YouTube Ordered To Pay $1.6 Million To ASCAP

from the making-sausages dept

Tue, May 19th 2009 12:12pm — Mike Masnick

You may remember last year around this time, a district court set a totally arbitrary royalty fee that AOL, Yahoo and RealNetworks had to pay ASCAP for music streamed over their services. Reading through the details of the decision was immensely troubling, because it seemed to calculate the amounts on a somewhat meaningless formula based on taking a percentage of revenue from the companies that had absolutely nothing to do with music itself. Basically, it looked at almost any revenue that somehow sorta kinda touched on music (including search) and included that as part of the calculation process. Recently, ASCAP and Google went through a similar case in front of the same district court to determine just how much Google has to pay ASCAP for all the music streamed on YouTube. To be honest, I'm still not sure why it makes sense that Google has to pay anything for this, but that's one of the oddities of modern copyright law.

While the decision hasn't received much press attention, last week, the court ordered Google to pay $1.6 million to ASCAP (thanks to Eric Goldman for sending me the decision). The court seemed to take a "split the difference" approach, as ASCAP had asked for $12 million for all music streamed between 2005 and the end of 2008 (and another $7 million for 2009). YouTube, in response, had suggested $79,500 for 2005 through the end of 2008 and then $20,000 per quarter ongoing. The court rejected both proposals, and dinged both companies for weakly supporting their positions, or being somewhat misleading in their assertions. Google, for instance, tried to focus on the number of "music videos" as compared to the total number of videos on YouTube, though the court noted that the music videos seem to get a lot more views than many of those other videos, and it doesn't take into account the time spent viewing each video. ASCAP basically said: "just take that formula you used last year for AOL, Yahoo and Real and apply it to Google revenue."

The court, instead, went into a lengthy justification of trying to come up with a "fair" proposal, involving an awful lot of redacted information on YouTube's revenue (though... if you work through all the numbers you might be able to piece back together some revenue info) and eventually came up with $1.4 million for 2005 through 2008, and then $70,000 per month afterwards, which, when added to the additional fees this year, brought it up to $1.61 million to date (and counting). Of course, this is all supposed to be a temporary sort of thing until the two sides can work out an agreement on their own -- but given the vast differences in proposals (as the court noted, ASCAP was asking for a rate 150 times as large as YouTube's proposal), it doesn't seem like the two sides are close.

Either way, reading this ruling as well as last year's ruling shows what a total mess this process is. Basically, ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash. I know that ASCAP supporters will claim that the money is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah. But the whole system of such collective licenses is a mess that it makes it close to impossible to do anything with music without getting yourself into a huge licensing hole. For more than a century now, Congress and the courts seem to look at every innovation and simply slap another license fee on it, and leave it to the courts to sort out any mess. All of these license fees add up to a massive tax on innovation that divert money from good business models and into the hands of collections societies, who siphon off a piece and often don't do a very good job distributing that cash. It's a massively inefficient model that's simply not needed.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, court, rates, songwriters, streaming
Companies: ascap, google, youtube

67 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

AJ, 19 May 2009 @ 12:23pm

I would...
Start off by removing all Label/AA's submitted music from you tube. Keep the user generated material, but remove everything else from these guys, then point at ASCAP and blame them for doing so. Start a war between the Label's//AA's and ASCAP. Or find some other cleaver way to make them loose money by removing their material. They really need to set an extreme example to stop all this nonsense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 12:24pm

What is...
What's an ASS.CAP and why do they deserve to fleece our beloved Google??!?!?!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil Mike, 19 May 2009 @ 12:26pm

Re: I would...
"...Find some cleaver way..."

God yes! Sharp shiny things to the rescue!

