They wouldn't have a dime left! And how much did they sue the republican party for for using their music? Oh? They didn't? Hmm? Does BMI stand for "big mother****ing idiots"? I'd say so.

It copyrights half of the published music in the world here in the US. How do you expect people who write music to live without being paid???? Do you think artist should just give their art away???

Anyone who plays music in a retail venue has to pay a licensing fee to BMI and ASCAP or writers don't make any money for their music.

"How do you expect people who write music to live without being paid???? Do you think artist should just give their art away??? "



You mean like it's been done for thousands of years? Those poor, poor musicians can't make their quota million this year. How are they going to live?

And copyright fees are the only payments a song writer gets. Only a real jerk would take the position that an artist doesn't deserve to be payed for his work. How many song writers do you actually believe make millions of dollars? How many reggae, jazz and folk musicians would you like to screw out of a living so that some bar owner can scam out of licensing fees???

Maybe you should tell your employer not to pay you anymore. Apparently, you don't believe in pay for work.

To make long story short, I believe in compensation, I just don't believe in corporations and lawyers taking advantage of every angle of every business, squeezing every drop of blood from where ever the money could possibly lite and have no artistic inclination or personal investment whatsoever. It's just the "find where the money is" game and it's ruining America, the arts, human creativity.. you name it.

It's a problem bigger than you.

Not that it really matters, but I was an international musician and recording artist for years. I also made seven marketed recordings, two of which were my own creations. I know the way it works and it's a problem bigger than me as well.

for profit business and not pay them for it. Possibly you don't make your living on your music. Anyone can make a recording these days. But people deserve to be paid if they create something and it is used in a money making enterprise. Maybe this bar should not play or use any copyrighted music. If you can afford to do this work for free then I suggest you donate the proceeds to charity.

Companies like BMI, ASCAP, PRS etc sign contracts with their song writers. They are living up to their contracts by collecting licensing fees.

What I don't get is... this money isn't going to a bunch of lawyers. It's going to song writers and their publishing companies. This is how they get paid. If people paid their fees you don't need lawyers to sue them.

It does go to lawyers though. They are the ones who make up these contracts and advise the corporations. Their aim is to make a buck on song writers just as much as the corporations themselves.

If you are making your living selling your music I don't blame you for wanting to make your living out of it. You have to follow your instincts and needs. If it is necessary for survival and pursuit of happiness, then you have to do what you have to do. My point is that these corporations know this is the case for many and take advantage of it. They also know they can make a lot of money on the art of the ultra successful by pushing the small business owner into paying exorbitant fees that sometimes represents an unreasonable percentage of their income. And sometimes they push fees where there isn't even evidence of use, with threat of a lawsuit.

You said, "Maybe this bar should not play or use any copyrighted music." On the small scale, it's advertising for the artist and the music, not the other way around. I think the bar should be paid actually. The small time musician may at times play copyrighted songs but it's a tiny pleasure, a tiny human artistic expression that is destroyed by business threats to bar owners and others for the benefit of those who wield financial power, not to you or me the writers, artists or performers. No wonder the 99%ers are pissed at the incongruous nature of humanity.

If you have to play that game, OK. I choose not to. I'm an idealist I guess, not a pragmatist.

They used to have some pretty nice folk music jam sessions in Bangor -- then they were hit with threats of lawsuits, even though 99 % of the music being played was traditional tunes a hundred years old.

the BMI guy came in.

It really is a shakedown operation. The guy looked over the place and threw out a number.

The owner said "We only book live acts that play their own material."

BMI guy said "We have spies EVERYWHERE. If you don't pay and anyone turns on a radio, one of my guys will report back and we'll sue for 100x what we're asking. And we ALWAYS win."

Owner tried to balk, but later just paid up.

For that is what they do. But instead of busting your knee caps, they bust your bank account and your business.

some outfit called "Congress" get their piece of the action.

If you want to play music in a place that make money you have to pay. It isn't a profit making enterprise and without them many folk and jazz artists wouldn't see a penny for their life's work.

for their friends in their homes and then Mozart's business manager suing the musicians. Do you think we would be listening to much Mozart today if his live audiences had been so restricted in singing his tunes without paying royalties?

