Posted on May 13, 2009
Filed Under Monetizing, Philosophy | Leave a Comment
The Performance Rights Act is up for a vote this week. Speaking as a performer, the premise of this Act is long overdue, that performers deserve to be paid for their work every time their performance is played on air by terrestrial radio. But from what I’ve seen and heard, I have questions that the execution suggested in this act could be flawed.
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) is the main proponent against the passage of this Act. I’ve seen articles calling this a ‘performance tax’ implying (and I think I’m being generous here by saying implying) that the money goes to the government, to the argument that it’s free advertisement for the performer. I’m just going to draw a straight comparison to broadcast television. Any performer on television, be it in a commercial, movie or television show, gets paid whenever their performance is broadcast, no matter how much they got paid for the initial performance. It’s called a residual and for that matter, voiceover artists that do commercials on radio get residuals as well. I wonder what SAG or AFTRA would have to say if broadcast TV tried to not pay residuals saying it was free advertising for the performers.
That’s just one part… the next part is the breakdown of payout. Based on the segment of episode 096 of With A Voice Like This at the 06:44 minute mark the payout would be 50% for the master owner (read record label) and 50% split between main performer and session musicians (45% for the main performer and 5% split between the session musicians was quoted in the show). Well, no wonder the RIAA backs this ACT, their cut is 1% shy of controlling interest payout. Not all Master owners are major labels, Alice Peacock is an independent artist and her own record label, so it benefits different people in different ways, but the question then becomes what’s the percentage of indie labels vs. major labels played on terrestrial radio. It does beg the question of what’s fair for the performers. Are performers a disparate group like a child first learning about money and just as likely to take four nickels instead of two quarters because four is more than two? Because afterall, something is better than nothing at all.
Come to think of it, who does handle the royalty payouts? Wouldn’t it seem a natural fit for pre-existing Performance Rights Organizations (PROs) like ASCAP and BMI to expand their current charter and duties to handle that? Maybe, but instead a new single entity, Sound Exchange was created for Digital Royalties, including all performance royalties under this Act. At the 25:59 minute mark of episode 096, Sound Exchange seems to be doing a great job of finding that information and tracking down performers, but unlike ASCAP and BMI and even SESAC, Sound Exchange collects all Digital Royalties regardless of whether or not a performer is registered with or a member of Sound Exchange. In episode 048 with Samantha Murphy at the 08:05 minute mark, Sound Exchange has some strong ties to the RIAA, but despite that, there’s the question of what happens to the collected royalties that aren’t paid out, because the performer isn’t registered or a member of Sound exchange, deceased performers where no heirs can be identified or performers from countries that don’t have reciprocal agreements with Sound Exchange? Does that money just revert back to Sound Exchange and is that the best that can be done? If it’s collected without registration or membership, why isn’t it paid out under the same conditions?
With Technology so far ahead of an dated protection mechanism like the current copyright laws that are so desparately in need of an overhaul, is saying HR 848 is not perfect, but better than it is now enough or should we expect more? I don’t know, what do you think?
Posted on June 24, 2008
Filed Under Internet, Monetizing, News | Leave a Comment
Well, it’s happened. Spain has announced that beginning July 1, it’s instituting a special anti-piracy tax called the Digital Canon, according to an article on Billboard.biz. It puts a tax on gadgets that can copy, record or store sounds and images. Yes, I said store too.
Sounds like a new spin on the old sin tax. Except, with the standard things a sin tax applies to, you actually have to participate in the sin, e.g. gambling, smoking or consuming alcohol. This is more like saying “We’re instituting an anti-stabbing tax on all kitchenware and cutlery” (don’t worry, I’m sure spoons would have the smallest tax in that scenario). The tool has the capability, so you are taxed whether or not you use, or even intend to use it for that illicit purpose.
Now based on the article, all the monies collected are given to Artists’ Rights Organizations for distribution to the creators of the art as compensation for money lost from pirated works. There is no provision for how the money is to be distributed, it’s just given to the Rights Organizations. How would you decide to distribute the money? You’re getting a flat fee based on tools without any tracking what works are being pirated or used or anything. Yeah, let’s just leave it up to the old way of doing things, I’m sure that’s fair. It’s sounds like most of Spain feels that way…Or not.
But don’t worry about it, that’s Spain and not here. That could never happen here. An under informed government is never forced to take carte blanche on an almost out of control situation based on special interest groups’ input. No, not here.
So, what do you think? Does any of this matter? If we’re going to be charged on the Internet, and all indicators point that way, is this how it should work? Is it important that the creators of the art be protected and compensated for their works?
Who do you want to pay for your music?
Update: It’s been brought to my attention that Canada has an anti-piracy tax on recordable media (e.g. CDs DVDs) and did have a separate tariff on mp3 players (e.g. iPods) that has since been revoked/repealed. I haven’t found creditable sources for this info, are there any Canadians who could shed some extra light on this?
Posted on June 13, 2008
Filed Under Internet, Method, Monetizing, News, Podcast | Leave a Comment
A friend asked me in the aftershow of the Is This The Rights Thing To Do? series of episodes (047, 048 & 049) How I would like to see things happen with music rights and the Internet, so here it is, or at least Part 1.
At Any Rate
This week Warner records pulled out of its deal with Last.fm because the money wasn’t good enough. See Gerd Leonhard’s take on the situation.
Music on the Internet is Virtual Inventory
Tracking Mechanism (code) for the inventory
Comments From the Podcast Gallery
Next Week
Next week will be the second part of this discussion Music and the Internet Part 2: The Implementation, where I talk about the roles of the Artist, ISPs, PROs and more in implementing this mechanism. Join me Live at 7:00pm CT on Thursday, June 19 or call in your Comments From the Podcast Gallery to 206.350.8955.
Listener’s Choice
This episode’s choice comes from Kim Fenolio, and it’s Summertime by Brother Love.
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.
Posted on April 18, 2008
Filed Under Internet, Marketing, Method, Monetizing, Philosophy, Podcast, Regulation | Leave a Comment
Originally this episode was to feature an ASCAP representative, but the timing didn’t quite work out for this show. so the discussion turned to an overview what issues were facing on the Internet with music and content in general.
Topics discussed are:
Links discussed in the show:
ASCAP’s Songwriter’s Bill of Rights
My previous post The Perception of Value
Podcasting Legal Guide wiki and in PDF format
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.
Posted on April 14, 2008
Filed Under Internet, Interview, Marketing, Method, Monetizing, News, Philosophy, Podcast, Regulation | Leave a Comment
This episode of With A Voice Like This is the conclusion of the discussion with Independent Singer/Songwriter Samantha Murphy of SMtvMusic.com stemming from the April 10 release of ASCAP‘s Songwriter’s Bill of Rights.
Samantha Murphy at SMtvMusic.com
Samantha’s e-mail is sm@smtvmusic.com
Performance Rights Organizations: ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Sound Exchange
Samantha Murphy’s article written for a Princeton Symposium
Samantha also works with DigitalFreedom.org/
MEISA.org – Music & Entertainment Industry Student Association
Lawrence Lessig article – Commons Misunderstandings: ASCAP on Creative Commons
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.
keep looking »