eagleisland - Posted - 02/20/2012:  07:18:21

---

Here's an alarming news item from the Great State of Maine.

ASCAP and BMI are demanding that communities pay music licensing fees for public events - such as, if your town has concerts on the green, or for music on hold.  Wonder if they're concerned about the high school marching band.

On the one hand, I understand the concept of ensuring that artists get compensated for their intellectual property.  OTOH, isn't this going a bit too far?  For example, a cash-strapped small town may be forced to stop outdoor band concerts on the green rather than pay the licensing fee.

Discuss.

lightgauge - Posted - 02/20/2012:  07:37:47

---

As it states, revenue is down due to dropping CD sales and they are looking for new revenue streams, likely in an attempt to insure their own survival . This appears to be another situation where common sense is put aside for dollars. I understand the legal rights of artists, but this is, in my opinion, another example of overreaching. My comparison would be speeding while driving. In a 55MPH zone, legally, you could be ticketed for 55.1, but most officers use better judgement, and I think these organizations could as well.  

mirwin - Posted - 02/20/2012:  09:06:19

---

I thought the copyright rules generally applied to copyrighted music that was recorded (and sold) or republished in some way -- such as lead sheets or lyrics.  It seems like over-reach by ASCAP and BMI if the people who are performing the music have purchased the printed music or lead sheets and now are being asked to pay again to perform it.

I work with a prison ministry and we have a CCLI license which allows us to reprint the lyrics for their copyright holders, but we avoid all other songs like the plague, especially ASCAP and BMI music.  We also avoid individual copyright holders since they typically want a fee each time we use their song -- which can get way too expensive relative to the CCLI cost per song.

I believe that copyright holders should be compensated properly for their work, but there are limits.  ASCAP and BMI may be non-profit, but they still have to receive enough revenue to cover their operating costs (salaries and overhead) and still pay their copyright holders.  It's hard to see how decreased CD sales would not be offset by sales of downloaded music!  But expect them to continue the harassment tactics to get revenue since going to court is expensive and potentially disastrous if they were to only receive a small award, or possibly lose.

Alex Z - Posted - 02/20/2012:  09:25:26

---

This issue is valued at about $300 -- per year -- peanuts for a muni.

Not worth the cost of the blood pressure medication to worry about it.  

 

chrisward5 - Posted - 02/20/2012:  10:10:57

---

I own an auto repair facility in a small municipality, I have to pay $150 dollars for a sign permit for my building sign, and another $150 for the road sign.  The sign has to be approved by a town planner in Charlotte, which is around one hundred miles away from here, and I pay the Town of ********** *** the money to hang a sign on a building that isn't theres.  This is just for a basic alumacore sign, if it is raised or lighted it costs more money.  This is just one example of the fees and permits I have to aquire for my business and pay the town, which the town in the article most likely operates the same way.  So when BMI and ASCAP want them to pay money for using intellectual property, they should pay it.  It is no different than the load of crap our town makes us go through as a business.  Shame on the board for not paying the money, I hope BMI and ASCAP pursue this to the fullest extent.

SFI - Posted - 02/20/2012:  10:15:23

---

ASCAP & BMI have been bullying small venues for years over licensing   fees. In the early 1980's they tried to force Cleveland's Goose Acres to pay a fee to cover the open jam sessions. All the music was public domain fiddle tunes. They still insisted people were playing  ASCAP & BMI music, even lying by saying their representative heard someone play a Bob Dylan tune. We stopped advertising the open jams and they stopped contacting us. Word of mouth brought in plenty of folks that wanted to play traditional tunes.

I also remember in the early 1990's they tried to pull the same strong arm tactics on the West Virginia State Folk Festival at Glenville, WV. The concert organizers put up signs asking the stage performers to not play ASCAP and BMI  music.

 

Bob S.

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/20/2012:  11:31:33

---

Nice to see yet another ASCAP/BMI thread nearly devoid of facts. 

Yes, the PROs license municipalities. They have been doing this a very long time. Old news.

No, they don't license high schools.

All music composed or arranged since 1/1/1923 is under Copyright.

>The concert organizers put up signs asking the stage performers to not play ASCAP and BMI  music.< Which protects nobody if the performers do so anyway.

>I work with a prison ministry and we have a CCLI license which allows us to reprint the lyrics for their copyright holders, but we avoid all other songs like the plague, especially ASCAP and BMI music.<

Nearly all music in CCLI is also in the ASCAP, BMI or SESAC catalog. The reprinting of music has nothing to do with ASCAP, BMI or SESAC. CCLI only covers music used during worship services. You should also have a license from OneLicense.net - they pay the publishers that CCLI does not. Because CCLI and OneLicense.net collect for church services, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC do not. 

