How Performing Rights Groups Funnel Money To Top Acts And Ignore Smaller Acts
from the nice-trick dept
It's no secret that most of the traditional "recording industry" really is structured almost entirely to help the big name acts, but whenever we write about the collections organizations like ASCAP and BMI we get angry people sending in emails and comments insisting that it's unfair to lump those two in with the RIAA, since they're really out to help the actual musicians, even the small guys. Uh huh. Of course, we've already shown how ASCAP and BMI and their overly aggressive attempts to collect royalties from just about everywhere actually have been known to harm up-and-coming singers, such as by destroying the ability for many venues to host open mic nights. ASCAP has been particularly aggressive lately in making bizarre claims about how embedding YouTube videos requires a license (despite the fact YouTube already pays ASCAP -- so it wants to double count) and how ringtones represent a public performance. These are pure money grabs that make it that much more difficult for anyone to help promote up-and-coming musicians and songwriters. Is it any wonder, in the meantime, that the organization is spending time setting up efforts to try to push back against people who support open culture and content sharing? It apparently would prefer that the songwriters they "represent" not know about these efforts that actually do quite a bit to harm the vast majority of songwriters out there.But, back to the original point. ASCAP, BMI and their supporters insist that they're not as bad as the big, mean RIAA, and that they're especially focused on providing important royalties to less well known artists. Except... even that may be questionable, at least when it comes to live performance royalties (admittedly, a smaller segment of overall royalties). Reader btr1701 sent in some email exchanges from a mailing list, which I won't share directly since I don't have approval, concerning a jazz musician trying to find out why she doesn't receive any live performance royalties, despite knowing that these organizations collect them, supposedly on her behalf. In response, she's told that ASCAP and BMI only distribute that royalty money to "the top 200 grossing US tours of the year." If you're smaller than that? Too bad. Except... they do have one minor exception. If you play "serious music" (no joke), then they'll pay you your royalties. So, the musician asks what is "serious music" and is told it's "generally considered to be classical music."
The musician tried re-registering her own (jazz) compositions as "serious music" but it "does not appear to have made any difference whatsoever" and she notes that she is "yet to receive a single penny... for any US performance or radio broadcast of any kind" despite the fact that her music has been performed in the US for almost ten years, and "the vast majority of performances of my music take place in the US."
I went looking for some more details, and it appears that, indeed, ASCAP and BMI have a policy in place to only provide performance royalties to the top 200 grossing tours in the US. If you're a "smaller" act, the only way to get paid is to be an opening act on such a tour. Otherwise? Too bad, you're on your own. Aren't you glad you signed with ASCAP or BMI? Update Good clarifications in the comments on this. Despite what the musician was told originally, it appears that it's not that ASCAP and BMI only pay the top 200 tours, but that they only monitor them (it's not explained how they know ahead of time which are the top 200) in order to figure out who to pay. The end result, of course, is functionally quite similar. If they're only monitoring the top 200 grossing tours, then the likelihood of them finding out about songs from less well known composers is close to nil. But those big names? They get more than their fair share.
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: collections societies, money, royalties
Companies: ascap, bmi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They Monitor the Top 200
I can't speak to the email chain, but I think you have misunderstood the policy you're referring to. The policy is that ASCAP/BMI actively monitor the set lists of the top 200 grossing touring acts. That is, they have agents at each concert put on by these acts in order to see if they are playing cover songs for which compensation must be paid. This does not mean that only the top 200 touring acts are eligible to get paid. Indeed, if one of these (top 200) bands plays a cover song of a smaller artist, the smaller artist would be paid accordingly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
How do they determine who and how much to pay them?
Why isn't the subject of the story apparently getting _any_ money?
Perhaps all the ASCAP/BMI artists that frequent this board can share with us whether or not they have received _any_ money from either of these organizations....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
Judging by that sentence alone seems like you are making stuff up. How do they know the top 200 grossing touring acts until after all the shows have gone through?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
All venues pay into ASCAP/BMI for the live acts they have. ASCAP/BMI both collect all of that money for all such live performances at the venues. However, ASCAP/BMI only pay out for the top two hundred bands.
So out of thousands upon thousands of live performances the ASCAP/BMI collects upon each year, they are only paying out on a tiny portion of them.
Exactly where is the rest of that money going?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
Look... I'm not here to defend the payment methods used by ASCAP/BMI. I totally realize that smaller artists aren't necessarily getting their fair due. However, what Mike has reported is incorrect. There is no policy under which only the top 200 touring acts are eligible for payments stemming from live performances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
Most musicians who cover music do so in smaller places such as bars or night clubs.
I know from experience from the 80s and 90s that when we played in bars we'd have to turn over our set list to the bar so it could turn it over to ASCAP/BMI. The thought was that the song writers of the songs we were covering were getting paid for our performances. But, apparently, that's not true. Apparently, ASCAP/BMI collects such money, but never dishes it back out.
So sure, if Brittany Spears does a Rolling Stones cover on her tour, the Rolling Stones will get a cut. But if my band does a Husker Du cover at a local bar, Husker Du does not receive a dime, even though ASCAP/BMI does collect money for our performance.
