JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Brian Austin Whitney Blog Monday, June 30th, 2008

Brian's Solves The Music Industries Problems: (Well... at least he's trying)

Hi Folks:

In the USA, we're having a raucous election season which just got more intense with the recent skyrocketing prices of gasoline here. (About 20% of our members live outside the USA in case anyone is wondering why I am explaining the obvious). Right now lots of people are offering up some extreme solutions to this problem which always go a lot farther than what either parties candidate are really willing to consider. The reason is obvious, both parties benefit a great deal from contributions from those who make a lot of profits in this environment. So they don't want to bite the hand that is feeding them. Nonetheless, I joined the fray of those with radical ideas to fix the problem and posted it on my blog last week. (I won't re-run it, but here's a link if you're curious: http://www.jpfolks.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/624893/page/1#Post624893

So it occurred to me last nigh, that perhaps we need to offer up some similarly radical ideas to fix our own backyard, the music industry. Before I offer them, I want to say that I welcome responses and feedback with one caveat: It's always easy to pick apart ANY plan, no matter how good it is. So rather than simply tell me how I am nuts and it would never work (which I am sure some of you will conclude), I ask you to ALSO add an idea to fix it that you think is better. After all, if you don't have a better idea, then mine must be the best one available, no matter how flawed. See where I am going here? Okay. So let's start with an easy one. If this experiment has a lot of interest, then we're try another one next month.

Problem: PRO's (Performing Rights Organizations: ASCAP, BMI, SESAC), Music Venues and Artists all seem to have a problem with the way Performance Royalties are collected and distributed. The PRO's are always battling to get venues who use live or recorded music in their venues to pay for it. Venues are always frustrated because they think they are being overcharged (many don't want to pay anything at all) and they are frustrated that there are 3 different PRO's in the US who might bill them (though I rarely hear about SESAC billing anyone), and that the process itself feels more like a random shake down than a specific program with open criteria for who must pay what. The artists are frustrated because none of the PRO's in the US actually monitor and pay based on what is played in the venues. Instead they pay based on radio airplay and extrapolate that venues must be playing the same selection of music. Most active performing artists know that's not remotely the case. Most cover songs fall towards the classic rock or standards (i.e. "oldies" for lack of a better term) and the rest are usually a handful of predictable bar or wedding songs that also aren't getting a lot of current radio play. Then there's the original music performed across the country that almost never sees a penny of PRO money. We've all heard of bands who play 6 nights a week in venues and do 100% original music and they never see a dime of the license monies paid by the venues.

My Radical Solution:

First: We standardize the licensing costs to include all sizes and types of venues, all types and varieties of music usage and we combine ALL 3 PRO's into the fee structure based on their market share. (In other words, out of every dollar of license fee, each PRO gets the percentage of their catalogs based on the songs in their catalogs and the airplay involved). This would result in 1 single bill paid by each venue and later divided by the PRO's.

Second: We standardize the collection process by making it a federal license which has to be maintained in the same way as any other business license. Since the federal government determines that we must allow others to use our music under a statutory rate, they should also put their muscle (thus avoiding local interference) into the licensing process. So instead of a sort of random process of venues getting billed (i.e. we all know venues around the country that get charged and others that don't for no apparent reason), every venue will get billed based on publicly available criteria making it all fair and up front and predictable. Thus, if you want to open a coffee shop, you know beforehand that you must pay X amount of dollars if you plan to include live or recorded music at part of your atmosphere and appeal. If you choose not to license and are later found to be using live or recorded music to enhance your business, then you'd be fined in the same way you'd be fined for not having a business license in the first place. With 100% of venues using music paying the license fees, it's likely the fees would actually be lower for everyone who's been paying, and the PRO's would actually bring in more money to pay to their writer members. Everyone wins in a far more fair and transparent system. With the government enforcing the license, we'd also end the claims that representatives from PRO's are shaking down small venues.

Third: Tracking all the songs individually performed at every venue is not a productive chore for the PRO's. Let's be realistic about it. However, I have a solution. Each PRO would pay out based on their current model (which is radio Airplay) with this exception: Their members who perform live would be able to post play lists on a database which is available to all 3 PRO's. They'd list the songs performed if they wanted their own work to be registered as having had airplay. They'd list the name of the licensed venue and that information would allow the PRO's to credit an appropriate value to that song being performed at that venue. Since we know many musicians, especially those playing ONLY covers, may not bother to register their play lists, the PRO would simply use their current model, minus the registered play list values to make payment. They could also set a minimum agreed to and voted by their members (let's say $20 dollars a month) where they wouldn't make payment if it was below that total.

