For the smart and cool kids who were asking for options to #bandcamp since that weird verbiage was discovered inside the new contracts. @mirlo is an option I want you to follow and get into. #music
That is not how I read it. Their verbiage seems to say (essentially) - “if you upload somebody else’s work and we discover it is covered by a proper PRO, we’ll take money and pay them.”
I could be wrong on this, but that essential language has been part of Bandcamp’s TOS since the beginning, iirc.
@ErickaSimone@icastico@mirlo My read is that the language is trying to solve this problem: - My student friend Ericka writes a song for me - She has no PRO; it was just for fun on the weekend - I release it on Bancamp and tell them she has no PRO - Then Ericka gets serious, goes ASCAP, hits it big - But I don't update my Bancamp data because I have a life → Bancamp can say, “Hey, Ericka should get paid for this now!” without having to harangue me about it
That makes sense.
I see nothing in that language that lets •Bandcamp• grab the PRO cut for themselves as the OP suggested — only pass it on to the songwriter.
Reading the language with a suspicious eye, it does seem like Bandcamp •could• have latitude to do the crap all these services do where they just scrub alleged rights abuses without proper review, and it's a headache for musicians.
CAVEAT: I am not a lawyer (and it is a sad world where musicians have to try to be one for even 2 seconds).
@inthehands@mirlo I gotta scroll back a bit, but one of the music besties pointed out verbiage that reads like “if you do not have a proper PRO or publishing company in place, we’re taking your publishing cuts” and now we’re all looking for legal fedi. lol.