Discovery Networks (& Netflix) Corners Composers in Music Royalties Battle

[mrd777]

With sites like audio jungle offering $8 royalty free tracks, why is anyone surprised? Audio jungle and similar sites probably started this and they probably even struck a back room deal for a bulk discount. Just my guess.

As one mentioned above, sample libraries can update their terms to mention their samples cannot be heard on certain TV channels, but the enforcement and tracking of that is damn impossible.

Even if Hans Zimmer and friend push back, what can they do if composers don't get hired at all anymore? I don't understand how these companies wont simply use royalty free websites to get all their music?

 

[VivianaSings]

I'm always the unpopular one but really - everyone kinda did this to themselves.

First of all, the ranting about the evils of corporations - that makes me laugh. The CEO's job of any company is to maximize profit. He's not there to make people feel good. Now here's the kicker - you're doing the same thing for yourself, just on a vastly smaller scale.

Why are you on a virtual instrument website wringing hands over which string library to buy? Why are you not hiring a violinist to play your lead melody? At least in America, no matter how rural you are, there's at least a state orchestra, or at the very least a college with a decent music program. Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros. So instead you come on here and stress about how you keep editing piano roll notation but you can't make a convincing run or tremolo in Joshua Bell. You don't seem too worried about the violinist who's losing out on some session work and their ability to make a living, so don't cry about the CEOs lack of care about yours.

Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions.

Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out.

No, I wasn't elitist, I just saw what happened to photographers when professional stock photographers got destroyed once digital cameras made every half ass weekend warrior photographer capable of taking bad pictures of their food, then photoshopping the heck out of it to fix everything wrong until it looked half as decent as the professional stock photographer who had vast knowledge of lighting and film and hundreds of thousands in equipment and was able to take perfect photos from the onset. And then let these mooks flood stock photo outfits so they could make "extra money" in their spare time. Their "extra money" takes away from someone's living. Now the stock photo market is decimated and even big stock houses like Getty have resorted to selling stock photos for pennies and not paying photographers. All you had to do was transpose that over to the music composing world to see where we were gonna end up.

Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this.

No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason.

Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with.

I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.

 

[gjelul]

If you do not respect yourself, no one is going to respect you.

I do not see composers unionizing any time soon, and I do not see corporations stopping these kind of practices, as unfortunate as that sounds.

For years now we have played a major role in our own demises, by accepting to work for little to no $ at all, to give away publishing, to let agents and managers ask and become part of our royalties, to let agents tell us sell your own mother to get the gig, to write just for credit, to write for royalty free libraries, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

If Discovery gets their way there is no stopping all the others doing the same thing - and that will be it. Time has come to seriously think about our professional survival. Each one of us should realize that we are in a very perilous moment - we should do our part to refuse such practice.

Here is what I'm going to keep doing and do:

- Writer's share is not negotiable!
To me this is a matter of principle first and foremost, and then economical.

- I'll write to my PRO, and to my Congressman and Senator and express my deep concern over such attempts by Discovery. It is the law that allows these corporations try and to get away with such 'ideas.' For perspective, Europe is a capitalist society too, but you cannot do this is France for example, not because the "Discovery" there doesn't want to do it, but because the law doesn't let them even try.

- If a show doesn't have the highest artistic standards then there is no point in viewing it - life is too precious to waste with mediocre shows. Discovery's intention of using 'canned' music makes me completely un-interested in their channels / programming.

Hopefully, the majority of us will take this moment seriously...


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/tv-film-composers-say-netflix-streaming-services-insist-buying-music-rights-1261940

 

[Tice]

Color me gloomy but I don't think this will get any better. There will always be composers willing to do it for less, and there will always be show makers who see no value in going beyond stock music. Even if the whole composer market implodes and many great composers go out of business, CEOs and show makers will hardly notice what they've lost. They'll notice it's gotten cheaper to make shows though. So what card to composers have left to play here?

 

[mrd777]

I'm always the unpopular one but really - everyone kinda did this to themselves.

First of all, the ranting about the evils of corporations - that makes me laugh. The CEO's job of any company is to maximize profit. He's not there to make people feel good. Now here's the kicker - you're doing the same thing for yourself, just on a vastly smaller scale.

