The RIAA, ASCAP and BMI: Change or become dinosaurs...

[judydoggie]

It came to my attention via a member of this group that this group has taken some heat from RIAA and possibly other recording-industry organizations.

The RIAA, of which I am a member, is just fighting a losing battle and will not change with the times; neither will BMI nor ASCAP. All of these organizations are about keeping themselves fat and in business, and paying the big money to less than 10% of the recording artists, composers and musicians out there. Jazz, the other genre close to my heart, is sadly underrepresented by all three; yet at my club I still pay a fortune in licensing fees to BMI and ASCAP annually, because God forbid the estate of Harold Arlen or Irving Berlin not get their few dollars’ check each month. Then, you look at the royalties that the gold- and platinum- record sellers are getting, and realize that it’s a closed-society, dirty little business and they’ll go as far as closing down a concept that advances a dying genre rather than admit that they should loosen up when it comes to songs that are not currently profitable to re-release.

It would be a lot more scientific in this day and age of computers to pay-as-you-go; present set lists and pay BMI and ASCAP according to the songs that are played. Currently, the formula has to do with whose songs are most being recorded, and then the sales of those recordings. If BMI and ASCAP dues were calculated fairly, the rock club down the street that makes a fortune would pay ten times what my small jazz club does in dues; because they play the stuff that sells more records. But it doesn't work that way.

Those of us in the music profession are bound by a code of ethics not to engage in nor condone the unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material in any way. However, there is always the issue of out-of-print material, demonstration material in which copyrighted product is mixed in order to come up with a totally separate sound, etc.

While I applaud the arrest and conviction of youngsters who get ahold of an album and bootleg it all over the internet, I think that the few changes the licensing agencies have made are not enough; and the RIAA just keeps flailing away, trying to keep itself fat...

The RIAA's own newsletter states that Internet file-sharing has caused in the industry "a decline which has led to thousands of layoffs at the record companies and huge declines in royalty income for artists, songwriters, producers and other creators." I say b*llsh*t. There aren't thousands in the record industry to lay off. This very group keeps demanding that the government help it investigate, arrest and convict pirates whilst meanwhile they're doing nothing to tone down the image of conspicuous consumption and excess that is all about what they're artists (and many industry hangers-on) are all about.

My point: A) How can you expect the poor mid-western kid to look at a music video that features jewel-encrusted Rolexes and custom Bentley cars NOT to share albums, or at least singles, with his friends -- the artists look like they don't need the money. B) Because they can't catch the ones that are crafty and making a significant dent in their revenues (far-east CD bootleggers, bright hackers, etc.) they settle to come down hard on the few folks they CAN catch, without regard for genre or the obscurity of the material they're sharing. That's why I now keep a log of every single MP3 that goes in or out of my office, and its content, in a separate file on my computer, so that in the event an over-zealous prosecutor starts in with me, I have a rationale for each and every one (most are not-yet-published items for review or works in post-production). Kinda like George Orwell's "Big Brother;" I actually worry about the content of my computer's hard drive getting me into trouble and it ain't porn -- its creative product!

Angry as all h*ll,

Paul -- a.k.a. judydoggie

[QUINNY]

Yes, there is a code of ethics for those who work in the industry....it's a shame that the rest of the world don't have the same morals.

You're absolutely right that it's the famous well heeled composers who still get the lion's share of the money and it isn't shared out as proportionately as it should, or indeed, could be.

The whole licensing deal needs to be simplified, but in the U.K. at least, it is/has been in the throes of being hugely over-complicated. Did you know that the various bodies are pushing for individual musicians, who played sessions on hit records, to get their .000 of a percent too?

I personally can never agree with the composer of a track getting royalties 75 years after his or her death. I can also never agree that music should be freely available to everyone. That is absolutely immoral and unjustified in both cases. No, the whole system is sadly way out of date and yes, it does attempt to hold onto vested interests, not least those of RIAA, ASCAP, BMI, MCPS, PRS etc, etc. In the UK, MCPS is a limited company and so is PRS, so that just tells you something, eh? They're like a bunch of tyrannical fascists!! Heavy handed in the extreme, at times.

BTW: THEY DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE one iota, as the law is 110% on their side. :roll: :evil:

[Nano]

I'll just say this: the music labels fight file sharing like they fighted in the past against tape recording and even against radio playing. Yes, there was a time when they were against their records being played on radio because "then the people would get to listen the music for free". Of course, they they thought better and out came the Top 40. :roll:
They will fight file sharing until they find a way to make money out of this. But they don't really care for the artists... At least not more than the radio guys care for playing good music. :evil:

[judydoggie]

I'm getting pissed off at the number of people on this site who're using my email (which appears frequently) to ask for MP3s or, worse, cd "burns" of cuts from my collection. As a member of AF&M, ASCAP and BMI it is not only contrary to my contracts with these organizations, it's against Federal law (not to mention not a very ethical thing for a music-business guy to do).

So STOP IT!

