Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Seeks Licensing Fees For Guitar Hero Arcade
Self Bias Resistor writes "According to a post on the Arcade-Museum forums, ASCAP is demanding an annual $800 licensing fee from at least one operator of a Guitar Hero Arcade machine, citing ASCAP licensing regulations regarding jukeboxes. An ASCAP representative allegedly told the operator that she viewed the Guitar Hero machine as a jukebox of sorts. The operator told ASCAP to contact Raw Thrills, the company that sells the arcade units. The case is ongoing and GamePolitics is currently seeking clarification of the story from ASCAP."
The music industry shooting iself in the foot? Colour me surprised...
Or else they would have gone straight to the distributor or publisher.
"Despite the fact that these games are very successful and are drawing a great deal of attention to the music represented in the games, the industry is not pleased with the licensing arrangements that allow the games to use their songs."
Does anyone here think "their songs" refers means "the artist's songs" or does it rather mean "Corp X's songs". Their original argument in the opening salvo of their war against the internet was "think of the artists!" Well, apparently they don't abide by their own logic (nor have they ever). From the very same article:
"Music games are proven earners--Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history." Fuck the music industry. Please, just die already.
I would think a GH video game stand would be more akin to a DDR arcade game than a jukebox.
Cannot find REALITY.SYS. Universe halted.
IANAL but I'd tell the ASCAP flunky that the music's ALREADY LICENSED to start with. Otherwise it wouldn't even make it to the GH machine in the first place, right?
Sounds like an attempted shakedown of a small business that's not legally bound to pay anything in this instance.
Perhaps ASCAP need to be introduced to a different acronym: RICO.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Google ASCAP, its just another organisation that operates like the RIAA. So yes, they do apply. I mean, they wanted people to pay for public performances of there work if your ringtone was a song that went off in public.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
The companies represent the artists because the artists sign a contract affording the company the right to distribute (and the responsibility/incentive to police unauthorized distribution). Aerosmith can manage their online distribution themselves ("Hey, Tyler... it's Wednesday: Your day to modify the XML!") or they can strike a deal with a company to handle that kind of stuff for them.
-Aerosmith has reportedly earned more from Guitar Hero : Aerosmith than from any single album in the band's history
That's great. Do you think they could have gotten that deal if they weren't represented by their company? Do you think Tyler could even make it downstairs before lunchtime if a third party did not have a vested interest in their success and distribution?
Don't get me wrong: I'm all for artists -- musicians, writers, composers, comedians -- managing as much of their own distribution as they can. The smaller, less established you are, the more it matters; the bigger, better established you are, the more difficult it becomes. But it is the choice of the artist. I buy produce directly from the growers at Farmers' Markets whenever I can, but I do not begrudge the grocery stores their role in the supply chain.
DDR is currently in a gray area, since it crosses the line between video game and jukebox. Especially if it's positioned in an area so everyone can watch it. There hasn't been a "ruling" one way or the other from ASCAP on it. There are complications, because a lot of DDR songs are unlicensed in the US or are original performances by Konami. GH is a better test case, which is probably why they're using it.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
They aren't the RIAA, but ASCAP plays by more or less the same rulebook as the RIAA and is every bit as odious. It just so happens that they have less reason to go after individuals and chase after businesses instead.
To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
Seriously, If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free Music more.
Join the Free Music Push
Change has to start somewhere. Three is some good stuff out there with Free licenses on it. Give it some attention and some love.
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
OK, I just googled ASCAP, and I didn't find anything remotely like the behavior of the RIAA.
Instead of just saying "google ASCAP" couldn't you just provide some examples and/or citations?
You are welcome on my lawn.
There was one bar here that actually went out of business because of ASCAP. He had no jukebox and hired folk bands; these bands played old folk music that was in the public domain, and ASCAP sued anyway. He wouldn't cave on principle and the legal costs bankrupted him and he lost his business.
We need a law which says that once a judge has ruled that a corporation has brought a frivolous lawsuit against someone, anytime it sues someone in the future it needs to finance the other side's legal fees, and only gets the money back if the judge rules they deserve it.
Try reading the wikipedia article that was cited. Or actually google "ascap ringtones".
