Nice Work ASCAP: Convinces Yet Another Coffee Shop To Stop Promoting Local Bands

from the all-about-the-money dept

Thu, May 20th 2010 6:09am — Mike Masnick

We see nearly identical stories every six months or so, but Chris Curvey has sent in the latest involving the various US collection societies -- ASCAP, BMI and SESAC threatening a little coffee shop into canceling all live music, after demanding a performance license, despite the fact that the coffee shop only has local, unsigned bands playing, with a promise that they won't play any cover songs. It's the same old story that we hear over and over again. The venue insists that only unsigned bands are playing, and they're not playing ASCAP music, and ASCAP says that it doesn't matter. You need to pay up just in case a band happens to hum someone else's song:

"I am 100 percent in compliance," Hopper said. "I'm not charging cover at the door. I'm not paying the bands, and they are just playing songs they wrote. They essentially said to me, 'We don't care. We have this low-end licensing fee you must have because there is a chance your band might play a cover song.' "

This has been happening all over the country, and the end result is actually causing massive harm for up-and-coming artists. That's because these kinds of coffee shops and small bars that used to be where most musicians would get their start via open mic nights, are now banning all music to avoid having to pay these licenses. It means there are fewer places for musicians to have a chance to perform in front of a live audience. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC claiming that they're helping artists is a flat out lie. Their mission is really to support the largest acts at the expense of smaller acts, and ridiculous demands on coffee shops like the one above contributes to that situation. They even admit it at times, when you catch them talking candidly.

Some folks have been willing to stand up to these collection societies, like the town in Connecticut who received license demands for music played at the town center. In response, the town council voted to ignore the threats. But, it seems that it's just easier for most little shops to just stop playing music altogether. Of course, that goes against ASCAP's public claims of being in the interest of artists, but ASCAP and BMI have made their real goals clear through their actions, and it has little to do with actually helping up-and-coming artists. After all, they might compete with the big stars.

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: coffee shops, open mics, songwriters
Companies: ascap, bmi, sesac

215 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Big_Mike (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:11am

Why
If these things are so blatantly obvious, then why isn't someone calling them out?

I read these stories and they are written so well that I agree with them and understand your point. So why am I so smart and the people in charge so incompetent. Does it really come down to they have more money so they are right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yogi, 20 May 2010 @ 6:53am
  
  Re: Why
  It's just a question of resources. Legacy companies have very deep pockets. Small shops and individuals cannot deal with that. Even senators are easily tempted and the (idiot) president himself has been bought.
  
  There is no easy solution, except talk about and educate whoever you know and of course refrain from buying RIAA music.Just support indie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:47am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    "There is no easy solution, except talk about and educate whoever you know and of course refrain from buying RIAA music.Just support indie."
    
    Why no solution? I see a very nice solution: an owner's union. In fact, there is probably a great need to be filled for small to mid sized venues such as this that offer a place for indie artists to play music. Why couldn't they band together, pay a nominal membership fee, and fight this bullshit together.
    
    As one they may be weak, but as many....
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      DH, Dude utterly brilliant !!! and thanks
      
      nnn note/entry) an online owners union, guild, organization for the protection of small to mid sized venues from collection agencies.
      
      "I see a very nice solution: an owner's union. In fact, there is probably a great need to be filled for small to mid sized venues such as this that offer a place for indie artists to play music. Why couldn't they band together, pay a nominal membership fee, and fight this bullshit together."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Boost, 20 May 2010 @ 9:37am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      Or...here's a novel idea
      
      How about the elected officials and judges in our country try sticking up for the rights of our citzens instead of the people that pay the most towards their (re-)elections.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 11:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      *hurries to patent office to file a patent for "a guild of owners of coffe shops and other small venues for the purpose of fighting the bullshit"*
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheila T Panettiere, 17 Oct 2017 @ 12:01am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    How has our President 'been bought'? If you're going to take a cheap shot at our already beleaguered leader, at least make the effort to explain it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 6:55am
  
  Re: Why
  it is because mike is spinning them as hard as he can in one direction, typical david versus goliath stuff. you can find odd individual cases in almost any system. but mike doesnt write stories about the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living. he would rather focus on a small negative, rather than the large benefits. that is okay, that is the techdirt way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 20 May 2010 @ 6:59am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    You failed to address the topic at hand ... again.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DH's love child, 20 May 2010 @ 7:12am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    "but mike doesnt write stories about the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living"
    
    citations needed. Please elucidate us to all these stories of ASCAP/BMI looking out for ALL artists and not just the top tier.
    
    I won't be holding my breath.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Boost, 20 May 2010 @ 9:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      Kinda like how Madoff looked out for all of his investors.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i7362e28f2f885808c8c36bebc0733044
      
      By Ed Christman, N.Y.
      
      American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers collected $933 million last year, an 8% increase from the $863.3 million gathered in 2007, management of the member-owned organization announced at the annual meeting that kicked off its New York Sessions event.
      
      At the same time, payouts increased 10.2% to $817 million from the $741.3 million paid out in 2007.
      
      For the period, operating expenses came in at an all-time low of 11.3% of revenue. In the prior two years, the organization's expense ratio was 11.9% and 12.1% in 2006.
      
      But the organization added that despite its record revenue collection, it
      "anticipates challenges ahead relative to compensation for its members' music performances. Specifically, many of the businesses that are driving an explosive growth in music use across digital channels have yet to agree to fair licensing terms for the use of ASCAP members' works," the organization said in the announcement on its financials.
      
      "ASCAP worked hard in 2008 to collect and distribute the most money
      possible for hard-working songwriters, composers, lyricists and music
      publishers," said John LoFrumento, ASCAP CEO. "We also continued providing a strong slate of professional development opportunities, such as the annual ASCAP 'I Create Music' Expo, and intensified our advocacy efforts on behalf of all music creators, through initiatives like the 'Bill of Rights for Songwriters and Composers.'"
      
      But in looking ahead, LoFrumento, said, "Digital use of music is
      skyrocketing, which should be good news for all music creators. Yet to date, we have faced strong resistance on the licensing front from many digital businesses. If this continues even as digital music use explodes, music creators will have a much tougher time earning a living from making music."
      
      He said it is vital that all users of music in the online, mobile and other
      digital areas come to the table in good faith to negotiate fair licensing
      fees for music performance. He also said they must give music creators fair compensation, considering the hundreds of millions of dollars that are spent and earned annually by these digital companies.
      
      ASCAP continues to offer an array of programs and initiatives, including: "A Bill of Rights for Songwriters & Composers"; ASCAP "I Create Music" EXPO, an April 23-25 national conference in Los Angeles, dedicated to songwriting and composing; Mediaguide, which tracks broadcast and Internet radio performances via digital fingerprinting technology; PREP (Performing Rights Enterprise Program), a technology platform that gives members online
      access to ASCAP's performance and royalty distribution databases; ASCAP Network, an online music showcase delivering nearly 3 million streams a month; and MusicPro Insurance, which provides affordable instrument, studio and tour insurance coverage to thousands of music professionals, regardless of performing rights organization affiliation.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Killer_Tofu (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 12:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Your quoted article offers absolutely nothing in the way of how much of that money distributed goes to the small artists.
        We have seen articles before that directly state that most of the money collected goes towards just the top few. So they could collect an increase of 200% more than they do now, and they will still be assholes screwing over all the little people and only focusing that money to the rich few on top.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        thank you for posting that ASCAP stuff
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:47am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything.
      he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, and creatively looking for ways to twist truth into his favor.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Freedom, 20 May 2010 @ 11:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        >> nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything.
        
        Wow! I've never gotten that out of anything MM has said. My impression is MM is for innovation and removing road blocks whenever possible and challenging the core assumptions that those roadblocks currently in place do more good than harm.
        
        He always promotes competition and fair markets over excess government/political controls.
        
        The folks that are for protectism believe there is no real world externalities involved in their policies that they force on us. He just highlights the side-effects caused by those trying to protect their turf.
        
        Freedom
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        The world of TAM, where advocating against government granted monopolies is "anti-capitalist."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:30pm
        
        nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
        yep,
        
        but he can still change, and get better at reading and writing.. if he wishes techdirt do be a serious policy forum
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:30am
        
        Re: nah, its just the Masnick way. he hates big business. he is anti-capitalist, and pro free everything. he cant report, he always spins. there isnt an ounce of objectivity in his writing. all his articles are laced with his opinion, ..........
        Look who's talking about reading and writing difficulties.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 11:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Agenda! Piggybacking! Socialism! Wharrgarbl!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      My grandma still gets royalty checks from ASCAP. I'm pretty sure neither she nor my late grandpa would fit your definition of the "top tier."
      