I have great sympathy for the musicians who write the music, but they need to have some sympathy for their fans who want to play and sing it.

How popular do you think well known songs like "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" or "Moon River" or "Take Five" or "Summertime" or "The Man I Love" or "Evita" or "Yesterday," and on and on would be if they were not performed in public places including bars by live musicians who did not write them.

True, composers deserve to make a little money from their compositions. But also true that performers deserve to make a little money when they sing or perform in small venues.

BMI means well, but, in the long run, it could well kill the business of performing its artists' music in clubs. I think it has more to lose from its fanatical enforcement of its copyrights than it can gain.

Jazz would not exist if the original composers of songs enforced their copyrights against the performers. It's a concept gone wild in my opinion. I understand why they want to sue for what they think are their losses, but it isn't a good idea.

Performers will just hold private parties, collect donations in the form of tips, and BMI won't know about it.

Jazz would not exist with enforced copyrights????? How do you expect composers to exist??? On air? Maybe they should dig ditches for a living and write songs for free.

Maybe it wouldn't seem like a "concept gone wild" if it was your music people were stealing.

And, by the way, many performers also write their songs and would like to get paid for the writing side of their business. Not everyone make millions in the music business. The money from BMI and ASCAP make it possible for song writers to continue to practice their trade. The work belongs to them. How would you like it if I stole your paycheck???? I mean....everyone should benefit from your work...right???

If you are making money off of a venue then you should pay your licensing fees. You didn't make the music you are playing.

musicians is extreme.

Composers make money when records are sold and when their music is played in a large venue by professionals. They shouldn't scour the countryside looking to take a cut from the hours and hours of work that amateurs do to finally get a chance to play in a small club.

And then I think of music teachers. (I was one once.) Should a music teacher pay the composers of the music their students play at recitals and in school functions? Puuhleeze.

This is absurd. Music is to share.

A lot of composers of modern music are lucky to get someone to play their music at all. Much of it won't stand the test of time. It is trash. And that includes some of the most popular music.

I think that composers have more to gain from having their songs heard and interpreted than from squeezing amateurs for a share of what they earn for the bar that lets them play their music.

I have a feeling that the best composers are not even heard of today thanks to businesses and managers that pick and choose based on what will sell to teenagers and not based on much else.

It may not be a profit making enterprise, but they seem to have a lot of money to harass people.
Why is happy Birthday still copyrighted?

As people say, karaoke or open mic nights are as much an advert for music as the bar benefiting from it. It seems a way to kill music, in the long run.

Which I guess is a plus for the established acts that BMI represents.

Twofer....

the music discs and the person who purchased the discs.

but now you're expected to pay, in addition to that, a fee *EACH TIME YOU PLAY THE MUSIC YOU ALREADY BOUGHT*.

same thing applies to cafes who buy CDs for background music. they must now pay TO PLAY THE CD'S THEY SUPPOSEDLY 'OWN'.

The capitalists want to tax us for every action we do that involves their products. which is most actions.

The fees charged bars and resturants are astronomical. Friends of mine own a small pub, that has live music 3 nights a week. The designated capacity is 85...lord knows where that figure comes from because theres barely room for 50. The stage area takes up about 20% of the customer section of the interior. Anyway, they pay about $5000/ yr to ASCAP, about $2000/ yr to BMI, and about $1000/yr to SESAC. Thats 8 freaking grand a year...more than the bands make, more than the owners make (they're breaking even at best). Its an economic model thats collapsing. The licensing companies are killing the goose laying their golden eggs.

n/t

...which is affiliated with Broadcast Music Inc - BMI.

When I release new music, I enter each song title into the BMI registry, and BMI potentially pays royalties based on a variety of scenarios where it may be played - such as terrestrial radio and/or internet airplay, other artists' use of the work, as well as live music venues which allow artists to perform covers of others' works registered to the BMI database. Other Performance Rights Organizations, such as ASCAP and SESAC, provide the same types of services to their affiliated songwriters and publishing companies.

