Oooh, Betty: Whitey asks TV company why he should work for nothing

Betty TV are making one of their exciting new TV series - probably something about someone young and sexy being sexy, or possibly about someone not young and sexy having their insecurities exploited for an hour on the telly - and thought Whitey might like to be part of it.

Obviously, they weren't going to pay. Whitey was, understandably, unhappy:

"I am sick to death of your hollow schtick, of the inevitable line 'unfortunately there's no budget for music', as if some fixed law of the universe handed you down a sad but immutable financial verdict preventing you from budgeting to pay for music. Your company set out the budget. So you have chosen to allocate no money for music. I get begging letters like this every week – from a booming, affluent global media industry.

Why is this? Let's look at who we both are.

I am a professional musician, who lives from his music. It took me half a lifetime to learn the skills, years to claw my way up the structure, to the point where a stranger like you will write to me. This music is my hard-earned property. I've licensed music to some of the biggest shows, brands, games and TV production companies on earth; from Breaking Bad to The Sopranos, from Coca-Cola to Visa, HBO to Rockstar Games.

Ask yourself – would you approach a creative or a director with a resume like that, and in one flippant sentence ask them to work for nothing? Of course not. Because your industry has a precedent of paying these people, of valuing their work.

Or would you walk into someone's home, eat from their bowl, and walk out smiling, saying, "So sorry, I've no budget for food"? Of course you would not. Because, culturally, we classify that as theft.

Yet the culturally ingrained disdain for the musician that riddles your profession leads you to fleece the music angle whenever possible. You will without question pay everyone connected to a shoot – from the caterer to the grip to the extra – even the cleaner who mopped your set and scrubbed the toilets after the shoot will get paid. The musician? Give him nothing.

Now let's look at you. A quick glance at your website reveals a variety of well-known, internationally syndicated reality programmes. You are a successful, financially solvent and globally recognised company with a string of hit shows. Working on multiple series in close co-operation with Channel 4, from a west London office, with a string of awards under your belt. You have real money; to pretend otherwise is an insult.

Yet you send me this shabby request – give me your property for free. Just give us what you own, we want it.

The answer is a resounding and permanent NO.

I will now post this on my sites, forward this to several key online music sources and blogs, encourage people to reblog this. I want to see a public discussion begin about this kind of industry abuse of musicians … this was one email too far for me. Enough. I'm sick of you.

NJ White

Betty - which is part of Discovery - has found time between shooting episodes of 'Look How Poor People Live' and 'Look At How Rich People Live And Do The Sex' to issue a statement of their own:

A Betty spokesperson said: "We use a collective licensing system that ensures both the recording artist and composer are paid. We apologise for any confusion and we have contacted the artist to clarify this. We would never use music without permission and going through the proper procedures."

Odd that; Whitey clearly understands the licensing business, yet Betty thinks its request has "confused" him. Odd.

Jon Secada feels unexploited, sues

Most people, hearing that a company had failed to make any money out of turning Jon Secada into a brand might shrug, perhaps pull a 'the name rings a dull bell' face and move on.

Not Jon Secada, though. He's suing Hans Reinisch, and a company called Secada Worldwide Licensing LLC because they've failed to make money from the myriad opportunities offered by the Jon Secada name. The Palm Beach Post captures the flavour of betrayal:

Secada alleges breach of contract against SWL “for failing to undertake any, let alone, reasonable efforts” to exploit Secada’s name or develop any products or business opportunities for him.

“He made a whole bunch of promises and has done nothing,” said Secada lawyer Richard Wolfe of Miami.

If Jon Secada is going round suing things for having taking early promises and turning them into nothing, it's likely he'll become the first man to sue his own career.

Getty offer to turn Soundcloud into pounds. At a price.

You know how, if you're happy to not be fussy about what happens to them, you can ask Getty to take care of commercial licencing for your photos on Flickr?

They're about to start offering a similar service on Soundcloud.

The upside is that, if your music is there, and someone wants to use it on a film or in a podcast, Getty will make the process very smooth.

