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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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?

Filed Under: anti-trust, antitrust, collection societies, consent decree, doj, pros, publishers, revenue, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi

Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance

from the no-it-isn't dept

Sometimes it feels like these copyright collections groups are in some kind of insane competition in which the winner is whoever can make the dumbest claim about something being a public performance in order to collect royalties for themselves artists no, seriously, the artists barely get anything. From stereos in rental vehicles, to any kind of cloud-music-streaming, to freaking ringtones, it's all been tried and most of it has failed.

The latest entry to this tournament of greed comes from licensing group Sesac, which has been targeting homeowners associations that have stereos and speakers at communal areas for homeowners, such as swimming pools and barbecues.

A neighborhood in Matthews got a letter from Sesac, which is one of the big three music licensing companies in this country, and the tone of the letter unnerved them. It wasn't the first letter from them suggesting they may want to get a music license to play music at their pool or at the clubhouse during holiday gatherings, or any gathering for that matter. The letter also pointed out that violating copyright law is expensive and, "under the law, damages up to $150,000 may be awarded for each copyright infringed."

What they're saying is, if you are playing music in a public venue, like a pool or a community club house, and you don't have the license to do it, you have to pay the royalties to the artist who wrote and performed the song originally.

The problem with all of this is that, of course, a communal swimming pool or clubhouse within a neighborhood under a homeowners association isn't a public venue. Put another way, there's an obvious difference between a public swimming pool and a communal pool to be used by a specific neighborhood or gated community. It's not...you know...open to the public. These are private gatherings among neighbors, more akin to a block party than a concert setting or a swimming pool open to the public.

At the link, Sesac claims they were just reaching out to "make an offer", an offer which just happened to come along with the helpful information that thousands of dollars might be coming in fines should its "offer" not be accepted.

We talked to John Nipp who is a patent and copyright attorney with Additon, Higgins, and Pendleton, P.A. in south Charlotte.

"What those groups are using to their advantage is the complexity of the copyright law. They're using that to their benefit by putting things in there like you could be liable for $150,000 in damages".

They're scammers, in other words, using threats and the complexity of the law to extract money from the innocent. It's damned time victims of these tactics had some kind of recourse for having to endure these threats.

Filed Under: block party, collection societies, copyright, home owners associations, licensing, monetize everything, music, royalties
Companies: sesac

Moronic Swedish Collections Group Argues That A Car Stereo In A Rental Vehicle Is A Public Performance

from the PROs-are-their-own-satirical-figures dept

It's tempting to open with a caveat -- "performance rights organizations (PROs) can serve a valuable purpose" -- before heading off towards the blithering insanity they've devolved into in recent years. It's tempting, but I won't do it. What I will say is that the notion of collecting public performance royalties isn't necessarily wrong, but the way it's been handled by everyone from GEMA to ASCAP has been a farce -- proof that the narrow line between stupid and evil can easily be erased with a small hit of officiousness.

When PROs collect fees from bars, restaurants and nightclubs, it does make a certain amount of sense. Even if I don't necessarily agree that these "rights" are baked into people's musical creations, there's something to be said for music being an integral part of some of these public venues. But the notion that a public performance right exists at all runs at odds with common sense, as do the actions of the PROs themselves. Any band playing a concert venue will be subject to PRO fees (usually hidden somewhere in the venue's deducted costs) even though they're playing their own music. Somehow, this money will make its way back to… well, generally not the band itself. The money is pooled and divvied up into smaller piles of payouts that rest comfortably on the larger earnings of the top few bands on the PROs' rosters.

Because the PROs will cease to exist without steadily increasing collections, they have branched out. It's no longer limited to BMI shaking down local pubs for high-dollar licensing fees, even if said pub only hosts local, indie artists. No, now it's actions like charging the Girl Scouts for singalongs, charging small auto shops for the personal CDs played in the garage by their mechanics, charging companies for allowing employees to listen to radios in their cubicles and charging hotel rooms for the "public performances" performed by seldom-if-ever-used in-room clock radios.

Now, there's this, via TorrentFreak -- a Swedish PRO going after car rental companies because rented cars contain publicly-performing radios.