---

Edited by - mikehalloran on 02/20/2012 11:32:27

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/20/2012:  12:12:34

---

Nobody likes a shakedown, and a lot of the ASCAP/BMI tactics sometimes look like a shakedown.  The bar owners always cried like that, now it's the municipalities.  It's all bogus as has been pointed out above.  The real shakedown artists are the bartenders and the pols.  

The real mystery is why bother crapping on the musician?  It's peanuts, chump change.  It seems like they go out of their way to shaft a musician.  It's like going a mile out of your way to steal pennies out of a blind man's cup.  It doesn't really make any sense.

mirwin - Posted - 02/20/2012:  13:25:34

---

Let's see -- is it really chump change?  If the license is $300 and ASCAP/BMI can bully 10,000 small towns throughout the US  that play open air concerts in the park during the summer, then that works out to be $3,000,000!  That's real money in my book!

dmiller - Posted - 02/20/2012:  13:41:54

---

 My opinion of ASCAP and BMI???

They wreaked havoc in our town at an innocent weekly jam session.

I've NO use for the jerks, and would be the first to wrap them in chains,

and take them on a "cruise" of Lake  Superior, with them as the boat's anchor.

I'm all for "intellectual property rights", but those folks take it too far.

WAY too friggin far.

 

Roll Player - Posted - 02/20/2012:  14:19:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran



....

All music composed or arranged since 1/1/1923 is under Copyright.

...

---

I find that sentence troubling, especially the part about being "arranged," which is a way that publishers have attempted to claim copyright on works that should be in the public domain. Given a publisher with deep enough pockets and lots of lawyers, what happens to public domain?

Iderhobanjer23 - Posted - 02/20/2012:  15:36:40

---

They're a corporation.  They don't see "innocent jam sessions".  It's black and white.  Money or no money.

That being said, the real tragedy here is that these businesses, just like Hollywood currently, are behind the curve on technology.  For example, Louis CK, a comedian, skipped selling the rights to his show and sold it directly pay-per-view on the internet, and made a good amount of money.  Netflix is starting to offer streaming series that are exclusive to netflix.  So instead of trying to limit how much Media you watch on your computers (like the big cable companies do) in order to get you back on the boob tube, they are encouraging it.

Someone made the point about these companies doing this as a means of "survival".  Just like a dog, if a company is hungry, it gets nasty.

---

Edited by - Iderhobanjer23 on 02/20/2012 15:37:12

dmiller - Posted - 02/20/2012:  16:01:27

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Iderhobanjer23

They're a corporation.  They don't see "innocent jam sessions".  It's black and white.  Money or no money.

---

Exactly.  A bunch (9 or 10) of us got together in a local coffee house on Tuesdays to pick some music and have fun.  We received NO pay for showing up and entertaining the folks who chose to come and listen and have a "night out on the town".   We didn't even ask for "tips" or any sort of payment at all for our evening's worth of "work".  We had fun picking with each other, and the locals had a good time listening to the music.  Then the ASCAP/BMI A**holes showed up,  demanding that the coffeehouse pay royalty fees on every thing we were picking.   

The ASCAP/ folks even claimed that tunes like Soldier's Joy  weren't "public domain".

What a bunch of cr@p.  They ruined a perfectly good thing.  I hope there's a special place

in Hell for folks like that.  If anyone deserves it - -  they do.  

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/20/2012:  16:34:24

---

>they're a corporation<

I almost hate to tell you this... that's not true either.

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/20/2012:  16:42:47

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran



....

All music composed or arranged since 1/1/1923 is under Copyright.

...

---

I find that sentence troubling, especially the part about being "arranged," which is a way that publishers have attempted to claim copyright on works that should be in the public domain. Given a publisher with deep enough pockets and lots of lawyers, what happens to public domain?

---

There is a lot of music composed and arranged before 1/1/1923. The framers of the Constitution mandated that the rights of Authors and Inventors be protected. Congress passed copyright and patent legislation. If you have a problem, it is with Congress and the laws. The PROs are trying to collect the royalties due their members under those laws.

Iderhobanjer23 - Posted - 02/20/2012:  18:05:48

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran



>they're a corporation< I almost hate to tell you this... that's not true either.

---

i stand corrected, they are an assocation (ascap)

BMI is a corporation.

