JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Another ASCAP Controversy

Hi Everyone,

I thought I'd address each of Bob's ramblings in one place using his words so he doesn't get confused. I will state that even for Bob, his post is over the top in being offensive. It's one thing for him to call me names, he does that all the time. It's another to suggest that I am being dishonest. In 5.5 years of working to support artists and writers for free, this is perhaps the single most offensive statement anyone has made. I strongly suggest that if Bob feels this way, he should stop coming here and disassociate himself with this organization. I would not personally belong to a group where I believe the leader and founder were liars and making false statements to the membership. I think it says something about Bob's own integrity if he stays here while believing I am being untruthful and dishonest. Making that statement is VERY different from saying someone is wrong. His choice of words were not lost on me.

Brian

Here's my response:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Well...

You've accused me of many things...

You insinuate things that are not true...

You're pathetic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Actually Bob, I addressed specific things you've said with specific answers. As for your personal attack comments, it's the same old same old from you.. when you're losing an argument, you go into attack mode.. YAWN).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You'd rather try to win an argument than speak truthfully and honestly..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: So expecting Venues to pay for the right to use someone else's music is dishonest? Really? To expect YOU to contact and complain directly to your PRO is untruthful? Really? For me to supply 3 examples of people I personally know who make significant income from their PRO isn't being honest? Really?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

That is sad ! I could list all your misquotes and the times you try to cloud what I say...but why bother...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: If there are misquotes, they are here for everyone to see. Nothing is being hidden from anyone right Bob? That is except for people who don't actually read it but act is if they have.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You sound more and more like a sad little man Brian...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Well, I admit that wasting time with an old "curmudgeon" (your preferred word to describe yourself remember?) is a bit sad..)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Where did I say I was "unhappy" with the service I was getting from BMI...

Where....NOWHERE !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Exact Quotes from Bob Young:

Example #1:

"What a bunch of crap ! When I was a young man playing joints in the midwest, EVERYBODY and I mean EVERYBODY that had a joint that had music paid a minimal fee to BMI and ASCAP. Period ! they got a little sticker that went on the door or on the wall someplace and that was it. In all my years of performing in joints from the mid 60' to the early 80's I never heard of a problem. Now, it's a big deal. Tell the club owners to pay the few bucks and shut up ! It's called "The price of doing business" Life is so friggin' simple until somebody decides it isn't. Radio stations pay licensing fees...it's "the price of doing business" Club owners can be a greedy lot sometimes!" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: Bob started off on the right track here. But of course he later flip-flops his position 180 degrees to the opposite.

"I think it should be clear that since I don't feel the songwriter is entitled to any piece of a live performance that I'm referring to ALL venues" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: See what I mean?

Example #2:

"I've thought about it a bit, and I have come up with some notions that I think will probably piss off just about everybody!" -Bob Young

Brian Replies: Bob obviously is only trying to stir up people and piss them off. That's fine, and it's his usual MO. However, he's taken that to a different level when questioning someone's honesty. If he things I am dishonest, I strongly suggest he go elsewhere. I take great offense from someone intentionally saying ANYTHING he can to piss people off simply because he gets off on it. We normally delete these types on the boards immediately. Sounds like Bob's time has come.

Example #3:

"My song "A Woman Like Me" has been in Nan Masons act for 10 years. It is published thru Jack Kramer Music, a BMI publishing company. Nan probably does 100 dates a year...she is a cabaret singer and works all over the country. I'm sure she has worked many places licensed by BMI. How come I've never gotten any $ The fact is, that I would find it immoral and wrong to receive any money for the public performance of my song, but nevertheless, the system you encourage is in place and has been in place for as long as I've been in the business." -Bob Young

(Brian Replies: First Bob suggested that the PRO's fees were part of business and should be paid. Then, when his position flip flopped against PRO's collecting these fees entirely (and how people expecting these dollars to be paid are greedy, he posts his own statement where he demonstrates the system doesn't work because he hasn't gotten paid. Then he goes on to state that he believes that if he HAD gotten paid by the PRO (who's job it is to collect these fees) that it would be immoral and wrong. So, it seemed reasonable for me to take this as Bob being dissatisfied with what the PRO's do. If that wasn't accurate, and he LOVES what the PRO's do, and how they do it, the entire tone of his posts have led reasonable people to think otherwise.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I said I hadn't gotten any checks...
I didn't say that made me unhappy...It doesn't

You never, ever said that the payments were figured on amount of plays..
So...BMI should (by your template) only be paying those with ALOT of plays....To hell with the Just Plain Folks...I'm sure the members here will find that enlightening...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Throughout this post, I have said 2 things:

1. There should be a blanket license fee (the fairest easiest and actual system in place is to have the venues pay it). (Something Bob agreed with in his first post).

