为什么直接许可交易获胜’t福利歌曲作者…

螺丝700

史蒂夫·戈登(Steve Gordon)是音乐界的顶级律师。在这封给国会的公开信中,他试图解释为什么Pandora等服务的直接许可实际上不利于词曲作者。

引号

亲爱的李参议员,

问候。之前,我非常感兴趣地观看了上述参考听证会。我是音乐律师,并且是《 音乐行业的未来(Hal Leonard第4版。2015年).

我想与您分享我发表的有关相关主题的文章。

直接许可争议:发行人是否能够许可公共表演权,直接(而不是通过表演权组织)将公共表演许可给数字音乐服务?歌曲作者的后果是什么? (第72-76页)

This 文章 focuses on a crucial issue:  If the major 发布者s were allowed to enter into licenses directly for the public performance of their songs with digital services, songwriters 可以 be badly hurt.

Here’s why: if large 发布者s could bypass ASCAP 和 BMI 和 negotiate directly with digital services such as Pandora, they 可以 probably secure huge upfront advances in exchange for granting a license to play their songs. However, if this happened most songwriters would never share in this money.

Standard music publishing agreements include a clause that states that the 发布者 does not have to share monies that it receives for “unallocated” advances.  This means that if the advance received by a 发布者 was for all songs in their catalogue, i.e., a blanket license, they would not have to share 任何钱 与他们的作家。  但是,如果主要发行商与数字服务达成直接交易,则这些协议很可能适用于其目录中的所有歌曲。因此,预付款将是“未分配的”,即与任何一首或多首特定歌曲无关。而且,大多数歌曲作者都是“无法收回的”,这意味着发行商会向他们提供预付款,然后拿走他们歌曲产生的所有资金,直到预付款得到还清为止。但是,当ASCAP或BMI从音乐用户那里收取钱款时,他们会直接向作家支付50%的费用,并直接向出版商支付50%的费用。如果出版商收到了这笔钱,那么大多数歌曲作者将不会获得报酬,因为大多数作家都无法获得报酬。

我认为这是一个巨大的危险, 必须 be recognized.  In her testimony, attorney Ms. Jodie Griffin pointed out that when the major 标签s enter into direct deals with the digital services they also try to receive huge upfront advances (as well as equity) 和 they generally do not share this money with their artists.

If the major 发布者s, which are all affiliated with major 标签s, 可以 do direct deals with the digital services, I think this is likely to occur again, 和 the songwriters would suffer.

I would also like to point out that many of the music organizations that purport to represent songwriters have an inherent conflict of interest. I believe their leaders sincerely would like their songwriters members do better financially. Yet the 发布者s, particularly the majors, have a huge amount of influence on their positions. Moreover, these organizations have a duty to support the interests of their 发布者 members as well as their songwriters members.

In short, while changing the consent decree or allowing the major 发布者s to do direct deals may be very good for the 发布者s, particularly the majors, 对于作曲家来说可能是灾难性的.

我的文章详细解释了这些事实。

如果您想就此事进行进一步的对话,或者对我有任何疑问,请告诉我。预先感谢您的关注。

最好的祝福,

史蒂夫·戈登

引号

17个回复

  1. 阿里·赫尔斯坦德
    阿里·赫尔斯坦德

    说得好!感谢您指出这一点,史蒂夫。当然,我们’ve seen similar things happen with 标签 advances from streaming services –当然,这些永远不会传给他们的艺术家。

  2. 头像
    数字电视

    这很有趣。

    在欧洲,我们有很多类似的案例。

    从技术上讲,是任何主要唱片公司的标签(我写的是“label” instead of “publisher” since all major 标签s have a publishing division or sister company that songwriters whose songs are released by the major 标签 are gently “invited”与他们签署发布协议)可以绕开PRO(在这里我们称为收取社团),这并不完全相同,因为总部位于美国的PRO仅照顾绩效特许权使用费,而收集社团则直接或间接管理绩效+机械特许权使用费)涉及数字服务。

    为什么专业人士可以绕过集会?因为他们从数字服务中接收了所有数据,并且他们拥有处理该数据的技术基础设施(或多或少有运气),但不幸的是,大多数收集社会仍在与之抗争。

    它尚未发生,但是可以随时发生。到目前为止“power”/容量/选件已被用作杠杆(敲诈),以在某些数字服务的收入分配方面获得有利的协议。

    When it comes to digital services, any major 标签 or even digital distributors 可以 very easily bypass collecting societies (if they were collecting the corresponding royalties for performance 和 mechanicals, which is obviously not the case at the moment).

