banjoy - Posted - 02/23/2012:  23:34:35

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

I would love to see fairer ways of making sure that the actual writers and composers are rewarded when their music is performed (the living ones anyway.)

---

I'm pretty sure BMI, at least, is aware of these issues and trying to offer some tools to deal with it. I am aware of, but have never used, online tools on BMI's website for songwriters to do just that. I mentioned it very briefly in an earlier post. My understanding of BMI's tools (I am a member of BMI but do not speak for them) allows songwriters to be active in reporting known performances of their work directly to BMI,and to collect royalties off those performances. I do not know how effective or deep these tools are, but it does address what you're wanting to see. I would assume that ASCAP also offers similar online tools.

Edited by - banjoy on 02/23/2012 23:35:53

banjoak - Posted - 02/24/2012:  01:47:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

I would love to see fairer ways of making sure that the actual writers and composers are rewarded when their music is performed (the living ones anyway.)

---

I'm pretty sure BMI, at least, is aware of these issues and trying to offer some tools to deal with it. I am aware of, but have never used, online tools on BMI's website for songwriters to do just that. I mentioned it very briefly in an earlier post. My understanding of BMI's tools (I am a member of BMI but do not speak for them) allows songwriters to be active in reporting known performances of their work directly to BMI,and to collect royalties off those performances. I do not know how effective or deep these tools are, but it does address what you're wanting to see. I would assume that ASCAP also offers similar online tools.

---

 I have a songwriter friend who does uses that tool. Every public performance he enters in HIS songs. The venue is under no obligation to report it, and so doesn't. He is Nashville based mostly BG/country oriented touring musician; his view of BMI? He says he makes between $20K and $30K a year from copyrights (from all licenses). I was pretty surprised, being that, while some mid prominent country musicians have recorded and performed his material, it's not like he has had a huge hit, nor a hugely known songwriter. He further explained all the places his gets played (and tracked) besides Country Top 40 radio. His advice to songwriters is - in reality there is no way to collect your cut (what's owed to you) without the PROs, and if you want to get paid better, write better songs; the better your song the more it gets played - simple. 

I often see that statement about making sure the correct  person gets the money, and there is a common idea that somehow the money is all going to just the Lady GaGa's. But if you look at how the system actually works, it's not true, and it seems fairly accurate, about as pragmatic as you could devise. Even with the newer tools, they don't get paid for each performance, it's not a direct system. (nor do the venues pay per song) It's still a statistical system, they come up with a way to reasonably gage (quite complex computing formulas BTW) in the most pragmatic way. Of course they can get better detailed, but at a higher and higher cost per percent of better accuracy. If in getting 1% more accurate results will just increase operating expense 5%, the songwriters (even the correct one) will just end up getting less money. 

And you should realize what they are counting is how many ears per year. That is how many people hear a song, each time it is played. So a songwriter playing his song in front of 50 people once a month, compared to millions of people hearing a hit song, not just once a day, but 20 times a day, 356 days a year. How much of the pie do you think it could be off by?

As far as  the living component. The rights are a form of property, can be sold (for cash today, against future potential), given to someone, and inherited. So you think Steve Jobs death means we should all get free use of his creations, his heirs get nothing? What about novel writers? Why should music be different? (though 90 years might be a bit extreme)

Edited by - banjoak on 02/24/2012 01:59:21

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/24/2012:  06:44:54

Excellent information Banjoak and Frank!  It is always nice to understand how something works rather than to base your opinion on mostly incorrect information.  I was pleased to hear that ASCAP (and I guess BMI) are operated super efficiently and that the bulk of the money is not used for administration.  I too wondered if the money really got to the artists/songwriters that deserved it.  It sound like for the most part yes, but inevitably there has to be some that slip through the cracks, but that's just the way it is.

As an architect (golf course), my work is also considered "intellectual property" and my plans are not to be used by anyone other than the person that I prepared them for.  They have no rights regarding selling my plans to someone else (although some feel like the plans are theirs to do with what they want).  Even when a bank lends money for one of my projects, I am usually asked by the bank to sign a waiver that allows them to use my plans if the developer defaults on the loan during the construction process. 

The "intellectual property" issue is a lot easier to understand when it directly affects you!

banjoy - Posted - 02/24/2012:  06:57:30

Well thanks for the kudos John (banjoLink). But you have forgotten to mention mikehalloran too. Where my posts are anecdotal at best (but based on pretty sound reasoning) the posts made here by mikehalloran and Banjoak are based on actual facts and experiences.

What folks need to understand by golly, is that ASCAP and BMI represent the musicians who are writers. These are NOT evil bad groups. They are good organizations that do good work, as best as they can given the constraints they have on them.

For any picker here, consider that you may write a catchy banjo tune and record that tune, and then someone famous, like Allison Kraus decides to record that tune. Let me assure you, if you find yourself  in that position, BMI and ASCAP are your friends.

The misinformation and reactions to the very concept of licensing is based on lack of understanding about what it means to begin with. That goes to even the title of this thread.

The venues that choose to shut down music—then blame the licensing agencies for it and spread misinformation—is doing a tremendous disservice to the entire music community and specifically, a disservice to musicians. I don't think that's my opinion. I think that's pretty easy to establish as fact.

- - - - -

EDIT / ADDITION: I mention Allison Kraus in this post because I know a songwriter in Knoxville who had a song recorded by her. His first royalty check was $40,000. The residual checks are pretty nice too he said. That was 7 or 8 years ago. Guess what? I've heard his tune played at jam sessions since then.

Edited by - banjoy on 02/24/2012 07:04:03

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  10:45:32

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoak

....

As far as  the living component. The rights are a form of property, can be sold (for cash today, against future potential), given to someone, and inherited. So you think Steve Jobs death means we should all get free use of his creations, his heirs get nothing? What about novel writers? Why should music be different? (though 90 years might be a bit extreme)

---

Copyrights and patents were not originally intended to be property, but instead time-limited rewards for artists & inventors. Property is not something that is time-limited. The transformation of copyrights and patents into intellectual property is a relatively new thing, imo not a good thing, either.

The heirs of Steve Jobs will do fine without having to be perpetual owners of whatever patents he had the rights to (probably not as many as you think), and now we're starting to mix patents, copyrights and performance rights.

Societies have a vested interest in the free exchange of ideas and culture. Perpetual copyrights and patents are not good for that.

stringbreaker - Posted - 02/24/2012:  11:20:03

musicians have tough time already. jerks

Banjo Hero - Posted - 02/24/2012:  13:27:09

I don't really want to get into the nitty gritty of this discussion; i'm new here, and if i started voicing my opinions, you guys would surely rate me as valuable as f holes in a banjo (no, not THAT kind of hole - they're the sound-holes in a violi-- er, fiddle. y'all got dirty minds.)

BUT, i would like to ask those of you who are using this term, "intellectual property" to rethink it. I feel like this crazy gnu guy makes some very valid points:

gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

... jus' sayin ...

