CALL TO ARMS!!! Cancel your Music Licensing Accounts!!!! NOW!!!! EXTORTIONISTS!

It's getting amazing people.  We must act.  This is no ****.  You must read this conversation I'm having with my friend who is a restauranteur in Alabama, USA.
 
Here goes:
 

---

Scott Martinez July 13 at 4:22pm
Hee hee, where are you living now?
Maybe we'll book a tour down your way!!





Still in Alabama. I have 3 restaurants here now.....go figure! Hey..what do you know about the legal extortion of PRO Music Licensing (BMI, ASCAP, etc...)? I have recently been informed that I have to have flat licensing agreements with BMI, ASCAP and another company in order to have live music, karaoke, CDs, etc... in my restaurants. Do you know anything about this? Is there a way around it like if they only play original stuff or some other way? What are the odds of getting picked off and how do they find out? Do I have to pay the licensing if I don't charge a cover fee? Do I have to pay all three?It really seems like **** that I have to pay all three (especially since the third one is primarily gospel music).

PS: Let me know where your playing. I have a couple girlfriends in Mo and go up there a couple times a year.






Scott Martinez August 29 at 4:39pm
Sounds like the record companies are clamping down more and more. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you just play independent music at your restaurants. I'll start by sending you our CD's and you don't have to pay us anything!! Seriously. **** those bastards. I've heard if you get picked off it's VERY expensive. Find out especially about the LIVE music. I'm VERY interested in that. What do they mean? If my band wants to come and play at your place you shouldn't have to pay anything.

I'll definitely let you know. Have you joined our mailing list at www.alicesweetalice.org? If you do, you'll get those messages.

Keep in touch!! BTW, what are the name of your restaurants? Do you have websites?




Alice Sweet Alice - Official Website - asaofficialsite
www.alicesweetalice.org
Share






Well, we have karaoke and live music at the restuarants. I started getting these letters from BMI and then last Monday I got a call. It seems they knew about the karaoke but not the live music. And it seems that they only knew about one restaurant. I'm thinking the karaoke registration. When I asked her about live music she told me that it didn't matter if it was original or not because "I" would have no way of knowing everything in their catalog and would have no way of knowing if it was original or not. She also told me that I would have to pay flat fee licensing to all three companies because "I" would have no way of knowing which songs were copyrighted by which company. Additionally, I had to make sure that the performers I had coming into the restaurants had licensing and provided me with playlists. The rates we based on occupancy and revenue in combination with the type of music. In other words there is a rate for CDs, an additional rate to add karaoke, another for adding live music and that is based upon how many people there will be in the band and how often I have live music. If I keep everything the same, I'm looking at between 22,000.00-26,000.00 per year for all three restaurants. Its ridiculous! I can't beleive this is allowed to happen. Talk about the death of young performers. If only the biggest chains can afford to have live music they will seek out artist well known enough to guarantee a profit above their licensing fees. How can a new band ever get any exposure if thats the case. I have heard the fines are pretty hefty too. I just don't know if this woman is BSing me on some of this or not. PS: I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE CD of your band to play and your always welcome.....if I can get the music KGB off my back. As I understand it, they are getting very intense. Have you had any run ins with them? Heres my address: .................................





Are you registered with any of these companies? What I find most ****ed up how they must go about paying the artists. Why should someone who writes one little pissy song that no one even knows let alone plays get the same cut as say a Beetles song would get? Its ****. Then I read that these companies only distribute 25-30% of what they collect between over 1 million copyrighted works for each BMI and ASCAP (that means each maybe 100th of a cent or less per license goes to the writer). They keep the rest. Plus the other company who has mostly GOSPEL? collects too...regardless. This is ****ED UP.