For me, this type of system means more money for writers and the PRO's, and less hassle for the venues. It means that someone who plays exclusively original music will likely get a fair compensation for their original work being performed. It means that venues will know upfront the cost of using music and they will understand what that fee is based on. It also means that the hoards of venues paying nothing at all right now will come into the fold. If they see no value in having live music in their venue, they can make that choice. But they can't use it for free any longer. No one will get blind sided and no one will face big lawsuits that they will always lose (a PRO has never lost in court against a venue not paying a license fee as far as I am aware).

JPF is in an unique position in that we love all 3 parties involved in this issue. We don't want any of them to get a bad deal. BMI is one of our community partners. We've dealt with hundreds of venues around the world where we do our member showcase events and our local chapter shows. And we have over 50,000 members, many of which are songwriters (as well as artists and music industry professionals and venue owners etc.). This system seems to me to be 100% fair to all. It requires less work in the end by everyone except the artist/writers who would need to track their play lists and enter them into a database. But they could choose not to and they'd simply not get paid as happens today. If they took the time, they'd finally be compensated for their work.

Brian,

Thanks for taking an interest in this important issue. I know I've sent you some of my thoughts in the past. I think your solution here is a very good one and has a chance of success. I guess the challenge would be to get a buy in from the many factions involved. Like any other kingdom, the officers of the PROs are going to feel protective about their territories and people who administer things are notoriously resistant to any suggestion of change when it comes to their methodology. But the biggest nut to crack might be getting the government buy in to happen.
It seems to me, if this plan, and it's a good one, has a chance of success we'll need to rally every organization that has a vested interest in the issue. I'm thinking of folks like the Internation Folk Alliance, the IBM, the United Federation of Musicians and so forth. A coalition like that would be able to bring a lot more pressure to bear on making these changes happen.
All in all, I'd say you've come up with an elegant solution.

Dan Hazlett

Thanks Dan. Rather than just start cold calling people.. I felt this was a good way to put a common sense (at least to me) solution out there for people to mull over. I am sure that resistance will be serious from some factions. Most venues want to pay ZERO, but reasonable ones I think "get" it and would be happy to pay 1 fee, which is known upfront, to be able to use music.

I think an important factor is this is to work WITH the venues to teach them some strategies in how to use music to make money for themselves. There are resources out there for them to use to find quality proven talent to book for example, and we all know that better talent equals a better experience in the venue. Too many places will book just anyone off the street regardless of their talent. That's not utilizing music very well and it won't have near the impact of a quality performer who is ready to entertain a room full of people.

I hope some others will chime in here and I welcome other ideas or solutions.

Brian

I think it's a great plan and has similarities with many of the thoughts I've been brewing on for some time. There are a couple players I believe you forgot. Internet radio has it's own PRO to deal with (which in some ways mirrors your suggested aggregator) and should be a player considered for this discussion as well.

I know BMI is a sponsor, and I know they and the other PRO's have done some great things for the industry, but unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that to really fix things the solution may need to go further and simply eliminate the separate PROs and replace them with a fed agency. That's all of them, including SoundExchange. If you're going to get an umbrella w/ Fed clout to do this, then you might as well have it take over all of it. It's painful to think about and will likely be a political non-starter, but if it's got to go through one entity, I'd rather subtract than add. While we're at it, and reforming/changing things, might as well do away with the free ride terrestrial radio has for performers royalties (or eliminate charging internet radio those fees) one way or another, it has to even out.

Also, the current formula isn't just AFAIK based on straight airplay, it's based on an extrapolation, so that even if you get regular airplay on some stations, unless you are a hit-maker, you are not really a player, you're a rounding error. You may have addressed this, but in these days radio logs are all automated, and overall accurate - stop extrapolating and using statistics and just go with raw data. I would agree to a system you proposed that had a minimum, but only for payout in a given month, so money accrued under the minimum waits in an "account" until it reaches the minimum (Like CD Baby does it). I wasn't clear as to whether that was your proposal or not.

The biggest difficulty in this will be setting up the federal umbrella, whether it's with your idea or my expansion. Business licenses, are by-and large a very local affair, and of course the mood for some time in DC has been decidedly in favor of less government. This is one area that it's needed for a useful solution though.