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
You googled ASCAP and failed to find anything? Try looking at anything but the first result maybe? Hell even the third pointing to wikipedia gives it away. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers#Criticism
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
A few things have been said comparing RIAA with ASCAP, and I agree that they are both the "industry" part we'd all like to eliminate or govern better.
so which one is worse? IMHO ASCAP is worse because they deal in all the venues - The production and manufacturing, the retail markets and the public performance places (bars, restaurants, retail stores, concert venues, malls etc). They take cuts from every part of the line including the last in line, the establishments that offer music as a service to a consumer. If you're a small business owner, with a nightclub with DJs or bands or even a store that wants to play his local radio station over his PA, you might as well figure on spending a lot of money because surely you will have an ASCAP representative knocking on your door telling you you are required to pay an outrageous fee to a PO box somewhere in Kansas. They'll bully you for months then weeks then days and threaten you with lawsuits and send you legitimate looking licensing pamphlets with absolutely no pricing and very little information about the laws or levels or types of licensing. You'll get the same info when dealing direct with ASCAP (the ONLY public point of contact direct to ASCAP is ONLY through their website- of which is also vague and semi-threatning). You'll get ink-jet printed price-sheets handed or mailed to you by these ASCAP representatives. Haggling will get you better prices, to which RED FLAGS are customary. If you do not pay, the bullying continues, lawsuits are threatened, youre forced to feel obligated to pay for something you have no idea is even a tangible item or not. If you're a small business owner, you are only dealing with the representative, the next level up is an ASCAP lawyer. Your lawyer will most likely say they have a legal right to demand the money from you, neither you nor any combined effort would be able to survive an ASCAP lawsuit.
You may be bullied also by your local amusement provider (the company that provides jukeboxes and pool tables for rent).
-- my sig had an Aerosmith lyric in it, but I was forced to remove it or pay a licensing fee.
Those Donkey Kong machines make music. They're just like jukeboxes!
I would argue those are a little short- I would be happy with 24 years, or hell, anything shy of 50 years (maybe a 25 year with one extension if the author, and not his estate/corporate interest, desires). Software, on the other hand, should probably only have a 10 year copyright, at least until the pace of technological advance slows down massively. At that point we could revisit software copyrights...
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
ASCAP collects royalties for the folks who actually wrote the songs these business owners are using to draw in paying customers. In other words, the bar owner / arcade owner / whoever directly profits from the fact that Guitar Hero is using popular songs versus writing their own. Frankly, I think the people who wrote those songs and worked hard to get them recorded deserve to be recognized and paid their federally mandated royalties.
They were payed royalty fees when they licensed the music to the game. ASCAP its just trying to manipulate the meaning of public performance for more money.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
It's a video game which uses popular songs in order to increase profits. I don't think anyone would argue that GH uses those specific songs for a reason and would not be nearly as popular if they had simply made up their own music. As such, the same federal laws that cover Jukeboxes apply here. IE: popular songs are being used to increase attention and profit from paying customers. It would be unfair to the folks who worked hard to write the songs if the business owners kept the profits they are deriving directly from the popularity of those works.
No, as a matter of fact they weren't. But thanks for trying.
I should have provided a better response. The artists who recorded the songs were no doubt paid a license for their recordings, but the songwriters who actually wrote those songs didn't make squat. Songwriters only make money when a recording of their song is sold, or when their song is performed hundreds of thousands of times. In this case, ASCAP is only looking out for their member's federally mandated rights. The reason this entire thing is so stupidly overcomplicated is entirely the fault of the federal government.
Your anti-RIAA rants don't apply here.
The music publishers in ASCAP and the record labels in RIAA tend to have the same parent companies, just like TV news and the MPAA share parent companies.
Last night, my MP3 player suddenly got stuck on the song 4'33" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%E2%80%B233%E2%80%B3). It keeps playing the haunting melody over and over, and nothing I can do will make it stop!
Besides having that tune running through my head all day, how much am I going to have to pay the RIAA for this? I never purchased this song, so it is distresssing that I am stuck paying for it. Is there a virus that loads such things onto MP3 players?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
ASCAP - Yes, this is the moffia
You misspelled MAFIAA. ASCAP, along with other BMI, SESAC, and foreign performance rights organizations, together with record label trade groups like RIAA, make up the M in MAFIAA.
ASCAP - Yes, this is the moffia
"moffia"?
Bow-ties are cool.
