Are "covers" at open mics being squeezed out?

[devellis]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Don't let the specious and or ignorant rhetoric in thread fool you....the possible problematic negative wording vs possibly more objective and productive terminology.

people who ... simply buy into and regurgitate the highly questionable hype often proffered by said self serving interests.

venue owner enjoyed suckling at largess of "well nobody is looking or saying anything, it must be free for the taking"

Do I whiff a hint of a double standard here?

Think what you choose. Have your own view and cherish it. You do seem to have a lot of knowledge and your arguments benefit from that knowledge. But your derision of those who disagree and see things differently go beyond the objectivity you espouse.

You argue that:

"Fundamentally no different than if they took delivery on 50 cases of beverage or 50 lbs. of coffee but refused to pay the wholesalers invoice. And just like the wholesaler the PRO's are not responsible if the retailer cant figure out how to make said profit. Nor does the retailers inability to profit, make any legal or moral difference in the fact that if you take delivery and use a product you should pay for it. PERIOD."

Well, one difference is that if a merchant doesn't pay for 50 lbs. of coffee, the wholesaler no longer has the coffee nor the money. If a singer covers a wrong without paying, the composer doesn't have the money for the performance but still has ownership of the song. He or she has failed to gain (even if entitled to such a gain). That's not the same as accruing a net loss. I'm not saying it's fair or unfair, I'm simply saying the two are different. If they're no different under law, then perhaps that's a weakness in the law in question. In any case, the two circumstances are recognizably different to me and I suspect many others. Again, not saying that they differ legally or ethically. Just that they are patently different. If I had a choice between not gaining when entitled to do so and neither gaining from nor retaining ownership of a product I had on offer, I wouldn't like either but I'd like the latter even less. Different. Intellectual property differs from real property in that you can lose the latter in ways that differ from the losses you can sustain for the former. Hence, the special recognition and even the existence of "intellectual property" as a class of ownership. Again, not saying one is any less valuable. But they're different. If the analogy to real property were perfect, we would have no need for the concept of intellectual property, just as we don't have distinct categories for bags of coffee and cases of soda.

I have no reason to doubt that you are correct in all of the legal arguments you've put forth. I've enjoyed learning from the excellent information you've shared. But I see no evidence that the motives you ascribe to those who disagree with you are correct and they're certainly not objective.

You obviously have strong feelings about this issue and they show. Nothing wrong with that. My own feelings concern sweeping generalizations, assertions of truth, and claims to know the innermost motives of others. Such things rub me the wrong way, irrespective of which side of a debate employs them. I know this is an internet forum and that overstatement comes with the territory; but since you are deriding others for a lack of objectivity, it seems ironic that the message in which you do it contains the sort of loaded language you find so distasteful when coming from others.

I have decidedly mixed feelings about the whole "cover" issue. As I said earlier, I don't perform but I do have royalty claims that occasionally are infringed upon. So my personal financial interests are closer to those of the composers than the folks at the open mic where a fee hasn't been paid. Nonetheless, I can understand why people aren't pleased at the idea of lawsuits being brought against people who decide to host an open mic for which they don't charge a cover or have a minimum. I don't know whether such people are legally right or not in their concerns but I honestly don't think that they are merely interested in getting something for nothing. And there's certainly no objective evidence to so suggest that that's what their motivation is. Some believe that a fundamental, valuable, and longstanding aspect of our culture is threatened by restrictions on material that exemplify that culture. I can't say whether they're right or wrong in that view but I can at least imagine why they would feel that way. I can also understand why artists, whose contributions to our enrichment are often given short shrift, feel that their interests need to be rigorously guarded. I don't fault them in the least for feeling that way. I have no argument with supporting that position as long as unfounded assumptions about others don't insinuate themselves into the discussion.

It's not the substance of this argument that puzzles me. I can understand both sides or at least why there would be strong feelings on both sides. But the tone of the argument at times does leave me a bit befuddled.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

I just can't understand why anyone would care what goes on at an "open mic session". Performers don't get paid, and certainly in my experience of them bars are no more busy whether they are on or not (sometimes it near empties them). Just a bunch of keen and usually amateur musicians wanting to perform the songs they love playing to other keen amateur musicians.

Tribute bands raking it in playing other peoples music are obviously another story.

