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

So, who does the burden of proof fall on in this particular case, the musicians who insist (and maybe with corroboration) that they don't even play the songs that were mentioned, or the investigator who claims he heard those songs being performed? Unless he secretly recorded the performances, where's the case, the evidence? Would this just be another example of a big corporation (ASCAP) with money to work with running roughshod over someone with little or no resources?

Being a writer, I totally agree that a venue that allows PRO-protected music to be performed without proper licensing should be held accountable, but what if there is no case at all? What if ASCAP's facts are all wrong, or fabricated? Seems to me the business owner AND music lovers still lose out simply because of bad publicity.

Or am I still missing something?

Greg

What if. What if.
Gee Greg.
What if musicians performing live simply didn't perform any material without accepting the fact they duty bound to make it possible for pro bodies to impliment the pay the writer their dues plan which is in place?
What if they submit them regardless of if they know the venue is doing it right or not?
All the what ifs you mention would no doubt be taken into consideration by the courts if it got that far I am sure, and a decision would be made.
W ouldn't that make then problem simply go away?
Maybe it is the fact there are so many performers out there who do it as a sideline, not including it in their income returns etc that keeps it florishing.
The pros are not corporate bodies. They are bodies set up to hopfully getting people's dues to them in a more collective and plausable way no matter what affilliatiojns the writer has.
The ground work for them was done in France around 1850 and yet their worse enemy still may well be some of their own members.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Marty,

I don't disagree that BMI (and, I presume, ASCAP as well) could do a much better job at monitoring/collecting/paying for small venue performances. I was just pointing out that all of their information is indeed available online for review, including "educational" materials for venues about the importance of licensing.

All of this discussion makes me ponder: Back a few years ago, when music file-sharing was rampant, what was the catalyst that really brought it all into the public consciousness? What got even Congress involved, passing new laws? What actually began all of the publicity, PR, lobbying, and (ultimately) high-profile lawsuits?

I believe it was when Metallica got involved. A big-name act, speaking out publicly on an issue, garnering all kinds of public attention to it.

Before Metallica went to Congress, few people paid attention to the record industry "suits" who were bemoaning file-sharing. They were seen simply as the mouthpieces for big, greedy, faceless corporate entities. Nobody cared.

Enter Metallica. Big-name rock stars. Lightning-rods for publicity. Testifying on Capitol Hill, no less, pleading a case for the artists, rather than for the big corporations.

People sat up and listened. Suddenly, the file-sharing crackdown movement gathered momentum. Hell, Congress even passed new laws.

Now, just a few years later, people have become educated. They know it is both unethical and illegal to duplicate copyrighted material without permission and payment. Pay-per-download sites are springing up everywhere, and are doing quite well. Even Wal-Mart is getting into the act.

Perhaps what this issue needs now is big-name involvement to serve as a similar catalyst. Not only to license little clubs in Small Town America, but for a complete revision and updating of the entire PRO structure. More accountability. More use of computers and electronic data gathering to get ACCURATE accountings of music usage, rather than simply using "surveys" and "estimates" and "extrapolations" from top-40 radio airplay. Education of both the public and the songwriters and musicians themselves about their rights and their obligations with respect to performance rights.

Or ... maybe I'm just dreaming....

The issues are extremely similar, of course. File-sharing involves the use of copyrighted sound recordings, performance rights involves the use of copyrighted songs. The first issue has been pretty thoroughly dealt with by now. Maybe now it's time to start working on the second one.

Maybe we need to get some well-known songwriters to begin making some noise about all this, and to get them working in concert with the PROs (since the PROs could only benefit from increased licensing), and to get the PROs working in concert with each other. And maybe the PROs themselves need to take a page from the RIAA's book on effective public education and political lobbying.

--- Ed

Ed,

The problem is that the lobby's supporting the little businesses in this case are hugely powerful in congress and have already squelched a lot of the efforts to collect for use of recorded music in businesses of all types. The Fairness in Music Act dealt with this issue and basically screwed writers in a very public way. This issue has gone on for a long time.

Artists/writers (i.e. those who do both) are generally their own worst enemies. They sell their souls for nothing in desperation to make a buck or even for the change to play and give it away for free.

Isn't it odd that these same venues don't feel that the person coming in to clean the floors at night shouldn't get paid, but the people in the venue there to get the customers to come in the first place don't deserve any pay? Isn't it odd they don't think twice paying the company that makes the sprinkles for the coffee drinks (which only slightly enhances the "experience" but they won't pay the people who enhance the experience of coming to the venue in the first place?

Artist/writers have sold their souls for a long time. They stand in line begging to sign really BAD contracts. They whore themselves out every way possible for a little attention or acknowledgement. This is simply another symptom of this problem. And sadly, no matter how bad the contract, or how little or nothing they get paid for a lifetime of effort/work, there will ALWAYS be a LONG LONG line of people willing to do more and take less for the chance to be noticed. It's like a sickness.

The PRO's have a lot of perception and educational problems. BUT.. their biggest hurdle may be artists who give it away (or even PAY to give it away) than take a risk that 1 less person might actually pay for it. Pick the biggest artist out on tour this year. Imagine the demand if they ALWAYS played for free, always gave their CD's away and grovelled for ANY attention that someone would give them. Do you think anyone would care about them anymore? Sadly, local artist/writers do this every day. And in some case, they bite one of the few hands trying to feed them.. the PRO's.

No legit business having live music is unable to justify pennies to a dollar or two per night of live music as a realistic and fair cost of business. If they do, they are either being A$$holes or they are REALLY bad business people with no clue what they are doing. If live music isn't producing 2 dollars a day in extra profit, your problems are FAR more serious than a PRO bill. In fact, each time this comes up it's generally a venue who's simply being a jerk and cancels live music because their ego is simply too big to give in and pay what they owe. I haven't heard of any true life hard luck stories where under 2 dollars a day put a venue under.

