Add this entry to Your Favorites | [0] Favorites
[37] Comments
Webster defines a thief as, "one who embezzles", and the definition of embezzle is, "to take money for ones own use in violation of a trust".
When you keep money that is owed to someone you are "in violation of a trust"
Some forms of thievery are obvious, like the clerk who pockets money from the cash register, or the bank robber. Some forms of thievery are more subtle. Regardless, it is still "stealing".
As Christians, many of us are taught that not paying our tithe is stealing from God. The concept of "withholding money" being the same as stealing is interesting, and accurate, in my view.
For example, I recently had some furniture delivered to my home. The two men who delivered it did a good job and I wanted to tip each of them 10 dollars, but only had a twenty dollar bill. I gave the twenty to the driver with instructions to split it with his helper. As they drove off, I wondered if he would.
In my view, if the driver keeps the helper's ten dollars, it is exactly the same as stealing a ten dollar bill from his wallet.
Providing goods and services is the method most of us use to earn a living. When someone fails to pay you for the goods or services you provided, they are stealing from you.
As Christians, we are supposed to hold ourselves to a higher standard, but apparently stealing from each other is okay.
I realized the full impact of this statement as we prepared our royalty statements. As a new company, we are trying our best to take care of business correctly, but we are far from perfect. One of our biggest problems has been getting our computer programs set up for royalties. We were way too slow on the first round and were promptly reprimanded by a writer who accused us of stealing his money. We apologized for being late and assured him his check was already on the way. He was gracious enough to call the next day when his check arrived. We are just now getting caught up and are very grateful to all
the wonderful writers who have trusted us with their songs without complaining about our tardiness. However, the process has taught me a valuable lesson. Not paying our songwriters is the same as stealing from them.
Using a writer's song without paying is essentially the same as not paying for your gas, your groceries, etc. etc…..get the idea?
It makes no difference whether you are an artist who orders your product from a manufacturer or whether you order your product from a record company, songwriters must be paid for their songs.
The current statutory rate is 9.1 cents. That means for every song you record, you owe a songwriter 9.1 cents.
Here's how it works:
Once you have selected the songs for your recording, you must request a Mechanical License for each song from the publisher of each song.
This is an agreement that gives you permission to record the song and tells you where to send the money. THE MONEY IS DUE UPON MANUFACTURE OF THE PRODUCT, NOT THE SALE OF THE PRODUCT. This means if you order 500 CDs, you owe songwriter royalties for 500 CDs. It makes no difference whether you sell them in a week or a year.
This process applies to every recording…custom…major label…minor label…no label.
Recording at "I Be Deaf" Recording Studios and getting a package deal with 500 CDs does not get you off the hook.
YOU OWE THE ROYALTIES…EVERY CD…EVERY SONG!
You can call yourself anything you want to...part-time, full-time, professional, amateur, anointed, dedicated, soul winner, minister of music, but…if you don't pay songwriter royalties your real title is…THIEF!
Consider these facts.
The average cost of a manufactured CD is around $1.00, depending on the number ordered.
Royalties on a ten song CD are $.91.
Therefore the minimum basic cost of a CD is around $2.00. If you are buying your CDs directly from the manufacturer, you are the one responsible for requesting Mechanical Licenses and paying the royalties.
If you are buying your CDs from a record label, then the label should be requesting Mechanicals and paying royalties.
If you or the company you record with doesn't have the Mechanical Licenses on file for every song you have recorded, that is a good indication that the writers were not paid. You should go to your record company and ask to see the Mechanicals for your recordings. If they don't have them, shame on you for staying with a company that steals from our songwriters.
My friends, this is a serious matter. How can we expect God to bless our industry and use us for His purpose when we are stealing from one another? I believe this is another reason we are not as effective in reaching the lost and are failing to grow as an industry.
I truly believe this is something we must get corrected if we are to succeed.
Perhaps you are an artist or a record company that has been guilty of not paying royalties. It makes no difference whether you are an amateur or a seasoned veteran, it is time to correct this situation. There is little we can do about the past, but the future is a different story. We can start right now to end this practice of stealing from our songwriters.
As an artist, you are responsible for your work. In the end it falls to you to make sure that the royalties on your recording are paid.
Record companies, you have an obligation to our industry to account correctly for every song recorded by your company. It is no small task, I will attest to that, but it must be done.
I leave you with this scripture. "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. James 4:17 KJV
As always, I welcome your comments.
God Bless You,
Nick Bruno
http://www.songgardenmusic.com
Reader Comments
Steven Cheney wrote:You are correct Bruce about anyone being able to record a song after it is released , however ... the artist still owes it to the publisher or writer/publisher to seek a mechanical license before they cut the song.