Actually, yes, that's a very good idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aj, 19 May 2009 @ 12:32pm

Re: Re: I would...
Damn, I knew something was wrong... or was it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 19 May 2009 @ 12:32pm

Seriously
Just pull the vids and watch AssClown freakout.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 12:47pm

Collection Society Siphoning
If I was Google I would pull all of the music there too.
No fees for them asshats.
They deserve nothing.
No matter what somebody wants to do in life, there is a way to make money doing so. Having a government mandate to have money handed to you isn't fair to the rest of the world. Get a job.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Adam Singer, 19 May 2009 @ 12:54pm

...and that's why
I don't publish any of my music through ASCAP.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Osno, 19 May 2009 @ 12:57pm

What for?
Can I have YouTube back, now? Since they started taking down videos the service is almost useless. 2 recent examples: 1) I can't watch SNL clips because of location (which reminds me of Hulu :S) and 2) yesterday I wanted to watch the Alien Song, and it's also blocked. The sad part is that Google is paying, people are not watching and we're back to web hunting for this content that was easy to find and convenient. Progress in the hands of lawyers doesn't look good at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
capnjack (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 1:10pm

Google's fault.
I blame Google. They're really dropping the ball. They have the resources to fight these things.

All the limitations on YouTube are only going to slowly, but surely, push consumers further away from the service. I wanted to share an SNL clip on Facebook, but YouTube removed it due to copyright infringement. So, I went to DailyMotion instead. Knock one down, another will rise in its place.

It's almost like record labels, TV networks and movie studios don't want fans.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo, 19 May 2009 @ 1:10pm

Re: What for?
There is no progress at the hands of lawyers.

We should put them all on an island of their very own and let them litigate themselves to death...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Speaker, 19 May 2009 @ 1:13pm

I would ...
I would provide a comment, but I'm afraid to string two words together that might be part of a song and have to pay royalties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 1:31pm

hang on mike were you not the one pushing for percentage of ad sales rather than pay per play?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greg, 19 May 2009 @ 1:32pm

Re: I would ...
i believe you just quoted "enter sandman" by metallica. that is a double whammy. be prepared to give up your first born.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bobby boberanna, 19 May 2009 @ 2:15pm

the reason music video's get more views
How often does a teen dance in her jammies to a poetry reading. That is why they have more views, it is a way for untalented dreds to get attention. Get in my undies, prance to some stupiud song, wala, instand hit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 2:18pm

Re: I would...
" make them loose money..."

Yes! I call for a more relaxed grip on ALL money, everywhere!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 2:21pm

Re: Collection Society Siphoning
You clearly are not onboard with big government. You must not be a communist, and should therefore be persecuted
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 2:22pm

Re: Re: What for?
Ever seen "The Lost Highway"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DJ, 19 May 2009 @ 2:24pm

Re: Google's fault.
I like fans. They keep me cool.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
OKVol, 19 May 2009 @ 2:56pm

ASCAP is the enforcer
They collect the money to distribute it to the record companies and artists. If they can find the artists. If they can't, they keep the money. Guess how hard they try...

For this, they have radio receivers hooked to song recognition systems in each town listing for what is played. But how do they snoop what is played on youtube?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 3:09pm

Re:
hang on mike were you not the one pushing for percentage of ad sales rather than pay per play?

Uh, I'm in favor of neither.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 19 May 2009 @ 3:11pm

Re: ASCAP is the enforcer
They collect the money to distribute it to the record companies and artists. If they can find the artists. If they can't, they keep the money. Guess how hard they try...

You may be confusing ASCAP with SoundExchange, which collects for the labels. ASCAP collects for the song writers and publishers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 3:15pm

Re: What is...
ASCAP
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ascap
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JB, 19 May 2009 @ 3:22pm

This will help drive a business transition
While I agree that giving ASCAP money seems like a step backwards, I can see one potential positive.

ASCAP may now want You Tube to be successful. For the music industry to figure out the Internet, they need to perceive that some portion of their success is tied to it.

The irony would be if someday ASCAP is driven to argue for You Tube and against newer competitors to protect its court ordered revenue flow!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 5:28pm

Re: Re: ASCAP is the enforcer
You have to pay both of them ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 19 May 2009 @ 6:01pm

Re: Google's fault.
DJ wrote:

I like fans. They keep me cool.

