RSS
Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands
from the all-about-the-money dept
We see nearly identical stories every six months or so, but Chris Curvey has sent in the latest involving the various US collection societies -- ASCAP, BMI and SESAC threatening a little coffee shop into canceling all live music, after demanding a performance license, despite the fact that the coffee shop only has local, unsigned bands playing, with a promise that they won't play any cover songs. It's the same old story that we hear over and over again. The venue insists that only unsigned bands are playing, and they're not playing ASCAP music, and ASCAP says that it doesn't matter. You need to pay up just in case a band happens to hum someone else's song:
"I am 100 percent in compliance," Hopper said. "I'm not charging cover at the door. I'm not paying the bands, and they are just playing songs they wrote. They essentially said to me, 'We don't care. We have this low-end licensing fee you must have because there is a chance your band might play a cover song.' "This has been happening all over the country, and the end result is actually causing massive harm for up-and-coming artists. That's because these kinds of coffee shops and small bars that used to be where most musicians would get their start via open mic nights, are now banning all music to avoid having to pay these licenses. It means there are fewer places for musicians to have a chance to perform in front of a live audience. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC claiming that they're helping artists is a flat out lie. Their mission is really to support the largest acts at the expense of smaller acts, and ridiculous demands on coffee shops like the one above contributes to that situation. They even admit it at times, when you catch them talking candidly.
Some folks have been willing to stand up to these collection societies, like the town in Connecticut who received license demands for music played at the town center. In response, the town council voted to ignore the threats. But, it seems that it's just easier for most little shops to just stop playing music altogether. Of course, that goes against ASCAP's public claims of being in the interest of artists, but ASCAP and BMI have made their real goals clear through their actions, and it has little to do with actually helping up-and-coming artists. After all, they might compete with the big stars.
196 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Canadian Songwriters Want To Embrace File Sharing, But Do They Have The Right Approach?
- Like Clockwork: Copyright Holders Mistakenly Freak Out About Presidential Candidates Using Their Music
- BMI Hurting Artists, Yet Again
- Apple Tells Labels, Unilaterally, That It's Increasing Song Previews To 90 Seconds
- ASCAP Continues Propaganda Campaign With Laughably Bad Video [Updated]
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Why
I read these stories and they are written so well that I agree with them and understand your point. So why am I so smart and the people in charge so incompetent. Does it really come down to they have more money so they are right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuits are expensive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
If the racketeers decide to sue, they should ally together and fight back -- right is obviously on their side.
If the racketeers decide to break their knee-caps with a baseball bat... hmm...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Lease the land
This company would then go bankrupt when it failed to pay the 'protection money' demanded by the Mafioso collection societies.
This way, the indie bands can sing cover songs, etc. so the thugs get even less money than otherwise.
Moreover, the Coffee shop still gets to sell coffee to the punters sitting nearby.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Misspelled acronym
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why
There is no easy solution, except talk about and educate whoever you know and of course refrain from buying RIAA music.Just support indie.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Legality
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This and the action against You Tube by Viacom
ASCAP and Viacom is going after the venues, rather than the people who actually violate their rights. If am a singer and I cover a song then shouldn't I pay for the fees for the license? If I post Viacom's material, should I be the one Viacom goes after?
That sounds like work...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
smells like...
Sounds like and smells like extortion to me.
(or compulsory insurance)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
citations needed. Please elucidate us to all these stories of ASCAP/BMI looking out for ALL artists and not just the top tier.
I won't be holding my breath.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
lawsuit problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: lawsuit problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not everyone is a lame cover band
They are demanding something for nothing. It doesn't matter how much of an edge case it is. You should be first in line to tell them to cut it out.
Being a corporate toadie is no excuse to excuse obviously bad behavior.
Even bad hair bands and disco acts manage to write their own (bad) material.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
Why no solution? I see a very nice solution: an owner's union. In fact, there is probably a great need to be filled for small to mid sized venues such as this that offer a place for indie artists to play music. Why couldn't they band together, pay a nominal membership fee, and fight this bullshit together.
