entirely because they were featured in some of my favorite games.
@@hardVatsuki it really much depends on where u can listen the song too. if it’s on a channel like Nonstop Pop than sure many people listen to it but if it’s on a radio station where literally no one listens to than no one will ever get to hear this terrorst promoting band (which is good tho)
the funny thing is, I think a lot of artists would have had no problem having their music feature in one of the biggest games ever even if they weren't being paid. Dude had his song in one of the biggest games ever, music that people would probably not even hear considering players switching stations etc, exposing his work to potential millions...
@@conradlorgar5508 people would off added them to playlists if they like them and then some get big from the game like midnight city by M83 that had a pretty big bump due to it being in GTA V
@@conradlorgar5508Quite a lot actually, most of the song that heard in gta, is oftenly being visisted by those who played it, you can fact check by choosing a song in youtube that are featured in one of gta game, and some comment would reference gta, the exposure is real, the new generation doesn't know musicians in the past that much
@@Maxmulhamthey were, but I didn’t play Vice City, and I don’t know 99% of the songs on the gta v radio even after so much time playing it, so it’s not really a big factor for me knowing a band or not
@@Ackira I would say not knowing 99% of the GTA5 songs (most of which come from very big hip hop/pop artists) is pretty unusual for somebody with a "pretty wise and deep music culture"
@@frogchip6484 I was being hyperbolic, obviously I know most of the stuff on non stop pop fm, the rap radios (whatever they’re called) lot of the punk stuff, but especially all the rather unknown electronic stuff I honestly don’t know them, but I still doubt I know most of the songs on the radio
@@frogchip6484 also I meant I don’t know what songs are playing on the radio because I mostly play with my music playing on the side, not like I don’t know the songs themselves
Why are people still talking to this "musician"? You can cleary see from his "rebuttals" that he's not even considering that he could be wrong, he's just calling everyone who doesn't agree with him morons or weaklings. He's clearly not in touch with reality.
yeah, this old fart be like "I am in this industry for decades, you kids know nothing" while he's making most stupid decision of his life and being a greedy moron.
He could've just said he thought it was a lowball and then negotiated with rockstar and if nothing ends up going through then nothing would be lost for either of them so what gives lol. Really a non issue made into a big deal for no reason.
This is what happens when you don’t use your brain properly. Your song will literally become popular if it was put it a game like GTA 6! Getting paid 7500 dollars with it is a win-win situation.
Also the song is so old i doubt there are any new people finding it. So putting it into gta 6 would not lose him any money, it would gain him more listeners, which would lead to more money later.
I have like 10 Playlists with gta 5 radios I listen to on the regular. And there are a lot of songs i discovered that way. For example A.D.H.D or Midnight City. Hell, before the GTA 6 Trailer I have never even listened to "Love Is A Long Road". And that's probably gonna end up being my most listened song this year, on my spotify wrapped. Can't be the only person who likes those. The official "Non-Stop-Pop Fm" playlist from rockstar on spotify has 283.762 saves.
two things come to mind. 1. I think it is normal in music licensing to consider the size of the audience that will hear a song when negotiating the license fee. Like how a song played in a movie will cost more to the movie production than a song played as part of a public performance license at a local hockey arena. 2. I looked at how much an artist makes on spotify per play. I'm sure the numbers vary wildly, but one estimate said 5 million dollars for every 1 billion plays, which would be $5/1,000 plays. I know in the video someone says $1,000/1M plays, which is about $1/1,000 plays. GTA V has been purchased 185 million times. I assume GTA VI will sell more, but let's say it is less than half that at 75,000,000 copies and each owner hears the song once, that would be worth $75,000 if you go with the lower spotify number. "sufficiently rewarded" - who decides what is sufficient? "You owe society." - and society got repaid with the art, not the opportunity to make money from that art.
Just wanted to add (for those who don't know where artists get their music from) that spotify is maybe a 0.1% of the whole income of a song. Other services like UA-cam, Tidal, Apple music etc. pay WAY more for your music (even with way less streams), so idk why the spotify was even a unit of measuring someones royalties in the first place.
The musician is referring to residuals, not a fixed fee. Instead of $7500, he wanted continuous payments based on how profitable the game would become after release. That being said, he could have easily used the exposure from his music appearing in GTA 6 to promote his other songs and made a boatload of money from the renewed publicity.
New GTAV Speedrun category"101%": you have to 100% the game, do all the races and get 1st place, do the whole golf course(under par) , basically do EVERYTHING, get all your stats to 100(if possible) and for "distance traveled" stats only 10 miles for each
Did not expect to see myself in this video, good to see you again Viper, it has been a long time. The fans and himself were not happy with me saying that lol
Rockstar has had issues in the past of underpaying its contracted-out people. Ray Liotta was a person who was shocked at the disparity of game profit vs his pay. GTAV (allegedly) cost 250mil and now maybe 500mil+ (a guess for updates and blah blah) but that still puts it at 8.1 billion profit. (maybe) I feel like you made good points about "he hates corporate boot lickers until its time for his chance at the Gucci sandal." but I think him just saying "no, id rather have more money for my song." isn't bad either (to potentially be able to share with others if the 22k split to 7,500 is true) GTAVI is probably going to over double or triple the songs of GTAV, so I side with him on the "what exposure?" when there are songs on GTAV I still don't even know about. payment in exposure is scumbag be it low level youtubers or huge companies.
not to mention, these artist's will get more known if their songs are in the game. I can guarantee most people didnt know Lady(hear me tonight) was until GTA5 and now its highly played on GTA videos
@@juli7xxxxxThe artists get $7.5k for a "dead" song and free ads that active forever until GTA7 come. Even GTA SA still have an large active player base.
yes EXACTLY bang on the money, multiple artists shot up in fame because of gta5, theres no doubt they made BANK of the music video ad revenue ect. all because of rockstar,
@@juli7xxxxx Let's say you first hear song on a radio station in GTA V and you love it - we'll continue to use Modjo's Lady (Hear Me Tonight) as the example. You open the radio menu and immediately see the song name and artist. With music easily being one of, if not the most, reusable form of media you will choose listen to it multiple times in the future as you love it so much. When you do that, it will not be by opening GTA V and hoping it comes on the radio. You will find the song on Spotify, UA-cam Music, Apple Music, or other such platforms and by listening to it there you will make the artist money. The initial exposure of the piece of music or song that you love in the soundtrack of a game or movie or even on the real life radio will lead to you listening to the song via another means that makes the artist money. Ergo, making money from exposure. And, that it discounting any money that would be made from the artist's music being included in the game - which was obviously the case with Heaven 17 if they had accepted.
The money offered by Rock* is peanuts in the music world. They don't need the money. They are still performing today and have also worked as producers for a lot of well known artists, including Tina Turner
its crazy how so many people defending the artist on twitter were like "Removing any future royalties - Rockstar bad" and not knowing what it actually means/ "royalties from game"- It means that the party offering the buyout is paying a one-time sum of money to eliminate any future obligations or royalties that may arise from the game.
@@jkorok6357 if you are talking bout Michael Hollic's case - HE WAS THE VOICE ACTOR of Niko! not a random guy on the radio. His work ofc deserved more- but he himself blames the union for that deal- Not Rockstar itself.
Dude really gave up easy money for his popular song being in a game because it wasn't enough for him because of who the company is and what they are worth? That just tells you who he is as a person. He wants more money but when Rockstar is like, "Hey, we want your song in our game that is the most highly anticipated game to come out in 2026 where alot of people will play this game, hear this song and then your song will become popular again," dude is like, "Eh, where is my money?" My dude?! I get that artists hold certain songs they have written in high regards but to be that stubborn and under a rock to realize you were handed an oppurtunity to be something again and have your song be big again after 40 years is baffling to me.