Each car rented out by Fleetmanager contains a stereo radio and CD player so that the customer can enjoy broadcasts of all kinds, including music. STIM (collecting society Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå) says that to do so legally Fleetmanager needs to obtain a license but to date has failed to do so.

According to SVD, STIM is arguing that the inside of Fleetmanager’s cars contain members of the public and therefore amount to public places. On this basis the company needs to obtain a public performance license. Fleetmanager disagrees, noting that any music played inside a car is only heard by a limited circle of people.

In its defense, STIM cites previous madhattery by other PROs.

The collection society says that previous cases involving hoteliers have ended with licenses being obtained which enable hotel guests to listen to music while on the premises.

It also trots out the weak game theory routinely deployed by other non-trustworthy entities -- like cops seeking to coerce a confession or your peer group's insistence that a vodka-soaked tampon is a great way to get hammered.

Furthermore, other car rental companies in Sweden have already agreed to pay a per-stereo levy so Fleetmanager should also pay, STIM argues.

The proper response would be to ask if STIM finds mugging weak and stupid people enjoyable. Fleetmanager's response isn't noted in TorrentFreak's article, other than the obvious hints that it's not interested in paying flat-rate fees for one of the worst public performance arguments ever deployed. An in-car stereo is not a public performance, even if it is a rented vehicle. If you take a bunch of friends on a road trip in your own vehicle, you have not created a public performance no matter how many times the radio is turned on. Renting it from a third party doesn't change anything but the name on the vehicle's title.

Without a doubt, PROs are proving to be endlessly creative -- albeit in ways that do nothing for them or a large majority of their artists. Instead, it makes the agencies look like low-rent thugs whose best shakedown ideas are hammered out over amyl poppers, jello shots and Powerpoint decks.

Filed Under: collection societies, copyright, public performance, sweden
Companies: fleetmanager, stim

When A Fourth Of Small Businesses In England Complain About Collection Societies, It's No Coincidence

from the gimmie-gimmie-gimmie dept

Copyright collection organizations, among the most prolifically corrupt and hilariously dirty organizations as far as some of us are concerned, are reportedly now building themselves quite a reputation among business groups as well. In England, we're finally starting to see some formalized push-back against the collectors from the small business community. From research done by the Federation of Small Businesses, we learn that a quarter of businesses have reported a complete lack of clarity, transparency, and understanding when it comes to how all this insane music licensing is actually supposed to work.

Research from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) shows that 24% of small businesses have complained to the regulator regarding a lack of clarity when it comes to obtaining music, media and design – which are often used for promotional purposes – with issues surrounding licence payments and potential copyright infringement being prominent. The industry body says that copyright collecting societies, which protect the intellectual properties of said industries, lack clarity when it comes to rules and regulations.

Think about what that means for a moment. For a quarter of small businesses, those that can least afford to be dinged by not properly complying with copyright laws, don't have a full understanding of how to stay compliant. Beyond that, even those working with the collection societies, ostensibly in the business of protecting artists and ensuring compliance, aren't made to understand how this all works. How can that be?

Well, the answer is, of course, that collection groups aren't really in the business of compliance or protecting artists. They're in the business of collecting money and making a fee for those collections. It is simply not in their interests for there to be a wide understanding of how music is licensed, should be licensed, and should not be licensed. Far better for these agencies that they simply be able to stroll into a small business, declare them to be infringing, and collect their cut of the fees.

John Allan, national chairman of the FSB, said: "An unexpected demand for licence payments to allow you to play music in your business can be a very unpleasant shock to some small businesses, and the industry should be sensitive in how they approach the issue.

"For trust to be built, they need to make sure they are very clear on why a licence is needed and completely transparent on how charges are calculated."

That'd be nice, but it's certainly not how this works in the real world. There's no patient description of why certain licenses are needed in certain situations. And, oh, by the way, why is clarity and transparency amongst this convoluted mess of a copyright system a better solution than simply cleaning up the mess and streamlining the whole thing?

