Darryl Hattenhauer
Venerated Member
They must be bringing in a lot of $ if they can afford to send agents out to bars to catch scofflaws.
The establishment that you are at would be the one in trouble.Taylor Martin Guild said:[quote="Darryl Hattenhauer":3cvnye1n]If you got caught singing a Dylan song in a restaurant, what would it cost you?
?No knock on Bob.
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.Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000
jmac said:Its outrageous that ASCAP should try to get these venues to pay between $1000 and $2000 for having me play.
Bing k said: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 said: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.
The amount is the principle. Your previous two posts deserve no response. They don't rise to the level of even your usual obtuseness.is it the amount or the principle?
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 said:The amount is the principle. Your previous two posts deserve no response. They don't rise to the level of even your usual obtuseness.is it the amount or the principle?
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?
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 said:?No knock on Bob.
Taylor Martin Guild said: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.
adorshki said:Just sayin', it kind of makes sense to pay a fee to have ASCAP watch out for my interest