[Fmpro] ASCAP/Digital Downloads

[Mark Northam]

The entire Direct Licensing situation, where composers can do a performing
rights deal directly with a network, came about primarily because a group of
broadcasters got sick and tired of paying in license fees to ASCAP and
watching them not be distributed fairly. The cost of not accurately and
fairly paying people has already enabled an entire industry that threatens
the PROs, you'd think they would change, but no.

I think it may come down to what is "fair". The songwriters, who benefit
from 1940s-era rules about how valuable "song" is compared to instrumental
music, don't think it's "fair" the rules are changed much from what they are
now. The composers don't think it's "fair" that the rules so massively
discriminate against instrumental music.

But really, It all gets down to greed and a powerful group of people who are
chained to the past ethically and morally and are willing to do anything to
"preserve the tradition" that pays them so handsomely. It's about an
unwillingness to face up to the realities of today that are vastly different
than those of the 1940s when the original rules were written. This group
will sacrifice anybody and anything to maintain their income, whether it be
music in movie theatres or digital downloads, as long as they get and
preserve "what's theirs," that's all that matters.

Many in this group are technology-averse, unable or unwilling to embrace
technology and see it as either something to be afraid of, or something that
will "take their jobs" or cause some sort of loss of (their) control over
things. Yet they're very powerful in Hollywood, and people fear them.
Despite all the glossy-brochure-languge, idealistic policies and great sales
hype of our performing rights industry, these are the realities that lie
beneath all of that. And the powers that be will do and say anything to
"protect" what's theirs - the best evidence of this perhaps is the ASCAP
Board's decision to create language that virtually wiped out any change of
an independent candidate getting on the Board election ballot, much less
getting elected.

And that's the Achilles' heel in all of this - new blood on the ASCAP Board
that isn't willing to "play ball" with the stubborn status quo folks who,
working in secret of course, insist on obedience to the "traditions" etc..
Sadly, the ASCAP Board cleverly duped the membership into approving this
abusive language - if the amendment had been honestly written, perhaps "Do
you approve of an amendment that eliminates any realistic chance of an
independent candidate ever getting on the ballot?" the results might have
been different, but the craven and sneaky ASCAP Board couched the amendment
in vague references with no numerical examples to show the result of the
amendment, which of course was "sold" to the membership as an "Advantage" by
this same group of people.

In the end, composers get what they deserve. If they are too afraid of the
PROs to demand better payment rates, and too afraid of political backlash to
point out the blatant unfairness of so many PRO policies, the unfair
policies will continue. I just hate to see fear be the emotion of choice for
an entire industry of hardworking, good people. It really does prove the
classic FDR phrase, "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself."

Best,

Mark Northam


On 5/7/07 11:26 PM, "andrew feazelle" <andrew.feazelle at gte.net> wrote:

> ASCAP Statement on Court Decision Pertaining to Digital Downloads
> 
>   *New York, NY, April 30, 2007:* ASCAP respectfully disagrees with the
> court's decision. We are considering our options as the proceeding to
> determine reasonable license fees to be paid by AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo!
> to compensate our writer and publisher members for the use of their music
> goes forward to trial (scheduled to begin May 21)."
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Wouldn't it be good if the people upstairs at AOL, RealNetworks and Yahoo
> etc... agreed to pay ASCAP
> on the condition that payment to members was 100% accurate and the books were
> open to keep
> ASCAP honest.  How one could manufacture a situation like that is beyond me,
> as i can't find why AOL
> would want money taken from them that wasn't before to be used honestly (I
> mean other than the fact
> they don't want to be overpaying the PRO's).  But it may be a good argument
> for AOL if they get backed
> into a corner by ASCAP in one of the appeals.  It would seem morally good to
> the court (i imagine), and
> if acceptable to the court may end up delaying AOL's payments to ASCAP (as
> ASCAP would have to
> figure out some way of accurately paying people which i'm sure would take
> forever).   
> 
> Or a better plan for AOL if they got backed in a corner is to say that they
> would directly pay ASCAP type
> royalties as they already have tracking in place.  Plus more money would be
> going to artists as they wouldn't
> have to pay for Bergman's 1st class tickets, 1st class office property rental,
> or other ASCAP related expences.
> 
> A Fez
> _______________________________________________
> 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