One non-exclusive library can fit well with different exclusive libraries. I still do not see why a network would pay blanket licenses to more than one non-exclusive company. A major network can just pick one non-exclusive library and use that catalog for a majority of its uses. Using one non-exclusive company would cost less than using multiple non-exclusive companies. The network can then pay sync fees for other cues from exclusive companies.

The solution is relatively easy to me. Just because I am a composer does not mean that I do not have problem-solving capabilities. But in the end, I am not in control of a major network. Fortunately I do not have to stress out over these issues. All I have to do is make the music.

One issue with retitling occurs if (or more like *when*) the PROs switch over to fingerprint technology to identify and pay for plays. SESAC is already using TuneSat and the others are working on phasing in their own technology, and if that technology detects a play of a song that is in multiple libraries, the PRO has no way of knowing which publisher/library should be paid.
As of right now it is SESAC's practice not to pay *anybody* (including the writer) until/unless the proper entitled publisher can be identified.
With the worldwide network of PROs gradually migrating toward some type of detection technology, this could become a major issue and a lot of royalties could be held in limbo, or not be paid at all. And you might never even know about it if it's ocurring somewhere overseas.
That's definitely a concern for me as I depend on my royalties to make a living...

Great point matto. You're right is the direction PROs are moving in. BUMA here in The Netherlands is already partly doing this fingerprinting for a few years. But perhaps for the foreseeable they will at least use a combination of fingerprinting and good old cue sheets?

Food for thought.

So if fingerprinting becomes the way to track placements, it is possible that songs with two or more publishers would not receive any PRO royalites for either publisher or any songwriters.

If this is the case, direct licensing through a music supervisor could also be affected. It would not make sense for a composer to have a semi-exclusive cue with a music library. If the same song were licensed by the library and then directly licensed through a music supervisor, both the songwriter/library publisher and songwriter/publisher could lose out on money.

There is so much information to consider.

You are absolutely correct Tramel. Whenever an audio fingerprint refers to more than one title/entitled party, the corresponding royalties *could* be in held back until/unless the correct entitled party could be identified.
It makes no difference why the different titles/entitled parties exist.
Although it stands to reason that the more different titles/entitled parties a given fingerprint might reference, that harder it might be to identify, and pay, the proper one...

Well that brings up another great question: How reliable will fingerprinting technology really be?

It would be exceedingly difficult for a human to change his/her fingerprint. But a song could be slightly tweaked and could therefore generate a different fingerprint. Would the new technology even be capable of recognizing the difference?

I think that fingerprinting technology would actually be a great thing. My though is that more songs would be detected and songwriters and publishers would make more money. I just hope that the PROs do not use the technology to withhold money from people.