![]() • Copyright Licensing Manager (NY)
• Full time Music Legal/Admin. Assistant (L.A.)
• Assistant to Entertainment Law Firm, Management & Publishing Co. (NY)
• Music Publishing Summer Internship (NY)
• Executive Director
View All Jobs ![]() US Copyright Office REMINDER: Copyright Matters Program Tomorrow Tuesday, February 5, 2013 Professors Peter Jaszi, Patricia Aufderheide to Speak about Fair Use Billboard Biz Exclusive: John Lennon, Yoko Ono Catalogs Sign With Downtown Music Publishing Digital Music News Why People Used to Attend More Than 1.5 Shows a Year... BMI Events: BMI presents…Next Fresh Thing: Los Angeles ASCAP ASCAP Applauds USTR Special 301 Report, Raising Profile of Collection Obstacles Abroad SESAC Songwriters Law Seminar happening March 30 More News ![]() • The Latin Independent Evolution
• Latin Music In The Digital Age
• Autores y el Mercado Latino de la Música
• Songwriters & The Latin Music Market
• It’s The Songs, Stupid!
View All Entries ![]() • "Think Big" – The Next Great Copyright Act
• Music of the Beltway, or why Washington matters
• Pan European Online Licensing
• Termination Rights - Explained
• Music and Metrics
View All Entries |
![]() |
![]() AIMP shares with our members and our members share with us... This is YOUR area to post your thoughts on subjects of interest to our members. View All Blog Posts![]()
by J. Cate This is true, and retroactive to 2011. If you have "incidental" vocal placements collected by ASCAP, your rate is now at the instrumental rate, or half of what it was. I was surprised to learn that many of you were not aware of this, and we need to get this issue out in the open. This "reapportionment", which I heard about in February and was announced earlier this month, was allegedly done in the interest of "fairness" to composers and purportedly would "bring up" instrumental rates while "bringing down" vocal rates. Another publisher told me on Monday that, in fact, their statement showed instrumental rates had gone DOWN. ASCAP has not been transparent about this issue, and it would seem that this drastic and untimely reduction is now "top loaded" to feature performances, unless the money has been allocated to "operating costs". AIMP needs to bring some clarity to this issue and PRO's must become more transparent. I also heard SESAC is having similar discussions. In a very hard economic environment, "the rich getting richer" is the LAST thing any of us need. Or, as a screen writer friend said on Monday, "Our Guild is always about how much our annual rate will INCREASE; there is NEVER a discussion about a DECREASE." Our PRO's exist to represent us-- all of us. Or do they? I am also aware through another organization I participate in that because new & conventional media are increasingly being delivered "over the top" (via the internet), ISP's and others are beginning to look at the notion of replacing PRO's, as they can do so more efficiently and transparently, just as TuneCore and others have with distribution. Please help me to encourange AIMP to get this issue out in the open so we can have a voice with the PRO's, who have unilaterally taken 1/2 our income away. I can be reached at johncate@comcast.net or by telephone at 617-312-3335. Thank you. |
![]() |
![]()
NARIP Film & TV Music Supervisor Session with mOcean's Sanaz Lavaedian
![]() ![]() ![]() More Events ![]()
Interview with Music Producer Tony Brown
View More
Interview with Dawn Solér, Senior Vice President – TV Music, ABC Studios View More See all Articles ![]()
That's Not Fair
by J. Barker View Full Post Celebrating Great Songwriters by J. Barker View Full Post See all Posts ![]()
AIMP Letter In Support Of Legislation Against Rogue Websites
Rogue websites pose as legitimate businesses, but in reality they are distributing counterfeit and pirated products. The AIMP join …
View More Legislation LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER Read the letter from twenty-four Members of Congress urging the creation of an IP Task For … View More |