Are "covers" at open mics being squeezed out?

[chomper76]

Originally Posted by Analog Kid

All I know is that I want artists to get paid for their work. So as such I am a firm believer in any public venue benefiting from people playing music paying the appropriate fee. While the system may be completely skewed in favour of major artists that is no reason for just doing away with it. Surely we should be happy to pay but campaign for a more equitable share of royalties recoverd.

Do you think ASCAP should have gone after Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts for campfire sing alongs? Or trying to claim public performance royalties for ringtones going off? Or going after Amazon and iTunes for 30-second song previews prior to purchase?

I don't have a problem with paying for songs, I just have a problem with their tactics.

[grachi]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

But the venue clearly sees a financial advantage to having the open mic night, right? That's why the VENUE pays the license fee. Nobody comes after the individual musicians in these open-mic cases. They come after the venue.

Which, you know, is a business. Most places that run open mics do so because it brings people in the door.

It's important get the facts straight before you go off on a rant.

Not really, no. In the city I live in, there are typically LESS people in there during open mics then any other day of the week, and its not just because they happen to host the open-mic on a weekday. You could go on a tuesday or thursday and there would be more people. So your first statement doesn't hold up, or is too much of blanket statement. I have been to several open mics in my area and they are all this way. Hardly do they produce more buisness. If anything its just business as usual, and it just happens to be open mic night that night.

Hardly a rant, I just disagree that the player or the venue stands to make any substantial amount of money from some dude going up there to butcher "all along the watchtower" .

So, again, its ridiculous.

[MODELL]

Originally Posted by buzzardwhiskey

You can play it for yourself. But teaching and/or performing for money is a big no-no without tithing ASCAP/BMI.

I wonder where the enforcement is for a coffee house/small venue playing their own purchased CD's over their sound systems. Starbucks has CD's playing all the time that they actually sell in their stores. Does this also apply to the small sole proprietor coffee shop playing music from his or her own collection and the establishment?

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by Thorby Bislam

How about because libraries buy the books they put on their shelves. Which means that the publishing companies make money. Which in turn means that they can pay the author money to wite his/her next book.

Also, they lend the book out without charge. They are not making a copy of the book and selling it. That would be a breach of copyright. Also, you take the book back once you've read it. You can't unhear a song once it's been played.

You pay for it every year with your taxes.

[chomper76]

Originally Posted by MODELL

I wonder where the enforcement is for a coffee house/small venue playing their own purchased CD's over their sound systems. Starbucks has CD's playing all the time that they actually sell in their stores. Does this also apply to the small sole proprietor coffee shop playing music from his or her own collection and the establishment?

Yes, they have to pay a licensing fee for CDs or other digital media. Federal law exempts restaurants under 3750 square feet if they are playing radio broadcasts or television broadcasts unaltered.

[sfden1]

Originally Posted by MICHAEL MYERS

Is that really so bad?

If you buy the official concert video, should you have to ask for permission before showing it to friends (including real friends and/or 2700 fake Facebook friends) and family?

If you buy the concert video, you own that copy. As I understand it, you can certainly show it to friends. Showing it to 2700 fake friends on facebook though is not the same thing. Do you not see that as stealing from the copyright owner? I do. Nice try at misdirection though.

Before these new rules and regulations came into place, how many times did you personally contact the bands/artists (to ask where to send the funds) before covering one of their songs as part of a paid performance?

I'm not certain these rules are "new" so much as ASCAP/BMI increasing enforcement, perhaps you know. In any case, the answer to your question is never, since I don't play for pay. If I did though, I would expect the places I played at to pay the licensing fees if I did cover tunes. Again, nice try at misdirection.

[chomper76]

Oh and it also applies to business and government playing overhead music or elevator music.

[LouieAtienza]

Originally Posted by grachi

Not really, no. In the city I live in, there are typically LESS people in there during open mics then any other day of the week, and its not just because they happen to host the open-mic on a weekday. You could go on a tuesday or thursday and there would be more people. So your first statement doesn't hold up, or is too much of blanket statement. I have been to several open mics in my area and they are all this way. Hardly do they produce more buisness. If anything its just business as usual, and it just happens to be open mic night that night.

Hardly a rant, I just disagree that the player or the venue stands to make any substantial amount of money from some dude going up there to butcher "all along the watchtower" .

So, again, its ridiculous.

If this is the case, then why? It's not because of ASCAP/BMI/SESAC, is it? If there was a market for open mic on those particular days, or the public was attracted to the performers, then there wouldn't be a problem with attendance. Something's amiss here.

So if a venue holds open mic on an off-peak noght and sees no ROI, whose fault is that?

[frankmcr]

Originally Posted by LouieAtienza

So if a venue holds open mic on an off-peak noght and sees no ROI, whose fault is that?

The dude going up there to butcher All Along the Watchtower?

I've seen very good performers at open mike sessions, but ... they're not the majority.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

Originally Posted by grachi

I have been to several open mics in my area and they are all this way. Hardly do they produce more buisness. If anything its just business as usual, and it just happens to be open mic night that night.

Hardly a rant, I just disagree that the player or the venue stands to make any substantial amount of money from some dude going up there to butcher "all along the watchtower" .

So, again, its ridiculous.

Good points, agreed.

[MICHAEL MYERS]

Originally Posted by sfden1

If you buy the concert video, you own that copy. As I understand it, you can certainly show it to friends. Showing it to 2700 fake friends on facebook though is not the same thing. Do you not see that as stealing from the copyright owner? I do. Nice try at misdirection though.

