BMI sues Bar

[piano39]

The article cited is totally one sided and typical of today's attitude that "music should be free". BMI is cast, once again as "the big bad giant corporation, and the club owner is just a poor "friend of the musicians" trying to eke out a living. Give me a break.

There's no detail on how and for how long BMI has attempted to get this business to pay for the music it uses to sell drinks to customers. Do they get their liquor for free? How about table cloths, janitor service?? Do they expect Sysco to deliver food at no cost for them to serve?

Why is it, in every other thread around here, club owners are scorned, until they are cheating songwriters. Writers are musicians too, and they have to have some way to earn a living, especially when each passing day brings another assault on their hope to put food on the table.

I've seen threads here that detail how often a band is expected to "play for free" for charity or exposure, and everyone piles on. But when it's songwriters getting screwed by Napster/Limewire/Pandora/etc., suddenly it's "screw you, leave my internet alone".

If a club owner doesn't want to pay for music, then don't have music.

 

I am not saying that "music should be free", I am saying that the politicians have spiked the system in favor of corporations. I welcome the idea of songwriters getting royalties for a reasonable amount of time (say 25 years), but this system where the copyright virtually never expires is not right. (There are a lot of laws that systemize unethical or unfair behavior).

 

The irony is that the current system is not only harming songwriters, it is harming performing musicians. There are two restaurants in my neighborhood that shut down live music because they can't afford (they say) to pay the ASCAP taxes. I lost my best gig because of this.

[Joe Muscara]

I've been an ASCAP registered artist for something like 20 years. I play my original tunes in bands in venues in my area pretty often. These venues are all paying the ASCAP payola, this region is notorious for having a very aggressive ASCAP enforcer. Not to brag, but I am probably one of the harder working musos in my area, playing original material. I've even had other local bands cover my tunes and play them in local venues, with my blessing, of course. So, in those 20 years of playing my ASCAP protected tunes in ASCAP paying venues several times per month, have I received a penny from ASCAP for my tunes being played? You can probably guess the answer to that one.

Have you tried using ASCAP OnStage? It's supposed to let you tell them when your songs have been performed, and get paid for them. BMI has something similar. I know BMI has a mobile app to enter the songs, I'll bet ASCAP does as well.

 

http://www.ascap.com/onstage/

[Pa Gherkin]

 

 

The irony is that the current system is not only harming songwriters, it is harming performing musicians. There are two restaurants in my neighborhood that shut down live music because they can't afford (they say) to pay the ASCAP taxes. I lost my best gig because of this.

 

Exactly,and the strongarm tactics appear to be on the upswing throughout the country. The average working musician will take it in the shorts as a result while all but the highest level songwriters will still recieve a pittance or nothing. As far as circumventing these organizations,how does that apply to someone whose bread and butter is live gigs as they watch venue after venue give up on live music as a result of this harassment? BMI/ASCAP suing small venues for large amounts means less or no work for the average musician. I'm all for fair compensation for successful songwriters,but how to achieve that without putting the lower or mid level performer out of business is the conundrum. When the farm teams dry up the big leagues that recruit from them will be soon to follow. Then who has won? "Let them eat cake"indeed. Talk about an assault on one's hope to put food on the table.

 

BTW,"Music should be free" is not a phrase in my personal lexicon and many club owners are far from being my favorite people. I'm simply concerned for the mid and lower level performers who are skilled,hard working folks who are being hosed by this phenomenon. I sincerely wish I had the definitive cure that would allow the little guy to work and the big guy to enjoy the copious fruits of his labors.

 

As an aside,I wonder if this kind of thing had been going on in the early 60's if the Beatles might have gone nowhere without places to perform their Chuck Berry or Little Richard covers? We would all have been the poorer for that.

[Bridog6996]

As an aside,I wonder if this kind of thing had been going on in the early 60's if the Beatles might have gone nowhere without places to perform their Chuck Berry or Little Richard covers? We would all have been the poorer for that.

 

It was going on then. ASCAP has been around since 1914, SESAC since 1930, and BMI since 1939. Interestingly, BMI was founded by the National Association of Broadcasters for the very same reasons being discussed in this thread. They were tired of being shaken down by ASCAP. Ironic, right?

[RABid]

... After 40 tears of playing classic rock, ...

 

Freudian slip?

 

[RetroVintageOld]

" I admit I have sympathy for the little

coffee house that wants a weekly open

mic night, and gets hit up by the PROs

based on total seating and 6 nights a

week. I've heard of that, but fortunately

not locally, and hopefully that's not

typical."