True whichever way you look at it. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 19 May 2009 @ 6:13pm

I Quit
I quit listening to music years ago since all the corporations starting suing everyone. I also quit watching TV. I also had to quit fishing because the government taxed me. I pretty much quit everything, but breathing. I have to pay a tax on that also. I think I will go on welfare like most of the US is having to do during this recession. Will I get free music subsidies with my food stamps?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 May 2009 @ 6:40pm

Afirst glance I thought it said

Must Pay Asshat

But then I wasn't far off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glenn, 19 May 2009 @ 7:24pm

Fair's fair...
ASCAP should pay Google $1.6 million for all the "free" advertising value they've gotten from the "music/videos".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rekrul, 20 May 2009 @ 1:31am

Google should take YouTube offline for a month and replace it with a page that says "YouTube has been shut down thanks to the demands of ASCAP, the RIAA, MPAA, TV Networks and every other content owner who thinks they can squeeze money out of us. Please contact them at the phone numbers below and let them know how you feel."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2009 @ 2:45am

Re:
is that before or after the page that says "YouTube has been shut down because we lose a million dollars a day"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Killer_Tofu (profile), 20 May 2009 @ 5:54am

Re: Re: Collection Society Siphoning
Oh noes!
I will just go run and hide now then.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobiGeek, 20 May 2009 @ 11:39am

Re: Re:
And yet they keep it running. Guess this "free" model isn't working for them. How ever will Google survive??

Looking at a single entity and saying that it is "losing millions" is myopic. Sure, it would be nice to find a way for that one technology platform to earn more than it costs, but if it drives revenues in other areas it isn't fair to label it as nothing but an expense hole.

I bet if Google decided to recoup that "million dollars a day", it would cost them dearly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mojo, 20 May 2009 @ 12:21pm

no losers, no victims
everyone wants something for nothing. YouTube and web users want to have material that cost money to make and produce for free. ASCAP and it's supporters want to reap all the benefits from distribution that they took no part in putting together or helped with it's success.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jan, 20 May 2009 @ 2:57pm

ASCAP is . . .
I belong to ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers)so that I can be (royalties) each my music is performed. If you were a composer, the most important thing would be for people to hear your music. However, wouldn't you want to be paid for your music -- especially if that were your only source of income and the only way you could write more music and get it out there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 20 May 2009 @ 4:14pm

Re: ASCAP is . . .
However, wouldn't you want to be paid for your music -- especially if that were your only source of income and the only way you could write more music and get it out there?

Logical fallacy: claiming that this is the only way you could make money/write more music. If that crutch of a collection society weren't there, there are many other ways to make money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
enigmafon, 20 May 2009 @ 5:18pm

Does anyone really think that ASCAP is going to distribute any of the $1.6 million they are going to get from google through its paying members?

yeah, right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kelly Reid, 21 May 2009 @ 10:25am

Re: "Does anyone really think ASCAP is going to distribute 1.6 million?"
ASCAP, as well as BMI, are both non-profit organizations (don't ask me how they get away with this). Because they are non-profit they HAVE to, by law, disclose their finical situation, as in "income" and payments. Non-profits are required by the IRS to be financially transparent.

SESAC, another performance rights organization, is a for profit organization and does not have to disclose their finances.

What is funny though, from all of the music artists I know, SESAC pays quicker and more money to their artists. They are, however, a smaller and more select PRO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kelly Reid, 21 May 2009 @ 10:28am

WHO is the Court?
Who is the COURT dishing out this money? What are the judges names? What jurisdiction is this?

These may all seem trivial questions, but I just want to understand these rulings with a broader perspective.

Any links or explanations would be helpful.

[Leave all your snide comments at home, just trying to learn something.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
anon, 21 May 2009 @ 10:57am

Re:
If you think that Google isn't making a ton of money off of Youtube, you're mistaken. And the songwriters whose work is on there should benefit from the product that's making money. If your song was placed on the #1 video on Youtube, and Youtube made a ton of money off those Million+ hits on that video, wouldn't you want a piece of the pie? Especially if you're legally entitled to it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trekman, 21 May 2009 @ 1:11pm

Money In Their Pockets
The RIAA, ASCAP, & Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) may act & pretend they are doing it for the artist's, musicians or song writers. But are only in this for themselves. They DO have a hidden agenda and will do anything to get what they want.

