JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Ross will no longer have any live music.

got this email from cotton inks
how do y'all feel about this issue?

Ande



Thanks to the greed of ASCAP,
Ross will no longer have any live music.

If you are a member of ASCAP, please tell them thank you for the elimination of 18 years of Austin music.

Sorry to report that after 5 years of Cotton Inks and Friends, and 18 years of playing at Ross’, (Drug Store Cowboy, and Captain Tom’s), he will no longer have live music.

For many years, it has been to the normal to pay dues to one of the artist representative agencies (BMI, ASCAP, or SESACK) in order to play music at public establishments. For many years, Ross has been paying dues to BMI. ASCAP has now threatened to sue him if he does not pay their fee as well. Guess that’s why ASCAP can afford their own office in Austin? Guess SESACK or SEASICK, the other non paying organization will be in line for funds, too. Let’s all support another out of state organization’s lawyers.

One of my major complaints, if you take this to a literal conclusion, is that after playing at Ross’ regularly for many years, and he is paying in to BMI, which I belong, why then has not one penny of the monies collected be distributed to any of the musicians that have been playing there six nights a week for many, many years……….admin or Amen fees? You know it! They get the funds, you get the Amen!

A music bureaucracy that eliminates live music by its own self-serving greed has grown beyond its scope and purpose.

No musician has ever solely played at Ross’ for the wonderful free meal. It’s for the music. If he had the business to support the rates, it would be one thing, but he doesn’t generate that kind of income based off the live music in his establishment.

Thanks to all for the support through the years, Happy New Year, cu out there somewhere soon,

Cotton

plus these
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

then received these from him too

all too common story....no room for negotiation, either.

http://www.desertexposure.com/200501/200501_songwriters.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/03/BUGL13CH5H26.DTL

http://blog.wired.com/music/2007/07/ascap-cracks-do.html

so sad....

I obviously don't understand how this works. He pays one but that's it? Are they supposed to divvy it out? Do you have to pay all? Confusing.

aside from the 9.1 cents for a cd cut I don't think they pay squat to anyone it seems.

Obviously this is written by a bitter business owner. One who didn't charge their customers enough to cover expenses. Which is unfortunate. This concept has been discussed here on previous threads in terms of the value of music.

I've never been to, nor heard of Ross. Doesn't mean it wasn't a great place to play music. If an artist that played there that much didn't get paid by their respective PRO, that's their own fault. SESAC (not SESACK or SEASICK - Which I take offense to as I'm a member of SESAC), pays their members who play their songs at live venues. Of course it's relative to the size of the venue, the cost of admittance and number of people. I still get paid when I submit my set lists.

Cotton has to remember that even if he plays the stereo, he'll still need to pay a fee to the PROs. That's part of the cost of doing business. Imagine how boring it will be with no music at all.

It's always sad for musicians who love to play when a great venue folds.

On the one hand, I'm uncomfortable with strong-arm tactics, and the ASCAP Venue Police have of late not had a great reputation. On the other hand, the ruleis that if somebody's making money off my (or your) songs being played, we happen to be due royalties. ASCAP are the only one of the three U.S. PROs that check venues with live music. Venues that have live music that includes covers are supposed to get a license. Sorry--it's one of the costs of doing business.

I appreciate venue owners wanting to keep costs down, but they keep costs down in some other ways I don't like, too--like not paying their musicians, or replacing them with karaoke machines. I know my take out of ASCAP will (or would) at best be only pennies, but there is a principle at stake here.

I have seen one other business model at work, that I kinda like. I know one tavern owner who refuses to pay the PRO license fees, but also recognizes where the fee is going. He simply will not book any bands that are not playing entirely original material. That's made his place a sought-after showcase for a lot of writers (including me--I've played there a number of times).

Joe

I'm with Jody and Joe on this one. It's a buisness expense just like paying for a liquor license. If you don't have the cash to cover it, you shouldn't be in buisness. I wish BMI {Of which I'm affiliated} were as aggresive as ASCAP about collecting fees,cuz though I'm far from a superstar, I know that over the years I've gotten significant airplay on radio and jukeboxes, and have yet to see a dime!

They don't pay the 9.1 cents per CD. Those are mechanical royalties and handled by the Harry Fox Agency most of the time.