[edit: stoopid formatting. grr.]

Edited by - Banjo Hero on 02/24/2012 13:39:00

banjoy - Posted - 02/24/2012:  13:34:34

Interesting link. Cool, thanks for that.

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  14:48:38

Great article, Banjo Hero! Thanks for the link. I've bookmarked it for future reference.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/24/2012:  15:16:37

I read it and don't think much of it.  The author is using his education against the public good by obfuscating the issues and making gratuitous left-leaning assumptions.  He wants you to leave with the impression that artists don't really create anything and what the create is not property and if it is property then the artist has no right to it.  That's BS.  Just because he is a prof doesn't mean a thing.  It is still BS.

PS:  As an exhibit, see my homepage for my BanjoHero Manual.  That is my personal creation and my property by right of creation.  Anybody disagree?

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/24/2012 15:19:26

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  15:42:52

Richard, you are entitled to all the rights and privileges conferred by copyright law for your manual, but that doesn't make it property. The use of the term "property" confuses a lot of issues. There are some fine distinctions there that you are refusing to make. Maybe you should read that article again.

The thing about ideas, inventions and other creations is that they need to be shared to be of any value to anyone. Societies need ways to reward the thinkers, creators and inventors while still getting the benefits of shared ideas and creativity.

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/24/2012:  15:58:21

I don't really care much for what the law says about ethics.  The Law has nothing relevant to say about ethics.  I can offer BanjoHero pro bono but only because it is mine (although there might be some quibbles about my footnotes).  I believe that, morally, it is mine, as much mine as my labor belongs to me.  It represents a piece of my life and nobody has a claim to it.  My ownership is my reward.  Even if I sold copies, society would still be gaining an equal reward.  Fair is fair.  And as you know morality trumps the law

I think this prof is using sophistic arguments to switch law for morality, like in a shell game.  I see this all the time being done by people who claim they are working in the public interest but instead they give us an intellectual shell game.  It's not as bad as the current media muggings and the public executions via innuendo, but I still resent it when I read it.

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/24/2012 16:01:12

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/24/2012:  16:06:15

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

Richard, you are entitled to all the rights and privileges conferred by copyright law for your manual, but that doesn't make it property. The use of the term "property" confuses a lot of issues. There are some fine distinctions there that you are refusing to make. Maybe you should read that article again.

The thing about ideas, inventions and other creations is that they need to be shared to be of any value to anyone. Societies need ways to reward the thinkers, creators and inventors while still getting the benefits of shared ideas and creativity.

---

 Roll Player  -  I would like to agree with you because that is kind of how I feel about "other people's stuff"  -  but not mine.  Therefore, I think I also have to respect the things that others create just like mine.  I guess there are subtle (maybe no so in some cases) differences, but I don't think the work "intellectual property" gets too far off base.  My architectural plans, in my contract, call for joint ownership with my client, but as I mentioned before they do not have the right to seel them or give them to someone else without my permission.  My work is "shared" by the people that play my golf courses.  It doesn't have to be shared by allowing others to use my plans to create another course.  That, of course, may be somewhat different than songwriters and other artistic creations.

banjoy - Posted - 02/24/2012:  17:10:17

Interesting. Okay I finally went and read the "article" if that's what you want to call it. I would agree with Richard, for the most part it is BS. It seems nothing more than an opinion piece about how bad it is to think of these things together: Copyright Law, Patent Law, and TradeMark Law. Essentially, the gist is that it's a mirage to think of these or describe these as being together. The article itself does some sleight of hand.

Excerpted from the article:

Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of expression of a work. Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others.

Okay ... pretty good definitions so far. Then the article creates its own falsehood when it goes on to state

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.

This is sleigh-of-hand. Trademark law does not concern itself with whether or not buyers know what they are buying. That is irrelevant. Trademark law covers actual trademarks, which are actual things. The law does  not care what buyers know or should know.

The article continues:

The term “intellectual property” is at best a catch-all to lump together disparate laws. Nonlawyers who hear one term applied to these various laws tend to assume they are based on a common principle and function similarly.

Again, who care? What difference does it make what nonlayers think about these things? This is relevant to nothing.

The entire piece then goes on to make the case that these should not be lumped together under the banner "Intellectual Property." And that to do so, is a mirage. After making the case (nothing more than opinion) about how that is not good to do, the author states:

If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, or copyrights, or trademarks, or various other different laws, the first step is to forget the idea of lumping them together, and treat them as separate topics. The second step is to reject the narrow perspectives and simplistic picture the term “intellectual property” suggests. Consider each of these issues separately, in its fullness, and you have a chance of considering them well.

So the entire problem the author has is that they are all contained under the same  "Intellectual Property" label. So what is the big deal? Just don't lump them together. Problem solved.

The article itself is a mirage because in truth it dose not matter one iota how these three distinct are referred to. That's like having an article about how calling all soft drinks "sodas" is a mirage, because clearly Coke and Pepsi and different from Sprite and Dr. Pepper. Who cares? As the article itself points out, there are laws which govern all three already in place. That trumps any lable applied to them. What difference does it make how these are referred to? I don't get that at all.

- - - - -

Intellectual "Property" is called that because all the areas mentioned — copyright, patent, and trademark — cover actual product. And product can indeed be property. For example, John describes his golf course designs. It is property because his work has resulted in product he can sell. The product is his design and drawings. The same is true of patents. The inventions or concepts created all result in commercially viable product. Product is a physical object, which is the entire point!

In regards to trademark, the article casts an illusion as well, in that it is is an actual logo or design that is trademarked. The article would lead you to think that it is a concept that is trademarked, But in truth, a trademark covers only a logo or design that is unique and can be protected as unique. A logo or design, which is what is trademarked, is a product of the creative process.

The article conveniently skates around the fact and truth that copyright, patent and trademark law cover actual marketable product. Product can be property. I have designed many logos as a designer, and I release ownership to the corporate entity that commissioned it. They own it. The logo is a product I created and therefore is my property to sell.

The creative process of songwriting results in a product—a song. Product can be property. The article seems to be a lot of huff and fluff about nothing in my opinion.

Edited by - banjoy on 02/24/2012 17:11:55

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/24/2012:  17:26:59

Thank you, Banjoy.  That is exemplary analysis as well as an elegant piece of reasoning.  All I could manage was to yell BS!

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/24/2012 17:27:31

Banjo Hero - Posted - 02/24/2012:  17:51:40

Yeesh.  Sorry, didn't mean to be all troll-ish.

Mea culpa

Richard Dress - Posted - 02/24/2012:  18:24:11

Hey, don't apologize.  You just put a fun ball into play.  It's not you.  These guys are pulling this crap all the time.  They depend on their credentials to scam people.  It's easy to fall for this stuff and these guys have been trained to advanced degrees on the public pocketbook (most likely) and they are professional hustlers.  But nowadays they don't even bother trying to argue in an intellectually honest way and rely on our lack of education, our credulity, and our faith in Higher Education.  Most of us don't spend the time to get a PhD in BS, but there are a lot of vampires who do, and they get fat on people who foolishly trust them.

