ASMP Cracks down on Restaurant

[fantasticsound]

I think the most important facts have been stated by several posters here, but for those interested, here is the test case that changed enforcement in the U.S.

 

The Gap stores used music to create an atmosphere in their stores. Whether it was CD's or broadcast radio, they profited, in part, by creating a specific ambience with the music blaring over their sound systems. They were sued by performing rights organizations because they did not pay the annual or song-specific licensing fees for the songs they played. The Gap claimed they had bought the CD's, or were simply providing music free to anyone over the airwaves.

 

The courts agreed with the performance rights organizations that the music was being used to increase sales, and therefore profit. From then on all stores using pre-recorded (or live) music had to either pay licensing fees or purchase royalty-free music or services from companies such as Muzak.

 

The venue or promoter is always responsible for obtaining the necessary licenses. Usually, a blanket license is purchased by clubs to cover any song performed there.

 

I once performed several songs at a songwriting clinic my best friend organized at a Borders bookstore. He was quick to tell me I could only perform originals because the store did not pay performance licensing fees. Any audio they broadcast through the store was from a licensed service. Had we played even one original we could've put them in jeopardy of exactly the type of lawsuit described in the link.

[Gruupi]

I don't want to start a fight, but unions have gone way out of bounds from what they were originally intended for. They were supoosed to PROTECT workers. Now they are more concerned with policing the workers than with keeping working conditions safe and fair. The idea that some small time band can't play a gig out of town without a union card is ludicrous. Unions have gone from being something that you would want to join to being required to join under threat of violence.

 

Luckily, in Texas, these greedy little bastards don't have such a strong foothold. You can go get a gig just about anywhere. The union is there for full-time musicians to join as a support agency. But there is no force or coercion used.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is a time and place for organized labor. It keeps the big employers honest and workers safe. But in reality the unions are a travesty, they try to keep employement amongst a select few, kind of like medievel guilds. This environment is anti-capitolist and sometimes criminal. It stifles competition so that the best worker don't always get the job, just the oldest more established union member.

[Ricardo.]

To preserve meaningful discussion, I'd like to clarify that I want to focus on the moral side of the argument, not the legal standpoint. That is, no appeals to authority

[Dr. Ellwood]

There is some truth in that Gruupi. In this case the was no small time money involved though, trust me on that. I think that the union employees of that venue who pay their dues to work in their venues have every right to demand that WE pay and abide by the same rules they do in THEIR working area. We had no philosophical problems with their rules at all. My point was we should have been prepaired (an I was) to follow the rules! There was no reason why we should get by without paying while they are out on the floor working just like we where, just because we where from out of town.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by A String:

As Bbach said, I think it's more of a promotional tool that is beneficial to them, then anything. If I play a bunch of covers, some of the folks who are listening, may be inclined to go out and buy the original versions.

 

Heck, the ASCAP people should be paying me for doing free promos for them.

You are getting paid, as is the club. If the rules are followed it's a win/win situation for the club owner, the performer and the copyright holder. There is only a downside if the club owner is trying to avoid paying the licensing fee.

[Eric Iverson]

Wow!

 

Sunday I was in Washington Square Park sitting in on mandolin with a singer/guitarist and a couple of harmonica players, doing scores of old tunes from lyric sheets with chords.

 

So far at least, that's legal to do without paying, ain't it??

 

But still, I do understand that people who write and record songs have their rights, too!

 

Re: record companies clamping down... well, there has been serious abuse of copyright issues on the Net in recent years... it's only to be expected that they would have an attitude problem! Not that SOME of them are not greedy bastards who abuse the musicians - there's plenty of blame to go around!

 

Re: unions. I've never belonged to one, but have known plenty of people who do. Rarely do you hear kind words about them! Union membership is down quite a bit from what it used to be - might there not be a reason for that?

 

I would love to live in a world where a large percentage of people didn't seem to have a "screw them before they screw you" attitude... but that ain't reality, is it? Even if you do your best to be honest, we all have to deal with being overcharged at times, or charged twice for the same item, or for items purchased by third parties... whether through dishonesty or clerical incompetence, one never knows...