Not bad for a first pass
I'm not in favor of another Federal bureaucracy though. We should all urge our respective PROs to set up an industry-sponsored organization to better track airplay, and especially, finally, distribute live performance rayalties the way they ought to.
No Federal intervention, though. The likelihood is too great that it would all get messed-up, and we ought not be looking to Uncle Sugar to solve all our problems anyway.

Without it being federal, you'd have to pass local laws in every jurisdiction and that will never happen. Fed is the only possible way to make it work. And since the feds are the ones forcing us to accept the statutory rate and usage, they should follow up by collecting our money anyway.

Brian

Agreed, the PRO system, as it stand is broken, unequal to all and uses an outdated method of operation, just like the copyright laws.

So, continuing along this train of thought consider this, the collection system is already in place so getting it organized is the answer.

How it works:

1. Governments identify businesses by the North American Industry Classification System.
2. Live performers are businesses.
3. Liquor license, business license, business and income taxes are collected by government.
4. Liquor and business licenses are issued by business type.
5. Establishments that play music of any kind pays a music tax based on the size of the establishment because building size determines the maximum number of people that can occupy the space at any given time.
6. Add how many days/nights per year music is played and you have an easily quatified tax rate payable by all establishments playing music.

Many people consider performance royalties to be a tax. Considering the term of payment, the lifetime of the artist plus 75 years, then it seems pretty much like a tax. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then its a duck.

So now we have a way to determine and collect a nationwide music tax by business type using the greatest number of people that can occupy a space at any given time, but that doesn't account for unoccupied or under-occupied times of the day. So, let's set that aside for the time being.

Now, we need a way to account for every song played to determine who gets paid. Identifying the artists and songs is more difficult considering the number of payees there could be for a song but it is not impossible. So, give every song a bar code, tax id number or other type of identification. Venue owners, performing artists, juke boxes etc. must submit the daily playlist in a standard digital government music tax form on a daily basis along with the total number of daily occupants, or risk paying fines.

So, now we have a music tax based on maximum occupancy, artists and songs are identified and the daily occupancy is known. At the end of the year we subtract the maximum occupancy from the daily occupancy and any tax overpayment is refunded. All artists are paid.

Now, incorporate all PRO under one government body and voila. The government collects billions of dollars per year without paying interest just what they like to do. They employ thousands more people just what they like to do and the U.S. now has a validated system in place to support the arts. End of story!

Or, forget all of the above and pass a music tax law to make each person pay their proportional royalty for the right to listen to music upon entering an establishment playing music, provided that all artists and songs are still identified.

My music has just been selected for airplay at over 32 stations and I am afraid I won't see a dime because they are probably un-surveyed stations. I realize your focus here is more about live performance, but that's all part of the larger problem of songwriters not getting paid for performances of their work.

The technology exists through companies like MediaGuide to track airplay. ASCAP brass explained to me that they have something like cell towers set up in markets like Cincinatti to collect the data from all the surveyed stations. So I said, well, I have a song that's being played on WOBO-FM, that's in Cincinatti, why couldn't you be using the same collection equipment to track them?

The answer is, from a technological standpoint, they could be tracking airplay stats from all unsurveyed stations in major markets. The crux of the matter is that these unsurveyed stations ARE NOT REQUIRED TO KEEP PLAYLISTS...so they don't...and all of us artists who get airplay on these stations..don't see a dime.

Here's the way I see it. In the old days, when the FCC had more power, they required all television stations to log everything that was broadcast. I personally worked at the old KMPC-AM radio station in LA bursting those logs, and also saw how it was done at ABC-TV.

I think that if the FCC required all stations to start logging and reporting their playlists by 2012 or whatever, and ASCAP and BMI finally had their act together to run these logs through their computers, we, the indie artists, would all finally start getting paid for our work. It's a travesty that only the few big-time or old-time artists get paid for the same old music that constantly gets re-hashed on the surveyed stations.

Then, I would love to see this tracking technology expanded to clubs.

I think that you'd be pretty shocked at the actual low value of airplay on a small station when it's extrapolated across all stations and all airplay and then divided by the money collected. It often equates to microfractions of pennies. Getting airplay on 32 stations in regular rotation, should certainly show up on the radar or at the least qualify you for the ASCAP Plus system which pays money to those who can show significant airplay without showing up on a survey. (Ask your rep about it).