Scott Martinez August 29 at 6:59pm
Lisa some of my work has been, but I'm going to call BMI tomorrow and make sure my stuff if NOT registered and my account is closed. I'll send you a CD and keep you posted. Please keep me notified of this, and if you woulnd't mind cc:'ing me on any and all correspondence you get. I've been on BMI since 1993 and have never seen a red cent, though I know I've gotten airplay in the past. They're a bunch of pirates and I am not registering ANY of my new works. I would refuse to pay anything and only play the radio at your restaurant. That HAS to be free. I don't see how they could charge for that. You making sure the bands have licensing is hogwash. I say you make sure the bands coming in DON'T have licensing and let them play!!! ****ers!

I'm going to recommend that all of my bands NOT sign up to any of these companies (none of them have as far as I know), and that means you can play our stuff with no fear. Let them try to bust you for it. You should ONLY play music you know isn't licensed! There are TONS and TONS of bands out there that haven't registered. Stick to those and tell BMI to **** off. I would like to see them try to prove you do anything when you only have CD's in house from bands that aren't on their rosters.

Fight it. I'll help if I can. I'm on a mission too. I'm tired of those ****ers!!






Scott Martinez August 29 at 7:10pm
In the meantime, Lisa:

1) NO COVER BANDS. ALL original bands ONLY
2) NO commercial CD's. Just don't play anything for now. Remove any CD's that are on your premisis and get them GONE. Fire anybody that brings one in.
3) NO KARAOKE

Find a radio station for background music, and keep it to that for a while.

There is NO way that BMI can say they own local bands ****!!! Just make sure that these bands have not signed up for BMI, ASCAP. Have them sign a waiver if you must or THEY CAN'T PLAY THERE. I'd talk to a lawyer if you have to about the legalese of such a document. Maybe even a music industry lawyer.

I'm going to talk to some of my partners in this, and I'm also going to start spreading the word for musicians to delete their accounts on these licensing services. We'll get the word out, and then you as a business person just gotta make sure you only stick to the indies!! This is GOOD for us! It makes US more attractive to people like you.

Stay in touch!
 

I was told by an Australian associate that we need to license our works with a CREATIVE COMMONS license:

http://creativecommons.org/

HIS MESSAGE:
Whilst this is a new issue in the states, Australia has had this now for the last 12 months. You can get an exception from the collection company (basically a form that says you are providing the music for free). Cancelling membership does however becomes a collection and copyright issue meaning that you void any potential income from publishing, radio airplay, etc.

The other option which an associate of mine has been doing in Europe and Canada is placing their copyright under Creative Commons.  This allows anyone to use the music for promotional, marketing or anything else that is not taking money away from the artist. If there is income generated then payment must be made to the artist.

Creative Commons was set up for the exact reason the conversation between Scott and the restaurant occurred. The website is www.creativecommons.org.

If you are going to cancel memberships then I would strongly suggest that you have protection in the form of the CC.

I just got a CC license for all of our albums.  It was quick and easy.
 
BUT:  (I'm STILL cancelling my BMI account.  Screw those bastards . . . .)

Perhaps there should be a waiver signed by all artists that play the venue that their music is all original and not protected by the "big 3".  This is what gives me this idea:

That includes numerous people who declined to speak on the record for fear it would draw more attention from the PROs. One proprietor of a small restaurant in Western Massachusetts, who says he’s lucky if 25 people show up for live music on Tuesdays and Thursdays, has written letters to each of the PROs explaining that entertainers in his establishment play only originals and traditional folk songs, which aren’t protected by copyright.

“They wrote back and said, ‘I don’t believe you,’ ’’ he said. “They say that the problem is I don’t know every song that’s been written and someone could throw in a song that I’ve never heard. How do I get around that? Buy a license that covers everything.’’

Wouldn't this get around that?  Does anyone know a music lawyer here?

If the venue advertised that they only host original bands, NOT cover bands, I think they could skate. 

Especially since BMI uses this:

BMI owns the technology many cellphone users know as Shazam, a mobile app that identifies songs (the other PROs have their own version). Regional licensing agents use the app during anonymous visits to venues.