No misdirection intended.
I don't do Facebook or buy concert videos, but I don't see the difference between showing a video to the couple next door and inviting a large Facebook "friend" gathering round for a viewing on a giant projector screen. Surely ASCAP should just be done with it and make it illegal to show anyone anything ever again.

Originally Posted by sfden1

I'm not certain these rules are "new" so much as ASCAP/BMI increasing enforcement, perhaps you know. In any case, the answer to your question is never, since I don't play for pay. If I did though, I would expect the places I played at to pay the licensing fees if I did cover tunes. Again, nice try at misdirection.

Again, no misdirection intended. I wouldn't expect them to pay or do anything, I'd leave that to the enforcers of the rules - I couldn't care less. Laws are created by mortals not gods (or flying spaghetti monsters).

[MWB5007]

Well, it may be fine with you if other people play your music, and venues showcase it, without feeling the need to compensate you in anyway. Or perhaps you feel that showcasing it for you for free is the ideal business model for you.

In the event that you are the sole owner of the intellectual property rights, I am not aware of any requirement that you join an association or organization that exists to protect those rights - nor are your required to hire one to enforce, to survey or to collect fees in your name.

But much of this discussion is centered around artists who DO belong to such organizations and who have an expressed interest in the protection of their rights under the law - however misguided or self defeating you might think it to be for them to do so.

I can tell you, without arguing the merits (or fairness) of specific fees, overhead charged, efficacy of services rendered, methods of collection or methodologies of distribution, that these companies offer a service to establishments who DO profit from the showcasing of music and ARE willing to recognize intellectual property.

I am merely pointing out that "risk management" and the assessment of liabilities which might arise out of civil litigation without a predictable precedent for "exposure" might cause the prudent developing business to forego entertainment altogether since it would be too difficult to know at what point you were exposed under the law. The existence of ASCAP, BMI (etc.) and their licenses offer protection from "unknown" exposure and show "good faith" as a practice. By that I mean that for a knowable fee the owner of an establishment shields himself (at least to a considerable extent) from potential liability which might arise from the use of protected material.

In short, if you don't want to worry that Bob Dylan might arbitrarily decide to sue you because someone covering, "All Along the Watchtower" just butchers it over where you pipe it in from the lounge to one of the elevators in your hotel ........ what you do is get yourself an ASCAP and a BMI license (just like you bought insurance in case of a fire) or licensed music provider, and you say, "Sorry Bob, I recognized your rights under the law and now you gotta do the same for me.".... and all at a known (and some would argue affordable) cost.

There are admittedly some local pizza and beer places that are going to take their chances against a muscular ACAP and the outcome may yield somewhat senseless, even incomprehensible results. But by and large these organizations do not exist to shake down your local icehouse down by the river that hosts an open mic on Sunday nights. (Although I won't argue it can be enforced this way). They actually exist to offer protection to the businesses themselves for what amounts to the fairly universal use of "music" in enterprise applications - without this protection many large and mid-sized businesses would simply go without music, live or otherwise, the first time an artist won a major civil award. I don't see how that would better serve the interests of those who love or perform it.

[Hotspur]

Originally Posted by grachi

Not really, no. In the city I live in, there are typically LESS people in there during open mics then any other day of the week, and its not just because they happen to host the open-mic on a weekday. You could go on a tuesday or thursday and there would be more people.

I find this statement implausible. Quite simply, why does the business do it, then?

I honestly find this claim akin to the claim, frequently made on the internet, that pirating music results in people buying more music. I've traded posts with dozens of people who make that claim for every one who admits that they just prefer not to pay for it - and yet music sales have fallen through the floor.

In any event, what i said earlier applies:

If you're getting an audience, it should be a trivial matter to cover a license with a tip jar. The people showing up are getting a couple of hours of entertainment - are you really saying that's not worth $2 each to them?

If you're not getting an audience, then I don't see why the performers should feel entitled to perform for free, and asking them to provide a $2 stage fee to cover the license and maybe throw a few bucks at the sound guy is hardly an injustice. In that case the performer is CLEARLY getting some value out of being onstage, but since nobody else is, they should be willing to cover the (trivial) cost themselves.

And if you don't have an audience willing to tip, and you're not willing to pay a couple of bucks (remember: you need to make $13 a night to cover the license!) then I have zero sympathy for you. Your audience doesn't value the experience. You don't value the experience. Go play at home.

[grachi]

I see your point Hotspur, it is the quintessential opposite of mine, and that is fine and I think you state it quite nicely. So that said, watch what happens if this becomes a regular "thing" (more specifically, a law, or something that is at least enforced more commonly eg the story about San Fransisco). I don't think you will see many people out playing in general, or people going to see people enjoy their hobby. Or actually, more accurately I should say, they will simply just wonder what happened to open mics, but not care much since most the audience is there for the booze anyway and not the music. But anyway, it is a shame. Sure I could be wrong, but I guess we will wait and see. The proof is always in the pudding right? Don't know how the car will drive until you actually drive it... All that sort of thing.

[ombudsman]

Why is it taken for granted that bar owners can't be expected to just pay this bill, along with their other costs of doing business ? Whether there is an open mic night is a tangent to the point here; if the bar has any music, canned or live, which is protected by a performing rights organization (that would include someone as local and obscure as me) they are liable to pay for it.

Open mic nights are not a sacred part of our culture, but if you think they are important, why would it be unreasonable for bars that host them and make money off of them to just pay what they owe ? When did that somehow become an unfair burden ? Why should it be presumed that all songwriters - who, as a class, already make a lot less money than bar owners - should be happy to work for free instead ?