[Pitar]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

I occasionally perform at an open mic at the nearest coffee shop. They recently asked that no covers be performed because they're being sued.

This is a sad state of affairs. The place is ridiculously small with an audience of ten max.

Is this happening elsewhere?

Basically, the venue refuses to pay their licensing fees and now they will probably be sued out of existence. It happens. My BMI representative is a cool dude and has my annual fees down to less than $600.00. I get that back easily in one night. ASCAP is about 2.5 times more but, again, the fees are miniscule and recovered within a week. I'm completely on board with paying the royalty licensing fees and from a business perspective, those who thumb their noses at the fees to play other people's music simply aren't people who should be playing it or promoting it (venue owners), period. It is intellectual property and as such requires the proper protocol to use it for monetary gain.

I put my general manager onto the path of satisfying our obligation to licensing and he has made some good contacts in the process. We are members in good standing now. Three weeks ago we were not. I don't understand people who can't fathom the fact that playing someone else's music for compensation without permission or licensing (royalty fees paid) is wrong. I just don't get that. Is it that cover players are incapable of such depths of thought or is it that they choose to remain in denial? Those examples of the art form are not theirs. They belong to someone else. Being able to copy them does not make them theirs to sell (be compensated for playing). Get a grasp of the rights of ownership, obligation to those rights and then have some fun.

Something to note - I was not contacted by any music company. I volunteered to them my situation and have since enjoyed a very respectable relationship with them. The venue of this thread's topic probably had a music company agent visit their store and levy findings that the venue then chose to ignore and probably openly resist. Hence the law suit.

[tj_mangum]

BMI has created a separate category for coffee shops. $230 per year. Heck, if everyone who comes in to play buys a cup, they will easily cover the nut.
http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_bo...oost_music_use

If you wrote it, you should be able to get paid for it's use. Period. Is the system fair, probably not, but it's what we have in the USA until someone creates some better system. Does Paul need the $ for a coffee shop performance of Yesterday? No. Does he deserve it? You bettcha!

[Gasworker]

Hey Pitar good luck with this. If you have a flame suit put it on. By the way I know there are a few of us that agree with you 100% . Thanks

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by devellis

Do I whiff a hint of a double standard here?

I would like to think not but perhaps

But your derision of those who disagree and see things differently go beyond the objectivity you espouse.

Hey you know what you are absolutely correct I am guilty as charged. I am certainly as subject to ebb and flow of the human condition as any other. I can see how those sentences you quoted could be taken to imply the more general usage highly negative connotations. And also Thank you for engaging me with out derision I will endeavor to do likewise.

First and Foremost I did not mean to imply that any people on this thread were/are guilty of attempting to get something for nothing. Nor that any one is not entitled to their opinion. And If anyone has taken personal offense or feels I have ridiculed them personally. I Honestly apologize

So to address the first sentence "specious" and "ignorant" MY meaning and intention was implying those words exactly as defined in the dictionary.

Specious "superficially plausible, but actually wrong."

Ignorant "lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular"

In keeping my own counsel I should have said : "don't let opinions formed from hearsay fool you, they may sound plausible but could in fact be wrong"

I guess I don't see that the second sentence is particularly derisive
Regurgitate "repeat (information) without analyzing or comprehending it."
This is done all the time on forum threads, people often just repeat hype they have heard or read and in doing so intentionally or not, do say things that are either little more then hype or spin or factually incorrect.

In the case of Shoreline Music I clearly stated I was not implying my general statements applied to him, other than using some of his terminology to highlight my points. I suppose I should have gone on to say that I was simply using his words because they seemed prototypical of much of the rhetoric here and elsewhere which little more than inaccurate bad press surrounding ASCAP.

I suppose words like " bullying" and "burdening" are a matter of perspective and open to interpretation like "ignorant" and "specious", but "outright shutting down small music performance" is in fact not correct.
As I said nowhere have I found that to even be the case in any dealings ASCAP has had with venues. So I guess I do not see that statements like that come from anywhere but repeating hearsay or hype. If any can show evidence to the contrary I will recant this immediately.

Further I guess I don't see that my rebuttals to Shorline Music's "words" were particularly derisive, if he has taken it that way again I apologize.



