Cover Songs and Legallities

I just recently read an article entitled: "Critical Info for YouTube Musicians Who Perform Cover Songs."  It was written by Adam Rafferty and posted on his blog at Wordpress.  He brings up a lot of great points-to-ponder and I thought I would put in my two-cents-worth.

Adam has a great talent for playing a solo finger-style of guitar and does a number of different cover songs ranging from Michael Jackson to Stevie Wonder.  The particular works spoken about in his article is Michael Jackson’s “Billie Jean” and Stevie Wonder’s “Superstition”.

The mechanical license needed in order to legally cover these two songs, according to EMI as told by Adam about his enquiry, would be $2500.00 per song.  There are other options if it is impossible to pay such an exuberant amount, simply to play a song and show off your talent, as mentioned in the article also.  (Disclaimer - I don’t recommend some of these options, as some of them are geared toward continuous infringement of copyright.  I do not in any way endorse or uphold copyright infringement in any way.)  I went to a web site called Lime Light at songclearance.com to see how much it would cost if the license was purchased based on the number of copies either sold on CD, digitally downloaded, or streamed via the web.  Just the song “Billie Jean” on YouTube has 1,438,938 views.  So, to pay for a mechanical license in this format would cost Adam $14,404.38 at $.01 per stream.  That’s a ton of change just to show off your talent and try to establish a name for yourself and break into the industry.

I doubt very seriously if there would be any detriment to the publishing houses for people to cover songs of artists for whom they have the copyrights for the music of.  In fact, I tend to think that there would be a very decent way of knowing whom to pitch to sign onto your label when headhunting for new talent.

Do I think that licensing should be paid for should Adam and others like him decide to try and sell these cover songs?  Absolutely!  But, it has been mentioned on more than one occasion during this class, how a lot of the most famous names in this business were the cover artists of the past… I can’t help but wonder what greats of music past and present, would have never been heard of, if the copyright laws in key moments of music history were as limiting as the ones in place today.

Performance Rights Act

I wanted to take the time to voice some of my thoughts about the Performance Rights Act.  This topic is being kicked around at my school a bit, so thought I would post my discussion post here.  There are so many points of view on this matter, so I read an article that takes a more neutral stance on this bill, as this position more closely reflects my own. 

The article I chose was written by Matthew Lasar - June 8 2010, 12:08pm EDT and can be read in its entirety by clicking the HERE.

Since ASCAP and BMI have been in place, broadcast stations have paid for the ability to transmit the music we enjoy over the air, to our radio receivers, for our enjoyment.  All the while, holding the power of popularity, fame, and fortune, virtually in their antennas.  The amount of that money that actually makes it to the artist and their individual performers may not be an exuberant amount, but it has always been present.  Keep in mind, also, in times past, radio was very important to the success of a musician.  This isn't entirely the case in this day and age and may no longer even be a viable source of status to new and upcoming artists.

There will be huge growing pains with this bill, should it pass, and tons of adjustments that will need to be made in order for it to be a viable alternative to the current mode of operations.  For instance, what we think might be an opportunity for the lesser-known musicians to gain some benefit, could actually turn up to have the exact opposite outcome.  If a radio station is going to have to shell out big bucks to an artist and the “powers that be”, which govern and manage them, they aren’t going to be playing the lesser-known artists at all.

I did notice, when reading from the GovTrack.us web site, in Section 6, that 1% of the receipts from the licensing of PPR via audio transmission will be paid by the copyright owners into the American Federation of Musicians and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists Intellectual Property Rights Distribution Fund.  The distribution is then made to non-featured vocalists and musicians from thisfund.

I would really like to know what the numbers would look like in a side-by-side comparison as to how much more money all artists involved will actually be exposed to as a result of this bill… will it truly mean that much more revenue for them?