[Fmpro] ASCAP and Technology

[Mark Northam]

This, of course, lines up directly with the infamous "Unilicense Proposal"
where ASCAP, BMI and the publishers proposed charging zero performance
royalties for pure music digital downloads. This proposal, according to a
highly knowledgeable source on the "other side of the bargaining table" from
ASCAP, established a precedent that ASCAP will find it difficult, if not
impossible, to break with - namely, that a download is a mechanical only.

So once again, when we pry back the layers of secrecy at ASCAP, we've got a
case of some people at ASCAP saying one thing (there's a performance
component in a digital download) and others saying another thing (that ASCAP
considers it a mechanical). A shocking lack of unity and coordination on a
subject that will likely have a massive impact on composers' royalties in
the near future. 

As far as songwriters, they're fine - they're covered for these types of
royalties. Composers... That's another thing entirely. Many composer
contracts, unlike songwriter/publisher agreements, have little or no
benefits of mechanical royalties flowing through to the composers.

Maybe it's time composers looked beyond ASCAP and BMI for payment for
digital downloads. Clearly our interests are NOT being strongly advocated
for in terms of performance royalties for downloads if what Scott reports is
accurate.

Best,

Mark Northam


On 2/18/07 7:49 PM, "scott at szabosoundandmusic.com"
<scott at szabosoundandmusic.com> wrote:

> I have been told by ASCAP that (Spring 2006 when I was told) they consider
> digital downloads as mechanical, not a performance.

---------------------------------
Mark Northam - Publisher
Film Music Magazine / Film Music Weekly
The Professional Voice of Music for Film & TV
http://www.filmmusicmag.com
Yahoo/Skype: marknortham  /  AIM: mnortham