Why are you on a virtual instrument website wringing hands over which string library to buy? Why are you not hiring a violinist to play your lead melody? At least in America, no matter how rural you are, there's at least a state orchestra, or at the very least a college with a decent music program. Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros. So instead you come on here and stress about how you keep editing piano roll notation but you can't make a convincing run or tremolo in Joshua Bell. You don't seem too worried about the violinist who's losing out on some session work and their ability to make a living, so don't cry about the CEOs lack of care about yours.

Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions.

Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out.

No, I wasn't elitist, I just saw what happened to photographers when professional stock photographers got destroyed once digital cameras made every half ass weekend warrior photographer capable of taking bad pictures of their food, then photoshopping the heck out of it to fix everything wrong until it looked half as decent as the professional stock photographer who had vast knowledge of lighting and film and hundreds of thousands in equipment and was able to take perfect photos from the onset. And then let these mooks flood stock photo outfits so they could make "extra money" in their spare time. Their "extra money" takes away from someone's living. Now the stock photo market is decimated and even big stock houses like Getty have resorted to selling stock photos for pennies and not paying photographers. All you had to do was transpose that over to the music composing world to see where we were gonna end up.

Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this.

No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason.

Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with.

I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.

Truer words were never spoken before.

 

[j_kranz]

This day has been coming a long time but sorry to see it arrive.

FWIW, I don't think it's useful or persuasive to cast aspersions on the character and motivations of corporations or executives; expressions like "greedy" attribute motives to people whom we don't know.

And, anyway, that's capitalism. If we're not going to have a union (and we're not), we have to vote by saying, "no." From a financial point of view, I find these shows' upfront payments are minuscule already, so without royalties, I don't see how they attract anyone who's not a rank beginner.

Agreed. The whole Scripps buyout I think foreshadowed a lot of changes coming. I know plenty of libraries that didn't like Discovery's deal even before this all happened, so it's not super surprising, but certainly disappointing as it could also point to a larger trend.

Change your license agreements going forward to prevent your libraries/software from being used in certain work-for-hire situations.

Thats a pretty slippery slope...

 

[South Thames]

I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.

Anyone chasing you with torches and pitchforks for the licensed composer idea had overestimated it as much as you apparently did. It's delusional and myopic to imagine such an arrangement could have worked, and in any case it hadn't a chance of becoming a reality. They should have just laughed.

 

[gjelul]

Color me gloomy but I don't think this will get any better. There will always be composers willing to do it for less, and there will always be show makers who see no value in going beyond stock music. Even if the whole composer market implodes and many great composers go out of business, CEOs and show makers will hardly notice what they've lost. They'll notice it's gotten cheaper to make shows though.


So what card do composers have left to play here?

This!

Let's hear it...

 

[South Thames]

So what card do composers have left to play here?

The only cards composers have to play is the quality of their music.

Somebody mentioned above that use of samples had put musicians out of business. But the fact is a few things happened -- samples and technology got a lot better and more convincing, and the general style of media music changed (a la Zimmer/Remote Control) so that that the gulf between a virtually-realised score and a high budget recorded score in prevailing contemporary styles shrank to the point where it was not particularly noticeable to the lay person hearing the scores on relatively low-budget television.

The key factor here will be if Discovery is able to maintain the perceived quality of its output (such as it is) with the new system. If quality composers don't play ball, and they are forced to track with royalty-free stock music, it's tough to see how they could, and it's even tougher to see how outlets with a much more conspicuous attitude towards quality control than Discovery and the like adopting the practice.

 

[South Thames]

I don't understand how these companies wont simply use royalty free websites to get all their music?

There's a lot of confusion about what royalty-free means. For the most part, 'royalty free' library music means no front-end sync/mechanical payments to the composer or the library (instead you pay to 'purchase' the track), but backend PRO payments are still payable where the music is broadcast and are the basis of the business model, along with the purchase payments. There are some libraries offering the direct-licensing approach - the thing that Discovery would need - but they are in the minority and, for understandable reasons, decent composers don't generally touch them.

As it happens, the vast majority of the library music used in professional productions is still from the traditional libraries where front-end royalties are payable. Apropos my above point re. quality, there's a good reason for that.