 

Sorry if I'm getting off-topic a little bit!

[A String]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Originally posted by A String:

Heck, the ASCAP people should be paying me for doing free promos for them.

You are getting paid, as is the club. If the rules are followed it's a win/win situation for the club owner, the performer and the copyright holder.

Yes, I'm getting paid. But why do I have to pay the union? Why does the bar owner have to pay? Why is it that the greedy bastards who control the music, feel they should have a slice of my pie?

 

If they were losing money, like illegal downloads, then they should go after people. But in this case, I just can't agree.

 

Would it be ok if I changed a word here or there? How about if I swapped the order of the verses?

 

Once again, it's legally right, but morally wrong. You don't see this sort of thing in 90% of other businesses. Only in the entertainment industries.

 

If they want to start paying musicians a working wage, maybe then I wouldn't feel bad about paying. But there are bands out there that make $50 a piece for a full nights work. It's not right.

[A String]

Originally posted by Eric Iverson:

Sunday I was in Washington Square Park sitting in on mandolin with a singer/guitarist and a couple of harmonica players, doing scores of old tunes from lyric sheets with chords.

 

So far at least, that's legal to do without paying, ain't it??

Sadly, it's probably illegal. Most cities require you to posses a busker's licence in order to play, outdoors, in public. If you are caught, they can confiscate your equipment and give you a ticket.

[dave esmond]

Originally posted by Bbach1:

While that might be true, in what way does that take money out of the hands of the recording artist or record company?

It's not about "taking" money. It's about the songwriter getting paid when someone else performs their song. Often songwriters never record a version of the song they wrote. There's no extra sales for them when someone performs their song. That's why there's performance fees, so songwriters can make money.

 

It's hard enough to make a living as a songwriter or musician. Being called "greedy" when all you want is the money you're owed when someone performs your song sucks.

 

So few people see real value in what songwriters/musicians do. It's very, very sad to me.

[dave esmond]

Originally posted by A String:

Why is it that the greedy bastards who control the music, feel they should have a slice of my pie?

Play 100% original music and you won't have these problems.

 

If you perform one of MY songs tho....I want to be paid for it. After all I did 98% of the hard work. Why should I get a slice of "your" pie? Because I wrote it and own it.

 

Asking to be paid when someone uses the product of your creativity and hard work is not morally wrong.

[Hardtail]

Are DJs accountable under the same B.S. that musicians are? If a DJ makes money for a club or himeself at weddings, for example, would he (or his representation) have to fork over some dough?

[Dr. Ellwood]

"Play 100% original music and you won't have these problems"

 

Right! because you won't have any gigs!

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by A String:

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Originally posted by A String:

Heck, the ASCAP people should be paying me for doing free promos for them.

You are getting paid, as is the club. If the rules are followed it's a win/win situation for the club owner, the performer and the copyright holder.

Yes, I'm getting paid. But why do I have to pay the union? Why does the bar owner have to pay? Why is it that the greedy bastards who control the music, feel they should have a slice of my pie?...

First, you're not paying a union (if we're still talking about ASCAP, whom you mention in the post). ASCAP isn't a union. They're a performing rights organization that collect royalties on behalf of writers and performers.

 

As for unions, I'm with you, but you want to understand why they expect payment. From their point of view they've worked to negotiate a working wage for musicians and every time a band or singer plays for less than scale they're undercutting the union's efforts to demand living wages. They expect you to pay dues because the good wages are (at least in their opinion) the direct result of their efforts, so you reap the benefits whether you've contributed to the cause or not.

 

But like I said, I'm with you. I've found most union work to be useless to the average musician, especially part-time musicians who play venues that simply cannot afford to pay scale wages. And I can't abide a union that cannot guarantee work but expect you to pass on gigs that can put food on your table.

[Ricardo.]

Originally posted by dave esmond:

Originally posted by A String:

Why is it that the greedy bastards who control the music, feel they should have a slice of my pie?

Play 100% original music and you won't have these problems.

 

If you perform one of MY songs tho....I want to be paid for it. After all I did 98% of the hard work. Why should I get a slice of "your" pie? Because I wrote it and own it.