Besides, BanjoHero can do no wrong.

Edited by - Richard Dress on 02/24/2012 18:25:42

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/24/2012:  19:20:51

When Michael Jackson died, the worth of his estate went up because he wrote most of his hit songs and they would get more airplay.

When Whitney Houston died, the worth of Dolly Parton's estate went up because she wrote Whitney's biggest hit.

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  20:16:34

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy...

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.

This is sleight-of-hand. Trademark law does not concern itself with whether or not buyers know what they are buying. That is irrelevant. Trademark law covers actual trademarks, which are actual things. The law does  not care what buyers know or should know.

....

---

(Hope you don't mind my fixing the word "sleigh" for you. I may have violated your IP rights. )

I'm no lawyer, but if I understand trademark law correctly, the main thing about trademark infringement is whether or not the infringement causes the consumer to be confused about what he is buying. Trademarks are not the same as copyrights, which was the author's point. Not only can you not copy a trademark but you can't even imitate a trademark, because if such an imitation "trademark" is similar enough to an existing one to cause confusion, the courts will rule that the trademark has been infringed upon.

There are also differences in whether you must defend your rights and when and how they expire. But that's okay, let's conflate them all together under the term "intellectual property," along with patents and trade secrets, because it's really not important to understand the differences so that we can have appropriate rewards for creative people and appropriate benefits for society in general.

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/24/2012:  20:36:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy...

Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of the term “intellectual property”, however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.

This is sleight-of-hand. Trademark law does not concern itself with whether or not buyers know what they are buying. That is irrelevant. Trademark law covers actual trademarks, which are actual things. The law does  not care what buyers know or should know.

....

---

(Hope you don't mind my fixing the word "sleigh" for you. I may have violated your IP rights. )

I'm no lawyer, but if I understand trademark law correctly, the main thing about trademark infringement is whether or not the infringement causes the consumer to be confused about what he is buying. Trademarks are not the same as copyrights, which was the author's point. Not only can you not copy a trademark but you can't even imitate a trademark, because if such an imitation "trademark" is similar enough to an existing one to cause confusion, the courts will rule that the trademark has been infringed upon.

There are also differences in whether you must defend your rights and when and how they expire. But that's okay, let's conflate them all together under the term "intellectual property," along with patents and trade secrets, because it's really not important to understand the differences so that we can have appropriate rewards for creative people and appropriate benefits for society in general.

---

 I may not be correct, but I think you are confusing "trade dress" with trademark.  Trade dress (or borrowing/stealing it) is the use on a shape, size, distinctive "whatever", packaging, etc. that may make someone think they are buying something that they are not.  Producing a Coca Cola shaped bottle (filled with soda) and calling it Caca Cola would be an example.  There are plenty of other examples!

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  20:58:52

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

 I may not be correct, but I think you are confusing "trade dress" with trademark.  Trade dress (or borrowing/stealing it) is the use on a shape, size, distinctive "whatever", packaging, etc. that may make someone think they are buying something that they are not.  Producing a Coca Cola shaped bottle (filled with soda) and calling it Caca Cola would be an example.  There are plenty of other examples!

---

Coca Cola is a trademark. Calling another soda "Caca Cola" would violate trademark, not trade dress, because of the confusing resemblance to an existing trade mark for sodas. Trade dress usually refers to NON trademarked things which are associated with a product, like the double-cut peghead and script font used on a Gibson banjo, which are not trademarked. Trademarks need to be defended or they can be lost. Copyrights do not, but they do need to be registered by a certain time or they can revert to the public domain.

I could be wrong, but I believe that trade dress is something implied or included under trademark law, but a much tougher thing to prove/defend.

The purpose of a trademark is to distinguish a product from its competitors. A trademark is not copyrighted, but it cannot be copied or even imitated too closely.

banjoy - Posted - 02/24/2012:  21:43:21

Well, as I understand it, this thread was about BMI and ASCAP supposedly shaking down towns and cities for a mere $309 license fee per year.

Roll Player, I just don't see what difference it makes whether those three are generally called Intellectual Property or not. No one ever said they are the same. At least in this thread. That's pretty easy to understand. Most people are smart enough to grasp that there are fundamental differences between them. And those that don't understand the differences, are not the ones affected by or implementing the laws anyway.

No one ever said a trademark can be copyrighted. Where is that stuff coming from? A trademark is a trademark. A copyright is a copyright. A patent is a patent. Each has laws which govern the details of how each works. Applying a common label does not negate any of that. Nor will removing a common label increase any understanding. In fact, they are lumped together under the same label as to acknowledge an understanding that all are properties to be protected. Splitting hairs on what it means this or that or how it is enforced, is the very reason there are laws to govern each. Why is that being debated here?

So who is getting confused by all this? Where is there misapplication or failure of protection or recourse, of any patent, trademark or copyright, just by calling them "Intellectual Property" ? Do attorneys get confused by all this? Do lawmakers or regulators get confused? What is the problem? Where is the problem? If a trademark is violated, no one is going to apply copyright or patent law to resolve the issue just because both are labeled Intellectual Property. Where is the foul here?

So the root of all the problem in the using the term is there may be some confusion? Among who? The general public? That's it?? Again, the companies that are affected, the attorneys that file and protect, the courts, the regulators—none of these folks are confused by that label, are they?

And, there are lots of folks who will disagree with you that Copyrights do not need to be protected in order to be maintained.

A trademark is only a design or a logo, nothing more. But—a trademark can be the shape of a bottle or other type of functional or industrial design. The logo is one trademark. The bottle shape is another, separate trademark. If the shape of the bottle is not individually trademarked, there is no case to prosecute for ripping it off. A trademark on a logo does not protect the design of a bottle as you seem to imply (I think?). Shapes of things can indeed be trademarked if they are unique, like a bottle shape. Trademarks are very limited and specific to one thing.I guarantee you, Coca-Cole has lots of trademarks covering everything they design: trademarks for the logo, a trademark for each bottle shape, etc. And oh yeah, the name itself another type of property called a Trade Name, which falls under trademark law.

You are correct that a very similar name (Trade Name) or very similar-looking logo (Trade Mark) can be violations which can be challenged. It's up to the owner of the property to issue the challenge, under whatever procedures the law prescribed. Similarly, if a very similar lyric line, or significant chordal passage is too similar to an existing copyrighted work, that too can be challenged, which action must also be initiated by the owner of the property—under the laws prescribed for copyrights. So what is the problem? That the general public may be confused by the difference between the two? Who cares? The public does not decide the outcome or own the property anyway.

- - - - -

Having said all that, what does any of this stuff have to do with BMI or ASCAP collecting license fees to pay royalties to songwriters? I'm unclear what this spin-off debate has to do with this....? Does calling it intellectual property in any way change how it operates? If the public understood it better, what would be different? If the public is confused by this, what would be different?