It's moot though, because they're both interested in one thing in this case.

banjoghost - Posted - 02/20/2012:  19:45:31

---

in what way is music intellectual?

Sheldon - Posted - 02/20/2012:  20:13:19

---

Any time they go after a government entity I am in favor . . .

Sheldon

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/20/2012:  20:17:55

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirwin

Let's see -- is it really chump change?  If the license is $300 and ASCAP/BMI can bully 10,000 small towns throughout the US  that play open air concerts in the park during the summer, then that works out to be $3,000,000!  That's real money in my book!

---

I wasn't clear, sorry.  What is $300 to a small town government who gives itself million dollar pensions right and left?  That's what I mean by chump change.  A bartender spills that much beer in a year.

It seems to me that either the bartender hates musicians or the musicians aren't worth $300 in business every year.  What do you think?  Personally, I don't know the answer, but it's not ASCAP and BMI treating the musicians like crap.  Don't blame them for doing their legitimate job.  I have actually seen jammers bring their own food and snacks to a bar.  How cheesy is that?

Roll Player - Posted - 02/20/2012:  23:13:26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikehalloran



....

All music composed or arranged since 1/1/1923 is under Copyright.

...

---

I find that sentence troubling, especially the part about being "arranged," which is a way that publishers have attempted to claim copyright on works that should be in the public domain. Given a publisher with deep enough pockets and lots of lawyers, what happens to public domain?

---

 

There is a lot of music composed and arranged before 1/1/1923. The framers of the Constitution mandated that the rights of Authors and Inventors be protected. Congress passed copyright and patent legislation. If you have a problem, it is with Congress and the laws. The PROs are trying to collect the royalties due their members under those laws.

---

I guess I could have been clearer. Publishers have claimed copyright to traditional public domain works by copyrighting a specific arrangement. Then all it takes is some deep pockets and high-priced lawyers to sue for infringement or to strong arm a bunch of jammers.

You are right that the framers intended to reward authors and inventors, but not for the ever-increasing lengths of time that current revisions of copyright law have produced, nor did they intend to produce a new kind of property to be bought and traded long after the artists and inventors were gone.

Jazzy Al - Posted - 02/21/2012:  07:08:32

---

It is evident that the current ASCAP and BMI behavior is very unpopular. The counterpart in Canada is SOCAN, which also legislates at times in a very unpopular manner. Having read the criticism of the actions of these organizations, I would like to know if anyone has a suggestion on how to remedy the situation. Should composers have any ownership privileges regarding the music they create? I realize arrangements of traditional tunes are a grey area, however, excluding these, what is the best way to compensate composers when performing their tunes. This past weekend, I attended a concert where, to my surprise, a group performed one of my original compositions. I accepted that I would not be compensated in any manner, but I also felt that the current system somehow needs to be revised.

Hotrodtruck - Posted - 02/21/2012:  08:19:29

---

If the town (or anyone) is taking money associated with the event, they have no argument. Pay up. This includes "coffee shops" who don't pay the musicians/jammers, because the coffee shops are taking money at the venue.

If no money is being taken, by anyone, then there is no loss to BMI or ASCAP, so no harm/no foul.

Of course, the law is written by lawyers and politicians, who are paid by special interests.

 

Mike

Banjo - Posted - 02/21/2012:  09:13:58

---

woodpecker.com/writing/essays/...tics.html

There are some types of organizations that are exempt from needing ASCAP licenses. These exemptions are the following:

1. 
   religious organizations (during worship only)


2. 
   non-profit educational institutions


3. 
   record stores and other establishments where the primary purpose of playing the music is to sell it


4. 
   government bodies (state and federal)


5. 
   state fairs and agricultural events


6. 
   certain veterans and fraternal organizations during charitable social functions (added in 1982 in a last-minute legislative session, and somewhat suspicious)


7. 
   various "non-commercial" and charitable performances that have no admission charge, commercial intent or paid performers


8. 
    movie houses

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 02/21/2012:  12:52:08

---

The game is extortion and they are using the Disney Mouse Law to try to strongarm money out of small venues and churches all over the country. If you think there is any money actually going to the people who wrote a song in 1948 that your group is currently playing - you are fooling yourself. The money is divvied up among the current top record sellers in several fields (including those never played at municipal or small club venues) with the Lion's share going to theso called publishing  corporations with massive holdings in copyright songs. These corporations never added a note of music to the world - they just insist on getting a cut because table 34 had a birthday party and someone sang Happy Birthday to a little girl.

