# Republicans fighting for better royalties?!? (Copyright law changes)



## gsilbers (Jul 10, 2014)

Interesting article about the fight behind royalties, streaming and copyrights.

http://theweek.com/article/index/264453 ... yright-war

what was interesting to me was that republicans place a bill to increase royalties

https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-co ... /4079/text

and not sure why it got tangled into obamacare :
http://theweek.com/article/index/261725 ... c-industry

and got so pilitically divided. 

Still im glad this is being discussed. i was thinking the other day of maybe getting a petition rolling to send to send to the white house to give a plea of help to composers who live off of royalties and therefore we need more money not only from streaming radio stations but also from video on demand (VOD, SVOD, AVOD, EST as well as broadcast).
since the article is more for "regular" pop musicans i think we might have to push for the video sync part. 

to me the big issue is not so much that we are not getting paid good royalties from streaming (anything) but that actually , the big technology companies are REALLY profiting from our content. no matter if its iligal downloads, free/advertising revenue or whatever, consumer still has to buy the hardware and software. 
so i think if we make our voice heard saying that we dont really want to hamper the consumer , we just want that part of the profit those tech and media companies are getting. which is a lot. 
that way this issue doesnt turn into a "republicans suck" and more into a "hey musicans really need more money to pay for rent, bills" and not have the default meme about JayZ showing his pad on Cribs and therefore consumers are like "psssss see, musicans have enough money. "

if anyone likes the idea and has better grammar than me, we should send e-signed petitions to the white house and different congress folks. 

hey , maybe obama grants the republicans this in exchange for crap that doesnt matter.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 10, 2014)

This issue is vital for all composers to understand because it will determine whether or not we can actually make a living off music or it becomes merely a hobby for all but a handful. 

It's complicated (though not more so than a score!) and tiresome for most of us, but it's vital that we learn about it. I would even say we all need to write to legislators about it. Otherwise it will be decided solely by large publishers who don't represent little fish (like me).

Some of these big publishers must think they can cut a better deal with new media like Pandora than they can get if represented by BMI or ASCAP. They are, in any event, talking about withdrawing from their license arrangements with ASCAP and BMI under the 1941 consent decree (amended in 2001) to strike their own direct deals with new media like Pandora. That is one of the key issues in this recent Pandora vs. ASCAP decision. 

http://nyclaw.courtalert.com/ExternalNe ... 130919.pdf

However, for many of us little guys, the consequences of these large publishers withdrawing -- Sony/EMI, Warner Brothers Group, Universal Music Publishing Group, and BMG -- likely would be disastrous, as it would dramatically reduce the leverage ASCAP and BMI have. The result could be that outlets like Pandora and other online streamers (Spotify being an example) would be able to negotiate a lower rate for the less-famous who are still represented by ASCAP or BMI.

So, if I understand it correctly, big publishers withdrawing would likely generate a two-tier system in which we'd be on the lower tier.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 10, 2014)

i think as long as there is a big group of musicians, composers etc complaining then the folks who make the big deals will work something about to appease. but if we just sit back and watch, then those with power or corporations with lobbing willend up winning.


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 10, 2014)

My first thought on this is that I’m not so sure we want to get congress involved in this.

At first blush, it all sounds great, as there are several things proposed that sound nice. But my prediction is that once the general public gets wind of all this, they’re not going to be sympathetic to _“greedy publishers”_ and _“rock stars who already have more than enough money.”_ Sure, they might be a *little* bit sympathetic, but not if it means paying money.

Heck, Congress couldn’t even enact a law preventing people from posting torrent links. Ethically, it’s a no-brainer! The vote should have been unanimous. But Google tells people that the guv’mint is trying to take their internet, and all the teeth get taken right out of the law.

Wimpy congress aside, my fear isn’t so much that we won’t be successful in getting better internet royalties, but rather that if copyright law is truly overhauled, then we as composers, who supposedly _“already got paid”_ for the shows we work on, may lose our royalties altogether.

It’s only *because* copyright law is so ancient and cobbled together that we get paid royalties in the first place. Copyright law (the PRO part of it) was intended so that songwriters could get paid when their music is played on the radio. We as composers are basically just along for the ride.