 

[patrick76]

Go find out who the violin professor is there and ask them to play on your track. You know why you don't? Because when you get your low/no-budget writing gig and make $100, giving $75 to a violinist to play your melody doesn't work now, does it? You're trying to maximize your profit. Congrats, you're no different than the CEOs you cry about - except you're doing it with a lot less zeros.

Even in your hypothetical example here you state a very important distinction between the low budget composer and the CEO, namely that the low budget composer is dealing with a lot less zeros. Well this is a very important distinction, especially considering if one is taking jobs for $100, in which case they are struggling even to survive (at least in the U.S. and a lot of Europe), whereas the CEO (in the Discovery situation) is said to have a massive compensation deal worth over 100 million dollars, yet still feels fine taking even more. Of course in plenty of situations they have absolutely zero regard for the consequences even in the most extreme scenarios and excuse themselves with just the kind of ideology about maximizing profit/ it's just business stuff you mentioned. And yes, I'm sure some low budget composers might even do the same thing if they had the chance, but of course that doesn't really mean anything except some people are terrible.

I would agree however that many composers have brought this on themselves as you argue in the rest of you post. I would also agree about the technology and lower (composing) skill level. I would add that globalization also contributed to the situation. A kid in Russia making $100 per track might be satisfied with that and maybe he can still make a living, but someone in Los Angeles obviously would have problems.
Congratulations on having the foresight to create a situation for yourself where you are somewhat sheltered from this. Seriously. It's pretty cool that you were able to do something about it because I could imagine many others might have seen what was coming, but did not end up in spots as good as yours.

 

[river angler]

So what card do composers have left to play here?

The key factor here will be if Discovery is able to maintain the perceived quality of its output (such as it is) with the new system. If quality composers don't play ball, and they are forced to track with royalty-free stock music, it's tough to see how they could, and it's even tougher to see how outlets with a much more conspicuous attitude towards quality control than Discovery and the like adopting the practice.

Precisely! This is what I think will happen.

The fact is any TV production co adopting this practice will see the quality of their productions fall to the point where no broadcaster will be willing to air them.

In general any company producing diligent, edifying, quality visual content does not want to support it with poorly produced music and are still willing to pay for quality. Discovery are delusional to think they can have continued success adopting the practice they are proposing.

 

[gjelul]

@ VivianaSings



- I do see your point. However, here is a few more thoughts:

i do not believe a self employed composer is using samples to maximize profits - it's more likely, so he / she can get paid less than minimum hourly rate. And that at best... I am also sure that composers (especially the trained ones) would rather pay a real violin player to play a solo rather than deal with VI's.

Hiring a college orchestra / ensemble, or other ensembles, groups and such, is not realistic, at least for most of the time. At this has to do with production timelines. One of the projects I recently worked on had a two weeks deadline for final delivery for 45 minutes of music. And as I was working on the score the film was still being edited - locked picture was not done until a couple of days before the delivery deadline. Obviously, there is nothing we composers can do when in such a timeline, and as we say, it-is-what-it-is. Can I bring a few musicians to sweeten things up here and there - when from a business perspective I don't have to? Absolutely, I do it all the time - simply and most importantly for my own professional satisfaction.

Libraries / Joshua Bell library - I just purchased it actually.
If Joshua Bell doesn't see an ethical issue in making the library, why should I have one using it? Libraries are tools that make the composer's life more easy, during the mock-up / approval stages, increase the production value of scores and are not meant to 100% replace musicians. On the other hand, the musicians performing in such libraries, were paid for their services. In some cases, such as with libraries from Cinesamples, musicians are also paid residuals on every copy of the library sold (the way it should be.)


Second, when you lower the bars to entry and especially when you lower the technical ability needed, what do you think is going to happen? Not only do you have programs that orchestrate for you as you play, you have phrase libraries now. People who can't write their way out of a paper bag are cutting and pasting phrases. So when the guy who has 20 years experience and an expensive music school education is competing against the guy with minimal ability but using Sonokinetic libraries and OT orchestral runs, who do you think the company is going to look at when the end result sounds the same but the guy using the phrase libraries is willing to give his stuff away for pennies because it really didn't cost him much to make in the first place in terms of labor or knowledge, and he's a weekend warrior and makes a living with his day job so money's not a big deal. Now think about the thousands of people like this flooding cheap licensing sites with their pre-baked compositions.