As one they may be weak, but as many....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
if you have a problem with Mike, just come out with it. otherwise get off the blog and go post comments on a pro-*IAA blog/forum... where you're comments are likely to be shouted down by people there because you're so dam clueless.
you're reading HIS blog anyway you moron!
OBVIOUSLY he's going to report on what he (and the rest of us) think is relevant. most of the time from the viewpoint of those people who have at least a small about of brain power and have resisted the urge to be paid off by the various lobbying companies.
this whole article highlights a SERIOUS problem with the way ASCAP work and how they approach firms. from this report (however its written) its plain to see that they are trying to force licence fees when they have no basis. end of story.
im sorry if all this is too overwhelming or a little too complicated for you. but then you demonstrate your mental age frequently with your pointless drivel.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Lawsuit problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
Since it's so easy to identify the large benefits. Please provide a listing of the top and bottom 5 beneficiaries of each collection agency, so we can see these benefits first hand.
In case that's too complex of a request for you to grasp, list the top 5 artists and bottom 5 artists and the amounts each one received from each of the 3 collection societies. They provide so much benefit that this should be a simple request, right?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
as for this example, my question is simple: do these bands never play happy birthday, or play any other cover song ever, ever, ever? does the coffee shop not profit from the presence of live music in their venue? is there a reason this coffee shop should be ignored but the bar next door charged a license? it seems odd.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I don't get it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
The bands play their own music. The onus is on ASCAP to prove otherwise. If they can't, that's too bad.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
Your statement didn't add to the discussion. If, however, you prove the above assertion, that would add to the discussion and make Mike look bad.
In other words, proof or GTFO.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Lawsuits are expensive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
You can justify all sorts of nonsense that way.
ASCAP is simply trying to line it's own pockets and continually grow revenue in a manner that is expected of all business these days. It suffers from the same expecations that any other large company does.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
In the US our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Is there a band somewhere out there that plays covers? Yes. Do all bands have to pay a consequence for that? No.
"... does the coffee shop not profit from the presence of live music in their venue?" Absolutely. And it's none of RIAA's or anyone's else damn business if they are making money off of a band an unsigned local band.
"...is there a reason this coffee shop should be ignored but the bar next door charged a license? it seems odd..."
Nope - no reason. Neither place should be charged a license. It does seem odd that you think both should...
-CF
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Protection Money
The owner thinks about how to best deal with the situation, he can either pay the man and factor the cost of protection into his goods & services or close up shop. The owner doesn't want to do either so he takes additional risk - the risk the man will become angry and threaten the owner and cause him harm. The owner must then defend his livelihood against this stranger that walked into his store.
In the end, the everyone but the man who walked into the store suffers because the owner either has to close shop (i.e. stop offering live, local music), pass the increase in costs to his customers, or defend against threats (a legal & financial loss/risk).
How is this any different than the mob walking into a deli and demanding protection money?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
HAHA still chicken shits i see
thats the problem with you americans
YOU all are lawyers
and its why you fail and shall continue to fail
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
@25 are you looking at your monitor
what you done to stop oppression and ACTA in yor country ? write a letter to a politician who dont care..lazy i shuld add lazy to this spill
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
nnn note/entry) an online owners union, guild, organization for the protection of small to mid sized venues from collection agencies.
"I see a very nice solution: an owner's union. In fact, there is probably a great need to be filled for small to mid sized venues such as this that offer a place for indie artists to play music. Why couldn't they band together, pay a nominal membership fee, and fight this bullshit together."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's simple
Songwriters need to protect their future and you are an amateur if you don't belong to ASCAP or BMI.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
How about the elected officials and judges in our country try sticking up for the rights of our citzens instead of the people that pay the most towards their (re-)elections.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
if you have a problem with Mike, just come out with it. otherwise get off the blog and go post comments on a pro-*IAA blog/forum"
Could you list the URLs of a couple of these Pro **AA blogs please. I would love to be the Anti-Anti-Mike on a couple of them ... ;)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
By Ed Christman, N.Y.