 

Asking to be paid when someone uses the product of your creativity and hard work is not morally wrong.

Okay, but what about when the artist is dead? Moonlight Sonata cover? To a lesser extent, Purple Haze? It [the money] should still be going to someone who owns the new rights, legally, but if the original artist is no longer needing to make a living...?

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Hard Tail:

Are DJs accountable under the same B.S. that musicians are? If a DJ makes money for a club or himeself at weddings, for example, would he (or his representation) have to fork over some dough?

In theory DJ's are accountable for the music they play. I don't know if there is enforcement or not. It would be harder to monitor since most DJ work is private performances that monitors would not have access to. I would not be surprised to find that a monitor from a rights organization could be sued for criminal trespass for walking into a wedding in a private building, so I doubt ASCAP and BMI would be dumb enough to send someone in to monitor the band or DJ.

 

Insofar as DJ's are working clubs, again, the venue is responsible for securing the licensing for performance rights.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by A String:

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

Originally posted by A String:

Heck, the ASCAP people should be paying me for doing free promos for them.

You are getting paid, as is the club. If the rules are followed it's a win/win situation for the club owner, the performer and the copyright holder.

Yes, I'm getting paid. But why do I have to pay the union? Why does the bar owner have to pay? Why is it that the greedy bastards who control the music, feel they should have a slice of my pie?

 

If they were losing money, like illegal downloads, then they should go after people. But in this case, I just can't agree.

 

Would it be ok if I changed a word here or there? How about if I swapped the order of the verses?

 

Once again, it's legally right, but morally wrong. You don't see this sort of thing in 90% of other businesses. Only in the entertainment industries.

 

If they want to start paying musicians a working wage, maybe then I wouldn't feel bad about paying. But there are bands out there that make $50 a piece for a full nights work. It's not right.

You pay the union because the union guarantees that the scale you're paid is fair and you have safe working conditions. If it weren't for the union each musician would get paid only what the employer was willing to shell out. They'd be more than happy to pay the entire band $15.00 for the evening....

 

The club pays ASCAP and BMI because using the songs contained in their licensing agreements brings value to their businesses. Imagine a bar that had no music whatsoever. Probably wouldn't be a hell of a lot of beer sales either....

 

The licensing agreements are no different than the fees you would have to pay if you recorded a cover song for your CD. You'd have to pay for every single copy of the CD that was made. It would be morally, as well as legally, wrong to not compensate the songwriter for using their intellectual property.

 

Changing a song around doesn't get you past copyright law. It's a derivative work.

[Justus A. Picker]

Okay, but what about when the artist is dead? Moonlight Sonata cover? To a lesser extent, Purple Haze? It [the money] should still be going to someone who owns the new rights, legally, but if the original artist is no longer needing to make a living...?

Moonlight Sonata is in the public domain, you can perform it or record it without any money changing hands. Songs pass into the public domain 75 years after the death of the author. Until then the rights belong to their estate. It's kinda like kids inheriting Dads company (and it's ongoing profits)even though they never worked there one day in their lives.

[Guitar55]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

Okay, but what about when the artist is dead? Moonlight Sonata cover? To a lesser extent, Purple Haze? It [the money] should still be going to someone who owns the new rights, legally, but if the original artist is no longer needing to make a living...?

If the copyright is still valid, whoever holds the rights now owns an asset that they should be paid for the use of. If the copyright has expired, it's public domain.

 

If I own stock that pays a dividend and I die and my family inherits the stock, shouldn't they still receive any new dividends?

[Ricardo.]

That's one thing I'd like to discuss, Justus. I'm not sure on it myself. To remove any doubts, I agree with Kant's idea that one should not disobey a law on a moral basis, and should instead seek to change and discuss it.

 

I suppose it would seem pretty clear, that a song should be in the public domain upon the death of its author(s). But how many people should continue to profit from such a collaborative work as music? Sound engineers, producers, the toddler who happens to give his dad an astounding yet simple musical idea, the bassist who really didn't do anything to contribute to the band and ended up being buried in the mix...

[Ricardo.]

