On another note, if singers and song writers are opposed to what I view as free advertising, fine. Ill stop playing the music. I have an MP3 player. Music seems to be more hassle than its worth in my club any way, everyone is a critic, theres always someone bitchin and moaning that Beyonce came on and how Jay-Z isnt "music" and why cant I listen to more AC/DC or what about Slipknot? It takes me hours to make a playlist that appeals to everyone, and to proof it for language. I could easily do without that hassle.

This is truly the day that the music died.

On another note, if singers and song writers are opposed to what I view as free advertising, fine. Ill stop playing the music. I have an MP3 player. Music seems to be more hassle than its worth in my club any way, everyone is a critic, theres always someone bitchin and moaning that Beyonce came on and how Jay-Z isnt "music" and why cant I listen to more AC/DC or what about Slipknot? It takes me hours to make a playlist that appeals to everyone, and to proof it for language. I could easily do without that hassle.

This is truly the day that the music died.

So I wouldn't suggest that music should be free of charge by any means, unless, of course, a musician needs to promote themselves.

Check out http://www.jamendo.com for a site of published, high quality music that any gym owner can download, play, record, copy, share, without breaking any laws, without needing to pay any royalty or license fee (MCPS-PRS).

Because this unencumbered music is so much more convenient, requires no licensing fees/administration, and is less fraught with risk, it is expected that those who most enjoy specific artists will commission those artists directly to produce further music. Thus, a gym and its patrons will directly commission the best artists.

It's the new choice:

OLD: Sign to label, receive 1% of gross revenue (after recoupment) extracted under threat of prosecution from audience.

NEW: Remain independent, receive 100% of gross revenue from 1% of a more appreciative and culturally liberated audience.

So, with the 'new' option the money's probably slightly better* – for the artist. The label's not a happy bunny. The audience is emancipated.

* given that 1% from a label only kicks in after the few years it takes for recoupment to occur – if ever – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoupment

There would surely be a better model that would commercially make sense for the gym's and the record companies. That's why I hinted at the idea of a tracking system – i.e. some sort of electronic distribution system where the record companies can get real stats regarding the number of tracks played etc.

@Angus: Interesting idea, thanks for sharing.

As someone that goes to the gym four times a week, perhaps I can offer some perspective
- my friends and I definitely notice the music and it affects our weights sessions.
- they either play pop music with pretty girls on the video clips (we love it, helps with testosterone!) or gay-community music which which is high-energy (can get annoying)
- As the music affects our sessions, we've often pondered who controls the play list. If we were required to pay for the music, I can imagine an eruption over who can control tracks being plated. The only solution then would be to turn it off.
- My gym oftens uses these video clips and music plays to include advertisements. It's just like a in house radio station.

My take on the issue, consistent with what I raise in my post above, is that the music should be free. The reason I hold this view, rather than a subscription model (which as I realise above I don't know how they could fairly do it), is that the artists ultimately benefit from this. I've come across music that's given me better appreciation of an artist's talent – it's like free advertising for them. A form of marketing.

The music should be free in the same way radio is. The gyms ought to pay a royalty like radio does, and they can offset the cost via advertising. Given the record companies want to increase the price, it's because they clearly realise this is a massive market as consumers attention are locked unlike any other medium currently (ie, the consumer can't control the content like how TV used to be forcing you to watch ads).

This is a clear example of the record companies doing something that benefits themselves more than the artist.

My summary of the article is that the record artists all feel it is about the experience and not the copy as well. There point to a gym is that if they really can not pay true value (i.e. much more than they are now) for the music, then turn it off.

When reading it I was wondering how much pre-sales for music a gym is. Surely there is a lot of music sold because somebody heard it at the gym. Not being a gym goer myself I'd be interested in others take on this perspective of experience payment for copyright.

Perhaps they need a better way of tracking which songs are played when so they can have better analytics on if more gym play vs radio air play assists sales.

So I wouldn't suggest that music should be free of charge by any means, unless, of course, a musician needs to promote themselves.

Check out http://www.jamendo.com for a site of published, high quality music that any gym owner can download, play, record, copy, share, without breaking any laws, without needing to pay any royalty or license fee (MCPS-PRS).

Because this unencumbered music is so much more convenient, requires no licensing fees/administration, and is less fraught with risk, it is expected that those who most enjoy specific artists will commission those artists directly to produce further music. Thus, a gym and its patrons will directly commission the best artists.

It's the new choice:

OLD: Sign to label, receive 1% of gross revenue (after recoupment) extracted under threat of prosecution from audience.

NEW: Remain independent, receive 100% of gross revenue from 1% of a more appreciative and culturally liberated audience.

So, with the 'new' option the money's probably slightly better* – for the artist. The label's not a happy bunny. The audience is emancipated.

* given that 1% from a label only kicks in after the few years it takes for recoupment to occur – if ever – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoupment

There would surely be a better model that would commercially make sense for the gym's and the record companies. That's why I hinted at the idea of a tracking system – i.e. some sort of electronic distribution system where the record companies can get real stats regarding the number of tracks played etc.