Right about the greedy artist Wrong about the copyright stuff Missed so many angles It would be chaos if it was just 20 years And many would stop creating original stuff in consequence to this Which would be a much worse future for us all But i agree a more reasonable duration for the copyright should be set which can balance current problems
Completely the opposite, a 20 year limit on copyright would encourage more creativity and innovation, not stifle it. If something is still popular when the copyright is coming to an end the just rerelease or remaster it every 19 years.
The biggest problem for me is how instead of going against rockstar for offering the amount the song is worth in the marketing he could be going against Spotify and other streaming services that pay fractions of cents to artists. If he said he wanted residuals because the Spotify money that he would get from the exposure wouldn't be good for him, he would have more of a case, and could spin against the real corporations that are enslaving musicians, instead of the one that just wants to have the song in the game.
@@talibong9518 that's why I said he could spin the narrative more easily if he talked about the streaming services, because it doesn't affect only the people that made music 40 yrs ago, it affects people making music for a living right now. I ain't saying he is in the right, but that he could go from another angle and be on the right.
Nah but that would just be another one of his lies that people will also catch on quickly. Of course twiiter people will fall for it but most people already know by now that Spotify nowadays is bleeding insane money because of big labels demanding a lot of cuts. It might have worked a few years ago but sadly for him, it won't anymore.
@@kaungkhantkyaw4410 Spotify paying less than 1 cent for the label that gives even less for the artists are a reality, I don't understand your point really, Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music and others can be in a worst place than before because of labels, but it doesn't remove the fact that they pay US$0,007 per listen at most, for indie artists, the amount is even lower. There are real corporations that screw with artists, those ones being labels and the streaming business. That's what I'm saying, the effort he put onto trashing rockstar for offering the amount the music is worth it he could be putting into going against that, so he could be helping artists making new music. He could've started this tweet talking about rockstar, but pivoting to a real problem for the industry.
I have to wonder how much they were offered when they included the Heaven 17 song "Penthouse and Pavement" in GTA Vice City, whethers its a similar amount as they were offered for GTA 6 or if the GTA 6 offer is higher/lower.
I mean him wanting $75k would make sense if he was still producing music and had a large fan base and had was relevabt in the cultural zeitgeist. Like if theyvwanted a Kendrick Lamar song yea id expect it to cost a pretty penny even if it was made 2 decades ago. Or like an Ac/Dc song or Michael Jackson sure their music is pretty old but they have a legendary status so you arent going to be getting it for cheap
Just look at the "Lady Hear Me Tonight" song from GTA V. No one knew what that song was prior to the release of the game. That song now has over 300m views on UA-cam alone. You check the comments on that song, every comment talks about coming from GTA V. They made their song 1000x popular because they added the song. Take the running up the Hill song from Stranger Things. Obviously shows are much different than games, but that song became the oldest song to reach the top 100 or some shit like that. Her song now became so much more popular because she allowed them to use it. My point is that by allowing companies to use your song. If it's actually a good song, you'll gain far more views from it.
These are the rambles we want. Hearing Matt argue something he cares about is so much better than just reading random tech or game news with minimal commentary.
But that's just not true. Its worth what its worth to the person attempting to license it. The owner can SAY its worth 75k Yes. That doesn't mean its actually worth that much to ANYONE. Rockstar decided the song was worth 7500 to them. Age and popularity of the song absolutely do play a role. Plus they had the right to refuse and they did. That's perfectly fine. But going to whine on twitter and act like a victim is just absurd.
My issue with people defending the copyright law as it exists, by citing creators rights. That it competely ignores the other part of the equation, cooperation also hold copyright power. Now bear with me, if the copyright law last 20 years as Matthew suggested. A group of individuals could potentially make an actual remastered and update version of the original GTA trilogy. (SA copyright would end at the end of this year) Call it GTA Definitive Edition. These individuals would be reward for thier work as they would be able to sell it on steam and other platforms. With Take2 having no power what so ever to stop them.
Oh, it's a setup, it's a setup, it's a setup There's a traitor, there's a mole It's a peacetime overdose down Bound to break you, get you beat (no, no, we won't, won't fall) We got to get underground No, no, we won't, won't fall
No-one is going to say "Holy shit, that song from 40 years ago isn't in GTA 6!?! I'm not buying that game anymore! Screw you Rockstar!". The fact he probably thinks that make me glad Rockstar probably isn't buying the song anymore.
this song would most likely be added to the radio, along with hundreds of others, probably more than in GTA V. Most people won't even hear it while playing through the game. It's crazy that some argued they should be paid tens or hundreds of thousands, just because rockstar makes a lot of money
I was here for the stream, this is literally one of the best examples of Matt having a controversial take and being so right and well manner in his speaking to actually put his arguments ahead in a manner where people will understand. I didn't agree with the copyright section, but when he started explaining I was like "holy shit, he's right, I've just never thought of it that way" and actually changed my mind on the topic, unfortunately some other's didn't understand so I had to explain the same stuff he said in his own chat.
Sort of like if you offer a man $1000 to spend the night with his wife, and he is ready to fight you. Offer $10,000. He pulls his wife over to the side to discuss things. Principle.
GTA5 and GTA4 introduced me to so many of my favourite artists and bands, I love 80s music despite being born well after the 80s and I have no doubt that I and many more like me would've loved to hear a good 80s song for the first time on the GTA6 radio and get to listen to the rest of their works, now Heaven 17 will just go down as those whiny hypocrites who had a one hit wonder decades ago and nobody really cares about. The irony of complaining that $7500 isn't enough for someone with allegedly £40m whilst also complaining about "corporate greed" is mindboggling.
I think $75k is reasonable if the song is going to be used in the release trailer. Seen by a billion people and over again. Price he was offered does seem low but his value seema crazy. Rockstar could charge 75k per song used in the game but not a lot of other companies could essentially killing licensed soundtracks in video games.
I do love when a person uses insults and aggressive language when someone else has a different opinion. It really helps their case and validates their point. But I think "feetlicker" is more appropriate these days than a "bootlicker", however I am not the one to judge.
Imagine having the opportunity to cement one of your great works in one of the biggest video game production of this decade and saying no because you wanted more money 😂
I think the max for copyright should be life of the author, and from there it can either be public domain or (if specifically wished) copyright can be renewed for some amount of years by a specified inheritor. Mainly for this capitalistic system, as I don’t think an artist should have to compete with other versions of their ideas while they are still alive. Or, they should have their whole life to flesh out their works. Additionally, it gives the artist a way to benefit their families or friends after they’re gone, while still protecting art from seemingly infinite copyright. Of course, I’m holding less value on the amount of creative works that can be pumped out of one idea, and more so that the creator of said idea is compensated for it.
Anything over 20 years should be public domain, excluding remasters and updated releases. I don't expect to continuously be paid for work I did years ago.
@@talibong9518 of course this would be up to you, in my ideal system. But I think the artist themselves has the right to hold it until death if they so wish.
This guy doesn’t understand that people don’t buy the game for his song. What would he get royalties on? People aren’t spending time or money on the game specifically to hear his song. Royalties make no goddamn sense in this context.
100 percent agree with you Matt And you forget that having a song i gta brings a new audience to your music i.e. my son and i played gta toghter when he was younger and he became a YES fan becauseof gta5 he listens to their music now bringing them even more income
A single penny would be a good deal to have your music in a GTA game, look at how all the music that features in GTA gets a surge in popularity after being in the games.
At least millions of people are gonna hear your song... You can hope to get new fans, merch, more people coming to your shows, etc. Sure it might be a low ball, but its GTA fucking 6. To be a part of anything Rockstar Games related, is an amazing milestone.