      Techdirt is a blog (or whatever you'd like to call it) from an author with a certain viewpoint, for readers with a certain viewpoint. This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:32pm
        
        This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        too bad , it would be nice ,,probably make mike more $$ too!!!
        
        , lets keep posting , and keep mike honest
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:15pm
        
        Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        How? By presenting your own bias?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Groove Tiger (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 11:55pm
        
        Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        What he means is that Mike is biased the wrong way, while they are biased in the "right" way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        If one person argues one position, and another argues the opposing position, that's a pretty good way to keep people honest. People seeking the truth (as opposed to support for the previously held views) can look at both sides and make up their mind.
        
        Otherwise, you just get an echo-chamber where nobody questions the commonly-held viewpoint (e.g., freerepublic.com).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jim_Nance (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        Rick Rubin came up with a sensible, practical solution. If all music users paid a modest fee and then had access to all music both new and classic, the boodle could be shared with all artists whose music is downloaded, played on juke boxes, TV and radio. (and shared with the sticky fingered corporate swindlers too, of course)
        
        Record company royalty would have to rethink their inflated sense of entitlement, and instead of making bazillions on a few hits they'd have to share with artists as old as The Zombies and Bill Haley, and not just their chicken hawk A&R in-laws and their new boy band stars.
        
        Rubin wants to see those record companies' palaces razed to rubble, and he (and others including yours truly) would like to see a truly equitable split of the loot. Especially after the lovely Ms. Mary Wells and Friendly Womack, Jr. took time to explain the attempt to recoup royalties (from Berry Gordy, Jr.) to me nearly 30 years ago, winning my support for it and them.
        
        A modest users' fee (multiplied by millions of kids and adults who pay little or nothing now) would inspire and encourage compliance instead of empowering and channeling the geniuses who will likely defeat all attempts to curtail/criminalize file sharing.
        
        Rick Rubin has a workable plan but he doesn't think like a greedy oligarch. Needless to say there is resistance from those who want to stock another gold vault with each new multi-platinum release.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 12:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: This is not a source for stories that challenge that viewpoint
        The devil's in the details.
        
        Honestly, what you're describing sounds a lot like what ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC do now (but limited to public performances).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JEDIDIAH, 20 May 2010 @ 7:47am
    
    Not everyone is a lame cover band
    The truth is that the bulk of the artists that really matter or not lame cover bands. They don't need an ASCAP licensed venue as a crutch. They are writing their own material. Even the bulk of the big label acts are like this. If a venue is catering to a discriminating consumer, there simply isn't going to be anything for ASCAP to license.
    
    They are demanding something for nothing. It doesn't matter how much of an edge case it is. You should be first in line to tell them to cut it out.
    
    Being a corporate toadie is no excuse to excuse obviously bad behavior.
    
    Even bad hair bands and disco acts manage to write their own (bad) material.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dom S, 20 May 2010 @ 7:48am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    I love reading your comments... they're sooo meaningless they almost have a meaning.
    if you have a problem with Mike, just come out with it. otherwise get off the blog and go post comments on a pro-*IAA blog/forum... where you're comments are likely to be shouted down by people there because you're so dam clueless.
    
    you're reading HIS blog anyway you moron!
    OBVIOUSLY he's going to report on what he (and the rest of us) think is relevant. most of the time from the viewpoint of those people who have at least a small about of brain power and have resisted the urge to be paid off by the various lobbying companies.
    
    this whole article highlights a SERIOUS problem with the way ASCAP work and how they approach firms. from this report (however its written) its plain to see that they are trying to force licence fees when they have no basis. end of story.
    
    im sorry if all this is too overwhelming or a little too complicated for you. but then you demonstrate your mental age frequently with your pointless drivel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      there is nothing pointless in what i am bringing up. what you are seeing here is the equivalent of gotcha politics. you ignore all the good that is done, you ignore all the people who are properly paid as a result of the system, and you focus instead on the smallest of the small end, and any minor error in approach that might exist. mike then turns around and uses that small error to damn the entire system.
      
      as for this example, my question is simple: do these bands never play happy birthday, or play any other cover song ever, ever, ever? does the coffee shop not profit from the presence of live music in their venue? is there a reason this coffee shop should be ignored but the bar next door charged a license? it seems odd.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Blah blah the masnick blah. Yada yada yada [everyone else but me is biased]. Ickety ackety oop [someone please pay attention to me!].
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        RTFA
        
        The bands play their own music. The onus is on ASCAP to prove otherwise. If they can't, that's too bad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        I agree with what you're saying (if ASCAP can't prove ASCAP music is played, then they should STFU).
        
        However, I wouldn't take any "fact" reported in Techdirt as an actual, y'know, fact, without some corroboration from a less biased source.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 3:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Is that why you quote industry tripe and lies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        I don't think I've quoted any "industry tripe" or lies.
        
        Anonymous Coward is a label applied to anybody who doesn't sign in, not one commenter.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        A: Techdirt references its sources
        
        B: Every source is bias being that sources come from bias people. I try to be bias towards the truth. What you actually mean is a source that more strongly agrees with your bias.
        
        The quote came from one of the potential defendants being threatened. What better source should he quote, your opinion? The opinion of some clueless third party?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        That is, sources come from people and people are bias *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 27 May 2010 @ 4:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        I think a source article that at least tells both sides' stories would be a better direct source.
        
        What we have here is one side's story funelled to Techdirt readers as the facts.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ChronoFish (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        "....as for this example, my question is simple: do these bands never play happy birthday, or play any other cover song ever, ever, ever?..."
        
        In the US our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Is there a band somewhere out there that plays covers? Yes. Do all bands have to pay a consequence for that? No.
        
        "... does the coffee shop not profit from the presence of live music in their venue?" Absolutely. And it's none of RIAA's or anyone's else damn business if they are making money off of a band an unsigned local band.
        
        "...is there a reason this coffee shop should be ignored but the bar next door charged a license? it seems odd..."
        
        Nope - no reason. Neither place should be charged a license. It does seem odd that you think both should...
        
        -CF
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Happy Birthday? I'm almost certain that song is in the public domain. If it isn't then something is seriously wrong with copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        I think it is actually the biggest moneymaker in the ASCAP catalogue. I've heard that, anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        The system is fucking broken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Just out of curiosity, when would you guess Happy Birthday was written? I'm not certain, but without searching online, I'm guessing the 40s.
        
        I think copyright protection probably lasts too long, but I'm not certain a song written in the 40s should be in the public domain.
        
        At any rate, I think the system is certainly imperfect, but not "broken" in some sort of irreparable sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 11:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        It's broken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 11:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Interesting. So the putative copyright owner claims 1935 as the authorship date but it might have been much earlier.
        
        Then it could be in the public domain, depending on the true facts.
        
        At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:40pm
        
        At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        70 too long ? 70 too short !!
        
        If the Rockefellers and Kenedys can pass $$ and biz on to grand-children and great-grandchilren,
        
        why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:16pm
        
        Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW CULTURE FUCKING WORKS!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        vivaelamor (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        "If the Rockefellers and Kenedys can pass $$ and biz on to grand-children and great-grandchilren,
        
        why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        
        There is nothing stopping The Beatles from passing their wealth on, through their estates, in exactly the same way as the Rockefellers and Kennedys do. The fact that their children may not be able to play a musical instrument is merely comparable to the fact that the Rockefeller's children may not be any good at business.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 9:32am
        
        why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        But the estate should also get CONTROL over USE ,,also for 1000 years. Also my point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        You don't know anything about how art actually works, do you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        clearly you are new here.
        
        So , click my profile , check my several hundred recent posts here on this topic , & go to my websites because "before you accuse me , take a look at yourself,,,,,,."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 12:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        I've been here longer than you have and you don't know how art works if you're advocating for copyright to last for 1000 years. That's asinine.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: why should not John , Paul , George and Ringo be able to have their estates control and profit from their Art for 1000 years?"
        it was a rhetorical half-joking , satirical question.
        
        It thought that would be clear to any reader , next time I will ad a smiley :).
        
        But there is a sliver of serious question in the post
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:00am
        
        Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        The short answer? Because it conflicts with the purpose of copyright protection in this country (to promote the progress of science and useful arts).
        
        A limited monopoly promotes creativity through the profit motive, but the expansion of that monopoly prevents creative use works and the public enjoyment of those works.
        
