Re: [ARSCLIST] WAMU 88.5 to Join Webcasters in "Day of Silence" June 26

[Karl Miller <karl.miller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Bob Olhsson <olh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:     ***Record labels used to tell artists that they shouldn't receive royalties because of the free publicity too. It's the oldest scam in the music business.

***I'm saying that choice should be up to the artist because it's their music and their livelihood. Webcasters always have the choice not to play artists they can't reach an agreement with.

Having left broadcasting a few years ago, I haven't kept up with this. All I remember were the payments to the ASCAP, BMI, SESAC...to cover the broadcasting of copyrighted music.
   
  How are artists paid? Is the money paid to the label? If so, is it part of the contract as to how much the label is paid versus how much the artist gets? My label has never been paid a penny from an internet broadcaster, yet, I often get emails from people telling me that they have heard our stuff being played over the internet.
   
  It all seems rather odd to me. I recall that some years ago, the musician's union in England had some strict rules. It would limit the amount (percentage) of recorded music that could be broadcast. Further, if you broadcast a live performance of say some jazz band, you were limited as to the number of times you could rebroadcast it, sometimes forcing the BBC to rerecord another live performance. I know some of those rules still apply. Recently, the BBC had Ginastera as composer of the week. Barbara Nissman, pianist on my  label, was interviewed for the series and they used her recordings, all on my label. We were never paid a penny. The BBC wanted to include the First Piano Concerto in the series. I suggested they use a performance she had done years ago with one of the BBC orchestras. They BBC said that they could not afford to use it as the union would require a reuse fee of about $7,000 US. The BBC "owned" the tape, but not the right to use it.
   
  Also, I know that the reproducing piano roll transfers on our label have been broadcast by the BBC and have been included in other European broadcasts. We haven't seen a penny...but then I don't suppose one should have to pay Bloomfield Zeisler...she has been dead for many years. Is the performance right subject to the 50 years past death?
   
  As to the artist being paid...I am reminded of how business models change. Years ago, late 19th, early 20th centuries, a soloist would perform with an orchestra for free. It was seen as a way to advertize for getting students and would lead to solo recitals. Also, I like pointing out, that in the "old days" (30s-50s) of the National Orchestral Association, some of the world's finest musicians would do solo gigs with them for free...their contribution to the educational process. 
   
  Then, I was reading in today's NY Times that cultural icon de jour, Paris Hilton, was being offered about $800,000 for an interview. A quote from one of the TV networks was "we never pay for inteviews." Most curious. It seems to me that the media have created this "celebrity" and now they have to "feed" this "celebrity" they have created. So, is it that once a musician gets famous, they should be paid when their performance is broadcast? At what point is a broadcast seen as free advertizing versus a means of acquiring higher ratings?
   
  Then, consider downloads. 99 cents sounds reasonable? Let's say that the piece is 60 minutes long, and in one movement, and still under copyright. The mechanical rights would cost me about $1.05. That doesn't include the costs of making the recording in the first place, or paying the musician anything. Ok, that is an extreme example, but I am just trying to point out that one size does not fit all.
   
  Then, I wonder, if someone did send us a check for the broadcast of one of our discs...well my wife has enough trouble keeping up with the books as it is...if it gets much worse she might demand that I pay her something!
   
  I do believe that the system follows the old saying, "the rich get rich and poor get poorer." I don't like it and I believe it is not right. But I guess I don't see how things are supposed to work differently.
   
  When I was a teenager back in the 60s I got my first tape recorder. I financed it in part by telling my parents that I wouldn't be bothering them for money to buy records. I honestly thought that would be true. Well, I didn't figure in the cost of the tape...and of course, it did not slow down my record purchasing. And, of course, I never considered the legality of what I was doing. Fortunately I did tape some wonderful live performances and in turn have shared them with the performing organizations that never thought to save their own concerts, or were prohibited from doing so by the union. Once I became aware of the copyrights, I tried to limit my taping to live performances, still illegal, but I could rationalize it...no other way to get the stuff. I also would allow myself to tape those records that were "hard to find...out of print, etc." Would I pay a few bucks for a better sounding copy of an old Boston Symphony broadcast, sure, but the economics seem to make it
 impossible for them to make them available.
   
  Now I wonder, what must the perspective be for a kid these days when you can get it for free, and in fairly decent sound. 
   
  And, by the way, I still record broadcasts of concert performances...and now with the internet...I can't wait until I retire and have more time to record and listen.
   
  This whole thing seems crazy to me. I would really like to know what sort of business model the new technology gives us and how one can make enough money to survive. It seems like, as always, unless you are on the top of the heap, the economies of scale make it impossible to put food on the table.
   
  Karl (speaking from ignorance and very glad he incorporated as a non-profit and was able to get 501 c 3 status for his company)