Edited by - banjoy on 02/24/2012 21:54:36

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  22:11:22

Most of this "intellectual property" stuff flies under the radar as far as the general public is concerned. But you can't really believe that there is no public interest in any of this, or that there is not a very significantly different public interest in the various kinds of creation lumped together under the term, can you? Really?

So, you say, "No one ever said a trademark can be copyrighted. Where is that stuff coming from? A trademark is a trademark. A copyright is a copyright. A patent is a patent. Each has laws which govern the details of how each works. Applying a common label does not negate any of that."

No, it doesn't negate it, it just confuses it. That confusion has shown itself in every topic I've seen about this on the Hangout. Frankly, the consequences of protecting or not protecting a musical composition are not matters of life and death. Can you say the same about the application of patent law to prescription drugs, when that law allows drug companies to maintain monopoly control over life-saving drugs and charge prices that can quickly bankrupt all but the wealthiest patients in need of such drugs. Do you not see a distinction there? Really!?

The point I'm trying to make is that there are entirely different public interests involved in every form of "intellectual property." Each needs to be considered separately on their own merits. The founders of this country understood this. It seems a lot of us don't anymore.

Edited by - Roll Player on 02/24/2012 22:18:18

Roll Player - Posted - 02/24/2012:  22:29:30

Quote: "Having said all that, what does any of this stuff have to do with BMI or ASCAP collecting license fees to pay royalties to songwriters? I'm unclear what this spin-off debate has to do with this....? Does calling it intellectual property in any way change how it operates? If the public understood it better, what would be different? If the public is confused by this, what would be different?"

OK, you got me there... although maybe if the public understood it better, it might be different. It seems, judging from posts here, that until the PROs shut down a jam, few here are even aware of any of these issues.

The whole "intellectual property" concept just pushes all the wrong buttons for me, especially given the general trend toward continually expanding and extending the concept for the benefit of corporate investments.

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  03:49:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

Quote: "Having said all that, what does any of this stuff have to do with BMI or ASCAP collecting license fees to pay royalties to songwriters? I'm unclear what this spin-off debate has to do with this....? Does calling it intellectual property in any way change how it operates? If the public understood it better, what would be different? If the public is confused by this, what would be different?"

OK, you got me there... although maybe if the public understood it better, it might be different. It seems, judging from posts here, that until the PROs shut down a jam, few here are even aware of any of these issues.

The whole "intellectual property" concept just pushes all the wrong buttons for me, especially given the general trend toward continually expanding and extending the concept for the benefit of corporate investments.

---

Okay I see that you essentially have acknowledged my points, that the only objections you seem to be raising here is the awareness, or understanding of these issues. And, you raise the points of the Public Interest being served. I just simply think that the Public Interest is not being dis-served by that label. In fact, I think the label helps clarify the common issues of product, ownership, rights, and so forth as being in and having a shared legal theme, which is called intellectual property.

Yes, I agree that all three types of "Intellectual Property" are entirely different in terms of what they cover (patents, trademarks, copyrights), how they are governed, durations, etc. But while different, they do share similarities, which is why they share the same label.

(I'm going to refrain here from getting into the "corporate interest" and intellectual property. I agree that corporate interests do not equal or serve the public interest and can even be contrary to the public interest. No disagreements there as I understand your point.)

For goodness sakes. Art, Roll Player, consider this: Just the topics of 4/4 time or basic time signatures  can cause massive disagreements and misunderstandings here on BHO. Go take a look. Simple things here can cause lots of confusion, and good information interjected into those threads does not seem to make any difference at all not only in that thread, but a week later another thread will get started about the very same thing, and it started all over. So even if you are successful here in changing the dialogue and thinking about intellectual property, my point to you is, it won't make any difference.

It is hard to disagree with your over-arching point which is, I think, that a better educated public can make better, informed decisions. I think that's what all this boils down to, it seems to me. I don't really think there is much disagreement there.

But you yourself are not immune from making these same errors, here in this thread. For example, after this entire thread, you just repeated in your last post the false information that I have been struggling, throughout this thread, to clarify. That point being, that BMI and ASCAP do not shut venues down.The venues shut themselves down when they choose on their own not to buy license fees. Yet, you just stated that

... although maybe if the public understood it better, it might be different. It seems, judging from posts here, that until the PROs shut down a jam, few here are even aware of any of these issues.

The PROs have not shut down jams. You shut spread and re-stated incorrect information. The jams have shut themselves down. In these instances, it is the venues that are mis-informed, make poor decisions, then blame the PROs for their woes. So in that regard, as I mentioned in an earlier post here, I wonder how good a job the PROs are doing to educate the venues as to the law and their responsibilities? But I don't think jam sessions shut themselves down because they are confused about Intellectual Property. It's more because they're pissed off and don't want to buy a license.

Why would you make the statement that PRO's shut jams down? The truth is the PRO's request a license fee, and most choose to pay it as it is modest. Some venues have a sense of righteous indignation and refuse to pay, and are told that they must pay or there are consequences. The venues get pissed off and shut cut themselves off from music, then blame the PROs for it.

If you read the newspaper article that stated this thread, that's all it boils down to: a small town was asked to pay a very modest $309 annual license fee, then got all pissed off about it and — against even the advise of their own attorney — voted to not pay for the license. Then, the municipality moans and groans about it to the local newspaper, which does not help at all with conveying a false sense of strong arm tactics. In the newspaper article, the only tactics used by BMI was to write a letter and make a phone call to the local government, instructing of the law and their legal obligations, and the license fee was only $309. That's not a shakedown, and even with good information, the town make a very stupid, crappy choice.

Roll Player, that's an example of not a mis-informed local government, but a stupid one. Good information will never trump stupidity or willful ignorance. (Go read the post made here by someone who runs a venue and flat out stated they did not not want to know about licenses at all, and skirted that responsibility on to the musicians, which is against the law as written. That's willful ignorance. How does one deal with that — a public that does not want or care enough to know?)

So while in spirit I essentially agree with the points that good information is always better than bad, I guess I find it hard to agree with the ideas that 1) "Calling these "Intellectual Property" is bad information to begin with, and doing so somehow is bad or promotes bad decisions; 2) that even clarifying confusion on this, won't make much difference in the outcomes; and 3) that BHO is the place to try to clarify these higher levels of peeling layers of onions.

If you don't believe me, try jumping in on some of those heated threads here about 4/4 time, time signatures, or basic things like that, and see if you can make a difference with base-line things like that....

Edited by - banjoy on 02/25/2012 04:03:00

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  04:51:07

In the interests of spreading good information over bad, I have just emailed the editors of The Portland Press Herald which published the article which sparked this thread.

I gave them a link to this thread on banjohangout. The media needs to see how the bad information in that article, and the stupid choices of the town in question, has played itself out within the BHO music community...

... maybe that's a start?