        You've got to strike the balance.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        "You've got to strike the balance."
        
        good post
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: At any rate, I think life + 70 is too long a term given current lifespans, but I don't think the system is irreparably broken.
        ty
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PokeBone, 30 May 2012 @ 10:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Happy Birthday is in the public domain. A lot of songs like the Star Spangled Banner, Amazing Grace, Yankee Doodle Dandy and many, many more can be played and recorded as much as you want to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        PokeBone, 30 May 2012 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Happy Birthday and many, many others are indeed in the public domain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 4:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        "what you are seeing here is the equivalent of gotcha politics. you ignore all the good that is done"
        
        You mean how the RIAA and other organisations are claiming all technology is evil, from casettes to P2P, while pocketing the annually increasing revenues the same technologies bring in?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 5:52am
        
        TAMster too stupid again
        there is nothing pointless in what i am bringing up
        
        Really? So it's not pointless to mention
        
        "who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living."
        
        when the entire post is about bands playing original material and NOT PLAYING OTHER PEOPLE'S SONGS?
        
        Sucker.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      "they're sooo meaningless they almost have a meaning.
      if you have a problem with Mike, just come out with it. otherwise get off the blog and go post comments on a pro-*IAA blog/forum"
      
      Could you list the URLs of a couple of these Pro **AA blogs please. I would love to be the Anti-Anti-Mike on a couple of them ... ;)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
      
      Second, you seem to take Mike Masnick's spin on a situation as the gospel truth. I'd be reluctant to do that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 4:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        First;Yes we do it says that on the comment
        Second No we don't not even most of the time.
        Third: but not even remotley do we take AC's
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        I was using "you" as a singular pronoun (i.e., not "y'all").
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 5:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        you seem to take Mike Masnick's spin on a situation as the gospel truth.
        
        Or, we could all, I dunno, read the story he linked to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:08pm
        
        First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
        you know it took me a while to figure that out too,, i thought AC was just one person who drank too much coffee , or was a techdirt employee,, or both.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:41am
        
        Re: First, I'm not sure if people realize this, but I'm pretty sure "Anonymous Coward" is a label Techdirt applies to commenters who don't sign in with a name, not *one* person making comments.
        Techdirt should have a manual somewhere.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - anymouse (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:00am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    Hi TAM,
    
    Since it's so easy to identify the large benefits. Please provide a listing of the top and bottom 5 beneficiaries of each collection agency, so we can see these benefits first hand.
    
    In case that's too complex of a request for you to grasp, list the top 5 artists and bottom 5 artists and the amounts each one received from each of the 3 collection societies. They provide so much benefit that this should be a simple request, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      you should ask someone who works for asacp for that info, i dont work there and neither does mike. if they made it public i am sure you can find it on the interwebnet thingie you are sitting in front of. this is where you learn you cannot order anyone to do work for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Unless you're a right's holder and want the government to do something about your government-enforced monopolies?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Any Mouse, 20 May 2010 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        Actually, you should note that no one is asking someone to do work for them. We're asking posters to do the work of proving their point. If they can't do it, as you've just stated you cannot, they should not be surprised when they are met with ridicule and derision.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:09pm
        
        We're asking posters to do the work of proving their point.
        brovo
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - francis�mann, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      No�one�but�them�knows�that information.�It�isn't�public.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:11am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    ...the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living.
    
    Your statement didn't add to the discussion. If, however, you prove the above assertion, that would add to the discussion and make Mike look bad.
    
    In other words, proof or GTFO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 20 May 2010 @ 8:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      Poving that ASCAP isn't worthless doesn't disprove the idea that they are running amok. They are still running amok no matter how much good they are doing. The good that they are alleged to do should not be used as an excuse for when they run off the rails.
      
      You can justify all sorts of nonsense that way.
      
      ASCAP is simply trying to line it's own pockets and continually grow revenue in a manner that is expected of all business these days. It suffers from the same expecations that any other large company does.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        The idea isn't to prove that ASCAP isn't worthless.
        
        The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, providing a very good income source to song writers and original artists, who profit when someone else uses their songs to make a living' in order to make ASCAP look bad.
        
        That was the assertion made in the comment that I replied to, that I asked the commenter to prove.
        
        I agree with you about ASCAP. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:12pm
        
        "The idea is to prove that Mike has been ignoring 'the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system, ....in order to make ASCAP look bad".
        true.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:07am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    This is spot on.
    
    In general, you can't trust journalists (or "journalists") to accurately portray all the significant details of legal matters, even when they try their best.
    
    This goes double for bloggers with an obvious viewpoint bias.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Why
      No, it's not spot on. We already know that those who pay ASCAP play music. That's not the point. The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP? Why should a restaurant be forced to pay some parasite, who does nothing to add value to the equation, just to play the music that someone gives to the restaurant to freely play? The answer. For no good reason.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:31pm
        
        The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        Because people lie ,, and ASCAP cannot put a full time employee into the bar , to constantly monitor the bands that play there.
        
        As well the original band material , may not be that original , and their original songs may just be ripping off chuck berry et al.
        
        I am a musician , I see guys all the time try to pawn as new and original stuff songs that are just complete riff-offs of other artists ,, either by intend or accident.
        
        Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song ", you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:43pm
        
        Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        The raw material for new culture is, in fact, old culture. True story.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 11:01pm
        
        Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        Because people lie ,, and ASCAP cannot put a full time employee into the bar , to constantly monitor the bands that play there.
        
        How is the establishment supposed to ensure this, anyhow? You expect the management to prioritise if a band does a cover version by watching the bands constantly? How much pop music do you expect the management to know? Does it count if the band is playing an indie remix or similarly deriative work? If a band plays Pachelbel's Canon in D are you going to demand payments to Vitamin C, Aerosmith, Green Day, U2, Avril Lavigne, etc, etc...
        
        I don't know how you can expect to state with a straight face that everyone else but ASCAP definitely has to be lying, either, but then we've all seen the sort of blanket statements you can make.
        
        Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song "
        
        Good luck trying to figure out payments when someone writes a song with "I love you", or some other overused phrase.
        
        you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
        
        How did ASCAP's attempt to charge consumers for their ringtones publicly ringing go, again?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 3:16am
        
        Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        invite the lawyer who wrote the ASCAP bill of rights to post here. I cannot speak for them.
        
        http://www.ascap.com/rights/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 May 2010 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        Why don't you invite them instead, they are free to come here. No one is saying they can't come, they are now officially invited. Please forward the memo to them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        willy, 25 May 2010 @ 5:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        You have a point, eastern societies have little tradition of intellectual property, so perhaps we should remove those two dirty little words from the constitution, trademark and copyright, in the interest of world harmony. Just think, then someone could mirror this board with their own advertising attached and make a profit off of all of us. I believe this post is now owned by techdirt, subject to argument....do you have a remove link?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:27am
        
        Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        I think ASCAP's point is that the bar owner *can't* know every song and monitor the bands perfectly, so that's why they *should* get the ASCAP license.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 12:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: The point is why is it illegal to play any kind of music without paying ASCAP?
        Or not at all and music suffers some more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Why
        My point is that everyone is taking a one-sided story, based on another one-sided story, based on an interview with one participant in a two-sided dispute, as the gospel truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Why
    "but mike doesnt write stories about the tens of thousands of live venues that pay into the system"
    
    If I want to offer a venue free music in exchange for the publicity my music gets why should some parasitic third party get money in the process?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:47pm
    
    Re: Re: Why
    you're kidding, right?
    
    good income source to songwriters and original artists? Good thing I wasn't drinking anything because that would surely have make it come out my nose.
    
    The game has been rigged against the artists for quite some time. Mike doesn't HAVE to make it up. What you need to do is go out and find a real life songwriter or recording artist who is NOT a household word that makes more per year than the receptionist at the copyright collective. Hmm, that might be too tough. You might be able to do it for the janitor....
    
