Jump to content

Forward regarding royalty rates


Billster

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Subject: Urgent Message from NMPA, (National Music Publishers' Association), Regarding Your Rights

 

 

On Monday, January 28, the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) begins the hearing that will determine mechanical rates for every songwriter and music publisher in America. It will be the most important rate hearing in the history of the music industry because in addition to setting rates for physical products, rates will be set for the first time ever for digital products such as digital downloads, subscription services and ringtones.

 

The National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) will be representing the interests of songwriters and music publishers and will be fighting vigorously to protect those interests to ensure that musical compositions are compensated fairly.

 

On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Music Association (DiMA). Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers. This is literally a fight for the survival of our industry.

 

To give you an example of what is at stake, the current rate for physical phonorecords is 9.1 cents. The NMPA is proposing an increase to 12.5 cents per song. The RIAA, however, has proposed slashing the rate to approximately 6 cents a song - a cut of more than one-third the current rate!

 

For permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate of 15 cents per track because the costs involved are much less than for physical products. The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 - 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less.

 

If you find that troubling, it gets worse. For interactive streaming services, which some analysts believe will be the future of the music industry, NMPA is proposing a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. This isn't a typo - less than 1%. And DiMA is taking the shocking and offensive position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!

 

The initial hearing will last four weeks, with the three permanent Copyright Royalty Judges hearing arguments Mondays through Thursdays from 9:30 am - 4:30 pm each day. At the conclusion of the initial hearing, there will be more discovery, followed by a rebuttal hearing in May, and a final decision expected on October 2.

 

The NMPA will be spending millions dollars in this proceeding to protect the interests of songwriters and music publishers against the much larger record labels and digital media companies. And although we face such an enormous fight, we have an incredible advantage - we represent songwriters, without whom the record labels and digital music services could not exist.

 

Please forward this to anyone who is involved in the songwriting and music publishing industry. We will be sending out regular updates as the CRB progresses to keep you informed. Through your networks, we hope to reach the vast majority of the industry. If you did not receive this directly, and would like to be added to the master NMPA communications list, please send your contact information to Jamie Marotta at jmarotta@nmpa.org.

 

As always, we appreciate your support of the NMPA which allows us to wage this fight on your behalf.

 

 

 

David M. Israelite

President & CEO

National Music Publishers' Association

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


On the other side of this fight stands the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Digital Music Association (DiMA). Both the RIAA and DiMA have proposed significant reductions in mechanical royalty rates that would be disastrous for songwriters and music publishers.


The RIAA, however, has proposed slashing the rate to approximately 6 cents a song - a cut of more than one-third the current rate!


The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 - 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less.


If you find that troubling, it gets worse. For interactive streaming services, ............ The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. This isn't a typo - less than 1%. And DiMA is taking the shocking and offensive position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!


 

 

 

Wake up musician, The legacy of years of shady contracts that reemed you out of your $$$:cry:

 

and now this !!! Better stop sleeping. :mad:

 

 

How can anyone defend the Big labels =(RIAA) ???????

 

We see them for what they are now , don't we????

It's hard to believe any musician/songwriter would be a Benedict Arnold and stand up for these clowns , isn't it!!:eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got the same email forwarded to me via a friend in Las Vegas who has had a fair amount of success as a songwriter... I am currently in the process of researching it for accuracy, and was going to wait off on posting it until I confirmed that it's legit. If it IS legit, then it's certainly cause for concern, and IMO would put to rest the idea that the RIAA is equally concerned with "looking out for the artists" (many of whom write their own material these days) as they are with their own pocketbooks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I also received a copy from a songwriter friend.

 

Mechanical royalties as I have always understood it is the amount paid to an artist based on the retail price of a CD and is normally expressed as a percentage of the retail cost. ( as opposed to performance royalties that come from airplay)

 

It is highest for new releases at full price and less for low budget releases as it is a percent. I've never seen it expressed as a dollar price per song.

 

Am I missing something here :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I also received a copy from a songwriter friend.


Mechanical royalties as I have always understood it is the amount paid to an artist based on the retail price of a CD and is normally expressed as a percentage of the retail cost. ( as opposed to performance royalties that come from airplay)


It is highest for new releases at full price and less for low budget releases as it is a percent. I've never seen it expressed as a dollar price per song.


Am I missing something here
:confused:

 

 

 

http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/money-mechanicals.html record (media ) sales

 

http://www.ascap.com/musicbiz/ascapcorner/corner15.html publishing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I got principally the same message from ASCAP today.