Brian

I'm not sure how the system works "down under" that Graham speaks of, nor do I readily know how the money received by PROs in the U.S. is divided amongst it's members.
I *do* agree with any concepts of a system which would truly pay an artist each time his/her song was performed by another. It would be a complex system, yet fair.
The rewards for writing/creating songs & music that others want to hear and perform should be there, and should be accounted for.
But when a generic mathmatic formula is applied, and standard fees for venues are adopted as a matter of legal policy, we have lost all true accountability. Well, we haven't lost it because we never had it.
The entire problem with the laws of our society is that of creating laws which try to serve every entity and every situation equally. It's a simple fact such laws cannot be written, and efforts to do so plague us with unfairness, both horrid and laughable tales of strong-armed victimhood, ridiculous scandals and wastes of public and private monies....not to mention further laws written on top of existing ones, and further bureaucracies developed to to handle all of it...more people being hired to control the complexities of handling money and laws to the point their own paychecks devour every dime of the money they are handling.

And the people who get ripped off are always the people whom the laws were designed to serve...the people who actually pay to be part of such a system.

I simply don't see a fair answer to the issues of venues and cover songs coming from the existing system. I don't see any sign that artists truly get paid for their songs being covered, nor that they will. I simply see a non-governmental bureaucracy (completely dependent upon government)collecting money via floppy and ill-fitting concepts of law.

-Gary

Gary. you can simply type ASCAP BMI APRA, or whatever body you care to into your browser and up it will come, or opions of it, and you can read to your hearts content to find out how they work.
Have to admit, I am still wading through the top side ones, but APRA is pretty clear to me now.
Thing about laws is if those who think they don't work, still work within them while pushing for better laws, we should have a not to bad base to work from.
I once heard it said in lyrics forum it is snobbery to put your pro connection on your lyrics when you post them.
I wsan't doing it at the time, but that made me think.
I am a member of a pro and if by chance somebody was wanting to use my stuff, their pro is the place where they have to say they have done so, and if I don't make it clear who my pro is, how the heck can their pro know where to send the bikkies via their recipricol.
So now my pro is within my copyright line.
If you are a memebr of a pro, you can e-mail or phone them re any wonders you have as to how it all works.
And if you have ever had as much as one song sung either by youself or someone else and have not joined a pro I would think it is about time you thought about it.
And I just got a thought on how to do something toward this subject.
Watch this space.
Graham




------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I guess I'm still kind of agreeing with EVERYONE here, which to me means it's a more complex issue than some people want it to be.

It seems to me that there is one possible big reason for everyone stressing out about getting paid and getting gigs and paying fees to PROs:

THE MARKET SUCKS FOR MUSIC RIGHT NOW MORE THAN EVER. THE DEMAND JUST ISN'T THERE.

I know this is not new info. But I think we forget (or just don't know)how drastically the market has changed. And if it wasn't so bad, maybe we wouldn't be having this conversation about 2 piddly dollars a day.

Case and point, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO READ BOB YOUNG'S AMAZING LAST POST (end of the first page of this topic)ABOUT 3 VENUES PER BLOCK (!!!!) EACH DOING MUSIC 5 NIGHTS A WEEK IN CHICAGO IN THE LATE SIXTIES, A SCENE THROUGH WHICH HE WAS ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE AND SUPPORT HIS FAMILY!!

These crucial bits of history really expose how much we are frogs in the boiling pot:

If you throw a frog in a boiling pot of water, it'll immediately jump out. If you put the frog in a pot of cold water and then slowly bring it to a boil, it'll slowly adjust to its own death!

THANK YOU SO MUCH, BOB. Those of us who are unwilling to slowly adjust to our own deaths are starving for these stories.

(If you don't mind, I'd like to eliminate your name and pass your story on to some musician friends who would really appreciate it)

Brian,

The venue lobbies are strong, yes. But the music lobby seems to have made itself much stronger over the past few years. And the Congress has also become more "educated" by this effort as to the monetary value of music.




Amen!

Here's something interesting: I subscribe to a film music composer's e-mail list. Just in the past few days, this same topic has come up on that list. Except there, it's the film composers complaining that they don't get paid accurately by the PROs.

The problem obviously goes very deep, and is at least in part a structural one -- using extrapolated radio play surveys as a "proxy" for almost everything else, for example.

I'm a very "libertarian" type of person, it takes a lot to make me say "there ought to be a law" ... but maybe there ought to be a law.

The film composer's discussion again brings home the "we're all in this together" point, however. (I have pointed them to this topic, by the way.)

Also, it seems PUBLISHERS should be very interested in this. After all, 50% of the PRO royalties go to the publisher. Where are the small publishers and the publishers associations? Why aren't they making noise, too?

--- Ed

Just one afterthought on the film composers:

When I mentioned that the same basic discussion was taking place in this board, I told them that this was primarily a songwriter's board, rather than a film composer's board. And the initial response was, "So yet again the songwriters have their act together while we do nothing?"

Would that it were so.....

--- Ed

Ed,

You might want to tell all of them that they're part of us and we're part of them! Have them come over here and say hi, on this topic or for any other reason. Our awards each year have been woefully void of any film composing submissions.. in fact, once again this year we don't even have enough submissions to have a category, even though I've wanted one since the first year. How it is we have over 10,000 CD's entered this year and less than 10 with Soundtrack music/compositions on them?

Brian

Incidentally, one point that was touched on briefly is the complication of having two PROs in the States. Can anyone think of a logical reason why this should be so (apart from the historical ones). Personally, I think it's more of a complication than a benefit - certainly for the venue owners.

PS: What's that smell? Could it be... a fresh can of worms?