    Copyright collectives seem to have gotten just as demented at the record labels.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - francismann, 21 Mar 2011 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Why
    What�is�at�issue�is�independent�artist�and�the�small�venues
    supporting�them�being�allowed�to�operat e�and�create�without
    being�extorted.�As�a�professional�musician�I�deeply�resent�
    ASCAP�insisting�i ts�working�on�my�behalf.�I've�known�more�
    than�one�venue�this�story�happened�to�which�means�less places�I�can�perform�my�original�work�at�to�feed�myself�and�my�wife!�Did�you�know�in�their�licensing �contract�for�venuesASCAP�includes�a�fee�on�door�charges?�If�I�perform�in�a�club
    that�follows�that� policy�who�ends�up�with�a�percentage�of�my
    hard�earned�money?�Eminem?�These�creeps�should�stick�to� big
    money�pop�and�leave�small�businesses�alone!
    
    being�able�
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Troy Lindsey, 12 Apr 2013 @ 8:08am
    
    Re: Re: Why
    the problem is when I asked ascap directly. how do i know the money is going to the artist when a cover song was played in my venue. They told it's not they are only played by radio spins!! They couldn't tell me where the money goes. So that means its a flawed reporting system. I want to pay artist just like me but im not interested in paying a laywer who is getting rich off my work by screwing over small venues!! So I challenge you to find out where that money goes and I will glady send what owed to the owner of the song!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Laurel L. Russwurm (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:38pm
  
  Re: Why
  Yes. That is the problem.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- me, 10 Nov 2014 @ 8:04pm
  
  Re: Why
  somebody start a civil case against these agencies. demand for reasonable fees and cut down to only one agency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 6:19am

cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
Too chicken to do something about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 20 May 2010 @ 8:00am
  
  Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
  Come say that to my face, you POS.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DBL, 20 May 2010 @ 3:01pm
    
    Re: Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
    Gosh you're really brave on the internet -- you must be an American.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PokeBone, 30 May 2012 @ 10:12pm
    
    Re: Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
    Dude, you look like a bigger tool than he is. Just ignore people like that. You're doing exactly what he wants you to do. He owned you when you wrote that response.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:15am
  
  Re: cause your all too chicken shit in the usa
  What did you have in mind?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JEDIDIAH, 20 May 2010 @ 6:31am

Lawsuits are expensive
Lawsuits are expensive. Even if you win, you end up spending a lot of money to defend yourself. A lot of people just don't have it. Smaller companies just don't have it. This is why the whole RIAA/MPAA style barratry tactics work. Even if you win, you end up losing (money).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rose M. Welch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:11am
  
  Re: Lawsuits are expensive
  If you win, they pay your attorney's fees.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:36am
    
    Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
    Not always, and you have to pay your attorney as the trial proceeds, even if you get attorney's fees it is at the end of the trial and so you still are up to the money for the years it takes to make it to trial
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
    Not usually.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Lawsuits are expensive
    Sometimes true, but that still doesn't consider the opportunity cost of the time wasted in court.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
cc (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:33am

The venue owners should just ignore the racketeers and get on with what they're doing.

If the racketeers decide to sue, they should ally together and fight back -- right is obviously on their side.

If the racketeers decide to break their knee-caps with a baseball bat... hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- lfroen (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:39am
  
  Re:
  ... "they should ally together and fight back". Just like you said. Word "fight" in my dictionary include baseball bat stuff too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- interval, 20 May 2010 @ 7:47am
  
  Re:
  We know that anyone can sue anyone else for any reason. We also know that the courts can (usually) sniff out a frivolous lawsuit. We also (ostensibly, in the US) have a tradition & mentality of "doing your own thing"-ism and so on. So given all this, you mean to tell me that as soon as a collection agency comes around threatening suit because a venue owner invites local bands to play their music with no connection to any of those agencies that venue owner caves? Even as a completely naive club owner I would tell those agencies to go f*ck themselves. How in the world would anyone think that such an action would have even 2 seconds in court room merit???? It makes no sense to me that anyone would cave in to such nonsense. Its as if Segram's started cracking down on a kid's lemonade stand. Normal people would laugh Segram's out of the neighborhood.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:38pm
    
    So given all this, you mean to tell me that as soon as a collection agency comes around threatening suit because a venue owner invites local bands to play their music......
    Because people lie ,, and ASCAP cannot put a full time employee into the bar , to constantly monitor the bands that play there.
    
    As well the original band material , may not be that original , and their original songs may just be ripping off chuck berry et al.
    
    I am a musician , I see guys all the time try to pawn as new and original stuff songs that are just complete riff-offs of other artists ,, either by intend or accident.
    
    Either way , if you rip off lyrics or melody in your "original rip-off song ", you have pay the "original-original artist" through ASCAP or whatever royalty facilitator they choose. It is the Law.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:46pm
      
      Re: So given all this, you mean to tell me that as soon as a collection agency comes around threatening suit because a venue owner invites local bands to play their music......
      "There has grown in the minds of certain groups in this country the idea that just because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with guaranteeing such a profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is supported by neither statute or common law. Neither corporations or individuals have the right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 3:12am
        
        Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
        you anarchists types like that quote ,, but it is not mainstream thinking, and goes against fact & history-- in my humble opinion ,,,,as I have pointed out often elsewhere in related threads. ( click my profile, if you really want to read all my posts on the matter)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Modplan (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
        You have never pointed out such things. Your arguments are based in as much fact as a story involving unicorns fighting King Kong whilst Predator seeks world peace.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Robert A. Heinlein, 1939
        in your humble opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frylock, 20 May 2010 @ 11:07pm
  
  Re:
  So you're asking a bunch of competitors to join together as co-litigants? Not likely. This requires Congressional action, but Congress has the ears of those financing their campaigns, and take a guess who they are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crosbie Fitch (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 6:39am

Lease the land
Perhaps the Coffee shop could lease their land/forecourt to an 'events management company'?

This company would then go bankrupt when it failed to pay the 'protection money' demanded by the Mafioso collection societies.

This way, the indie bands can sing cover songs, etc. so the thugs get even less money than otherwise.
Moreover, the Coffee shop still gets to sell coffee to the punters sitting nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pixelation, 20 May 2010 @ 6:45am

Misspelled acronym
I believe the proper acronym is "ASSCAP"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:01am

"Their mission is really to support the largest acts at the expense of smaller acts..." That's really not it. Their mission is to maximize the profits of the recording industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Improbus (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:03am

Legality
Excuse me but isn't this called extortion? It sounds like a protection racket. Time to call .... the A-team.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
david_sp (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:05am

This and the action against You Tube by Viacom
When you look at the actions of ASCAP and the lawsuit that Viacom has filed against You Tube (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100513/0000529405.shtml), it appears that the people in charge of enforcing copyrights don't want to do their job. They want someone else to do it for them.

ASCAP and Viacom is going after the venues, rather than the people who actually violate their rights. If am a singer and I cover a song then shouldn't I pay for the fees for the license? If I post Viacom's material, should I be the one Viacom goes after?

That sounds like work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DesignSmith, 20 May 2010 @ 7:08am

smells like...
"....We have this low-end licensing fee you must have because there is a chance your band might play a cover song.' "

Sounds like and smells like extortion to me.

(or compulsory insurance)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steven (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:13am

lawsuit problem
I still think the solution to these lawsuit bullies is to move to a loser pays system. The loser should be on the hook up to what they paid their own lawyers. This makes the big expensive legal team a massive liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xs (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 7:23am
  
  Re: lawsuit problem
  actually that doesn't help the small player either. With this system, although you won't lose anything if you win, you lose twice as much, if not more if you lose. And the deep pocketed side could simply drag the case out indefinitely and keep on appealing to make you spend more money, bankrupting you before you can collect compensation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nate, 20 May 2010 @ 7:21am

This sounds sort of like a RICO thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- 10pound, 20 May 2010 @ 7:50am
  
  Re:
  you are absolutely, 100% correct........this is an organized, premeditated extortion racket.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saul Hudson, 20 May 2010 @ 7:53am

Lawsuit problem
Don't you guys in the US have any equivalent of our Musicians Union in the UK? Also in the UK if you win a lawsuit the other party has to pay all your costs, isn't that the way it should be in a country like the USA that holds itself up as a beacon of democracy? Seems to me it's all about vested interests and the money men rather than promoting live music? If you have enough money basically you can bully the other party into not defending their rights. Very sad :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pangolin (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:10am

I don't get it
This guy is in total compliance so why doesn't he tell the ASCAP to shove off and keep doing what he's doing. What power do they have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- crade (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: I don't get it
  Because those that are willing and can afford to lose in court have power of those who are not / can not?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim_Nance (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re: I don't get it
  Pangolin asks: "This guy is in total compliance so why doesn't he tell the ASCAP to shove off and keep doing what he's doing. What power do they have?"
  Well, when he explains the problem and presents the cease & desist letter to his attorney the lawyer will immediately ejaculate, "Hey, you don't have to put up with that! Gimme ten thousand dollars and I'll get started on this right away!"
  
  In suits like this there are three interested parties and two will always win....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Christopher Gizzi (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:30am

Protection Money
A man walks into a store. The man says to the owner of the store that he should pay money to prevent bad things from happening. The owner looks at the man and asks him what bad things? The owner goes on to say that he has a good security system and insurance - he doesn't need an extra level of security and, therefore, doesn't need to pay on the small chance that something would happen. The man says the protection he'd pay for is necessary even though the owner took real and auditable steps to prevent bad things from happening; he essentially doesn't believe the owner has mitigated he risk satisfactorally.

The owner thinks about how to best deal with the situation, he can either pay the man and factor the cost of protection into his goods & services or close up shop. The owner doesn't want to do either so he takes additional risk - the risk the man will become angry and threaten the owner and cause him harm. The owner must then defend his livelihood against this stranger that walked into his store.