American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers collected $933 million last year, an 8% increase from the $863.3 million gathered in 2007, management of the member-owned organization announced at the annual meeting that kicked off its New York Sessions event.
At the same time, payouts increased 10.2% to $817 million from the $741.3 million paid out in 2007.
For the period, operating expenses came in at an all-time low of 11.3% of revenue. In the prior two years, the organization's expense ratio was 11.9% and 12.1% in 2006.
But the organization added that despite its record revenue collection, it
"anticipates challenges ahead relative to compensation for its members' music performances. Specifically, many of the businesses that are driving an explosive growth in music use across digital channels have yet to agree to fair licensing terms for the use of ASCAP members' works," the organization said in the announcement on its financials.
"ASCAP worked hard in 2008 to collect and distribute the most money
possible for hard-working songwriters, composers, lyricists and music
publishers," said John LoFrumento, ASCAP CEO. "We also continued providing a strong slate of professional development opportunities, such as the annual ASCAP 'I Create Music' Expo, and intensified our advocacy efforts on behalf of all music creators, through initiatives like the 'Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers.'"
But in looking ahead, LoFrumento, said, "Digital use of music is
skyrocketing, which should be good news for all music creators. Yet to date, we have faced strong resistance on the licensing front from many digital businesses. If this continues even as digital music use explodes, music creators will have a much tougher time earning a living from making music."
He said it is vital that all users of music in the online, mobile and other
digital areas come to the table in good faith to negotiate fair licensing
fees for music performance. He also said they must give music creators fair compensation, considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent and earned annually by these digital companies.
ASCAP continues to offer an array of programs and initiatives, including: "A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers"; ASCAP "I Create Music" EXPO, an April 23-25 national conference in Los Angeles, dedicated to songwriting and composing; Mediaguide, which tracks broadcast and Internet radio performances via digital fingerprinting technology; PREP (Performing Rights Enterprise Program), a technology platform that gives members online
access to ASCAP's performance and royalty distribution databases; ASCAP Network, an online music showcase delivering nearly 3 million streams a month; and MusicPro Insurance, which provides affordable instrument, studio and tour insurance coverage to thousands of music professionals, regardless of performing rights organization affiliation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, and creatively looking for ways to twist truth into his favor.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple
"Sounds like a lawsuit if you are a member of ASCAP you can sue them for restricting your trade."
Would this work for non ASCAP collection agencies? Meaning if you set up a competing collection agency.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
In general, you can't trust journalists (or "journalists") to accurately portray all the significant details of legal matters, even when they try their best.
This goes double for bloggers with an obvious viewpoint bias.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
Techdirt is a blog (or whatever you'd like to call it) from an author with a certain viewpoint, for readers with a certain viewpoint. This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
Second, you seem to take Mike Masnick's spin on a situation as the gospel truth. I'd be reluctant to do that.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
However, I wouldn't take any "fact" reported in Techdirt as an actual, y'know, fact, without some corroboration from a less biased source.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
When corporations can receive money for doing nothing at all, you have to wonder why anyone against entitlements would be so intellectually dishonest to support the thing they dislike.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
FTFY
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
I think copyright protection probably lasts too long, but I'm not certain a song written in the 40s should be in the public domain.
At any rate, I think the system is certainly imperfect, but not "broken" in some sort of irreparable sense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
Then it could be in the public domain, depending on the true facts.
At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't get it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
Wow! I've never gotten that out of anything MM has said. My impression is MM is for innovation and removing road blocks whenever possible and challenging the core assumptions that those roadblocks currently in place do more good than harm.
He always promotes competition and fair markets over excess government/political controls.
The folks that are for protectism believe there is no real world externalities involved in their policies that they force on us. He just highlights the side-effects caused by those trying to protect their turf.
