Thread: NYT article on music licensing enforcement

Since the subject of music licenses for events and studios has come up repeatedly in the past, I figured that this article of the NYT magazine may be interesting for those who have to deal with the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/ma...08music-t.html

Interesting article.

One thing I have always wondered is this: Aren't there quite a few belly dance albums that are produced by either independent or foreign artists/labels that are not represented by BMI and ASCAP? (note I'm not implying such artists don't have rights regarding the use of their music, only questioning whether the big music companies have the authority to license for them).

For example, are the Serpentine Communications CD's represented by BMI/ASCAP? Maybe Yasmin will read this and chime in.

It is my understanding that they have reciprocal agreements with similar businesses over seas, so the logic is that sooner or later you will be using one of their inventory items. Don't forget ... if you have "enhanced music use" (dancing) the fee goes up.

I would like to add, it is the venue owners who need to pay for this fee. They wont come after an itinerant musician, band or belly dancer. They are not trackable, however the venue is. The net result may well be that if the venue doesn't normally pay for its music (too small, or subscribes to a music service like Sirius) they may decline an occasional live performance to keep the powers that be away from their door.

Originally Posted by anala

It is my understanding that they have reciprocal agreements with similar businesses over seas, so the logic is that sooner or later you will be using one of their inventory items. Don't forget ... if you have "enhanced music use" (dancing) the fee goes up.

Yes, I know but that isn't really my question. My question is do these companies really have agreements with ALL (or virtually all) recording artists, or are there some/many/quite a few who do not have agreements with these companies? Particularly within the genres we use?

Phrased another way: If I pay out $$$ to BMI, what % of my music library could potentially be covered by a licensing agreement with them?

to illustrate my point better, go to the BMI and ACE databases of works:

ACE Title Search Database - ASCAP.com
BMI | Repertoire Search

Type in some title tracks of your favorite belly dance music, or artists. Not very much seems to come up.

From the little I recall talking to a (non-ME-style) musician a couple of years ago, they have to actively register with BMI or ASCAP, protection does not kick in automatically.

I wish this article was more informative, less one-sided. They are painting BMI with one brush, portraying it as an inherently good company that is only there to help the artists and that isn't really doing any harm to the little people. It never once mentions how much of the money the artists actually get, and how much profit they make. I'd like to know those things.

This is the one paragraph where I thought they were going in the right direction, but it stopped there:

It was an awesome (or chilling) glimpse into the future: a world where if it can be tracked — on TV, on YouTube, in China — it will be charged for. Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard law professor known for his stance against what he views as an overexpansion of copyright law, is not against BMI’s being paid for its fair share but worries about the slippery slope created by new technologies. “If technology creates efficient ways to charge commercial users of copyright, then that’s good,” he told me recently, “but what I fear is that we evolve into a permission culture, where every single use of music creates an obligation to pay. I wish the line could be as clear as commercial exploitation — you’re running a dance club, using it in a movie. The author ought to have the right to be paid for that. But I don’t think that that right should translate into the right to control whether my kid uses the music for a collage he makes for a class about his trip to Costa Rica!” Friends I talked to had a similar reaction. To a one, they said: “Jesus. Sounds like Big Brother.” When I mentioned this to DeBusk, he smiled ominously. “Yes. Well. We’re here to help.”

There, the only dissenting opinions are in this one paragraph. I think those are pretty significant views and arguments and the author spends no time discussing these concerns. So, the CEO of the company that makes a profit from charging people for their use of music says "We're here to help" and that's supposed to make us feel better?

Sure, when musicians don't get paid, it makes it less likely that people will want to make music. But when businesses get charged out the wazoo lest be sued for even more exorbitant, impossibly high amounts, how is that helping art at all? That keeps business from wanting to hire musicians, dancers, etc.

There has to be a middle ground somewhere.

