# Royalties and Online TV Shows



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 4, 2006)

I've noticed that more and more networks are putting their tv shows online. I suspect that the composers for these shows are not going to receive any royalties for these netcasts, correct? Is this the beginning of the end of the gravy train?


----------



## José Herring (Oct 4, 2006)

I think that ASCAP now monitors internet broadcast. But internet downloads are a new thing and I'm not sure they're up to speed on it. But they may be. At anyrate we as composers can demand that we get something, but then again we don't get anything for domestic video rentals so something tells me that this may be hard to negotiate since technically there's no broadcast.

Jose


----------



## Alex W (Oct 4, 2006)

well when you look at websites like youtube.com where you can watch full episodes of shows like Family Guy and PLENTY of others (what's the legality of that??!!), I'd say everything to do with broadcast TV is gonna undergo some pretty hefty changing within the next 5 years give or take. I used to bittorrent animes that I wanted to watch, but now I just watch everything on youtube. The quality isn't as good as normal TV, but it doesn't really bother me at all, and I know I haven't got the fastest net out there, Australia's lagging behind a bit in that regard...


----------



## fictionmusic (Oct 4, 2006)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Oct 04 said:


> I've noticed that more and more networks are putting their tv shows online. I suspect that the composers for these shows are not going to receive any royalties for these netcasts, correct? Is this the beginning of the end of the gravy train?



good question! I imagine performing rights groups will start making their cases as the ad revenues grow (I have no idea if there is even ad revenue right now...but wherever there is an audience, the advertisers aren't too far behind). I hope that it does as I live off my royalties and would hate to have them diminish because of the internet.


----------



## midphase (Oct 4, 2006)

I think we're seeing the beginning of the end here. ASCAP and BMI can argue until they're blue in the face...but I think Studios will just argue back that movie downloads are not any different than selling DVDs and certainly do not constitute "public broadcasting"

I do believe that performance royalties for most of us will be a thing of the past in about 10 years. By then broadcast TV as we know it will not really exist and everything will probably be more video-on-demand type of stuff.

Perhaps in Europe the PRO's will be more forceful as they obviously seem to get more respect from the governments...but in the US we're all essentially screwed!


----------



## Synesthesia (Oct 4, 2006)

http://www.ascap.com/legislation/jointstatement.html

This would appear to suggest that TV and Film downloads are mechanical by nature rather than performances. If you dont have any right to a mech royalty in your contract, you are screwed. 

Make hay while the sun is still shining!

Paul


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 5, 2006)

Fuck it... I'm gonna become a writer director. I know a good agent, and it's WAY easier than composing. 

the trick is --- you gotta figure out how to write music that is better than everyone else. And then make people truly _believe_ it's better then everyone else. People pay big bucks for what they believe is brilliant. That's the only way to get "PAID" doing music. (by PAID I mean, big dollars, and big gigs)

Part talent, part smoke and mirrors........

Hmmm... just thinking while I type.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 5, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Oct 04 said:


> I think we're seeing the beginning of the end here. ASCAP and BMI can argue until they're blue in the face...but I think Studios will just argue back that movie downloads are not any different than selling DVDs and certainly do not constitute "public broadcasting"
> 
> I do believe that performance royalties for most of us will be a thing of the past in about 10 years. By then broadcast TV as we know it will not really exist and everything will probably be more video-on-demand type of stuff.
> 
> Perhaps in Europe the PRO's will be more forceful as they obviously seem to get more respect from the governments...but in the US we're all essentially screwed!



It's not entirely up the ASCAP and BMI. I don't think that BMG, Warner Pub, Sony, and the likes are going to stand by idly while their intellectual property is being disseminated across the internet without earning $$. All the publishers in the entire world are going to fight this if it happens.


----------



## jeffc (Oct 5, 2006)

I don't think it's going to be as clear cut gloom and doom as everyone here seems to think. 

