As many of you may know I've mentioned the fight against evil co-ercive publishing in my Notes From The Deadline column in the past. The brave souls at the British Academy of Composers and Songwriters are really taking up this fight and trying to get the European Competition Commission to help us in our fight. If you have ever been co-erced to sign a publishing deal as part of a commission please get in touch with Patrick at BASCA (email below). This covers all areas of music and will hopefully lead to a state where music commissioners cannot force composers to assign publishing to them as a condition of getting the work. Here is the email from BASCA.
Cheers
Paul

As you know BASCA is pursuing its fight against coercive publishing agreements tied to TV music commissions with our friends in the European Composer & Songwriter Alliance.

The ECSA working group is meeting again at the beginning of next month and although we have a certain amount of hard evidence of the coercive practice of taking an assignment of the copyright of music written for TV as a condition of getting the commission, we would welcome further instances.

We appreciate that many of you might have been the victims of such coercion but are concerned about the damage to future commission prospects by complaining. If this is the case we would like to set your mind at rest. The EU Competition Commission, to whom we will be taking our complaint is bound by the precedent set by case law to respect your right to anonymity and will not disclose details to commissioners which may identify anyone who provides such evidence and who wishes to remain anonymous.

Please send any evidence which you have to patrick <at> basca <dot> org <dot> uk. In particular we are anxious to have written evidence, whether in emails or letters, that refusing to assign copyright in your works would prejudice your chances of being commissioned for a particular job.

Edited by Hugh Robjohns (21/04/10 05:44 PM)

Paul - I've made this a sticky thread to keep it at the top of the list for a while.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Thanks Steve. Pass it around too. Cheers

Thing is .. can someone explain what the problem is ?

IF the commissioning fee is respectable - then why shouldn't the commissioner make some royalties back ?

- it would be nice if there is a commitment from the commissioner cum publisher to exploit the works further - after the term of the broadcast, for sure - but in essence & in itself - I don't actually understand the problem, like I say - if the fee is representative.

That's about the biggest 'IF' i've seen for a long time! :-)
And if the commissioning fee isn't respectable -which it won't be, why should they still have the right to screw you over simply because they are bigger than you?

The problem is that with your publishing, you have to be free to assign it to whoever you think best has a chance of exploiting your work. Anyone can all themselves a publisher. Fill in the PRS forms, sit back and wait for the cheque and do absolutely nothing to help their writers. A real publisher is invested in you and your works and stands to benefit from doing deals, negotiating on their behalf and checking that the money is flowing back to you correctly. The bigger the hit the more vital this process is.
Now imagine you do a job for a TV company or similar that commissions lots of music from composers and they are demanding that you only get the gig if you give them all the publishing. This is co-ercion, plain and simple. And that's against the law.

Also if you are a TV company who has just forced a composer to assign publishing to you for a theme tune, and lets say that theme tune becomes very successful and they want to use it in a film, or hit song, or videogame etc etc, who will they negotiate with for this? Themselves of course. So it's a massive conflict of interests, except there's no 'conflict' at all. They'll have what they need and give you zip.

This is a simple and very obvious act of a number of big powerful companies squeezing smaller people simply because they can. And it spells the death for many smaller more skilled and professional publishing companies.

Edited by Paul Farrer (22/04/10 06:42 AM)

Thank you Paul,

that was a wonderfully clear and concise explanation.

Andy

--------------------
When the going gets weird, the Weird turn Pro.

Nice one, Paul

Mash

--------------------
www.matthewcracknell.com

Hello,
I'm in Australia and I recently got approached by a TV/Media music library company and the same issue is happening here as well, i.e they offered my work to be in their library if I give them publishing rights to my songs.

Would love to know how your campaign will unfold in Europe.

Cheers,
Martin K

Koshowko - home page

Hats off Paul for taking the lead on this.

Quote Koshowko:

---

Hello,
I'm in Australia and I recently got approached by a TV/Media music library company and the same issue is happening here as well, i.e they offered my work to be in their library if I give them publishing rights to my songs.

Would love to know how your campaign will unfold in Europe.