BMI and the others provide a necessary service for indie artists such as myself if we have any hope of bringing our work to a national or global market, and have some protections on our work, in the process.

While I certainly do not condone "shakedowns" or "racketeering" by PROs, I have performed live, mostly in California, doing mostly original music (we've been known to throw in a cover or two on occasion), in venues which include cover and tribute bands, since 1978. I've only rarely heard - maybe twice - of a club being harassed by BMI or any other PRO. However, a successful club/venue should be able to afford the legitimate fees associated with allowing the use of PRO registered works of music as a part of generating their revenue and, hopefully, some profit.

Also, do not confuse BMI/PROs with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), they have different agendas. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the way RIAA goes after individuals over "illegal downloading" aka file sharing, and the truth is, the Big Corporate Record Labels were about twenty years too late in seeing the direction in which music would be stored and distributed, as they clung to their traditional system of "hard copy" music distribution until it had to pried out of their almost dead hands.

That's my 2 cents.

charge a fee for music that brings in Guests and makes the bar money. And that fee gets distributed to artists.

Many people on the DU think copying a MP3 or CD and giving to a friend is 100% ok.

People basically want to steal. Get stuff for free. And music is easy to steal without getting caught.

However, it seems that those artists make oodles of money from record sales, concerts and radio. I think once they have been paid for those venues, if some struggling band wants to sing their songs in a saloon, it should be a line that isn't crossed.

...The Rolling Stones make little from record sales, they make most of their income from touring and merchandising. They may also generate income from licensing and publishing deals, for tv/movie soundtracks, commercials, and the like.

"Saloons" which offer licensed music as a draw to make revenue and profits should be able to afford the standard licensing fees if they are being properly run and managed.

lease from another company who also pay the license? How about the starving musician who plays for tips or some compensation from the owners in order to get access to a stage and equipment. Should they be penalized because they played a song written half a century ago? No this licensing thing is making the record companies rich not the musician. How can they determine the number of times a musician's song is played in any one place of business? It's a scam at that level, IMHO.

btw. My boss got a satellite dish and promoted an all sports venue. Monday night football parties, dart, pool and air hockey tournaments, all kinds of sports on the TV all the time. There was never any music in the place again other than what they played during the games. Those beginning musicians that got a start in his place had no place to go but out in the streets because of this.

In regards to this thread the handful of artist they are suing to defend are all at the Beyonce Bieber level so your argument strikes me as just a little misplaced.

my photo or my graphic art.

When someone buys the book or magazine you get paid for it. The person in the doctors office going through the magazine doesn't have to pay for it and by that time after it's been filtered through all those levels of payment shouldn't have to.

off the talents of the person who wrote the music.

Hell they can sing all their original songs they want, and pay no one.

Wow, liberals sometimes hurt themselves with the logic you are using.

When I buy music, I pay the writer, the artist and everyone else involved. When I go to the gym or to a bar and there is music on in the background, I am subjected often to music I don't want to listen to. Why am I paying for this? I know it's included in the price of the stuff I do want. Also, the artists and all involved have already been paid, and once it reaches this street level where everyone is subjected to it whether they want to listen or not, it's time to stop paying.

but the damn graphic artist still got paid. Same with TV commercials.

Look up the word 'royalties' and see how many different items it applies to.

Hell, why should an artist be paid ONCE and then it becomes public domain? You feel the same way about books? Once it has been out a while anyone should be able to publish it again for free?

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I do feel the same way about books. Otherwise we wouldn't have libraries. Once the book is paid for, it doesn't matter how many people read it until it falls apart. That goes for the graphic art on the cover too. What if you had to pay for it every time you looked at it? If you are a reporter for a newspaper? Do you think you are going to be paid over and over again when people pick up your story and send it to friends? When a restaurant get's a write up in a newspaper or mag and they put it up in the foyer for everyone to see. Should every customer who wants to read it have to pay?

music, live, and the person who wrote it gets nothing.