I had a conversation about this with a friend when this story first dropped and he argued that the guy was right for feeling his "art" (music) should be worth more since Rockstar is worth so much, but I argued back about how it shouldn't be about the money (though thats surely nice) when a entity like Rockstar wants to have your song in their game, their game that will surely be alive and kicking for possibly a century like 5, your song that's surely forgotten and will remain that way has been given the chance to become immortalized and possibly garner loads of people (just like with 5) who go "man this song by this band I've never heard of is really good! I want to look them up!" And surely way more attention than this little stunt they pulled. Ontop of all that they should be grateful for such a chance but Rockstar seem to hold grudges so this band or person has surely burned a bridge if not multiple. Got to also think how many songs are going to be in 6 so if they're paying almost 10k per song and they're going going have more songs than 5, that's going to add up very quickly, just because their budget is huge doesn't mean they should be throwing money around to clearly ungrateful Artists.
I think that they're offering >$20k is even funnier. They *are* paying market rate for a *movie*. Absolutely nothing to complain about. They're not forced to accept but they shouldn't be publicly flaming on twitter
The comparison to the florist or the cheeseburger is silly because the song is used in every copy of the game while flowers or cheesburgers are eaten once. He asks for more because the song is used more often. You want a sponsor to pay more now than 4 years ago, since more people see it, even if the work you put into the segment is the same, just like he wants to be paid more for the music since a lot more people will hear it, even if the work on his side remains the same.
Every rumble i agree with you on 90-100% of things, but this video... Completly reverse. Your take on copyright law is just sad for the copyright owner. I agree that copyright for technologies and simmilar things should be short so it could be used to progress the society, but for things that are artistic, copyright should be long. Yes, you can recieve another good story as buyer, but as original owner It can feel like losing your child. P.S. sorry for bad english. I could explaing my vision more, but i am not the person who will waste alot of time for things that no one will read.
Well then copyright laws should be revised so that the original creator owns the IP for their lifetime, but each individual work is public domain after 20 years and can be used in other works or distributed for free, but new creations by people other than the IP owner wouldn't be allowed to use the name if sold for a profit.
Boomer born before 1970 confused games or put a 6 instead of a 5. Not a biggie imo lol and caring about money in a capitalistic world is sadly a nobrainer especially as an artist.
I heard the song, and I was like there is no way it would be on the GTA soundtrack. If I'm being honest on my opinion, what he said they wanted to offer would've been generous.
This is a really complicated topic, I think it really does matter what compensation someone deserves depending on the measure of success the art being licenced will be used in. The way I think of it is that, if I was a really successful rich musician, and a big movie like a Star Wars movie or something wanted to use one of my songs, I'd ask for a lot more money from them than from a small indie movie that wants to use my song. But I'd accept licensing the music to both. If you think about it, rockstar could pay 0.002% royalties for each artist, and they could have even 1000 separate artists in the game, and it would still only cost them 2% of their profits. That's not a lot to be asking for as an artist, and if the game is as successful or even more successful than GTA 5 then 0.002% royalties would be 172.000, much more than 22.5k, rockstar can afford that. It's only 2%. Now, at the same time, I do believe copyright should last way less time, but at the same time I do want artists to be fairly compensated for their work. And that's a tough balance. Like, I think that if you're going to have copyright, then artists should be WELL compensated. 172k for something as big as GTA 6 seems like a fair compensation. 22.5k does not. Especially if split between multiple people. I think that these industry standards even for movies are wayy too low. So I understand him asking for more. And I also don't agree that him asking for more makes him like corporate? Like, he's literally demanding more money from the corporation. That's anti-corporate. Basically his argument is "Artists deserve higher compensation, but you are supporting the corporation to keep more of its money and not compensate artists fairly, so you are a corporate bootlicker, just because I also happen to be an artist and I'd be directly benefitting from a corporation if my principles were upheld, does not make me a corporate bootlicker." But it's difficult cause in this case the song is really old, and I do think art should go into public domain faster so that people can use it to enhance their own art or change it up to create something new, without having to be rich and pay for expensive licensing. But then the original artists won't be compensated... So I don't know... I think maybe the best kind of system would be something like 10 years copyright, and then after that there would be "forced licensing" meaning you are forced to license to whoever wants to use your art, and you have to reach some sort of agreement that both parties think is fair. And if you can't it has to go through the court system and the court decides what the deal should look like and deciding what is "fair" using certain criteria. But that seems like it would be extremely complicated and would bog down the court system a lot. Additionally what do you do if your art is really popular and lots of people want to use it. You can't be handling legal agreements like that all your life. Perhaps there could be some sort of standard formula that could be used to automatically calculcate fair compensation, and that would be used instead to simplify things. I don't know what such a formula would look like however. But I do think that if someone can figure out a good formula like that, that the period that this kind of copyright with forced licensing should last lifetime of the author + 30 years.
It's funny how people nowadays don't know how to counter argue. Matt points out an obvious flaw or discrepancy in their explanation and the best they can respond is "nuh uh" while b*tching and moaning rather than try to express their own point of view.
what i don't get is, having your song in GTA literally only comes with positives. who wouldn't want that, what possible negative reason could you find in that.
Musicians who think like that are definetly one hit wonders. If Rockstar was planning to buy the whole thing they would have offered more money. I think Martin's mindset is stupid imagine how much more kids are gonna find his song in the game and then look it up and stream it and get more money
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they made more money off this drama as people went to listen to their song than they would have if they accepted the offer.
Look I understand his point to a degree but he is absolutely overreacting rockstar was offering more than industry rate for this song that has fallen behind in cultural relevance, the point from rockstar is not the usual paid in exposure. This is fuckin GTA the game is going to do well the song plays this will generate would be more than royaltys being paid out. Matt’s point is the band would have made more money if they took the deal because it would boost the band’s popularity
20 years is way too short for copyright, it sometimes takes that much time for a product to finally become popular. I think copyright should last your entire lifetime. You made it. It's yours. Why shouldn't you own it? Would you be ok with reactors binging your entire pacifist series in 20 years? +70 is definitely too much though. Edit: you ended up basically answering that question later in the video. Honestly, i think this is the first time i have fundementally disagreed with anything major you have said since i started watching you like 5 years ago, which is honestly impressive. I just can't believe you actually said you would be fine with a major corporation taking the work of someone who didn't have the resources to fully realize their work after 20 years. That is just crazy to me. That is what royalties are for. Your work is still your work, in this scenario you DIDN'T get compensated for your work in those 20 years, but you still lost that time, money and risk it took to create the product. Why is it ok for big corporations to then go scouting for hidden gems and just scoop them up and throw money at it, then reap all the rewards? You conflict what is good for society and what is good for creators. Those will not always be the same.
So what they offered is rights to use this song in a game without paying royalties? For a 40 year old song. So he could still make money from Spotify? In this case, the argument about exposure does make sense. I personally have a few songs from Gta5 Radio on Spotify.
Lol. You don't understand how business works. Here's an example. A Popeyes chicken inside a Las Vegas casino will charge $30 for a meal that they charge $8 for in any of their other restaurants. Why? Because people in a casino will pay more. What a business is bringing in as a profit DOES dictate how much compensation they need to pay out. So yeah.....ROCKSTAR does need to pay more than $7500
@@costa2k1 lol because you don't understand business. Products and services are dependent on the venue and the venue needs to incrementally pay their producers based on their venue's value.
Those are captive customers and it's not exclusive to a Popeyes in a casino, they exist in theme parks, stadiums, large events, or pretty much anywhere a customer has very limited options in what they can eat so the restaurant can get away with charging $5 for a bottle of water. Besides the point, that's not the same thing. R* is not limited in their options like a captive customer - in fact they're the ones holding the cards. It frankly doesn't matter how much Martyn thinks the price of the royalty should skyrocket just because the game has value, if Rockstar doesn't think it's worth the cost, they won't pay. That's Business 101. It doesn't matter how much the guy cries on Twitter. Rockstar, in fact, does not need to pay more than $7500.
@@RochRich. business 101 is gone. Lol. People crying on Twitter is EXACTLY what corporations care about now. Every single woke joke crybaby out there is getting deals. Even if that deal loses the corporation money on the back end they get "social credit" which gets them some kind of future deal. So maybe Martyn is just trying to go woke and get a better deal that way.
