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?
 

Performance Rights Act – my two cents on HR 848 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 13 May 2009.

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?

Who Do You Want To Pay For Your Music? originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 24 June 2008.

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

• The three types of inventory
• Tracking inventory

Tracking Mechanism (code) for the inventory

• The 4 (or more) pieces of information the code holds
• Where the code resides
• Existing tracking capabilities
• No more sampling in place of actual tracking
• Retrofit back to songs with copyright of 1923 or later
• Must be in place by 2018

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.

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

057 – My View – Music And The Internet Part 1: The Mechanism originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 13 June 2008.

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:

• ASCAP’s take with the Songwriter’s Bill of Rights using rickrolling as an example.
  
• Music leads the Internet charge in content and how it delivery is being monetized and even moving toward regulation
• Why does the same free content on the web suddenly become worth charging for and being paid for in a different format?
• Content on the web isn’t really free? Someone’s making money on content.
• Protection versus Statements of rights by a subset of people
• The different factions involved in the music on the Internet trying to stake their claims
• Limited past delivery systems versus the Internet’s near limitless capabilities
• Protections versus Control
• Net Neutrality
• Selling your Privacy for convenience
• The double-edged sword of easy access
• Comments from the Podcast Gallery
• What’s Freedom without responsibility?

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

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

049 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 3 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 18 April 2008.

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.

topics in this episode include:

• Government’s role in resolution of these issues
• Sound Exchange, its background and methodology
• What Samantha is doing to put action behind her viewpoints
• The role of Education in music and the Digital Age – meisa.org
• Questions and Comments from the Podcast Gallery
• Creative Commons

Links discussed in this episode:

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/

SaveNetRadio.org

Fading Ways Online

MEISA.org – Music & Entertainment Industry Student Association

Lawrence Lessig article – Commons Misunderstandings: ASCAP on Creative Commons

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

048 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 2 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 14 April 2008.

Thursday, April 10, just in time for their big ‘I Create Music’ ASCAP Expo in LA, ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) released their Songwriter’s Bill of Rights. In this episode and the next, recorded live on April 10, I discuss this with Samantha Murphy, an independent singer/songwriter and outspoken proponent of change for how music is delivered, monetized and protected in the digital age.

Topics covered in this episode include:

• Samantha’s unique experience as a professional performing musician since the age of six
• The Songwriter Bill of Rights read
• Transparency of PROs and their methods
• How this affects Net Neutrality
• The effect of the Internet on music delivery
• One PRO’s line in the sand
• Who do we turn to, the Government?

The conclusion of this discussion with Samantha Murphy can be heard in episode 048.

[Additional Note: At the beginning of this episode, I made the statement that ASCAP's Bill of Rights was to benefit performers. As Samantha pointed out, while you can have a performer account with ASCAP, it is a completely separate entity of its own and this Bill of Rights deals only with Songwriters.

Edit: A further clarification from Samantha is that the two types of accounts are Writer and Publisher, not Performer .]

Links from this episode:

Samantha Murphy at SMtvMusic.com

Performance Rights Organizations:ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, Sound Exchange

ASCAP Songwriter’s Bill of Rights

Portfolio.com article about the ASCAP Bill of Rights by Sam Gustin

Portfolio.com article Paying the Piper by Sam Gustin

Samantha Murphy’s article written for a Princeton Symposium

Samantha also works with DigitalFreedom.org/

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

047 – Is This the Rights Thing to Do? Part 1 originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 10 April 2008.

This Episode of With A Voice Like This is a bit different than past episodes in that I’m straight forward on a mission. A lot of static is floating around the Internet on various topics and so it was my turn to state my feelings on a few things. Among them were:

• Gary Vaynerchuk’s two minute videoblog from March 25 (If you haven’t seen this, you really should)
• Web 2.0 as the savior of Good
• Using the internet as a tool
• Free music and content on the Internet
• Copyrights and Creative Commons (and my basic understanding)

As always Comments From the Podcast Gallery rounds out the show.

Listen above or download by right clicking and saving.

045 – You’re A Tool originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 27 March 2008.

So what’s it worth to you?

How do you quantify a service to someone who has no frame of reference? I have a Masters Degree in Vocal Pedagogy, which is part performance and part teaching voice, and I’ve spent tens of thousand of dollars on training my voice. If I don’t have name recognition does any of that mean anything to someone who’s looking for some music for their event or venue? What if I’m part of a group, where my name doesn’t come up as much if at all?

I deal with it all the time as a musician. A rule of thumb on how to deal with it is how much you charge, but even that can vary widely. I have an “I won’t step outside the door for less than…” figure. Now that figure for me as a solo singer is 66% higher than that same figure for me as a part of an established group currently. What do I base that on? It’s not like I have production costs to base that figure on to show someone. I have talent, knowledge and experience, but if you’re working with someone who has no frame of reference, those things don’t mean anything to them. And the money itself? I’ve had people not bat an eye at that money and I’ve had people politely (and sometimes not so politely) brush me off. So what’s the answer?

I learned the answer I use through singing weddings for friends. I was reminded of it because I did a wedding not too long ago, for friends. It’s the perception of value. I used to sing weddings for friends for free because I thought of it as my gift to them. And you know what happened? Nothing. Not even a thank you. It didn’t take me long to feel under appreciated and frustrated by that. Didn’t they know how much that was worth?

And that was it. No, they didn’t know. At least not in a way they easily understood. They had no frame of reference. After all, if I was giving it away, it must be worthless, right?

Flash forward to this wedding I just sang for friends. They knew they wanted to use me in the wedding, but they were looking at additional musicians as well. They did their research and saw what the market was around the Chicago area. When we finally discussed money, they said they’ll pay me whatever I wanted. I quoted them a price of 20% of my solo figure I talked about earlier. The phone went silent for a few moments, then I heard “Are you sure?” I told them this is my friends’ discount and the rest was my wedding gift to them. I got the now standard reaction which was many, many thank you’s and other people coming up and almost falling all over me to talk to me about it. I had given my friends a good frame of reference, a perception of value that they understood and everyone was happy, even ecstatic to the point that they shared it and so on and so on and so on…

That’s the biggest benefit to me. People were excited enough to talk about me and to me. That means:

1. I’m more likely to be handing out business cards
2. I’m more likely to be remembered
3. I’m more likely to get that next gig

Even though I’m doing a friend a favor, I’m still getting a lot out of it. All because I was able to communicate the value of what I was doing. That’s the answer I needed.

I was reminded of that because I’m working on the website for 4-AM, the a cappella quartet I sing with. How do I communicate the value to three different groups; Booking Agents, Clients and Fans to the point that they share it willingly? With all the social media tools, I don’t have that answer yet. But I know the value. What’s your take?

The Perception of Value originally appeared on With A Voice Like This on 24 March 2008.