26 Jan
2004
26 Jan
'04
10:07 a.m.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 11:16, Daniel James wrote:
But not, usually, when they're jumping - mostly it involves going round
bars, shops and hairdressers and anyone else who plays music in public,
trying to find the manager/owner, and getting them to sign the form and
pay for a sticker in the window.
The collecting societies publish their operating expenses and are always
under pressure to reduce them. But most have ratios well under 50%.
Yes, but that doesn't help you if the venue has already paid its annual
GEMA or PRS licence. It means you can lawfully play unlicensed venues.
As everywhere.
But I for one
don't have a problem with a share of the money paid
by punters on the door of the disco going to the people who made
the music, both the DJ and to musicians back up the "sample chain".
That's fine in principle, but in practice this requires either a high
degree of automation, or a layer of bureauracy which will inevitably
siphon off at least some of those resources. Ironically, being a
member of the 'royalties police', supposedly defending the interests
of musicians, is probably a more lucrative career than actually being
the average musician. I'll bet it offers a regular salary, and you
get to spend most of your working hours in bars... This is what
GEMA and other "old-world" collecting societies try to
achieve, with a varying degree of success. Usually the venue pays
a fee to the collecting society, which then distributes the money
amongst musicians according to arcane statistical formulae to which
Frank's record-keeping exercise will have contributed.
So let's work out some estimated figures. The bar pays 100 euros
supposedly to compensate some (dead) jazz musicians, who during their
lifetime were unable to even pay their own rent, because they had
signed away their copyright to get a record deal, or were otherwise
screwed. The guy from the royalty society gets 50 euros towards his
salary, employer taxes and office expenses. That leaves 50 euros to
compensate musicians, in theory - but the money actually goes to
copyright holders, who may not be the original musicians who wrote
the track, or may not be musicians at all.
This is true. But then again (veering further OT) the original copyright
holder was the composer, and when he sold the copyright, the price paid
by the purchaser was in expectation of future cash-flow. And in Germany,
the copyright can't be sold.
According to the statistical formula, this (jazz) bar
must be playing
Britney Spears at least once a night, all year round. So the rights
holders on her music (whoever they are) get 1 euro. The royalty
society works its way down the top 50 grossing acts, handing out
euros.
By far the biggest influence on distributions is radio-plays, because
the broadcasters pay by far the largest amount to the societies. Radio
stations' restricted playlists don't help.
At number 47 in the chart is The Clash, so in theory
they get a
fraction of a euro because statistically, the bar must have played
London Calling at some point. But Joe Strummer is dead, and Paul
Simenon doesn't get anything either because he isn't listed as the
rights holder for that track. (Bass players, along with drummers,
rarely get writing credits).
Frank's own compositions, along with everyone else's, are
statistically insignificant in terms of gross revenue (sorry, Frank -
mine too) so he doesn't get anything back from that 100 euro, despite
the fact that he's the one doing the actual live music.
This is true; see the radio playlist issue above. The system is weighted
against minority music.
So how is the rights society helping the musicians
here? I'm talking
about the musicians that actually need the money to go on making
music, not dead people, ex-managers, or individuals like Elton John
who can lose a few million dollars and not even notice.
The societies are collectives; musicians own and control them. But most
musicians just sign over the rights when they get their first tune
published and don't bother voting. (Bit like citizens at elections: if
you don't vote, you shouldn't be too surprised when you get the govt you
didn't vote for.)
How to achieve
all this fairly and efficiently is a big open
question.
True enough. From a band's point of view, the answer we've come up
with is that we don't play covers at all, and we don't play at venues
which demand covers - or worse - tribute shows. It's harder, but it's
better for your creativity... As far as DJ'ing goes, I think the answer will be
automated collection
of real-time statistics.
That's an awful lot of data matched, as you point out
earlier, to not a
lot of money. Sampling ( er.. statistical) saves the cost of universal
data collection. Radio station play logging is already automated - the
collecting societies have been investing in the technology for some time
now.
There is a compromise between accuracy and cost.
A high position in a 'club chart' is likely
to be far more significant to an artist than the small amount of
money collected per artist.
Anything that improves the present system is good. I just think the
better strategy is change from within rather than either tearing down
the old or attempting to create a new Utopia isolated from the old.
I don't
think even GEMA would seriously claim that their
methods are perfect.
Perhaps not, but there are vested interests here. I predict that any
royalty collection society will be extremely hostile to libre music
licensing, as it represents a threat to their way of life.
There will be resistance
to change. But "adapt or die" applies to them
as it does to the record companies and everyone else who does business
in this digital environment, and the collecting societies know this.
I've tried
discussing licensing issues with an MCPS representative, and the
response was like a brick wall.
Cheers
Daniel