He is clearly not anti corpo he just wants money, extensive copyright has only really benefitted big corporations. A small creator can make something great and unique but because big corporations have enough money they can abuse small creations with legal fees and buyouts for clearly distinct works. Its the current problem with pokemon happening currently. people love the franchise and they want it to succeed but nintendo and the pokemon company refuse to actually do anything interesting with the series and anyone attempting to make a similar creature catching game has to fight a bunch of legal battles just to exist. And they even take down free fan games because they know they can get away with it but if thier copyright only lasted 20 years they would have to actually innovate and make better games to compete with what one developer can make in a few months in thier spare time. And if someone creates something but they dont have a lot of money big corporations will just make knock off versions with higher production values cause they know the small creator cant compete with thier financial backing in court cases. He is also just objectively making a bad financial decision. Hes not selling away the rights to the song just licensing it to be played. people arent going to play gta 6 just to hear the music if they want to keep listening to songs they heard in gta 6 they will add them to thier playlists on youtube and spotify. He lost the oppertunity to have millions of people listen to his song a few times on a radio and most likely add it to thier actual real life playlists. hes not losing anything by taking this deal hed just be getting a 7.5k bonus on top of millions of spotify listens.
My opinion of the quality of the music should have no bearing on the legal reality, but I just now listened to this song for the very first time and it sounds like something a modern tv show would make to make fun of 80s New Wave. I am flabbergasted that this is a real song.
$7500 is equivalent to 0.0000009% of GTA5 revenue. Its so small that it doesn't even register. It matters how much GTA earned when making the offer because it's so insultingly low by comparison. Your argument that he shouldnt charge based on what Rockstar is capable of paying, but instead on the actual value of the product is pretty funny because Rockstar does exactly that to you. Yeah, GTA is more expensive for you because you're richer than someone in India. Is GTA more valuable because it was sold in Australia? No, it's more expensive because - drum roll - you earn more "revenue"!
Bro just posted the "GTA MAKES LOT OF MONEY SO THEY SHOULD PAY MORE MONEY" argument that DViper literally mentions in the first half of the video and thought he made a point
Nice to see this Ramble up - like I said on Stream I still dont agree completely with your point but your agree it in a very good way and I can see where you are coming from. I believe in Copyright reform but not removal. I think corporations shouldnt get to hold copyrights and further laws should be put in to stop treating corps like people. I think more needs to be done to protect Artists, and I still disagree that society as a concept is entitled to Artistic labour. Sadly we do not live in a meritocracy where the cream rises to the top and I hope that copyright reform comes along and give more smaller artists a greater chance.
My view of copyright is that whoever made a thing should hold the rights until their death, at which point anyone could do whatever with said thing as long it isn't claiming creation of said thing. ***BUT that shouldn't prevent creative work from others while the person is alive, probably as a % fee of whatever money a reproduction make. A copyright holder being able to straight up forbid creative work from their inicial work is criminal, because NOTHING comes from nothing. As a wise person once said "originality depend from how many people you copied."
Coming from a musician, that wishes he was a rockstar (pun intended); Musicians that think they’re going to have an endless stream of income solely from a song that hits the charts for the rest of their life are completely out of touch with reality. It’s like me quitting my job, releasing an indie album with one hit, and hoping it’ll pay my rent for the rest of my life.
Ah yes, people trying to make money off a game which isn't even released...none of us should be surprised
''we want to give you $22500 to play your song infront of at least 1 billion people''
''no thanks thats terrible actually''
On Spotify, a billion streams is worth $ 4.370,000 🙂
But I agree you cannot compare this. This guy first needs lots of exposure to get people to stream his long-forgotten song, and having it in GTA 6 would help that a lot.
you are completely stupid.
the song was most likely gonna be for radio
you dont GO and open GTA to stream songs. You play the game, listen through the radio randomly and if AND A MAJOR "IF" you like a song-you check its name and go stream it. Songs like "lady hear me tonight" get popular THIS exact way.
So no it was not a terrible deal in the slightest.
and ranting bout it on twitter and sayin that they dont need exposure while tweeting FOR exposure-is so hypocritical.
@@ronald3836 it was stated in the video that they get 300k listeners per month, and even the money that they get from those listeners split to the members of the band.
Martyn is 68 years old.. rude to say but it is highly likely GTA 6 will outlive him.
@@anyauThat's funny, if anything GTA6 could be either a huge success or an atomic disaster, so it's 50% chance Marty could outlive GTA6.
It's a standard fee for video games. I was the publisher for an independent artist named Suni Clay. We sold a song to Microsoft "my hood" for need for speed 3 back in like 2004 for $3500. It makes sense that rockstar is paying $7500 in 2024. They don't own exclusively. It's a license fee to play it publicly. That's it. This guy is a clown and has no clue how licensing works. Imagine a wrestler has to pay $75k every time he walks out to the ring having his theme song played. Ridiculous.
I searched if I was seeing things, just a funny bit:
NFS "3" is Hot Pursuit from 98, then High Stakes a year later, then Porsche Unleashed/(PU 2000 in Europe)- a Porsche only special, Hot Pursuit 2, Underground 1 and 2, then Most Wanted, which is the 9th installment in the franchise. There 22 mainline NFS games, 25 NFSs to date overall, of which 2 are Android games, and an Online only NFS World that didn´t last very long).
Oh hey, I remember that song! It was featured in NFS Most Wanted, released in 2005 actually. Cool song!
It was NFS MW (2005), that soundtrack is thoroughly burnt into my brain.
Just realised that MW was still in development as Underground 3 in 2004
@@maxshykhov7518 thanks fam! You're right. It was most wanted. It was a long time ago. Haha
7500 for a 40 years old song, no extra work needed, and it wont take away people who are already listening to the song but if anything it will get more listeners.
This dude is like the worst businessman in the world.
That song Temptation was a 1 hit wonder for Heaven 17.
As a Brit I completely forgot the song and band exists and only remember it until it pops up in something.
lol what. Let Me Go was huge at the time. IMO, infinetly better than Temptation.
@@Maxmulham fish n chips mate, bruv where my waterer
@@RStraight what
@@H3llfire320he's saying it's chwesday innit? Do you have a loisence for that?
@@kuldimanasI'm sure everyone at the playground at Sandy Hook would've laughed out loud at that joke
Having your music in a game is like the best kind of advertising there is.
I don't know how many bands I found entirely because they were featured in some of my favorite games.
Same! I got into the band Feathers thanks to "Dark Matter" being in GTA V.
Flying Lotus my beloved
Not really.
@@Unkownxxxxxxx no elaboration, of course
@@hardVatsuki it really much depends on where u can listen the song too. if it’s on a channel like Nonstop Pop than sure many people listen to it but if it’s on a radio station where literally no one listens to than no one will ever get to hear this terrorst promoting band (which is good tho)
the funny thing is, I think a lot of artists would have had no problem having their music feature in one of the biggest games ever even if they weren't being paid. Dude had his song in one of the biggest games ever, music that people would probably not even hear considering players switching stations etc, exposing his work to potential millions...
How often has anyone ever looked up radio songs in gta, exposer is always bs
@@conradlorgar5508 people would off added them to playlists if they like them and then some get big from the game like midnight city by M83 that had a pretty big bump due to it being in GTA V
@@conradlorgar5508 I've added at least 5 songs to my library because I heard them on GTA radio.
@@conradlorgar5508 From what i've seen from the comments and from my own experience, quite a lot
@@conradlorgar5508Quite a lot actually, most of the song that heard in gta, is oftenly being visisted by those who played it, you can fact check by choosing a song in youtube that are featured in one of gta game, and some comment would reference gta, the exposure is real, the new generation doesn't know musicians in the past that much
MatPat 1 week after Matto roasted him: *retired
This band after a week: *retires
I get the feeling that this was originally supposed to be a Rambles video
All gta related rambles go on here
@@Zdzichu-2016I realized that after you pointed it out, but it still feels like a very controversial subject for the main channel
I’ll be honest, I have a pretty wide and deep music culture… I have never heard of Heaven 17 even once
They were in GTA before.
