Posted on 03/12/2003 10:48:04 AM PST by mhking
Now, I totally agree with you here. People who think the internet is going to replace typical distribution and production chanels are not living in reality. I have been in this argument on "Napster" threads one too many times.
Hmmm, you might THINK an outfit like IUMA would go out and compete with ASCAP. Use the google and find out why that isn't happening. It isn't just an insult to say ASCAP is a racket. It IS literally a racket, and it works like one.
If music underwent a price deflation like those common in high tech (and in some countries it already has) then unprotected downloads would be economically viable.
Say I'm a songwriter. You run a dance club. You hear my song and think it's one of those great songs that will bring in customers night after night. Knowing that, you contact me to get permission to use the song. I realize what an asset it will be to your business, so I charge you a price commensurate with the value to your business, say $5000. You agree on the price and we have a deal.
Ideally, that's the way it would work. But you and I both know that in the real world, with thousands of songs, thousands of clubs, and thousands of songwriters, a direct deal like that just isn't feasible.
Knowing that, I hire an agent to take care of that licensing for me. I may not get a check from you for $5000 as in the first example, but the agent will collect some money from you and every other business who plays my song. As long as you keep playing my song, I keep making the money.
So, instead of a direct deal where you write me a check for $5000, you pay me through my agent on the installment plan. ASCAP serves as the agent, the intermediary doing the deals, for songwriters.
As you know, most painters didn't live to see the value of their works realized, Picasso being a notable exception. However, it's quite obvious that the value of a painting is built into the purchase price when a Van Gogh is selling for $50,000,000.
The value of a musical composition is not built into the purchase price when you pay $17 for a CD with 10 songs on it. That's why your purchase of that CD entitles you to listen to it, but performing it publically is a different matter and why the artist is entitled to more revenue from a public performance of their work.
I'm sure if you wanted to buy a CD for $2,000,000 and play it publically, there are many songwriters who are eagerly awaiting your call.
A million and one people can say something wrong, but it's still wrong. What does that prove?
Apology accepted. Thank yoy.
I know we agree on much.
Yes, we do.
I'm not sure what you mean by a racket. From your post you seem to imply they shut out any competition, like a monopoly. If that's the case, you're dead wrong. There are four major PROs (performance rights organizations) in the United States, and nearly a hundred more across the globe.
You also fail to address what I said about blanket licenses. If there was the equivalent of the statutory mechanical rate for, say, discos, and ASCAP was limited to collecting, say, treble damages from non-compliers, ASCAP would be de-fanged. No more racket, no more horror stories.
I'm still waiting to see that case citation.
What does what the opinions of other people mean? It means they, too, think ASCAP is a racket.
And there are people who think the earth is flat. So what?They're no less wrong.
Let's take, for example, Harry Fox Agency. While you might quibble with their expense ratio, at least they have moderate cost licenses
Do you know what the Harry Fox Agency does? Do you know the difference between their business and ASCAP's business? What e-commerce site is going to need a license from HFA? HFA handles mechanical royalties, which are statutorily determined by Congress. HFA and ASCAP are not similar in any way.
You don't have to sign it. It's a copyright reservation of rights statement. And the Uniform Commercial Code says you agree to that when you buy copyrighted intellectual property.
To really cut to the chase, forget about the RIAA. It isn't even part of this issue. Simply because you can't tell the difference between the disc and the contents of the disc doesn't change the law or the rights of those who create music.
Suppose I'm an ASCAP member and I write a song which is widely played in bars, dance clubs, and other venues but which--because I don't give all my money to record companies for "promotional expenses"--gets zero radio airplay. How much will I get from ASCAP? I might not mind ASCAP so much if people who perform music publically were required to submit a set list (or received a discount for doing so) and the money they paid to ASCAP were allocated based on that set list. As it is, though, how much money one makes off ASCAP royalties is a function of how many radio stations one's "promoters" have paid for, not how much the public actually demands the song in public.
Establishments using copyrighted music to enhance the establishment's atmosphere are rightfully required to pay the composers and publishers of the music for the use of their intellectual property.
God bless the U.S.A.
If you're saying that you won't get paid for your music being performed in clubs, you're wrong. If you think you're not being paid fairly for those performances, ASCAP has a review and appeals process you can invoke to get what you think is a fair amount.
What's left is your complaint that you're not getting paid for the non-performance of your song on radio, which is a result of your decision to shun radio. And you're blaming that on ASCAP?
I read somewhere (forget exactly where) that ASCAP bases royalty payouts on radio airplay; if a song receives 1% of radio airplay, it's assumed to get 1% of nightclub play. Is this in error? From what I've read, clubs and show sponsors in Europe are supposed to submit set lists to their countries' ASCAP equivalents, but ones in the U.S. do not.
That is because you have put your finger right on the ASCAP blanket license racket.
If clubs could document ASCAP and non-ASCAP content proportions, the blanket license, and ASCAP's enforcement racket, would go away.
Obscene expense ratios and uncertain payouts to artists based on a corrupt (the current system of "promoters" is just payola retreaded - another instance of music industry racketeering) system.
I have nothing against collecting royalties for intellectual property. But the current ASCAP system makes it impossible for clubs to opt out. ASCAP will always play "gotcha" with them.
This is why ASCAP contractors should be outed at treated like the stool pidgeons they are.
tdadams may claim all the ASCAP horror stories on the Web are all fabrications by IP thieves, but I would just invite anyone who wants to know ASCAP's true nature to google them and read the facts that are presented about ASCAP and make up your own mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.