JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum What does this mean to us

I don't know if this is connected with the other post about the RIAA trying to raise royalty rates on internet users or not.
Anyone have an idea what this is about?

NEW YORK, March 1, 2007 - The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) yesterday filed a cross-motion in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asking the Court to confirm that all Internet transmissions of musical works to the public, including digital streams and downloads, are public performances - as the United States Copyright Law requires and Congress has stated.

Therefore, all digital streams and downloads should be subject to licensing by the creators and copyright owners of those works, through organizations like ASCAP which represent them.

ASCAP's position is consistent with its ongoing defense of the rights of its members and all music creators (songwriters, composers, lyricists and music publishers) to receive fair compensation for public performances of their copyrighted works - while also encouraging the widest possible legitimate use of music on the Internet, as well as by wireless devices and any other new media that may be developed in the future.

"The emergence of the digital world is dramatically reshaping the way music is purchased and enjoyed," said John LoFrumento, Chief Executive Officer, ASCAP. "We strongly believe that our members are entitled to be compensated for all Internet transmissions of their music to the public - including the public performance that is an essential part of a music download."

It means, I think, that the time is coming when internet radio and web sites that stream, will have to pay for the use of our music. The PROs have been working on this for awhile.

That's what I thought it meant.

HuH!!! FAT CHANCE, LOL

I think I agree with Bill. I think we do need some kind of mechanism that allows the writer and artist to get paid for what they do, but while ASCAP may have their hearts in the right place, they seem to routinely comes across as bullies of the same stripe as the IRS agents who confiscate little kids' piggy banks.

At this point, the Internet is not something that anybody has any control over. Attempting to police the download of *.mp3 files by teenagers is the equivalent (my opinion) of King Canute telling a storm it has to obey British traffic laws. Nice idea, but I think it won't work.

At this point, the main advantage I see us writers and artists having is that *.mp3 files are reportedly (I can't tell, but I'm tone deaf) audibly poorer quality than what you get on a CD, and kids especially seem to be aware of it. We can therefore tell the *.mp3 downloaders if they want to hear what it *really* sounds like, they can buy the CD. I don't know if that'll work, either, but it seems like the best shot we've got, right now.

The Artist Formerly Known as Moonless Joe

Broadcasters already pay license fees to the PRO's for music. I think this may be trying to encompass a fee for when someone buys a song and it's transferred over. If it's not that, then I am not sure what they are talking about? All the legal broadcasters that I know have long paid fees to the PRO's. I know Radio Free Virgin was paying back in 1998. (They closed in December sadly but not due to lack of interest or income). We have many JPF members over the years who received income from that one radio station with a tiny audience (compared to terrestrial radio audiences).

So I am not sure why anyone would feel they've gotten ripped off. I will say that it's not a BETTER system than the PRO's have now.. but rather the SAME system that only samples SOME stations on SOME days.

Brian

Boy, if this isn't a case of the dog chasin' its tail around a post I don't know what is.

I cannot believe the time I have spent on here and the net over the past few weeks trying to figure this all out.
I've got about 30 net stations considering my songs right now and every one of them gets a waiver for royalties. But, I guess I'm OK with that. People will here my music.
They must have a reason for broadcasting. Love of the music I guess, because they all say it's not about money.

What gets my shorts in a wrinkle is the ones that want "professionally produced" songs done in a real studio. You know, the ones you pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars to get recorded in. Then they don't want burned CD's. They want Professionally pressed CD's, with professional artwork and graphics. And, send them a press kit. Last time I checked you have to order about a thousand CD's to get a decent price per CD.(and it seems like everyone has a few cases of them sitting in their basement)

I've been told "don't send us anything done in a "home" studio. We can tell the difference.
Have "so and so" master it for you or it won't be radio quality. Lets see, that's what, another 3 or 4 hundred.
So we shell out thousands of dollars getting a good quality product, not to mention the hundreds of hours we invest, and are expect to give it away 'cause they don't pay royalties.

Every one knows you can easily capture streamed files off these stations. So we cut our own throats for digital downloads. We don't get royalties and we cut our chances for Digital Downloads..Who is gonna pay for it when you can get it with a mouse click?
So who's actually making money in this business?
Obviously some artists are, doing gigs and such.

Then we have
People who run song contests(with entry fees)
People who sucker artists into paying to have their songs on a compilation
People who con the artist into Paying them to be their publisher or song Plugger, Etc. Etc. Etc.
Then we have internet sites that will sell our CD's. They take a cut of course. usually a pretty good chunk. By the time you pay to have the CD's done and they take their cut you've prolly got about $10.00 per CD invested. So if you can sell it for $12.95 you make about $3.00 per CD. But don't forget about Uncle Sam.

I had a young man(Rap and Hip Hop) in my little studio the other day. He was really excited. This is what he told me.
He was "signed" by a "Publisher" in Las Vegas. The guy told him his stuff was great. He wanted him to get some good demos done and send them to him. He would put him under contract and get him a "deal". All he had to do was sign a contract with them. The cost for all this was $450.00 but they were kind enough to let him pay it in monthly installments. Isn't that great.

I just sighed.

