So sad, open mics in my small town shut down by ASCAP licensing

[PistolPete]

Originally Posted by rct

Is that how you think it works? You join these guys like a club?

rct

I believe you just go to their website, fill in an application form & then register your songs. Is that like a club? Or a union? Or a chamber of commerce? Or the local library?

Originally Posted by Mr Fingers

, it's more likely that the creators and general public will get screwed in order to increase shareholder value and executive compensation

I understand that ASCAP, like the UK organisation PRS which I belong to, is a co-operative so it's shareholders are the composers whose music it administers.

This debate will outlive this thread and there will be others on the same subject. For me it's not a question of which side is right but of the reality of the situation; not what should be, but what is.

Civilians blithely walk right past those stickers on the doors and are uniformly amazed to learn that venues must pay to present music, live or recorded. I myself was unaware until many years ago when I was presented with a long list of songs I could not play by one venue. The public, however, wants to hear what the public knows, no matter how well crafted, catchy and emotionally draining my latest impassioned musical plea to my imaginary true love might be.

So the venues are left with a choice that only they can make. If the result of that choice is the eventual eradication of live music in smaller venues, I'll play private gatherings, or I'll play for fun with musician friends. It is, as they say, what it is.

[LSemmens]

I purchase a car the manufacturer gets his cut. What I do with it thereafter is of no consequence to the manufacturer. I may actually use it to make money, I do not, then, have to pay a royalty to the car manufacturer for use of said vehicle even if it is the only vehicle suitable for the job. I buy a book, which is, obviously, a copyrighted material. I can read it as often as I like, even lend it to all and sundry without any further "compensation" being paid to the author. How is this, in practise, any different? I buy a CD and can listen to it at home for as long and loud as I like. Even if the neighbours can hear it too. I play the same CD in a shop and suddenly I'm up for additional royalties? How did the law get to this point? If BMI or any other organisation were serious about chasing the unauthorised performance of said work, the venues should be exempt, they should be chasing the performers who are the "guilty" parties.

Then, of course the old argument, what constitutes copyright infringement? For Example, why should Websters sue Oxford for producing a dictionary, they are substantially the same, containing much of the same words. A chord progression; should that not be subject to copyright? If I sing, "take me, take all of me" does that constitute copyright infringement if I should also happen to use a similar progression. Remember, this sort of thing has been the subject of a recent copyright infringement case for a particular high profile group.

Of course the author of a work should be paid for same, however, how often? A book author only gets paid once per copy produced. He does not get paid, every time someone reads it, or lends it out, or, for that fact, a "reading". A school is not charged a royalty every time they get a student to read out aloud.

[Explorer]

Originally Posted by Seby

The IPOs have the law on their side here. So the claims by the IPOs are not false claims in the sense that they are contrary to law. We all know this, so your question is rhetorical. The claim that I have made is that the actions of the IPOs are unjust, dangerous, and pose a real threat to artistic communities. Here is why I believe this.

Theft is an interesting notion when applied to copyright issues, and I think that this gets to the heart of the matter in its post-internet state. When we think of theft, we think most usually of good old fashioned I-take-this-thing-from-you-and-you-no-longer-have-it sort of theft. You know, like me stealing your car. But suppose instead that I could push a button and just copy your car. You would still have your car, but now I have one just like it. In this case, unlike the case where I sneak off with your car in the middle of the night or something, I have not deprived you of anything.

So, coming back to your point, I do not think that your theft analogy goes through with the case of illegal downloads. But does it go through for either:

Mom and Pop cafes playing music over a hifi? Or

Singer/songwriters (or whatever) playing at open mic nights in said cafes?

I do not think that there is any theft involved in either case.

Let's start with the latter. I find the idea that I should receive financial gain because some kid is playing one of my songs at an open mic night at a mom and pop cafe to be so utterly and totally repulsive that I really do not really know where to begin.

As for the former, on the assumption that the music was acquired by the owners of mom and pop cafes legally, then have already paid for the music. Why should they pay for it again just because they are playing it in their cafe?