Edited by - banjoy on 02/25/2012 04:52:55

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  05:58:37

Also in the interest of education, it has occurred to me, throughout this thread, that BMI and ASCAP must do a pretty lousy job of 1) educating non-members who need licenses; 2) using tactics that can be construed as being strong-armed or demands, or both.

So, I just emailed all the branches of BMI as well as its Media Relations Staff, with some information and links to the original Portland Press Herald article, and to this thread.

I agree, good information and education can go a long way toward mutual understanding. BMI needs to do a better job in that regard. Obviously.

Roll Player - Posted - 02/25/2012:  10:26:03

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy



...

Why would you make the statement that PRO's shut jams down? The truth is the PRO's request a license fee, and most choose to pay it as it is modest. Some venues have a sense of righteous indignation and refuse to pay, and are told that they must pay or there are consequences. The venues get pissed off and shut cut themselves off from music, then blame the PROs for it.

...

---

Frank, you are correct. I got careless there. While the PROs were involved in the outcome, to say that they shut the jams down is not correct. I think we agree about a lot here.

There is a balance that needs to be reached between the public benefit of freely shared ideas and culture, and the private need for appropriate rewards for the creative thinkers, artists and inventors. Lately, we seem to be moving a too far towards the private needs, imo.

I think I've said all about this topic that I can.

BanjoLink - Posted - 02/25/2012:  15:44:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roll Player

quote:

---

Originally posted by BanjoLink

quote:

---

 I may not be correct, but I think you are confusing "trade dress" with trademark.  Trade dress (or borrowing/stealing it) is the use on a shape, size, distinctive "whatever", packaging, etc. that may make someone think they are buying something that they are not.  Producing a Coca Cola shaped bottle (filled with soda) and calling it Caca Cola would be an example.  There are plenty of other examples!

---

Coca Cola is a trademark. Calling another soda "Caca Cola" would violate trademark, not trade dress, because of the confusing resemblance to an existing trade mark for sodas. Trade dress usually refers to NON trademarked things which are associated with a product, like the double-cut peghead and script font used on a Gibson banjo, which are not trademarked. Trademarks need to be defended or they can be lost. Copyrights do not, but they do need to be registered by a certain time or they can revert to the public domain.

I could be wrong, but I believe that trade dress is something implied or included under trademark law, but a much tougher thing to prove/defend.

The purpose of a trademark is to distinguish a product from its competitors. A trademark is not copyrighted, but it cannot be copied or even imitated too closely.

---

 My point, I think, was correct that that "trade dress" is the shape, size, color, etc. or physical appearance or even packaging that would create confusion as to what a consumer thought they were buying.  You are correct that Coca Cola is a trademark and using  Caca Cola would infringe on their trademark  -  but that is not the same as trade dress.  Your example of some of Gibson's inlay patterns and their bell-shaped truss rod cover are pretty well known examples here on the hangout.

This of course is secondary to the real topic of the original post, but just another example of "intellectual property".  I also agree with you that many members of this forum are confused by this term, mainly because they have no real interest in it and could care less until something like a venue choosing to shut down their jam session becomes a reality.

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  16:16:13

For what it's worth, since emailing BMI this morning, I've had a few emails back and forth with Ari Surdoval, BMI's Director of Corporate Communications.

Mr. Surdoval has been very kind in taking time on his Saturday morning to explain some of the predicament they face in trying to educate the public. He tells me by email that BMI was already aware of this thread on banjohangout and at The Portland Press Herald.

Here are a few excerpts from his first email reply to me:

Edited by - banjoy on 02/25/2012 16:25:15

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 02/25/2012:  19:17:27

They don't have a communications problem at all. It is very obvious what they are communicating "We want money and we will gouge it out of every source possible for as long as possible." They don't care about the future of writers. They are out to maximize profits for themselves and the big publishers who hold the majority of copyrights. They will destroy anyone who tries to stand in their path.

mikehalloran - Posted - 02/25/2012:  19:34:12

I would be disappointed if oldwoodchuckb didn't chime in with his mixture of bile and nonsense. There is nothing like knowledge to help clear the air - and your posts on the subject contain absolutely nothing like knowledge.

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  19:39:18

Well you know what they say about opinions ....

It would be nice to see some actual information (links, actual experiences) rather than just strong opinions.

But hey, it's an open forum,anyone can hit the submit button.

banjoy - Posted - 02/25/2012:  19:43:41

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

They don't have a communications problem at all. It is very obvious what they are communicating "We want money and we will gouge it out of every source possible for as long as possible." They don't care about the future of writers. They are out to maximize profits for themselves and the big publishers who hold the majority of copyrights. They will destroy anyone who tries to stand in their path.

---

Last year, BMI renewed 650,000 licenses and went to court less than 200 times.

That is not destroying or crushing anything. How so? Explain that please oldwoodchuckb.

They distributed $798 million to songwriters and copyright holders. BMI's administrative overhead is 14%.

If you don't like who owns copyrights that's one thing. BMI does not determine who files for copyright. All they do is issues licenses, collect royalties and disburse payments.

blugrssmom - Posted - 02/25/2012:  22:15:00

Every venue I've played in eventually gets contacted by BMI or Ascap or both, and has to pay up. My question to BHO members is this... I was told by a friend who plays in a touring band that I wasn't required to pay a full up front yearly fee, but that I could send in our set list each week to BMI and Ascap and have them check to see which of our tunes were registered with them and then pay weekly by the tune for each one we played that week. Can any of you tell me if they still allow a person to do this? He told me to just tell them that I was more than willing to pay but that I wanted to pay each week because I had no idea if we'd be playing there each week the entire year so why pay for the whole year if the gig might possibly dry up or our band would dis-band etc. and we wouldn't even be there the whole year. Any of you out there have an answer to this? Can a venue take our set list and mail it in each week and pay for just the tunes that we played that are registered with them? I know they don't like this because it's a hassle to them to look up our tunes each week but is this legal to do or not? Also when I told Ascap that we were only playing traditional tunes they asked me what some of them were and I told them Amazing Grace, Soldiers Joy, etc and their reply was that even Amazing Grace was a tune that I had to pay on because they had about 20 different versions registered with them. I wondered why my own version wasn't considered my own song then too if others could register their version of Amazing Grace and get royalties for it, and also how do they know if how I'm singing and playing it is one of their registered versions or not? Isn't my version of it my original too? So that was just one interesting question I had too.
I'm all for paying royalties to the people who write the songs too and I understand that side of the coin also, but one other question that I have is... I've heard that people who have songs registered with BMI or Ascap receive only real small royalty checks each month, so the money collected by Ascap or BMI isn't really paying the artist's all that much anyway. I don't know if this is a true statement or not so that's why I'm asking this question? So you folks out there who have songs registered with any of these companies, are you receiving sizeable royalty checks for songs that get played a lot or not? I'm anxious to hear if any of you know the answers to these questions I've posed here. I know they don't want to have a venue pay weekly for each tune registered with them that was played that week but is it legal to do that and can a person do that instead of their everything inclusive package of one lump yearly fee...? Thanks.

