Jump to content

Talk:American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early Radio

[edit]

"Radio stations originally only broadcast performers live, the performers working for free. Later, performers wanted to be paid and recorded performances became more prevalent."

This makes no sense. Some performers played for free at various times in exchange for advertising their upcoming live venue performances, but certainly plenty of early radio performers were paid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.3.57 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karaoke

[edit]

How can they POSSIBLY charge karaoke places to perform songs? Say I have a karaoke machine with 6000 songs. Does this machine submit which song is played back over the internet to a central server? I don't think so. This money they collect must be randomly distributed. If you are an obscure artist on a karaoke machine, you're not going to see much of it, if any, are you? 68.167.161.182 (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ASCAP has been harassing a bar owner near me, regarding karaoke. Considering that most karaoke collections are already copyright nightmares (unauthorized covers performed by no-name bands), how can they justify threatening lawsuits? I do not understand how the original artist or the no-name performer could possibly receive any benefit from bars giving money to ASCAP. I'd be interested in seeing more information about this subject. 68.13.125.163 (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awards

[edit]

What is meant by the phrase, "ASCAP has an extensive awards program?" I know some of the awards listed aren't given by ASCAP. For instance, the Golden Globes are given by the Holywood Foreign Press and the NAACP Image Awards are, obviously handed out by the NAACP. Am I right about this list being off, or is there something I'm missing? --djrobgordon 06:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, "extensive" is an accurate description as it does not mean "all-inclusive." Also, the term was meant to refer to the number of music-related awards hosted by ASCAP, of which I think are many considering it is just one organization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jabberwiki (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Article name

[edit]

As can be verified on the ASCAP website, there is no comma after "Authors" in the full name of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. When I attempted to fix this, I found that the correct article title is used as a redirect to the wrong one. — Athaenara ✉ 00:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Request posted on Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals. — A. ✉ 01:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(Fixed by GTBacchus. — A. ✉ 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

CMA/ASCAP award for Adventurous Programming

[edit]

Can information about the CMA/ASCAP award for Adventurous Programming be added? 131.123.231.143 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

needs some discussion of anti-trust issues

[edit]

ASCAP has long been controversial on antitrust grounds, as an organization dedicated to copyright pooling by ostensible competitors. They've been sued numerous times, and have lost some cases while winning others. An overview of this would be useful. A few references that specifically discuss ASCAP-related cases (as opposed to only the more general copyright-pooling issue):

  • "Copyright Pooling and the Anti-Trust Laws". The University of Chicago Law Review. 17 (1): 183–194. 1949.
  • "ASCAP and the Antitrust Laws: The Story of a Reasonable Compromise". Duke Law Journal. 1959 (2): 258–277. 1959.
  • Ted K. Ringsred (1992). Is Anticompetitive Misuse a Defense to Copyright Infringement?. ASCAP Copyright Law Symposium 39. pp. 165–200.

--Delirium 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nimbit

[edit]

Added info about Nimbit partnership. Included redlink because I'm in the process of writing the article now. ~kevin talkemail 17:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All set, no one even SAW that redlink :) ~kevin talkemail 18:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

payments to artists?

[edit]

How do they determine how much a composer should get? I would think "Blowing in the Wind" would be worth quite a bit more than some forgettable one-hit-wonder, but also that it would be dependent on the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.82.53 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article reads inconsistently. Of particular note: the Non-exclusive section is mostly written in the 2nd-person. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article needs to be rewritten. I found nothing about ASCAP's battles with BMI during the payola scandal era of the late 1950's and ASCAP finally realizing that rock was here to stay and try to attract more rock/R&B/country acts culminating with Motown joining ASCAP in 1971. Also, check out this source which seems to be the definitive ASCAP history book. [1]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use after composer's name

[edit]

In some concert booklet, a composer was announced as John Doe ASCAP. What does this mean? Wikispaghetti (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

400% rates increase - source?

[edit]
Between 1931 and 1939, ASCAP increased royalty rates charged to broadcasters more than 400%.