Originally posted by Guitar55:

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

Okay, but what about when the artist is dead? Moonlight Sonata cover? To a lesser extent, Purple Haze? It [the money] should still be going to someone who owns the new rights, legally, but if the original artist is no longer needing to make a living...?

If the copyright is still valid, whoever holds the rights now owns an asset that they should be paid for the use of. If the copyright has expired, it's public domain.

 

If I own stock that pays a dividend and I die and my family inherits the stock, shouldn't they still receive any new dividends?

You are correct, Guitar55. Yet that system itself does not seem the best to me, as it results in dynasties that end up holding a stake in the company only by birthright. And we can mostly agree that it is legally fair, yet it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially when the descendants seem unfit for it.

 

Is that system in itself, morally acceptable? Because it certainly makes sense in that that share in the company should not just disappear now that the owner is dead. And yet, your family's done nothing to deserve it.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

To preserve meaningful discussion, I'd like to clarify that I want to focus on the moral side of the argument, not the legal standpoint. That is, no appeals to authority

....???

 

Well...I don't see how you can separate the two and still keep it meaningful?

 

If there were NO legal issues...then there would be NO discussion in the first place.

 

Are you talking about the "moral" side of NOT following the legal side...?

 

There are performing rights...and then there is the theft of those rights...

and that IS the issue...and that IS a legal issue.

 

The only moral consideration is whether or not people wish to respect the legal rights of others....respect the law.

Getting away with somethingdoesnt make it OKunless you adjust your morality to make it OK.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

I suppose it would seem pretty clear, that a song should be in the public domain upon the death of its author(s). But how many people should continue to profit from such a collaborative work as music? Sound engineers, producers, the toddler who happens to give his dad an astounding yet simple musical idea, the bassist who really didn't do anything to contribute to the band and ended up being buried in the mix...

Generally the engineers etc are just hired hands. Unless their contract specifies otherwise once the song is recorded their participation in the profits is done. In a like manner only the people who have songwriting credits get paid mechanical and performance royalties.

 

If you're the songwriter of a zillion selling hit you and your heirs will collect money as long as it keeps selling or being performed. The other members of the band will make money only off of their own performances and whatever their contacts state they get from cd sales.

 

Pete Townshend is the person that really gets rich off of the Who. Daltrey is just the singer.....

[Ricardo.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

To preserve meaningful discussion, I'd like to clarify that I want to focus on the moral side of the argument, not the legal standpoint. That is, no appeals to authority

....???

 

Well...I don't see how you can separate the two and still keep it meaningful?

 

If there were NO legal issues...then there would be NO discussion in the first place.

 

Are you talking about the "moral" side of NOT following the legal side...?

 

There are performing rights...and then there is the theft of those rights...

and that IS the issue...and that IS a legal issue.

 

The only moral consideration is whether or not people wish to respect the legal rights of others....respect the law.

Getting away with somethingdoesnt make it OKunless you adjust your morality to make it OK.

I'm sorry, allow me to clarify. I posted earlier about it, but we can agree that they are legally in the wrong. No where did I state we should disobey the law.

 

I wish to talk about whether the law itself is right. That's all. Is that clear?

[marvar]

Experience-

We were playing a backwoods bar, half way into the 2nd set- the place is full of State Troopers and County deputies. This suit comes up to us on the stage and tells us we have 15 minutes to get our gear out of the place, if we want to keep it. As we are packing the truck, the police padlock and seal the doors on the bar.

Moral of the story- make sure the bar owner pays the dues.

[A String]

Originally posted by Justus A. Picker:

You pay the union because the union guarantees that the scale you're paid is fair and you have safe working conditions. If it weren't for the union each musician would get paid only what the employer was willing to shell out. They'd be more than happy to pay the entire band $15.00 for the evening....

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you on this one.

 

The only thing that covers my a$$ when I play is my contract. The Union, is supposed to help out with contract debates, but if you have a contract, you really don't need any help. Any, well written contract, will stand up on it's own in small claims court.

 

Not sure where you are going with the "Safe" conditions, I've played in places that were far from safe. Union or no Union.