Freedom
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
We have seen articles before that directly state that most of the money collected goes towards just the top few. So they could collect an increase of 200% more than they do now, and they will still be assholes screwing over all the little people and only focusing that money to the rich few on top.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
that's exactly right
As you correctly state, it's not as though they help the average musician, only ones at the top of the heap. Similarly, musician unions don't help the average gigster, but only help the top acts - the lowest level musician they help would be something like symphony orchestra people, so there's little point in joining for most players.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
What's so hard to understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why's so hard to understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @25 are you looking at your monitor
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
Second No we don't not even most of the time.
Third: but not even remotley do we take AC's
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
You mean how the RIAA and other organisations are claiming all technology is evil, from casettes to P2P, while pocketing the annually increasing revenues the same technologies bring in?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why's so hard to understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
Or, we could all, I dunno, read the story he linked to.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's simple
They don't ask you, because you already paid.
They most certainly do ask the venues to pay them when you play. (By "ask," I mean "threaten.")
Like the majority of musicians, I am not a member of ASCAP or BMI, and do not play covers. Yet every time I play a venue, both those organizations get money, and none of it goes to me.
Please explain to me how that is fair.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What's so hard to understand?
Say, did you read that one article where they threatened to do exactly that?
It's the article you're posting comments on. You might like to read it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why's so hard to understand?
Apparently, they have to pay even if they aren't.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple
But it just feels right.
By the way, I'm not only a member of ASCAP and BMI, I'm the president.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why's so hard to understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living' in order to make ASCAP look bad.
That was the assertion made in the comment that I replied to, that I asked the commenter to prove.
I agree with you about ASCAP. :)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
but he can still change, and get better at reading and writing.. if he wishes techdirt do be a serious policy forum
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
, lets keep posting , and keep mike honest
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
If the Rockefellers and Kenedys can pass $$ and biz on to grand-children and great-grandchilren,
why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
If I want to offer a venue free music in exchange for the publicity my music gets why should some parasitic third party get money in the process?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
good income source to songwriters and original artists? Good thing I wasn't drinking anything because that would surely have make it come out my nose.
The game has been rigged against the artists for quite some time. Mike doesn't HAVE to make it up. What you need to do is go out and find a real life songwriter or recording artist who is NOT a household word that makes more per year than the receptionist at the copyright collective. Hmm, that might be too tough. You might be able to do it for the janitor....
Copyright collectives seem to have gotten just as demented at the record labels.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Live acts: Original music should never be controlled by a 3rd party unless the originator passes their rights to a 3rd party.
Jukeboxes: Already covered, but all fees with jukeboxes are already figured into the price (assuming a rented and loaded jukebox). Interestingly enough, some of the venues I have played at informed me that after talking with ASCAP/BMI that their juke fees also covered live performaces. I.E. 1 fee for any performace of covered material.
Copyright: Someone tried to say earlier, but they were shot down by someone crying about something. Copyright does not apply to any performance, it applies to the performance of the copyrighted material (lyrics). While a true 'composer' might be eligible for compensation from a production studio or something in the case of a movie, generally speaking, copyright is for words, not music. If specific lines of music were protected, we'd run out of music real fast. Hell some bands never go beyond 4 chords in their entire multi-album history.
/puts on flame suit
-Random Idiot
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
We're asking posters to do the work of proving their point.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, ....in order to make ASCAP look bad".
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
As well the original band material , may not be that original , and their original songs may just be ripping off chuck berry et al.
I am a musician , I see guys all the time try to pawn as new and original stuff songs that are just complete riff-offs of other artists ,, either by intend or accident.
Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song ", you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
So given all this, you mean to tell me that as soon as a collection agency comes around threatening suit because a venue owner invites local bands to play their music......
As well the original band material , may not be that original , and their original songs may just be ripping off chuck berry et al.
I am a musician , I see guys all the time try to pawn as new and original stuff songs that are just complete riff-offs of other artists ,, either by intend or accident.
Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song ", you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Nice thread
Good conversation !! Nice job posters. This is what a thread should be.
don't you think so Mike ?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: So given all this, you mean to tell me that as soon as a collection agency comes around threatening suit because a venue owner invites local bands to play their music......
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
How is the establishment supposed to ensure this, anyhow? You expect the management to prioritise if a band does a cover version by watching the bands constantly? How much pop music do you expect the management to know? Does it count if the band is playing an indie remix or similarly deriative work? If a band plays Pachelbel's Canon in D are you going to demand payments to Vitamin C, Aerosmith, Green Day, U2, Avril Lavigne, etc, etc...
I don't know how you can expect to state with a straight face that everyone else but ASCAP definitely has to be lying, either, but then we've all seen the sort of blanket statements you can make.
Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song "
Good luck trying to figure out payments when someone writes a song with "I love you", or some other overused phrase.
you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
How did ASCAP's attempt to charge consumers for their ringtones publicly ringing go, again?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Asscrap
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
http://www.ascap.com/rights/
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ASCAP Enforcer: "I'm sorry, sir, but our psychics have confirmed that one day you will. Pay up!"
Just like the cops in Minority Report, ASCAP believes it has the right to charge for something that hasn't happened, yet. It's like getting pulled over and getting a speeding ticket when you weren't speeding...just because you might.
ASCAP should be honest, stop calling it a music fee and call it what it really is: a "Coffee Shop" fee...a fee charged for just being a coffee shop. If it's okay for ASCAP to do this, why doesn't the cable company charge non-customers because they might one day steal cable -- or phone companies charge for long distance calls in advance, because you might suddenly decide to call Switzerland?
These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
TAMster too stupid again
Really? So it's not pointless to mention
"who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living."
when the entire post is about bands playing original material and NOT PLAYING OTHER PEOPLE'S SONGS?
Sucker.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
There is nothing stopping The Beatles from passing their wealth on, through their estates, in exactly the same way as the Rockefellers and Kennedys do. The fact that their children may not be able to play a musical instrument is merely comparable to the fact that the Rockefeller's children may not be any good at business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Are you kidding me?
Take me to court? Have they ever heard of "consideration"?
Show me the consideration of the contract in question (which there is none) and then we'll talk.
B.S. and the coffee shop owners are a bunch of wimps for giving in.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
License?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Right of public performance
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right of public performance
But if I -- or another reasonable poster -- mis-types in "Tuesday" , in stead of "Wednesday" , I get flame back, and told I am an lying "troll" -- even if my typing mistake is completely irrelevant to the point intended.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
freedum
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
"Hilarious discussion on all sides."
But as point-counterpoint goes,, this thread is pretty good
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ASCAP goon squads
Then imagine how the sales of Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, etc., guitars would have been if kids playing Hendrix were crushed by corporate sharks like Edgar Bronfman, Jr, who today extorts a reported 2 meg pr yr on the copyright for HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.
We need to ask ourselves if we really want to be policed to this extent-must we surrender to the likes of this robber baron and his army of slimy lawyers?
We know that record companies ripped off the artists on record sales and the artists need to make theirs in personal performances, which I support. TIME WARNER and Bronfman can just kiss my ass. Performing popular music is my cultural imperative and they have no valid prior claim to that. If not for me and others like me their product (CDs) would be worthless. If they push it they won't make much after paying their lawyers in every successful lawsuit, especially against poor, judgment-proof defendants. And as juries wise up and people get fed up they'll be left with an army of lawyers on retainer who sue their client once they get hungry....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
Otherwise, you just get an echo-chamber where nobody questions the commonly-held viewpoint (e.g., freerepublic.com).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
Anonymous Coward is a label applied to anybody who doesn't sign in, not one commenter.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
A limited monopoly promotes creativity through the profit motive, but the expansion of that monopoly prevents creative use works and the public enjoyment of those works.
