OT- BMI files suit against restaurant

[ProfD]

Completely missed the point.

 

Lot easier to pay a featured act for three hours at full price when people are paying $200 a ticket.

 

Except when you're a <50 seat dive bar.

I understand the point you are trying to make but musos typically do not look at commerce from the other side.

 

A local dive bar cannot afford to hire a featured act or charge $200 per head. That's why they bring in a jukebox.

 

I'm looking at the nominal cost of using that jukebox and paying PRO fees as opposed to hiring live entertainment.

[Griffinator]

Folks, I've had this same discussion more times than I can possibly say. And it's not like one side is wrong and the other is right. I completely realize how venue owners wouldn't understand why this music shouldn't be free to broadcast and bring in customers. They do not have an understanding that behind the shiny plastic disc is a lot of hard work.

 

Trust me, I'm not trying to say that there shouldn't be a licensing fee, I'm just saying that the licensing fees are out of control.

 

And the whole "negotiation" thing just reinforces my point, that there's no actual standard applied by ASCAP/BMI for what should be charged, there are just field agents who come in throwing numbers around based on their own greed.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I will definitely agree that from having heard the stories from venue management about dealing with the field agents, it seems that the process itself is NOT conducive to making it work well. The aspect of feeling coerced to pay, rather than being made to understand the value and having it be a partnership, is one of the big problems.

 

Again, if someone were to present a viable better method, we'd all be happier.

[Steve Nathan]

there's no actual standard applied by ASCAP/BMI for what should be charged, there are just field agents who come in throwing numbers around based on their own greed.

 

This is why I can't hang with these discussions for long. Why people feel it's appropriate to throw unsubstantiated BS like this around is beyond me.

 

ASCAP has detailed specific criteria with which to gauge which of over 100 possible licenses would apply to a particular business model.

 

 

The annual rate depends on the type of business. Generally, rates are based on the manner in which music is performed (live, recorded or audio only or audio/visual) and the size of the establishment or potential audience for the music. For example, rates for restaurants, nightclubs, bars and similar establishments depend on whether the music is live or recorded, whether it's audio only or audio visual, the number of nights per week music is offered, whether admission is charged and several other factors.

[Griffinator]

This is why I can't hang with these discussions for long. Why people feel it's appropriate to throw unsubstantiated BS like this around is beyond me.

 

ASCAP has detailed specific criteria with which to gauge which of over 100 possible licenses would apply to a particular business model.

 

 

The annual rate depends on the type of business. Generally, rates are based on the manner in which music is performed (live, recorded or audio only or audio/visual) and the size of the establishment or potential audience for the music. For example, rates for restaurants, nightclubs, bars and similar establishments depend on whether the music is live or recorded, whether it's audio only or audio visual, the number of nights per week music is offered, whether admission is charged and several other factors.

 

So why do they allow complete discretion by the field agents? If there's hard and fast details to their licensing guidelines, why the "flexibility"?

[MoKen]

The alternative is to force the PROs to pay in a reasonable manner in relationship to the usage of the material. In a bygone era, they could somewhat legitimately say that it was too difficult to determine who should be paid and how much they were owed. In today's high-tech world it would be quite possible to be a lot more accurate. However, the PROs have no incentive to be more accurate. So they cater to the big names, the little guy gets screwed, and the PROs have a very good income. It would probably take a class action suit to effect any change. Not likely to happen any time soon...

[B3bluesman59]

Griffinator said: They charge the restaurant based on their capacity, not frequency of events, not actual headcount, not actual amount of expected performances, not even actual # of BMI-published songs.

_________________________________________________________________

When you buy the BMI license it is based on square footage of venue and capacity and covers all BMI tunes played there. You can buy a per tune license or per event license but it is much cheaper to buy the blanket license if you have regular entertainment. Of course you can always play music that is not licensed by BMI but that is tough to do because either BMI or ASCAP own almost every popular song. And it is the venue's responsibility to buy the license. These cases keep coming up in court and the venue ALWAYS loses when they suggest that the bands or entertainers are responsible for the license.

[B3bluesman59]

"If the establishment needs to be licensed, it doesn't need to be licensed with BMI or ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers); it has to be licensed with the city of Tucson or Pima County," Evenson said. "Every karaoke or disc jockey entity has to have their license, not us. And anytime we have live remotes through a radio station, it is licensed."

________________________________________________________________

I hope this guy has a large legal budget...he is gonna need it. And his head is so far up his anus his eyes gotta be brown.