It might be interesting to do some math on this issue. Take the number of stations across the entire US in all formats... then take the amount of money collected by the 3 PRO's each year. Subtract their operating costs (which I believe are made public) and then determine the number of songs play and how much each play might be worth. The other factor that would also have to be brought in is audience size per station.. so that further makes it complicated. But someone with some motivation could likely come up with a decent rough estimate of the value of airplay for a song on a station of a certain size. Might be an interesting excercise for a college student project.

I spoke with some PRO officials yesterday who read the newsletter. I wasn't sure how they would respond. I was pleasantly relieved that they actually agreed with my idea, but they did point out an important issue. They'd have to have the cooperation of the venues themselves (beyond paying the fees) to track and validate the claims made by musicians. After all, we've learned from Ourstage that if musicians are given a perceived chance to cheat the system, sadly many of them will. So they can't just hand out money unchecked to people who claim a playlist. So the sticking point in the view of the PRO isn't anything I asked THEM to do.. but rather having an accurate way to track the playlists claimed by the musicians.

To ArtistP, it has to be a new federal license to work. Using existing business licenses etc. doesn't work because those are all local issues and local ordinances and we could never get the entire country to pass laws in every single jurisdiction. Since the statutory rate is a federal issue, the collection of those statutory fees must be collected by the fed to work. And I strongly disagree.. it's NOT a tax. Taxes are not voluntary. Venues can choose whether to use music, just as they can choose whether to use Cable TV. The difference is that the federal government doesn't tell TV channels they MUST sell their programs at a statutory rate. Thus the local cable companies negotiate prices and then set their own market prices. We songwriters don't have that right or ability. It has been taken away from us by the federal government. Since that is the case, the fed needs to enforce and collect those monies that they force us all to accept. This is why I think we can get traction with the federal government on this issue.

One leading PRO executive said he was going to bring me to Capitol Hill after the elections to address issues affecting the grassroots music community. It's about time they heard from someone who really does have our community interest at heart AND actually listens to and understands what our community needs and wants and thinks.

Thanks for the feedback so far. Anyone else want to chime in?

Brian

Well, despite my aversion to the idea of Federalizing the PROs, all-in-all I think you've started something good there, Brian. Let us know how we can support this effort.

Humm,
Today you can buy a Digital Camera and from time to time you can print your own pictures from you computer or take your Camera Card to Wal-Mart and print the pictures you want.

There is now a small Printer that is Portable for less than $100.00 you can carry with you and print small photos when you wish from a camera card.

It is probably very easy to adapt the system to be able to put in all the songs, Cover songs, a band may play on a given night and copy to a disc that is turned in to the venue for collection by the Pro's for tracking. Possibly a band may need to know the writer's on a song or who made the song famous but it would probably work. The Band would have to purchase the system, of which probably wouldn't be cost prohibitive. Much less than say a Guitar, Amp, etc. That would go a long way in solving the problem of what songs would receive pro royalties.

The law would require a band to have the system as a condition to play in the venue. With everything on a disc the rest would be easy.

Ray,

Are you thinking someone would have the time to sort through an entire show from a zillion bands and determine if they played the songs they said they did? That's simply impossible and unmanageable I think. Or perhaps you mean something else.. I am not really understanding your post.

Brian

Oh my Goodness!! What a wonderful thread!!!
Thank you, Brian!! Brian Austin Whitney on CAPITAL HILL!!
Watch out!
Seriously, great thoughts creating important conversation!
I appreciate it all as I am trying to learn myself while trying to keep others informed. not easy.
Thank You Brian!
Joanne

I can just picture all those guys in suits and YOU in your shorts, gym shoes, and your red hat Brian. You MIGHT have to dress up a little. ;-) ... I think you're onto some good ideas here.

Herbie ... you're too funny!

Yeah.. I am already lamenting the reality of having to get a suit that fits.. I haven't worn one in over 10 years and I am about 25% larger than I was back then! = )

The Future of Music folks also said they could get me up on the Hill on some issues. This is one reason why I've never turned JPF into a non-profit. I can go talk to and say anything I want in DC. There are restrictions what Non-Profit folks can do and say.