Cheers,
Martin K

Koshowko - home page

---

Libraries are, I think, a different issue - it's usually accepted that the library is, de facto, working for you as a publisher, and can expect to have a share of the publishing rights to the tunes which they choose to put up on their library. It's certainly the case with the MCPS registered libraries I work with, that they have exclusive rights to the tunes which (in my case) they have commissioned. It's up to you and they to agree on appropriate % due to each.

The cheapo (non MCPS) libraries will also, sometimes, expect to 'retitle' your tunes so that they have exclusive rights to your tunes under the specific name you (or they) have given to the tunes for inclusion to their library but not to the actual tune itself, which you can then offer to other libraries under different names (if they're happy with that) or for licensing yourself for media use under the original name you've given it, registered at your collecting society. Again, % offered will vary, and it's up to you to decide whether you'll accept it (a lot of composer now won't work with Pump, for example, because they take a very hefty %)

Paul's point is really about direct commissions from production companies or broadcasters for one-off commissions for specific jobs, where the company basicaally blackmails the composer into giving away their rights in return for the commission in the first place. It's not necessarily a problem if the company is willing to pay a good deal of money for those rights, but more and more, they don't. They simply want to offer increasingly low commission fees and simply take the publishing, preventing the composer from making any further money from the work and sometimes making a profit themselves from the music if the programme gets very wide coverage worldwide.

Unfortunately the only way things will change is if every single composer refuses to accept this kind of deal and production companies simply can't find anyone who will accept the job on their terms. I'm a BASCA member and I do support the initiative, but in an industry where the competition is increasingly fierce, with a saturated market where composers are, basically, both two-a-penny and increasingly desperate for any work at all, they will always be able to find somebody who will do the work - if desperate enough, for free, simply to get a credit, any credit.

Hence the production companies belief that they have the upper hand and can do what they want. And they're absolutely right. They can, and there's [ ****** ] all, really, we can do about it.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Quote tomafd:

---

It's not necessarily a problem if the company is willing to pay a good deal of money for those rights, but more and more, they don't.

---

Yes, it really has to be at least 5 figures.
Then I don't begrudge signing publishing over.

- But either way it's certainly great to have a composer's champion.
Thanks Paul

Edited by blue manga (03/05/10 01:27 PM)

In all of human history (i'm not an historian however) have not those who have control over the markets the ones who charge fees for using them? I mean, and I'm certainly not taking sides here but, through my years and history as a composer/musician/performer/contractor, I've had to prove myself on every single level of my career while knowing full well that agencies, promoters, publishers, record companies, A&R suits, libraries are trying to make a profit from me. It's well, the way things are.

That said, who amoung us would outright give away publishing for the sake of having your stiff used in TV/film etc...??? Isn't that the first lesson we learned way back? Never give away your publishing for promises of fame and fortune or any other promise for that matter.

Never sell yourself short for the sake of feeding your family. Remember the battle of the bands when you were a kid? "Hey guys! I got you a gig! Yeah, it's at the theatre. There'll be lots of people there to hear you! Think of the exposure you'll recieve!! Never mind how much the gig pays, the value is in the EXPOSURE!!!!!!

I can't tell you how many gigs we played for "exposure". My point? Show me the money. Here's the goods. Now. show me the money.

K.I.S.S.

Please excuse me if I'm a bit off point. I just signed over all my publishing to a media game company...

--------------------
Just Press Play www.soundcloud.com/bravenote

Quote BMWerx:

---

That said, who amoung us would outright give away publishing for the sake of having your stiff used in TV/film etc...??? Isn't that the first lesson we learned way back? Never give away your publishing for promises of fame and fortune or any other promise for that matter.

.....


Please excuse me if I'm a bit off point. I just signed over all my publishing to a media game company...

---

Let's hope it was worth it - and that's basically the main point. I'm quite happy to sign away my rights for a particular piece of music or score if the pay-off seems 'reasonable', and that's got bugger all to do with 'fame' - it's the 'fortune' bit that's important. It takes a little time and experience to judge when and whether it's appropriate, though, and whether the amount offered is likely to be consistent with what the music might earn if I retained the rights and managed to place it elsewhere - or is consistent with what the piece will earn simply from the royalties due on this use.

The problem we have now is that rarely do companies offer even the amount that the current use will pay if we retain the rights, while insisting that there's no way you'll get the job unless you sign away the rights for a paltry amount or no amount at all. So the composer ends up with nothing at all if he/she wants to retain the rights - no job, so no money.

Much like the downloading dilemma - do you release your music knowing that the chances of selling enough copies to break even - let alone a profit- are minimal, or do you decide not to release it at all, thereby nixing any chance of any profit but maybe avoiding a big fat loss ? Do you decide to give away your publishing on a job in return for just the commission fee, or refuse the whole job and get no commission fee, and no credit on your CV, either ?

Either way, the 'client' - whether that's a production company or a consumer - has us by the balls. In a world where there's too much music, too many composers, and not enough clients, it's just the way it is. We either live with it or get out of the business.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

I might be off topic here a bit but I write for 5 library/production music publishers and I'm building my name as a composer for film. My problem with the independent film industry is that it appears that everyone except 'certain' experts are paid. So a DOP gets paid. Why? and the post production house gets paid. Why? The sound recordist gets paid. Why? The composer mostly never gets paid. (I have been paid for some work and man, that has been quality work, and very satisfying). I am willing to do a few jobs for free if I feel that the commissioning person will give me paid work in the future. (But this rarely happens) as they just go and get some other composer to work for free. We need to make a stand collectively so that composers become one of the 'experts' that ALWAYS get paid.

Yup, seeing more and more of those 'deferred payment' deals being offered as well, these days. Deferred till when ? When you've taken the production company to court, at your own expense, to prove that they did make a profit and they do owe you money, and here's the contract to prove it ? When I have followed this kind of thing up, half the time the company wants you to start work immediately "and we'll sort out the contracts once the production is finished and we've agreed on the music".

IE - work your bollocks off now, give us a score, and then we might OK it- and then, possibly, might sign a contract, which we'll then ignore or claim that we never made a profit and we don't owe you any money. BTW, the contract will specify that we'll own the rights on the music, regardless.

The only possible answer is '[ ****** ] off'.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Yep that's absolutely bang on. I recently completed a score for a short independent film on a deferred payment basis. This was the first time I had come across the term. When I challenged the director about how the contributors would be paid IF the film did make a profit, she was unable to answer definitively. If my fee was, lets say, $2600 and the DOP's fee was , lets say, $2600 and the film makes a profit of $2600 then who gets paid first? What about the actors? Oh thats right, we all just want recognition right? It's a flawed process that means you won't be paid at all. The next time I cam across this I refused to sign the contract and asked for a nominal fee of SOMETHINg to make our agreement professional. This seemed to work. It was my way of letting the director know that composers think deferred payments are a crock and will NOT be accepted!

Yup, seeing more and more of those 'deferred payment' deals being offered as well, these days. Deferred till when ? When you've taken the production company to court, at your own expense, to prove that they did make a profit and they do owe you money, and here's the contract to prove it ? When I have followed this kind of thing up, half the time the company wants you to start work immediately "and we'll sort out the contracts once the production is finished and we've agreed on the music".


Like the 360 deals RC's are offering artists on their rosters and new acts as well. IMO, it's not necessarily the fault of the RC's so much. If I were shooting ducks in the open field, I would shoot as many ducks as I could. That's how the libraries, record companies, film/video and multi-media corporations see us. Like sitting ducks. Get over it. There's a glut of music in the stables much of which is well, outstanding frankly. There are more of us than there are of the client we want purchasing our stuff.

Here's where Henry Ford made out like a bandit and the labor unions began to flurish. Over exploitation of labor caused labor parties to get stronger. It's exactly what we need to spring us out of the slave position and into the "let's make a decent living from our music as services to multi media and other music sales platforms around the world today position." The big record companies and multimedia corporations are NOT in fact too big to fail when a monster sized multi-media music union comes to their town.

You just can't whimp out or sell for less. We're not going to stop producing music. We're just not going to make it free anymore!

Quote Paul Farrer:

---

That's about the biggest 'IF' i've seen for a long time! :-)
And if the commissioning fee isn't respectable -which it won't be, why should they still have the right to screw you over simply because they are bigger than you?