[Cygnus64]

I believe where BMI runs into trouble is trying to explain to a restaurant or club owner how they arrived at a dollar figure for running entertainment, and then explaining to songwriters why they don't any money.

 

Very well said. :thu:

 

As musicians and songwriters, all I can say is that you must be a masochist if you side against the PROs.

 

I don't see anyone siding against the PROs. Obviously, there is a concern among many here that it is not distributed fairly, we had a big ASCAP thread a few months back. In that thread, there were quotes ( I think) that were from ASCAP saying "In the past, we were wrong by 33%" or something to that extent.

 

On a similiar note:

 

I've been in the musician's Union for 25+ years. It works very well....... for about 5% of it's members. For the other 95 percent, it's a bit of a Ponzi Scheme. In various markets, the scale is insanely low. The biggest gripe is that it's a "good ol boy's" network, and there is certainly some truth in that. A few connected people get the work, quite a few board members etc take the work for themselves (in violation of the by-laws). I'm probably on the cusp: a few times it's worked for me quite well, usually it doesn't.

 

No musician would be AGAINST PROs. What they are against is a perception of unfairness, and that the small fry is blown off in favor of the big fry. With today's computer database possibilities, it should be much more accurate than it is now.

[MikeT156]

by Cygnus64:

 

I've been in the musician's Union for 25+ years. It works very well....... for about 5% of it's members. For the other 95 percent, it's a bit of a Ponzi Scheme. In various markets, the scale is insanely low. The biggest gripe is that it's a "good ol boy's" network, and there is certainly some truth in that. A few connected people get the work, quite a few board members etc take the work for themselves (in violation of the by-laws).

 

This is another pet peeve of mine. I had been a musician's union member years ago back in my home town. I relocated and didn't play music for years because I had a very demanding full time job. After many years of that insanity, I quit those 70 hour a week jobs before the undertaker got me. I started to play music again, and was talked into joining the musicians' local where I live now. Mistake. They hit me with the full initiation fee and I had to pay up about half of the year's dues before they would let me back in. The union scale was so low it was a farce. The only gigs the union handed out were "playground jobs" where I wouldn't be caught dead. They had an annual party for union members. A lot of freebies went to select friends of the powers that be, and the rest wasn't worth me getting out of bed. So, I dropped out. I kept getting notices in the mail from the Local that stated they "couldn't understand" why I didn't want to be a union member any more.

 

I don't know what those guys were smoking, but they should have passed it around at the Christmas party, at least THAT might have been worth paying the annual dues.

 

 

Mike T.

[Cygnus64]

[ They had an annual party for union members.

 

I remember my first full-time symphony job, which is a pretty hefty amount to the union. They kept talking about the "annual party". When it came time for the party, I got a notice: BYOB, BYO food.

 

The only gigs the union handed out were "playground jobs" where I wouldn't be caught dead.

 

I assume you are talking about "Green sheet" jobs, where you sign a green sheet at the end and you get paid 4 months later from some trust fund. Those suck.

 

The union scale was so low it was a farce.

 

The disparity among unions is enormous. The scale in some cities is really high, in others it's less than what you would make if it was non-union.

[B3bluesman59]

I've been in the musician's Union for 25+ years. It works very well....... for about 5% of it's members. For the other 95 percent, it's a bit of a Ponzi Scheme

_________________________________________________________________

While the AF of M does have problems they also offer many good things for members such as: Very low rates for liability insurance (I pay $250 per year for a $2 million dollar policy...I do many upscale country clubs and venues and must have the insurance)and very low rates for instrument insurance. Some locals have health and dental insurance plans and the national union has a credit card program to help musicians get a card...also a home mortgage program...and other things of this nature that the average member can take advantage of. Most locals that I know about also have special low initiation fees to attract new members. The union even with its faults is better than no union at all. Check it out for yourself and see what your local has to offer.

[Cygnus64]

The union even with its faults is better than no union at all. .

 

I'm an idealist, and I would prefer fixing the system to accepting the flawed one that exists. I've been in 10 locals. Sometimes I have to be in 2-3 at the same time.

 

Very low rates for liability insurance (I pay $250 per year for a $2 million dollar policy...I do many upscale country clubs and venues and must have the insurance)

 

I've never heard of this, why is that? I play plenty of upscale country clubs too. Are you the leader of a large band or something?