    • 头像
      莎拉

      所以我们’在RepX(第一个流媒体市场)上解决了该问题–即将对艺术家开放)。希望您的反馈意见。

      在RepX上,我们具有自动发送数据的功能 指定权利人的特许权使用费。
      基本上,上载内容时,您可以选择指定在作品中拥有权利的其他个人/公司,也可以直接向他们分配使用费,以便集中,自动地处理所有会计,处理和付款。相关信息是完全可用的,并且对所有感兴趣的方(即合法感兴趣)都是透明的。

      这样,当流式传输内容和/或赚钱时,每个感兴趣的方都会立即直接从RepX获取信息(以及付款,如果他们选择使用该系统)。

      我们的目标是提高效率,同时在流程中引入显着的透明度。

  3. 头像
    乔治·约翰逊

    It is a problem, but not that big of a hurdle. Artist attorneys such as yourself, managers, 和 artists have to determine 和 per-play value 和 negotiate for it like normal people. Keeping 社会主义中央集权经济规划一百周年 at $.0000001 for a Spotify play because we are all SCARED.

    此外,就这三个专业“could”离开ASCAP和BMI,“could”与潘多拉(Pandora)达成交易,他们已经完成了。

    让’对日本,俄罗斯和法国的外国Sony,Warner Music和Universal Records有新的同意法令,然后对他们的出版公司有同意令。然后,让潘多拉(Pandora)在所有互联网广播中占据80%的垄断地位,制定新的同意书。

    • 头像
      莎拉

      乔治,很想给您演示RepX。

      We’成为第一个流媒体市场,我们’做事大不相同–这包括尝试从中前进“社会主义中央集权经济规划一百周年”通过引入流程和系统,使艺术家可以更轻松,更有效地控制许可等事物(请参见上面的评论)。

      现在我们’re giving demos to artists (and indie 标签s) to get feedback 和 start a discussion about your needs 和 preferences, which we’在向消费者开放之前(在不久的将来),将积极使用改进平台– est. 4-6 weeks)

  4. 头像
    杰夫·罗宾逊

    And this is exactly how the equity deals major 标签s have with entities like Spotify ensure that the signed artists on the roster never see a dime of royalties from the streams.

    • 头像
      莎拉

      喔喔’s the exact same situation 和 I tend to think that the 发布者s will do this if given a chance (there’没有理由相信他们’re different than the 标签s on that front). Power corrupts 和 all that, 和 their contracts with artists give them a lot of 功率.

      But if you as an artist make a bad deal or choose an unscrupulous 标签, no platform can do anything about that unfortunately. The best a platform can do is be transparent 和 fair by having everyone compete on the same terms. It’s up to artists to choose 标签s that are run by good people 和 will stand up for them, instead of going for the easy money.

      • 头像
        杰夫·罗宾逊

        莎拉(Sarah),我们谈论的是已签约,制作唱片甚至唐’t have that deal anymore with the 标签 still owning the recording 和 distributing it.

        • 头像
          莎拉

          杰夫,感谢您的澄清–但是这些问题是由艺术家实际达成的交易造成的还是由其他因素(艺术家与标签之间的合同关系之外)造成的?

  5. 头像
    匿名

    The real problem here is the clause in the contract between the 发布者 和 writer, 和 for streaming, the 标签 和 the, ugh, artist…

    他们是如何设法在其中烦恼此类条款的?为什么律师让它这么久呢?

