Slashdot Mirror

The same people who sued to stop the Camp Fire Girls from singing "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" in the woods around a fire as a "public performance" will be making accusations and shutting down web sites en mass. Because all it takes is for a site to be a suspected offender.

Citation please. That song was written in it's modern form in 1881.

In reference to the Girl Scouts, a source is here: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/ASCAP.html

They cite ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) as the perpetrators. A different source describes the particulars of how they decide who and what infringes: http://woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html, which specifically says ASCAP has more than 80 arrangements of "Row, Row, Row Your Boat" under copyright. So the song is public domain, but if you infringe upon their arrangement, they are going to get you.

Note on sources: more reliable sources may be available, this is all I had time to find.

I started to post in order to question your claim, googled, and found lots of news making similar unfounded claims. Every article or blog said piles of people were affected, but then they give a single example. In many cases it's the same example. I'm not questioning that it happens, but it seems more likely to be

1) legitimate claims where BMI-licensed music was played in a place without a license, and they legitimately need to pay (according to law, not me)
2) a number of anecdotes of intimidation without any actual legal action, where either nothing happens or the owner gives up

What I do not see is anywhere that BMI or ASCAP have ever shut someone down. They intimidate, the owner rolls over, and the owner shuts the place down. If you're clicking the reply button to chastize me, read on please before doing so. They can claim anything they want, but "try to shut [them] down"? Only through intimidation. Kinda like me repeatedly asking for my two dollars.

This article has the claim that it's happening all over but has a single example and one that's not clearly legit or not. It also says that license costs are being pressured down, probably due to people not wanting to pay license fees:
http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Music/2009/0109/p14s01-almp.html

Here's "one" illigitimate claim, can't tell if it's the same one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090109/1823043352.shtml

Here's a guy who keeps getting invoices, but because he hasn't been caught with licenseable music nothing has happened, which is typically how it happens and not actually shutting anyone down.
http://www.viewnews.com/2010/VIEW-May-18-Tue-2010/Henderson/35878176.html

Here's an entire essay using the word extortion instead of license, and they managed a single example (I skimmed it), and it names the musician, not the places that hired him.
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/2010/08/bmiascapsesac-legal-extortion-scam.html

It links to this guy, with the title being "HOW ONE INDEPENDENT MUSICIAN DEFEATED BMI". Although he didn't get hired by these places, the US Copyright Office told BMI to sodomize themselves with a rusty baton.
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

In short, there is no difference between the establishments that shouldn't pay BMI but do, and the people who give their bank accounts to Nigerian scammers. They make it bad for everybody, and they need to grow a sack. Go ahead and sue me, I have playlists for every night I've been in business. Hell, I taped every show. Tell me what night, and what was played, and I'll show you the video.

Businesses shut themselves down out of ignorance. BMI and ASCAP are some shady bastards who need to be beaten with pillows until bruised at the very least, but business does this to itself.

I had never actually heard of this before, but man, what complete bullshit. And a single google search provides tons of examples, if not that specific case:

http://www.boston.com/ae/music/articles/2010/06/09/pay_to_play/
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100518/2341299481.shtml
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

At least Bruce seems to have some common sense (make sure you read the update):

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/04/the_boss_sues_midtown_pub.php

That pretty much represents the final straw on the camel's back for me. From this point forward, I will only ever pay for independent music. If your band is a member of any of those organizations, I will be performing civil disobedience against unwarranted extortion, and just pirate your shit if I want to have it. If you don't like it, leave those groups, and I'll buy it. And for the record, this is coming from someone who legally owns nearly 1000 CDs, and a good couple thousand iTunes songs (where the 99 cents was worth more than buying a full cd for one or two songs). But fuck it. I went to a lot of trouble (and expense, over the years) to do what I thought was the right thing. Apparently, I was wrong, since I was merely funding the absurdities of this kind of bullshit. My apologies to everyone else for helping promote this situation with my purchases. It won't happen again.

