Music Publishers and Writers Lobbying Congress for Additional Compensation for Digital Distribution

[Nausicaa]

Oh no, the end is nigh -- music might just become an art again as opposed to an overly commercial business that feeds on teenagers, endorsements and media frenzy. I have no problem with letting artists, producers, writers and distributors charging whatever they want for their music. I say let them do what they want and get what they deserve.

It's already happening. Just look at the huge popularity of 'indie' artists among the under-30 set. Overly commercialized music is almost exclusively the realm of tweens and old people. Again, only a select few are rocking the boat as this industry undergoes huge changes - the ones that got rich off the old model. This is an amazingly liberating time for the vast majority of musicians, studios, and labels. Many are finally able to turn their art into a career for the first time.

The few who got rich off recording in the past may not be making as much money, but now so many more artists are getting a piece of the pie. It's the Simon Cowells of the world that are making a stink.

 

[mags631]

Im glad someone here see's the truth. Just like the Writers Strike in the TV industry. People don't realize the people writing hit shows on TV make less than 60k a year.

Actually, that does surprise me, but I wouldn't call that inappropriate.

 

[Eric5273]

I think you guys are all missing a major part of this issue, which is probably due to the fact that most people do not understand the inner workings of the music industry and how royalties are collected and distributed.

More than half of the music produced never gets sold on iTunes or on Amazon, or in any format. The reason is that it is produced specifically for use as background or theme music for television programs, commercials, and films. This type of music is typically known as "production music", "stock music" or "library music".

Over the years, the typical business model for this type of music is that songwriters will sign over their music to a music publisher that specializes in production music, and the publisher then does their best to place the music on television. The songwriter earns money not from the publisher, but from the performance royalties they receive from BMI or ASCAP, the two performing rights societies.

The problem is that these royalties continue to decrease every year due to fewer people watching television and more people downloading the programs or streaming them on the internet.

Please understand that the songwriters do not receive a single penny when the program or movie that contains their music is sold on iTunes.

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

And just to give a little background of how I know all of this, I own one of the 20 or so production music publishers in the United States.

 

[dicklacara]

I'm not saying either should- although almost every DSP contract with a label states that the DSP will obtain all necessary public performance licenses.

And in the US, if it was decided that the preview was a public performance, I suspect it would fall under Sound Exchange's mandate for the sound recording, so the artists would get their performance royalty just as the writers would via their PROs

OK! I have a friend who is a singer, songwriter, lyricist. She is about to publish her debut album-- all original songs.

Now, for the interesting part: she has made lots of "Covers" and posted them to YouTube and other sites including her own at:

http://www.youtube.com/sheenamelwani
http://www.sheenamelwani.com

This is the way "Covers" was explained to me by recording industry insiders:

A "Cover" is when an artist creates her own version of another artist's song (usually a published song).

Technically, the artist creating the "Cover" must obtain all the "permissions" (and negotiate/pay the appropriate fees/royalties) for the song in question.

However, obtaining "permissions" would increase lead time and have a stifling effect on creation of the "Cover".

So, the "industry" looks the other way, and does not enforce whatever laws and remuneration apply to various creators of the original.

I suspect that the "owners" of the original feel that the "cover" is a compliment and contributes to the sales of the original.


Now some questions:

1) By selectively ignoring the fact that "Covers" violate their rights, are the owners giving up those same rights?

2) Is the content of the specific "Covers", now, in the public domain?

3) Can these "owners" selectively go after some (like iTunes) while permitting others?

4) Is any, or all, of the original content, now, in the public domain because of the above inconsistancies?

Does any of this matter?

*

 

[paul4339]

Shouldn't Apple be getting a fee from RIAA for advertising?

If the clips contribute to the business then aren't the artists getting paid because of the increased sales?



Of course they have the right to negotiate. But when those negotiations don't end in their favor, they shouldn't go running to the government to get what they want.



A promotional clip by itself doesn't make any money for Apple either. If that clip produces a sale, then Apple does get money. And then so does the artist.

