Local Links | More Local Links | Other Boards | Hosts | Chat
Home | Reviews | AmpCast | Ampcast | Artist Area BB Chat
Artist Area | Test your post | Artistlaunch | Artistlaunch | Resources
The MOSH PIT | Promotion 101 | BeSonic BB | BeSonic | Hitsession
SIMONE Speaks | Stations and Streams | CMJ BB | Rolling Stone | SMA
SUSPENDED! | New Releases | IUMA | Garage Band | WireWeb
Ask the Ragtime Lady | Lyrics and Poetry | Napster | IUMA | mi2n
The Wire Web | Jazz | Rolling Stone | RealNetRadio | IMC
Hard Rock | | | | The Record Industry

Artist Area Bulletin Board
> Artist Area Bulletin Board
> Here's something to be alarmed about.

Page 1 2

Next Topic >>

Author | Comment

Major Asspain
Just a Son
of a Bitch?
(6/14/01 4:44:56 pm)
Reply

Here's something to be alarmed about.
No names to protect the innocent.

I just got off the phone with a booking agent who says they are going to stop live music at their coffeehouse. Yes, coffeehouse.

The reason is that one of the major licensing organizations is holding them up for dues. The justification is that if an artist has a CD licensed to one of these orgs, then the performance of those songs by that artist in the venue is considered a commissionable performance.

Coupla things:

1) I have NEVER gotten a dime from my licensing co., even though I have had substantial airplay of my CD "The Distance" at various times and places over the last coupla years.

2) I've NEVER received any royalty from live performances of my music, and further, never expected it since I had made compensation arrangements in every instance.

3) This will have the effect of stifling another outlet for "Independent" music if it becomes widespread.

4) I think that might be the point.

5) Although I've never heard of this being done, I completely believe it IS being done when I reflect on what I know about this business.

6) This brings up serious questions about the usefullness of signing a licensing agreement with one of these orgs (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc...) when you consider that they may actually come in and STOP YOU FROM PLAYING, because the venue has no agreement in place with them.

I know there is technically a reason for this, but the idea is that they are supposed to be protecting the artist from abuse, not abusing the artist. And by doing this sorta Gestapo tactic to little itty-bitty coffeehouses and the like, they are going to snuff out one of the very last forums for us to go out and try to have an impact.

I'm shocked to hear the story, but I believe it, and I'm VERY concerned about it.

We all should be. The re-percussions for musicians and even music as a whole are huge.

WB
STILL - Fight the "Hamster" in you!!

sleblanc
Centenarian
(6/14/01 4:58:53 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Damn...I hear ya Wade...that's fucked.

AlternativeStatic
Harry Potter
(6/14/01 5:06:06 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
damn.

jeez
Timone
(6/14/01 5:06:55 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
They've been pulling that kind of crap for a while here in Canada,except mostly with franchised venues.

jeez And Cheez Productions  Folk Rock City

HATCHETMANN
Not such a bad guy.
(6/14/01 5:09:04 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
These licensing agencies, BMI, ASCP are anal-retentive and hypocrits. The went on a collectin rampage several years ago, as well. I read an article re: Pete Townsend who was saying the Who never revieved any performance royalties. General Bobby may be spazed out kook but he had a point when he was talking about ASCRAP & BMI.
http://www.cbh3.com/phil

Major Asspain
Just a Son
of a Bitch?
(6/14/01 5:33:57 pm)
Reply

More info...
After an extended verbal swordfight with a rep at my licensing agency, I found out that as long as the performer (copyright holder) gives their permission, then the venue has all they need. This person kept trying to digress into the issues that most people play covers, or the club plays covers, etc....but bottom line - if you ONLY play your music, and you give the club permission, then all is well.

But his assertion is that most performers don't have enough material, and that the clubs usually play the music over the house system from more well-known acts, and that most clubs won't hire original-only acts, I think he's right about that.

So it's not as bad as I thought, but boy-oh-boy did he not want to tell me that. It was a surprising and somewhat confrontational talk.

I thought he works for me.....?

I don't think he thinks that's true.........

WB
STILL - Fight the "Hamster" in you!!

DarciM
DreamDiva
(6/14/01 6:52:43 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Now wait just a minute, people. This is my department...this is the niche I was in at BMI; please allow me to share some facts so you can understand what's going on.

