Jesse Rivest's Blog
It just dawned on me that I can say whatever I want to say.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
SOCAN misunderstood, again
In this post, it is mentioned that the musicians were paid all the proceeds from the promoted concerts - so why is SOCAN entitled to a fee? Because SOCAN isn't concerned with the performing musicians - it is concerned with the performances of songs. Granted, many-to-most of the songs performed at these concerts were written by the performing musicians... but not all of them. Consider the cover songs (many performing acts perform a cover or two), or the co-writes by people who do not participate in the performances (or who are not even part of the band/act). SOCAN collects this licence fee to reimburse the artists whose songs were performed at the event.
It's also suggested that songwriters might reconsider their membership with SOCAN. But, since laws are established to enable SOCAN to collect money for performances of songs (this includes radio, concerts, TV, movies, in Canada and around the world), and since many artists' songs are being used or performed in a variety of ways, it only makes sense that songwriters and composers would join SOCAN. If they don't, they are missing out on money that they are entitled to, and which is being collected whether they want it or not. It costs nothing for an artist to join SOCAN, it's simply a matter of signing up and saying "Yes, please distribute to me my share of your collections (because otherwise, where is my share going?)."
Finally, it's mentioned that promoters (who give all the proceeds of a show to the performing artists) may find it excessive to pay a fee to SOCAN in addition to paying the performers. Look at it this way - the fee to SOCAN should be regarded as payment to the songwriters/composers, and it should be part of the overhead. Just as you need to obtain a liquor licence to sell alcohol at your event, you need to obtain a SOCAN licence to have music at your event; just as you are paying the the musicians for performing, you are paying the songwriters for composing and creating.
In the original post from i(heart)music, there appears to be an understanding that an event only needs to be licensed by SOCAN if at least one member of any of the performing acts is a SOCAN member. I'm open to being corrected; I believe that every event that uses music (live or from recorded media) needs to pay a licensing fee. Even if the band performing has no SOCAN members, they may play songs that were written by SOCAN members. Also, if the band or act is from another country, they may be members of a similar association that is affiliated with SOCAN. In any case, if an event has music involved, then the creators of that music are entitled to the money that SOCAN obtains from you (the promoter or venue manager) through a licence fee, along with a submitted list all the songs that were performed during the event.
Sounds like pain in the ass, eh? Well, as a songwriter, I appreciate receiving any extra income from SOCAN, especially knowing that they're collecting it regardless of whether or not I want it. Essentially, I'm (voluntarily) participating in an in-place system that benefits me, whereas music venues and promoters need to (lawfully) participate. I bet a lot of people could suggest alternative (and perhaps better) solutions for compensating songwriters, music composers and publishers for the use of their creations.
-
At 3:33 PM, May 21, 2009,
matthew said...
-
Thanks for the comments! I appreciate the help.
My big problem with the whole thing is that it really feels like double-dipping to me. As a promoter, I've already paid the performers (often out of my own pocket). While there are definitely cases (cover band shows, for example) where that doesn't leave the songwriters reimbursed, when the performers are playing all original music (which happens at all the shows I've ever done) it just seems like SOCAN is being a little punitive about collecting fees on those performances -- in effect charging bands for playing their own songs. While it certainly makes sense in cases where there's a delineation between performer and songwriter, it's not the same for performers who always write their own music -- basically, those artists write songs as a means of getting performances, making it similar to, say, a doctor who has to constantly study medical textbooks to keep on top of all the new developments, or an engineer who has to stay abreast of new engineering developments. In each case, while the studying (or songwriting) takes up a pretty significant portion of their time, they're doing it so they can maintain their edge in their paying job as a doctor/engineer/musician. As an old boss of mine loved to say, it's the cost of admission...if songwriting performers want to be able to perform for a living, then songwriting is a means to do so, not an end in itself.