Filed Under: collection societies, shakedowns, uk

This Is What's Wrong With The Music Industry: Musicians Have To Pay To Pay Themselves

from the bureaucracy dept

We often hear that various collection societies shouldn't be lumped in with the labels when discussions turn to the "problems" of the music industry. After all, the collection societies are just "focused on getting musicians paid." And that's true, unlike the labels, who seem to look for ways not to pay musicians. But... almost every musician I know who deals with collection societies has horror stories about the experience, and they never seem to consider how much their actions (like shaking down anyone playing music in an office or making it impossible to host open mic nights in cafes) really does more harm than good.

Let's tell one such story. Before we get started, why not hit play on this musical widget from Uniform Motion, a band from France we've written about a few times. The story is about them and the insanity of collection societies -- but you might as well use their music as the soundtrack for the post: Andy from the band has a head-poundingly ridiculous story about how French collection society SACEM seems more focused on inserting itself into pretty much every transaction -- even ones that happen directly between the band and its fans -- than in helping him make money. He starts out by describing how a fan downloads one of his albums on The Pirate Bay, and then goes to a show where he wants to buy a CD. As Andy notes, "what a nice guy!" A perfect "direct to fan moment." Except... SACEM is there acting like the tax man:

BUT.... what most people don’t know is that the music venue is legally obliged to pay public performance rights to SACEM (France’s Copyright Collection Society) in order to have bands play live music in their venue.

So we often have to fill out a form, providing details on all the songs we played to ensure SACEM can find the songwriter and pay them their money.

“But we are the songwriters” we cry! “Just give us the money directly, why don’t you? It would save everyone a lot of time (and money) wouldn’t it”?

But that would be far too easy.

So the venue pays SACEM and SACEM tells us we can get the money back (minus some reasonable administration fees of course, like their President’s €750,000 annual salary for instance!) if we pay them a member’s fee.

Oh, you thought it stopped there? Nope. He notes that even the CD sale involves SACEM.

In order to have CD’s made in France, you’re legally obliged to fill out an SDRM form (which is handled by SACEM). CD Manufacturers won’t press your CD’s without prior authorization from SACEM.

If the songs are not listed in their database, you don’t have to pay them anything but if they are (because maybe you became a SACEM member in order to get your public performance money from your live performances) they’ll make you pay a Mechanical Royalty.

So we fill out the forms and they tell us we have to pay the mechanical royalties to them so that they can pay the songwriter for the privilege of having their music on our CD.

“But we are the songwriters dude! So why don’t we just give the money to ourselves?!”

Again, that would be too easy!

Yes, you read that right. They have to pay SACEM to make their CD... because SACEM insists that it needs to pay the songwriters. Since they're all original songs (and quite good ones too), they have to pay SACEM so that SACEM can make sure that money goes to... er... them. The summary:

Let’s summarize what just happened here. The Copyright Collection Society makes the artist pay them to have their own CD’s manufactured, takes a portion of their live revenues and then uses the money to sue the guy who came to the gig and bought a CD!

This is what is wrong with the music business.

Ah, right. Did you miss that part? SACEM is involved in some lawsuits against file sharing sites.

So, look at this from Andy's perspective. He's fine with his music on The Pirate Bay because it builds a fan base, which helps him attract fans to shows where they buy merch. All that works great for Andy and Uniform Motion. And yet, SACEM forcefully inserts itself into nearly every step of that process -- taking a cut of the live revenue to "pay" the band, taking a cut of the CD manufacturing to "pay" them again... and then using the money it collects to try to take down the platform that the band uses to promote its works.

Filed Under: collection societies, france, uniform motion
Companies: sacem

UK Government Censors Copyright Consultation Submission About How Awful Collection Societies Are

from the the-wrong-kind-of-evidence dept

When the UK Hargreaves Review of intellectual monopolies in the digital age came out last year, Techdirt noted that one of its innovations was an emphasis on basing policy on evidence. The fact that this was even notable shows how parlous the state of policy-making has become. One important way to gather evidence is through public consultations, and in the wake of the Hargreaves Review, the UK government conducted a major exercise in gathering views and information in this field.

The responses to that consultation have now been published -- all 471 of them. That's a surprisingly high number for what was once an arcane area of interest only to a few lawyers, and a measure of just how important the subject has become. On that Web page there's the following slightly unusual statement:

in the course of reviewing the responses received, it became clear that a small number of respondents had advanced criticisms or inappropriately criticised the activities of others in the sector. The Government has now carefully reviewed the submissions to establish any potentially defamatory material and has redacted any inappropriate or defamatory comments.

