<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;clubs&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:55:21 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Rise Of The 'Professional Amateur' And The Fall Of Gated, Exclusionary 'Clubs'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/09311617622/rise-professional-amateur-fall-gated-exclusionary-clubs.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/09311617622/rise-professional-amateur-fall-gated-exclusionary-clubs.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ As the gatekeepers continue to see their carefully constructed walls crumbling, they have rushed to shore up the walls using any means at their disposal, whether it's legislation, lawsuits or simple exclusion. But those within the gates aren't much happier, despite the limitations imposed by the gatekeepers, and many are just as resistant to change as the legacy industries they work in. <br /><br /> Tadhg Kelly at GamesBrief has delivered an excellent post <a href="http://www.gamesbrief.com/2012/01/why-pro-amateurs-are-the-future/" target="_blank">explaining why it's so hard for the creators still working within the confines of these industries to embrace the future</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>Creative industries tend to be like clubs. You can get into the club in many ways, but all of them are equally difficult. You've put the time in, done the training, had the lucky breaks, struggled and finally made it. Once you are actually in the club then life is easier. You have a name, you are a part of a network and you work with a lot of the same people year in year out. Members rarely fall out of the club entirely...</i> <br /><br /> <i>We are pros. We are "in". And we are aware that there are so many more people who are not "in" that would like to be.</i> <br /><br /> <i>Perhaps they have an overly-romantic notion of what it's like but that's just how it is. All creative fields, from modern art through to advertising have that lustre because people like the idea of making things for a living.</i>
</blockquote>
That last sentence is key. Even as the limitations and drawbacks of yoking your creative output to a major label or a large publishing house become more apparent, the lure remains nearly as strong, simply because for a long period of time, these legacy industries were the best option. But now they're not, and this threatens those still working within the system.
<blockquote>
<i>[P]art of being "in" is the sense that the club can't get too big, and for many the internet is actually pushing to make the club smaller. Book publishers, for example, no longer offer much in the way of advances. Long-tail services like Netflix and Spotify have such huge libraries that every new artist is competing not just with their peers, but their antecedents also. Distribution may rise but prices fall.</i> <br /><br /> <i>They feel squeezed by piracy. Though they dislike it, many who are "in" quietly believe that they have to keep many more people "out" in order to hold on to what remains. I don't mean executives etc. I mean established writers, musicians, game makers and so on. We live in a curious age where the freest of thinkers (artists of various stripes) are the ones that want to curtail freedom the most.</i>
</blockquote>
The pressure to control the internet isn't simply studio execs and big content lobbyists. The pressure is also exerted by those on the inside, who aren't happy to see huge shifts in the gameplan or new blood being introduced. But even worse, they can't tell whether the gates are protecting them or trapping them.
<blockquote>
<i>Those who are "in" also feel squeezed by something else: Democratisation of tools. It's bad enough that they have to deal with a loss of revenue, but a reduction of difficulty in getting into the club threatens to increase its size many times over. The future is a world awash with low-rent ebooks, GarageBand music and GameMaker-developed games. Quality will collapse, and there will be no future for the professional any more.</i>
</blockquote>
This opinion is expressed quite often during discussions about legacy industries, that if the barriers are low enough, everyone's going to jump the fence and water down the creative field. To those in the club, it looks hopeless: set adrift in a sea of low-talent amateurs whose willingness to undercut the competition with massive amounts of cheap/free goods. <br /><br /> But they fail to see the upside to the removal of barriers:
<blockquote>
<i>In the startup world, the reduction of barriers is a great boon. You can, for example, assemble a small team and go create a tool that will change the world. As an individual you can create a blog that causes conversations and change. You can develop a game, make music, start a design agency, and all you need is a laptop.</i>
</blockquote>
With the barriers to entry removed, the stage is set for a new breed of creators: the professional amateur.
