By Tiffany Brooks

I used to wonder if PROs were like unions for songwriters and composers.  In some ways yes, but they don’t force membership in order to get work like some unions do.  Joining these organizations is completely voluntary.  In some cases, music buyers may do a direct licensing deal with the composer to cut out the PROs.  In fact, ASCAP has admitted that they’ve lost millions because of this. 

The idea of having these organizations in existence is good, however, nothing is ever perfect and they’ve had their fair share of complaints by the very people that they represent.

The complaints vary from pitting songwriters against media composers to abusive board members who don’t seem to believe in term limits as explained in this article over at Film Music Magazine.  Some have accused them of caring more about songwriters and not as much about composers who write for media.

On the other hand, there have been some bright spots as well.  According to an article over at Wired Magazine, BMI “distributed a record amount of royalties to its member songwriters, composers, and publishing companies for fiscal year 2006-2007.  Royalties of $732 million  constituted an 8 percent increase over the previous year.”  This is a result of the successful licensing of music across a diverse range of media, and revenue growth in foreign markets.

They have streamlined their royalty collection process for media composers by using an online sheet cue service called RapidCue.  Film Music magazine explains,”RapidCue is a secured website that allows users to enter, manage and electronically submit music cue sheet data for television, cable and film productions to BMI and ASCAP.”  ASCAP and BMI in conjunction with the participation of the film, television production and television network communities agreed upon this service.

Overall, I think PROs are still valid and they do have the songwriters, composers and publishers best interests at heart.  They have a lot of work to do in terms of  improving the operations of their organizations, but I believe that they will straighten out their issues.  If they don’t, they won’t hear the last of it from their members.

By Tiffany Brooks

I was reading an article about how the British government decided that copyrighted songs will automatically go into the public domain after 50 years. Actually they turned down a request by the UK music industry to extend copyright for sound recordings beyond 50 years to 70.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/07/24/the-uk-says-no-to-over-50-year-music-copyright/

Of course this is upsetting to artists in the UK, and rightfully so. But the comments to this article were very disturbing to me. Some of the comments were blaming the artist for taking the deals that were handed to them. How could the Beatles change copyright law? If they wanted their songs to get out there, they had to accept the laws at the time.

I’m disturbed by the fact that the public has no problem using creative works such as music, art, poetry, and literary works for free but they don’t mind patronizing a business for over 100 years (ie. Sears). Where’s the respect for the arts? There is definitely a double standard. Why should Coca-Cola have the right to profit from its trade secrets forever if they want to, but I can’t protect my music? I can’t put copyrights in my will for my children because in the US, after 95 years, my music will be in the public domain. My children couldn’t benefit from royalties.

If the public knew how hard some of us worked to create music, they wouldn’t be so hasty for us to hand it over to them for free. We are having to deal with the fact that some in the public are stealing copyrighted material as of now. They feel it is their right to have free music. What’s up with that? Why would they think they have a right to acquire music for free? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they don’t value it. People show how much they value something by parting with money for it. Clearly, there are people who think we as musicians are just having fun and that we shouldn’t be paid for our labor.

I understand that there is music out there that is not worth a penny, but the market should determine this by low to no sales. Clearly, if you don’t like a song, you shouldn’t spend money on it. But you shouldn’t get if for free regardless of whether or not you like it.

Ultimately, I write music because I truly love it and I really need to do it. Money is secondary. But the reason why I worry that the public doesn’t want to pay for music is because I feel they don’t respect it. How are musicians supposed to happily create music when they know that society doesn’t respect what they do?