If you ask John Q Public if a songwriter should get paid a royalty if his song is played on the radio, he’ll probably (hopefully) say yes. But if you then ask him if a film composer, who already got paid to write music for the film, should also be guaranteed by law to collect royalties (a luxury no one else on the film has, by the way), then I don’t think he’s going to be sympathetic. Especially if Netflix, who will also undoubtedly be looking at higher rates, starts a campaign to inform all their subscribers that this is part of their cost and why they’ll have to charge their customers more.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to all this. It’s just that we could be facing some unforeseen consequences.


----------



## Neifion (Jul 10, 2014)

I can see the general public causing us to lose royalties once they catch wind that we already "got paid" and that no one else working on the film gets royalties like we do.

I think what needs to happen is an international expose on the reality of being a media composer. The public needs to know _why_ we need our royalties, because even when we get them, the majority of us barely struggle to make ends meet. I'm sure many other people who work on a film don't get paid that much either, but isn't the composing field much more saturated then, say, the camera grip field? It's really hard to land a steady job in this field, and once landed, they can pay you next to nothing because "there are a thousand others waiting outside who'll do it for next to nothing".

We all know this, but until a huge enough portion of the public is aware, no one's gonna care about our little dilemma.


----------



## jleckie (Jul 10, 2014)

Your never going to convince the public of anything, especially anything regarding YOUR livelihood. They simply don't care. They want something for nothing.

And so do producers.


----------



## Neifion (Jul 10, 2014)

jleckie @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> Your never going to convince the public of anything, especially anything regarding YOUR livelihood. They simply don't care. They want something for nothing.
> 
> And so do producers.



Well that's a bit bleak.


----------



## JohnG (Jul 11, 2014)

Mike Greene @ 10th July 2014 said:


> My first thought on this is that I’m not so sure we want to get congress involved in this.



Congress is already involved.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 11, 2014)

Mike Greene @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> Wimpy congress aside, my fear isn’t so much that we won’t be successful in getting better internet royalties, but rather that if copyright law is truly overhauled, then we as composers, who supposedly _“already got paid”_ for the shows we work on, may lose our royalties altogether.
> 
> It’s only *because* copyright law is so ancient and cobbled together that we get paid royalties in the first place. Copyright law (the PRO part of it) was intended so that songwriters could get paid when their music is played on the radio. We as composers are basically just along for the ride.



Exactly, and this is why I keep banging on about not agreeing to ghostwrite or use ghostwriters, because all we do is make the WFH argument for the employer.

However, what I don't understand is how anti-competition law can be used in one place, but closed shops are allowed elsewhere. Surely a closed shop is also anti competitive. which pretty makes compulsory union membership illegal?

D


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 11, 2014)

JohnG @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> Mike Greene @ 10th July 2014 said:
> 
> 
> > My first thought on this is that I’m not so sure we want to get congress involved in this.
> ...



true. but i still think if we at different forums ask members and their firends /family signed a petition or "something" to go to the white house or congress then there would be more pull for better royalties. 
seems to be also a problem with communication and understanding. publics perception of musicans is based on very select few rich artists. or evil record labels. 
so sudenyl the public reads about performacne royalties restaurants and music establishments have to pay they go crazy, when this has been going on for the last 40+ years, they just didnt know about it and its not that much those places pay. 
and they do not know about the cost of music beyond $1 in itunes. not the music education, the $2000 computer plus all the software, rent, equipment, etc etc that we all need to live. which goes along with the other conversations about producers not realizing this basic need.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 11, 2014)

Mike Greene @ Thu Jul 10 said:


> My first thought on this is that I’m not so sure we want to get congress involved in this.
> 
> At first blush, it all sounds great, as there are several things proposed that sound nice. But my prediction is that once the general public gets wind of all this, they’re not going to be sympathetic to _“greedy publishers”_ and _“rock stars who already have more than enough money.”_ Sure, they might be a *little* bit sympathetic, but not if it means paying money.
> 
> ...



i agree on most parts... but how about the LKFS law that passed. thats costing all the broadcasters and studios a lot of money. still the general public got fed up with loud commercials and the law passed. so i think , within politics there are wierd power plays goingon. so maybe obama/dem grant the copyright law to the republicans in exchnage for a yes vote on one of their lib agenda. 
at the same time, i do think like you that big players in the tech world will be like crazy lobbying to make sure to keep costs down. which is why i think we should sent petitions and emails to congress and the white house. to pull a bit more. 
so agian, if anyone has better grammer than me, maybe we can submit to the white house. with X amount of people they can check the case. not sure the details. 

so, what makes youthink re writting the copyright law will affect negativity us?