You argue that:

"Fundamentally no different than if they took delivery on 50 cases of beverage or 50 lbs. of coffee but refused to pay the wholesalers invoice. And just like the wholesaler the PRO's are not responsible if the retailer cant figure out how to make said profit. Nor does the retailers inability to profit, make any legal or moral difference in the fact that if you take delivery and use a product you should pay for it. PERIOD."

Well, one difference is that if a merchant doesn't pay for 50 lbs. of coffee, the wholesaler no longer has the coffee nor the money. If a singer covers a wrong without paying, the composer doesn't have the money for the performance but still has ownership of the song. He or she has failed to gain (even if entitled to such a gain). That's not the same as accruing a net loss.

Ok thats one way to look at it. But there is another'
First notice I started with "fundamentally" so yes there are a very few specific differences between Intellectual Property and Private Property and yes the the obvious difference is of course one is tangible and one is not, but buy far the bulk of the law and the ethics are the same.

That said this difference your arguing may be only a matter of a slight difference in perspective and IMO perhaps not really as different as you claim.

Consider this: The coffee wholesaler has his source for multiple pounds and and the songwriter has his source for multiple performances. BUT For the sake of simplicity lets use a single unit comparison.

A single pound of coffee to invoice for, and a single performance to invoice for. If that invoice is unpaid it is a net loss to both. Because the songwriter may retain that song BUT is not going to be able to get a revenue gain from that particular performance, any more than the wholesaler is going to be able to get a gain from that pound. Both of those particular income units are in fact gone and non recoupable. And it seems we both agree that the lost income on that single unit is the same.

The only possible difference in the two situations I can see is that the wholesaler (unless he is also the grower) will have to pay a direct out of pocket expense for each additional unit for future sales and the songwriter may not have any direct per unit additional expenses, but on the other hand the songwriter could have things like ongoing general promotional expenses to keep the song in play and salable.

So no I do not see it as all that fundamentally different. The fact that the song is intangible makes only a slight and marginal difference to my perspective. Not that you are suggesting this. But I see this kind of focus on the intangible nature of intellectual property making it fundamentally different as the cornerstone of the "Victimless Crime" argument and mentality and I do not buy it and interestingly neither does the law. I also see that fact, as a strength of law not a weakness.

If the analogy to real property were perfect, we would have no need for the concept of intellectual property,

No one said the analogy is perfect I think the actual debate is weather the two are fundamentally the same or different.

[Brendan @ Heartbreaker Guitars]

I'll let you know after tonight, LOL! Im headed to "Joey's" in Las Vegas... heard a lot lately about their open mic...

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by devellis

I have no reason to doubt that you are correct in all of the legal arguments you've put forth. I've enjoyed learning from the excellent information you've shared. But I see no evidence that the motives you ascribe to those who disagree with you are correct and they're certainly not objective.

You obviously have strong feelings about this issue and they show. Nothing wrong with that. My own feelings concern sweeping generalizations, assertions of truth, and claims to know the innermost motives of others. Such things rub me the wrong way,

Well lets look ... as to '"No evidence" and objectivity vs sweeping generalizations and assertions of truth and claims to know the motives of others. I'm not sure I claimed to know the "innermost motives" of others and I am going to assume there is no hint of derision there.

But lets look at some evidence
Arguably the current state of affairs of bad press for ASCAP in particular was birthed in the now famous and oft recanted (albeit mostly inaccurately )

"GirlScout Incident" which took place in 1995 I am going to assume that everyone has heard some quip about ASCAP suing the GirlScouts. which is widely espoused but in fact not accurate

Here is the headline and excerpts from an article in the NY Times.

Ascap Asks Royalties From Girl Scouts, and Regrets It

The truth of this story is actually more interesting than the fiction surrounding it.


Some excerpts from the article:

" It was, in fact, a public relations debacle: the story of how a New York and Hollywood bully that chases after music royalties for its songwriters wanted to beat up on millions of innocent girls. The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article under the headline ''The Birds May Sing, but Campers Can't Unless They Pay Up.'' Television stations around the country broadcast pictures of Girl Scouts dancing the Macarena in silence."





The story began in 1995, when Ascap approached the American Camping Association and said it wanted to charge for copyrighted music performed at the group's 2,300 camps. ''You've got to be kidding,'' said the association's executive vice president, John Miller, who quickly found a lawyer well versed in the details of Federal copyright.