A quick Google search turned up some ASCAP asshattery:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=51550622&blogId=510343864 http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/019179.html http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/12/16/0940232/ASCAP-Seeks-Licensing-Fees-For-emGuitar-Hero-Arcadeem?from=rss

A quick Google search turned up some ASCAP asshattery:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=51550622&blogId=510343864 http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/019179.html http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/12/16/0940232/ASCAP-Seeks-Licensing-Fees-For-emGuitar-Hero-Arcadeem?from=rss

It's well-known fact (tm) that the smaller artists don't make a penny from the royalties. Only the biggest acts are able to extract their royalties from BMI/ASCAP/etc. Bono is speaking out of self-interest and self-interest alone.

That doesn't excuse or justify piracy - but if you do care about the smaller artists then purchase music directly from them. Any markup on recordings will far exceed what they get as a royalty.

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I did my first professional work at the age of 5. I've worked in the industry on and off ever since, and I've NEVER seen ASCAP compensate a small, local musician.

Read this:
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

and this:
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

I did my first professional work at the age of 5. I've worked in the industry on and off ever since, and I've NEVER seen ASCAP compensate a small, local musician.

Read this:
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

and this:
http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html

I can't say I'm surprised, from the limited knowledge I have on the subject, these guys along with BMI have been on the bullies for years. For a good example from a couple years ago, check out The Richard Phillips vs BMI Story in which an independent artist, who only performed his own music (no covers, etc.), which he owned the copyright to, was pushed out of a job.

If you are running a business, ASCAP will bill you for ANY performance, whether or not you are playing free music.

They might, but they are not supposed to.

actually, i can't because my sources are mainly: a.) my boss, who runs his own record label and has been working in the music industry for close to 30 years, and b.) a friend & former co-worker who now manages a bar/venue out in L.A.

however, if you do a google search for "ASCAP" and "public domain" you'll find a lot of articles that support these claims. for instance, here's one that discusses the ASCAP holding some 40 Beethoven songs on their catalog along with 80 versions of Row, Row, Row Your Boat and countless other works that should be in public domain by now.

you might also take a look at this Wired article. the Wired content itself isn't particularly interesting, but the comments are very telling of how the ASCAP screws over indie artists and venue owners. and i'm sure if you talk to local venue owners in your area you'll here the same kind of stories.

the fact of the matter is, the ASCAP may have been created out of a real need, but over the years this unregulated monopoly (they even faced an anti-trust case a while back, i believe) has devolved into a protection racket of sorts. it's similar to the situation with the RIAA suing alleged file sharers. it doesn't matter whether you're guilty or not, the threat of lawsuit (and the subsequent legal costs) itself is enough to coerce most venue owners to pay their licensing fees, even if they only intend on playing original music or material that's already in public domain.

If my monthly music fee is $60, and I only listen to Radiohead and NIN (equally), then they each get $30. If I listen to ten different bands, they each get $6. The way it's set up now (iTunes or buying CDs), NIN only gets my money if I buy their album. If I buy more albums, then I pay more money. The way the bands win in this plan is that they get paid when someone listens to their music, whether or not someone buys their album.

If this blanket licensing scheme is anything like the existing blanket license that practically anyplace that publicly provides music (eg. restaurant, bar, club, etc.) is forced to pay to BMI/ASCAP/(RIAA?)/et al. or face the fines, I think it unlikely that any particular artist will receive their "fair-share" of the so-called royalty pot.

I'm sure there are numerous sources in the industry that have covered how unfair blanket licensing particularly, not to mention other practices in the industry, are to the artists. For example, three time platinum artist(s?) Stiffff Kitties claim to have received absolutely zero in royalties from their albums. An interesting read on licensing/roylaties, albeit rather dated, by Harvey Reid can be found here.

Here is what is quite possibly a definitive story on ASCAP & BMI.

expect to see the RIAA lobbying for similarly harsh enforcement of copyright law around here

In the US, performance rights are the domain of ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, not the RIAA.

Logically a band covering another song in a large venue for a paying crowd should pay some type of usage fees

Bands don't pay the fees, the venues do. The venues (and other groups who use music, including radio stations) pay the performing rights organizations, who do some sampling of what songs are being played and then (supposedly) pay the songwriters.

I think the idea is sound, but there are various horror stories about the implementation - not surprising when there's big money involved.

