Sep
22
Performance Rights on the Internet
The internet is yet again creating more instability for performers, artists, composers and internet businesses because it once again shifts conventional notions of music. Performance rights on the internet are difficult for corporations, the legal community and trade associations to get their head around at this time. People are always quick to write off the significance of performance rights for several reasons. 1) Consumers feel that they are already paying too much money to listen to music. 2) Some people feel that performance rights are relics that do not reflect the current form of the music industry. 3) Critics think that the whole system is a further way to extract wealth. 4) They simply don’t understand what performance rights are. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut way to approach the issue of performance rights on the internet.
First developed out of a need for composers to get compensated for their works, performance rights are part of a long tradition of copyright. As with all other forms of copyright law, new mediations (e.g. radio, records, compact discs, the internet, etc.) have been paralleled by a scramble for certain actors to maintain power through the use of intellectual property. Many songwriters rely on performance “rights” as a way of earning income for the writing of songs. Sometimes writers allow artists to record or perform songs because they know that they will be paid for the song through these rights.
There has already been controversy over internet radio and performance rights. The RIAA and the major record labels had worked out deals with internet radio stations on compensation for the playing of their songs, but the performance rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) were left out of the deals. After some arbitration, it was settled that the performance rights organizations would get royalties to pay their members for music played via internet radio. This battle was ugly and public; unfortunately, the public doesn’t typically understand the difference between types of royalties and many people feel like they are being ripped off. Historically, however, the record labels would not have been paid this type of royalty and all of the money would be distributed to artists via performance rights organizations. Because this controversy was covered by the news, people got wind of the inter-workings of copyright law. Many users of free internet radio stations were frustrated as the structure of their stations changed and were confused about what was happening to the stations, but they figured that that was the end of discussions of royalties.
Now there is a new issue on the table with performance rights concerning the streaming of TV shows on the internet for free. Many of the writers allowed their songs to be performed on television shows strictly for performance royalties. Since more and more people are watching these shows online, they are now trying to ensure that they are compensated for their work. Unfortunately, this discussion of rights often gets conflated with other royalties being paid and consumers get angry when they here that a player in the music industry is demanding more money. However, without some way to equitably pay writers, you will no longer have your favorite songs played on TV shows. This debate will play itself overtime. The RIAA (and in this case the MPA) will be angry as always because they want the biggest part of any payment. Consumers will be angry because their streaming options will change. And it is likely that the song writers will get the least lucrative part of the deal.