------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Michael,

I think it goes side by side with the entire US ideology of competition improving the marketplace. When someone is a monopoly, the often get fat and lazy and inefficient. When that happens, everyone loses. When there is competition, you have to keep on your toes and improve. I can't imagine the disasters we'd have if ASCAP and BMI and SESAC weren't pushing each other (usually due to their own members rumbling about better service elsewhere), to get better and service their members better. Sure, there's plenty to be disatisfied with even with competition, but the American instincts say it would be far worse with a monopoly.

Brian

BMI was started partially because of ASCAP's then monopolistic practices. The legal back-and-forth and consent decrees throughout the last century make interesting reading. Technical innovations by one PRO quickly force the others to catch up.

(Ed: please provide a pointer to this film composer's mailing list you mentioned.)

This is from the BMI FAQ page:

There are two other performing rights organizations in the U.S. If you play the music from either of these organizations, then you must have separate licenses with one of both of them; or, you need to get the permission of the individual copyright owners whose works they represent.

Here's the problem from the point of view of the club owner - even if he pays for a license from one, the other two can come after him. And with licenses from all three - there is still the potential for songs to be performed on his stage that he needed to get permission from an individual copyright owner.

Marty. I think that clause referes to playing recorded music, not live performance.
Or recording covers.
I am sure the licience for that is attainable through the individual artist's PRO no matter what whatb it is.
Look at any CD and see the multitude of copyright bodies listed in the credits.
Regards.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

What we're doing here is just kind of talking about this stuff...
I don't really see that we can do much about it..
At least it doesn't look like many of us are so inclined..
For myself, I'm too old and too tired to fight much anymore......

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 !

As a songwriter, I can ask my fellow songwriters, "How much money do you want to make for writing a song ?"

That guy (or girl) or band or whatever that's working in that bar or lounge or coffee shop or whatever is not getting rich doing what they're doing.
Nobody ever got rich working in lounges, not even in the good old days I'm always harping about.

How much should they pay you for playing your song ?
Is your song the reason they got the gig ?

The guy that invented the channel lock got paid.
Should every plumber or electrician that gets paid for doing a job where he used a channel lock send a commision to the inventor ?

If I were king, I'd say to the writers, let these folks perform your songs, maybe somebody will hear the song and go up to the band and say "what's that song, who's it by ?",,and then go buy it.

I'd tell ASCAP and the rest that it's tough enough to keep a saloon open these days without the additional cost and headaches involved with paying you guys this money (which is not, it appears, getting back to the writers anyway)

I've played "cover" songs my whole life.

When I go out to perform my songs, I alwso include many "cover" songs...
Why ?
Because I love good songs, and so does my audience.

I sat in front of an audience of JPF members in Nashville and mixed my songs with covers..
I had a great time, the audience had a great time, it was alot of fun.
I don't think I was cheating them or myself.

And, by the way, since I'm in ASCAP and BMI do I have to pay myself when I play my own songs on a gig ?

So, writers, give the performers a break.
It's tough enough out there...
Clubowners...pay the few buck and let it go..
Oh by the way...
If clubowners do pay the money, it's one more excuse to raise drink prices or cut pay to the entertainers..
And, ASCAP and the rest....find another way to steal money for your executive committees.

There....

Have I alienated just about everybody ?

Then, my work here is done and I'm gonna go back to figuring out how I'm gonna post some theory lessons over in the Theory and Technical forum.

some of you should poin us over there..
We're having alot of fun !

Bob (ducking and covering) Young

Have to try harder than that to allienate me Cobber.
That same plumber has a job to do and decides it would be best done with a tool he doesn't own, so he either buys the tool, or hires it.
Or knows a bloke with one and asks to borrow it.
Same thing applies with the tools of a performer's trade.
And the fill the playlist in thing is basically the same as the hire it thing.
Bit hard to get hold of most of the owners of the covers a performer would deam as something the punters would want to pay him to perform, so the play list return is really the only way it can work.
For the smalltime writer, it is in fact often the only return they are ever likely to see.
I don't see a lot of merit in the they are doing the writer a favour getting them heard so why should they pay thing.
If an artist want to earn money off it, it is fair enough they pay the hire fee.
And yep.
The theory forum is a great litle place to be.
I've got my lastest bit of music that blossomed from it almost done.
And the previous one is already up on my SongRamp site.
Soundclick is still giving me grief in the upload a song thing.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Cobber...

As you know, 99% of my 40 years in the biz has been spent playing "cover" tunes.
From bars to coffee housed to school dances to weddings to corporate gigs..

I could never begin to count the number of times people have come up to inquire about who recorded a song we had played.

I can cite the Grateful Dead as a good example.
My band was playing Dead songs long before it was fashionable in places that had never heard of the Grateful Dead.
I did it because I realized early on that the charm of the songs lay in their danceability.
They're just great songs to dance to..
Since most of the jobs I was doing involved getting people up to dance..well....

So lots of folks were hearing those songs for the first time..
Many of them were the kind of people who would say " I hate the Grateful Dead" without even thinking about it because of their pre-conceived notions about Dead music.

I'll stake my ass on the fact that some of those folks went out and bought Dead records just cos' they had so much fun dancing to them when I played them.

And, soundclick finally uploaded one of mine yesterday after 2 unsuccessful tries !

I wonder what's going on over there.

