BMI Records Record Revenue... While Whining To DOJ That It Can't Function Under Antitrust Agreement
from the something-doesn't-add-up-here dept
As we've been discussing, the two big music collection societies in the US, ASCAP and BMI, are desperately fighting to get the DOJ to alter (or end entirely) the "consent agreement" that they operate under. The consent agreement, in various forms, has been in place for decades, after the DOJ properly recognized that in licensing songwriters' and publishers' public performance rights, they had something of a monopoly. And monopolies can be dangerous when abused. Thus the consent decree to keep the organizations in line. However, both are really angry about this, in large part because they believe that without the consent decree, they could create a world in which they could force everyone to have to pay much higher fees (you can see some of how they tried to collude with publishers to jack up rates to Pandora).So far, the attempt to get rid of the consent decree has not been going well. It has resulted in more investigations into the publishers for collusion for one thing. The DOJ has also apparently realized that the collection society's treatment of songs with multiple copyright holders may be another anti-trust violation.
And, yet, ASCAP and BMI keep trying to convince everyone that they're suffering under this "obsolete" consent decree, and they need to have it modified greatly. BMI, in comments to the DOJ, has claimed that it's suffocating under the current system, which it says is "broken":
The digital revolution in information processing and communications has completely transformed the way music performances are heard by the public and equally changed the way in which information about music performances is collected and processed. In particular, the rise of Internet streaming as a principal way the public hears performances of music has created market needs that are now not being met because of inefficient and anticompetitive restrictions in the BMI consent decree that serve no sound purpose today.Things must really suck for BMI and all the songwriters who get paid via BMI, right? Oh... wait. BMI has just announced a new record in revenue collection and pay out to artists.
There is an urgent need for action now. BMI agrees with the Register of Copyrights’ recent testimony characterizing music licensing as “broken,” and certain aspects of the BMI consent decree have contributed to that breakdown. The decree creates rigidities and restrictions in the way BMI must operate that undermine BMI’s efficiency as a resource for both music users and music copyright owners in the digital world. The existing rate court mechanism has proven too slow, too expensive, and too legalistic to keep up with the speed of change in real-world markets today. The need is so dire that, rather than press for comprehensive reform at this point, in these public comments BMI urges the Department to prioritize particular changes that address these immediate needs.
BMI, whose full name is Broadcast Music Inc., collected $1.013 billion for the 12 months that ended in June, up almost 4 percent from the year before. That is slightly more than the $1.001 billion that its competitor Ascap took in last year.Why is it paying less than ASCAP? BMI doesn't blame the broken consent decree, but rather "significant legal costs" made up mainly of its lawsuit against Pandora. In other words, something that BMI had control over. The article also notes this little fact:
In the number that will be scrutinized most closely by musicians — royalties — BMI paid slightly less than its rival. After deducting its operating expenses, BMI distributed $877 million to its thousands of members, including songwriters like Taylor Swift, Nile Rodgers and Adam Levine of Maroon 5. Last year, Ascap paid its members $883 million.
Since 2005, BMI’s collections have increased about 40 percent.So, uh, can we hear again about how "dire" the situation is and how BMI can't function, even as its revenue has grown 40% in the last decade and it's setting all kinds of new records? Did BMI think the DOJ would just ignore that bit?
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: anti-trust, antitrust, collection societies, consent decree, doj, pros, publishers, revenue, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
Besides that, the increase yet again proves that you pirates are simply wrong about the demise of the "dinosaur" business model. When copyright is vigorously defended, it works fine. Just quit stealing pay the pittance to support the system which works fine despite attacks from the daily anomalies here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
Have a nice weekend. :b
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, I meant...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
You're possibly thinking of unauthorized duplication of items under copyright protection.
No, I think of that when I hear/read the term 'copyright infringement'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
Anomaly: n, 1. Something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. synonyms: oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity, aberration, quirk, rarity.
If something happens on a daily basis, it cannot be considered an anomaly.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: \\\
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "revenue has grown 40% in the last decade" -- This is again your characteristic dimensionless number. How much more has listening to BMI products increased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, but they actually had to work a little for that money and they're complaining that they can't receive more money with less effort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to celebrate:
How can this be a bad thing Mike. Instead of suing band camp like the PRS, BMI wants to allow songwriters to manage their rights themselves where they can. This needs to be applauded, not skipped over.