I came to this article from Lawrence Lessig's TED talk. He mentions a more than 400% increase, and that's the only citation. It's not so reliable, as all he shows is a graph with no references. It's also the only source for the same claim in ASCAP boycott. I'll leave a message there as well. Y. Dongchen (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some update requests

[edit]

 Done

  • Specific text to be added or removed: Lead Section replace first paragraph
The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) (/ˈæskæp/) is a United States not-for-profit performance-rights organization (PRO) that collectively licenses the public performance rights of its members' musical works to venues, broadcasters, and digital streaming services.
  • Reason for the change: A more modern description of the types of licensing covered
  • References supporting change: [1]

 Done

  • Specific text to be added or removed: Lead Section third paragraph replace text
In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to its members. ASCAP membership included over 850,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, with over 16 million registered works.
  • Reason for the change: Updates 2019 data to 2021 data
  • References supporting change: [2][3]

 Done

  • Specific text to be added or removed: Non-exclusivity
Remove section
  • Reason for the change: The passage is largely unsupported and the fact that a U.S. performing arts society does not cater to artists covered by societies in other countries is unremarkable. I suspect that the Creative Commons mention in this passage may have had current events relevance ten years ago. That event is covered in the Criticism section.
@Maddy from Celeste: and @ABT021: I am pinging you because you have shown an interest in this topic ASCAP and you have made edits on my behalf (Thank You!). Would you be so kind as to take a look at the Non-exclusivity section? It appears to be WP:SYNTHESIS, and if not, it appears to have too much prominence as the first section after the lead (Above the History section). A citation that is missing from the section is here, A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR SONGWRITERS AND COMPOSERS.
Here is what I see when I read the section...
Unlike collecting societies outside the United States,[citation needed] ASCAP contract is non-exclusive[2] and although it is not so simple for a foreign person to join ASCAP, it is possible.[citation needed] ASCAP has an office in the United Kingdom.[3] As the artist agreement is non-exclusive, authors can license using a Creative Commons license. The ASCAP bill of rights[vague] states, "we have the right to choose when and where our creative works may be used for free". If an author is going to use a Creative Commons license with another's works, this is the only author's rights organisation that has a non-exclusive contract that a foreign person can join.[citation needed] If an author uses a Creative Commons license and is not a member of a performing rights organisation and the works would generate royalties, these royalties are collected and given to publishers and artists that are members of the se organisations.[citation needed] ASCAP is not a governing agency and as such has no right to fine and/or collect royalties on behalf of the artists that it allegedly represents.[citation needed]
Sorry to bother you, but moving, improving, or deleting this section would greatly improve the readability of the article imho. My vote would be to delete. Thank you for your efforts and edits. Apriltools (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References supporting change:
  • Specific text to be added or removed: Boycott section remove unsupported sentence
Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP was legally required to settle for a lower fee than they had initially demanded.
  • Reason for the change: The cited source does not say this, it says the royalty fees were negotiated directly with the broadcasters and ASCAP.
  • References supporting change: [4]

 Partly done: I dug up a copy of the source; it does say they settled, so I changed it to say that.

 Done

  • Specific text to be added or removed: Section Antitrust lawsuit
Rename section to Consent decree
  • Reason for the change: Consent degree is the common vernacular for the legal framework for both ASCAP and BMI. These may have started with a lawsuit, but the DOJ recommended in 2021 that the decrees be reviewed every five years in light of changing technologies.
  • References supporting change: [4]

Thank you! Apriltools (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Music: Publishing & PROs – VLAA". vlaa.org. 2021-05-11. Archived from the original on 2021-05-11. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  2. ^ "ASCAP Delivers Record-Setting Revenues and Distributions to Songwriters, Composers and Publishers For 2021". www.ascap.com. 2022-03-03. Archived from the original on 2022-03-06. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  3. ^ Aswad, Jem; Aswad, Jem (2022-03-01). "ASCAP Delivers Record Revenue of $1.3 Billion for 2021". Variety. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  4. ^ Wald, E. (2011). How The Beatles Destroyed Rock 'n' Roll: An Alternative History of American Popular Music. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-19-975697-1. Retrieved 2022-03-23.