Licensing fees from venues go into a pot to be distributed amongst artists via OTHER forms of tracking...radio play, TV broadcasts, CD sales, etc. It is absolutely impossible to pay bands or artists for their live performances in bars and coffeehouses alone when half of them break up after two or three performances. It's impossible to track. That's one reason why venues are required license and not bands (which is the typical first argument from the venue owner as to why they have to license at all)...it's the only logical and relatively efficient way to track music use. Keep in mind that PROs pay the SONGWRITERS and PUBLISHERS, NOT the artists. FYI.

Yes, every venue I've ever been in has bands and artists playing covers. Every single one. Not to mention that between acts there is most likely a CD blaring over the house system or a jukebox running. These situations are licenseable whether the band is playing only originals or not. There's no way a bar owner can keep track of who's playing what and expect that the musicians they have play there will keep their word not to play covers if asked. They won't and it just can't be done. So the "we only have original music" argument is really not a logical or even doable one. Major, what the rep told you was in essence correct, but as he/she said, it's extremely unlikely. Consider this...I am a BMI writer. If I go to a venue and play ONLY my original material, I'm still licensed with BMI and my songs are registered on their database...and that means the venue needs to pay a licensing fee to BMI as a result, by law, regardless of whether or not I'm getting radio play or something else that would allow me to see any part of that licensing fee. Boxcar Willie had to license his own theatre in Branson with BMI...and he's a BMI writer himself. It's just the way it is.

When a bar, restaurant, coffeehouse, hotel, casino, etc. (just about any place you can hear music playing) opens...they have to pay their vendors fees, correct? You can't NOT pay for your liquor license. You can't NOT the beer guys. You can't NOT pay your electric bill. You can't NOT pay Sysco. As well, you can't NOT pay for music use, as the PRO is essentially taking on the roll of music vendor. It's not free and that's that. Music licenses at BMI (I can't speak for ASCAP because I haven't seen one of their contracts in years) are generally based on the amount of music used and the maximum occupancy of the venue. The more music you use and the bigger your place, the higher your fee. On average venues pay about the same as the price of a glass of Coke per day...this isn't going to break ANYONE. There are payment plans available if they think it will. There is ALSO an exemption that applies to BOTH ASCAP and BMI that any venue under 3500 square feet does not have to pay a licensing fee for recorded music use (if they have live music, they have to license regardless) and that was negotiated with the PROs by the Bar and Restaurant Association themselves. 3500 square feet is quite large and this was really quite a blow to the PROs' bottom line. But out of fairness to venue owners they bowed to it anyway.

If you are getting airplay and aren't being paid royalties for it...CALL YOUR PRO AND TELL THEM. That is of course, IF you bothered to register your songs with them in the first place. I've had several people say, "Hey, I haven't gotten paid," and my first question is, "Did you register your songs or did you just sign the agreement and do nothing more after that?" I get lots of blank looks with that question. If your songs aren't listed in their databases, they can't track your airplay. They can only work with the tools you give them. If you're all set in that regard, then again...CALL THEM, tell them where you're getting unpaid spins and they will take care of you. It's really that simple. Yes, it's definitely a problem tracking independent artists on the radio because it's mostly specialty and local shows playing us. Yes, we slip through the cracks. Trust me when I say the PROs do the best they can...but consider how many thousands of bands and artists there are in the world while a building full of just 450 overworked and underpaid people has to keep track of the whole kit and caboodle. Still want to whine about slipping through the cracks? I'd like to have seen ONE ARTIST do my job for ONE DAY and then bitch about how evil the PROs are.

No one wants to close a venue. Hell, they close a venue and less money for the PRO, right? Why would they want to do that? They are trying, but the law is that music has to be licensed if you're going to use it. You ask venues not to and you have to ask record labels, film companies and radio stations not to, either. Then NO ONE would get paid.
~Darci Monet
Darci Monet
LilMinx Promotions

Major Asspain
Just a Son
of a Bitch?
(6/14/01 7:47:29 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
I have factual and ethical problems with this post of Darci's.....

