Re: Re: Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Re: monitoring: the US is a gigantic country. To monitor everything would cost more than the moneys that get collected. Think about it ... if you hired people to visit and survey each of the thousands of clubs that pay $4.00 a night in license fees it doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure out that the numbers just won't work.
Eventually there will likely be a monitoring device that goes to each venue that pays a blanket license to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC so that every song played on the premises is recorded and royalties can be assigned to each member according to plays.
What I have been pointing out to singer/songwriters is that telling a venue you play only original music isn't enough if you are a member of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. By becoming a member, you have given these organizations permission to collect from venues on your behalf. You don't get a say on who has to pay royalties for your songs and who doesn't have to pay if you have signed up as a member of a collection agency. If you don't want them to collect money on your songs, don't join. (You may still be docked the money the venue pays to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC if that's something they bill all performers, but then that's something you'll have to try to negotiate with the venue owner.)
In other words, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are collection agencies. If you join one of them, you have given them permission to act as your agent. That might be to your benefit and it might not depending on how often your songs are being played and where, and what other perks you can get from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.
In a perfect world we would allow these ideas to flourish, but people need to make a living somehow. Doing things for free is simply incompatible with our system of trade and commerce.
The alternative, which I'd like to see more discussion of, is how to change the nature of work and getting one's basic necessities provided for so that one isn't dependent on making money from one's creative activities. I know that many musicians would be happy to give their music away for free as long as they can get housing, food, medical care, etc., for free too.
I think we are headed for a world where everyone is creative and makes their own art/creativity (or copies it from elsewhere) and no one gets paid for it. Smart machines/apps are opening up creative creation to so many more people allowing an explosion in user generated content. And I don't buy the idea that this new system allows the talented people to flourish and everyone else to fall by the wayside. I don't see a strong correlation between talent and commercial potential. If that were the case, we wouldn't have reality TV stars making so much money.
Those that write the songs the artists sing deserve to get paid.
ASCAP needs to improve how it monitors songs so that more songwriters can be paid. I read about a situation where two songwriters co-wrote a song. One was a member of ASCAP or BMI and the other was a member of SESAC. Every time the song was played somewhere, the two songwriters should have shared equally in the performance royalty payments. However, the SESAC writer got considerably more money than the ASCAP/BMI writer.
So that's my complaint. I understand why the performance rights organizations were created, but many people join and never see any money even though their songs are on the radio, are performed in clubs, etc. If songwriters only earn tiny amounts of money, they should at least be able to see a record of that. It's time for a better monitoring system so that every song performance is recorded and every member songwriter gets credit for it.
Why should ASCAP collect anything when an artist is playing their own music, and it doesn't matter if it is an indie or a top 100. They should be collecting when a performer is playing someone else's music to get the fee to the someone else.
It should be this way. If an artist is playing his own music, he/she should have the option to wave having the venue pay a fee for that music. But the venues end up playing a blanket fee to ASCAP, which covers all the music played at the venue, and then in theory it is divvied up among all the ASCAP members whose music is being played there. However, monitoring systems being what they were, ASCAP decided only to pay a small percentage of members because it couldn't track what songs were actually being played.
Now with digital monitoring that problem should be corrected (not that it will be, however) and each member paid according to how often his/her songs are on the radio, in venues, on TV, in film, and on YouTube.
Re: Re: A good time to discuss the post-scarcity society
Gotta call bullshit on this one Suzanne. A tribute act, no matter how good, is not the same as seeing an artist who really matters to you.
It depends. If the real act is 10X more expensive than the tribute act, you may be happy with the tribute. And if it's the songs that you really love, then you might actually be happier with a younger version performing them than seeing an aging band performing its own material. There are quite a few bands doing recreations of albums recorded by others and doing well. In other words, there's a good market for them.
That's my point. Just because you originated the music, that doesn't mean you'll be the only one to make money from it. If there is money to be made, others will come out and copy it and sell it too.
I don't think there is anything legally requiring venues to pay what ASCAP demands unless 1. an artist represented by ASCAP is performing 2. songs written by artists represented by ASCAP are being performed or 3. the venue has a contract with ASCAP to pay per performance.
Unfortunately the system has been rigged in favor of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and against the venues. I, too, have protested that a venue should not have to pay these organizations if no music written by members of these organizations is being played there. However, any venue that has tried to argue this has run into this response: "We have so many members that if you are playing any music at all, you're likely playing music by one of our members. Unless you can prove otherwise, you need to pay us a fee." The burden of proof is on the venue rather than these collection agencies.