Things take time to work out, things change, people adapt. I don't think ASCAP and BMI are going to idly sit by from collecting hundreds of millions in licensing fees to zero. I've sat in some small group meetings for ASCAP and know that they are working on a way to protect member rights in the future, and constantly working on ways to collect on new media and internet. I don't think that they will give up without some type of royalty on internet broadcasts (the way we lost it on US theatrical) in the past. I've actually gotten paid on some internet stuff from ASCAP already. I also don't agree that watching a show STREAMED (which is what the big networks do now) is the same as a DVD rental/purchase. I would say it's more a broadcast - whether it's more like TV or radio, I don't know but it's still a broadcast. I also don't think TV networks are going to go away in the near future. I bet the percentage of people who watch web shows is a small fraction of the network (and cable viewership). Do some of you think that all the cable companies and sattelite companies investing all this money now don't plan on being around 10 years from now? I don't. I think the web will of course be a new source of distribution but not the only one. 

I don't know, I guess I just don't looking at this business as negatively as some do. Sometimes a positve attitude is all you've got. Even in the tough times, I still look at it that something good is around the corner. Otherwise, I think I would have quit music a long time ago to save my sanity....


----------



## midphase (Oct 5, 2006)

True that, but I am so disillusioned with ASCAP....actually I should say disgusted. I think they're a bloated, unefficient organization which rewards primarily songwriters and craps on instrumental composers.

I bet you guys didn't know that it's been estimated ASCAP and BMI only track (and pay out) 20-50% of actual performances. That means that even though they collect for 100% of the broadcasts, less than half of actual legitimate public performances royalties will be paid out.

There are many things I'm optimistic about....but ASCAP isn't one of them!


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 5, 2006)

As Paul (Synesthesia) said, right now these downloads are considered "mechanicals" which ASCAP/BMI has no control over. However, WE do when we negotiate our contracts . . . but good luck getting mechanicals on downloads written in when you're a composer at our level. :roll: 

I'm pessimistic (less so than Kays) because ASCAP/BMI don't have a lot of power here. It's only because of a quirk in the law that we collect performance royalties at all! Note that with radio airplay, for instance, artists and record companies collect zero, only the composers collect royalties. It's all because these copyright laws were all written way back before there was a recording industry to speak of, just songwriters and their publishers.

About all ASCAP can do is try to get downloads considered performances rather than be classified under the mechanicals category.

But they have to be careful about how much muscle they flex because nobody except us and our lobbyists understands why we should be entitled to collect even _more_ money for shows where we theoretically already got paid up front. We want as much money as we can get, but have to be careful about how much we rock the boat.

My fear is one day some hotshot congressman with a little clout is going to start questioning why songwriters get paid all this bonus money in this first place. :shock: 

- Mike Greene


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 5, 2006)

midphase @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> There are many things I'm optimistic about...



Lies.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 5, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> My fear is one day some hotshot congressman with a little clout is going to start questioning why songwriters get paid all this bonus money in this first place. :shock:
> 
> - Mike Greene



That's a slippery slope... why not toss out all royalties for all intellectual property then?

Back in the 20s (I think it was then) when they passed a law that composers could not collect on theatrical performances (like broadway) composers and publishers had no representation... I doubt that will ever happen again. Every other civilized country in the world pays royalties in the movie theaters... just not the US.



> Note that with radio airplay, for instance, artists and record companies collect zero, only the composers collect royalties.



If the record company doesn't own any of the publishing... then that is correct... but then they are not very business savvy. Publishing and copyright ownership is where the money is... I know you know that... and that asset is transferable and negotiable like anything else. If Madonna get s submission for a tune that she would like on her next album... she says "Nice tune we wrote... ". If the person wants their song on her album... they'll share the writers.

Composers have always been screwed throughout history... but now I think they have better representation and I think (hope) that its not doing to be such a dooms-day scenario as some say it will.

Cheers,

T


----------



## José Herring (Oct 5, 2006)

We'll certainly have a voice in what happens. It's not like we need to stand around and be silent.

Personally I think the interenet is still relatively new and that it's uncharted territory. I think it will become the new cable as computers get more powereful and operating systems more robust.