@@Maxmulhamthey were, but I didn’t play Vice City, and I don’t know 99% of the songs on the gta v radio even after so much time playing it, so it’s not really a big factor for me knowing a band or not
@@Ackira I would say not knowing 99% of the GTA5 songs (most of which come from very big hip hop/pop artists) is pretty unusual for somebody with a "pretty wise and deep music culture"
@@frogchip6484 I was being hyperbolic, obviously I know most of the stuff on non stop pop fm, the rap radios (whatever they’re called) lot of the punk stuff, but especially all the rather unknown electronic stuff I honestly don’t know them, but I still doubt I know most of the songs on the radio
@@frogchip6484 also I meant I don’t know what songs are playing on the radio because I mostly play with my music playing on the side, not like I don’t know the songs themselves
bro literally denied his song for being heard for a new generation and for the next 12 years. Any band or artist would want that new or old
Why are people still talking to this "musician"?
You can cleary see from his "rebuttals" that he's not even considering that he could be wrong, he's just calling everyone who doesn't agree with him morons or weaklings.
He's clearly not in touch with reality.
yeah, this old fart be like "I am in this industry for decades, you kids know nothing" while he's making most stupid decision of his life and being a greedy moron.
He could've just said he thought it was a lowball and then negotiated with rockstar and if nothing ends up going through then nothing would be lost for either of them so what gives lol. Really a non issue made into a big deal for no reason.
the "beauty" of twitter
but he did... 75k dollars and revenue... R denied .🤣
This is what happens when you don’t use your brain properly. Your song will literally become popular if it was put it a game like GTA 6! Getting paid 7500 dollars with it is a win-win situation.
Also the song is so old i doubt there are any new people finding it. So putting it into gta 6 would not lose him any money, it would gain him more listeners, which would lead to more money later.
If the game even delivers …
And if it doesn't, he gets 7500 bucks @@Unkownxxxxxxx
I have like 10 Playlists with gta 5 radios I listen to on the regular. And there are a lot of songs i discovered that way. For example A.D.H.D or Midnight City. Hell, before the GTA 6 Trailer I have never even listened to "Love Is A Long Road". And that's probably gonna end up being my most listened song this year, on my spotify wrapped.
Can't be the only person who likes those. The official "Non-Stop-Pop Fm" playlist from rockstar on spotify has 283.762 saves.
Its that one spongebob movie clip where Mr Krabs is increasing the prices of his food by like 20x because the king was visisting.
two things come to mind.
1. I think it is normal in music licensing to consider the size of the audience that will hear a song when negotiating the license fee. Like how a song played in a movie will cost more to the movie production than a song played as part of a public performance license at a local hockey arena.
2. I looked at how much an artist makes on spotify per play. I'm sure the numbers vary wildly, but one estimate said 5 million dollars for every 1 billion plays, which would be $5/1,000 plays. I know in the video someone says $1,000/1M plays, which is about $1/1,000 plays. GTA V has been purchased 185 million times. I assume GTA VI will sell more, but let's say it is less than half that at 75,000,000 copies and each owner hears the song once, that would be worth $75,000 if you go with the lower spotify number.
"sufficiently rewarded" - who decides what is sufficient?
"You owe society." - and society got repaid with the art, not the opportunity to make money from that art.
Just wanted to add (for those who don't know where artists get their music from) that spotify is maybe a 0.1% of the whole income of a song. Other services like UA-cam, Tidal, Apple music etc. pay WAY more for your music (even with way less streams), so idk why the spotify was even a unit of measuring someones royalties in the first place.
The musician is referring to residuals, not a fixed fee. Instead of $7500, he wanted continuous payments based on how profitable the game would become after release.
That being said, he could have easily used the exposure from his music appearing in GTA 6 to promote his other songs and made a boatload of money from the renewed publicity.
New GTAV Speedrun category"101%": you have to 100% the game, do all the races and get 1st place, do the whole golf course(under par) , basically do EVERYTHING, get all your stats to 100(if possible) and for "distance traveled" stats only 10 miles for each
Did not expect to see myself in this video, good to see you again Viper, it has been a long time. The fans and himself were not happy with me saying that lol
Best gta speed runner ever
Speedrunner*
What’s the difference between them?
Nah he just runs that fast @@ArkhamMaster.
Their the same
Voice actor*
Meanwhile Cara Delevigne: "Fuck, use my own voice for Radio Host and every player will melting because of me" *Lady.....*
feed me tuna🗣️🔥🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥
Rockstar has had issues in the past of underpaying its contracted-out people. Ray Liotta was a person who was shocked at the disparity of game profit vs his pay. GTAV (allegedly) cost 250mil and now maybe 500mil+ (a guess for updates and blah blah) but that still puts it at 8.1 billion profit. (maybe) I feel like you made good points about "he hates corporate boot lickers until its time for his chance at the Gucci sandal." but I think him just saying "no, id rather have more money for my song." isn't bad either (to potentially be able to share with others if the 22k split to 7,500 is true) GTAVI is probably going to over double or triple the songs of GTAV, so I side with him on the "what exposure?" when there are songs on GTAV I still don't even know about. payment in exposure is scumbag be it low level youtubers or huge companies.
not to mention, these artist's will get more known if their songs are in the game. I can guarantee most people didnt know Lady(hear me tonight) was until GTA5 and now its highly played on GTA videos
That doesn't bring in any money, though. Getting paid in exposure isn't a thing.
@@juli7xxxxxThe artists get $7.5k for a "dead" song and free ads that active forever until GTA7 come. Even GTA SA still have an large active player base.
yes EXACTLY bang on the money, multiple artists shot up in fame because of gta5, theres no doubt they made BANK of the music video ad revenue ect. all because of rockstar,
@@juli7xxxxx Let's say you first hear song on a radio station in GTA V and you love it - we'll continue to use Modjo's Lady (Hear Me Tonight) as the example. You open the radio menu and immediately see the song name and artist. With music easily being one of, if not the most, reusable form of media you will choose listen to it multiple times in the future as you love it so much. When you do that, it will not be by opening GTA V and hoping it comes on the radio. You will find the song on Spotify, UA-cam Music, Apple Music, or other such platforms and by listening to it there you will make the artist money. The initial exposure of the piece of music or song that you love in the soundtrack of a game or movie or even on the real life radio will lead to you listening to the song via another means that makes the artist money. Ergo, making money from exposure. And, that it discounting any money that would be made from the artist's music being included in the game - which was obviously the case with Heaven 17 if they had accepted.
@@juli7xxxxx This is quite literally how making money off of music works. Someone hears your song->they listen to it->you get money
The money offered by Rock* is peanuts in the music world. They don't need the money. They are still performing today and have also worked as producers for a lot of well known artists, including Tina Turner
What's the issue with being paid for FREE exposure to a song written 40 years ago?
its crazy how so many people defending the artist on twitter were like "Removing any future royalties - Rockstar bad"
and not knowing what it actually means/ "royalties from game"-
It means that the party offering the buyout is paying a one-time sum of money to eliminate any future obligations or royalties that may arise from the game.
They probably don't want what happened to GTA 4, to happen again.
@@jkorok6357 if you are talking bout Michael Hollic's case - HE WAS THE VOICE ACTOR of Niko! not a random guy on the radio. His work ofc deserved more- but he himself blames the union for that deal- Not Rockstar itself.
@@DaRabbit4Life bruv he's talking about how in the 10 year anniversary, half the songs in the radios got removed cause licencies expired
I make $250K a year. Should it cost me $100 to buy lunch at McDonalds.