These are membership organizations. If anything is wrong, only the members are to blame. The members are the writers themselves.

But until the mandatory statutory licenses are revoked (i.e. you pay 1 generic fee and use music however you want for radio and a license fee to have it performed in your venue) then ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have a fiduciary responsibility to the writers they represent to collect. They would be breaking the law if they DIDN'T demand payment based on the criteria they've set up and which has been approved by their members. Want it changed? Get the members of the PRO's to change it. If they won't, don't use their music. It's that simple.

For venues, you can either pay it or not have live music or only book people who are unaffiliated with PRO's and who can guarentee they will not play anything written or co-written by someone who belongs to a PRO.

Any other angst or complaining is for naught. ASCAP has never in their history lost a single lawsuit. The government mandates this system and they have to legally collect the fees for their membership. End of story.

Brian

Brian
I know where the 9.1 cents comes from.
My comment was based on the folks I have talked to, like Bob Cushing, who has never been paid a cent from a PRO. They collect from these venues and Radio but no one seems to get paid any royalties.
But they have nice buildings and lots of people working for them.

They are open about where that money goes. It goes to the same people who get radio airplay. They use the same formula which assumes that the songs getting airplay are the same songs getting played in clubs. We all know that's bogus, BUT.. the writers themselves allow that formula to exist. If the ASCAP writer members wanted to change the policy, they could. They choose not to. End of story.

Brian

Whatever the PROs do, they should be fair to the small, part-time musicians and have policies that equally impact DJs.

After seeing the numerous discussions we've had on this topic over the past several years, it's amazing to me how many of the musicians and songwriters have no clue how the system works. It'll never have a chance of getting fixed if folks don't care enough to learn what it is and why it's broken.

Bob - and this is not meant to be hostile but I think your situation may be a good example of how the system stays broken - if you are affiliated with BMI and have been for years and have gotten airplay and still seen nothing, then why are you still affiliated with them? In Ande's post, the letter from "cotton" indicates he is affiliated with BMI as well and he's asking why the musicians he's played with see no money from them. If he were here on the board, I'd ask him the same question.

Marty, no offense taken, and it's a valid question.
I think it may be time to rethink my affiliation.

IMO Brian's correct. Why support a system that works against you?

I dropped out of the PRO system entirely. I was with BMI for almost 20 years until I realized that it was working against me. I wasn't getting any airplay and thus no royalties. Meanwhile, BMI was busy going after some of the unlicensed venues I play at.

The PROs have the law on their site, but given the choice of playing at an unlicensed venue where I stand to make some money (via CD sales, etc.) and standing by the PROs and getting less than nothing, I opted to stick by venues that support me directly.

Yes, I know some venue owners are bitter and greedy and don't feel they have to obey the law. But I think these are exceptions, and that live music venues contribute more cultural value to music communities than PROs ever did.

I released my latest CD without any PRO affiliation.

Gotta agree with Bob, Joe, Jody and Brian here.

It's real simple. If you make money from playing ( or broadcasting ) music in your venue, you pay the licence fee to the appropriate PRO, who represent the songwriters. It's a business overhead. Can't handle the heat ? , then get out of the kitchen.

How royalties are distributed is a different matter, and one for members to bring up with their particular organisation.

cheers, niteshift (ASCAP)

Generally I agree with the sentiment that if you play the music, you pay the fee - but ....

It's NOT real simple. Just the fact that there are three different organizations that a venue has to deal with makes it complicated. The venue that the letter covers here was a BMI licensee for years. So even though they paid for the right to play 6.5 million songs, ASCAP will show up saying they played tunes that weren't in the BMI repetory. Their lawyers will use tactics that essentially call the venue guilty until proven innocent, with potential fines that will put the venue completely out of business. So after they've paid ASCAP and BMI, have someone play one Bob Dylan cover and they now owe SESAC as well.

<It's a business overhead. Can't handle the heat ? , then get out of the kitchen.>
A lot of venues do get out. It doesn't make sense to add those fees to their overhead. And that's when the songwriters and performers complain that they've lost a venue.

<How royalties are distributed is a different matter, and one for members to bring up with their particular organization.>
I'm not a member of any of the three. I haven't joined one because I don't have a radio hit and wouldn't see a penny based on their fomulae (despite regularly performing my songs in venues that pay license fees.) It is a monopoly type situation that places the no-radio-hit songwriter at a major disadvantage. If you ever want to receive any royalties - you have to join one of the three. If you object to the system and don't want to be a part of it, you're just left out.

