So sad, open mics in my small town shut down by ASCAP licensing

[Doubleneck]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

Yes, they are. The money collected by the royalty agencies from those venues, and there are thousands of them, goes into the royalty companies budget, which is then used to pay to the artists of that particular organization. Of course nobody from say, BMI is sitting at each venue keeping track of which song is played. That would be ridiculous.

Your other concern is the size of the venue. There's an old saying... that one snowflake can't possibly be responsible for an avalanche. Think about it.

How is the revenue spilt among the artists?

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

Toby if you heard the "artists" at this open mic I don't think you would be concerned about these guys costing any professional their job. Most of the night was truely painful! Lol

That's not the point. What I'm saying is that if the open mic is on say, a Thursday night when business is booming, there's are reasons that patrons are there in the first place, one of which is the musical atmosphere. I've seen some very crowded open mics where most of the patrons were the performers, who were also ordering food and drinks off the menu. And sometimes they would bring their friends and families. The quality of the music has absolutely nothing to do with the money being made.

But this is a tad off topic of royalty licensing.

[LSemmens]

To me it does sound a bit like "the Mafia" just stnading over the little guy. However I also believe that the "author" should get credit for his work. Copyright and patent (although patents are a little more complex) law just establishes ownership. From there, it is up to the owner to defend their material. In Copyright law, which varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are "Fair Use" provisions. It would be incumbent upon the small venues to petition the "powers that be" to vary the law to allow for "Fair Use" of copyright materials in their premises.

My suggestion being that an Open Mic where the venue does not charge an admission fee and the performer does not get a direct reward for performing (i.e. is not paid) said materials should be covered under this provision.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

How is the revenue spilt among the artists?

It's not in that detail, which I said earlier. The money goes into the general fund of the royalty company, who has their own method of breaking down the payments.

I personally receive X amount, twice a year from BMI. In my case, it is from music that is being played on the radio, television and even on the airlines, all of whom also pay royalties.

As soon as money is being changed hands, regardless of where that occurs, compensation to the artists that hold copyrights to the music is lawfully required. Your open mic has been moved, locally, to a place where there is no profit, and thus the situation is understandably different. I'm not sure why you are so sad, as all that you need to do is drive over to that other location in order to play your music.

[Doubleneck]

Originally Posted by bitraker

then you'd have to follow the money, which is a different topic

Not really, unfortunately it seems all about the money. It can all seem very noble till someone does an accounting.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

Not really, unfortunately it seems all about the money. It can all seem very noble till someone does an accounting.

Of course it is. What is so wrong about artists being compensated for their copyrighted works? How is that not noble?

[ericduplantis]

I get it and I understand how it works but I will say this. You can bet that everyone of the artist now protected under the rules have performed someone else's music in a public venue. Maybe not the songwriters but the artist have.

[The Bard Rocks]

They are not "quick" to sue. Suit is filed only after extensive efforts are made to have the venue comply. Numerous letters and phone calls. In order to file suit, the licensing company pays someone to go to the club for an evening and write down every song played. The licensing agency then determines how many of the songs are covered under their agency and if none, then suit is not filed. Of course it's rare that none are played.

As I recall, their first letter mentioned a lawsuit, and they got nastier with each succeeding one. But they did wait a few months and did not sue. But we paid them. This is for a free venue, located outdoors.

[Doubleneck]

Originally Posted by Toby Walker

It's not in that detail, which I said earlier. The money goes into the general fund of the royalty company, who has their own method of breaking down the payments.

I personally receive X amount, twice a year from BMI. In my case, it is from music that is being played on the radio, television and even on the airlines, all of whom also pay royalties.

As soon as money is being changed hands, regardless of where that occurs, compensation to the artists that hold copyrights to the music is lawfully required. Your open mic has been moved, locally, to a place where there is no profit, and thus the situation is understandably different. I'm not sure why you are so sad, as all that you need to do is drive over to that other location in order to play your music.

So you receive a payment that is made by a method no one seems to know and is controlled by the organization. You then receive compensation probably for music that you didn't compose or play. And this is suppose to make me feel better?

[ewalling]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

Composers are entitled to compensation if you play their songs at a public venue. That's the law.

There's a huge difference, surely, between a guy playing a few old favorites on a guitar to a small crowd and a huge company appropriating someone else's music before a mass audience to boost its profits. Is the Bob Dylan foundation really being financially raped if some guy at an open mic whacks out Blowin in the Wind for a small group of people to sing along to and enjoy? Isn't there a lack of common sense in such tight-reared application of "the law"?

[Bosko]

ASCAP attracted media attention in 1996 when it threatened Girl Scouts of the USA and Boy Scouts of America camps that sang ASCAP's copyrighted works at camps with lawsuits for not paying licensing fees.These threats were later retracted.[33] However, it has drawn negative attention for cracking down on licensing fees on other occasions as well, such as when it demanded that open mic events need to pay licensing (even if most or all of the songs are original).

ASCAP has also been criticized for its extremely non-transparent operations, including the refusal to release attendance records for board members, the notes from board meetings, and the reasoning behind their weighting formulas which determine how much money a song or composition earns for use on television or radio.

