online radio is saved, flexcar gets a free ride from the city..
“Excuse me, there should be a Flexcar parked here. Oh no sorry, the RIAA impounded it to help cover the cost of internet piracy”.
While the first part of the headline is clearly a hyperbolic statement (I’m not convinced that ‘net radio was ever going to bite the dust) it seems some agreement has been achieved - Wired has the story. What I don’t understand, and I haven’t been following this closely so bear with me, is if terrestrial radio pays me a royalty via ASCAP or BMI, yet MTV doesn’t pay me any royalties and Sound Exchange collects my web royalties although I don’t appear to receive them, (not that I really want any royalties from internet performance btw) when will someone come to their senses and merely level the playing field? And if Pandora for instance is making money as a business on the web why would they fight the payment of royalties? It’s a bit like the City of Portland giving away valuable parking space for free to Flexcar…! Someone way more intelligent than me please explain this mess…
Now, moving on to Flexcar and Portland Dept of Transport - “PDOT currently provides 33 metered spaces for Flexcar’s exclusive use, an indirect subsidy worth more than $60,000 in foregone meter revenue and administrative costs in 2005.” That was 2005 folks. Source Portland Carsharing Evaluation. Why does a city subsidize Flexcar? Flexcar makes revenues from its customers so why isn’t it paying the city for using those parking spaces? Here’s an idea, as the recording industry collapses into a pile of doo doo, as witnessed locally by the demise of two of our local music stores, Ozone and the 23rd Ave location of Music Millennium, why doesn’t the City give that $60,000+ to the store owners so they can remain open and keep jobs, and then find a way to properly tax Flexcar for use of City space that can continue to fund arts related adventures in Portland? ‘Net radio got tons of supporters on the phones to their congressman/woman so now if you feel that Flexcar should not be getting a subsidy from the City get on the phones too…In fact read that document from PDOT as it includes some interesting data. If you think I’m being cynical by the way I’d like to add a solution - Flexcar finds off-street parking that it leases at its own expense therefore no subsidy would be required from the City. Meanwhile I have no solution for the online music distribution nightmare, be it streaming, downloading, MP3 blogging or whatever.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:08 am
Thats why somone needs to start a collection agency that combines both. Soundexchange collects the sound recording “digital audio transmission” and the ASCAP, BMI and SESAC, in the case of domestic internet companies, should be collecting “the public performance” for your music composition side…the ole’ circle p, circle c crapola. anywho.. there are some hoops to jump through since I think soundexchange is somewhat regulated by the government. also, I just looked up title 17 to recall which section goes over ones Exclusive Rights in Copyrighted work which is section 106. I would recommend reading the rest of Title 17 if interested. Give yourself a bit to wake up before checking it out …otherwise you might melt your brain, like I almost did.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:39 am
both what, royalty collection and car sharing….? just kidding it’s too early ye. The Stumptown’s kicking in though…
July 13th, 2007 at 8:08 am
haha yeah.. I just read an article on the prince deal that you talked about in your spark section. People are pissed at the whole thing. Where am I going with this…I guess I need some stumptown too.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Just wanted to add a few comments to this discussion, as it seems to always be confusing. First, ASCAP and BMI collect royalties based on Copyright Form PA. This includes both terrestrial (Radio, TV, etc) and digital (Web, Satellite, etc) performances. Soundexchange collects based on Copyright Form SR (Sound Recording). The reason it only collects for digital performances is because the terrestrial royalties were negotiated away in the early days of radio (more important to get the exposure, at that time). There is actually a coalition that has been formed in the last couple of months that is working towards having terrestrial performances subject to payment of these “SR” royalties. It is an attempt to level the playing field for all methods of airplay. Of the Royalties Sound Exchange collects, 50% go to the copyright owner, 45% go to the “Featured Artist” and the final 5% goes to the non-featured musicians and singers. That last part of the royalty is distributed to the musicians and singers by the AFM and AFTRA. I think there are some problems and issues to be worked out with Soundexchange, as it is a relatively young organization, but one that has great potential to offer a significant revenue stream to musicians. The portion of the fund just distributed by the AFM/AFTRA grew from it’s first distribution of a little over $400k, to what looks to be around $4 million for it’s next distribution (I think that is over a two year period). That’s pretty amazing growth and shows were this royalty stream is headed. To put a simple point on this, though, if you are an artist or band, self produced, no label, virtually 100% of the Soundexchange royalties come to the artist/band. In this example, only 5% may go elsewhere and that would be to any “non-featured” side musicians/singers on the recording.
OK, I’m done, but if this has raised more questions than answered, don’t hesitate to contact me at the Musicians Union, Local 99, Portland, OR 503-235-8791
July 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Bruce, thanks for the input. I’m going to mull this over for a while before I comment. meanwhile muso and artist folks, Bruce runs the Portland chapter of the Musicians Union and spends his time looking out for musicians of all stripes…
July 19th, 2007 at 8:25 am
[...] Related Posts: Online radio is saved, She Wants Revenge. [...]