(BTW, I've been suggesting this sort of "royalty-right" as a copyright-replacement for years: just as you can play any song you want at a party with friends, but have to pay a cut to the songwriter if you play for pay, you should be able to make copies of any work you want, but have to pay a royalty on selling them or any for-profit use.)

I've always been under the impression that it would be fine to perform this live and play it for an audience but once you try to sell it as a record, you're going to face some serious liabilities. I've been in bands that have covered Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beatles, Beck, The Pixies, etc. and we've never got in trouble for playing them live at crowded bars.

An excerpt:

ASCAP has field agents on payroll, employed by their 23 field offices, who watch the newspapers and radio (and even hire clipping services) and when a new nightclub starts offering live music, for example, an agent will either show up or write a letter demanding money for the license. Refusals and arguments eventually lead to lawsuits, and the club always loses, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus legal fees per infraction allowed by law. If a nightclub or even a store refuses to buy the license, then ASCAP or BMI will hire spies, often local music teachers or semi-professional musicians, who will make notes and testify in court as expert witnesses that on a certain day at a certain time a certain song was indeed played. Attempts by club owners to post "No ASCAP material to be performed here" signs or to ask that no musicians perform ASCAP material have not worked (Dreamland Ballroom vs. Shapiro, 1929; also Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. vs. Veltin, 1942), and invariably some musician unwittingly performs something in ASCAP's immense catalog. Note that even though the musicians or the employees decide what is played, it is the owner of the establishment where the music is played who gets sued. ASCAP bases this on the claim that "it would be a practical impossibility for ASCAP to locate and license musicians, who are often itinerant."

Here's an interesting link that turned up when I googled for "performance fees" and "jukebox".

This may be a great idea, but there are definite consequences.

The proposal is similar to what's being done with the blank audio cassette levy in the US (see Title 17, section 1004) and the Canadian CD-R Levy (see this random link I found on Google).

But the question is: how does the collected money get back to the artists? There are two ways:

1. Use the BMI or ASCAP system that already exists to pay artists for music rebroadcast.
Of course, this has problems of its own (see ASCAP & BMI -- Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?). This is unlikely, because the sampling method used to dole out royalties is even less valid for the Internet than it is for rebroadcast and live performances. Additionally, it's unnecessary because they could just...

2. Track actual downloads from the Internet.
Think about it -- to accurately divide a >$2B pie will take a very thorough analysis to get all parties comfortable. It's easy to legislate: either all download sites or sharing systems aggregate their download data in a central database or they will be considered illegally supporting piracy. IMHO this will very shortly be a part of the proposal.

Note that this could use unique IDs, assuring that your actual music listening habits won't be tracked, etc. But do you really believe this will happen, when there's yet another advertising vector to exploit? Think about the metadata that could be gained from this data...the licensing opportunities...the marketing...the potential for privacy intrusion....

Who would control this big usage database in the sky? Who would you trust?

There's a wonderful essay by Harvey Reid, on business practices in the recording industry, which has shaped my opinion on many of these issues. It is now a bit old and may be slightly out of date at this point, but it's a good read. ASCAP & BMI -- Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?

-- CTH

---

Good grief! How are they supposed to be making money on CDs when people are playing this music for free on the radio!?

Funny, but not true.

Let's say you walk into a clothing store. Let's say they have the radio on. How many times do you think someone was charged for that?

Three times.

1. The company that presses the CD has to pay the publisher of the music (ASCAP or BMI). This cost is passed on to the store that sells the CD, and eventually to the consumer who bought it, in this case the radio station.

2. The radio station has to pay ASCAP/BMI again, because the playing of the CD is considered a performance.

3. And the store that just happens to have the radio on has to pay yet a third time, because the act of turning on the radio within earshot of customers is also considered a performance.

In theory, ASCAP/BMI pass this money on to the record label and thence the artist. In practice, only the top-grossing fraction of a percent of any artists ever see any of this money. Almost all artists never see a dime from this racket.

Here's a great article on this topic: ASCAP and BMI: Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?

(And I can't pass up an opportunity to link to this one again: Some of your friends are probably already this fucked. )