Agreed.
If a 30 sec sample (promoting a product) is the same as a the background music for a 30 second commercial (promoting a product), then shouldn't the promoter be getting a fee? That is shouldn't Apple be charging an *additional* fee to allow to the record industry for giving out 30 sec samples (promoting) , as well as a fee if the product sells?

Just a thought.

 

[w00master]

I think you guys are all missing a major part of this issue, which is probably due to the fact that most people do not understand the inner workings of the music industry and how royalties are collected and distributed.

More than half of the music produced never gets sold on iTunes or on Amazon, or in any format. The reason is that it is produced specifically for use as background or theme music for television programs, commercials, and films. This type of music is typically known as "production music", "stock music" or "library music".

Over the years, the typical business model for this type of music is that songwriters will sign over their music to a music publisher that specializes in production music, and the publisher then does their best to place the music on television. The songwriter earns money not from the publisher, but from the performance royalties they receive from BMI or ASCAP, the two performing rights societies.

The problem is that these royalties continue to decrease every year due to fewer people watching television and more people downloading the programs or streaming them on the internet.

Please understand that the songwriters do not receive a single penny when the program or movie that contains their music is sold on iTunes.

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

And just to give a little background of how I know all of this, I own one of the 20 or so production music publishers in the United States.

I feel bad for these artists, but honestly... how is this truly Apple's issue? This, imho, should come out of the cut that the Music Industry gets already. It should be an INTERNAL battle and not something that Apple (or the US Gov't) should be involved with.

w00master

 

[JimmyLecroy21]

**** the recording industry...

Support the artist not the labels. Bittorent + See the artist live = Helps artist not greedy ****ing label

 

[HLdan]

I don't give a rats behind about the artist, the writers or the record labels. What gets thrown in my face every time I turn on MTV is the Cribs show which gives a great idea where all my money I spent on iTunes goes. Cribs shows off the artists and the people behind it all enjoying their mulit-million dollar homes and ocean-like swimming pools and such. I work hard for my money, do they care about what it takes for me to earn it so I can spend it on their music? NO.

This whole thing complaining about wanting extra compensation for the 30 second previews just makes me ill. . I used to work as a commission-only sales person at an electronics store and did I get paid for customers coming in and stroking me for free information, only to leave and go buy it somewhere else? NO. Every customer deserves a free demo on something before they buy. Would it be nice if I had been compensated for giving my customers a demo of the product I want to sell to them? YES, but I didn't and I really shouldn't and neither should these stupid money hungry artists.

 

[farmboy]

There's good reason for many of the changes being requested, particularly by performing musicians who are not currently compensated for radio play. That's a separate issue.
B

Sorry GQ, but what moron musician would not insist on compensation for broadcast radio play? Even a newbie friend-of-a-friend representative/agent would be sure to insert a radio clause.

 

[farmboy]

Not only are they talented, but being a good musician and songwriter requires a lot of work in the form of practice. We don't see it, but it's there. How many of the people complaining here about songwriters making money have enough music theory and practice under their belts to even think about writing and performing one song, let alone an entire album?

Um, so what? If music is your life's work...it's supposed to be work, just like everyone else has to do for 40+ hours a week.

And probably most writer-performers don't know squat about music theory.

 

[wolfshades]

I say: let them win their fight, and start charging through the wazoo. And if they want royalties for the playing of their 30 second preview clips, give them that too.

Charging who? The consumers that are trying to avoid piracy by actually buying their music?

Yes! Did you not read the rest of my comment? If they charge us for giving them the courtesy of listening to extracts of their songs (the better to help us decide whether to buy or not) - we'll stop listening to them. We'll stop buying them. In effect, by wanting to charge us to sample, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Basic economics.

It's like telling a customer they're not allowed to take a whiff of the cologne or perfume before buying, unless they pay for the privilege. Doesn't make sense.

So...let the market do what it wants, and the wise consumers will do what they want. Unfortunately, it's a lose-lose thing this time around.

Oh and guess what? Piracy will suddenly become popular again.

These idiots are so very very stupid.

 

[Eric5273]

OK! I have a friend who is a singer, songwriter, lyricist. She is about to publish her debut album-- all original songs.