The law says songwriters are entitled to royalties for copyrighted work used in ''public performance,'' which it defines as a place ''where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.'' The lawyer determined that Ascap was indeed within bounds, and that nonprofit camps, like the Girl Scouts, were not necessarily exempt from music licensing fees.

The camping group grudgingly entered into negotiations with Ascap, and agreed that large camps would pay $250 a year each, a discount of $1,000 a year or more. But the group remained angry at what it considered Ascap's zealotry, and in an October 1995 newsletter sounded alarms.

The letter said that according to the legal definition of ''public performance,'' Ascap could charge for singing around the campfire, even though the association now admits that Ascap never said specifically that it wanted to charge for campfire songs. The letter gave the highest possible penalty for copyright infringement: up to $100,000 per performance, and a year in prison.


It urged its members to pay the $250 fee. Among the 256 Girl Scout camps on its list, 16 did.

Things heated up in March, when Ascap sent a mailing to 6,000 camps (out of 8,000 in the United States) and informed them that they had to pay royalties for public performances. But Ascap did not specify what it meant by ''public performance,''

Although the letter was almost universally ignored -- Ascap says the mailing resulted in only eight licenses -- it did send one person into a panic: Sharon Kosch, a director of the San Francisco Bay Girl Scout Council who is a former board member of the American Camping Association. Ms. Kosch had read the association's October newsletter and was scared. She consulted Ascap's fee schedule and discovered to her horror that the 15 Girl Scout camps in her area would have to pay a total of $6,000 a year, which they could not afford.

Ms. Kosch decided to take a cautious approach, and in May, at a training session for summer counselors, said there were legal problems and suggested that campers sing only Girl Scout songs. Ms. Kosch did not get in touch with headquarters in New York, which is not unusual.

It starts to get interesting here

On closer inspection, the battle is really a story of how the Girl Scouts got caught in a war that other powerful groups were waging against Ascap, a tale of hidden agendas and Washington maneuvers that would never have come to light without a group of 14-year-old Girl Scout helpers called Elves.

Ascap, meanwhile, was hearing ominous strains on Capitol Hill. A coalition led by the National Restaurant Association was lobbying for bills, introduced by Republicans in the House and Senate, to reduce the royalties that small businesses pay to music licensers.

Restaurant owners had been angry at Ascap for years. In 1992, an Ascap investigator caught a pianist at a New Brunswick, N.J., restaurant playing George Gershwin's ''Rhapsody in Blue'' without a license. (A license is a contract allowing the unlimited use of Ascap compositions, usually for a year at a time.) Ascap sued and got a $5,500 settlement from the owner.

In May, the Girl Scouts were dragged into the restaurant fight when Bloomberg Business News reported that Scouts had to pay for campfire songs, a story the restaurant industry lobbyists viewed as a gift from heaven and used as inspiration for an ad they immediately took out in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

''Guess Who's Charging the Girl Scouts for Singing Around a Campfire?'' the headline said. The Girl Scouts were not pleased.
Note this is in fact a false statement and was run by the National Restaurant Association not Girl Scouts or the Camping Association
'

"Ascap, gasping, finally had to issue a press release saying it never intended to charge for campfire sing-alongs, and that it ''has never brought nor threatened to bring suit against the Girl Scouts.''



In June, the Girl Scouts headquarters in New York told local councils to sing and not pay, which had no apparent effect in San Francisco. Martha Jones, a counselor at a day camp near Oakland, told her scouts in July that they couldn't sing ''Over the Rainbow'' because, she said, Ms. Kosch had mentioned something about ''legal troubles,'' which is what she told her father, Henry Myers, an editor of The Wall Street Journal, during a visit to New Jersey in August. The Journal assigned a reporter to look into it.

Meanwhile, at a one-week session of the Diablo Day Camp northeast of Oakland, a group of helpers called Elves asked two mothers directing the camp if they could teach the younger girls the Macarena, the summer dance craze. The mothers said sure, if the Elves didn't use the music. (These mothers had also heard of the legal problems.)

''We thought even though we weren't singing the words, it was recorded music,'' said Debi Jansen, one of the mothers. ''It was owned by somebody.''

As it turned out, it was not Ascap, but its competitor, Broadcast Music Inc., that licenses the Macarena. This was a subtlety of no concern to the Elves, who were dancing without music when a Wall Street Journal reporter arrived the next day. Their silent Macarena opened the Journal article, which on a slow week in August between political conventions spread like a California brush fire.

