Entertainmnent Industry: Yes, Please Keep Negotiating Secret Copyright Treaty To Save Our Asses

from the yeah,-that's-convincing dept

Sherwin Siy (one of the few people who actually was allowed to glance briefly at parts of the proposed ACTA treaty, though under strict NDA) has written about yet another letter sent by the entertainment industry to the government in support of ACTA. This letter includes pretty much everyone who benefits from abusing copyright laws and is afraid of the internet:

Advertising Photographers of America
American Association of Independent Music (A2IM)
American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA)
American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP)
American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. (ASMP)
Association of American Publishers (AAP)
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI)
Commercial Photographers International
Directors Guild of America (DGA)
Evidence Photographers International Council
Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA)
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE)
Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA)
National Music Publishers Association (NMPA)
NBC Universal
News Corporation
Picture Archive Council of America (PACA)
Professional Photographers of America (PPA)
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)
Reed Elsevier Inc.
Society of Sport & Event Photographers
Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA)
Stock Artists Alliance
Student Photographic Society
The Advertising Photographers of America
The Walt Disney Company
Time Warner, Inc.
Universal Music Group
Viacom Inc.
Warner Music Group

Funny... isn't it, that all these companies and industry groups are supporting a deal that no one's seen yet? Oh wait... that's because many of them have seen it and actually have had a hand in creating it. But what's really damning is that no where in the letter do they explain why this is actually needed or how it will do anything valuable. Instead, it's a pure faith-based letter saying "if you pass this secret treaty, good things will happen." I don't know about you, but generally, I prefer there to be actual proof and evidence that restricting consumer rights around the world actually leads to some sort of real benefit.

Tellingly, they don't respond to any of the points we raised earlier. This is not a treaty to help people or the economy. It's a deal to try to sneak through a system for propping up an obsolete business model by companies who don't want to adapt.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'

from the well-that's-just-great dept

We keep hearing from folks how the collections societies in the US for songwriters and composers, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, are supposedly the "good guys" in that they actually give money to the actual musicians, and they aren't like the RIAA at all. But the evidence continues to be lacking on that front. In fact, it increasingly looks like they're doing a lot more harm to most musicians. Earlier this year, we noted that their aggressiveness in getting just about any small venue to pay up fees was killing off open mic nights and other sorts of venues that allowed musicians to play live. Mike points us to the news that many venues are simply giving up on live music. The problem? Well, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are all demanding huge fees. Even the restaurants that don't bring in cover bands are being told they need to pay up, just in case a musician happens to do a cover in the middle of a wholly original set. The licensing organizations don't seem to care, they just want you to pay, just in case. When asked how they know that covered music is being played, they admit they don't:

"Basically, we don't know," said Dave Ascher, the SESAC Music Licensing Consultant who sent the letters. "To make a long story short, there's no way, logistically, for us to know whether on a day-to-day basis they're playing SESAC music."

But, just in case, you need to pay up. Of course, rather than doing that, the venues are just giving up on live music, providing fewer places for musicians to perform, hone their craft, and build up a following (and a business model).

As for the claim that these organizations help bring in money for those musicians, well, that's not seen either. We've already seen how they only give money to big name artists in most cases, because that's all they're able to track. In fact, the article talks to one musician who's upset about all the venues closing, but is still registering his songs with ASCAP. When asked if he's received any royalty check at all, the answer was no. So, how do the collections organizations respond? They tell them to become more famous:

"I'm sorry to hear that, but what I would like to tell him is that he needs to write a hit song," BMI's Bailey said.

How nice. They funnel all the money to big name artists, force venues to close so new artists can't become famous, and then when asked about giving money to those up-and-coming artists, they flippantly tell them to become more famous.

At some point, musicians and songwriters need to learn that these organizations are not doing things in their best interests at all. They're simply bureaucracies to funnel money to big names, while limiting the competition.

78 Comments | Leave a Comment..

TV Broadcasters Suing Songwriters' Org SESAC Over Pricing Power

from the tug-o'-war dept

Missed this one when it first came out, but Copycense points us to the news that TV broadcasters have sued SESAC, one of the collections agencies for songwriters and composers (the smallest, after ASCAP and BMI), claiming that SESAC is violating antitrust laws in how it prices music used in television shows -- especially for syndicated shows. The details are really quite fascinating. Local stations quite often run syndicated shows (such as sitcom reruns). When they buy the rights to run those syndicated shows, the package includes all of the related copyrights except for performance rights for any of the music included. Those have to be purchased separately by the broadcasters themselves. Now, for SESAC, representing the songwriters, this presents a golden opportunity. It's the only thing standing between the broadcaster and being able to show the syndicated shows -- and thus, it can ask for extremely high prices, or -- more commonly -- pressure the broadcasters into a high-priced "blanket license." Since the broadcasters can't change out the music (it's in the shows already), they generally have no choice but to go along. So, the argument goes, SESAC effectively has a monopoly position, and is abusing it.

