How PROs Hurt Creativity & Weaken Local Ecology
(Updated) Recently, I spoke with Mike Masnick, who is the founder of TechDirt, a leading technology and insight blog. In this interview, Masnick share his thoughts on how performing rights organizations (PROs) harm up-and-coming acts by insisting that small coffee shops, bars, and venues pay large licensing fees, in the event that cover songs are played at their locations. Often, the end result seems to be that these businesses stop allowing playing music to be played. This hurts the development of local ecologies and leaves less places for acts to hone their craft.
Local coffee shops, bars, and venues are essential to up-and-coming artists. They're the backbone of what enables local ecologies of music culture to develop. Do PROs undermine this avenue for artists at all?
Mike Masnick: I believe that the PROs almost certainly undermine the process by which many musicians perfect their craft. In the last few years, especially, the PROs have become more aggressive in demanding fees from local coffee shops, bars, and venues and as with any business, if you raise the costs, you get less of it.
Would you argue that there are instances where such business owners decided to stop allowing musicians to play music altogether, due to the operating practices and licensing fees that PROs pursued?
Mike Masnick: I don’t have to argue it, because there are numerous examples of venues stating flat-out that they’ve done exactly that. For many of these venues, margins and business is already tight. Having to pay a large fee on the possibility that musicians might play licensed music is simply not worth it to many of them.
In places where businesses have decided to stop allowing musicians to perform and playing music altogether, do you think their decision to do so greatly undermined the development of local ecologies of music culture?
Mike Masnick: Absolutely. While there are certainly exceptions, small local venues are where most musicians first refine their performance chops. It’s a huge part of the process in helping to both benefit artists in perfecting their craft, but also as a filter and feeder system to larger venues.
Has the landscape been tilted in a way that discourages the deployment of local ecologies and instead promotes the delocalization of culture, further providing an environment where only established acts can thrive?
Mike Masnick: The landscape has certainly been tilted, and it’s tilted in a way that favors the major label process, of course. The PRO business has long been focused on mainly driving revenue to major established acts. So, driving up and coming acts out of the ecosystem doesn’t seem to be much of a concern. Less competition for established artists means they don’t have to work as hard and don’t have to innovate
—
If you have a story or insight you'd like to share into this developing situation, please contact me at kyle.bylin [at] gmail.com. Disagree? Comment below.
First of all, PRO stands for “Performing Rights Organization” or “Performance Rights Organization” – not “Publishing Rights Organization”
Second, while I don’t agree with charging small venues unreasonable fees, songwriters are an important part of the creative process and need to be compensated.
Fixed. Thanks for catching that. I do know better, just editing the blog into odd hours again.
I agree with Mike. Publishers hurt the artist in a number of ways. Just like signing to a label, when you sign w/ a publisher you sign away your rights to your lyrics, and you are limited as to what you can do with them.
I think it’s better for the artist to keep their rights in full, and make licensing deals that are a win-win for everyone involved.
nobody forces you to sign with a publisher.
but when you do:
– they may give you a large amount of money
– you have someone who’s full time job is to look for opportunities for your compositions, and who is way more connected than you as a writer will ever be.
– you have someone who’s full time job is to collect royalties due to you from performance, mechanical uses, etc., and believe me this is a full time job
– a good publisher and a good publishing deal can in the end make you (way) more money for your works, despite giving the pub their percentage, than you could ever hope to do on your own.
in the end, it is a business deal, there is nothing inherently “evil” about publishers or labels, some are good some are bad, some deals are good and some are bad
A blogger interviewing another blogger. #whyamireadingthis
EB,
That’s a nice bulleted list, but is that typical? I work with many artists all over the world, and they tell me that they don’t get paid very much (if at all) for publishing. Seems that for most it’s not really worth it. If all you do is write (and not perform) it’s probably a good option, but for those who perform the material they write there are better options that don’t take/limit rights.
As an artist (of any kind) you need to treat what you do as a business. Forget the art aspect of it- bottom line it’s a product. Giving up rights to your product just doesn’t make good business sense. What if Mattel had to give up rights to Barbie just to have it in stores? You would think they are crazy, and they would be. Mattel directly licensing/allowing Target to sell Barbie’s makes a lot more sense, and makes everyone happy.
Everyone is looking for that magical formula to save the music industry. It doesn’t exist, but one thing is certain that the current ways aren’t working and artists need to rethink *How* they do things if they want to survive.
Ugh – a blogger interviewing a blogger with no input from a PRO rep. Nice balance. Why do I come to this site? Lazy journalism.
The job of the PRO is to collect on behalf of its member songwriters. So I would recommend that if you want to play in venues without those venues being charged a fee, the first thing you need to do is not to join a PRO. We still need better ways for small venues to avoid charges, and if the PROS do collect, we need better ways for member songwriters to be compensated (just because a PRO collects money on your behalf, that doesn’t mean you’ll see any of it) but until that time, don’t join a PRO if you don’t want them to collect where you play.
Once you start having your music on the radio or on TV, then there might be some reason to join ASCAP/BMI/SESAC. But until that time, hold off joining. Then at least you can legitimately tell a coffee house owner that no PRO is collecting on your behalf. (It won’t protect them from having to pay the fees, but at least you won’t be misrepresenting your own music).
Luckily house concerts are exempt from paying PRO fees. It would be good for a similar arrangement to be extended to venues that are small and host small jam sessions, open mics, etc.
Masnick is wrong. Or course proprietors should pay copyright holders for the use of music, just like proprietors must pay for the use of electricity.
Instead, the issues are 1) how much PROs demand to be paid; and 2) the at-this-point ridiculous extension of copyright term to what is now in the US author’s life + 70 years. Now that stifles innovation.
