Obviously an ASCAP recruiter
At 02:16 PM 4/3/99 -0500, you wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
