The Steel Guitar Forum

I do have agree with Rick. The venue should have to pay the fee for using any copyrighted material, no matter how it is delivered.They theoretically make money off the music. The exception would be a radio.

Mr Campbell, you contradict yourself. Should a musician get paid to perform or should he pay for the privilege?

It seems to me that publishing companies should publish something and get paid for the book. If a songwriter writes the book, he should get his cut for each copy sold. We don't pay an artist every time someone looks at one of his paintings or sculptures so why should a songwriter get paid every time someone plays one of his songs?

I think that a songwriter should feel honored if another musician likes one of his songs well enough to arrange and perform it. If the songwriter wants to make some money in the music business, he can put on his own performance.

In my opinion, ninety-eight percent of the royalty business is a racket. The vast majority of that money does not go to support writers and musicians, it just perpetuates the corporations that collect the money.

One last thought here: To employ as many musicians as possible, maybe radio and television stations should be prohibited from playing any recorded music and be required to offer only live music. (Tongue somewhere in vicinity of cheek here.)

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been a professional working musician. My income has always been from honest labor except for the many years when I was a college instructor. I am however a capable musician who occasionally performs in public. My most recent appearances have been in support of my Local Public Library.

I didn't intend to go on quite so long, but there it is. It looks like Richard posted while I was writing. Thanks for reading. There may be more.

Bill Terry wrote:...However, at the end of the gig, she took 'x' dollars right off the top, explaining it was for those fees...

I have played in at least one club where that was the policy as well.

James Sission wrote:...Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.

This paragraph seems to contradict itself. On one hand, it singles-out the venue owner as responsible for a license. But it also states that "all who participate" in the performance are legally responsible. Doesn't that include the band? The musicians "benefit" from a paid performance, monetarily. (although any "benefit" I have ever received was more than eaten up by gas, strings, repairs, depreciation...)

Michael Maddex wrote:Mr Campbell, you contradict yourself. Should a musician get paid to perform or should he pay for the privilege?

It seems to me that publishing companies should publish something and get paid for the book. If a songwriter writes the book, he should get his cut for each copy sold. We don't pay an artist every time someone looks at one of his paintings or sculptures so why should a songwriter get paid every time someone plays one of his songs?

I think that a songwriter should feel honored if another musician likes one of his songs well enough to arrange and perform it. If the songwriter wants to make some money in the music business, he can put on his own performance.

In my opinion, ninety-eight percent of the royalty business is a racket. The vast majority of that money does not go to support writers and musicians, it just perpetuates the corporations that collect the money.

One last thought here: To employ as many musicians as possible, maybe radio and television stations should be prohibited from playing any recorded music and be required to offer only live music. (Tongue somewhere in vicinity of cheek here.)

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been a professional working musician. My income has always been from honest labor except for the many years when I was a college instructor. I am however a capable musician who occasionally performs in public. My most recent appearances have been in support of my Local Public Library.

I didn't intend to go on quite so long, but there it is. It looks like Richard posted while I was writing. Thanks for reading. There may be more.

Very well said Michael:
BMI and ASCAP and the others are still legal scams to me. It's like someone giving you a Chevrolet truck but you have to pay GMAC to drive it.

Michael Maddex wrote:

It seems to me that publishing companies should publish something and get paid for the book. If a songwriter writes the book, he should get his cut for each copy sold. We don't pay an artist every time someone looks at one of his paintings or sculptures so why should a songwriter get paid every time someone plays one of his songs?

I think that a songwriter should feel honored if another musician likes one of his songs well enough to arrange and perform it. If the songwriter wants to make some money in the music business, he can put on his own performance.

In my opinion, ninety-eight percent of the royalty business is a racket. The vast majority of that money does not go to support writers and musicians, it just perpetuates the corporations that collect the money.

All very valid, IMHO. I think that songwriters should be paid when someone records their songs, and sells them for a profit. Ideally, the songwriter would get all this money. But now, the revenue stream passes through endless hands, and people who do little or nothing get a significant share...it's kinda like reverse payola.

The rationale that a songwriter (or anybody else) should get paid every time a song is heard is quite another thing; that borders on ridiculousness. The fat cats are primarily looking out for the fat cats, so it's gotten to be like our Congress. Another ridiculous thing is that music copyrights can now extend for up to 95 years! Four to five generations of "protection" is nothing short of absurd.

