How are musicians and songwriters compensated when their music is played on the radio, sold on digital platforms, webcast or streamed on interactive services?

We know it’s difficult to keep things straight, especially when: (a) compositions and sound recordings are treated differently in the licensing process, even if the songwriter and performer are the same person; (b) there are usually multiple rightsholders; and (c) the processes by which music is licensed and the money flows back to creators varies by platform/service.

Recording artists and indie labels: there’s a movement afoot to change the way that you would receive your digital public performance royalties, and it’s not a good one, especially for recording artists.

Back in August, we blogged about the news that Sirius/XM was considering doing a direct licensing deal, expressing our serious displeasure with the move.

In recent days, the artist community — including AFTRA, AFM, The Recording Academy, A2IM and SoundExchange — has been broadcasting the message to their members about the negative consequences of direct licensing deals for digital performance royalties.  We applaud our artist colleagues for urging their members signed to indie labels (or self-released artists) to not accept these direct licensing deals.

We here at FMC wanted to join in the chorus and explain to musicians and labels why the current statutory licensing structure is better for all stakeholders.