JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum ASCAP fees for small venues

RWUSC,

First and foremost, if you're going to take shots at me or others here, you should have the courage of your convictions and use your real name. When you don't your credibility is already in question before you write a word.

Next, when you're going to make attacks and call me arrogant and without math skills you might consider actually quoting MY words and not attributing other people's words and examples to me to fit your argument. Please indicate a single place on this post where I even used the word "Latte" before this? Please show where I was discussing a small 30 seat coffeehouse?

What I ACTUALLY said was the example given was a larger venue, who served a full menu and alcohol. I used the $ quoted and broke it down to a cost of $2.47 per day. Since you seem to suggest you're brilliant with math and an expert on venues, how about you explain how my example is wrong? The average glass of wine costs about $5.00 at most average restaurants. (Some more, some less.. but that's pretty typical for most decent places). At that price, 1 glass of wine equals app. 3 dollars in profit, give or take a little. Clearly more profit than the needed 2.47 to pay the PRO fee. Are you actually suggesting I am wrong? If so, then you don't know your math or venue prices/costs very well.

Next, you claim the fees for a 30-40 seat coffee house is $2000 a year from ASCAP/BMI. I'd like some actual verifiable proof of that. If you are running a small non-corporately owned coffeehouse that doesn't serve dinner nor serves alcohol and seats only 30 people, then you're getting charged more than any similar venue I am aware of. In fact, BMI rarely (if ever) even charges a fee for tiny venues. This comes directly from Fred Cannon, the VP of BMI who is in charge of their licensing. They also don't litigate against small venues. So, name the venue that fits your scenario that is paying that much and I will personally bring the matter to the person in charge at BMI. If you can't provide a "real" example then your entire rant falls flat. False facts don't make your argument correct or relevant no matter how angry you are.

As for your rant:

"Is it fair to pay two organizations roughly the same fees (and three if SESAC decides to come around) when your music selection also includes a fair amount of indie music not licensed by any of the above? No it's not." -RWUSC

It's entirely fair for them to charge any amount they want and it's entirely fair for you to elect not to utilize the songs they represent. If you had cable and wanted to watch both HBO and Showtime you'd need to pay both entities. If you wanted Cinemax on top of it, you'd have to also pay them. The PRO's have catalogs of material. No one is forcing you to utilize any of the content in their catalogs. That's your business decision. So even though their rates are quite reasonable, it's always up to you to decide whether to use it. As for Indie Artists.. you act as if you're an authority on them. Do you run the largest indie artist community in the world? Didn't think so. I happen to though. And of the 350,000+ songs we got from members for this year's awards alone, over 70% of them were affiliated with either ASCAP, BMI, SESAC or their local PRO to their country (such as SOCAN, PRS etc.). On top of that, even artists who aren't affiliated often perform songs co-written with someone who is and they also will often slip in a cover song at some point that is registered. If you want to just watch 1 show on HBO per month, you still have to pay the fee for the month. Why should music be different? The rates are low and set on a blanket "all you can eat" type of basis. If they allowed for individual song use licenses it would be chaos and WAY more expensive and impossible for venues to keep up with. The PRO's are your friends. You just can't see it.

As for your concern that the money isn't going to the writers whose songs are being performed at the venue, that's a legit concern which we've raised ourselves many times. But keep in mind that writers voluntarily join a PRO and give them the right and responsibility to collect their fees and they agree to the system when they join. It's none of the venue's business or concern about whether the deal the writer signed with the PRO is a good one. To suggest you shouldn't pay the fee because the PRO system doesn't pay fairly would be like you saying you should be able to steal socks from Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart isn't paying the manufacturers enough for the socks you're stealing. It's a completely bogus and flawed argument. If you want to legally use music.. you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, regardless of the price, then you don't use it. Even if the licenses were 10 times higher it's STILL the right of those who own the songs to charge. Ironically the government has put a cap on what can be charged with statutory rates and compulsory licenses. If the government hadn't artificially set rates, you'd have to pay a LOT more for music than you do now.

As for your argument that there should only be 1 PRO, though it may be better for you, it's really none of your business who a songwriter contracts to collect their fees. If songwriters want 100 PRO's they have the right to have them. Monopolies are rarely good. Be glad there aren't 10 more to deal with. If the Napkin makers wanted to use 3 collectives to handle their billing, that would be their right as well. Would you rather deal with each songwriter one at a time? If you can't sort out 3 PRO's how would you like to deal with millions of individual songwriters? The PRO's are a great thing for venues who want to use music. They make it simple. If you're small potatoes often you can slide in under the radar and never get a bill from BMI. ASCAP may come around and you may have to pay them. If the bill is too much for your business, don't use music. All that said, billing for both venues and radio will improve as technology improves. But it's still a long way off. SoundExchange already does what you suggest for Internet Broadcast Performance royalties (something you don't have to pay now but WOULD have to pay if everything goes over the Internet as you want). But they are a tiny blip on the radar right now and can't even get artists to take the money that is sitting there for them. But that's another discussion.

As for your comments that you don't book people "coming through" I think that is short sighted. If your venue is known for presenting outstanding acts every single night, then many of your customers who like great music will come regardless of who is there. If you book acts with interesting stories (award winners, TV placements, Movie soundtracks, etc..) then you can build interest for specific shows even without a built in fan base to reach even more people. Is that too much work for you? Perhaps. But there are plenty of venues who are great at booking great acts with or without built in fans and who benefit from that. Those that book local acts who may or may not be any good simply because they'll bring family/friends aren't really professional presenters. There's nothing wrong with that, but the better quality the presentation, the more likely people will come. If you just book bad acts with 10 friends then you'll never be known as a place to see great music and thus you probably shouldn't bother if the licenses are cost prohibitive. It's no different than any other business decision. If you do it well, you'll benefit. If you do it half assed, you probably won't.

As for this:

"Try to have some idea of what you're talking about next time you venture into thinking you know how a small business operates." -RWUSC

You might want to point some of that chip on your shoulder anger towards your own misquotes and false attributions. Everything I said was accurate and still stands correct. You changed the venue type and the product I mentioned and then ranted on and on about things I never even said. You quoted very high licensing rates for a small venue but don't explain where that venue is or even give the state you live in. It's ironic for you to rant about me not knowing how a small business runs while at the same time pretending you know something about the music industry. Which area do you actually work in?

And finally, your paranoia about being deleted is just as misinformed as the rest of your rant. But then, that seems to be your MO so far. But that's okay.. we welcome you anyway. Everyone has to learn somewhere. Perhaps you'll open your mind a bit and learn the truth behind your rant.

Welcome to the group,

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian Austin Whitney (edited 11-22-2006).]