That's where the encouraging indie songwriters to join comes in. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC get their clout by having so many songwriters sign up. If they only represented a handful of songwriters, then it would be much harder for them to tell the venues that chances are member music is being played.
Therefore, once I realized this, I began to suggest that songwriters hold off joining one of these organizations until there is a legitimate reason to think they will get royalty checks in the mail from them. If not, don't join. That way if you go to a venue to play your original music, you can at least claim ASCAP/BMI/SESAC has no right to make the venue pay a fee when you play. Not that it is going to do any good, because unless the venue can prove that no member music is being played there ever, the venue owners will be taken to court and forced to pay. But it is a start. The fewer songwriters who join, the less power these organizations will have. It isn't that I am against ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. It's that most members never get any money, even when they play live shows and their music is played on the radio. The organizations claim to represent them but then don't pay them their due.
There are real or looming scarcities of fossil fuels, clean water, etc. But for many other things, we are currently, or are capable of, producing far more than anyone needs. So I like to expand the discussion to envisioning a society where not just content producers but everyone needs to be prepared to have what they do copied and done more cheaply than what they are doing themselves. Let's discuss a world where the cost/price of everything continues to go down and how we will adjust. We are in the midst of an economic revolution comparable to the Industrial Revolution and it's time for some new economic thinking.
My concern is that when companies get big enough to have the money/influence to change the system in their favor, that's what they do. It doesn't matter what industry they are in, they still look for ways to eliminate the competition.
Between government-approved spying, data collection by huge private corporations, and hacker culture, it would appear that everything is up for grabs. So how do we deal with that?
I think singling out government doesn't really deal with the issue.
Yes, it is possible that various papers, journalists, and bloggers pulled the story so they wouldn't look stupid. Given the current focus on fact checking, maybe they are paying attention. Sure, they could have posted a correction, but given the choice between saying they were wrong and just taking down the story, perhaps they opted just to take it down.
And we have already seen that once a story that is wrong gets out in public, it often outlives the corrections if the wrong story serves someone's agenda. God knows there is a lot of politically motivated misinformation out there that seems to have a life of its own.
Who benefits from the government spying on people and/or locking them up? Most likely one or more companies.
We went to Iraq. Companies like Haliburton made good money over there billing the US government for its services.
We lock people up in prison. Who benefits? How about the private prison contractors? Of course, most of the people we lock up are the low level types, but there's still money to be made in running prisons to house them.
We have scanning machines in airports. Who benefits? Makers of scanners.
Re: Re: How do you separate government from the interess of the 1% these days?
The basic fundamental difference is that we've needed electoral reform in order to have a government that supports a majority instead of minority rule.
I don't disagree with you in the least. But getting voters to pay attention enough and to care enough to elect politicians who will push for election reform is going to be a challenge. How do you get those people elected in the first place if those who oppose election reform (or do nothing to advance it) are heavily funded?
And I fault the media for not asking hard enough questions to expose lies/inconsistencies. Of course, even if they do, the voters will likely just turn to a news outlet that confirms their beliefs.
I am especially worried about politicians passing laws making it harder for people to register to vote. One way to preserve the status quo is to prevent anyone who disagrees with you from voting.
How do you separate government from the interess of the 1% these days?
Since money from corporations and wealthy individuals has shaped our election process, then the government may grow (or more accurately has already grown) to reflect their interests. The line between government and corporations that benefit from government contracts and government policies disappears.
Many who say they are libertarians still support national defense as one of the few appropriate uses of government, so in order to decrease efforts like this, you will need to follow the money and also reform political finance.
You mentioned church, does BMI or Ascap own the rights to musical hymns in the bible?
If the songs are in the public domain, then no, neither ASCAP nor BMI represents the songwriters. However, if the songs are more recent and the songwriters are members of ASCAP or BMI, those organizations can collect performance royalties on their behalf.
I use credit cards issued by a few stores I shop all the time because the cards provide discounts with every purchase. So I don't mind having those companies track all my purchases at those stores (I don't use the cards at other stores so I don't provide the card issuers with a broader picture of my spending patterns) in exchange for giving me a deal. Similarly I use grocery cards at grocery stores. They aren't credit cards, but they give me special pricing on many items. Again, a fair exchange in my mind. I get cheaper items, they learn what I buy.
With both Google and Facebook, I won't click on the ads. I don't want to encourage either Google or Facebook to provide them to me, I don't want the advertisers to pay for me clicking out of curiosity, and I don't trust that the ads will necessarily be legit. For example, I noticed that in gmail, Google gave me an ad for some company offering "overstock" MacBooks for $50 or something like that. Oh yeah, sure, that was a legit company. In other words, the fact that Google put the ad in my email is no guarantee that the company isn't spam.