Brian

I'm an ASCAP member and play a LOT of very, very small venues--mom & pop coffeehouses operating on a shoestring, house concerts, "originals-only" bars & cafes, nonprofit church & synagogue coffeehouse nights, etc. I get my ASCAPlus Award by virtue of reporting my airplay, writing activity, songs of mine covered live by others, and ASCAP-registered venues I've played. Lately, ASCAP reached an agreement with Folk Alliance not to pursue house concerts that are "invitation-only" word-of-mouth events, so I can list those too.

But those tiny coffeehouses that honestly maintain a strict originals-only policy are being unfairly targeted by the PROs. The PROs take the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" position that since there is theoretically no way to ensure that one person will not play one cover tune, the floodgates are therefore open, and that ALL venues are presumed (an irrebuttable, conclusive presumption!) to have covers played there. Moreover, they go on to intimidate these little venues by saying they WILL be sued and that they WILL win (an outrageous assumption in light of the fact that there needs to be a witness willing to testify under oath to hearing a cover tune performed there, and the judge or jury finding by a preponderance of the evidence that event actually occurred at the times in question) and even a $1 damage award will result in the court ordering the venue to pay ASCAP's humongous legal fees.

As both an attorney and an ASCAP member, I find this not only disingenuous but disgraceful. I have seen at least five venues first give up ALL live music and then shut their doors this year as a result. According to ASCAP officers, the US Copyright Act allows all copyright holders to license their music independently, and that their PRO is a NON-EXCLUSIVE licensing agent. Any performing songwriter (PRO member or not) can give the venue a signed waiver/release stating that the venue can allow them to play their own music live, play their CD over the venue's stereo, or that others may cover their songs all without incurring the obligation to pay a royalty or a fee from which royalties will be distributed. Any venue has the right to demand artists file advance playlists and stick to them, and unless there is a credible eye-or-ear-witness to the contrary, the playlist is presumed to be evidence that no songs have been played for which royalties would legally accrue.

Now, an argument can be made that there are costs to doing business, and (as my dear departed grandma used to say), you should not expect to go tobogganing without getting your a$$ wet. But some cafes are dancing precariously on the edge of fiscal extinction, and even a small PRO fee could send them hurtling off the cliff. (Nowhere in your proposal, Brian, do I see any suggestion that there be a sliding scale based on size and revenue of the venue analogous to the sliding scale applied to terrestrial and internet radio. IMHO, that sliding scale is an absolute necessity). If those fees are truly trivial, and no more than minor municipal permit costs, then I can see putting all venues large and small under the PRO umbrella. But in this day and age of venues shrinking every day (even to the extent that the more famous folk artists are getting the house concerts that lesser-known artists used to play), it is shortsighted and professionally suicidal to ensure or even accelerate this loss of places to play. I can assure you that none of the places I've seen have to shut their doors or drop live music have been raking it in from that--to the contrary, they often host live performers out of love for the music, even at the expense of losing customers who just want to sit and blog and drink their lattes without acknowledging the existence of another human in the room.

And I'm sure my viewpoint is not in the minority among performing songwriters, even those of us who are PRO members. There needs to be a sense of logic, proportion, and fairness here on the part of those entities who claim to protect our interest even as the majority of funds connected to our performances get distributed instead to those who receive surveyed major-station radio play.

Sandy,

Actually I do state that there needs to be a set and transparent listing of fees and what they are based on and how they are set. Fees currently are on a sliding scale for venue size and seating etc. But they are secretive. If a venue knows upfront and beforehand exactly what it would cost to have live music, then they can make that decision.

If a venue feels they can't afford the license then that suggests that the artists performing there are not able to increase business enough for the venue to pay the fee. I've seen coffeehouse throw a fit over a bill that equates to less than 2 dollars a day. If the artists they are booking can't increase the business of that venue twice that then that artist shouldn't be performing and the venue needs to either stop having music or learn how to book better artists.

If a venue wants to play the NFL network to attract or keep customers.. they don't think twice about paying for it. If they want to have nice candlelight in their venue, they don't think twice about paying for it. If they want to offer free chips and salsa, they have no problem in paying for it. But when it comes to music, they seem to think it should be free. I simply can't feel sorry for someone who devalues the work done by musicians and writers and considers it valueless. We don't expect them to make us free food or drinks... why do they expect songwriters to work free?

Music typically enhances a venue. If the artists are actually running off the clientele, then it's simply bad business to have that artist perform... just as it would be bad to serve burnt food or luke warm coffee.... it's the same thing. If the owner really wants to hear an artist who runs off their customers, then the owner should have the artist come to their home to play instead...