The downside is that, because Getty are interested in scale and flogging rights with an industrial approach, there's not much room for artists to control what happens to their music. You sign up for Getty to be not just your middleman, but your manager, too. The ratecard is fixed, the artist hands over any power to object if, say, an anti-abortion podcast wants to use a song from an abortion supporting singer.

Although Getty have a cookie-cutter approach, they're charging quite heavily for it, as Hypebot explain:

If the music is licensed, the artist receives just 35% of the upfront licensee fee plus 50% of Getty Images' share, as publisher, of any backend performance royalties.

It might be frictionless, but given Getty merely wait until someone asks to use the music and pushes a bit of paperwork around, it's hard to see why they're helping themselves to such a large slice of the cash.

Planning a gig in Bedfordshire?

With some of the nasty things that can happen in nightclubs and venues, it makes sense that proper thought is given to making sure everyone has a safe night.

I think the Risk Assessment Form that Bedfordshire Police appear to insist on having completed might go a little too far in the opposite direction.

It's an eight-page document, with a surprising level of detail being demanded.

There's the awkward "is there a particular ethnic group" attending question; a demand to know when and where the event will be advertised; and a demand to know everything that happened the last time the promoter promoted at the venue.

They want to know the "dress code", too, presumably in case it's a "wear dangerously high heels and carry a swtichblade" evening.

Then there's the acts:

Please list below all ARTISTES, THE ACTS / SOUND SYSTEMS /OTHER PROMOTERS perfoming.

They want every name, every alias, every address and contact details for all. Every last drummer.

A warning follows that there might be an inspection, and if anyone is found performing who wasn't included on this, it "might jeopardise any future events by the promoter or at the venue."

Really? So the support band breaks down on the motorway, a local band offer to play a quick set instead, and that casts a cloud over the venue's future?

Or Tom Jones happens to be in the audience, clambers on stage to knock out a duet with the band, just as a policeman walks in, and it's lights out for the venue?

There's then a question which asks for details of any times any of the acts appeared at the venue before. Even if the event passed off smoothly, you still have to volunteer detals about the security in place.

And what about the crowd expected? To be fair, Bedfordshire Police don't quite yet demand a name and address for everyone in the audience, but do want to know if the audience includes "patrons travelling a long distance". God forbid you've booked a touring band who have got people following the tour.

There then follows a really detailed risk assessment along with "helpful" suggestions - like "all performers will be searched [for drugs and weapons] every time they enter the venue.

This all has to be done fourteen days in advance. I've known a lot of small promoters who struggle to pin down a line-up 48 hours in advance - how are they supposed to cope? Should they give all the details of all the people in all the bands they're talking to, just in case?

Do the police really need all this information? There's a good principle of data collection, which is you should only ask for what you're going to use. Contact details for every member of a sound system seems to contain more fact than a licensing department should require for most events - if they did need to ring the drummer from Cud, surely they could just reserve the right to ask for it later?

The idea isn't, I'm sure, to stifle creativity and live events in Bedfordshire. But I bet Festival Republic are glad Reading is in the next county.

Coachella saved for an ungrateful demographic

As always seemed likely, a deal has been hammered together to allow the 2012 and 2013 Coachella festivals to happen. Local residents weren't keen on the festival, but were won over by the revenue it brings.

So, 2012 and 2013 are safe. I expect we're looking at another struggle in two years; by that time, the balance may be shifting towards the uppity residents.

Coachella under threat as Indio takes on indie

Coachella's future is looking a bit wobbly, as The City Of Indio is dragging its collective feet over signing a deal to allow the festival to run in the future.

It's not entirely Indio's fault - people in Indio have the sort of problems with festivals most festival neighbours have, but the City has hitherto largely balanced those against the massive revenue the event brings in.

Now, though, the next city along, La Quinta, has started to raise objections. It's been developing in the area that runs alongside the festival site over the last decade and - although people have moved in aware there's a big festival held down the street - they're starting to make a fuss.