Secondly, you say overhead costs as if they're just some extra inconsequential thing (the cost of doing business, some might say!)...in reality, the more overhead there is, the more it eats into what I can pay the bands. Paying $35 to SOCAN means not paying $35 to the bands who've just performed, which in turn makes it harder for them to recoup touring expenses (and if I pay out of my pocket -- which I generally do anyway -- then I'm making it harder for me to put on those shows in the first place). I know that it evens out in larger cases, but when we're talking revenues that are less than half of what SOCAN deems is the minimum a show can make (their formulas are 3.5% or $35, whichever is greater; for me to get over $1,000 in most cases would require drastically upping ticket prices, or moving to larger, less suitable venues, and neither of those options seem very good)...
Anyway, thanks for the comments! I should probably also make it clear that I certainly don't begrudge the rights of songwriters to make their livings. It'd be amazing to be able to do it, and I can definitely see the value SOCAN has for certain people and in certain cases. I just think that this isn't one of those cases! -
At 11:35 PM, May 21, 2009,
Jesse said...
-
Hi Matthew,
Thanks for your comment back. I definitely understand that $35 (or more) is a considerable amount to add to your overhead. It's absolutely a considerable amount for the performers (who are also the writers) to have deducted from their income, especially when they'll only receive a fraction of it back through SOCAN. I don't want to add salt to your wounds, yet here's something that intrigues me. I'm assuming that SOCAN is now aware of every show you've organized/promoted and is charging you for each.
I wonder how many of your performing acts have submitted "Notification of Live Music Performance" forms to SOCAN after your shows? Let's arbitrarily guess that only 25% of them did... then 75% of the fees that SOCAN wants to collect from you will go... where? Probably not to the artists that wrote the songs - in the absence of a "song map" that links the music events and performed songs to the songwriters, I truly wonder where that money will go. SOCAN is retrospectively asking you to pay fees for performances that they may not compensate the songwriters for.
In the future, if you're going to pay the SOCAN licence fees for your shows, then become familiar with SOCAN's "Notification of Live Music Performance" form and be sure that you or the performing act is submitting it. Because otherwise, where is the money going? A significant portion of fees collected by SOCAN go to administration, overhead, payroll, etc. I imagine you and the performers will want to ensure that some (all would be nice) of this money that SOCAN is collecting is forwarded to the performing songwriters.
Again, my condolences to you,
Jesse -
At 2:41 PM, June 04, 2009,
said...
-
Finally, someone see the light. I was in a band with 8 other people and we all shared songwriting credit. So if those other guys go around playing our songs at festivals and such, I get like $3.00 or something. It's not about the bands, it's about the writers....come on. Send in your notices when you play...it's copyright folks.
-
At 4:34 AM, September 10, 2009,
said...
-
I do not want to pay SOCAN anything. As a writer and producer they do nothing for me, I never signed on with them, they have no right to act on my behalf. The draconian law that gives them "total and ultimate power" is bogus and against the Canadian Charter of Rights. In Germnay, artists can now get out of their "SOCAN" (called GEMA). The same should and will happen in Canada. I work hard for my success, why on earth do I need some bloated parasitic government institution claiming to be acting on my behalf? Answer,..... I don't.
-
At 4:42 PM, September 11, 2009,
Jesse said...
-
In reply to the Sept 10 anonymous post:
Thanks for your post. As a writer or producer, I believe you wouldn't have to pay anything to (be a member of) SOCAN. In Canada, you don't have to be a member, and if you are, membership can be reviewed after 2 years (I believe you can cancel).
I won't comment on whether or not SOCAN is bloated or is a parasite on society, but regardless of your choice SOCAN will be collecting money on your behalf (if your music is being performed in ways that SOCAN is aware of). By choosing to not be a member, you are letting SOCAN members have your share. And finally, if you are not a member, it is infeasible for you to collect money from "the world" for the performances of your creations - "the world" is already paying SOCAN.
It's okay to opt out of this system; but if you want to change this system you'd need everyone to join in... perhaps a successful boycott. And you'd need to really understand the system - know where it's failing and be specific about what you want to change. -
At 2:08 PM, January 15, 2010,
Green said...
-
Socan can bite me.
Artists who create material that is worthy of profit, collect profit through paid gigs. The amount they collect varies depending on their skillset artistically and with their
proficiency in negotiation. Should an artist have a repertoire of copyrighted material alone, the artist alone should be held responsible for any fees levied for playing said material. Period.