Bob

Yeah mabe a known band may get the odd extra record sold via your doing a take on one of their songs Bob, but fo the just a writer, the royalty from the writing something that gets live play, is most often all they get.
And actually gettuing a royalty cheque no matter how small each year is akin to , but a long way from getting a cut.
So I think it is improtant the writer at least gets to know they are being heard somewhere, and then they can, if they choose put that play down o their returns from live performance sheet, and get their due at no cost to the artist.
Probably get the writer's undying gratatude too.
Especially if they have never had a royalty cheque.
It's sort of like a poor coisin to getting the first cut.
Well it was for me anyway.
Prettyn sure it works internationally.
Know it works within Australia as I have done it.
Will try Soundclick.
They have been upgrading the server Cobber.
Maybe they finally got it done.
Sure wish they had put a sign up telling us to save the effort as it didn't come up as a failed upload until it had wasted a half hour of our time evrey time we tried,
Nothing newie newie over on theory Cobber other than Mike going double flat out in his efforts to confuse poor old buggers like me.
And I think it's working too.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Bob,

Sorry, you failed at pissing me off...in fact, I think you inadvertently scored on every point!! Sorry, man...I know, from reading your posts, that you don't much like it when people agree or disagree with you, but...there you go!! (just kiddin')

Also, you were much more succinct on the topic than most everyone else who posted on this, myself excluded, of course!!

Peace...

[This message has been edited by Bluepoet (edited 12-11-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Bluepoet (edited 12-11-2003).]

I have been mucho busy the past couple of days, and so not in here too often ... but I do want to mention in response to Brian and pd that I did indeed point the film composers over here. Don't know how many followed through...

--- Ed

You da man Ed.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I spent a bit of time talking to venue owners about this caper, and having got their "how much it costs" figures off them, I am still wondering where all themoney comes from as their annual fees would be way cut out before the half year was up if all performers submited play lists and writers were paid royaltys out of only them for the year.
Yet another question to ask the pros I guess.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Well, since it's the small "gig bands" dying out there because of this type of situation and "if" they're all that desirous of a "venue" to have to play....it would seem to me that it's the musicians' burden to see that all avenues of potential problems be covered....this of course, would be inferring that all "small gig bands" have the "knowledge" about the PRO associations and the problems that go with doing "cover" songs....I believe if this is a vital venue spot for those in-twon musicians....then since the PRO license doesn't seem all that exorbitant for a year....that the musicians make it up between the bands that normally play at said venue....always making sure that the owner of the desired venue is covered for any "damages" that an unwitting musician/performer might cause the owner of said business......as it's been noted, any business of today's market already has so many things they HAVE to have...insurance---that alone can kill someone's business....liability insurance is out of the window in amounts of dollars and it sounds like to me that this could well have been the "lawsuits" affair when it says the folks were so stacked in as to be pouring out on the sidewalks....sounds like an wide open case for liability!
Yep! Brian guess you've got it right! There's just so much anyone can get by with, without infringing on someone else's territory or turf! Actually it all boils down to this basic sentence...."There isn't such a thing as a "free" consumer item at all! Not Anymore!" Too many hands to pay, too many debts to catch...etc.

------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=Sharon

The licence fees might have to go up if everybody got what was actually coming to them. Or the payouts to the big names that get the airplay would have to come down, since their stuff is in fact not being played in live venues.

I've been thinking about various technical solutions to the problem of under-reported live performances and the problems I do not see a way around are (1) neither the performer nor the venue owner get anything out of doing the work to report the play-list to the PRO. (2) As Brian said, the venue owner is largely not in the music business. If he stopped having music, people would still come for the booze (where the owner makes his money) and the talk. Compare this to radio stations, which *do* report what gets played to the PROs. If they stopped playing the music, people would not tune in just to listen to the advertising (where the station makes its money).

The only conclusion I come to is that live music at a place where people are there for a different reason than listening to the music is not a channel by which songwriters have any way of making money. So look elsewhere.

This would change if it was the performer who had to pay the PROs, as was suggested under another topic. Provided of course that the venue paid the performer, which is sometimes not the case. The performer is more likely to be in "the music business" than some bar owner, who can't be bothered with copyright paperwork.

We need to find a way to make performance reporting easy enough that somebody will go to the trouble of doing it, who does not employ a person (as a radio station does) whose entire job is to track such things.

The idea of a performer paying their own fees is absurd. Remember, ALL songs performed, including those written by the artists, deserve to be compensated for through the PRO's. If I am paying a liscense fee to play my own songs, I am paying myself. The idea of a blanket liscense is so that ALL writers are compensated, including those performing their own songs.

If we expected every venue and/or every performer to keep minute details on every performance, the cost of simply running that system would eat all the possible earnings before anyone gets paid. If you want to do away with the PRO's and you want songwriters to never get paid, fine.. just come out and say it. But suggesting overwrought and uncollectable systems where people essentially pay themselves, minus administration fees to keep track of all the info, is really off the mark and people need to go back and think it through.

Either:

1. Songwriters will go uncompensated and venues will benefit for free without paying what is fair.

2. PRO's will charge fair use fees to venues in a blanket license, do a fair job in tracking where that money should go, and pay the writers who earned the money.

I think people have also tried to make the connection that 2 wrongs are making some type of right. The fact that venues should pay the fees and the fact that the PRO's have both a perception and accounting problem are unrelated. Allowing one to happen (i.e. not making venues pay) doesn't improve the second.. it makes it worse.

It's so ironic that many of those who complain that the PRO's don't pay them the money they deserve are also the sames ones that say venues shouldn't have to pay.. one makes the other problem far worse.

Brian

I want to emphasize again:

I think that there should be 1 single mandated performance license, perhaps set by a regulatory commission. This fee should be very standard and equally enforced with clear cut rules of who has to pay it, and how the fee is determined.

Once the money is collected, the PRO's and other interests (such as artists not affiliated with the PRO's but who have filed for legal standing to get their portion of that pool of money) should then have to demonstrate what their fair share of that money is.

THAT would be a fair system, and would remove the perception that thugs and criminals are collecting from the PRO's and thugs and criminals are refusing to pay their bill. (I.e. it removes the histrionics from both sides).

