I really do understand Bob's cynical (for lack of a better word) thoughts about a lot of the PRO stuff, as I share them. I think he makes a good point that having the PRO gestapo raiding every joint that has live music - IF THE PRO'S DO NOT CHANGE THEIR APPROACH AS BRIAN HAS SUGGESTED - will decrease live music. I understand his feelings about what seems to be corruption with some parts of the PRO system.

But, while I will absolutely continue to listen to and respect what Bob has to say, and while I hope he continues to rail against the stupidity of some of the PRO system, Brian is right on most of his points. The venues should pay. The songwriters are not being greedy in this. The PRO system is far from perfect, and in some ways songwriters are forced into it (and that really is the most evil feeling part about it to me), but the alternative to the PRO system would be for every songwriter to negotiate performance fees with every radio station, hockey arena, etc. etc. that wanted to use their song. The logistics of this, plus the admin expense of this, would be nearly impossible and it would eat up the money you made from the performance, and/or make the fees so great as to make many possible users turn away (or make Congress pass a law taking away your rights because some lobby is bigger than your lobby). Some points:

1) As Western society is currently arranged, if you make a living playing cover songs, you owe your entire ability to make a living to those songs. In fact (gasp!), you owe your ablity to make a living not only to those songs, but to the major record labels and the broadcasting cartels (yes all those guys we love to hate) that play/sell the songs to a wide enough mass of people that you, the cover playing band, have a built-in audience where ever you go (in the genre you are covering). In fact, you the cover playing band are a dependent peripheral industry to the Major labels/broadcasters. The cover playing band is just like the pizza joint, dentist, car wash, etc. that spring up around a GM plant that moves to town. The peripheral businesses can operate because of the workers/money GM provides.

2) Absolutely no offense intended here - I have the upmost respect for anyone that can make a living at music - especially for 30 some years - but it is much easier to make a living playing cover songs than original songs (unless of course you hit the jackpot and have major label backing - which still in most cases takes years of starving).
a) You have to build an audience show by show with original material, versus you have a built-in audience with cover songs.
b) It may take half an hour to learn a cover song, -vs- it could take years of writing hundreds of songs to come up with a song as good as that cover song.
c) If you can't write the songs, it could take months to review original material for your setlist.
d) If you can't write songs, you may be screwed.
e) If you can write songs, can you write them in the genre people want to listen to?
f) Do you have all the right combinations of people in your band to really make a go at original materal? People will listen to lesser bands/performers if they are playing cover songs they know, -vs- they won't listen long to original materal if it is not presented top-notch, or even with the right enthusiasm/dynamic singer, etc.

3) Because of points 1 and 2, songwriters deserve to get paid for people making a living playing their songs. It WOULD be nice if your reference that resulted in a CD sale would get you paid, but again, the ability of a cover song band to make a living is ENTIRELY due to the songs and or Major record labels/broadcasters. Because you don't get paid for your reference doesn't negate the right of the songwriter to get paid, and really you DID get paid for your reference, the bar owner paid you to play it.

4) Songwriters should get paid because IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Copyright law is a statutory expression of a basic human right to own and profit from your creations. It's good for all of us if we protect that right. And, if you want to be in the game of songwriting/recording, why should anyone defend your rights to your sound recording if you won't defend their rights to performances? If you want your rights defended, you have to defend the rights of others.

Now, does this mean I think every joint in town that has live music should pay a fee?No, I think small venues (such as the little hole-in-the-wall eating place our songwriters group went to a few years ago) should be exempt or pay a very small fee. I think it is in the best interest of art and of songwriters to have some places that are free or almost free of the fees. And, it is possible to have larger joints pay and smaller joints not. As far as my study goes there is no such thing as "abandonment of copyright" or "use it lose it" as far as a reason to enforce fees on everyone. Those are common law theories and music in the US anyway is not under common law, it is under statutory law. So I have no idea what ASCAP is thinking there. I can write a song today and a joint can play it every day for 30 years. I can walk into that joint 30 years from now and hear it playing and demand a fee or sue them. The law says I can.

And, why is the whole PRO system bogus just because it is not refined enough to catch me playing "Rubber Ducky" at Joes Bar and Grill, and then send the songwriter 5 cents? The cost of getting the system down to where it catches EACH and EVERY performance would eat up much of the fees. I admit, not being able to catch every performance can add to the cynicism that the thing is rigged. But, if you think through what is going on, and the alternatives, for the most part the system catches what is getting played. And mean really, what are the chances that your song is generating enough royality income to overcome adminstrative costs if it is not being played or used in any of the places a PRO tracks? There are things in life where there is a minimum theashhold you have to meet in order for benefits to kick in. Does that make those things unfair?

Anyway, just my thoughts.



[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 12-19-2003).]

Boo...my name is Doug