I am personally classically trained and my music education has started at 5 years old, so....
Unfortunately, we cannot stop people from saying I am a film / TV composer, or stop Sonokinetic do their phrases libraries (they've hired real musicians too for those libraries btw.) As an analogy, you can't blame a person for opening up a restaurant, just because they're selling fast-food and they've zero culinary knowledge. You just don't go to eat there if you understand what proper cuisine is. I aim to work within a specific target and with people that value music in their productions and value my contribution. Filmmakers that do not care for their projects do not interest me.
Is it easy running my 'business' this way? No...
Is it professionally satisfying working this way? Yes...


Third, I saw this coming over two decades ago when I saw the barriers to entry being lowered. I said back then on forums that there should be mandatory licensing for professional musicians and composers, at the very least based on that their sole income is from music and "musician" or "Composer" is listed on their tax return. And that no one but licensed musicians and composers be allowed to take part in any commerce concerning music. Weekend warriors and amateurs can be allowed to compose as much as they like but they shouldn't be allowed to submit work to libraries or take composing gigs under threat of legal action for being unlicensed. I was chased off forums with pitchforks and told that I was "disgustingly elitist" and that I'm a "have" trying to keep the "have-nots" out.

I am for professional standards or unions, just as with almost every profession in the industry. I agree with you on the fact that everyone now is in the same 'pot'... even in these forums for example. Everyone has an opinion


Well, you reap what you sow. Not me though because I saw this coming and networked and hitched my wagon to one of the top TV composers out there and have worked steadily for the past decade as his orchestrator and doing a lot of session work for him on top of it, so my work and income remain steady. He's not one of the guys who's going to be affected by this.

- That is smart and definitely one way of doing it. I used to work for 5 years for one of the top guys too, amicably moved on and chose to follow my own path. With all the chaos in our industry, so far - so good.


No one's gonna unionize. You're not gonna get this horse back in the barn now that it's out. If you were one of the guys working cheap with your sample libraries to undercut the big composers, don't cry that there's guys under you that will undercut you for the same reason.

- I agree, unionizing is the right thing to do. I am very skeptical if this is something that can be achieved, at least for the time being. However, I do not see how 'me + samples' can undercut John Powell or Hans Zimmer. It just doesn't work...
If 'me + samples' undercut any one for the same project is probably 'another composer + samples,' and me getting the project - most of the time - has to do with a lot of factors than just the music itself.



Seriously, it's hilarious to see people crying that rats ate through the hull and the ship is sinking when half of you brought the rats on board with you to begin with. I have a bad feeling, like 20 years ago that I'm gonna get flogged for this post, but what I speak of is true and looking at this thread I kind of float between feeling bad for everyone and feeling vindicated after being chased with torches and pitchforks.

True...
Whoever chased you at the time had a different opinion than yours / mine and so on - I am happy you're feeling vindicated now
Hopefully we can have a discussion, about the state of our industry and bring forward beneficial ideas.
I believe there is room for everyone in our industry, at every level. With so much content being created there is a need for original music. Everyone will find their own path, be that by working for free (one cannot sustain it and there is no future,) or by working within ethical and professional standards (the long road, but a more rewarding one.)

It starts with having the guts to say 'no' at times, to work a lot to master professional skills, to find your voice as a composer, and most importantly to not lose the passion and motivation in doing what we do. After all, we are creators, that's our job...

 

[tehreal]

The fact is any TV production co adopting this practice will see the quality of their productions fall to the point where no broadcaster will be willing to air them.

Doubtful. If it makes money, they'll broadcast it. It's remarkable what many perceive as quality. Even shows considered high quality, like HBO's Succession and Netflix's Narcos, have frighteningly repetitive scores. No one seems to care.

Discovery/Scripps doesn't traffic in high quality so it'll be even easier for them to find composers that are "good enough" and hungry. Sure, the quality may go down somewhat but not to the point where the vast majority of viewers would even notice.

And Discovery knows that.

 

[Tice]

At the end of the day, a composer is worth the number of viewers they can generate. And for the average Discovery channel program I'm not so sure a great composition by a non-famous composer will generate many additional viewers, even if they write a masterpiece. For Netflix it's a different story. I think a work of fiction on Netflix stands to lose a lot more from having no great custom music written for it.