Millard Fillmore

[edit]

Given that Millard Fillmore died 40 years before the founding of ASCAP, it is hard to understand how he could have been one of the founders of the organization. Perhaps the name and the link to Millard Fillmore, the 13th President of the USA, were accidental and were intended to be for someone else. In case that might be true, I will leave it for someone else to correct, as I don't know what might have been intended. Mark C Carlson 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markccarlson (talk • contribs)

Edit request 2022 data

[edit]
  • Specific text to be added or removed:
In the lead, third paragraph, please adjust the following.
In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to its members. ASCAP membership included over 850,000 songwriters, composers and music publishers, with having over 16 million registered works.
And add the following.
ASCAP membership surpassed 900,000 and revenues exceeded $1.5 billion in 2022.
  • Reason for the change: Updating 2022 published information
  • References supporting change: [1]

Apriltools (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC) Apriltools (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aswad, Jem; Aswad, Jem (2023-03-08). "ASCAP Posts Record $1.5 Billion in Revenue for 2022". Variety. Archived from the original on 2023-03-26. Retrieved 2023-07-05.

Reply 5-JUL-2023

[edit]

  Edit request declined  

  1. The proposed lead section contains a sentence which is worded in a way as to suggest that the 1.254 billion in royalties is paid only to individual members having over 16 million registered works (e.g., "In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to its members having over 16 million registered works."). The provided reference does not confirm the statement as it is written.
  2. If this is in error, kindly rewrite the sentence and resubmit your proposal in a new edit request below this reply post.

Regards,  Spintendo  22:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spintendo:, the supporting reference(s) for the 2021 data is already in the article (number 3 and 4) so I did not repeat them in my edit request. Reworded, the finished paragraph request / edit would look like this...
In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to rights-holders, ASCAP maintains a registry of over 16 million works.34 ASCAP membership surpassed 900,000 and revenues exceeded $1.5 billion in 2022.5
Thanks for responding to this so promptly, I hope this clears things up. Apriltools (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
additional edit --> Apriltools (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request -- third attempt -- 2022 membership data

[edit]
  • Specific text to be added or removed replaced in lead section, 3rd para :
In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to rights-holders, ASCAP maintains a registry of over 16 million works.[1][2] ASCAP membership surpassed 900,000 and revenues exceeded $1.5 billion in 2022.[3]
  • Reason for the change:
update year 2022 membership data
  • References supporting change:
all references included in passage above (shown below)

Apriltools (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Apriltools (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apriltools, I hate to be a stickler for punctuation, but your proposed statement In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue and distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to rights-holders, ASCAP maintains a registry of over 16 million works. is a run-on sentence because there is a comma after the word rights-holders. Please rewrite the sentence so that it is grammatical. Regards,  Spintendo  21:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request -- second attempt -- 2022 membership data

[edit]
  • Specific text to be added or removed replaced in lead section, 3rd para :
In 2021, ASCAP collected over US$1.335 billion in revenue, distributed $1.254 billion in royalties to rights-holders, and maintained a registry of over 16 million works.[1][2] ASCAP membership surpassed 900,000 and revenues exceeded $1.5 billion in 2022.[3]
  • Reason for the change:
update year 2022 membership data
  • References supporting change:
all references included in passage above (shown below)

Apriltools (talk) 19:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "ASCAP Delivers Record-Setting Revenues and Distributions to Songwriters, Composers and Publishers For 2021". www.ascap.com. 2022-03-03. Archived from the original on 2022-03-06. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  2. ^ a b Aswad, Jem (2022-03-01). "ASCAP Delivers Record Revenue of $1.3 Billion for 2021". Variety. Retrieved 2022-03-23.
  3. ^ a b Aswad, Jem; Aswad, Jem (2023-03-08). "ASCAP Posts Record $1.5 Billion in Revenue for 2022". Variety. Archived from the original on 2023-07-05. Retrieved 2023-09-09.

Reply 11-SEP-2023

[edit]

✅  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1917 Supreme court Case request

[edit]

Hi editors, I'm Stephanie. I'm here on behalf of ASCAP as part of my work for Beutler Ink.