In the end, the everyone but the man who walked into the store suffers because the owner either has to close shop (i.e. stop offering live, local music), pass the increase in costs to his customers, or defend against threats (a legal & financial loss/risk).

How is this any different than the mob walking into a deli and demanding protection money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bok bok bok boooook, 20 May 2010 @ 8:38am

HAHA still chicken shits i see
legal this legal that, not about whats right or wrong , just if its legal

thats the problem with you americans
YOU all are lawyers
and its why you fail and shall continue to fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bok bok bok boooook, 20 May 2010 @ 8:40am

@25 are you looking at your monitor
CHICKEN
what you done to stop oppression and ACTA in yor country ? write a letter to a politician who dont care..lazy i shuld add lazy to this spill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse, 20 May 2010 @ 3:49pm
  
  Re: @25 are you looking at your monitor
  Mmmm. And what do you suggest we do? Take up arms and go shoot some pollies? Uh huh. If you're so much better, then what are YOU doing about it?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
WammerJammer (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 8:44am

It's simple
No one ever asks our band 3-Gen or venues to pay ASCAP because we are members. Duh all you have to do as a band / songwriter is pay the $35.00 and join ASCAP it's good for ya. Then the owner of the venue can point it to the band. The band is a member. Let's see that one fly. Stop the band that is a member of ASCAP from playing live. Sounds like a lawsuit if you are a member of ASCAP you can sue them for restricting your trade.
Songwriters need to protect their future and you are an amateur if you don't belong to ASCAP or BMI.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 8:57am
  
  Re: It's simple
  Support the extortionists to avoid extortion? Extortion-y!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: It's simple
  "Then the owner of the venue can point it to the band. The band is a member. Let's see that one fly."
  
  "Sounds like a lawsuit if you are a member of ASCAP you can sue them for restricting your trade."
  
  Would this work for non ASCAP collection agencies? Meaning if you set up a competing collection agency.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: It's simple
  So ASCAP is a forced union. God, I hate what unions have become.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 4:24pm
    
    Re: Re: It's simple
    They are not a union. They are a collection agency. They can't force you to be a member
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:23am
  
  Re: It's simple
  I don't think being an ASCAP member gives you a license to use all the compositions in the ASCAP catalog for free.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 5:10pm
  
  Re: It's simple
  No one ever asks our band 3-Gen or venues to pay ASCAP because we are members. [emphasis mine]
  
  They don't ask you, because you already paid.
  
  They most certainly do ask the venues to pay them when you play. (By "ask," I mean "threaten.")
  
  Like the majority of musicians, I am not a member of ASCAP or BMI, and do not play covers. Yet every time I play a venue, both those organizations get money, and none of it goes to me.
  
  Please explain to me how that is fair.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 6:50pm
    
    Re: Re: It's simple
    It's fair to both ASCAP and BMI because without these organizations no one would ever write or compose music ever. Do I have any evidence to back that statement up? Nope.
    
    But it just feels right.
    
    By the way, I'm not only a member of ASCAP and BMI, I'm the president.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:30am
    
    Re: Re: It's simple
    " Yet every time I play a venue, both those organizations get money"
    
    That's not necessarily true, actually. Many venues have a blanket yearly license, so they aren't paying "every time" a performance is made.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PokeBone, 30 May 2012 @ 10:24pm
  
  Re: It's simple
  It doesn't even come close to being that easy. From the ASCAP website itself:
  
  Aren't musicians, entertainers and DJ's responsible for obtaining permission for music they perform?
  
  Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business.
  
  Let me know how you make out on the law suit with ASCAP. :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 10:20am

When conservatives scream about a false entitlement, they cover their eyes when the same entitlements enter their pockets.

When corporations can receive money for doing nothing at all, you have to wonder why anyone against entitlements would be so intellectually dishonest to support the thing they dislike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  When politicians scream about a false entitlement, they cover their eyes when the same entitlements enter their pockets.
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gwiz, 20 May 2010 @ 11:45am

Is ASCAP the same group that extorts money from Internet Radio for artists that are not even members and keep it unless the artist becomes a member?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 5:12pm
  
  Re:
  No, you're thinking of SoundExchange. Which you also cannot opt out of, I believe.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 20 May 2010 @ 12:28pm

that's exactly right
Again, Mike, you've hit the nail on the head. In my starving musician days, I did ASCAP investigating, as I've discussed here before, and their regional rep was a joke. Because they can't win on the merits, i.e. finding that ASCAP songs are not played, they use falsehoods, threats, anything else they can think of. It's simply self-preservation, just like those redundant bureaucrats in Greece going ballistic right now.

As you correctly state, it's not as though they help the average musician, only ones at the top of the heap. Similarly, musician unions don't help the average gigster, but only help the top acts - the lowest level musician they help would be something like symphony orchestra people, so there's little point in joining for most players.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry, 20 May 2010 @ 2:14pm

What's so hard to understand?
ASCAP and BMI collect most of their revenue (by far) from radio and TV. Consequently, they pay out most of their royalties to those songwriters and music publishers whose songs are played on radio and TV. It's a very fair system, though nobody claims it is perfect. These organizations don't represent artists unless they're songwriters, and they have nothing to do with the RIAA. A typical artist may or may not own the songs. Most songwriters represented by these organizations are behind-the-scenes, unknown people who only write music. BMI and ASCAP rarely lose lawsuits because they don't sue if it can't be proven the defendant is using copyrighted music illegally. It's not rocket science or a great comspiracy, folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re: What's so hard to understand?
  they don't sue if it can't be proven the defendant is using copyrighted music illegally.
  
  Say, did you read that one article where they threatened to do exactly that?
  
  It's the article you're posting comments on. You might like to read it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re: What's so hard to understand?
    First, "threatenting" and suing are two different things.
    
    Second, did the article actually say they treatened to sue?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry, 20 May 2010 @ 2:46pm

Why's so hard to understand?
Has anybody determined or even asked if this coffee shop was playing CD's or MP3's when the live performances were not going on? In a copyright infringement suit, there's no difference between live music and recorded music in the eyes of the Court. A typical coffee shop would pay only the minimum fees of these organizations, anyway, so there probably wasn't much difference between the cost of playing live or recorded music in such a small venue. A coffee shop with absolutely no music of any kind is a pretty dead place to hang out. The bottom line is that if a business is using somebody else's songs (recorded or live) to entertain customers, they've got to pay the owners of the compositions. That's been the law for about 90 years, and it's not changing anytime soon. It's really a good system if you understand how it works and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- jjmsan (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 4:27pm
  
  Re: Why's so hard to understand?
  In the spirit of your argument. No they were not playing music when the live groups were not there. So they should not have a license.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re: Why's so hard to understand?
    source?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 5:19pm
  
  Re: Why's so hard to understand?
  if a business is using somebody else's songs (recorded or live) to entertain customers, they've got to pay the owners of the compositions.
  
  Apparently, they have to pay even if they aren't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUTURE ACTA ENFORCER, 20 May 2010 @ 6:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Why's so hard to understand?
    You'll all pay, soon enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mark, 2 Jun 2013 @ 3:12pm
  
  Re: Why's so hard to understand?
  you are so full of shit Jerry
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 May 2010 @ 9:57pm

One day it may all change, but for now, it's extortion.

Live acts: Original music should never be controlled by a 3rd party unless the originator passes their rights to a 3rd party.

Jukeboxes: Already covered, but all fees with jukeboxes are already figured into the price (assuming a rented and loaded jukebox). Interestingly enough, some of the venues I have played at informed me that after talking with ASCAP/BMI that their juke fees also covered live performaces. I.E. 1 fee for any performace of covered material.

Copyright: Someone tried to say earlier, but they were shot down by someone crying about something. Copyright does not apply to any performance, it applies to the performance of the copyrighted material (lyrics). While a true 'composer' might be eligible for compensation from a production studio or something in the case of a movie, generally speaking, copyright is for words, not music. If specific lines of music were protected, we'd run out of music real fast. Hell some bands never go beyond 4 chords in their entire multi-album history.

/puts on flame suit
-Random Idiot
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:36am
  
  Re:
  " While a true 'composer' might be eligible for compensation from a production studio or something in the case of a movie, generally speaking, copyright is for words, not music"
  
  Please refrain from commenting if you have no idea what you're talking about. Thanks!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical (profile), 20 May 2010 @ 10:43pm

Nice thread
One of the most reasonable threads here in a while on copyright stuff . Not much name calling ,, just mostly well thought out posts.

Good conversation !! Nice job posters. This is what a thread should be.

don't you think so Mike ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nick Tann, 21 May 2010 @ 2:12am

Asscrap
Twats
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
byteme, 21 May 2010 @ 4:59am

Coffee Shop Owner: "I have never--not even once--allowed a band to play music in here that they didn't write themselves."

