ASCAP suing clubs/restaurants for royalties

[aubreyz]

I thought this news item might interest us royalty hopeful types:http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/b ... 01.htmlAub

[vermeer]

This is not a good sign folks. For years, PROs have looked the other way when it came to small establishments where music was not their main businesses. It's like software piracy. Microsoft doesn't go after individuals; only corporations and governments. What's next? Street buskers? Kindergartens (hey kiddy, don't sing those copyrighted songs!)? YouTube guitar teachers? Wait...they've already done it That's nuts

[zircon]

This isn't exactly a low point. At one point, ASCAP had announced that they were going to sue the Girl Scouts for singing campfire songs. The massive media backlash caused them to reconsider, though.

[aubreyz]

Quote:This is not a good sign folks. For years, PROs have looked the other way when it came to small establishments where music was not their main businesses. It's like software piracy. Microsoft doesn't go after individuals; only corporations and governments. What's next? Street buskers? Kindergartens (hey kiddy, don't sing those copyrighted songs!)? YouTube guitar teachers? Wait...they've already done it That's nuts Okay... I have to admit that I had to google street buskers to make sure of what you are talking about. Actually street performers and kindergarteners are covered by the fees local governments pay.IMHO this is a good thing. The end result is that more songwriters will be paid. YouTube is making a buzzillion dollars off of advertisers because users post copyrighted material. They-YouTube should have to pay fees just like broadcasters.Girl scouts.... hmmm... maybe just a few cookies.Aub

[mazz]

Ever notice when you go to a chain restaurant they don't sing Happy Birthday anymore for birthday parties (it's usually some dumb chant)? That song is not in the public domain yet and I'm sure ASCAP or BMI came knocking, maybe at the author's or the author's estate's behalf.I'm with Aub here. If any of us manages to write a song that is covered in bars everywhere, we're gonna want to get paid for when a band covers it. My goal is to quit my day job and performance royalties (Film, TV, Live) are what's gonna make that happen. I want to know that my intellectual property (my assets) are reaping as much return as possible. The clubs in question in the article are responsible to pay the licensing fee, not the DJs, IMO. No one ever charged me to play covers in the 80s, the venues were supposed to be taking care of that. (Didn't we go over this already on another thread?)Since it seems most people out there don't understand the concept of intellectual property, they think that music is, or should be, free. After all, you can turn on your radio or TV and hear it all day long! Or go out to your local pub and hear the local cover band play your favorite oldies or the latest whatever. Sorry, but the music is not free. Someone sweated blood to create that old song and one of the main ways they get paid for that effort are performance royalties.Now I don't support the strong-arm tactics that are sometimes employed by the PROs and the record companies. I think they would get better results by educating the public about the realities of the music business and some basics of intellectual property concepts. After all, no one in their right mind would commute to work every day and not get paid for it, no matter how much they love their jobs! Why should hard-working musicians/songwriters/composers be denied a paycheck? If the general public understood this more, maybe they'd be more careful about downloading/sharing and more mindful about where the music they enjoy comes from.Most people say "well Sting, Madonna, etc. etc. are rich, they don't need the money!". Well maybe that's true but what about the millions of hours of music that's created by people like you and me for broadcast, cable, children's DVDs, documentaries and on and on. That's the real infrastructure of the entertainment business and the concept of intellectual property and performance royalties are key to keeping that pump primed.I don't know what the new business models are going to be in the future but I can guarantee that the creators of the content (US!!!) are still gonna want to get paid so they don't have to work some crummy day job in the meantime. To keep the quality of the music high, people need to focus their lives on it.Another Sopabox Derby by Mazz

[vermeer]

Well, I totally disagree with you guys. Suing your fans is *never* a good idea. That's business 101. I do understand copyright and I do understand that PROs statements are the only money a songwriter can really count on.However, I come from the world of software engineering and there's a very close parallel in there. If someone pirates my software so he/she can learn it at home, I have made one more fan. When that person becomes "pro", you can bet that he/she is going to want to acquire "legit" versions. I know this is what I did when I was younger. Yeah, throw the first stone and tell me you've never copied software or made compilation tapes for your friends. Little criminal you What we need to do is to spell out the cases where copying is OK, because right now, making backup copies of your CDs is technically illegal and this sucks.We all dream of making it big and earn an honest living off our intellectual property. I personally believe there is more money taken away from songwriter by record and publishing companies through "recouping schemes" and "creative accounting" than poor Joe smith bar owner and the girl scouts. I say we go after the corporate thieves first! If ASCAP keeps suing them, music fans will start to see songwriters the same way they see lawyers and tax collectors: as a bunch of leaches out to get every last drop of their blood.My 2 cents (0.018$ USD actually...).Vermeer