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 02/25/2012:  23:56:13

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoy

But hey, it's an open forum,anyone can hit the submit button.

---

Yup.    Even folks who work for BMI / ASCAP.

banjoy - Posted - 02/26/2012:  04:25:29

Well, for clarity, I don't work for BMI or any PRO, nor have I ever worked for these groups. I am not a consultant for them. I have no pony in this race except for digging through B.S. to find truth. If you follow any of my threads on BHO, that is a constant theme for me. Some folks here on BHO see that and know that about me. That is my interest. I am a non-active member of BMI and I have disclosed that a few times here.

Until this thread started a few days ago, BMI or ASCAP never heard of me. They've heard of me now, and I intend to get in their face over this stuff, their crappy tactics on the ground. You bet. But for all the right reasons, Deaf Crawdad, not the wrong reasons.

I only speak for myself. My opinions are mine alone and I speak only for myself. But I speak through reasoned logic, and not reactionary knee-jerk canned answers.

Herd mentality and jumping on bandwagons is not nice. It is easy. No thought is required for that, only strong passions. I just won't jump on bandwagons because it's the easy thing to do. Especially when the bandwagon is heading in the wrong direction.

In other words Deaf Crawdad, I am not content to just sit around a b**** about things they way you seem to be content. If I see wrong information, or injustice, here or anywhere in my field of life, I will act. I don't re-act very much any more. That's too easy. I have no problem picking up a phone or sending an email to get to ultimate truth.

REAL LIFE EXAMPLES ON BHO OF HERD MENTALITY

Example #1: Deaf Crawdad, there was a BHO thread recently about how an eBay auction for a "prewar" Gibson banjo just did not look right. Immediately, folks jumped in the thread, jumping on bandwagons, stating their opinions on how that seller must be fraud, how can they get away with that stuff, blah blah blah. Even though I pointed out in that thread that the seller had been around a while and was an antiques dealer and did not know musical instruments, the bandwagon continued. In that thread I suggested several times that folks just email the seller or call them as their number was posted. Some folks did email but never heard back, thus fueling the wild speculation even more that this was fraudulent. So good ole me, I just picked up the phone, and had a nice conversation with the owner of that antiques store. And then I posted news of my conversation to the thread. I tell you, truth is such a buzz kill when your high is bashing things based or speculation and not truth. Go read that thread Deaf Crawdad. I'll give you a link if you want it. A classic case study in herd mentality and wild speculation.

Example #2: There was another thread recently where someone got pissed off at Elderly Instruments because a package did not arrive on time. That person started a thread about the lousy service and how Elderly was going downhill. All that based on one purchase that went south. Immediately, some BHO folks jumped in and started bashing Elderly. In fact, some of the same people that have posted to this thread and to the other one I started. But in that instance, lots of folks came to the defense of Eldery Instruments and questioned the motives for posting, including me. I scolded the poster pretty good in that thread. Guess what? Later in that thread the person who posted it reversed himself and bascially admitted he had acted in haste in making that thread. Well duh. But guess what? Those who jumped on the bandwagon and bashed Eldery were awfully silent. Gee. I wonder why. Would you like a link to that thread too?

- - - - -

Deaf Crawdad, you indicated in the other thread I started that if I expressed what my motivations are I would be laughed out of BHO. Well, no one has laughed me out of the room yet, have they? But I am laughing at you. When and if you have anything of substance to offer, that will certainly be welcome, But until then, you clearly know how the submit button works. Enjoy yourself. It is entertaining to me for sure.

Edited by - banjoy on 02/26/2012 04:40:27

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 02/26/2012:  13:02:29

And there are regularly threads here about the PROs gangster tactics.

I'm sorry that mike might lose 25 cents a week from his vast income through the PROs and I'm sorry that you have allowed yourself to become their tool (paid or unpaid) but the attack on smaall venues has been going on for several years and will continue until the PROs shut them all down. This is not about the composers MOST OF WHOM ARE DEAD. This is about choking off channels of music until the only places left are the larger venues who can afford the extortion.

I'll state right here that I don't give a d*** about composers weeping into their beer over supposed profits they are losing. The recording, radio and TV industry, The Big Venues like Branson's barns, the Vegas Strip Casinos and others have supplied the PROs and their clients for the last 100 years. The small clubs have added to the rolls of members and gotten songs and tunes out to the point where new players record them. Destroying the small venues is not designed to make any musician more money - it is designed to force the public into Stadium Rock Concerts and Branson Barns, and Mickey Mousey Theme Parks where the cover charge is enough that everyone gets rich except the performers.

The backlash is already happening as clubs go to ORIGINALS ONLY programming, and traditional folk groups are fired -- as has happened to friends of mine when the club owners discover that the PROs pull this "we own any piece of PD music ever recorded" crap. No, not much gets taken to court. Can you and your band fight against the forces of ASCAP/BMI? Can the little 100 chair club you play once a month afford several thousand a year in "fees" because you MIGHT play a copyright song tonight?

There needs to be some balance, but at the moment the law is all on the sides of major corporations. We need an organized front against these criminals. I'm too old and too crippled to do much but if anyone is willing to start work on linking up all the musicians who are being driven out of work by these organized crime tactics I'm willing to help write handbills and letters to Congress etc that people can sign onto. We also need to really put the choke back on the recording industry because they are the ones who make the lions share from this (by destroying small cclubs and therefore all the small timers they think they drive business to thier members. Isn't it about time you started writing to the fan clubs of all your favourite recording groups and telling them you are sorry but you won't be attending any of their concerts or buying any of their recordings until they get ASCAP and BMI to BACK OFF this attack on musicians. Be sure to point out how many concerts of theirs you have been at in the past.

Edited by - oldwoodchuckb on 02/26/2012 13:16:40

NCjones - Posted - 02/26/2012:  15:12:04

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Z

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.  

 

---

 Is this similar to the ideaology that "i'm only stealing a 50 cent candy bar from you.  It ain't like its a Lexus or something."?

I think the mob used that excuse in the 40's.  The "protection fee" was really only about 8% of your net income.  Not enough to worry about.  Easier to just pay it before I "send tony to break youse guys legs, know what I'm saying there?"

 

Fortunately, the RICO statute was enacted and it didn't matter how small and insignificant the extortion amount was. 

NCjones - Posted - 02/26/2012:  16:03:45

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo

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

---

I got it.   "Jones' bar and grill AND MINISTRIES."    :)

Prasie the lord and let's start picking!

Alex Z - Posted - 02/26/2012:  18:57:17

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCjones

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alex Z

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.  

 

---

 Is this similar to the ideaology that "i'm only stealing a 50 cent candy bar from you.  It ain't like its a Lexus or something."?

