The podcast explores the recent sale of BMI and its implications for songwriters. It discusses the history of BMI and ASCAP, the concept of consent decrees, and the complex nature of licensing rates. The podcast also delves into BMI's filtering system, the importance of support in the music industry, and the flow of money within the industry. It raises concerns about a tech company owning a major player in music and the influence of a record label CEO on streaming services.
The sale of BMI, a non-profit organization for songwriters, to a private equity fund backed by Google raises concerns about the future of songwriters' income.
ASCAP and BMI emerged in the early 20th century to ensure fair compensation for the public performance of music, but their operations have been criticized for lack of transparency and fair distribution of funds.
BMI's transition to a for-profit model brings up concerns about changes in songwriters' income, representation, and potential exclusion of smaller or emerging songwriters from their services.
Deep dives
BMI goes private, raising concerns about songwriters' income
BMI, the creative performance rights organization, has been sold for $1.7 billion to an anonymous investment group. This sale raises concerns about the future of songwriters' income, as BMI has operated as a non-profit organization for 80 years and serves as a source of income for many songwriters. With the transition to a private entity, there are worries about the organization's pursuit of profit and the impact on songwriters' royalties. ASCAP, BMI's rival, has already criticized the move, highlighting the importance of paying songwriters, not shareholders. The sale also brings up questions about the changing landscape of the music industry and the role of organizations like BMI in ensuring fair compensation for songwriters.
The historical role of ASCAP and BMI in music royalty collection
ASCAP and BMI emerged in the early 20th century to address the need for performance royalties for songwriters and publishers. They engaged in negotiations with various industries, such as restaurants and movie theaters, to ensure fair compensation for the public performance of music. The emergence of radio and later streaming platforms added complexities to royalty collection and licensing. Both ASCAP and BMI signed consent decrees with the government, setting rules for licensing and distribution. These organizations became crucial in collecting and distributing performance royalties to songwriters. However, their operations have been criticized for lack of transparency and fair distribution of funds.
The impact of BMI's transition to a for-profit model
BMI's transition to a for-profit model raises concerns about changes in songwriters' income and representation. With the increased involvement of investors and pursuit of profit, songwriters fear potential changes in royalty rates and distribution structures. The sale of BMI to an anonymous investment group and the involvement of companies like Alphabet also raise questions about future collaborations and licensing agreements. Furthermore, the impact of this transition on BMI's open door policy, where any songwriter can join, is uncertain. There are concerns that smaller or emerging songwriters may face challenges or be excluded from BMI's services.
The potential role of BMI in future music rights negotiations
As the music industry evolves with technology and the rise of AI-driven musical touchpoints, BMI's ownership and position could become influential in shaping the future of music rights. The increasingly niche and complex musical landscape requires licensing agreements and copyright structures that encompass newer platforms and technologies. BMI's historical involvement in negotiating performance rights and consent decrees with the government positions them as a potential player in addressing the challenges of licensing in the digital age. Additionally, BMI's connection to major players like Alphabet may influence the development of licensing agreements, particularly in the usage of music in AI-driven technologies.
The uncertain future for songwriters and the need for fair compensation
The sale of BMI and its transition to a for-profit model raises concerns about the future of songwriters' income and representation within the music industry. With potential changes in royalty rates and distribution, songwriters are left uncertain about their financial stability. The need for fair compensation for songwriters, who are the heart of the music industry, remains crucial. As the landscape of music rights continually evolves, it is essential to ensure that songwriters are fairly compensated for their creative contributions. The ongoing discussions surrounding BMI's sale highlight the importance of protecting and supporting songwriters in an ever-changing industry.
When we heard that BMI, an organization designed to collect money on behalf of songwriters, had decided (on its own?) to drop its non-profit status and go for the cash, our response was confusion. Like—can they even do that? What does that even MEAN? But then BMI sold themselves to a private equity fund. Backed by Google. And now...we’re concerned.
To get a better sense of what’s going on, we dig into the history of BMI—exploring how it emerged from battles between publishers, Hollywood, and the rising forces of radio, and what role it has played in the industry ever since. A fair and neutral arbiter, with no interests of its own...but of course. Then we try to understand what impact the privatization might have on the future of music. Bundling other people’s copyrights? Maybe. A foot in the door for AI legislation? Probably. Come for an argument about why songwriters should borrow tactics from the mob. Stay for tomorrow’s IP battles today.