"There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack."
Huh? The record company isn't allowed to set pricing according to the law of supply and demand? Everybody else does it; you even do it when negotiating your salary.
I know we hate the record companies and all, but that's just a weird thing to say.
"You hit it right on the head here. It is amazing a movie that typically costs X million to produce costs about as much as a CD. Somewhere, somebody is not understanding the economics of this."
I'm sorry to say that it is you. But, take heart -- you're not the first person to miss this point, by far.
This boggles a lot of people who haven't studied much economics or who don't work in the retail industry, but items are typically priced according to the law of supply and demand, and not the cost of sale. Consider these examples:
Kenneth Cole pays about the same price for materials for a shirt or a pair of shoes as Sears does, and their costs of production are about the same. Yet Kenneth Cole is able to sell shirts for $150.00, while Sears would be likely to get $40 for a shirt with the same material cost. This is because Kenneth Cole sells a shirt for the price they can get for it.
An iPhone costs something like $500, and requires two years of service. It's not a good value at all considering what else you can get for the money. The cost of the materials in the iPhone isn't much different than many phones and PDAs, and even the R&D cost isn't too far out of line with that of other, far cheaper, electronics goods. Yet people were literally lining up overnight to buy them!
You might know somebody who makes a pretty good living. His actual cost of living might be $60K a year, but since he's worked hard at his craft -- gone to school, or just gained experience -- he's in higher demand and thus he earns a salary that's considerably higher than $60K. If he had set his "price" according to his cost of living, he would be missing out on all that money. He is the supply, the employers have the demand.
I hope this helps you understand the economics of how DVDs are priced. In case it isn't clear, they're set at the price they are because that's the price at which the movie companies make the most money overall. If they sold them for more, they might make more per sale, but the reduction in the amount of people who buy them might be too much to make it worth it. Likewise, if they lowered the price, they might get more sales, but not enough to offset the lost money per sale.
You expressed surprise at the difference in price between a DVD and a CD. You appear to be surprised since they use the same materials (plastic and metal) and have a similar manufacturing process. But, keep in mind that software is also distributed on CD and has pricing that's all over the board. Why does some software cost $9.99 while other software can command a price of $500, even though both are distributed on the same medium? The answer is our old friend supply and demand.
You've probably noticed that all DVDs cost about $10 - $20, despite the fact that their production costs are all over the board. Indy films that cost $20MM to make often cost the very same on DVD as films costing $100MM or more. Evan Almighty cost around $175MM to make, but when it goes on sale on DVD, you can be sure that you'll see it on the shelf for $20 or so next to films that cost around the same price. At the point of being redundant, this is again because the DVD is priced at the optimal point on the supply/demand curve -- and not based on the cost of the plastics or even the production costs.
I hope this helps you understand the economics. Let me know if it's unclear.
"Well, that and DVDs, unlike CDs, are priced decently. You can do a lot of DVD buying and still not go over $10 a piece, whereas you need to shell out $20 easy for a CD. can't believe the RIAA hasn't figured this out yet."
Where do you buy your CDs? I live on the west coast, and they are $12 - $14. CD prices started freefalling about five years ago and the average price was $13 and change for a new release in 2004; I think they've stabilized since then but I highly doubt that they've crept back up to $20 at retail.
Taking a look at Amazon, nine of today's top sellers are going for $9.99, with the exception being $11.99. Scrolling through their top 50, I can find only a couple which peak at $14.99, notably TMBG's latest.
If you're living somewhere where CDs really are $20, I truly feel your pain, but you must understand: your local stores are gouging you. Record companies sell to distributors and retailers at fixed prices; if your local store is marking up CDs by another 50%, it is they you should be upset with; not the RIAA.
"But the problem is that if you don't play music by ASCAP/BMI artists, but play a lot of cover music by other artists, you are still presented with a bill. What for, exactly, and which congress critters gave them the permission to demand payment on behalf of people they don't represent?"
They're not. They're collecting money for people they represent. Nothing more. They're not collecting money for the janitorial service, for the condiments, or anything else unrelated to artists they represent. If you walk up to the piano and make up a tune on the fly, play your own composition (assuming you're not signed with ASCAP/BMI), or even eat a pastrami sandwich off of it, none of these have anything to do with the license. ASCAP/BMI isn't asking for money for any of those things.
Maybe the disconnect is this: buying a license doesn't prevent you from performing non-licensed works. If you're a club owner, what you do with that piano is entirely up to you. And (and maybe this is where the confusion lies), the bar doesn't pay by the performance... they pay by the year.
"As I said, and I still stand by, this favours the well known artists at the expense of the unknown ones. Because they won't even know who wrote a little known tune. Only if they know the tune, can they correctly assign it to a creator. Heck, quite often, even the performer doesn't know who originally wrote a tune they play..."
Come on... you know venues which have live music get blanket licenses. It doesn't make the slightest difference whether the performer knows the name of the songwriter or not. I think you're confusing this with broadcast licenses, which require cue sheets to be completed.
"In addition to those artists whose songs are unknown (and thus not counted because of not being countable), it's also at the expense of the artists who play and get less paid because the venue holder has to pay a license fee."