Quote:
Licensing fees from venues go into a pot to be distributed amongst artists via OTHER forms of tracking...radio play, TV broadcasts, CD sales, etc. It is absolutely impossible to pay bands or artists for their live performances in bars and coffeehouses alone when half of them break up after two or three performances. It's impossible to track. That's one reason why venues are required license and not bands (which is the typical first argument from the venue owner as to why they have to license at all)...it's the only logical and relatively efficient way to track music use. Keep in mind that PROs pay the SONGWRITERS and PUBLISHERS, NOT the artists. FYI.

Then how is it that I get paid for my by the *PRO* for my performance again? And why is it that I should care about the venue being licensed if I'm not getting paid by the PRO?

Quote:
Yes, every venue I've ever been in has bands and artists playing covers.

I'm not sure what question you're answering *yes* to, but I can assure you that almost all original acts that I have ever seen only play their own music, at least when they are doing a show billed under the band name. What they do outside of that arena is outside the scope of what I'm talking about.

Quote:
Not to mention that between acts there is most likely a CD blaring over the house system or a jukebox running. These situations are licenseable whether the band is playing only originals or not.

We agree about this.

Quote:
There's no way a bar owner can keep track of who's playing what and expect that the musicians they have play there will keep their word not to play covers if asked. They won't and it just can't be done.

Unprovable but I disagree. See below. (<--edit was here - "above" became "below".)

Quote:
So the "we only have original music" argument is really not a logical or even doable one.

I disagree. It's not "So" at all. The artist and the venue can sign a contract that the artist will only perform originbal music, and if they break that contract, then the artist will be liable for their actions. The venue is not in the business of policing what acts do, they are only only responsible for their own actions. If there is in place some legal mechanism that makes them responsible to track everything an artist does on stage, I find that at least an unethical reading of the law, more likely an outright vioaltion of the spirit of the law.

BTW - most original artists would prefer to do only their own music. Ask around about that one.

Quote:
Major, what the rep told you was in essence correct, but as he/she said, it's extremely unlikely. Consider this...I am a BMI writer. If I go to a venue and play ONLY my original material, I'm still licensed with BMI and my songs are registered on their database...and that means the venue needs to pay a licensing fee to BMI as a result, by law, regardless of whether or not I'm getting radio play or something else that would allow me to see any part of that licensing fee.

No that's incorrect. They are required to have the copyright owners permission only. If you give that permission, then there is no royalty payable.

These PRO's exist to collect those "Copyright Royalties" that are due for performances of protected works in the ABSENCE of a specific right of use being given by the artist. That's why these PRO's exist. The artist has no way of collecting on all the individual accounts, so the PRO's handle this for them. So if I give them my permission to have the songs performed by me live, that is all that's required. "Extremely Unlikely" is not part of the equation, no matter how true it may be.

Quote:
Boxcar Willie had to license his own theatre in Branson with BMI...and he's a BMI writer himself. It's just the way it is.

Yes he had to license his theatre, but he would NOT have to license his OWN performance in that theatre, those are 2 very different things that you are saying are equal.

Quote:
When a bar, restaurant, coffeehouse, hotel, casino, etc. (just about any place you can hear music playing) opens...they have to pay their vendors fees, correct? You can't NOT pay for your liquor license. You can't NOT the beer guys. You can't NOT pay your electric bill. You can't NOT pay Sysco. As well, you can't NOT pay for music use, as the PRO is essentially taking on the roll of music vendor. It's not free and that's that. Music licenses at BMI (I can't speak for ASCAP because I haven't seen one of their contracts in years) are generally based on the amount of music used and the maximum occupancy of the venue. The more music you use and the bigger your place, the higher your fee. On average venues pay about the same as the price of a glass of Coke per day...this isn't going to break ANYONE. There are payment plans available if they think it will.

I agree to all of this, but again, that's not the situation at hand here.

Quote:
There is ALSO an exemption that applies to BOTH ASCAP and BMI that any venue under 3500 square feet does not have to pay a licensing fee for recorded music use

I'll look into that, the venue in question would fit that description.

Quote:
(if they have live music, they have to license regardless)

Not if the things I mentioned above were followed. And you make in this statement the presumption that the music that "live" acts would be playing is administered by a PRO, which may not be true. And again, if the act gives their permission to have the performance, it's not an issue anyway.