My question is do these companies really have agreements with ALL (or virtually all) recording artists,

This is their logic in a direct discussion "Sooner or later you will be in violation, so the best policy is to come into compliance for your own protection"

Originally Posted by anala

My question is do these companies really have agreements with ALL (or virtually all) recording artists,

This is their logic in a direct discussion "Sooner or later you will be in violation, so the best policy is to come into compliance for your own protection"

Yeah, I have issues with their logic.

Certain Middle Eastern music companies own U.S. distribution rights for the music they represent. For example, Hollywood Music Center and the parent company of Maqam. I imagine Miles Copeland probably does too. For such music, there is no need to deal with BMI or ASCAP, just go to HMC or Maqam's parent company and cut out the middleman.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

Certain Middle Eastern music companies own U.S. distribution rights for the music they represent. For example, Hollywood Music Center and the parent company of Maqam. I imagine Miles Copeland probably does too. For such music, there is no need to deal with BMI or ASCAP, just go to HMC or Maqam's parent company and cut out the middleman.

That's exactly what I suspected!

I think Miles Copeland's music IS covered by BMI or ASCAP. Independent artists like Serpentine probably are not.

Originally Posted by dunyah

I think Miles Copeland's music IS covered by BMI or ASCAP. Independent artists like Serpentine probably are not.

Well, just because BMI/ASCAP represents a certain composer doesn't mean you are required go through them. There's always the option of contacting the rights holder yourself directly, and negotiating directly with them.

BMI/ASCAP exist to serve a clearinghouse function, to make it easy/convenient for people who use music to obtain rights from a wide variety of composers without the inconvenience of contacting each composer personally. However, if the composer (or other rights holder) is willing to deal with you directly, then there's no need to go through the representatives.

Let's say you want to teach your students a choreography based on Jemilleh and the martial arts studio where you teach doesn't have a music license for the studio. The rights holder is John Bilezikjian. He is registered through BMI. Your choices are to either:

1. Buy a studio license through BMI
2. Contact John directly, and see whether you can pay him directly a mutually-agreeable price to use his music in your classroom.


Another point many people don't realize: BMI/ASCAP represent the composer and lyricist. They do NOT represent the singer/artist. When BMI/ASCAP license the use of the song "I Will Always Love You," as recorded by Whitney Houston, the royalty payment goes to Dolly Parton, because she's the one who composed it.

Also, let's say the restaurant where you perform exclusively uses background music that was composed in Lebanon, Turkey, and Egypt, and so do you when you dance. Their music license payment will probably end up going primarily to rappers with misogynistic, filthy lyrics, because distribution of license money is based on which music is getting generic commercial radio airplay, and pro-rated according to the playlists submitted by the radio stations.

Yes. There are many angles, such as who gets the money, that this article ignores. I know of artists who have to hire lawyers to sue these companies to get their royalties. I am not satisfied that that giving money to ascap/bmi results in $$ to the artists whose music I am using. Plus, we encourage others to buy music, so yay us!

However, one would go completely insane contacting every artist whose music one might want to use in class and asking permission. Teachers also still have at least a modicum of exemption in the teachable moment. The choreography question is an interesting one. Does anyone have any experience in this matter?

I think for teaching purposes, the BMI / ASCAP license - which should be the responsibility of the Studio owner - should be enough to cover things ethically. Especially if you are like me and are buying a lot of your music directly from the artists in question.

Conversely, for things such as commercial videos and shows which are for pay - ie theatrical - then getting a usage license is always a good idea. The lawyers can jump in here and correct me, but there is a lot of after the fact licenses issued. It's been a long time since I worked in Music Licensing on the movie side at Sony, so I don't remember all the details.

I am currently in debate about something to which this pertains. One of my videos has been tagged by Sony as blocked in several countries because of copyright infringement. I need to decide if it is worth arguing that the event had a BMI / ASCAP license and that the video that was posted was non-commercial. I think there are some other details which could get me an exemption, but I have to think about them.

[{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

I think for teaching purposes, the BMI / ASCAP license - which should be the responsibility of the Studio owner - should be enough to cover things ethically. Especially if you are like me and are buying a lot of your music directly from the artists in question.