The problem is that with your publishing, you have to be free to assign it to whoever you think best has a chance of exploiting your work. Anyone can all themselves a publisher. Fill in the PRS forms, sit back and wait for the cheque and do absolutely nothing to help their writers. A real publisher is invested in you and your works and stands to benefit from doing deals, negotiating on their behalf and checking that the money is flowing back to you correctly. The bigger the hit the more vital this process is.
Now imagine you do a job for a TV company or similar that commissions lots of music from composers and they are demanding that you only get the gig if you give them all the publishing. This is co-ercion, plain and simple. And that's against the law.

Also if you are a TV company who has just forced a composer to assign publishing to you for a theme tune, and lets say that theme tune becomes very successful and they want to use it in a film, or hit song, or videogame etc etc, who will they negotiate with for this? Themselves of course. So it's a massive conflict of interests, except there's no 'conflict' at all. They'll have what they need and give you zip.

This is a simple and very obvious act of a number of big powerful companies squeezing smaller people simply because they can. And it spells the death for many smaller more skilled and professional publishing companies.

---

Just using this good quote as an example to my view.
If the contract were not to give the company involved an income from it in any way but purely served as a device to prevent a duplicate use by a rival (or non-rival co) for a differnet advert or film I might understand that, much in the way of the old agents / promoters "distance clause" in live performance which forbade acts to perform within a distance and a time from the venue named in the contract. I believe this is part of the reason but probably some legal smartypants thought "Hang on we can.... do this as well"
It's pretty sus that they profit on it and it's not as if they need the money.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Good stuff Paul baby.

BTW, love the 'Matrix babe in red dress phone avatar thingy' you've got going there. Has precisely dik to do with this thread but credit where it's due.

--------------------
Samplecraze
Stretch That Note

Quote Paul Farrer:

---

In particular we are anxious to have written evidence, whether in emails or letters, that refusing to assign copyright in your works would prejudice your chances of being commissioned for a particular job.

---

I would be very suprised if there is much written evidence to be had - the publishers & production companies are not that stupid as to put it in black & white. Most of my work would be gone if I refused to sign publishing, but the only way to prove it would be to do just that: refuse, lose the job, and then try to prove it legally. Call me a coward if you like, but that's a risk I'm loathe to take while still bringing up a family.

Actually, the situation is worse than Paul describes, at least with some of the clients I deal with at the moment: we have got to the point now where not only is it understood that if you don't sign away publishing you won't get the job, also the fees for composition and production are reduced, sometimes to zero!, with the argument that "the composer will earn enough royalties"! So the production company gets the music for free and also cashes in (often as co-publisher with the TV station) on the broadcast royalties.

I think we might have to wait 10-20 years until a working composer retires (or has enough money in the bank!) to be willing to go back and sue his/her previous clients for the fee/and or publishing! If just one person can win a case, the practice will -very slowly - start to change.

When I started work in the business, I was thrilled that it was possible to make good money composing. It's still a decent living (just about) and I love the work just as much, but the composers' slice of the cake is a lot smaller. And that there is no established way to collect money from Internet use of music is another modern scandal, IMO.

RR

Am I right in thinking that if you join PRS (as a publisher) you can correctly say to production companies that you are unable to assign them the rights because you have already assigned them to PRS?

Yup - to which they usually reply 'No problem, and not to worry - we've got another 6 composers in the queue. Next!'

Nonetheless, such contractual assignments would be null-and-void if PRS snooped around a bit and shopped everyone

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Perhaps one way to tackle this problem is for all current media composers and aspiring media composers, who do not already have a publisher, to join PRS as a publisher member.

If we decided this was a good thing to do, perhaps Paul Farrer and SOS could use the mag and this forum to encourage people to join PRS as a publisher? Maybe we could get PRS on side too.

If you decide to go down this route, remember to ask PRS for an ACP2 form (I think that's what it's called) which exempts you from having pay royalties to yourself for releasing your own material.

Even though it likely wouldn't affect me directly, I'm watching this with interest. I've been a writer (text) on-&-off for 25 years, fiction & nonfiction, ad copy & articles. The great dividing line is whether the contract is a defined leasing of rights, or a "for hire" work.

Doing work-for-hire means I write my 50 or 250 or whatever words, & I get a flat sum for that work, & give up any rights forever, often without any credit. A few such pieces could perhaps become the backbone to a book that's actually assembled by some other for-hire writer, & I may never even be able to claim that in my portfolio. Any eye-catching turns of phrase become part of that property. Having a little experience in advertising, I just accept this, & hope that I could maybe get a nice letter from my editor acknowledging my role -- but this drives erstwhile literary writers nuts, & likely keeps some of them out of a market that amounts to writing exercise with an occasional payday.