ASCAP Enforcer: "I'm sorry, sir, but our psychics have confirmed that one day you will. Pay up!"

Just like the cops in Minority Report, ASCAP believes it has the right to charge for something that hasn't happened, yet. It's like getting pulled over and getting a speeding ticket when you weren't speeding...just because you might.

ASCAP should be honest, stop calling it a music fee and call it what it really is: a "Coffee Shop" fee...a fee charged for just being a coffee shop. If it's okay for ASCAP to do this, why doesn't the cable company charge non-customers because they might one day steal cable -- or phone companies charge for long distance calls in advance, because you might suddenly decide to call Switzerland?

These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 9:18am
  
  These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
  ASCAP wont ,, but the police et. al. will , under a lawful court order.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - byteme, 21 May 2010 @ 11:44am
    
    Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
    It couldn't be a lawful court order if it is at the behest of ASCAP, a private entity, which is insisting that the owner must pay a fee for a non-compulsory license that the owner is explicitly not going to use. It may very well be done under a court order, but it won't be a lawful one.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:45pm
      
      Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
      "It may very well be done under a court order, but it won't be a lawful one"
      
      Explain please. That statement does not make sense to me.
      
      A court order is Law in action -
      
      - as I understand it , in my humble opinion, based on years of reading , studying , and a degree in Pol-sci ;;; and also $50,000 still due in student loans
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - byteme, 23 May 2010 @ 7:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
        What I meant was, if a judge issues a court order for an establishment to pay for an ASCAP license fee based upon ASCAPs assumption that someone might, at some point in the future play its members music, I would consider that an unlawful court order. It is not beyond the realm of possibility for a judge to mistakenly (or even willingly) make a decision or take an action that goes against established law.
        
        Just because judges and the courts represent the law, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want. It is possible for a judge to break the law, just like everyone else.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 May 2010 @ 12:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: These ASCAP agents might as well just carry a gun and take everything from these establishments.Re:
        What I meant was, if a judge issues a court order for an establishment to pay for an ASCAP license fee based upon ASCAPs assumption that someone might, at some point in the future play its members music, I would consider that an unlawful court order.
        
        The problem is that the way the law is enforced is that these collection agencies have been given the right to collect from any venue playing any music. I believe that in most cases the rep goes to the venue, hears at least one song written by a member, and has the necessary evidence. But I don't believe that has been needed in all cases.
        
        I did a ton of research on the subject, because it doesn't make sense to me that venues are considered guilty until they can prove that they aren't playing any ASCAP/BMI/SESAC music, but so far I have only found one mention of a venue that was able to successfully win. The venue owner was able to show that the only music played in his venue was public domain folk songs.
        
        Generally the argument is this: pay a reasonably-priced blanket license and then you'll be free to play whatever music you want. But each collection agency makes the same argument, so venues often have to pay to all three.
        
        I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 23 May 2010 @ 10:38pm
        
        I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
        I would love to read them !!
        
        If you click around , starting with my profile , you can find out my email in a few clicks. (others here have, I even get flame now in my private email).
        
        But yes please do sent me what you got !!!!!!
        http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/
        (the blog is only an academic hobby , and takes no comments or ads, but with a few clicks you find my contact info.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), 23 May 2010 @ 11:22pm
        
        Re: I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
        Done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Technopolitical (profile), 24 May 2010 @ 4:33am
        
        Re: Re: I could try to pull all the documents I've found on the subject, but since I don't think anyone on Techdirt is going to actually work on this project, I won't bother.
        thanks , i got them ,, just want to here publicly acknowledge your good work.
        thanks a gain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JackConner, 21 May 2010 @ 7:54am

Are you kidding me?
As a business owner, I'd laugh in their faces.

Take me to court? Have they ever heard of "consideration"?

Show me the consideration of the contract in question (which there is none) and then we'll talk.

B.S. and the coffee shop owners are a bunch of wimps for giving in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 11:37am
  
  Re: Are you kidding me?
  This isn't a potential contract claim. It's a potential copyright infringement claim. No consideration is necessary or relevant.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
robertsgt40, 21 May 2010 @ 8:35am

License?
All this because the govt has spent the next 10 generations of wealth...in advance. Let no rock be unturned to extract the last dollar from the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:20pm
  
  Re: License? All this because the govt has spent the next 10 generations of wealth...in advance.
  "All this because the govt has spent the next 10 generations of wealth...in advance."
  
  cute point . I like it
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jerry, 21 May 2010 @ 8:55am

Right of public performance
Under U.S. Copyright Law, the songwriter has exclusive right of public performance. That means he/she has the legal right to play the song, but nobody else does without his permission. No business is going to get sued if it has played only music written by the performer. What happens with many of these clubs/shops is that some of them have a documented history of allowing cover songs. When they are contacted by ASCAP/BMI, they change their music policy and say they're "all original" going forward. ASCAP/BMI don't accept that if they know the history. Most of the time, when ASCAP/BMI send a researcher into a business which claims "original" music, they find that copyrighted music is still being played illegally. I don't know about ASCAP, but BMI doesn't threaten business owners; BMI does, however, inform them when they're submitted for legal action. It's kinda like telling somebody they're standing on the tracks when a train is coming. They have the right to stand there or do the smart thing and get off the tracks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: Right of public performance
  nice post. thank you for taking the time. and as you see , "the other side" falls silent when faced with a good factual post. They (mostly) never admit being wrong - in my humble opinion.
  
  But if I -- or another reasonable poster -- mis-types in "Tuesday" , in stead of "Wednesday" , I get flame back, and told I am an lying "troll" -- even if my typing mistake is completely irrelevant to the point intended.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- byteme, 21 May 2010 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re: Right of public performance
  If an establishment is caught hosting a performace of ASCAP/BMI catalog music, then they should be required to pay up. That's not the issue. The issue is when these licensing organizations take it upon themselves to charge for something that hasn't happened, simply because it might.
  
  In fact, why should they stop with establishments that offer live music. They should require any business that allows people to congregate on its property to pay for a license on the off-chance that someone in attendance might spontaneously break into song.
  
  Then the only place they could go from there would be to simply tax every person on the face of the planet for potentially singing, hearing or even thinking of copyrighted music. That's what they want, anyway.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:54pm
    
    Re: Re: Right of public performance
    any retransmission-- where money is involved is protected under copyright. No money no problem
    
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&hs=r5F&rls=en&q=any+retransmissi on+for+money++is+protected+under+copyright&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 9:22am

Hilarious discussion on all sides. Chasing people for pennies only makes enemies (see Lars Ulrich). Betting people will gladly pay up/show up at shows is proven (see Radiohead, NIN, etc). Artists like me remember having been forced to pay a 'piracy' surcharge for recording media (tape, cd's etc) even when doing original music- ho, that's irony!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim, 21 May 2010 @ 9:26am

freedum
This country is so f'ed up it beyond belief. Freedom my ass. It's owned by the big business interests and their fat cat greedy lawyers who can never get enough MONEY which is all they care about. It's sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 9:29am

"Hilarious discussion on all sides."
techdirt at its best.

But as point-counterpoint goes,, this thread is pretty good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim_Nance (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 10:30am

ASCAP goon squads
Imagine how very different the world would be if every 60's garage band that played school dances resulted in lawyer threat letters.

Then imagine how the sales of Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, etc., guitars would have been if kids playing Hendrix were crushed by corporate sharks like Edgar Bronfman, Jr, who today extorts a reported 2 meg pr yr on the copyright for HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU.
We need to ask ourselves if we really want to be policed to this extent-must we surrender to the likes of this robber baron and his army of slimy lawyers?

We know that record companies ripped off the artists on record sales and the artists need to make theirs in personal performances, which I support. TIME WARNER and Bronfman can just kiss my ass. Performing popular music is my cultural imperative and they have no valid prior claim to that. If not for me and others like me their product (CDs) would be worthless. If they push it they won't make much after paying their lawyers in every successful lawsuit, especially against poor, judgment-proof defendants. And as juries wise up and people get fed up they'll be left with an army of lawyers on retainer who sue their client once they get hungry....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
  songs played school dances is fair use ( as i see it , in my humble opinion ), as school dances are not-for-profit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:05pm
    
    Re: Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
    You can bet that ASCAP/BMI don't see it that way (and they are probably right).
    
    At the very least, the DJ is performing the compositions for a profit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 2:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: ASCAP goon squads & songs played school dances
      "You can bet that ASCAP/BMI don't see it that way (and they are probably right).
      
      At the very least, the DJ is performing the compositions for a profit."
      
