| 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 | |
Email
This To a Friend
Topic Commands (Moderator only)