While ASCAP is "not for profit", it has paid employees, particularly its board of directors. This provides it motive to seek every drop of money it can, particularly if it is not "cost effective" to do so. The largest part of those costs are, after all, employee wages.
It has the muscle to extort money out of business owners even when it knows it is in the wrong; it is fully aware of the cost of defending a lawsuit, and that the vast majority of small businesses and performers cannot afford to do so. (And guess what? More overhead!)
This is by no means the first such story I've heard, even here on slashdot. If you've got potentially deep pockets and are high-profile, they may back off, but if you look sueable, they may sue to make an object lesson of you. Much like the RIAA.
Just as an aside, I found a reference saying that ASCAP does not automatically pay royalties for general live performances. I bet, though, that it still collects them. As you seem more informed about ASCAP particulars, would you care to speak about that?
They do not get paid everytime someone pays rock band or guitar hero, because they licensed it, this is not a difficult concept. Guitar Hero!=Radio/Television/Movies etc.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
That was my thought. This is double dipping!
(Drumming on Time)
I've never heard of a jukebox owner needing to pay royalty fees. That blows! Most operators don't own the machines, they rent them from a vending company, and take between a 40/60 & 60/40 split. How much does the ascap want out of that cut would be the more appropriate question. Obviously any amount> 1-5% would not make it worth running the machine. There is overhead that people forget about. It's not just "plug and paid." You have to lease or own the space to host the machine, and pay for the power of the machine which on any large screen device can be substantial over the year.
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
First of all, creators and artists do not get paid forever; only while their work is popular and making money. That's the point of the long Copyright - you don't know how long it's going to be before it makes money. For example Mac McAnally wrote "Down the Road" something like 20 years ago, but it never went anywhere. Suddenly Kenny Chesney recorded it, it went #1 with a bullet and millions of dollars were made. By your rules, Mac would receive absolutely nothing for writing the song while Kenny raked in the dough.
The change your suggesting would actually HELP the RIAA screw songwriters. They would simply wait until the song entered public domain before recording it and wouldn't have to pay the author squat.
So unfortunately it's just not that simple.
Your statement, "No one is going to make millions ... since no one singe entity can control it" is simply wrong. It wouldn't matter if Mac's song were in the public domain, Kenny would still have made millions from it, and millions of listeners would still have enjoyed hearing it. Business owners would have played it to draw in more customers, to keep those customers in their bars longer, and to sell more drinks to them while there.
I have to wonder how your opinion would change if you were a writer? I'm betting you'd have a very different outlook on that little section you quoted about Copyright. As is, I think you're reading it backwards. It isn't saying that science and art are promoted by dumping everything into the public domain. It is saying that they are promoted by making sure the creator receives financial benefit for the hard work they put into the creation. And it's right.
"Some people would miss out, but that's life?" The whole point of Copyright reform in 1976 was to protect all the folks who were getting screwed by the record companies. Unlike most of what our government does, this one was pretty good. What you're talking about would actually put us back 60 years in the fight to protect those talented few who create our most precious cultural treasures. Many of whom died penniless because of laws exactly like the ones you are promoting.
Songwriters, artists, and other creative people are not very often good business people. To say that someone who spends his entire life perfecting his art for the enjoyment of millions is just going to "miss out" because "that's life" is immature and insulting. I dare you to go a year devoid of all art (music, photos, movies, poetry, paintings, even freakin' Disney cartoons) and then tell me at the end of it what you think a creator is worth.
You're not listening. Aerosmith may have licensed their recording. The person who actually WROTE the song and still owns the Copyright was never consulted, and never got a dime.
And if Guitar Hero = Radio/Television/Movies/etc then Performance Royalties are in fact due and payable to ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC to be distributed to the songwriters the same way they are in those other media. Activision and the amusement companies who distribute the commercial version of the game need to figure out if they're going to pay them or if the individual business will.
It does not. HTH.
"I may be full of crap about this game, and I may be wrong, and that's fine." -Jack Thompson
I was using the wrong term there, calling the "Guitar Hero" machine a jukebox. I thing licensing isn't unreasonable,for them. Public performance and all. But calling a videogame a jukebox is not the same since the videogame company should have it liscensed.
It's like as much (more actually, but I digress) to "listen" to a song on a jukebox as it is to "BUY" it from I-tunes or Amazon (my preference).
How much is your data worth? Back it up now.