My first request for this article is to add a new paragraph to the History section after the paragraph ending with However, an exception was made to admit Irving Berlin. This paragraph is about a 1917 Supreme Court case that is integral to the history of ASCAP but is not currently mentioned in the article:

Extended content

In 1917, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of ASCAP in Herbert v. Shanley Co. The lawsuit, brought by Herbert, contended that the owner of Shanley's Restaurant in New York City had infringed on Herbert's copyright of Sweethearts by playing music from the play in the restaurant without permission or compensation for Herbert. Shanley argued that because there was no entrance fee for the restaurant performing the music, the performance was not making a profit and therefore did not require compensation for Herbert. The unanimous decision on the lawsuit, written by associate justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., held that any performance of music for profit, including profits tangentially related to the performance, such as the sale of food and drink, required compensation for the original creators of the music.[1] The decision legitimized ASCAP's continued existence and allowed the organization to more proactively seek compensation for its members.[2]

References

  1. ^ Allen, Leonard (October 1940). "The Battle of Tin Pan Alley" (pdf). Harper's Magazine. Retrieved January 31, 2024.
  2. ^ Pollock, Bruce (2014). A Friend in the Music Business. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Hal Leonard Books. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-4234-9221-4. Retrieved January 31, 2024.

Please let me know what you think! Happy to answer any questions. Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup PR

[edit]

I've discovered considerable amount of organization sourced contents being used to present the organization in light desired by the organization that may not be NPOV and DUE. The way in which the PR role account ASCAPedia added contents go beyond what's appropriate under WP:ABOUTSELF. Their edit was a long time ago, but a lot of it remains. Graywalls (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advent of radio paragraph

[edit]

Hi editors, for my next request I propose changing the paragraph beginning "The advent of radio" from:

  • The advent of radio in the 1920s brought an important new source of income for ASCAP. Radio stations originally only broadcast performers live, the performers working for free. Later, performers wanted to be paid, and recorded performances became more prevalent. ASCAP started collecting license fees from the broadcasters. Between 1931 and 1939, ASCAP increased royalty rates charged to broadcasters by more than 400%.[1]

To

  • The advent of radio in the 1920s brought an important new source of income for ASCAP. The organization initially offered low licensing fees to foster a partnership between the fledgling medium and ASCAP; however, the licensing fees increased 900 percent between 1931 and 1939. ASCAP said the increases were due to radio curtailing the ability of its members to make money through other venues, such as sheet music and record sales, and decreasing how long hit songs remained hits. Further fee increases proposed for the 1940s led to a boycott of ASCAP and the creation of Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI).[2]

References

  1. ^ "Lawrence Lessig: Laws that choke creativity | Talk Video". Ted.com. Archived from the original on November 16, 2011. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Harpers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

(note: the source used is this Harper's article already cited in the live article)

Because:

  • This corrects incorrect royalty fees
  • Replaces the source (a TED talk) with a better one (Harper's)
  • Adds additional context around the licensing fee increase making for a more complete history

Please let me know what you think! @3family6: pinging you here in case you were interested in taking a look at this request since you reviewed my last one. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephanie BINK:, you provided a reference that doesn't pull up. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: the link is to this Harper's article (PDF here). It's already used in the live article so I included the named reference markup in the bullet point and the link to the source below the references box. Hope that helps! Stephanie BINK (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look! Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott section

[edit]

Hi editors, while the above request is being considered, I'd like to propose the following changes to the boycott section. I've made a text diff and a rendered out version below so you can see what it looks like:

Extended content
−
In 1940, when ASCAP tried to double its license fees again, radio broadcasters formed a [[boycott]] of ASCAP and founded a competing royalty agency, [[Broadcast Music Incorporated]] (BMI). During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on [[NBC]] and [[CBS]] radio stations. Instead, the stations played regional music and styles (like [[rhythm and blues]] or country) that had been rejected by ASCAP. Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP settled for a lower fee than they had initially demanded. In the 1950s and 1960s, ASCAP initiated a series of lawsuits to recover the position they lost during the boycott of 1941, without success.
+
During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on [[NBC]] and [[CBS]] radio stations. Instead, the stations played regional music and styles (like [[rhythm and blues]] or country) that had been rejected by ASCAP. Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP settled for a lower fee than they had initially demanded.