Virtually all live music venues have a license. If you're trying to blame the going rate for live musicians on the cost of the licensing fees, you may as well blame it on the cost of the beer or the food or the property tax or any of the other innumerable costs of running a bar or restaurant.
"Show me an artist represented by the above that did not get their start by playing covers. This is just low."
I don't follow. It's the venue, not the cover band, that pays the license. The vast majority of venues do so. Bands don't need to worry about licenses... they just go to the bar, set up, and play their covers. The bar makes money as a result of having the live music, and part of the bar's income goes back to the composers and lyricists.
As you probably know, composers and lyricist are paid quite poorly by record labels. As a result, performance royalties make up the bulk (and often only) income that composers and lyricists make. It's sad to see that now people want to take that away; the "I support the artists" claim is just so much lip service for many people. I know a lot of us like to imagine an ideal world where artists should be happy should just be happy that their music is being heard, and can live on just love and oxygen. But the brutal reality is that most songwriters do so to make a living.
"While that may be the intention, I can't see how that actually works in practice. If the coffee shop/whatever is actually paying a license I'm pretty sure they will take that into account when signing up a band. Less money for the band == the band ends up paying for it anyway (we're not talking Metallica and Madonna here which can demand more or less whatever they want...)"
Huh? The vast majority of venues which hire bands have licenses. This is nothing new. It's just a cost of doing business if you want to play music. It has no more effect on the going rate for paying live bands than does, say, the cost of the janitorial service or any other overhead.
Next time you're at your favorite local venue that plays music, look for the ASCAP or BMI stickers on the front window along with the other stickers. I believe the former is triangular, the latter circular. They're often on the front door, along the bottom edge of the window.
If you weren't aware of this, don't feel too bad -- after all, you're not in the business of running a bar or restaurant. The whole idea of performance licensing is apparently a shocking revelation to many Slashdot readers, but nonetheless, it's been around for years, and it's hardly a secret.
"Do you know that it is also a criminal offence to send out a bill when you are not entitled to a payment, it is called fraud. Perhaps in those various organisations were tackled in court for falsely sending out demands for payment it might restrain them a bit."
If you are ASCAP or BMI and a business is playing your licensed music without a license, you are legally entitled to payment. They're not some rogue organizations... they've been doing this for more than 50 years.
"What would be interesting is to see them get audited and see how much they support themselves rather than the composers, and if RIAA members own the composing rights after having contracted them off the artists, isn't really just the slimy RIAA operating in the background and driving the others like a puppet."
No need. ASCAP pays out 88%. BMI pays out 86%. They have very low operating costs, because they're in business to collect money and give it to composers and lyricists. Compare this to record companies, which only look out for themselves. This is why for many composers and lyricists, performance royalties are their main source of income, since CD sales don't pay shit.
Anybody can own publishing rights, and many artists assign their rights to publishing companies to avoid dealing with the paperwork (somewhat similar to hiring an accountant if you don't want to deal with your taxes -- it makes your life easier, but you'll pay). Some record labels do own publishing companies, but it's not the norm. Numerically speaking, most composers and lyricists are represented directly by ASCAP/BMI.
"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."
Seriously, where did you get the idea that the RIAA has anything to do with this? The RIAA works on behalf of record companies; the topic of discussion today is ASCAP and BMI, performance rights organizations who work on behalf of artists.
"Can you make a case that someone witnessing a cover band or radio performance in a public space will result in a lost ticket sale? Lost CD sale? Lost merchandising revenue? Lost venue for the original artist?"
I don't have to. Performance rights are a large percentage of many composers and lyricists' incomes. Often far, far more than royalties from the sales of recordings. And they've been earning money on performance rights for decades and decades. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of this, but this traditionally how composers and lyricists make their living.
Believe me, I understand your point: you don't think they should get that money; that they should be happy with whatever incremental money they make from CD sales. I suppose some people just have lower regard for artists than others.
"Based on the responses, ASCAP and BMI (supposedly) split their license collections with the artists using the performance ratios they get from the sheets (after expenses which I'm sure are very very high)."
Not by a stretch of the imagination (unless you were being sarcastic, then I apologize). ASCAP pays out 88% of royalties collected; BMI around 86%. A 12% - 14% overhead is extremely low, particularly compared to many charities.
They're able to pay out so much because they are run by artists, for artists. Compare this to record labels which pay only a marginal percentage; that's because record labels are looking out for themselves. ASCAP and BMI, on the other hand, were set up with the express purpose of getting money to composers and lyricists.
"The problems are that such an exceedingly small amount of the money collected actually go to the artists, and that they collect money even for artists that they have no way of (or intention of) paying. If I play a few non-mainstream songs on the piano at the bar, and the bar owner ponies up $850, how much money do the actual composers get? Exactly zilch, that's how much. Despite that, they demand payment, no matter whether the composer is part of their organization or not."