 

In my area one large bar was sued and three smaller venues stopped music. A music scene is a connected thing. There is no way to target one venue without hurting all the players. The sad thing is its mostly the people starting out who are having trouble finding places to play. The places that do pay fees hire smaller acts now.

[JeffLearman]

I am not saying that "music should be free", I am saying that the politicians have spiked the system in favor of corporations. I welcome the idea of songwriters getting royalties for a reasonable amount of time (say 25 years)

Why that limit? That's lower than it's ever been in US history. 25 years seems arbitrarily self-serving to musicians who want to be able to play stuff for free. IMHO, Led Zep still deserves the rewards for stuff they did 30 and 40 years ago.

 

but this system where the copyright virtually never expires is not right. (There are a lot of laws that systemize unethical or unfair behavior).

I agree. There needs to be a reasonable middle ground.

 

Have you tried using ASCAP OnStage? It's supposed to let you tell them when your songs have been performed, and get paid for them. BMI has something similar. I know BMI has a mobile app to enter the songs, I'll bet ASCAP does as well.

 

http://www.ascap.com/onstage/

I don't see much value in that. For it to be very useful, a songwriter has to notice their song being played in every venue and note it.

 

I'd rather see an app that allows the venue to characterize what's played there, so that the venue's revenues go towards the actual songwriters. A mobile app would be a great idea. But as I said, I don't see that there'd be enough incentive for venue managers to bother with it.

[Ken Beaumont]

It doesn't help when a politician personally gains from extending copyright.

 

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

 

"The Walt Disney Company lobbied extensively on behalf of the Act, which delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse movies, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". In addition to Disney, California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor), and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:

 

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... "

 

Originally copyright was 28 years, in 1976 it was raised to 50, now its 75 years after the death of the copyright holder.

 

Every time the Disney Corporation was in danger of losing their rights to steam boat willie (Mickey Mouse) they pay off congress to extend it. Which is rich since the Disney Corporation made millions off of public domain fairy tales.

 

[JeffLearman]

Yup. It's a shame. I don't have an issue with Disney keeping Mickey forever, but I resent that they do it at the cost of NOTHING ever going public-domain again (without being explicitly marked or transferred to public domain by the copyright holder.)

 

If you're interested in this issue, support the guy who created "Creative Commons" copyright labels. I think his approach won't quite work, but at least he's trying, and my guess is that a compromise from his suggestion could work. IIRC, he suggests allowing copyrights to be extended on a per-copyright filing basis -- the same way it used to be, only allowing it perpetually, filing every 10 or 20 years. Disney won't go for this because they'd have to file thousands and thousands of copyright extensions, and run the risk of missing some. I don't weep for Disney over this, but I respect their congressional clout.

[Joe Muscara]

Have you tried using ASCAP OnStage? It's supposed to let you tell them when your songs have been performed, and get paid for them. BMI has something similar. I know BMI has a mobile app to enter the songs, I'll bet ASCAP does as well.

 

http://www.ascap.com/onstage/

I don't see much value in that. For it to be very useful, a songwriter has to notice their song being played in every venue and note it.

The point of these kinds of things is to tell the PRO that your song has been performed, usually by you.

[piano39]

" I admit I have sympathy for the little

coffee house that wants a weekly open

mic night, and gets hit up by the PROs

based on total seating and 6 nights a

week. I've heard of that, but fortunately

not locally, and hopefully that's not

typical."

 

In my area one large bar was sued and three smaller venues stopped music. A music scene is a connected thing. There is no way to target one venue without hurting all the players. The sad thing is its mostly the people starting out who are having trouble finding places to play. The places that do pay fees hire smaller acts now.

 

That is exactly what happens. One bar/ restaurant gets hit. That bar/ restaurant owner now has an incentive to turn in his competition. Or else, it is just word of mouth. In any event, once BMI or ASCAP goes after one area restaurant, others stop offering live music.

[piano39]

It doesn't help when a politician personally gains from extending copyright.

 

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

 

"The Walt Disney Company lobbied extensively on behalf of the Act, which delayed the entry into the public domain of the earliest Mickey Mouse movies, leading to the nickname "The Mickey Mouse Protection Act". In addition to Disney, California congresswoman Mary Bono (Sonny Bono's widow and Congressional successor), and the estate of composer George Gershwin supported the act. Mary Bono, speaking on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, said:

 

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ... "

 

Originally copyright was 28 years, in 1976 it was raised to 50, now its 75 years after the death of the copyright holder.

 

Every time the Disney Corporation was in danger of losing their rights to steam boat willie (Mickey Mouse) they pay off congress to extend it. Which is rich since the Disney Corporation made millions off of public domain fairy tales.

