Vancouver Train System To Charge Buskers Huge Fees To Play In Stations
from the gotta-pay-to-busk? dept
We were troubled last month by reports that SOCAN, a music collection society up in Canada, was looking to get buskers (street performers) to pay performance fees. Now more details are coming out on this story. It really involves TransLink, the Vancouver-area transit authority, and SOCAN, with SOCAN demanding a lot more money from TransLink. Apparently, TransLink quickly caved and agreed to a massive increase in fees, which it is immediately dumping on the buskers themselves -- even though most "venues" cover any such fees themselves. It turns out that Buskers in TransLink stations already had to pay $75/year -- but now if they want to play during the Olympics, that will be a separate $50 fee just for the Olympics, and the new annual fee will probably be around $300. For busking. I wonder what they want to charge you for humming or singing along?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: busking, fees, music, olympics, vancouver
Companies: socan
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
wonder if..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wonder if..
And the IOC wonders why people are beginning to hate the Olympics more and more.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: wonder if..
...just thought it was worth mentioning.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Personally, I suspect this has to do with cost overruns on the Olympic Village. The federal government has capped the amount they are willing to subsidize it, and since the financing from the American firm fell out last year, the city of Vancouver has got to be looking at that and thinking, 'geez - how the hell are we going to pay for all this?.'
Having said that, it's interesting to see all the preparations going on. Temporary structures are sprouting up all over the place. The new Skytrain is awesome. Large pedestrian barricades appeared around the stadium last week. And I just got my tix to INXS :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lots of related questions...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
more widespread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
If you are not using SOCAN's member's materials then you should not be obligated to pay them a dime.
SOCAN job is to collect the licensing fee for their member's copyrighted material. If the buskers do not use their material how can TransLink extort this fee from them?
I can see TransLink asking busker for a fee but there is no way TransLink should just automatically hand money over to SOCAN.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, this has nothing to do with the IOC. Most businesses and agencies within an Olympic city try to take advantage of the situation and overcharge for everything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not all bad
"We want to provide an enjoyable experience for people if they have to wait a bit longer during the Games," said Translink spokeswoman Judy Rudin.
They are getting very cheap entertainment for travelers they know will need it during expected delays during service.
This is not your typical busking environment. You are basically hired, ok you audition for this gig. The problem is that they are not hiring these people but just basically letting their own customers pay for it. Smart on their behalf, but if they are auditioning people for this, the least they could do is eat the $880 dollars they have to pay SOCAN.
Hopefully the tips these performers will more than outweigh the license fee they have to pay. The fee has less to do with recouping the license fee and more to do with trying to add value to the license. That said, the smart thing would have been to not raise the fees, take the cheap entertainment and everybody wins.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Olympics not good for the city
Now, there are numerous dead, or dying, trees all over the city. At least we don't have all those poor tree roots to blame for our crumbling water and sewer systems.
The ONLY thing that I can think of that helped was the money shovelled into traffic cameras and roadway sensors. At least I can look at an interactive map to see how backed up my commute is ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I used to have a positive view of the Olympics
Now, I just have a negative view of everything Olympics-related.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Unless you are making money from it, nothing. Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.
Buskers are making a living off of performing music, mostly other people's music. Why should they get a free ride, when if they perform in a night club, there would be fees?
As for the facility paying the fee, it is pretty much the same here. The rent for space has gone up in accordance with costs. Clubs do the same thing, just showing it differently, perhaps paying a band $100 less a night, or claiming the first 30 ticket sales as "rent".
The real world is very different from 2 minutes at a white board, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: wonder if..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It is pretty much impossible to monitor each performance and figure out what is what (considering the costs involved).
How much does it cost? Even if the 100% of the $300 went to fees, which it does not, it would be about $1 per day (5 day week, plus some weekends if you so desire). play 10 songs an hour, play for 4 or 5 hours... say 50 songs. Net cost, 2 cents per song.
in the end, the amount is so little as to be laughable. If they can't busker up 2 cents a song average, perhaps it's time to stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
What if I put together an organization that charged $0.83 a day to everyone in the world in case they were profiting from my music? How do I know they aren't? How do I know you aren't at work right now singing a song I wrote and your co-workers aren't tipping you for it? Better to be safe than sorry, right? It's a laughable amount, so you should pay right up, right?