I got dinged two months in a row on my ATT bill for going over my data plan. I have my son on my plan and he'd been downloading lots of music. Anyway they dinged me for $60.00 extra.
Guess what, ATT doesn' pay a cent of royalty. Downloads are not considered a "performance. I'm one guy paying 60.00 for two months. You do the math. That's where the music money is going, and none of the publishing cos go after them. I can only conclude there was some payola involved on that ruling.

Michael Maddex wrote:

"One last thought here: To employ as many musicians as possible, maybe radio and television stations should be prohibited from playing any recorded music and be required to offer only live music. (Tongue somewhere in vicinity of cheek here."

It's been a long time since I worked regularly in the UK but the BBC always used to have a 'needle time' policy in place; any programme was allowed a restricted amount of recorded music that had to be balanced against live performance (sessions conducted at BBC studios). Perhaps this is still enforced? Mind you, BBC sessions paid the lowest scale of any studio work back then but it was, at least, something.

'Night Ride' was one such Radio Two show and many's the time I've heard myself on the radio as I drove home from a gig. I bet Forumites Ken Byng and Basil Henriques can say the same....

Sheesh. Now Michael and Donny make a lot of sense to me. I think I need to switch to the no opinion side.

Richard Sinkler wrote:Sheesh. Now Michael and Donny make a lot of sense to me. I think I need to switch to the no opinion side.

Rethink that Richard. It seems like a lot of guys don't understand (or care) what Intellectual Property is. Just because something is not tangible and you can't put your hands on it don't make it free game to use as you see fit. The songs are the property of the creator and he/she is entitled to be compensated for its use. After all, the code of federal regulations affords the creator ownership of the property. If you don't want to compensate them for the use of their creation, then write your own music and leave their property alone. Its really that simple, its not your song to do with what you want. I don't understand the idea that it's ok for you to profit from someone else's work and cut them out of the deal. The whole idea of compensating an artist every-time someone looks at a piece of his work is a strange argument to me. If you copied it and made money off of it, as you do using someone's musical creation, then I think he deserves part of that profit. If your not profiting in some way from his work,which you wouldn't by merely looking at it, then no, I don't think you he gets a royalty. Looking and listening are free, profiting is something totally different. I don't understand the idea that it's ok to make money from someone else's work. Here in Texas, we call that welfare.

Richard Sinkler wrote:Sheesh. Now Michael and Donny make a lot of sense to me. I think I need to switch to the no opinion side.

Aw, come on Richard to the dark side

Richard Sinkler wrote:Sheesh. Now Michael and Donny make a lot of sense to me. I think I need to switch to the no opinion side.

Geeze, I don't know about Mike, but I certainly hope people don't all agree with me! Without conflict and dissent, there really is no progress. As my dad used to say..."You learn nothing from people who agree with you."

I think publishing companies were once necessary, but their role now is being diminished by the internet. I can even see a time when the same thing happens to them that happened to Blockbuster. In all other private industry, admin functions are downsizing. Computers are eliminating oversight, search, and record keeping operations. If an artist is looking for a song, he need look no further than the internet. He no longer has the need for all those professionals earning big salaries that scour the country looking for a certain type of song. A computer program could likely do that task just as well, and probably far more cheaply and efficiently. And, if a songwriter wants to really get his song in front of a big audience, there's always YouTube, or other similar online posting services.

We've seen big changes in banking, manufacturing, and retailing, and I think the same thing will happen in the administration area of the music industry. In short, we no longer really need all those people.

Something to think about, anyway.

Wow. Maybe all you guys that think music should be free should start playing for free. I've spent the past thirteen years going to Washington on behalf of musicians and writers. It's not a pretty sight. Intellectual property rights are being attacked on a daily basis. In Nashville there are very few songwriters making a decent living because no one buys records anymore.Ascap, BMI, Sesac monies are barely enough unless they have a big hit on the radio. It's a bad scene. I'd suggest that all of you experts on the "scams" that you perceive are happening, do some research on the performing rights organizations. You'll find that they are not big corporations, nor are they unions. They are there to help the songwriter collect their due.They've been around for a lot of years.
If a bar or restaurant uses music to enhance their business, they should pay. Don't you think original music's worth the cost of a beer?

