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."

Comments

The music industry

[Anonymous Coward]

The music industry shooting iself in the foot? Colour me surprised...

Re:The music industry

[Opportunist]

Could be dangerous. Usually the foot is in their mouth.

Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon?

[dikdik]

The music "industry" is not music. It's just middle men. They create drag, friction, between the musicians and the fans. They are an unneeded artifice, a relic of an earlier age, in my mind. For instance:

"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.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon?

[thisnamestoolong]

ASCAP is too the "music industry". They just happen to be the gatekeepers of performance rights, rather than the copyrights. Do a little bit of research into ASCAP and you will find that they are every bit as anti-artist and anti-consumer as the RIAA. They have been caught withholding funds from artists while tossing around the idea of charging royalties on cell phone ringtones. They are in the same exact position as the RIAA -- worthless leeches on our society that stand between artists and fans. I would even say that ASCAP is worse, their obscenely high licensing fees simply ensure that most places simply won't play popular music. A sane person would consider their song being played at the mall to be free advertising, but ASCAP would beg to differ. ASCAP? They more like ASSHAT.

Re:Can we get rid of the music "industry" soon?

[CharlieHedlin]

Remember the ASCAP threatened to sue the girl scouts and boy scouts over the signing done at camp!

A jukebox?

[TimeElf1]

I would think a GH video game stand would be more akin to a DDR arcade game than a jukebox.

When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights

[RobotRunAmok]

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.

Re:When Artists Stop Signing Away Distrib Rights

[Kalvos]

Pretty good thoughts, thanks. (And nice you mention the farmers' market analogy -- our daughter runs a CSA called Tangletown Farm and depends on farmers' markets.)

I'm an ASCAP member, and have been for 20 years. Unlike bands, I'm a composer. I don't do gigs; I write the stuff that's played at gigs. Even more unmatched to the usual /. complaint, my music isn't pop, and it comes off a sheet of paper or computer screen to performers.

Although my distributor sells some paper scores and parts, I allow download of all my scores and parts for musicians who want to print them by themselves. So that means I live almost entirely on the royalties from licensed performances -- and it isn't much, I'll tell you, because schools are exempted if it's part of the educational program, religious institutions are always exempted, and there is a host of other exemptions, such as ringtones and other nonprofit uses and even work-for-hire where rights are given up. Do I get a mountain royalties if my piece is played on the radio or cable or broadcast television? Nope -- unless my piece is caught in the random surveys used to determine royalty amounts; despite hundreds of broadcast performances in 20 years (including a repeated feature on the Discovery Channel), no piece of mine has every had the good fortune to be surveyed. Yes, I get royalties from outside the U.S., such as my $2.95 from Taiwan last month. Stunning. I'll be driving to a performance of a big orchestral work in January, a six-hour round-trip. My royalty for that performance will be about $100.

ASCAP collects these royalties for me, and I don't pay for that privilege. They do the work, take a very small percentage, and I get the occasional check. They lose money on me and probably the majority of their composers. Are they crazy sometimes? Sure, like when they wanted royalties from the Girl Scouts for singing "Happy Birthday". But that crazy is also a reminder that there are performance rights granted in law and managed for many composers by their membership in groups like ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and their international counterparts.

Could I do it myself? Sure, if I wanted to locate performances in Finland or Portugal or Belgium or Tulsa or Grand Rapids, and send a bill. But I am happy that ASCAP does that for me and I can keep working as an artist.

Most composers are in this position. You don't know their work as a big stage act, but you hear it in concert halls or small venues or as part of documentary films/videos or on public radio.

That's where those licensing fees come from, and they go through licensing representatives who work for us individual composers.

Dennis

Re:I'd go further...

[Sycraft-fu]

Ya well the problem is that ASCAP is a DIFFERENT licensing entity, one of the many of the music industry's screwed up model. So ASCAP isn't about licensing specific performances of songs. They don't deal with with the license for a CD or the like. The deal with public performance licenses. This applies no matter if you are talking about playing a recorded song, or a band playing their own version of it. They want licensing money for the composer if the song is played in public.

So it is a different group wanting a slice of the pie for different reasons. You can have a license for the copy of the music you have, but NOT a license to perform it publicly. Yes, it is rather stupid.

ASCAP is also another one of those nice, mandatory, monopoly-type organizations that some how gets away with operating through special legal loopholes for them.

DDR is grey area as well.

[wantedman]

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.

Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry"

[thisnamestoolong]

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.

Re:Showing muscles to the little guy?

[mcgrew]

This is ASCAP. That's what they do. They mostly hassle tavern owners. They collect for jukeboxes, radios, live music, even when the band only plays their own compositions and according to bar owners I know, they're almost as pushy as the Mafia, usint threats, coercion, every trick in the book. I was talking to one bar owner one day when a lady from ASCAP showed up to put the squeeze on him. She was HOT and she used it; you would have thought she was a hooker the way she played him.

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.

ASCAP is as evil as the RIAA.

Legal reform needed

[Mathinker]

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.

Re:Legal reform needed

[AusIV]

I'm not sure I completely agree with your proposal, but I definitely agree with the sentiment. A party with deep pockets shouldn't be able to force an innocent party into a settlement by making it cost prohibitive to defend yourself - that's extortion by my book.

I think a better alternative would be some kind of motion where a defendant can request that the judge order the plaintiff to pay legal fees. The defendant would need to be able to convince the judge that defending the suit is cost prohibitive and that an innocent but fiscally responsible party would be inclined to settle rather than defend against the suit. The judge could require the plaintiff to pay the defendant's legal fees, and if the judge finds in favor of the plaintiff the legal fees may be awarded back as well. Someone who knows they're at fault would still be inclined to settle out of court, but someone who believes he is innocent would have a viable means of defending himself.

Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry"

[Kierthos]

Try reading the wikipedia article that was cited. Or actually google "ascap ringtones".

Re:ASCAP is not the "music industry"

[FinchWorld]

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

Re:Showing muscles to the little guy?

[bluefoxlucid]

I would have self-represented if I was going on principle, and had trial in front of a judge. This is a pretty basic argument: they're suing me for playing music they have no domain over. Their only argument could be that the live performers could play some AC/DC live; at which point, I'd point out that I have electricity, and could bring in a CD player and an AC/DC CD, so maybe they should sue anyone with an electric utility. The only arguments they have are ridiculous, and ridiculing them with competent logical counter-arguments in front of a competent judge is viable.

The other thing to do is object to stupidity meant to load you with paperwork and keep you busy until you overrun some deadline on a court order to fill out papers/show evidence. It's not my job to show evidence for your case; demand solid evidence or have their case thrown out. Once their case fails, counter-sue (with lawyer) for harassment, citing that you successfully defended yourself against their legal firm (no, really, the only thing these people practice is lawing at you) by yourself because their argument was retarded and they were abusing the court system. Sue for maximum damages and push for fines for abuse of the court systems.