You're correct -- licensing through ASCAP or BMI allows public performance of works composed by ASCAP/BMI members. It doesn't cover works by folks who aren't members. That's not their domain... you're correct that they don't send out checks to composers and lyricists who haven't signed with them. On the other hand, having a license doesn't require you to play only ASCAP/BMI licensed works. So if you have a bar and you've bought a license because you'd like to perform licensed works, but somebody happens to come in and play an unlicensed work, it doesn't affect your license one way or the other.
"Unless they open up so you can see how much of the operating budget actually reaches the creators, and which artists get paid and which don't, it's all an extortion scheme that benefits a few mainstream artists, at the expense of all the others."
ASCAP pays out about 88% of the money collected; ie. there's 12% overhead, which isn't bad (particularly compared to some charities). BMI paid out about $675MM in royalties on $779 in revenue last year, which is 14% overhead.
Royalties are paid based on sampling. They do a lot of sampling, so it's pretty accurate. The more an artist is played, the more money they make. As you've correctly pointed out, composers and lyricists whose works are performed less, are paid less. I think this is fair. But, this is not at the expense of the lesser-played composers and lyricists... broadcasters pay, not members. It's free to sign up for ASCAP or BMI (in fact, there's really no reason not to join), and if your career grows, so will the size of the checks you get. You're absolutely correct that artists without substantial careers can't expect substantial performance licensing money, but Ye Olde "free lunch" rule applies.
"I would think that, in order to claim damages, you would have to prove that Band X playing a cover in some downtown hole-in-the-wall has somehow impinged upon the original artist's ability to perform, to sell tickets to performances, or otherwise make money doing what they do."
Enforcing copyright law isn't about proving damages or economic harm. It's about protecting rights. You should already know this.
"I would possibly argue the opposite. If someone does a cover by an artist someone doesn't recognize, they would possibly be interested in learning more about that artist. Free exposure for them, and I can't see any rational argument that cover bands hurt the artist's bottom line."
A lot of designers I've known have heard similar arguments. "Please do this work for free, or let me pay you on spec! You'll get valuable exposure, and perhaps others will see my web site and form an interest in you. It won't cost you anything to do this work for me, so it won't hurt your bottom line." Your argument is also a good one for piracy: "If I distribute this new CD via BT, it will help get the word out to others, who might take an interest in the artist. Plus, it doesn't hurt the artist's bottom line, since I probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway."
You should be aware that many musicians and designers find these arguments to be self-serving horseshit.
"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 alluded to that. We seem to collectively believe that the lot in life that composers and lyricists deserve is to travel from hotel to hotel and hope they make enough money to keep the van gassed up. This actually is why the framers of the constitution added that part about "to promote the progress of useful arts" and integrated copyrights into our legal system... so that artists have a chance of doing better than that.
"Last I heard, BMI was a record company; If bands want to make money from performances, they should get off their butts and go on tour."
You're not the first person to be confused. BMG (the record company) and BMI (the performance rights organization) sound similar so people think they are related. They are not. It's a coincidence. BMG stands for, I believe, Bertelsmann Media Group. BMI stands for Broadcast Music, Incoporated.
Fair enough to get them confused, but it's essential to stand that they do vastly different things. BMG is a record company (the bad guys). BMI is a performing rights society working on behalf of composers and lyricists (the good guys). If somebody really told you that BMI is a record company, they were mistaken.
"The problem with this system, is that there is no negotiation or posted pricing that can be agreed upon before the music is played. Instead, they send you a bill after the fact in an attempt to extort as much as possible from the establishment. If they want credibility, they need to be more transparent about the process."
Huh?! ASCAP and BMI sell licenses. If you want a license, you call ASCAP or BMI or go to their web site, tell them what kind of business you have, download the PDF (that's the BMI form for restuarants), check the boxes that apply to your business, and if you have any questions, you ask them. The licensing form is about as clear and transparent as you can get. No posted pricing? I'm sorry, but what in the hell are you talking about? Is the form unclear? Did you just make that up?
Remeber -- we are talking about businesses who ignore the fact that a license is required, because they'd rather keep the money for themselves, and they're hoping and/or assuming that they will not get caught. Whether this is an admirable way to treat others is an exercise left to the reader, but I am not surprised at all that the rightholders are upset.
"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."
Wow, how did this ever get marked insightful?
Music licensing is a way for composers and songwriters to make money despite the fact that the record companies are screwing them! Record companies could largely give fuck all about performance rights, because it's money that they don't see. Likewise, ASCAP and BMI (the "bad guys" in this situation) don't care about CD sales. In fact, the record companies and the performing rights societies are often at odds with each other.
Performance rights societies are a way for artists to break free of relying on the record companies. Why piss on them?
"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'm sorry to say this, but this does appear to be the sentiment. Far too many Slashdotters to believe this to be the case:
If you are a musician, business owners (who make more money by playing your music in their establishments) should have the right to play your music without paying you.
If you are a musician, and you give any hint that you're trying to do it to make a living, you're greedy, and not really a musician.
If you are a musician, you are welcome to have rights, but if you try to step out of line and exercise those rights, be prepared for the wrath.