Quote:
If you are getting airplay and aren't being paid royalties for it...CALL YOUR PRO AND TELL THEM. That is of course, IF you bothered to register your songs with them in the first place.

I did both those things. You should ask before you may accusatory presumptions.

Quote:
I've had several people say, "Hey, I haven't gotten paid," and my first question is, "Did you register your songs or did you just sign the agreement and do nothing more after that?" I get lots of blank looks with that question. If your songs aren't listed in their databases, they can't track your airplay. They can only work with the tools you give them. If you're all set in that regard, then again...CALL THEM, tell them where you're getting unpaid spins and they will take care of you. It's really that simple.

No it's not "really that simple", because I've done that and they continue to say that if it doesn't show up in their tracking, then it's not payable.

Quote:
Yes, it's definitely a problem tracking independent artists on the radio because it's mostly specialty and local shows playing us. Yes, we slip through the cracks. Trust me when I say the PROs do the best they can...but consider how many thousands of bands and artists there are in the world while a building full of just 450 overworked and underpaid people has to keep track of the whole kit and caboodle. Still want to whine about slipping through the cracks? I'd like to have seen ONE ARTIST do my job for ONE DAY and then bitch about how evil the PROs are.

Who's whining? I resent that characterization if you meant me, but I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Back to your point - which shoe would you like to wear on this point, because you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth here. We can either do what we're supposed to do, and then shut up, or we can NOT do what we're supposed to do, and THEN shut up? You're telling us what to do, and then you make excuses for why that doesn't work in the next breath? Do you have a bias here?

Quote:
No one wants to close a venue. Hell, they close a venue and less money for the PRO, right? Why would they want to do that? They are trying, but the law is that music has to be licensed if you're going to use it. You ask venues not to and you have to ask record labels, film companies and radio stations not to, either. Then NO ONE would get paid.

Well you're just wrong here. The rep in the area in question is sending ringers in to shout out requests, they are sending in scouts every night and firing off letters by the dozen to this business from their corporate headquarters and their lawyers are threatening everything from perpetual eclipse to nuclear winter. They WANT that fee, no matter if the circumstances don't warrant. And believe me, this place in NOT worth this effort, but they are being made into an example, even though they WILL NOT allow musicians who have licensing agreements on their stage. They STILL have problems.

I didn't post this to challenge the assertion that artists should be paid, and that for the most part, PRO's help them fulfill that right. My point is that in some instances, this can be taken too far and pursued inapporpriately, perhaps even illegally. I am simply sharing information that I came into contact with.

As for Darci's assertions, well. You apparently have a sore spot here, and although we may agree on some things, you have really tried to muddy some previously clear things. You compare many unequal events as being the same thing, when they are clearly not, and you are making leaps that would be unsupportable under a burden of proof.

I trust that you will look over what we have both written and amend some of your positions.

And while I recognize that Darci has many friends here, I would ask that you re-read this again (as I have) before you go nuts defending her. I think that you'll find reason to reconsider any quick reaction. I did not attack her, yet her post shows a fair amount of animosity towards mine that is completely unwarranted.

WB

WB
STILL - Fight the "Hamster" in you!!
Edited by: Major Asspain at: 6/14/01 7:49:39 pm

Team Faithgroove
Centenarian
(6/14/01 8:17:45 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
There are also other markets that don't get tracked by PRO's for some reason or other.

Faith got some airplay (regular rotation) with two of her originals that were registered with ASCAP. The station that played these songs is in Hawaii and we heard that some of the stations there didn't pay royalties. We didn't mind because it's a small state and just having the song in rotation was a big deal. We didn't want to ask for our $4.50 and jeapordize the relationship we had with the station's PD.

I think they didn't pay royalties because this particular station plays mostly local artists who never get rotation outside of the 50th state. This is probably the reason that the PRO's never track the songlists.

Funny thing is that Faith had co-written another song that became a hit in Hawaii. For this song, she received a nice couple-a checks from ASCAP. I think this song was played on several more stations in Hawaii than just the one that originally played Faith's original. Someone said that the record label that released the song Faith co-wrote was really good about getting royalties. Maybe it's a "gotta remind them PRO's" type of thing sometimes.

I have heard that you can request and submit cue sheets if you know that your songs are being played on a particular station or in a particular film or tv show. This would help in getting your royalty payments.