So not being a member of one of the organizations, I could go the government route and lobby my congressional representatives to try and change things. And even if I got all of the members of JPF to join me, ASCAP would present itself as representing hundreds of thousands of songwriters. BMI and SESAC would do the same. And since BMI collected roughly $900,000,000 in gross revenues last year and ASCAP is even larger - I'm guessing they'd lobby a little harder than I could.

The best bet for someone to take on the existing PROs would be the restaurant and bar owners organizations, but of course they would be lobbying to eliminate the fees altogether, not for equitable distribution of the fees collected.

Marty,

The distribution of the fees is an entirely different issue than the fees to the restaurants. They have no right to state they don't want to pay because ASCAP isn't paying the right people on the other end. Those writers CHOSE to join ASCAP. If they don't like ASCAP, they need to change PRO's or change ASCAP via their voting power. The government mandates the statutory compulsory license. If each writer could independently set their rates, there would never be live music again in the US. By forcing all writers to take the smaller compulsory license in lieu of what the market would bear, it allows venues, for a predictable and set rate fee, to have live music. There are 3 recognized PRO's by the Government who are authorized to collect these fees. Each has their own policies. Each could collect fees from any source that EVER uses music. They don't typically spend the time and effort to collect from really small potatos. BMI doesn't go after the little guys at all. I've never heard a single story about SESAC shaking anyone down. ASCAP chooses to go after smaller venues. They have that right, and in reality the fiduciary responsibility to collect those monies owed for the writers they represent.

We've often broken down the fees and what it REALLY costs a venue to have a license. To date, we've never seen evidence of an unreasonable amount being charged to a venue. If a venue doesn't show enough additional income to cover the cost of the license by using live music, then they shouldn't use live music. It's not complicated. It's rare that would be the case as in most cases the fees are a couple bucks a day. Most venues get a benefit from live or recorded music being played in their clubs. It's a valuable business tool and it has a reasonable price tag attached. Cable TV is important to some businesses. Table Cloths are as well. So are candles on tables. So are fancy pepper grinders. If a business wants to use any of those tools to enhance their ambience, they pay for them. Why not pay for music? The answer is that they've been able to get away with NOT paying and they get angry when they get caught and have to pay up. If they had free table cloths for years and suddenly had to pay for them they'd also be angry.

Music has been devalued to the point of a complete collapse of any musician ever making an actual living at music. I am the first to agree that only SESAC seems to actually pay musicians on actual Live Club airplay. But I can't force the PRO's to do it better. Only their members can. And that relationship agreement is only a concern for the writers and the PRO's. It has nothing to do with the government mandated fees that a venue has to pay. You don't have the right to walk into a Wal-Mart and take a snow shovel for free because Wal-Mart doesn't pay the manufacturers a fair price for those goods. That deal is between those two parties, and it's not the right of the customer to steal the shovel and use it free because of the deal made with the shovel maker. Same with music.

Now, if you choose not to join a PRO, the sad truth is that you're not going to get paid. But you still have to live the government system. We all do. Unless we decide to change that law. That's unlikely, but I guess if it's important enough to enough writers, they could give it a go. But the victims of removing those compulsory statutes would be the venues. They'd be screwed. And no performer would EVER get booked going forward.

Brian

Brian - I know you're supportive of licensing fees because songwriters deserve to get paid for their work. There we are in agreement. I just think the system we have in the US with three different PRO's providing partial blanket licenses is completely screwed up. The system is so entrenched that short of a government takeover of the system to provide a single blanket license and mandate a fair payout system, its not going to get fixed.

<<If a venue doesn't show enough additional income to cover the cost of the license by using live music, then they shouldn't use live music.>>
Therein lies the problem for the small coffee shop that just wants to be supportive of local songwriters and give them an outlet for their music. It doesn't bring in additional income to justify the effort. So faced with license fees and lawsuits, they shut down the music. And no performer EVER gets booked going forward.

For a lot of businesses, $1000 a year in additional overhead ($1 a day each to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC) reflects an insignificant change in the bottom line. But there are plenty for whom that is significant. How many members would JPF have if it only cost an insignificant $1 per day to be a member?