I said years ago when they started going after people/groups that they wouldnt stop until they had ruined the industry. Going after royalty monies from internet radio, mainstream radio, websites that play videos is only the start.

Soon they will go after websites that sell music. Mark my words today. If a website uses music in any way, shape or form they WILL eventually go after them.

And in the end only hurting or killing off the market they are attacking!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Carter Burwell, 21 May 2009 @ 1:41pm

ASCAP
It's true that the licensing "system" is inefficient - it would be more transparent if people paid for music when they used it. It's not true that ASCAP has anything to do with record companies - it's a non-profit owned by composers, songwriters and publishers.

I'm a composer, I work freelance, and my family and I depend on ASCAP to collect money from the use of my music - surely that seems fair. Calculating the value of music, or any other content, is nearly impossible, but the internet is a free-market of ideas and if the price of some commodity, like music, is too great it's easy to use less of it, or for users to make it themselves.

I assume those who describe YouTube as an "innovation" will agree that its use of old, pre-existing music and old, pre-existing video is hardly that. It really should be about making something new, and I encourage you ask:
What does old music have to do with innovation?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
trekman, 21 May 2009 @ 2:03pm

Someone ends up getting hurt!
I do agree with you Carter. I believe that composers, writers, musicians are all due a fare share of any monies made on their music. Ive always felt that way. I get payed for my work. So should they (you).

But when it effects the industry and only hurts it, thats not logical thinking. It is the thoughts of someone that doesnt have your interest at the top of their agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tgeigs, 21 May 2009 @ 2:15pm

Re: Re:
"And the songwriters whose work is on there should benefit from the product that's making money"

Fair enough, but then the artist should also have to pay the creators of YouTube if they wish for their work to remain up for popularity's sake, since they would be using the product, which is the platform, which ALSO makes money for Google and, through popularity and exposure, the artist.

Or we could just call it even, waddya say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael Garcia-Beard, 21 May 2009 @ 2:29pm

Licensing/Copyrights
I think if this practice of taking Google and other web companies to court continues it will kill the MAJOR label industry fast. I am an indie singer/songwriter registered with BMI and I personally feel that when you are doing marketing and promotions you should be encouraging sites such as Google to play your music,interviews,videos whatever.This gives the fans the opportunity to really get to know an artist. If they continue to fight this they will only end up in a losing battle in the end.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jimmy harry, 21 May 2009 @ 11:54pm

ASCAP
Google makes massive amounts of money distributing people's content. It's fine if someone want's to put up a video that they created and have other people watch it for free. But I for one as a content provider want to get paid for my copy writes. You Tube was built on the back of music. They should pay it back.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TonsoTunez, 22 May 2009 @ 6:30pm

Well, Mike, Wrong Again
Mike says: ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash.

ASCAP operates under a consent decree mandated by the
Department of Justice.

Under the terms of the decree, ASCAP must license its catalog to anyone - or any organization - that requests a license.

Once the request is made the requesting party is licensed and may immediately use the music in the ASCAP catalog subject to the requirement that they immediately enter into negotiations regarding the fees to be paid. If the fees can't be agreed upon, the consent decree requires that the parties must have the rates set by a rate court.

YouTube requested a license ... negotiations were entered into, but, the parties could not agree upon a fee.

A rate court proceeding was convened.

The proceedings are exactly the same as in any other court. Evidence is gathered and presented and witnesses are called to establish each sides position in the matter. Then the judge, after carefully taking everyone's point of view under consideration, comes up with the rules to be followed and the fees to be paid.

The proceedings can become quite lengthy and intense - not to mention costly - but one thing is without doubt - the results are never because the judge "sorta randomly makes up reasons to give (ASCAP) cash.

The very first order of business is always to determine whether ASCAP is due anything pursuant to the U.S. Copyright Law. Nothing proceeds unless the answer to that question is 'yes.' Of course, YouTube knew the answer at the outset or they wouldn't have requested a license.

To head off what would have been an appropriate discussion on this list, you state, "I know that ASCAP supporters will claim that the money is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah ..."