 

This is very well stated.

[Markay]

Here in Australia the venue operator is up for 2.2% of what is paid to the performer. The venue operator is meant to provide setlists but I am not sure that all set lists are provided and I always wonder whether the money finds its way back to all songwriters or just gets distributed to those who wrote the most often covered songs.

 

Despite the malaise in the live music scene I don't think the songwriters should be expected to forego the very small amount they receive from live performance. 2.2% of the 1990 rates currently paid by most venues to bands is not going to send a viable bar out of business.

[ProfD]

In order to ger around copyright issues, replace "Freebird", "Mustang Sally" and "Brown-Eyed Girl" with "Turkey in the Straw", "Old Grey Mare" and "Jeanie With The Light Brown Hair".

[piano39]

In order to ger around copyright issues, replace "Freebird", "Mustang Sally" and "Brown-Eyed Girl" with "Turkey in the Straw", "Old Grey Mare" and "Jeanie With The Light Brown Hair".

 

Hey ProfD- your secret is now out. Your forum name is really a code for "Public Domain"

[Pa Gherkin]

As an aside,I wonder if this kind of thing had been going on in the early 60's if the Beatles might have gone nowhere without places to perform their Chuck Berry or Little Richard covers? We would all have been the poorer for that.

 

It was going on then. ASCAP has been around since 1914, SESAC since 1930, and BMI since 1939. Interestingly, BMI was founded by the National Association of Broadcasters for the very same reasons being discussed in this thread. They were tired of being shaken down by ASCAP. Ironic, right?

 

Absolutely cruel irony. I was aware of the longevity of these organizations but I'd be interested to know if they were initiating big money lawsuits against small venues in the early 60's like they are now. In over 40 years of gigging ,a fair amount of it in smaller clubs,I only saw one club owner approached and that was by ASCAP around 1976. Club owner decided the bands should bear the expense and cut the bands' pay accordingly. Stinko.

[J. Dan]

Regardless of all the side conversations that typically come up when these topics are discussed, I think one thing that should be pretty obvious in this case is that the amount they're suing them for is unreasonably high. For sure, if they didn't pay the fees, they should be fined or liable for something, but not $1.5 Million for a few songs played once. Maybe take their income for that night, or something.

[CEB]

Lawyers, guns and money.......

 

Music distribution has changed so much over the last 25 years I have no idea what the current business model is or should be.

[Brettymike]

^^^ I can tell you now , you don't roll over and die and shut shop on live music because some woman comes in wanting to sell a piece of paper for $3000.

(I would bet money business wasn't going well, and he used it as a "last straw excuse" to shut the doors blaming it on BMI fees).

 

Brett

[Brettymike]

....Owner should have done a "down trou" and shown her the back door.

 

Brett

[Bridog6996]

Regardless of all the side conversations that typically come up when these topics are discussed, I think one thing that should be pretty obvious in this case is that the amount they're suing them for is unreasonably high. For sure, if they didn't pay the fees, they should be fined or liable for something, but not $1.5 Million for a few songs played once. Maybe take their income for that night, or something.

 

Even if they win the case, it's extremely unlikely that BMI would be rewarded anywhere near that amount, but you always shoot for the moon in a lawsuit. It probably won't even go to court, honestly. In this case they probably sought a preposterous amount simply to send a message. Clearly it was enough to make headlines, so mission accomplished. 6 months from now, nobody's gonna be reporting on how they settled out of court for practically nothing. All anyone will remember is that some bar got "sued for 1.5 million," and BMI looks like a tough bunch of SOBs not to be messed with.

[Bridog6996]

I also would tend to think there is some backstory here, by the way. A PRO isn't going to go from zero to lawsuit right off the jump. I'm willing to bet the farm that this venue ignored BMI's warnings to pay their licensing on multiple occasions, and at a certain point, you have no choice but to call in the lawyers and escalate the situation. Asking for $1.5 million is definitely overkill, but I'm sure it's more about the message than the amount.

[Bill Spencer]

Yes, Nathan.

[JeffLearman]

I don't see much value in that. For it to be very useful, a songwriter has to notice their song being played in every venue and note it.

The point of these kinds of things is to tell the PRO that your song has been performed, usually by you.

Yeah, that's the truly silly part. If you're being paid to play your tunes, IMHO it's unprofessional to hit the venue up AGAIN to pay YOU royalties for playing YOUR song. (I admit I'm wrong, since it's the trade practice, but it just seems niggling.)

 

Seriously: as a songwriter I'd want the PROs to pay me for when someone else uses my material, and not to pay me a piddling amount when I play it myself.

 

What are the royalty amounts we're talking about here, for one song? It should be tiny compared to the charge for the gig. Maybe it adds up over a year to a nice little bonus, but frankly, this is NOT what I'd want a PRO doing for me. If I need an extra $50 per gig to cover my charge for playing my own tunes, I should just include that in what I charge the venue. Sheesh.

[NewImprov]

I don't see much value in that. For it to be very useful, a songwriter has to notice their song being played in every venue and note it.

The point of these kinds of things is to tell the PRO that your song has been performed, usually by you.

Yeah, that's the truly silly part. If you're being paid to play your tunes, IMHO it's unprofessional to hit the venue up AGAIN to pay YOU royalties for playing YOUR song. (I admit I'm wrong, since it's the trade practice, but it just seems niggling.)

 

Seriously: as a songwriter I'd want the PROs to pay me for when someone else uses my material, and not to pay me a piddling amount when I play it myself.

 

What are the royalty amounts we're talking about here, for one song? It should be tiny compared to the charge for the gig. Maybe it adds up over a year to a nice little bonus, but frankly, this is NOT what I'd want a PRO doing for me. If I need an extra $50 per gig to cover my charge for playing my own tunes, I should just include that in what I charge the venue. Sheesh.

 

From the way I understand it, the venue is paying a monthly fee no matter what gets played, this is just so that the songwriter/publisher can get their miniscule cut of that.

[JeffLearman]

Right -- unless they're not paying their fees. Already reported on an older thread here was a case where someone played a gig with all originals, and the venue complained later when they got hit up by the PRO for the fees. But no doubt that's for a venue that normally doesn't pay fees for cover music, and so it's probably a corner case, and so my objection doesn't really hold.

[B3bluesman59]

New&Improv said: From the way I understand it, the venue is paying a monthly fee no matter what gets played, this is just so that the songwriter/publisher can get their miniscule cut of that.

_________________________________________________________________I owned a live music club in the 70s and paid BMI fees. I was never contacted by ASCAP or SESAC. The rate was based on the size of the club and included any and all BMI licensed music. I can't remember how much I paid each month but it was very small in relation to the business gross. These fees certainly are not going to put any legit venue out of business. And these fees do contribute income to the BMI songwriters.

[Ken Beaumont]

These fees certainly are not going to put any legit venue out of business. And these fees do contribute income to the BMI songwriters.

 

So what is your definition of legitimate? A club struggling in a bad economy is that illegitimate? So going by this logic, would a credit card company charging fees for things its not entitled to charge for be okay if it were small and contributed to the income of its stockholders?

 

What if the originals where written by buy someone not on the BMI payroll. So who's getting paid for his or her work?

 

[Steve Nathan]

What if the originals where written by buy someone not on the BMI payroll. So who's getting paid for his or her work?

 

BMI fees only cover songs by BMI writers. Just because ASCAP and SESAC had not gotten to this club does not mean that BMI is collecting for all of them, only their own members.

 

So what is your definition of legitimate? A club struggling in a bad economy is that illegitimate? So going by this logic, would a credit card company charging fees for things its not entitled to charge for be okay if it were small and contributed to the income of its stockholders?

 

I don't get what you're saying here at all. How does a bad economy mean it's OK to cheat some folks but not others? Whadaya say we all look the other way while a club owner breaks into Guitar Center and steals a PA. Then he'll have more money for me. Who cares. There just another "Big Corporation" They already have more money than I. think they're entitled to.

And just exactly how is this "charging fees for things it's not entitled to"?? The PROs charge for the use of their members property. That's it. You can argue about the system, and it's need for modernization, but the premise is still sound.

And for the record, songwriters are not stockholders.

 

It's amazing to me how many musician's, when presented with a club owner who basically says "either I screw them or I screw you", say f**k the songwriter, I want the gig. It's the only time I ever hear musician sympathy for the same person they bitch about endlessly in every other thread.

[Ken Beaumont]

My question regards charging clubs that play originals from the previous post statement:

 

From the way I understand it, the venue is paying a monthly fee no matter what gets played

 

My line questions is solely in regards to that. So does BMI have the right to charge fees to a club who only hires a non BMI artist? Clubs are to told to pay 'just to be safe', is really protection they are forcing on the club owners then?

 

A lot of this also comes from the guitarist in my band who used to run his own bistro and told me he played his own songs a few times at his own establishment yet ended up playing BMG fees anyway to keep them off his back. He said he did so because the bar down the street from him got sued and they hadn't had anyone other than a karaoke DJ play there ever.

 

This has nothing to do with screw the songwriter, and everything to with ham fisted enforcement and taking money your not entitled to.