References

  1. ^ Wald, Elijah (2011). How The Beatles Destroyed Rock'n'Roll. Oxford University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0199756971.
  2. ^ "Ascap versus Bmi – FREE Ascap versus Bmi Information | Encyclopedia.com: Find Ascap versus Bmi Research". Encyclopedia.com. 2009-01-12. Archived from the original on January 12, 2009. Retrieved 2024-12-13.
  3. ^ Wald, Elijah (2011). How The Beatles Destroyed Rock'n'Roll. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0199756971. Retrieved December 1, 2024.
During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on NBC and CBS radio stations. Instead, the stations played regional music and styles (like rhythm and blues or country) that had been rejected by ASCAP. Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP settled for a lower fee than they had initially demanded.[1]

References

  1. ^ Wald, Elijah (2011). How The Beatles Destroyed Rock'n'Roll. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0199756971. Retrieved December 1, 2024.

This does several things:

  • Removes the first sentence about doubling license fees, which is not supported by the source used
  • Assuming the previous request is implemented, it removes redundant information about BMI
  • Removes a sentence sourced to Encyclopedia.com, which to my understanding is not a reliable source, and the content is not supported fully regardless
  • Updates the citation to include a link to the Wald book and a location

In short, this change makes the section more accurate. Please let me know what you think! Stephanie BINK (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "double fees" claim is from the ASCAP boycott article - I checked the source and the source actually said "triple". I will add the following: In 1940, when ASCAP tried to triple its license fees, radio broadcasters prepared to resist their demands by enforcing a boycott of ASCAP,[1] and inaugurating a competing royalty agency, Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI).[2] This will be in addition to your proposed text:
During a ten-month period lasting from January 1 to October 29, 1941, no music licensed by ASCAP (1,250,000 songs) was broadcast on NBC and CBS radio stations. Instead, the stations played regional music and styles (like rhythm and blues or country) that had been rejected by ASCAP. Upon the conclusion of litigation between broadcasters and ASCAP in October 1941, ASCAP settled for a lower fee than they had initially demanded.[3]

References

  1. ^ Schneider, John (4 May 2015). "This Boycott Changed American Music". RadioWorld. Future plc. Archived from the original on 2 November 2018. Retrieved 2 November 2018.
  2. ^ Maslon, Laurence (2018). Broadway to Main Street: How Show Tunes Enchanted America. Oxford University Press. p. 59. ISBN 9780199832545. Retrieved 1 November 2018.
  3. ^ Wald, Elijah (2011). How The Beatles Destroyed Rock'n'Roll. New York, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0199756971. Retrieved December 1, 2024.

3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@3family6:Thanks for taking a look! I think that works as well. Would you be interested in weighing in on my previous request? Appreciate it regardless! Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'd missed that there were two outstanding requests. I'll take a look at it.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi editors, my next request is in two parts. First, I propose changing the consent decree paragraph in the following way:

Extended content
−
In the late 1930s, ASCAP's general control over most music and its membership requirements were considered to be in restraint of trade and illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The Justice Department sued ASCAP in 1937 but abandoned the case. The Justice Department sued again in 1941, and the case was settled with a consent decree in which the most important points were that ASCAP must fairly set rates and not discriminate between customers who have basically the same requirements to license music, or "similar standing". Also, anyone who is unable to negotiate satisfactory terms with ASCAP, or is otherwise unable to get a license, may go to the court in the Southern District of New York overseeing the consent decree and litigate the terms they find objectionable, and the terms set by the court will be binding upon the licensee and ASCAP. BMI also signed a consent decree in 1941.
+
In 1941, an antitrust lawsuit brought by the [[United States Department of Justice]] resulted in ASCAP and BMI being governed under [[consent decree]]s that required both organizations to offer [[blanket license]]s of their catalogs to all at rates negotiated between the parties or set by a federal judge.
In 1941, an antitrust lawsuit brought by the United States Department of Justice resulted in ASCAP and BMI being governed under consent decrees that required both organizations to offer blanket licenses of their catalogs to all at rates negotiated between the parties or set by a federal judge.[3]

References

  1. ^ "Litigation & Dispute Resolution - Experience". Mayer Brown. Archived from the original on April 6, 2012. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  2. ^ Sakoui, Anousha (January 15, 2021). "Justice Department leaves decades-old music industry decrees unchanged". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 15, 2024.
  3. ^ Sakoui, Anousha (January 15, 2021). "Justice Department leaves decades-old music industry decrees unchanged". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 15, 2024.

