Demand fees to compensate musicians and songwriters “just in case” a musician plays a copyrighted song, but rather than pay these huge costs many owners, 50% in St Cloud, Minnesota alone, are deciding to get rid of live music altogether.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that royalty collection societies really don’t care about a majority of the artists they claim to represent the best interests of.
Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI), the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), and SESAC (formerly the Society of European Stage Actors and Composers), the three major live music licensing companies in this country, require all venues where live music is played to to purchase a license or face penalties for copyright infringement.
It’s not necessarily because an artists played a copyrighted song, but rather just in case.
“Basically, we don’t know,” said Dave Ascher, a Music Licensing Consultant for SESAC. “To make a long story short, there’s no way, logistically, for us to know whether on a day-to-day basis they’re playing SESAC music.”
Individually the licenses are usually no more than $650 p/yr, but when combined with payments to the other two the amount grows untenable for many, especially if they’re also required to pay royalties for music played on a jukebox or radio.
So what has happened is that many are choosing to shutter live music altogether, by some accounts as many as 50% in the St Cloud, Minnesota area alone.
“Fully 50 percent of the clubs that we were gigging at five years ago have shut down their live music,” said Dan Preston of Preston and Paulzine.
Brian Lee, co-owner of The White Horse bar in St Cloud, was stunned to hear SESAC was demanding it buy a music license being that it doesn’t even use cover bands.
Jerry Bailey, director of media relations at BMI, said it has a “responsibility to the 400,000 songwriters and publishers affiliated with us to collect all the income they’re entitled to under the law.”
But, what neither it nor the other royalty collection groups mention is that they mainly focus on collecting royalties for big name artists since they are easier to track.
For this Bailey suggests they “write a hit song,” that the “world of songwriting is a very competitive business and if other people don’t perform your music, you’re not going to make money.”
So in other words, up and coming artists be dammed. Those that need these live venues the most in order to hone their craft and make that hit song or album are quickly finding the number of locations dwindling.
“They’re protecting Bruce Springsteen, who doesn’t really need a whole lot more money,” adds Preston.
He’s right.
The funny thing is that ASCAP, for example, says its “the only performing rights organization in the U.S. owned and run by songwriters, composers and music publishers.” If that’s the case then you’d think it’s be a bit more understanding when it came to the lifeblood of emerging artists.
But, I guess the lunacy makes sense being that it’s the same group that tried back in June to argue that a ringtone constitutes a public performance.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
[Hat Tip]
Related
- Royalty fight clouds music subscriptions
- MySpace faces royalty challenge
- Despite piracy, BMI posts record year
- Royalty Group Sues T-Mobile for Unlicensed Ringback Tones
- Internet radio royalty hike delayed; last chance to petition Congress
lol here is my bill for $45000 in case you might hum a song I wrote
The sad part is that even with all 3 licenses the facility can still be sued, since those 3 don’t cover all artist. Personally I would like to see live performance excluded from copyright, but that is my anti copyright stance. Something people might find more reasonable is a set fee to play any music, ala radio stations.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask venues a small fee for radio, jukeboxes, and live music, but it really needs to be *much* more reasonable, and suited to the venue. I spend my Monday nights at an open-mic down the block, and a dozen is a typical turnout — mostly fellow musicians. I think $10/year would be more than fair.
Maybe open-mics should just have a jar, and anyone playing a cover song has to drop in a dime along with the artist’s name. That’d be a hell of a lot more fair than BMI/ASCAPs current ’surveys’.
It’s not entirely a surprise this is happening if you ask me. I haven’t been around to witness the music scene for 20 years, but I do know that given how collectives have handled web radio, this is just an echo to what is happening here.
You could play your own music. You own the rights. You have the power to authorize what can and cannot be done with that music. Collectives have decided to try and remove some of the artists rights by deciding for them that they are entitled to collect money from venues. If you’re not a member of that collective, then you’ll definitely never see that money again and it’ll go to some major record company that definitely don’t own the rights to your work. It’s blatent theft of artists hard earned work, yet somehow, they argue that they are doing it for the artists. Give me a break!
