Since I once worked for damn near a quarter of a century with Canada's
performing right society, I've been following the discussion with interest.
Astonishingly, no one has raised the issue of why on earth there are TWO
organizations in the US (three, if you count SESAC).
The duplication (triplication) of overhead costs American
songwriters and publishers a fortune, and nobody seems to worry about that.
The good Joe Gracey (and I'm SO sorry to have missed meeting you
during SXSW, Joe), believes that BMI was formed to combat the perceived
elitism of ASCAP at the time (early 40s), but that's only a very small part
of it.
In fact, BMI (which stands for Broadcast Music Inc) was - and still
is - owned by the American broadcasting industry, which is, of course, the
chief user of music, and the major source of royalty revenue for the public
performance of music. It was not formed because ASCAP was doing a bad job,
or didn't like hillbilly music, or wouldn't give rural blues songwriters a
home - BMI was formed because ASCAP's demands for license fees were
considered too high by the broadcast industry, and BMI thus became the
perfect example of putting the fox in charge of the hen hut.
This strategy has worked very well for American broadcasters, but
not very well for American songwriters and publishers, who earn probably
less than a third than their counterparts in Canada on a per capita basis,
and more than half as much as their counterparts everywhere else in the
world. Hopefully someone will provide accurate figures, but going from
memory, ASCAP and BMI between them get 1.7 per cent of broadcast industry
revenues; it's well over 2.5 per cent in Canada, and anywhere up to 10 per
cent in European territories.
In the same way that the United States is the only country in the
world where all the money is the same colour (thus causing innocent
Canadians to give out $10 bills when they thought they were giving out $1s)
, the US is the only country in the world with more than one performing
right society (Brazil is an exception; they have half a dozen, and the
composers don't make a nickel after all the overhead costs!).
Americans carry on about how competition makes the world a better
place! In this instance, it doesn't. In every other country in the world
(Brazil excepted!) one society sets rates for the use of music (with a
quasi-governmental body approving the fees after consulting with the users
and the society). The overhead is kept simple, the societies are
not-for-profit (so ALL the money collected, less overhead, goes to the
publishers and writers).
The competition from the three American organizations, to get
members, is intense, and costly. Recently, SESAC, so that it could tell
music users that it represented a significant catalogue, paid Bob Dylan and
Neil Diamond $4 million apiece to acquire their catalogues. Nice for Bob
and Neil, not so nice for SESAC members, who will earn, collectively, $4
million less than they otherwise would have done.
Worse, the competition to collect from music users (particularly
small users like restaurants, cafes, etc) has caused such a groundswell of
resentment that the restaurant owners recently managed to persuade your
government (regardless of the international copyright agreements it has
signed) to let many users off the hook altogether.
Competition in performing rights?
Bah! Humbug!!
Every single American songwriter and publisher has lost money as a
result of the creation of BMI. And the sheer ignorance of those who say
"toss a coin!" rather than considering the implications of your situation
in the US is mind-boggling!
Sorry guys, support ASCAP, and remind everyone what BMI stands for
- which is, in short, to screw the songwriter!
Cheers,
Richard