In short: you should be happy with just one source of revenue: playing live music. Don't get too uppity and expect the same concessions that the rest of us get. You simply do not deserve them; you are a musician and this is your lot in life.
I wish I were exaggerating, but I am not. We all claim to be for musician's rights, but as we can see from the majority of comments here, this is simply lip service.
"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?"
License are indeed on a sliding scale system. The issue here is that there are businesses that understand that it's a benefit to have have music performed for their customers (that is, it makes them money), but quite frankly they'd rather keep that money in their cash register than pay artists. The businesses are looking after their bottom line and hoping they do not get caught.
You know how we're always railing against the record companies for cheating the artists out of money? Seems that if you're a coffee house and you do the same thing, you're actually one of the good guys.
"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."
The RIAA has nothing to do with this. It's the artists who are the bad guys here, not the record companies.
You know how we talk about a future where the record companies don't exist and artists can make a decent living on their own? This is how they do it. Performance royalties can easily be a couple of hundred bucks a month, which helps pay the rent. And it's money that goes straight to the artists. The record company doesn't see it.
"You'd think that buying the CD would be enough to cover the royalty, but no."
Huh? ASCAP and BMI don't make money from CD sales; plus, it's the common perception that artists don't make money off of CD sales. Performance rights are their chance to make money even if the record company screws them.
When I read posts about how people refused to buy CDs because no money goes to the artist, I typically take that at face value; that people actually do want some money to go to the artist. So, artists have a revenue stream -- performance rights -- that the record companies can't touch. And it still pisses people off.
To me, it's simple:
If performing music in your establishment provides no benefit whatsoever, then great -- don't do it.
But, if it does... if you make money as a result of playing music... then support the artists. Buy a license.
If you try making money by playing music but choose not to get a license... don't be surprised if they come down hard on you. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
"... and they got the balls to do this why? Because they've seen how successful the *IAA has been with their intimidation tactics."
Oh, please. ASCAP and BMI have been busting people for license violations since before you and I were born. They've been looking after artists' rights for decades upon decades. "New to Slashdotters" in no way is equal to "new concept."
Playing music in your venue without a license is a bit like the honor system: you probably won't get caught. But if you do, expect them to come down hard on you.
"You ASSERT that it isn't the RIAA. To me they look like the same group of people. Until I see a significant distinction, then I'm not going to differentiate."
The RIAA is run by and for record labels.
ASCAP and BMI -- the "bad guys" in this situation -- are run by and for artists.
If you believe that anybody who demands money for music is evil, then by all means -- you are 100% correct. Both the RIAA as well as ASCAP/BMI deserve your hate. You can stop right here.
As others have pointed out, ASCAP and BMI have been providing performance rights licences for many decades. It's a great way for composers and songwriters to make money without having to rely on record companies. We want artists to succeed without having to rely on record labels, right? Performance rights are the way for us to enjoy music for free, to avoid giving money to record companies, and for artists to make money doing what they love. It's sad that this is not enough for you.
I'm a bit boggled by your statement that the RIAA "purchased the law that this abuse is based on." ASCAP and BMI have been looking out for artists' rights for longer than the RIAA has been around. Please clarify.
"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."
I'm not so sure about that. We all want artists to be able to make money from their hard work, and many songwriters and composers make decent money from performance rights, via ASCAP and BMI. And:
This is money that the record company doesn't see.
It's quite common to point out that many artists don't make shit from record sales. So, performance rights, from radio airplay and -- yes -- bars and coffee houses -- are a great way of making money by doing what they love. And the best part is that it's a revenue stream that the record company doesn't get to mess with. And, it's a revenue stream that's unaffected by piracy.
We don't want record companies to make money. We don't want the artists to make money from performance rights. What's next? I'm really beginning to think that we're all 100% for artists having rights, but we just don't want them to exercise those rights. We give lip service to artists' rights and artists succeeding outside of the record sales model, but it's looking like that's largely bullshit. We only want artists to succeed if it means that nobody has to pay them.
A followup to my own post. The copyright claim was filed by ABKCO, which happens to be both a record company and a publishing company. So, stating that they were hassled by a record company is correct -- because in this case, the record company has a music publishing arm.
Per the Wikipedia article, ABKCO was also behind the Verve / Bittersweet Symphony mess. It appears that the article has already been updated to reflect ABKCO's action against the guitar lesson fellow.
"Nevermind not reading TFA. People don't even read the posting."
It's actually worse than that. Just like "RIAA", "a record company" was a figment of the submitter's imagination. This is a public performance licensing issue, not a recording copyright issue. Record companies have nothing to do with this.
"I don't understand why it doesn't fall under fair use for educational purposes. Learning to play guitar is a form of education. It's not a public performance in the form of a concert or playing in a bar."
Whether these would fall under fair use is something that a court would decide. I sure ain't the hell no lawyer, but I agree with you that there's a fair chance that it would. But, it looks like it won't get that far. Whoever owns the rights to the Rolling Stones lyrics and music -- ie. Messrs Jagger or Richards or one of their agents, most likely -- doesn't want to be bothered with that, so they simply filed a DMCA. YouTube caved, and it's unlikely that this will even make it to court.