Brian

From what I gleaned from my talks with venue owners the other day, the APRA fees to them are by no means bank breaking.
In fact, I don't see how they alone would cover the yearly pay out to writers of songs played over the period.
Never the less. I do believe in the APRA annual reprts I have read the gross incoming and outgoing s are listed.
I will see if I can find a copy.
Next one should be out soon anyway.
Given the reciricols in force now, I don't see it matters how many pros there are, provided a venue only has to licience threough any one of them.
And the fees charged are the same.
I do concede one body per country would make it a bit easier maybe though.
Typing that brought to mind that I think I read somewhere the payout to writers from the individual pros varies.
May be wrong on that though.
Any BMI and ASCAP members who have had the experience fill us in there??????
The news that artists/songwriter/members are apparently overstaing their original song play lists to cheat both their fellow writer/members and their PRO is a bit of sad news.
No doubt leaving off the songs of other writers they are singing to do so given most pros would know only X amout of songs will fit into anu gig timewise.
The submittong of play lists is really not all that hard or time consuming.
After all, they would have a list of what they were playing anyway, and everybody in business has to do the bookwork for it to work properly.
Probably playing mostly the same songs from gig to gig anyway, so it is really only dates and venues that need to be entered on the sheet each gig.
Or weekly/monthly/yearly if they prefer.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Graham... I really like the concepts of direct accountability which seem to come from your system down under.
Seems it's entirely too easy to suggest such a system here would be overwhelmingly complex, impossible to employ, etc...."millions of musicians and songwriters..millions of songs"... yada-yada-yada.
I'm not so sure it's impossible, and I do see it as a worthwhile topic to ponder.
Here's a concept I've loosely put together, and ya'll are free (and desired) to find any and all problems with it:

1. Every publically performing artist who is paid to perform be required to register with a PRO conglomerate. That artist/group is asssigned an identification number.
2. Similarly, every song registered by any artist/writer carry an identification number, perhaps the first digit/letter of each number defining the PRO of registry.
3. Every venue hiring live music be affiliated with the PRO conglomerate also, and assigned an ID number.
4. At the end of any gig, the band/artist be held accountable and responsible to provide record to the venue owner of all cover songs performed, via a standardized form.
Note: For most bands/artists it would not be a huge effort to carry a checklist of the cover songs they play...including the identification number of those songs. For "cover-bands", it could be a larger task.

5. The venue owner would then be responsible to account for: the venue, the band, date of performance, songs covered. With standardized software, such an effort would require about 2 minutes for the average band/artist.

6. Rapid electronic tranfer of this information to a reporting body of the PRO conglomerate could provide exact and tracable accounting for whose cover songs are being played, who is playing them and where.

Such information would not only provide for accurate royalty accounting, but also some fabulous statistical information which cold be utilized in many ways, largely to the benefit of the songwriters whose songs are being performed. A successful songwriter would receive his/her proper recognition, monetarily and otherwise.

With such a system, a good songwriter could actually benefit by pitching his/her songs to even a local band..potentially to more than one band, creating a statistical trail which could put the songwriter "on the radar", so to speak.


Sure... it's all an idea.. no doubt full of holes. But it's on the table of thoughts here, and I hope it's stimulating to somebody . Fire away!

-gary

Ahhhhh Greed !

It's a beautiful thing...

gimme mine gimme mine gimme yours gimme more...

Jeeez !

So..maybe one of you greedmeisters can address this...

I'm going out to do a gig tonite....
The other day I found a CD by Derek Dillhole in the cutout bin...
It's got a song on it called
Suzy Loves My Banana.

I decide the song will fit inmy act.
So..If I do the song I'm supposed to send Mr Dillholee money for singing his song...
But suppose somebody in the audience comes up to me and sez "Heey...that banana song was cool....who did that one ?"
Spo, I tell him "Derek Dillhole"!

So the guy goes to the record store and gets the Dereks CD.

I assume Derek will send me a commission for the CD sold..
After all...If I hadn't sung the song, Joe Blow in the audience would nevber have known about Derek or his song...Hell...I just made Derek $$$$

WHERE"S MY CUT???

This has turned into an embarrassing display of greed and avarice.

A plague on all your houses !

You're all wrong !

Musicians performed the works of others in live performance for thousands of years without making these payments...
Suddenly, songwriters are getting cheated because some poor bastard working for 15 buck and a third of the door in bubblefuk Iowa on a Saturday nite isn't paying for the privilege of singing Louie Louie !

What a bunch of greedy bastards !

You should be ashamed !!

I wish one of you would have come into one of the syndicate joints I played stamping your little foot and demanding money./

Now THAT would be a show I'd pay to see !

One more thing...please, for my information...

How much per song are we talking about ?

If I play 20 cover songs on a gig..what does that cost me ?
How do I get the money to you ?
What if I don't play the whole song ?

And what about weddings ?
Are the bride and groom supposed to get a license from BMI and ASCAP ?
Is the band supposed to log everything in?
What if there's a DJH ?
Does he or she have to pay ?

What if they don't ?
Are we gonna send song cops out to bust them ?
Who pays the song cops ?

Doesn't this seem ridiculous to anyone but me ?

Bob (I'm SO glad I'm not young anymore) Young



[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-14-2003).]

LOL Bob! I'm actually not against what you've shared in any way, in fact it perfectly echoes my first post to this thread.
My last post is simply accepting of the fact that people and PROs *are* going to demand payment. So...how do we provide for such fairly?

I simply would like to see any and all money being funneled towards artists as going to it's proper location, rather than feeding 85 families and the same number of attorneys along the way to it's destination.
I agree that playing a cover song celebrates the artistry of the original creator....can assist in selling CDs and even keeping sales from that artist alive.

You are absolutely correct... greed is largely the reason this topic exists.
In the case of writers who don't record their music, however, it's a bit of a different situation.