Now, for the interesting part: she has made lots of "Covers" and posted them to YouTube and other sites including her own at:

http://www.youtube.com/sheenamelwani
http://www.sheenamelwani.com

This is the way "Covers" was explained to me by recording industry insiders:

A "Cover" is when an artist creates her own version of another artist's song (usually a published song).

Technically, the artist creating the "Cover" must obtain all the "permissions" (and negotiate/pay the appropriate fees/royalties) for the song in question.

However, obtaining "permissions" would increase lead time and have a stifling effect on creation of the "Cover".

So, the "industry" looks the other way, and does not enforce whatever laws and remuneration apply to various creators of the original.

I suspect that the "owners" of the original feel that the "cover" is a compliment and contributes to the sales of the original.


Now some questions:

1) By selectively ignoring the fact that "Covers" violate their rights, are the owners giving up those same rights?

2) Is the content of the specific "Covers", now, in the public domain?

3) Can these "owners" selectively go after some (like iTunes) while permitting others?

4) Is any, or all, of the original content, now, in the public domain because of the above inconsistancies?

Does any of this matter?

*

Very little of what you said here is correct.

1) It is not a violation of copyright law to do your own recording of someone else's song. The Copyright Tribunal has set the mechanical royalty rate at 9.1 cents per copy. This means that if you do your own recording of someone else's song, you must pay them 9.1 cents per copy for each copy that you distribute, regardless of the method of distribution (CD, cassette, download, etc.) There is no negotiation of any kind. The rate is set by a government agency. And you do not need their permission. If you write a song, anyone can record it if they want, provided that they pay you the appropriate royalties.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html

Please understand that there are 2 seperate and unrelated parts to music copyrights. There is the composition, which is the written music or lyrics to a song, and then there is the physical recording.

In most cases, the owner of the composition is an entirely different party than the owner of the recording. Current law states that the owner of the composition gets a performance royalty when their music is broadcast or "performed". The owner of the recording gets nothing. This is why there was that battle a few months ago over the "performance fee". Owners of recordings were demanding a royalty when their recording is performed. Currently they get nothing.

So if your friend records a well known song, and that song is then aired on the radio, your friend gets no earnings of any kind even if it becomes the most played song on the radio. Same if it is played on television. Your friend only gets paid if she sells copies of her recording.

 

[pubwvj]

They're clueless. No taste, no buy. No sample, no sale.

 

[Eric5273]

I don't give a rats behind about the artist, the writers or the record labels. What gets thrown in my face every time I turn on MTV is the Cribs show which gives a great idea where all my money I spent on iTunes goes. Cribs shows off the artists and the people behind it all enjoying their mulit-million dollar homes and ocean-like swimming pools and such. I work hard for my money, do they care about what it takes for me to earn it so I can spend it on their music? NO.

Might as well say you don't care about business owners because you have seen how Bill Gates lives.

You are seeing how the top 0.01% of artists and writers. Most songwriters and artists struggle to make a living. Most of them will never have a hit song, and are lucky to be able to pay the bills. They earn a living from the royalties they receive, and currently those royalties are slowly disappearing.

 

[Gasu E.]

It's their OWN CHOICE to do that job and they know damn well how much they are getting paid.

I have no sympathy for people who CHOOSE to do jobs that pay very little. Go get an education and apply for higher paying jobs.....not a writer or waiter.

To paraphrase you, why do you have a problem if they CHOOSE to charge you more money for something they make that you use? You can CHOOSE not to buy it if you think it's over-priced!

 

[libertyforall]

More government is NEVER the solution, for it is the problem!

See:
http://campaignforliberty.com

 

[Eric5273]

To paraphrase you, why do you have a problem if they CHOOSE to charge you more money for something they make that you use? You can CHOOSE not to buy it if you think it's over-priced!

There is absolutely no choice. The rates for these things are set by the government. Songwriters have no choice in the matter. That is why they continue to lobby Congress to raise the rate.

If songwriters set their own rates, then that would be fine. But they cannot. They are being forced to accept a government set rate.

 

[megfilmworks]

American greed knows no bounds.

And the greediest are the people who steal music...

