Bunch of interesting posts, here - I'm better informed than I was 10 minutes ago.

This seems to be the rub, to me - where do new bands come from?  Where do they develop the talent and skills to be an act eventually worth seeing, let alone become good craftsmen in re songwriting?  Where do the new "BIG" acts come from?

Unless something has changed radically in the past hundred years or so - that source is the cover band.  I mean really - who among us didn't get started in the business by going out there and throwing down a bad version of "Louie Louie" or "Wipeout" (You kids among us, there's always Youtube....)  You learn to BE a good performer or writer by LEARNING from the good performers/writers, basically by emulating them.

About 25 or so years ago ASCAP or somesuch pulled this nonsense on a bar in the Boston area - the owner went to court on it and won on exactly this basis - that this kind of enforcement would ultimately put an end to the business by making it impossible for the next big thing to ever come into existence.

I've got no problem with collecting a modest fee to cover all music performances at a venue - but the key word here is modest.  These guys must be pinheads - if you charge, say, 500 bucks a year (not, to me, outrageous) for such rights, then MORE venues will buy into it, and the PROs and their clients stand to make MORE.  Why try to collect outrageous fees and have more and more places stop music?  Simple business.......

If you didn't hate them before, or were on the fence, READ THIS!!!!
 
RESTAURANTEUR:  (this is after meeting with her lawyer)
 
Okay, I just got done meeting with my attorney and it don't look good. I asked him about having bands do original material and he told me that the problem with that is that the PROs will target you and claim that they are "derivative works". A drivative work is a song that is not wholly original, it has sprang out of hearing something something else. However, that because it is altered enough it can be copyrighted on its own then it is no longer a derivative work....or something like that. He told me something about how a recording exec will often retain 50% of the copyright when they sign a band and they work with these PRO. He agreed that it is basically legalized extortion. He explained that they will often hire musicians or music teachers to spy for them. (Now thats scary.)

I asked him about the waiver and he told me he would talk to a couple people and get back to me, but he also told me that the more I try to fight these people the more they will target me to use as an example.

He told me that they have this set up so that all roads work in their ffavor. He told me that as a restaurant owner my interests should be in using the music to increase my profits (thats the way the court sees it). Therefore, its difficult for a business owner to go into court and yell social injustice. Basically, what he was saying is that the only way these guys could be beat is if it was a public outcrying of social injustice and musicians were on board. But the problem is that the PRO are very low key, they don't like advertising and most musicians don't even understand what they are getting into. They make it seems like they are protecting them but the corporate involvement is making billions and basically determining who is worthy and who is not.

(Now you know WHY I'm trying to educate you all)

He also told me that there are SET fines of $30,000.00 per infraction and up to $100,000.00 per willfull infraction. If I have been warned then it is willfull infraction.

I will let you know what he says about the waivers and send you this stuff in the morning. Thanks for all your help.
 

---

 
I'll say it again.  Cancel your memberships.  You're NEVER going to get any money being a small artist. You have NOTHING to lose, except the opportunity to play!

spindlebox


If you didn't hate them before, or were on the fence, READ THIS!!!!
 
RESTAURANTEUR:  (this is after meeting with her lawyer)
 
Okay, I just got done meeting with my attorney and it don't look good. I asked him about having bands do original material and he told me that the problem with that is that the PROs will target you and claim that they are "derivative works". A drivative work is a song that is not wholly original, it has sprang out of hearing something something else. However, that because it is altered enough it can be copyrighted on its own then it is no longer a derivative work....or something like that. He told me something about how a recording exec will often retain 50% of the copyright when they sign a band and they work with these PRO. He agreed that it is basically legalized extortion. He explained that they will often hire musicians or music teachers to spy for them. (Now thats scary.)

I asked him about the waiver and he told me he would talk to a couple people and get back to me, but he also told me that the more I try to fight these people the more they will target me to use as an example.

He told me that they have this set up so that all roads work in their ffavor. He told me that as a restaurant owner my interests should be in using the music to increase my profits (thats the way the court sees it). Therefore, its difficult for a business owner to go into court and yell social injustice. Basically, what he was saying is that the only way these guys could be beat is if it was a public outcrying of social injustice and musicians were on board. But the problem is that the PRO are very low key, they don't like advertising and most musicians don't even understand what they are getting into. They make it seems like they are protecting them but the corporate involvement is making billions and basically determining who is worthy and who is not.

(Now you know WHY I'm trying to educate you all)

He also told me that there are SET fines of $30,000.00 per infraction and up to $100,000.00 per willfull infraction. If I have been warned then it is willfull infraction.

