Copyright Enforcement Coming to a bar near you

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by guitaniac

After much Google searching, I finally found some hard data the on license fees for different sized venues (in this case bookstores, with or without cafes).
http://news.bookweb.org/features/3403.html

LOL, its no wonder that one bookstore I know of won't even let their music acts play "Happy Birthday". It also appears that in the case of bookstores, there's a heavy penalty (for the BMI rates) for having more than one person in the act. That doesn't make sense to me. Two performers doesn't mean that twice as many songs will be played. On the other hand, ASCAP charges the same heavy rate ($34.50 per performance) irregardless of the number of people in the act. Curious stuff.

Altogether you'll have $70 or $80 in ASCAP and BMI fees (there's also a square footage fee) for one live performance of a duo - not to mention the bookstore can still be sued by SESAC if the duo happens to play the wrong gospel song.

Gary

The upside is that they aren't radio or TV and don't have to pay artist fees in addition to composers and publishers.

[guitaniac]

LOL, some of the venues are certainly doing their best not to pay artist fees. A few years ago there was quite a stir in our local folkie community when the Borders Bookstore chain decided to quit paying their standard $75 for a live music show and started expecting acts to play for free. Now we know where the $75 goes (ASCAP and BMI licenses) when an act does agrees to play for the "exposure" plus any CD sales they can muster.

Before Borders came along, some of us local acts were getting $130 a show from another big bookstore in our area. The times have certainly changed, and one has to wonder how much the increased aggressiveness of ASCAP and BMI has figured into it.

Gary

[Chicago Sandy]

I'm ASCAP, but I did not register any of my songs with them after my first CD. We indies get so little airplay on surveyed stations that the royalty checks are negligible if we even get them. I used to get a $200 annual ASCAPAward stipend, simply for logging the songs I'd written, the places I'd played, and the airplay of which I was aware--until I found out that information was being used to "rat out" the venues who were kind enough to hire me. As a result, I did not ASCAP-register, just copyrighted, the songs on the last two CDs I recorded.

It's getting even more ominous. A noted local folk-DJ asked me yesterday at Folk Alliance where in the Chicago area I would be playing next (we play mostly out of town these days so there's no point in plugging those gigs on Chicago-based broadcasts). He will not plug Borders or any tips-only shows for the aforementioned reasons. I mentioned a prominent suburban house concert series which he used to plug--and he told me because of "liability issues" he can no longer mention those either. Apparently, I have been hearing reports that ASCAP and BMI have begun shaking down church basement coffeehouses and house concert series.

Sheesh.

[jackweasel]

Whoa!! Does that mean I've got to put a quarter in the jar every time I play someone else's song here in my music room? Will it cost more if I sit on the front porch where my neighbors can hear?
I'm not paranoid. They REALLY ARE after me!

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by Chicago Sandy

I'm ASCAP, but I did not register any of my songs with them after my first CD. We indies get so little airplay on surveyed stations that the royalty checks are negligible if we even get them. I used to get a $200 annual ASCAPAward stipend, simply for logging the songs I'd written, the places I'd played, and the airplay of which I was aware--until I found out that information was being used to "rat out" the venues who were kind enough to hire me. As a result, I did not ASCAP-register, just copyrighted, the songs on the last two CDs I recorded.

It's getting even more ominous. A noted local folk-DJ asked me yesterday at Folk Alliance where in the Chicago area I would be playing next (we play mostly out of town these days so there's no point in plugging those gigs on Chicago-based broadcasts). He will not plug Borders or any tips-only shows for the aforementioned reasons. I mentioned a prominent suburban house concert series which he used to plug--and he told me because of "liability issues" he can no longer mention those either. Apparently, I have been hearing reports that ASCAP and BMI have begun shaking down church basement coffeehouses and house concert series.

Sheesh.

I can this from, and make a case for both sides of the fence, but overall I don't think ASCAP or BMI do much for the little guy. Radio and TV logs are very specific, so you're going to get what you deserve, but the revenue from the local bar or coffeehouse just goes in a big barrel and you're all but passed over. If I give a concert of my original material (a lot of but not all is registered with BMI) I can expect nothing from BMI as a residual. It's trickle down economics at its worst.

[dreamwarrior]

I don't think a little coffee house or small club should have to pay much of anything to Ascap or BMI, or at least a very small fee depending on the size of the venue. This is the kind of crap that's killing live music in many small places. The coffee shops and several clubs I know of in this area are lucky to have 20 people in there when the musicians are playing. The musicians don't make any money to speak of, and the venues definitely don't make a killing. Many end up closing within a year or so.

In a way they are hurting themselves. I've bought a lot of music after hearing a good cover performed at a local spot, and I know many others have as well. While this may not amount to much revenue for the writers/ publishers etc., it's better than shutting down the little guys who are barely making a profit. Then Ascap and BMI won't get the licenses and will have fewer record sales.

