Slashdot Mirror

"You ASSERT that it isn't the RIAA. To me they look like the same group of people. Until I see a significant distinction, then I'm not going to differentiate."

The RIAA is run by and for record labels.

ASCAP and BMI -- the "bad guys" in this situation -- are run by and for artists.

If you believe that anybody who demands money for music is evil, then by all means -- you are 100% correct. Both the RIAA as well as ASCAP/BMI deserve your hate. You can stop right here.

For those who would like more information:

Here is information about ASCAP. Here is information about BMI.

As others have pointed out, ASCAP and BMI have been providing performance rights licences for many decades. It's a great way for composers and songwriters to make money without having to rely on record companies. We want artists to succeed without having to rely on record labels, right? Performance rights are the way for us to enjoy music for free, to avoid giving money to record companies, and for artists to make money doing what they love. It's sad that this is not enough for you.

I'm a bit boggled by your statement that the RIAA "purchased the law that this abuse is based on." ASCAP and BMI have been looking out for artists' rights for longer than the RIAA has been around. Please clarify.

Performance rights have been a central issue for ASCAP since its founding in 1914:

Early on, Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough." THE ERA OF THE PLAYER PIANO (THE EARLY 1900S)

under the new fees, most small internet radio stations -- particularly those who have lots of channels tailored to particular musical tastes or genres -- just wouldn't be able to pay the bills.

I'm not entirely convinced that a webcaster with the bandwidth to deliver hundreds - thousands - of high-quality streams world-wide qualifies as "small."

"Actually, any artist can collect fees from Russian music collecting agency. And Russian collecting agency is also a non-profit organization."

Okay, pretend you're a moderately successful artist. You sold 1,000 copies of your album on iTunes last month for which you netted about $1K. You suspect that allofmp3 also sold about 1,000 copies of your album last month (you have no way of knowing... artists have asked allofmp3 to release sales data, but they refuse). They sold them for $0.60 each, to which the collecting society perhaps got about $0.06, of which you might see $0.04. So, somewhere out there, somebody has $40.00 for you.

After finding ROMS' site and the English version thereof, you get to this page before you hit a wall. If says that if you had "concluded an agreement" with ROMS (which you most likely have not), you are entitled to compensation, but ROMS does not tell you how you can go about this. You might note that by comparison, the corresponding page on ASCAP is much more useful. This is because ASCAP is run by and for artists, and is looking out for your best interests. Unlike ROMS, they're not a front for a pirate site.

At what point do you give up, and admit that the Russians effectively get to keep your $40?

I do not see this as having that big of an impact on broadcasters, if it is done right.

Up here in the Great White North, a radio station pays 3.1% of it's gross income to ASCAP http://www.ascap.com/ and SOCAN http://www.socan.ca/. Every 6 months, they must submit a survey of every song played in a given time period. ASCAP and SOCAN then statistically calculate how much each composer gets. The money goes to the composer of the work, not the *AA.

Of course, if the RIAA wants that revenue stream it is just another way to screw the composers and performers who created the artistic work.

Actually, they do collect royalties for Internet streaming. This covers the right to perform the songs. The composers own the copyrights to these songs, and this is (in theory) how they get paid.

This would be sufficient to make an Internet radio station legal if they only played live music, but most don't. Instead, they play pre-recorded music. The record companies own the copyrights on particular recordings of songs. This is where SoundExchange gets into the act. They collect royalties for the recordings of songs, not the songs themselves. See SoundExchange's Licensing 101 for more information.

Of course, broadcast radio is exempt from paying royalties on sound recordings, so they only have to pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, unless they also stream online. See 17 USC 114 for more information.

Altogether, ASCAP earned $785 million in revenues last year. That's from all music streams, radio, internet, live performances, etc.

No more copyrighted music at weddings without a license.
Well,
Its funny you should say that... ...because technically if you are a mobile dj you are supposed to pay some kind of BMI or ASCAP dues
to buy a license and cover this sort of thing. In lots of major cities, reps of both make rounds to any bar that
plays recorded music and shake them down for dues. If you have a jukebox, you pay too.
Hell, any "public performance" of copyrighted work is fair game actually. I don't know if that
includes boomboxes in the park, but there it is.

