Posted on 12/20/2018 5:08:23 AM PST by gattaca
Full Title: If Rihanna And Mick Jagger Don’t Want Trump Playing Their Tunes, They Need To Take On Copyright Monopolies
Rihanna and Mick Jagger can try and try, but they can’t get no satisfaction from the White House. The two singers are irate at President Trump’s use of their music at his rallies. Although both parties have asked the president to stop, with Rihanna’s representatives even sending a cease-and-desist letter to White House counsel, the leader of the free world hasn’t seemed to budge, which likely gives him great satisfaction.
While Rihanna appears to believe that she can eventually win the case, Jagger understands that you can’t always get what you want, especially from music licensing, because “when you appear in America…if you’re in a public place…you can play any music you want.” He’s right: anyone who purchases a performance license from ASCAP and BMI, the key-holders to nearly every music copyright in existence, can play anything within the two organizations’ repertories at almost any time.
Some observers are now advocating that, in the interest of performers, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, headed by Makan Delrahim, revisit the agreements that make compulsory music licensing mandatory. However, instead of blaming the DOJ for the frustration of artists like Rihanna and Jagger, policymakers should consider revisiting the history of unrestrained corporate greed that brought about these restraints in the first place.
ASCAP and BMI are copyright trolls that capitalize on the intellectual property laws meant for protecting creative content for personal gain. The two entities represent the end-product of music publishers colluding together into two monopolies that control approximately 90 percent of all music performing rights.
It didn’t take long for this aggregation of power to bring problems for performers or businesses. As songwriter Matt Fitzgibbons explained, “In the early days, these industry behemoths would collude and charge exorbitant sums for the playing rights of music because this is far from a competitive marketplace and there was nothing stopping them from doing so.”
After being accused of price-fixing by the U.S. government, ASCAP and BMI signed DOJ consent decrees that created the modern-day blanket licensing system in 1941. In the words of Fitzgibbons, the decrees “have created some semblance of a market pricing structure that has protected both songwriters and small businesses from monopolistic abuse.”
By getting the cost of music under control, establishments do not have to break the bank just to afford background music, while performers can continue receiving the convenience of ASCAP and BMI’s revenue collection and distribution and benefiting from the upward pressure on song compensation that comes with more establishments participating in the system.
Rihanna and Mick Jagger might have some qualms about the current compulsory licensing process, but a system that hinges upon government-created monopolies is never going to be perfect. The Department of Justice made this clear when it concluded its exhaustive two-year review process of the consent decrees in 2016, writing: “Although stakeholders on all sides have raised some concerns with the status quo, the Division’s investigation confirmed that the current system has well served music creators and music users for decades and should remain intact.”
Nothing has changed over the last two years that should make the federal government reconsider its opinion. As stated in a recent letter from hundreds of small businesses across the country, “the termination of the decrees would result in market dysfunction, jeopardizing the licensing system as we know it.” Not to mention an accounting and record-keeping nightmare!
So, please, Makan Delrahim and the rest of the Trump Justice Department, follow the guidance of Rihanna’s lyrics rather than her political advice and don’t stop the music.
Why is Trump using music from Rihanna or The Stones.
One is music from the stone ages, and the other is just music but not great. Trump can do better. Should try more country music. Country has more ‘nationalists’.
Willie Nelson also asked candidate Reagan to stop playing “On the Road Again.”
If they paid BMI to play, they can play. And I’ll bet they paid.
“You can’t always get what you want” is on my top 10 irritating songs list along with “I wear my sunglasses at night.”
Current country music is fluff. Pop music with a twang. Other current pop music I’d fluff without the twang. Crap.
Old rock and old country is the way to go. Early Stones fit the bill.
I don’t know if Hank Sr. Johnny Cash or Patsy Cline music would fit Trumps plans, but I certainly wouldn’t hate hearing them.
If I were Mick, I would be more upset over “Jumpin’ Jack Flash.”
Maybe it’s just me but the last few(3-4) weeks I’ve noticed a change in music of commercials. Not just Christmas music but real 70-90s popular, non BS. It seems to have started with my favorite Edith Piaf for ‘Dove Chocolate’.
Regardless of licensing, the song is an asset for the artist who performs it and playing it is a form of publicity for them. Jagger can claim that only he has the right to the publicity that his song generates and not the politician playing it. And if the politician in question is someone he disagrees with then his publicity and public image are being harmed. Think the Rolling Stones putting a picture of Trump Tower in less than savory context on the cover of an album. This is a theory that hasn't been tested in court but it could well be upheld if it is.
The second path is that Jagger and Rihanna could follow would be suing Trump or his campaign for violation of the Lanham Act which prevents confusion or dilution of trademarks. The same reasoning as above; playing the song links the artist with the campaign and the candidate, and could damage the trademark.
Third path would be to sue claiming false endorsement. Playing the song implies the artist is endorsing the candidate which in these cases are wrong.
Or Trump could just stop playing the songs. Why do it if the singer doesn't want him to?
Own your own publishing and the problem is solved. Every professional musician ought to know that, but the greater percentage don’t want to bother with minutia.
Zappa wrote about it, brought it up during interviews and musicians who worked in Zappa iterations laud him for that sage advice.
If he purchased their music, then he has the right to play it whenever and wherever he wants. LOL
Didn’t the stones appropriate a lot of american blues in their stuff? But I guess you’d call it influence. That’s how I think the producers worked over there though. Led Zeppelin went way beyond just getting inspired by american blues and folk. But whatever, they were still pretty good so I’m not saying they didn’t deserve their following and sales. But hypocrisy abounds. Take and use what you want, but don’t let anyone take and use what they want (unless getting paid, usually).
Something has always bugged me about Trump playing “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” at the end of his rallies.
“Current country music is fluff. Pop music with a twang.”
Except for Chris Stapleton. He’s by far the best out of everything that’s around today.
My wife got me to watch part of the cma awards show a couple of years ago, looked more like hiphop than country to me.....that was tha last time. None for me thanks.
Rihanna was manufactured by the record companies IMO. Amazing what passes for music these days.
Country music will, no doubt, soon start incorporating trannies into their lineup.
I would suggest The Voice of Free America.
Own your own publishing and the problem is solved. Every professional musician ought to know that, but the greater percentage don’t want to bother with minutia.
Zappa wrote about it, brought it up during interviews and musicians who worked in Zappa iterations laud him for that sage advice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.