Of course, the real "monopoly" here is copyright. At a quick glance, it certainly looks like SESAC is doing exactly what copyright allows -- but the structure of licensing for syndicated TV content allows SESAC to make life difficult for the broadcasters. So, I'm not really sure SESAC should really be faulted here, as it seems to be doing exactly what it was enabled to do thanks to overly broad copyright laws. At the same time, it also makes you wonder why the broadcasters don't go back to the TV program owners themselves and demand that they bundle the music performance rights as well, since there's more negotiating power there. So, while it does seem unfair for the broadcasters as the market is currently structured, I'm not sure it's an antitrust violation on SESAC's part. More a problem with how the industry licenses are set up, combined with copyright being way too broad in such situations.

There's also a separate interesting element to this lawsuit -- which is why it's SESAC being sued rather than ASCAP and BMI. ASCAP and BMI are both already limited due to previous antitrust fights and consent decrees against them, whereas SESAC has been more or less free to act this way. Either way, it's yet another lawsuit concerning aggressive use of copyright to try to demand as much money as possible, even for music that is a small part of an overall presentation of content.

8 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Sorry ASCAP, A Ringtone Is Not A Public Performance

from the nice-try-though dept

ASCAP and BMI have been pushing all sorts of ridiculous claims over the past few months, trying to squeeze extra money out of pretty much everything, rather than actually doing right by those they represent and helping them adapt new business models based on giving people a reason to buy. Beyond claiming that Congress should make sure their royalties never decrease, they've also been saying they deserve money for things like YouTube embeds (even though YouTube already pays them for that same traffic) and the 30 second previews on iTunes and other music stores. However, the most ridiculous of all was trying to claim that ringtones are a public performance, and thus mobile phone providers need to pay ASCAP/BMI. The thing is, ASCAP and BMI already get paid for ringtone purchases -- but this was an attempt to get a second payment on top of that for the fact that people might hear the ringtones.

Thankfully (as a whole bunch of you have sent in), a judge wasted little time totally rejecting that reasoning. The court pointed out that the Copyright Act is pretty clear that there's no royalty needed for any sort of "performance" that isn't done for commercial advantage and "customers do not play ringtones with any expectation of profit." It's a pretty complete rejection of an obvious stretch by ASCAP.

We might hope that ASCAP will take this and begin to recognize that the best way to serve songwriters is helping them embrace new business models, but we expect that instead they'll keep looking to squeeze more money and double dip from other providers... while continuing to pay industry insiders to smear those who want to protect consumer rights.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As If Performance Royalty Threat Wasn't Enough, ASCAP, BMI Want To Increase Radio Royalties

from the squeeze-squeeze-squeeze dept

While the RIAA keeps pushing and pushing for a performance tax for radio stations, it looks like ASCAP and BMI on the songwriter/composer side are apparently now looking to increase their existing tax on stations (via Michael Scott). As you probably know, right now, stations do pay royalties to ASCAP and BMI for the "performance right" on music they play on the radio, which gets distributed to the composers and songwriters. But performers don't get a royalty, as Congress recognized (correctly) that radio was free advertising for musicians. So, the first battle is about adding another tax, but this newer battle would be about increasing the existing one.

Again, this shouldn't be a surprise. As we've been detailing lately, ASCAP, BMI and other similar groups around the world have gone on something of a rampage lately, trying to get larger and larger fees from just about any use of music -- including ringtones, the 30-second previews on iTunes, and YouTube videos embedded in blogs (despite the fact that YouTube already pays a fee). Sucks to be a terrestrial radio station these days. Not only do you have a ton of new competition from other sources, but the rest of the industry is looking to tax you until you're gone.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP, BMI Demanding Payment For 30 Second Previews At Web Stores

from the are-they-insane? dept

It's been really stunning to see just how little dignity groups like ASCAP and BMI have in trying to suck every last penny out of any kind of musical usage, without ever once considering the damage they're actually doing to songwriters. It's as if the folks who run these groups have no concept of the actual impact of their crazy demands. In just the last few months, we've seen them try to squeeze more money out of music video games -- apparently not comprehending how much those games help promote musicians and sell more product. Then there was the fancy trick, where they claimed that websites that embedded music videos from YouTube had to pay even though they were already getting paid by YouTube directly. They just wanted to get paid twice. And remember back in the summer when they claimed that the ringtone playing on your phone required a public performance license on top of the royalties already paid? They have no shame.

So, I guess it should come as no surprise at all to find out that their latest target is the 30 second previews that you hear on iTunes or Amazon.com. Yes, they're claiming that those 30 second previews should count as a public performance, and they want to get paid. Now. And they're asking Congress to make it happen -- because, as we've been learning recently, if you're inept at running an actual business, just go to the federal gov't and ask them to bail you out.

Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America -- and who, we've been reliably informed, is a big fan of this site (that's sarcasm) after our previous articles debunking some of his more absurd claims -- explains the situation:

"Yesterday, I received a check for 2 cents. I'm not kidding. People think we're making a fortune off the Web, but it's a tiny amount. We need multiple revenue streams or this isn't going to work."

Talk about entitlement culture. Because Rick Carnes is unable to structure a smart business model, and thus makes pennies, everyone else needs to just cough up and pay? Yeah... that's reasonable. How about rather than trying to squeeze every penny out of everyone else (and then funnel it to the top artists instead of the smaller artists, anyway), you spend some time actually understanding basic business models -- such as ones where you convince someone that something's worth paying for, rather than just demanding Congress give you a cut of everything, in a way that harms the very musicians you claim to represent?

And, of course, as the article above notes, it's a flat-out lie that songwriters aren't getting paid for a lot of this stuff:

"These guys are afraid that the business model is shifting away from public performances to a model of private performances," [David] Potter [from the Digital Media Association (DiMA)] said. "This is a turf battle. They are saying, 'The songwriters aren't getting paid.' Baloney. Songwriters are getting paid. They're paid sync rights and (mechanical) rights. They aren't getting paid for the public performance in a download because there is no public performance in a download."

This is a pure money grab by people who don't want to come up with a business model demanding free cash from those who did come up with a better business model. They're blaming everyone else for their own unwillingness to adapt.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts

from the nice-trick dept

It's no secret that most of the traditional "recording industry" really is structured almost entirely to help the big name acts, but whenever we write about the collections organizations like ASCAP and BMI we get angry people sending in emails and comments insisting that it's unfair to lump those two in with the RIAA, since they're really out to help the actual musicians, even the small guys. Uh huh. Of course, we've already shown how ASCAP and BMI and their overly aggressive attempts to collect royalties from just about everywhere actually have been known to harm up-and-coming singers, such as by destroying the ability for many venues to host open mic nights. ASCAP has been particularly aggressive lately in making bizarre claims about how embedding YouTube videos requires a license (despite the fact YouTube already pays ASCAP -- so it wants to double count) and how ringtones represent a public performance. These are pure money grabs that make it that much more difficult for anyone to help promote up-and-coming musicians and songwriters. Is it any wonder, in the meantime, that the organization is spending time setting up efforts to try to push back against people who support open culture and content sharing? It apparently would prefer that the songwriters they "represent" not know about these efforts that actually do quite a bit to harm the vast majority of songwriters out there.

But, back to the original point. ASCAP, BMI and their supporters insist that they're not as bad as the big, mean RIAA, and that they're especially focused on providing important royalties to less well known artists. Except... even that may be questionable, at least when it comes to live performance royalties (admittedly, a smaller segment of overall royalties). Reader btr1701 sent in some email exchanges from a mailing list, which I won't share directly since I don't have approval, concerning a jazz musician trying to find out why she doesn't receive any live performance royalties, despite knowing that these organizations collect them, supposedly on her behalf. In response, she's told that ASCAP and BMI only distribute that royalty money to "the top 200 grossing US tours of the year." If you're smaller than that? Too bad. Except... they do have one minor exception. If you play "serious music" (no joke), then they'll pay you your royalties. So, the musician asks what is "serious music" and is told it's "generally considered to be classical music."

The musician tried re-registering her own (jazz) compositions as "serious music" but it "does not appear to have made any difference whatsoever" and she notes that she is "yet to receive a single penny... for any US performance or radio broadcast of any kind" despite the fact that her music has been performed in the US for almost ten years, and "the vast majority of performances of my music take place in the US."

I went looking for some more details, and it appears that, indeed, ASCAP and BMI have a policy in place to only provide performance royalties to the top 200 grossing tours in the US. If you're a "smaller" act, the only way to get paid is to be an opening act on such a tour. Otherwise? Too bad, you're on your own. Aren't you glad you signed with ASCAP or BMI? Update Good clarifications in the comments on this. Despite what the musician was told originally, it appears that it's not that ASCAP and BMI only pay the top 200 tours, but that they only monitor them (it's not explained how they know ahead of time which are the top 200) in order to figure out who to pay. The end result, of course, is functionally quite similar. If they're only monitoring the top 200 grossing tours, then the likelihood of them finding out about songs from less well known composers is close to nil. But those big names? They get more than their fair share.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP's Latest Claim: Embedding YouTube Videos Requires Public Performance License

from the good-luck-with-that dept

A few years back, we idly wondered if it could possibly be copyright infringement to embed a YouTube video on your own site. It would be a very difficult argument, since an embed code is really no different than a link. The content itself is hosted by YouTube and was uploaded by some other party. Yet, we figured eventually someone would make a claim along those lines... and wouldn't you know it would be ASCAP?

