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 read the "damn" artist agreement before I posted. I am not denying stuff I don't understand. IANAL, but I have spent a lot of time reading-up on stuff like this. I have been in the music business for a long time, and have spent more time than I ever wanted looking over stuff like this to make sure I wouln't get fsck'd over. Of course they hold a perpetual license (to stream your content) in certain instances; to fulfill obligations you made yourself.
"4.6 Term and Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, all of our license rights terminate, except that we retain those rights necessary for us to: (a) sell any compact discs or other authorized products which we have produced prior to the date of termination which incorporates your Material; (b) provide perpetual access to Standard Content and Channel Content added to Secure Accounts pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; (c) provide perpetual access to CD Content to holders of Secure Accounts who purchased that CD Content, or with your permission, otherwise added that CD Content to their Secure Accounts; and (d) fulfill the terms and conditions of any Promotion in which you are participating. Subject to the foregoing, we shall use reasonable efforts to discontinue public access to your Material promptly upon termination; however, due to your participation in certain Promotions, your Material may remain accessible to the public for up to ninety (90) days following termination."
I don't find that unreasonable. No artist is forced to take part in "certain Promotions". They are covering their butts if you sell access to your content to some subscriber, then pull your content off the site. (You don't have to provide the access in the first place, if you don't want.)
They don't own the compositional copyright, and they don't own the sound recording copyright. They don't "own" anything but the "non-exclusive" right to stream content that has been committed (by the artist) to one of their streaming programs or promotions. All other rights, (such as mechanical reproduction) end with the termination of the agreement: "1.3 Termination of Standard Program License. Subject to the provisions contained in Section IV, "Term and Termination" below, you may terminate your license to us with respect to some or all of your Standard Content and Standard Material, at any time by utilizing tools provided in the Artist Admin Area."
"4.3 Ownership of Copyrights. As between you and us, you retain ownership of the copyrights and all other rights in the intellectual property furnished by you for our use hereunder, subject only to the non-exclusive rights granted to us under this Agreement. You are free to grant similar rights to others during and after the term of this Agreement."
The "Terms Of Use" lays it out more directly: "Copyright and Trademark Infringement Policy and Notification Procedure: MP3.com does not own the musical compositions, sound recordings, art or other written or visual images (collectively, the "Content") posted by third parties to the Website."
If they tried to grab your copyright via a click-through agreement, they would run into two problems (at least):
1: transfering your copyright rights would require a contract to be binding, contracts require "valuable consideration" to be valid: they would have to send you money ($1 would do).
2: They (mp3.com) would open themselves up to the possibilities of huge and numerous lawsuits for copyright violation. (I post B.Spears new single as my own, they claim copyright, they get the fsck sued out of them...if they don't already own B.Spears copyright.)
Worst thing they could get away with is playing the songs you uploaded for a while longer without paying you, (which they don't do in the first place). That's all. Simple rule; if you don't want them to be able to play the song to their audience "perpetualy", don't put it up there.
"For Hire" has nothing to do with it: a "For Hire" work must be created while you are under contract (or employed) by the claiming company. Otherwise, (if you are smart and claiming copyright before posting the song), the copyright would have to be transferred. Back to the contract issue again.
Well, that's the way I read it. (And, Bob knows, I could be wrong.) Any lawyers care to chime in and illuminate us?
BUT, none of this changes my initial agreement with you that they should be avoided because they are owned by one of the major label conglomerates.
We should seek to support independent music now more than ever.
Yes, they are Vivendi. No, they don't hold a perpetual license. No, they can't grab your copyright just because they change their terms on the website. It just doesn't work that way.
I do agree that mp3.com should be avoided, just because they are owned by Vivendi.
Any ideas on how/if this will affect online music retailers (such as amazon and CDnow) and the short song samples they make available online? Is this not covered, or will they have special deals with the lables to exempt them?
What does Microsoft perceive as its' greatest
strength against Linux in the server market?
What does Microsoft perceive as the greatest
weakness of Linux in the server market?
Slashdot Mirror
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.
