re[2]: Why I support the Internet Radio Protest Blackout on May 1st

[Richard Zvonar <zvonar@zvonar.com>]

At 1:27 PM -0700 5/2/02, Dean Stiglitz wrote:
>perhaps i don't understand all of the issues here...but it seems to 
>me that who cares?

I care. I belong to a composers' organization that has several 
Internet stations. We'd have to shut them down.


>it is absurd to think that bmi and ascap will (or ever would) allow 
>ppl to broadcast music within their controll over the internet for 
>free.

They already have licensing deals with some Internet radio 
operations. Live365 for instance, is an ASCAP licensee. Smaller 
stations, such as SomaFM are ASCAP and BMI licensees. 
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/03/26/web_radio/

The CARP royalties would be on top of the ASCAP/BMI fees and would be 
considerably greater.


>i don't think that bmi and ascap will serve the smaller 
>producer/composer for very much longer...they will focus their 
>business on big money, mass marketed music.

They already do focus most of their attention to commercial music, 
but both organizations also put effort into less prominent artists. 
Today's small fry are often tomorrow's big fish.


>well, the way i see it, we should produce our music, but not give it 
>to ascap/bmi to enforce the copyrights.

What do you feel is wrong with ASCAP and BMI?

>if it's used in an obvious, big money production/broadcast/package, 
>then we individually sue or make arrangements with the "publisher".

Do you have the legal budget to sue a major studio?

>independant internet radio can thrive on music produced by "amatures"...

I for one would rather listen to Internet radio that included 
recordings by both amateurs and professionals. For instance, the type 
of programming you describe could not include music by such artists 
as Jon Hassell, David Torn, John Cage, Conlon Nancarrow, or even my 
own little project Alias Zone.


>and when the "amatures" have enough market draw to intrest ascap/bmi 
>(read: the cake gets big enough for them to want a bite), then they 
>will pay for the right to license the music.

It sounds like you don't know how ASCAP and BMI work. These 
organizations collect royalties in behalf of the composers and 
publishers of recorded materials that are played by their licensees 
such as radio stations, restaurants, and Internet broadcasters. The 
fees set by CARP would be paid to the record companies, who then 
presumably would pay them to the artists (right). They are completely 
separate from the ASCAP/BMI fees.

>as performers/composers/producers, what we have is controll over how 
>our music is used...so lets exercise it!  obviously, anything that 
>is published at this point becomes part of the de facto "public 
>domain"...

That isn't what "public domain" means.

>unless i'm mistaken, the carp rules don't apply to music that the 
>major publishers don't own or have controll over...we now have to 
>make our own paradigm.

In order to avoid the CARP fees, a broadcaster needs to have 
individual agreements with all the artists and/or labels that they 
play. This is quite cumbersome and not necessarily foolproof because 
if this music is subsequently licensed to a major, then the original 
agreement becomes void.


-- 

______________________________________________________________
Richard Zvonar, PhD
(818) 788-2202
http://www.zvonar.com
http://RZCybernetics.com
http://www.cybmotion.com/aliaszone
http://www.live365.com/cgi-bin/directory.cgi?autostart=rz