[Fmpro] What's CPA period?

[Mark Northam]

Hi Claude -

On 8/13/07 8:51 PM, "Claude Castonguay" <c.castonguay at videotron.ca> wrote:

> i'm sorry i don't fully get the acronym CPA. I guess the C stands for
> commercial, as in jingle, P..A...Umh There must be some blond
> underneath that premature grey of mine.

Sorry about that - ASCAP term for Commercials, Promos and Advertisements -
covers all three types of music performances.
 
> As for Jingles, up here in Canada SOCAN pays nothing to composers, i
> believe it never has and never will. The argument is: "broadcasters
> pay for a film or a TV show and what and who is in it, to attract
> advertisers, but they obviously don't pay for the commercials
> themselves so why should they pay for the music in the commercial?

I just don't get the logic in that - assuming the stats are about the same
as the US, that means they're basically giving away over 50% of the music
performances on television. Devaluing those performances to zero. I can't
help but wonder with all those performances devalued, how they make the case
that the performances within shows are of so much more valuable.

Beyond that, how can publishers say that free music downloads (like the
original Napster or the current torrent downloads, etc) to students and
others who don't make a nickel of profit are bad, while free public
performance licenses to mega-buck broadcasters who are making millions in
profits are good? What kind of a message, exactly, does that send?

> I have a question, does Brad Pitt for example get residuals when one
> of is movies plays on TV (be it cable or network)? Would he get
> residuals for playing in a commercial?

Depends on his contract. Most actors' contracts through their union allow
for residuals of one flavor or another.

> 
> Concerning commercials i have to admit i can see no logical
> explanation that would justify that a broadcaster should pay for
> anything that has to do with an ad...By definition they need good
> content to attract advertisers so i very well see them paying for the
> content but why for anything that has to do with the ad itself it's
> seems illogical..!

I guess I just see it differently. From the broadcaster's point of view,
it's ads and their dollars that finance the entire operation. Paying for the
legal right to publicly perform ads means paying for the legal right to
publicly perform what brings in ALL of your revenue dollars. The
broadcasters could just as easily make the case that since they're paying
for content (programs), it's up to the production company to absorb any
performance royalty costs as part of the program fee paid by the
broadcaster. 

While this isn't exactly a parallel, consider a company. Some people you pay
bring in money, like the sales department. Others cost money, like the
accounting or human resources department, or the janitorial department. Just
because the sales guys bring in the money, that doesn't mean that they
should be the only ones paid benefits. And just because some people are seen
by your customers and interface with them and your customers would perhaps
value them more highly, that doesn't devalue the work of the other
behind-the-scene employees, even the janitor.

All this is to say that devaluing any mass block of music performances under
any scheme, justified or not, can have a damaging effect on all of
copyright. The wholesale decimation of CPA music performance value by the
PROs is a dangerous thing in my view, beyond being patently unfair to those
who write that music. It's easy to choose a party in all of this and say
what "they think is valuable", but as I said in an earlier post, remove CPA
music from the blanket license and you'll see exactly how much the
broadcasters value it. And that's the undisputable proof of CPA's value to
broadcasters right there. And from the most simple of perspectives, how is
it right to charge a license fee for all music on a station, then write off
over 50% of the music performances as virtually worthless, leaving the
people who wrote the other 50% to split up the entire pie? Sure, that's a
nice thing for the "other" 50%, but where's the justice in writing off half
the music you just licensed, so that the writers of the other half can get
more money?

Regarding the value of score vs. song, people can say and do anything in
negotiations, but it's the final outcome that matters. And in the case of
local TV stations, as proven by the agreement that was linked on this list a
few days ago, there is nothing in that agreement that establishes a
different value to the broadcasters for score vs. song. If the "value to the
broadcasters" is now to be the measuring stick for music performance value,
that would dictate that ALL discriminatory rules favoring song over score be
eliminated today. What a concept - music is music! Lyrics are not the holy
grail of all music! They're simply another creative element that can be used
in music, like an instrument, style, technique, etc.

Best,

Mark Northam