[mazz]

I don't think ASCAP is suing the fans, they're suing the places that provide a venue for the fans to come and hear music. The fans pay an admission fee or cover charge or drinks or food or whateve, the venue is responsible for licensing the music that is played there. Music isn't free!Making compilation tapes has been legal for a long time. Selling compliation tapes has never been legal. I made tons of tapes in the day for my car. I gave a few to friends but I never sold them.Man I wish I could go to my local Toyota dealer at night, grab a Prius and put 5K miles on it just to see if I like it or not. I think they probably won't mind! Hey, I'm a Prius fan and I'm all for the environment, what's wrong with that?I guess I disagree with taking software or hardware without paying for it. Maybe the prices are too high for software? Will you take a cut in pay so I can afford to buy the software you write? Didn't think so!Nothing personal, I just feel strongly about this. Peace,Mazz

[ddusty]

I am with Mazz on this one. My father owned a couple of restaurants when i was younger and had to pay ASCAP fees for the music he played (both live and recorded)If you read the whole article, a ASCAP representative has tried for 2 years to get the club owner to comply. For the size of the venue, he was asked to pay about $900 a year. $900 sounds like a lot, but not when you realize it's only 75 bucks a month or so. It's one thing to ask for an arm and a leg, but think about the hours of entertainment he gets to provide his customers for $75 a month.I believe the club owners main argument was that he pays for satellite radio and cable TV, but those fees are strictly for private use. They didn't hit this guy out of left field, he is refusing to co-operate with a federal laws that many venues pay for.JMHORob

[aubreyz]

Quote:I guess I disagree with taking software or hardware without paying for it. Maybe the prices are too high for software? Will you take a cut in pay so I can afford to buy the software you write? Didn't think so!Nothing personal, I just feel strongly about this. Peace,MazzI'm no judge of anyone else's principles, but I have an absolute rule about this too. I don't use cracks or pirated versions of anything. I don't download stolen filesharing music or movies -- and we have the same rules in my house. Honestly, most of my kid's friends think they are from Mars because they don't burn copies of CD to give to friends, or accept them either. We have become a society of, "if it's free, and there's no real consequence then it's okay". I asked my son once if he would walk into a record store, hide a cd in his shirt and walk out with it. "No way... that's stealing!"--- sooo, what's the difference in downloading something for free. It's stealing too.Copyrights exist to protect the rights of those who should profit from their intellectual and artistic capital. If Joe Smoe club owner wants to offer copyrighted material so he can please those he's making profits off of, then he should fairly share those profits with those who own the rights. Anything less is theft.This doesn't seem like a huge issue, but is just a small example of how situational morality is a big can of worms. The rules should either apply proportionally to everyone, or else there shouldn't be rules. Sorry for the soapbox, but I too feel strongly about the principles involved here.Aub

[matto]

Quote:Well, I totally disagree with you guys. Suing your fans is *never* a good idea. Nobody is suing any "fans" here. ASCAP is suing businesses that use music to attract customers so they can sell them food and drinks. Clubs typically charge entrance fees and music is the main reason people go there. Of course they need to pay ASCAP/BMI licenses. Restaurants and bars use music for ambiance, to set a mood to entice their clients to linger longer and spend more. Just like they might use mood lighting or nice table cloths and silverware. They pay for those "accessories", and for the electricity to run the lights, but somehow they feel the music should be free.You might just as well say musicians shouldn't get paid for commercial radio airplay because radio stations are "disseminating music to the fans". In truth they use music to attract an audience, which in turn allows them to attract advertising. Music is really just "setting the mood" to keep people tuned in for the commercials.IMHO, businesses of any kind who use music in one way or another, in order to make a profit, should pay for using that music.matto