I will let you know what he says about the waivers and send you this stuff in the morning. Thanks for all your help.
 

---

 
I'll say it again.  Cancel your memberships.  You're NEVER going to get any money being a small artist. You have NOTHING to lose, except the opportunity to play!

Jeeze!!!!

Well, you can count on my support.

spindlebox
 
I'll say it again.  Cancel your memberships.  You're NEVER going to get any money being a small artist. You have NOTHING to lose, except the opportunity to play!

Absolutely NOT. Why?...

(1) That's like asking writers who receive royalties to suddenly give up their earnings.

(2) I have received exemplary assistance and continued advise from writers services (APRA-AMCOS) for which I am grateful.


Derivative Works for example; (1) pertains to writers who submit their work to music hosting sites online or to competitions granting permission to alter works, to be used for other purposes such as; promotion, or other affiliated programs and sites.  Also, (2) copyright of such work is independent and does not affect ownership or any copyrights of the original work.  And (3) either a work is in violation of copyrights or not, there is no in between.

Mr.Spindlebox,
There is a way for you and your restaurant friends to avoid collections (legally) without you giving in to C/Commons but unfortunately you're so over-the-top with this 'Call-To-Arms' I doubt very much you will pay any attention to what I have said.  So go ahead and cancel your membership then sign all your works to creative commons oh and make sure it's not perpetual (cannot be revoked), and with all due respect; don't expect others to follow your advise.

And lastly; either you're spinning misleading information on this thread or the US royalties collections (BMI, ASCAP) procedures are completely different to that of Australia's (APRA-AMCOS)!

-

And lastly; either you're spinning misleading information on this thread or the US royalties collections (BMI, ASCAP) procedures are completely different to that of Australia's (APRA-AMCOS)!

And that of the UK's (PRS-MCPS) which looks similar to the Aussie set-up.

http://www.prsformusic.com/

FWIW, for a decent music venue here the PRS charge a venue 3% of ticket sales or 6% of the cost of booking acts over the year if the venue doesn't charge on the door.

It encourages venues to take music as a serious option as the cost for just putting on one off shows ramps up sharply.

Juke boxes and pay per view system TV's make enough money for the vendor and are subject to a flat rate from the PRS dependant on the square area of the bar.

Aside from that if you own a public venue the only other form of broadcast media would be satellite TV which again is subject to an annual rate for public broadcast and attracts large amount of custom for live sports and music events although the venue will not be charging directly for this facility of course he will benefit from the increased sales it generates.

If you own a venue and listen to the radio or your own CD player you'd have to be nuts to pay licence fees for those as there is so much opportunity to increase profits using any of the above methods which will all generate a decent additional income for the venue if done right.

Mr. SongCraft, either you speak a different form of English down under, or you can't read.  I'm not posting erroneous, made up information here.  I'm posting the experience of one very real person, and the words of their well-paid lawyer.

With all due respect Scott I don't think Greg nor myself need an education on the subject as it seems we are both familiar with the procedures where we work, and nobody has accused you of posting made up information nor accused you of not being able to read.

Others though have questioned why the 'CALL FOR ARMS' dramatics specifically now which is what is intriguing me and which you haven't really answered other than knowing somebody personally that is currently affected by having to pay the same licensing fees as everyone else in his situation.  The rates and setup haven't changed here noticeably ever since I can remember and it sounds to me like Greg is saying the same thing, so is there new legislation that has recently taken hold state-side or is it that you've only just become aware of the responsibilities that a venue owner undertakes for broadcasting music in that venue?

I'm seriously asking this question because a lot of you guys seem to bringing it up just lately, so I'm figuring there must have been a recent change for the worse that we need to be keeping an eye on over here and down under, but to be honest despite your heavy handed tone I can't see what has actually changed yet.

spindlebox

SongCraft

Absolutely NOT. Why?...

-
Mr. SongCraft, either you speak a different form of English down under, or you can't read.  I'm not posting erroneous, made up information here.  I'm posting the experience of one very real person, and the words of their well-paid lawyer.
-

Also, these bastards tried to go after the Girl Scouts of America a while back, saying they had to pay royalties for campfire songs, but they were cowed by public outcry.

If you won't stand up for yourself, I'll do it for you.  How much money have you collected by the way?  That's what we're talking about here.  Not excellent customer service.  Good luck with that.  You're making some rich artist richer, because you're not considered part of the grand equation.

Granted, I may be wrong about some of those overseas entities, but NOT with the big 3 here!  This is a very real problem.

My methods of extremism may seem over the top, but they've gotten some attention, and that was the purpose. 