"The RIAA is usually (more) rabid about defending guitar tabs and such... I honestly find it funny, in a pathetic sort of way."
Nope -- the RIAA doesn't care about guitar tabs, either. The RIAA has had nothing to do with the shutting down of the guitar tab sites, just as they had nothing to do with this -- the submitter was lying, and he fooled you good and proper. All the record companies care about is the copyright on the recordings. That's why they sue people for trading copies of recordings.
I guess it's easy to use "RIAA" as a catch-all for anybody who attempts to protect their rights in a way that we find distasteful, but I think it's important to understand the difference between record companies and publishing companies, and the respective rights that they hold. To fight your enemy, you must first understand them.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is absolutely no excuse for a sound track to cost more than the movie AND soundtrack."
Huh? The record company isn't allowed to set pricing according to the law of supply and demand? Everybody else does it; you even do it when negotiating your salary.
I know we hate the record companies and all, but that's just a weird thing to say.
"You hit it right on the head here. It is amazing a movie that typically costs X million to produce costs about as much as a CD. Somewhere, somebody is not understanding the economics of this."
I'm sorry to say that it is you. But, take heart -- you're not the first person to miss this point, by far.
This boggles a lot of people who haven't studied much economics or who don't work in the retail industry, but items are typically priced according to the law of supply and demand, and not the cost of sale. Consider these examples:
I hope this helps you understand the economics of how DVDs are priced. In case it isn't clear, they're set at the price they are because that's the price at which the movie companies make the most money overall. If they sold them for more, they might make more per sale, but the reduction in the amount of people who buy them might be too much to make it worth it. Likewise, if they lowered the price, they might get more sales, but not enough to offset the lost money per sale.
You expressed surprise at the difference in price between a DVD and a CD. You appear to be surprised since they use the same materials (plastic and metal) and have a similar manufacturing process. But, keep in mind that software is also distributed on CD and has pricing that's all over the board. Why does some software cost $9.99 while other software can command a price of $500, even though both are distributed on the same medium? The answer is our old friend supply and demand.
You've probably noticed that all DVDs cost about $10 - $20, despite the fact that their production costs are all over the board. Indy films that cost $20MM to make often cost the very same on DVD as films costing $100MM or more. Evan Almighty cost around $175MM to make, but when it goes on sale on DVD, you can be sure that you'll see it on the shelf for $20 or so next to films that cost around the same price. At the point of being redundant, this is again because the DVD is priced at the optimal point on the supply/demand curve -- and not based on the cost of the plastics or even the production costs.
I hope this helps you understand the economics. Let me know if it's unclear.
"Well, that and DVDs, unlike CDs, are priced decently. You can do a lot of DVD buying and still not go over $10 a piece, whereas you need to shell out $20 easy for a CD. can't believe the RIAA hasn't figured this out yet."
Where do you buy your CDs? I live on the west coast, and they are $12 - $14. CD prices started freefalling about five years ago and the average price was $13 and change for a new release in 2004; I think they've stabilized since then but I highly doubt that they've crept back up to $20 at retail.
Taking a look at Amazon, nine of today's top sellers are going for $9.99, with the exception being $11.99. Scrolling through their top 50, I can find only a couple which peak at $14.99, notably TMBG's latest.
If you're living somewhere where CDs really are $20, I truly feel your pain, but you must understand: your local stores are gouging you. Record companies sell to distributors and retailers at fixed prices; if your local store is marking up CDs by another 50%, it is they you should be upset with; not the RIAA.
"But the problem is that if you don't play music by ASCAP/BMI artists, but play a lot of cover music by other artists, you are still presented with a bill. What for, exactly, and which congress critters gave them the permission to demand payment on behalf of people they don't represent?"
They're not. They're collecting money for people they represent. Nothing more. They're not collecting money for the janitorial service, for the condiments, or anything else unrelated to artists they represent. If you walk up to the piano and make up a tune on the fly, play your own composition (assuming you're not signed with ASCAP/BMI), or even eat a pastrami sandwich off of it, none of these have anything to do with the license. ASCAP/BMI isn't asking for money for any of those things.
Maybe the disconnect is this: buying a license doesn't prevent you from performing non-licensed works. If you're a club owner, what you do with that piano is entirely up to you. And (and maybe this is where the confusion lies), the bar doesn't pay by the performance... they pay by the year.
"As I said, and I still stand by, this favours the well known artists at the expense of the unknown ones. Because they won't even know who wrote a little known tune. Only if they know the tune, can they correctly assign it to a creator. Heck, quite often, even the performer doesn't know who originally wrote a tune they play..."
Come on... you know venues which have live music get blanket licenses. It doesn't make the slightest difference whether the performer knows the name of the songwriter or not. I think you're confusing this with broadcast licenses, which require cue sheets to be completed.
"In addition to those artists whose songs are unknown (and thus not counted because of not being countable), it's also at the expense of the artists who play and get less paid because the venue holder has to pay a license fee."