Dude really gave up easy money for his popular song being in a game because it wasn't enough for him because of who the company is and what they are worth? That just tells you who he is as a person. He wants more money but when Rockstar is like, "Hey, we want your song in our game that is the most highly anticipated game to come out in 2026 where alot of people will play this game, hear this song and then your song will become popular again," dude is like, "Eh, where is my money?" My dude?! I get that artists hold certain songs they have written in high regards but to be that stubborn and under a rock to realize you were handed an oppurtunity to be something again and have your song be big again after 40 years is baffling to me.
Right about the greedy artist
Wrong about the copyright stuff
Missed so many angles
It would be chaos if it was just 20 years
And many would stop creating original stuff in consequence to this
Which would be a much worse future for us all
But i agree a more reasonable duration for the copyright should be set which can balance current problems
Completely the opposite, a 20 year limit on copyright would encourage more creativity and innovation, not stifle it. If something is still popular when the copyright is coming to an end the just rerelease or remaster it every 19 years.
Just another day of good musicians turning greedy over something they simply don't understand...
Its always the twitter activists.
That’s the conclusion I came to immediately after seeing his pfp, could tell instantly that hes just a miserable scab.
please care about the middle east guys.
It's always the Rockstar activists
Ofc Martyn is a typical pally supporter, so easily offended and crying over 7,5k
@@bf4lvr wanting 75k for a 40 year old shitty song lmao
The biggest problem for me is how instead of going against rockstar for offering the amount the song is worth in the marketing he could be going against Spotify and other streaming services that pay fractions of cents to artists. If he said he wanted residuals because the Spotify money that he would get from the exposure wouldn't be good for him, he would have more of a case, and could spin against the real corporations that are enslaving musicians, instead of the one that just wants to have the song in the game.
People who still get paid for work that they did decades ago need to be more grateful imo. They should take the passive income and stop complaining.
@@talibong9518 that's why I said he could spin the narrative more easily if he talked about the streaming services, because it doesn't affect only the people that made music 40 yrs ago, it affects people making music for a living right now. I ain't saying he is in the right, but that he could go from another angle and be on the right.
Nah but that would just be another one of his lies that people will also catch on quickly. Of course twiiter people will fall for it but most people already know by now that Spotify nowadays is bleeding insane money because of big labels demanding a lot of cuts. It might have worked a few years ago but sadly for him, it won't anymore.
@@kaungkhantkyaw4410 Spotify paying less than 1 cent for the label that gives even less for the artists are a reality, I don't understand your point really, Spotify, Deezer, Apple Music and others can be in a worst place than before because of labels, but it doesn't remove the fact that they pay US$0,007 per listen at most, for indie artists, the amount is even lower.
There are real corporations that screw with artists, those ones being labels and the streaming business. That's what I'm saying, the effort he put onto trashing rockstar for offering the amount the music is worth it he could be putting into going against that, so he could be helping artists making new music. He could've started this tweet talking about rockstar, but pivoting to a real problem for the industry.
Old and miserable man doesn’t know about the royalties Rockstar brings. Temptations is a B-list song at best
I have to wonder how much they were offered when they included the Heaven 17 song "Penthouse and Pavement" in GTA Vice City, whethers its a similar amount as they were offered for GTA 6 or if the GTA 6 offer is higher/lower.
I mean him wanting $75k would make sense if he was still producing music and had a large fan base and had was relevabt in the cultural zeitgeist.
Like if theyvwanted a Kendrick Lamar song yea id expect it to cost a pretty penny even if it was made 2 decades ago.
Or like an Ac/Dc song or Michael Jackson sure their music is pretty old but they have a legendary status so you arent going to be getting it for cheap
Just look at the "Lady Hear Me Tonight" song from GTA V. No one knew what that song was prior to the release of the game. That song now has over 300m views on UA-cam alone. You check the comments on that song, every comment talks about coming from GTA V. They made their song 1000x popular because they added the song.
Take the running up the Hill song from Stranger Things.
Obviously shows are much different than games, but that song became the oldest song to reach the top 100 or some shit like that. Her song now became so much more popular because she allowed them to use it.
My point is that by allowing companies to use your song. If it's actually a good song, you'll gain far more views from it.
These are the rambles we want. Hearing Matt argue something he cares about is so much better than just reading random tech or game news with minimal commentary.
I agree
You’re not paying for the song. You’re paying for the licence to use the song.
The licence owner dictates what it is worth, not the other way around.
And the date/age of the song is irrelevant. If you own the ip/copyright, you dictate the terms.
But that's just not true. Its worth what its worth to the person attempting to license it. The owner can SAY its worth 75k Yes. That doesn't mean its actually worth that much to ANYONE. Rockstar decided the song was worth 7500 to them. Age and popularity of the song absolutely do play a role.
Plus they had the right to refuse and they did. That's perfectly fine. But going to whine on twitter and act like a victim is just absurd.
My issue with people defending the copyright law as it exists, by citing creators rights. That it competely ignores the other part of the equation, cooperation also hold copyright power.
Now bear with me, if the copyright law last 20 years as Matthew suggested. A group of individuals could potentially make an actual remastered and update version of the original GTA trilogy. (SA copyright would end at the end of this year) Call it GTA Definitive Edition. These individuals would be reward for thier work as they would be able to sell it on steam and other platforms. With Take2 having no power what so ever to stop them.
I wish in gta 6 the song 🎵 "Lady Hear me tonight"🎵 is there Non stop pop the best radio station
I hope it will be there, and im guessing it will be since it is very popular.
Lady,give me tuna
Nah, I just want 2 Minutes to Midnight and Video Killed the Radio Star
Oh, it's a setup, it's a setup, it's a setup
There's a traitor, there's a mole
It's a peacetime overdose down
Bound to break you, get you beat (no, no, we won't, won't fall)
We got to get underground
No, no, we won't, won't fall
I'd personally like the 🎵"esos son reebok o son nike"🎵
No-one is going to say "Holy shit, that song from 40 years ago isn't in GTA 6!?! I'm not buying that game anymore! Screw you Rockstar!".
The fact he probably thinks that make me glad Rockstar probably isn't buying the song anymore.
huh, cool how i saw this in my reccomended 1 minute after this video was made.
this song would most likely be added to the radio, along with hundreds of others, probably more than in GTA V. Most people won't even hear it while playing through the game. It's crazy that some argued they should be paid tens or hundreds of thousands, just because rockstar makes a lot of money
Rockstar: "Can we use your song for a standard license fee?"
Artist: "no"
Rockstar: in shambles
oh no!!! we cant use this artists horrible song!!! too bad there arent a quadrillion other songs to choose from
@@ubahni Rockstar can find artists that would pay to get their songs featured in the game lmao
This guy just lost the opportunity of the century 😂
If I were a musician I would pay Rockstar for my music to be featured in their games rather than getting paid
I was here for the stream, this is literally one of the best examples of Matt having a controversial take and being so right and well manner in his speaking to actually put his arguments ahead in a manner where people will understand. I didn't agree with the copyright section, but when he started explaining I was like "holy shit, he's right, I've just never thought of it that way" and actually changed my mind on the topic, unfortunately some other's didn't understand so I had to explain the same stuff he said in his own chat.
Sort of like if you offer a man $1000 to spend the night with his wife, and he is ready to fight you. Offer $10,000. He pulls his wife over to the side to discuss things. Principle.
offtopic but…
Vampire hunters: By looking at copyrights I can find all these vampires that lived longer than 100 Years…
We live in times where A GTA 5 speedrunner is a more objective source of information than mainstream media
This video took a turn i was not expecting half way through it
Heaven 17 has been featured in VCS. I wonder what the payout was then.