One of the people whose submissions were redacted is Andrew Norton. He's written a fascinating blog post detailing what exactly was taken out. The first and biggest redaction occurs in his answer to the following question:

What aspects of the current collective licensing system work well for users and rights holders and what are the areas for improvement? Please give reasons for your answers

Here's what the UK government published of Norton's response:

Almost no aspects work well for users or rights holders. The standard operating system for collecting societies is to demand all, demand often. There have been many cases in the recent past where agencies have gone above and beyond their mandate, and targeted people in shakedowns.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

In short, what aspects work well? None. What needs to be done? First of all, an audit needs doing, to ensure compliance with the law. Then, shut them down. At the very least start a new, independent one with significant oversight, because this one just DOES NOT WORK.

So what exactly did the UK government think was "inappropriate or defamatory"? This, apparently:

… and targeted people in shakedowns.

In the past few years, there have been reports of UK Collection societies calling up small businesses, and threatening them if they hear music in the background (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090202/0128383597.shtml), carollers, charities (http://torrentfreak.com/charity-forced-to-pay-copyright-police-so-kids-can-sing-071209/) have been targeted for fees, as have schools (http://torrentfreak.com/uk-copyright-cops-target-kids-schools-community-centers-081015/). Even people who sing to themselves have been targeted because they're doing so at work (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/tayside_and_central/8317952.stm) and let's not forget their targeting of employers like Kwik Fit (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm) and even the police (http://torrentfreak.com/police-chief-faces-high-court-anti-piracy-action-120608/). Incidentally, The EU Court of Justice just ruled that in cases like these, there are no fees to pay (http://euobserver.com/871/115621#.T2cCyGfYteQ.twitter)

That's just one of three such paragraphs, all linking to external sites. As you may have noticed, the first link above is to Techdirt, and the others are to sites like the BBC, El Pais, Die Welt and TorrentFreak. None of them is defamatory, since they are all reporting on established facts. This means that the UK government must think that these facts are somehow "inappropriate". That's a pretty extraordinary state of affairs. The UK government has taken it upon itself to hide what UK collection societies get up to, in an absolutely key consultation, one of whose purposes is surely to get the facts about what's happening in this sector.

What makes this censorship of linked information even more striking is that alongside the main consultation document itself (pdf) the UK government also published guidance on providing "open and transparent evidence" (pdf), where we read:

When you draw on other work, a reference, and link to the original work should be included. References to other people’s work should have the relevant web link

That is, the guidelines specifically ask for precisely the kind of scrupulous linking to sources that Norton provided, and yet the UK government censored them all because it didn't like the unequivocally dire situation they delineated.

This does not augur well for the results of the consultation. It suggests that the UK government is happy to gloss over one of the key failings of the present copyright system -- the UK collection societies -- and is seeking to present a very partial view of the real situation. It also undermines confidence in the whole consultation process: if the UK government has arbitrarily redacted true information that it finds inconvenient once, what's to say it hasn't done so multiple times elsewhere? If people aren't allowed to provide all the evidence what's the point of conducting a consultation in the first place?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: censorship, collection societies, comments, government, redacted, uk

Bizarre Combo Rulings From EU Court Of Justice: Dentists Don't Have To Pay Music Royalties, But Hotels Do

from the see-if-you-can-figure-it-out dept

Over the last few years, collection societies have become ridiculously aggressive in trying to get just about anyone to pay up for playing music. The results have been rather crazy, with auto garages being told that they have to pay up because the mechanics out in the garage had the radio on loud enough that customers in the waiting room could hear it. Ditto for a police station where some officers had a radio on in the back, but which some of the public could hear in the front. Then there was the demand that a grocery story pay up because a shop assistant sang while stacking cans. And the craziest of all: the time when the owner of a horse stable was told to pay up because her horses liked listening to music.