Of course this is not the end of it, hence this discussion. It is not the end of it because of the current laws surrounding IP. However, as I hope that I have made clear, I think that the current laws surrounding IP are unjust and damaging, and I think that the ways in which these current laws are being enforced is insane.

First off, my apologies if you feel my abridgement of your post distorts your viewpoint. Let me know if that's the case, and I'll restore the full post and use bold in the highlights.

You are basically arguing against intellectual property law, which includes copyright and patents. In the United States, that body of law's foundations are found in Article I of the Constitution. Whether or not you argree with someone having exclusive rights to their original creation(s) has nothing to do with whether it is a well-established part of the law. The theft of an exclusive right is theft, even if you don't like that it is. You saying that you don't like it being classified as theft, and therefore refuse to recognize it as theft, is a form of the logical fallacy known as thw argument from incredulity, in that you're arguing that it shouldn't be true based on your personal beliefs.

Your arguments are also applicable to renting a copy of, say, a blockbuster movie, making a copy of said movie, and then running that movie in a business establishment in a way not allowed by the original agreement. Having rights to a particular kind of use does not mean you can then expand that use to violate the rights of control against that use. As an example of such, there is a very expensive movie subscription service which gives in-home access to first-run movies at the same time they are first being released in movie theaters. Your argument of having paid for one type of usage, and therefore you have a right to other usages, would allow such a subscriber to then copy the movies and display them in a bar. Your personal incredulity that it is piracy doesn't matter in any real sense, just as it doesn't matter if a person who has hidden a camera and captured images of you and your family in private moments is personally incredulous that the law defines such behavior as illegal. "But nothing tangible was really taken from them!"

----

Just as a general observation, I'm still waiting for someone to propose a solution which improves things for everyone, without requiring those who own a piece of property to take a hit. So far, it has only consisted of, "Those poor venues, being persecuted by the agents of the rights holders because the venues took something without paying! This is so unfair to the takers! Screw the songwriters!"

It's also interestng to read how many people are sure they would give away an income atream from their work because, if they theoretically had done such work, they would be more concerned about others than about providing for their families, their children's educations, etc. I'm dubious, and think that talk is cheap.

[wkbryan]

There are some very interesting arguments and analogies here, but I'm still trying to understand the scope and scale of the problem to the individual songwriter. I understand that the amount they rec'v from an individual small business (or small community gathering) is negligible but when multiplied by the thousands of similar venues can be substantial. I guess I'm not smart or experienced enough to have a good understanding of the scale of what they're experiencing.

I honestly do want writers to get paid because I enjoy the fruits of their labor and want them to be able to continue to do what they do.

This sure is a lot more complicated than the concept of illegal downloads.

[wkbryan]

Are venues that host student recitals required to have agreements with the various PRO organizations since their teachers charge for the lessons?

[dwstout]

Originally Posted by ewalling

But surely the kinds of songs that people cover at open mics are not those written by musicians struggling to eke out a living and for whom every penny counts. In nearly all cases, I'd guess that the material is taken from people who've enjoyed substantial profits already and hardly need the meagre dollars that can be squeezed out of a small open mic on a Tuesday night.

NOT TRUE - I'm sure Bob Franke (ever hear of him) was getting paid every time I perform one of the 6 songs of his I cover regularly.

[dwstout]

Originally Posted by wkbryan

Are venues that host student recitals required to have agreements with the various PRO organizations since their teachers charge for the lessons?

There are educational exceptions in the law. Schools don't need AsCAP, et. al. licenses for instructional material. If a high school choir sings Ïmagine it's legal.

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by dwstout

NOT TRUE - I'm sure Bob Franke (ever hear of him) was getting paid every time I perform one of the 6 songs of his I cover regularly.

How typical do you think you are in playing Bob Franke (you're right - never heard of 'im!) covers?