I think the mob used that excuse in the 40's.  The "protection fee" was really only about 8% of your net income.  Not enough to worry about.  Easier to just pay it before I "send tony to break youse guys legs, know what I'm saying there?"

 

Fortunately, the RICO statute was enacted and it didn't matter how small and insignificant the extortion amount was. 

---

You've mis-applied the context and misinterpreted my response -- which was an answer to the original posting.

The original poster was getting "alarmed" about things "going too far."  The actual story in the link, however, for those who have not taken the time to read the story, explained that the city attorney advised paying the fee.

If the city incurs a legitimate fee and is advised that it legally has to be paid, and the fee is $300 per year, I call such a so-called "alarming" story not worth the blood pressure medication to worry about.   This is true whether or not someone agrees or disagrees that such fees are a good idea.

A legitimate fee is not "stealing," or "mob" instigated, or a "protection fee," or "extortion" just because someone does not like it.

It's a debating technique to apply such inflammatory words in an inaccurate way -- but does not shed any light on the situation, only heat.

Edited by - Alex Z on 02/26/2012 19:00:03

NCjones - Posted - 02/26/2012:  20:44:09

Simply google ascap.  There aren't many who feel these are "legitimate fees".  There's tens of thousands of pages about how ASS-CAP, BMI, and SESAC have gone way beyond common-sense applications of their licensing.

You do realize that you don't just pay SESAC $300.  You have to pay BMI their fee and ASS-CAP their fee also,  so the total is $900.  There's no way you can simply say to a band, we only want you to play BMI owned tunes (or SESAC or ASS-CAP).  In fact, the courts have ruled that posting a "NO ASCAP MUSIC ALLOWED" sign has no legal standing and you still have to buy a license just because some band might "accidentally" plays an ASS-CAP song.

I work with a lot of restaurants closely and I see them get the "you owe us" letter all the time.  In fact, if a band comes in and plays only music they wrote, and no BMI, SESAC, or ASS-CAP music, you will still lose in court.  BMI, SESAC, and ASS-CAP are more than proud to provide you with several pages of documented cases where they have won such arguments. 

There's a difference between a shake down and a legitimate fee. 

You're right on target oldwoodchuck.  Banjoy is a paid member of the mafia, so his opinion has less than zero credibility to me.  Asking him about rational common-sense licensing is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. 

"Explain that please oldwoodchuckb"  OK, I'll bite. 

Agave Bar & Grill - had a Saturday night live music thing going on til they got the ASS-CAP "you owe us" letter.  So they quit having live music.  Nobody wants to drink at a bar with no music.  What you gonna do, get drunk and stare at each other?  Soon the few regulars wasn't enough to justify the liquor license or pay the morgage.  They closed last year.  Sure, they could have charged an extra $1 per beer to pay the ASS-CAP/BMI/SESAC extortion fee to leave them alone.  But why would I go to AB&G for a beer when the place up the street sells it for $1 less?  RESULT:  Business closed, community lost a restaurant bar and grill.

Poetic Shangrila Coffee Shop/Bookstore.  Used to have an open-mic night.  Until they got the "you owe us" letter from ASS-CAP.  Now they are a closed down empty storefront on Walnut Street.  RESULT:  Business closed, community lost a bookstore & coffee shop.  Local kids used to come to hear the music and hang out.  Now these 16 7 17 year old are on the street.  Small town, nothing else to do.

Fountain General Store.  Been in business since 1912.  Local bands play there on the weekend.  $10 admission.  Seating capacity 80, most of the time 30-60 peple show up.  Do the math.  The revenue generated pays the band.  Sometimes Alex buys them dinner out of his pocket so they will keep coming back.  He's been negotiating with ASS-CAP to pay them ONLY for the songs that are played.  They won't budge.  They want more.  A "yearly blanket fee" in the thousands "just in case he plays a song and forgets to tell them about it".  RESULT:  Still under negotiation.  No one is going to pay $25 to come hear a local no-name band play.  If they twist his arm good enough, he'll probably close also.  BTW, it's the only place in fountain open after dark.  Again, nothing for the community youth to do .

So tell me what SESAC/BMI/ASS-CAP has done for these communities?  Other than making the lawyers rich and paying Hank Williams Sr. 1 1/2 cents because someone sang his song.  Oh wait, Hank is dead.  I really doubt he cares because some no-name band sang his song in some town in NC that isn't even a dot on any map.

NCjones - Posted - 02/26/2012:  20:57:54

quote:

---

Originally posted by blugrssmom

Every venue I've played in eventually gets contacted by BMI or Ascap or both, and has to pay up. My question to BHO members is this... I was told by a friend who plays in a touring band that I wasn't required to pay a full up front yearly fee, but that I could send in our set list each week to BMI and Ascap and have them check to see which of our tunes were registered with them and then pay weekly by the tune for each one we played that week. Can any of you tell me if they still allow a person to do this? He told me to just tell them that I was more than willing to pay but that I wanted to pay each week because I had no idea if we'd be playing there each week the entire year so why pay for the whole year if the gig might possibly dry up or our band would dis-band etc. and we wouldn't even be there the whole year. Any of you out there have an answer to this? Can a venue take our set list and mail it in each week and pay for just the tunes that we played that are registered with them? I know they don't like this because it's a hassle to them to look up our tunes each week but is this legal to do or not? Also when I told Ascap that we were only playing traditional tunes they asked me what some of them were and I told them Amazing Grace, Soldiers Joy, etc and their reply was that even Amazing Grace was a tune that I had to pay on because they had about 20 different versions registered with them. I wondered why my own version wasn't considered my own song then too if others could register their version of Amazing Grace and get royalties for it, and also how do they know if how I'm singing and playing it is one of their registered versions or not? Isn't my version of it my original too? So that was just one interesting question I had too.

I'm all for paying royalties to the people who write the songs too and I understand that side of the coin also, but one other question that I have is... I've heard that people who have songs registered with BMI or Ascap receive only real small royalty checks each month, so the money collected by Ascap or BMI isn't really paying the artist's all that much anyway. I don't know if this is a true statement or not so that's why I'm asking this question? So you folks out there who have songs registered with any of these companies, are you receiving sizeable royalty checks for songs that get played a lot or not? I'm anxious to hear if any of you know the answers to these questions I've posed here. I know they don't want to have a venue pay weekly for each tune registered with them that was played that week but is it legal to do that and can a person do that instead of their everything inclusive package of one lump yearly fee...? Thanks.

