copyright and indie CDs

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

They must be bringing in a lot of $ if they can afford to send agents out to bars to catch scofflaws.

 

[adorshki]

[quote="Darryl Hattenhauer":3cvnye1n]If you got caught singing a Dylan song in a restaurant, what would it cost you?

The establishment that you are at would be the one in trouble.
[/quote:3cvnye1n]
Yeah I got a sneaking suspicion the place'd be empty if anybody but Dylan was playing Dylan during the dinner hour. No knock on Bob.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

No knock on Bob.

?

 

[idealassets]

Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000

What? I have played for years in a few different states, with some musicians that had plenty of music experience under their belts. Of all topics to come up along the lines of business, payments to ASCAP for all our cover songs played never entered into it. For that matter how many of our original songs versus how many covers was also never mentioned.

But, when we played "union" gigs, while not being dues paying union members; that did come up. The solution: for just a few nights, about anything could be arranged if kept quiet.

Don't worry, it was so long ago nothing would stick today.

I would like to see a source of all this ASCAP info, other than contact info to a lawyer, who I trust I will ever need.

 

[Bing k]

Numbers from Wiki:

In 2008, ASCAP collected over US$933 million in licensing fees and distributed $817 million in royalties to its members, with an 11.3 percent operating expense ratio.[1] In the United States, ASCAP competes with two other PROs — Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) and the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC).

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

ASCAP is taking money from the Billy D. Lights and giving it to the Paul McCartneys. When musicians decide not to record a song because they can't afford the copyright fee, ASCAP is restricting freedom of expression.

 

[fronobulax]

Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000 for having me play.

Is your issue with the inflexibility of the fee schedule or something else? For example, if there were, on average, five cover songs performed at the venue per month and the charge was $75 per year would that be fine with you? Just curious: is it the amount or the principle?

Numbers from Wiki:

In 2008, ASCAP collected over US$933 million in licensing fees and distributed $817 million in royalties to its members, with an 11.3 percent operating expense ratio.[1] In the United States, ASCAP competes with two other PROs — Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) and the Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (SESAC).

A charity with 10% operating expense ratio is generally considered a well managed and effective charity that is funneling most of its revenue to the specified cause.

 

[fronobulax]

ASCAP is taking money from the Billy D. Lights and giving it to the Paul McCartneys. When musicians decide not to record a song because they can't afford the copyright fee, ASCAP is restricting freedom of expression.

How so? Billy D. is not paying any fees to ASCAP. The venue that hires him is. For every scenario that you can construct where the venue and patrons place less money in Billy's pocket I can probably construct one to counter it.

Since you said "record" and not perform, perhaps you have forgotten the difference between performing and recording which are two different uses of copyrighted material under current law and recording (a.k.a. a mechanical license) rights are managed by the Harry Fox Agency in the USA and not ASCAP.

I don't think this is a freedom of expression issue since the only thing limiting Billy's expression his willingness to pay, especially since there is a presumption that the material is being recorded in order to sell the recording and thus give money to Billy D.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

is it the amount or the principle?

The amount is the principle. Your previous two posts deserve no response. They don't rise to the level of even your usual obtuseness.

 

[fronobulax]

is it the amount or the principle?

The amount is the principle. Your previous two posts deserve no response. They don't rise to the level of even your usual obtuseness.

If I had been tripped up by homonyms we would have a nice pun here, but the principle I was referring to was whether creators of intellectual property were entitled to be compensated for the use of that property. If the principle holds then a discussion of how much and what constitutes "use" is appropriate. If it doesn't hold then the amount is irrelevant. There are folks at LTG who have expressed the opinion that they either do not agree with the principle or do not think the definition of "compensated use" should include them when they perform or record copyrighted material.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

I'm not in the habit of arguing the obvious.

 

[Taylor Martin Guild]

The people that own the rights to songs should get compensation when their song is played by someone that is making money playing it.
Sounds simple but it isn't.
How does ASCAP know who to pay royalties to?

I support the idea of the owner of a song getting royalties from it.
It just needs to be fair to everyone.
I just don't know if that's possible.

 

[jmac]

jmac wrote:
Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000 for having me play.


Is your issue with the inflexibility of the fee schedule or something else? For example, if there were, on average, five cover songs performed at the venue per month and the charge was $75 per year would that be fine with you? Just curious: is it the amount or the principle?

My issue is with the amount. What ASCAP wanted was more than the bar owners could pay and still make it profitable to have live music. Even in the bigger venues I play, I can tell you, no one is getting rich from revenue from the 10:00 pm to 1:00 am bar crowd.