Nolan the Rep for FAITH

paisleyface

The One True
Wayne Newton
(6/14/01 8:54:48 pm)
Reply
Community Supporter

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
I'm in a constant state of alarm these days. At least the hamster in me isn't winning. HAHAHAHAHA

HATCHETMANN
Not such a bad guy.
(6/14/01 9:04:11 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
I am real interested in reading Momma Darci's rubutal.

Keep whippin' that little hamster back, Pais.

paisleyface

The One True
Wayne Newton
(6/14/01 9:08:41 pm)
Reply
Community Supporter

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
wait wait wait, i gotta backpeddle a bit. i'm not calling anyone a hamster. i'm just referencing the analogy, which by now, has been repeated so many times, that it's funny. the truth may be that i still qualify as a hamster. i just don't know. i honestly thing that everyone's got to hamsterize at one point or another in their lives. nobody with a paying job doesn't know what it's like to run on a wheel.

HATCHETMANN
Not such a bad guy.
(6/14/01 9:31:22 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Take a couple of deep breaths and chant Phil Frazier is great for about 10 minutes each day. It will all be good. All of us are on the Karmic wheel. Just flow with it.

MC Paperclip
Apartment Ninja
(6/14/01 10:57:20 pm)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
"Deep Ellum!"
Site: mcpaperclip.com
Music: 10,000 Lakes Dr. Tissue
Chat: All My Chat Are Belong To You

Chylon
Who is this person?
(6/14/01 11:59:58 pm)
Reply | Edit

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Darci

There is NO Way you can enlighten anyone properly about BMI. They are Damned Liars and Thieves! I don’t care if it is/was your niche. Please tell them to sue me if it isn’t true! Because if I wasn’t telling the truth, I’ve been slandering and defaming all over the place! I’ll be happy to provide you with all the documentation you need! Then too, it is ALL OVER the VMG Website. Have a look at it and see for yourself at http://www.vmgworldwide.org/

Read more about the Thinking of Starting a Publishing Company Thread at pub19.ezboard.com/fartist...=1&stop=20 and read both pages.

The PRO excuse is ALWAYS the same – either the song was never cleared or we have no reports of airplay! We’ve got ALL the DOCUMENTATION to prove both!

Explain why Pete Townshend didn’t get paid and was told the money went to Nashville at http://www.petetownshend.com/press_release_diary_display.cfm?id=3961! He should have been paid and wasn’t! You can’t explain it unless you come to the same conclusion that the VMG Campers do which is they are ABSOLUTE Damned Liars and Thieves with the endorsement and collusion of the courts!

Majorasspain,

We’ve been telling everyone for YEARS about the disgust and contempt with respect to the PRO’s! It’s been discussed by us on the mp3, sinusoidal, the VMG bb, newsgroups, etc. It’s ALL OVER the VMG Website – look at the index for yourself since you like to check! This time pay attention.

The ABSOLUTE most Vile and Contemptible part about the Music Industry is the Performing Rights Organizations with the FULL ENDORSEMENT and COLLUSION of and by Corrupt Judges!

The PRO's EXTORT the money from bars/restaurants/etc. and they can CLOSE THEM DOWN without due process of law - and the Corrupt Judges FULLY ENDORSE IT – if these music users DON'T PAY!

Check that out since you're the best at checking the checking!!!!! Talk to bar owners and radio stations and find out the cost of that extortion for yourself! ALL the Bar Owners, Coffeehouses, etc. want is for the PRO's to PROVE that the people who should be making the money or paid ARE!!!!!

The PRO’s scam is the longest running scam in this industry! People - It is in the BILLIONS of DOLLARS and for YEARS!

I've brought up the Tiffany Barsotti article for a reason --- mp3.com PAID ASCAP --- How come NO ONE at MP3.COM HAS BEEN PAID for SONGWRITING/PUBLISHING by ASCAP!?

P4P is ONE thing! Songwriting/Publishing is another! If you are entitled to both, get paid for both!

If the VMG Campers weren’t telling the truth, the PRO’s would sue for SLANDER and/or DEFAMATION. But TRUTH is an ABSOLUTE and PERFECT defense! That should ALSO tell you why they haven’t sued Bobby Farrell and he’s been calling them LYING THIEVING Sons-Of-Bitches for YEARS!