Ascap tells you about it

From ASCAP's FAQ page... http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generalfaq.html 5. 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.

ASCAP was founded in February 1914:

ASCAP's first office was a tinyroom in New York's Fulton Theater Building. A kitchen table and broken-down chair served as office furniture. The Society's total payroll was $15 a week. Dues were $10 for writers and $50 for publishers. Today membership is free.

Its earliest members included the era's most active songwriters - Irving Berlin, James Weldon Johnson, Jerome Kern and John Philip Sousa.

Early on, founding member Victor Herbert brought a lawsuit against Shanley's Restaurant for refusing to pay royalties. The fight took two years and went to the Supreme Court. ASCAP prevailed. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the decision of the Court: "If music did not pay, it would be given up. Whether it pays or not, the purpose of employing it is profit and that is enough."

In 1919, ASCAP and the Performing Right Society of Great Britain signed the first reciprocal agreement for the representation of each other's members' works in their respective territories. Today, ASCAP has reciprocal agreements all over the world and licenses the U.S. performances of hundreds of thousands of international creators.

THE ERA OF THE PLAYER PIANO

Two examples of such copyright collection societies are: ASCAP and BMI. One issue with them is that they are very expensive - often they will demand a certain percentage of revenue. They were even sued for being trusts - and ASCAP lost. So they are not without their faults.

"No, artists are supposed to recieve a royalty every time there song is played on the radio, jukebox or DJ, but you can imagine how often the lables are forgotten to be paid for the above, and how often the artists are forgotten even when the labels are paid."

I'm guessing you're talking about Europe? Here in the USA, licenses for airplay go through a couple of artists' societies called ASCAP and BMI. They are run by and for artists and the labels see none of the airplay licensing money.

Here's how BMI pays royalties, and here's how ASCAP pays.

Bummer for your countries' artists and songwriters if performance royalties are filtered through the labels. That's the wrong way to do it. Publishing and performing rights should remain with the songwriters.

"Radio stations do have to pay money to broadcast music, but it's not very much, and (IIRC) it's a blanket license to play all of the music controlled by a label. The cut that goes back to the artists is miniscule -- practically nonexistent."

here in the USA, radio licensing is handled by ASCAP and BMI, two societies that are run by and for artists. More info is here:

ASCAP radio licensing

BMI radio licensing

It's a separate money stream than the royalties that the artists earn from record sales. Your use of the word "label" isn't the most accurate. ASCAP and BMI are societies that represent artists, composers and musicians, but they are not record labels. Record labels do not get any of the radio licensing money.

"Practically nonexistent" is a relative term. I've heard that even 2nd or 3rd tier artists can get checks for a couple of hundred bucks a month from radio airplay -- and again, that's money that doesn't even pass through the hands of the record labels. A couple of hundred bucks can make the difference between paying the rent, and not paying the rent.

Public Performance or Performance Rights A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

"Radio stations pay to RIAA and suchlike for broadcasing rights already. This is where the music is sold. If RIAA thinks it is underpaid, it could try to raise the price for the stations."

It's pretty common knowledge that if you want to operate a broadcast station in the US, you get a license from ASCAP and BMI. Somebody else mentioned Harry Fox but I don't believe they handle radio licensing. And the RIAA definitely doesn't get a piece of that pie.

ASCAP, BMI, and Harry Fox are representatives of the artists. The RIAA is the representative of the record labels. See the difference? If one is of the mindset that anybody who wants to be paid for providing music is evil, then I suppose there isn't much difference at all, but this is a vital distinction to understand for those who kneel at the shrine of "artists good, record companies bad."

I once heard a radio program describing how representatives of ASCAP and BMI would go to restaurants and write down the songs
that were played on the PA system. If they did not have a license for public performance for those songs, they would be contacted
by ASCAP or BMI.

You can contact those two organizations and pay for a license for public performance of songs who's music rights are owned by their member artists.

To quote their web site: "And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners."