The good thing about this all is that it's really easy to track the numbers unlike cable and broadcast tv. It's not a studio thing it's a network thing for film and tv composers. We get paid royalties from the stations that air not the studio that produces the show.

I personally don't think it's all hopeless. I just think it needs to be defined and we need to band together. Napster went down for giving away music. Next target Youtube ect until the industry is controlled and accounted for and that all rights are agree upon.

It's never that gloomy if we lobby ASCAP, BMI and others to fight the giving away of our property. 

Jose


----------



## fitch (Oct 5, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> Note that with radio airplay, for instance, artists and record companies collect zero, only the composers collect royalties.
> - Mike Greene




what ?


i don't think that's the case everywhere.. 


here in Ireland RAAP does a great job in collecting for us performers from radio play... as does PAMRA in the UK 

we get royalties from all over.. 


i think there was some european law introduced in 2001 to say we're entitled to them



very handy


----------



## midphase (Oct 5, 2006)

No really!

I'm optimistic that the new Nintendo Wii will rock!

I'm optimistic that Jericho will be the next Lost.

I'm optimistic that New York will win Flavor Flav's heart.

See?


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 5, 2006)

fitch @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> Mike Greene @ Thu Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > Note that with radio airplay, for instance, artists and record companies collect zero, only the composers collect royalties.
> ...


I don't know nothin 'bout no Irish laws! :mrgreen: 

Here in the states (aka Center of the Universe  ) indeed only songwriters (and publishers) get paid for radio airplay. Artist don't get anything and neither do the record companies. Although Thonex gives examples where they can strong-arm royalties away from composers, that misses my point.

My point was that (here in the US) copyright law is very quirky.

A lot of ordinary people would think peformance royalties are pure pork. Ask a bunch of friends if they think a bar should have to pay yearly fees to ASCAP/BMI for that jukebox that the bar paid for and paid for all the records. Right or wrong, most people think that's ridiculous!

That's what scares me. If most people knew the kind of money we make in government required royalties for shows we (theoretically) already got paid for, we could be in trouble.

I'm all for getting as much money as possible (trust me, my ASCAP checks are nice) and hope ASCAP/BMI can get website downloads classified as performances and billed as such. I hope Jose is right that this could in fact be the beginning of something good with better tracking, etc.

But at the same time, I don't think the networks, restaurants, etc are far from being pushed just a little too far and seeing what they can do to put a stop to this whole PRO thing. I fear that their case will make sense to the general public who may remember ASCAP suing Boy/Girl Scout Camps for campfire songs ( twist on what really happened, but that's what the headlines read.)

- Mike Greene


----------



## fictionmusic (Oct 5, 2006)

midphase @ Wed Oct 04 said:


> I think we're seeing the beginning of the end here. ASCAP and BMI can argue until they're blue in the face...but I think Studios will just argue back that movie downloads are not any different than selling DVDs and certainly do not constitute "public broadcasting"
> 
> I do believe that performance royalties for most of us will be a thing of the past in about 10 years. By then broadcast TV as we know it will not really exist and everything will probably be more video-on-demand type of stuff.



The same arguement was used by cable companies when they refused to pay royalties. They figured because it wasn't technically a broadcast they weren't in violation of deals they had with performing rights societies. That changed. For the last couple of years I have been getting big checks for the unpaid royalties they ended up owing retro-actively.
I imagine the same kind of thing will happen with the internet, where what is now vaguely termed a download (especially with fast streaming) will eventually be considered broadcast.


----------



## Thonex (Oct 5, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> But at the same time, I don't think the networks, restaurants, etc are far from being pushed just a little too far and seeing what they can do to put a stop to this whole PRO thing.



I agree about the restaurants... but my bet is the the major networks own a substantial slice of the publishing of the shows they air... and they enjoy the royalties paid to them when it goes world-wide and syndicated.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 5, 2006)

Thonex @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> I agree about the restaurants... but my bet is the the major networks own a substantial slice of the publishing of the shows they air... and they enjoy the royalties paid to them when it goes world-wide and syndicated.


