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

Bob,

I read Mike's points differently and to me, they said:

1. We have rights to our work.
2. If we don't defend our rights, we lose them.
3. The system in place is flawed, but right now it is the best available, unless we want to charge venues triple or more the amount so we can accurately track where the payments go. Because this would be burdensome to the venues more than anyone else, the current system was the best anyone could come up with to fairly compensate folks. If there is a better system available right now, I am sure the PRO's, the venues, the writers and even the live performers would welcome it. So far, no one has brought one up. It is likely, however, that with technology in the near future we will be able to much more accurately track just about everything in life, musical or otherwise. If we don't make claim to our collective rights now, they might not exist later when even better systems allow the litle guys to get their payments more accurately.

In regard to the $1.91 per day issue, there's no question that if a venue owner isn't a good business person, they may plan ahead enough to have extra money available to make large payments of any kind for anything. But just as they find a way to pay for other business/atmosphere items such as candles or tablecloths, or uniforms for employees or the neon bar signs or the big screen TV, they should have to make a business decision on whether they want music as well. I assure you that the cable TV bill collectors don't say "this guy is little and can't afford it.. so give him a pass, even though he uses our services to bring in football fans every weekend." They simply turn off service. The PRO's are doing nothing more than that. If a venue never has live music (or can accurately prove they never use music affiliated with a PRO) then they have nothing to worry about. If, on the other hand the do choose to use music, they should pay for it, just as they pay to fee for cable service. Just because they bought the TV, they can't have the cable service free. Just as just because a venue books a band, they can't have the music written by someone who they AREN'T paying for free. It's the same concept. Venues have a choice of whether or not to use music. Artists have a choice of what songs to play and whether they will do a gig and and what pay they will accept for their work. Writers don't have that ability to decide. The blanket license fee gives the freedom to the venue and artists to make choices without the writers involvement. They control the process completely. If it's a bad business decision to use the music, then I believe they shouldn't. If it truly doesn't cover it's own costs, I am not going to complain that they don't have live music. If over the course of a year live music and the people performing aren't adding enough value to cover a few dollars a night, they shouldn't be playing. They can play to nobody in their basement until they can attract at least a couple of people to stay and watch. If they do, they'll likely cover 2 bucks a day (or even 3-5 bucks a day if you add all the other PRO's). (I believe SESAC fees are far less than ASCAP by the way).

As for the reason most chain establishments don't have live music, that's really completely unrelated to PRO fees. I can speak from direct experience here. The reason is that they don't hire people to book talent. If they have to cut back on staffing, that's a job that is expendable to them. And the reality is that without someone focused on that, the quality of the music suffers and becomes a negative for the company. This happened with Borders Books. They reassigned the people who booked live music in their stores and at the same time stopped paying artists. It wasn't because of PRO fees because ironically, they STILL pay them, even without their live music program. It's a tiny fee that is insignificant. The real cost was having regional music booking people on full time payroll. And they also realized that though they needed to pay songwriters (since they weren't part of the decision making process) they didn't need to pay the artists because they were totally free to play for free or not play for free. I was as disappointed as anyone that they stopped paying artists, but at least they kept paying the license fees because songwriters don't have a choice, artists do. Ironically, had artists stuck together and as a group never played there for free, they would have had to have paid for live music. As it is, there's never a shortage of artists begging to play for free. It seems to me that for songwriters to do away with the PRO License fees, that essentially doing the same thing.. begging other companies to take it free never to get paid again.

You said: My opinion is that this would be a good time to lighten the load on small venues..

If a venue pays 100 bucks a night to the artists playing in their club, they are writing larger checks each week for entertainment than they are writing for an entire year of PRO fees. If they are paying less than that, it's likely their PRO fees are going to be less as well.. if collected at all in the first place. Remember, the example of 1.91 was for a pretty active club with music every night. It wasn't a coffee shop. If it's a venue selling beer and paying the artists nothing and the songwriters nothing, then artists AREN'T losing anything if they stop having live music in the first place because they really aren't getting paid anyway. They can play for free in the park or at Borders bookstore. If you have even mediocre talent, you can find free places to play all over town. If the venues are paying reasonable money (100-500 a night) then it's hard to see 600 bucks a year as the burden it's made out to be. It's simply a cost of business. And a pretty cheap one at that.

You Said: I think the idea of forcing them to pay for a system that appears to be inequitable.... is a mistake.

I understand your sentiment, but it truly is irrelevant. The problem with equity in payments is between the songwriters and the PRO's who they assigned their rights to. If you hired an accountant or business manager who was ripping you off, it wouldn't mean those who owed you money weren't obligated to pay you. The venues owe the money. Are you saying that if the system was 100% perfect that the fees would then be okay? If you are, then you can't argue to remove them. The fees are right. The PRO's are responsible to do their jobs as well. It's two unrelated pieces of the puzzle. If you buy fruit from a wholesaler, you don't get it free because there's a problem with the wholesaler paying the suppliers. If we had that system in the world it would be mass chaos and no one would ever get paid for anything. It's up to the suppliers (in this case songwriters) to work out their problems with their wholesaler (in this case the PRO's). If they allow the retailers (in this case the venues) to not pay anything, they'll never get what is due.. EVER. It's really none of the venue's business. Songwriters have given the legal right to the PRO's to collect their money. It's between those two parties to work out their arrangements or disatisfaction.

You Said: I do remember the first time I heard someone else perform one of my songs...
I did not hear a cash register go off...and all these years later...I'm not sorry. These are tough times, and I honestly believe it's just good enough to get some band or artist to play our songs.. If we want to be paid for those songs we should go out and do them ourselves..

That's great. Now imagine if you saw a store selling CD's with your songs on it that you had recorded. And you knew that even if many people bought those CD's, everyone would profit except you. And that you had no say in it. Would you still be so happy? Even if the answer is yes, that's your personal choice. Others don't feel that way. They don't want to give away their lifes work. No one will ever stop you from giving your work away personally. They just don't want YOU to make a decision on what THEY must give away. As for your comments about songwriters being satisfied just to have someone perform their song, and that they should do them theirselves if they want to get paid, you could easily reverse that and say if artists and venues don't want to pay for the songs they perform, they should just write them theirselves and no one will be upset that they don't pay anything. That's the fair solution.. but I doubt venue owners will fill many rooms with songs they've written unless they happen to by Jimmy Buffet doing his own songs at Magaritaville.

You Said: The only people I view as blameless in this deal are the entertainers that are performing in these places.
They're working hard to make a living and the rest of us are just making it harder and harder..

This comment is baffling to me. Songwriters trying to make a living are wrong and greedy.. but artists trying to make a living using songwriters work are right and good? Again, artists have the choice of what to play. No one will ever care if they only do their own songs. And no one is forcing them to do someone elses. Songwriters write songs and the way they get paid is when people use those songs to perform live or record. Why rob them of their chance to make an honest living?

Brian


[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 12-29-2003).]