The truth of the matter is that I'm not even trying to be an ass right now. I remember what it's like playing for my supper and it wasn't fun. That's why I'm not a full time musician. I feel bad for the guys out there busting their hump and paying for their "stage" (which I don't see a problem with), then on top of that having to pay some unrelated company for the privileged of playing music they created. It shouldn't matter how small and laughable the actual amount is, it's the principle. It's the fact that someone who had nothing to do with the music at all gets to collect money on it from the people who wrote and performed it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
thats like saying the people who buy the computers i build and sell to them should pay me a monthly fee to use the computer i built. after all like a musician i usually dont make much profit from them at all. those people are using "my" computer.
heres a better solution: buskers could pay a one time fee directly to the artist. the artists decide how much they want verses how much they want their music heard. then everyone leaves them alone. this works because how do i know that the person who buys my computer wont make money with it?
people keep trying to compare IP with physical proprty, yet the ip people themselves dont realize that it's like comparing apples to oranges. i.e.: i (or a musician) build(s) a computer (makes a song) i (or the artist) use individual parts (individual words and notes) and made by others to create something. i pay for the parts (the artist does not) i charge once for unlimited use (the labels charge multiple times for each use). i receive my money based on time and cost of the build (the label gets paid on someone elses time and cost of creation multiple times for each use, gives little to the artist)
now, if someone steals what i made i no longer have access to it. I (and only i) press charges, pay the appropriate legal fees and get compensated for what was actually stolen. someone "steals" music from the artist by playing said song, the artist still has access to it, but the labels sue the "thief" for much more than the actual value of said song or any "losses" suffered. if anything the labels stand to make more when people like a song a busker plays then buy the song they heard. as is, labels are squandering their support and resources with obsolete business models by pissing off their potential customers
p.s. making a sarcastic comment after you criticize mike for making one is very hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@compgeek
If I am going to busk or even perform at small clubs, I should be able to contract only with people whoes songs I cover.
I would prefer this, that way I am not subsidizing the current crop of Autotune "Songwriters" and other "popular" artists that I would choose not to support.
When I do covers, they tend to be from independent artists. These people are never going to see a cent from ASCAP, SOCAN and the like. Why? Because in the formula, nobody listens to their music so in the formula, they don't get paid.
Of course the reality of personally contracting with each person whose songs I cover is horrible as well. The only solution, that is just as open to corruption as the current system is to have any ASCAP paying venue require that artists submit a playlist from a set.
But the real issue on this article is muddied by the involvement of SOCAN. While it is not unreasonable to pay a fee to a venue such as this for the return you will get in return, it is stupid, when the TransLink people could have done better in good will, than they will get in fees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The real world? You mean the one where you'd like to ". . . close down the internet, and inspect every computer system attached to see who has the file. Then we charge the infringer $10 per copy, with no upper limit."
That real world?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Irony
Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"
As much time as you spend here Mr. The Anti-Mike ....
I would think that you would remember the story about the lady who was singing while restocking shelves at some store ...
I guess that is asking too much
Please continue with your baseless demeaning attacks
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not true. If it's a "public performance", you pay.
Your comment is sarcastic as heck, and really adds nothing to the discussion.
Your lies really add nothing worthwhile to the discussion.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Pay up.
Should they (we) be charged as well?
Should? I would say no, but you would be anyway. Welcome the world of TAM and his ilk.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The formula system is as accurate as polls are.... And it has gotten much worse as more and more performers chose to go independent.
Using a formula based on guesswork and making everybody pay whether they actually use it or not no longer cuts it. The music business is growing up; it isn't a company store anymore.
Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The cost to account for every song played in every busker spot in every skylink station on every day of the week for the 18+ hours per day that each station is open would be overwhelming, and would take those $300 fees and probably turn them into thousands of dollars, with most of the money going to adminstration, not to artists (which is the gripe Mike tends to hit here).
Your argument is like a cel phone provider saying: we're going to use our formula to guess how much air time you use and we'll bill you accordingly. Wait... you say... but I don't HAVE a cel phone... Too bad, everybody pays.
The system works by licensing an establishment, not by licensing individual performances. There are X number of spaces, Y number of buskers, etc. Anyone who doesn't get a busker permit for the skyway isn't obligated to pay anything. They don't have a cel (sic) phone, they aren't paying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @compgeek
It also means that you would have to negotiate a legal contract with each of the individual song owners, which would cost your hundreds of dollars per document to do properly (with a lawyer). Every time you appeared in a club, you would also have to negotiate a music rights fee with them, as they may be on a different system than you are on. Potentially, they would have to contact their system and negotiate an exception, or pay some sort of penalty. They could be obligated to keep a list of every act that appeared, every song they played, and every one of them that claims self-created payment contacts with the original song writers. You might be obligated to provide them with notarized documents before you could play, so as to limit their liabilty if you are lying.