ASCAP must be really hard up for cash these days, because it's going down the PRS route of trying to claim that just about anything now counts as a public performance. Just a few weeks ago, came the news that your mobile phone ringing in public is a public performance. It's also been telling composers/song writers to hold back on allowing their songs in video games like Rock Band/Guitar Hero on the assumption they should get more money for it (not realizing that getting songs in those games has been shown to raise the profile of the artists allowing them to make a lot more money).

So, the latest? Apparently ASCAP has started sending collection letters to various websites that have embedded YouTube videos that contain music, claiming they need to pay up for a performance license. This is definitely a huge stretch legally, but when has that stopped ASCAP? Meanwhile, you may recall that YouTube was just ordered to pay millions to ASCAP -- which you would think would cover this sort of thing -- but not according to ASCAP. If that's true, then ASCAP would be getting double/triple/quadrupled/etc. paid for embedded videos, which certainly doesn't seem right (or legal).

And, once again, we're left with a situation where ASCAP -- which always positions itself as having the best interests of songwriters/composers/publishers in mind -- is actually causing significant harm for artists. By adding to the cost of having people promote those artists on their own websites, they're greatly diminishing the ability of people to get the word out about these artists.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Connecticut Town Tells ASCAP, BMI, SESAC To Get Lost Over Royalty Bills

from the get-lost! dept

Three years ago, the town of New Milford, Connecticut got a bill from ASCAP demanding $280 in licensing fees, because the local town center sometimes will have music playing. Even at that amount, the mayor felt it was ridiculous, since it was a municipality playing music for non-profit community purposes. So the town council voted to ignore the bill, tabling it "indefinitely." As far as I know nothing else has happened between ASCAP and New Milford, but reader Bill Waggoner recently alerted us to the news that BMI and SESAC -- the other two collection societies in the US -- sent bills to New Milford as well. BMI's was a whopping $3,000. SESAC's was $1,500.

After being asked about it, BMI realized that it had made a "mistake" in calculating the bill, and lowered it to $305 (funny that they don't make mistakes in the other direction, do they?). However, the town council has told them to go take a hike. "They're not going to get that either" was the quote from council member Roger Szendy. The town's mayor, Patricia Murphy, says she's standing up for the principle of the whole thing, claiming that it's silly that a municipality should have to pay. BMI apparently says it's not going to sue, but it hopes that the city will "do the right thing."

I'm guessing that BMI (and ASCAP) realize it would be a public relations nightmare to sue a municipality, but if other cities start taking similar principled stands, you have to wonder if they'd reconsider.

Side Note: As regular readers know, it's our common practice to link to our source for information on stories. In this case, however, our main source is The News Times. I had the story about this open in my browser for a few days before getting around to writing it up. Then I discovered that The News Times locks up its content after a few days. So... I can no longer actually get to the article or send any traffic to the newspaper site. Perhaps I don't quite get the economics of news publishing, but I would imagine ad traffic from a bunch of our readers visiting their site would greatly outweigh the expected value of people actually paying $3 to read the article (yes, that's what they want). Oh well. I guess it's just their loss.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP Now Claiming That Your Mobile Phone Ringing Is A Public Performance

from the pay-up dept

Ah, those collection societies just never learn, do they? We've discussed in the past how ASCAP once threatened the Girl Scouts for singing songs around the campfire, but in the past few years it's been ASCAP's counterpart in the UK that's been in the news the most for things like threatening small business owners after calling them on the phone and saying they hear music in the background or threatening a stable owner for playing the radio to her horses. I guess ASCAP was feeling a bit left out. Its latest move is to claim that legally purchased ringtones on mobiles phones, playing in public places, represents a public performance for which it is owed royalties. Songwriters and music publishers already are paid royalties on ringtone purchases, but ASCAP is claiming that buying the file is entirely different than "the performance" (i.e., the phone ringing).

In the EFF's response to ASCAP, it notes that copyright law makes a specific exemption for performances made "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage." ASCAP counters that even if that's true, only the owners of mobile phones can make that assertion, but the mobile operators (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, etc.) still need to pay up for performance rights because they are commercial entities, even if the use of the phones is not. The EFF goes on to point out how this reasoning does not mesh with the law, the case law, or the intended purpose of copyright.

On top of this, even if, in some bizarre, twisted interpretation of the law, a ringtone playing on a phone was a public performance, how would it be the mobile operators' liability to pay? That would be like saying that Apple should pay ASCAP royalties because songs it sells on iTunes could potentially be played through speakers publicly somewhere. Perhaps I shouldn't be giving ASCAP ideas...

However, this is not a surprise. It's simply the way industry groups (even those representing the songwriters, rather than the labels) have always worked. It's always about "extending" rights. That's why copyright was broken down eventually into different types of rights -- including distribution rights and performance rights, because the "old" rights didn't fit the new technologies. It's a particularly obnoxious trick to claim that, because a single file can be used in multiple ways (for both distribution and performance), it is now subject to both types of royalties. The only reason those separate royalties were broken out in the first place was due to angry demands from these sorts of groups about how the old "rights" didn't cover new media versions of content. To then double back and claim multiple coverage is beyond obnoxious.