The problem with both Google and Facebook is that their sources of income are just two things: advertising and/or data collection. Assuming that world economic conditions are going to continue to limit consumer spending, those income sources may not be all that secure for them.
If I want to know what a company is offering, I'm interested enough to sign up for that company's mailing list. Google and Facebook ads don't work for me, and if those two companies really understood me, they wouldn't bother to send me any.
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re: Re: Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
Eventually there will likely be a monitoring device that goes to each venue that pays a blanket license to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC so that every song played on the premises is recorded and royalties can be assigned to each member according to plays.
What I have been pointing out to singer/songwriters is that telling a venue you play only original music isn't enough if you are a member of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. By becoming a member, you have given these organizations permission to collect from venues on your behalf. You don't get a say on who has to pay royalties for your songs and who doesn't have to pay if you have signed up as a member of a collection agency. If you don't want them to collect money on your songs, don't join. (You may still be docked the money the venue pays to ASCAP/BMI/SESAC if that's something they bill all performers, but then that's something you'll have to try to negotiate with the venue owner.)
In other words, ASCAP/BMI/SESAC are collection agencies. If you join one of them, you have given them permission to act as your agent. That might be to your benefit and it might not depending on how often your songs are being played and where, and what other perks you can get from ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.
On the post: Content Creators: Control Is An Illusion And That's A Good Thing
Re:
The alternative, which I'd like to see more discussion of, is how to change the nature of work and getting one's basic necessities provided for so that one isn't dependent on making money from one's creative activities. I know that many musicians would be happy to give their music away for free as long as they can get housing, food, medical care, etc., for free too.
I think we are headed for a world where everyone is creative and makes their own art/creativity (or copies it from elsewhere) and no one gets paid for it. Smart machines/apps are opening up creative creation to so many more people allowing an explosion in user generated content. And I don't buy the idea that this new system allows the talented people to flourish and everyone else to fall by the wayside. I don't see a strong correlation between talent and commercial potential. If that were the case, we wouldn't have reality TV stars making so much money.
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re: This Isn't About Indie Artists and Rock Stars
ASCAP needs to improve how it monitors songs so that more songwriters can be paid. I read about a situation where two songwriters co-wrote a song. One was a member of ASCAP or BMI and the other was a member of SESAC. Every time the song was played somewhere, the two songwriters should have shared equally in the performance royalty payments. However, the SESAC writer got considerably more money than the ASCAP/BMI writer.
So that's my complaint. I understand why the performance rights organizations were created, but many people join and never see any money even though their songs are on the radio, are performed in clubs, etc. If songwriters only earn tiny amounts of money, they should at least be able to see a record of that. It's time for a better monitoring system so that every song performance is recorded and every member songwriter gets credit for it.
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re:
It should be this way. If an artist is playing his own music, he/she should have the option to wave having the venue pay a fee for that music. But the venues end up playing a blanket fee to ASCAP, which covers all the music played at the venue, and then in theory it is divvied up among all the ASCAP members whose music is being played there. However, monitoring systems being what they were, ASCAP decided only to pay a small percentage of members because it couldn't track what songs were actually being played.
Now with digital monitoring that problem should be corrected (not that it will be, however) and each member paid according to how often his/her songs are on the radio, in venues, on TV, in film, and on YouTube.
On the post: Content Creators: Control Is An Illusion And That's A Good Thing
Re: Re: A good time to discuss the post-scarcity society
It depends. If the real act is 10X more expensive than the tribute act, you may be happy with the tribute. And if it's the songs that you really love, then you might actually be happier with a younger version performing them than seeing an aging band performing its own material. There are quite a few bands doing recreations of albums recorded by others and doing well. In other words, there's a good market for them.
That's my point. Just because you originated the music, that doesn't mean you'll be the only one to make money from it. If there is money to be made, others will come out and copy it and sell it too.
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re: Re:
Unfortunately the system has been rigged in favor of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and against the venues. I, too, have protested that a venue should not have to pay these organizations if no music written by members of these organizations is being played there. However, any venue that has tried to argue this has run into this response: "We have so many members that if you are playing any music at all, you're likely playing music by one of our members. Unless you can prove otherwise, you need to pay us a fee." The burden of proof is on the venue rather than these collection agencies.
That's where the encouraging indie songwriters to join comes in. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC get their clout by having so many songwriters sign up. If they only represented a handful of songwriters, then it would be much harder for them to tell the venues that chances are member music is being played.
