[Fmpro] What's CPA period?

Tue Aug 14 14:29:13 GMT 2007

Hi Les,

i don't know about what the Copyright law says in Canada. I've tried  
cheking it out but it's pretty arrid.

http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.pdf

I know that there are fundamental differences between concepts in  
Canada and the US. I know that copyright and performance rights are  
two different beasts but honestly, i'm far from mastering these  
concepts...alas!

Best,

Claude

On 07-08-14, at 09:48, leshurdle wrote:

> Hi Claude, MN,
>
> Does the copyright law in Canada exempt music used in commercials
> from being covered by the copyright law?
>
> If the broadcasters do pay SOCAN for ALL music used on air 24/7 and
> SOCAN simply refuses to pay out money which has received for 'all'
> music... is this not theft?
>
> L
>
> On Aug 13, 2007, at 9:17 PM, Mark Northam wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -
>> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>>
>> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
>> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music Magazine -   
> http://www.filmmusicmag.com
>
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro