|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 16:59:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 17:21:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 19, 2017 18:39:25 GMT -6
It's kind of (IMO) a tiny victory of a specific battle in the huge war that is copyright and licensing. But it is substantial. Rather than futility try and explain the details, this says it better and more succinctly :
Today, and historically, BMI and ASCAP, and the licensees who use your music, have operated under a model where each PRO collects for and pays out for only the shares of musical works each represents in its respective repertoire; this practice is known as fractional licensing. It allows a co-owner to license only their own share in a work and receive direct payment from their PRO for that share. To put it simply, we collect and pay you, as a BMI affiliate, for your share of a co-written song under our specific valuation system.
100% licensing would allow any one co-owner of a work to license 100% of the work without needing the permission of the other co-owners. Essentially, your writing partner could have 100% control over the licensing of your song, without your say, subject only to an obligation to account to you for your share of licensing revenues.
This is one of the sticking points that Google's plant into the Justice Department was holding on to. Thank goodness the little guys and a win for the "right thing" happened. There was no reason to change up the way things have been for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2017 19:13:32 GMT -6
What Bill said. Basically common sense prevailed. After the DOJ handjobbed somgwriters and composers and refused to allow us to negotiate our own rates, they added in the proverbial FU with the 100% licensing. This wasn’t on ANYONE'S radar and is something the DOJ added in. My guess it was at the behest of Google and others. So basically this would have allowed Spotify to play dumb and only pay one of the creators of the material. Say we write a song, your company gets it cut in Germany...you have zero idea...but it has made the other guy $10k and you’re stuck trying to recoup your share. Publishers would have had to hire armies of people to scour and check on licenses.
|
|
|
|
Post by NoFilterChuck on Dec 19, 2017 19:38:14 GMT -6
I think it meant that if we wrote a song together, a company like Spotify would only need MY permission or YOUR permission to use it. they wouldn't need all parties' permission to use it. I could license to Spotify 100% of the song. Spotify would still pay out the proper percentages to both of us, but they don't need permission from both of us to use the song.
I can see how a streaming service would really benefit from this if one of the partial owners of a song is the record label. That label could have their entire catalog played on Spotify without the permission of the rest of the songwriters because the label co-owned the song with the songwriters. that would mean that the songwriters would be stuck with whatever rate the label negotiated for song use.
As of this Consent Decree ruling, spotify would need to get permission from ALL parties before they can use the song. At least, that's what I believe it means.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 19, 2017 19:46:39 GMT -6
As far as I know, licenses are always granted, no permission is needed, just payment. ASCAP or BMI would never refuse a useage. They just collect the royalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2017 19:53:43 GMT -6
Songwriters can’t negotiate their rate. That is set by the government. We are the only profession where pay is regulated and determined by the government. Songwriters don’t have the ability to refuse a license to anyone. Only the label can refuse license. Taylor Swift was able to take her songs off of Spotify because her label backed her and allowed it.
Basically, as i understand it, this would have allowed Spotify to only register the song through, say BMI...and If the co-writer was ascap or sesac, they wouldn’t have know to collect for it. Total cluster. It would have led to publishers asking writers to only write with fellow PRO members.
|
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Dec 19, 2017 20:49:39 GMT -6
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ruled against the U.S. Department of Justice and affirmed BMI’s 2016 consent decree victory, which allows for the practice of fractional licensing.
In other words, parties seeking to use songs written by multiple songwriters must obtain a license from all of the songwriters, or their representatives. Previously, the DOJ had ruled that the consent decree called for “full-works” or 100% licensing, whereby a user was required to obtain a license from only one of the songwriters.
The performing rights organizations were quick to issue statements applauding the decision.
“This is a massive victory for songwriters, composers, music publishers and the entire industry,” said BMI president Mike O’Neill. “We have said from the very beginning that BMI’s consent decree allowed for fractional licensing, and we are incredibly gratified that Judge Stanton and the Second Circuit agreed with our position. We thank all the songwriters, composers, publishers and organizations who supported us throughout this process, which unfortunately, has been a nearly two-year distraction from our original intent which was to update our outdated consent decree and modernize music licensing. We look forward to our continued efforts to protect and grow the value of music.”