As KCET reports:

In a 4-1 vote on October 4, the La Quinta City Council voted to request that Indio complete a review of the festival under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to assess the environmental impact of the noise, traffic and pollution generated by the festival each year. In response, Indio's City Council agreed at a meeting the next day to delay approval of a two-year contract with festival promoter Goldenvoice for thirty days, so that the two cities can negotiate over details.

Why are La Quinta's complaints carrying more weight than those of Indio residents? Simple: the homes being built in La Quinta are significantly higher-end than those of the host district.

La Quinta is unlikely to kill the golden alt-rock goose, but as more people move in, getting a licence isn't going to get any easier.

Venuewatch: No Butt? Yeah, but, no but...

Brighton's Freebutt, which was taken into fan-ownership a year ago, is locked in what might prove to be a battle to the death.

Despite having fitted a noise limiter, the venue is still upsetting its neighbours; they have complained to the council and now Brighton And Hove are telling the 'butt to keep things more quiet, or lose their licence.

A Brighton and Hove City Council spokesman said it did not want the venue to shut but that residents' right to peace was "sacrosanct".

Sacrosanct, eh? That's an interesting principle the good people at the council have introduced there, and one which might make any activity which disturbs a single person impossible in the city. They're going to have a hell of a time digging up the roads in future, for a start, aren't they?

Gordon Brown breaks the law

Perhaps the least of his worries tonight, but Gordon Brown's been accused to being part of an event which breached licensing laws. The one with the Elvis impersonator:

A performance at the weekend by Brighton-based Elvis impersonator Mark Wright took place at Lodge Park Technology College in Corby as part of a lunchtime speech given by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

But, according to the [Live Music Foundation], the move contravened the council’s own rules because the venue's premises licence only allows entertainment from 6pm until midnight.

Corby council say that it was fine, because the pretend Elvis doesn't count as music - he was "incidental", apparently. So that's alright then. Apparently.

EMI flings away the only thing it has to sell

I'm fully expecting to see a forthcoming episode of The Apprentice where Alan Sugar puts his hapless contestants in charge of running EMI for two days. Surely, surely, that would be the only explanation for the insane decision coming from the crumbling edifice?

EMI is in talks to mortgage its back catalogue of music recordings in a last-ditch attempt to solve its mounting cash crisis.

The group is offering rival labels the chance to manage its North American catalogue business, which includes tracks by The Beatles and Blondie, for a five-year period.

Managing and monetising back catalogue is what your business is, Hands. And that would be your biggest market. What would you have left to 'save' by doing this? It's a bit like McDonalds saying 'tell you what, we'll hand that selling burgers and chips business over to someone else to ensure that we're able to continue the vital work of distributing drinking straws and tiny packets of ketchup around the country'.

Admittedly, the idea that no other company in the world could treat the EMI catalogue business as badly as Terra Firma does must make the idea seem appealing, but since all you're doing is replacing an 'in distress' flag with a 'surrender' flag, what's the point?

Still, at least the Terra Firma guys would take care who they passed the business off to. I mean, at least by flogging off the catalogue, you're keeping it out the hands of your rivals, right?

Talks on a deal began in recent weeks with Universal Music, but have since moved on to include Sony and Warner Music.

Righto. So - in order to save your company - you're planning on handing over one of the few profitable parts to your competitors?

Guy, I know you've proved adept at running the toilets on the German motorway network, but if you'd take the advice of someone who did Economics A-Level, shoveling money from your bank into the accounts of the people you're in competition with might be a bit of a rotten idea? Because when you're all trying to sign the next New Beatles, or new N-Dubz, or whatever, they're going to be able to offer more cash. Because they'll have the money you should have earned.

Labour propose 'liberalisation' of live music laws

If you're generous, you'd call it liberalisation, anyway. It's more correcting some of their gung-ho legislation; the idea being that indoor, evening gigs with less than 100 people attending would be exempt from needing a license.

Let's hope they expedite this, and it doesn't get lost when parliament prorogues.

PRS got greedy

After yesterday's story where the PRS grudgingly admitted demanding a licence for a shopworker who sang might be a little over-the-top, a bigger slap has come to the PRS from the Copyright Tribunal.