84 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP Thinks That Video Game Providers Should Pay Music Performance Royalties

from the just-make-the-internet-like-tv-so-we-don't-have-to-change dept

Despite claiming to represent the interests of songwriters and composers, ASCAP has consistently provided bad advice on how they should respond to digital technology and the internet. For ASCAP and many other collection societies, anything that doesn't involve royalties seems automatically bad (despite all the success from artists who've been freeing up their content), and other questionable practices raise serious doubts over how royalty money is handled once collected. Now, ASCAP wants to increase the toll on video games and is encouraging video game music composers to reserve performance rights (via Michael Scott). Typically, game developers purchase rights (including performance rights) from music composers, but ASCAP's Director of Legal Affairs, Christine Pepe, argues that the practice no longer makes sense. She suggests adopting the model that was developed for film and television, where composers and songwriters often negotiate contractual provisions for performance royalties.

Not surprisingly, there are some major problems with the article.

First of all, Pepe cites Rock Band, Guitar Hero, Dance Dance Revolution and Stubbs the Zombie to highlight the prominence of music in video games nowadays. These are all cases of popular songs being used in games, rather than music being written for games... yet she's presumably addressing people who write music for video games. Early versions of Guitar Hero used covers to make licensing easier, so composers weren't even part of the negotiation. This licensing is about synchronization or mechanical rights -- not performance rights. Labels have complained that these games aren't paying enough for the music, but it's the games that increase the value (and sales) of the music, not the other way around. These games could simply choose other good music and still be popular. ASCAP clearly doesn't understand that, while music can add value to games, games add value to music. Pepe says that older video game music is "probably difficult to imagine... in a context other than the games themselves." She isn't trying very hard to use her imagination, as there are plenty of examples of older video game music having a life outside of the games. Would anyone care about the Mario theme if it weren't part of the game? The lesson from old video game music isn't that performance royalties used to be negligible. It's that success for a video game music composer isn't just about writing good music, but about having that music associated with successful games.

Second, Pepe's argument that there's a public performance of music in video games seems like a real stretch:

Now, because video games are being delivered by entities other than developers and on transmission-based platforms such as the Internet, there is no reason that composers of music for video games should sign away their rights. Take for instance, X-Box — it is now fully integrated with the Internet and allows users to stream games (instead of just purchase the physical product in the store). Internet-based services that now offer streaming of video games are causing the music contained in such games to be publicly performed. The providers of these video game services typically have or should have a license from ASCAP (and possibly other public performance right organizations). [emphasis mine]

What does "streaming" a video game even mean? A video game is interactive; it's not a one-way broadcast, but communication over a network. Is Pepe suggesting that there's a public performance simply because software communicates over the internet? Email happens on the internet. Is that a public performance? There's such a thing as private communication over a network. Games like Gears of War, for example, allow you to play in co-op mode with another player in the same room or online. I find it hard to believe that the location of player two would determine whether or not the music is being publicly performed. What about a multiplayer game on a local area network? Why would that be any different, in terms of a public performance of music, from a multi-player game with everyone in the same room? Simply playing a game over a network doesn't make it a performance, nor does that make it public.

But maybe Pepe isn't referring to having players in remote locations, but having games in remote locations. She uses the Xbox as an example, which seems odd because, as I understand it, the Xbox Live Arcade lets you download games, but that's quite different from streaming. It's the video game equivalent of the iTunes Music Store, not an internet radio station. Digital distribution doesn't mean public performance -- the game is still played locally, just off a hard drive instead of a plastic disk.

Okay, so maybe Pepe was trying to talk about a platform that actually hosts and runs games on a remote computer. Still, it's pretty hard to believe that just because software is run remotely it's a public performance of the music, when the act of hearing the music would be indistinguishable if the software were run locally. Is it a "public" if I check my email using the Gmail web interface instead of Thunderbird? I have a music server running at home which lets me login and listen to my library from anywhere -- is using that a public performance? Do I need a license to listen to my own library because it's on a different hard drive? How does playing music in a video game become a public performance simply because of the hard drive the game resides on or the CPU that runs the process?

Furthermore, let's pretend there's actually public performance taking place. Is it even in a composer's best interest to demand these royalties? (This is not about a composers "right to get paid;" composers are getting paid -- upfront.) Making it harder for people to hear your music is rarely a good idea. Like with theme music for WKRP in Cincinnati or House in the UK, game developers may just seek other music if the licensing requirements are too burdensome. Focusing on getting every penny for every use of the music ignores the value of being included in a game, film or television show. The lesson from video game music of the past and present is that having your music included in a great game is extremely valuable. Not only are you getting paid to be promoted, but the game developers are even doing the hard work of getting fans to connect with the music! Rather than demanding compensation for every use, composers and songwriters should look at other ways to take advantage of the opportunity to make more money from the increased fan base. If ASCAP were really representing their interests, it would be helping them do this instead of pretending that the internet and video games are like television and insisting on performance royalties which will only get in the way of new business models. Of course, don't expect ASCAP to promote anything that isn't about increasing royalties. If your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail...

