Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:09:47 -0400 From: alan@nysernet.org (Alan Rowoth) To: folk_music@nysernet.org Subject: ASCAP Message-ID: I think that this topic has, once again, run it's course here on FM. I was tempted not to reopen this can of worms, but the story received such national news attention, that I felt I would be remiss not to allow some discussion on the topic. Future licensing organization discussion would be more appropriate on the FolkBiz list. In the meantime, I felt that you all deserved to know that Paul Reisler and I had several meetings at the song school with the head of ASCAP's LA office, Ron Sobel and Brendan Okrent, a longtime champion of songwriters and the creator of ASCAP's "Quiet On The Set" artist showcase series. You can take me word on this. They are not evil people and they try as hard at their jobs as most anyone I know. Despite this, they acknowledged that we all have work to do to make things right. Many people don't realize that ASCAP is an organization of musicians. It was founded by musicians and has historically been most concerned with preserving musicians intellectual property rights. They, far more than BMI or SESAC, have aggressively lobbied for the protection of those rights in the lawmaking process. As Charlie Hunter pointed out, ASCAP donates considerable sums of money to support programs for musicians in the folk world. It's not within my authority to release those figures, but I can tell you that it was into six figures in 1996 with substantial checks to the Folk Alliance, Kerrville Folk Fest, and RMFF artist showcase, among other things. Reps like Brendan, Debbie Rose, and most recently Sue Devine in NYC have been working hard to get artists into publishing and record contracts that increase the value of their catalog. They also do workshops for writers on what it means to be a music publisher and the various ways that your songs can be valuable to you. Their incentive awards provide yearly checks to many writers who aren't showing up on the reports but are working aggressively in the biz. I personally know many songwriters who would have to find other employment were it not for the subsidy that their royalty checks provide. Every week a new song hits the charts and lets a writer quit their day job as a secretary, waitress, or school teacher to pursue their dream of being a full time musician. Don't count out the Julie Gold's of this world. You many someday be one of them. The two crux issues here are venue licensing and reporting. Ron acknowledged that they are still working towards solutions for them, but at least there is motion. In the last 3 years, much has already happened: ASCAP introduced a live performance reporting system, instead of basing all of those payments on airplay as they had in the past. Currently it only tracks the top 100 grossing tours, but many of those feature acoustic openers. (Like Don Dixon on the Hootie & Blowfish tour or Michelle Malone touring with the Indigo Girls) They hope to expand the program in the future. ASCAP also introduced an electronic cue sheet reporting system for TV producers so that those writers (who never tour and seldom get airplay) would get a chunk of the substantial revenues generated by the broadcast media. This has been an expensive transition for them, but it may lay the groundwork for electronic reporting in other fields as well. ASCAP sharply increased their sampling of public and community radio stations (which carry the bulk of folk programming in the US.) It's true that there is still no mechanism for reporting songs in each and every performance, but I believe that it is a goal which I think they can listen to. Just the cost of filing reports for very small shows would probably cost more than the licensing fee. Nobody makes money that way. They have made strides and Ron promised me that they will continue to work towards fair and equitable reporting in the future. With BDS and other technologies on the way, I'd be surprised if all the reporting numbers don't become much more accurate in the next five years. How many years away can spot on reporting be? There have also been problems on the licensing side, with reports of ASCAP closing down venues with demands for exorbitant licensing fees. ASCAP understands that equity is needed here too. Pulling the door to door reps off the streets was a major step in the right direction, but not as far as most would agree is necessary. There are different fee schedules and Ron felt that maybe smaller, non-profit venues had been incorrectly sent the wrong fee schedule. I've asked him to send me a copy of the correct one so that I can look it over and see if the fees are really as onerous as they are said to be. This sounded a little fishy to me too. This seems a foolish mistake to make over and over again. Nonetheless, if there is an appropriate grid out there, I don't think that anyone would mind paying a fair licensing fee for each show, especially if they understood all the good uses that that money is put to. Ron told me that ASCAP had also made a very aggressive proposal to the North American Folk Alliance to cut licensing fees for Folk Alliance member organizations using a blanket (association) license, much like the agreement generated with the Camping Association that sparked confusion between the Girl Scout Camps and the Commercial summer camps. Such an agreement might cut licensing fees by over half, but Folk Alliance apparently hasn't had time yet to study that proposal. ASCAP aren't the only people who can take time to move on something. A core issue here is: Do the songs have worth and are the writers justified in being compensated for their work and the revenue that it generates? ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are charged with collecting and distributing those revenues. We may have problems with them, but I don't think that abolishing the system is the answer. Let's work to make the system work better, we all have a vested interest in that. ASCAP also acknowledged a PR problem in sharing with the public information about their reporting, licensing, and songwriter support programs. I've begged them to join us online with a better defense of the way they do business. They just got on email, so that may soon be coming. In the meantime, don't jump the gun here. Even if you are a songwriter and you care nothing for the value of your material, does that give you the right to tell others that their songs are worth nothing too? Can a restaurant owner or nightclub manager fairly expect to enhance their place of business with music and not pay the writers? Would _they_ invite us to come in and eat for free? (None have invited *me* yet...) It's good to enjoy your job, not everyone does. Even though I'm not in hell from 9 til 5pm, I still like to get paid for working and I think I deserve it. My work has value and it generates revenue for others. It's only fair that I should get a small slice of that pie. I'm glad that the misunderstanding with the Girl Scouts was straightened out and I hope that future, similar problems can be avoided. Let's take the ASCAP discussion off to FolkBiz and get back to music here on folk_music. (Boy, I sure hope the Girl Scouts send me some of those FREE cookies this year!) Alan ============================================================================== Alan Rowoth | "So distant, so free, pretending mystery... Liverpool Public Library| Calculating every move,Tell me what you got to prove 310 Tulip Street | It doesn't matter what we do (no one cares) Liverpool, NY 13088-4997| So why are you still playing safe? 315.474.4800 voice | Don't you know, I would give my heart and soul? 315.453.7867 fax | ...I'm not the one who's afraid." alan@lpl.org | - Jill Sobule - "Too Cool to Fall In Love" ======================================== Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 14:16:32 -0400 From: Ron.Sobel@ASCAPLA1.ASCAP.sprint.com To: folk_music@nysernet.org Subject: Greetings from ASCAP Message-ID: [Alan sez: Just when I was trying to tame down the licensing issue discussion after the Girl Scout fiasco, I find myself reversing that decision. I've been trying for a long time to get ASCAP online to interact directly with the folk community and resolve some of these long standing issues. Ron Sobel, Assistant Vice President of ASCAP just got online and responded to my pleas. I am passing his letter directly on to the folk_music and FolkBiz lists in hopes that we can finally get on the same page with those licensing concerns. Please don't judge Ron by what you've already heard about ASCAP. Much of the folklore surrounding the organization is just that. I know that there is a lot of pent up frustration and many of you have felt that your voices and concerns went unheard on the national level. Don't be surprised that ASCAP has had a similar experience with us. Ron is a real person. I've had numerous conversations with him and I believe he's genuinely interested in ASCAPs relationship with our community. Let's not make his first online experience a bitter one, eh? Let's approach these discussions with a fresh, open attitude and not prejudge the outcome before it arrives.] ------------------letter from Ron Sobel------------------------------------ August 29, 1996 Alan: Once again, the Rocky Mountain Folks Festival (and Song School) was an incredible seven-day adventure _ and my conversations with you, Dar Williams, and Paul Reisler were an integral part of the week. I thank the three of you for your sincere effort - and patience - in building a bridge of communication, and understanding, between the Folk Community and us at ASCAP. I believe, as I did following last year's Festival, that your input has contributed not only toward substantial conversations within ASCAP, but toward several areas of concrete change and progress in the way ASCAP works with the Folk Community. One thing has been made abundantly clear: the lack of communication between our two institutions has simply been staggering - and ultimately hurtful. We have now come to learn that our differences, surprisingly, are many times not differences at all. I'll explain soon. After spending time at two Folks Festivals, two Folk Alliance Annual Conferences, a specially-convened Board of Directors meeting with the Folk Alliance, and year - long conversations with you, Paul, Dar Williams and Charlie Hunter, Professor Dick Weissman, and the significant assistance of ASCAP Director of Repertory Brendan Okrent - I am prepared to outline for you, and your readers, the range of activities and policies currently in place at ASCAP that positively benefit the Folk Community. As this will be an on-going, interactive conversation with you, suffice to say that I am mindful that we are riding a two-headed horse: the issues surrounding ASCAP's licensing of Folk venues and house concerts is just as important as our surveys and distributions