You've got to strike the balance.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's simple
That's not necessarily true, actually. Many venues have a blanket yearly license, so they aren't paying "every time" a performance is made.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: What's so hard to understand?
Second, did the article actually say they treatened to sue?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why's so hard to understand?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please refrain from commenting if you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Are you kidding me?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
Record company royalty would have to rethink their inflated sense of entitlement, and instead of making bazillions on a few hits they'd have to share with artists as old as The Zombies and Bill Haley, and not just their chicken hawk A&R in-laws and their new boy band stars.
Rubin wants to see those record companies' palaces razed to rubble, and he (and others including yours truly) would like to see a truly equitable split of the loot. Especially after the lovely Ms. Mary Wells and Friendly Womack, Jr. took time to explain the attempt to recoup royalties (from Berry Gordy, Jr.) to me nearly 30 years ago, winning my support for it and them.
A modest users' fee (multiplied by millions of kids and adults who pay little or nothing now) would inspire and encourage compliance instead of empowering and channeling the geniuses who will likely defeat all attempts to curtail/criminalize file sharing.
Rick Rubin has a workable plan but he doesn't think like a greedy oligarch. Needless to say there is resistance from those who want to stock another gold vault with each new multi-platinum release.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gangsters?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gangsters?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I don't get it
Well, when he explains the problem and presents the cease & desist letter to his attorney the lawyer will immediately ejaculate, "Hey, you don't have to put up with that! Gimme ten thousand dollars and I'll get started on this right away!"
In suits like this there are three interested parties and two will always win....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
So , click my profile , check my several hundred recent posts here on this topic , & go to my websites because "before you accuse me , take a look at yourself,,,,,,."
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
good post
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: License? All this because the govt has spent the next 10 generations of wealth...in advance.
cute point . I like it
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right of public performance
In fact, why should they stop with establishments that offer live music. They should require any business that allows people to congregate on its property to pay for a license on the off-chance that someone in attendance might spontaneously break into song.
Then the only place they could go from there would be to simply tax every person on the face of the planet for potentially singing, hearing or even thinking of copyrighted music. That's what they want, anyway.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Gangsters?
Extortion? No-- in my humble opinion. But I will ask my lawyers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
Honestly, what you're describing sounds a lot like what ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC do now (but limited to public performances).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
At the very least, the DJ is performing the compositions for a profit.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
On the other hand, the SESAC reps I dealt with were atrocious.
I think, in many cases, it's the luck of the draw re: which particular rep you get and whether they are reasonable/competent.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
It thought that would be clear to any reader , next time I will ad a smiley :).
But there is a sliver of serious question in the post
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
Explain please. That statement does not make sense to me.
A court order is Law in action -
- as I understand it , in my humble opinion, based on years of reading , studying , and a degree in Pol-sci ;;; and also $50,000 still due in student loans
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right of public performance
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=r5F&rls=en&q=any+retransmissi on+for+money++is+protected+under+copyright&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
At the very least, the DJ is performing the compositions for a profit."
Good point. Kudos to you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Why don't you take up a collection?
So if all of you are incensed about the situation, why don't you set up a fund (crowdfunded of course) to take the matter to the courts?
How about you guys put your money where your mouths are. Since Techdirt believes good ideas/causes can find financial support among the people, use Techdirt as funding and legal solution, not just a bitch site.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why don't you take up a collection?
So I doubt that the situation is going to change unless the laws are rewritten or someone wins a court case. I don't see either of those situations happening unless some person or organization pays for the necessary legal or lobbying expenses. So if this is something that you feel passionately about, think in terms of putting together a legal fund.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
Just because judges and the courts represent the law, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. It is possible for a judge to break the law, just like everyone else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
The problem is that the way the law is enforced is that these collection agencies have been given the right to collect from any venue playing any music. I believe that in most cases the rep goes to the venue, hears at least one song written by a member, and has the necessary evidence. But I don't believe that has been needed in all cases.
