[Fmpro] ASCAP bashing

[Mark Northam]

On 4/28/08 10:31 AM, "Robert Stanton" <zolessi at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hello Mark,
> 
> Would you be so kind as to elaborate a little regarding the way ASCAP
> discriminates against instrumental music?  Since I'm new to the forum-
> perhaps you might just mention a thing or two.  Thank you-
> ~Robert

I won't go into all the details (check the FMPRO archives for lots of
discussions on that), but here's an excellent article by our list admin Mark
Holden that lays out all the details:

http://www.filmmusicmag.com/?p=529

Every composer should be horrified at how our financial interests have been
hijacked in favor of songwriters. The fact that composers are not upset by
this is exactly what allows it to happen.

Here's a quick look at to major problems composers face at ASCAP:

Problem 1: How ASCAP diverts millions of dollars every year away from score
composers and into the pockets of songwriters

1. ASCAP, under a blanket license, is paid the same by broadcasters for all
music that airs on a television channel.

2. ASCAP, through rules they have created, pays a minute of song 500% more
than a minute of instrumental score music, even though both are marked as
"background" on the official cue sheets that document each piece of music in
a film or television show and each are watched by the same number of viewers
on a television channel within the same show.  This whopping difference in
payout is due solely to the fact that it's score vs. song. Both are
background, both contain no on-screen performances, but a one-minute score
cue is hit with an 80% penalty compared to a one-minute song cue within a
television program.

3. As the license fees from the broadcasters are a fixed amount, more money
for songs means less money for score - a "zero-sum game" as they say.


Problem 2; How the ASCAP Board makes sure no independent candidate can
petition to get on the board of directors ballot (ie, they're protecting
their own butts)

After the Department of Justice let ASCAP "off the leash" when it comes to
distribution policy in 2001, the ASCAP Board moved quickly to abolish many
member benefits enjoyed by members for decades when the government had an
active interest in the welfare of ASCAP writer members and wouldn't let them
do so.

One of the things they did was to create a new formula that set the number
of signatures required if an ASCAP member wants to gain a spot on the ASCAP
Board of Directors ballot by petition. The number of signatures was 25 for
decades, a fair number. In fact, current board member Doug Wood used this
method to get on the board years ago. The ASCAP board created a complex
formula based on the number of writer members, and further complicated it by
stating that only VOTING writer members were eligible to sign a petition, a
small fraction of total members. So, by creating a formula based on TOTAL
writer members, but only allowing VOTING writer members to sign, they've
virtually wiped our any practical chance of a writer petitioning to get on
the ballot, much less elected. The current signature number? Over 1,250
signatures of VOTING writer members. That, up from 25 only a few years ago.
And to add insult to injury, they abolished the policy where candidates
gathering signatures for a petition could get a list of contact info for
ASCAP writers. 

None of these policies have been justified by the ASCAP Board, they simply
create them and hope composers don't scream too loud. Big-name composers who
could cause "trouble" due to their stature in the business are eligible for
six-figure advances that keep them happy and quiet.

I hope this helps you begin to understand the frustration many feel about
the massive discrimination faced by instrumental composers at ASCAP. The sad
thing is, since Mark Holden wrote that article several years ago, things
have changed but only for the worse. No more hearing board transcripts
available, ASCAP can remove any information they want from the hearing board
decision documents, no more public Q&A at general membership meetings, no
more independent candidates on the ballots, and on and on it goes. You have
to wonder what those ASCAP executives cowering under their desks are so
afraid of that they have to create draconian policies like the 1,250
signature rule to keep people off the board (and ballots even) unless they
are "approved" by the status quo.

Wouldn't it be amazing if someone who was truly ready to fight for reform
actually got on the ASCAP board and started doing something more than making
excuses why the discrimination must continue...

Best,

Mark Northam