To all ASCAP or BMI members

[kevinmathie]

Oct 6, 2009, 11:28pm, pharaoh1tay wrote:Steve, my friend, you really nailed it and thank you. I guess overall I, along with others, need to understand that the entertainment business can be a crooked business. I will need to do some serious thinking about this.Yeah, you may want to check out the The Film Music Network's FMPRO Discussion List Archive before you get too excited about ASCAP. They do a lot of bitching about ASCAP over there. They have some interesting and eye-opening discussions. Although, it does seem very one-sided. Almost no one comes to ASCAP's defense on that list. To hear them talk, ASCAP is an evil, soulless corporation bent on the destruction of the instrumental composer.Of course, I'm sure a lot of that talk is just people being worked up about stuff, but it does serve to point out the flaws ASCAP has.

[guscave]

I agree, ASCAP has as much pros & cons as does BMI.I've never had to much trouble contacting someone at BMI (Nashville office), and they did resolve a problem for me & a publisher last year pretty quickly. However I have heard from some writers & publishers that ASCAP pays a little more money "quicker than BMI, but BMI eventually catches up.Also as Steve mentioned, I too have heard horror stories regarding ASCAP's customer service. I guess the experience is different for everybody.

[pharaoh1tay]

Thank you guys for the feedback... I really needed it.God bless

[hurican]

There is something I'd like to ask as well. I think it ties in with this thread pretty well, though I'm not completely sure.I've been in music for many years, but just now am getting into the TV/Film business, and I had questions about the BMI / ASCAP affiliations as well. I've heard that they are sketchy corporations at best, and play favourites, but as my research goes on, it looks more and more that I need to be affiliated with one of these. So I'm asking...Can you make a decent living in this industry without being affiliated? Or is this a necessary evil? I know that there are opportunities out there that do not require membership, so can I get along without them, or are my options going to be severely limited?From the horror stories I've heard, I'd rather stay (far) away, but I'd like to know how important it is to be affiliated with them.Thanks!

[kevinmathie]

Hurican,Yeah, they're a necessary evil. It's possible to direct license, but for the most part if you want to get any performance royalties from tv or radio, you have to be a member of a PRO. Many of the problems, IMHO, is a result of ASCAP and BMI being a de facto monopoly. The government views the two organizations as being in "competition" with each other. But, the reality is that they both do things the same, and because there's no real competition with each other, there's little incentive to make real reform, such as better tracking, paying instrumental composers closer to the amount they pay songwriters, etc.

[hurican]

Kevin,Ok, so if I create an affiliation with them, do I still need to forward the ASCAP / BMI Member # to the publisher (those who offered the opportunity) if direct licensing was offered? In other words, if I become an affiliate would I then be roped in to using their services with the possibility of other ramifications if not?

[kevinmathie]

No, you can direct license or use ASCAP/BMI, even if you're a member of a PRO. As long as you control the publishing, you can license your song however you'd like.I don't know much about the ins and outs of direct licensing, though. I know I have a link bookmarked somewhere around here that talks about it. I'll try to find it and give it to you. One of the big music libraries that was started here in Salt Lake City did a lot of direct licensing, and did quite well with it, but the owners were saying that you really have to know what you're doing. Apparently, because everything is geared to BMI/ASCAP, it's easy for you not to get paid with direct licensing.Kevin

[slideboardouts]

Oct 9, 2009, 7:23am, hurican wrote:Kevin,Ok, so if I create an affiliation with them, do I still need to forward the ASCAP / BMI Member # to the publisher (those who offered the opportunity) if direct licensing was offered? In other words, if I become an affiliate would I then be roped in to using their services with the possibility of other ramifications if not?I would give the publisher my PRO info, and no you will not be "roped in to using their services...." I am in a situation where music is direct licensed for a show, but there are still PRO royalties to be had as well. The direct license fee covers a number of affiliates for the show, but it doesn't cover the independent stations that air the show. For those, its ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. So, if you were in a similar situation, you would be missing out on the royalties not covered by the direct license fee if you don't send the publisher your PRO info.You really shouldn't try to avoid the PROs like they are the evil empire. There are a lot of composers who make a GOOD living off of their PROs and, IMHO, if you want to make a decent living from composing you need to affiliate yourself with one of them.-Steve

[matto]

Oct 8, 2009, 8:58pm, kevinmathie wrote:Hurican,Yeah, they're a necessary evil. It's possible to direct license, but for the most part if you want to get any performance royalties from tv or radio, you have to be a member of a PRO. Many of the problems, IMHO, is a result of ASCAP and BMI being a de facto monopoly. The government views the two organizations as being in "competition" with each other. But, the reality is that they both do things the same, and because there's no real competition with each other, there's little incentive to make real reform, such as better tracking, paying instrumental composers closer to the amount they pay songwriters, etc. They don't do things the same and they are in competition with one another and they are not "evil" like some people make them out to be...ASCAP has always been run by songwriters and therefore they are more friendly to songwriters than to instrumental composers. BMI is more even handed. Both PROs are going to treat their biggest earners "better" than some Joe Nobody for some of the same reason that e.g. restaurants give movie stars preferential treatment. Every PRO will have better employees and worse employees just like any other organization or company.That's not to say that there isn't room for improvement at the PROs, the system is not perfect and yes there are plays out there that are not being tracked properly and that you therefore don't get paid for, but that not always the fault of the PROs either.But I can guarantee you that you're going to miss out on a LOT more potential income by "staying away this evil" than by affioliating with any one of them.

[Casey H]

I wasn't thrilled with ASCAP customer service early on- I had to get a supervisor to take care of a problem after a few calls. But, like matto said, every organization in the world has some good employees and not so good ones. From what I hear switching PRO's is a pain and you really need a compelling reason to do so. A few stories about poor customer service don't fall in that category IMHO. I'm not sure if this was covered on this thread:If you sign an exclusive publishing deal, the publisher will do the registrations with the PRO and you absolutely should give them your info. You would not be able to license the song(s) yourself if it was 100% exclusive. If you sign a non-exclusive re-titling deal, that company will do the registrations under the re-title. But if you license the song(s) on your own, you need to register the song(s) under whatever title applies there. I tend to register all my songs under their original titles as soon as the songs are ready. That's not necessary, but it keeps me from forgetting later. Casey