Virtually all live music venues have a license. If you're trying to blame the going rate for live musicians on the cost of the licensing fees, you may as well blame it on the cost of the beer or the food or the property tax or any of the other innumerable costs of running a bar or restaurant.
"Show me an artist represented by the above that did not get their start by playing covers. This is just low."
I don't follow. It's the venue, not the cover band, that pays the license. The vast majority of venues do so. Bands don't need to worry about licenses... they just go to the bar, set up, and play their covers. The bar makes money as a result of having the live music, and part of the bar's income goes back to the composers and lyricists.
As you probably know, composers and lyricist are paid quite poorly by record labels. As a result, performance royalties make up the bulk (and often only) income that composers and lyricists make. It's sad to see that now people want to take that away; the "I support the artists" claim is just so much lip service for many people. I know a lot of us like to imagine an ideal world where artists should be happy should just be happy that their music is being heard, and can live on just love and oxygen. But the brutal reality is that most songwriters do so to make a living.
"While that may be the intention, I can't see how that actually works in practice. If the coffee shop/whatever is actually paying a license I'm pretty sure they will take that into account when signing up a band. Less money for the band == the band ends up paying for it anyway (we're not talking Metallica and Madonna here which can demand more or less whatever they want...)"
Huh? The vast majority of venues which hire bands have licenses. This is nothing new. It's just a cost of doing business if you want to play music. It has no more effect on the going rate for paying live bands than does, say, the cost of the janitorial service or any other overhead.
Next time you're at your favorite local venue that plays music, look for the ASCAP or BMI stickers on the front window along with the other stickers. I believe the former is triangular, the latter circular. They're often on the front door, along the bottom edge of the window.
If you weren't aware of this, don't feel too bad -- after all, you're not in the business of running a bar or restaurant. The whole idea of performance licensing is apparently a shocking revelation to many Slashdot readers, but nonetheless, it's been around for years, and it's hardly a secret.
"Do you know that it is also a criminal offence to send out a bill when you are not entitled to a payment, it is called fraud. Perhaps in those various organisations were tackled in court for falsely sending out demands for payment it might restrain them a bit."
If you are ASCAP or BMI and a business is playing your licensed music without a license, you are legally entitled to payment. They're not some rogue organizations... they've been doing this for more than 50 years.
"What would be interesting is to see them get audited and see how much they support themselves rather than the composers, and if RIAA members own the composing rights after having contracted them off the artists, isn't really just the slimy RIAA operating in the background and driving the others like a puppet."
No need. ASCAP pays out 88%. BMI pays out 86%. They have very low operating costs, because they're in business to collect money and give it to composers and lyricists. Compare this to record companies, which only look out for themselves. This is why for many composers and lyricists, performance royalties are their main source of income, since CD sales don't pay shit.
Anybody can own publishing rights, and many artists assign their rights to publishing companies to avoid dealing with the paperwork (somewhat similar to hiring an accountant if you don't want to deal with your taxes -- it makes your life easier, but you'll pay). Some record labels do own publishing companies, but it's not the norm. Numerically speaking, most composers and lyricists are represented directly by ASCAP/BMI.
They get some, but not the bulk.
HTH.
"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."
Seriously, where did you get the idea that the RIAA has anything to do with this? The RIAA works on behalf of record companies; the topic of discussion today is ASCAP and BMI, performance rights organizations who work on behalf of artists.
"Can you make a case that someone witnessing a cover band or radio performance in a public space will result in a lost ticket sale? Lost CD sale? Lost merchandising revenue? Lost venue for the original artist?"
I don't have to. Performance rights are a large percentage of many composers and lyricists' incomes. Often far, far more than royalties from the sales of recordings. And they've been earning money on performance rights for decades and decades. I'm sorry if you weren't aware of this, but this traditionally how composers and lyricists make their living.
Believe me, I understand your point: you don't think they should get that money; that they should be happy with whatever incremental money they make from CD sales. I suppose some people just have lower regard for artists than others.
"Based on the responses, ASCAP and BMI (supposedly) split their license collections with the artists using the performance ratios they get from the sheets (after expenses which I'm sure are very very high)."
Not by a stretch of the imagination (unless you were being sarcastic, then I apologize). ASCAP pays out 88% of royalties collected; BMI around 86%. A 12% - 14% overhead is extremely low, particularly compared to many charities.
They're able to pay out so much because they are run by artists, for artists. Compare this to record labels which pay only a marginal percentage; that's because record labels are looking out for themselves. ASCAP and BMI, on the other hand, were set up with the express purpose of getting money to composers and lyricists.
"The problems are that such an exceedingly small amount of the money collected actually go to the artists, and that they collect money even for artists that they have no way of (or intention of) paying. If I play a few non-mainstream songs on the piano at the bar, and the bar owner ponies up $850, how much money do the actual composers get? Exactly zilch, that's how much. Despite that, they demand payment, no matter whether the composer is part of their organization or not."
You're correct -- licensing through ASCAP or BMI allows public performance of works composed by ASCAP/BMI members. It doesn't cover works by folks who aren't members. That's not their domain... you're correct that they don't send out checks to composers and lyricists who haven't signed with them. On the other hand, having a license doesn't require you to play only ASCAP/BMI licensed works. So if you have a bar and you've bought a license because you'd like to perform licensed works, but somebody happens to come in and play an unlicensed work, it doesn't affect your license one way or the other.