<<Now, if you choose not to join a PRO, the sad truth is that you're not going to get paid.>>
Of course, if I join BMI or ASCAP, the sad truth is that I'm not going to get paid, and SESAC has to select you rather than the other way around so its not actually a choice.

<<You don't have the right to walk into a Wal-Mart and take a snow shovel for free because Wal-Mart doesn't pay the manufacturers a fair price for those goods.>>
I don't agree with the analogy. Wal-Mart buys the product from the manufacturer then I buy the product from Wal-Mart. But if I buy the product direct from the manufacturer, there's no money to Wal-Mart. If an unaffiliated songwriter plays his own songs in a coffee shop, the PRO's will still expect the license fee even though they have neither purchased the song from the writer nor delivered it to the consumer (listener).

Legally, a venue can have songs performed that are in the public domain or that a copyright holder permits to be performed (i.e. the songwriter performing his own song.) This does not require a license, but the PRO enforcement mechanisms make this an impossibility. A venue hosting live music is considered by the PRO's to be guilty until proven innocent. If they can show one song in the PRO's catalog is performed one time the legal result can be a $30,000 penalty. Enough of a hammer to hold the small venue hostage - or just shut down the music.

One additional comment - totally unrelated other than it also shows how screwed up the system is - several of the larger clubs around here that do pay their license fees (and since they are larger venues with cover charges and dance floors is much more than a few dollars a day) actually feature primarily original bands. Thus they are paying the maximum license fees while actually getting minimal benefit since the bands write their own songs. There are other clubs that I know continually fight making payment that present primarily cover bands and karaoke nights where the top 40 stuff the PRO's actually license is played.

It's part of doing business. The owner of said business can do what they like to run their business. However, the law is if a business uses music in a place they have to pay a license for that right. It's that simple. No license, no music. Only want to pay one license? Go do business in another country that is serviced by only one PRO.

Be prepared to pay more in that one country for that one license. Why? Because they pay two royalties in that fee. One to the writer and one to the performer. It's that other license which isn't getting paid for right now in the United States. The one I and many other performers deserve. Perhaps its been heard of?

The fact that there are three PROs in the US doesn't mean pay only one. A business may choose not to pay any of the licenses, but risks the wrath. Why risk it. Provide the atmosphere customers want and charge patrons appropriately. It's really quite simple.

Ever heard of insurance? It's a similar concept. I don't like insurance on my car because I'm a good driver. However, I'm legally obligated to get it in order to drive. I could drive without it, though I would then risk getting hit with fines and jail.

BTW - I would pay a $1 a day for JPF (equals roughly $365 a year). So far I've gotten that much out of it that I'd find it useful. But then I'm doing music full time and it's my business.

<<The fact that there are three PROs in the US doesn't mean pay only one.>>
No - it means you have to pay all three to get the "blanket" that each of them implies in their license literature.

<<No license, no music.>>
And its the songwriter/performer who loses the gig. In the initial post, Cotton is not a bitter business owner. He's a songwriter and performer who lost his gig at a place that was paying BMI's fees. So in this case, one license, no music.

<<Ever heard of insurance? It's a similar concept.>> I get my insurance from USAA. I don't have to pay All State and State Farm as well. My rates are based on the car I own. Not that I may potentially get behind the wheel in your car one day. I get my drivers license from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I don't have to pay Connecticut and Vermont and New York as well even though I do a lot of driving in those states.

Jody - I know you understand the system and SESAC is treating you well. I think in general they do a much better job for their songwriters than the other two - but then they are a for profit company who selects the songwriters they want to work with. BMI and ASCAP are both open to anyone - ASCAP as a member society and BMI as a non-profit corporation. And I'm sure keeping 300,000+ songwriters happy is no easy task for either of them. Even when you spend $200,000,000 doing it.

There's no real point to my rant here other than to respond. I just hope people reading this stuff will take the time to actually understand how the whole process works. Maybe if more folks understand it, there'd be a prayer of moving toward fixing it. Then maybe PRO's would be known as organizations looking out for songwriters and composers rather than as a mafia consortium that extorts money from folks for making music.

