Music Modernization Act

by Daniel Brouse

For years, the music moguls, executives, record companies and other middlemen in music have been trying to pass this law – MMA

The new law creates a “modern” music management company [Collective Management Organization (CMO)] staffed mainly by existing music management.

All artists must pay the new entity.

The new law also creates royalties for producers… even if you don’t currently pay a producer, you do now. Even if you are a musician that produces your own music, you will pay these other producers.

There is no increase in gross income. There is no increase in revenue.

All existing artists that get a share of the money will now have to give royalties to music companies that weren’t getting paid for music recorded before 1972. Though they will be paid by you, you will not be allowed to cover their material without paying them again.

In conclusion:
Out of all artists/musicians share of the existing gross income,
artists will pay these other people… BY LAW.

(As a result, all independent artists will see a decrease in their net income/share.)

Meet your new boss. Same as the old boss… unless you are… I mean were an independent artist. In that case, meet your boss. You are no longer independent.

ONGOING COSTS TO MUSICIANS, ARTISTS and MUSIC
Ever since the 1920’s when the mafia would shakedown speakeasies for royalties, the music industry has attempted to control the distribution of music. In the 70’s, they tried to control the “taping” of music. In the 2000’s, they tried to control music downloads with lawsuits against NAPSTER and little old ladies.

“On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans. Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors….” (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

Now, they are trying to control “streaming” music. What does this mean? Radio stations that stream their programming? Musicians that stream their music to videos?
 
The ongoing problems and lawsuits of trying to define what they control will likely be detrimental to musicians and music for decades to come.

Question: Seems like if you produce your own stuff and register it all correctly, you get more for your work than current standards. Thoughts?

Answer: I wish. No… or at least unlikely… if you already do those things, you are already getting 100% of your royalties. The streaming companies already have all their deals with the record labels, such as, Sony and Warner. This new law was started years ago before those deals were cut. So now the money companies like spotify and apple pay out, will stay the same; however, part of your 100% money will be shifted to the labels (to pay their producers, engineers, pre-1972 publishing, etc. and this new management company.) It’s hard to say exactly how much you will lose… probably 25% or so. For most people it won’t matter. If you have been getting $7.43/year… you might only get 5/year now. The larger problem will be in their lawsuits against people like facebook. If they sue facebook over streaming music, you may lose your ability to stream for free… or youtube… or anybody that streams music. Not just live streams, but all digital music that streams. In theory, they could try to shut them down like NAPSTER.

Also see: S.2823 – Music Modernization Act
and
H.R. 1551: An Act to modernize copyright law, and for other purposes.

This entry was posted in Business, music, taxes and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Categories

  • Archives

Created by: Daniel Brouse and Sidd
All text, sights and sounds © BROUSE
"You must not steal nor lie nor defraud."