You should be alarmed, but ask your PRO nicely and see how far it gets you! When nice doesn’t work, what will you do?

Read the Thinking of Staring a Publishing Company Thread Again. Maybe this time some of you might understand why the VMG Campers hit on Publishing and the PROs so Damned Hard – especially when there is a half-truth/whole lie involved!

Phil
You call Bobby a spazed out kook. By the way – he doesn’t frequent this BB. I do and I’m being very reasonable with you

Gently now –

How angry would you be if you had been stolen from in the MILLIONS!

How spazed out would you be if you saw those Damned and Contemptible lies behind someone you loved that was left for broke and abject poverty because of them.

How spazed would you be if the Lies and Thievery were behind someone you cared about that was murdered?

Chylon

Major Asspain
Just a Son
of a Bitch?
(6/15/01 12:15:42 am)
Reply

Chylon/ Bobby
I had a feeling you might come 'round this one.

I for one have ALWAYS admitted Bobby's knowledge and the basic correct-ness of his stance. I just don't like the way he treats people, and me in particular. And he DOES tell a lot of 1/2-truths that I have always been unhappy with in regards to his current endeavors with the satellite placement of songs and all that.

The fact is that he would carry a lot of weight if he would spend more time explaining realities, and less time spewing like a lunatic. But that's his call and he's welcome to whatever stance he wants to take. He does have a massive amount of knowledge........

But I have NO DOUBT in the veracity of his stuff in regards to PRO's, I posted this because I had never heard of THIS particular problem before, and I find it troubling.

And this is STILL from sinusoidal, in case you wondered, though the little jab about "Checking" makes me think you know that.

WB
STILL - Fight the "Hamster" in you!!

Major Asspain
Just a Son
of a Bitch?
(6/15/01 12:21:37 am)
Reply

Townsend - sharp guy....
I never heard that one either.....

Darci? Is Townsend full of it? I'm getting cuirous about your response now too.....
STILL - Fight the "Hamster" in you!!

HATCHETMANN
Not such a bad guy.
(6/15/01 12:29:09 am)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Welcome Chylon. You are not quite as amusiing as Bobby but we shall make do. OH, yeah send my kind regards to that spazed out old kooky koot. Tell him I miss him and wish him well. I heard he is in some sort of retirement. What happened? Did he give up on educating the Idiot Element?

DarciM
DreamDiva
(6/15/01 6:53:53 am)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
HTML Comments are not allowed
~Darci Monet
Darci Monet
LilMinx Promotions
Edited by: DarciM at: 6/15/01 6:58:09 am

DarciM
DreamDiva
(6/15/01 6:59:00 am)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
HTML Comments are not allowed
~Darci Monet
Darci Monet
LilMinx Promotions

DarciM
DreamDiva
(6/15/01 7:04:24 am)
Reply

Re: Here's something to be alarmed about.
Good grief! You're all acting like the townspeople that went after Frankenstein! And yes I meant to use such an analogy because I never said the PROs are perfect, so Frankenstein fits. They do the best they can and still fail in many ways (starting with my former salary, as a matter of fact!). I'm not disputing that fact with anyone.

Major, I did not intend to personally attack you and nothing I posted should have been taken that way.

I don't have a "rebuttal", per se. I will merely share my knowledge, which is extensive in this particular field whether you all want to respect that or not. If I sound frustrated it's because I argued the "why you have to license" subject every day for 8 years with venue owners in an effort to protect songwriters and needless to say it's very disheartening to get flack from the songwriters themselves, too.

Quote:
Then how is it that I get paid for my by the *PRO* for my performance again? And why is it that I should care about the venue being licensed if I'm not getting paid by the PRO?

The definition of the word "performance" does not just mean getting up on a stage with your guitar or band in the world of PROs. A "performance" can be putting on a CD over a set of loud speakers, music being played on a TV commercial, the song playing as the closing credits role in a film, a myriad of different things. Unfortunately, in the case of live performances, there's no way currently to track each and every song that is played in every single venue unless you had the venue owner submit set lists...and I can tell ya right now that the majority of bar owners can't even keep their own books correctly let alone keep track of endless set lists. This is why live performance licensing fees are put into a pot to be distributed via other avenues of tracking, such as radio as I stated previously. Basically, if a songwriter isn't getting THOSE kinds of plays, then he or she can gig all over the country and still never see a royalty check for their LIVE PERFORMANCES. I'm not at all defending that policy, I'm merely stating that that's what's currently in place.