The costs to do it far exceed the benefit for anyone in the system, making the lawyers rich, and creating employment for plenty of paper pushers. It wouldn't get an extra cent to the musicians, and would probably take a ton of money out of your pocket.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then, they went to "acceptable" buskers, I assume for attitude, cleanness and so on so they would be acceptable to the office worker types going to and from their glass towers in downtown Vancouver. Muzak with a guitar case.
And now SOCAN blows in wanting thier cut of the Olympic gold.
Back to the sidewalk guys! It's safer out there if you wanna make some pittance from playing music.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Problem is, not many buskers are gonna be in a Skytrain (not skylink) station for 18+ hours a day. In fact licensed buskers are limited to how much time they can play in the location they're licensed to play in.
Of course, the greatest traffic is between 5 and 9:30am and 3:30 and 7pm as Skytrain exists soley to feed people in and out of Vancouver's downtown core. (The reason for this is geographic as much as anything as downtown is located on a penninsula.)
There may be other times when the stations are busy such as NHL and CFL games and special events downtown otherwise a busker in a station is more likely to be playing to the insects and rodents running around than a human being. Audience = ~0 most of those 18+ hours, therefore.
Now tell me, how many buskers will be there during those times instead of out on the sidewalks where passers by can toss coins into (or at) the guitar case.
And just how does SOCAN (or anyone else) account for this?
It might work for the Yale but I'm pretty sure it needs a whole new set of calculations for places like Skytrain stations.
ttfn
John
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: busker royalities
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @compgeek
WHAT YOU'RE DESRCIBING IS THE SYSTEM WE HAVE NOW!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: @compgeek
Anyway, in the end, I sort of object to this post because Mike seems to think that renting space to Buskers at about $1 a day is a "huge fee". I would hate to think of what he would think of a hotel room price in New York.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @compgeek
"We cannot figure out exactly who needs to pay what, so we need to make everyone pay".
It is stunning to think anyone actually logically agrees that this is reasonable. These collection groups are making money because they claim to be doing the work of collecting the money and handing it out to the appropriate songwriters. If they cannot even start by accounting for who should get paid and who should be paying it, why do we need them?
I agree that it is completely unreasonable to add the overhead to this system to actually determine who is singing original music and who should be paying up. The problem, however, is the system and it should not be solved by making a bunch of people pay up who really owe nothing.
This is simply a tax on being a performer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @compgeek
blah blah blah
I have a better proposal: get rid of it all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @compgeek
Almost a nice quote there TAM, I just added the appropriate piece to the front, and now it makes more sense in 'the real world'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
!!!
In the first place, the very idea of charging buskers royalties is insane. Buskers survive on donations. They can put on a show and not make a nickel.
In the second place, charging buskers for royalty charges they did not incur is obscene.
When is SOCAN going to start charging royalties on private homes? OMG someone might be singing one of the songs they represent. (Or even one of the songs belonging to someone they DON'T represent. Because they collect those royalties too.)
The people who actually create the music benefit the least from these ridiculous extensions of "copyright". The janitor at SOCAN has a better income from the music industry than most Canadian recording artists. Most Canadian recording artists don't want this kind of stuff to happen. Musicians and songwriters (with perhaps the exception of Bono) are some of the most generous people on the planet. They encourage and do their best to help out other artists.
They sure don't want to put other artists out of business. More important to them than the pittance allotted by copyright collectives such as SOCAN is to have their music disseminated.
If copyright Collectives want to collect royalties they need to monitor the performances PROPERLY. That's part of the cost of doing business. If it is too expensive a real business would decide that the cost is higher than any potential benefits. And not do it. But copyright collectives aren't real businesses. They simply profit disproportionately from the actual work of overs.
(Read about SOCAN's secret copyright submission )
If SOCAN can't actually work out who should REALLY be paid they should not be collecting anything. Anything at all.
Collecting royalties that are not incurred is theft. A far more serious (criminal even) offense than copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WOW nyc is NOT like that
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Check it out
www.buskingthesystem.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]