Whoa! AOL, Realnetworks, Yahoo owe ASCAP big-time

[Anderton]

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=1036

 

Frankly, I like this decision. It reaffirms that if you're going to use music to attract customers and make money, you owe something to the people who created that music. Or do I have it wrong?

[alfonso]

That's great....It seems strange to me that this was not regulated/enforced yet....the Italian composer's society S.I.A.E. that takes care of my rights already moves in that direction, but for the foreign utilizations it obviously relies on the international partners, I'm starting now to get something from a National Geographic Channel production I've made the music for in 2001!!!.....on the same page I was reading about how the dvd's don't pay composers rights in the U.S. and I'm quite stumbled about it. That's not fair and I even can't believe that's possible....

 

Something is moving, but I'm not quite satisfied on the efficiency of the system yet.

[blue2blue]

ASCAP's making a big deal about this -- but BMI already had a similar deal.

 

And, of course, like always, those who always get the money will just get that much more of it.

 

Additionally, lawyers for the defendants point out that ASCAP is misrepresenting some aspects of the case in the PR blitz, specifically, that the "$100 million" ASCAP is talking about was not awarded plaintiffs, the decision merely created a framework for further discussion on potential royalties.

 

 

ASCAP is, typically enough, being ASCAP.

[slight-return]

WOW! I'm actually very happy about tht article --

 

why? because the reporter actually bothered to include means to conveniently access the ACTUAL DECISION

[Billster]

 

ASCAP's making a big deal about this -- but BMI already had a similar deal. And, of course, like always , those who always get the money will just get that much more of it. Additionally, lawyers for the defendants point out that ASCAP is misrepresenting some aspects of the case in the PR blitz, specifically, that the "$100 million" ASCAP is talking about was not awarded plaintiffs, the decision merely created a framework for further discussion on potential royalties. ASCAP is, typically enough, being ASCAP.

 

 

BMI uses the same silly formula for its members as ASCAP does.

 

 

Payment for Uses in Unmonitored Areas BMI collects license fees from thousands of music users in addition to those listed in this booklet. These "general licensing" music users include, but are not limited to, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, sports arenas, theme parks, airlines, jukeboxes and retail stores. BMI may choose an appropriate surrogate, such as radio or television performances, for the distribution of the fees. In such a case, general licensing revenue serves to increase the rates payable for other performance types which we determine are representative of the universe of performances of music used in general licensing categories.

 

 

Emphasis added

 

The only difference between ASCAP and BMI is the acronym.:poke:

[bp]

"BMI considers payments to songwriters or composers and to publishers as a single unit equal to 200%. Where there is the usual division of performance royalties between songwriters or composers and publishers, the total writers' shares will be 100% (half of the available 200%), and the total publishers' shares will be the remaining 100%."

 

Someone needs to go back to school and give 110%.

[blue2blue]

I had over 47,000 downloads logged on the old Mp3.com after they started counting and before they stopped updating the public totals. (Mp3.com is where I signed up with ASCAP in the first place, they had a joint program to protect us songwriters.) The only money I've ever seen out of ASCAP was apparently as the result of class action suits involving defendants in Japan and S. Africa. I got 9 bucks from Japan and a little under two bucks form S. Africa. (Nice to know I got a little slice out of a poor, third world country! Thank you ASCAP lawyers! Make those folks in the the shantytowns pay through the nose.)

 

That said, the card has gotten me a discount a few times, and that was nice.

 

 

TinderArts... I think there's a song there, somewhere.

[Billster]

 

"BMI considers payments to songwriters or composers and to publishers as a single unit equal to 200%. Where there is the usual division of performance royalties between songwriters or composers and publishers, the total writers' shares will be 100% (half of the available 200%), and the total publishers' shares will be the remaining 100%." Someone needs to go back to school and give 110%.

 

 

Haha. ASCAP starts at 100% and considers the composer 50% and the publisher 50%. At least they got that right. Now, about those surrogate methods for undocumented performances...

[daklander]

 

I had over 47,000 downloads logged on the old Mp3.com after they started counting and before they stopped updating the public totals. (Mp3.com is where I signed up with ASCAP in the first place, they had a joint program to protect us songwriters.) The only money I've ever seen out of ASCAP was apparently as the result of class action suits involving defendants in Japan and S. Africa. I got 9 bucks from Japan and a little under two bucks form S. Africa. (Nice to know I got a little slice out of a poor, third world country! Thank you ASCAP lawyers! Make those folks in the the shantytowns pay through the nose .) That said, the card has gotten me a discount a few times, and that was nice. TinderArts... I think there's a song there, somewhere.

 

 

At least you've received something. I keep getting those quarterlies with nothing.