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Yes, what TMG and JMAC said.

 

[adorshki]

No knock on Bob.

?

No disrespect intended to Mr Zimmerman, it's just that most folks I hear covering him, murder him. Would definitely spoil my appetite, even if it would be tolerable at a different time of day.. :wink:

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

Thanks, Addie. Now I got ya.

 

[adorshki]

You're most welcome sir, now here's some "real meat":
Sincerely ignorant question:
If one is payng ASCAP a "Copyright fee", is one not paying them to watch out for and collect your royalties?
As for how they know who to pay, isn't that part of the whole deal, that in fact they do know who the royalty rights holders are?
I seem to recall stories about how "back in the day" (50's-60's) one way to "scam" artists was for the record companies to own the publishing company which published a group's compositions. So while ASCAP (or BMI) auditors listened to the radio and totted up play counts to pay the artist the performance royalties, the record companies were getting all the publishing royalties. I believe for sure that would include sheet music, and perhaps also income from "covers".
Just pointing out that by knowing who publishes a piece, thay're probably gonna know who gets what royalties.
Here's another angle:
Michael Jackson tried for years to buy the rights to the Beatles' catalog, it still generates millions a year. So all the "Maclen" stuff is part of that, but I believe George's "Northern Songs" was not, just to kind of illustrate the principle. George finally got wise and realized he needed to own his own publishing, as many artists started to realize in the late '60's.
That's also why we never heard Beatles music used in a commercial until Jackson finally got hold of the rights, the Fab 4 were adamant their art would never be trivialized by being used for advertising and maintained control of their catalog for as long as they could, once they attained ownership. Foggy memory says that was concurrent with the battle over whether or not to hire Klein or Eastman to manage the catalog and negotiate future publishing rights, and in fact one of the core issues of the conflict. (Which by the way is what REALLY broke the Beatles up).
Jefferson Airplane are another group that comes to mind, after seeing how much money they didn't get for "White Rabbit" and "Somebody to Love".
Even now, if I google "Somebody to Love" looking for sheet music, I can find it and download a hard copy for $5.25, and the rights holder printed on the bottom of the sheet is "Irving Music" (BMI), they're on "White Rabbit" too.
Just sayin', it kind of makes sense to pay a fee to have ASCAP watch out for my interests, if I got a reason to think some real money might start to get generated. Otherwise I probably sell the rights to the publisher for a flat sum and move on to the next tune, which was how a lot of songwriters lived "in the day".
Lots of 'em worked in a "hit factory" known as the Brill Building.
:wink:

 

[Darryl Hattenhauer]

I agree with all of that, Addie. I just want to see the musicians at the bottom of the income ladder have the ability to play and record whatever they want.

 

[fronobulax]

The people that own the rights to songs should get compensation when their song is played by someone that is making money playing it.
Sounds simple but it isn't.
How does ASCAP know who to pay royalties to?

I support the idea of the owner of a song getting royalties from it.
It just needs to be fair to everyone.
I just don't know if that's possible.

The answer to your question and others can be found at the ASCAP web site. They bend over backwards to use words like "fair" and "equitable". Whether those are the correct terms are a matter of personal opinion. In their FAQ about licensing costs they note that playback of recorded music also has to be licensed and that "rates for restaurants of the same size, with the same use of music are the same regardless of whether the restaurant is in Oshkosh or New York City". This may explain what sounds like outrageous fees. The venue may have been busted for live music but the license fee actually assessed may also include the recorded music that had been played illegally. I also tend to believe that the gross revenue will be higher for a similar restaurant in NYC than Oshkosh and so I might consider the same fee in both places "unfair". It is certainly correct that the same fee is a bigger bite out of the bottom line in one place.

Digging around on the site it says they determine what was performed by a survey (actual count) or a statistically valid sample. In the cases where those techniques do not apply, money goes to a pool that is divided among licensed composers. A composer's share of the pool seems to be related to a composer's share of the radio and TV market. I could argue that is not as fair as it was 30 years ago.

 

[fronobulax]

Just sayin', it kind of makes sense to pay a fee to have ASCAP watch out for my interest

While I like the analysis, as a composer I join ASCAP, perhaps paying membership dues, but otherwise I pay ASCAP nothing. By joining I give them "permission" to allow venues to use my music and collect royalties on my behalf. They are providing me a service. I could enforce my legal right to be compensated for performances of my copyrighted material by knocking in the door of every club owner in town and waving a contract in their face, but wouldn't I rather outsource that and spend my time composing and playing?