I figured I'd post it here 'cause I'm pissed at some of these organizations but I'm not gonna endanger my membership and therefore my ability to bring music to others over it.

Further, the gall of some of these people, asking me to take the time to burn stuff, put it in a package and send it off? Haven't they heard of "RECORD STORES" or "AMAZON.COM?"

Paul - a.k.a. JudyDoggie

[QUINNY]

Judydoggie: You're obviously too nice to people. In 2 years, no one has ever asked me to burn 'em a disc. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[judydoggie]

Quinny:

I think it's cause I've been too liberal handing out my email address around here. Some folks also know what kinda biz I'm in and what I do -- so I'm not gonna talk about it any more.

Lordy do I miss private messaging but I understand why it's not online any more.

I do believe you know how to find my email...

YOU may certainly feel free to use it. I'd never put anyone else's email online here, but sometimes I'm tempted to put the whole damn list of 'em up here and say "Does anyone else wanna burn 'em a CD 'cause I ain't gonna do it?" and just put all the email addresses out there ... I just can't believe it!

[NickNack]

YOU may certainly feel free to use it. I'd never put anyone else's email online here, but sometimes I'm tempted to put the whole damn list of 'em up here and say "Does anyone else wanna burn 'em a CD 'cause I ain't gonna do it?" and just put all the email addresses out there ... I just can't believe it!

:lol: :lol: But you have loads of free time to do it and bundles of free music to give away. Don't you? I mean, you're not busy working or anything like that, right? :lol: :lol:

I understand and agree with you and I think most of us understood why Bernie was compelled to take down the audio side of the board and asked members not to request these things. My bitch: When the music we hunt for is not available for sale and the industry has no intention of re-releasing any of it, why are people such as yourself forced to pay "royalty fees" for simply playing it? Fees that, as you say, in many instances never get to the artists responsible? We can't hear it. We can't buy it. We can't share it and they'll f*&% you over if you try. And this benefits whom... :roll:

[Videoskooter]

In Belgium it is allready illegal to burn 1 copy of an album you have bought (and you can prove that you own it) for using it in your car. They can make you pay for that!!!!

Last year the case was brought to the high-court here and the IFPI (who controls the recording-rights) has won that case.

So, if I wanna play a CD in my car legally, I just have to take the original with me or buy a 2nd copy :evil:

On the other hand I'm against copying music or downloading illegal music from the net. And yes, sometimes it is frustrating when you search and search for an album or cd and you can not find it anywhere. In those cases it sucks!

[paul]

That's unbelievable Johan. You paid for the cd and you can't burn a copy for the car? :evil: I always make car copies just in case someone breaks into my car.
Do you know the legal justification used?

[judydoggie]

My bitch: When the music we hunt for is not available for sale and the industry has no intention of re-releasing any of it, why are people such as yourself forced to pay "royalty fees" for simply playing it? Fees that, as you say, in many instances never get to the artists responsible? We can't hear it. We can't buy it. We can't share it and they'll f*&% you over if you try. And this benefits whom... :roll:

Nobody, Nick. Of course, if I were lucky enough to own something very rare and none of the record companies had re-issued it, well then, why not? I'd share a copy with my close friends (sharing it with too many is detrimental to the rarity of the recording, of course).

A good way to cover your tush is to utilize ASCAP or BMI's SEARCH facilities, on their respective websites. Look for the song, when you find it and confirm the composer, send a letter to the publisher of record asking to get in touch with the licensee. No response usually means the publisher's just keeping it around in case someone wants to sing it in the future. You can also check to see if you're safe by checking the composer(s) against ASCAP and BMI's lists of "unclaimed royalties." There's a different way to go about this for each licensing organization.

If you stumble upon something really good and the publisher can't get ahold of the composer, you can usually purchase the rights to re-issue and/or re-mix the composition literally "for a song." (Couldn't help it, guys.) Peddle your work to a dance label and you might just have something there, all you mix-masters out there...

No competition here, I don't mix 'em, I just produce 'em...

- Paul a.k.a. Judydoggie

[QUINNY]

I guess the whole problem arises because the vendors (record companies and artists) have a very different take on what the consumer actually buys when they purchase a record, tape or CD, to that of the consumer. Digital technology has further blurred the definition.

Originally, a record was a medium of little significance and so, quite rightly, the record companies were forced to pay relatively large sums to the music publishers in order to have the right to produce and sell a 'copy/interpretation' of the sheet music. The selling of sheet music was the most important way of gaining success and making money from one's efforts. Records were very much seen as being inferior to the sheet music. Simply put, a live band or performance had much better acoustics than a cylindrical wax record and more importantly, a song or tune could be played (for public consumption) many more times live than via any other medium. So people had to buy the sheet music and pay a fee for reproducing the sheet music in a live public performance setting or if they wanted to 'reproduce ' the song back home. Radio and a mass market for records (and hence full exploitation of the writer's and publisher's intellectual and physical rights) just didn't exist.

