[Fmpro] SOCAN CPA Rip-off?

[Mark Northam]

On 4/4/08 7:06 AM, "James Ryan" <jeryan at optonline.net> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> Isn't this also the case with BMI here in the states?  To my
> knowledge, they don't pay on commercials either.  Can we say that BMI
> is giving CPA away too, or is more likely they are collecting on it
> but not paying writers/publishers?
> 
> Best,
> James

I've posed the question to a top person at BMI who responded instantly from
their Blackberry - when they get back to the office I'll have details and
will post here. It's great to see a PRO so responsive to inquiries.

One thing's for sure... If any PRO collects a license fee to cover
commercial broadcasts, it owes a portion of that license fee to those who
write the music for those commercials. If it is unwilling to pay those whose
broadcasts are being licensed, it should not license those performances
which would leave the copyright owner free to direct license them. I'll say
it again.. What gives the right for a PRO to give away FREE MUSIC, as in,
licensing the performances and then declaring them worthless or
next-to-worthless (aka 3 cents on the dollar) and refusing to pay the
writers and publishers of that music?

There is a very basic disconnect in the idea that a PRO, representing its
writers and publishers, can charge money for something and then not pass the
money collected along to those who created the works that the PRO are
charging the broadcasters for. It's as if a PRO charges a license fee to
cover A, B and C. Then, the PRO, by itself, decides that C is "worthless"
and splits the money between A and B and refuses to pay C. It's as if the
PROs seem to think they can hijack the license fees they collect as a
middleman on behalf of their members and do whatever they want with them,
including refusing to pay some whose performances were licensed by the PRO.

If a PRO licenses a performance, it should pay the member for that
performance.

Mark Northam