It is simple straighforward strongarm tactics, with the money going to enriching those who do nothing for music or musicians. These guys are the equivalent of Mafia Goons extorting protection money out of small businesses.

banjoy - Posted - 02/21/2012:  12:59:04

---

Just to add, it is NEVER the musician who pays ASCAP or BMI fees. Heck it's the songwriters that ASCAP and BMI are collecting the royalties for!!

For public performance venues, It is always the VENUE that pays license fees, never the performing musician.

For medium to small venues, it's generally an annual fee, and that often can be negotiated down. It's never really all that much. I know a few places that pay about $1500 per year and that's it. They are then licensed to play any tune under ASCAP or BMI.

You got to remember, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC represent composers and writers. These are the creative folks.

Some folks on BHO are members of BHO or ASCAP. I'm a member of BMI.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/21/2012 13:09:50

banjoy - Posted - 02/21/2012:  13:06:14

---

Royalties are paid based on airplay (or clicks, or play count). Those records and play lists are compiled from lots of different sources. These lists are sampled and so tunes that don't get much play, often slip through the cracks and don't get any royalties.

Both ASCAP and BMI I know offer all sorts of tools for the song writer to document airplay and receive royalties. For example, if you are a songwriter and know your song is played at a certain gig or a certain tour, you can submit that info to BMI yourself to obtain royalties on those performances. If your original song is played on tour and the band playing it draws a large crowd, royalties from one tour can add up because it's based on head count at some venues.

In other words, ASCAP and BMI's role is to collect -- and disburse -- royalties. For the small unknown songwriter they do offer all sorts of online tools to get your fair share.

It's not all about shakedown. As stated above in an earlier post, if the venue charges money to get in, and and is not paying license fees, they are ripping off the songwriters. Without songwriters, you have no songs, and all of us pickers have nothing to play. Songwriters deserve to be paid too.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/21/2012 13:10:39

Jazzy Al - Posted - 02/21/2012:  15:13:55

---

I feel that Banjoy has explained the situation quite well. I am represented by SOCAN in Canada and BMI in the United States. I hesitate to even mention this because of the very strong opinions in this thread. I certainly don't want to be wrapped in chains and thrown into Lake Superior. However, I would like to receive some modest compensation when one of my compositions is performed in a venue that is charging for individuals to enter and listen or when one of my recordings is streamed or played on commercial radio. SOCAN and BMI provide that service for me to the best of their ability. At the moment there is no alternative to these organizations.

banjoy - Posted - 02/21/2012:  15:59:57

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

 My opinion of ASCAP and BMI???

They wreaked havoc in our town at an innocent weekly jam session.

I've NO use for the jerks, and would be the first to wrap them in chains,

and take them on a "cruise" of Lake  Superior, with them as the boat's anchor.

I'm all for "intellectual property rights", but those folks take it too far.

WAY too friggin far.

---

See I really don't know what to think of these situations. I've heard horror stories like this, then I've heard of other venues where there are no problems.

It often boils down to is there an exchange of money? I know first hand of many places in east Tennessee for example, that hold regular jams, are community based events, but charge a "mandatory" donation to get in the door. Then I know of a place in Blacksburg SC and another in Chesnee, SC that as far as I know, are actual nonprofit 501(c)(3) community-based corporations. These places simply negotiated with ASCAP and BMI for a reduced license fee. I'm not sure what it is but it's not all that much.

I know of a festival in east Tennessee that for many years had widely promoted festivals one or two times a year and never got licensed. When BMI and ASCAP showed up, it got a little nasty, and very costly.

Then I've heard of community based jams like dmiller refers to, that kind of got nasty. Like his example, I've only hear these 2nd and 3rd hand.

What I find to be common in those instances where it turns nasty -- not saying that happened here, just what I've heard before --  is often there is a sense of entitlement to the organizers of the jam and have a very negative attitude projected to the ASCAP and BMI reps who show up. That's kind of like mouthing off to the judge at trial, it does not help you. Small jam sessions that are widely promoted can often get off with no fee, so I've heard. Those that do get hit with a licence fgee, it an be as little as a few hundred dollars a year. If the group can show nonprofit status, it can be waived. But if there are fees to get in the door, "mandatory" voluntary donations, or folks presenting any type of stage show to the public where money is exchanging hands. ASCAP or BMI will sooner or later knock on your door.

Regarding Soldier's Joy being copyrighted, I looked that up real quick and it seems the tune is very old, but the words are copyrighted. So if you sing the song, it's no longer public domain.