Let them check!!  If the band is truly original and hasn't signed up for the BIG 3, nothing will show up and they couldn't issue a fine.
 
This IS EXTORTION!!  It's like the music KGB or SS!!
 

 

That's been the law of the land in the USA for decades. I played in a house gig about 20 yrs back.... and the night club was only open on Friday and Saturday nights. They had an ASCAP sticker on the door and I remember Brooks (the owner) coming to us asking for copies of our typical set list for the "ASCAP man" to look at... he also looked at the jukebox material.

The truth is... and as much as the clubs and restaurants don't like it, they have to pay the performance royalties for any live or recorded performance that occurs in the hearing of the public. That is primarily how the SONGWRITERS make their money.  Whether the writer is a big name or relatively unknown.... it doesn't matter. The PRO's have a formula that they apply to each different situation that factors in things like ... how many hours the business is open, the source of the music, and of course the set list or play list. 

At one time in my business I was considering entering into the commercial installation of satellite dishes into business locations. The monthly subscription for the service was much higher and I, as the installer, needed to determine if the location I was installing to was visible to the public or just for the owner in his/her office.  If the public could see it..or hear it.... there was a whole different rate schedule that factored in the licensing fees.

BTW::: VERY IMPORTANT>>>>> BMI, ASCAP, & SESAC are performance rights organizations.... NOT record companies, and NOT publishers. They have nothing to do with those entities other than being in the music business. They collect the royalties FOR THE WRITERS, and forward that money directly to them. If it wasn't for the PRO's (performance rights organizations) songwriters would make NO money other then a small licensing fee for allowing the song to be recorded. Performance royalties are a major source of income for songwriters who have commercial cuts..... either on an artist's CD that gets radio play, or in teh movies and on TV in shows and commercials..... every time that song gets played in a PUBLIC medium, the songwriter should be reimbursed for the use of their intellectual property.

There are two sides to this issue and both sides are passionate. As a songwriter, (aspiring to get some cuts on major media) I am in the camp for supporting the collection of royalties and licensing for songwriters. 

For the clubs and restaurants, paying the licensing fee to the PRO is part of the cost of being in business and offering that music to the public. Whether it is a radio playing on the speakers overhead, or a band on a stage.... the hope by the owner is that the music will enhance their bottom line in the cash register...... from a direct connection like a band with people dancing, getting hot and thirsty, to a store that plays music to create an atmosphere more conducive to buying the merchandise.  If they're using my music to create that situation... I should be compensated.... and that is what teh PRO does, and that is why I am a member and I will NOT cancel my membership in BMI.

A friend of mine told me that in Seattle nost open mic nights are original music only now, no covers because of this.

If you write your own stuff and perform this could be a silver lining.

I don't understand this thread or the urgency behind it.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong (and I think Guitarhacker and mike_mccue to a degree) has already confirmed what I'm asking).

1) Hasn't it already been this way for many years?  The venue has always been responsible for the performance rights contracts.  they have always been responsible for turning in playlists so that the copyright holder get paid.  So what has changed that has caused this urgent boycott request?

2) I've always failed to understand why some songwriters want to shut down the PRO's.  it doesn't make sense to me at all.  I agree that they are probably all corrupt and probably take way too much money out of the pockets of the copyright holders, but at least there is a process in place which gets the copyright holder paid.  if we support a boycott of the PRO's then aren't we cutting our own throats as songwriters?  how would we get paid as copyright holders if everyone boycotts PRO's?  that just completely doesn't make sense to me.  boycott them and NO ONE gets paid for being a songwriter.  (NOTE:  boycott of PRO's means no one gets paid for a cover band playing a copyright holder's material.  there is still recorded licensing for payment of covering a song on a CD or mp3.  that's a different subject).

or am I completely missing the point?

or am I completely missing the point?