In Canada we only have one PRO, SOCAN, I don't know if that is a good thing or not, then again we only have one tenth your population. Having to pay three PROs could be a headache, maybe they could split the one fee three ways, even if the fee had to be a bit larger. A lot of venues figure they are doing artist a favour by allowing them a place to play, but if it brings in business, than the artist should be paid, either directly or through their PROs. If the artist was not good and was driving away business, I'm sure they would not be permitted to play there.

I'd be curious to know how many JPF members belong to one of the three?
How many play live?
How many have had radio play, Internet or terrestrial?

How many who do the above have ever actually received a royalty check from either of the three.

I only know of two instances. One has had internet radio play the other is a live performer who makes his living performing in Bars( and has been for 20 years).
Neither has ever received a single penny from their PRO.

It would be interesting to know.

That's unfortunate that there is no point to a post. It doesn't prove anything is broken. The system works as it was designed to. It's unfortunate for Cotton. However now that would be a bitter performer based on the actions of someone else would couldn't take care of a business.

I do view the PROs as organizations that are working to protect their members. I've been a member of two of the US PROs and neither of them extorted money from me for making music. If the system is broken, lets figure out what exactly is broken about it. Follow it up by listing out in a digestible fashion for all to see. At that point it would be possible to figure out a method to fix it.

My first and only issue at the moment has more to do with airings of music on Radio/Film/TV. We live in an age when probably 90% of the broadcasts are monitored or controlled by computers. Most music has to be watermarked with an ISRC number or barcode. Meaning there is a very large amount of precise data to know how much a particular song is played. Yet the PROs still primarily use a wacky formula to figure out payments instead of paying based on the accurate data that is now possible. That is bizarre. That's the one thing I would ask to be fixed and it's one thing that I know SESAC is already working on. It was one of the main reasons I went with them.

Anyone else care to propose a fix rather than a rant?

p.s. - to answer Bill's question: I've gotten paid by both PROs I've been associated with. SESAC has been more consistent and I'm happy I switched.

OK - I'll try for a logical explanation of why I think its broken.

The concept of performance royalties is that when a song gets played in any commercial situation - that is any time you're not listening/playing music for your own enjoyment in the comfort of your home - the person who wrote the song should be compensated by receiving a royalty payment. Since it would be an overly burdensome task for every user and every songwriter to track each other down, the Performance Rights Organizations are there to fill this need. Their task is to collect the money from people who play the music and give it to the people who wrote it.

The service they claim to offer the user is a blanket license to cover all the music. But in the US, there isn't one entity that actually has responsibility for all the songs, so it can't actually be done. Each of the three entities can only offer a partial blanket - there are songs licensed through SESAC, songs licensed through BMI, and songs licensed through ASCAP. But there are also songs in the public domain and songs with an unaffiliated copyright holder. So each of the three PRO's has only one of the five pieces of the blanket and there are two pieces that no one licenses.

The PRO's don't even want to be held responsible for knowing what's in their repertory. If you look up a song on one PRO's web site, they "make no representations and/or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information".

OK - so then how much does a license cost? To be fair, it would be structured as a pay per play - i.e. each time I play a song I should send x cents to the songwriter. That is seen as far too complicated to administer. They've created a system of pricing for you. Looking at BMI's site quickly, I came up with over 50 categories of rate structures. Each rate structure has additional multipliers and factors. None of them are based on how many times I play one of their songs. They've made assumptions based on my type of business, its physical size and number of nights per week. (As a side note, I also learned somehting new today - even if I have a General License for music played in my business and the radio station is also paying royalties, I need to pay another $219 a year if I let you listen to music on the radio when I put you on hold.) The rates are not based on actual use but they are "to be fair" non-negotiable. They've already decided what's fair for you whether you're playing one song a year or 130,000 (that's 4 minute songs played 24/7/365.)

How does a PRO know when a business is using the songs of its affiliates? They don't. They assume if you're playing music you must be playing their songs. And all the user has to do is play one of them once to allow them to hold a $30,000 statutory hammer over your head. Pay up or else ....

So now that they've "simplified" the collection and created the revenue stream, how about the distribution? Can they make sure the right people get their share of the money? Despite taking a several hundred million dollar cut for performing this task, it's also "too hard" to figure out accurately. They take their cut to cover expenses and salaries then divide up what's left through a formula they keep confidential. What is known is that the formula are loosely based on a sampling of radio play.

