If ASCAP, etc., would fully computerize their system this, and a lot more to make the system equitable would be possible. There are certain reasons why this probably won't happen. For one thing, Guido and Jo Jo wouldn't like it.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
ASCAP is serious
- Thread starter Slevage
- Start date
If ASCAP, etc., would fully computerize their system this, and a lot more to make the system equitable would be possible. There are certain reasons why this probably won't happen. For one thing, Guido and Jo Jo wouldn't like it.
Back when songwriters (some of them) used to receive royalties from record sales of their tunes, they would file an application for a "reward". When that was granted (if it was granted), they would start receiving their checks.
I haven’t read the whole thread but here in Australia and New Zealand we have APRA and they do a great job.
[EDIT: APRA return 85% of their income to the writers & publishers. Under Australian law you can only sign away a maximum of 50% of your royalties to another party (i.e. publisher).]
From my experience the APRA reps are good with businesses and APRA are very mindful of avoiding heavy handed methods and keeping up goodwill. They also license every national concert tour, live venue, disco, radio station, tv station, cinema. With radio stations I know that the licence fee is a % of revenue, so the community radio stations pay a nominal fee.
APRA is very proactive in providing grants or sponsorship or workshops for composers, and even managers, in different genres (rock, electronic, classical, soundtrack, gaming, jazz, etc), and at different stages of their career.
[EDIT: APRA return 85% of their income to the writers & publishers. Under Australian law you can only sign away a maximum of 50% of your royalties to another party (i.e. publisher).]
From my experience the APRA reps are good with businesses and APRA are very mindful of avoiding heavy handed methods and keeping up goodwill. They also license every national concert tour, live venue, disco, radio station, tv station, cinema. With radio stations I know that the licence fee is a % of revenue, so the community radio stations pay a nominal fee.
APRA is very proactive in providing grants or sponsorship or workshops for composers, and even managers, in different genres (rock, electronic, classical, soundtrack, gaming, jazz, etc), and at different stages of their career.
Last edited:
Yeah seems to be more and more common. I’d be surprised if they haven’t stepped up their game and hired people to fish through public social media videos now that so many people at shows have a cell phone glued to their hand. That’s how I’d do it if I was in their shoes. Either way I’ve been focused on originals lately so I’m not too worried about it.
IANAL, but I believe here in NZ a business playing licenced content (a bar with a piped music, a shop with the radio on...) has to pay an annual licence fee. I don't think there's a fee for bands playing covers, and I'm pretty sure bands are not liable - only the business.
But asking because I'm interested - what's the actual law in the US? With live music, what's the fee for? If a cover band plays some song by an old artist (say, Spin Doctor's Little Miss Can't Be Wrong) then there's a fee to pay, right? What if the actual Spin Doctors play that bar. The music is still licenced - is there still a fee? What if Spin Doctors vocalist Chris Barron played that bar (with a backing band) under his own name and played Little Miss Can't Be Wrong - is there a fee now?
But asking because I'm interested - what's the actual law in the US? With live music, what's the fee for? If a cover band plays some song by an old artist (say, Spin Doctor's Little Miss Can't Be Wrong) then there's a fee to pay, right? What if the actual Spin Doctors play that bar. The music is still licenced - is there still a fee? What if Spin Doctors vocalist Chris Barron played that bar (with a backing band) under his own name and played Little Miss Can't Be Wrong - is there a fee now?
As musicians we have to support any fees collected on our behalf. However, why doesn’t ASCAP and BMI go after Spotify, Youtube, Netflix and all the other streaming and online services that HAVE money and make them pay a reasonable fee.
I haven’t read all of this, but $4k for a tiny bar - Netflix doesn’t pay $4k for
ANY music - More like a nickel for everything they play.
Whatever they collect is certainly not reflected in my royalty statements - which have dwindled drastically with the new world order.
There are artists fighting it, like David Lowry, but they are few and far between.