I think that maybe the "emergency" aspect of it maybe off the top 




but the point is .... really -- we cant perform whatever song we want in public without paying out of the butt?




I dunno 


I understand song writters should make money and get credit for their songs - 

and honestly  I dunno what to do about the live aspect of performing someone else's tune 


but we have all done it havnt we -- we have all performed someone else song at one time or another - 

and honestly - unless it is the artist performing it - - i would rather not pay a hell of a lot of money to see someone elses version of it as an aundience member - 

if it is the actual "star" or original artist  that is performing their own songs - sure - I am a fan - I all pay some kinds sorta big bucks 


I dunno - 

I dont have the answers -I want the song writter s to get what is due to them 


but I dont think the current way of doing things works - at the same time - I dont have an answer for the problem either 


emergency - 

no thats over kill 


problem that should be addressed and thought about - 

yeah - it should be addressed 


at the very least the commerce - money - and trade for products - be it groceries - a new car - new shoes - or the new widget..... or a song - should be a FAIR trade 

but then again -  I am so use to being ripped off financially  in just about everything - I dunno what to say


- carry on 





 

This process is an example of a practical (but unjust) solution to an impossible (and unjust) problem. It is not possible for every owner of a copyright to enforce it by personally listening to every performance and sending a bill to the performer if the work is performed. The result is that his work may be used without his permission without  payment (unjust). An agency is formed to represent large numbers of writers, which has greater resources to monitor performances of their work, and collect the fees they are owed. It is impossible for that agency to monitor every performance by every performer.

What that agency can do, is to spot-check performance venues (of which there are many fewer than performers) and collect a statistical sample of whose work is being played. They can then threaten to sue the owner of the venue that uses the performers if he does not pay them what they believe is the proportion of his performances likely to be the work of the writers they represent.

Technically, they are only entitled to a fixed amount for each performance, but it is impractical for both the venue owner and the agency to keep track of everything that is actually performed there. In order to avoid the cost of record keeping and legal action the venue and the agency come to an agreement that sends a stream of money to the represented writers. The burden of proof that writers actually represented by the agency are being infringed, is technically on the agency, but the cost of litigation (even if stressful) is so high, that as a business decision, a reasonable estimate is acceptable to both parties as a cost of doing business. The provision of play lists and set lists helps to refine the accuracy of that estimate, and is generally of benefit to both parties. In the event that the venue feels it is being grossly overcharged, it has some proof. It also helps if one agency is claiming a greater proportion of the plays than it deserves compared to the other similar agencies.

There is also a potential for injustice in how the collected monies are apportioned among the represented writers. A song that is rarely played, is likely to either be missed completely or rendered as zero in the sampling and statistical analysis. So a writer of unpopular songs may receive nothing, even though he is technically entitled to a set amount for the few performances of his work. Naturally those song writers are less enthusiastic about the system than the guys who rake in millions. This is especially true since if they hear their song played and complain to the venue owner they are likely to be told, "I pay the agencies, if you do not like it, sue me, " which of course they cannot afford to do. On the other hand they have no practical way to collect for those plays anyway.

The performer, who is technically responsible for paying the fee for each and every performance of the represented writer's work probably benefits the most from the system, as he is basically relieved of that responsibility* onerous task unless he is a superstar filling stadiums with concerts he finances himself.

*Actually, the performer is not relieved of that responsibility. Although represented writers may imply consent to performance so long as the venue pays the agency, the performer clearly owes payment to an unrepresented writer whose song he performs without permission.

Which is why it should be the bands that pay the license and not the club.

I dunno about American Law in the matter, but up here laws tend to place the burden on the persons actually responsible for the violations, and recognize that a venue proprietor cannot possible know what is or is not licensed, and that flat fees to cover "potential" violations are extortion.

While I agree that songwriters need to get compensation, this is not the way to do it. I have been fighting these laws for more than 15 years now as they are draconian.

I can see why they would want the process to be less corrupt so that the "little guys" get paid correctly, but not bannished completely!

From the point of view of the unrepresented writer, or the represented writer who falls below the threshold of actually getting paid, the PRO's represent the competition. Even if they were willing to give their stuff away as implied in Creative Commons licensing, no one is willing to take it. Or rather no one can take it without paying a wealthy songwriter somewhere for it. Since the performance of their work will not be reflected in the statistics as a play (falls near zero statistically), but the time spent performing it will be reflected in the number of hours of performance per week billed to the venue by the PRO, their performance rights for their work is being paid--but to someone else. In some of the cases above, venues are being intimidated (or priced) out of offering time to allow singer/songwriters an open mike because they will have either pay or defend against paying one of the PRO's for that opportunity.

Beagle


that would make more sense to me, Shad.  but it would also be difficult to enforce.

The process is administered by the PRS (performing rights society) here and has been for as many years as I can remember.

For all practical purposes it would be more than difficult the collection costs would also be much higher, a venue, as a bona-fide business is a sitting target therefore easier to administer than a whole rake of transient acts, whose line-ups may also regularly change, that may play that venue over the course of a month.

They deem the venue responsible because they are choosing what acts perform there in order to attract custom and business to that venue.  So although the acts are covering the music they figure the venue is hiring specific acts to do just that.  Which is right, as if I'm engaged as a single musician I basically usually don't get a say in what gets played at such a gig, the music is tailored for the venue.

I'm sure too it has been known for a representative of an act when he is signing the set list for the venue owner's records to sign as 'Mickey Mouse' or some other alias in order to be difficult to be traced by the Inland revenue although of course I would never have seen that happen, all of which further complicates the process of collecting from the acts themselves.

Every trade comes with it's own set of horse sh*t and red tape that gives rise to 'workarounds'.

The only particular difference with the Music Business over any other trade is the level of righteous indignation tends to come out louder perhaps because we are often standing in front of a PA system.

As with any professional trade, if your living depends on it, you either make it pay or you get into something else.

bitflipper


It IS extortion, pure and simple. Some years ago BMI/ASCAP were taken over by fresh young management with a mandate to increase revenues. In the process they have pretty much put an end to live music in bars and restaurants. And no, you cannot get around them by featuring original music exclusively.

My son-in-law was told that he'd have to pay exorbitant license fees in order to keep the televisions he had in his restaurant. He ripped the TVs out rather than give in to extortion. That hurt his business, because locals used to come in and watch football over pizzas.

+1

It is utterly ridiculous to have to pay for a license for something that is already publicly broadcast. Radio and TV in bars and restaurants should not have licensing attached to them, as the fees have already been paid by the broadcaster. ASCAP, BMI and others are doing what is called a "double dip". Lets face it.. the fees are simply a corporate tax.. one I refuse to pay.

edit - besides, here in NA, we still have to watch the damn commercials...

I'm not sure but I think the US collections procedure may be slightly different to Australia.

Slart, claims it's unjust?, I say it's mostly due to lack of knowledge and if the 'correct procedures' are NOT followed.  For example; does Slart know about the LPR forms?... let me explain...

. LPR - when a band performs and are registered with a collection association such as; APRA (Australasian Performing Right Association) one member of the band (usually a manager can do this) simply files venue name, location and the bands playlist.

Most forms such as the LPR form can be done online.

The LPR will ensure the band's writer(s) actually get paid and for cover-songs the original author(s)/writer(s) get paid.

So maybe this is WHY some venues get a visit from a collections agent, because a band filed a LPR form, but the venue did not file the GLA form {uh oh} busted!

Oh and don't forget writers services at collections association APRA (staff) need to get paid for their work, afterall the staff needs to get paid for all the filing work; handling literally thousands of files every day and other services such as; freely assist writers.

-

For radio, TV broadcasts that be the CS form, but I guess a lot of writers have no knowledge about that! Oh well.