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 11, 2014)

gsilbers @ Fri Jul 11 said:


> so, what makes youthink re writting the copyright law will affect negativity us?


To be clear, I'm just saying that it's possible, not that it will.

When people think of royalties from airplay, they think of songwriters, not film and TV composers. A songwriter can only make money by selling records and by getting airplay. So most people would agree that it's fair that a songwriter is entitled to airplay royalties. And it's perfectly reasonable to most people that a radio station (or even internet station), which profits by playing records, should pay these royalties.

Part of the original purpose of ASCAP and BMI was granting permission to play music. They don't just collect royalties, they also are granting a license to play their catalogs. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that if a song is not covered by a PRO, then a radio station technically doesn't have permission to play it on air.)

TV stations also profit from the content they air, but unlike radio stations, they *did* pay for that content. (By paying the studios who created it.) When they paid Paramount or Sony, they were granted permission to air the show, including music. So your average person, and possibly your average congressman, is going to be a little unclear why TV stations have to pay PRO's. The law says they have to, of course, but . . . why does the law say that?

That's the question I don't want to draw too much attention to.

I could easily see congress deciding that internet and radio do indeed need to pay fairly for the music they air. Maybe even include royalties for musicians, as well as songwriters. That's all fair. But I could also see them being lobbied to eliminate royalties from TV stations or any other provider where the content was "already paid for." That possibility scares me.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 12, 2014)

Mike Greene @ Sat Jul 12 said:


> I could easily see congress deciding that internet and radio do indeed need to pay fairly for the music they air. Maybe even include royalties for musicians, as well as songwriters. That's all fair. But I could also see them being lobbied to eliminate royalties from TV stations or any other provider where the content was "already paid for." That possibility scares me.


As long as library music exists, the big Publishers will fight tooth and nail to stop that. However, what could happen is that the writer's share would disappear from a WFH contract, as there is no logic behind giving away something that you've already paid for.

D


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 12, 2014)

Daryl @ Sat Jul 12 said:


> As long as library music exists, the big Publishers will fight tooth and nail to stop that.


But the broadcasters, who would be more than happy to say goodbye to writing those PRO checks, are much bigger and have way more clout than the publishers. Plus I think broadcasters would be more likely to have the public sympathy. So I'd rather duck the fight, for now, at least.


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 12, 2014)

i think in broader terms that there is so much tv/film content being streamed that advertisers will likley use that chunk of change to also place it on internet ad revenue and slowly take away $$ from over air tv/paytv. then thats when i think they will start looking into those PRO checks.


----------



## Daryl (Jul 13, 2014)

Mike Greene @ Sat Jul 12 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Jul 12 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as library music exists, the big Publishers will fight tooth and nail to stop that.
> ...


I agree with what you're saying, Mike, and I've been saying that we shouldn't rock the boat for a long time. Even though I've been shouted down by quite a few people here. :wink: 

However, all I was trying to say is that there are some largish companies (Audio Network, for one) that would lose all of their income overnight if Royalties went away, and many small TV production companies would start to have to pay for music, which would impact their budgets, so there would be a lot of people fighting any change.

The big problem that I see will be (as you previously pointed out) if an arrogant judge or two thinks that they are entitled to have an opinion on a subject upon which they know nothing. As if that would ever happen. :roll: 

D


----------



## rpaillot (Jul 13, 2014)

Mike Greene @ Sat Jul 12 said:


> Daryl @ Sat Jul 12 said:
> 
> 
> > As long as library music exists, the big Publishers will fight tooth and nail to stop that.
> ...



In europe, some of the broadcasters are also publishers


----------



## Daryl (Jul 13, 2014)

rpaillot @ Sun Jul 13 said:


> In europe, some of the broadcasters are also publishers


True, but even then I would imagine that they'd rather pay nobody, than half to themselves and half to a greedy, grasping composer (pause, for spitting).

D


----------



## gsilbers (Jul 13, 2014)

im still trying to find out why would streaming royalties would not be as much as broadcast royalties. any info out there i can read? 
seems that a youtube video of 12 million views would top reality show in bravo tv with much much less views.
or my movie in netflix shown around all the netflixes around the world doesnt make more than $30 every quarter.


----------

