Why SESAC Restrictions- The Controversial Ban of This Music Rights Organization in the U.S.
Why is SESAC Not Allowed in the US?
The music industry is a complex and multifaceted world, with various organizations and entities playing crucial roles in its operation. One such entity is SESAC, an American performing rights organization (PRO) that administers music rights on behalf of its members. However, despite its significant presence in the music industry, SESAC is not allowed in the United States. This article aims to explore the reasons behind this restriction and its implications for the music industry.
Understanding SESAC
SESAC, founded in 1930, is one of the three major PROs in the United States, alongside ASCAP and BMI. These organizations are responsible for collecting royalties on behalf of songwriters, composers, and music publishers for the public performance of their works. SESAC’s membership includes songwriters, composers, music publishers, and music users, such as radio stations, television networks, and concert venues.
The Reason Behind the Ban
The main reason why SESAC is not allowed in the US is due to a regulatory dispute between the US government and the organization. In 2008, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a ruling that required SESAC to follow the same rules as ASCAP and BMI regarding the negotiation of music licensing fees. This ruling stemmed from a concern that SESAC’s practices were anti-competitive and could harm the music industry.
However, SESAC challenged the FCC’s decision in court, arguing that the agency overstepped its authority. In 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of SESAC, stating that the FCC did not have the power to impose these regulations on the organization. Despite this victory, SESAC remains banned from operating in the US.
Implications for the Music Industry
The ban on SESAC in the US has several implications for the music industry. Firstly, it reduces the number of options available to songwriters, composers, and music publishers when it comes to licensing their works. With only two major PROs operating in the country, artists and rights holders may face limited opportunities for royalty collection and exposure.
Secondly, the absence of SESAC may lead to an imbalance in the power dynamics between ASCAP, BMI, and the music industry. With two major PROs controlling the lion’s share of the market, they may have more leverage in negotiating fees and terms with music users. This could potentially harm the interests of songwriters and composers, who rely on royalty income for their livelihood.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the ban on SESAC in the US is a result of a regulatory dispute between the organization and the U.S. government. While the reasons behind the ban are complex, its implications for the music industry are significant. The restriction on SESAC’s operations in the US highlights the need for a balanced and competitive music licensing landscape that benefits all stakeholders. As the music industry continues to evolve, it is crucial for policymakers and industry leaders to address this issue and find a solution that ensures fair and equitable representation for all artists and rights holders.