''This thing just went kablooey,'' said Janine Carlson, the spokeswoman for the San Francisco Bay Council. Television crews descended on the camp, where another one-week session with new campers, but the same Elves, had started, and asked if anyone was dancing the Macarena without music. As Ms. Carlson recalled, ''The kids said: 'Yeah. Do you want to see us do it?' ''

As footage of the silent Macarena appeared on television news programs across the country, Ascap descended into what its public relations consultant, Mr. Sunshine, described as ''p.r. hell.''

The organization rushed to respond by saying it had only meant to license the commercial use of music at camps, which it defined as performances by professional musicians at large resorts.

The camping association is skeptical of that explanation, asking why, if that were the case, Ascap sent its letter asking for royalties to nearly every summer camp in the United States.

Ascap also said it would return fees to the 16 Girl Scout camps that had paid, and added that in 1940 Irving Berlin had donated all future royalties from ''God Bless America'' to the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts. By September, Girl Scout executives in New York said they believed ''this unfortunate situation is resolved.''

Not quite. Nine days later, the National Restaurant Association ran another ad under the words, ''Two weeks ago, Ascap said if these children sang 'Happy Birthday' they'd sue them.''

In light of the fact that this whole incident actually involved only the Camping Association and the GirlScouts Yet it was National Restaurant Association that ran the inflammatory ads. It would seem that calling the motives of the National Restaurant Association "self serving interest" may not be that far from objective

[Berny]

Let me first say that I have no issue with authors/songwriters, receiving reasonable recognition and recompense for their work/s. The question in my mind is; just what can be considered as 'reasonable' recompense.

I'm confused, so let me try to get this right;
On the one hand we are told that ASCAP are collecting the dues for songwriters, but now I see that even after the songwriter has passed on, ASCAP are still collecting fees because, I assume, they have claimed/secured [I assume purchased] the rights to the music and will require royalties for....ever? Now this seems just a tad ridiculous to me. Like a book rights holder requiring some form of continued recompense every time a book is read, forever. Yeah, I know I know, it's not the exactly the same because the book is most likely not to be read out loud by persons in a group. So let's assume for the sake of accuracy and fairness, that the fees for reading books would be significantly lower. Problem is we'd need to put monitors everywhere including inside all homes.......................mmm, not too practical but the comparison is none-the-less credible IMHO.

Then again, if we are to allow writers to make financial gain from universally used language which I assume can be demonstrated as being publicly owned, and b] similarly owned universally used public [owned?] sounds, they should probably pay the public a fee for the use of same.

And then, after that we should be fully informed about which music/songs/artists attract fees and which don't [surely there are some songs which have no burden attached and may be used in a public place?]. Or, is it the case that all music has in some manner, been claimed as private property by someone and fees are required to perform them, [even in the shower if someone is able to hear the rendition]. [Yeah I know a tad more ridiculous].

I'm sorry, but claiming royalties for music, other than the millions in profits for the albums/recordings at the time of release/sale, seems to me to be a totally a ridiculous scenario, unless at the very least, the song writer personally, is guaranteed some form of continueing recompense, commensurate with the continued level of success, [judged by sales] of the music in the public arena.

And, I'm tempted to advise that the reading of the above script, may attract a fee. [Just kidding] ;-)

[devellis]

KevWind Thanks for your civil, well-reasoned, and highly informative response. I hadn't heard about the Girl Scout incident at all. Interesting story.

[Thorby Bislam]

Yes, a civil, well-reasoned and highly informative response. I hadn't heard about the girl Scout incident either. An interesting story, until I got to this part.

As footage of the silent Macarena appeared on television news programs across the country, Ascap descended into what its public relations consultant, Mr. Sunshine, described as ''p.r. hell.''

Which Thorby's public relations consultant, Mr Madeupname, described as "a load of cack."

[KevWind]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Berny

I'm confused, so let me try to get this right;
On the one hand we are told that ASCAP are collecting the dues for songwriters, but now I see that even after the songwriter has passed on, ASCAP are still collecting fees because, I assume, they have claimed/secured [I assume purchased] the rights to the music and will require royalties for....ever? Now this seems just a tad ridiculous to me.

You are partially correct. In general Copyrights for the songwriter extend 70 years after death ( for songs written after 1978 when the law was rewritten and I believe songs prior to 1978 had a 50 yr time frame) . However the typical situation is, upon death the ownership of the Copyrights transfers to the rightful heirs of the songwriter.
Except where the songwriter has prior to death transferred or sold those rights to a third party. Which is typically not the PRO, (generic acronym for Performing Rights Organizations like ASCAP BMI and SESAC) that handles the collection of royalties for those rights. But as far as I know it is typically a third party that has purchased the rights to a songwriters catalog. The most famous of these situations was when Michael Jackson ended up purchasing the rights to aprox 250 Beatles songs. Which He ended up selling to SONY.

Then again, if we are to allow writers to make financial gain from universally used language which I assume can be demonstrated as being publicly owned, and b] similarly owned universally used public [owned?] sounds, they should probably pay the public a fee for the use of same.

I'm a bit confused as to your meaning and applicability here ? If I am reading this statement correctly, this situation has not and does not exist.

[And then, after that we should be fully informed about which music/songs/artists attract fees and which don't [surely there are some songs which have no burden attached and may be used in a public place?]. Or, is it the case that all music has in some manner, been claimed as private property by someone and fees are required to perform them

, Yes after that 70 year period the Songs automatically go into the Public Domain and no fees apply. Yes there are a number of different listings of some Public Domain Songs, but I am not sure there is actually a Centralized list.

And there is one other fact that muddies up this situation and that is there are number of Public Domain (*PD) songs that a number of artists have made their own particular arrangements or derivative work from, that do have copyrights attached to them. Mind you not the PD itself but the particular arrangement. Some of the more notable examples here being, some 40 or so registered derivative works of the PD song "House of the Rising Sun" including most notably LeadBelly and The Animals, and of particular interest to me Bob Dylans derivative of "Days of 49"

I'm sorry, but claiming royalties for music, other than the millions in profits for the albums/recordings at the time of release/sale, seems to me to be a totally a ridiculous scenario, unless at the very least, the song writer personally, is guaranteed some form of continueing recompense, commensurate with the continued level of success, [judged by sales] of the music in the public arena.

So yes if the songwriter has not sold their catalog then their heirs do get the royalties for those songs for that 70 yrs. Unless of course they sell those rights. Then the third party gets those royalties until they expire. @ 70 yrs.

Let me back up at this point as say to everyone, that I do not by any means think that the PRO s are completely faultless in all this. And there are some very real and very legitimate concerns and criticisms about both fairness of distribution and collection policies and practices.
But there are also surrounding this issue in fact a number of blanket type statements, that are either partially, contextually, or totally incorrect and misleading, either out of ignorance of the facts or deliberately.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Thorby Bislam

Yes, a civil, well-reasoned and highly informative response. I hadn't heard about the girl Scout incident either. An interesting story, until I got to this part.

Which Thorby's public relations consultant, Mr Madeupname, described as "a load of cack."

I to snapped a second look and wondered about that name, Mr Sunshine really?

[ombudsman]

Originally Posted by KevWind

But as far as I know it is typically a third party that has purchased the rights to a songwriters catalog. The most famous of these situations was when Michael Jackson ended up purchasing the rights to aprox 250 Beatles songs. Which He ended up selling to SONY.

No, that's the atypical example. More often than not the performer or their (very small) "publishing company" (an entity that exists for the sole purpose of receiving publishing funds while giving the writer flexibility to not have to report that income directly on their personal tax return) retain the rights to their publishing. Whatever company name you see next to "ASCAP" or "BMI" on a record or CD is the publishing company, typically it is not the record company or any large company. Sometimes it will be another songwriters publishing company or one that works with many writers, taking a cut in exchange for handling the paperwork, which makes sense if the publishing income is small.

The Beatles got some characteristically bad advice from Brian Epstien in the early 60s and set up Northern Songs as a tax shelter because of post war capital gains tax rates that were still in effect in the UK at that time. However they made it a publicly traded company, and then they lost control of it because they hadn't bothered to secure controlling interest.

[ombudsman]

Originally Posted by Berny

So does a poorly played cover attract the same fee as a well played cover?

It would be nice if the fees could be higher for poorly played covers. We'll just need to wait until there are affordable digital musical quality meters (MQMs) on the market.