I read the "damn" artist agreement before I posted. I am not denying stuff I don't understand. IANAL, but I have spent a lot of time reading-up on stuff like this. I have been in the music business for a long time, and have spent more time than I ever wanted looking over stuff like this to make sure I wouln't get fsck'd over.
Of course they hold a perpetual license (to stream your content) in certain instances; to fulfill obligations you made yourself.
"4.6 Term and Termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, all of our license rights terminate, except that we retain those rights necessary for us to: (a) sell any compact discs or other authorized products which we have produced prior to the date of termination which incorporates your Material; (b) provide perpetual access to Standard Content and Channel Content added to Secure Accounts pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; (c) provide perpetual access to CD Content to holders of Secure Accounts who purchased that CD Content, or with your permission, otherwise added that CD Content to their Secure Accounts; and (d) fulfill the terms and conditions of any Promotion in which you are participating. Subject to the foregoing, we shall use reasonable efforts to discontinue public access to your Material promptly upon termination; however, due to your participation in certain Promotions, your Material may remain accessible to the public for up to ninety (90) days following termination."
I don't find that unreasonable. No artist is forced to take part in "certain Promotions". They are covering their butts if you sell access to your content to some subscriber, then pull your content off the site. (You don't have to provide the access in the first place, if you don't want.)
They don't own the compositional copyright, and they don't own the sound recording copyright. They don't "own" anything but the "non-exclusive" right to stream content that has been committed (by the artist) to one of their streaming programs or promotions. All other rights, (such as mechanical reproduction) end with the termination of the agreement:
"1.3 Termination of Standard Program License. Subject to the provisions contained in Section IV, "Term and Termination" below, you may terminate your license to us with respect to some or all of your Standard Content and Standard Material, at any time by utilizing tools provided in the Artist Admin Area."
"4.3 Ownership of Copyrights. As between you and us, you retain ownership of the copyrights and all other rights in the intellectual property furnished by you for our use hereunder, subject only to the non-exclusive rights granted to us under this Agreement. You are free to grant similar rights to others during and after the term of this Agreement."
The "Terms Of Use" lays it out more directly:
"Copyright and Trademark Infringement Policy and Notification Procedure: MP3.com does not own the musical compositions, sound recordings, art or other written or visual images (collectively, the "Content") posted by third parties to the Website."
If they tried to grab your copyright via a click-through agreement, they would run into two problems (at least):
1: transfering your copyright rights would require a contract to be binding, contracts require "valuable consideration" to be valid: they would have to send you money ($1 would do).
2: They (mp3.com) would open themselves up to the possibilities of huge and numerous lawsuits for copyright violation. (I post B.Spears new single as my own, they claim copyright, they get the fsck sued out of them...if they don't already own B.Spears copyright.)
Worst thing they could get away with is playing the songs you uploaded for a while longer without paying you, (which they don't do in the first place). That's all. Simple rule; if you don't want them to be able to play the song to their audience "perpetualy", don't put it up there.
"For Hire" has nothing to do with it: a "For Hire" work must be created while you are under contract (or employed) by the claiming company. Otherwise, (if you are smart and claiming copyright before posting the song), the copyright would have to be transferred. Back to the contract issue again.
Well, that's the way I read it. (And, Bob knows, I could be wrong.) Any lawyers care to chime in and illuminate us?
BUT, none of this changes my initial agreement with you that they should be avoided because they are owned by one of the major label conglomerates.
We should seek to support independent music now more than ever.
Yes, they are Vivendi. No, they don't hold a perpetual license. No, they can't grab your copyright just because they change their terms on the website. It just doesn't work that way.
I do agree that mp3.com should be avoided, just because they are owned by Vivendi.
Any ideas on how/if this will affect online
music retailers (such as amazon and CDnow)
and the short song samples they make available
online?
Is this not covered, or will they have special
deals with the lables to exempt them?
What does Microsoft perceive as its' greatest
strength against Linux in the server market?
What does Microsoft perceive as the greatest
weakness of Linux in the server market?