All-Star Usa Cheer New Music Rules..

[AngelsMum24]

Thank you. I don't follow the dance world that closely so I was just looking for more reading info

I have been researching and haven't come across a case citing dance specifically. However, the dance mixes aren't any different than cheer mixes or rappers using a bit of a song in theirs. If I find a case, I'll be happy to share.

 

[Souldier]

For the teams that do their music for free (the rec teams, school teams, small small gyms) yes it will push the cost up. But the cost is already going up because people need to buy royalties if they want to use songs. Or they can try to find free stock music which honestly, will be a lot of work every year to switch things up. Or they need to make their own which I can't see happening. Music prices will probably go up across the board except for the teams that get completely customized mixes every year like the mega gyms get.

Hypothetically, a music producer could price their songs for $10 each. I feel like 10-15 songs is a decent amount of songs for one mix. 10-15 songs is only $100-$150 for music royalties which split amongst a small team (20 people) is only $5-$7.5 per athlete. If 500 teams across the country (which isn't a lot of teams when you take into consideration rec, school, and all stars all need music) buy 10-15 songs from one producer, that is $50,000-$75,000 of extra income a year. And this is passive income which means they make this while doing other things to make money.

ETA: I'm not trying to solve the issue of the increase in music costs because, unless you want to get really creative, it might be unavoidable. I was strictly talking about what opportunities the big time music producers now have because they are positioned in a really good place right now.

I guess what I'm
Saying is there are already places to do that. A lot of them. You can "lease" original content from a lot of places. The song panda by desiigner was a leased track. But who is to say varsity is going to allow you to use these sources? There isn't a lot of clarification on this yet. My opinion is that they will force you to use the service they are behind

To the bolded: they absolutely, positively care that other people are profiting heavily off of their music. That is why this is an issue in the first place. That is why cheer "music producers" are in serious legal hot water. That is why Varsity removed all audio from their videos.

I fail to see how any of this is a "make Jeff Webb more money" situation. Maybe you should spend some time reading through the actual lawsuits and legalities of the music industry...

Did you even read my post? "SELLING PREMADE MIXES ONLINE WITH A BEYONCÉ VOCAL ALL OVER IT."
My "music biz" attorney handles all legal matters. I can shoot you her number if you would like some clarification. She's 600 an hour though and she's gonna just tell you you shouldn't need anything for a competitive event. It's COVERED under the performance rights fee the venue pays. I swear I need to record a conversation and play it. ASCAP. BMI. Sesac have all said the same thing. It's literally peanuts.
Now again how can I type this any slower.
If you are SELLING mixes. With PEOPLES music on it. That's a different story.

How is this a make varsity more money issue? How is it not? I did however say. IMHO. It means in my humble opinion. my humble opinion is backed by 15 years of music biz experience. But that's irrelevant, as its only an opinion. Let me explain. I do a lot of commercial work for a big ad agency. They have a portal called omc. Music producers pay a fee to be listed on omc. You cannot do anything for said agency unless you use music thru omc. Agency then makes a cut off all this licensed music. So instead of someone else getting 100% of the revenue they get a cut by forcing you thru the vendor. They also control
Pricing this way and keeps its clients from over paying for stock music. Maybe I'm wrong and varsity is just ignorant. Because if I was running it, This is exactly what I would do and every cheer producer that wants to make money will have to use stock/royalty free music from my source. Otherwise you aren't legally able to compete at a varsity events. How many non varsity events did you compete at last year? pick up a Donald Passman book.
Maybe Google "why hasn't anyone sued girl talk" This is a battle they would win. Why fight it? It's a great opportunity to set up a profitable model.

 

[CardioJo]

CheerUpdates has just posted this....

USA Cheer -

Music

 

[Souldier]

Playing the music at the event is not the issue from what I have read on music copyright (like you said the event producers and venues pay blanket licensing fees). It's the music producers not paying licenses for the music, reproducing the work and profiting off the mix, then passing it to the gym owner who then reproduces it to give to athletes/families to practice.

This is correct. The reproduction of a SR for profit. This would require a mechanical sync.
As far as the gym owners.
The gyms also pay a fee Or should. It's a yearly fee based enrollment or sometime capacity. A lot like a nightclub or restaurant.
The "producers" are contract workers. They don't receive royalties. They don't have intellectual material. They are only engineers providing a service and should be treated as such. When I remix a record for a label. I dont receive anything but a flat fee. No royalties. No publishing. I am only a work for hire. no different if I use a session musician, vocalist. The the lack of any administration in the "cheer industry" specifically. There are a lot of things falling thru the cracks.
But here is my bigger question.
Why is this varsity's fight? It's not. It's an opportunity for them to control it. I'm ok with it. Could care less. I can actually write and record original music. But can anyone use it at a varsity event if I'm not an "approved vendor"
Yet to be determined.
I'm done for now. Good luck with your upcoming season.

 

[Souldier]

CheerUpdates has just posted this....

USA Cheer -

Music

Thanks for posting. Adds some clarification. So bigger issue. How are those 8 or 10 vendors going to service 1000's of teams. Gonna be interesting. Lol good luck.

 

[CardioJo]

Thanks for posting. Adds some clarification. So bigger issue. How are those 8 or 10 vendors going to service 1000's of teams. Gonna be interesting. Lol good luck.

