Comments on: Broadcasters Sue BMI For Expanded Direct Licensing, Lower License Fees and Access to Cue Sheets

By: louis

louis — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:54:58 +0000

im also trying to see if the royalty payments are mine, because i have been getting royalty statements for over a year now for the same song..and they are recouping the funds back from my first royalty payments..which dept do i sue at bmi

By: louis

louis — Sat, 29 Jan 2011 20:50:51 +0000

im getting the run around on my royaltie payments..so im trying to get a cue sheet to show i was wrongly paid but they are not sending me the cue sheet..so i was advised to go to small claims..but i dont know who to direct my law suit towards at bmi. which department

By: Ron Mendelsohn

Ron Mendelsohn — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 18:48:12 +0000

So-called “retitled” libraries do not represent a “better option” for direct licensing since often they do not have the right to direct license at all. In a direct licensing situation, “retitled” libraries would simply not collect any performance licensing fees and this money would be lost. How is this a “better option” ? It is inconceivable that “retitled” libraries would put their broadcast clients in direct contact with their composers and ask clients to negotiate these fees separately with each individual composer. This scenario would be extremely unwieldy and unworkable and the end result would be that broadcast clients would steer clear of using “retitled” libraries at all. Instead, they would favor working with exclusive libraries that do own their copyrights and are able to negotiate these rights. The reality is that direct licensing is yet another area where the “retitling” business model falls short and another reason why composers should avoid these deals. On an industry level, the fact is that only the PROs have the power, sophistication, clout and experience to negotiate fair and reasonable rates with broadcasters; the more their negotiating power is chipped away by legislators, broadcasters and special interests and put in the hands of individual companies and composers, the more we will see performing rights fees whither away to nothing, in which case we will all be losers.

By: Erik Blicker

Erik Blicker — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:31:45 +0000

Are we as composers allowed to take the judge of the rate court out to dinner?

I am sure the broadcasters are doing that right now.

By: Broadcasters Sue BMI For Expanded Direct Licensing, Lower License Fees and Access to Cue Sheets

Thu, 28 Jan 2010 14:19:49 +0000

[...] VIEW ARTICLE SOURCE [...]

By: David varga

David varga — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 02:35:04 +0000

Wake up people. This practice happens all the time when major networks hire composers. They are made to sign all of their rights away including royalties.

By: Eric Goetz

Eric Goetz — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:08:55 +0000

Admittedly, I’m too lazy to read the actual suit, but I’m really confused by this. On what grounds are the broadcasters suing? If they don’t want to air any of BMI’s music, that’s their right, but if they want to use that music, then they have to agree to BMI’s terms, right?

I don’t want to pay your prices for your product/services, so I’m going to sue you, and force you to lower your prices?!? Last I checked, that wasn’t how capitalism worked.

By: blumuze

blumuze — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:06:59 +0000

This will be nothing less than a 360 degree disaster for the complete “food chain” of music providers from composers to their representatives (publishers, music libraries, etc.). The only benefit I can see will accrue to the broadcasters and the very biggest music conglomerates (UNI, BMG and affiliates, and so on) who will make a separate peace and keep the profits for themselves.

Now more than ever, creators of music need a strong union to fight for them. Alas, it will never happen.