A lot of this comes from the simple fact that these collection societies are really just trying to squeeze as much excess revenue as they can out of any location they can find. It's gotten to the point where the "copyright investigators" are really sales people, and are given incentives just like a sales person. They have revenue targets with bonuses for extra revenue they bring in. This gives them incentives to do all sorts of crazy things... like randomly calling up small businesses and if they hear any music in the background, demanding a license.

Thankfully, it appears that the EU Court of Justice is pushing back on some of that. It recently issued two rulings about royalty collections -- but unfortunately it seems like the two rulings conflict with each other in some ways. In one, it is determined that a dentist's office does not need to pay a royalty because patients don't go to the dentist for the music:

Finally, it cannot be disputed that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, a dentist who broadcasts phonograms, by way of background music, in the presence of his patients cannot reasonably either expect a rise in the number of patients because of that broadcast alone or increase the price of the treatment he provides. Therefore, such a broadcast is not liable, in itself, to have an impact on the income of that dentist.

The patients of a dentist visit a dental practice with the sole objective of receiving treatment, as the broadcasting of phonograms is in no way a part of dental treatment. They have access to certain phonograms by chance and without any active choice on their part, according to the time of their arrival at the practice and the length of time they wait and the nature of the treatment they undergo. Accordingly, it cannot be presumed that the usual customers of a dentist are receptive as regards the broadcast in question.

Consequently such a broadcast is not of a profit-making nature...

Of course, you could make the identical argument about music playing in all sorts of places. But, at the very least, it certainly suggests that the music playing at an auto mechanic's garage or a police station are not subject to royalty collections under EU law.

But then there's the other ruling. The exact same court. The exact same panel of judges. The exact same day. Very different ruling. This one involved a hotel, and the question of whether or not music playing in the hotel rooms is subject to collections. And here, the court comes to the opposite conclusion, and says that the hotel must pay.

In a press statement, the Court said that since music in hotels is broadcast to an "indeterminate number of potential listeners" and is "of a profit-making nature" hoteliers are liable for royalty payments. It added that broadcasting music constitutes an "additional service which has an influence on the hotel's standing and, therefore, on the price of rooms."

I'm having difficulty figuring out the difference here. The article linked above notes that these rulings hinge on "the concept of public" which is based on "'an indeterminate number of potential listeners and a fairly large number of persons,' alongside the question of a profit motive." However, it seems like a total judgment call in either case as to whether or not there is a "fairly large number of persons" and just where "the profit motive" comes into play. Both dentists and hotels have a profit motive, and both play music in part because of that reason. But it's arguable as to whether or not the music has a direct impact on actual profits in either case. In the end, the pair of rulings just seems to leave everything a lot more confused, rather than clarified in any way.

Filed Under: collection societies, dentist offices, eu, hotels, music, pros, royalties

Sony Music Exec: The Internet Is Full Of Opportunities & Not A Problem; Intransigent Collection Societies, However...

from the more-people-getting-it dept

We've detailed a few times the ridiculous standoff in Germany, where the incredibly aggressive music collection society GEMA is involved in a big lawsuit against YouTube for posting videos with music in them. YouTube has done licensing deals with collection societies around the globe, but GEMA refuses to even sit down to start a conversation until after the lawsuit happens. Because of that, all GEMA music in Germany is barred from YouTube entirely. This leads to some situations in which totally licensed videos are banned in Germany. This has been going on for years and years with no change.

GEMA, of course, says that it's doing this to "protect" the artists. But as I've pointed out in the past, many, many artists in Germany don't believe that at all. In the past we've noted that GEMA tried to ignore Creative Commons licenses as well as barred members from offering their music for free (two years ago, when I was in Germany at a music conference, I had multiple artists explain to me they had an "official" website where they would "sell" music to keep GEMA happy... and an "unofficial" website where they'd offer their music for free. The whole thing is crazy.

In fact, it's gotten so crazy that apparently even the major labels are getting sick of it. TorrentFreak has the news of a top Sony Music exec, Edgar Berger, who runs their international business, talking about how the internet hasn't been a problem at all, but has created tons of new opportunities. The ones creating the real problems for the industry? GEMA. Because the music is blocked "to protect the artist," it appears that the labels and artists are missing out on large revenue checks from YouTube's ContentID...