Well, just so you won't be disappointed, the money collected by ASCAP is for songwriters, not the record labels, and it's important and blah blah blah ...

Why are you always so dead set against paying anything to anyone who creates music? Your message is always that artists, musicians, songwriters are such worthless human beings that don't deserve to be paid for their innovative creativity.

Google is a business ... writing music is a business ... ASCAP is the agent for those who are in the business of writing music ...

Google is a huge business using its might, muscle and money to trample everything in its sight - little guy, big guy any guy that gets in their way ... The use of other peoples music (without paying) has been a huge part of their success story ... However, in the case of songwriters, they have acknowledged - by requesting a license - that something is due the creators of music who are mostly small, independent business people.

So, it was Google that preferred to have a court determine what that payment should be rather than entering into productive negotiations with the writer's agent, ASCAP.

The procedure is well defined by the Department of Justice ... The way to a resolution was clear ... there is nothing at all messy or inefficient about the process as you suggest.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brian, 5 Jun 2009 @ 9:36am

Honestly, I think this is plain stupid. I mean, 1.6 mill is chump change to google but it's a dumb case in general
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JEFFREY TOBIAS, 7 Jun 2009 @ 11:20am

Re: Fair's fair...
ASCAP,REFUSED TO TELL ME,IN A LAWSUIT,AFTER I INHERITED A MUSIC CATALOG,WHAT WILL WAS SUBMITTED,BY MY GRANDMOTHER? THEY REFUSED,AS IM SURE THEY ACCEPTED A FRADULENT WILL.THEY SAID,SINCE YOU SETTLED ,WE DONT HAVE TO DISCLOSE OUR SCREW UP.THAT WAS IN 2006.ASCAP,IS THE HALL OF SHAME.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mark, 7 Jun 2009 @ 2:02pm

ASCAP
Thank you ASCAP for making sure that songwriter's rights are protected and that they are compensated for their craft
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rediculous, 10 Jun 2009 @ 10:15am

Rediculous
Mike says: ASCAP gets to go in and demand cash from anyone who benefits from music anywhere, and a judge sorta randomly makes up reasons to give them cash.

This is true.

ASCAP is contacting people (I was) and saying they need to get a license for embedding YouTube videos. They claim any website is "helping" the transmission of their materials even if the website in question hosts or streams nothing. They claim every website needs a $340 license even though the primary purpose of the website may be about something different than music and the video(s) may not contain any music whatsoever by any of their represented artists. Oh, and if you make money from your website that has videos on it, they want a proportion of that as well and have a calculation to determine it based on your total page impressions.

They use page impressions since one naturally has no idea what videos are played how many times and what music may or may not be in them besides the creator and publisher.

Mike is right in their crazy calculation. Let's say you embed a Hulu video on your website. ASCAP will ask for a $340 "New Media" URL license from you because that video "may" contain a piece of music work from one of their clients and they will take you to court to get money regardless of whether there was or wasn't.

They will agree that the video creator and/or publisher has most likely already paid a licensing fee to use the material in the piece of work but they now want money from any website embedding the video.

So what's next? I assume BMI and SESAC will also come and demand a free payment from websites who have any kind of video embedded because it may or may not contain some sort of music by someone they may or may not represent.

Somebody needs to stop the madness.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
joeasfr, 10 Oct 2009 @ 12:56am

My way or.
Real simple, anything that in anyway makes RI@@ or ncap or whoever these aholes go by these days, I never pay for and get for free, How?

There are ways to make you very difficult to find on the internet and encrypting your hard drive in such a way that the hard drives turns into Zero's upon tampering.

and since =))))) I dont do anything illegal ever I dont get any papers because little do they know im actually on the West coast right now.... well actually on the east now... wait... hehe
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Musician songwriter, 19 Dec 2009 @ 9:17am