Conversely, for things such as commercial videos and shows which are for pay - ie theatrical - then getting a usage license is always a good idea. The lawyers can jump in here and correct me, but there is a lot of after the fact licenses issued. It's been a long time since I worked in Music Licensing on the movie side at Sony, so I don't remember all the details.

I am currently in debate about something to which this pertains. One of my videos has been tagged by Sony as blocked in several countries because of copyright infringement. I need to decide if it is worth arguing that the event had a BMI / ASCAP license and that the video that was posted was non-commercial. I think there are some other details which could get me an exemption, but I have to think about them.

[{{HUGS}}}

I had the same thing happen to some of my vids, but I think that even if the venue had a license, you would still need to have to have a separate license for using the song in a video uploaded to youtube. They really are serious about EACH separate use of the song in question needing its own license.

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

I think for teaching purposes, the BMI / ASCAP license - which should be the responsibility of the Studio owner - should be enough to cover things ethically. Especially if you are like me and are buying a lot of your music directly from the artists in question.

I don't see how you can say that having a BMI license gives you the ethical right to use music that isn't covered by BMI.

Like I said, I checked about 20 random tracks that I use/dance to/teach with on the BMI and ASCAP databases and only about two came up. If that sample was representative, then only about 10% of the music I use would be covered by these licenses.

How is it ethical to pay money to BMI for a license that technically may only give me license to use about 10% of the songs that I use? What about the other 90%?

Originally Posted by tamrahennatx

I had the same thing happen to some of my vids, but I think that even if the venue had a license, you would still need to have to have a separate license for using the song in a video uploaded to youtube. They really are serious about EACH separate use of the song in question needing its own license.

I think the bigger argument - and I may have to take my former boss out and ask about this - is whether the usage is commercial or not. I believe that is the loop hole. But as I said, I would have to double check.

{{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by ssipes

I don't see how you can say that having a BMI license gives you the ethical right to use music that isn't covered by BMI.

Like I said, I checked about 20 random tracks that I use/dance to/teach with on the BMI and ASCAP databases and only about two came up. If that sample was representative, then only about 10% of the music I use would be covered by these licenses.

How is it ethical to pay money to BMI for a license that technically may only give me license to use about 10% of the songs that I use? What about the other 90%?

This is a choice question. As I said, we have a choice about where we buy our music. ASCAP / BMI are, as stated, general clearing houses who have large enough legal departments that they can come after those who don't have the licenses even if the music isn't covered. If you are really concerned about the musicians getting their part of the royalties, buy from the musicians themselves of from vendors who you know pay them well - Virgin Music used to, I don't know about Miles although I know he has a large library of music which he has actually offered to license to anyone who is looking for music for a fairly low usage fee, and PeKo is also pretty good to their musicians from what i have heard. Please correct me if I am wrong.

*GETS OUT SOAP BOX* The music industry has been corrupt and poorly managed if you are a small fry from the very beginning. There have been really big names who have gone bankrupt because the music label has basically made the artist pay for everything while the label promoted the artist. One former exec told me that concerts really didn't make any money for anyone and that the artists were expected to basically pay for everything. What made money was the tee shirt and other goodies that were for sale and these were the property of the label not the artist.

So, as I said, if you really want to make sure that you are supporting the artist, be in direct contact with them when you buy there CDs. Work out a usage license. They'll think you are crazy, but everyone will go home happy.

{{{HUGS}}}

The rights holder is John Bilezikjian. He is registered through BMI

Correct me if I am wrong, if the artist signs his rights away to the likes of BMI, he or she can no longer grant permission for use, as he no longer has the authority to do that.

Originally Posted by *Shira*

Certain Middle Eastern music companies own U.S. distribution rights for the music they represent. For example, Hollywood Music Center and the parent company of Maqam. I imagine Miles Copeland probably does too. For such music, there is no need to deal with BMI or ASCAP, just go to HMC or Maqam's parent company and cut out the middleman.