 

Another interesting angle is that the Screenwriters Guild has pledged not to picket the Grammy awards and will allow writers to work on the Grammy telecast, expressing that musicians face many of the same "new media" issues that the SGA strike is about. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

record (media ) sales


publishing

 

 

thanks for the links - I realise now that the US and Australia, Canada, UK etc. use a different system to the US.

 

Ours is still a percent formula, for example with I-Tunes there has been a percent deal struck

 

 

APRA/AMCOS CEO Brett Cottle confirms that the license agreement, which was struck April 27, gives a mechanical royalty rate of 6.25% of Apple's retail price, plus a "communication" royalty rate of 1.75%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I also received a copy from a songwriter friend.


Mechanical royalties as I have always understood it is the amount paid to an artist based on the retail price of a CD and is normally expressed as a percentage of the retail cost. ( as opposed to performance royalties that come from airplay)


It is highest for new releases at full price and less for low budget releases as it is a percent. I've never seen it expressed as a dollar price per song.


Am I missing something here
:confused:

 

No, that's not correct. You're thinking of artist royalties. Those are spelled out in a contract and are usually a percentage of the retail or wholesale price of a CD.

 

Mechanical royalties are paid to the songwriter and publisher (who don't necessarily have anything to do with the artist) and are always a set amount per song.

 

The idea behind having these two different types of royalties is presumably that if a song is recorded, the artist gets paid for the performance and the composer/publisher gets paid for the song. If they're all the same person, that's great for that person, but they don't have to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea behind having these two different types of royalties is presumably that if a song is recorded, the artist gets paid for the performance and the composer/publisher gets paid for the song. If they're all the same person, that's great for that person, but they don't have to be.

 

Correct - but I would guess that the majority of current major label artists write or co-write the majority of their music. However, in some genres (country, urban genres), outside writers or producer-penned compositions are frequently used.

 

For permanent digital downloads, NMPA is proposing a rate of 15 cents per track because the costs involved are much less than for physical products. The RIAA has proposed the outrageous rate of approximately 5 - 5.5 cents per track, and DiMA is proposing even less.

 

If you find that troubling, it gets worse. For interactive streaming services, which some analysts believe will be the future of the music industry, NMPA is proposing a rate of the greater of 12.5% of revenue, 27.5% of content costs, or a micro-penny calculation based on usage. The RIAA actually proposed that songwriters and music publishers should get the equivalent of .58% of revenue. This isn't a typo - less than 1%. And DiMA is taking the shocking and offensive position that songwriters' and music publishers' mechanical rights should be zero, because DiMA does not believe we have any such rights!

 

Publishing is, or at least traditionally has been, where the "real money" is. It's not unusual for labels to demand a "cut" of publishing when signing a band or artist; again, they know where the money is. It's not uncommon for an artist to make more money off of publishing / mechanical royalties and performance rights than off of artist's royalties.

 

Wanting songwriters (many of whom ARE artists) to get lower percentages and royalty amounts, even with distribution methods such as streaming and digital downloads, which of course have no real manufacturing costs compared to physical units like CD's and LP's, hardly seems to be "looking out for the interests of their artists".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Wanting songwriters (many of whom ARE artists) to get lower percentages and royalty amounts, even with distribution methods such as streaming and digital downloads, which of course have no real manufacturing costs compared to physical units like CD's and LP's, hardly seems to be "looking out for the interests of their artists".

 

 

That's just it. In this day and age, the company website already exists. The additional cost (if any) of maintaining a server and paying bandwidth access for downloads is a fraction of what it costs to manufacture and deliver physical product. And to suggest that since it's a "new" distribution method and therefore subject to discount compensation is an absolutely outrageous proposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Many , Many times an artist who wants to do a song will squeeze the writer out of the full share by insisting on changing a few things and the becoming a co-writer and thus recieving a piece of the songwriting/publishing royalties.

 

Whats worse is when they insist on writing their own songs when thats really not where their strong suit is . Maybe that is why some of the newer releases suck so bad , Eh??

 

Country artist seem to be more able to overcome their egos and go for the songs that have that certian something, and not screwing the valued songwriter in the afore mentioned fashion.

 

Maybe I should write more country songs .:love:

 

Great music and writing seems to be less appreciated these days and the {censored} music is just reaping what is sown.

 

Go ahead and pay less , RIAA, maybe you can hire somebody in India to write us some sacred cow songs.:cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...