---

 I can answer your question.  A venue around here that has been having local bands play has been negotiating with ASS-CAP to do the same thing.  They WANT YOU to pay a blanket yearly fee becasue it's more money for them that way.  This guy has been telling them he will submit a list of songs played and pay them accordingly.  They won't budge.  They they have people like banjoy doing their dirty work and convincing people it's the "right thing to do".  Suppose the  "whoever brothers" comes in and plays 30 of their songs that they wrote and 3 that Merle Haggard wrote.  ASS-CAP wants you to buy a license to cover 33 songs, not three.  More than likely this guy will have to shut down his business.  And the sad part about it is that its because he won't pay MORE THAN his fair share. it's because ASS-CAP is demanding MORE THAN his fair share.  As Alex put it (he's a retired English professor from East Carolina University), "If I write a book and want to print 5,000 copies and I use YOUR POEM in my book, then I pay you for 5,000 uses of your poem."  And he's right.   This "blanket license" scheme is a scam.  Small businesses can't afford "buffet style" licensing when they only play copyrighted material a few times.  That's like paying $15 to go to the buffet and only drinking a cup of coffee.

 I told them Amazing Grace, Soldiers Joy, etc and their reply was that even Amazing Grace was a tune that I had to pay on because they had about 20 different versions registered with them.

Doesn't matter.  They give you a license based on the idea that you *might* play their version.  It's like going to the state fair and buying that booklet of ride tickets.  You can ride 50 rides, but if you only want to ride 30 rides, then thats up to you.  You still buy the book of 50 tickets.  Again, more money for them.

What if your kid pukes after the first ride and doesn't want to ride again?  Too bad.  Again, more money for them.  Thats why they demand the "yearly license fee".

Edited by - NCjones on 02/26/2012 21:12:45

Alex Z - Posted - 02/27/2012:  09:32:50

-------

"There aren't many who feel these are "legitimate fees". "

-------

"Legitimate" means in compliance or accordance with the law.

Can't control how people "feel."  Can't argue with someone who uses "legitimate" when they mean "reasonable" or "justified."

Point is, city was faced with paying or not paying a fee that is in accordance with current law, and was advised to pay by its attorney, and the value was $300 per year.  

There might be those who get bent out of shape over this particular situation.

But not me.  

Whether or not the law ought to be changed is a different question.

oldwoodchuckb - Posted - 02/27/2012:  13:12:59

These are not really Legitimate laws. They have been forced through a bought and paid for congress, by the large corporations who now control almost everything you get to see on TV, hear on Radio, in movies, or live at clubs. They are not looking to the future and how their profits will increase as young talent is encouraged and grown. They want the money NOW - every penny they can milk out of it, and they really don't give a d*** if your band can't get work, or your club closes down. They know that driving the non-payers out of business will increase profits NOW. As to the future --- who cares.

Deaf Lester Crawdad - Posted - 02/27/2012:  14:26:21

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

These are not really Legitimate laws. They have been forced through a bought and paid for congress, by the large corporations who now control almost everything you get to see on TV, hear on Radio, in movies, or live at clubs. They are not looking to the future and how their profits will increase as young talent is encouraged and grown. They want the money NOW - every penny they can milk out of it, and they really don't give a d*** if your band can't get work, or your club closes down. They know that driving the non-payers out of business will increase profits NOW. As to the future --- who cares.

---

 Um, laws don't come in "Legitimate" and "Illegitimate" categories, and we don't get to obey only the ones we agree with and ignore the rest.    If you've read any of my posts on this subject you'll already know how I feel about the current situation of BMI / ASCAP versus small music venues, but just because the current laws are unjust and destructive doesn't mean they're "not really" the laws.    And it's up to us to lean on our congresscritters until they change the laws back to something approaching a fair and workable solution.

The composers of works of art deserve to be paid for their efforts (it's work like any other form of work) but closing down the small venues where a lot of musicians hitherto were employed is not the answer to how they should be paid.

~Pete

Kenneth Logsdon - Posted - 02/27/2012:  14:30:07

Well, after reading that double talk reply from the "official"... I used my "we did not have sex with that woman" line too quick...

banjoy - Posted - 02/28/2012:  03:16:28

quote:

---

Originally posted by NCjones

You're right on target oldwoodchuck.  Banjoy is a paid member of the mafia, so his opinion has less than zero credibility to me.  Asking him about rational common-sense licensing is like asking a barber if you need a haircut. 

---

Wow. That's pretty hateful there NCJones. I am not a paid member of the mafia. I am not a paid member of anything. That's a crazy and hateful thing to say. A little over the top there, you think?

Because you don't like what I have to say, you disparage me personally. That's a very low blow there sir. I would expect better of you. That's a low level of humanity.

For what it's worth, you miss many of my points. Read This: Now that both you and oldwoodchuc are actually adding meat to your comments, there is something to discuss, I agree with many of the points you both raise. (I also agree with the perspectives that Deaf Lester Crawdad is sharing, when he settled down and got serious about sharing his experiences, they helped move the needle for me a bit.) But it seems that you and oldwoodchuck are both are a tad radical in your thinking and approach, it seems to me. Well, not a tad. A lot radical.

Go read some of my posts in the last thread and see if any of that makes sense to you. If you can without your head exploding and you again lower yourself to name-calling.

You are being intellectually dishonest sir. Remove the hatefulness. It's uncalled for. You are way over the top there in a few of the posts you make. Not only hostile, but angry. You assign intent to me when there is none and you not only can't prove it, you are dead wrong. In fact, you are 180 degrees wrong. Go look in the mirror and put childish things aside.

Now go take another bite. Re-read things. Go read my posts in the other thread. And stop the personal snipes because you don't like me. Pretty childish.

Edited by - banjoy on 02/28/2012 03:24:10

banjoy - Posted - 02/28/2012:  03:32:10

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deaf Lester Crawdad

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldwoodchuckb

These are not really Legitimate laws. They have been forced through a bought and paid for congress, by the large corporations who now control almost everything you get to see on TV, hear on Radio, in movies, or live at clubs. They are not looking to the future and how their profits will increase as young talent is encouraged and grown. They want the money NOW - every penny they can milk out of it, and they really don't give a d*** if your band can't get work, or your club closes down. They know that driving the non-payers out of business will increase profits NOW. As to the future --- who cares.

---

 Um, laws don't come in "Legitimate" and "Illegitimate" categories, and we don't get to obey only the ones we agree with and ignore the rest.    If you've read any of my posts on this subject you'll already know how I feel about the current situation of BMI / ASCAP versus small music venues, but just because the current laws are unjust and destructive doesn't mean they're "not really" the laws.    And it's up to us to lean on our congresscritters until they change the laws back to something approaching a fair and workable solution.

The composers of works of art deserve to be paid for their efforts (it's work like any other form of work) but closing down the small venues where a lot of musicians hitherto were employed is not the answer to how they should be paid.

~Pete

---

I agree wholeheartedly with what Deaf Lester Crawdad says here (believe it, or not). The solution is not to ignore the law, but to change it.

b****ing and fussing gets nowhere fast. And some of the very extreme, very radical approaches suggested by others in these threads are not the solutions. Just hating something enough to blow it up will not work. That is not the answer. Hate never leads the way.

And small venues are the grassroots, the heartbeat and soul of music. There needs to be a balance between these things. Taking correct, good action is key. And I have come to see that this is a just cause on behalf of grassroots musicians and venues.