<blockquote>
<i>It's not amateur in the sense of a lack of diligence, nor is it professional in the sense of those who are "in". The forces of technology distribution and cheap or free tools creates a space for talent to do what talent wants to do. It creates a class of pro-amateur makers.</i> <br /><br /> <i>A pro-amateur perhaps works on a project as a side-line to her day-job but she treats it seriously. Like any struggling writer, there is the work and the need to pay the rent. The difference is that the pro-amateur then takes her work and distributes it directly. She creates a book, an album, a TV series and just puts it out there. It only really costs her time to do it, and if it works it works. If not, she does something else.</i>
</blockquote>
As has always been the case, making money in the creative world is hard. Most people cannot afford to do it as their only source of income. This isn't a new problem, although many of those on the inside of the "club" tend to portray it as such. But this new hybrid form of creator will be able to do things they can't, thanks to platforms and tools they embrace, rather than distrust.
<blockquote>
<i>The magic of the internet is therefore this: It substitutes time spent getting into the club with time spent finding fans. Expertise with experience. Legitimacy with audience. Jargon with generosity. And for those with the talent to do it well come the rewards because niche audiences that blossom into tribes exist for almost anything you can think of.</i>
</blockquote>
To coin a phrase (ha!), Connect with Fans and give them a Reason to Buy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/09311617622/rise-professional-amateur-fall-gated-exclusionary-clubs.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/09311617622/rise-professional-amateur-fall-gated-exclusionary-clubs.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120201/09311617622/rise-professional-amateur-fall-gated-exclusionary-clubs.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-internet-is-the-ultimate-siege-engine</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120201/09311617622</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/16024816045/bmi-says-club-is-too-sexy-standard-fees-voids-check-sues-non-payment.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/16024816045/bmi-says-club-is-too-sexy-standard-fees-voids-check-sues-non-payment.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ BMI is back doing what <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?company=bmi" target="_blank">BMI</a> does best: hauling in the "rent." This time <a href="http://www.wzzm13.com/news/article/179665/48/BMI-sues-Lady-Godivas-for-music-copyright-violations?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|p" target="_blank">BMI is going after a nightclub in Michigan for not taking advantage of its "services."</a>
<blockquote><i>Broadcast Music, Inc., the music licensing group, is suing the Lady Godiva's nightclub and its owner, Mark London, claiming the club has violated copyrights. BMI filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, alleging the club played songs by artists Rivers Cuomo ("Say It Ain't So"), R. Kelly ("Ignition") and Amy Winehouse ("You Know I'm No Good") without paying the proper music license fees. The suit claims the songs were played at the club -- without BMI permission -- on September 27, 2010.
</i></blockquote>
As has been shown before, BMI needs nothing more than <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110815/11503015533/restaurant-owner-ordered-to-pay-bmi-30450-illegally-playing-four-unlicensed-songs.shtml" target="_blank">a few songs</a> to build a claim against a business and it got the songs it needed. The filing (embedded below) is light on details but runs long on hyperbolic doomsaying. It would appear from BMI's own wording that unless Lady Godiva's rogue actions are stopped, the very future of performance rights groups is in peril. Check these out (page 4):
<blockquote><i>
The specific acts of copyright infringement alleged, as well as the Defendant's entire course of conduct, have caused and are causing Plaintiffs <b>great and incalculable damage</b>.
</i></blockquote>
Holy hell! A single nightclub in Grand Rapids, MI (Pop. 188,040) has broken BMI's calculator with its alleged course of conduct! Somebody needs to stop Godiva before its kills/breaks math again! But who? <br /><blockquote> <i>Unless this Court restrains Defendants from committing further acts of copyright infringement, Plaintiffs <b>will suffer irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law</b>.
</i></blockquote>
It's worse than I thought! BMI will have to go on the Injured Reserve List! For life! How many among us have carelessly "infringed copyrights" without thinking of the little people, like BMI, ASCAP and so many other battered acronyms? Who will nurse their "irreparable" wounds? Will BMI have to resort to vigilante justice to collect its fees? Is <i>that</i> the way we really want it? Limping performance rights organizations operating outside the law? I submit to you that we do not.
<br /><br />
But that's only half the story (and what a half it is...) According to Lady Godiva's owner, Mark London, attempts were made to pay the licensing fees, but BMI tried to change the agreement.
<blockquote><i>
London tells WZZM 13 News that BMI is seeking to have him sign a licensing agreement registering his club as an adult entertainment business, which he says it is not. He says that while his club does feature women dancing it is not a topless venue, as a 2006 Grand Rapids city ordinance no longer allows nudity.