You don't have to care if the venue's licensed if you don't want to. It's not your responsibility to make sure a place is licensed, it's the owner's.

Quote:
but I can assure you that almost all original acts that I have ever seen only play their own music, at least when they are doing a show billed under the band name.

Then we simply haven't had the same experience, that's all. Perhaps no one here does covers (they probably don't have TIME since from what I noticed so far is that a standard set lasts about 45 minutes to an hour here), but I CAN say that about 8 out of 10 original bands in Nashville throws at least one in their set...that's the norm to please the 2:30am drunken stragglers before last call after already playing for three hours straight.

Quote:
and if they break that contract, then the artist will be liable for their actions. The venue is not in the business of policing what acts do, they are only only responsible for their own actions. If there is in place some legal mechanism that makes them responsible to track everything an artist does on stage, I find that at least an unethical reading of the law, more likely an outright vioaltion of the spirit of the law.

Exactly...the venue doesn't police what acts do...so if a band breaks a "no covers" contract then really who's going to know? This is why I am saying the probability is unlikely that there will never ever be a cover played in a venue claiming to have all original material. You're bascially proving my point here.

Quote:
They are required to have the copyright owners permission only. If you give that permission, then there is no royalty payable...So if I give them my permission to have the songs performed by me live, that is all that's required.

Quote:
Yes he had to license his theatre, but he would NOT have to license his OWN performance in that theatre, those are 2 very different things that you are saying are equal.

Regarding the first quote: If you, as a BMI songwriter, give your permission then perhaps technically there is no royalty payable TO YOU...but this does not mean that this overrides any fees payable to BMI (or ASCAP) IN GENERAL, so in actuality that's NOT all that's required when all is said and done. The pain in the ass about copyright law: "If this is like this, then you do this...EXCEPT when this happens, then you do THAT..." The whole damn thing is like that. And because the PROs base their whole business around it...they are like that, too.

Regarding the second quote: In a way they ARE equal because when a venue signs a license, they are issued a BLANKET AGREEMENT...it covers everything and everyone, not just certain writers or copyright holders...and there is no language in the license that allows a copyright holder to opt out, either. Now in situations outside of the norm like Boxcar Willie's (huge profile, huge money) the PRO will sometimes negotiate a manual contract, but it's very rare, and they do try to avoid it if at all possible (and that's in an effort to not only maintain fairness across the board for ALL licensing venues but it would also be an administrative nightmare that would end up creating tens of thousands - millions even? - of overhead which would eventually come out of songwriters' pockets).

Quote:
I'll look into that, the venue in question would fit that description.

Regarding the exemption...I admit I was not as clear as I should have been on this cuz I was writing really fast at the time...I apologize. Let me be crystal: The exemption is that any venue under 3500 square feet (in its entirety, that includes kitchen and storage, etc.) that uses ONLY recorded music and nothing else is exempt from licensing. If they use live, they have to license...if they use live AND recorded both, they have to license. Just wanted to clarify that.

Quote:
I did both those things. You should ask before you may accusatory presumptions.

Again, I wasn't accusing you or presuming anything personally. "You" was meant in an all-encompassing manner...and with good reason, if you will read on...

Quote:
We can either do what we're supposed to do, and then shut up, or we can NOT do what we're supposed to do, and THEN shut up? You're telling us what to do, and then you make excuses for why that doesn't work in the next breath? Do you have a bias here?

A) I never said for anyone to shut up. B) I don't make excuses, I give reasons. C) I am merely suggesting that before people jump to conclusions and blame the PRO for everything (let me clarify yet again that I'm not speaking of you PERSONALLY) that they take a look at whether or not they did what they were supposed to do on THEIR end first. Then if the PRO drops the ball, by all means skewer the bejesus out of them. However, in my personal experience nine times out of ten it was the songwriter that didn't do their paperwork and then expected the PRO to magically know how to pay them with nothing to go on. It's very, very, may I say again, VERY common for this to happen. And frankly, it's embarrassing to admit that songwriters are often the world's worst business people. But it's the truth.