I did a ton of research on the subject, because it doesn't make sense to me that venues are considered guilty until they can prove that they aren't playing any ASCAP/BMI/SESAC music, but so far I have only found one mention of a venue that was able to successfully win. The venue owner was able to show that the only music played in his venue was public domain folk songs.
Generally the argument is this: pay a reasonably-priced blanket license and then you'll be free to play whatever music you want. But each collection agency makes the same argument, so venues often have to pay to all three.
I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
If you click around , starting with my profile , you can find out my email in a few clicks. (others here have, I even get flame now in my private email).
But yes please do sent me what you got !!!!!!
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/
(the blog is only an academic hobby , and takes no comments or ads, but with a few clicks you find my contact info.)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
thanks a gain.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Gorillas
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
B: Every source is bias being that sources come from bias people. I try to be bias towards the truth. What you actually mean is a source that more strongly agrees with your bias.
The quote came from one of the potential defendants being threatened. What better source should he quote, your opinion? The opinion of some clueless third party?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My ASCAP experience
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: My ASCAP experience
This reminds me of an idea I had for a copyleft jukebox some time ago. This would play only unsigned/license-exempt music, but would still accept coins, which would ultimately be disbursed by the proprietor to the respective musicians, i.e. to encourage those musicians their customers most played to produce more music - and thus build up customers. A win-win outcome.
It really is crazy when the natural liberty of playing music must be charged for on threat of legal penalty. An effective tax on cultural liberty is certainly lucrative to those that collect it, but this doesn't make it ethical.
Let's make it easier for music lovers to pay musicians to make music, and far more difficult for 'collection societies' to get rich via extortion using anachronistic 18th century privileges.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ASCAP is legalized extortion
They don't want the kareoke DJ paying the fees because they want to collect from all the bars that have that DJ perform.
So here we have examples of small businesses being damanged by this organization.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: ASCAP is legalized extortion
The DJs and the performers never pay the fees. It's always the responsibility of the venue. That's just the way it has been set up.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
One type of event where the fees don't apply
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
What we have here is one side's story funelled to Techdirt readers as the facts.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Will the lawsuit be on behalf of venue owners or songwriters? Depending who the lawsuit benefits, then you can post the announcement on the appropriate forums.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Art
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Another Coffee Shop Bites the Dust
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Public Performance License
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Why
supporting them being allowed to operat e and create without
being extorted. As a professional musician I deeply resent
ASCAP insisting i ts working on my behalf. I've known more
than one venue this story happened to which means less places I can perform my original work at to feed myself and my wife! Did you know in their licensing contract for venuesASCAP includes a fee on door charges? If I perform in a club
that follows that policy who ends up with a percentage of my
hard earned money? Eminem? These creeps should stick to big
money pop and leave small businesses alone!
being able
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Why
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
ASCAP threatening us to pay or stop
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
live performance royalties, as well
Under U.S. Copyright Law, the songwriter has exclusive right of public performance. That means he/she has the legal right to play the song, but nobody else does without his permission. No business is going to get sued if it has played only music written by the performer.
Sorry, Jerry but this isn't true. There is also such thing as "live performance royalties", where any member of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC can file with that organization to get a royalty for playing THEIR OWN ORIGINAL MUSIC. If the venue they played it at doesn't pay the license fees, the venue gets in trouble. That's irrespective of what they get paid as their performance fee (whether a guarantee or a door deal based on draw). I didn't know about this until a harrassing SESAC agent (they are the worst) told me this. So for example, a SESAC band that just played my venue to 190 people and got paid over $1000 could technically file to get paid even more from SESAC (which is basically getting paid twice for doing the same job). Luckily, that particular band agreed not to file for such royalties. But apparently a verbal agreement not to, might not be enough - I may have to get it writing in the future. Remember to look into this loophole if you host professional acts - ask them in advance which of three they belong to, and get a signed waiver from them promising not to file live performance royalties. This is something few people know about.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment