Slashdot Mirror
Music Industry Shaking Down Coffee Shops
realjd writes with news out of Florida that music licensing companies are now hitting small bars and coffee shops that offer live music, even if only occasionally and even if the musicians don't get paid. One coffee-shop owner told musicians they can only perform their own songs from now on. "A restaurant owner who doesn't even offer live music was approached for payment for having the TV on while the Monday Night Football theme played. And if the owners pay up to one licensing company, all of the others start harassing them, calling four times a day, demanding payment too. It sounds like they don't even check whether any copyright violations occurred, they're just sending bills to any business that may or may not have live music."
<sarcasm>
I must say that it's about time they cracked down on these coffeehouses! I received no payment for playing but I watched customers repeatedly purchase drinks sometimes resulting in $1, $2 or even $3 transactions! Clearly this was only because the combo I was in was playing well known standards.
In the end, I apologize to Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beta Band, The Turin Brakes, The Beatles, The Doves and all the other bands we blatantly abused to slightly increase the sales at a small fledgling establishment. I know that these artists are undoubtedly ruined by the actions of me and my fellow band mates while we were in college. In the wrongest sense, we evaded the long arm of the law and all deserve felonies if we don't face life sentences.
However, this story has a happy ending, as one of the establishments we had the most shows at (The Purple Onion) is no more now that Starbucks has moved in across the street. Corporate America wins again in this story and we no longer have to suffer from the grave injustices committed near 15th and University Ave in Dinkytown. Hopefully all of these small time operations are shut down one after the other so I don't have to see walls beautifully covered with art featuring a different student artist every week. Instead, I can rest easy in my non-world-disrupting CEO approved mainstream environments
</sarcasm>
It's too bad that this cycle will take far too long for the public to realize what they'll be losing by allowing this to occur. It's also very sad that I'm probably a minority of people who live in remorse about this sort of thing--and for that reason it will probably continue to happen. When I saw this headline, it was equivalent to "Music Licensing Companies List 'Eating Kittens' as Favorite Pastime, 'Destroying Dreams' a Close Second."
If you can point me to proof that there's any artist out there that really wants things to be this way, I'd be shocked. This is a classic case of an idea and organization formed with good intentions that has slowly become an uncontrollable machine. The worst part is that if a coffeehouse is sued, I doubt the original artist can intervene as they've probably already signed contracts punishable by death. We would have to wait for a whole new generation of musicians to arise to avoid these mistakes though I doubt they could make it without the affiliation of the large governing organizations.
Hold your local artists that are on indie labels or making it by themselves on a higher level, America. Soon, they will face extinction and your relationship to them will be governed through a man in a suit.
I'll end this post with an excerpt from a Lynyrd Skynyrd song, Working for MCA: Slickers steal my money since I was seventeen,
if it ain't no pencil pusher then it got to be a honky tonk queen.
But I signed my contract, baby, and I want you people to know
that every penny I make, I gotta see where my money goes.
Want you to sign the contract,
want you to sign the date.
Gonna give you lots of money
workin' for MCA. My advice if you want to 'just happen' to hear some good live music would be to first leave the country.
My work here is dung.
I hope you enjoy your new silent USA.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
How about you simply hire members of the mafia to provide "protection" instead? You go to a bar, have your goons tell the owner "it would be a shame if these bands covering top 40s were to somehow...have an accident". Paid and done. Yippee!
Damn, now I'm afraid to even hum a tune in Starbucks!
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Before you guys get all worked up, remember that it's NOT the RIAA behind this. It's the LICENSING companies.
lol
Inevitably, the "music licensing" mafia is going to pull this kind of shit on an establishment that is owned by/associated with a senator, or judge, or district attorney. And then, finally, things will change. They'll get smacked down, hard.
Well, probably not. But hope springs eternal.
Honestly, this is getting crazy. It reminds me of Stallman's short story/essay, "Right to Read" where you have to have a license to read a book you borrowed from the library or from a friend.
Music has always been something that was freely exchanged throughout human history. Songs belonged in the public domain, even if no one thought of it and framed it in those terms. There were just songs that people had always sang or played, and had no apparent author.
Now we are entering a period where the RIAA seems to think they should get a dollar from you if you whistle a tune when you walk down the sidewalk. Has the hookers and cocaine money train really slowed down that much for them? They must be a bunch of paranoid, power-mad f*cks with an extreme sense of entitlement.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Moving beyond the point that this has to be the most purely dick move I have ever heard of, isn't a live performance of a song written by someone else a cover? Isn't a cover a derivative work protected by law? I mean, Weird Al does derivative performances that copy nearly exactly the music of some artists (he usually alters only the lyrics) and every time he does a M. Jackson song he gets sued by MJ, and he always wins. What's the difference here?
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
What about streaming music from internet radio? I know one coffee shop in my town (Sweden) that streams music from a very well known radiostation. Is that against the record companies agendas too?
Still, this is Sweden, it's not that bad here just yet....
Many of those guys are full of shit. They're just small time crooks. It's like the folks who send phony invoices to businesses for office supplies that they never ordered.
On the other hand, the employees of the Pizza place where a friend of mine worked, would play their own CDs of music they owned. You're not supposed to do that. A few years ago, here in Atlanta, the music folks went around and started billing local restaurants for playing music - even if it was CDs that was rightfully owned.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
how low they'll stoop?
... they call it 'commercial misuse.'
Let's look at the poor, poor coffee house that has the MNF theme playing; the MNF theme (and Monday Night Football itself) is licensed for home viewing. When you're taking that broadcast and then playing it in a commercial venue, the business is violating the license--this is where the "express permission of ESPN and the NFL" thing comes in.
I work for DirecTV, and unfortunately this kind of fraud is common. It's not that it isn't available--DirecTV offers commercial-use programming (including the NFL Sunday Ticket) but I can guarantee you that a business is going to spend a lot more than $250 on the season.
This is really getting out of hand. Pretty soon you're going to have to pay royalties if you have the radio on with passengers in your car, which isn't that far a stretch from paying royalties for songs played on a TV in a bar. It's not going to be much longer before either someone sane intervenes or the recording industry collapses under the weight of thousands of lawsuits against its primary customers.
We can hope for the latter.
At first I was just going to blow this off as yet another bar that was trying to get away with not paying it's ASCAP fees, then I read the part where one owner had already payed ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, and were still getting billed by other piss-ant licensing companies trying to extort money out of him. Are these people for real or are they just scammers? I thought the entire purpose of having a statutory license for live performance was to avoid crap like this.
My coffee shop was shaken down by ASCAP a couple years back, and they were very clear about the fact that even if it was original music, they still wanted to be paid. In fact, when I pointed out we did not have a stage and did not have live music, They said in no uncertain terms that since we could not absolutely prove to them that no music was ever performed there, we had to pay anyway or face litigation, prosecution (yea, right), and an injunction shutting us down. That and what they wanted was not just a grand or two, I don't remember, but it was excessive. We told them to piss off and gave them our attorneys number, and we never heard from them again. Other shops in the area did pay out, though, and one CLOSED because of the legal harassment. What a racket.
Sadly, this kind of harassment isn't confined solely to the USA. I was waiting in line at a take-out restaurant in Galway, Ireland last week, where a 'representative' of the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) came in and began harassing the manager, claiming that it was illegal to be playing a commercial radio station in the restaurant, and that he must buy a license to continue playing music. Now, regardless of the legalities here or whether there was any actual legal bite behind this BPI shill's bark, does the record industry truly believe that it will survive on the euros and cents of small mom-and-pop outlets, such as this restaurant?
This has been how it's worked for decades. ASCAP/BMI are assigned the public performance rights to songs, and they can be very thorough about collecting from everybody owes them. In the past, they've even harrassed companies where the employees played music in areas that could be heard by the public. Own a small retail store and play CD's in the background? Then you owe them a licensing fee.
While ASCAP/BMI can be very heavy-handed, I have to say that it's hardly the worst aspect of IP law. The good part of the arrangement is that a band can perform whatever cover songs they want, and licensing is the club owner's responsibility. And, y'know, if you write a song and somebody else performs it, you ought to get paid.
The bad part is that the convenience of uniting all the performance rights under a single umbrella creates an overly powerful organization.
"Andrus said a friend of his who owned a restaurant that did not feature music was contacted by a company looking to charge him because it owned the rights to a Hank Williams Jr. song, "Are You Ready for Some Football?" The song preceded every "Monday Night Football" telecast, which the restaurant carried on its televisions."
In this situation in particular my suspicion is the friend was being shaken down by a fraudster who didn't really own the rights to the song, but was playing off of restaurants' fear of lawsuits.
Shouldn't licensing to the song have been included in the licensing fee the restaurant paid to publicly show "Monday Night Football" (the show already having paid a licensing fee to use the song)?
IANAL. This fits the definition of fraud, i.e. attempting to obtain money by deception, I would contact the police, give them any evidence and let them deal with it, if the police don't do anything because of their ties to the industry then that's corruption and you should contact Internal Affairs or whatever they go by these days, if they do nothing then it's probably upto the Feds. If no joy on any of these I suggest that someone set up a website to collect donations for a private criminal prosecution. I am not a lawyer but a close family member is a member of the judicary in the UK and as US law was based on UK law the standards should be similar.
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
I believe it is time stand up and be heard regarding the mafia approach to copyrighted music. It is obvious our government representatives do not believe in fair use of copyrights and are in the RIAAs pocket. I suggest a boycott of all artists that use these mafia type organizations to shake down music listeners. It is sad that it has to come to this but how bad does it get before we do something to stand up for our own rights.
"Saying that Linux is inferior to Windows because more people use Windows is like saying that all restaurants are inferi
Funny how people think that fascism is related to loud patriotic parades, exposition of insignia and group thinking, oppression of freedom and... well you get the idea, when it can just metastasize from within the society, perfectly legal (if it is not, new "sponsored" legislation will make it so) creeping up not on freedom itself but on its "pricelessness".
Do you want to be free? There is a price for it (brought to you by $favorite_company). Did you just glance while walking down the street at the store window TV playing Super Bowl? You owe $favorite_company money my friend! Our new eye movement, eye direction-focus detectors never lie. Your eyes were focused on the TV screen for 0.134s, thus you owe us royalties buddy...
Oh, I know how all this will end alright...and it won't be pretty...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
Here am I working like a sucker, when I could have been running a protection racket!
Zero tolerance equals zero intelligence
I want to see the RIAA hire some of those Nigerian 419er fiends and start concocting some really wacky, sketchy methodologies for "seeking compensation". Yup, good times!
Just think about how absurd the very notion is.
But you know what they say: If you can't beat'm, join'm.
So with that, I'm making available for sale the licensing to orgasm or sexual climax. Yes, that's right. Whether or not you find it entertaining, relaxing or just good exercise, I'm here to claim that I own rights to all orgasmic experiences everywhere.
Lately I have been cracking down on all S.O.B.s (sexually oriented businesses) but starting tomorrow, I'll start going door-to-door seeking out couples of all sorts seeking royalties for their orgasmic activities. Following the campaign on couples, I'll be going after solo activity as well.
So either abstain or I'll be coming for royalties... or you'll be coming for royalties... or I'll be collecting the royalties on your coming... or royally be coming on your... Hey, there's a pretty good pun in there somewhere.
O MFING RLY? Good intentions? I disagree! I unconcur!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
They are just trying to get at little startup bands that are fueling the DRM-free online music trade. Honestly though, this is pretty ridiculous. Any band has the right to play any song they choose.
Won't someone call these jokers? Don't pay and force the music industry to forget the bills or try a lawsuit. Of course, would want to lay some groundwork first to have a shot at winning any eventual suit. Ask the EFF and ACLU for advice and help. Round up a whole bunch of fellow defendants. Milk it for all the publicity it's worth-- could be very good for business. And raise a bit of money, ask for donations, that sort of thing. If there are people who'll help pay Scooter Libby's $250,000 fine, a piddling few thousands should be easy.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
I think that it's about time that we start dispensing some vigilante justice to these music industry racketeers.
It's high time that we start firebombing offices and assassinating executives and the lawyers that work for these slimeballs.
the bands should be the ones to pay any fees for the music they play, not he coffee shop. the coffee shops usually pays the bands to play so the payment should take care of any copyright fees.
I'm not certain why the article is trying to suggest that it's unfair for small companies to have to pay when they use copyrighted material to help their business. I'm not certain that I even disagree with the price some of the companies are asking for in licensing.
I'm sure some people will rant about freedom of music but the original example was $400 or £200 I honestly don't think £200 a year is that much to ask in licensing costs. The particular café should have factored in the cost of playing someone else's music when they offered the service. Reading the other examples it seems the companies are requesting proportional fee's depending on venue, this isn't some evil RIAA tactic it's a company defending its IP against small business's who have been abusing it.
I agree that the harassment tactics the companies are using is wrong and its what the article should have been about. Perhaps it should have centred itself around the idea that record companies aren't checking to see if their IP is being infringed just sending bills and harassing small business owners into giving them money. I will admit the TV theme tune demand is planly stupid and I'm not sure it would be legal. But obviously the current system needs reworking and *shock* maybe some government regulation or control so small business could navigate the system as well as put what seems rogue traders like man who claimed to own gospel IP and the TV tune claimers out of business.
But as far as I'm concerned small business's getting stung by this have only themselves to blame. Its not hard to ask a performer for a list of songs they plan to play at your venue, its not hard to google those songs and make sure that your not infringing copyright by letting them play, as for the article suggestion this is hurting budding artists I really don't care about cover bands its when the companies try to stamp out original works being played (through asking for a license fee) I'd be worried.
Except for all of the scammers, everything that BMI, etc. are doing is perfectly legal. If a business makes money because a copyrighted song is played in their establishment, they owe the copyright owner a fee. It is the law and with CD sales plummeting the way they are, if I were a professional musician I would go for all the royalties I can get from anywhere they can legally come from. The only reason that it seems so outrageous right now is that these guys have basically ignored the little guys for so long that everyone became unaware that this was the law. It's not extortion. It is really lousy for the business owners that now they have this extra cost of doing business that they were unaware of but it's really their own fault for not being aware of the laws involved in owning a business.
Start spending the money on private investigators instead of licensing. Find out who these industry spies are. Then publish who they are. Then, next time they get any where near a gig, they can have an accident.
Seriously, the only thing these folks will understand is money & force. Start breaking some of their spies knees, people won't want to be spies for them anymore. Push a couple of them in front of busses, that's a couple industry spies gone and a huge message sent.
Same goes for all these mafia type companies, RIAA tied corporations, SCO, and others. You need to start harming, hurting, and killing. Then these bastards will back off. When their CEO's are afraid for their very lives because they have at least 30% or more percent of the population hunting for their head, they'll stop.
You ever find one of these ass hats that spy on and rat out small coffee shops, make sure he or she never makes it home... or if they do, it's with a few less limbs.
Come on folks, explain to me why these vipers still draw breath?
are they going to start charging street performers? what about when I am playing guitar alone in my room? what if I'm driving in my car and listening to sattelite radio with the windows down?
I wonder how much of these payments actually go to the artists.
way to go, music industry. way to give a hard time to new musicians just starting out, who maybe want to make a career for themselves without signing restrictive record deals, but now maybe they'll have to because these companies are restricting musicians' options and securing their own interests.
What's bizarre is that I have often bought CD's on foot of hearing them in bars or even my local supermarket, where they often have weird and wonderful stuff on. Surely the copyright organisations must realise that every shop that turns off its music rather than paying their fees is more lost free advertising?
Can't you see what's happening? Its been happening for over a decade now.
The music industry is slamming the small music scenes trying to make more people buy CDs because they can't find any local shows. Either that or pay $300 for a ticket to a concert that they're running 300 miles away. They're trying to kill the competition.
And yeah, they pretty much just go through the phone book and pick coffee houses to harass. I would say that if you're a coffee house that has paid and you haven't broken any obvious laws, that you should be entitled to that money back PLUS administrative fees.
What if I walked in, said you were violating a law that you were not, and demanded payment. What's that called again?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Seriously, just stop. You're out of control, and despite all of the money you're pumping into the "system" you're still hemorrhaging. I'm not saying give away free music, but at this point it's pretty obvious what you're doing isn't working. It's like seeing a person with a lacerated jugular and offering a band-aid. You're losing the battle and being a bad sport in the process. Nobody likes a sore loser, and EVERYBODY hates a sore loser that won't learn from their mistakes.
So stop. Take step back, take your time and get a GOOD look at the land. There's a path to, maybe not victory, but something better than loss ahead of you. You just need to slow down, realize you're being too rash, and take the necessary steps to un-fuck yourselves. You clearly believe you need to get the "phat loot" for whoever it is you represent (despite the fact that you're taking an unfair cut of that). I'm not saying change what you believe, but if you're gonna put up a fight, at least put up an educated one. You need listeners to spend money so you can make money... and in the process somehow you thought treating everyone as guilty before proven innocent was a good battle plan? You don't just need people to give you money, you need people to WILLINGLY give you money. And that means devising a way to make them WANT to spend their money, NOT forcing them to.
Sincerely
Me
It's nice to know business men's lackies are tracking commonfolk trying to squeeze them into legal binds and hopeful of finincial reapings. The good of your fellow human is gone, long live currency!
10$- You can sing happy birthday to your kid. 20$- You can buy the CD of the latest boy band singing it. 50$- You can buy tickets to the Happy Birthday concert so your kid can hear it live to all the kids that had a birthday that year.
God spoke to me.
This is just like a billing scam that has been around for as long as I can remember. Scammers simply send phony bills to the accounting departments of as many big companies as possible. If they call you on it, say "Oops, sent the wrong bill to the wrong address. Thanks for letting us know." But a certain percentage will simply pay the bill without asking an questions. Some companies just have an assembly line in accounts payable and they simply don't check everything closely enough.
1. Send bills to cafes, restaurants, and bars for music being played
2. Profit!
I hope they try it on a few places owned by the REAL MAFIA. If enough of these turds end up floating in the local river, bay, or whatever, things WILL change. Especially if one of the floaters is a big cheese.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
The TV playing music on the TV being counted as a live performance is a joke, as are the speculative calls asking, "Do you ever play gospel music."
That said, I only have limited sympathy for:
The coffeeshop owner who makes more money, selling more drinks because live music brings in more customers when that benefit is gained from using other people's work.
The singer/songwriter who held down gigs by profiting off someone else's work. Despite the self agrandizing title of singer/songwriter, his own compositions are such that, evidently, no one wants to pay to hear them.
I'll be sympathetic to people who weren't in any way trying to profit from using other people's work. If you're selling more coffee or getting paid to perform and have upped your margins (albeit from unprofitable to profitable) by taking someone else's work and not paying, I have a hard time being sympathetic to you when you're finally caught. They're not even getting fined for the [potentially] years they've got away with it already, they're simply being asked, "If you want to keep profiting from someone else's work, you're going to have to start paying them too."
It's not like they're banned from playing live music. They're totally free to have singer/songwriters play their own compositions. Except they don't want to because they can't profit so much from it. Why's it OK for them to profit but not the people, who covered the costs of creating and popularizing that music in the first place, that they're now profiting from?
It's much the same as my line of work: I use PhotoShop daily. It costs a small fortune for private individuals. The flip side is that we can probably make that cost and much more back because we use it. If we aren't willing to pay, there're free alternatives like GimpShop out there. I've got respect for those who pay for the better tools and try to turn a profit. I've got respect for those who cut margins by using the free tools and try to turn a profit. I've got very little respect for those who try to improve their margins, while getting all the same benefits, by pirating PhotoShop. If Adobe releases a new version that they're convinced they need but can't steal anymore... cry me a river for their losing their business model of trying to profit by taking other people's work for free without their consent.
About the only unfairness in this is the perception of unfairness: That you can likely get away with gaming the system for years so when you do finally get held accountable, it seems that much more arbitrary and thus unfair. Then again, is that genuinely unfair or is it just the perception of unfairness and frankly your issue to get over?
The same happens with speeding tickets. I can drive at 65 and never get a ticket. I can drive at 85 and get places faster, 999 out of a thousand, benefiting from that. The one time in a thousand I get caught, it feels so unfair that I now have a couple of hundred bucks in fines to pay off. Yet I don't bitch about it - I get on and pay. If I don't want the risk anymore, I'll stop trying to game the system. If I do try to game the system, I'll suck it up when I do get caught and recognize the unfairness is in my perception, not a system I knowingly flaunted for a long, long time.
So, for something as ridiculous as charging for music played on a TV, yeah, it's a joke. For bitching when you try to make more of a profit (or less of a loss in the case of the people who can't figure out how to run a profitable coffeeshop in the first place) by profiting off someone else's work... suck it up when you're finally asked to pay or move to the free option that, admittedly, won't let you profit in quite the same way anymore.
It seems that the music industry is spending far too much time making an effort towards stopping trivial actions such as coffee shop music than finding a way to fix more important problems. I'm sure there are ways of embracing and using things such as this, the online guitar lessons and tablature that they're now trying to put an end to, etc. Taking actions such as this will only fuel the fire in most people in my opinion.
My advice to anyone who this happens to or anybody that you know that this happens to is to immediately defer this to a lawyer. 999 times out of 1000 you will never hear about it again because their claims are fraudulent. Most lawyers should only charge a few bucks (or at least only a fraction of what is being asked as payment) to take a phone call or write a letter to squash this kind of claim like a bug. Lawyers love to qwn these kinds of idiots. I know this because my dad is a lawyer, and he hates these kinds of fraudsters.
Crisis is the rule, not the exception.
So, can the RIAA or whoever just send a guy with a guitar to a restaurant, have him play the riff to In A Gadda Da Vida, run like hell, then send them a $7000 bill? Or is that not until next year.
for the lazy, this is the article which the OP was talking about when he mentioned the "right to read"... http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It really is worth reading. Fascinating and scary at the same time. Not that long, and contains an update which brings the current trends we've seen to light within the context that RMS sets out in the parable.
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
This is such old news it just seems like a bully piece in light of the general anger towards the RIAA et al.
.0001 of a penny? That's a joke.
This has been going on for years. The fact is the music performance is being used to enhance the business (make more money) and ascap wants their cut. Even if the performer is naive enough to play for free, money is being made off it by the business in the form of being a little nicer than the "other" coffee shop.
I have no problem with paying a small amount to ascap for that. What I do have a problem with is arbitrary fees which cannot be traced to the actual performance rights being exercised and artist payments. Thousands of artists have registered thousands of works with ascap. So did they all just receive
If the fees dont really help the artist then I think they are just there to support ascap and that I dont agree with.
As a more abstract argument I dont think copyright should apply to performance only to printed sheet music. But that battle was lost a thousand years ago so theres no point in fighting it anymore.
ASCAP has been pulling crap like this for decades.
Ever wonder why restaurants sing some lame-but-original birthday song, instead of "Happy birthday to you...?" ASCAP will sue them otherwise.
As in, I'd like to see theirs get broken. Just what these MAFIAA types deserve.
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Pay up suckers.
photosMy Photostream
Think this'll also cover those asshats who ride around with the car stereo so loud the trim is vibrating off their little $12,000 import?
:)
Sounds like public performance to me.
Hell, I've even got a nice shady tree out front that the licensing company guy can sit under while he's filling out the paperwork.
I wonder if have to pay royalties, too.
Bands which, when they were just starting, also blatantly abused THEIR predecessors...
Sarcasm aside: pot, meet kettle.
Only now you can't do it any more. YOU are a criminal (or soon will be!). THEY weren't. It's just the record mafia - they represent the artists in the same way as the US government represents the US people.
since common sense and reason have not prevailed, just beat the f*ck out of the next "representative" of whatever organization is trying to shake you down. do it consistently and the word will get out. this is the only thing that works with a bully - remember your schoolyard days? no, i am not kidding. there is a time and place for everything and this would seem to be it. enough pain in the system and the harassment sh*t will simply stop.
My family has included professional musicians for over 100 years. This is not exactly a new procedure for the "blanket licensing" mafia. Generally, if you have music in your busainess, you pay to both the BMI and ASCAP, and that should cover your obligations. In towns like Minneapolis, Chicago and Houston, I've seen businesses shut down until they comply with the music licensing groups. If you are a musician, you want to get paid for your music. If you are a consumer, you want to listen to music with as little hassle as possible. Blanket licensing provides a means of diminishing the hassle.
On the other hand, musicians can be notorious ripoffs. When was the last time you knew a musician who paid for sheet music on a regular basis? I have a friend who was going to build some great music software, but decided not to when he found out that all the musicians he knew had pirated their software. True, making a living as a musician is difficult, especially at first, but why give up your sense of right and wrong? Hmmm. Sounds like a meeting at the crossroads.
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
I Worked with a promotions firms and I once got a phone call from the prs - being the most senior employee that day.
Since most of the work was event based it was a very humourous call from the prs being that the client decides on what they want - we just made it happen - and exhibition sites do have specific forms for 'live music'.
At the end the lady from the prs doing the inquisition was down to questions like did we have a a radio in the office, when i told her i've not seen one she was most irritated.
I got the impression that income generation was the name of the game
I then spoke with the boss when he was next in, 'they do that from time to time'.
I believe that under US Copyright law, if you are going to perform another artist's work you pay a default compulsory license fee set by law (unless you strike a separate deal with the original composer) which is from about 2 cents to about 10 cents per song.(See http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html (setting out compulsory license rates)) That means if you play a dozen of your own songs and a dozen songs from other artists you will have to pay a compulsory license fee of a grand total of about $1.00 U.S. This is how composers and other artists are compensated for their work. Its not the end of free speech, its the government's way of "promot[ing] the progress of the sciences and useful arts" (Article 1, section 8 U.S. Constitution.) Of course its not perfect, but its rationally based on the concept that allowing artists to be compensated for their work will ultimately increase the overall amount of new works being produced. Plus it is consistent with the basic idea that people should be compensated for their work product--in this case the songs that an artist wrote. I find it a bit annoying that people seem to feel a sense of entitlement to use another's work (e.g. a composed work, a program, etc.) without permission from or payment to that person. Don't get me wrong--open source is great IF everyone wants it that way. But you can't just take someone else's work product and decide for yourself you are going to make it open source, public domain, whatever. The alternative to paying the fee is simple of course--come up with your own works.
It strikes me that all these performers could put their own original compositions up for any other performer to play - without payment. In the long term enough popular would be written for people to have a good evening without having to pay extortion. Who knows - this ''cafe music'' could become popular enough to start hitting the sales of the record labels -- which would be very sad :-)
''Without payment'' does not mean that there should not be acknowlegement of the composer. So composers may gain by getting better known.
It's not just about the royalty money.
These assholes know that people do not and have NEVER paid for music. They pay for ACCESS to music. As the Grateful Dead used to say, "The music is free, the concert costs."
The music industry got started by stealing the songs of live performers back in the early 20th Century, paying the performers a pittance, then copyrighting the songs and distributing them on records. Then they pressured the US Congress to pass laws giving them a license to extort money from everyone who listens to music. This is how the music industry started. It's how they operate today.
Now they see that the scam is up with the Internet and new technology, so now they want to go back and shut down EVERY PLACE where music is played so they can restrict everyone to getting music solely from them on their terms.
There's no question that this is extortion - state-sanctioned extortion (the only kind there is outside the Mafia.) An industry that relies on bribes (payola) and buying drugs and whores for their acts while simultaneously extorting money clearly is a criminal enterprise. It's no surprise that the Mafia has been closely connected to the music industry for the last century. Even rap music companies are organized mostly by notorious black drug dealers.
The music industry IS a criminal enterprise.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I'm glad I didn't, I don't need someone strong-arming others for me. I copyright my own songs, work out my own arrangements, etc... Sure my band will (probably) be small-time forever that way, but I can still make a buck or two here and there. We usually give away 30% of our songs free (we plan on 40% for our upcoming album), not just the bad ones either. Many people have heard the free one's and purchased an album or T-shirt (either to support us, or they wanted the physical album and the other songs).
I don't want Sound eXtort trying to collect on us (via internet radio) either & try to make that plain on our site. <shameless self promotion> NOTE: the music probably isn't your cup of tea, but it's at http://beckament.net/music.html no banners or anything, I don't get a penny if you visit. </shameless self promotion>
I used to work at a digital studio (back when ADAT was new) and our bass player used to own an indie studio in Chicago, we're doing just fine all by ourselves. The benefit to us (by giving much of it away) is that if people have heard of us, we may get a few more paying gigs here-and-there. Being in an all-original band is tough, but at least we own all our music! (I'm not a big fan of the $$ of studio time or when producers shit all over a good song either, but that's another rant.)
-- I'll be back before you can say antidisestablishmentarianism...
They keep coming into my coffee shop and demanding that I pay just to use electricity, even though it's just sitting around in their wires going to waste!
Man, the RIAA has their fingers in everything!
Three Squirrels
Apart from the extortion stories which I agree are excessive (like the TV spot that should have had its royalties paid by the show / TV channel, much like the fitness club that doesn't have to pay for standard commercial radio) I can't quite see what the problem is here.
It's been a while since I played live (I'm in the UK), but the system seemed to work fairly well. Original material - the venue checks your material and gets you to sign a form, you don't get paid, but you get your music heard. When I played in a covers band, there was a fee to be paid by the venue, and *I* expected to be paid as well. And if you were playing covers at a friends party, in other words it wasn't a commercial enterprise - no-one got paid anything.
That all works for me. Where's the issue? People who want to run businesses and get free use of somebody else's work? Musicians who don't want to get paid for their efforts, which doesn't do any favours to musicians trying to make a living (or in my case, help with the rent)?
I'd have some sympathy for an argument whereby businesses pay a smaller fee if their revenues are small enough, although is you can't afford $20 a week as a coffee shop I'd say there's more fundamental challenges to be faced. If the live musicians can't pull in a few cups of coffee from customers should they be playing at all?
Past time for it, actually.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It really is worth reading. Fascinating and scary at the same time. Not that long, and contains an update which brings the current trends we've seen to light within the context that RMS sets out in the parable.
It's too bad that the story is so trite and not so well-written. I find the topic very important but the story is written only for those already interested.
I think that what we are witnessing here is the beginning of the end for the music industry as we know it and other industries that thrive on the control of information flow. I for one believe a serious backlash is coming and these latest aggressions will only speed the process along. People are getting sick and tired of being racketeered into submitting to the interest of monolithic corporations and industries in regards to what they do with information.
I think a quote from NOFX is appropriate at this time:
Dinosaurs will slowly die,
And I do believe no one will cry,
I'm just *%$@ing glad I'm gonna be
Here to watch the fall!
Soon all those pesky teens with their mobile phones pestering the world with annoying music will have to pay for their atrocities.
Justice for all.
Isn't it kind of strange that patents which are sometimes the result of millions or tens of millions of dollars of investment are protected for only 20 years whereas the copyrights are valid for a lot longer? I wonder how the jazz music would have developed if performers/clubs were facing the type of restrictions that exist today? Maybe this will create an opportunity for coffee shops to shift the focus of musical performances to classical music and jazz standards where plenty of good material in the public domain is available. It is about time that someone invents a device that can be installed in places offering live performances that would detect each song being played and provide a small fee to the artist(s) who own the song directly instead of going through the current blanket licensing scheme.
but consider what a boom this might be for people writing their own music.
Consider what a burden this will be to people who have to LISTEN to the people who write their own music.
Most music is crap. Let bands play covers so we don't have to be subjected to their original work.
paintball
First of all: IAAL, but this ain't legal advice.
1. This is nothing new. Public performances have had to be licensed since right around 1900, and ASCAP has been collecting fees for blanket licenses since 1914. This is not a new campaign designed to squelch independent musicians, as some comments have intimated.
2. This isn't controversial or surprising. It's not an issue of free speech or fair use, at least as far as public performances in profit-making business establishments are concerned. The EFF and the ACLU, I suspect, wouldn't be interested -- and neither would some random Congressman be shocked to have to pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, as one comment suggested. Maybe it would be good to allow unlicensed performances of music in business establishments, but that hasn't been the law for a very long time.
3. My sense is that around a dozen businesses decide to "fight" blanket license fees each year, thinking that somehow they won't end up having to pay or that the licenses aren't needed in order to play copyrighted songs in their establishments. They always lose.
4. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have occasionally been accused of "shaking down" businesses that really don't play any music for which they need a license -- like, say, bars that only play traditional Irish songs that are in the public domain. If those stories are true, the shakedowns are bad, wrong, and potentially liability-producing. (See also 17 USC 110.)
If you still want to be mad at somebody (and there may be good reason to be mad about some of this, just not most of it), at least be mad at the right people: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, who work as the agents of owners of copyright in musical works (not sound recordings). The RIAA is a group of copyright owners in sound recordings, and has nothing to do with this (except that some of the music publishers and some of the record labels are commonly owned).
This last Christmas I joined my family for service and noticed a copyright notice at the bottom of the page, for one of the songs.
Turns out they pay a yearly fee for the right to sing hymnals.
You got to love it
0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
How is this a troll?? It's a reasonable opinion, not one I particularly agree with (unjust laws ought to be fought and changed), but reasonable nonetheless. It wasn't particularly offensive or flamebaitish, just an opinion. He may be Overrated (I don't think so), but Troll??
Shame on you, mods, and shame on the rest of Slashdot for allowing this guy to sit at (1, Troll).
-AC for obvious reasons.
Here in Florida, while reading this article, over breakfast this morning. She told me that she is getting asked for royalties because she is playing Muzak !! All I can think, is that the music industry actually wants people to stop listening to music.
-k
Your mind moves quicker than a nun's first curry. - A. Rimmer
Help save karaoke! We shouldn't have to pay to sing bad!
Anyplace with a liquor license pays ALOT more for cable tv then you or I. Most of that goes to paying these fee's.
I have to return some videotapes...
This is a topic that always confused me. If I'm playing someone elses' song am I not advertising it for them? Shouldn't I be compensated for getting their song out there so that when other people hear it they'll want to buy it? Isn't that what payola is all about?
work is work! I get a check for physical work. If I want another check, I have to do it again, or do something different, then I get another check. I can't tell my boss "ooohh, that work I did last month was performance art! Ya, that's the ticket, performance art! You owe me royalties now every time you even think about it! And if you *dare* have someone else do the same exact work, I'll sue for copyright infringement!!1one" "
Nope, sorry, "artists" want money, they can go to work same as everyone else. They want to make more on the side, sell schwag and CDs right at the venue. Get famous enough, sell freakin autographs.
Are you not aware of churches having to pay licensing fees for performances during services? This is not new.
One time I farted and it kind of sounded like Metallica. Should I b talking to a lawyer?