No one supports artists more than I do.. but if they aren't good enough to earn the cost of the license for the venue, they aren't ready to be performing live. Even horrible karaoke singers keep folks around at bars all the time... a performing artist should be able to do the same or they have no business performing in a commercial space. Venues are businesses and music is a voluntary business expense.

I do agree that if a space is not a business and is not charging for anything, there should not be a need for a license (such as house concerts and churches that don't charge etc..). But once you're making money off the people in the venue, you need to pay for all the things inside that keep them coming. Tablecloths, napkins and music.

As for the lawsuits and the strong arm issues, my idea does away with all of that. And if you're a member of an org that is harrassing people, then you should vote out the people making those policy decisions and change it. ASCAP is a membership run org. It appears that the majority want them doing what they are doing otherwise they'd vote to stop it.

And finally.. don't the PRO's have a fiduciary responsibility to collect that money? It seems they do.

Brian

Hey Brian,

Nice to see you giving this so much thought...The trouble I see, is that between the PROS, the Businesses & the Musicians, only one of the three is organized, and since the PROS are the ones with the most to lose, I'm afraid I don't see any hope of things changing.

This is the one area in life where pessimism has gotten the better of me...And while a cup of coffee a day isn't much, it was enough to stop the music at the cafe where we played for two hours every Saturday afternoon for 7 years(25% covers, mostly old folk songs).

Saturdays were the only days they had live music, so, subtracting Holidays & such, the license amounted to the owners having to pay for 365 days of coffee for less than 50 days worth of music for a coupla hours.

Our covers consisted of the likes of Hank Williams, Kate Wolfe, Bob Marley...In other words, nothing that would get radio play, and we turned on people to the likes of Townse Van Zandt who would have otherwise never heard of him...<sigh>...It left a bad taste in everybody's mouth.

Sorry to sound like such a bummer, and I'll be following the progress here and cheering you on, but for now, my guitar gathers dust while I work on screenplays and practice the masochism that's required to deal with Hollywood.

Midnite

I am on the Board of Directors of a non-profit, the Songwriters Association of Washington and so my options are limited and I can speak only on behalf of myself. The DC area has a genuine "Real Estate Issue" as far as places to play. I recently ran singer-songwriter showcases at a One Month Art Exhibit called "ArtOMatic" (the sponsors paid a fee in advance to both ASCAP and BMI (and probably SESAC as well), I saw INCREDIBLE bands coming from as far away as NY and LA to play for FREE, not to mention the phenomenal local folks. People of the caliber that I saw should not be having to play for free, unless they want to. Incidentally, in addition to working out the house concert deal (which for the most part is just existing standards codified and put into words), a committee of Folk Alliance is supposedly negotiating about broader "coffeehouse" issues, an announcement of progress was promised by Louis some newsletters ago, but so far seems mired in "fog" or lack of progress.

Hi Brian. I am a member of ASCAP. When I was performing live I applied for a grant every year and was approved every year for the live performance of my songs. Although I don't recall ever having to substantiate it, I did keep a log of my performances on Sonicbids.com. When I took a hiatus from performing, I ceased to apply for the grant. Based on my experience, I would say that all ASCAP members at least have the same opportunity as I did.
As far as airplay is concerned, I have had a relatively easy time getting my songs played on radio because I do novelty songs. From my two CDs, Don't Judge A Song By Its Title and White Collar Man, at least ten songs have been played on the radio. The drawback is that to my knowledge I've never been in rotation yet. But then again, when's the last time a true novelty artist had that?
Substantiation of airplay is the hardest hurdle for the artist as the question of whether the time tracking one's own airplay is worth the very little one would receive for it.

Summeoyo,

I think the point is that it's not just a need for songwriters to get some compensation... that's a big part, but only one part of what needs to be addressed. The PRO's need to collect from ALL venues that are using their members music. The Venues need a fair and transparent fee structure and collection system so they can plan in advance and make a business decision on whether using live music to enhance their business makes sense or not. The songwriters then also need to be paid fairly for the use of their songs. ASCAP does have their PLUS program, but BMI has no comparable system (I don't know the situation with SESAC). But even WITH that system, you getting a small payment doesn't fix the system.. what if you played a cover? Did THAT writer get their compensation? That's addressed in my solution I think.

Brian