SOURCE
"Webcasting on trial

When it comes to the byzantine world of music licensing, one key thing to remember is that songs are licensed by two separate parties: songwriters (and their music publishers) and recording artists (and their labels). Last year's controversy over webcasting rates focused on rates to be paid to SoundExchange, which represents the label side of the equation, but songwriters have also been agitated about their pay when it comes to Internet streaming. ASCAP, one of the three main performing rights organizations in the US, represents songwriters and has been caught up in a court case with AOL, Yahoo, and RealNetworks over the proper payments each should make for a blanket license to stream music on the web. "


Read the rest at the ArsTechnica source page.

My favorite part of this is ASCAP's Bill of Rights for authors and publishers:

* We have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free

* We have the right to develop, document and distribute our works through new media channels—while retaining the right to a share in all associated profits

* We have the right to earn compensation from all types of "performances," including direct, live renditions as well as indirect recordings, broadcasts, digital streams and more

---------

There's really quite a bit more.

I think I'm going to have to write the Musician's Bill of Rights.

• We have the right to play something else.

I guess that's all we really need.

We have the right not to join.

"...one key thing to remember is that songs are licensed by two separate parties: songwriters (and their music publishers) and recording artists (and their labels)"

should be:

"one key thing to remember is that songs are licensed by two separate parties: songwriters (and SOMETIMES their music publishers too) and recording artists (and SOMETIMES their labels too)"

There, fixed that for ya!

(Never forget INDEPENDENT music Code!)

"but songwriters have also been agitated about their pay when it comes to Internet streaming. ASCAP"

Rightfully so, but the problem is with big name publishers more-so than with the songwriters.

Let's not get TOO much in a huff over the songwriters, (EVEN if they are "big names") because the publishers are the ones pushing this agenda.

Don't forget folks, MOST of the big publishers are actually arms of the RIAA and/or associated closely with our enemy.

Big name songwriters are merely slaves for the most part. They have been hoodwinked into thinking that ASCAP is acting on THEIR behalf when REALLY the Performing Rights Societies are part and parcel of the problem.

Let me phrase it another way:

The PRO's represent the publishers more-so than the songwriters.

Leflaw's addition was important to rank number one.

Musicians' Bill of Rights

• We have the right not to join the PROs.
• If you already joined a PRO, you have the right to NOT register your songs with them.
• We have the right to play something else.

-------

songwriters have also been agitated about their pay when it comes to Internet streaming.

The songwriters/publishers have traditionally been the only copyright owners that broadcasters of any sort have ever been required to pay in the U.S.

My question to ASCAP is why they are just now speaking up about this. They let the RIAA step in and create new royalty rights for the record labels while they did nothing.

The music biz is really big on tradition, you know. Tradition says the songwriters get paid first. Objectively, ASCAP should have been first in line to collect royalties, not the RIAA.

Why weren't they? Now, years later, they finally raise their hand, manage to get paid retroactively to include the time they were kissing the RIAA's ass, and no one paid any attention until it was a done deal.

There is something very wrong about how this all played out and the U.S. Copyright Office is part of it.