Largely, however, all I can say is right-on Bob!
-gary

The system Gary proposed is the sort of thing I was working on. My angle was that the lists be submitted to the PRO by the venue owner through some sort of Point-of-sale terminal or wired-Jukebox already on the premises. That was another idea - jukeboxes that automatically log and report what gets played. Satellite TV receivers already do this for Pay-per-view.

Writers already have ID numbers through their PROs (called an IPI, "Interested Person Identifier" by the international standards for tracking music rights.) PRO-registered pieces also have ID numbers assigned by the PROs. (BMI calls it the "BMI Work Number".) I assume the venues have licence ID numbers from the PROs as well.

The only thing missing is tracking the performers, who are the ones in best position to bring the set-lists in correct format to the venue owners to submit. Barcodes? Smart cards?

Set Lists ?

I never used a set list in my life..Never !

My gigs were all stream of consciousness based on what the crowd was looking for that night...

I know a million friggin' songs..so I'm gonna have to limit myself to a particular bunch of songs on a given night ?

For crissakes that's ridiculous !

So answer my questions...

What about wedding gigs in a tent at somebodys house ?

I've worked hundreds of those on the North Shore....

And will one of you geniuses come forward and tell me how much I as a writer can expect to charge some poor schmuck musician per song ?

And, while we're at it..could ANYONE come forward to tell us how much they've collected ?

I'm gonna guess, not one of you...EVER !

So, how much is it...15 cents per song...a buck....10 bucks come on....how much does Tie A Yellow Ribbon cost me ?

Come on kids...Brian accused me of being negative when I suggested that time spent on arguments like this was time wasted...that the world is full of many things much more worthy of our concern.

Well....I'm proud to say it again.

If getting a dime a song from me for playing your dumb-ass song is this important to you, you suffer from severe tunnel vision and a self-fixation that is pathetic !

Go feed the poor, donate seeing-eye dogs to the blind...leave greed to Metallica and the rest !

Bob

Yeah. I can tell ya Cobber. The APRA pay per song per play is two buck, and it isn'tm the artist performoing it who pays for it.
That comes out of the money PROs collect from venues, and other related scources as I am still trying to find out what,
Once again from memory, private gigs at houeses and some venues are not deemed as public performance and so do not require a play list to be submitted.
Toward the some suit may her the artist doing the song and turn the writer into an over night millionaire.
Yeah right.
Happens all the time.
Fact is re the payed to perform thing Guys.
With APRA the artist performing a song does not have to even be paid to sing the song for it to be used to alow the Writer to be listed as a full pro member.
All it takes is that the song is listed in the writer's initial application along with the date, artist, venue and location, and the venue managers signature under the "yes, this song was sung on this date at my venue" thing.
And yes. APRA do check with the venue it did in fact happen, on a random basis.
I do symathize with artists who don't always get paid their true worth Bob, but do try to remember quite often the writer doesn't get paid at all in most cases, and I am sure most of them spent a lot of time and/or money getting the song up to a stage where the artist could hear it good enough to think it would be worth singing.
I don't call that greed , I call that fairness.
And can tell you, my first royalty cheque, small as it was because I don't perform often felt good.
And was the only payment I got for the gig too as I was just up jamming.
Sort of made me feel like I did belong.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Two Bucks a song !


So, let me get this straight...

If I get a gig in your town..and I'm gonna be doing 3 or 4 sets 10 to 12 songs a set, it's gonna COST me 80 to 100 dollars !

Well, my friend...if you call that "fair" in Australia then we have very different definitions of the word.

Unless of course you're gonna pay me 4 figures for the gig !
My guess is...you're not !

My example was not about a suit making anybody a millionaire...my example was very true-to-life as it's happenend to me thousands of times over the years..
Where I'll play a song people have not heard before and they will come up and ask who did it...If I'm gonna be charged to play the song then it's only fair that I get a percentage if someone buys the CD based on hearing me play the song.
I call THAT fair !

If we're gonna " I, Me, Mine", then I want mine too.

Or is it just greedy when I want to be paid fairly ?

Sorry Cobber....Nothing you or anybody else has said takes any of the stink off this...

I know you know what a load of crap smells like....that's what I'm getting from this.

fortunately, I don't have to deal with it..

Pity that some of you not only deal with it but find it to be acceptable.

I can tell you this...before I pay to play anybody's song I'll tell them to come and sue me or stuff it up their bunghole!

Suppose I play somebodys song and everybody hates it and leaves the joint.

Can I get money from the bugger for costing me a nights pay because of his shitty song ?

It's all so stupid...how did musicians exist for thousands of years without this nonsense...?

Sorry Cobber...I think you're as wrong as you can be on this one.

But I love you for life my friend !

Bob

No sweat Bob. We can all get it wrong.
Currently the big wrong is you are not reading it right.
The artist (that's you Cobber)does not have to pay.
You do your sets whatever they were considering you don't use a "We're going to play these tonight Guys" thing.
When you have recoverd from the gig and Mary isn't after you to mow the lwan, you take your pick of BMI or ASCAP, you being a member of both, and log onto the website and type in your play list (as best as you can remember it would be better than nothing. Titles, Writer Credit and their PRO and the venue and date and away you send it.
The recipricols twix the PROs do all the share it out stuff.
All seems pretty simple to me.
Take care Cobber.
Graham(I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken) H

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

No...I don't think I do have it wrong Cobber
Remember..that for 38 of the forty years I spent on Stage, I was playing nothing but other peoples music...nothing of my own.
So...acording to your math if I'm gonna do 40 to 60 covers at one gig, it's gonna cost me 100 dollars or more.

That's two bucks a song...pplus postage, plus the time I gotta spend writing down all that stuff....

Sorry...

Still got the same smell from where I'm sitting.....

It is overcoming the smell of dead fish by the lake tho......