The first time I ran into it was back in the 70's I did a country gig at a huge roadhouse of a place. Above the stage where only the band could see was a big sign saying Please Refrain From Playing ASCAP material. Technically royalities are to be paid and ASCAP has been agressive about it and it is their job. As a songwriter when you get recorded you have sign with ASCAP or BMI they are the companies that track use of your material, collect royalities and pay you. They used to look the other way with small clubs and such, but I guess with the rampant music thieft on internet they are now collecting in places they ignored before.
A vicious cycle the big companies ignore some non-payment and thieft of royalities, but as it gets worse they stop looking ignoring somethings. Then people get ticked and feel justifitied to steal more, the companies ramp up collections more. A nasty cycle and all the time the songwriters are the ones making the least and getting screwed the most.
oh yeah, and the other day i was in macy's, and i performed (sang along with the store radio) a john mayer tune for 10 - 15 people. so i too am at fault. but i've since written john mayer a formal apology and pleaded with him not to press charges.
now is the winter of our discotheque
Music licensing companies have fined the Seven Dwarfs for whistling while they worked; Snow White is in seclusion. Animated film at 11.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
I've just watched the cartoon version of Terry Pratchetts' Soul Music. It features a corrupt and over-strong Musicians' Guild, who (violently) prevent anyone playing music within their city unless they are paid a significant "membership fee".
Not to be anti-Semetic or invoke Godwin's Law, but seeing how RIAA's ambulance chasers won't let you play your own music, won't let you download music, won't let you call the radio station to make a request for old songs, and now won't let you even have the TV at the bar, how about something for all these lawyers?
I'm thinking Über Alles . That's right! The National Anthem of the Nazi Party because that's what these guys are! NAZIS! It's time we take out these huns! Tell them to go pound sand!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
I>E>, not at all. Welcome to the USSA.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Where's the A-Team when we need it?
http://yro.slashdot.org/tags/mafiaa 'nuff said
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Actually the Über Alles a nickname of the German national anthem, not necessarily the Nazi party national anthem. Über Alles is what it is called out side of the US, by it's first few lines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Lied_der_Deutsche n.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Reminds me of the Loch Ness Monster bit from South Park, where the story is told of how the Loch Ness Monster tried to hit up Chef's parents for $3.50.
Chef's Mom : I gave him a dollar.
Chef's Dad : She gave him a dollar.
Chef's Mom : I thought he'd go away if I gave him a dollar.
Chef's Dad : Well of course he's not going to go away, Nellie. If you give him a dollar, he's gonna assume you got more.
Loose lips lose spit.
Thanks for the correction. Still, those people are nothing more than fascist NAZIS!
The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
Sorry to point out the obvious, but when you transform popular culture into (intellectual) property, and enact draconian laws to enforce this, shakedowns like these are the absolute logical consequence.
Perhaps it's time to rethink about IP in general, and in particular about the time it should remain an exclusive private privilege. Something like 2 to 5 years ought to be more than enough; not those silly lifetime + 70 years of the Bern Convention (or even worse/longer in the US). Remember guys: popular culture and artists living on performances existed long before IP/copyright laws were enacted.
Sorry for being naive; but isn't it time to burst this self-imposed bubble of IP (a.k.a. imaginary property) and get free at last?
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Ueber alles, The National Anthem of the Nazi Party
Ahemm... Ueber alles is not the national anthem of the nazi party. It was and is still the national anthem of Germany (but they don't sing the first two stanzas anymore).
You may be thinking of the Horst-Wessel-Song. And since that guy died 1930, more than 70 years ago, his copyright expired in the countries that implement the Bern Convention on Copyright using the lifetime + 70 years rule.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I'm thinking some sort of personal vigilante campaign would be the only way to get back at these organizations. It pisses me off that we can't do anything about them. I'd love to have some personal contact information for them so I can go and falsely accuse them of multiple crimes in the hope that they pony up cash. Unfortunately, I don't think they'd be smart enough to realize the point I'm trying to make, y'know?
So, how does one retaliate in this situation?
ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and the rest are, in their greed, taking the risk of destroying the network, (already endangered), that nurtures, employs, and provides outlet for musicians of every type.
this is an outgrowth of the DRM conflict, itself an example of corporate greed. like the ASCAP / BMI / SESAC coffe-house shakedowns, DRM is pursued "in the interest of the artists". bullsh--. the interest of the artists, aside from those few whom the industry has chosen to make wealthy, is to get their music heard by as many people as possible.
those my age will remember the music industry attempting to impose a $1 tax on blank cassette tapes, fighting the introduction of stereo FM radio broadcasting, etc.
people in the music industry, who make money from music but do not create it, are by-and-large in my experience bloodless, blood-sucking leeches. the decent human beings are few and far between.
If I have a band in my bar and they play a single cover, I have to hand over 100 to GEMA (the German equivalent of ASCAP/BMI). One song. One of the first pieces of mail you receive when you open a bar/restaurant in Germany comes from GEMA demanding payment because you no doubt plan on playing recorded music.
the only people that are going to get screwed are the musicians themselves when we all quit having anything to do with them. nough said.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
Are you saying the heirs to "Pop-Goes-The-Weasle" were cracking down on daycare for performing the song without paying royalties. Not surprising.
Don't forget about "happy birthday to you" who knows how many people sing that, ripping off poor Time-Warner.
For another example of same, consider the spammers' plight. Are you really devastated by having to press 'Delete' even 5 times a day?
So some guy playing old Beatles songs for free at the local coffee shop is the same as the guy sending me 100 emails a day for vi4gra? I think you might want to go back and read the first sentence is your post again.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Although most musicians only make CD's with one or two good songs, there will be enough people willing to go to pay $15 to see those one or two good songs every night to cover the cost of putting up the band in a hotel, and keeping the van gassed up.
I wonder if he could be busted. It's public radio.
Camping on quad since 1996.
If anything:
1) From the context of the bands thinking, this is a good tribute, and actually good advertising for themselves.
2) From the context of the record company, they SHOULD see this as good advertising (after all, the $$$ is their only goal in life) - silly that they are far too stuck up their own arses to realise.
Sig out of date
Yup. A favorite south side Milwaukee cafe was feeling pressure from someone (possibly from satellite radio?) to either pay up for the music they were playing on their CD player or face huge fines that could put them out of business. The owner buckled and got satellite radio.
Since he did that, the music has sucked in there. I've heard Nickelback more time than I can count on one hand -- and that is far too many.
As it turned out, when I went in there the other day, the kids behind the counter were playing the radio. As in FM radio.
Not only that, they were playing the "smooth jazz" station.
Kids, in their early 20s. Playing "smooth" jazz. Why? It's not even REAL jazz!@# Why?!!
I have not been back since.
-- haaz.
You know, back in the 70s people would assemble at football fields and such to hold "down with disco" rallies where they would burn disco records, 8 tracks and cassets. I think it's time to hold some "anti DRM" rallies in the same spirit to tell these assholes we are tired of thir crap and where they can put their DRM. We just need somebody to organize it and get it going. Problem is most of my generation have lost their backbone anymore so it will probably never happen.
Cover bands are lame. And bands that have their own music should be playing it. Trying to draw the crowds in with cheap imitations is not going to get you anywhere, except maybe a local Bat Mitzvah. Maybe actions like these will force all the little wanna-be garage bands to at least try being creative.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
He still has to pay royalties to the song writer.
No, he doesn't. Parodies are considered fair use under US copyright law and do not require licensing. Weird Al does tend to licence or get permission to do his parodies though as an act of good will (or possibly as preemptive legal protection if someone wanted to challenge the definition of 'parody'.)
I wash mah-self with a rag on a stick.
This society is desighned so a few rich bastards can live at royalty at everybody
elses expense. Money has become the ends and the means and there is no way a society
can function as a real community when people are being kept in a chokehold, being forced
to live paycheck and paycheck, and work ridiculously long hours for a pittance while
those at the top get rich off of their efforts. And this is just the well off. Imagine
what it's like to be a person working at a McJob living in a tiny apartment with 3 other
people, or 3 entire families for that matter. Imagine what it's like for the person who is
working but homeless because the housing costs are too high, and there is a waiting list
for programs like section 8 that are literaly a decade long? Imagine what it's like to
be one of those people? We need to stop kissing up to those at the top, stop using royal
sounding names to describe them, and start examining what they are doing to humanity as
a whole. I'm sure most people will be disgusted at their actions and what little they
actualy contribute to society while raking in ungodly amounts of money. These petty
restrictions, DRM, can't-do-anything because it might hurt someone's bottom line has got to stop. If the common people won't put a stop to it, may a revolution rise and succeed in doing
what most of the populous can't or won't.
I have no problem with Bars and clubs paying $400 a year to ASCAP and BMI for the songs. I perform many originals (and covers) in a 9 piece funk band in many clubs frequently.
/. Personally, not really worth a mention in my perspective.....
Many times, the musicians (bands) that have success (and a following of new patrons to a club) really can bring in a bunch of new revenue to the business. If I were an owner, for about $32 a month paying ASCAP, BMI is a no brainer. This practice has been happening for years, if you are an owner and (obviously) advertise and bring in a bunch of business of live music within your establishment, as opposed to a sports bar etc., its a very small percentage of your business for piece of mind.
Now coffee shops and very small venues, I think its a little of a reach for ASCAP/BMI salespeople.....perhaps they have tapped the market and need to find new areas of business for sales....
I'm actually surprised that this is a topic on
Turns out they pay a yearly fee for the right to sing hymnals. You got to love it.
Not every hymn is is in the public domain. Not every arrangement of every hymn is in the public domain.
In every generation, when it comes time to replace the hymnal you can expect fierce debate over what should come in - Morning Has Broken - in the Cat Stevens arrangement - and what should go out - Onward, Christian Soldiers.
Meanwhile, the music director is trying to balance the demands of the organist and choir for something new and more challenging and the demands of the congregation for something more familiar, and, not incidentally, easier to sing.
As more music is composed, less music is yet to be composed. You just can't write an infinite amount of music with a limited tonal system like ours ( and i mean _listenable_ music ). In a copyright free society this is no problem since artists can freely copy from each other, but, when everything is copyrighted ad infinitum and IP holders are ready to sue everyone and their mother there will come a time when it will be very difficult to create new music without making a deal with the "devil". Or, composers could base all of their music on public domain music. It would be a good idea for new composers to abandon this stupid system. I mean, Bach didn't need copyright. And he wrote more than a thousand works. . . most of them very complex. . . and long. But something's got to give someday.
Think about this, now anyone with a decent new cell phone can play the real MP3 of a song and with the volume up it could technically be a performance wherever your phone rings. Now that would be a nightmare for a library, gas station, book store, etc...
Since when did you have to pay to play a cover song live? notice how RIAA isn't mentioned? this sounds like a scam to me. we had similar people rings us and demand money becuase we were using a CD for on hold music at a place i worked at years ago, only a small business. I asked their name, who they represented ( they got a little evasive there) and demanded contact details. i then asked what gave THEM the right to demand money. they went on a written script but copyrights, i let them finish and then said " but you told me you represent company X, but no where on this CD cover is company X listed as a copyright holder?". at this point they got frustrated and started on a big mono log on how i had to pay up blah blah and in the end i just cut in and said "look if i catch you calling back here i'm calling the cops, because i know your just trying to scam me". and hung up in his ear. they ever called back.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
The little coffee shop across the road from where I work was hit by BMI - even though they only had one open night a week, and nobody ever got paid to perform. The owners (who have since sold the shop) were told that they could either pay BMI $1500 a year (a lot of coffee) or the next time a BMI spy caught some local slob playing a song from the BMI catalog, they would be hit with a $10000 fine (more coffee than I want to think about).
BMI and ASCAP served a purpose - in 1938. They no longer serve anyone but themselves. Even artists registered with BMI cannot be assured that "collections" on their behalf actually are paid to them -- apparently BMI gets to divvie up the money among the artists they deem worthy (i.e., have a chance of making it through the commercial music-grinder) of receiving it.
After the coffee shop was hit, I wrote to BMI requesting that they cancel my membership (because of a project a friend and I did a few years ago my friend, who's registered with BMI, suggested that I also register). They refuse to "unregister" me, and keep sending me those annoying emails, which I now route directly to my junkbox.
BMI and ASCAP suck mightily, and should find something better to do with their time than harass small business owners who happen to have a few musician friends.
(MrZoon)
...but somebody please take these industry fuckers outside and shoot them in the streets.
Fiat Homos et Pereat Theos
They shake down bars; why wouldn't they shake down coffee houses?
Typically, the bar makes 50% on the jukebox take. The RIAA fees come out of the vendor's half, and so, most people don't even know it's happening. But try simply playing a radio station in the background at a bar and see how long it takes before the RIAA comes looking for it's cut.
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Just moved to a free country.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Well, this story looks like b.s., but here's a tip.
If you don't like the Beatles, then you don't have to worry about copyright infringement, because you aren't listening to them.
Get it?
Get some taste.
You are living in the RIAA's world, because you like crap.
There are health experts suggesting that people wash their hands for as long as it takes to sing "Happy Birthday" twice. I can't wait to see ASCAP go nuts on hand washers. Especially if you are required to wash your hands at work. "Ah, usin' our music in a business are yeh. That'll cost yeh! And double since y'are singin' it twice!" (Yes, with West Country accents and all.)
My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
All-in-all you wrote an outstanding commentary.
Memo
Signature applied for, Patent Pending
I had a feeling that something's not RIAA
The music was loud, we could still hear the crowd
From the covers that we played that night
We logged into an unsecure WAP network
Stopped awhile, Youtube'd around
But I still had a feeling that something's not RIAA
As we started on homeward bound
Stop, get out
We are the strong arm of the lore
Stop, get out
We are the strong arm of the lore
Into the night came a blue flashing light
A blast from the M60 to make sure
And we came to a stop behind the motorway cop
Who'd been pirating us for more than an hour
He pulled us out of the car on the side of the road
He questioned us one at a time
Where is the laptop we know that you use
We said the only shares we own are hedgefunds.
You should've seen the stupid smirk drop from his face
It was a negative exercise
The songs that we sing and the CDs that we own
They thought it was an easy hack
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
B-ASSES, a loose affiliation of the music content licensing organizations BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC, today announced a world-wide crackdown on the practice of private individuals humming or singing licensed music, especially where the performance could be heard by other people. The B-ASSES group noted that this move was merely a refinement of current copyright law, which stated that "the biggest campaign contributers get to do whatever they want". In a press conference today, B-ASSES group spokesman Dick Reemer explained that "copyrights is copyrights". He noted that even singing in the shower would be considered a crime, but only if there was the possibility of someone else hear the performance. Reemer humorously related that he had recently been forced to make the requisite $650 payment for singing Eric Carmen's "All By Myself" in the bathtub recently "and I'm a really, really awful singer, but the bathroom window was open and passers-by could have heard me, so it counted as a performance". Also subject to fines, imprisonment, and Guantanamollestation will be persons singing in the car while driving. "Even if someone else can only see you moving your lips, it counts as a performance. Mimes get paid for performance and they don't make a sound." said Reemer. In addition, snapping or tapping of fingers and drumming with pencils will be punishable if analysis reveals that the rhythm may be from a copyrighted work. Said Reemer, "We aim to put the American public in their place, which is greased up, bent over, and squealing". MPAA President Glad Dickman indicated that such a position would make the person subject to a $4000 fee for movie performance impersonation.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I seriously have reached a point where I feel the RIAA is worse than organized religion. I seriously refuse to purchase any CD's at this point. They make me sick...
... what you focus on is what manifests ... this holds true in all walks of life.
There isn't even anything to say about this.. cause it's just so past the point of logic and good business. They need to focus on what will make changes to the industry and allow more people to have a positive online music purchase experience. If I am at a coffee shop and I hear a song I like I may just go and purchase that song online. They are not focusing on the bigger picture... they are like bigots at this point. Focus on the positive not the negative
...by buying, stealing, downloading, and/or sharing music.
The only way to shut it down, is for large numbers of sheepH^H^HH^H^H^HH^consumers to not participate. Hum to yourself, enjoy the music you already possess, but do not obtain more. Do not go to concerts, do not buy songbooks, do not go to movies, do not rent DVDs, do not buy video games, do not in any way participate with the entertainment industry for several months. If they don't get the picture after that, drop out for good.
It's harsh, but it take sacrifice to win a war such as this. Let your representatives know that you are boycotting a source of revenue for the GDP, for the politicians pockets. The little musicians and actors most all have regular jobs to keep them from starving, and the big names...who cares? They got investments, don't they? There will be collateral damage, some innocent people will get hurt, but dang it man -- this is a brutal war for our rights
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
They are fools or someone is lying. They don't need to pay anything. Worship services have performance exemptions. It's only photocopied or projected lyrics that are subject to licensing. Here it is straight from the mouth of the ASCAP VP:
"Let us make sure the point is clear; when we sing songs in a worship service, there is no fee or charge to do that. But when we reprint the lyric, whether it's an overhead projection, computer projection or photocopied lyrics in the bulletin, it is expected that we will compensate the owners of the lyrics for that usage."
"I forgot my mantra."
They probably have a CCLI license which is for paying for the rights to use the lyrics. But CCLI is a joke of a corporation too
For venues that allow live music, which might "give public performances" (i.e. play out loud) any number of songs, the way they work it is that ASCAP/BMI offers a program where the venue can play a flat fee that allows them to play unlimited songs.
I learned the hard way (could have been a lot worse) that many theatres don't have intermission music anymore not because they can sell advertising time, but because the cost is prohibitive. I was a projectionist part time during recession of the 80's. The theatre had 2 auditoriums and played second run films. It was too small to win bids for first run features. We had no music for intermission.