 

and very low rates for instrument insurance. Some locals have health and dental insurance plans and the national union has a credit card program to help musicians get a card...also a home mortgage program...and other things of this nature that the average member can take advantage of.

 

None of these really apply to me. My instrument insurance is cheaper with someone else.

 

My main problem with the union has always been a lack of protocol as to who gets what gig. Basically it goes to Suzy Asskisser, and often the union board members take them for themselves. That's just not right, a handful of people benefit. It's been that way in any local I've been in.

[B3bluesman59]

B3bluesman59 said: Very low rates for liability insurance (I pay $250 per year for a $2 million dollar policy...I do many upscale country clubs and venues and must have the insurance)

________________________________________________________________

Cygnus64 said:I've never heard of this, why is that? I play plenty of upscale country clubs too. Are you the leader of a large band or something?

_______________________________________________________________

I am a solo act and almost every upscale venue I work including hotels, lounges, country clubs, etc require at least a $1 million dollar liability policy. In this area if you don't have the policy you don't work. Remember, this is CA, where the lawsuits come down hot and heavy...a guest bumps into your PA speaker...lawsuit. Your drummer punches out a patron at the bar and the patron sues the venue and the musicians. A keyboard topples off the stage and strikes a dancer...lawsuit. These things have all happened in CA and the big paying corporate accounts want another layer of protection on top of their own insurance. I am sure you will find this fairly common in many parts of the country. You also mentioned that your instrument insurance was "cheaper with someone else". I checked every independant insurance broker in SoCal and none was cheaper than the plan offered by the Union company. I have almost $10K insured with a $100 deductible for $94 per year. What is the name of your instrument insurance company? I would like to check them out. Thanks.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Bluesman is correct. My (now former) band was also based here in SoCal, and we actually lost a couple of potential good-paying gigs since we weren't insured. As people who all had day jobs, with live performance being our secondary income, none of us were willing to pony up for the insurance, so we couldn't play at places that required it.

[Cygnus64]

What is the name of your instrument insurance company? I would like to check them out. Thanks.

 

http://www.clarionins.com/ They specialize in strings and pro symphony instruments.

 

I am a solo act and almost every upscale venue I work including hotels, lounges, country clubs, etc require at least a $1 million dollar liability policy.

 

Wow, I've never heard of it. Then again, I'm not bringing in amps, just a fiddle and a stand. COme to think of it, I've done some as contractor where Ive hired PA systems, Keys, guitars etc. Never heard of it, that's a shame you have to do it. I would have guessed that the venue's insurance would cover it.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I would have guessed that the venue's insurance would cover it.

 

The venue's insurance does cover it. The venue, that is.

 

At least here in lawsuit-happy California, what lawyers do is sue as many people involved, and sue them separately. So while the venue might be able to get out of liability, that doesn't leave you (an outside contractor hired by the venue) protected in any way. Since the venue hired you, they could end up with a degree of liability simply by not ensuring that you're covered for such a situation before you get the gig.

 

Not every place has rules in place like this, but you can bet your patootie that any of them who've been through one suit are going to forever act n the side of caution, meaning they won't hire uninsured entertainment.

 

It sucks, but it's true.

[MikeT156]

Insurance, that's always an interesting option. I rent a U-Haul trailer to transport my equipment. I always buy U-Haul's insurance, it covers damage to the trailer, and if you buy enough insurance, it will cover the contents.....e.g. your instruments. It only applies if you get in a wreck, or if someone hits the trailer while its parked.

 

I play so infrequently anymore, I don't have insurance on my instruments. I can't afford it anyway.

 

 

Mike T.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

I play so infrequently anymore, I don't have insurance on my instruments. I can't afford it anyway.

 

Same here. When I take my Martin guitar to the studio with me, it's always a time of high anxiety. The damn guitar is worth about three times the value of the car I carry it in. If it breaks for whatever reason, I'm SOL.

[B3bluesman59]

MikeT156 said: I play so infrequently anymore, I don't have insurance on my instruments. I can't afford it anyway.

 

________________________________________________________________

I do about 75 gigs a year so with my $250 liability policy and my $94 equipment policy it comes out to less than $5 a gig. Well worth it for me. And I really have no choice anyway on the liability insurance.

[zahush76]

I wonder what Thom Yorke of Radiohead would say about all of this - considering his opinion on the whole matter of copyright, and the method he uses to distribute their music.

And you know what? I bet he's a musician and a songwriter (imagine that!). Now, how masochist is that?