2. There should be a fair and accurate system to distribute those fees.

I think those 2 points are simple and cover everyone getting their fair share. I've also stated that if you feel your personal PRO isn't doing the job of getting you money you are owed with their current system, you should be discussing it directly with them. How much more clear can it be?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

So...musicians should be put out of work in places where they might perform songs by JPF members because ASCAP and BMI arent sending enough money to your "friends" that are getting alot of play.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: I stated what I believed above. This comment by you is simple hollow editorializing by you. You ignored the posted facts, and created something negative that was never said or suggested).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

You appear afraid to address the premise you raised about the nite of James Taylor songs...

I'm not surprised...it's an idiotic, undefendable situation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: I replied several times to that exact question. Over and over. It was clear in the initial post as well. I suggested that just as Taylor Guitar should be compensated for what they added to the performance, so should James Taylor if you perform his song all night. The method to buy the guitar is usually through retail sales (though there are all sorts of ways to get a guitar, most people buy one). The method for James Taylor to get compensated is via the blanket license fee that must be paid by the venue to the PRO. I am not sure how many times over and over again I can say that. This is the 4th I think.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

Apparently you didn't work in major market radio, Brian...

Maybe College radio doesn't have to pay for PRO licenses....
The radio that I've been involved with(that would be major market radio) certainly do and have separate agreements with the different PROs involving different pay schecules and rates etc.

See....you could learn alot from me !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Actually Bob, though I did work for college radio, I wasn't even thinking of that. I know our college station didn't track if music was on a PRO. I was referring to working at WZPL in Indianapolis, which was the #1 Station in the market when I was there. We got music in daily and lots of things went into deciding such as phone surveys, charts, promotional plans, various forms of legal payola (like appearances, free concert tickets, free CD's, all things ironically I have been fighting to have made illegal without proper reporting by radio, but that's another long topic). At no point was a question ever asked "are they affiliated with a PRO?" If it was supposed to be required, then many stations who have played a lot of artists who I personally know AREN'T associated with a PRO have made mistakes. This is possible, but it's "rule" I think many people are unfamiliar with. That's why I pointed it out.. it was new to me. You made the claim. Let's see the facts to support it? (Or it is possible it either changed or you're simple wrong Bob?) I'll cut you a break and NOT call you a liar or dishonest if you're wrong. So, if I can learn a lot from you, please teach me the actual rule that states a writer of a song must be aligned with a PRO to get airplay. Post it here please.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

No flip flops, Junior....You're just confused because you're dealing with a man who(like most people except the completely self-involved and self righteous) will occasionally mis-speak, and then has the audacity to try anc correct a mis-statement.

A snarfling child might call that a "flip-flop", a mature adult will applaud that as being responsible for what you say and admitting an error.

You're not a bad kid...just incredibly short sighted and easily lede.

I, unlike you have had real experience in this arena.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian replies: Well, I posted a pretty dramatic flip flop on your part where you suggested venues should pay the money, and then spent the rest of the postings saying that collecting the fee was morally wrong. That's about as big a flip flop that I've seen you ever do. It's quoted above in case you need to read it again. Not sure why I am considered short sighted because you flip flopped? Whether you did or didn't, it would have anything to do with me in the first place right? But I guess you couldn't resist another attempt to insult me out of context.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