------------------------
Steven,
I covered that in the third paragraph. Actually, there are two options...mechanical license or compulsory license, which I only mentioned briefly. My main point to kelleymik, though, was that no one is required to get permission before they record. As I said, for better or worse, the songwriter has no say over who records their songs once it's been recorded for the first time.
------------
Keith,
Thanks for shedding more emphasis on compulsory licensing than I gave in my earlier response.
There is a lot of confusion out there...some of it based in weasel logic and some of it based on sheer ignorance of the topic. Many moons ago when I was a teenager playing keyboard for a group, I heard the sales rep from a recording studio tell our group manager, "He doesn't need it," after being asked how to go about paying a songwriter. This was a pretty large studio in the area, too. That's shameful, and like Steven said, it's the artist who will potentially get sued over it, not the lying snakes who deliberately mislead them.
Most people who want to do the right thing have taken it upon themselves to learn about mechanical licensing. I've run across very few in the SG industry who even know what you're talking about when you say "compulsory license," though. I have sent letters to SG publishers in the past saying I'm giving them notice that I plan to record a song and will be paying them the standard royalty rate as the law requires for a compulsory license at the appropriate time. They always mail me a mechanical license without fail.
It pays to read the fine print on a mech license, too. Almost every one I've seen tacks on additional requirements not required by law, some of which are reasonable and some of which are not. One major publisher will attempt to tack on a "processing fee," for example, that's over and above the royalties owed. Most are very reasonable about it, though, just asking you to print the copyright information on the packaging and perhaps send them a copy or two.
Bottom line: If you're just printing up a small run of product, and the terms of the mech agreement are reasonable, that's the easy route to go. It saves a lot of accounting and writing out small checks every three months. If you're doing 1000 units per title or more, though, it makes a lot more sense to pay quarterly by compulsory license for however many units you've sold and/or given away. Otherwise, you could end up paying several hundred dollars in royalties on product you never end up distributing.
--Making hay while the sun shines--
sgnforum@musicscribe.com - BLOG - SGHistory.com
CORRECTION: Make that "monthly" payments rather than quarterly. I should have read the circular Keith referenced before making my last post.
--Making hay while the sun shines--
sgnforum@musicscribe.com - BLOG - SGHistory.com
Keith, maybe you've just led a sheltered life. LOL Many songwriters just do not have good voices, therefore they do not put their music out to he public. In the same vein, some of the best Ministers of Music that I have sat under did not sing well, but they could sure write, arrange, and play the whale out of an instrument. Saying that one needs to be a good singer in order to be a good writer seems very discouraging to new song writers. Thankfully that's not the case.
Deon Unthank
SoGospelNews.com
My Blog
Some people are like Slinkys… Not really good for anything, but they
still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs - Author Unknown
Whoa, Keith. I'm sorry, but it's not that simple. I am a vocal instructor, and not everyone has the ability to have their voice trained to the point that it is effective in communicating a song. There are those who cannot sing on tune at all, but can hear the harmony on the piano, can play the piano perfectly and can write beautiful songs. Dottie Rambo wrote all her songs by playing the guitar.You are saying that one must be able to sing in order to write poetry. That just isn't so.
Besides, singing a song well has nothing to so with artists who record songs paying royalties.
Deon Unthank
SoGospelNews.com
My Blog
Some people are like Slinkys… Not really good for anything, but they
still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs - Author Unknown
Keith, You've made some good points, but I disagree with your basic premise. There are many, many, many songwriters who excel at writing and are realistic enough to know they don't have the vocal ability to compete with the best singers and be successful.
As far as that $27 goes, you're right that it is pretty insignificant if one artist records a song and doesn't pay their appropriate royalty. However, it is a much bigger deal if the song is moderately popular and a number of artists record cover versions.
I wonder how many royalties are still owed to Greg and Chuck Day for an extremely popular song like "Midnight Cry." I have no idea, but I'd guess it's probably enough that it means the difference between living in a modest sized home and owning two or three houses...or sending your child to a top college vs. community college...or any number of things that they could have done if they'd been properly compensated every time the song was recorded.
I don't think the lesser skilled individuals expect the same level of overall pay as the skilled. I just think that when a person is owed royalties, they should be paid. It all goes back to being faithful with small things so that we will later be given the responsibility for handling more.
--Making hay while the sun shines--
sgnforum@musicscribe.com - BLOG - SGHistory.com
Now Playing
Written: 06/01/2006 
Author: Nick Bruno
Category:
The Gospel Truth
Comments: 37 Favorited:
Add this entry to Your Favorites
Email this article
RSS
feeds
(What's an RSS feed?)
Recent Articles
Articles Archives