According to the BMI web site:

"It does not matter how the song is performed. Be it a live band, radio, CD or tape, the music user must have the permission of the song's owner to perform it in their place of business."

An intersting note is that it is not the DJs problem, it is the club owner's problem. The onus is upon the owner of the venue to have a license
with both of these organizations in case a recorded song in their catalog is played either by a DJ or a musician performing in their venue.

In the same radio program, they talked to business owners who responded by hiring musicians to play their own original music in lieu of paying
ASCAP and BMI.

Well, I believe even if you play the CD for a "public performance" you are supposed to pay royalties.

Check out this, and this.

Hmmm, I dunno - I checked and it looks like Pink Floyd still owns all the rights to the Dark Side of the Moon, so America at best owns half...

&laz;

Each PRO has their own way of determining how royalties are paid. I think they come up with formulas and algorithms to determine the "weight" of each song in their catalog and then pay based off of that. Again this is only for live performances - broadcast plays are distinctly tracked.

You can probably investigate more of the specifics on their websites here:
http://www.bmi.com/licensing/
http://www.ascap.com/about/
http://sesac.com/licensing/learn_more.html

The royalties that people pay for the sale of music are fixed by ASCAP. The reason allofmp3 can charge so little is that with the exchange rate of the crappy Russian currency that rate is cheap for us (paying in US$ converted to whatever their currency is called).

Does the Russian mob run allofmp3.com? I doubt it. If they are, then they have a credible puppet.

I've bought quite a few "CDs" from allofmp3.com. Very few of them I'd have bought at the going rate (US$15, or there abouts). I think the point the original poster (that we're all replying to) was making is that the music industry is their own worst enemy. If I could by an album for US$5, I wouldn't use allofmp3.com (except for really questionable purhases that I didn't think was even worth US$5).

http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?searchstr=3800 08955&search_in=n&dsn=ws_ascap&start=1&mode=result s&pageNum=1&search=Search&search_type=exact&search _det=t%2Cs%2Cw%2Cp%2Cb%2Cv&results_pp=10

Save that for reference.. :)

That's fucked. And it's true - ASCAP title code 380008955. Do a search by T-Code. http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?mode=search

This efforts appears to be part of something called BASCAP (Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy).

Will ASCAP, a performance rights organization for songwriters and their publishers, sue for use of a confusingly similar mark? Or is ASCAP in on this BASCAP thing?

ASCAP represents tens of thousands of copyright owners and millions of songs and an ASCAP license will give you the right to perform them all.

No... The customer, in this case, the bars bar are the ones that need a license.

You completely missed my point though... I'm certainly not fond of ASCAP, but bars (and hotels and airport terminals and dentist offices) have been paying those fees for year, and yes it was illegal to play music in public without it.

The NET Act (No Electronic Theft) of 1997 criminalized unlicensed, non-profit, re-distribution. WWW.CYBERCRIME.GOV The Robin Hood defense is dead.

The music was legally sold to a customer. That customer chose to share something which they bought ownership of. If the music industry wants to deal in rentals then they should make that clear at the point of sale.

You don't own the music, you own the disk. That has been the law in the U.S. since the piano roll days of Irving Berlin, Victor Herbert and John Philip Sousa. The Birth of ASCAP 1914

You want a license for broadcast, public performance, re-distribution, you negotiate it separately.

But let's hold true to natural law and how the Constitution implements it.

Americans have never been comfortable with natural law as a guiding principle in a court of law. They expect legal decisions and debate to have a solid anchorage in a written constitution, a treaty, a statute. You are unlikely to ever hear a natural law argument made in an American court.

The federal government, the primary author of copyright law, is empowered by a single document: The Constitution

Treaties have equal status with the Constitution, and can significantly expand federal power, something to think about when considering copyright law.

Current copyright law is the newer, kinder, gentler extortion... and nothing more

...and your solution is to subvert the right of every author to profit from the distribution of his own work? I think I'll take my stand with the pirate whose thievery is untainted by self-righteousness

Oh my god! The jewel case and paper insert must cost like $10 each to produce. It's a wonder that the RIAA makes any money. The royalties? I believe it's like $2 per CD.

