[Fmpro] Copyright & pay

[Pete]

Jamie Thomas wasn't sued for enjoying 24 tunes. She
was sued for making 24 tunes (she didn't write or own)
available for thousands of other people to download
for free.

I'm not saying it's right, but the legal difference is
that the ASCAP writer's signed an agreement with ASCAP
allowing the songs to be used by the broadcaster. No
one signed any agreements with Jamie Thomas.

ASCAP writers are free to leave their agreement, no
one can "leave" illegal download sites.

P e t e
S u r d o v a l

--- Mark Northam <mnortham at gmdgroup.com> wrote:
> Or put another way, Jammie Thomas for personal use
> enjoys 24 tunes without
> paying the writer and publisher and gets hit with a
> fine of 222,000.
> 
> TV broadcasters uses tens of thousands of tracks of
> commercial music that
> generate millions in profits, the writers and
> publishers never get paid for
> those usages because the PROs deliberately refuse to
> implement better
> tracking for commercials, causing the money the
> broadcasters paid for the
> right to air the music in those commercials to be
> paid to others. In other
> words, a multi-million dollar diversion of funds.
> AKA "the survey".
> 
> What's the difference? The PROs not only allows this
> free use of music by
> the for-profit broadcasters (free, as in the writers
> and publishers aren't
> paid performance royalties for the usages), but the
> PROs takes it a step
> further and legally protects the broadcasters from
> any legal action taken by
> a PRO writer or publisher member whose music was
> used and who didn't receive
> a royalty.
> 
> >From the point of view of the writer and publisher
> who isn't being paid,
> both instances above have the same result. So what
> gives the PROs the right
> to take money paid for all music broadcast and pay
> only who they want to,
> rather than using best efforts (hello,
> watermarking?) to get that money to
> who it was intended for?
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mark Northam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/5/07 2:01 PM, "LesHurdle"
> <leshurdle at avradionet.com> wrote:
> 
> > http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9829296-38.html
> > 
> > Might it also be argued, when a 'performance on
> air' is not paid, the
> > people who have been paid in advance for said
> performance are also
> > liable because of non payment, especially
> commercials*?
> > 
> > L
> > 
> > * The lifeblood of the entire broadcasting
> industry in the USA.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music
> Magazine -
> > http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> > 
> > Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes
> site  by Billy Hale Music
> > 
> > To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> > http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Mark Northam, CEO
> Global Media Development Group
> 
> http://www.RoyaltyWeek.com - The Business of Music
> Royalties Worldwide
> 
> 1-800-774-3700 ext. 702 / 310-645-9000 ext. 702
> http://www.gmdgroup.com
> Yahoo/Skype: marknortham  /  AIM: mnortham
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The Film Music Pro List is sponsored by Film Music
> Magazine -  http://www.filmmusicmag.com
> 
> Best of FMPRO: http://www.fmproquotes.com - Quotes
> site  by Billy Hale Music
> 
> To edit your list options or unsubscribe, visit:
> http://nxport.com/mailman/listinfo/fmpro
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping