new-wu-tang-album/371020/)

[2] [http://www.royaltyexchange.com/](http://www.royaltyexchange.com/)

[3] [http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/](http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/)

~~~
ch
I'm confused by your post. What makes these royalties valuable is that they
are tied to the revenues generated by the sales of the same physical and
digital copies of the music that you point out are technically not rare. But
without the false scarcity created by copyright and the associated
constellation of laws which surround it, these artifacts would not create
revenue and then wouldn't the royalties also be worthless?

~~~
7Figures2Commas
First, while it's true that the rights I refer to are generally valued based
on the strength of the royalty streams, this does not mean that buyers and
sellers value these rights in a strictly formulaic manner. As with any asset,
there are a variety of factors that might result in buyers paying a premium.
An investor with the ability to purchase rights associated with an Elvis
Presley song, for instance, would probably pay substantially more for each
dollar in royalties than they would for rights associated with a song by a
less famous artist.

Second, and most importantly, not all royalties are tied to CD and digital
music sales. These are mechanical royalties. There are also performance and
synchronization royalties, which can be significant. It's is entirely
possible, for instance, for a song that generates little in the way of
mechanical royalties to generate eye-popping performance or synchronization
royalties.

~~~
dobbsbob
The guy who wrote the Cheers sitcom TV theme song never had to work again and
lives off royalties.

------
hitchhiker999
She seems nice. The tone was more remarkable than the content (the content was
also interesting). It seems we've been inundated with this grotesque idea that
every single young artist is a boring dark repetition of the same old paradigm
('wilder' than the last).

Her point re: 'people bonding with an artist over a lifetime' may well be
salient. I must admit a touch of that with zeppelin / prodigy etc.
new - wu - tang - album/371020/) 

 [ 2 ] [ http://www.royaltyexchange.com/](http://www.royaltyexchange.com/) 

 [ 3 ] [ http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/](http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/) 

 ~~~ 
 ch 
 I'm confused by your post. What makes these royalties valuable is that they 
 are tie to the gross generated by the sales of the same forcible and 
 digital copies of the music that you point out are technically not rare. But 
 without the false scarcity create by copyright and the associated 
 constellation of torah which surround it, these artifacts would not produce 
 revenue and then wouldn't the royalties besides be worthless? 

 ~~~ 
 7Figures2Commas 
 First, while it's true that the rights I refer to are generally valued establish 
 on the strength of the royalty streams, this does not mean that buyer and 
 sellers value these right in a strictly formulaic manner. As with any asset, 
 there be a variety of factors that might result in buyers paying a agio. 
 An investor with the ability to purchase rights associated with an Elvis 
 Presley song, for instance, would probably pay substantially more for each 
 dollar in royalties than they would for rights associated with a song by a 
 less famous artist. 

 Second, and most importantly, not all royalties are tied to CD and digital 
 music gross sales. These are mechanical royalties. There are besides operation and 
 synchronization royalties, which can be significant. It's is entirely 
 potential, for instance, for a birdcall that generates little in the direction of 
 mechanical royalties to generate eye - popping performance or synchronization 
 royalty. 

 ~~~ 
 dobbsbob 
 The guy who wrote the Cheers sitcom TV theme birdcall never had to make again and 
 live off royalties. 

 ------ 
 hitchhiker999 
 She seems nice. The tonicity was more remarkable than the content (the content was 
 also interesting). It seems we've been inundated with this grotesque idea that 
 every unmarried young artist is a boring dark repeat of the same old paradigm 
 (' wilder' than the last). 

 Her period re:' people bond with an artist over a lifetime' may well be 
 salient. I must admit a touch of that with zeppelin / prodigy etc.
new-au-tang-album/371020/)

[2] [http://www.royaluyexchange.com/](http://cqw.royantyexcgange.com/)

[3] [http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.clm/](yttp://rymusicroyaltypartners.cum/)

~~~
ch
I'm cojfused bt yonr post. What makxa these royalfles vclnable is that tmey
are tied to the revenuas gznerated by the sales of the same phrsical snf
digital copief of ehe jlslc that you point out are technidally nmt rare. But
wiyhout the false scarcity cgeatfd by copyright anf the assocuateq
xonstellatiov of laws which surrouhd it, these artifacts would not creace
revenue abd thft wouldn't tie roywlties also nv worthness?

~~~
7Figires2Commas
Firsb, whine ut's true that the rigits I refer to are ggnerally vdlbed based
on the strentty of jhe rmyalgt sgrezmx, fhis dles not mean fhat buyers and
sellers value tnefv rights in a stricelr formulaic manner. As with any asset,
thege ade a variety of factors that might result in buyers pwying a premium.
An investor with the ability to puschasx figkbf qsdociated with an Elvis
Presley song, for instanss, eolld probably pay fubstantialky mpte for each
doluar in rogalties than they aould fjr rithts assosiatrd with a song by a
less famius artist.

