All songwriters should read this if you care about being paid all that your owed.

WHOA.

Has DMN reached out to ASCAP or BMI for comments? Love to see what their reasons are. 

Yes, we did contact ASCAP prior to the publication of this article.  There is no statement from them at this time.

/paul

Please post if and when they do respond. There is always two sides of the story.

Ha, more like three sides.  TuneSat's side, ASCAP's side, and the truth.  If you can handle that.

/paul

If this note is from Paul Resnikoff, Why didn't you take the time to try to pursue the truth?

@visitor

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

I think what you're asking is, why not fact-check and examine every claim made by TuneSat, even if ASCAP declined to comment?  

The answer has to do with the approach to this topic matter - I've chosen to give TuneSat the floor, with the implicit understanding that the reader can judge for himself or herself.  Furthermore, this approach increases the chances of ASCAP (or BMI, or another collection society for that matter) actually responding, which would provoke very needed debate in this area.

/paul

— the point here is that in a digital age there SHOULDN'T be any discrepancies at all.

...but there are. Let's fix this. preposterous. all it takes is someone to make a digital cue sheet interactive app on an ipad. 

Let's do it and get me credit ;)

But if I have to pay the money I collected, how will I earn any interest? [lights cigar with $100]

Both societies do already use digital fingerprinting in some capacity at least.

One problem I see with Tunesat is their rates, for a publishing catalogue of 100 songs, just to monitor the U.S. they would charge you $420 per quarter (plus the initial setup fee of $70) so you would have to be getting an additional $1750 in royalties from ASCAP/BMI in that first year just to break even.

And you have to remember that the PRO's have a finite amount of money to go round. If everyone suddenly starts submitting Tunesat data to them it will likely ultimately lead to an increased number of royalty lines but ultimately no more royalties. That's not to say that improving accuracy through digital fingerprinting is a bad thing, it is of course a good thing but it doesn't quite guarantee the pot of gold that some people seem to think it will.

Very astute comment and I agree.  Also note that nothing requires ASCAP/BMI to enter into an overall agreement with TuneStat or any other entity regarding detection of use of musical compositions.  I believe the current PRO rules require the Publisher/Writer of the song in questions to submit any detailed use and/or cue sheet for each undetected use not a third party.  Also, once detected, what about the publisher/writer going after a synch license if it is used in a commercial or TV show, which is MUCH more lucrative.  Just sayin'

And where is the question about TuneSat's reliabiltiy?  Outragious prices and unreliable data is TuneSat's problem.  Lately it feels like DMN is running paid ads as stories... and that's a question about DMN's reliability!

I agree with this and that is why I asked if DMN even inquired with ASCAP or BMI. This article appeared to be a straight TuneSat ad. I do agree that the PROs should utilize this technology so it seems counterproductive for TuneSat to be publicly fighting with them instead of trying to work with them to a.) license the PROs their technology or b.) come to terms with the PROs on reliable data delivery.

And yes, TuneSat’s fees are outrageous. I tried it out for 4-5 months with 10 songs and it just wasn’t worth it.

DMN has already run paid ads from them, as I recall. They were on the emailed newsletter.

So, yeah, good comment.

They had a campaign with Digital Music News at the tail end of 2011, which I think will always draw this sort of accusation.  They are not a current advertiser, nor was any money transferred for this guest post.  I gave TuneSat the floor, and let them say whatever they wanted.  Now, ASCAP can take it as well.

Hope that clarifies.

/paul

Can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The war for the future of performance royalties begins in earnest...

Anyone who has seen the Tune Sat report know that it's bunk.  Their technology simply doesn't work.  For example, many composers use common royalty free drum loops.  The technology picks up these common drum loops and lists many false positives.  I have first hand experience with getting legal calls about infringment.  They used Tune Sat.  When we went back and viewed the tapes and the edit logs, none of the so called claims were legitimate.

This is nothing but flag waving and chair tiling by Tune Sat.  And by insulting ASCAP and BMI, the primary payee for many of these artists, is a very poor business model, essentially encouring composers to bite the hands that feeds them (and ultimately Tune Sat). It's a model that didn't work in the late 90's by attacking the record industry, and its foolish to do so now, attacking the PROs.  