It does say at the bottom to email them if you wish to become a 'preferred provider', so I'm sure that list will grow significantly!

 

[Beans100]

It does say at the bottom to email them if you wish to become a 'preferred provider', so I'm sure that list will grow significantly!

I wonder what makes one eligible to be a "preferred provider."

 

[CardioJo]

I wonder what makes one eligible to be a "preferred provider."

I would guess (and I am really guessing) that you would have to sign some sort of contract with USA cheer stating you have all the correct licenses, and tick all the 'legal' boxes they have for producing a mix.

 

[King]

I would guess (and I am really guessing) that you would have to sign some sort of contract with USA cheer stating you have all the correct licenses, and tick all the 'legal' boxes they have for producing a mix.

Pretty much. Making illegal music has become a big deal to the Record Labels. So this stuff is really so a gym knows who they can use. It doesn't say you can't use anyone else, these are just the ones they verify.

 

[Rudags]

Thanks for posting. Adds some clarification. So bigger issue. How are those 8 or 10 vendors going to service 1000's of teams. Gonna be interesting. Lol good luck.

I know several music providers who A) Are working diligently to get added to the list and B) Are waiting for official ruling that you HAVE To be on the list. Since it says preferred and not required, some established DJ's are waiting for more word before forking out all the time and money on different things needed. Many have already released they will be compliant even if not on the list.

 

[idrive]

I think if you choose to ignore this rule you would open yourself up to a lawsuit/big fine to whosever music you used without permission.

From my understanding the music industry has been watching the event producers themselves. The problem arises when they take the video of the routine and post it to their website. At that point it could be deemed as distribution and the music industry wants to get paid for this and understandably so. My daughter is a singer and we have to deal with getting songs that she has remixed and recorded "released" through the proper channels before it can be shared with anyone. We pay for each use, share or download up front. That cost in our situation is typically around 12 - 25 cents for each use. I believe the EP's could pay a negotiated fee to the music industry if they could agree on an amount which poses a whole other problem. You can check out HFA and it explains this better than I can.

 

[idrive]

Ok, someone with more legal knowledge than me help me out. We've been discussing this in the high school section for a few weeks now because it was put out that summer camp music had to be covers or originals as well. Someone posted over there (can't remember who) that covers aren't any better. The whole point of copyright is to protect the artists/writers and make sure they earn the money for their creation. Covers still take the creation and just remake it, so the song the artist wrote, the music they put together is still not getting credit or payment with a cover. Are covers really legal, is it any better? Now you're still stealing their creation, but not only are you profiting off of it instead of them, they likely now don't even get name recognition.

Rachel Platon's fight song is a good example. In my mind I think SE had a large part in her success. Give one of the most watched teams in cheer an exclusive unique new song and you have just gotten your song in front of a lot of people who will go download buy and checkout your other stuff. Kids will share with friends and call into radios to have the song played. Now change that with the new cover rule. New artist Rachel's song is covered. SE uses the cover version in the pyramid. Now Rachel's song is still technically being stolen (even though not her vocals.) Everyone knows the cover song, but has no clue it's Rachel. No one goes searching on iTunes to buy Rachel's song, no one cares to find Rachel on youtube, they just enjoy this song that SE has in their music and next season are going to ask their producer to put it in their own mix. Rachel still isn't getting any credit or financial gain. No one knows who she is either. I almost think covers are worse.

The assumption is if you have recorded and distributed a cover song you have already paid to distribute it through the proper channels.

 

[idrive]

Here's my thing about this rule. It's going to cost gyms a ton more money if they get custom covers of songs. I mean we already do that in mixes currently but giiiiiiiiiirl it's an arm and a leg.

You are correct. Our gym's music is going up by $300 per routine as it currently stands.

 

[idrive]

I wonder what makes one eligible to be a "preferred provider."

They will pay the fee that Varsity didn't want to pay. That's what makes them "preferred".

 

[idrive]

This is a "make Jeff Webb more money" issue imho.
Yes these bedroom cheer producers shouldn't be selling "pre made mixes" online with Beyoncé vocals all
over it. Common sense. I can't even imagine why someone would think that's ok. However I've found that most of these producers have very little knowledge of music or copyright law at all. They are cheerleaders with a copy of Sony acid and Spotify. The actual live performance aspect, or the playing of a cheer mix at a venue, It's not that big of a deal. No bigger deal than so and so DJ playing his bootleg version of a remix at a music festival, that's all broadcast on YouTube. No artist or label would have cared. As far as TV. You just mix down the audio and commentators speak over it. Done. The music isn't a key element at that point. Releasing a film like champions league is more complicated. That's one event out of hundreds. The publishing societies blanket license that the VENUE pays should suffice in these situations. The same as it does in every music venue in the US that has a DJ. If you want to be upset with anyone it's the guys who were selling mixes Online. That who hit the radar. They were selling a mix for 300 bucks 100's of times and didn't contribute not one bit of original content to it. I would be pissed as a publisher. I can't really see anyone being mad at varsity. What a great opportunity for them to force you to go thru their "approved vendors". They already have a monopoly on every single aspect of this sport and culture. Why wouldn't they have one on "cheer music" as well. Well played Jeff. Well played. Lol.

I'm betting The Champions League film put the spotlight squarely on the EP's