[dwstout]

I am an amateur who loves playing open mics and thus bring otherwise (mostly) unknown music to the attention to a new audience. More than once people have asked me to tell them again who wrote "Last Thing on My Mind" (Tom Paxton). Or "Hard Love- Bob Franke. That sort of response MAKES MY DAY. I wish I could buy a license to play those tunes so at least my playing is legit. But alas that doesn't seem to exist.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by wkbryan

Are venues that host student recitals required to have agreements with the various PRO organizations since their teachers charge for the lessons?

Churches and Schools do not have to pay licensing fees. Non-profit performances are also given an exception as long as no profits are being made off food or drink at the venue.... You don't have to worry about licensing for your songwriter meet up at the park, but if it's hosted in a venue that sells things you probably do.

Excerpt from
https://www.ascap.com/~/media/655449...864655e1b6.pdf

Are there any exceptions to the
requirement to obtain authorization
for public performances?
The law provides a few strictly limited exemptions for performances in
the course of worship services and performances in the course of faceto-face
teaching activities of a non-profit educational institution. Purely
non-profit performances may be exempt if (1) there is no direct or
indirect commercial purpose; and (2) there is no payment to the
performers, promoters or organizers; and (3) there is no admission
charge, or if there is a charge, all proceeds after deduction of costs are
used exclusively for educational, religious or charitable purposes.

That's just ASCAP rules, BMI and SESAC may be different.

Idea for moderators: This thread has over 170 responses. I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to move such high impact threads to their own forum called "Epic Discussions" or something like that. Not sure how this would work, maybe any post that gets over 200 replies.

[Irish Pennant]

Originally Posted by wkbryan

Are venues that host student recitals required to have agreements with the various PRO organizations since their teachers charge for the lessons?

Good Point, not just venues, but are instructors that charge for private lessons that will use copyright material as part of their teaching plan also be required to pay into ASCAP and BMI? They are after all, making money off of someone's IP.

Just because they're struggling musicians trying to augment their income a little by taking on a handful of students, that doesn't make them any less of a thief than the small town coffee shop. /sarcasm off

If there's an exemption in the law for the struggling musician/instructor, then there's a president for an exemption for scale of venue. A venue should then be able to petition for an exemption.

If the ASCAP and BMI watchmen are ignoring the struggling musician/instructor, then it's not about the ethics of intellectual property but of something else.

[dwstout]

Originally Posted by ewalling

How typical do you think you are in playing Bob Franke (you're right - never heard of 'im!) covers?

Doesn't matter.

[Mandobart]

Originally Posted by wkbryan

Are venues that host student recitals required to have agreements with the various PRO organizations since their teachers charge for the lessons?

High school drama clubs must pay for copies of the script they use. They are NOT allowed to buy one and burn a bunch of copies. The music publishing ouses distributing scores written centuries ago prohibit unauthorized reproduction of the sheet music for school bands and orchestras. Any sheet music used in a student recital must also be a legal copy.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Mandobart

No, it is way different than how most of us are paid. An auto mechanic gets paid to fix your car. You take in your car, he fixes it, you pay for parts and labor. You don't pay him a royalty for every mile you drive. You have an accountant, you pay him a retainer or by the hour. You don't pay him a percentage of all the money you earn or spend. I'm a technical instructor at a nuclear power plant. I don't get paid per lesson plan, and I don't get a royalty every time someone else teaches from my lesson plan. When I was an on-shift operator I didn't get a royalty for every megawatt hour I produced. I get a salary.

Artists, especially musicians and paricularly those that write songs that may be used in a variety of ways over the course of several decades are paid totally differently, and that is hard for many of us who don't get paid that way to understand. For whatever reason that is the system we've set up. Just because I don't totally understand it or agree with it doesn't mean its wrong.

"No" ... it is not "way different" you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. In point of fact you get paid for goods or services or both , so does a songwriter. In my example/analogy (that you failed to include in your selective editing of my statement), you pay the tool rental company "every time" you rent the tool, the fact that this "rental company" also made the tool and the tool is intellectual rather than physical , does not change the validity of the business model nor the correctness of the obligation for the rental fee be paid every time.

I realize it is often hard for people to step outside the small box of their personal existence and try to examine reality from different view, that difficulty however does not lend objective validity to highly subjective perspectives.