I'd make people pay at supermarket checkouts for the privilege of listening to musak while they shopped. And I'd make it so elevators with musak wouldn't open until money was deposited for the same privilege.

Actually, assuming they're playing songs belonging to RIAA members, it's the supermarkets who should already be paying for that priviledge to ASCAP. Don't worry, the RIAA has you covered.

I may with or without your permission make a recording of the sheet music, or sing your lyrics, and make money off of that, with no royalties or money owed of any kind.

Why scouts? Read the following for an answer. Remember kids, copyright is valued more than genuine and harmless fun with friends around the campfire.

ASCAP Reaches Agreement With Guides and Scouts

A major collector of copyright fees in the United States is ASCAP - the American Society of Composers and Publishers http://ascap.com/ and in Canada SOCAN - the Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers http://www.socan.ca/. Regional offices are charged with the responsibility of collecting fees and the following article is taken from the Wall Street Journal, July 15, 1997.

"Martinsville, IN. - The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers reached an agreement with the American Camping Association allowing camps to use copyrighted music, including music sung around the campfire, for a nominal fee. The camping association, which is based here, said the agreement calls for it to pay $1 per camp per year for permission to use all ASCAP-licensed music. The association represents more than 2,200 summer camps, including some Girl Scout and Boy Scout camps. Last summer, several Girl Scout camps deleted ASCAP songs from their programs, including "God Bless America" and "This Land is Your Land", after ASCAP notified the Association that camps must pay a fee to use copyrighted songs. Following a front page article in this newspaper, ASCAP reimbursed 16 Girl Scout councils that did pay the fees and exempted the Girl Scouts from paying license fees in the future. But ASCAP ad not clarified the license policy for other nonprofit camps. ASCAP said yesterday that camps that don't belong to the camping association may be subject to license fees, but they won't have to pay "if there is no direct or indirect economic gain from the performance of music".

After reading news like this, please consider the following: stop downloading, stop buying, stop listening to artists that are represented by these organizations. Teach your children that there are free alternatives, and they don't need to listen to Brit or Avril or Dursts new shit to be cool.

Check. although since most of them have broadcast/performance licensessee ascap it's more of a personality thing. Note, that anyone can get an ascap license, and many groups do, so that they can print up 25-100 copies of selected music for chorus', chorales, etc, or other group sing type events. If you wanted for example to have music at your wedding and the hall did not have an ascap license( and you wanted to scrupulously follow the law) you could contact ascap with a playlist and guest count and they would issue you a license number and price list.

"Listening to music is free, just like looking at this sculpture is free. Playing the music (esp. in public venues where it is part of a business situation: restaurants, shops, radio stations) is where the money comes into it. The RIAA wants to be reimbursed for the use of the music in those situations."

Public performance is licensed by outfits like ASCAP and BMI. Both are non-profit societies run by and for songwriters and composers. They are unrelated to the RIAA and this licensing money goes composers, songwriters and musicians, not the RIAA.

This is vital to understand if one kneels at the shrine of "RIAA bad, musicians good." The fact is, whether we like it or not, many songwriters (from here on known as "fucking greedy songwriters") make much of their money through public performance. I think a good umbrealla sort of philosophy to accomodate this fact is that anyboody who wants to be paid for their creative output is bad. Unless they're a web designer, software developer, or otherwise have another Slashdot-friendly profession!

On friday/saturday nights I run a karaoke show where I stream video live over the internet

Roughly how big are your annual checks to BMI and ASCAP? If you answer zero, or if you don't know what I'm talking about, then your usage is not legal.

Hey kids! Try the exciting Ratecalc(tm) to find out how much your free, amateur streaming service owes to Music, Inc. And don't forget the best part: even if you only play selections from the Vienna Philharmonic, the bulk of your payment goes to Eminem, Linkin Park, and Ludacris!

On friday/saturday nights I run a karaoke show where I stream video live over the internet

Roughly how big are your annual checks to BMI and ASCAP? If you answer zero, or if you don't know what I'm talking about, then your usage is not legal.

