ASCAP, BMI And SESAC Continue To Screw Over Most Songwriters: 'Write A Hit Song If You Want Money'

from the well-that's-just-great dept

We keep hearing from folks how the collections societies in the US for songwriters and composers, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, are supposedly the "good guys" in that they actually give money to the actual musicians, and they aren't like the RIAA at all. But the evidence continues to be lacking on that front. In fact, it increasingly looks like they're doing a lot more harm to most musicians. Earlier this year, we noted that their aggressiveness in getting just about any small venue to pay up fees was killing off open mic nights and other sorts of venues that allowed musicians to play live. Mike points us to the news that many venues are simply giving up on live music. The problem? Well, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are all demanding huge fees. Even the restaurants that don't bring in cover bands are being told they need to pay up, just in case a musician happens to do a cover in the middle of a wholly original set. The licensing organizations don't seem to care, they just want you to pay, just in case. When asked how they know that covered music is being played, they admit they don't:

"Basically, we don't know," said Dave Ascher, the SESAC Music Licensing Consultant who sent the letters. "To make a long story short, there's no way, logistically, for us to know whether on a day-to-day basis they're playing SESAC music."

But, just in case, you need to pay up. Of course, rather than doing that, the venues are just giving up on live music, providing fewer places for musicians to perform, hone their craft, and build up a following (and a business model).

As for the claim that these organizations help bring in money for those musicians, well, that's not seen either. We've already seen how they only give money to big name artists in most cases, because that's all they're able to track. In fact, the article talks to one musician who's upset about all the venues closing, but is still registering his songs with ASCAP. When asked if he's received any royalty check at all, the answer was no. So, how do the collections organizations respond? They tell them to become more famous:

"I'm sorry to hear that, but what I would like to tell him is that he needs to write a hit song," BMI's Bailey said.

How nice. They funnel all the money to big name artists, force venues to close so new artists can't become famous, and then when asked about giving money to those up-and-coming artists, they flippantly tell them to become more famous.

At some point, musicians and songwriters need to learn that these organizations are not doing things in their best interests at all. They're simply bureaucracies to funnel money to big names, while limiting the competition.

Filed Under: collection societies, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi, sesac

Playing Music In A Nightclub Just Got Ridiculously More Expensive In Australia

from the and-that's-just-the-start dept

We've pointed out in the past how ridiculous it is to have "collections societies" for music, which basically act as big bureaucracies for taxing any kind of music usage. These societies -- both the for-profit and non-profit ones -- have pretty much one goal and one goal only: to increase how much money they get. So when you hear about new schemes, like Choruss, to set up a new such collection society, you know it's just a blatant money grab, rather than allowing for real business models to be developed. We've seen this all over the world, with SoundExchange in the US sitting on millions of dollars it collected, PRS in the UK trying to charge a stable for horses listening to the radio or calling up small businesses and threatening them if they hear music in the background.

The latest -- sent in by a bunch of you -- is that the various collections societies in Australia are looking for massive increases in what they can collect. Apparently, the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia is gleeful after the Australian Copyright Tribunal allowed somewhat insane increases to yearly fees. The new fees will almost certainly put some nightclubs out of business while making sure some restaurants no longer play any music at all:

Buoyed by the nightclub ruling, the PPCA is now targeting eateries. It wants to increase licensing fees in a 120-seat restaurant to $19,344 a year -- up from $125. Small cafes would be slugged with a 4729 per cent yearly increase from $124 to $5860.

Just look at those numbers for a second. And then try not to laugh as the PPCA defends the numbers by claiming "we are looking to establish a fair return."

Meanwhile, that may not be all. Thanks to this ruling, the Australasian Performing Right Association, which collects a separate fee for composers and artists, is asking for its own massive increase in fees.

All this really does is highlight another ridiculous aspect to collections societies: their rates aren't set by the market or any effort to become more efficient/offer a better product. Instead, the rates are set by various copyright boards, courts or tribunals who get pushed heavily by industry interests for such increases. Even so, while we've seen crazy numbers from around the world, I've never seen percentage increases like those being discussed in Australia. It's as if the collections societies there don't want anyone ever playing music again.

Filed Under: australia, collection societies, music, nightclubs

Europe Looks To Get Rid Of Monopoly On Royalty Collection Societies

from the one-step-in-the-right-direction dept

There are all sorts of problems with copyright "collection" groups who are in charge of collecting royalties and distributing them out to content creators. However, at least in the US we have competition among a few different such collection agencies, with ASCAP and BMI being the big two, and SESAC being the new up and comer. However, over in Europe, they've set up monopolies with only a single collection agency in each country -- meaning that if the collection society has ridiculous artist-damaging ideas, you're stuck with them.

However, it looks like that may be about to change. A few people have sent in the news that Europe is looking to get rid of monopolies on copyright collection groups, meaning that there can be some competition among different groups to see who can serve an artist better. Of course, it's still not clear that these groups are needed at all -- as they mainly prop up an unnecessary and increasingly obsolete business model (compulsory licensing), but at least having some competition is better than none.

Filed Under: collection societies, copyright, eu, europe, monopolies