Discussion of all things related to Public Domain

[tom poe <tompoe AT amihost.com>]

Jay:  You're assuming that the organizations that control the
performance rights licensing in the U.S., will pay royalties to artists,
regardless of whether one venue or ten thousand venues play their music.

You're assuming that the organizations that control the performance
rights licensing in the U.S., are the only show in town, and there's no
alternative.  

Finally, you're assuming that if a performer in one venue plays your
copyrighted song, you're entitled to a cut (read as royalty).  

If I'm reading you correctly, you're really expressing something that
goes way beyond what the Arts is all about.  What it's not about, is
commoditizing (is that a word?) creativity and innovation.  

Wouldn't it be better for Independent Artists to draw a line in the
sand, and decide that the Digital Age, the empowerment of the
Individual, presents opportunities for each musician to pursue a musical
career successfully without need of organizations that do nothing but
rape and pillage the music industry?

For example, Indpendent Artists can work within their group, arranging
terms for performance rights.  Each artist can, indeed, easily handle
all the venues in the world with one database.  Digital Fan Clubs can
help monitor activity locally, even regionally.  There's just no need
for obsolete business practices that rely on the poor, the struggling
Independent Artist, to support a collection agency that needs to spend
tens of thousands of dollars for office space each month!

I'm singing and performing your material next week.  Please respond to
this email with terms.  If I agree, we go.  If I don't, your material
will not be performed.  Thank you. - - -
Tom  

On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 16:56, Jay Linden wrote:
> Long now, sorry.
> 
> Carey Driscoll wrote:
> > Unless I'm really missing something -- which is a definite possibility
> > -- it seems like the solution might be as simple as this:
> > *  Create your product -- your song
> > *  Copyright it
> > *  DO NOT assign it to BMI, ASCAP or anyone else
> > *  License it yourself
> > *  If someone covers it and sells a lot of product, your copyright
> > should give you grounds for a successful claim for royalties -- it's
> > called copyright infringement.
> > *  If people cover it and don't sell enough copies to make it worth
> > persuing legally, what's the difference between the lack of royalties
> > you'd get and the lack of royalties you'd get if you waited for BMI et
> > al to pay what's due you?
> > *  If no one covers it, it's a moot point.
> 
> You're really missing something.
> 
> In order to legally license your own material for performing rights
> royalties, you'd have to do as much work, and the same work, as the PROs
> do.  That's because the songwriter is not entitled to control who can
> and cannot use his/her music (other than in particular situations), nor
> how much s/he can receive as performing rights; the songwriter's only
> right, after first use, is to be paid a fair (and globally agreed-upon)
> royalty for its use.  I can perform/record any song I want; I just have
> to ensure the songwriter and publisher get their mechanicals, and venues
> and broadcasters have to ensure that when they play my performance, the
> songwriter and publisher get credited for PRO royalties.
> 
> So if you tried to license your own, you'd have to create a separate
> contract with each radio and TV station that might want to use your
> songs, as well as every location, every skating rink, every jukebox,
> etc.  They wouldn't be bothered, believe me, even if you were Michael
> Jackson.
> 
> Remember, if you tried licensing your own, you wouldn't be able to ask
> for a penny more than other artists get, but you also wouldn't be able
> to get anyone to sign an agreement, since they couldn't guess how much
> of your music they were going to play in a year.
> 
> So you would gain nothing.  But you would lose everything.
> 
> Copyright infringement?  No.  People would be playing your songs in good
> faith, not knowing there was nobody around collecting your fees.  Your
> fault, not theirs.
> 
> > Now, if you can't get your song played on radio or TV unless it's
> > administered by BMI, ASCAP or whomever, it's only an issue if you're
> > getting radio/TV play now.  If you're not, nothing from nothing is
> > nothing.  If you ARE, and are getting the royalties due you, then maybe
> > you're satisfied.  If you're NOT getting the royalties you're due, then
> > what do have to lose by terminating your relationship with those
> > organizations?
> 
> Or if you *ever* want to get airplay.  Or if anybody else *ever* might
> record your songs.  Why not just shoot yourself in the foot to spite
> your face?  You're simply choosing between hoping you get logged fairly
> and knowing you'll get nothing, and you've done no less work for the
> nothing.
> 
> > If you KNOW you're getting screwed, and continue allowing it to happen,
> > do you rally have any ground to stand on to complain?
> 
> Because you don't know you're getting screwed.  You only *know* you're
> getting screwed if you didn't give someone a chance to collect money for
> you. And believe me, if you do that, then *you* screwed you.
> 
> How much money do you think you should get?  You get one ten-thousandth
> the airplay Madonna gets, less than that if you count listeners rather
> than spins.  Madonna gets a million dollars.  Your take -- $100?  Any
> reason you're getting so little other than that that's, sadly, your fair
> cut?
> 
> The fact that you're a better songwriter than Madonna notwithstands.
> They can't count quality, just quantity.
> 
> > And if you can prove that you can't get your song played on radio or TV
> > unless it's administered by BMI, ASCAP or whomever, maybe that's
> > restraint of trade.
> 
> Um, no.  Stations aren't supposed to play what's not licensed.  But they
> don't have time to sign licenses for twenty cents with every unlicensed
> songwriter they *might* play once or twice.  So if you can prove that,
> all you're proving is that you were dumb not to assign your rights.
> 
> Remember, stations are no more required to play your songs, licensed or
> not, than they are to play Rush Limbaugh. It's still a free world, sort
> of.  Doesn't matter why they won't play you, but if push comes to shove,
> the reason is that you didn't let them.
> 
> > But if you continue dealing with people who you feel are screwing you, I
> > submit that you're more to blame than they are.
> 
> Like the IRS and Revenue Canada?  I submit that if you try not playing
> with them, then you're more a fool than an activist.
> 
> Simple bottom line one: the PROs, for better or worse, are the people
> who can get you royalties for *all* use of your music, not just
> broadcast.  Unless you like not being paid, you should use one.
> 
> Simple bottom line two: Carey (and others), assuming you are a venue
> trying to get out of paying licensing fees that go to paying songwriters
> for the use of music, bear in mind that you are not supporting
> songwriters by so doing.  You're hurting them.
> 
> It is as silly to try to bypass the PROs as it is to refuse to get cable
> TV or an antenna on principle and then complain that you can only
> receive one snowy channel.  And that's the case whether you're an artist
> or a licensee.
> 
> Fair rates is another thing.  Arrogant PROs, sure.  Complete jerks
> leaning towards absolutely repressive.  Nobody is suggesting they don't
> need to be more accountable.  They are not your friends, most of the
> time, either as a venue or an artist.  Neither is the IRS/Revenue
> Canada, most of the time, either as a business or an individual.  That
> doesn't mean taxes and royalties aren't a part of the cost of doing
> business.