Attacking ASCAP and BMI for not using it because of some latent desire to cheat their composers, or because of sloth is absurd.  They don't use it because it's a flawed system and it doesn't work.

when issuring Synch License for TV, comericals, plays. Ascap ask that you or the producer send a Cue sheet. If the producer or the Publisher or writer send in a Cue sheet , who is on the other end monitoring if they are getting paid. I went into Ascap system to see if the Producer had reported his Cue sheet. He had not. So I put in a request, but how many people have that kind of time to follow up behind if there music is being reported. We pay for a service. If there software is not up to date to follow the use. that should be a a concern to Ascap & BMI writers. ASCAP & BMI should update and invest into there system to provide more profit for there writers and well as themselves

I don't see how anyone can create an algorhithm that will be able to sort royalty free loops and clips used by many composers today from works created from whole cloth.

I understand that the software can sort out and recognize music under the noise and chatter but in todays world of composition that's only the first step

Further - cue sheets are still needed to categorize the type of performance (background, background with vocal, feature, theme, etc.. ) Tunesat may detect a performance, but it does not know the classification of the performance.

We need innovation in this industry. How can we get this started?

Tunesat provides a downloadable audio recording of each detection which allows you to determine the useage type. By providing the audio its proof positive of the use and useage type eliminating the wrong useage designation often supplied by the intern who filled out the cue sheet incorrectly -  if at all!   Works great by the way.

Exactly how could someone distinguish a background use from a visual use if all Tunesat provides is a downloadable AUDIO recording?  Not possible without a visual reference.

Can you tell by this audio clip if the people on screen are singing along, or if it was playing on the radio in the car during the scene? There is no way to know if it was a visual vocal or a background vocal.  There are different pay out rates for all of these performance types.  Unless TuneSat can identify these usages correctly everytime... useless...

Why do you all read one article - and a story that's been hovering around for sometime now - and simply believe it to be true?  So, everything on the internet is true now?  Most of you are guessing about what ASCAP does and does not do. Go to their website at ASCAP.com, read up and if you're a member, call Member Services and ask them a question.  Maybe, just maybe, there are other services and data and solutions that ASCAP has been using for decades that actually work just fine.

As someone who is working in the industry, specifically in royalty accounting for a significantly large catalog of music, i can honestly say that royalties are missed, always, and that the system of cue sheet reporting is at the center of it. What's ironic about this story is that our company has looked into using TuneSat for this very purpose; however, after speaking to a high-ranking ASCAP individual, we were told flat-out, what TuneSat has stated here: ASCAP does not use the reports generated by TuneSats technology as a means to better pay royalties to the writers and publishers that are owed to them. Their solution? "Sumbit to us media buys, cue sheets, and Ad-codes supplied by Competitrack (if the song was used in a commercial)." The problem is that we, and countless others do. At the end of the day, the PROs methods are severely outdated.

Sorry, one more time.  All I'm saying is that why do you blindly believe Tunesat is better than what ASCAP and other PROs use? This DMN piece is not an article.  Its a blatant ad to sell a product based on one single unsubstantiated claim of "80% unidentified" performances.  

Main reason: RE-TITLING NON-EXCLUSIVE LIBRARIES

Broad use of non-watermarking technology, like TuneSat, would kill this section of the industry. Big players like Getty Images are in this group. 

There's no way re-titling libraries are going down without a fight.

Yea, they have no way of identifying who the publisher is. exactly.

what a mess

how can we ban re-titling, is that possible?

Nobody has the right to tell a composer what they can do with their work. It's their "legal right" to do whatever they want with their compositions and masters. For a composer to sign their songs over to one library would be a financial mistake. What if that library doesn't get many placements (or any!). Composers have the right to assign their music on a non-exclusively basis to several libraries in hope that the more libraries representing their music the more placements it will bring.

Big libraries such as Megatrax are very against re-titling. That's because they don't want the competition and want to squash the smaller libraries.