Comment Re:LIcensing orgs. forcing broadcasters to pay? (Score 1) 394
BMI ASCAP and SESAC are performance rights organizations. They exist to collect royalties for the composer(s) of a song. They don't (directly) have anything to do with the labels. (But that depends on the situation.)
There are two different copyrights at work here. One copyright is for the song itself, and is usually owned by the composer. The other copyright is the one for the sound recording, usually owned by the record label.
Composer X joins one of the performance rights orgs (ASCAP or BMI in the US) and affiliates himself with a publishing company. When he writes a song, he registers it with the performance rights org he belongs to, and it is administered by the publishing company he is associated with. (They are supposed to get out and pitch the song, etc.)
Radio stations, bars, juke box owners etc. pay license fees to BMI and ASCAP for the right to play the songs. BMI and ASCAP collect the fees and conduct surveys to determine which songs are being played how much. Then they split the money based on the percentages. If they determine that Composer X's new song made $1000 in royalties this period, they will mail $500 to the publishing company and $500 to him.
(This is the simple version, of course.)
If Composer X is smart, he will start his own publishing company so he is getting both checks. But if Composer X is also an artist, the label will usually strongarm him into using their publishing company so they get one of the checks.
The copyright for the sound recording is usually owned by the record company. Radio stations do not have to pay to play the recording, (but they are paying a license fee to play the song...just like a bar is paying a fee when a live band plays a cover tune.) confusing? yes.
The song is one thing and the recording of the song is another. To illustrate: I recently heard a rumor that Prince was going to re-record his old albums and release them. He owns the copyrights to the songs, so he can re-record and perform them whenever he wants. What he can't do is take the existing recording of "Purple Rain" and put it on his next album without the owning record companies permission. They own the recording.
As I understand it, the webcasters already have an agreement in place with the performance rights organizations. (Just like the regular radio stations.) What is ridiculous is requiring webcasters to pay for something the regular radio stations don't have to pay for...
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
There are two different copyrights at work here. One copyright is for the song itself, and is usually owned by the composer. The other copyright is the one for the sound recording, usually owned by the record label.
Composer X joins one of the performance rights orgs (ASCAP or BMI in the US) and affiliates himself with a publishing company. When he writes a song, he registers it with the performance rights org he belongs to, and it is administered by the publishing company he is associated with. (They are supposed to get out and pitch the song, etc.)
Radio stations, bars, juke box owners etc. pay license fees to BMI and ASCAP for the right to play the songs. BMI and ASCAP collect the fees and conduct surveys to determine which songs are being played how much. Then they split the money based on the percentages. If they determine that Composer X's new song made $1000 in royalties this period, they will mail $500 to the publishing company and $500 to him.
(This is the simple version, of course.)
If Composer X is smart, he will start his own publishing company so he is getting both checks. But if Composer X is also an artist, the label will usually strongarm him into using their publishing company so they get one of the checks.
The copyright for the sound recording is usually owned by the record company. Radio stations do not have to pay to play the recording, (but they are paying a license fee to play the song...just like a bar is paying a fee when a live band plays a cover tune.) confusing? yes.
The song is one thing and the recording of the song is another. To illustrate: I recently heard a rumor that Prince was going to re-record his old albums and release them. He owns the copyrights to the songs, so he can re-record and perform them whenever he wants. What he can't do is take the existing recording of "Purple Rain" and put it on his next album without the owning record companies permission. They own the recording.
As I understand it, the webcasters already have an agreement in place with the performance rights organizations. (Just like the regular radio stations.) What is ridiculous is requiring webcasters to pay for something the regular radio stations don't have to pay for...
I hope this clarifies things a bit.