As musicians we need to understand that these license fees NEVER CHARGED TO THE MUSICIAN. A musician is ALWAYS free to play anything he or she wants, anywhere at any time without paying to play. If it's a public event, the venue may or may not have to pay a license fee. It is the songwriters who benefit from these license fees.

The reach of ASCAP and BMI goes only so far as the money that is exchanged. However, I have heard these horror stories before. I think it all boils down to, be nice to the tax man, to the chef, to the mailman, to your mechanic -- and to the licensing guys if you operate a venue that has live music. Any of these folks can have a big impact on your life if you piss 'em off. If you work with them, you'll probably pay less tax, eat well, get your mail on time in the box, have your car run well, and get reduced, reasonable license fees for your public music venue.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/21/2012 16:07:23

BNJOMAKR - Posted - 02/21/2012:  16:36:06

---

The Eastern NC Bluegrass Assoc. meets at the local community college every second Saturday night, and charge admission to a concert with two to three groups performing. The performing groups could come early, on the way to the college , and perform in the lobby at a local bar-b-que restaraunt, and get a "free" meal. Well, a few months back, the music lawmen came in and told the restaraunt owner that he would have to by license to continue the live performances. Now there is no more live music at the restaraunt!

Gymbal31 - Posted - 02/21/2012:  16:38:12

---

One other consideration, there have been cases of copyright and trademark infringement where the owner failed to consistently defend their copyright or trademark and lost cases because of it.  So maybe ASCAP and BMI are only protecting licenses consistently.

 

I met a coffee shop/bookstore owner last year who had a guy that started bringing in his guitar in the middle of the day.  She didn't mind because it was slow when he was there and no one was complaining.  It wasn't formal or anything.  He'd sit at a table and play for fun, buying coffee, for about an hour or so.  He was a good musician who eventually got a day job and stopped coming in.  The problem was another guy started doing the same thing.  Apparently the new guy kinda sucked.  He played mostly Paul Simon covers and occasionally some bad originals.  So the owner told him that he couldn't do it anymore because ASCAP and BMI had been bugging her to get a license.  The guy never noticed the ASCAP sticker on the door.  The place had a license.  She just told him that to get rid of him.

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/22/2012:  07:33:34

---

Frank  -  I think you have done an excellent job of explaining the issue.  Personally, I don't think anyone here on the Hangout, for the most part, disagree with the artist that wrote the music or lyrics of a song being compensated for their intellectual property.  I would guess, however, that may of our members here look at ASCAP and BMI as the bad guys that make all the money with not nearly enough of it going to the people that actually deserve it.  It is similar, I would guess, to any organization that becomes so large that the money that is brought in through dues, fees,etc. is spent on running the organization and not the ones it was intended to help. Case in point  -  have you ever seen the AARP building in Florida?  I would bet that 90% of dues, or money it takes in from members, goes toward the administration and operating costs. It would be the same reason that Trade Unions get such a bad rap from many people (not trying to get political).  It's not the rank and file members that some people have a problem with, but the leadership and administration.  This is just a guess at how others feel, but I would guess there are many that feel that way.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  07:19:13

---

A couple more words from me on this then I'll move on.

License fees are not one-size-fits-all. There are a lot of metrics used to determine what license fees will be, and it's on a case-by-case basis as I understand. One of the biggest measures for these fees, is the size of the venue. You would expect an auditorium that can seat 15,000 people to pay higher license fees than a local mom and pop restaurant that seats 20 people. It is crucial that the venue work with the license agents to nail down what those fees would be. For example, if BMI quotes a license amount, and the venue thinks it's far too much, they can simply work with BMI to question the metrics, provide information etc to reduce the fees and have it reassessed. I'm fairly certain there is a process to do that.

It is NOT in the interest of BMI or ASCAP to shut down venues or not have the music performed. These agencies, I am positive, would rather see a few hundred dollars fee, than no fee at all. It serves no interest to not have music played.

The venues that choose not to have music because they refuse to pay license fees shoot themselves in the foot then blame ASCAP and BMI for not having music. That is simply not the case most of the times. Rarely will these agencies try to shut down a venue. In most of these instances, the venue choose to cease music because they have a "moral" objection to paying license fees. Only in extreme examples of blatant abuse, or in instances of the feeling of entitlement that all music should be free, then these agencies will crack down. There are lots of urban legends out there about the strong arm tactics used to collect those fees. There is always a back story to what really happened. As mentioned, most of these venues shut down the music by their own choice.