I absolutely agree with Bruce. Copyright law and Intellectual Property need a serious revision from their obsolete, archaic scales and regulation. At least from a song/music industry standpoint. It'll eventually change, thanks to the hard work from people in our community from organizations LIKE ASCAP and the AFM, but it's still a long road ahead and a lot of lobbying. If a bar/venue/club/restaurant or whatever the place is was playing my song in some capacity, I would like to be somehow compensated for that as a writer. It appears to be, "bullying" or feels like, "harassment," but if we would all collectively start coming together and upholding responsibility for the greater good of our musical community then everyone would benefit. I know it may be a tad costly upfront, but in the long run publishers and writers can get paid and more money means more work for musicians and singers. Also if a venue is too cheap to pay the fee for the right to play music, what else are they going to cut next if they can't afford that? Cutting the pay of a live band? Downsizing their music itinerary in general? Getting rid of music entirely and just have karaoke or a jukebox? The convenience and disposability of music and how instantly we can have it in our grasps for free is pretty scary and makes us all vulnerable. It also makes our phones vulnerable to stop ringing for work…

I don't think broadcasting music should be free or using someone else's music should be free in the settings we are discussing. Rules and laws are in place, for a reason. Perhaps the fees for playing music in small venues is considered over the top or in venues that don't sell out all the seats, but in the scheme of things those are the objections to the rule. MOST establishments that are making money on live music , by broadcast or by TV , are indeed playing by the rules. Me, I'm glad they are because I play these venues weekly and I get paid too ! And, big shock, I don't play for free either.

In our area, there are a few venues that feature only original artists performing their own material. Those venues do not pay the BMI/ASCAP fees but they are also empty. Funny thing is , the artists play for free but the bar is still charging $4 for a beer. Oh and this, the performers are singing to a handful of friends in an empty room. Not my idea of a retirement business model ! How many CD's can you sell to your Mom ?


Another thing that is changing, as we speak, is the way Downloaded Music is handled . I am a member of Rhapsody,have been for years. They just changed their entire format. they no longer SELL MP3 downloads but as a member you can download music to your PC or portable device which are registered to Rhapsody. You can download as much as you want at no charge , but the downloads are coded so they will only play on a registered device as long as you are paying your monthly account fee. If you stop paying, the music goes away.

Now I don't understand how the royalty thing works , if at all. Puzzling. It appears that the songwriters are being cut out of picture. Perhaps it is a scaled curve like a venue. There is an option to buy the MP3's should you end your account. Rhapsody makes a point of telling you that YOU do not own the downloads , you pay to listen

Tony Prior wrote:Another thing that is changing, as we speak, is the way Downloaded Music is handled . I am a member of Rhapsody,have been for years. They just changed their entire format. they no longer SELL MP3 downloads but as a member you can download music to your PC or portable device which are registered to Rhapsody. You can download as much as you want at no charge , but the downloads are coded so they will only play on a registered device as long as you are paying your monthly account fee. If you stop paying, the music goes away.

Now I don't understand how the royalty thing works , if at all. Puzzling. It appears that the songwriters are being cut out of picture. Perhaps it is a scaled curve like a venue. There is an option to buy the MP3's should you end your account. Rhapsody makes a point of telling you that YOU do not own the downloads , you pay to listen .
.

That's exactly what Spotify and Apple Music's model of "streaming downloads" is. Streaming is THE format and won't be going away anytime soon. The pay is okay(not as much as actual unit purchases) but the problem is when the check is payed by Spotify, Apple, Google, or whomever, how it's divided up is where things get weird. There's no real paper trail or visual pipeline from streaming royalty check to performing rights management, to record label, to publishers, to writers, artist, producer/people who have "points", and so on… so after it's all said and done the creative people don't hardly get anything. When companies, like record labels or publishers don't get paid properly, they get stingy with their budgets. Thus they're a little more reluctant to circulate more business. You can see it with record budget cuts, studios closing their doors, artists and writers who are talented but are still climbing uphill and need more time/development are dropped, etc. "Scammers" and "mobsters"… as some have labeled on here... like BMI, SESAC, ASCAP, and the AFM musicians union are the only ones who are fighting for our rights in the workplace. Cooperation with these parties is nothing but a positive outcome for us all.

It's a long and confusing discussion about streaming and royalties.
First of all, there are two different copyrights.
One is the song itself. The copyright is owned by the publisher and writer. They are paid by mechanical royalties(physical sales) and performance royalties( radio TV, Bars restaurants) Performance royalties are collected by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC.
The other is the product, in other words the "Record ". This copyright is owned by the label and the artist. Until recently they were only paid by physical sales, (record Stores, Itunes) and not performance. Now they get paid by some "non interactive" streaming services like Sirius/XM and Pandora. Unfortunately interactive streaming services , like spotify are exempt from performance royalties, as are all normal radio stations. This formula runs counter to most industrialized nations which require radio to pay performance royalties. Consequently we leave hundreds of millions of foreign royalties on the table each year. It almost means that Aretha or George Strait don't make a dime when they're played on the radio.
The breakdown for performance royalties is 50% record label,45% featured artist, and 5% for the session musicians and singers that played on the record. These royalties are collected by Sound Exchange. The good news is, for the first time, musicians are getting a small royalty for playing on a hit record. We used to only get our session fee.
At the end of the day creators are still getting screwed. Nobody want's to pay for music.

