[Fmpro] Canada What's CPA period?

leshurdle leshurdle at avradionet.com
Wed Aug 15 02:06:34 GMT 2007 

 From a friend of mine

As I seem to remember telling you a few years  
back,......................One of our main objectives (and later when  
I was a board member of the CMRRA) was to attempt to sway CAPAC (as  
the ASCAP-related arm of pre-SOCAN) board members to start paying  
performing fees for music aired on TV and Radio commercials. We  
tried, tried and tried, but the major publisher members of CAPAC  
repeatedly voted us down with the argument that all "jingles" were  
commissioned and writers received a large upfront fee and were also  
part of AF of M residuals. There was no recognition of the use of  
library music as being prevalent at that time. I can only presume  
that the same argument persists to this day. The decision on fees for  
commercials is a decision of the board of SOCAN - presumably the same  
situation as with ASCAP and BMI in the USA.

................................................................

I still can't get an answer as to whether SOCAN is committing fraud  
by accepting money 24/7 from broadcasters to assuage the copyright  
law and then not paying for music. already paid for......... 24/7.

NOTE.. it was the publishers who did not want certain music paid in  
Canada... is it those same publishers who want the weightings at  
ASCAP etc?

L








On Aug 14, 2007, at 7:53 AM, leshurdle wrote:

> Hi Claude,
>
> As some of us try to get to grips with the idiocy going on at PRS in
> the UK these days it fast becoming obvious 'knowledge' is a dangerous
> thing, and there are those who do not want any of us 'to
> know'.......... witness the lack of credible replies on this list
> from those who could supply all data in a heartbeat.
>
> I'll ask my Canadian publisher what the copyright covers.
>
> Bottom line.........  it is fast becoming obvious PRO's have managed
> to launder money for a long time....... were they drug cartels I'm
> sure they would be stopped, however, downloads will see massive
> change, and not necessarily to the benefit of composers.
>
> L
>
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 7:29 AM, Claude Castonguay wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

More information about the FMPRO mailing list