BMI sues Bar

[Steve Nathan]

A lot of this also comes from the guitarist in my band who used to run his own bistro

 

Am I to believe he had no background music? No radio/CD player/jukebox/Pandora on his phone plugged into a sound system?? I've never been to a restaurant, club, bistro, whatever where there wasn't music playing, to enhance the ambiance at the very least, in order to make the place more appealing and sell more food/beverage/coffee/doughnuts whatever.

This is some of the music that so many seem to feel should be "free".

[Ken Beaumont]

There is separate licensing for jukeboxes vs live performance.

 

There is a price difference. Also by law if the radio is playing background music in the background a license is not required because its covered by the broadcaster. Which is why many restaurants under 2000 sq feet and supermarkets just have a local FM station playing. And if over 2000 sq ft as long they use no more than 6 speakers!

 

Then there is the fact that while BMI has the majority of main stream music, ASCAP and SEACAP also require licenses.

 

Their reps read the local newspapers, looking for bars and restaurants that offer music. The rep goes to the bar/restaurant/theater, pretending to be a customer. The rep writes down every song played. If there's an infringing song, you get a legal threat letter from BMI/ASCAP/SEACAP

 

They are paid on commission, as a % of extortion money collected. This gives the BMI/ASCAP/SEACAP rep an incentive to act excessively aggressively. I wonder if the reps lie, saying you played a copyrighted song when you actually didn't?

 

The racket relies on the fact that most victims settle without trial. Otherwise, the legal system would be flooded with lots of cases. If they had to individually sue every victim, there would be no way that the legal system could handle all those cases. Thus the big amounts they sue for so that they can scare small businesses into paying.

 

[B3bluesman59]

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?

_________________________________________________________________Here's the simple answer...if artists in a music club are not playing any copyrighted material the club does not have to pay BMI, ASSCAP, or SESAC any fees. If artists play copyrighted material the club pays a license fee. You cannot use any copyrighted music material to make a profit...that includes using a huge sound system playing CDs, mp3, whatever....even karaoke music. I'm not sure how the contracts read today but in the 70s my club could have ONE radio playing music but that radio could not be amplified by another sound system. No one is forcing any club owner to buy anything....unless they are using copyrighted material owned by someone else.

[Ken Beaumont]

It doesn't work that way in reality, the reps use fear and intimidation to get you pay. Also there is a lot of confusion by owners on which licensing agency to pay. Which makes a club paying and ASCAP license think he doesn't have to pay BMI too.

 

Also in many (most?) cases the money for the license doesn't even go to writer of the songs performed.

[B3bluesman59]

The money goes to whoever owns the music. Period. If you don't use any copyrighted music in your business you don't have to pay. But that is almost impossible if you are hiring musicians to entertain....because unless every song they play is one that they have written and own or is a song in the public domain, it probably belongs to ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. So as a club owner you just charge up the licensing fee(s) as another item of overhead. And I will say again, in over 40 years in the music business which includes working in and owning a radio station, owning a large live music club, playing in many bands and working as a solo act, promoting concerts and dances, and spending over 23 years with a major record label in Hollywood....I have never seen a venue go out of business because they could not afford to pay music licensing fees.

[J. Dan]

A lot of different issues being discussed here. When it comes to digital media - whether a jukebox, or played by a DJ, or streamed from a service - that TYPE of media should be VERY easy to track plays, report, and pay the appropriate artist what they're due, as opposed to the few top artists. I'm not a big government guy, and I hope this doesn't go political, but IMHO, that is the sort of area where government could have a role. Instead of each of the PRO's bending them over for whatever fee based on some formula, a regulatory agency could give a REAL report of plays of songs represented by each PRO, and the fees could be based on that, and the artists could be paid based on that.

 

Of course that would not work with live artists, so a separate fee structure similar to what exists now would have to be used. OTOH, how many different bands play a particular venue per year? Around here it tends to be the same dozen or two bands. Put together their songlists, and there you go.

 

Bars should pay, I agree. I think the system of levying and distributing funds is fundamentally flawed, however.