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

YouTube Ordered To Pay $1.6 Million To ASCAP

from the making-sausages dept

You may remember last year around this time, a district court set a totally arbitrary royalty fee that AOL, Yahoo and RealNetworks had to pay ASCAP for music streamed over their services. Reading through the details of the decision was immensely troubling, because it seemed to calculate the amounts on a somewhat meaningless formula based on taking a percentage of revenue from the companies that had absolutely nothing to do with music itself. Basically, it looked at almost any revenue that somehow sorta kinda touched on music (including search) and included that as part of the calculation process. Recently, ASCAP and Google went through a similar case in front of the same district court to determine just how much Google has to pay ASCAP for all the music streamed on YouTube. To be honest, I'm still not sure why it makes sense that Google has to pay anything for this, but that's one of the oddities of modern copyright law.

While the decision hasn't received much press attention, last week, the court ordered Google to pay $1.6 million to ASCAP (thanks to Eric Goldman for sending me the decision). The court seemed to take a "split the difference" approach, as ASCAP had asked for $12 million for all music streamed between 2005 and the end of 2008 (and another $7 million for 2009). YouTube, in response, had suggested $79,500 for 2005 through the end of 2008 and then $20,000 per quarter ongoing. The court rejected both proposals, and dinged both companies for weakly supporting their positions, or being somewhat misleading in their assertions. Google, for instance, tried to focus on the number of "music videos" as compared to the total number of videos on YouTube, though the court noted that the music videos seem to get a lot more views than many of those other videos, and it doesn't take into account the time spent viewing each video. ASCAP basically said: "just take that formula you used last year for AOL, Yahoo and Real and apply it to Google revenue."

The court, instead, went into a lengthy justification of trying to come up with a "fair" proposal, involving an awful lot of redacted information on YouTube's revenue (though... if you work through all the numbers you might be able to piece back together some revenue info) and eventually came up with $1.4 million for 2005 through 2008, and then $70,000 per month afterwards, which, when added to the additional fees this year, brought it up to $1.61 million to date (and counting). Of course, this is all supposed to be a temporary sort of thing until the two sides can work out an agreement on their own -- but given the vast differences in proposals (as the court noted, ASCAP was asking for a rate 150 times as large as YouTube's proposal), it doesn't seem like the two sides are close.

Either way, reading this ruling as well as last year's ruling shows what a total mess this process is. Basically, ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash. I know that ASCAP supporters will claim that the money is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah. But the whole system of such collective licenses is a mess that it makes it close to impossible to do anything with music without getting yourself into a huge licensing hole. For more than a century now, Congress and the courts seem to look at every innovation and simply slap another license fee on it, and leave it to the courts to sort out any mess. All of these license fees add up to a massive tax on innovation that divert money from good business models and into the hands of collections societies, who siphon off a piece and often don't do a very good job distributing that cash. It's a massively inefficient model that's simply not needed.

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP Continues Its Attack On Lessig; Free Culture

from the but-why? dept

We were already quite surprised when ASCAP set up a private lunch to come up with ways to "counter" the viewpoints of folks like Larry Lessig and various "free culture" supporters. After all, songwriters who have been embracing those concepts are making more money because of it. The problem, of course, is that those means often don't send that money through ASCAP. Still, as an organization that claims it represents the interests of songwriters, you would think they'd be thrilled to have songwriters make more money. Instead, it appears they would like to have songwriters make less money, and to attack Larry Lessig in the process.

Their latest move was to send out an email to members with links to various articles and commentaries that try to undermine Lessig's ideas. It's basically ASCAP propaganda. I guess they're afraid that songwriters might discover that they don't actually have to be beholden to ASCAP to make money.

31 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP Working To Shut Up Free Culture Supporters

from the we-are-the-enemy,-apparently dept

Well, gosh darn it. Apparently, folks who believe that freeing up your music can help you make more money are actually the enemy of musicians everywhere. At least that appears to be the opinion of ASCAP, the group that's supposed to represent songwriters' interests -- but often does the exact opposite. The latest is that ASCAP has put together a private luncheon for February 3rd... and on the agenda: "working together to counter the growing prevalence of the 'copy left/free culture' pontificators in the public discourse about creators rights."

Wow.

Is ASCAP really so confused that they think that the rise of such "pontificators" is harming musicians and songwriters? We're seeing story after story after story of musicians who find themselves much better off after embracing new business models based on the fundamental economics of music. For ASCAP to somehow think that these alternative models represent a force that needs to be "countered" just shows how incredibly out of touch ASCAP really is. It's a shame that a group that is supposed to represent the best interests of songwriters (unlike the RIAA who has always been about representing the best interests of the big record labels) is so confused.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

How ASCAP And BMI Are Harming Up-And-Coming Singers

from the shakedown dept

When we talk about problems with copyright and royalty systems, sometimes people suggest that we should make an exception for the collections societies like ASCAP, BMI and SESAC that get performance royalties for songwriters, saying that since the money goes to the songwriters, rather than the labels, it's okay. However, ASCAP and the others cause significant problems. We've already discussed how they create problems, and how their views are outdated and damaging for songwriters.