BHO members should understand that banjohangout itself pays a license fee to ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC so that we, as members, may upload our music and MP3 files without having to worry about this stuff. This is no different than a band playing at a bar or any other gig, and not worrying about this stuff.

This is very much the same relationship a restaurant, bar, or music venue would have with its audience, and with these associations. The venue (banjohangout, a restaurant, club, whatever) pays the license fee, so the musicians (the band, performer or in our case, members of BHO) can deal with the music without having to deal with these concerns.

Had Eric NOT negotiated with these guilds, either 1) he would have been sued, or 2) our ability to upload files would have stopped. Eric chose the common sense way, the legal and correct way, the only logical approach — which is to play by the rules. How else are songwriters going to be paid?

I'll have a hunch that Eric's license fees are not unreasonable. I haven't heard him complain about it, have you? This is a community too. Eric is taking care of us so we can upload music and share it. What's the difference?

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 07:21:02

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/23/2012:  07:27:12

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy

A couple more words from me on this then I'll move on............................................................................................................................................................................

License fees are not one-size-fits-all. There are a lot of metrics used to determine what license fees will be, and it's on a case-by-case basis as I understand. One of the biggest measures you? This is a community too. Eric is taking care of us so we can upload music and share it. What's the difference?

---

 Frank  -  excellent points  -  particularly how it affects this forum!!!!!!!

schlange - Posted - 02/23/2012:  08:38:25

---

The Hangout Network pays approximately $1500/year for our ASCAP/BMI/SESAC license. That amount is based on the PRO's formulas for how many songs are getting played through the site, in relation to the amount of income derived from that traffic. 

It's a bit more than I'd like to pay, but that's not a big deal to me at this point. I actually think it's pretty cool that money from banjo players is going to pay the folks who compose the music we love. They certainly do ​deserve some compensation.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  09:06:51

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNJOMAKR

The Eastern NC Bluegrass Assoc. meets at the local community college every second Saturday night, and charge admission to a concert with two to three groups performing. The performing groups could come early, on the way to the college , and perform in the lobby at a local bar-b-que restaraunt, and get a "free" meal. Well, a few months back, the music lawmen came in and told the restaraunt owner that he would have to by license to continue the live performances. Now there is no more live music at the restaraunt!

---

I have to make one more post in light of BNJOMAKR's experience, AND inlight of how reasonable BHO's license fees are as per Eric's post. $1,500 per year is very reasonable in my opionion for the freedom for all of us to upload and share music.

What follows is a true story first hand that is absolutely relevant to this thread, and the BNJOMAKR's post. I was there for this. This happened.

About 16+ years ago there was a restaurant close to where I lived in Andersonville, TN. The restaurant, Old Man's Bar-B-Que, was within a mile of the interstate across from the Museum of Appalachia, and had lots of business. I think as part of the spillover from events such as the museum's annual Homecoming Festival, that musicians would gather in the parking lot and jam. Over time this quickly grew into a parking lot jam spilling over into an informal stage show. Soon after, they added an entire addition to accommodate the stage, and more seating (and eating) capacity for the growing crowds. From simple jam to added wing was probably one or two years. It was a booming, happening place to jam and hang out. It was a big place and drew large crowds.

Then the BMI / ASCAP agents stepped in.

I do not remember the details of how this came down or the exact amounts. But I talked to the owner a few times about this. I heard that the annual license fee "demanded" by the agents was between $1500 or $6000 per year, depending on who you believed telling the story. Whatever. Anyway, the owners of the BBQ place took the path of being offended and refused to pay the fees, so voluntarily pulled the plug on the music and quietly blamed the demands for fees on the shutdown. Immediately the business trickled down to nothing during off seasons, etc, and the owners realized too late that they had cut off their nose to spite their face. I don't know if they then paid a modest fee or re-started the music in spite of a fee, but no matter. The down time of many months killed it. They tried restaring the jams but by then word had spread about it being shut down so musicians didn't come anymore, crowds didn't come to listen and eat BarBQ.They lost so much business that they ere never able to restart it and they had to close the BBQ place. All that happened over a several year period. Other folks on BHO who jammed there too may remember this. It was a pretty big jam. That's where I met Sonny Smith when he first moved to Tennessee.

Anyway, that story seemed pretty relevant.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 09:13:30

dunaif - Posted - 02/23/2012:  11:30:49

---

Here in Portland, the bluegrass jam community has had similar experiences with jam sessions being shut down due to venues not being licensed.