For the readers that want to truly learn, I'll be posting links to actual letters sent out by these watch dogs sent to my restaurant friend, and any other information I give.

do you really think the big 3 give a rat's patootie about a handful of sonar users?  how many could you possibly gear up for your rally to boycott them?  a dozen?  2?
 
that'll show 'em.

I'm going to check, but I'm pretty sure "patootie" is a violation of the TOS.

Randy

rsp@odyssey.net


I'm going to check, but I'm pretty sure "patootie" is a violation of the TOS.

Randy

 
If it isn't - it certainly should be.
 
 
 
Bad Beag - off the couch now (and none of your whimpering)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No Patoo tied
 
 
 
 

A) the laws have changed dramatically over the years

Where have they is what I keep asking?

The last law change that led to the PRS here making amendments for their Restaurant licensing tarrif which is the area that Scott has brought up was after a court ruling due breach of copyright in 1991 which wasn't made by the non-profit making PRS but was agreed by the court they would be the agency to collect the money from Restaurants and Hotels.

It likely is a draconian tax as it has been operating the same way here for as long as I can remember.

It's an open fact that 90% of it's membership will recieve less than £5000 during the year so unless you've written a track that is getting lots of airplay and is on all the jukeboxes then you are hardly likely to be getting a rake-off from their collections, which are more of a concern for venue operators rather than mere musicians and as you can see from 90% of writers won't be affected much either.

The full breakdown of where each £1 goes is here.

http://www.prsformusic.co...%20AT%20A%20GLANCE.pdf

Sure it's a concern for bar owners and the like and they if any are the ones with any cause for complaint. The beer and spirits, that generate income are taxed by the government and the music which also generates income for these premises are collected by the PRO's, and sure you do have to start somewhere if you want to change things but peeing in the ocean isn't always the most effective action.

If it is extortion then it will require a change in legislation to change it as it is perfectly legal and seems to be particularly resilient if that many people are disgruntled by it as like I say it's been in operation pretty much as it stands for many years, here at least.

do not let those who are willing to pay a draconian tax to a corrupt system deter you

I am not an intellectual property lawyer.

There is a tendency to equate all payments that we do not like to pay (especially those we believe are unjust) with taxation. Clearly the payment of a licensing fee for performance rights to the author of a musical work is NOT A TAX, any more than the payment of a rental fee for a car you drive but do not own  is a tax. The rights on which these fees are levied are guaranteed to the author in the US by the copyright laws, but the government does not collect them or receive any portion of them. In practice, aside from providing the legal basis for a civil lawsuit between the author and the infringing party, the government has no role in enforcing them either. If you find that your work has been infringed it is up to you to bring suit or settle with the party who has wronged you.

So far, unless you believe it is unjust to have authors paid for the use of their work, there is little basis for complaint on principle. If you do believe that a particular use (performance in public) should not be compensated, then you need to change the law. As a practical matter, you should be aware that of the small number of people who actually earn money from songwriting, the bulk of their income is from the fees for this same public performance right.

For reasons mentioned in my earlier post, it is impractical for the authors to police their own rights. Thus the performance rights organizations (PRO's) are granted a license (which as near as I can tell is a non-exclusive one) to act as their agent and attorney to this end. But if ASCAAP does bring suit, it does so not in its own name, but in the name of the authors it represents, since it is those authors who have the original right and have suffered loss. A non-exclusive license implies that if you want to use the copyrighted work, you can do so by executing a separate license with the author. So that is one alternative to paying a PRO fee. Another is to meticulously avoid any use of works copyrighted by authors they represent. Most businesses find that it is simpler just to pay a reasonable fee, or to forgo use of music altogether, but that is a business decision not a requirement of law.

When  a PRO attempts to extract license fees from a business, it may be  behaving according to its fiduciary responsibility to the authors it represents, or it may be acting in its own interests (it keeps part of the fees it collects) or it may just be acting like an ****. Most likely it is a combination of those. But although what they do might land Tony Soprano in jail, because they are doing it as attorneys defending the legal rights of their clients , it is considered negotiation to avoid litigation. Nonetheless, if they sue a business that does not use any material owned by their clients, or if that business licenses that work directly from the authors, or if the music is in the public domain, they have no basis for their action. In such cases extortion is the correct term, and injustice does not go anywhere near far enough. In practice you would be lucky to even get a judgment for abuse of process against them.