I've wanted to get into "program music" (libraries) for years, as I'm fairly good at cranking out marginally catchy little snippets. What keeps me away is that it's become so much easier to track "sounds like" issues. Like, if I do a "for hire" bit where I voluntarily give up all rights to the publisher, & one piece goes on to be a signature tune for some big ad campaign or video game, I'm okay with that... but I don't want to be sued for putting out a tune that sounds a little like my own work!!

In publishing, it's the loopholes that bug me. A for-hire arrangement looks very cold to the creative artist... but at least you know where you stand, going into it -- to be blunt, that's artist-as-whore: you put up a price tag, the john either rolls away or checks his wallet, & there's no illusion of a long-term relationship.

But those vague promises of future royalties, with hints at how it could be HUGE DUDE TOTALLY HUGE are larded with caveats & exemptions, often unclear at the outset. The only way it could be worse is to find that I've given up control to freely sell similar works elsewhere (as happens in book publishing & recording contracts).

Very enlightening to see perspectives from other branches of creative industry.

Perhaps we should look to the Sex Workers' Collective to see which initiatives bear fruit (only half joking).

--------------------
Ohm's Law states, "Your PA isn't as powerful as you think it is".

BUMP for greatness.

personally as a rule I NEVER agree to sign over the publisching or even copyright to WHOEVER I work for, unless they are willing to make it VERY worth my while. & even then, its a negotiation!

--------------------
visit www.stoltz.co.uk now

Quote Paul Farrer:

---

As many of you may know I've mentioned the fight against evil co-ercive publishing in my Notes From The Deadline column in the past. The brave souls at the British Academy of Composers and Songwriters are really taking up this fight and trying to get the European Competition Commission to help us in our fight. If you have ever been co-erced to sign a publishing deal as part of a commission please get in touch with Patrick at BASCA (email below). This covers all areas of music and will hopefully lead to a state where music commissioners cannot force composers to assign publishing to them as a condition of getting the work. Here is the email from BASCA.
Cheers
Paul

As you know BASCA is pursuing its fight against coercive publishing agreements tied to TV music commissions with our friends in the European Composer & Songwriter Alliance.

The ECSA working group is meeting again at the beginning of next month and although we have a certain amount of hard evidence of the coercive practice of taking an assignment of the copyright of music written for TV as a condition of getting the commission, we would welcome further instances.

We appreciate that many of you might have been the victims of such coercion but are concerned about the damage to future commission prospects by complaining. If this is the case we would like to set your mind at rest. The EU Competition Commission, to whom we will be taking our complaint is bound by the precedent set by case law to respect your right to anonymity and will not disclose details to commissioners which may identify anyone who provides such evidence and who wishes to remain anonymous.

Please send any evidence which you have to patrick <at> basca <dot> org <dot> uk. In particular we are anxious to have written evidence, whether in emails or letters, that refusing to assign copyright in your works would prejudice your chances of being commissioned for a particular job.

---

So anyway .. how goes the good fight ?
It would be nice to hear how things are going Paul ..

Quote blue manga:

---

Thing is .. can someone explain what the problem is ?

IF the commissioning fee is respectable - then why shouldn't the commissioner make some royalties back ?

---

Because it is coercive. It is an exercise of monopoly power. The purpose of every monopolist is to maximize profits so in this case the intent is to transfer income from the composer to the monopolist.

Just because some of the monopolists are incompetent (since, if no income is actually transferred, they could have offered a lower commissioning fee without the publishing and come out ahead) doesn't change the situation overall. In any case, only the competent ones survive so most such deals will actually transfer income.

Quote damoore:

---

Quote blue manga:

---

Thing is .. can someone explain what the problem is ?

IF the commissioning fee is respectable - then why shouldn't the commissioner make some royalties back ?

---

Because it is coercive. It is an exercise of monopoly power. The purpose of every monopolist is to maximize profits so in this case the intent is to transfer income from the composer to the monopolist.

---

I can't really make head nor tail of your post to be honest..

Other than some vague stuff about monopolies ..