Hey kids! Try the exciting Ratecalc(tm) to find out how much your free, amateur streaming service owes to Music, Inc. And don't forget the best part: even if you only play selections from the Vienna Philharmonic, the bulk of your payment goes to Eminem, Linkin Park, and Ludacris!

"I'd be eager to hear from small and up & coming artists themselves to prove that they're actually receiving nice fat paycheques... I suspect they're not, and won't be..."

Of course not -- the money is distributed according to airplay figures. The rationale is that in theory, the artists who are played the most are also pirated the most. As reports of what's the most popular on P2P and legit download sites tends to mirror the Billboard Top 100, this approach makes sense to a certain degree. BMI and ASCAP use a similar system.

So, this means that this is even more money for Celine Dion, Rush, Bryan Adams, and the other music superstars who happen to be Canadian.

As a matter of fact, this is what the ASCAP site's FAQ has to say about general licenses:

Frequently Asked Questions About General Licensing

ASCAP LICENSING OF BUSINESSES
(Nightclubs, Concerts, Hotels, Businesses, etc.)

1. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment. Permission for radio and television transmissions in your business is not needed if the performance is by means of public communication of TV or radio transmissions by eating, drinking, retail or certain other establishments of a certain size which use a limited number of speakers or TVs, and if the reception is not further transmitted (for example, from one room to another) from the place in which it is received, and there is no admission charge. Your local ASCAP licensing manager can discuss your needs and advise how ASCAP can help you.

As a matter of fact, this is what the ASCAP site's FAQ has to say about general licenses:

Frequently Asked Questions About General Licensing

ASCAP LICENSING OF BUSINESSES
(Nightclubs, Concerts, Hotels, Businesses, etc.)

1. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment. Permission for radio and television transmissions in your business is not needed if the performance is by means of public communication of TV or radio transmissions by eating, drinking, retail or certain other establishments of a certain size which use a limited number of speakers or TVs, and if the reception is not further transmitted (for example, from one room to another) from the place in which it is received, and there is no admission charge. Your local ASCAP licensing manager can discuss your needs and advise how ASCAP can help you.

Ok, so I'm at a concert and a bunch of fools are shouting "Freebird!" The band on stage laughs and indulges the drunks with a few chords from freebird. Does Skynard get paid for this?

Check ASCAP's website. Their licensing only applies to the playing of actual recordings in public.

By your rationale, Tony Hawk can sue any skateboarder who performs a trick that is identical to his.

``Using a broadcast radio station as the hold music on a phone system actually requires a copyright license from the station from which the artists/publishers should be seeking their payment.``

I don't know where you got this information, but it's completely inaccurate. In the USA, if you play music in your public space, be it a dentist office, mall, etc, you have to pay BMI and ASCAP, the US equivalents of SOCAN. This has been the case for many decades.

Perhaps your thinking of the subscription commercial music services like DMX or Muzak who provide music and bundle the licensing fees to the retailers- but radio stations are not licensed to resell music for playback in stores or on hold!

(The RIAA has nothing to do with this. BMI and ASCAP represent the performance copyright, where the RIAA represents the sound recording copyright.)

Sorry to sound so crass but /. has a terrible way of amplifying misinformation, and it has to be nipped in the bud.

With the rest of your comment I definately agree.

When opening your own business that are invariably unforseen costs. Imagine our surprise when we get a letter only a few weeks after getting our federal tax id. And the costs turn out to be $3000, that's a real drain when opening a business on a shoestring. I think they scan the SIC codes for new businesses and attack right away.

Just FYI, to be fully legit, Webcasters must pay fees to copyright holders BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, as well as to the RIAA.

Eisner's family owns a large estate in SE Vermont for many years.

So, see how Eisner has rewarded Leahy for his work on the Mickey Mouse copyright extension and other acts of kindness.

You can join as a writer, a publisher, or both if you meet the eligibility requirements.

You can join as a writer, a publisher, or both if you meet the eligibility requirements.