If you believe that it is just to pay each and every author for the use of his work, then clearly the PRO system fails in that. If you believe that the fees being charged are excessive or punitive (they cannot be discriminatory), then that may be a source of injustice. If you believe that persons who do not earn money off the use of an author's work should be excused from paying, that is something you need to take up with congress, or the individual author.

http://www.bbb.org/us/article/music-in-the-marketplace-3072

http://elr.lls.edu/issues/v22-issue1/binder.pdf

[link=http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/files/IPLJ_2_2_Garrett.pdf]http://ipjournal.law.wfu....s/IPLJ_2_2_Garrett.pdf[/link]

One thing you overseas people have to understand is, just because it isn't happening over where you are, doesn't mean it's not happening here. What my friend is experiencing, and that other link I posted earlier about the coffeeship, are experiencing is REAL.

I DO know however, as far as the UK is concerned, one of my groups in Southend-On-Sea, UK just got back at me, and she says that at her work, she can't even play the radio because she'd have to pay some outrageous tax.

Her words:
I have to pay for a Licence even if I play the radio at my place of work, because it is a public place !!!! If I don't have one PRS can fine me, needless to say I work in silence !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes we all know that you have to pay a license to play broadcast music, or video in a public place, every VHS tape that you've put on since the '70's has been telling you that.  And in no way did I say what is happening isn't real, I'm still wondering as you still haven't stated as to what has changed there in order for you to be up in arms about it in such a big way now.

I'll say it again because if something has changed other than you've just been enlightened from your previous ignorance then there's lots of us that are interested.

Is this supposed to be a form of legal enterprise to help ME?

Pretty clearly not. In practice it is a legal enterprise to help the PRO and its best selling authors. People who do not get much play seem to sign up because it is free, and it makes them feel like professionals. Maybe some have deluded themselves into thinking that their just-released self-produced CD is going platinum, and want to be sure their anticipated riches have a place to go. What it does is inflate the PRO's catalog and give them even more marketing/bargaining/extortion power.

These organizations are not democracies. They do not care what you think. They have no interest in setting up systems whereby their clients could choose to have businesses below a certain size, or nonprofits excused from paying fees. They would find themselves in a legal quaqmire if they began making those kinds of "discriminatory" decisions or exercising "common sense." They are collection robots, and unless they are collecting for you, it is a best to disassociate, if they are offending you. It would be even more impressive if the writers they are keeping rich were to do so.

slartabartfast

do not let those who are willing to pay a draconian tax to a corrupt system deter you

So far, unless you believe it is unjust to have authors paid for the use of their work, there is little basis for complaint on principle. If you do believe that a particular use (performance in public) should not be compensated, then you need to change the law. As a practical matter, you should be aware that of the small number of people who actually earn money from songwriting, the bulk of their income is from the fees for this same public performance right.

Which is exactly what I am saying... we need to force the laws to change.

Everybody here seems to think that somehow this is about songwriters. Its not. It is about copyright holders who are rarely the actual content creators. And we were talking about flat fees being collected for original works that had nothing to do with the PROs. We were talking about the carte blanche collecting of a corporate tax based on a principle that all works today are derivative according to the PROs.

In principle, authors should get payed for their work if they so choose. But it should be (in a free society) up to us to decide how we want our works to be used. Not a corp or lobby group with loads of money to grease corrupt politicians and judges palms. And we all know that is exactly how the gov't and judicial system works today (especially when we are talking about "elected" judges).

This is not cynicism. Its plain fact.

Crg

foxwolfen

Crg

Well, I can't speak for the publishers but I feel I can speak for the artists on this occasion. I own my work, I expect to get payed for the public performance of my work. Or, I have signed on with BMI, ASCAP, ETC to collect public performance royalties for the use of my work. If you want to make your establishment popular by using my work to help create an atmosphere that is popular and pleasing, I expect to get payed for my participation in creating your atmosphere that creates income for you.
It's a vicious battle, it's been going on forever. When, after releasing your work to the public do you become free for the taking?

I know I promised, but... your work Craig? Sorry, where is that? Kinda hard to get paid for that which does not seem to exist, no?

Hey Shad, F you. Run your A** over to the Library of Congress and ask what copyrights I hold instead of running your confused mouth on someone you don't know sh*t about. Don't use my name again. I don't have any work released commercially but that is really not your crusade A**h*le.

I already did this. Remember the that little PM exchange where you threatened to kick my ass, and I just replied... "where is your work"? You said you were registered with TLC. So I checked (foolish of you too assume I would not).

You do not exist in their database boy. Not as the poet you claim to be, the writer... the artist... musician, composer or engineer.

So, where is your stuff? Show it to us. But, you can't. Can you? You got none.

Oh yes.. and I am still waiting for you to come kick my ass. I live in Ottawa. Anytime you feel like it, I am here if you honestly think you are man enough (which I sincerely doubt).