The undeniable fact is that you are supporting a system that has been in place for at least 50 years. In that 50 years the system you support has collected alot of money from venue owners and apparently not gotten it back to the people they claim to represent.
That we are talking about a few dollars aday...but the fact is that it is not paid at that rate.
Collected annually or semi-annually it's a check for four or eight hundred dollars....
If you're paying BMI and ASCAP...double it ! You don't know how hard it is to write a check like that out of a saloon checkbook ! I do !You support a system that has a history of not providing $ to the people it claims to represent...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Aside from the fact that you started off supporting the same system, after 50 years of experience with it (I'm not as old as you Bob), and within a couple days of having that belief formed over all those years, flip flopped it, this has nothing to do with any of my arguments except to support my statements that the system should be fair and if it isn't those who assigned their rights to those PRO's should take it up with them directly. If there was never a single writer who ever got a dime of that money, it still wouldn't change the fact that the fee has a right to exist, it would simply indicate that the PRO's who the owners of those songs (i.e., the songwriters and publishers based on our system) assigned their legal rights, weren't doing their job. It would be the same as a retail store paying for goods from a wholesale supplier, but that wholesale supplier not properly paying for the original goods. It doesn't releases the retailer from responsibility of payment, it simply shows that the original suppliers should deal with and fix the problems with the wholesaler, OR find a different one. Your arguments against me only solidify my point and never weaken it. Venues should pay the blanket license fees. PRO's should make sure the right people get the money. Very straightforward and simple and I've never varied from it.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I, by the way, have publishing thru ASCAP as well... I amvery happy with the way both organizations handle my record and airplay issues... Those are the reasons I jopined each oprganization.. BMI because I was told that unless I was a member I could not get my songs on the radio..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: That's all well and fine. Have you told your PRO's that you think collecting from venues is greedy and wrong? I think it's also interesting that you seem comfortable with them collecting from Radio Stations for using songs, but not for collecting from Venues for the same thing? It's an illogical double standard. You choose to give up potential venue income, that's fine. What if someone else feels Radio income should be given up? We are seeing this type of idea on the web (something we have publicly been against) where net broadcasters make writers sign agreements to not be paid for performances on net radio broadcasts. It's really the same concept being moved over to the net world which is where most music will be broadcast in the future, until total and directly in demand programming becomes the norm. So, you'd do away with the license fees to venues, but keep the money they collect from radio. If radio didn't have to pay those fees, they could run less advertising and play more artists. It's the same argument you make about venues booking less artists because they have to pay a licensing fee.

So, my question to you: Why is it reasonable to collect from Radio for airplay performances, but not from Venues for Live Performances? In both cases, there are artists playing those songs, one on a recording (or sometimes live on the radio) and the other live. Why do venues get a pass, but Radio doesn't? If it's because of the system of determining who gets paid, keep in mind it's the same system. Just as they determined it worked best to use a survey type system to determine pay for radio play, they determined that same system best represented what cover songs were being played. So why is one okay and the other wrong?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I signed with ASCAP because I was advised by my label (that has some experience in this area) that it was good to have both affiliations. After I joined ASCAP, I learned that WGN in Chicago did not like to play ASCAP affiliated material because they had not reached an agreeement with them and were getting beilled about $600.00 per 15 minute segment if ASCAP titles were played. Your "friend" Alan O'Day will testify to this as he has been a guest more than once on WGN with my friends Steve King and Johnnie Putman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian replies: That's interesting, but I am not sure what the point is? It should be clearly stated that a writer can't simultaneously be represented for the same work by both PRO's. I don't think you were saying it, but from the responses, it's clear there is some confusion. You CAN have songs on both (or more than both) PRO's and you can have a publishing company run by you on both, but they can't represent the same writer's interests in 1 song on both. A song CAN have a BMI, ASCAP and SESAC (or any combination) writer appear on it, but can only be affiliated with 1 PRO at a time for each individual writer for that song.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

My argument is and will continue to be that this is not the time for contracts that appear to only benenfit artists already getting sales and mechanicalss.

If this is indeed about "Just Plain Folks" it should be understood that "Just Plain Folks" that aren't getting much airplay will not benefit at all !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: The demographic make-up of JPF closely represents the overall industry statistics. We have app. 3-5% of our members involved with the major and indie label systems, and 95-97% of our members are independent of all labels. Of that, a portion consider themselves hobby only and many consider themselves active grassroots indie artists. We've been on the forefront of fighting for airplay fairness for our members. But this still has zero connection to venues and them paying to use music. It's 2 separate issues that have no relevance. PRO's should pay the money they collect to their members in a fair, above board system. I've always supported that. People profiting from music, should pay the creators (or owners, if the creators have sold or given their rights to someone else) for that use. It's really simple. Arguing that one injustice makes another injustice okay is what illegal file sharers try to do. They say since labels screw artists, that the fact that they steal music is okay. It's ludicrous. (And I don't mean the Rap artist).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