Eddy Dunlap wrote: Streaming is THE format and won't be going away anytime soon. The pay is okay(not as much as actual unit purchases) but the problem is when the check is payed by Spotify, Apple, Google, or whomever, how it's divided up is where things get weird. There's no real paper trail or visual pipeline from streaming royalty check to performing rights management, to record label, to publishers, to writers, artist, producer/people who have "points", and so on… so after it's all said and done the creative people don't hardly get anything.

I guess it's like most other businesses, then. A few at the top get very rich, while the majority slog along getting very little. Look, if an entity, any entity, does what seems to the majority to be mob-like, then they're perpetuating the stereotype. As I said before, artists and writers should get their due, but in many cases, that doesn't seem to be happening. Is charging the local barbershop, beauty shop, or other small business for playing a radio or CD really fair? The music industry is certainly a multi-billion dollar industry. Who's getting the lion's share of that revenue? (From what I can see, the big recording companies, like Warner, Sony, and Universal are doing very well.)

Bruce: I recently read that country music legend Merle Haggard, with 37 top-10 country singles (including 23 #1 hits), never received a record royalty check until he released an album on the indie punk-rock label Epitaph. So where, exactly, were those big performance rights organizations when that was going on??? Of course, it goes without saying that if an artist gives away all his rights and income via a bad contract, then we likely can't do much about that...except educate them. Modern multi-platinum artists like TLC and Toni Braxton have been forced to declare bankruptcy because their recording contracts didn't pay them enough to survive. However, we probably shouldn't be going after all the little guys to make up for that.


Af far as copyrights, here's what I've been able to glean: The original term of copyright (in the 1800's) was 28 years plus a renewal period of 14 years. In 1909, it was extended to 28 years, plus a renewal of 28 years. In 1976 there was an extension of copyright life to life of the author plus 50 years. In 1998 life of copyright was extended again as president Clinton signed The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act. The life of copyright grew to life of the author plus 70 years. In addition, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act also increased maximum copyright protection to 95 years for works published 1923 thru 1978.

95 years?

As Tony said, the mechanical royalty system is another thing we should look into. If the digital age is undermining that process, maybe that needs more scrutiny or regulation. At any rate, I think we should talk about all these things so that we can understand what's going on in the music world today. That's the only way things are going to get changed, and helps to see that everyone gets a fair piece of the pie.

I don't have time to debate this.I've been in this biz as a writer , producer, publisher and musician. I'm on the board that distributes performance royalties (afm/Sag Aftra. Artists don't get paid from BMI etc. Only songwriters. Record Royalties are a different argument. Merles made plenty of royalties.
Restaurants and bars don't have to pay much. Many are exempt from paying anything. Creators should be paid. Donnie if you think we're getting too much oh well.
This is how I've made my living. Seems like many of the posters know all about music royalties and have very strong opinions. Can't argue with that:)
B

Once again, Bruce is right on the money. I would suggest a little research into just what PROs are and how they originated before talking out of a hat about whether they're "fair". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performan ... ganisation
Note mention of venue size rules that do not require barber shops etc. to pay royalties… it's about when music is provided to generate revenue.

Ascap was started to protect Tin Pan Alley songwriters from realizing little to no income from their songs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... Publishers
Note also: "In 2012, ASCAP collected over US$941 million in licensing fees and distributed $828.7 million in royalties to its members, with an 11.6 percent operating expense ratio. As of July 2013, ASCAP membership included over 460,000 songwriters, composers, and music publishers."

No, we don't pay to "look" at sculpture and photography, but there are stringent copyright laws in effect to protect artists from use of their work without compensation, if it generates income for others.

The point of the copyright extensions is to continue to provide some income to family survivors for a term after the death of a writer, as writers have no other form of pension or surviving spouse model. Would you want your wife and children to benefit from your songwriting royalties or just be cut off upon your demise?

