ASCAP Attempts to Out-Crazy RIAA
All the attention the RIAA has been getting over the past few days over the $1.92M verdict they won against Jammie Thomas - the woman who single handedly cost, um, the RIAA (?) nearly $2M when someone shared 24 songs on her computer - hasn't gone unnoticed by ASCAP. I can only assume they've been feeling a little jealous. After all, they tried to charge Girl Scouts for campfire sing-a-longs (oh yes, really) - just what does a company have to do to win the crown for most dastardly music industry entity anyway? Sheesh.
ASCAP is not taking this lying down. What are they doing? Well, they're claiming that you need a performance license if you download a ringtone for your phone and anyone else hears it. Erm, what? Their thinking is that every time that ringtone plays in public, you have hosted a mini public performance of said track, and all without paying a royalty to ASCAP. Don't worry, they're going after your phone service providers for providing you with the ringtones, not you. Yet. Of course, royalties are already paid on ringtones, but ASCAP has helpfully decided to step in and demand payment of another royalty - no doubt in the name of the musicians they represent, who no doubt wish ASCAP would stop using them to money grub.
This stuff kills me. So much media space and debate is devoted to the death of the record label, blah blah blah - I say if you are really concerned about what is happening in the music industry, demand that these utterly ineffective, ridiculous bullies like the RIAA and ASCAP step aside and let real progress happen. Who wants this? What ASCAP registered musician wants this done in their name? What RIAA member thinks that that affiliation is good for business? Record labels carry so much blame for standing in the way of musicians embracing the internet - and many of them have reacted slowly and badly to new technology. But publishers, the RIAA and others of their ilk are major, major culprits - likely bigger than the labels - because they refuse to negotiate royalty rates for the internet that are appropriate for the medium. Let's start pointing fingers at the right people.
Anyway, well played, ASCAP. I can hardly wait to see what the RIAA does to try and top this. Of course, let's not count out the UK's PRS, who recently demanded that a woman gets a public performance license for the classical music she plays for her horses. Oh yes, people, we've got a problem here.
Get more info on the ASCAP case here.
In defense of the RIAA, we should point out that the damages in the Thomas-Rasset verdict are a rather foul gift handed to them by the jury – one that’s giving them a spell of insomnia now, no doubt. They have maintained that they’re still willing to settle and I’m convinced that this will be the final outcome, once the litigation machine grinds to a halt.
Regardless of my personal stance on the question of file-sharing and the effect of new technology on music in general, I agree that ASCAP could’ve thought about this more. Certainly, if they originally agreed to license music for ringtones, they must have been aware that this would result in public performance every time someone’s phone rang. I do hope that they will see sense and drop the idea.
Just as an aside, what royalty rates are appropriate to the Internet seems to depend what side of the fence you’re sitting on, doesn’t it? I, for one, do not have a big problem with hard-line negotiations on the part of rights holders’ agencies – if someone envisions a business based around providing copyrighted content, they should treat licensing costs as a key part of their budget and be prepared to pay. From my point of view, as a musician, since I am not obligated to have any of these agencies represent me, I do not see this as a problem, nor should other independent artists who are free to strike whatever licensing deals work best for them.
Heather:
What do you think about the ASCAP bill of rights? I would really like to ready your take on #4 and #8.
ASCAP Bill of Rights
Thanks!
Sarah Bland aka (JANEX)
Hi Sarah –
Thanks for the question. I think those items on the bill of rights make sense, but it leaves a lot of room for their application to be unreasonable. Maybe a better way for me to put it is that, sure, a musician can try to control every single instance in which their song is used, but it may not always be in their best interest. Someone, say, hosting listening parties for your album and charging people to for admission is a whole different kettle of fish than someone who downloads your ringtone and lets their phone ring in public, providing a few seconds of “free” play for whoever happens to be in earshot. It’s counterproductive for musicians – or really, ASCAP, because with a few exceptions, it’s rarely the musicians who dream up this stuff – to be so heavy handed with music fans. Music fans are your customers. It doesn’t make sense to treat them like they’re committing a crime any time they listen to music in earshot of anyone else. It’s just silly. Music gets shared. Always has, always will. It goes with the territory. I think the items in the bill of rights are valid, and that they should be applied to go after people who are really and truly violating copyrights, instead of music fans who are being bullied to the extent that I wonder how any of them are comfortable listening to their favorite songs anymore without getting legal advice first.
The bottom line is that I think that musicians have the absolute right to protect their work. It is utterly possible to do so without harassing fans in patently unreasonable manners. It is also possible to demand that organizations that claim to protect musicians act reasonably and not hide behind a cloak of championing musicians rights as they agitate the relationship between musician and fan for their own financial gain. Musicians don’t need ASCAP to issue them a bill of rights. ASCAP derives a sense of legitimacy by writing their “bill of rights” – bestowing rights you have with or without them…well, frankly, I’m babbling now – let’s just say I’m cynical about their motivations in some cases. And I don’t mean to pick solely on ASCAP. One of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the music industry was with the MCPS in the UK.
Anyway, I think protecting your rights and protecting your career means enforcing your copyrights while giving your fans the space to enjoy your music in reasonable ways. You’ll sell more records that way. What are your opinions on the bill of rights? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Having since read up on the subject, I have to shamefully retract my previous comment. There I was assuming that ASCAP had any influence on ringtone licensing and were already getting paid. This is America! What was I thinking?
It’s the European in me, I tend to forget that in the US cutting out various copyright entitlements is par for the course. Knowing what I do now, I have to fully support ASCAP in their demands that the people who actually created the value in question (you get the ringtone for the tone, or should that be tune?, ringtune anyone?) should get a slice of the pie.
The bottom line is that people pay money for ringtones and that money is going into someone’s pocket – asking whether all of it is going into the right pockets is an entirely fair question.