I suffered and struggled to open and continue to suffer and struggle to keep open my restaurant, and I pay any and all fees associated with its operation. I consider it my art.
Time for other artists to anti up and pay for the right to use other performers material to make a living. No matter how meager. The idea that im being held accountable while musicans are out there getting paid TWICE for playing copyrighted material makes me ill. So ya, did i mention that Socan can bite me?
But dont worry....Check is in the mail. Give Celine and Bryan my warmest regards. -
At 1:33 PM, February 13, 2010,
Pumphouse said...
-
Through continued correspondance with SOCAN in regards to clarification on their role in addition to how they function I am unclear how anyone could support this group.
SOCAN continues to falsely portray themselves as the governing body for music licences which they are not. SOCAN's mandate pertains to copyright law.
I am unclear how it is in the best interests of musicians and writers that schools have to get a licence for their marching band to play music that predates copyright law? I would also be interested in knowing which artists beleive that they should be compensated if someone is forced to listen to their music in an elevator or in a waiting room. Most of all I would like to know how many of SOCAN supporters wish to support a group that forces a farm to pay for a licence to play music to the animals.
As for me I just need to understand why I need to have one licence for background music from a satellite, then another licence if someone plays the same music from an ipod, then another licence if someone uses a microphone but still plays the same music, and yet another licence if someone performs the same music with an instrument.
I'm not sure that SOCAN is a neccessary evil. But then again they need the money in order to maintain all of their events and tradeshow booths. Don't worry SOCAN members there's something in it for you as well... you qualify for a special Royal Bank Visa.
Oddly enough I would gladly pay for the licences if the money was really for those who deserved it. -
At 7:59 AM, March 09, 2010,
said...
-
In doing research on SOCAN I came across this site.
My interest in this came from being consistently bullied by SOCAN to pay their fees. Small business, background music.
I went through copyright law, called federal office in Ottawa and received a very hazy reply. When I asked to speak to someone who knows more about the legality for SOCAN to demand fees from any and all Canadian businesses, nobody called me back.
The latest is that SOCAN will hand 'our' case over to their lawyers.
Now, I understand SOCAN representing its members. But SOCAN is not interested in WHAT music we play, the names of artists, how frequently we play them...no specifics of any kind. All they want is the area size of a room where music is played (music equals air analogy, I suppose) and how much we owe them for that. There is some vague info about the fees being sent to other associations for International musicians, but SOCAN does not gather info WHO the artists are. They only collect fees. And threaten.
Outrageous and apparently sanctioned under the umbrella of the Government.
This is a well executed scam.
My apologies if this sounds like venting. It seems that these days half of the phone calls businesses receive are for donations to a worthy cause or for newly invented fees, again for a worthy cause. -
At 8:16 AM, March 15, 2010,
corbin said...
-
"But dont worry....Check is in the mail. Give Celine and Bryan my warmest regards."
Oh yeah, preaching to the choir here.
1) Submitting concert info (delineating which songs you played, how many people came, promoter's phone number - like who's gonna have that, it's all email these days, yet that is a "required field") etc etc etc is such a time consuming computer exercise as to be barely worth the effort. Very convoluted on SOCAN's part
2) CDr Levy: this week at London Drugs: 8 bucks plus change for a spindle of 50 CDrs. PLUS CDr levy of 15 bucks plus change! This is supposed to help artists, and it does - Celine and Bryan. The idea behind the levy is that people download songs for free and then burn them onto CDrs. Most people ceased doing that in any large scale in what - 2002? Hard drives/ipods are waay too cheap. Who does buy CDrs? INDIE MUSICIANS WHO CANNOT AFFORD TO DO A RUN OF CDs!!!
3) If you're lucky enough to score a radio interview, there's a good chance that you will be able to speak, but NOT PLAY YOUR SONGS - which is the point of the interview, presumably, and what is going to get people out to your show that night. Why won't you be allowed to play your songs? Because the radio station can't afford to pay the SOCAN fee. The fee was put there to "take care" of us artists, however it's ended up biting me in the rear end - not allowed to play my songs! NOT a help.
I could go on.