Call me silly....the honor of hearing other artists sing my songs has always been enough for me......
that's just me tho.......

Two bucks isn't gonna make me feel better...especially since my years grinding it out on stage have taught me how hard that two bucks can be to come by !

I was up there trying to feed my family...damned if I'm gonna pay for somebodys typewriter ribbons !

If they want the two bucks so bad..let 'em get off their ass and try and beat me at my job !

Bob

Were did I say you had to pay a brass razzoo Bob?
Nowhere.
I said you fill in the playlist and send it however you wanna to whichever of your pros you choose and they do the paying.
Maybe if they were as good an artist as yourself, the writer could do that trick too Bob, but I see it they got off their butts enough within their field that the song got out there enough for you to drecide you could make a buck, be it ever so small, off it.
You gotta have the means to read your aggreements with both your pros Cobber, and sure that will clarify the proccedure for you.
I xcan only state how I understand it from reading APRA's conditions, and I haven't yet had a "You done it wrong" note from them, so I must be doing it somewhere right.
Mind you. The only cover I have ever sung was a parody of Uns Unchain My Heart, and I didn't know who wrote3 it so entered it as Joe Cocker.
Pretty sure APRA would have figured it same as they do when applying for a licience to record a cover and you don't know the writer, you just list the artist if you can't be bothered checking the credits down at the local record shop.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

You're riht, Cobber.

I double-checked and I did indeed misread your post..

You say tha the venue is responsible for the two dollars per song.

BUT, as I said earlier, ultimately that cost will be borne by either the entertainer, as the venue owner will pay that much less to the performer to cover his cost, or possibly decide that the cost is too great and forego live music completely.

In any case, I, as a lifetime performer, think the money belongs in the pocket(or purse) of the entertainer instead of the writer sitting on his duff somewhere.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, Cobber !

Bob

Bob,

I can't believe you really want to deny songwriters a way to make a dime from their work. Some folks don't have the carAZZma to pull off a successful perfoming career.

Some people do words and melody better than others. IF they get recorded, they can get mechanicals. IF they get high-profile airplay, they can get PRO distributions. IF they get a commercial, they can get sync. IF a joint pays for PRO licenses, the songwriters whose songs are played SHOULD get SOMEthing, but as it is they don't.

Now, as to your playing his song that sells a copy of his/her CD that you should get a cut of since you hipped your crowd to it;

A) you don't know that it DOES sell his/her CD,

B) you don't know that he/she even has a CD available,

C) you should ONLY get a slice IF YOU're selling his/her CD at YOUR gig!

MUSICIANS ARE NOT CHARGED TO PERFORM PRO-AFFILIATED SONGS. This is to encourage the songs' public performance/promotion/dissemination by those trained and equipped to do it. Note: MOST VENUE OWNERS ARE NOT AMONG THOSE SO TRAINED and EQUIPPED.

So owners pay fees, which ALL affiliated writers SHOULD be paid out of when their songs are performed in those venues.

The royalty system exists. If your argument is that all royalty systems are inherently unfair to performers or users or whoever else, and ought to be dismantled and forgotten never to rise again, schedule a confab with your label prez and let him know
that you're no longer interested in getting paid for ANY sales of your record unless you make that sale you yourself personally in the flesh.

You can write off all the other activity related to writing and producing the record
as just killin' time. Like the songwriters you seem to belittle. Ed Bertrand

Best to you and yours this holiday season!

------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

Ed...I use History as my model..

Somebody came up with this idea after thousands of years of songs being performed life with no compensation...

It's a bad idea.

I stick to my premise...
I'm helping the artist sell his product...where's my cut ?

I'll go back to my "tool" ananlogy..

As a plumber or electrician, I cannot do my job without the use of channel locks.
Do I owe the inventor a percentage of every job where I use them, and if not, why not ?
I'm a performer and a songsriter,
I'm looking at this from both sides...

The songwriter side is being greedy and wrong !

If not for the work of the performing musician the songwriter doesn't get heard and nobody buys his song !

If the venue owner gets buried in overhead he can't afford to have music and nobody hears the songwriters song.

If nobody hears the songwriters song nobody buys the songwriters CD or tee shirts or whatever.

If anybody is gonna pay anybody it should be the songwriter paying everybody to get their song out in public !

When artists did that (payola_ to get their songs on the radio, I didn't read about any songwriters turning down their cut !

Fair is fair...
A songwriter writes the song, sure..he or she pushes that pen or pecks those keys...then it's the performer that goes out on the road and works his or her ass off getting people to listen so the songwriter can make money off of sales.

THATY"S the hard work, believe me...I've done both !

No...sorry...I'm still waiting for anything that approaches a logical argument to appear !

Happy Holidays to you and yours as well, Ed !
Let's think about some really important stuff like getting our kids in the Military home safe !

Bob

Someone once said "It all begins with a song"

If there were no songwriters there would be no songs,therefore there would be no singers because they'd have nothing to sing,the clubs would have no reason to hire singers and this would be a very drab world.I think songwriters deserve a small share of the multi billion dollar industry that would not exist if they did not keep churning out songs to keep the industry going.It does cost
money to write and demo songs,plus postage and copyright fees,etc,so I don't think it is greedy to expect some return to help pay this expense.You can't live on praise alone.

It's really amazing how easy it is to jump to either side of this issue.
I can relate to Bob's anguish readily, yet there is something missing to each side of the argument it seems.