Always only the bad half of a story at Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to celebrate:
Except, we saw how that worked in practice. It wasn't a "free-market" situation, it created a collusion deal where the publishers and the PROs colluded to drive up prices through a fake negotiation:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140323/07554026662/judge-highlights-bogus-collusion- ascap-publishers-rejecting-their-attempt-to-jack-up-pandoras-rates.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20140209/01061226149/details-come-out-about-how-ascap-colluded-with-labels-to-screw-pandora.sh tml
The idea that this is a free market solution involving managing their own rights is a bullshit cover story to try to create uncertainty in the market and drive up prices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Something to celebrate:
One problem with collection agencies is they won't be held accountable in the digital age. They collect public performance fees from cafes but won't take their playlists so the money collected from that cafe goes to the artists whose music was played under that licence. If PRS wins it's lawsuit this is what will happen with soundcloud/bandcamp, quantifiable royalties will instead go into a pool and get given to Taylor Swift, small artists will have to pay a cut to royalties they won't get back (much like the live performance fee in the US).
BMI want's to be able to give artists the chance to manage this own their own, as they see fit.
You're looking at a different agency, and a negotiation that's been done. I don't see how it relates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Something to celebrate:
No, they want to be able to collude on prices. and copy protection laws shouldn't be about the 'artists' they should be about the 'public'. Allowing for such collusion is harmful for the public. The very point of anti-trust laws is to prevent increased prices due to collusion. Sure, this may harm 'artists' (or publishers and copy protection holders) but the point of anti-trust laws is to ensure a more competitive market so the public benefits. Yes, in a sense that is a government distortion into a free market but, lets not forget, this government distortion is required because of another government distortion (copy protection laws). The least we can do is to minimize the negative social impact of those copy protection laws.
Anti-trust laws are exactly designed to prevent companies from operating 'as they see fit' (ie: collude and increase prices). This maybe bad for the company but it's good for the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Something to celebrate:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to celebrate:
Always only the bad half of a story at Techdirt."
Again, anti-trust laws are not about the 'song writer' or the 'artists' or the copy protection holders or the collection agencies. They're about the public. Yes, they come at a 'cost' to those wishing to otherwise collude and jack up prices but their exact purpose is to prevent companies from doing something that would harm the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of this amount, slightly less than $15 million will be distributed amongst the most famous record companies that BMI represents. It is unknown how much of that $15 million will reach the artists and bands that have earned it and how much will get swallowed up by creative accounting. Just sayin'. ;(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
And FYI collection agencies pay directly to songwriters.
The Harry Fox Agency collects mechanicals, and their cut is 6%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
And FYI collection agencies pay directly to songwriters.
The Harry Fox Agency collects mechanicals, and their cut is 6%
I'm curious what any of this has to do with the story?
The $877 million number is mentioned in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
Oh. You changed the title so I didn't see it.
Also, er, maybe get you sarcasm meter checked. That was pretty clearly sarcasm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
One fool to another eh mike?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
One fool to another eh mike?
What's the problem with the headline? It's entirely accurate, BMI has recorded record revenue.
So now are we going to have to suggest checking your reading comprehension in addition to your sarcasm meter?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
Please excuse him, he's been off his meds.
(Sheesh, where does my shilling organization get these guys).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
1: Must be sober during the interview
2: Can't be high on illegal drugs during the interview
3: If you are on any meds you can't be off your meds during the interview
Job duties
1: Shilling for various organizations on social media and message boards such as Techdirt
Job requirements
1: Must be sober while shilling
2: Must not be high on illegal drugs while shilling
3: If you are on any meds you must be on your meds while shilling.
Recommended qualifications (not required)
1: High school diploma
2: You're not a drug addict
3: You're not an alcoholic
If you meet these qualifications please give me a call as I have been having a very hard time finding suitable candidates. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
Shill, Sep 12th, 2015 @ 4:22pm
Please keep them in mind before posting. If you want to be drunk, high, or off your meds you can do it on your own time. but before posting please make sure you are sober, not high, and on your meds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Don't let the facts get in the way of a sad story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time to fire some people
If despite heavy profits you're still having a difficult time, either you suck at your job, or your job is terribly inefficient, meaning people either need to be fired, or things need to change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bunch of crybabies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]