The real enemy here is Netflix, Youtube, Spotify, etc.
I’m exaggerating, but they need to up the fees for the big guys.
But the big guys have the leverage, so the small guys pay.
For the first time - everything anyone listens to or watches is “trackable”
No more Nielsen Ratings where they guesstimate how many people watched or listened. So why have our royalties gone down?
Everything else in the world goes up - gas, rent, cost of living.
We have devalued music by trading it and giving it away on a GRAND SCALE.
One copied cassette doesn’t equal one post or share that can reach millions.
I remember at Berklee in the 90’s we learned about the old blues artists and so many early recording artists that got robbed basically. Selling or giving away their rights.
I thought to myself at the time - thank goodness things have changed, this will NEVER happen to me or any artist anymore.
HA HA!! What a fool. Look around. We are JUST like those artists that were taken advantage of in the early days of recording.
And we’re all letting it happen.
What we do HAS value. We need to stop giving it away.
OK.
I didn’t answer anything here, so I’m pretty sure I could run for president of ASCAP or BMI.
Say a lot, get press, do nothing of any consequence, squeeze the little guy for more cash...
Thanks Paul???
I haven’t read all of this, but $4k for a tiny bar - Netflix doesn’t pay $4k for
ANY music - More like a nickel for everything they play.
Whatever they collect is certainly not reflected in my royalty statements - which have dwindled drastically with the new world order.
There are artists fighting it, like David Lowry, but they are few and far between.
The real enemy here is Netflix, Youtube, Spotify, etc.
I’m exaggerating, but they need to up the fees for the big guys.
But the big guys have the leverage, so the small guys pay.
For the first time - everything anyone listens to or watches is “trackable”
No more Nielsen Ratings where they guesstimate how many people watched or listened. So why have our royalties gone down?
Everything else in the world goes up - gas, rent, cost of living.
We have devalued music by trading it and giving it away on a GRAND SCALE.
One copied cassette doesn’t equal one post or share that can reach millions.
I remember at Berklee in the 90’s we learned about the old blues artists and so many early recording artists that got robbed basically. Selling or giving away their rights.
I thought to myself at the time - thank goodness things have changed, this will NEVER happen to me or any artist anymore.
HA HA!! What a fool. Look around. We are JUST like those artists that were taken advantage of in the early days of recording.
And we’re all letting it happen.
What we do HAS value. We need to stop giving it away.
OK.
I didn’t answer anything here, so I’m pretty sure I could run for president of ASCAP or BMI.
Say a lot, get press, do nothing of any consequence, squeeze the little guy for more cash...
Thanks Paul???
We need to remember there's a major campaign worldwide against IP rights by the mega advertising corps and their useful idiots. Bad as the abuses of the record corps could be, the megacorps like Google Facebook etc are a hundred times worse.They want everyone to create the content for free for them so they can pay their execs megabucks for attaching adverts to it.
Yes, they do. It's the duty of the venue to file for every single song played live, own or cover.
I hope it's just a slap on the wrist. It IS the band's duty to list all songs they will perform, ESPECIALLY if they're not theirs.
That doesn't give them the right to support their business at the expense of others (i.e. musicians who don't get compensated for the use of their work). If they're broke, it's their fault for running a business that's not profitable. I'll think twice before doing a public viewing of a Marvel movie at my almost-bankrupt bar. Why should playing MY music be different? Just because I can't enforce it? That's what author societies are for.
I don't think that's correct. ASCAP, like almost every author society, is a non-for profit. Excluding admin costs (Invalid Link Removed), all the money they collect goes to the musicians. You can challenge the way they sample performances, but the money does go to authors.