“There is absolutely nothing to complain about. The Internet is a great stroke of luck for the music industry, or better: the Internet is a blessing for us,” Berger said.

“You can not blame the Internet for harmful excesses. On the contrary. It has brought us tremendous new opportunities,” he added.

But with these new opportunities come new rivals from an unexpected corner. According to the Sony boss, music rights collecting agencies are now preventing innovation in certain countries.

In Germany, for example, most YouTube videos by Sony artists are blocked due to the music rights group GEMA, and not because Sony wants it that way. When asked why Sony’s music is not available on YouTube in Germany, Berger responded bitterly.

“It’s not because of us. You must direct this question to the German collecting agency GEMA, they licensed the copyright very restrictively.”

Quite a contrast from the "old" story, right? Here's a situation in which technology and business model innovation via Content ID are creating massive new revenue opportunities for the entertainment industry -- and the old school system of excess protectionism is denying them that revenue.

Filed Under: collection societies, edgar berger, germany, internet, music, opportunities
Companies: gema, google, sony, youtube

Hardware Store That Doesn't Play Any Music Has To Fight Off Collection Society Demanding A License Fee

from the that's-called-extortion dept

We've written plenty of stories about different businesses being shaken down by various music collections societies, and the one we often hear the craziest stories about is PPL in the UK. Recently, it demanded a hardware store pay for a license. Of course, there was just one problem: the store's owner doesn't play any music in the store, saying that after the store is closed up for the night, he'll turn on the radio to hear the news while he cleans up, but that he doesn't think music is appropriate for the store. Still PPL demanded £199. After he refused to pay, PPL apparently claimed that he owed them money and passed it on to a debt collection agency, who started hounding the poor guy.

The owner, David Sleath, was finally forced to hire lawyers to try to stop the madness -- and PPL's response was to lower their demand to "just" £100, for music he did not play. Eventually, after Sleath was able to get press coverage, PPL "called him up with a grovelling apology and a promise to withdraw all invoices." Still, he's been stuck with legal fees, and is now trying to get PPL to pay them. It seems more and more like this is just a government sanctioned form of extortion, doesn't it?

Filed Under: collection societies, uk
Companies: ppl

ASCAP Tells Artists It's Cutting Their Payments As It Brags To The Press How Much More Money It's Collecting

from the whose-interests? dept

ASCAP feels like the gift that keeps on giving to those of us covering it. If you're an artist... not so much. We've covered many examples of how ASCAP's aggressive efforts to shut down venues from hosting up-and-coming singers is harming local musicians. And, we've also pointed out how they use a system to overpay large acts at the expense of small acts. Now it's getting even worse. Just as ASCAP is attacking groups like Creative Commons, EFF and Public Knowledge -- who help artists find more ways to take control over their own careers, it's also cutting back on payments to many of its artists:

ASCAP cut payments to some members of it's ASCAPlus program by 20-30%. "Unfortunately, because of the fiscal climate, less money was available this year for the award program," ASCAP said in a letter to those receiving checks.

Ah, right. The tough economic climate. We do know about that. But... wait. Here's an ASCAP press release from just five months ago, claiming it was bringing in more money than ever:

"Music is performed more often, in more places, in more ways by more businesses than ever before. That expanded music use, combined with dramatic ASCAP Membership growth, market share increases and effective strategic management have led to stunning revenue and distribution growth for 2009."

Okay, so ASCAP is collecting more money and distributing more money, but it's cutting the amount given to ASCAPlus members by a huge amount. What's ASCAPlus? Ah, right, the smaller artists who can't make a big stink about this:

"writer members of any genre whose performances are primarily in venues not surveyed; and/or writer members whose catalogs have prestige value for which they would not otherwise be compensated."

In other words, ASCAP appears to be taking more money away from small artists, and giving it to their biggest artists. No wonder ASCAP's Paul Williams refuses to debate Larry Lessig, claiming he'd rather focus on "fair compensation to music creators." Unless you're a smaller, less well known artist. Then ASCAP wants your share to be a little less fair. Actually, quite a bit less fair. Like 20 to 30%.

Filed Under: artists, ascaplus, collection societies, payments
Companies: ascap