    我认为这是正确的问题…

  6. 头像
    匿名

    It’实际上与银行没什么不同…谁利用别处的抵押贷款来赚钱,却不退还给签署交易的人以购买房屋,全部已保险或如果某项救助未能通过,那么对于银行来说,’具有双赢的上升空间,几乎有零下降空间,尽管它据说已经收紧了一点,但对于房主(从技术上讲,直到最后付款才是真正的银行),在这种情况下,购买者只会说),’长期风险包括直接费用和税收,大量利息,当然还有长期债务,希望长期以来已经膨胀的房地产市场实际上会上涨通常的百分比…

    当然,我想,如果您有钱并且可以算数,并且拥有一个强劲的租赁市场,这将继续变得越来越受欢迎,因为我的后代,即使获得抵押,所有后代都会遇到越来越多的麻烦,然后拥有房屋可以带来最小的风险,庞大的投资组合和财富积累,因此,富人实际上变得比以往任何时候都更加富有…

    It all seems setup as a very long play to maybe in 25+ years perhaps borrow enough from the rich in order to maybe if lucky work all the time having no life all to maybe build some wealth for old age when the health fails, as who else other then with a major 发布者 和 标签 or just overall tons of debt, is actually putting any real liquid-able wealth together?

    最终,他们全都让我们大吃一惊,他们知道这一点,这就是为什么该条款具有现状的原因…

  7. 头像
    esq

    虽然更大的问题很严重,但艺术家’律师可以通过在时间表中简单列出每首歌曲以及自动覆盖新发行版本的语言,以合同方式解决上述问题。因此,如果艺术家’s catalog is “licensed” by the 发布者, any advances would not be “unallocated,” since they are tied to specific songs.

    • 头像
      不完全的

      Having a Sch A in a pub deal has nothing to do with the deal struck by the 发布者 with the service. What Steve is saying is that the pub will get an advance for the whole catalog, versus a particular advance for a specific song. However, 发布者s already do this all the time with various sorts of deals.

      问题是’t几乎与Steve所建议的w / r / t未分配的预付款一样重要。真正的解决方案– 和 it’几乎存在于每笔交易中– is for the language to specify that the 发布者 pays the writer for royalties “received by or 归功于 ” the 发布者. Thus, even though the 发布者 gets to keep the big up-front advance, as soon as the service makes use of a particular song within the writer’s catalog, the writer will get paid (because the earned royalty will be 归功于 the 发布者’s royalty account, which will then require the 发布者 to pay the writer the earned royalty from the advance previously received).

      As for the 发布者’收回作家的预付款,以抵消其演出收入,’s more of an issue – that income has been sacred ground 和 generally untouchable for 发布者s to use for recoupment. However, that’一个很容易通过合同解决的问题。

      • 头像
        史蒂夫·戈登

        “Thus, even though the 发布者 gets to keep the big up-front advance, as soon as the service makes use of a particular song within the writer’s catalog, the writer will get paid”

        The problem is that that 发布者s 可以 set the advances so high they are never recouped. Also it’s not certain that all 发布者s would implement your interpretation of “received by or 归功于” provisions of the contract.

        • 头像
          匿名

          The problem is that that 发布者s 可以 set the advances so high they are never recouped. Also it’s not certain that all 发布者s would implement your interpretation of “received by or 归功于” provisions of the contract.

          然后,律师和作家在签署出版协议时需要获得更高的预付款,因此出版商将永远无法收回它们,否则将取消该条款并确保放入其他内容,或者为此而起诉他们。商业惯例,类似于动产交易,旧时代的黑暗时代人口贩卖奴隶贸易,本质上就是这样,声称拥有财产并出售,同时与老鼠和其他奴隶捆绑财产并扔给他们几块面包当他们喝酒和参加聚会时,穿过炉排…

          听起来真可怕…

          为何还要打扰音乐,那又是如何对待每个人的呢?

          里面没有女人,那是神话,那里没有钱,那是神话,名声,糟透了,那为什么还要麻烦呢?

          If you have to be looking over your shoulder at your 发布者 和 标签 all the time to see how bad they are lubing you up, constantly having to audit them 和 just make sure they play fairly with their legos while they sip from their little squeeze juice boxes, then who would want anything to do with music or the business of it?

          他们正在寻找丈夫?

          纯粹的疯狂…

  8. 头像
    独立游戏

    Most important 文章 published in DMN this week, imo. Take it to heart songwriters 和 smaller 发布者s, ALL of this noise 和 fury being whipped up by the NMPA 和 the major 发布者s is all intended to do nothing but create an opportunity to play the same kind of “hide the money” as the major 标签s are doing on the master side. Don’不要让它们损害为歌曲作者服务了这么长时间的法定结构。大声说!