What will this eventually mean for us?????

To many ads? Support ODJT and see no ads!
I thought ASCAP and BMI took care of leveraging royalties? It looks like artists are looking to squeeze more royalties out of online radio stations most of which either don't pay royalties or aren't based in the US so aren't required to pay them. Any kind of added royalties targeting Radio jocks will make mobile DJs 'collateral damage'.

From my side of the table I think it's a bunch of BS, they already get a cut of all album/song sales so long as the song isn't being played publicly the album sales should be sufficient. You aren't making enough? Make better music.
 
What it boils down to is the artists who are getting screwed because of the contracts they signed with the record labels are looking for another avenue for money, and rather than the labels owning up to the fact that it's the contracts they pretty much force artists to sign, they are jumping on the band wagon with the artists to try and squeeze more revenue rather than fix their antiquated business model.
 
Steve Cie said:
It is quite noticeable to me that the names of the artists who traveled to DC to promote the cause for this ridiculous legislation are indeed the very same artists whose talent and art has dried up.

Hebie Hancock is a jazz artist who hasn't had a hit since 1983 with his techno cross-over hit Rock-It.

Sheryl Crowe, had a 12 year career with help from Keith Richards of The Rolling Stones. (Keith taught her guitar and some great riffs too!)
Her career is currently on the shelf.

Patti LaBelle hasn't had a hit in nearly 50 years!

Dionne Warwick hasn't had a hit in nearly 30 years, since Burt Bacharach dumped her in the early 80's.

Will I Am hasn't got a reason to complain. Most of his music is unsuitable for the airwaves these days.

Time was that an artist paid the DJ to play his song on the air, so that the song would become popular.

As for the argument what came first, the chicken or the egg as it pertains to radio and recording? Well, the music industry is driven by the Air Play Charts--PERIOD! Recording artists need broadcasters if they expect to sell records! Broadcasters certainly use records to bolster the station's existence, but they can very well switch to comedy, drama, even game shows to garner audiences.

This effort to enact legislation is foolhardy at best!

I believe the underlying culprit here is the new Wi-Fi Internet Radio that is forthcoming.

Very soon, thousands of DJ's will take to the Inter-Net airwaves, with their own unlicensed radio stations, as the automobile industry gears up with in -the-dash Wi-Fi enabled internet receivers.

These receivers will receive text messages, real time traffic information, and..........Inter-Net Radio Broadcasts!

It is my understanding that most people will be able to receive these broadcasts coast to coast.

Surely the recording artists who are not earning the money they need, will want to cash in on this.
What better way than to build the foundation right now. Make it the law of the land that recording artists get paid whenever anyone plays their work. Oops---I thought they already has that provided via ASCAP and BMI?

Oh, but these copyright holder clearance houses don't have authority over most radio broadcasts, nor free-lance disc jockeys.

So, let's get a law on the books that includes these rogues, so that the artists can make more money.

Friends, it is inevitable that we DJ's will one day have to pay royalties.
Big business once again tosses a fly in the ointment!
Click to expand...

There is already a law on the books that covers this it is called the Federal Copy Right laws. You can't play, record, transmit, or any of several other methods to the public without the expressed permission of the artist, this is indeed done through ASCAP, SESAC and BMI any thing is else is already a violation of the copy right laws with a fine of up to $250,000 dollars per instance and up to one year in prison per violation.

No other laws are needed, they simply need to enforce the ones already on the books!
 
Though it may pave the way for future legislation to include us and what we do specifically, this bill does nothing to us at all since we don't "transmit" prerecorded music.

We don't occupy a "grey" area between public and private at all - the public/private distinction/definition is very simple, and is clearly stated in Copyright law. The seeming "shades of grey" between public and private are only introduced when the definition isn't understood or applied properly (quite common in our industry and amongst ourselves).

As long as that definition doesn't change, and commercial establishments and venues fulfill their end of the current bargain by licensing with ASCAP, BMI, et. al. as they should, we won't run into any issues.
 
HoustonDJ,

You do pay NIKE for the priviledge of advertising their product. Their shoes & sports wear is some of the most expensive for what you get items. Your paying for the priviledge of promoting them & showing off their swoosh.

Now on to Mobile DJs. We don't do squat to promote Sales. That is just some pipe dream we tell ourselves. the vast majority of us don't even play a song until it's already an established hit. We don't take some obscure B side track & make it a hit. So let's at least be honest about that. The Labels get more market penetration & exposure on 4 minutes of MTV/VH1/CMT or even old fashioned Radio than we provide all year, all of us combined.

We don't make or break hits. 90% of what most Mobile DJs play is atleast a decade old.

Here is some information. The labels are not interested in promoting their back catalogs at all. Since real songwriting has all but dried up, they are wanting the BC to dissappear from public awareness so that when Miley, Hillery or the latest pop icon releases a 40+ year old song, it will seem new to the world.

I agree with Steve M, they need to enforce the existing copyright laws. However one thing that is not being understood here, is that ASCAP, BMI & SESAC only provide compensation for the composer & lyricist. Not the recording artist. This legislation is about compensating recording artists for the performance of their recorded work. That adds another layer of royalties.

While we can banter about the legitimacy of our industry, if they lay down this law, they will come a knocking on your door, you can count on it. I suspect that they will attach fees to the pool services as the easiest way to collect it, then if your buying your music at retail, you would be shown to not have a license if you didn't have a pool service trail for that track.
 
DJ Dr. Drax said:
I suspect that they will attach fees to the pool services as the easiest way to collect it, then if your buying your music at retail, you would be shown to not have a license if you didn't have a pool service trail for that track.
Click to expand...


.... which leads the resident luddite to ask: How does one establish an absolutely verifiable service trail for a downloaded ( not ripped) MP3 track, or document absolutely verifiable licensing all the way back to the artist with one?
 
Joe,

If the downloaded track didn't come from a pool service that is licensed to distribute for commercial use, there wouldn't be, & why should there be? Consumer music is not licensed for commercial use. The only download services would be connected to poll services.

As for all the way back to the artist, that would not be our issue. Pools such as Promo Only & others have the contracts in place for licensed distribution. Using them as your content source would assert said fulfillment of any such license.
 
Drax,

You are close to right, the performing musicains don't get a cut unless it was a song written, composed and performed by them. The fact is a cut of the money collected by BMI, ASCAP and SESAC goes to the copyright holders who are the only ones entitled to that cut.

It really doesn't matter who the performer was that made a song a hit only who holds the copyright to a particular song.

Truth be told many performers buy outright the copyright of a particular song and then it is theirs all the way down the line.

Legislation isn't going to fly if it simply gives collection rights to every band who ever performs a song and makes it a hit, it still has to fall back to the copyright holder, this is still currently done by the above mentioned organizations.
 
Steve,

I agree, I didn't state that if recording artist wrote the song.... I figured that fell under the we wrote the song aspect of what I wrote.

Example, The beatles recorded many hits, John Lennon & Paul mcCartney were the only ones that see royalties from those tracks except for the couple that George wrote & one that Ringo wrote.

This is another attempt to tax the populace. Right now we are heading into one of the biggest tax increase periods of American history, they want to tax guns, ammo, music, the internet, & even Tobacco has taken a HUGE tax. Something like from 40 cents to over a buck a pack just for taxes.

I am absolutely opposed to governmental interference in private business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back