The tribunal has judged that hikes in royalty rates charged to shops in 2005 were excessive:

The 2005 increases resulted in some retailers suffering a doubling of costs overnight. One fashion retailer’s bill rose from £176,000 to £408,000 per year and a tile chain’s from £25,000 to £73,000.

The ruling should save retailers £5m a year and lead to the return of £20m to shops, restaurants and other affected businesses.

The PRS is going to appeal against this decision - and unsurprisingly so, as the need to scrabble together twenty million quid in a hurry could prove something of a difficulty.

Where would the PRS get that cash from? The fair thing to do would be to demand repayment from the artists who got too much in the first place - but that would seem to be costly and a bureaucratic nightmare - not to mention one which would cause a problem if Madonna decided she didn't want to hand the money back. Would PRS be able to sue her?

Dipping into the current revenues would seem to be simpler - but why should, say, La Roux or Little Boots, who weren't operating back when the PRS got greedy, have to see a dip in their royalty pay-out because Boyzone and Mika were getting too much in previous years?

Either way, it's hard to see that the current management of the PRS could claim they're operating solely in their artists' best interests. No wonder they're appealing.

[Thanks to Peter D]

PRS backtracks on singing shop assistant

Damn right that the PRS should be apologising to a shopworker who they hassled for a licence because she was singing while she worked:

She told the BBC news website: "I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio.

"When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance licence, I thought it was a joke and started laughing.

"I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn't stop myself singing.

"They would need to put a plaster over my mouth to get me to stop, I can't help it."

The trouble is, the PRS line seems to be in response to the outcry, not because it was capable of seeing this sort of thing as being a result of its central policy, and paying its "inspectors" a bonus if they do well. I guess we should be thankful that at least this time they've backed down rather than grimly pushing ahead (as with the woman who was told she needed a licence to play the radio to her horses).

This organisation, though, is being treated as a serious player in shaping copyright for the 21st century - and it takes a public outcry before it admits that you don't need to pay a licence to hum while you work. Are they really a credible voice?

Neil Tennant misses Top Of The Pops

I yield to nobody in my admiration of Neil Tennant, but a grumbly interview about why Top of The Pops isn't on any more and people "stealing" music makes him sound like something out of a different era.

Mind you, the BBC News site suggests that Tennant has "slammed" the corporation, which is perhaps putting it a bit strongly:

He added he thought as part of the BBC's public broadcasting, the corporation should be keeping its "astonishing archive" of musical footage up-to-date.

"[That is] why we like the BBC, because they do things that should be done but don't always make complete commercial sense."

It actually sounds more like he understands it had to go, rather than "slamming" anyone or anything. Indeed, it doesn't actually sound like Tennant much cared for the show by the time it was axed:

The star, who has had hits with West End Girls and Always On My Mind, said a former BBC employee who now works for ITV had told him why the show had to go.

"He explained to me at great length that the public aren't interested in music unless its heavily editorialised - by which he means X Factor.

"If you look back over the presentation of Top Of The Pops in the 90s, cynicism crept into the way it was presented.

"In the past, everything - the rubbish and the good stuff - was presented with enthusiasm. And I think its up to the public to make the taste decisions - not the DJs presenting."

It's actually wider than that, Neil: instead of the running order being dictated by the chart positions of records, it became an editorially-selected choice; moving from a dumb list to a cheerleader service.

Tennant then offers what sounds like a pretty comprehensive argument against reviving the show:

"I think it must be really strange to be a new artist. Like if JLS are number one on Sunday, they won't have that great moment of being crowned that week's Kings Of Pop."

Anything that would make JLS labour about under the misapprehension that they were in some way pop royalty, surely, is broken beyond use?

Tennant then turns to those downloads the young people are all doing these days:

"It would be great if 30% of us could get a car for free, but it's not going to happen," he said.

"And I don't see why people should think they can."

Oh, Neil, Neil, Neil. You really don't believe that a manufactured car is like a digital music file, do you? That digital music is more akin to oxygen?