However, it keeps getting worse, as they get more and more desperate to collect money -- and they're doing so in a way that harms songwriters much more than helps them.

ASCAP and BMI have been aggressively targeting venues that hold open mic nights, and demanding they pay huge fees. Many venues have given up and simply stopped allowing any musicians to play at all. In fact, one made every musician sign a waiver that they would only play original songs, and ASCAP told him it didn't matter because there was no way to know if the singers were really avoiding copyrighted music, so he still needed to pay up for a license. Those that pay up then often feel they need to charge a cover fee, so attendance dwindles.

It's basically making it more difficult for the next generation of musicians to get started, and ASCAP is so blind to this they don't even know what they're talking about. In response to the article, an ASCAP representative claims:

"What gives anyone the right to use someone else's property, even though they're not making money on it? I can guarantee you the phone company's going to charge you whether you're making money or not."

First off, this shows an ignorance of what is and is not "property." It also shows no concept of the larger picture of how using copyright to limit singers from appearing is harming artists. As for the non sequitur about the phone company... it's not clear what that has to do with anything.

It's time for musicians to start realizing that these societies do not have the songwriters' best interests in mind.

59 Comments | Leave a Comment..

ASCAP's Bill Of Wrongs

from the stage-and-symptom-of-the-grieving-process dept

ASCAP has published a Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers, which, unfortunately, seems to be more like a bill of "wrongs."

Just as citizens of a nation must be educated about their rights to ensure that they are protected and upheld, so too must those who compose words and music know the rights that support their own acts of creation. Without these rights, which directly emanate from the U.S. Constitution, many who dream of focusing their talents and energies on music creation would be economically unable to do so - an outcome that would diminish artistic expression today and for future generations.

Which U.S. Constitution is ASCAP reading? The U.S. Constitution provision says, "the Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to suggest that copyright law has anything to do with protecting artists' natural rights, copyright hardly exists for a limited amount of time anymore, and Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were quite skeptical of the concept.

And the claim that such laws are required to make a living as an artist is very debatable, and I'd beg to differ. There was art before copyright law existed, and many artists are making their living today despite copyright law (rather than because of it).

At this time, when so many forces are seeking to diminish copyright protections and devalue artistic expression, this Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers looks to clarify the entitlements that every music creator enjoys.

Who is seeking to devalue artistic expression? Price and value are not the same thing. Just because the economics of digital goods have pushed the price of music towards zero (the marginal cost) does not mean that music no longer has value. This sort of statement needs to be substantiated.

1. We have the right to be compensated for the use of our creative works, and share in the revenues that they generate.

Why? In what other industries do creators maintain control over their creations after they reach consumers? Lenovo has no right to be compensated for the use of my laptop or to share in the revenue I generate through developing software. This is not a given.

2. We have the right to license our works and control the ways in which they are used.

Again - why? How many other industries control the way their works are used? This is not a given.

3. We have the right to withhold permission for uses of our works on artistic, economic or philosophical grounds.

This is not the purpose of copyright law at all, especially since it’s supposed to be for a limited time. This, in fact, is a restriction on artistic expression. Though it may be troubling to have a work associated with something that you don't agree with, I believe that freedom of speech is more important for artistic expression than total control.

There are defamation and libel laws for serious abuses.

4. We have the right to protect our creative works to the fullest extent of the law from all forms of piracy, theft and unauthorized use, which deprive us of our right to earn a living based on our creativity.

Theft and copyright infringement are not the same thing. And the sharing and spreading of music through digital channels is natural and, more importantly, does not deprive artists of their right ability to earn a living.

Bad, out-dated, obsolete business models based on artificial scarcity deprive artists of their right ability to earn a living.

(I'm not sure if this is a "right" because they seem to be confusing royalties and salaries.)

5. We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free.

Why? Coca-cola doesn't have the right to determine whether its products can be given away for free as part of a promotion after a pizza store purchases them. This is not a given.

6. We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels - while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits.

Wow, that started off great, but the ending sounds like Billy Bragg's whining in the New York Times. The phrase "all associated profits" seems quite overarching. This sounds like musicians claiming that MySpace and Bebo owe them money for their success, while denying that the reverse could ever be true, that a new media company would be entitled to share in "all associated profits" of an artist it enables to succeed.

Double standard much?

7. We have the right to choose the organizations we want to represent us and to join our voices together to protect our rights and negotiate for the value of our music.

Excellent! I actually agree with this whole-heartedly. I do not want ASCAP to represent me!