of performance royalties to the songwriters. In the next several weeks, if there is interest, I will update and clarify ASCAP's involvement in (1) Licensing folk music venues, (2) creating licensing options, (3) the Survey system, (4) creating Survey options, (5) the Awards program, (6) financial support to folk festivals, associations, and programs, (7) live concert surveys and distributions, (8) electronic surveys and identifications, (9) stopping the attempt, in Congress and State Houses, by some groups to strip songwriters of their right to earn royalties, (10) promoting folk/acoustic/original songwriters' careers, (11) college radio royalties, and (12) benefits to songwriters, including credit union, health insurance, and instrument insurance. Whew. It may take a few entries. In closing this first installment, let me make two sincere points: Firstly, ASCAP and the Folk Community are...ought to be...and will become...very strong friends and allies. Simply, we share the same constructive goals, and we face the same destructive enemies. We must - and can - work closely together. Secondly, we are a not - for - profit membership association that brings a collective voice to individual songwriters. I look forward to the opportunity to de-mystify and clarify ASCAP's role in promoting and safeguarding songwriters' rights - and to hear and learn more from you. The second installment will be coming soon. Best regards. Ron Sobel Ass't. Vice President, ASCAP Directory of Repertory, L.A. RSOBEL@ASCAP.COM ============================================================================ Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 19:00:48 -0400 From: Ron Sobel/ASCAP To: folk_music@nysernet.org Subject: Greetings From ASACP (post 2) Message-ID: Hey Folks, I know there's lots of interest for this here, so I'll post it to the group, but all further discussion on this is taking place on the FolkBiz list. If you need instructions on how to join that one, check the Hidden Water digest site for this list or that one. Thanks, Alan ------------ Ron's message -------------------------- ALAN: Prologue: First of all, let me thank you and your subscribers for a (generally) warm and supportive reception. Given the sensitivity of our respective issues, the public response to my post has been both positive and business - like. The private response has been overwhelming: although time may not allow me to respond privately to each of your notes, they are very much appreciated). In reading the posts, the three emerging headlines are these: 1) LICENSING LIVE PERFORMANCES - the issues surrounding ASCAP/BMI's licensing of coffee house/small venue/house concert performances are clearly the most volatile, and surely the most misunderstood (mutually). 2) ASCAP'S CONSTRUCTIVE INVOLVEMENT IN THE FOLK/ACOUSTIC/ORIGINAL MUSIC COMMUNITY - the broad range of ASCAP's activities, sponsorships, dollars invested, and programs specifically designed to promote folk music are generally invisible, and unknown (amongst even those who directly benefit). 3) ART vs. COMMERCE (101) - the challenge of representing the passions of 300,000 songwriters, as they relate to the pursuits of radio stations, television stations, record labels and Members of Congress... has created a cauldron of confusion, distrust, and frustration among those of us mostly intimately involved in the process. (In reading the posts, I am as baffled by the depth of flat-out/dead-wrong misinformation and naivete being proferred...as I am by the degree of bravado and arrogance with which these false impressions are being asserted). Some personal observations: 1) Although many of you have obviously trudged through these issues before, I find this discussion...this opportunity... to be truly fascinating. I am convinced that these exchanges will create significant new mutual awareness, understanding, and ultimately, beneficial progress. 2) I am all - too - aware of the bitterness that surrounds these issues. The cynicism with which some of you view these licensing procedures is matched by the strength of your beliefs and understanding of the process. I ask only that you keep an open mind. I do. I read every post. They are being circulated through ASCAP. You will come to learn that we are not enemies. 3) Will the small venue/house concert license become de-mystified? Will it become clear that ASCAP invests/promotes/re-circulates significant amounts of money back to the folk community? Yes, over the course of the next few weeks. Agenda: 1) Give me about a week to assemble a post that will provide an overview of ASCAP's constructive contributions to the folk community (from the "best - foot - forward" school). 2) This will allow ASCAP's licensing folks to put the finishing touches on their clarifications of the current licensing options for small presenters. I'll hope to post that within two to three weeks. I'm certain these two items will give us all some common ground for continued exchange. While it takes time on my side to compile and write a post, rest assured that I am faithfully lurking and listening. These are complicated, technical, legal, philosophical...and passionate issues. I'm prepared to address and respond to your/our concerns (despite the sometimes daunting feeling that I'm a single voice encircled by 10,000 artistes). RS Asst. Vice President, ASCAP Director of Repertory, L.A. RSOBEL@ASCAP.com =============================================================================