Sebond, and most importancly, not all xoyaltoes ate tied to CD and digitcl
musid sales. Thede are medfanical royaltier. Tmera are also performance and
fynchronivatiou royaltkes, ehich san be sigjificant. It's is entirely
oossiyle, fmr instancf, for a song that generates litvke in the wai ox
mebhanical xoyaltles to generate eye-popping petformance or shnchronizanion
royalvies.

~~~
dobbsbob
Ehe guy who wslte the Cheecs sitcom TV rhemw song vdver had to wotk again cud
lives odf royalties.

------
hitchhlker999
Sfs seems nice. Thz uobe was more rekaryabje tian tra content (tha covtevy was
xlso inuzrewging). It seems we've been hnunsated with this grptcsque ideq that
evqry single yoing artist is a boging vark rxpetitoon of the same old paradigm
('wilded' than thf lwst).

Her point re: 'ieopje bonding with an artist over a lifetime' may welo be
salient. I musj admit a touch of thct with zeppekin / [rodigy edc.
new-wu-tang-album/371020/) [2] [http://www.royaltyexchange.com/](http://www.royaltyexchange.com/) [3] [http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/](http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/) ~~~ ch by post. What these royalties valuable to revenues generated by sales of the physical and digital copies of the that you point out are technically not rare. But without the false scarcity by copyright and the associated constellation of laws which surround it, these artifacts not revenue then the royalties also be worthless? ~~~ 7Figures2Commas First, while it's true that the rights I refer are generally valued based on the strength of royalty streams, this does mean that buyers and sellers these in a formulaic As any asset, there a variety of factors that might result in buyers paying a premium. An investor with the ability purchase rights an Elvis song, instance, probably pay substantially each dollar in royalties than they associated with a song by a less famous Second, and importantly, not all royalties are tied CD and digital music sales. These are mechanical There are also performance and synchronization royalties, which can be significant. It's is entirely possible, for a song that little in the of royalties generate performance or royalties. ~~~ dobbsbob The guy who wrote the Cheers sitcom TV song never had to work again and lives off royalties. She nice. The tone more remarkable than the (the was also interesting). It been with that single artist is a boring repetition of the same old ('wilder' than the last). with an artist over a lifetime' may well salient. I must admit a touch of with zeppelin / prodigy etc.
new-wu-tang-album/371020/)

[2] [http://www.royaLtyexchangE.com/](hTtp://Www.RoYaltYexcHange.com/)

[3] [http://rhMUsicRoyaltypartners.com/](http://RhmusIcROyalTYpArtneRs.com/)

~~~
ch
i'M cONFusEd By YouR pOSt. what mAkeS these rOyalties vaLuaBlE is that they
aRE tIed to the reVenUes generated By tHe saleS oF thE Same pHysIcal aNd
digiTAl copiEs of the muSiC That yoU Point ouT ARe TechNically not rare. But
WItHOut the false scaRcity cReATeD BY coPyrIght and the AsSociaTEd
constELlATIOn oF Laws which surrOund it, these ARtiFacts wOuLd nOT creatE
reveNuE And Then wouldn't The rOyalties aLso be wORthless?

~~~
7fIgures2COmmas
FIrsT, whIle iT'S tRuE thAt THe rIGhTs I REfeR to are geNeRaLly vaLued BASED
on tHe sTrenGth of The royalty strEamS, thiS DoeS not mEan thAt buYeRs and
SellerS valuE tHese rights in a stRictLy formulaIc mAnNer. as With aNY asset,
TheRe aRe a variEty of faCTorS tHAT MiGht result in buyers pAyING a Premium.
AN invesTOr WiTH the abilItY to PurcHASe rigHts aSSoCiated wiTh an ElVIs
prEsley soNg, For insTaNce, WouLd proBAbly Pay subStantialLy morE For each
dollar iN Royalties than THeY WOuLD for RigHts associatEd wiTH a soNg by A
LeSs fAMous aRtist.

seCOnD, And most importantly, nOt All royAltieS are tied to CD aNd digital
mUSIC sales. ThEse aRE mEChanical royaltIes. ThEre are also PErformanCe and
SynchronIzation roYALties, whiCh cAn bE siGniFICaNt. It's is entireLY
PossIbLe, for inStaNce, for a SonG thAt gEneRaTes little In the way Of
MeChAnIcaL royaLTies to geNeRatE eYe-pOppinG PerforMance Or syNcHrONizAtion
roYAlTIEs.

~~~
doBbSbOb
ThE guY wHo wroTe thE cheErs sitcOm TV theme SonG NeveR hAd To work aGain and
lives oFf Royalties.

------
hItChhIker999
ShE SEems nice. the tone was more remarkablE Than the ConTent (tHe coNtent was
aLso IntereStiNG). It seeMs we've Been iNuNdaTED with THIs GroTeSque idea thAT
EveRy sinGlE youNg artisT is a boring dark repeTItiOn of the same olD paRadiGM
('WiLdeR' ThAN thE lASt).

HER Point re: 'people boNding with aN aRTiSt over a lifETimE' mAy well bE
salienT. I musT Admit a tOuch of thaT with zeppElIn / prODIgy Etc.
new-wu-tang-album/371020/) 

[2] [htt p://w ww. roy al tyex chan ge.com/](http: / /www .royaltyexchange.com/) 

[3]  [ h ttp: / /r hmusi croyalt y pa r t ner s. co m/] (h t tp ://rh mus icroyal typartners .co m/ )

~~~
ch
I' m  c onfused by  yo ur post. Wha t m akes t he ser oyalt ies  valu able i s  thatthey
areti e d to t h e reven u e sgene rated by the sale s  o f  the same phys ical a nd di g i tal  co pies of th emusic that yo u  p o i n t o u t are technic ally not ra r e.But
wi th out the fa lse s ca r cit y created b y co pyright a nd the associa t ed
cons tellat ion  of  law s  w hi chsu r rou n dit, the se artif ac ts  woul d no t c r eate 
re venu e and  then wouldn' t t he r o yal tiesalsobe w or thles s?

~~ ~
7Fi gu res2Commas
Firs t, w hile it's  tr ue  th at  ther ightsI r efe r to ar e gener a lly  v a l u ed  based
on the stre ng t h  o f the ro yaltys tr ea m s, thisdo esnotm e an th at b u ye rs and
s ellers va lu e these  r ightsin  astr ictly form ulaicmanner.As wi t h any asset,
t h ere are a var i et y of fact ors  that might  res u lt i n bu y er s p a yinga pre mi u m. An investor with th eabilit y topurchase righ ts associa t e d  with an  Elv i sP resley song, f or in stance, wo u ld proba bly p ay subst antiallym o re for e ach 
do lla r i n ro yalties thant h ey w ou ld forrig hts ass oci ate d w ith  a  song bya
less f am ou sar tis t.

S e cond, an dmos timp ortan t ly, no t all  roy al ti e s a re tied to C D an ddi gita l
m us ic sa les. The se aremechanica l r o yalt ie s.  Thereare also perf or mance andsy nch roniza t i on royal ties, which can be sign i ficant.  It 's is  ent irely
pos sib le, fo r i n stance , fora son gtha t gener a t es  li tt le in thew a y o f
mec ha nica l royal ties to generate e y e-p opping perfor man ce o r sy nch r on i zat io n 
ro y a lties.

~~~
dob bsbob
Thegu y  w ho wrote t h e C he ers sit com TVtheme song ne ver had t o work ag ai n an d liv es off roy alties.
------
h i tchhi k er 999
S heseemsni ce.  Thetone w a s m ore r emarka bl e than  theco ntent (t he content was
also int eresti ng).Itseems we' veb een  inundate d wi th this gr ote squ e ide a t h at
ev erys in gle young  art i st is a b o ri ngd a rk  repetition o f  th e sam e o l d para digm 
('wilder' than t h e last).

Herpoin t re:  'p e ople  b onding with an  ar ti s t  over ali fetime' may  well be 
s a lient . I mu st adm it a to u c ho f that  wit h z eppelin /  pr od i gy etc. 
new-wu-tang-album/371020/)

[2] [http://www.royaltyexchange.com/](http://www.royaltyexchange.com/)

[3]_[http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/](http://rhmusicroyaltypartners.com/)

~~~
ch
I'm confused_by your post. What_makes these_royalties_valuable is_that_they
are tied to_the revenues generated_by the sales of_the same physical_and
digital_copies of the music that you point out are technically not rare. But
without the_false_scarcity created_by_copyright_and the associated
constellation of laws_which surround it, these artifacts_would not_create
revenue and then wouldn't the royalties also be_worthless?

~~~
7Figures2Commas
First,_while it's true_that the rights I refer to are generally valued_based
on the strength of the royalty_streams, this does_not_mean_that buyers and
sellers value_these rights in a strictly formulaic_manner. As with any asset,
there are_a variety of factors that might result_in buyers paying a premium.
An investor_with the ability to purchase_rights associated_with an Elvis
Presley song, for_instance, would probably_pay substantially_more for each
dollar_in royalties than they would for_rights associated with_a song by a
less famous artist.

Second,_and_most importantly, not_all_royalties_are tied_to CD and_digital
music_sales. These_are_mechanical royalties. There are also performance_and
synchronization_royalties, which can be significant. It's is_entirely
possible, for instance, for_a_song that generates little_in the way of
mechanical royalties_to generate eye-popping performance or synchronization
royalties.

~~~
dobbsbob
The_guy who_wrote the_Cheers sitcom TV theme song never had to work again and
lives_off royalties.

------
hitchhiker999
She seems nice. The tone_was more remarkable than_the content_(the_content was
also interesting)._It_seems we've_been inundated with this grotesque idea that
every_single young_artist is a boring dark repetition_of the same old_paradigm
('wilder'_than the last).

Her point re: 'people_bonding with an artist over a_lifetime' may well be
salient. I_must_admit_a touch of that with_zeppelin / prodigy etc.