A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song • Hacker News Board

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#241

Post by cgriswald » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 4:53 PM UTC

superhuzza wrote: post #209

cgriswald wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of my point. Getting airplay and being in adverts helps keep his song in the public mind which generates income from the song. He may see it as passive income, but people are doing things to keep that income going. I'm also guessing he didn't start out eight figures in the hole by purchasing his songs from someone else.

>He may see it as passive income, but people are doing things to keep that income going. That's literally what passive income is. For example, if I rent out farmland to someone, most of it's value will probably come from the fact it can be farmed. It still requires effort to farm that land, but not my effort. For me, it's passive income. Same thing with music, whoever rents the rights must put in the effort to make i…

I'm not sure how to respond to your post as you've made my point: The songs Mercuriadis has purchased the rights to are not passive income for him. See my response to your sibling poster.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#242

Post by qntty » Tue, Jan 14, 2020, 8:51 PM UTC

sb057 wrote: post #105

Animats wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close. About 1.4% for farming and under 13% for all other tangible goods.[1] Take a close look at that table. It's really important. Growth areas: Health care and social assistance, educational services, leisure and hospitality, and construction. [1] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/employment-by-major-industry-...

Bear in mind that the United States manufactures a fraction of the manufactured goods it consumes.

"During 2016, the U.S. exported $1,051 billion in manufactured goods and imported $1,920 billion, a manufacturing goods deficit of $868 billion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_in_the_United_St...

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#243

Post by speedplane » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

erpellan wrote: post #206

speedplane wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I invest it’s usually because I think “I like this dividend yield.” That's a pretty sophomoric way to look at investing. Many companies provide no dividends. Many give large dividends, but their stock value decreases. Obviously, when considering an investment, one considers both the dividends and potential growth of the underlying asset together.

Boring. The word is boring. Boring companies whose stock prices do nothing for 30 years but gently drift up and down with the market (or not), steadily yielding 5% dividends year after year. Usually they sell things like toilet paper, soap, electricity or other boring everyday things. When it comes to long term investing, boring is good.

> Boring companies whose stock prices do nothing for 30 years but gently drift up and down with the market (or not), steadily yielding 5% dividends year after year. ... When it comes to long term investing, boring is good.

The S&P 500 has pretty consistently had yields of 10-15% over the last 100 years. It makes more sense to invest in a "boring" ETF that follows the market making 10% than a "boring" stock that yields 5%.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#244

Post by speedplane » Wed, Jan 15, 2020, 7:45 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #225

speedplane wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I like the concept. I believe the value of back catalogs will only increase. ... What's not to like? Termination rights. In the 1970s, a new copyright bill was enacted that said that 35 years after the creation of a work, the ownership of that work automatically reverts back to the original creator. The idea behind the proposal was to give artists control of their works later in their career, when they may no longe…

Are you sure Lady Gaga and other corporate pop stars own the copyright to songs they sing? I'd expect these huge team projects to have corporate copyright. https://blog.reverbnation.com/2018/05/09/music-law-101-owns-...

> Are you sure Lady Gaga and other corporate pop stars own the copyright to songs they sing? I'd expect these huge team projects to have corporate copyright.

Lady Gaga almost certainly sold all of her rights to her label, a corporate entity, when she was signed. However, because of termination rights, 30 years later, that contract will lapse, reverting the rights back to the original artists. If 20 people created the Lady Gaga song, then it will revert back to all 20 of them jointly, and if a label wants to buy the rights, it will need to make deals with each one individually.

Re: A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song

#245

Post by superhuzza » Fri, Jan 17, 2020, 8:39 PM UTC

cgriswald wrote: post #241

superhuzza wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>He may see it as passive income, but people are doing things to keep that income going. That's literally what passive income is. For example, if I rent out farmland to someone, most of it's value will probably come from the fact it can be farmed. It still requires effort to farm that land, but not my effort. For me, it's passive income. Same thing with music, whoever rents the rights must put in the effort to make i…

I'm not sure how to respond to your post as you've made my point: The songs Mercuriadis has purchased the rights to are not passive income for him . See my response to your sibling poster.

Picture it this way - Mercuriadis has bought a bunch of houses. Just like any landlord, he will have to invest some money and effort into repairs and marketing his properties. Some will rent for more than he expected, some less.

But once he gets renting, it's passive income. The problem is, can he make it to that point or did he buy houses that weren't sufficently rentable?