Makes sense. That would explain why they don't seem to put any effort into changing things (thank God!) while restaurants and bars every 10 or so years mount aggressive campaigns to slash or do away completely with PRO payments.


----------



## jeffc (Oct 5, 2006)

A lot of good points here. I think the eventual answer will fall somewhere in between. It's all open for negotiation, the powers on each side are too strong and established. I definitely don't think it's not an all or nothing type of situation. As far as the restaurants and stuff like that, even if they bought the CD's, they're playing them to make more money. That's why I feel the performance is justified. The same way a bar has to pay to broadcast football games on TV. In that way, even if a website pays for the CD's, they're still broadcasting our music to make money. They're using our intellectual property to make money - whithout our music they would have no product. So, that's why I , maybe naively, think that this is all uncharted territory,but eventually BMI/ASCAP, and the government will negotiate some type of agreement. I would be shocked (and bummed) if one day the government told ASCAP/BMI that you're out of business, no more royalties are required, it's all a mechanical through the internet. Does anyone realisticly see that happening? I don't.


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 5, 2006)

jeffc @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> I would be shocked (and bummed) if one day the government told ASCAP/BMI that you're out of business, no more royalties are required, it's all a mechanical through the internet. Does anyone realisticly see that happening? I don't.


The way things are now, no I don't.

Right now, the network downloads are free (I think) so I'll bet ASCAP/BMI wins and they get classified as performances.

But what if in ten or twenty years, free television as we know it goes away, at least as a major player, and most shows are downloaded for small costs. Sort of like HBO On-Demand, but internet based.

If they charge you for the download, then it could be argued that it's a mechanical rather than a performance. Just like iTunes where the mp3 replaces a CD and a Quicktime download replaces a DVD. There are no performance royalties paid for CD or DVD sales and I think PROs will have a tough time claiming downloads, which are sales, to be performances.

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 5, 2006)

I don't see it as all gloom and doom either. I also naively believe that without product there's nothing to make money off (I mean?). So, I do think these suites need us creatives' to make "their" money. (collectively we 'could' have more power than we do...) So, from that perspective I don't see us putting up with any worse conditions than there already are.

As well.... through my wife I hear about new media and the ways the big companies are adapting to take advantage of it. It's true that these people aren't gonna roll over and take it in the butt. Everyone want's to get paid. I mean, who in their right mind would make a product and then allow some Internet person to make "ad" money based on viewers drawn by 'their' product. I don't see that flying for very long...... I mean, someone is sitting in an office right now somewhere in Hollywood (in the New Media department) working on a deal to make money off these broadcasts with some of the biggest companies out there. And somewhere in Hollywood there is a staff meeting where they are discussing ways to cash in on the Internet. So on and so forth......

*As for positivity:* Well, this is a place (in part) to vent about composer stuff, good and bad. Since it is such a brutal business there's going to be negative comments from time to time. I'd say that it's an accurate reflection of the business. Doesn't reflect on the person commenting, IMO, only the situation, and at that specific moment. The way I remain sane is having interests outside of Hollywood/composing.


----------



## kid-surf (Oct 5, 2006)

Mike Greene @ Thu Oct 05 said:


> jeffc @ Thu Oct 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I would be shocked (and bummed) if one day the government told ASCAP/BMI that you're out of business, no more royalties are required, it's all a mechanical through the internet. Does anyone realisticly see that happening? I don't.
> ...




Then it becomes about amending what is deemed payable. There are plenty of smart people writing these contracts. They will simply need to "amend" to now include this "new media". And that will be the argument (that "we didn't know this media would exist when we defined performance royalties..." etc) 

I definitely think there's a way around it.... they just need to establish that this stuff can't be written in stone. Same reason some of the deals are so vague now, in that they are speculating the future but are written in a way that essentially says "hope this covers the shit I didn't conceive"


my opinion.........


----------