 

[Lee Blaske]

I sure wish I could see a way to fight back, but I don't. The problem is scarcity. There is none. There is WAY too much music being produced and the tools available are making it easier every day (consider all the sample libraries that will give you bigger and bigger components of the composition). Just think of the endless lists of demos we see for every library released. All of that could be underscore for these shows. I don't think there will ever be a way to have a union because underscore music can be made by anyone anywhere in the world. And, there are perfectly good composers everywhere. They're all churning out mountains of music, and they'd all like their music to see the light of day. If certain people band together and strike, they'll just go down the list to the next person. In short, the companies that need this content KNOW they can do this, so they are. There's no way to bring them to their knees. I don't think there's any way to make it illegal.

This is mostly an issue that younger composers need to face. Essentially, there needs to be a realization that this is most likely no longer a valid way to earn a living (unless you've got a fan base that'll finance you in a Go Fund Me manner, a rich benefactor, or you're just independently wealthy).

I think the only way that money will eventually be made will be on the high end of things where there's some bonafide celebrity needed, or if everybody wants to specifically hear your tune (and not just something a lot like it). I read where Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas Is You" earned $60 million so far. So, if you want to make money, just go out and write something like that.

Remember that it's also a sliding scale. Many of these companies will insist on keeping most of the rights, leaving you with a small fraction. But, this will eventually kill of the PRO system in the same way the Musicians Union was taken down.

 

[T-LeffoH]

I don't think there's any way to make it illegal.

Illegal?? Or unenforceable? As with anything, yes there is a way - legislation and/or the courts.

Given how MMA passed unanimously, I won't be surprised to see this issue lobbied before the Congress or brought up in a civil case against Discovery.

It falls almost squarely within restraint of trade practices.

 

[Lee Blaske]

Illegal?? Or unenforceable? As with anything, yes there is a way - legislation and/or the courts.

Given how MMA passed unanimously, I won't be surprised to see this issue lobbied before the Congress or brought up in a civil case against Discovery.

It falls almost squarely within restraint of trade practices.

I hope you're right, but it seems to me they'd need to make it illegal for people to give away content or let it go for paltry compensation.

Actually, the gig economy laws California is considering might offer more hope. If all labor going into music production had to be accounted for with a fair wage paid and taxes collected, it would restore a sense of formality to this work. No more endless labor for a flat fee.

 

[bcslaam]

Publicly shared the link. Will keep telling people about this.
The trend for corporations to squeeze employees wages and contractors fees down below what's fair and viable for the increasing profit of their executives and shareholders is an attitude that's ruining our world environmentally and economically. Now it infiltrates our music and film industries.
This is a part of capitalism that HAS to change. Corporations, their executives and shareholders are NOT more important than their employees, contractors or the earth.
It seems the only thing that will stop them going down this rabit hole is legislation.

 

[T-LeffoH]

I hope you're right, but it seems to me they'd need to make it illegal for people to give away content or let it go for paltry compensation.

Actually, the gig economy laws California is considering might offer more hope. If all labor going into music production had to be accounted for with a fair wage paid and taxes collected, it would restore a sense of formality to this work. No more endless labor for a flat fee.

As with all the commentary, it's all just speculation but I think there's more than just one solution to the issue.

One rather simple thing BMI and ASCAP could do is refuse to grant or renew blanket licenses to networks who require composers to relinquish writer's share of royalties on new or existing works. It would severely limit what Discovery could run in programming, syndication and advertisements from their catalogue without those licenses and force them to find only royalty-free sources for all their programming.

NMPA worked their arses off to lobby Congress to pass MMA, so I don't think this will go over quietly. This to me is a worse action than the Spotify/Google lawsuit over increased royalty rates. They just don't like having to pay out more - rather Discovery Networks' is trying to circumvent having to pay royalties at all.

EDIT: I would urge fellow composers to reach out to your state Senator/Representative about this, especially if they are on this House/Senate subcommittees covering IP or their parent Judiciary committee. Composers' interests are one of the few topics that has had effectively unanimous support in the past few years, so it's certainly fresh in their minds.

United States Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org