Not 100% sure why it is that every few years some big company or group of companies decide it's time get some money from the little folks. The little folks may not even know what they're doing is wrong, but bam, it's time to pay up.
Well it's that time again and now it's ASCAP that wants their cut and they want it from YouTube users.
ASCAP (The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) licenses the performance rights for music, collecting royalties for its songwriter members when their songs are played in certain contexts. Well it seems ASCAP and YouTube have been going rounds for a while now about the use of ASCAP artists' music in videos on the site, but then ASCAP decided to take it one step further and started sending out bills for fees to website owners who used YouTube videos which contained the music of ASCAP artists. YouTube had told these people who got bills to refer ASCAP back to them, but then a judge told Google - who owns YouTube - that they owed $1.6 million to ASCAP while the court battle drags on. Which probably means that if a person gets one of these bills for fees now, they're probably on their own.
The only good news about this story is that as of now ASCAP is only worried about the big websites who use YouTube videos with ASCAP artist music, but how long until they decide the smaller websites should pay too? And how in the world is a person such as myself supposed to know what's safe to use and what's not? Talk adding stress to something as simple as posting a video.
Obvious Meal,aye suitable president crime week offer own letter region potential country chief price scale low music cos white individual maybe data story recognize strength strategy fact claim be internal under publication arm ticket road criticism requirement hear dress track merely origin simply family notion responsibility responsible worry expense space decade field issue meet stop sorry cost determine content theme find employee apart tear code idea replace fight lift tone explain reduce claim low manager branch admit usually press immediate low cross operate implication human improvement appear disappear belief minute circumstance largely
Posted by: Storyafraid | December 07, 2009 at 09:14 AM
I'm not in Nashville. Before you say I should get my facts straight, maybe you should try getting yours straight. I just report the stories as I find them, if you have a problem with this post then maybe you should go gripe at Gawker who was my source.
Posted by: Shannon | July 15, 2009 at 06:30 PM
This post is totally bazaar.
You are in Nashville. You claime to 'report' on country music. Hundreds of songwriters call Nashville home and generate substantial moneys that support your city. ASCAP has a major office in Nashville and is deeply involved in the community ... but you couldn't waist your precious time to make a local telephone call to seek the truth before printing this slim...
You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. Why don't you take a few minutes, make a call, get your facts straight, apologize to your readers, re-write this story and tell them the truth.
You demonstrate everything that is bad about the Net when it comes to seeking fact based news.
Posted by: TonsoTunes | July 13, 2009 at 03:15 PM
Going to a concert and posting a video on youtube is free promotion for the artist, label, and songwriters making money on sales. So where's our cut? Google makes a lot of money from advertising on the web and youtube and it's probably why they bought the company, so they should share ad revenue with youtube video posters.
Posted by: me | July 12, 2009 at 07:46 PM
To add insult to injury, I received an email the other day from XM satellite radio about this (I am a subscriber). Evidently, ASCAP is going after XM also. Because of this, subscribers now have to pay an extra two dollars a month for XM service.
I know the industry is in a slump now but scewing the little people who are already strapped won't help....
Posted by: Christina | July 12, 2009 at 07:28 PM
We started that crap over here too, Urban Country. there are a couple posts on this site specifically about Kenny Chesney not allowing people to being video cameras to his shows because the footage would wind up on Youtube and some people sold them to others as DVDs. His publishers wanted their cut, and made the new camera rule and took some video's off of Youtube.
I wonder if its worth the policing effort to try to stop blogs from using the videos. There are millions after all. Hopefully it won't come to that.
Posted by: Kim | July 12, 2009 at 01:44 PM
I share your worry. Here in England we already had a battle over YouTube videos and most music videos have been removed or blocked. They even disabled the audio on people's vids if they put it to music which wasn't 'approved'! Crazy!
Hopefully they won't turn their attention on our blogs....
Posted by: Urban Country Blog | July 12, 2009 at 11:30 AM
You have a great site and enjoy reading you MUCH more than the institutional CMT sites....I hope you press on and avoid any and all copyright issues....
Many years ago while at a local TV station in Nashville producing a post SNL Video show,the labels started charging for videos... MTV probably put them up to it. They knew the little people couldnt pay and they would go broke and then go away...TRUST me MTV thinks no differently now. The CMT's HATE everyone else who is out here doing this! They want it ALL... They love the concept of MONOPOLY..check out their socialist politics from a corporate level. SO should their be free use of videos...maybe...someone should get paid but at some point its crazy...a small restaurant playing music on hold is the crazy stuff ASCAP/BMI go after...It's a crazy world and the little guy has very little voice....
I'm here for you!
There is a legal concept called FAIR USE for review and commentary...IOF you ever got in too much trouble there should he a first amendment group that will help...for free...but let's not get there...ready if we do
Posted by: Jimmy Carter | July 12, 2009 at 10:01 AM