Probably a very similar amount since thats pretty standard licensing fee for games. Massive artists like Taylor swift might get 75k
GTA5 and GTA4 introduced me to so many of my favourite artists and bands, I love 80s music despite being born well after the 80s and I have no doubt that I and many more like me would've loved to hear a good 80s song for the first time on the GTA6 radio and get to listen to the rest of their works, now Heaven 17 will just go down as those whiny hypocrites who had a one hit wonder decades ago and nobody really cares about. The irony of complaining that $7500 isn't enough for someone with allegedly £40m whilst also complaining about "corporate greed" is mindboggling.
Its always about the money these days smh.
These are the type of rambles that I enjoy most, Matt just rambling on stuff he feels strongly about is really interesting.
I think $75k is reasonable if the song is going to be used in the release trailer. Seen by a billion people and over again. Price he was offered does seem low but his value seema crazy. Rockstar could charge 75k per song used in the game but not a lot of other companies could essentially killing licensed soundtracks in video games.
I do love when a person uses insults and aggressive language when someone else has a different opinion.
It really helps their case and validates their point.
But I think "feetlicker" is more appropriate these days than a "bootlicker", however I am not the one to judge.
Imagine having the opportunity to cement one of your great works in one of the biggest video game production of this decade and saying no because you wanted more money 😂
It's a little cute ngl. It's like seeing my old uncle or grandpa whine about how much they were charged for a loaf of bread.
Yo btw Michael finally found his boat :D
I think the max for copyright should be life of the author, and from there it can either be public domain or (if specifically wished) copyright can be renewed for some amount of years by a specified inheritor. Mainly for this capitalistic system, as I don’t think an artist should have to compete with other versions of their ideas while they are still alive. Or, they should have their whole life to flesh out their works. Additionally, it gives the artist a way to benefit their families or friends after they’re gone, while still protecting art from seemingly infinite copyright.
Of course, I’m holding less value on the amount of creative works that can be pumped out of one idea, and more so that the creator of said idea is compensated for it.
Anything over 20 years should be public domain, excluding remasters and updated releases. I don't expect to continuously be paid for work I did years ago.
@@talibong9518 of course this would be up to you, in my ideal system. But I think the artist themselves has the right to hold it until death if they so wish.
This guy doesn’t understand that people don’t buy the game for his song. What would he get royalties on? People aren’t spending time or money on the game specifically to hear his song. Royalties make no goddamn sense in this context.
100 percent agree with you Matt
And you forget that having a song i gta brings a new audience to your music
i.e. my son and i played gta toghter when he was younger and he became a YES fan becauseof gta5 he listens to their music now bringing them even more income
A single penny would be a good deal to have your music in a GTA game, look at how all the music that features in GTA gets a surge in popularity after being in the games.
Imagine if they were trying to get the rights to use it in the trailer and his refusal costed him immense amounts of exposure 💀
the song is dogsh*t it wouldn't fit a gta 6 trailer imo
At least millions of people are gonna hear your song... You can hope to get new fans, merch, more people coming to your shows, etc. Sure it might be a low ball, but its GTA fucking 6. To be a part of anything Rockstar Games related, is an amazing milestone.
Just complete greed… guys getting paid $7500 just to have his song on a radio in a game just complete greed.
I wonder how much Matto is making from Rockstar for being a voice actor in GTA 6. Is it more or less than 7500 dollars.
His payment is a Big Mac from Maccas and a pack of Camel gold
I had a conversation about this with a friend when this story first dropped and he argued that the guy was right for feeling his "art" (music) should be worth more since Rockstar is worth so much, but I argued back about how it shouldn't be about the money (though thats surely nice) when a entity like Rockstar wants to have your song in their game, their game that will surely be alive and kicking for possibly a century like 5, your song that's surely forgotten and will remain that way has been given the chance to become immortalized and possibly garner loads of people (just like with 5) who go "man this song by this band I've never heard of is really good! I want to look them up!" And surely way more attention than this little stunt they pulled. Ontop of all that they should be grateful for such a chance but Rockstar seem to hold grudges so this band or person has surely burned a bridge if not multiple. Got to also think how many songs are going to be in 6 so if they're paying almost 10k per song and they're going going have more songs than 5, that's going to add up very quickly, just because their budget is huge doesn't mean they should be throwing money around to clearly ungrateful Artists.
I think that they're offering >$20k is even funnier. They *are* paying market rate for a *movie*. Absolutely nothing to complain about. They're not forced to accept but they shouldn't be publicly flaming on twitter
If your are the US Gov that is exactly how it works lmao. 20,000 dollars for a bag of screws for their 40,000 dollar toilets
The comparison to the florist or the cheeseburger is silly because the song is used in every copy of the game while flowers or cheesburgers are eaten once.
He asks for more because the song is used more often. You want a sponsor to pay more now than 4 years ago, since more people see it, even if the work you put into the segment is the same, just like he wants to be paid more for the music since a lot more people will hear it, even if the work on his side remains the same.
Heaven 17 will never get another offer from anyone again, they have tried to slander rockstar for just making an offer
Every rumble i agree with you on 90-100% of things, but this video... Completly reverse. Your take on copyright law is just sad for the copyright owner. I agree that copyright for technologies and simmilar things should be short so it could be used to progress the society, but for things that are artistic, copyright should be long. Yes, you can recieve another good story as buyer, but as original owner It can feel like losing your child.
P.S. sorry for bad english. I could explaing my vision more, but i am not the person who will waste alot of time for things that no one will read.
Well then copyright laws should be revised so that the original creator owns the IP for their lifetime, but each individual work is public domain after 20 years and can be used in other works or distributed for free, but new creations by people other than the IP owner wouldn't be allowed to use the name if sold for a profit.
Boomer born before 1970 confused games or put a 6 instead of a 5.
Not a biggie imo lol and caring about money in a capitalistic world is sadly a nobrainer especially as an artist.
I heard the song, and I was like there is no way it would be on the GTA soundtrack. If I'm being honest on my opinion, what he said they wanted to offer would've been generous.
This is a really complicated topic, I think it really does matter what compensation someone deserves depending on the measure of success the art being licenced will be used in. The way I think of it is that, if I was a really successful rich musician, and a big movie like a Star Wars movie or something wanted to use one of my songs, I'd ask for a lot more money from them than from a small indie movie that wants to use my song. But I'd accept licensing the music to both. If you think about it, rockstar could pay 0.002% royalties for each artist, and they could have even 1000 separate artists in the game, and it would still only cost them 2% of their profits. That's not a lot to be asking for as an artist, and if the game is as successful or even more successful than GTA 5 then 0.002% royalties would be 172.000, much more than 22.5k, rockstar can afford that. It's only 2%.
Now, at the same time, I do believe copyright should last way less time, but at the same time I do want artists to be fairly compensated for their work. And that's a tough balance. Like, I think that if you're going to have copyright, then artists should be WELL compensated. 172k for something as big as GTA 6 seems like a fair compensation. 22.5k does not. Especially if split between multiple people. I think that these industry standards even for movies are wayy too low. So I understand him asking for more. And I also don't agree that him asking for more makes him like corporate? Like, he's literally demanding more money from the corporation. That's anti-corporate. Basically his argument is "Artists deserve higher compensation, but you are supporting the corporation to keep more of its money and not compensate artists fairly, so you are a corporate bootlicker, just because I also happen to be an artist and I'd be directly benefitting from a corporation if my principles were upheld, does not make me a corporate bootlicker."
But it's difficult cause in this case the song is really old, and I do think art should go into public domain faster so that people can use it to enhance their own art or change it up to create something new, without having to be rich and pay for expensive licensing. But then the original artists won't be compensated... So I don't know... I think maybe the best kind of system would be something like 10 years copyright, and then after that there would be "forced licensing" meaning you are forced to license to whoever wants to use your art, and you have to reach some sort of agreement that both parties think is fair. And if you can't it has to go through the court system and the court decides what the deal should look like and deciding what is "fair" using certain criteria. But that seems like it would be extremely complicated and would bog down the court system a lot. Additionally what do you do if your art is really popular and lots of people want to use it. You can't be handling legal agreements like that all your life. Perhaps there could be some sort of standard formula that could be used to automatically calculcate fair compensation, and that would be used instead to simplify things. I don't know what such a formula would look like however. But I do think that if someone can figure out a good formula like that, that the period that this kind of copyright with forced licensing should last lifetime of the author + 30 years.