I can't speak for ASCAP, but most societies do offer different pricing schemes depending on the type, scope and magnitude of venues. Based on what I just read in their site, they DO:
The annual rate depends on the type of business. Generally, rates are based on the manner in which music is performed (live, recorded or audio only or audio/visual) and the size of the establishment or potential audience for the music. For example, rates for restaurants, nightclubs, bars and similar establishments depend on whether the music is live or recorded, whether it's audio only or audio visual, the number of nights per week music is offered, whether admission is charged and several other factors.
Concert rates are based on the ticket revenue and seating capacity of the facility. Rates for music used by corporations ("Music In Business") are based upon the number of employees. College and university rates are based upon the number of full time students; retail store rates depend on the number of speakers and square footage. Hotel rates are based on a percentage of entertainment expenses for live music and an additional charge if recorded music is used.
Because ASCAP has over a hundred different licenses and rate schedules, one will likely fit your needs. ASCAP operates under the principle that similarly situated users should be treated similarly. This assures fairness and consistency in our licensing. For example, rates for restaurants of the same size, with the same use of music are the same regardless of whether the restaurant is in Oshkosh or New York City.
Not a fan of the ASCAP business model. But copyrighted music is copyrighted music, and its all settled law now. There are two great alternatives: originals, and public domain. Bar owners [and a lot of so-called musicians] appear to be unaware of both.
Don't think so, Nev. Cover bands benefit from songs written by other artists, and the venue where they're played has to pay the authors. It's not taking money from one pocket to put it back in the other.
Switzerland evidently has a far more equitable system for songwriting royalties than the US. Commonwealth countries do too. Our system here in the US is not like that. According to Rolling Stone Magazine, "By recent research estimates, U.S. musicians only take home one-tenth of national industry revenues."
Musicians Get Only 12 Percent of the Money the Music Industry Makes
Invalid Link Removed
This statistic that US musicians take home one tenth of national industry revenues is highly deceiving, however. It only applies to "heavy hitters", i.e., top tier recording artists. There're aren't many of those, and if you aren't one of them, you get nothing. Also, do not fail to remember, there is such a thing as "creative accounting" here in the US music / entertainment industry.
Creative Accounting Definition
The US entertainment industry historically invented creative accounting. In the case of entertainment industry creative accounting, the idea is to maximize profits by minimizing the scale upon which artists are paid royalties. There are certain ways this may be accomplished which are too elaborate to describe here. This, of course, doesn't always happen. Nobody would suggest that.
I'm not saying ASCAP is being untruthful in any of their statements you might find on their website, or anywhere else. I wouldn't say that. Ever. As a figure of speech only, though, like in the movies, ...you don't complain to the mob about the hit man.
Last edited:
The business model of recorded music has changed since the turn of the century. Make it work for you or don't...
Folks who get upset about the current model either need to understand it better, do something to change it, or get out the business.
I understand these 2, but I don't see a direct relation to the royalties discussion: "By recent research estimates, U.S. musicians only take home one-tenth of national industry revenues." and "Musicians Get Only 12 Percent of the Money the Music Industry Makes".
I say that because a huge portion of the "industry revenue" is added value on top of the music itself, i.e. what the streaming services charge to deliver the convenience of streaming, the apps their social aspect, etc. That has NOTHING to do with the musicians.
I say that because a huge portion of the "industry revenue" is added value on top of the music itself, i.e. what the streaming services charge to deliver the convenience of streaming, the apps their social aspect, etc. That has NOTHING to do with the musicians.
You do need to remember that a lot of the criticism of rights societies comes, directly or indirectly, from those with a vested interest to destroy them. One of the great big lies of recent years was that the mega advertising corps managed to get their useful idiots to categorise the RIAA as being big business. The discrepancy in the relative sizes of the businesses would be comical if it wasn't for the damage done.
Ultimately a rights society is a form of union. And who wants to destroy the unions? If you think a rights society isn't distributing enough of the cake, imagine how much would be distributed without them?
Ultimately a rights society is a form of union. And who wants to destroy the unions? If you think a rights society isn't distributing enough of the cake, imagine how much would be distributed without them?