This.

There are quite a few independent artists, ME and otherwise, that fall into this category. I support these artists wholeheartedly, and would go to one of them if I needed music for a video or whatever.

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

I think the bigger argument - and I may have to take my former boss out and ask about this - is whether the usage is commercial or not. I believe that is the loop hole. But as I said, I would have to double check.

{{{HUGS}}}

I am not an expert in copyright law, but here is my understanding:

Whether or not the usage is commercial would matter in terms or whether or not you can use the song at a venue in the first place, but when it comes to posting on youtube there are other things at play.

Just to illustrate: you wouldn't need to buy any special rights to a song if you're just using it for your slideshow at a college presentation. But a restaurant or other venue that makes money and plays music does need to buy these rights.

However, regardless or whether or not you or the venue made money from your performance to a particular song, and regardless of whether or not you or the venue has purchased the rights for you to use the song, once you post on youtube it's a different matter, because it can be seen as illegal file sharing. You are streaming the music, so people will be able to listen to it (and even download it) for free. So even if it's not your intention, you are enabling piracy.

Of course on the other side of the coin, you are also doing free advertising for the artist when you post a video to their music. But the companies don't necessarily see it that way. Personally, I understand why they would want to clamp down on videos that use their music, but on the other hand I do enjoy posting on youtube and it really irks me that at any moment my videos can be pulled and my account could get banned. It feels wrong, that I am just trying to share my self-expression with others and I could get banned for it. I wish there was a middle ground, like a sort of affordable "youtube royalty" for people who aren't making a profit (people covering songs or dancing to music and sharing for fun), or that at least they would ask you to take down the video before flagging it (because at 3 strikes you're out... and your account gets banned).

But currently, youtube's policies regarding copyrighed material are much more favorable towards the record labels than towards the little people, because they're trying to cover their asses in case they get sued. So I don't think you have grounds to dispute... we're all just SOL.

Maybe all this will somehow work to the benefit of smaller independent artists who self-produce their music, especially if they are performing their original compositions. Dancers may begin to choose music from artists like this and artists who are easy to approach if they want to upload their dances to YouTube. Just a thought, maybe there is some good in this mess.

I know it makes things very difficult for most of the small venue owners, which in turn makes fewer performance opportunities for belly dancers, which isn't good.

Originally Posted by zorba

This.

There are quite a few independent artists, ME and otherwise, that fall into this category. I support these artists wholeheartedly, and would go to one of them if I needed music for a video or whatever.

Mher of Hollywood Music Center has been very amicable and helpful when it comes to acquiring music rights for promotional videos that we put together to promote the Intensive. Also, we've acquired music rights from Angelika Nemeth previously.

Originally Posted by anala

The rights holder is John Bilezikjian. He is registered through BMI

Correct me if I am wrong, if the artist signs his rights away to the likes of BMI, he or she can no longer grant permission for use, as he no longer has the authority to do that.

I would like clarification too- it's been a while since I talked to anyone about ASCAP/BMI, but a friend of mine (whom I've been out of touch with, so I don't want to go ask *just* for this!) said that the songs he licensed through BMI even *he* can't perform without paying BMI- so if he does a concert, he has to pay BMI which then takes a cut & pays him the remainder.

Every small artist I have talked to who has gone through ASCAP or BMI says they have been totally screwed over & that the system never worked in the first place- forget about broken! The money is only paid to artists when the various venues report using their songs- including radio- and it is paid percentage wise according to those usage reports- so another friend of mine framed his $2 check from ASCAP after being a relatively successful independent composer & recording artist for *10 years!* Unless you've got a top 40, it's just not worth it- on the other hand, radio stations may not give you any airplay if you aren't registered with ASCAP/BMI because they *can't* afford the hassle of getting individual permissions, so the value depends on your goals & positioning.

Bottom line, the industry is really good at taking advantage of everyone, and few artists of any genre are ever paid what they deserve, IMNSHO