It turns out he doesn't buy the whole 'the supply is almost unlimited' argument, either:

He went on to describe an article he read on the internet, which suggested music should be free like water.

"I thought 'have you seen the water rates in London?'

"If you wanted to pay £700 pounds a year for music, I think we'd all be really happy.

He does seem to have worked in a complaint about the cost of water, too, which is quite impressive.

There's an important difference, though, between water and digital music anyway - water companies have to maintain the infrastructure which delivers the water. Oh, and are dealing with a finite resource which requires enormous storage space to smooth out the differences between supply and demand.

Not that - as far as I know - anyone has ever suggested charging for music as if it was water; the 'like water' case is actually about treating music as a utility rather than a distinct product - a pipe, rather than a bottle of water.

Oh, and the average water bill in the UK is £330 and the average charge by London supplier Thames Water being £295. I suppose Neil must live in a larger house than most of us, though.

Tennant's solution? Erm, something akin to the water rates:

"I think we should have a licence somewhere between the water rates and the BBC TV licence and then you could have it for nothing and it could be farmed out on a download pro rata basis."

What does that even mean, Neil? And why should some internet content - music - be licensed, when a lot of other stuff is available for free online? If musicians should get some money everytime a track is listened to, why shouldn't that licence cover people who make animated lego films, or write blog entries about Boris Johnson? What's so special about Paolo Nutini that he should be rewarded when his content is accessed online, when, say, Kirstie Allsopp tweets for free?

The licence idea appeals simply because everyone knows that online music, left to fight in the market place, is worth almost nothing. It's like bakers suggesting that people should be forced to have a bread licence, and then they'll be happy to let people take the stale bread from their dumpsters.

Horses must pay for their music. They like Celine Dion.

I might have been a little too hard on the PRS over the last couple of weeks - it turns out they do have art at their heart. Indeed, their latest antics demonstrate that, far from being a cash-hungry intellectual property organisation, they see themselves more as a dadaesque art group, launching humourous stunts.

After all, no serious organisation would issue demands that a woman pay for playing the radio to horses, would they? Clearly, the PRS is just moving in an absurdist fashion.

Their actual argument (let's dignify them with such a description) is that the two people who work with Rosemary Greenway might hear the radio as well - that the tunes are only on to soothe the horses cut no ice with the PRS:

A spokeswoman for the society said: "Of course, we don't ask people to pay for music played to animals.

"Mrs Greenway was only asked to pay for music played for staff, like any other workplace."

For, after all, the PRS are reasonable people.

You know, it's funny - on the fairplayforcreators.com site, the PRS puts into its supporter's mouths the suggestion that you should ignore the actual economic arguments in the battle between the royalty collection firm and Google because Google is a large company, and therefore must simply be morally in the wrong. By that logic - even if we ignore the time and effort being put into making horses pay for their music - doesn't the PRS have to be morally in the wrong for hassling a three-person outfit?

[Thanks to Mike E for the story]

Brazil proposes DJ licence

In Brazil, you already need a licence in order to pursue a trade as a journalist or radio announcer. Now, there are plans to introduce a licence for DJs as well. There's also plans to introduce a quota which will insist that any event which has DJ involvement will have to feature 70% Brazilian, licensed DJs. (Or two locals to every Pete Tong, in other words.)

Lost in the vagueness of the legislation is some sort of quality threshold which would need to be passed in order to get your papers. The idea of the state acting as some sort of guarantor of quality for someone playing records might seem laughable - but the next time you find yourself at a wedding, you might find yourself being a little jealous of the Brazilians and their minimum standards.

MIDEM 2009: Man - the lifeboats?

The Isle Of Man government has introduced plans for a blanket music tax on broadband services. The BPI is - at least publicly - being all pleased:

"If ISPs take the position advocated in the Isle of Man, we’d be in an enormously better position," [The BPI's Geoff] Taylor responded.