Therefore, once I realized this, I began to suggest that songwriters hold off joining one of these organizations until there is a legitimate reason to think they will get royalty checks in the mail from them. If not, don't join. That way if you go to a venue to play your original music, you can at least claim ASCAP/BMI/SESAC has no right to make the venue pay a fee when you play. Not that it is going to do any good, because unless the venue can prove that no member music is being played there ever, the venue owners will be taken to court and forced to pay. But it is a start. The fewer songwriters who join, the less power these organizations will have. It isn't that I am against ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. It's that most members never get any money, even when they play live shows and their music is played on the radio. The organizations claim to represent them but then don't pay them their due.
On the post: Content Creators: Control Is An Illusion And That's A Good Thing
A good time to discuss the post-scarcity society
Here's what I wrote about it two years ago:
Hypercompetition, Scarcity, and the Economics of Music
On the post: Is Getting Sued For Patent Infringement The Equivalent Of Frat Hazing For A Growing Tech Company?
Bigness corrupts
The Ruthless Overlords Of Silicon Valley - The Daily Beast
On the post: NSA Insists It Doesn't Have 'The Ability' To Spy On American Emails, Texts, Etc.
Is anything safe/hidden/protected?
I think singling out government doesn't really deal with the issue.
On the post: No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web
The word from the White House
On the post: No That Won't Backfire At All: Questionable Story About Obama's Daughter Disappears From The Web
Re: Yahoo Contributor Network
And we have already seen that once a story that is wrong gets out in public, it often outlives the corrections if the wrong story serves someone's agenda. God knows there is a lot of politically motivated misinformation out there that seems to have a life of its own.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
Stop and think about it
We went to Iraq. Companies like Haliburton made good money over there billing the US government for its services.
We lock people up in prison. Who benefits? How about the private prison contractors? Of course, most of the people we lock up are the low level types, but there's still money to be made in running prisons to house them.
We have scanning machines in airports. Who benefits? Makers of scanners.
And so on.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
Re: Re:
The big companies influence who gets elected, and those who get elected make the laws. While there isn't a direct path, there is an indirect path.
Special interests play a big role in shaping laws. In fact, lobbyists have been known to give those in Congress pre-written laws for them to pass.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
Re: Re:
If the government is at the beck and call of private companies, there isn't a lot of difference.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
Re: Re: How do you separate government from the interess of the 1% these days?
I don't disagree with you in the least. But getting voters to pay attention enough and to care enough to elect politicians who will push for election reform is going to be a challenge. How do you get those people elected in the first place if those who oppose election reform (or do nothing to advance it) are heavily funded?
And I fault the media for not asking hard enough questions to expose lies/inconsistencies. Of course, even if they do, the voters will likely just turn to a news outlet that confirms their beliefs.
I am especially worried about politicians passing laws making it harder for people to register to vote. One way to preserve the status quo is to prevent anyone who disagrees with you from voting.
On the post: A Terrifying Look Into The NSA's Ability To Capture And Analyze Pretty Much Every Communication
How do you separate government from the interess of the 1% these days?
Many who say they are libertarians still support national defense as one of the few appropriate uses of government, so in order to decrease efforts like this, you will need to follow the money and also reform political finance.
On the post: More People Realizing That ASCAP And BMI Are Killing Local Music Scenes
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the songs are in the public domain, then no, neither ASCAP nor BMI represents the songwriters. However, if the songs are more recent and the songwriters are members of ASCAP or BMI, those organizations can collect performance royalties on their behalf.
On the post: Organic Farmers' Preemptive Lawsuit Against Monsanto Patents Tossed Out For Being A Bit Too Preemptive
And more
On the post: Organic Farmers' Preemptive Lawsuit Against Monsanto Patents Tossed Out For Being A Bit Too Preemptive
Here's the latest
On the post: Loosening The Privacy Reins Isn't So Bad, But Where's The Payoff?
I will share info if I get something in return
With both Google and Facebook, I won't click on the ads. I don't want to encourage either Google or Facebook to provide them to me, I don't want the advertisers to pay for me clicking out of curiosity, and I don't trust that the ads will necessarily be legit. For example, I noticed that in gmail, Google gave me an ad for some company offering "overstock" MacBooks for $50 or something like that. Oh yeah, sure, that was a legit company. In other words, the fact that Google put the ad in my email is no guarantee that the company isn't spam.
The problem with both Google and Facebook is that their sources of income are just two things: advertising and/or data collection. Assuming that world economic conditions are going to continue to limit consumer spending, those income sources may not be all that secure for them.
If I want to know what a company is offering, I'm interested enough to sign up for that company's mailing list. Google and Facebook ads don't work for me, and if those two companies really understood me, they wouldn't bother to send me any.
Next >>