(A Very wrong take) INAL, but I think this means if you upload to #Bandcamp and you claim a track's songwriter is not of an org like ASCAP, they can claim songwriting credits for any songs you upload that are played on air, for instance? And basically it's up to you to verify that the information is correct? So, putting covers or bootlegs on Bandcamp potentially gives them license to do crimes with you on the hook for it?
If that isn't the jist of it someone who is should explain it better <_<
I guess more to the point, a lot of originals uploaded by us nobodies who don't have an affiliation with an rights org -- if they ever did get airplay, presumably Bandcamp could get their hands on the income from it, and if you wanted to fight them for it, you'd be on the hook for all the legal fees?
I guess that should really incentivize people to become members of these orgs, so that you can at least get something if the song gets played on the air at some point tho
@caitp so choosing one of these PROs, along with having your own LLC and publishing company, is bare minimum when you start doing a music. But sometimes, kids don’t know that and they just…. upload their work to DSPs willy nilly. This is why you don’t do that.
@ErickaSimone @caitp
NAL at all, but I wonder if Bandcamp is trying to protect themselves from getting sued if one of the majors discovers one of their artists is violating their contracts by putting stuff up on Bandcamp?
Because chances are Bandcamp pays better than the majors do for streaming, and I bet a lot of artists would love to have their records for sale there (why not?) and the majors prevent them from doing so
But I’m just making this up, so what do I know?
@caitp
I know "bandcamp evil" and all, but that is not at all what this policy is saying. It is only describing the process when people misrepresent, either by accident or on purpose, whether songwriting royalties are subject to ASCAP or other protection.
@Okanogen fwiw, I have not been saying bandcamp is evil anywhere, <3
@ErickaSimone @caitp
In Canada joining SOCAN, the equivalent of ASCAP, is free I think, and the result is if you get played on the radio, they send you a check once in a while, so there’s no downside
At our community radio station we occasionally have to report who we play, and it always feels great to know that whoever we report may get some cash out of the deal
If that’s all bandcamp wants, it’s some paperwork, but it potentially means more money for artists
But really, consult a lawyer
@AccordionBruce @ErickaSimone @caitp I don't think I understood that legal excerpt the same as you. what I got was: if you upload a song and tell us that a songwriter to that song is not a member of a PRO then we find out you lied about that, we'll collect the owed rights to the PRO, remove the content and ban you from our platform. nothing about Bandcamp claiming ownership of your songwriting, I reckon.
@caitp
The way I read it, which is likely wrong, looks like it's talking about people uploading content and mislabeling it (either on purpose or by accident) so as to avoid having the PRO (etc) fees collected. Essentially bootlegging.
I think they are protecting themselves from claims that they (Bandcamp) didn't properly collect those pro org. fees.
@caitp
"they can claim songwriting credits", no. There are two royalty shares registered with all works at all PROs: Writer and publisher. BC is saying if you claim the artist is not member of ASCAP or BMI or SESAC etc, and it turns out they are, BC can take the publisher share of royalties (for "public performance", rate determined by congress in the USA) out of any money they owe you. Presumably to pay the PRO when they come for their money and, ask any bar owner, sooner or later they will.
@kylebronsdon That makes sense
@caitp
I strongly suspect they've been absorbing the cost up to now but, like all owners of the means of production, they've decided to reap further rewards while assuming even less risk.
@caitp I think this only applies in the case where bandcamp determines the songwriter *is* a member of ASCAP or whatever, but the upload claims they are not. This is likely an obligation forced on them by the rights orgs.
That said, you really should join the rights orgs, because otherwise radio stations *can't* play your music without licensing with you directly.
@caitp
I think the first sentence describes clearly what is subject to this policy. IF you upload and say it is NOT subject to a publishing authority, AND they determine it IS (or is liable to be) THEN blah blah. So IF you upload a Grateful Dead boot & claim "No, this isn't subject to ASCAP", THEN it would be handled under this policy.
It wouldn't cover in any way me uploading nature sounds or my original music. That may change if I 95% sampled "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls".
@caitp
It's all about collecting the songwriter's share as determined by ASCAP or whoever. Not who gets songwriting credit. It doesn't mention transferring cooyright or credit at all, just the royalty money capture.
@caitp
If someone uploads covers or bootlegs and doesn't disclose that the songwriters are represented by a publishing authority or other representation, I think that isn't a good thing. I mean, that's standard practice to not claim to write a song one hasn't written. That is what the policy is about and I don't blame them for wanting to protect themselves from ASCAP coming at them for not collecting royalties on another artist's creative work.