I understand completely the problem the industry has with internet music sharing, and I agree you shouldn't be able to download a song for free. I love I-Tunes, I'm completely happy being able to get a song for 99 cents. Heck, when I was a kid I was paying 1.49 for 45's.

Ascap and BMI are great for the professionals who are making their living with their music. But they should base their licensing fees on the amount of income the venue brings in, rather than price the fees so high most little guys can't afford it, or take the chance and hope they don't get caught.
It would seem to me 50 bucks a year from all the little places that are flying under the radar would be a lot of money, and much better than trying to shut them down or force them out of having live music.

[Eracer]

I'm kinda trolling here, but I'll try to be constructive, so please bear with me...

I know the sentiment among artists is that illegal file sharing is bad. And I'm not advocating it. I don't really do it myself, except for the occasional CD copy for a friend.

What is the difference between my buying a book, reading it, then loaning it to a friend to read, and copying a CD for him or her to listen to. My friend didn't pay for the book, or the CD, and really, I'm "file-sharing" either way, right?

Is the difference that with the CD I give him, he can make a copy (or 1000 copies) and sell them, whereas with the book, it's much harder to generate an illegal revenue stream? What about digital books? Why should they be any different that "analog" ones?

It seems to me that artists should certainly be paid for the use of their intellectual property. On the other hand, I think that the vast majority of people who illegally download music are doing it for their own benefit, and not to intentionally deprive anyone of a future revenue stream. They are "reading a borrowed book", as it were. It is stealing? You bet it is. But do you feel like you should pay an author a royalty fee when you read that borrowed book?

Is there a big problem with mass-duplication and sale of illegally downloaded music? Or is everybody just worrying about Joe Skaterboy who downloaded some Metallica to his computer because he spent his CD money on weed?

Should we really try to stop all music sharing? Is it possible? Or should the powers that be come up with a new model for music distribution. One that puts revenue back in hands of the artist, and allows for some tolerance when it comes to the sharing of great music. And no, I don't have a solution. Serial Copy Management seems like way to go, but it, and anything we try to implement that involve Digital Rights Management, will be hacked. And the only people who will benefit from that are the people who are copying music in order to make money.

Thanks for tolerating this lengthy post.

[martind gibsona]

I don't really do it myself, except for the occasional CD copy for a friend.

Then you do it; quit kidding yourself.

What is the difference between my buying a book, reading it, then loaning it to a friend to read, and copying a CD for him or her to listen to. My friend didn't pay for the book, or the CD, and really, I'm "file-sharing" either way, right?

Wrong! The difference is that you've given your friend a permanent copy of the CD to keep, which means you've now deprived the rightful owner of the music of his "piece of the action" because your friend won't buy the CD. If you lent the original CD to your friend, then there'd be no difference.

I think that the vast majority of people who illegally download music are doing it for their own benefit, and not to intentionally deprive anyone of a future revenue stream.

You're exactly right! They're doing it for their own benefit, that benefit being that they save $ by not having to purchase a licensed copy of the music. The fact that they don't think they're depriving anyone of a "future revenue stream" doesn't matter; it's still wrong.

They are "reading a borrowed book"

Wrong again! If, after listening to the downloaded music, they either deleted it from their computer or bought the CD, then it would be borrowing.

Should we really try to stop all music sharing?

No ... only the copying that doesn't provide monetary compensation to the rightful owners.

Or should the powers that be come up with a new model for music distribution?

Probably ... but until they do, people should respect the property of others.

Don Smith

[Brackett Instruments]

I've got a curious question for the people around here who know about such stuff. There's all kinds of recordings here(on the forum) and elsewhere on the web of peoples own versions of someone elses songs. Is it legal to post something like that? IE, would it be legal for me to play and record "Stairway" and post that recording here?

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by dreamwarrior

I don't think a little coffee house or small club should have to pay much of anything to Ascap or BMI, or at least a very small fee depending on the size of the venue. This is the kind of crap that's killing live music in many small places. The coffee shops and several clubs I know of in this area are lucky to have 20 people in there when the musicians are playing. The musicians don't make any money to speak of, and the venues definitely don't make a killing. Many end up closing within a year or so.

In a way they are hurting themselves. I've bought a lot of music after hearing a good cover performed at a local spot, and I know many others have as well. While this may not amount to much revenue for the writers/ publishers etc., it's better than shutting down the little guys who are barely making a profit. Then Ascap and BMI won't get the licenses and will have fewer record sales.

I understand completely the problem the industry has with internet music sharing, and I agree you shouldn't be able to download a song for free. I love I-Tunes, I'm completely happy being able to get a song for 99 cents. Heck, when I was a kid I was paying 1.49 for 45's.