 

[Spades]

The result of this in the long term will be that nobody will want to write music for television anymore, or they will require payment upfront, which will increase the cost to produce programs and movies, and thus will still end up costing the consumer in the long run.

Unless the consumer doesn't pay the higher price. Who knows what happens then, but I fail to see why I should care if a particular business model is failing.

And what about the composer who has spent his whole life writing music for television and is now ready to retire and live off the royalties he collects each year in performance fees? What happens to him?

He didn't save for retirement like everybody else has to? Tough luck. Get a job.

Please understand that songwriters who write production music do not make millions of dollars like rock stars do. Most of them struggle to make a living with it, and even the more successful ones do not make a fortune. Most of them just manage to make a decent living from it -- something which I think they are entitled to.

If they can sustain their business then they are certainly entitled to make a living from it, but why should the public and the government be obligated to support them?

 

[dba7dba]

i hate it when some industry can't get what they want and they pay congress to do get it done for them.

 

[megfilmworks]

To me the RIAA has lost all creditability

This thread is about ASCAP, BMI, songwriters and publishers.

If you want to bag on the RIAA,
start a post that has something to do with them!

The music business is very complicated. Unless someone has years of experience in this biz, then they should not comment.
Knowledge before opinion!!

This thread reminds me of the town hall bozos, very little knowledge, plenty of bluster...

 

[DesignerOnMac]

A google reach tells otherwise....

You all do realize a lot of these writers make next to nothing.

I guess some people would call this 'making next to nothing':

Writers on a prime-time TV series like "Desperate Housewives" earn a minimum of 30,823 USD for writing a story and teleplay per one episode.

If the network requires a rewrite, the applicable minimum is $8,634 per episode. The writer earns a minimum of $4,324 for polishing a script.

The writers are paid a minimum of $2,890 to $3,688 per week on week-to-week term employment basis. If they work in additional capacities they could earn a minimum of up to $6,879 per week (based on the number of weeks they are employed).

The writers also earn additional 'program fees'. A maximum fee of $3,312 per episode is however split among the writers.

Writers may also earn additional fees in case they are asked to come up with story outlines (in case the network wishes to preview an upcoming storyline).

If they are asked to come up with a 'bible' (an outline of up to 6 storylines for an upcoming season) the writers earn a minimum of $44,353 per bible plus an additional $4,435 per storyline if the bible contains more than 6 storylines.

Each prime-time rerun earns the writer credited for writing the story, the teleplay or both a minimum residual payment of $8,431 to $21,078 per episode.

 

[rish]

Computer Says....

NO!

Not in the slightest does one feel pity. If artists are that concerned about the loss of income get out of the current music industry Eco system and take up distributing the music without the labels. Problem solved.

This industry is rotten, absolutely rotten to the core. I really want to see the impending demise of the labels to gather pace.

Put the prices up pass a law do what you like. I'll boycott your music. I'll find other means of finding it without the exorbitant cost.

 

[megfilmworks]

i hate it when some industry can't get what they want and they pay congress to do get it done for them.

So do I, but this thread has nothing to do with that statement.

Statutory rates have been renegotiated constantly for decades.
We don't pay congress to legislate...

 

[Eric5273]

He didn't save for retirement like everybody else has to? Tough luck. Get a job.

Many people get pensions when they work on a job a long time. Songwriters have pensions in that they collect royalties. Taking away their royalties is like taking away someone's pension after they spent 30 years on the job.

If they can sustain their business then they are certainly entitled to make a living from it, but why should the public and the government be obligated to support them?

The government has told songwriters that they cannot charge what they want for use of their music. The government has instead set the rates for what they think use of someone's music is worth. Songwriters are forced to accept that rate.

http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html

This is how it has been for more than 50 years, and this is how it is in every industrialized country in the world. As cost of living goes up and there is inflation, then the government set rates should also go up as well. The problem is that every time the songwriters ask for an appropriate increase, the public is shown images of Brittney Spears and Michael Jackson making hundreds of millions of dollars and is made to think that all of their money is going to rich multimillionaire artists. Please understand that this is a PR campaign by the large corporations to deny the small songwriters their fair share.

Tell me any other industry where you are not allowed to charge what you want for your product.