That is the downside to the radio model, all artist are tied in, and can’t choose to give away their music for free to entice radio play. It should be 1 opt in collective agency, run by an independent group, voted for by the artist themselves. This industry created, bull crap is just unacceptable. Then with this system in place, with the opt out option, the single fee for public performance should be charged, based on listeners, and for venues that directly profit from the music.
It’s not unreasonable to ask a venue that presents live music (or recorded music) to pay a fee. After all, they are using the music to attract customers, no?
I do think, however, that the three PRO’s should get together and find a way to create a joint fee so businesses don’t have to take the route of shutting out live music altogether.
It isn’t unreasonable if it was 1 license that covered all music, and proven that they actually played the music before being asked to pay if they don’t have a license. Furthermore it should only apply to places that use music to attract business, it shouldn’t apply to playing music at the workplace, which should be allowed as private listening, since employees generally listen to their own music. The scope of public performance is too broad, it needs to be ratcheted back a few notches.
I wonder if there will come a point where – if nobody if playing these covers (ie giving the big artists free promotion) – nobody will even want to, or know they want to hear music by the artists these agencies are supposedly protecting?
As an aspiring artist I say keep writing your own stuff, keep being creative in your promotions, and keep building relationships. As long as you (and I) do that there will always be a venue to play at.
also, I just finished watching Food Inc (highly recommended) and then hopped on the computer only to stumble across this article. Everywhere a person looks these days there is a Goliath coming up with ridiculous, government sponsored “my way or the highway” rules and regulations.
On one hand it is both disturbing and disheartening. But ya know what? On the other it is encouraging. The more of this I see means the more of it “everyone” else see’s. That is a good thing.
Soon everyone will wake up and flip off these assholes and leave them to deal with bad karma they’ve been spewing.
It isn’t even about paying artists, its about, making it as hard as possible for new talent to make it thus allowing manufactured artists to dominate the charts as they provide much more revenue for the labels thus themselves. i think its time these venues operate it like a private party and just ask that people leave donations to show their support. lets see em sort that out.
I think if the artist covering the song isnt being paid to perform it than neither should the person who wrote it.
The venues should just require original music and make the PRO’s proove that they’re having cover bands.
That’s the point. Even though most venue’s require artists only play originals the PRO’s are threatening to sue to force them to buy a license “just in case” someone accidentally does.
Its cheaper to shutter the open mic.
Soulxtc, that may be a nice thought, but it’s not the law.
Not yet, although if people pressure politicians enough to change copyright, it may happen. Many people are getting more familiar with copyright laws as they find out how they are destroying many of their rights. Its only a matter of time before society hits a critical mass of protest and the copyright cartel can no longer bribe laws into existence.
Of course it’s just a thought, hence “I think that…”
But, it is a glaring example of the shortcomings of current copyright law.
Imagine the thought of authors charging schoolteachers to read books like “The Catcher in the Rye” aloud in class, or poets like Maya Angelou demanding compensation for those that recite her verses in public.
Its nonsense.
Waaa waaa, hey RIAA, pound salt LOL.
I can’t wait for the media industry to vanish.
It’s not just businesses that they are going after.
ASCAP is trying to make Lena’s Place Coffeehouse pay a huge licensing fee despite the fact that every dime rec’d goes directly to local charities. No one is making any profit.
Lena’s Place is a local, monthly coffeehouse in Atlanta, run by a church. They ask for a $5 donation, but let you in if you can’t afford it.
As a non-published songwriter, I’m for protecting intellectual property, but I don’t think it should apply to live music at small venues, esp. non-profits.
Only goes to prove that when something goes the way of multinational businesses then the origin of that something gets prostituted beyond recognition. Imagine J S. Bach today…
Only goes to prove that when something goes the way of multinational businesses then the origin of that something gets prostituted beyond recognition. Imagine J S. Bach today… The problem is the DMCA bill, it’s bad law that needs to be reformed or scrapped in the context of a broader copyright reform that protects intellectual property while preserving freedom, creativity and innovation.
I see this becoming just another form of “insurance”….insurance against possible lost sales from people listening to copyright music being played live.
After all, your required to have car insurance, *just incase* you get in an accident, and many other forms of insurance thereof, this is just the logical progression of that sort of thinking.
Kind of makes me sick thinking about it actually. As people are fond of mentioning…it’s a slippery slope.