      Good point. Kudos to you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 21 May 2010 @ 11:55am

Gangsters?
Sounds more like a "protection" racket or extortion to me. Needs to get the EFF involved on a test case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Technopolitical (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 12:34pm
  
  Re: Gangsters?
  protection racket ? Yes !! to protect songwriters , poets , and artists of all types , from the evil and/or anarchist copyright royalty pirates.
  
  Extortion? No-- in my humble opinion. But I will ask my lawyers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dave, 21 May 2010 @ 11:55am

Gangsters?
Sounds more like a "protection" racket or extortion to me. Needs to get the EFF involved on a test case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:08pm

The one and only time I've been involved with ASCAP demanding a license, they agreed not to ask for any royalties for past performances (which almost certainly ocurred, but they probably had no proof of) if we agreed to get the appropriate license moving forward. Very reasonable.

On the other hand, the SESAC reps I dealt with were atrocious.

I think, in many cases, it's the luck of the draw re: which particular rep you get and whether they are reasonable/competent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 May 2010 @ 1:52pm

I'm a musician and I recently played a show at a coffee shop in San Francisco. I was talking with the owner and she was telling me all about these organizations coming in and bullying her. I thought it was nonsense until I read this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 4:05pm

Why don't you take up a collection?
I've read so many different posts on Techdirt about how this law or that law is bad. The ASCAP/BMI situation has not be won by a venue. Venues that play music have found it next to impossible to prove that they aren't playing music by ASCAP/BMI members.

So if all of you are incensed about the situation, why don't you set up a fund (crowdfunded of course) to take the matter to the courts?

How about you guys put your money where your mouths are. Since Techdirt believes good ideas/causes can find financial support among the people, use Techdirt as funding and legal solution, not just a bitch site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 21 May 2010 @ 7:34pm
  
  Re: Why don't you take up a collection?
  In case there is any confusion, I'm not defending ASCAP/BMI. What I am saying is that having researched the situation myself, I found out that the burden of proof has been put on the venues to convincingly show they aren't playing music written by members of ASCAP/BMI. As far as I can tell, only one venue owner has been able to do this (the only music played in his club was one performer singing traditional, public domain folk songs).
  
  So I doubt that the situation is going to change unless the laws are rewritten or someone wins a court case. I don't see either of those situations happening unless some person or organization pays for the necessary legal or lobbying expenses. So if this is something that you feel passionately about, think in terms of putting together a legal fund.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
willy, 24 May 2010 @ 5:17pm

Gorillas
How do you all suggest song writers protect themselves? My music is free for personal enjoyment, but if you're going make money off of it, you'll have to deal with the gorillas at ASCAP. That includes anybody from a multinational entertainment company to a coffee shop selling four dollar lattes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shelley Cater, 26 May 2010 @ 9:07am

My ASCAP experience
I used to manage a little coffeehouse in Eugene, OR. One day, a lady who had been sitting in the corner came up to the counter and announced that she was an ASCAP representative, and that she had noticed that we had been playing ASCAP music over the stereo. She gave me a license agreement with a fee of $325 for the year. (Our business license cost $175.) I asked to be sent a copy of The List (all artists covered by ASCAP), and mailed them a bill for $325 per annum for promoting their artists. I told them I refused to play any of their artists until they paid their bill. Our shop went to only playing local and unsigned bands. Local musicians were generous with free CDs. We never heard from ASCAP again. (Oh, and another thing I learned was that if you ask the room if their is an ASCAP rep present, they are required by law to identify themselves.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Crosbie Fitch (profile), 26 May 2010 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: My ASCAP experience
  Well done Shelly!
  
  This reminds me of an idea I had for a copyleft jukebox some time ago. This would play only unsigned/license-exempt music, but would still accept coins, which would ultimately be disbursed by the proprietor to the respective musicians, i.e. to encourage those musicians their customers most played to produce more music - and thus build up customers. A win-win outcome.
  
  It really is crazy when the natural liberty of playing music must be charged for on threat of legal penalty. An effective tax on cultural liberty is certainly lucrative to those that collect it, but this doesn't make it ethical.
  
  Let's make it easier for music lovers to pay musicians to make music, and far more difficult for 'collection societies' to get rich via extortion using anachronistic 18th century privileges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tyson Sevier, 27 May 2010 @ 8:04am

ASCAP is legalized extortion
I run a bar/restaurant in Omaha, NE and we are really struggling right now. We had an idea to bring in Kareoke to help bring in the crowds but fear lawsuit from ASCAP who came in to collect on us the 3rd day we were open.

They don't want the kareoke DJ paying the fees because they want to collect from all the bars that have that DJ perform.

So here we have examples of small businesses being damanged by this organization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 8:22am
  
  Re: ASCAP is legalized extortion
  They don't want the kareoke DJ paying the fees because they want to collect from all the bars that have that DJ perform.
  
  The DJs and the performers never pay the fees. It's always the responsibility of the venue. That's just the way it has been set up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Suzanne Lainson (profile), 27 May 2010 @ 8:26am

One type of event where the fees don't apply
House Concerts and PRO Fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 30 Jul 2010 @ 5:42am

same thing just happened to us, we have a small and very new bar/grill, just opened 2 months ago. ASCAP came in yesterday, contract for $1200+in hand and mafia style threatened us with law suits for singing happy birthday to customers! we dont have the money to pay these guys, we dont even get a paycheck ourselves. Like you said, now the local guys wont be able to play here so everyone is screwed, Hope all the "stars" in their f-ing mansions are happy, Thanks Big Shots, now no one has anywhere to hang out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Aug 2010 @ 7:21am

I've found a lawyer who would be interested in a class action suit against ASCAP and the likes, any one interested in joining in, post here please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Suzanne Lainson (profile), 9 Aug 2010 @ 8:15am
  
  Re:
  I've found a lawyer who would be interested in a class action suit against ASCAP and the likes, any one interested in joining in, post here please
  
  Will the lawsuit be on behalf of venue owners or songwriters? Depending who the lawsuit benefits, then you can post the announcement on the appropriate forums.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
burninguitfiddle, 10 Aug 2010 @ 8:39am

Art
No matter what debate we have here, it still comes down to the most important thing: How this music got out there in the first place. Sure a lot of major artists had a dad who knew a powerful label exec or music attorney the walked their kid right into the business, however there are many that had to do it the hard way. No matter how good an artist's original songs are, in order to get the uninitiated involved you have to entice them with a bit of the familiar. To those who justify what ASCAP and their ilk are doing, you have to keep in mind that many of the artists you have grown to love started out in small venues and did not have these agencies twisting the venues' arms-which in turn guaranteed them a place to perform. These artists ultimately did much better than the venues they started out in, so when you say the venue made a profit from having them play-hey why not? It is give and take-and really should not involve these agencies until the artist themselves want to be involved. Really, no matter how you slice it, ASCAP, BMI and others still are stifling the very thing that defines their existence anyway. If it wasn't for free music performances, there would be no money in music. Sounds ridiculous, but it is the absolute truth. Somebody hears 'Stairway' on the guitar, probably played wrong in some coffee shop somewhere, but likes the melody. They hear the original version and become hooked. Who knows how much money they happily spent in my lifetime on their entire Zeppelin collection, shows, shirts, posters, books etc. It was all from a public performance by some hack who learned it in his bedroom. Whether he was in a venue that sold a lot of coffee that night, or he made $100, it would still not match the amount the newly-converted fan funneled into that band, which made it to their label, and anybody else that was involved with them. Technology moved so fast that none of the industry was ready for it. They're doing what they can to monetize it, but are alienating the very people that create, re-create and listen to it-and keep it alive. The only real thing that cannot be duplicated truly is a live performance-either by the original artist or a good cover band. The band that plays the venue has the right to charge or not charge for their hard work, and unless the middle man is the bassist, has no right to collect on something they were not asked to be involved in. Ultimately, when the dust settles, it will come from the artist, and not off the venues who have been extorted for these overpriced fees. Artists can play a free show on the corner until the cops tell them to shut it down, their basement or wherever. There is no precedent to be set here. Only a quick buck up front, with long term consequences on the back end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rick Judge, 15 Nov 2010 @ 4:41am

Another Coffee Shop Bites the Dust
http://poststar.com/news/local/article_c6499072-ee95-11df-bb2e-001cc4c03286.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin, 23 Nov 2010 @ 7:13pm