So the PRO's win the lottery. They don't have to make sure they do the job accurately, they just have to make sure there is a revenue stream and take their cut. The songwriters with the hit on top 40 radio also win the lottery. Its easy to identify their songs and give them a share. The average songwriter sees little or nothing.

One last comment - if I don't like the way they do their job, there's not a lot I can do about it. If I want to have any chance of receiving performance royalties - I have to join one of the three. If I don't join one and my songs are played by a venue that has paid license fees, my share goes to someone affiliated with the PRO that collected the fee.

One thing to remember about PROs. They are designed only to work with writers that are published. Publishers are automatically working on publishing songs.

I tend to think it's much easier to have a PRO represent me, than to hire a team of lawyers/representatives to go find out how much my music is being played. They do provide a benefit.

On the subject of Public Domain songs, if you do an arrangement of the song you can receive performance royalties on your version and you can copyright it as your arrangement. You can't claim the song as your own. Thus it behooves you to register you public domain arrangements as well.

I've said it before and it bares repeating, SESAC is working on a digital system for figuring out how many spins you are accurately getting. Eventually we'll reach that at a global system. It would be great if it were sooner than later.

I find the arguement interesting and informative... I can see why those who get nothing from a Pro are pissed when it comes to closing down their music outlets.. and possibly they few chances of earning a few dollars ... I can also see why those who get paid by their Pro, have the opposite attitude... if the Pro don't collect clients lose a few dollars....

I am curious though:

If the radio station is paying fee's why are those businesses who play a radio paying also?... This fee is already paid based on listeners if you are listening to someone elses radio you are not listening to your own... IMHO This is outright double dipping fraud.

If the DJ has to pay a licence fee to play why also does the venue? Again this is double dipping... I'm sure it's good for those getting a cut... but not all those affected by the fall out are...

A venue should be able to, with agreement from the band/s, get waiver saying the band is playing only original songs and they are not afillited with a pro or something like that... And yes I know of a couple of venues that as a favour to songwriters allow them to use customers as a bouncing board for new material... some of these folk need lessons in singing and playing and would never get a paying gig (me included).... these and the walk up coffee shops are the venues that need protection...

A $1.00 a day fee is not too much to ask for a JPF membership... but I doubt I could justify it to my wife to come out of the family budget for what is relegated to hobby status because I can't earn a living as a lyric writer.

JMO

Jes' a thought or two. I will not attempt to (or claim to be competent to) answer all the questions. They are good questions, though.

I do not currently belong to a PRO. I do play live--lately, I've been doing it kind of a lot. If I play live, it's the *venue*, not me, that has the onus of paying a license fee to a PRO. Some do, and some don't. As I noted earlier, I know (and play at) one tavern where the owner does not pay license fees to a PRO, and in return schedules only original music.

I have also had radio play--but it was over 25 years ago, and the world was probably a lot simpler then. Nobody asked if I was affiliated with a PRO--the DJs (and every station had their own) just oohed and aahed and played the dang song. I understand it's more complicated now.

I have been advised by my local radio station--which *wants* to play my music because I'm a local boy, and it's a Local Boy Makes Good thing--that I have to belong to a PRO because they pay royalties to the PROs, and they would get in trouble if they were playing anything on the air that wasn't covered by one or another of the PROs. So I will join one so they can play my stuff.

I am aware of the way all the PROs calculate their percentages (and realize there's a big focus on just the "pro" part, to the exclusion of everything else). I don't expect to get a dime out of belonging to a PRO. What I will get is the ability to have my songs played on the air, which may, if I'm lucky, attract more people to gigs, and I'll sell more CDs that way. All of my CD sales have been at or as a result of live performances, anyway.

It's kind of like I didn't make this system, but I'm willing to play by it (long as it doesn't get too expensive) if I think I'm going to get some value out of it.

Joe

Here's a way to look at it. It's like getting a job. To do so, you need to have a social security number to get you "in the system" and a "portion of your money" goes to taxes most of the time as witholding tax through the "tax payer approved system" and you get the rest as payment. Songwriters want to get a "job" by becoming commercial writers. To do so, they need to join a PRO which gets you "in the system." The PRO hold a "portion of your money" and the rest gets paid out to the writers who, through their "member approved system," deserve it.