I have a working relationship with one music supervision outfit .. everytime they commission work - they pay fairly (not silly money - just fairly) - they behave sensibly - and if my demo is carried through to final, with their guidance - they take a portion of the royalties in the form of an equal part of the writers share .. in essence I end up with only 1/3rd of royalties in the track (because the track is also published - and the publisher then chases the international royalties)

Whenever they have work to offer, I generally except it - their standards are very high - it's very hard work - in a very tight market place.

I would rather take 100% of the royalties and be paid twice as much .. no wait .. 3 times as much .. 4 times, maybe ..

But I work in reality.

It's great to have someone fighting for the side of the composer though, as I said earlier.

I should like to know what happened with this campaign though Paul.
If I recall correctly (?) you posted this thread when you were canvasing for votes ?
Did you follow this issue through ?
Have I missed something ? (quite possible, I miss a lot of things !)

Would love to hear an update.

Edited by blue manga (08/02/12 10:06 PM)

Quote Paul Farrer:

---

BASCA

---

Coincidentally .. I seem to recall (correct me if I'm wrong) around this time BASCA seemed to be doing a big marketing drive to get more composers on board (for their membership fees) ... and in the last year or so on some important counts (for instance the shift in MCPS distributions, totally overlooked and un reported by BASCA) - have shown themselves to be something of a toothless tiger ... a little bit of a come for a chat and a cup of orange squash (in return for membership fees) type organization .. I know of a number of pro composers who shan't be renewing their membership...

Edited by blue manga (08/02/12 10:15 PM)

Paul Farrer You’ve taken alternating views and combined them into an interesting article. More explanation on this subject need to be written by you as you appear to be astute and insightful.

Although I'm not at the heart of the campaign I know BASCA are busy behind the scenes creating and solidifying some pan-eupoean support with the other composer organizations across Europe. The idea being that a combined effort towards Brussels with all European composer organizations being on the same page regarding coercive publishing and composer rights in general stands a much better chance at forcing legislation etc. To that end lawyers representing the various organizations are assembling a case file of evidence of coercion from composers everywhere and from what I gather there is a feeling that this is one of the largest and most well co-ordinated swings at defending our rights on this issue, that there has ever been. In short, while there is a long way to go, the feeling I am getting is that this could be the best shot we have.
Will try and keep you updated as I know more.

Is there anything tangible that us 'rank and file' composers can be doing to support these moves, Paul, or is it just a matter of wait and see? Have to confess I let my BASCA membership lapse last year for the exact reasons BlueManga gave in his post. there's just no sense of the organization being proactive about this stuff. If there's stuff they're involved with going on behind the scenes, they need to let the membership know!

I 100% couldn't agree more.

BASCA has, in my opinion, a massive PR problem. It has an incredibly odd, almost paranoid fear of asking anything from its members. Even at the Ivor Novello Awards, (which they own and organize) their presence is I feel muted. They are an incredible organization run by some really amazing committed people who live and breathe to try and defend our rights, but the bigger we are, ultimately, the stronger we are and as you say, they are pretty bad at telling everyone how good they are.
I suspect that their policy towards pro-active membership retention has to change in a hurry. Because members need to feel like committed, connected foot soldiers rather than just stuffing a cheque in the post once a year to a charity and hoping they do good things with it, which is how it feels for a large number of members currently.

BY the way, if anyone is reading this and considering if they should be a member I can recommend a chat with Rowena Morgan rowena@basca.org.uk who is the membership lady. Not only can she tell you all about the incredible work they do and how it can help you, but in all my years I have never come across a better connect person in the music industry. I'm not joking, there is literally not a single professional musician of note that doesn't owe her a favour. And she's a perfect ambassador to what BASCA is all about.

Thanks for the updates Paul.
Interesting developments it seems : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17207980

I'd forgotten about this thread — but just the other day I got a press release from BASCA saying they'd filed the complaint that the above BBC story talks about. P'raps they've oiled their PR machine recently?

Quote Koshowko:

---

Hello,
I'm in Australia and I recently got approached by a TV/Media music library company

---

Hello Koshowko, i'm in Australia too and was wondering how you got approached by a library co? i write all kinds of stuff and want to get into this area, any advice would be good. Thanks.

--------------------
Ahh ha ha, ever get the feeling you've been cheated?