I think this change is necessary for several reasons:

  • It replaces a law firm source with a third party journalistic source, which I believe to be more in-line with WP:RS
  • It removes a sentence that seems to me to be WP:OR. It doesn't have a direct comparison in the original Mayer Brown source In the late 1930s, ASCAP's general control over most music and its membership requirements were considered to be in restraint of trade and illegal under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
  • It removes a sentence that is incorrect and I think WP:TMI and WP:NOTEVERYTHING The Justice Department sued ASCAP in 1937 but abandoned the case. – according to the Mayer Brown source, it was 1934, but I don't think a dropped case is particularly relevant, especially when an actual case that did continue on exists. I also don't know that saying the Justice Department sued is accurate. The DOJ can take other actions as well, and the source says The U.S. government first brought, and then abandoned, a criminal antitrust action against ASCAP in 1934. It seems like an excess of detail to me that serves no real purpose and isn't supported by a strong source.
  • The new version better explains the result of the 1941 case and does so in a way that doesn't read like an instruction manual, per WP:NOTHOW
  • It removes a sentence about BMI. This article is not about BMI

For the second part of this request, I propose removing the headings Boycott and Consent decree and merging their content under the larger History heading. These subsections are quite short and I don't think that separating them under these headings is beneficial to the reader. I think MOS:OVERSECTION applies.

Please let me know what you think! @3family6: pinging you in case you are interested in taking a look at this request as well. Thanks for your consideration! Stephanie BINK (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: I largely implemented this, but I combined Boycott and Consent decree, and put them as a level-2 subheading under the preceding paragraph about the advent of radio, which I made into a section, "Advent of radio". The history gets long, and the breaks make it easier to read and naturally makes sense. Also, those two related events are very historically significant and so make sense to have as their own section.-- 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@3family6: That makes sense to me, thanks for taking a look! Stephanie BINK (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced

[edit]

Per MOS:LEAD, prominent controversy should be addressed in lede, but currently, it's entirely about accomplishments despite the fact ASCAP's numerous actions have been highly controversial. Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Payola paragraph update

[edit]

Hi editors, for my next request I propose updating the paragraph in Membership expands that references payola. My proposed changes are in the collapse box below:

Extended content
−
The rise of [[rock and roll]] derived from both country music and rhythm and blues music caused airplay of BMI licensed songs to double that of ASCAP licensed songs. ASCAP officials decided that the practice of [[payola]] was the reason. So ASCAP spearheaded a congressional investigation into the practice of payola in 1959.
+
Differences in BMI's structure, including providing [[advance payment]]s on songs, and an early embrace of [[country music|country]], [[rhythm and blues]], and [[rock and roll]] led to an increase in the organization's market share in the 1940s and 1950s. In 1953, ASCAP filed an antitrust lawsuit against BMI, and instigated a congressional investigation of BMI in 1956. ASCAP lobbied Congress for laws that would bar broadcasters from owning BMI stock in 1958, and provided the impetus to launch [[payola]] investigations at the end of the decade. ASCAP and BMI settled an antitrust lawsuit in 1962.