I wonder if ASCAP, BMI & SESAC have ever considered creating a per event licensing fee/category for AMATEUR musicians. I mean one where the musicians didn't have to file quarterly reports or fill out all kinds of paperwork. If it were the case that  jam session members could simply go online and pay an appropriate and reasonable fee for a given date, then neither the venue nor the musicians would have to worry about it.

It seems that the PROs have not done a good job educating the general public about why they do what they do.They've contributed to the problem by not making it easy for nonprofessional musicians to comply with their requirements.  This has helped fuel the frustration musicians feel and has generated some of the negative responses the PRO reps have received by the public. It seems they could exercise some creative thinking in this regard and make it easier to comply with the laws.

--Donna

---

Edited by - dunaif on 02/23/2012 11:35:50

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/23/2012:  12:03:05

---

Donna, My first thought is that implementing and managing that new aspect of the business would probably increase operating cost.  Somebody would have to pay for that extra cost and it certainly wouldn't be the ASCAP/BMI organizations.  My second thought was that if you could show some kind of business model that lets them increase their overhead (Field inspectors, managers, etc.) and pass on the cost, then they might go for it.  But who pays?  (It could be the musician)

PS:  I noticed Eric's post.  I bet the cost could be passed off on poor Eric, the capitalist banker, and we would all be happy.  Punish the evil corporation or whatever.  Trouble is (like the evil banker who never loses any personal money) Eric could pass the cost into the operating expenses which, in some way I don't understand, comes from us, the proletariat banjo pickers.  That's the way she goes.

---

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/23/2012 12:09:02

dunaif - Posted - 02/23/2012:  12:12:25

---

Perhaps if there were enough volume to keep the fee affordable for the musicians, it could still be worth it to not be caught in the middle between the venues and the PROs.  You make a very valid point from the business perspective. My comment was really meant to point out that there is no convenient way for the average amateur musician to have much of a say in all this.

--Donna

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  12:34:15

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dunaif

Perhaps if there were enough volume to keep the fee affordable for the musicians, it could still be worth it to not be caught in the middle between the venues and the PROs.  You make a very valid point from the business perspective. My comment was really meant to point out that there is no convenient way for the average amateur musician to have much of a say in all this.

--Donna

---

Donna that's weird. I spent all this time explaining that musicians do not have to pay to play, and you are talking about paying to play! Musicians are never required to pay these license fees. The venue is.

Can you describe the circumstances of the jam sessions that got shut down? Where was it taking place? What was the location? A church, school firehall, restaurant? Can you give a few details.

Throughout this thread it's been discussed that an annual fee of only a few hundred dollars could be worked out, but that's generally for commercial businesses that are very time. You're saying a community jam got shut down (because it would not pay the license fee)? Can you provide some more details?

 

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/23/2012:  12:36:17

---

I think she was referring to my hypothetical.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  12:43:56

---

Ok I see than now. Well, all I can say is what I said before. The venue can negotiate a pretty good deal. If the jams she was at got "shut down" it's because they didn't want to pay any fee or whatever. There is a process to work all that stuff out. It's always up to the venue, not the musicians.

What I also see here is that venues will accommodate jamming but they often are commercial businesses that are not really music venues, like restaurants, community centers, etc. . When these situations come up, the venues for these types of jam are caught blindsighted because they had no idea about all this stuff. So I would wonder how good ASCAP and BMI are at educating the venues or how tactful they are. That I don't know. I do know that the fees can be worked out, and that takes both the venues and the licensing agencies talking to each other.

Lots of community music halls do go ahead and get licensed. A lot of the old community schoolhouses I used to jam at in east Tennessee had the ASCAP and BMI logos on display.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 12:45:49

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/23/2012:  13:27:40

---

>The reach of ASCAP and BMI goes only so far as the money that is exchanged<

​No. It is the public, non-dramatic performance of Members' works without written permission from the rights holders.

>Musicians are never required to pay these license fees. The venue is....  It's always up to the venue, not the musicians.<

​Absolutely.

>I wonder if ASCAP, BMI & SESAC have ever considered creating a per event licensing fee/category for AMATEUR musicians. I mean one where the musicians didn't have to file quarterly reports or fill out all kinds of paperwork. If it were the case that  jam session members could simply go online and pay an appropriate and reasonable fee for a given date, then neither the venue nor the musicians would have to worry about it.<

​Not an issue - never was. In fact, live musicians do not have to be involved for a venue to be liable. When the Supreme Court decided the issue in 1917, it was over a player piano performance of a Victor Herbert song in the background at a restaurant (this is easily looked up).