<br /><br />
London says he is in good standing with ASCAP and other licensing agencies. But when he sent checks to BMI to pay for music rights, London says the group voided the payments.
</i></blockquote>
So, suddenly, "enough" just isn't enough for BMI. It wants more and it isn't shy about dragging a business into court until it's happy with the dollar amount. Understandably, BMI's filing says nothing about this dispute over categorization and relies solely on the testimony of three well-known tunes. This is a pretty thin filing for BMI, which probably explains the overwrought language.<br /><br /> BMI may have an incredible success rate with its lawsuits but trying to convince a judge that a business that <i>could not possibly</i> be an adult entertainment business is, in fact, an adult entertainment business is going to be a pretty tough sell, no matter how much supposed ongoing "irreparable damage" is involved.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/16024816045/bmi-says-club-is-too-sexy-standard-fees-voids-check-sues-non-payment.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/16024816045/bmi-says-club-is-too-sexy-standard-fees-voids-check-sues-non-payment.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110921/16024816045/bmi-says-club-is-too-sexy-standard-fees-voids-check-sues-non-payment.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>'irreparable-damage'?-if-only</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110921/16024816045</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:28:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Massively Increasing Music Licensing Fees For Clubs Down Under Massively Backfires</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091105/1128586810.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091105/1128586810.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've noted the ridiculous and self-defeating efforts by many music collections societies around the world to jack up their rates by ridiculous amounts.  None was more ridiculous than the  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0329305236.shtml">attempt in Australia</a> by the PPCA where some of the rate changes would rocket up from figures like $125/year... to $19,344/year.   Well, it looks like it's already backfiring badly.  Reader Dan alerts us to the news that the organization that represents night clubs and similar businesses in Australia, appropriately named Clubs Australia, has set up a system whereby the organization will specifically go out and <a href="http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/news/local/news/general/music-fee-hike-backfires/1646165.aspx?storypage=0" target="_blank">seek music by artists <i>not covered</i> by the collections effort</a>, and distribute that music to clubs and other establishments. Then, these clubs, gyms, restaurants and the like can tell the PPCA to take a hike, and still play music.  We'd already seen that some clubs had started doing this on their <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml">own</a>, but now they've teamed up to share such music with each other in order to get out from under the PPCA entirely.  So, nice job PPCA.  Once again, in your effort to get people to pay more for every single use, you end up making it that much more difficult for anyone to actually hear -- or care about -- the musicians you supposedly represent.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091105/1128586810.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091105/1128586810.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091105/1128586810.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>finding-non-covered-music</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091105/1128586810</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:52:35 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Australian Clubs Looking To Play Independent Music To Avoid Insane New Royalties</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been discussing how collections societies around the globe have been making a mad dash to get governments to tax more things or to simply massively expand existing collection taxes on music.  One stunning example we gave was how the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia (PPCA) was pushing to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090615/0329305236.shtml">increase fees</a> by ridiculous amounts (in one example from $125/year to $19,344).  Apparently, part of the setup is that clubs and restaurants have to pay a much higher per patron fee, and the number of patrons is based not on the actual number of patrons -- but on capacity.  PPCA and others like them continue to insist that all of the value in a restaurant or club comes from the music, and thus those places should pay these extortionate rates, even if actual human beings don't come to fill up the place (so much for the music actually bringing in the crowds).  But it looks like at least some clubs in Australia are pushing back.  Sambo points us to the news that many are trying to build support for a protest effort where these clubs will <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/11/2710757.htm?section=justin" target="_new">only play independent music</a> and avoid all music licensed to the PPCA.  Of course, in the US, we've seen ASCAP and BMI tell clubs that do similar things that it doesn't matter -- since they <i>might</i> accidentally play their music.  Still, it looks like these kinds of moves, that often would bankrupt these clubs and restaurants, are having an unintended consequence of  helping to promote <i>non-PPCA</i> music.  So, if you're a musician and you want to get heard in Australia, try licensing your songs under a Creative Commons license or something and highlight that anyone can play the music without having to pay a ridiculous PPCA tax.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/0205396505.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>send-them-some-indie-music</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091013/0205396505</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>