References

  1. ^ Martin, Linda; Segrave, Kerry (1993). Anti-rock: The Opposition to Rock 'n' Roll. Da Capo Press. ISBN 0306805022.
  2. ^ a b Chapple, Steve; Garofalo, Reebee (1977). Rock 'n' Roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of the Music Industry. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall. pp. 64–68. ISBN 978-0-88229-395-0. Retrieved January 31, 2024.
  3. ^ Martin, Linda; Segrave, Kerry (1993). Anti-Rock: The Opposition to Rock 'n' Roll. New York, New York: Da Capo Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0-306-80502-8. Retrieved January 31, 2024.
Differences in BMI's structure, including providing advance payments on songs, and an early embrace of country, rhythm and blues, and rock and roll led to an increase in the organization's market share in the 1940s and 1950s.[1][2] In 1953, ASCAP filed an antitrust lawsuit against BMI, and instigated a congressional investigation of BMI in 1956. ASCAP lobbied Congress for laws that would bar broadcasters from owning BMI stock in 1958, and provided the impetus to launch payola investigations at the end of the decade. ASCAP and BMI settled an antitrust lawsuit in 1962.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Chapple, Steve; Garofalo, Reebee (1977). Rock 'n' Roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of the Music Industry. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall. pp. 64–68. ISBN 978-0-88229-395-0. Retrieved January 31, 2024.
  2. ^ Martin, Linda; Segrave, Kerry (1993). Anti-Rock: The Opposition to Rock 'n' Roll. New York, New York: Da Capo Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0-306-80502-8. Retrieved January 31, 2024.

This addresses several issues I see with this paragraph:

  • It fixes some significant MOS:TONE issues and makes the paragraph more formal in tone
  • It adds context that more accurately reflects the source already used, as well as adds a new source to further expand on the content, making it more complete and accurate in the process
  • It updates the existing citation to be more complete and include page numbers

Please let me know what you think! @3family6: pinging you here in case you are interested in reviewing this request as well. I really appreciate all your effort. Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Stephanie BINK (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scout camps sentences

[edit]

Hi editors, for my next request, in the Criticism section, I propose making an update to the opening sentences regarding the scout camp fees. I don't think those sentences do a great job of communicating what's in the source they cite, and the sources cited don't communicate the whole story because the whole story had not yet come out when those sources were published.

To that end, I propose replacing the first two sentences of the Criticism section with the following:

Extended content
−
ASCAP attracted media attention in 1996 when it threatened [[Girl Scouts of the USA]] and [[Boy Scouts of America]] camps that sang ASCAP's copyrighted works at camps with lawsuits for not paying licensing fees. These threats were later retracted.
+
In 1996, news outlets, including ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'' and [[Bloomberg News]], reported ASCAP was planning to charge the [[Girl Scouts of the USA]] royalty fees for songs sung around campfires. ASCAP requested that the [[American Camp Association]], which includes Girl Scout camps, pay to license works performed at its camps. That led to fears that Girl Scout troops would no longer be allowed to sing songs from ASCAP's repertory at their camps without paying licensing fees. ASCAP responded to the fears by saying the request was only to license "performances by professional musicians at large resorts". The organization said it would return license fees paid by Girl Scout organizations and by September 1996 the Girl Scout organization believed the situation "resolved".

References

  1. ^ a b "ASCAP". Law.umkc.edu. Archived from the original on January 2, 2011. Retrieved May 9, 2014.
  2. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (December 17, 1996). "Battle hymns around campfires: Ascap Asks Royalties From Girl Scouts, and Regrets It". The New York Times. Retrieved October 30, 2023.
In 1996, news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg News, reported ASCAP was planning to charge the Girl Scouts of the USA royalty fees for songs sung around campfires. ASCAP requested that the American Camp Association, which includes Girl Scout camps, pay to license works performed at its camps. That led to fears that Girl Scout troops would no longer be allowed to sing songs from ASCAP's repertory at their camps without paying licensing fees. ASCAP responded to the fears by saying the request was only to license "performances by professional musicians at large resorts". The organization said it would return license fees paid by Girl Scout organizations and by September 1996 the Girl Scout organization believed the situation "resolved".[1]

References

  1. ^ Bumiller, Elisabeth (December 17, 1996). "Battle hymns around campfires: Ascap Asks Royalties From Girl Scouts, and Regrets It". The New York Times. Retrieved October 30, 2023.