Quote:
Well you're just wrong here. The rep in the area in question is sending ringers in to shout out requests, they are sending in scouts every night and firing off letters by the dozen to this business from their corporate headquarters and their lawyers are threatening everything from perpetual eclipse to nuclear winter. They WANT that fee, no matter if the circumstances don't warrant. And believe me, this place in NOT worth this effort, but they are being made into an example, even though they WILL NOT allow musicians who have licensing agreements on their stage. They STILL have problems.

I'm sorry, I'm not wrong. Again I'll state that PROs do not want to shut businesses down; as a matter of fact, they literally CAN'T shut a business down. If and when a venue closes citing a PRO as the culprit, it's because they refused to stop using unauthorized music after MONTHS (in some cases YEARS) of attempts at resolving the issue amicably, they've been verified CLEARLY and NUMEROUSLY as using music other than all original material and ended up with their asses sued off as a result...whereas if they had just paid the piddly yearly fee to begin with their doors would still be open. I suspect that this booking agent isn't giving you the entire story (or the venue owner isn't giving HIM the entire story)...because trust me, from personal experience a venue the size we're discussing wouldn't have a big enough yearly fee to make it worth a PRO hounding them as claimed...at least not for BMI. I just have a suspicion that we are all missing a piece of the big picture in this particular case. And I promise - I'd write it in my own blood if I had to - by the time a situation gets to that level, every effort has been made by the PRO to resolve the issue and verify that there is indeed no licensable music being used in the establishment. They simply can't even get to court if it's otherwise. I can't speak for ASCAP's tactics in building (or fudging perhaps) their cases, but I spent some time during my employment with BMI preparing their legal files for our lawyers and I can tell you that they are meticulously detailed and researched and there's no funny business involved. People have been fired for not following those guidelines. Believe it or not.

Quote:
and you are making leaps that would be unsupportable under a burden of proof...I trust that you will look over what we have both written and amend some of your positions.

Everything I've said is supportable, factual and I feel I've been perfectly clear. I have no positions to amend. No one has to like it, but it's the truth.

Quote:
yet her post shows a fair amount of animosity towards mine that is completely unwarranted.

Again, not intended. I am passionate about this subject and that's all.

Quote:
Someone said that the record label that released the song Faith co-wrote was really good about getting royalties. Maybe it's a "gotta remind them PRO's" type of thing sometimes.

Indeed. It sucks and there's no doubt about that, but sometimes that happens, especially in the case of independent or unsigned artists. Doesn't make it right by any means, but it is unfortunately one of a million crosses we have to bear!

I'm sorry Chylon...I just have no response to your post because you are so clearly hysterical about it that anything I say will just go in one ear and out the other anyway. You don't want to hear what I'd have to say, so for the most part I won't bother.

As far as Pete Townshend goes...truthfully I know nothing about his situation and can't comment on it (and the link was dead when I tried it). I'd have to look at his account to even make an educated guess which I don't have access to and that was also a department outside of mine so my knowledge is limited there. I can't begin to explain a clusterf**k like that. Sorry.
~Darci Monet
Darci Monet
LilMinx Promotions

Page 1 2

Next Topic >>

Email This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)
Subscribe Click to receive email notification of replies

jump to:
Artist Area Bulletin Board (New)
The Mosh Pit (New)
SIMONE Speaks (New)
Ask The Ragtime Lady (New)
The Wire Web (New)
The Body (New)
Online Music Review Bulletin Board (New)
Test it here and then post it. (New)
Promotion 101 (New)
Stations and Streams (New)
New Releases (New)
Lyrics and Poetry (New)
Jazz (New)
Hard Rock (New)
Paisley's Dozen (New)
Potpourri (New)

- Artist Area Bulletin Board - Artist Area Bulletin Board -

| | | | | | | | | | |

Alternative

Blues

Country

Easy
Listening

Electronic

HipHop/
Rap

Jazz

Metal

Pop/
Rock

Urban/
R&B

World/
Folk

Chitter
Chatter

Powered By ezboard® Ver. 6.2.2 b4
Copyright ©1999-2001 ezboard, Inc.