The Register's Andrew Orlowski isn't quite so sure:

[M[any in both the tech business and the music business are wary of a government-imposed licence fee. A voluntary subscription scheme would provide an incentive for new services to be created - P2P service providers would compete for your custom. Such a voluntary P2P scheme is expected to be announced from a major UK ISP within a few weeks.

With a compulsory licence, ISPs would have no incentive to look after music sharers or differentiate themselves - everybody would be able to offer anything. And privately, labels are wary that collective agreements set a low floor price for music royalties.

Ah, but this is the Isle of Man we're talking about here, and it's more than likely that the music industry will see a small island in pretty much the same way the British military saw Gruinard: a place to test the most toxic stuff away from the major centres of population. If it all goes wrong, and results in the music industry losing more control, they've only lost a tiny market. If, on the other hand, it means the big four get a disproportionate chance to hoover down revenues from the licence, then that could be a prize worth the risk.

[Thanks to Mikey for the story]

The PRS have finally left the planet

The string-arm tactics trying to get companies to pay for public performance licences if customers could hear music bleeding through from a back room made the PRS look stupid.

But their latest campaign gives the air of an organisation which could very well be sectionable. They're telling garage owners they need a licence if customers drive in with their car radios on.

No, really:

Mr Attwood, who has run Motor Maintenance for 31 years, added: "The PRS phoned up and said, 'do you have any form of music entertainment on the premises?'

"I said customers bring their vehicles in with their radios on and while we are working on them the radio is playing. But other than that no.

"The woman said she would get back to me. She came back with her supervisor who said I would have to turn the car radios off but I said we didn't like to tamper with the customers' settings.

"She said, 'in that case, you will have to tell them to turn them off before they come in'.

"I just think it's ridiculous."

Well, yes.

The PRS tells the Telegraph that it tries to use "common sense" in circumstances like this; they don't provide any example of when they might have done this, and the paper doesn't ask.

TV fans switched off

Bit of a snarl-up at the Concrete And Glass Festival, apparently, with NME.com reporting that "hundreds" of TV On The Radio fans were "shut out" of their gig last night. The report is a little sketchy on the detail - hundreds? really? And what happened to them? Were they ticket holders? - as instead the NME went inside to watch the gig rather than cover the story.

The problem seems to be a change in venue - NME says the switch came the day before, although actually the announcement the gig was moving indoors came on Wednesday; Hackney Council had imposed impossible licence conditions for the Hearne Street Car Park venue and so the whole thing had to be shifted to Cargo. It appears that you can fit less people in a Cargo hold than in a Car Park, then.

Natasha Hamilton gets a second chance

H, Natasha Hamilton's alleged gangster honeypot nitespot, has been allowed to reopen on the strict understanding that it installs a metal detector for customers to pass through on their way in.

Because nothing says chi-chi metrosexual sophistication like clattering through the equivalent of an airport checkpoint, does it?

The Echo insists this is a first:

A NIGHTSPOT owned by a former Atomic Kitten star will become the first in the city to have an airport-style metal detector on its door.

Really? Then what was that large beeping thing you used to have to navigate in order to get into the short-lived indie club that took over The State's premises on Dale Street? I'm especially aware of it because one evening - after, admittedly, having over-enjoyed the doubles bar at the Old Post Office - it took me about five goes to get through the bloody thing what with coins, buckles, zippers and so on.

H blocked

Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton's H club lost its appeal against the suspension of its licence. Hamilton will fight for her club, she insists. Although not by coming home:

Natasha’s manager, Martin O’Shea, said the singer – currently in New York – was devastated by the police allegations.

He said: “In the 10 months since H opened there has not been one single incident.

“It has done untold damage to the good name of Natasha Hamilton, who has devoted much time to supporting anti-gun and anti-knife campaigns in her home city.

“Natasha will do everything possible to change the police's opinions of the club.”

The "not one single incident" does, of course, require you to add the words "up until those two guys got stabbed there last weeked, fled before the cops arrived and then refused to answer any questions when the cops caught up with them" for yourself.

The Liverpool Echo claims that some of the regulars are on the police list which instructs officers to not approach them "without armed back-up".