This does several things:

  • It provides additional context on the topic
  • It gives a new, more recent source (December 1996 NYT article vs. August 1996 WSJ and 1996 Washington Post), that includes the full story and even broader context. I omitted the bit about the National Restaurant Association campaign discussed in the NYT article because I didn't think it was directly related enough to ASCAP, but would not oppose it if other editors felt that context should also be added
  • It makes it more clear what ASCAP actually did and what the organization said it was asking for

I think this is a significant improvement to the accuracy and completeness of the article, and I think it may also impact the recent changes to the introduction. @3family6: pinging you here given your responsiveness to other requests of mine and the recent update you made to the introduction.

Please let me know what you think! Happy to answer any questions. Cheers Stephanie BINK (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it sounds very corporate reputation management face save. I think WP:TMI and WP:NOTEVERYTHING on ASCAP responded to the fears by saying the request was only to license "performances by professional musicians at large resorts". The organization said it would return license fees paid by Girl Scout organizations and by September 1996 the Girl Scout organization believed the situation "resolved". Graywalls (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'ASCAP responded to the fears by saying the request was only to license "performances by professional musicians at large resorts".... and by September 1996 the Girl Scout organization believed the situation "resolved".' strikes me as a rather positive gloss on this incredibly disdainful NYT article which follows the "resolved" claim with the words "Not quite" and includes the claim that the Girl Scouts initially paid licensing fees for some camps regardless of whether there were professional performances involved, because legally campfire singing in this context counted as public performance.
I do think we should probably contextualize what's in the article more but this does a 180 in the other direction. Rusalkii (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Let's see, here's a first pass

In 1996, ASCAP requested that the American Camp Association, which includes Girl Scout camps, pay to license works used in "public performance" at its camps, which legally included any singing of the songs by large groups. The American Camping Association agreed that some camps would pay a licensing fee, while some Girl Scout groups stopped singing any songs they thought this license might apply to. After a public uproar, ASCAP responded by saying it only meant to demand a fee for "performances by professional musicians at large resorts", and returned the fees paid.

I don't love this, it's rather wordy and doesn't flow naturally, but I think it provides the important context from this source without making it sound like this was a completely made up kerfuffle. Rusalkii (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I think this is probably too long, not going to include add it myself, but leaving it here as an option for other reviewers. Rusalkii (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls and Rusalkii: I appreciate both of your perspectives, however, I disagree in particular with Graywalls' application of TMI/NOTEVERYTHING in relation to this. The resolution is needed to make the content neutral, otherwise this content is being included to push a particular POV about ASCAP. I think WP:BALANCE applies.
I also don't find the characterization of this request as very corporate reputation management face save to be particularly fair. The content that exists in the article now is incomplete. Newer information detailing the entirety of the story exists in a highly reputable source, but was never incorporated on Wikipedia, creating an accuracy and neutrality problem.
Rusalkii, I think the NYT article is less disdainful of ASCAP and more explaining a complicated and nuanced situation where more actors than just the Girl Scouts and ASCAP were involved. It's more a defense of ASCAP than anything. I think the resolved claim is particularly instructive of that. That entire paragraph reads (emphasis added):
Not quite. Nine days later, the National Restaurant Association ran another ad under the words, "Two weeks ago, Ascap said if these children sang 'Happy Birthday' they'd sue them." Ms. Jansen of the Diablo Day Camp has taken that to heart, and said she is still afraid to let her girls sing non-Girl Scout songs, since Ascap and Girl Scout headquarters have not told her directly what is permitted.
The National Restaurant Association ad but that doesn't mean ASCAP and the Girl Scouts organization as a whole considered the matter any less resolved. There was a lot of disinformation and twisting of words at the time, and the Restaurant Association was a big part of that as the NYT story attests.
I like your alternative, and would be fine with what you have proposed. As a small correction, the first request for the camp fees happened in 1995 according to the NYT, so that would need to be updated. If you're open to me building on what you have proposed, what would you think of this: In 1995, ASCAP requested royalty payments from the American Camp Association for public performances at its camps. Following public backlash, ASCAP said it only meant to "demand a fee for performances by professional musicians at large resorts", and returned the fees paid.
A bit less wordy that way. I appreciate the conversation here. It's certainly a tricky subject. Stephanie BINK (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers&oldid=1272268530"