 

As for the wages. The places I played that payed their dues, never seemed to pay any differently then the clubs that didn't. The fact is, you get what you pay for. I won't go into a club for anything under $100 a night and that is really low. If a club was only offering $15 a night, they would get "$15 a night" talent. They would soon start to lose business and it wouldn't be long before they were paying the big bucks to bring in some real bands.

[duff beer]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

You are correct, Guitar55. Yet that system itself does not seem the best to me, as it results in dynasties that end up holding a stake in the company only by birthright. And we can mostly agree that it is legally fair, yet it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially when the descendants seem unfit for it.

 

Is that system in itself, morally acceptable? Because it certainly makes sense in that that share in the company should not just disappear now that the owner is dead. And yet, your family's done nothing to deserve it.

Fair has nothing to do with it. If I own something then I have the right to do whatever I please with it (within the law, of course). How would you feel if you were told that you were not allowed to leave an inheritance for your children because "they have done nothing to deserve it"?

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

I wish to talk about whether the law itself is right. That's all. Is that clear?

But you also said:

 

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

To preserve meaningful discussion, I'd like to clarify that I want to focus on the moral side of the argument, not the legal standpoint. That is, no appeals to authority

law = legal

 

 

Also...I'm not sure which law you want to discuss as possibly not being right...?

What...that people shouldn't have any protection for what is legally THEIR property...???

That's no different than saying you want to discuss whether there should be a law against stealing someone's car...or any other property that is not yours.

 

Yeah...OK...go ahead and try talking about it...but I dont see where you will go with it, and I think you will always come to a dead end...

...because you can't have some property and/or rights that belong to someone else - be free for the taking without any penalties...

...and then at the same time expect laws/protection for other types of property and/or rights.

Thats a very slippery slope...

 

If you can accept the fact that when someone (even you) writes/records a song...it is YOUR property, and only YOU have the right to sell it (to the record companies/publishers/etc)...

...then there is no way you can discuss the morality of ANYONE being able to come along and stealing your property/rightswithout any legal issues coming into play.

At least not in THIS society

though there may be some strange places on this planet where taking what is not yours has no legal considerations?I just dont know of any.

 

Finallywhy would you or I or anyone else have the right to decide for someone else if their music can or can not be freely distributed/performed???

You knowevery artist has that optionto give it all away for free if they want to.

Or to get paid for it.

 

Sorrybut I just dont see what angle you are going after by NOT considering the law/legal aspect of property and performing rights.

[Zephyr]

This is just stupid, the music industry is grasping at anything in order to make more money. Like they don't have enough already!

[Ricardo.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

I wish to talk about whether the law itself is right. That's all. Is that clear?

But you also said:

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

To preserve meaningful discussion, I'd like to clarify that I want to focus on the moral side of the argument, not the legal standpoint. That is, no appeals to authority

law = legal

 

Also...I'm not sure which law you want to discuss as possibly not being right...?

Whether the man in the article I posted has committed a wrong.

 

 

What...that people shouldn't have any protection for what is legally THEIR property...???

That's no different than saying you want to discuss whether there should be a law against stealing someone's car...or any other property that is not yours.

You're right, there is no difference. That question would be in context in a discussion regarding socialism. But there's nothing wrong in discussing laws, or do you feel differently?

 

If you can accept the fact that when someone (even you) writes/records a song...it is YOUR property, and only YOU have the right to sell it (to the record companies/publishers/etc)...

...then there is no way you can discuss the morality of ANYONE being able to come along and stealing your property/rightswithout any legal issues coming into play.

What constitutes property rights, writing a song, and stealing is debatable.

 

Finallywhy would you or I or anyone else have the right to decide for someone else if their music can or can not be freely distributed/performed???

We're not deciding.

 

Sorrybut I just dont see what angle you are going after by NOT considering the law/legal aspect of property and performing rights.

We're discussing whether the law is "right." Not whether we have the right to break it (we don't) or whether it should be broken. Not what the law is. But whether the law is right. Let's say for example, we were discussing whether people under 21 should be allowed to purchase alcohol. You can't just stop all discussion on it because the law's already set, right?

At least not in THIS society

[Scott Fraser]

<>

 

Another example of who has to pay music licensing fees are aerobics instructors & others using music in various health club group exercise programs.

 

Scott Fraser