"Unless they open up so you can see how much of the operating budget actually reaches the creators, and which artists get paid and which don't, it's all an extortion scheme that benefits a few mainstream artists, at the expense of all the others."
ASCAP pays out about 88% of the money collected; ie. there's 12% overhead, which isn't bad (particularly compared to some charities). BMI paid out about $675MM in royalties on $779 in revenue last year, which is 14% overhead.
Royalties are paid based on sampling. They do a lot of sampling, so it's pretty accurate. The more an artist is played, the more money they make. As you've correctly pointed out, composers and lyricists whose works are performed less, are paid less. I think this is fair. But, this is not at the expense of the lesser-played composers and lyricists... broadcasters pay, not members. It's free to sign up for ASCAP or BMI (in fact, there's really no reason not to join), and if your career grows, so will the size of the checks you get. You're absolutely correct that artists without substantial careers can't expect substantial performance licensing money, but Ye Olde "free lunch" rule applies.
"I would think that, in order to claim damages, you would have to prove that Band X playing a cover in some downtown hole-in-the-wall has somehow impinged upon the original artist's ability to perform, to sell tickets to performances, or otherwise make money doing what they do."
Enforcing copyright law isn't about proving damages or economic harm. It's about protecting rights. You should already know this.
"I would possibly argue the opposite. If someone does a cover by an artist someone doesn't recognize, they would possibly be interested in learning more about that artist. Free exposure for them, and I can't see any rational argument that cover bands hurt the artist's bottom line."
A lot of designers I've known have heard similar arguments. "Please do this work for free, or let me pay you on spec! You'll get valuable exposure, and perhaps others will see my web site and form an interest in you. It won't cost you anything to do this work for me, so it won't hurt your bottom line." Your argument is also a good one for piracy: "If I distribute this new CD via BT, it will help get the word out to others, who might take an interest in the artist. Plus, it doesn't hurt the artist's bottom line, since I probably wouldn't have paid for it anyway."
You should be aware that many musicians and designers find these arguments to be self-serving horseshit.
"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 alluded to that. We seem to collectively believe that the lot in life that composers and lyricists deserve is to travel from hotel to hotel and hope they make enough money to keep the van gassed up. This actually is why the framers of the constitution added that part about "to promote the progress of useful arts" and integrated copyrights into our legal system... so that artists have a chance of doing better than that.
"Last I heard, BMI was a record company; If bands want to make money from performances, they should get off their butts and go on tour."
You're not the first person to be confused. BMG (the record company) and BMI (the performance rights organization) sound similar so people think they are related. They are not. It's a coincidence. BMG stands for, I believe, Bertelsmann Media Group. BMI stands for Broadcast Music, Incoporated.
Fair enough to get them confused, but it's essential to stand that they do vastly different things. BMG is a record company (the bad guys). BMI is a performing rights society working on behalf of composers and lyricists (the good guys). If somebody really told you that BMI is a record company, they were mistaken.
"The problem with this system, is that there is no negotiation or posted pricing that can be agreed upon before the music is played. Instead, they send you a bill after the fact in an attempt to extort as much as possible from the establishment. If they want credibility, they need to be more transparent about the process."
Huh?! ASCAP and BMI sell licenses. If you want a license, you call ASCAP or BMI or go to their web site, tell them what kind of business you have, download the PDF (that's the BMI form for restuarants), check the boxes that apply to your business, and if you have any questions, you ask them. The licensing form is about as clear and transparent as you can get. No posted pricing? I'm sorry, but what in the hell are you talking about? Is the form unclear? Did you just make that up?
Remeber -- we are talking about businesses who ignore the fact that a license is required, because they'd rather keep the money for themselves, and they're hoping and/or assuming that they will not get caught. Whether this is an admirable way to treat others is an exercise left to the reader, but I am not surprised at all that the rightholders are upset.
"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."
Wow, how did this ever get marked insightful?
Music licensing is a way for composers and songwriters to make money despite the fact that the record companies are screwing them! Record companies could largely give fuck all about performance rights, because it's money that they don't see. Likewise, ASCAP and BMI (the "bad guys" in this situation) don't care about CD sales. In fact, the record companies and the performing rights societies are often at odds with each other.
Performance rights societies are a way for artists to break free of relying on the record companies. Why piss on them?
"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'm sorry to say this, but this does appear to be the sentiment. Far too many Slashdotters to believe this to be the case:
I wish I were exaggerating, but I am not. We all claim to be for musician's rights, but as we can see from the majority of comments here, this is simply lip service.
"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?"
License are indeed on a sliding scale system. The issue here is that there are businesses that understand that it's a benefit to have have music performed for their customers (that is, it makes them money), but quite frankly they'd rather keep that money in their cash register than pay artists. The businesses are looking after their bottom line and hoping they do not get caught.