8. We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more.

This sounds like Viacom's misunderstanding of the difference between content and communication. ASCAP is treating the Internet like other forms of broadcast, but the Internet isn't a broadcast medium. It's a communications medium. When it comes to communication, the idea of using copyright to restrict content gets weird in a hurry. Royalties are not the answer for the digital age.

9. We have the right to decline participation in business models that require us to relinquish all or part of our creative rights - or which do not respect our right to be compensated for our work.

Sure you do, but that doesn't mean you'll make any money. Economics aren't about what you want to happen, or what you think should happen. Economics are about what is happening. Business models that don't make sense given the economics won't succeed. Of course you have the right to choose whatever business model you like, but that doesn't mean it will be successful or that it should be protected by copyright law.

The end of that statement sounds like another case of confusing royalties and salaries.

10. We have the right to advocate for strong laws protecting our creative works, and demand that our government vigorously uphold and protect our rights.

Of course you do, but again, I don't think it's a great idea if you subscribe to this "bill of rights." Moreover, consumers also have the right to advocate for better laws that protect their interests and vigorously uphold and protect their rights, which our current laws fail to do.

Artists can advocate whatever they want, but it's a bad idea to advocate the opposite of what your fans want.

Conclusion

This supposed bill of rights is really just an assertion of the status quo by those who depend on copyright law to protect their obsolete business models. If people in the music business could only realize that they're in the business of providing an enjoyable experience surrounding music, rather than trying to control and monetize every possible use of art, they might open up to new business models that make sense rather than whine about the fact that their current business models don't work anymore.

This isn't a bill of rights. It's a stage and symptom of the grieving process.

Signing this and, worse yet, living by it, would be an economic and ethical mistake for any songwriter or composer.

Blaise Alleyne is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Blaise Alleyne and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

44 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Do Songwriters Deserve A Cut Of Yahoo Search Revenue?

from the highway-robbery dept

You may recall a couple weeks ago that a judge set new rates to be paid to ASCAP by AOL, Yahoo and RealNetworks. ASCAP represents the songwriters, and those three companies and ASCAP could not agree on licensing terms for music streamed online. While ASCAP ran around touting the (somewhat made up) $100 million owed, there was plenty more in the decision that deserved discussion. At last week's San Francisco Music Tech Summit, I got into an interesting discussion with a few folks who had read through the 153 page decision thoroughly, and noticed a variety of problems. You can read the whole decision (pdf) yourself, if you want, but there are a few key points that are extremely disturbing, and could spell a lot of trouble. Basically, there's a meaningless "formula" that's applied to a very large segment of these companies' revenue, taking a huge chunk of money that seems beyond reasonable.

The judge seems to consider what AOL and Yahoo do somewhat equivalent to the way TV stations use music, and refers back to the rate agreements set up with various TV networks, despite vast differences in the way these websites operate. It suggests a misunderstanding between the difference between broadcast and interactive content. But what's really troublesome, is when you look at the overall formula for how the royalties are set. It clearly overvalues the music, and undervalues just about every other part of these three companies' businesses. The formula is, basically, the total revenue made by any business unit (minus a few specific costs) multiplied by a bizarre fraction (called the music-adjustment fraction): total number of hours that music is streamed, divided by total number of hours used on the website. Then, you take the result of that and multiply it by the "rate fee" of 2.5%.

This formula is applied to revenue coming in from any business unit that is considered to have used music. This includes things like Yahoo's search engine. That's because Yahoo (smartly, from a consumer perspective) allowed users who searched on a musician or song to stream that song directly from the search results. But, in making that so user friendly, the company has now opened up its cash cow search revenue to this formula, despite the fact that it's incredibly difficult to think that music has anything to do with nearly all of the revenue Yahoo makes from this site. Similarly, RealNetworks has almost its entire consumer division revenue included in this formula, despite the fact that it makes a ton of revenue from its gaming business. Wondering why RealNetworks decided to spin off the gaming business a week after this decision was announced? Maybe because a rate court judge just chopped off a huge chunk of revenue from it and handed it over to songwriters who have nothing to do with these games.

As for the formula itself, it makes little sense. The "music-adjustment fraction" is a totally meaningless number. The number of hours music is streamed is hardly an indicator of how much of a site's revenue is actually music based. If I have music streaming in the background all day, but am still using the site for other purposes, it seems ridiculous to include all of that as music-based revenue. The denominator of the fraction is "total number of hours on the website" which is also a totally meaningless and unrelated number. Even worse, since the court notes that none of these sites actually track that information, the judge ruled that everyone should just use Comscore's numbers instead -- the same Comscore that most people admit is not particularly accurate. So, basically, you're dividing a meaningless number by an even more meaningless number and multiplying it by the total revenue of units who often have very little to do with music, and then taking 2.5% of that. If anything, this ruling should make any site think twice before including any streaming audio from any ASCAP-affiliated songwriters.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..