Yes, there are difficulties and speed bumps involved in trying to create and maintain such an involved and complex system, and some venues will end up with more of a burden than their business supports. The PROs do seem to be trying to work on that. But the main thing to remember, as has been mentioned, is that without new (and "classic") songs, many of these businesses would immediately cease to function, people would have less fun and quality of life- and songwriters have little incentive to create if there is no value placed on their creations.

The premise that songwriters should just be glad someone wants to perform their compositions is in the same ballpark as a musician being perfectly happy to just play for "exposure".

The notion of copyright and payment for music is fairly recent in human history. In the USA it stems from the copyright act of 1909 (revised 1976), which was the result of heavy lobbying from New York interests. Its legal basis rests on Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, which empowers the United States Congress:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

One could certainly make the case that no "Progress of Science and useful Arts" results from prohibiting the free use of a three chord country song, or a Sibelius symphony. The fact that many songwriters and composers have made money, and sometimes fortunes, from it does not of itself mean that the law should create these "rights of ownership". It does, however, mean that established composers, and especially pop songwriters, have plenty of money and motivation to lobby for it.

My late friend Tom King, wrote "Time Won't Let Me." He got nice checks totaling several thousand smackers each until he passed. Of course his song was featured in movies and lots of "oldies" collections.
We partnered up to try writing some new material. First thing we did was establish our own publishing company. Tom's having written a very popular song opened every door we knocked on! RIP Tom!

Thanks, Bruce, for enlightening us on the various ins-and-outs. The system works slightly differently in the UK but I still get some fairly small residual cheques from PRS in Britain as well as monies still being generated by re-airing of TV stuff I've done.

I'm grateful that these organisations are keeping tabs - I'm certainly not in a position to do so.

95 years? I'm shocked that it's not longer. However, this worked to my advantage once when I did a quick bluegrass-style head-arrangement of Mendelssohn's 'Wedding March' for a TV series. PRS determined that, as the composer (and his kith & kin) were no longer entitled to royalty payments, I should receive 75% of the going rate. I never knew what became of the other 25% but I did feel a bit of a fraud - all I did was write a chord-chart for the banjo-player and the melody line for the violinist!

A classical composer for the day - who knew?

Michael Maddex wrote:

Disclaimer: I am not now, nor have I ever been a professional working musician. My income has always been from honest labor except for the many years when I was a college instructor.

So, being on the road, lugging your gear around taking care of it, so everything will work properly at the next gig, washing your clothes in the same washing machine that's washed 50 other people's stuff, buying strings, cables, so you will look and sound decent--That's not "honest labor?"
And you were a "college instructor," and that's not "honest labor,"either?
Rick Campbell is a nice guy. I'm honored to call him my friend, and I'm tickled to call him my Brother. I imagine he's seen the bottom of the well, playing with Monroe, and Del McCoury. Bluegrass musicians don't make squat. But they play with passion.
And I know the fire still burns--Pick a few tunes with him--you'll feel it, too.

Bruce Bouton--read HIS resume. I met Bruce many years ago, in Rochester, Minnesota. He was playing the Civic Center, with a star, and we played 6 nights, in a bowling alley.

"Honest labor," huh?
I'm told that ASCAP wanted nothing to do with country music. And that's how, and why, BMI got started. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) But if BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC are so useless--Why haven't they been shut down? Why is a songwriter so anxious to get in with them?
"Honest labor." You got me on that one.

Stephen: I took Michael's 'honest labor' remark with a liberal dose of salt and let it pass.


I've done this for a living - to the exclusion of any other kind of work - since 1959 and can attest to the fact that, while there may be more praiseworthy endeavours in life, it is for the most part hard work.

That was reinforced over the last four weeks as I've just returned from a short tour of ND and MN. Touring in the bleak midwinter is not a young man's game and I was very glad to fly back to Ft. Myers and some eighty degree weather. The sheer logistics of staying warm and well-fed while traveling is a challenge in nice conditions - in December in the Frozen North one starts to wonder why you said 'yes'.

Still, back to normal today and a nice easy overdub in a cosy studio in Bonita Springs, FL. Tomorrow my wife and I will have our postponed Thanksgiving dinner so things could be worse....

Oh, and Buddy Emmons' 'One For The Road' CD is in rotation - so that's how you're supposed to do it!

I saw a quote,"songwriters should feel honored that someone liked their song so much, etc.". Try taking that honor down to the grocery store and getting food to feed their family, or to the landlord to pay the rent! I work with a few singer/songwriters around town. Royalties may be small for a small-time writer, but if you have that ONE song that hits, it can start a career!!!