The adult answer is..
YouTube's success in creating billions of views and dollars in advertising hinges around the free music videos they've been using without permission. If a song costs $2000 to record and a music video cost $20000... an investment made by a record company, why are they expected to give away their product for free? Just because it's digital and easily copied, people think it should be free.
Musician's will make their living how? It's hard enough getting music good enough to record, raise the money to record it, find an audience who appreciates it and then what? Have someone draw a million hits or billions on their website and their mad because they have to pay? Maybe it's the artists that should go on strike, remove all music from radio, tv, film, and the internet and let's see what a great world that would be???
I thought the suit against youtube should have been easily in the hundreds of millions. How many thousands of musicians and songs do they have to split the revenue with? 1.6 million divided by 100,000? equals $16 per musician (or song) for 4 years of royalties. Yeah you're right, ASCAP sure is a mean one, looking out for the rights of those who actually own the material.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
veronicamorales (profile), 21 Jan 2010 @ 10:34pm

Everyone have a point...
everyone have a point though all the websites listed and ASCAP is a business that do their work. everyone wants something free but not everything is free. I may love using Google or Youtube to watch the videos i love yet i must also think for the musicians. Concerned people should discuss things about this and agree with something because everyone is looking forward to watch the video that they want though if their is something that people agreed with atleast users won't expect that much.

Regards to all,
Nica | College Papers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dom K (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 8:55am

youtube used to be fun
If this is the the thing that has swamped youtube recently it has ruined my enjoyment of the service. All the best videos are being deleted. Where once i could listen to all my favourite songs these are being removed, where I take the point and understand copyright law, the fact that most users are simply playing the track doesn't seem to register. Its like everything good, always seems to come to a demise eventually bring back content | move to australia
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz, 12 Jun 2010 @ 1:30pm

Like Suing MTV in The 90's
The problem with this lawsuit and I hear they may want to start going after individual websites is that Youtube is now to music videos what MTV was in the 90's and early 2000's. No one watches music videos on TV but instead go to Youtube to check them out and even the artists are placing Youtube videos on their websites. I don't understand how they can try to get royalties when they are the ones uploading them for promotional use. If they don't want to pay out the royalties then they should upload them to their own websites with no embedding. The problem with that is they wouldn't get a 1/4th of the exposure and click-through traffic their experience now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Raechel, 21 Aug 2010 @ 6:09pm

Re: ...and that's why
ascap isn't a publisher, so i'd say thats why you don't?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shirtless hunks, 14 Dec 2010 @ 4:32am

Nice post. LOve reading your article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
shane, 23 Dec 2010 @ 8:14pm

Re: What is...
ASCAP is a performance rights organization, which means they collect money on the behalf of (broke) songwriters. Google is a huge powerhouse of a company which doesn't give a f**k.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Calgary It services, 30 Dec 2010 @ 1:10am

Re: no losers, no victims
Yes Mr, mojo i agree with your say as you are absolutely right.Calgary It services
[ link to this | view in thread ]
web design, 31 Jul 2011 @ 12:37am

hi
If you want to see the mind blowing article with real facts and figures, this has really tremendous impacts on readers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Entertainment, 23 Aug 2011 @ 8:35pm

review
Another great article. I like that you are very honest and direct to the point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
License Music, 24 Aug 2012 @ 3:34am

Tiring
I'm glad to just be a creator of music, I leave all the licensing stuff to the folk who know all that jazz.

Youtube is now almost as popular as free to air tv(just a guess), stands to reason that they probably should pay performance royalties.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
matt, 2 Dec 2012 @ 9:30am

So, ASCAP collects royalties for artists... I wonder if this settlement money actually gets to the artists,
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Webxsquare, 16 Jul 2016 @ 2:00pm

Web Designer in karachi
A lot of the information in this post has been very useful. I can definitely agree there are great needs for having or developing organizational, writing, and marketing skills.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
music artis, 14 Dec 2016 @ 10:15am

Re: Collection Society Siphoning
idiot. this is a lose-lose. They make MOST of their revenue from it. why should they not have to pay somebody, to make money off THEIR product? How stupid is this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
max, 11 Sep 2017 @ 4:50am

that is good
thaytkjbas auidhakjdh uiyr aiyui eoy8oiawE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Jan 2022 @ 9:31am

Re: What for?
.. as opposed to actually purchasing it ..

everyone wants something for nothing, yet cry calamity once the well dries up XD
[ link to this | view in thread ]