Ascap and BMI are great for the professionals who are making their living with their music. But they should base their licensing fees on the amount of income the venue brings in, rather than price the fees so high most little guys can't afford it, or take the chance and hope they don't get caught.
It would seem to me 50 bucks a year from all the little places that are flying under the radar would be a lot of money, and much better than trying to shut them down or force them out of having live music.

Though I think a royalty should be paid for any public performance of registered works of BMI and ASCAP material there are a couple of fundamental problems I have with it. First, when charging fees to coffeehouses, small clubs, bookstores etc., it's a tax on an unknown....they don't know what was performed or played, just that they want a piece of it. There's something very wrong with that and it seems like supreme court fodder to me. Anyway, a just solution would be to require logs in the same fashion they require it from the airways and subscription services, that way, when combined with realistic revenue forcasts, the right people recieve a royalty and the revenue doesn't go to general funds. Secondly, I think there should be exceptions for public non profits and schools.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by martind gibsona

Then you do it; quit kidding yourself.Wrong! The difference is that you've given your friend a permanent copy of the CD to keep, which means you've now deprived the rightful owner of the music of his "piece of the action" because your friend won't buy the CD. If you lent the original CD to your friend, then there'd be no difference.You're exactly right! They're doing it for their own benefit, that benefit being that they save $ by not having to purchase a licensed copy of the music. The fact that they don't think they're depriving anyone of a "future revenue stream" doesn't matter; it's still wrong.Wrong again! If, after listening to the downloaded music, they either deleted it from their computer or bought the CD, then it would be borrowing.No ... only the copying that doesn't provide monetary compensation to the rightful owners.Probably ... but until they do, people should respect the property of others.

Don Smith

Sorry my occasional CD copy makes you so mad. I'm not "kidding myself". I know that it's an unlicensed copy, and that I'm depriving someone of royalties. Sue me. I have over 2000 CD's in my collection. I paid for 99.99% of them. And I have no illegally downloaded music anywhere. People aren't perfect. I know I'm not. I'm very responsible about paying for music - again, I'm not perfect. Maybe you are. I was just trying to pose a question that seemed relevent to the thread. I wasn't looking for anyone to tell me how wrong, wrong, WRONG I am.

[martind gibsona]

Sorry my occasional CD copy makes you so mad.

It doesn't make me mad -- it's no skin off my nose at all; I'm just telling you what's what. Your statement "I don't really do it myself, except for the occasional CD copy for a friend" is akin to saying, "I don't really cheat on my spouse except for the occasional one-night stand."

I know that it's an unlicensed copy, and that I'm depriving someone of royalties. Sue me.

Not my job.

I'm not perfect. Maybe you are.

Nope ... and don't claim to be. We all make honest mistakes. But if you acknowledge that some deliberate action you're taking is wrong yet you continue to take it, well ... I'm sure you can find some way to rationalize it.

I was just trying to pose a question that seemed relevent to the thread. I wasn't looking for anyone to tell me how wrong, wrong, WRONG I am.

I believe your opening clause was, "I'm kinda trolling here", which means you invited people to respond to your post. Your questions were quite relevant, and you'll notice that I answered them a fair number of them, at least from my perspective ... but once you've posed them, you don't get to dictate the answers. If you've got some pre-conceived notion of how people are supposed to respond, and only those responses are acceptable to you, then don't ask.

Don Smith

[martind gibsona]

would it be legal for me to play and record "Stairway" and post that recording here?

I believe the answer is no, because you're distributing someone else's material without permission. But I'm not a music attorney ...

Don Smith

[martind gibsona]

First, when charging fees to coffeehouses, small clubs, bookstores etc., it's a tax on an unknown....they don't know what was performed or played, just that they want a piece of it. There's something very wrong with that and it seems like supreme court fodder to me.

Yep.

Don Smith

[dreamwarrior]

Originally Posted by JohnZ

Though I think a royalty should be paid for any public performance of registered works of BMI and ASCAP material there are a couple of fundamental problems I have with it. First, when charging fees to coffeehouses, small clubs, bookstores etc., it's a tax on an unknown....they don't know what was performed or played, just that they want a piece of it. There's something very wrong with that and it seems like supreme court fodder to me. Anyway, a just solution would be to require logs in the same fashion they require it from the airways and subscription services, that way, when combined with realistic revenue forcasts, the right people recieve a royalty and the revenue doesn't go to general funds. Secondly, I think there should be exceptions for public non profits and schools.

That's a VERY good point. Since they have no way of knowing whose songs are being played, I wonder how much of that revenue actually goes to writers.

Do schools have to pay fees everytime someone sings "Wind Beneath My Wings" or some other song at a graduation? I had never thought of that. Surely they wouldn't try to enforce something like that?