You know how we're always railing against the record companies for cheating the artists out of money? Seems that if you're a coffee house and you do the same thing, you're actually one of the good guys.
"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."
The RIAA has nothing to do with this. It's the artists who are the bad guys here, not the record companies.
You know how we talk about a future where the record companies don't exist and artists can make a decent living on their own? This is how they do it. Performance royalties can easily be a couple of hundred bucks a month, which helps pay the rent. And it's money that goes straight to the artists. The record company doesn't see it.
"You'd think that buying the CD would be enough to cover the royalty, but no."
Huh? ASCAP and BMI don't make money from CD sales; plus, it's the common perception that artists don't make money off of CD sales. Performance rights are their chance to make money even if the record company screws them.
When I read posts about how people refused to buy CDs because no money goes to the artist, I typically take that at face value; that people actually do want some money to go to the artist. So, artists have a revenue stream -- performance rights -- that the record companies can't touch. And it still pisses people off.
To me, it's simple:
"... and they got the balls to do this why? Because they've seen how successful the *IAA has been with their intimidation tactics."
Oh, please. ASCAP and BMI have been busting people for license violations since before you and I were born. They've been looking after artists' rights for decades upon decades. "New to Slashdotters" in no way is equal to "new concept."
Playing music in your venue without a license is a bit like the honor system: you probably won't get caught. But if you do, expect them to come down hard on you.
"You ASSERT that it isn't the RIAA. To me they look like the same group of people. Until I see a significant distinction, then I'm not going to differentiate."
The RIAA is run by and for record labels.
ASCAP and BMI -- the "bad guys" in this situation -- are run by and for artists.
If you believe that anybody who demands money for music is evil, then by all means -- you are 100% correct. Both the RIAA as well as ASCAP/BMI deserve your hate. You can stop right here.
For those who would like more information:
Here is information about ASCAP. Here is information about BMI.
As others have pointed out, ASCAP and BMI have been providing performance rights licences for many decades. It's a great way for composers and songwriters to make money without having to rely on record companies. We want artists to succeed without having to rely on record labels, right? Performance rights are the way for us to enjoy music for free, to avoid giving money to record companies, and for artists to make money doing what they love. It's sad that this is not enough for you.
I'm a bit boggled by your statement that the RIAA "purchased the law that this abuse is based on." ASCAP and BMI have been looking out for artists' rights for longer than the RIAA has been around. Please clarify.
"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."
I'm not so sure about that. We all want artists to be able to make money from their hard work, and many songwriters and composers make decent money from performance rights, via ASCAP and BMI. And:
This is money that the record company doesn't see.
It's quite common to point out that many artists don't make shit from record sales. So, performance rights, from radio airplay and -- yes -- bars and coffee houses -- are a great way of making money by doing what they love. And the best part is that it's a revenue stream that the record company doesn't get to mess with. And, it's a revenue stream that's unaffected by piracy.
We don't want record companies to make money. We don't want the artists to make money from performance rights. What's next? I'm really beginning to think that we're all 100% for artists having rights, but we just don't want them to exercise those rights. We give lip service to artists' rights and artists succeeding outside of the record sales model, but it's looking like that's largely bullshit. We only want artists to succeed if it means that nobody has to pay them.
A followup to my own post. The copyright claim was filed by ABKCO, which happens to be both a record company and a publishing company. So, stating that they were hassled by a record company is correct -- because in this case, the record company has a music publishing arm.
Per the Wikipedia article, ABKCO was also behind the Verve / Bittersweet Symphony mess. It appears that the article has already been updated to reflect ABKCO's action against the guitar lesson fellow.
"Nevermind not reading TFA. People don't even read the posting."
It's actually worse than that. Just like "RIAA", "a record company" was a figment of the submitter's imagination. This is a public performance licensing issue, not a recording copyright issue. Record companies have nothing to do with this.
The submitter trolled everybody real good.
"I don't understand why it doesn't fall under fair use for educational purposes. Learning to play guitar is a form of education. It's not a public performance in the form of a concert or playing in a bar."
Whether these would fall under fair use is something that a court would decide. I sure ain't the hell no lawyer, but I agree with you that there's a fair chance that it would. But, it looks like it won't get that far. Whoever owns the rights to the Rolling Stones lyrics and music -- ie. Messrs Jagger or Richards or one of their agents, most likely -- doesn't want to be bothered with that, so they simply filed a DMCA. YouTube caved, and it's unlikely that this will even make it to court.
"The RIAA is usually (more) rabid about defending guitar tabs and such... I honestly find it funny, in a pathetic sort of way."
Nope -- the RIAA doesn't care about guitar tabs, either. The RIAA has had nothing to do with the shutting down of the guitar tab sites, just as they had nothing to do with this -- the submitter was lying, and he fooled you good and proper. All the record companies care about is the copyright on the recordings. That's why they sue people for trading copies of recordings.
I guess it's easy to use "RIAA" as a catch-all for anybody who attempts to protect their rights in a way that we find distasteful, but I think it's important to understand the difference between record companies and publishing companies, and the respective rights that they hold. To fight your enemy, you must first understand them.