I noticed the intermission input on the sound equipment and made the mistake of jacking in a walkman to make intermission nicer. The owner came unglued and let me know that a license would cost more than all of our wages combined. I almost got canned on the spot. If we were caught with intermission music without a license, they would basicaly own the theatre. After that, I understood why there is no intermission music anymore. The cost for the 20 minute breaks between films is the same as if we were a store at the mall playing music all day. Since we only had one 20 minute intermission during the week and two on weekends, per minute, it was prohibitive.
I'm glad we didn't get busted.
I don't understand the pricing where 80+ percent of bars and small venues simply can't consider hireing a band or playing background music.
Reading the regulations, A boom box is OK for an employee to bring to work. Adding speakers or a wired sound system is gonna cost you big bucks. I bet they are crying in their beer they have not taxed employees and consumers using iPods in public. MP3's has replaced wired sound in many places that used to have sound, but quit due to the fees.
The truth shall set you free!
I was interested by this line: "He said there was little option available other than seeking permissions directly from the songwriters." What if a concerted group actually did this? I'd be willing to do it in tandem with other like minded individuals willing to expend time for the sake of proving a point.
If it looks like a duck, let's call it a moose.
this is awesome next we can go after cab drivers who leave their radios on while driving customers, then we catch those thugs who lend their cds to friends for their illegal music rentals, oh screw it lets just pull some names out of a phone book, it's easier that way!
I don't live in the US. But Britain??? Don't you know that every time you have your picture taken you lose a small part of your soul?
Every time I read those initials I see "ASS-CAP". :)
Here is what is quite possibly a definitive story on ASCAP & BMI.
I play a lot of open-mike nights. Of late, many of them have stopped having live music. I'm pretty sure this is at least part of the reason why. I'm wondering where my cut of the money for the venues I did play is? Even though I played for free, they got paid... that doesn't make any sense. I don't even play covers! Probably the best thing for the venue to do is to keep meticulous records of what was played... chances are any actual royalties (if any) are less than what ASCAP is asking... perhaps they can even pay the artists directly! ASCAP is just playing the same game as the RIAA... extort a bunch of money with legal threats that are actually groundless. Actually, isn't that pretty much what Microsoft is doing with their linux patent violation FUD? Do I get extra SlashDot points for tying this into the M$ vs. Linux debate?
The Taliban in Afghanistan had the perfect solution: ban all music. Period.
Judging by how the various Record companies, interest groups and other shitlickers are acting, I would suspect they are in fact Islamic extremists and therefore terrorists and should therefore all be declared illegal combatants and spend some time in Guantanamo.*
* This is obviously crap, but, it would make a hell of an effective threat to shove down the throats of the record companies.
... the less music in coffee shops, elevators, stadiums, all kind of department stores, grocery chains, neighbor's kids Mustang convertible, on NPR, people's cell phones, "halal" restaurants (what is up with that, did not Prophet, sal Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, expressed his negative views on music on numerous occasions?), the better.
You see, I do not like music, but I am forced to listen to it everywhere. If you like music or do not object too much to muzak, you probably do not notice those annoyances, but I do.
Hail RIAA on this one!
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is a totally different issue from the RIAA suing grandmothers when they should be going after the real pirates. This concerns individual songwriters. The company that owns the property gets paid rent, the manufacturers of the equipment were paid, the coffee supplier gets paid. In fact everyone gets paid except the musician and songwriter - and the musician chooses not to get paid. Individual songwriters, many of whom earn mere hundreds of dollars a year or less from their work, lose out when others are clearly profiting from what they do. The distribution system may not be perfect, but the issue is that business owners who profit from the work of songwriters need to pay, just like they pay for every other service they use.
Once again, this is an individual songwriter issue, not an RIAA issue.
See http://www.record-producer.com/learn.cfm?a=4154 for my further comments.
David Mellor
Record-Producer.com
This is how it works in Italy.
Every time music is played the SIAE (italy's RIAA) gets money.
I used to work at a small radio station. You have to compile a list of every song you play, and pay accordingly. Provents should go to the artist you listed.
I think bigger radio stations pay a fixed amount every month, based on the number of listeners.
If you run any form of public place (a bar, a shop, a factory) and there is a radio playing music, you pay a tax that is based on the number of speakers you have in place. I think this is enforced in bars only, though. The idea is that you are making money (selling coffee) thanks to the music. You have to pay for this even if all you play is classical music, not copyrighted music, your own music, whatever.
If you want somebody to play some live music, apart from getting every kind of permit you need, you have to make the same list of songs as for radio stations, and you pay on that. Then you pay taxes based on the estimated number of people that are in the bar / restaurant / whatever. You pay this even if you play your own music, or public domain music, or classical music. This is the best known tax as, if you want to have live music at your wedding (rock or string quartet, doesn't matter), you have to pay it (based on the number of guests you have invited). It has pissed off many people.
If you buy blank cds or dvds - blank support tax.
And now the fun part. All the money they get that doesn't come from the lists with the artists names on it goes into a big pot that is then redistributed among all of the artists. In equal parts? Not really. It is done according to sales figures (best selling artists get most money) and mostly with some tables that were decided ages ago and never changed. So the biggest part of the money goes to a few people, mostly for "liscio", which is basically classic ballroom music.
ciao
davide
After reading many comments here about live performers playing covers/original material which is pretty current music and all ...
... can these shakedown companies charge for works in the public domain?
What about classical? Before 1900 there wasn't the perpetual copyright (like there is today), and most of the composers are unavailable to deliver checks to
Sounds like its time for the FBI to step in and enforce the RICO act on the extortion scheme by the RIAA. Oh, wait, this is a republican administration, the FBI has been emasculated. Well, president Obama may fix that ;-)
Taken to its absurd, but alas wholly logical conclusion, one waits for the day that ASCAP, SESAC & their idiotic ilk start hanging around schoolyards so they can bust kids for singing Itsy Bitsy Spider, Old MacDonald & Frere Jacques...
Did you even read my post before you answered?
Item one: Nice quote, I couldn't figure out why you didn't provide a link to where you got it from. Then I found it and read the rest of the page. But you don't get the same warm and tingly feeling when you add the next line To copy or project the lyrics: License required So, if they were to print those hymns in a pamphlet, they would be infringing on US copyright law. Sorry, that part is on the bottom, so you might have to RTFA.
Item two: If you go to thier main US site you get this little gem
Christian Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) provides churches with simple, affordable solutions to complex copyright issues surrounding congregational worship services.Item three: (This one is a bonus) If you were to go to The Brethren Press's FAQ they sum it up nicely
Do churches and other nonprofit organizations need permission to use copyrighted works?Yes. Words, music, and other copyrighted materials are owned properties just as merchandise in a store is. Those who create the copyrighted materials labor to produce them, just as a carpenter might labor to produce a piece of furniture. It is erroneous to think that just because music, curriculum, or books are created for the glory of God, they ought to be free.
Now please, next time spend at least five minutes before pointing out how others are idiots. Especially when it's someones Mom.
0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
Spammers plight my ass, your analogy is extremely poor. That 100 emails times the fifty thousand users in my company's email server. How much time and effort to try and block that crap at our expense. Storage & Bandwidth at our expense. Paying 50,000 people to spend 10-20 minutes a day pressing delete. Spammers should pay us, preferably in a cell. Musicians don't write songs in a vacuum either. How many of those song 'writers' have performed others work for years without paying? Almost every song uses chord progressions exactly the same as those in other songs. Try searching the lyrics one line at a time on google and find out how many other songs or poems have many of the exact same phrases.
...oh yes, because no one never ever went along with an arrangement that they would rather do without.
Are you even in your teens yet?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I did read it before posting and it does support what I said. Singing from the hymnals does not require royalty payments, reprinting the lyrics (of non-public domain songs) does.
"I forgot my mantra."
"I went down to the sacred store, where I'd heard the music years before, but the man there said the music wouldn't play."
"I went down to the sacred store, where I'd heard the music years before, but the man there said the music wouldn't play."
"I went down to the sacred store, where I'd heard the music years before, but the man there said the music wouldn't play."
What about you?
Signature applied for, Patent Pending
After reading this, I am somewhat speechless. All I see is a twist of irony here; the gestapo tactics of this industry is alarming. I dont know where they will draw the line and when?
So, lyrics are out, Tablature is out... I wonder when they will shake down middle and high schools? They are onto a path where their greed is going to short-circuit the creative process.
Apperently, you cant teach people how to play either
This just demonstrates their short-sightedness.