If you don't like something about the system, in both cases, you must change the laws. If you don't like ASCAP, you can look for better options with the other two. That's more choice than you get if you pay taxes. If none of the 3 are to your liking, tough. You can only choose not to work, just as the only way to avoid taxes is to not work or work below the radar, meaning you'll get less than you COULD get if you do it above board over the long term. Same with joining or not joining a PRO.

Now all of that is separate from any complaint a venue has. It is NONE of the venues business how the money is distributed, just as it's NONE of the venues business where Comcast cable distributes the fees they charge for use of cable.

Venues have to look at it like Cable TV. Do they have to pay 3? Sometimes. Most small venues are never even approached by SESAC and BMI. But when they are, they have to pay because in truth, that is part of the bill they already owe. I have advocated for a 1 price system and have even suggested to politicians to consider that. I think that's a fairness issue. Make the fee simple and let the 3 PRO's fight over the money on their end. In truth, ALL of them will make a lot MORE money. Because when you come to collect for the 1 fee, with the power of all the PRO's jointly behind it's enforcement, it will be unavoidable. It would also be easier for government officials to put fee collections into place. Imagine getting a fair rate from ALL venues across the board? In reality, they could likely LOWER the fees across the board at the same time. Venues will still complain, but at least it will be easier for them to understand in context. It's like paying a cable bill. If you watch Seinfeld all day and nothing else.. it costs the same as if you watch every single channel available. Your choice. That's what the fee has always meant to be.

My comment to those complaining about getting hit up by ASCAP after already paying BMI.. YOU'RE LUCKY! Legally you should ALSO be paying SESAC. You're saving money.

Pay the electric bill.. get electricity. Pay the cable bill.. get cable. Pay the music bill.. get music. It's pretty simple.

Brian

I have gotten royalty payments for airplay from SOCAN, not as much as I would like but more than I would have received if I was not a member. As for radio not playing songs for people that are not members of a PRO, I can't see that being a good excuse. They play public domain songs and they don't get into trouble, also some PROs wont accept you as a member unless you have gotten airplay. There are people in my local area that are not members of a PRO and they get airplay.There was a time when radio would not play a song that was not copyrighted or published, that seems to not be an issue anymore.

I just read an advertisement for SESAC.
It said their members get payed every time they play anywhere they play.

Interesting.

Hence the reason I wrote members get paid when they perform a show, in an earlier post.


It's also why I don't find the system broken. No one forces writers as to which PRO to choose in America. However, like many things in this country - not doing the homework then bitching about it later when one gets into something one doesn't like is fairly common. For me, I was with BMI. I didn't even know about SESAC because I didn't do my homework. When I found things I didn't like I went and did my homework then made the switch. Switching is a pain in the butt, but it can be done.

Don't like the system? Do something about it. I did.

Well, Jody, you did your homework and made a change for yourself which I applaud, but you did not do anything to change the system. In this modern information age, to claim they cannot account for things any better than they currently do is false. It will take pressure to force the pros to revise their accounting procedures to be more accurate, but if no one speaks up, nothing will happen. Making changes costs money to implement and if they have an economy based on skimming the lion's share, it will take serious pressure to revise. A more equitable system would allow for a set fee paid to a single account from which the pros then draw their share based on an accounting scheme that uses real data, not formulas for determining their portion, AND more importantly the payout.

Again, I will quote myself...


Again, I did do something about it. I went with the PRO working on making the changes to the system. In my experience SESAC has been way more accurate than my previous PRO. In fact they even found stuff I wasn't aware of.

here's another article on the topic
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-01-10/music/ascap-can-cripple-small-venues

Interesting article Andy...

So ASCAP went after the Boy Scouts for singing "Puff the Magic Dragon," around the camp fire?

My God....

Do they go after buskers? How about middle school bands and choirs who do pop concerts?

People who perform in nursing homes?

What about churches - surely not all those songs are PD? When they pass the plate, should/does ASCAP get their cut?

I sing in the shower. If my neighbor hears me, am I in violation?

Is Happy Birthday in the public domain? If not, the person who wrote it is losing MAJOR bucks.

Also relevant to the article:

If a venue owner has a band sign a contract indicating that they won't play a cover - and then they do, why would ASCAP go after the venue rather than the band?

Scott

Happy Birthday is NOT in the public domain: http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

The churches do have to pay royalties to CCLI, which was set up to provide a way for churches to pay for music they use.

I think it would be interesting if small venues who paid PROs (ASCAP, BMI, & SESAC) had performers fill out song lists and set lists, or better yet if there were forms that performers could fill out and submit to the PROs

so the money these business paid actually went back to the writers of the songs who's songs were performed at particular venues.

I get the feeling the money PRO's collect from venues
doesn't go to pay the writers who's songs were performed at those venues

what do you think?

They don't even CLAIM to pay for actual venue play. ASCAP and BMI both openly state that they pay a pro-rated fee based on the same info they take in from radio play under their assumption that the 2 things will be similar.. popular on radio.. popular in venues... we all know that's not true on the indie artist level, but as a percentage of dollars, it's closer than most would like to admit. Classic rock songs get the most venue play and the most recurrent radio play as well.

And it still doesn't matter how that money is paid out in determining whether the venues OWE the money. The bill is the bill. It's up to artists, not venues, to police if their representative PRO is doing their job dispensing the money.

Brian

That's interesting Everett. Thanks.

I did a little digging. There is at least one site (Church Copyright Administration) that seems to suggest that a CCLI license might not be enough and that you may have to pay ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. They go on to mention still another organization that will sell you a license that will cover all three PROs.

So what am I learning here:

(1) It seems Churches should pay PROs.

(2) PROs distribute money to artists based on radio play.

Conclusion that may be incorrect but seems to follow: Churches are supporting music they probably preach against.

The world is, indeed, a complicated place

Scott

SESAC members already get to do this without the need of the venue making such a form. Should I type it again?

Kevin,

That is correct. The "Happy Birthday" copyright is owned by two elderly ladies in Montana. That is why, when you go into restaurants and other places that "honor" their guest having a birthday, they have their own silly little birthday song.

Al

Response to Noel's questions:

<<I find the arguement interesting and informative...>>
That's good to hear - its the whole reason I allowed myself to get sucked into one of these discussions again.

<<If the radio station is paying fee's why are those businesses who play a radio paying also?>> It's considered a re-broadcast. The radios are using music to sell their advertising. The business putting you on hold is using it to sell something additional. Additional fees.

<<If the DJ has to pay a licence fee to play why also does the venue?>> The DJ doesn't pay for a license, just as the cover band doesn't. Its up to the venue.

Response to Joe's comment:
<<I have been advised by my local radio station...they would get in trouble if they were playing anything on the air that wasn't covered by one or another of the PROs.>> Sounds like your local radio station has an overly cautious (IMHO) legal advisor. They pay their royalty fees to the PROs for the right to broadcast the music they play. If your music is not licensed by one of the PRO's, they have not purchased the right to broadcast it. Theoretically if they play your music without your grantng them a license you could go after them for royalties. It's easier from the lawyers point of view to tell them to say no rather than to expose them to a theoretical liability.

Response to Scott:
<<Do they go after buskers?>> Not often because you can't draw blood from a stone.

<<How about middle school bands and choirs who do pop concerts?>>Yes there are license arrangements for schools.

<<I sing in the shower. If my neighbor hears me, am I in violation?>> Only if your shower is a commercial enterprise. <vbseg>

<<If a venue owner has a band sign a contract indicating that they won't play a cover - and then they do, why would ASCAP go after the venue rather than the band?>> The law makes the legal responsibility between the venue and the PRO. If the venue had a contract with the band, the venue would have to go after the band to recoup the damages of paying the PRO fees or penalties, and if there was in fact a contract that the band violated the venue would have grounds for doing so. But that contract is entirely between the venue and the band - the PRO's did not give the venue owner permission to transfer the liability.

they died years ago
here's a story about it http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp

Thanks for the additional information Marty. This is a learning experience for me......

I would have assumed that only commercial enterprises were subject. But it seems that any public performance might be. That's why I was surprised about them going after the Boy Scouts. I would not have interpreted scout camps as a public location.

Scott

Anybody remember where the thread is with the actual breakdown of how much it costs venues/yr to pay pros?
I did a search .. can't find it.
thanks
Joanne

You can find the forms on the BMI and SESAC sites.

http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/ede.pdf

http://www.sesac.com/pdf/rest_2008_click.pdf

ASCAP requires you to contact them (kind of like self incrimination to ask for the information)