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 19, 2017 21:22:56 GMT -6
What Bill said. Basically common sense prevailed. After the DOJ handjobbed somgwriters and composers and refused to allow us to negotiate our own rates, they added in the proverbial FU with the 100% licensing. This wasn’t on ANYONE'S radar and is something the DOJ added in. My guess it was at the behest of Google and others. So basically this would have allowed Spotify to play dumb and only pay one of the creators of the material. Say we write a song, your company gets it cut in Germany...you have zero idea...but it has made the other guy $10k and you’re stuck trying to recoup your share. Publishers would have had to hire armies of people to scour and check on licenses. Let's remember what administration did this. The one that instituted Net Neutrality, in 2015. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 19, 2017 23:28:56 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 20, 2017 5:46:43 GMT -6
I found the above hard to understand as the Obamas' seemed so pro american music: always celebrated it and so pro shoring up the rights of the little guy/gal.
How did the coin never drop for them with songwriters? With their fancy pants ivy league education, did they fail bio 101 and think songs grow on trees an a flat earth somewhere ?
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Dec 20, 2017 6:08:59 GMT -6
Looks like the rate court granted a 40% increase in writers royaties from SirusXM. And reduced the royalties a percentage point for Music Choice and Muzak. Music Choice is the music on your cable TV. www.allaccess.com/net-news/archive/story/172525/bmi-wins-consent-decree-battle-over-u-s-department>In response to TODAY's decision by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, NAB EVP/Communications DENNIS WHARTON said, “NAB is extremely disappointed with the court’s decision allowing fractional licensing of BMI songs played on radio and television stations, as well as in countless venues across AMERICA. If sustained, this decision could disrupt the music licensing marketplace and impede the delivery of music to listeners and viewers, resulting in less airplay of their favorite songs. For decades, NAB and BMI have had a mutually beneficial relationship that has benefited songwriters, broadcasters and tens of millions of listeners who enjoy hearing their favorite songs on free and local radio and television. We look forwarding to finding common ground with our songwriter friends to continue that partnership.” A2IM CEO RICHARD JAMES BURGESS said, "As a direct petitioner in this statutory rate setting hearing in pursuit of fairer rates for creators and labels, A2IM thanks SOUNDEXCHANGE and our partners: the major labels, RIAA, AFM, SAG-AFTRA, the artists’ community, and our members who participated. The CRB’s decision falls short of our objective of establishing platform parity, a willing buyer, willing seller standard, and a fair share of revenues generated for artists and labels. Nevertheless, a forty percent increase in rates is welcome and this result is a perfect example of what happens when the recorded music industry works together for the common good." SOUNDEXCHANGE released a statement saying, "The COPYRIGHT ROYALTY BOARD (CRB) yesterday issued its decision on the determination of rates for SIRIUSXM’s satellite radio service, as well as for the cable and satellite television music services provided by MUSIC CHOICE and MUZAK, from 2018 through 2022. The CRB increased the rates for SIRIUSXM by more than 40%, from 11% of revenue to 15.5% of revenue, effective JANUARY 1, 2018. SIRIUSXM is the only satellite radio service in the UNITED STATES and reported revenues of $5 billion in 2016. By contrast, the CRB reduced the rates for MUSIC CHOICE’s and MUZAK’s services from 8.5% to 7.5% of revenue. SOUNDEXCHANGE advocated on behalf of its artists and rights owners in this rate litigation, which spanned 24 months." “We thank the CRB for its work and appreciate their consideration of the case we laid out,” SOUNDEXCHANGE Pres./CEO MICHAEL HUPPE said. “SOUNDEXCHANGE is dedicated to our mission of ensuring that creators are properly recognized and compensated for the use of their work. And while the Copyright Royalty Board did not adopt the rates we proposed for SIRIUSXM, its ruling demonstrates an important step in the right direction toward valuing the contributions of the music creators represented by SOUNDEXCHANGE.” |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 20, 2017 17:48:21 GMT -6
I found the above hard to understand as the Obamas' seemed so pro american music: always celebrated it and so pro shoring up the rights of the little guy/gal. How did the coin never drop for them with songwriters? With their fancy pants ivy league education, did they fail bio 101 and think songs grow on trees an a flat earth somewhere ? That just wasn’t the case with that administration. |
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Dec 20, 2017 17:58:30 GMT -6
I know, not arguing with anyone, just found it so weird how obama would talk up American artists (prince) al green, sing their songs etc., and then make such bone headed decisions in terms of respecting songwriters and supporting them ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Dec 20, 2017 18:03:21 GMT -6
It's a major disconnect.
|
|