I got the name of the "Publisher" from him and told him I'd check them out. After he left I went online. Well, needless to say I found out everything I needed to know. Pure sharks. Everything I found out was they kept upping the ante until you finally quit. They even book you into a venue where you can get heard by industry "profesionals". But, you pay for transportation, lodging, and the facility. Average cost? around $1500. Then, of course, you have a meeting with some "executives" who tell you how great you are. They want to do a video. The cost will be $40,000. They will pay $10.000 of the cost and you pay $30,000. They will even help you get a loan for it. If it tanks, of course, it is because you just weren't good enough.
Now I have to tell this kid what I found out.

I give up. I'm Gonna just do my music and quit worrying about this crap.

Now I know how that artist dude felt when he cut his ear off.
Van..something...or...Rem....something.

I guess I'm just disillusioned.

Like the other Bill (Clingon) said, I feel your pain.

It was Van Gogh, I believe, who cut off his ear. He was a painter, remember, so the loss of an ear didn't affect his painting. (It may even have made him less able to hear criticism.) It'd be akin to me cutting off my nose--wouldn't affect my ability to play or write music, and (a plus) I wouldn't be able to tell if the music stank. The moral may be that sacrifice for your Art is good--but sacrifice the virgin you don't need.

I have run into just about all the things you've mentioned. I just try to find ways to do them cheaper. Even I can tell the difference between a home recording and one produced in a studio--but I ain't goin' to Nashville to do the studio thing. I'd rather find a local guy who's got good equipment and a good ear--especially if he's young and hungry and wanting to make a name for himself. I can get good deals that way.

I think the press kits are a good idea, too--but again, it's not necessary to spend a lot of money. I found a book at a thrift store called "Expose Yourself"--it's a how-to-get-gigs manual for working bands, published in the '70s--and I refer to it as kind of a Gig Bible. It said what ought to be in a press kit, and also in the "Joe is Great" brochure that's supposed to be part of the press kit. No problem--I used to be in the graphic-design business. (Keep that in mind, anybody who needs this stuff.) So I have music business cards, and the brochure, and the promotional photo (designed by my daughter) that can double as a poster. I do my own CD labels, too.

I used the press kit for the last festival gig I solicited--and yep, it was exactly what they wanted. You simply have to act like you know what you're doing. (I think.)

Next step, I guess, is the foray into self-publishing. I'll try that this year. I'd hoped that between now and Pineyfest (and maybe at Pineyfest) I could pick up enough information to have a shot at acting like the Big Boys, without (again) having to spend the money. And anything that works is replicable. Tools can be used by anybody.

Billvis, I didn't mean to take over your thread--sorry. I was just trying to be reassuring. I think among a bunch of us in this outfit, we've got the tools to make it without having to make monstrous investments.

I still think the money in the music business for an unknown like me is in live performance (especially for me, with the demographic I appeal to); CD sales are going to be at best the "gravy" off the gigs. I realize that's not going to be the case for everybody. But I wasn't planning on giving anything away when I drop off CDs at radio stations (I didn't even do that with the college radio station); they already pay fees to ASCAP and BMI as a cost of doing business, and all I'd accomplish by waiving royalties would be (I think) to come across as hungry. I think it's important to be as professional as possible.

That was a good thing you did for that rapper kid, by the way. I hope he acts on it.

The Artist Formerly Known as Moonless Joe

It sounds to me that they might just be trying to clarify a point of law that will benefit other possible cases.... by getting internet plays to be considered publlic performances perhaps it gives them more leverage for enforcement or something technical like that.... not a lawyer... just a guess

They will eventually get royalties through the PRO's for those of us that have created it. Giving it away doesn't pay the bills for them or us. That's what they are there for, to fight to get us paid for the use of our intellectual property. The internet controls a great deal of international banking, domestic as well, if they can keep most of our money secure , they can keep our music secure. The royalties generated will help pay for the bodies to police the pirating industry to some degree. Pirating will never go away, but the free use of music on the net, other than sites we as the artist have set up and authorized, will stop being free in the foreseeable future. The industry must get the money from the digital domain back that they have lost in the retail sector.Just my take...Moker

My take is they are going after legal download purchases, such as from ITUNES. The impression I have always gotten is that ASCAP's position was that a DPD (buying a CD by downloading it rather than buying it physically) is a public performance. Wrong. It is not. It's not performed as it is downloaded. The stream is closed. Congress envisioned a DPD as being the same as a physical CD. There is no public performance in the purchase of a physical CD, and there is no public performance of a DPD download. My opinion of course.

Now, streaming/tethering (not internet radio) or on-demand listening to a CD/Song...there may be more argument there, but let's decide what it's gonna be. Is streaming and on-demand going to be a different type configuration of a DPD? As is envisioned by attempting to change compulsory mechanical law? If so, it should not be a public performance. It should be considered a purchase. If I stream something to your computer first, and then you listen to it, why is that a public performance?

They are just trying to get a court to take their side of it, and honestly, I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing. My opinion in the case of a true DPD, it's the wrong thing. A songwriter is already getting paid for a DPD, or streaming/tethered/on-demand configuration of such (or they are supposed to be anyway), so adding a public performance fee to me will simply be passed on to the consumer (perhaps resulting in lower sales), or it will be taken out of the cut the label gets for the DPD sale. To me, it's double-dipping...the songwriter gets paid twice. Whether that's good or bad, I dunno...

Actually, probably what would really happen is the label would start forcing the songwriters to take less in mechancial fees to get put on the CD, so the end result is the songwriter doesn't get paid any more that what they would have...