Zoom forward 80 years or so and Digital (with an almost perfect reproduction capability) raised its ugly head. Copyright law was still in the dark ages and written with the view that sheet music was superior to a 'record/CD'. The industry and the law, still maintains that the consumer is buying a 'copy' which is inferior to either the sheet music or the 'master', which is the ultimate, in terms of quality and in terms of the ownership of intellectual and physical rights. Add into the equation the fact that Tin Pan Alley has always largely been the preserve of Jewish owned publishing houses and I think the whole equation comes together quite nicely. Those guys aren't mugs.

Therefore, by buying a record, tape or CD you are merely buying a copy of the original, which only gives you limited rights of ownership of the recorded works. Those printed in the 'All rights of the owner........blurb. Only those people who write the songs, pay for the printing of sheet music, pay for the recording, marketing, distribution et al can possibly have any rights over the ownership.

It's not like buying a car, a fridge or most other consumer items. You couldn't possibly make a copy of a car or a fridge to give to a friend, absolutely free gratis, eh and there isn't a master car or master fridge from which all the copies are made? Each car, each fridge is an individual item.

I would have thought that this was obvious, even to a spotty teenager, but........

[judydoggie]

Huh?! [look of complete astonishment]

Paul - A.K.A. Judydoggie

[Nano]

Well, Frank Zappa had it right when he advised "own your masters". In the Eighties and after many problems with labels like MGM and Warner, FZ started buying back the masters of all his recordings on those labels (the last was the 200 Motels soundtrack a few years ago). Then he re-released them in his own little label, Zappa Records, and sold them by mail offering. This worked to some extent, but of course the orders kept coming from too many cities all over the world and he then made a distribution contract with Ryko. But he -now his family- STILL OWN THE MASTERS. And still, his widow Gail Zappa has many complains about the way Ryko behaved after FZ's death in 1993.
When Prince went through that weird phase in the mid-90's (changing his name, etc.) he was basically after the same thing. He realized that Warner owned the rights for all his recordings for the label, FOREVER. Then he tried to record under a different name, and he did for some years... Still, his new contract with Sony would suggest he throwed the towel on this (maybe someone here knows more about this).
Of course we're talking about real stars. The vast majority of musicians have to play by the labels' rules, or else.

About the "blurbs", here's what reads the ones on record releases in my country:

"Reproducing, re-recording, leasing, borrowing, exchange, public playing, radio broadcasting and any other unauthorized use of this phonogram is prohibited".

That doesn't leave you many options, I'm afraid. :roll:

[QUINNY]

JudyDoggie: Huh!? Well maybe a spotty 16 year old wouldn't know the whole 10 yards, but I believe he, or she, should have been brought up to understand the rights and wrongs of stealing others property.

Nano: Precisely!! except for the famous 'fair use' judgement some years ago whereby Sony and others had to concede that home videotaping was lawful, so long as the tapes were for the person's own use. I think this has in effect been extended to CD/cassette copying too, by association, but don't quote me.

[Videoskooter]

Do you know the legal justification used?

Paul, I don't know the full details of the legal battle but I give you some facts:

- When I buy a cd, I can not burn a copy of it, even not for myself. I can make an MP3 of it as a back-up but only for private use at home . If I sell the cd, vinyl or just lose it, that MP3 becomes illegal :o

- If I have a serious number of MP3's on my PC and the police checks it (ordered by the IFPI), I must be able to show the real cd's or vinyls or I'm arrested! Only this week a young Belgian guy was fined 100.000 Euros for that fact.

Pretty scary hey, and not only on Halloween.

[paul]

Do you know the legal justification used?

Paul, I don't know the full details of the legal battle but I give you some facts:

- When I buy a cd, I can not burn a copy of it, even not for myself. I can make an MP3 of it as a back-up but only for private use at home . If I sell the cd, vinyl or just lose it, that MP3 becomes illegal :o

- If I have a serious number of MP3's on my PC and the police checks it (ordered by the IFPI), I must be able to show the real cd's or vinyls or I'm arrested! Only this week a young Belgian guy was fined 100.000 Euros for that fact.

Pretty scary hey, and not only on Halloween.

Unbelievable. It's **** like this that makes me wanna support the download pirates. MP3 are of lower audible quality. Going after MP3 is over the top.

[QUINNY]

Paul: Think about it. Going for MP3 is exctly right, because any guy who doesn't believe in paying a dime for his music is gonna have a whole heap of 'em, that he's downloaded.
That's why they insist on being shown the records or CDs.
However, I don't see what argument they can possibly put up against a guy who claims he once owned them, but decided to transfer all his stuff to MP3 for storage. He'd be a right pratt, but what could they possibly do, if he had witnesses that would swear that he once had them?

[paul]

I suppose Quinny. I guess I'm being snobbish because I don't own any MP3. I've heard them and the sound is inferior to cd or good quality vinyl.
This also brings up something that may highlight a subtle distinction in legal systems. In the US, much to the displeasure of repugs, we are presumed innocent. What I'm inferring from what Johan wrote is that no such right exist in Belgium. Therefore prosecutions can proceed there based on the assumption you're not an innocent party.