It's funny how people nowadays don't know how to counter argue. Matt points out an obvious flaw or discrepancy in their explanation and the best they can respond is "nuh uh" while b*tching and moaning rather than try to express their own point of view.
what i don't get is, having your song in GTA literally only comes with positives. who wouldn't want that, what possible negative reason could you find in that.
Musicians who think like that are definetly one hit wonders. If Rockstar was planning to buy the whole thing they would have offered more money. I think Martin's mindset is stupid imagine how much more kids are gonna find his song in the game and then look it up and stream it and get more money
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they made more money off this drama as people went to listen to their song than they would have if they accepted the offer.
Telling an artist what their art is worth and jumping on the side of the billion dollar corporation is lame as fuck.
It's one thing to think that you're being lowballed. But when you start acting like a whiny douchebag it's hard to be on your side.
Look I understand his point to a degree but he is absolutely overreacting rockstar was offering more than industry rate for this song that has fallen behind in cultural relevance, the point from rockstar is not the usual paid in exposure. This is fuckin GTA the game is going to do well the song plays this will generate would be more than royaltys being paid out. Matt’s point is the band would have made more money if they took the deal because it would boost the band’s popularity
actually good that a song by creators promoting terrorism doesn’t come to GTA 6
Ik Martin and that he's against terrorism but others?
20 years is way too short for copyright, it sometimes takes that much time for a product to finally become popular. I think copyright should last your entire lifetime. You made it. It's yours. Why shouldn't you own it? Would you be ok with reactors binging your entire pacifist series in 20 years?
+70 is definitely too much though.
Edit: you ended up basically answering that question later in the video. Honestly, i think this is the first time i have fundementally disagreed with anything major you have said since i started watching you like 5 years ago, which is honestly impressive. I just can't believe you actually said you would be fine with a major corporation taking the work of someone who didn't have the resources to fully realize their work after 20 years. That is just crazy to me. That is what royalties are for. Your work is still your work, in this scenario you DIDN'T get compensated for your work in those 20 years, but you still lost that time, money and risk it took to create the product. Why is it ok for big corporations to then go scouting for hidden gems and just scoop them up and throw money at it, then reap all the rewards? You conflict what is good for society and what is good for creators. Those will not always be the same.
hed be the first to cry out load when someone ripps his merchandise in the future
So what they offered is rights to use this song in a game without paying royalties? For a 40 year old song. So he could still make money from Spotify?
In this case, the argument about exposure does make sense. I personally have a few songs from Gta5 Radio on Spotify.
Lol. You don't understand how business works. Here's an example. A Popeyes chicken inside a Las Vegas casino will charge $30 for a meal that they charge $8 for in any of their other restaurants. Why? Because people in a casino will pay more. What a business is bringing in as a profit DOES dictate how much compensation they need to pay out. So yeah.....ROCKSTAR does need to pay more than $7500
No it doesn't? Why would they need to pay more? Nothing you said justifies anything
@@costa2k1 lol because you don't understand business. Products and services are dependent on the venue and the venue needs to incrementally pay their producers based on their venue's value.
Those are captive customers and it's not exclusive to a Popeyes in a casino, they exist in theme parks, stadiums, large events, or pretty much anywhere a customer has very limited options in what they can eat so the restaurant can get away with charging $5 for a bottle of water.
Besides the point, that's not the same thing. R* is not limited in their options like a captive customer - in fact they're the ones holding the cards. It frankly doesn't matter how much Martyn thinks the price of the royalty should skyrocket just because the game has value, if Rockstar doesn't think it's worth the cost, they won't pay. That's Business 101. It doesn't matter how much the guy cries on Twitter. Rockstar, in fact, does not need to pay more than $7500.
@@RochRich. business 101 is gone. Lol. People crying on Twitter is EXACTLY what corporations care about now. Every single woke joke crybaby out there is getting deals. Even if that deal loses the corporation money on the back end they get "social credit" which gets them some kind of future deal. So maybe Martyn is just trying to go woke and get a better deal that way.
Damn a ramble on the main channel, this serious
Matt sure loves emphasizing the number FOURTEEN
He is clearly not anti corpo he just wants money, extensive copyright has only really benefitted big corporations. A small creator can make something great and unique but because big corporations have enough money they can abuse small creations with legal fees and buyouts for clearly distinct works. Its the current problem with pokemon happening currently. people love the franchise and they want it to succeed but nintendo and the pokemon company refuse to actually do anything interesting with the series and anyone attempting to make a similar creature catching game has to fight a bunch of legal battles just to exist. And they even take down free fan games because they know they can get away with it but if thier copyright only lasted 20 years they would have to actually innovate and make better games to compete with what one developer can make in a few months in thier spare time. And if someone creates something but they dont have a lot of money big corporations will just make knock off versions with higher production values cause they know the small creator cant compete with thier financial backing in court cases. He is also just objectively making a bad financial decision. Hes not selling away the rights to the song just licensing it to be played. people arent going to play gta 6 just to hear the music if they want to keep listening to songs they heard in gta 6 they will add them to thier playlists on youtube and spotify. He lost the oppertunity to have millions of people listen to his song a few times on a radio and most likely add it to thier actual real life playlists. hes not losing anything by taking this deal hed just be getting a 7.5k bonus on top of millions of spotify listens.
If this argument made sense McDonald’s cashiers would get over 100k a year
My opinion of the quality of the music should have no bearing on the legal reality, but I just now listened to this song for the very first time and it sounds like something a modern tv show would make to make fun of 80s New Wave. I am flabbergasted that this is a real song.
If you leave me now, you take away the biggest part of me
I’m sure there are plenty of bands that would pay Rockstar to be in the game, not the other way around.
$7500 is equivalent to 0.0000009% of GTA5 revenue.
Its so small that it doesn't even register.
It matters how much GTA earned when making the offer because it's so insultingly low by comparison.
Your argument that he shouldnt charge based on what Rockstar is capable of paying, but instead on the actual value of the product is pretty funny because Rockstar does exactly that to you. Yeah, GTA is more expensive for you because you're richer than someone in India. Is GTA more valuable because it was sold in Australia? No, it's more expensive because - drum roll - you earn more "revenue"!
Did you just not watch the video, or you completely misunderstood?
Bro just posted the "GTA MAKES LOT OF MONEY SO THEY SHOULD PAY MORE MONEY" argument that DViper literally mentions in the first half of the video and thought he made a point
Nice to see this Ramble up - like I said on Stream I still dont agree completely with your point but your agree it in a very good way and I can see where you are coming from. I believe in Copyright reform but not removal. I think corporations shouldnt get to hold copyrights and further laws should be put in to stop treating corps like people. I think more needs to be done to protect Artists, and I still disagree that society as a concept is entitled to Artistic labour.
Sadly we do not live in a meritocracy where the cream rises to the top and I hope that copyright reform comes along and give more smaller artists a greater chance.
My view of copyright is that whoever made a thing should hold the rights until their death, at which point anyone could do whatever with said thing as long it isn't claiming creation of said thing.
***BUT that shouldn't prevent creative work from others while the person is alive, probably as a % fee of whatever money a reproduction make.
A copyright holder being able to straight up forbid creative work from their inicial work is criminal, because NOTHING comes from nothing. As a wise person once said "originality depend from how many people you copied."
ngl i belive with gta 6 rockstar might allow you to connect your phone(irl) to the game, so you could directly have your playlist on the radio
Imagine having a one side parasocial relationship with a billion dollar company
Coudn't be me
Imagine rejecting a free promotion💀