There is an "out" for small businesses that just play music as background. Under Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act, persons who play their radio or television in a public place are exempt from the BMI/ASCAP-type license requirement if the signals are received by a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, and they don't "retransmit" the signal elsewhere. So, if a business uses a small receiver and pair of speakers commonly used in a home to play FM music in a store that is not larger than a typical home, they can tell the BMI/ASCAP guy to shove off. Nice decision on point (also showing the way BMI thinks) in Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Claire's Boutiques, Inc., 949 F.2d 1482 (7th Cir. 1991), available online at http://www.studentweb.law.ttu.edu/cochran/cochran/ Cases%20&%20Readings/Copyright-UNT/Public%20Perfor m/claires.htm.
While IAAL, this message is not intended as legal advice - pay a lawyer for specific advice if you are deciding how to respond to a BMI/ASCAP threat!
The similarity is in the fact, that you are not really devastated by those e-mails. You are simply worse off. All the nasty things, that you rightly wish upon the spammer, do not compare with the inconvenience of having to press Delete even 100 times.
Similarly, each individual infringement by a small coffee shop does not cause the songwriters any "devastation", as the sarcastic "frosty pisser" was saying. It just makes them worse off...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
When are people going to get the message and treat the RIAA, MPAA, and the others like them as insurgent terrorists and KILL them just like we would kill Iraqi insurgents.
As a performing DJ, I looked into this some time ago. Unless things have changed in the past few years:
Per their licenses, the BMI/ASCAP/SESAC license must be paid for by the venue, not the DJ.
Re: HS Dances, wedding receptions, etc., the DJ also does not have to get a license, per the same agreements, since these are "private gatherings" and/or are covered under a venue's license.
Said licenses also do not seem to differentiate from where you get your music to perform, e.g. legitimate, bootleg, downloaded mp3, or wherever.
The owners of the coffee houses shouldn't have to pay the fees,
the musicians should. It is the musicians that are making money
from playing the copyrighted material, and they should pay to make
use of it. The person hiring the musicians is just buying a service.
I guess the responsibility DOES end up on the person hiring the musicians
to make sure THEY have paid the fees, but it shouldn't be that way.
After all who is the music expert here?
Years age the state of N.H. had some state sponsored liquor stores on
the interstate. Residents of Mass. would cross the border to buy liquor
cheap in N.H. (bootlegging ?). Well Mass. get pissed off at loosing
state sales taxes on booze so they had the Mass. state troopers stationed
in unmarked cars in front of the N.H. liquor stores to radio license tag
numbers back to troopers on the Mass. side of the border. The Mass. cops
would then arrest those who crossed the border with the booze.
The N.H. state police got even. They arrested the Mass. troopers for loitering.
Years ago I wrote a business plan for an Internet cafe for which I never obtained the necessary start-up loans. But, for the bankers and any would-be investors/lenders, I wrote in a section dealing with this BMI risk. I stated that any music listened to would be via the patrons' own headphone, or if via my computers, they would listen via headphones and not out of the speakers. Also, I'd contacted one husban/wife Smooth Jazz producer/performer and they in e-mail gave me permission to pay their CDs. My intent was to buy their CDs and give them away to the patrons when the group's music played. Alternatively, some shop income would go to non-profit community and health-related causes.
An aside:
as for dealing with privacy, I would put up a sign with days incremented daily, stating: "Days since [DATE HERE] not approached for mandatory keystroke compliance with any government entities: xxx. If the days counted don't add up, assume my silence means we've been ordered to comply with wiretapping, but I'm not allowed to say WE DID.". If approached with wiretap orders, I'd take this stand. L/E can get their wiretaps from the frackin' DEMARC, not compel my blind, subservient compliance.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
To pull this all together (considering most posts are only mentions parts of it), to the best of my knowledge...
Parodies are a protected type of derivative work that are exempt in copyright law. You do not have to pay anything to the original owner to create and perform them.
That being said, Weird Al decided long ago that he would not market and sell parodies without the express permission of the original authors as a courtesy and out of respect for those authors.
There have oopsies. With Amish Paradise/Gansta's Paradise, the representing record company told him he had the authors permission, but after the album went on sale, it was found out the author had said no such thing (and was rather pissed at seeing the song he treated with reverance being treated like a joke). Anyway, since then, Al makes sure he's talks _directly_ with the author first.
I've also heard of a recent case where the author said "yes" but the representing record company said "no" right before final production. For whatever reason, Al honored the record company and removed the song from Straight Our Of Lynwood at the last moment, but still performs the song in concerts. I don't know complete details, but I be more app to honor the artists work of the record label in such cases. *Sigh* Ah well.
--Dave Romig, Jr.
Here in the Silicon Valley area, there are a number of coffeeshops, bars, etc. that have music jam nights or open mikes or scheduled performers. The jam sessions usually expect you to buy food in return for jam space; the scheduled performers usually get tips and drinks or (less often) paid. The place I'll be tonight usually gets about half its eat-in business on Monday nights from our old-timey jam session (plus people taking out pizza.) Hopefully they do better on other nights....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I am from one of the acts that lost there place to play (url:http://www.JustBlueMusic.com) and it is really disappointing. As were are trying to find a new place to place we are finding other places that are deciding to no longer have bands.
I understand the laws but maybe there should be a waiver for places that don't sell alcohol and seat say under 50 people.
Venues aren't always the ones that pay ASCAP. Aside from the ones that just don't bother paying, or the places that stick to traditional music where it doesn't apply (e.g. Irish bars, contradances), there are some edge cases where the musician ends up paying. One example is square dance callers, who are essentially specialized DJs - sometimes a dance hall or square dance club will have an ASCAP or BMI license, but sometimes the caller will have his own (since they often perform at a variety of locations, and dances are often played in rented halls, school gyms, etc. that aren't regularly set up as music venues.) The licensing for that is usually a lot cheaper than a restaurant or bar's license, at least if you don't call more than N dances per year. I don't know if other DJs have similar restrictions?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
And good for them. Too many bands have had their work ripped off by record labels.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I used to work at a grocery store chain (technically doing engineering.) At most of the stores, there were two sets of music - the Muzak out front that was played for the customers, and then the boom boxes the employees played in back. There was probably an ASCAP or BMI license for the music in front, and nobody ever asked questions about the music in back, except maybe to get the volume turned down if the customers could hear it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bars make enough money selling drinks to pay bands actual cash and even make a profit. Coffee shops often don't - restaurants in general are economically marginal businesses, and tend to fail almost as fast as software companies but without the venture capitalists pumping big bucks into them. One of my favorite local venues was a bakery/coffeeshop that had live music almost every night - they didn't have an ASCAP license, so we were expected to play traditional or other non-licensed music. They were much more successful as a venue for musicians than as a bakery; I'm surprised their last couple of locations rented to them, given their history of falling behind on rent and getting evicted.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
ASCAP represents Composers and Performers - their business model is collecting from venues, not collecting from some people they represent to pay other people they represent. You're suggesting that their business model should be collecting from the musicians - (insert standard broke musician jokes here) that's not as productive an idea....
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
by the way, thanks NH! ;-)
Made many a college weekend for us Massholes!
Sorry, but I got kind of pissed when you talked about my Mom Lying or being an Idiot.
You are only fined when you create a pamphlet so people can sing along.
Not when people sing along.
God, I'm such an idiot at times
0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
This thread is getting a little old but I thought I'd relate a story from my "yoot". For those that get the reference, it sets the mood.
Back in about 1971, a year or two out of high school, a friend opened up a small auto specialty parts store in a strip mall. There were few parking spots in front and a lot about a half block away for overflow. We had the metalflake Coke machine stocked with pop and beer and a stereo where we played music from cassettes and the radio. It became a hangout for a bunch of us.
One day a newer Caddy pulls up in front, a suit gets out and comes in the store. "I'm from (ASCAP/BMI, don't remember) and if you're playing music here you need to buy a license." My friend turned off the stereo and talked to the guy for a bit then he left. A few days later the suit came back and caught us with the stereo on. We turned it off again then my friend and the suit talked some more in the office then he left.
Another few days and the guy comes back again demanding that the store have a license to play music. While he was arguing with my friend, one of us snuck out the back, ran out to the parking lot and popped a valve stem on the guys car. He was back a few days later demanding we buy a license. My friend said he was going to consult with his lawyer and see what his options were. In the mean time, somehow, two valve stems got damaged on his car. One flat and you could use the spare, two required a call for a tow truck. This was before cell phones. The guy was steaming but there wasn't a thing he could prove.
Another couple of days and the ASCAP/BMI dude pulls up in front, gets out and comes in the store demanding payment for a license. Crazy Kevin, (a big Italian kid who wasn't called crazy for nothing) walked up to the front window, points and says to the guy, "Is that your car?" "Yup." "Nice car. It'd be a shame if sumptin' bad was to happen to it." Never saw him again. I guess he decided it wasn't worth the aggravation and a few measly bucks trying to shake down a bunch of kids just listening to the radio.
I doubt that someone would get away with this today but it was the 70s' and times were easy. These days they'd probably just sic the lawyers on you.