In case it wasn’t clear, this is what I am saying:
1. If you, as a songwriter or publisher, sign a contract with a PRO to collect on your behalf whenever your music is played in venue, on the radio, or on TV, then you have agreed to how they operate.
2. If you don’t feel they should be collecting from coffee houses (and you don’t think you’ll be getting any payments from them anyway), you might want to hold off joining a PRO until that can be worked out.
I am not sure how much PRO’s charge businesses, but the rates may need to be evaluated. I don’t think getting rid of them altogether is good for artists or is it the main factor stifling local music ecology.
I work with a lot of artists too – one of them got an advance for 250,000 pounds from a publisher, and is about 1/3rd of the way towards recouping that after one year. Others have gotten 5 figure advances. Much below that there is not going to be too much interest from a publisher anyway, so it is a moot point.
You’re not giving up rights- you’re engaging in a contractual agreement for someone else to manage those rights for you, which you can choose to do or not to do. It just so happens that a good publisher or administrator is a MUCH more efficient manager of those rights than you can ever be.
Here’s what I do with this situation: I am a member of ASCAP and have listed my titles. I also buy an individual yearly concert license (not that expensive.) When I play live I keep my playlist and file quarterly reports with ASCAP so they can allocate my license fee to the copyright holders(this includes me for my own songs.) It allows me to feel better about putting my money where my mouth is and not worry about the ethics of the venue owner.
But ASCAP also has a structure for venues that are small (as in $0) and if they play recorded and live music , it seems to me that it’s reasonable to consider it a cost of doing business if the music is a revenue draw. I can understand that for many venues, paying fees to the three PRO’s may not make sense. So there is a disconnect. The PROs should get together on that. But internet and computers should enable the nano-tracking that would have been unfeasible even 5 years ago.
So given previous ways of doing business, the methods of PRO’s may be out of step, but they can be a force for the smaller entities as well as they respond to our needs.
The small coffee shops have to have a license even if the just have the radio on. It doesn’t harm small bands or prevent them from playing there – ridiculous article, they want to have music of any sort playing they have to pay a license.
This site has really gone down hill. It used to be far more interesting and selective in its reporting.
Now it reeks of the small time musician naivety which blames everyone else for their lack of success.
It seems you completely miss the point that if you make good music – you have success. You stooped to a new low in blaming PRO’s for stifling bands careers. You want to attack someone look at the way reverb nation and sonic bids rip-off uneducated bands by charging ridiculous submission fees. http://growvision.tumblr.com/post/1252582706/dont-get-ripped-off-by-online-music-opportunities
I’m always interested in why people feel the need to look down on someone who writes for the web as opposed to someone who writes for a paper. What is it that makes their opinion less valid? This is a serious question and I would love to discuss it with anyone who is willing.
Balance? At least there is a little intellectual honesty on independent blogs. Reading PRO sites and blogs make my head hurt with all the Us vs. Them BS.
Not sure what the rates are in the US or UK, but in Canada, a small coffee shop with occasional live music would probably pay a minimum fee per year of about $84. Plus tax. It’s usually three percent of whatever the musicians earn in that venue, estimated for the year.
For example, even if a place plans on paying bands $10,000 over the year, it’s still only about $300 in license fees for the year.
If a small coffee shop has bands, and the bands play for free (often the case) just to “hone their craft,” the venue would be looking at $1.62 per week. That musician brings out five friends that wouldn’t normally be in there, and each gets a coffee and a muffin ($7) and stays a while, the venue is still $33.48 ahead. Plus, as people pass by the window, the hear and see the fun people are having and might come in next time, since this seems to be a good place to hang out. What is that advertising worth? If 100 people pass by and 6 decide to stop in sometime, that’s an extra $42 in the coffee shop’s till. Maybe the people already in the place hear some music they like, and stick around for a cinnamon bun and organic fruit drink ($8), or a bowl of soup ($6.50). Maybe three people per night upsell themselves because of the music. That’s an extra $21 or more.
So, do the math – $21 plus $42 plus $33.48. The coffee shop is up almost $97 just for having the musician in there – and they would have been open anyway – and that’s just upselling on the night, and people who came by and returned later. And admit it, the numbers I am talking about are also VERY conservative. Not to mention, once a place becomes a destination for new, cool music, provided they have the service and quality food and coffee to keep people loyal, they will become busier.
Coffee shop owners may love music, but they also love money.
I am a musician myself, and have seen time and again that the venues that refuse to hold a license also don’t treat musicians with respect, and also treat their customers poorly, and will even give musicians a hard time about being part of a PRO. They don’t last long, and want to blame everyone else for their troubles.
Again, context, if a coffee shop had musicians every Friday and paid them $100, that would be about $150 for the year in license fees, or $3 per week.
That’s not even a single latte.
I love these coffee shops that charge $4.50 for a cafe mocha then bitching about a $391.80 annual license for music.
No one has ever explained to me what Masnick’s authority is, commenting on the music business?
But you are giving up rights. I wanted to do a coffee table book with pictures, lyrics and some other stuff for a band I work with – but we couldn’t because we weren’t allowed to reprint the lyrics.
That would have been an additional revenue stream for this band, but the publisher they signed with prevented it. How is this positive? How is this not giving up rights? This publisher didn’t write the song, the band did, yet they can’t do what they want w/ their own lyrics.
It’s time to think different, and make better choices, because there ARE choices, unlike the previous decades where signing with the “big boys” was your only option for success.
You don’t have to do it all yourself, but you don’t have to give up rights, and revenue streams to make things happen.
What Mike Masnick doesn’t know about the music industry could fill a very large warehouse.