SESAC does not publish their overhead. They are a privately held for profit company (and for sale if you have $500M) and never releases those figures. The last time I saw ASCAP and BMI release those figures, it was 12% and 14% respectively. ASCAP is a not for profit association owned by its 430,000+ members. BMI is a non-profit owned by the broadcasters and run by its membership, also over 400,000 according to the last press release that I read.

All three have official spokes persons who can give you more accurate figures than the ones I just quoted. Although I am an ASCAP member, I do not speak for anyone except myself.

 

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/23/2012:  13:36:41

---

>

but not for the ever-increasing lengths of time that current revisions of copyright law have produced, nor did they intend to produce a new kind of property to be bought and traded long after the artists and inventors were gone.

<

Again - blame Congress. The 1978 revision was to bring the US into compliance with the rest of the world - or, at least the signers of the Berne Convention. The 20 year extension was bought and paid for by the movie industry with the Disney Corp leading the way.  

The PROs collect their members' royalties under those laws. They did not write them.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  14:09:52

---

Kewl. All I can say is, 12% and 14% overhead (which I assume to mean administration) indicates to me a very tightly run organization or company. There is no fat there.

augustid - Posted - 02/23/2012:  14:19:33

---

Why not just tell ASCAP & BMI that the band that is hired for the event is responsible for the license? That's the policy in my community. We don't know, and don't want to know how to go about getting a license. When we hire a performer, it's up to the performer to make sure everything is legal.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  14:27:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by augustid

Why not just tell ASCAP & BMI that the band that is hired for the event is responsible for the license? That's the policy in my community. We don't know, and don't want to know how to go about getting a license. When we hire a performer, it's up to the performer to make sure everything is legal.

---

I'm not sure, but I believe that's contrary to law. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the actual law can jump in. But the musician is not responsible for paying license fees. I'm fairly certain — but not positive — that is federal law backed up by case law ... ?

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 14:28:45

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/23/2012:  18:08:35

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by augustid

Why not just tell ASCAP & BMI that the band that is hired for the event is responsible for the license? That's the policy in my community. We don't know, and don't want to know how to go about getting a license. When we hire a performer, it's up to the performer to make sure everything is legal.

---

Well, shows what you know - nothing, by the way. 

What about the venue, not the performers, are responsible and the Supreme Court settled this issue in 1917 don't you understand?

I am certain that all three PROs have nicely worded documents, thoroughly vetted by their legal departments that explain the issue in terms that even you can understand (or not - ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse).

mrbook - Posted - 02/23/2012:  18:53:55

---

I play a lot of town concerts and municipal events, and our local towns put on a lot of good free music for people. I don't see why they shouldn't pay a license fee - I have no doubt that ASCAP and BMI music gets performed at these events, and the performance fees should be paid. They will probably be paid by some of my tax dollars, and that is a better use of the money than I usually see going on in my town. My only disappointment is that the people who write the songs I will perform will probably never receive any money from my playing, but that's a different matter altogether. It's a cost of doing business, and even if the town is putting on free shows it should be considered part of the cost of the event.

Making the performer responsible for the license is just a way to evade the venue's responsibility - and I bet they aren't willing to pay the performer for the extra expense.

banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  19:20:44

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by augustid

Why not just tell ASCAP & BMI that the band that is hired for the event is responsible for the license? That's the policy in my community. We don't know, and don't want to know how to go about getting a license. When we hire a performer, it's up to the performer to make sure everything is legal.

---

Ok so mikehalloran confirmed that what you are doing violates federal law.

The approach you suggest, augustid, is like having patrons of a bar each pay for an individual license to buy alcohol so the bar won't have to have a license to sell it. It's okay, no problem — just tell the Alcohol Beverage Control people when they show up that you're having the patrons pay the license. ABC will understand I'm sure.

augustid, it's really surprising that the venues you speak of shirks its legal responsibility to pay a basic license fee ... off onto the musician. That not only is illegal, it's just not morally right. Have the musicians pay a license so they can play? That's pretty irresponsible, whoever is doing that.

And, there is no such thing as performers making sure it's legal. No such thing. Whoever dreamed up that approach is in bizarro world, honestly. It's upside down and backwards.

- - - - -

Getting licensed is easy, and if it's a community based event, it can be a very cheap license. Your not wanting to know about your legal obligations is a pretty amazing thing to say.

---

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 19:34:42