That other "Just Plain Folks" who are working musicians are faced with venue owners who have one more reason to say "our overhead is killing us...sorry...we're gonna have to cut back"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: What difference does it make what bogus excuse a venue uses to not pay musicians? We both know that 1.91 per day is so tiny to the average venue is has no real business impact over the course of the year and certainly doesn't factor in legitimately to whether a venue can afford to book live music year round. If a venue is hanging on by less than the price of a cup of coffee or a fraction of the cost of a mix drink per day, music and booking live artists or not will make no difference to their solvency. If a radio station says they can't afford their license, should we give them a pass too? Who else gets a pass? If a venue doesn't want to book live performers, they'll come up with plenty of excuses or no excuse at all. It's a business decision. Few business people would make an honest assessment that they can't make more in profit with live music than 1.91 per day. It's only the hothead's who usually create a stink. And it rarely has as much to do with the money, as their egos.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

this is a time to remove these idiotic penny ante charges that benefit no "Just Plain Folks" that I know,and hurt many that I do.

But...it's just my opinion...and I'm pretty sure I'm right.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: Having income going into the organizations that you've chosen to pay you sounds like a good thing for all writers, which we're a part of. It comes down to what is right and what is fair. I think it's both to pay writers if you are voluntarily choosing to use their work to benefit your work. Someone (maybe you) used the example of a plumber using a tool. They paid for that tool. Our government decided that the best way to collect for the use of music wasn't to individually sell a license for each song to each buyer, but instead have a simple system of a blanket fee. If you don't like this system, you can choose not to join a PRO. You can also work to change the laws. But for hundreds of thousands of writers who have affiliated with PRO's, they've chosen to work with the system. If they are unhappy, I assure you that if all of them quit their PRO's tomorrow if they didn't change, they would. They'd have no other choice. But I don't see that happening. I do think that new technologies will take a lot of the guesswork out of the system and hopefully these types of arguments won't be needed. But whether the payout system is flawed or perfect, it STILL doesn't change the fact that venues should pay the fees OR they can choose NOT to use the music. They have that option.. it's all their choice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I got 4 e-mails on this....two say I'm badgering you, and two say what the hell is Brians deal? It appears that elents of the membership besides me are questioning this deal. It's a tough business climate right now...this is an impediment that should be removed, not encouraged. I said in the same breath "where's my money" and "if I got it I wouldn't accept it" People here know that I am a supporter of the art of songwritingAND that I support the rights of performers. I think that this situation which you endorse hurts both in very tangible ways.

Every single expense that a clubowner or venue owner incures will be reflected FIRST in budget. First on thatr list is the entertainment.. It always has been and always will. That's how things really are, Brian..

Of course, you think that an owner is gonna take time out to attend some cockamamie class to learn why live music is an asset to his business !

I don't know what color the sky is in your world...but it must be beautiful !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: If a business makes a determination that having live music won't be profitable for them, then they should make that decision and they regularly do. It's part of being professional. I'd love to sit down and hear from venue owners who can financially show me where $1.91 per day would sway that decision one way or another. If a business investor came to me and said he was operating on margins that close to disaster, I'd say don't go into business. On the other hand, I'd suggest that if they wanted to use live music, they should learn how to maximize their profits from that. Business people actually DO educate themselves on what makes money and how to make money. Are there a lot of bad business people in the world who don't want to learn or can't? Yup. That's why 90% of businesses ultimately fail. You have to ask yourself, why can 1 bar survive in the same location than another couldn't? It happens all the time. Arguing that because some bar owners are bad business people doesn't mean they get their tablecloths and neon bar signs and use of music for free. Smart business people maximize their profits. Perhaps if those who are confused we privy to how successful music venues use music to maximize their traffic and profits, perhaps more of them would do well. But whether they want the help or not, it doesn't mean they should get a free ride. Free help yes. Free ride no.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Says:

I am still waiting for you, who says NO LISTS
intends to get James Taylor paid for that night of James Taylor cover songs you say must be paid for !

I'm not the only one ...

Bob Young
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Brian Replies: For the 5th time: James gets paid via the blanket license fee paid by the venue. Just like he always has. Without the venue paying the fee, he never gets paid anything. Why you can't understand that is beyond me.) I am against lists. The blanket license removes the need for it. Ironically, I thought that was the 1 thing we both agreed on. Lists would be impossible to keep track of and totally eliminate the point of having a blanket fee. Perhaps one day when technology can accurately track use on a song by song basis, then the blanket fees will no longer be used. Right now we are no where near that point.

Brian