Public Performance License
If ASCAP, BMI & SESAC were doing their jobs correctly, every songwriter and publisher would be paid according to every incidence of a public performance of their product. Instead, those royalty collection agencies quite often make no attempt to survey what music is being played to determine who should actually receive a royalty. For example, if I own a business and draw from my personal collection for on-hold or ambient music, ASCAP, BMI & SESAC will demand that I pay fees to them so that they can ostensibly reward the composers of the music I have selected. But they can only reward the right people if they survey my playlist, which they will make no attempt to do. This is what makes their practice akin to extortion. I have no problem with songwriters earning their due, but under ASCAP methods that oftentimes never happens. There should be a law allowing licensing exemptions to venues that are not surveyed by the royalty collection agencies. This would motivate those agencies to devise better methods of determining who the rightful royalty recipients should be. After all, does playing Montovani to pay Elton John seem fair to anyone out there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rena Davonne, 6 Aug 2011 @ 5:41pm

ASCAP threatening us to pay or stop
So I own a small coffee house in Sacramento with a small stage including a piano. Having been a musician myself, who played only small venues, I wanted to support the local music scene and have only original music played here. We wanted to be a place where our customers could come and know that they are hearing original fresh new sounds and for the musicians to know that they are supported and people want to hear their creations. In comes ASCAP, threatening, sending emails and contracts, harassing until we are in tears and in fear, and now face having to rip out our stage or pay the piper for tunes we aren't playing. We also have art on our walls and I wonder, are we going to have to start paying museums for works that are original, but inspired by the masters? Where does it end, do I have to close my beloved shine or face a lawsuit? Where do bands and artists have to play when every place is watched by ASCAP and the likes, just waiting to pounce to make sure they get their money for nothing, and forcing closure of some and dead air cafes with no music? How do we fight their lies - make them prove their claims - keep our doors open and a place for up and comers to play? How is this happening to my beloved shine when all we wanted was to have a place for people to come and enjoy original creations by local talent wanting to share with others?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
vadim, 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:57pm

live performance royalties, as well
Jerry, May 21st, 2010 @ 8:55am
Under U.S. Copyright Law, the songwriter has exclusive right of public performance. That means he/she has the legal right to play the song, but nobody else does without his permission. No business is going to get sued if it has played only music written by the performer.

Sorry, Jerry but this isn't true. There is also such thing as "live performance royalties", where any member of ASCAP, BMI or SESAC can file with that organization to get a royalty for playing THEIR OWN ORIGINAL MUSIC. If the venue they played it at doesn't pay the license fees, the venue gets in trouble. That's irrespective of what they get paid as their performance fee (whether a guarantee or a door deal based on draw). I didn't know about this until a harrassing SESAC agent (they are the worst) told me this. So for example, a SESAC band that just played my venue to 190 people and got paid over $1000 could technically file to get paid even more from SESAC (which is basically getting paid twice for doing the same job). Luckily, that particular band agreed not to file for such royalties. But apparently a verbal agreement not to, might not be enough - I may have to get it writing in the future. Remember to look into this loophole if you host professional acts - ask them in advance which of three they belong to, and get a signed waiver from them promising not to file live performance royalties. This is something few people know about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PokeBone, 30 May 2012 @ 10:43pm

What!!
Musicians getting screwed over by the powers that be? This just can't be. We never get messed with. We're the musicians!! The world needs us!! I don't believe a word of this. The rest of the club eats from our leftovers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Jul 2012 @ 12:15pm

I've been a professional musician for over 50 years.
I consider ASCAP, & BMI to be extortionists on the same level with Jesse Jackson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jeff pulley, 19 Sep 2012 @ 1:34pm

just got strong armed by ascap
I own a small (25 seats) coffee shop in the heart of the smokey mountains. for the three years weve owned it weve had mic nights occasionally giving the local muscians a place to gather and jam original tunes . ASCAP called today and after three years plus in buisness theyve managed to pull the plug on open mic. I cant afford nor justify paying $345.00 for a one year permit. Local artist playing original tunes and we need a permit. doesnt the record labels get enough royalties? where does the money go after ascap gets it? we are governed to death. wouldnt freedom of speech cover freedom of music?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eamon Collier, 19 Mar 2013 @ 12:29pm

Ascap
Sitting here in the bar owned by my father reading up on this subject since we have discontinued performance here all together because of phone calls and recent legal activity by these so called publishing companies. I have also been a performing musician for about 16 years. Played originals and I have played covers. It seems to me that if we performers deem it necessary to include cover songs in our sets, we should pay the fee not the venue owner. Charging because an artist may play acover is extortion
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Susie Maynard, 17 Jul 2013 @ 11:25pm
  
  Re: Ascap
  I own a small bar, we've been in business for almost 25 years, I hire bands that play ONLY ORIGINAL MATERIAL yet ASCAP and BMI CONTINUE WITH THEIR THREATS
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troy Lindsey, 11 Apr 2013 @ 9:02am

pay for spins
I came across this article looking for alternate options. I own a venue that has an open mic and used to have live music. I am a singer/songwriter with 4 albums out. I got started by playing cover songs at open mic. That lead me to actually having the courage to write my own music. Then lead me to actually writing and album. This article hit home for me on two different levels. One as an artist who enjoys playing cover songs and two as a venue owner. I also have hosted a singer songwriter competition for 3 years running. It has given back to up and coming artist to help them. I am all for paying for what is rightfully owed by someone. In fact I would have no problem sending the Johnny Cash trust a check for all the time I have played Folsom Prison. And the pleasure it has brought me playing such an awesome song. But for me to send that money to a lawyer who sits in a office in Nashville. And he can't even tell me where that money goes is wrong. I was just phoned by ascap the other day and literally yelled at. I put it on speaker phone so my 15 year old daughter could listen to the insanity. Even she could not believe how rude and wrong the whole thing sounded. I thought for many hours about this afterwords looking for some solution in my mind on how to make it right. The only thing I could think was paying for individual spins. I believe this is how the radio does it as well. When I asked ascap how do they get the money back to the particular artist they said they don't. They can only do that by radio that has reported spins. This frustrated me even more because I want to pay the writers of the songs not a lawyer. This is an extremely flawed system that is so mafia style run that its sickening!! I want to host music at my venue and will be doing it. But we had to move the music to the common area that is not leased by me. It's a public area for all to enjoy. And then the bar can't afford to pay the artist. So I have chose to pay them out of my own pocket as a cash donation in there tip jar. And I'm sure that this still holds me liable in some way for paying these criminals. It's just sad because I really want to provide artist with a place to play music and have fun. So how is it these copyright protection companies are protecting the artist again? I guess I'm really confused because the whole thing just feels wrong. There time could be better spent protecting artist from all the crooked promoters and managers that have robbed artist blind over the years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray DeTone, 12 Apr 2013 @ 4:18pm

ASCAP -PROs etc
I'm a composer and musician . I make my living at these professions.
There is something called Copyright Law and Statutory License.
I joined ASCAP to collect the money that is owed me for doing my job based on these laws that protect my intellectual property.
Like any other professional I can't continue to do my job if I'm not paid.
If you use an artists music to enhance your business , by law , you must compensate that artist. ASCAP & BMI are both non-profit collection agencies an artist gives permission to , to collect, after the fact, money already due. Kinda like a restaurant owner , gives a waiter permission to collect money after you have already eaten your meal.

Please don't propagate fiction as fact !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
randy powell, 23 May 2013 @ 7:01am

which one
Is BMI or ASCAP RUN BY COMMUNIST, DRUG CARTEL OR THE MOB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
randy powell, 23 May 2013 @ 7:04am

which one
Is BMI or ASCAP RUN BY COMMUNIST, DRUG CARTEL OR THE MOB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jason, 22 Jun 2014 @ 12:12pm

Jason
This is sick. I hope that a judge can penalize them for bringing bullying and harassing lawsuits to the courthouse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny_music (profile), 7 Oct 2014 @ 9:15pm

ASCAP
I'm with Ray de tone on this. I have just released my first album and wish every day I could make a living doing what I love but yet bars feel it's ok to generate a profit by playing music from artist that don't ever see any royalties. The blanket license does not only cover live band performances of cover songs but also house music basically enticing customers to go to their business by using music from other artist not just local bands. Being a songwriter and seeing the membership side of these industries and having my BA in Music Industry I know that they take care of the local songwriters every day they are trying to make it happen for the songwriter not for some huge artist that is singing their songs but the guy that doesn't make crap for his hard work because bar owners who think they are entitled to the songwriters music. I'm all for free music to the public in general but when someone decides to use it as a tool to generate profit whether it be Karaoke, Cover Songs, Bars playing music, Pandora making a profit from the commercials or coffee shops making a profit from the music they play after the bands are done and they need something to lighten the mood and keep the ambience alive so that customers want to stay and purchase more music, it all needs to be accounted for because it's not right to take from the little guys. Yeah call them racketeers call them extortionists they're still a non-profit organization and they're still going to fight and bat for the songwriters rights while all the bar/coffee shop owners, and radio stations fight to continue to use the artist music for free to fill their greedy bellies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]