In 2009, an ASCAP rate court case regarding ringtones generated considerable public attention. Critics claimed that ASCAP may seek to hold consumers responsible for a ringtone public performance. In statements to the press, ASCAP noted the following:

It is seeking to ensure that wireless carriers pay ASCAP members a share of the substantial revenue that mobile operators derive from content (like ringtones) that uses ASCAP members' music. This content includes the delivery of full track songs, music videos, television content, ringtones and ringback tones.
It has been licensing wireless carriers and ringtone content providers since 2001, and that it is not in any way seeking to charge consumers.
It is striving to license those that make a business of transmitting its members' music. This holds true for any medium where businesses have been built by using this music as content or a service – whether terrestrial broadcast, satellite, cable, Internet or wireless carriers providing audio and video content.

On October 14, 2009, a federal court ruled that "when a ringtone plays on a cellular telephone, even when that occurs in public, the user is exempt from copyright liability, and [the cellular carrier] is not liable either secondarily or directly." The ruling made clear that playing music in public, when done without any commercial purpose, does not infringe copyright. (US v. ASCAP, US District Court, Southern District of New York).

Further controversies arose involving ASCAP in 2009 and 2010. The organization requested that some websites pay licensing fees on embedded YouTube videos, even though YouTube already pays licensing fees,[39] and demanded payment from Amazon.com and iTunes for 30-second streaming previews of music tracks,[40] which traditionally does not require a license, being considered a promotional vehicle for song sales. It also sued a Manhattan bar over the unlicensed use of music, naming Bruce Springsteen as a plaintiff without Springsteen being informed or consenting.

In 2009, Mike Masnik, the founder and CEO of Floor64, accused ASCAP of keeping some royalties instead of passing them on to artists. He claimed ASCAP collects royalties from all sizes of live performance on behalf of all the artists it represents but passes on the royalties only to artists whose music is represented in one of "the top 200 grossing US tours of the year."

In June 2010, ASCAP sent letters to its members soliciting donations to fight entities that support weaker copyright restrictions, such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Creative Commons, creating notable controversy as many argued that these licences are a form of copyright and offer the artist an extra choice. Lawrence Lessig, a co-founder of Creative Commons, responded stating that they are not aiming to undermine copyright, and invited ASCAP for a public debate. The offer was turned down by ASCAP's Paul Williams.

[The Bard Rocks]

BMI is threatening court action against a friend who hosts 7 - 8 house concerts a year, and their rep is getting very nasty about it. Attendance is by invitation only. The artists get every penny collected as well as lodging and food. Very rare for a cover to be played as anyone knows that attends house concerts.

I sponsor house concerts, 4 a year, and we request mostly traditional material from the artists. Some of course want to play covers or their own creations. You can't stop them, nor would I want to. I have been told 2 things:

1) If those who attend are guests, there by invitation, then they would have no standing to sue me. So in my "advertising", which relies heavily upon my email list, I do not give my address. They have to ask for that and make contact, upon which they can get an invitation.

2) As a member of a house concert organization which in turn is a member of the Folk Alliance, I am supposedly covered by whatever the Folk Alliance has worked out with the PROs.

Still I dread that letter and having to defend myself. 100% of the take goes to the performers, plus they get well fed and a clean room for lodging. I do the work for free and provide the space because I want to promote their music.

[Toby Walker]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

So you receive a payment that is made by a method no one seems to know and is controlled by the organization. You then receive compensation probably for music that you didn't compose or play. And this is suppose to make me feel better?

I'm sorry if you misunderstood what I said. I receive payments from BMI, for music that I have written and own the copyright to, as well as the publishing rights. BMI, as well as ASCAP, collects money from a variety of sources which is used to pay their artists, as well as I'm sure operating fees. They are after all, a business. I never said that I receive money for music that I didn't compose or play.

I agree that I am not privy to the methodology that BMI uses to determine the exact payment breakdown, but I'm sure that if I called them they would easily send me that information, as it is a matter of record.

I'm also sure that none of this will make you feel better about not being able to play at that coffee house. But, as you said yourself, you're quite able to drive locally to another location which is non-profit and play there. That seems to be quite fair and doable.

[Toby Walker]

I'm quite sure that if this discussion was being held at a conference being attended by professional songwriters, who are being compensated in part for their works by the royalty collecting organizations, it would be have a completely different tone to it.

One major complaint which I've heard is that the artists do not get compensated enough, or sometimes not at all.

There is another side to this discussion folks.

[Rmz76]

Originally Posted by Doubleneck

How is the revenue spilt among the artists?

This is where the controversy comes in. The open mic venue pays a "blanket license" and does not provide a played songs list to ASCAP, BMI, etc...

https://www.ascap.com/help/ascap-lic...s-music-venues

4) ASCAP Licensing Fees Are Flexible and Affordable
We work hard to make sure any business seeking a music license is able to get one at a reasonable rate. Most of ASCAP’s licensees take out “blanket licenses,” meaning that licensed venues pay an annual flat fee without having to take on the time-intensive process of tracking and reporting on every song played. There are more than 100 different types of ASCAP licenses, and we’ve always adapted our licensing to reflect new ways that businesses are using music. Smaller operations may pay as little as a dollar or two a day.


Here's an article explaining how their payout system on blanket licensing works and the controversy behind it.

ASCAP & BMI -- Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?

I agree artist should get paid when their work is performed in public, even it's a hack job of a cover, but I don't think some artist should get paid while other artist whos songs get performed not get paid.