Once again, a lot of money goes in, but only a little goes out. And when it goes out, it goes almost exclusively to major artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
ASCAP/BMI have the nerve to collect "royalties" for music they probably would have not liked to have released and isnt considered "serious music". All music is serious music when it comes to the musicians. They take their hard earned money, time, sweat and emotion into their music and deserve to be compensated by the people claiming to be working in their best interest.
And further more, I wouldnt be surprised if nobody at either one of those agencies has even heard of Husker Du
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
I could be wrong, it was just how I thought it might play out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
But this doesn't mean ASCAP/BMI are not screwing the little guy. They are, they are just more subtle than having a policy of denying payment to small acts. The trouble is that there is pretty obvious sample bias. Radio stations and big tours will tend to play music by popular artists. That does not mean that less popular artists' music is not being performed, merely that it is not being performed in the venues from which ASCAP/BMI choose to sample.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They Monitor the Top 200
The artist had asked to be compensated for a specific performance, and her rep asked specifically if that performance was a part of a major tour or festival, and said if not, there was nothing he could do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They Monitor the Top 200
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Similar situation in the UK
To determine how to distribute royalties the body gets the major radio stations to submit full lists, but it only does random sampling of the playlist of the smaller regional stations, clubs, bars and licensed premisses.
These methods made sense in an analogue world where it was impractical to collect such comprehensive data, but not in a digital one.
The problem with random-sampling methods is that its not likely to pick up the one-off plays of smaller artists, and their share goes to the big artists instead. That makes it hard for a new artist to get much return from royalties even if he's getting some airplay.
In PRS's defence they do give a proportion of the cash to charities that support young artists, but it does seem like their methods could do with updating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fact checking, part deux
OK, instead of quoting out of a book for "more details" ... let's go to the source:
Now, can someone please point out areas from BMI's and ASCAP's own material that illustrates how smaller acts are being ignored? (I'm not saying it isn't true! I'm saying I'd like to use the org's own source material as the basis, vs. a book passage, 'tis all.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fact checking, part deux
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a screwed up system .....
This is not going in my business plan in any way shape or form.
how in the hell did they get away with implementing something so screwed up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yeah!!!!!!!!
sorry its all i could think to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
These two statements :
1) ASCAP and BMI use counters with top 200 acts to divvy up royalties
2) Jazz Musician has not been paid live performance royalties on her music
indicate that money isn't routed to people whose music is not played by popular groups or classical groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How can they distribute 200% and still operate as a non profit?
"BMI considers payments to songwriters or composers and to publishers as a single unit equal to 200%."
200% of what? How do you distribute 200% of what you collected and still have anything left to operate on UNLESS you don't actually pay everyone who should be receiving a payment? If I collect $10 from 10 people, I have $100, now if I want to distribute 200% to those same people, I can do that for the first 5 people(who would receive $20), the next 5 would receive nothing (and there would be no money left to operate the non-profit), based on this 'simple' math it's pretty easy to see that they are not paying everyone they should (especially at their inflated 200% level) or they would be bankrupt.
So their own material basically explains how they collect from everyone and then distribute 200% to some of the people who they collected on behalf of (if they paid everyone they were supposed to at these rates, they would be bankrupt).
I'm sure some shill will come along to explain how this is all 'for the artists' (they just don't specify that it's 'for the top 200 artists').
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How can they distribute 200% and still operate as a non profit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if artists start suing these organisations would bring about more change than these organisations suing the fans of said artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't forget the scumbags at SESAC
Anyway, it's good to know that that money is not going to the people whose music she uses but rather whomever BMI, ASCAP and SESAC decide deserves it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
class action?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird, that's not been my experience.
My wife is a composer (you may have heard about a piece she had performed this past weekend, The Gonzales Cantata) - and she had a piece performed at the Kimmel Center in Philly. Much to our surprise, we got a note from ASCAP a few months later for that single performance of a single song. Mind you, we didn't actually get paid for the performance, because ASCAP's fees were taken out of the check, but I was still surprised that they'd tracked that down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird, that's not been my experience.
I'm guessing that's considered "classical" music, and thus "serious music." Which is apparently an exception to the "only top 200 acts." So it did get counted...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weird, that's not been my experience.
/jk (ish).
Tony P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats the legal definition of "classical" music because a lot of heavy metal (and pop songs come to think of it) can involve orchestra's as backing....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRS in the UK
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
royalties
to audits?
how come I consistently get
paid (nominally),
for works that I know
have never been recorded or
performed because they barely
have a worktape.
Always from a foreign country.
Having had songs recorded
and performed for the last
18 yrs., I still don't understand
the collection method,
I have been ripped off
with ascap and bmi.
If a top 5 song earns a
Songwriter who co-wrote
The song and owns no pub.
Roughly 200,000 dollars
For the writers share,
I have to imagine that
The pro's are collecting well over a million dollars for that title.
Then sitting on that for
9 months collecting interest.
Wrong on so many levels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate parasites always steal, its what they are.
The entire history of artists there has always been a lying parasite there beside stealing their work, saying they are protecting and promoting, while pocketing and stealing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]