I agree with Bob that a $2 charge per cover song, (paid for by the venue), would be astronomical when hiring a good cover band. This cost would have to be overcome somehow, and it would likely come out of the band's paycheck. (assuming there is one) This is not a good solution for musicians.
On the other side of that, many bands or artists can easily pinpoint their setlists and the minor amount of covers they perform.
For the most part, Bob's suggestions ring true in that his performance of a popular hit song brings reminder and tribute to that recording. When a CD is sold by the orignial artist, all is well..the system is working, and people are being entertained.
Any other artists who opt to actually record that popular song also pay the piper as it is.
Yet there is a complete lacking of recognition to the many indie artists who may have songs out there, accessable and usable, perhaps without a commercial CD available, (at least without major distribution or radio play) and these people live to garner a little cash from their efforts and creations. It's hard to argue with that.

The entire scheme of charging restaurants and such for background music played overhead has always been sickening to me. I feel that anyone who goes to their favorite restaurant should simply enjoy the atmosphere and shut up. Congress needn't be involved here. there's honestly not enough going on here to relate to performance rights to matter, and it's an extreme money-grab in my mind. A restaurant will fold because of bad food and bad service, generally, and the choice of overhead music is a minor issue. In fact, I doubt most people can remember anything they heard overhead during their last dining experience...let alone at Wal-mart.

All said, it's a huge topic. And the involvement of Congress is the most effective way to insure the *wrong* people will be collecting money from any decisions rendered.

-gary

Gary,

This is so simple. If what you say is true, and background music isn't important at all, then fair solution is they DON'T USE IT.

That way they won't lose anything and the writers work won't be used without paying for it. Sounds fair to me.

Of course, the truth is it DOES make a huge difference. Retailers in particular know that it keeps shoppers shopping. Most music, even on mainstream radio stations are background music. It's no different when music is played in venues, retailers etc. Radio stations pay royalties, so should other businesses who use music to help make money. OR they can choose NOT to use it at all. But if they make a decision that it enhances their business goals and use it, they should pay.. no different than table cloths, shiny well polished floors, or clean carpets.. things you don't always notice if they AREN'T there.. but that positively enhance the environment if they are.. and all those things are PAID FOR.

Brian

Bob, you don't owe ChannelLock® man because he didn't negotiate a deal with YOU. For all you know, he gets paid by the company that makes 'em for every one sold, if he haggled it. Happens thousands of times a day for myriad products. Call it commission, override, extortion, whatever.

The Congress determined that artistic works have a higher intrinsic value than other products of human effort. I don't owe Levi Strauss for every time I wear their jeans to work, 'cause they are an easily replicable commodity.

Good entertaining songs are not, and thus are accorded special status and deemed recompensible on multiple and separate occasions for their use, to sustain the 'inventor' and nurture the production of more such works.

If it was easy, I could do it! And when I do, I expect to make a fine walletful.

I'm not ashamed of being a capitalist. If you're leaving money on the table, you're only enabling and feeding someone else's greed, which then evolves into their sense of entitlement to your rightful share. That hurts both writer AND performer. Ed Bertrand


------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX

Ed...

I'm a songwriter..

I'm a Capitalist....

Songs are not "special"
Songwriters are not "special"

We provide a service..like a plumber..

We deserve no "special" consideration

Doctoars, Cops, Firemen...all "special"..

We songwriters...Schmucks with pens !

Lucky is what we are....

It all begins with a song...baloney...if there's nobody to sing the song what the hell is the big deal !

Your argument about the channelock is not convincing...
No channelock, no way for the plumber to do his job..
You say, no song no way for the performer to do his job,,
You want the singer to pay but not the pkumber..

Tell me the difference..Please !

If I go to the gig tonite and sing your song, Ed, I'm not paying you !
If you don't like that, sue me, Ed.
Then I won't play it at all.
Then no one hears it.
Then you and your song can live happily ever after at the poor farm !

Just think about that...the logic is obvious !

I don't care about "agreements" signed.
They're lousy and they don't apply to me.

You see,,,I'm right and they're wrong.

Simple as that.
I have logic and History on my side..
I think I'm OK on this one.

The PROs are wrong, the writers are wrong..

Period !

Bob

"This is Louie Louie...this is my art...you have to pay me to sing it !"

Greedy bastards....simple as that to my thinking.
Makes me a little ashamed to add songwriter to my job description.

As Ed says Bob. The inventor of the Channel ock what ever that is would have either sold his invention to someone, manfacured it himself, or licienced somone to produce and market it.
You buy it you are free to do what you like with it.
If the Plumber or Electrician decided he wasn't going to fork out money for one and made his own to the same spec as the original, or even with very little variation actually, he would be open to get his butt sued off because he is in breach of patient law.
Mind you. An artist can buy songs from some writers.
Then he can sing them to his little heart's cotent and even submit them on his PRO playist and get the live play royalty cheque himself.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Sorry fellas...

As one who has stood squarely in both camps, I see this as a 50% 50% deal...

the songwriter is no more deserving of money from the artist to sing the song, than the artist is entitled to a fee from the songwriter for exposing the public to the song.

Nobody should be paying anybody, each needs the other.

If the songwriter wants to make money they should get off their flaccid asses and go out and sing somewhere..or shut up !

Or beg an artist to perform their song so people will hear it and buy it !

So simple....

The right way always is !

Bob

And, Ed and Graham and those of you of a like mind on this issue...consider this....

I'm a very talented performer...
I'm the kind of guy that gets people to come up at a gig and say "Wow...that was a cool song...where can I get it ?"

If your attitude of "you gotta pay me to play my song" induces me not to play it...then you're screwing up.

I'm just the guy you WANT to play your song...me and others like me...without me,alot of people never hear your song, and never buy it !

Argue the logic in that !

And, just because some greedy bastards got together with some greedy lawyer bastards and got an agreement signed, that does not negate the channel lock argument.
It just means that the guy that invented the channel lock was not as greedy a bastard as the songwriters and their lawyers.

Ed...my guess is that you don't favor gratuitous taxes...
That's just what this is !

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-15-2003).]

bob,

Would you apply your argument to a playwrite? Is it the same or different?

Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music