To become a writer member, you must be the writer or co-writer of a musical composition or a song that has been:

• commercially recorded CD, record, tape, etc.;
• or, performed publicly in any venue licensable by ASCAP club, live concert, symphonic concert or recital venue, college or university, etc.;
• or, performed in any audio visual or electronic medium film, television, radio, Internet, cable, pay-per-view, etc.;
• or, published and available for sale or rental.

"Record companies are compensated for songs that are played on the radio, tv, etc. Just because the record company passes very little of that on to the artist is no justification for file sharing."

For what it's worth, in the United States, it's the songwriters and composers who are paid via radio airplay, not the record companies. Radio stations obtain licenses from ASCAP and BMI, non-profit performing rights societies that are run by and for artists, musicians and composers -- not the record companies.

ASCAP has a pretty good radio licensing FAQ.

However, I agree with you that the fact that radio licensing exists is no excuse for piracy.

I want to select songs that I think would go well together and make mix or compilation cds and sell them.

That is pretty much impossible to do legally, unless you restrict yourself to songs by your brother's garage band. The RIAA cartel controls the copyrights to most every artist anyone has ever heard of, and the RIAA has absolutely zero interest in dealing with you.

Is there a difference DJing for clubs versus for private events versus in private homes?

US copyright law has the following definition:
To perform or display a work ''publicly'' means - to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered

If it's a private party of YOUR family and social circle then it's a fair use. You can play your personal CD's at your own New Years Eve party with your crew. You can play whatever your friend's bring too.

If it's open to the public and/or you're hired to DJ's for profit then it is a public performance and you need for pay for public performance licencing...

what a DJ needs to do to be legal

The three major performance rights organizations are ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI. You'd need to sign up with one or more of them. ASCAP is the largest and slightly more expensive than BMI. SESAC is signifigantly smaller and cheaper and only represents European artists. If you only sign up with one then you can only (legally) play the artists associated with that group.

I *think* ASCAP and BMI cost somewhere between $100 and $270 per year each, and I *think* SESAC is under $90 per year.

-

The Ascap (American society of Composers and Authors) has page about what they do, basicaly they collect royalties and distribute them to there members. Its only composers though and not performers, although often times those are one and the same. One of the reasons a lot of liner notes used to contain the names of the songs writers.

The Ascap (American society of Composers and Authors) has page about what they do, basicaly they collect royalties and distribute them to there members. Its only composers though and not performers, although often times those are one and the same. One of the reasons a lot of liner notes used to contain the names of the songs writers.

If your kid has a birthday party and you hire a clown to come in and he sings Happy Birthday, the law was broken.

It's not illegal to sing "Happy Birthday," it's illegal to sing it publicly and not pay the requisite fee to ASCAP or whichever organization handles the collecting of fees and distribution of royalties to composers.

You're thinking of ASCAP and BMI.

"It just that record companies often pay "consultants" to encourage "read: Pay" radio stations to play their songs. They also often sign liberal agreements with stations (Pay us $x a month and you can play anything from our catalog)."

Your use of the word "They" to start the second sentence may give readers the impression that radio stations, et al, deal with the record companies for licensing music. I know you didn't mean it that way, but I'd like to clarify it anyway.

Record companies (and restaurants, and so on) license from ASCAP and BMI. They are not record labels, but non-profit societies run by and for composers, artists and publishers (the "CAP" in ASCAP). The licensing fee does not go to record companies.

This is an important distinction to understand if one kneels at the shrine of "record companies bad, performers and songwriters good." Whenever this licensing requirement comes up, people invariably blame those "greedy record companies," but "greedy songwriters" would be more appropriate. In actuality, a typical songwriter is lucky to have one hit song over the course of their career, and many songwriters rely on licensing royalties to feed their families.

You'll still have to have a license for any music you want to play... assuming that its artists who are covered by restrictive contracts. You'all know about the fees that clubs, bars, and other venues have to pay to the good folks at ASCAP, SESAC and BMI... There really won't be any competition for clearchan-hell. On the other hand, if you've really wanted to see what AXELF sounds like on the "airwaves," this might be just the thing for you.