You can buy used CDs also. Go for it. And paintings on the wall are free to look at. But you want someone to be able to paint the same picture and them SELL it. Wow, Brilliant!

And your newspaper article example is maybe the silliest thing I have ever read.

Done with you, your knowledge of how commerce works amazes me.

I've been done arguing with laissez fair capitalists like you. I do know how commerce works and as a socialist I don't like how it works.

this course. This is the model they want to impose on the world, write once, collect forever, and all under the control of three corporations. What they don't see is that it will kill the source.

Back when Napster was new, there was a record executive that made this observation, (paraphrasing due to imperfect memory) "This attack on Napster is the stupidest thing I've ever seen this industry do, we had 70,000 people in the same place at the same time wanting the same thing, and instead of embracing and leveraging this opportunity, we've made them enemies, fragmented the audience, and forced it underground. This is going to kill our industry and we deserve it."

...as to how artists are paid for their original music. You have demonstrated that repeatedly throughout this thread.

When a new CD of original music, particularly by an independent artist such as myself, is published, the artist DOES NOT automatically get paid some crazy amount of money by simply registering their compositions with a Performing Rights Organization such as BMI, releasing their CD and setting up a digital download store on Amazon and iTunes.

The artist must promote the shit outta their music, play live, and look for other revenue stream opportunities such as licensing to video games, movies and tv, in order to even hope to make anything back on what's been invested in creating the finished recordings.

I have tens of thousands of dollars into acoustic and electronic drums and percussion instruments, recording equipment and supplies, rental on rehearsal spaces, etc, so, just as I must pay dearly to compose, arrange, play and record our original music, so should venues that use our and other artists' work.

that you aren't getting a whole lot out of it. This is why I don't understand why you are defending their practices. I'm not against organizations that protect artists, it's just that those organizations are parasites who keep most of the money they shake down retail businesses for. Sure they cut you a check now and then to keep you quiet but the lions share isn't going to the artist.

...and the amount of those checks is proportional to my penetration of the Global Music Market, it seems to me. Yeah, if I was Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga, I'd get significantly larger checks, I realize that.

I defend BMI because I have a catalog of music I have published over the last 30+ years, registered through BMI, so I rely on them to keep track of stuff it would otherwise be impossible for me to do on my own.

The anecdotal accounts of obviously out of line shakedowns over music in the Public Domain is not what BMI is about, or does, to my knowledge. A link to a verifiable account of such racketeering would be helpful. The link in the OP led to a story about venues unwilling to pay what amounts to standard, reasonable fees to BMI for legitimate music licensing, not to dubious accounts of literal shakedowns of clubs, and even musicians, for performing music in the Public Domain.

What would you have me do if I did not have BMI, or ASCAP, or any of the other PROs, to protect my own music from exploitation by greedy bar owners or others who don't want to pay a measly $7.12 a day to provide quality entertainment as a draw to their venue?

I asked this question in an earlier post of mine, and nobody has offered a viable option to a PRO.

money they are making and the artists are not getting it. Once it gets past stuff you can count like CDs sold and plays on the radio, there is no way to keep track so it's just extortion IMHO.

...from the BMI registry, and just hope for the best?

I have yet to see a reasonable alternative suggested to me in place of my affiliation with BMI.

Gotta go out now for a while.

Maybe by the time I get back, somebody will point me to a reasonable alternative to BMI.

run country, the big guys own everything and take most of the profits. However, you should be aware of what they are doing and how they skim money legally from other businesses who don't really have a direct input in the music industry.

The thing is that people who are being extorted will find another way to make money like my boss did and I think shutting music out of a public place that has already been paid for several times over, does not help the artists at all. My boss went on to do fine with his sports venue. I never heard from the musicians again, except one band who got other jobs and met in basement once a week to practice. They never got another gig.

with his out-of-tune guitar at the local coffeeshop?

because that's who they're shaking down.

Inc.) often called the “Coke and Pepsi” of performing rights organizations, will both tell you it is irrational not to join one of their organizations. They collect the bulk of all the performance royalties in the US, and will assure you that you cannot get your share unless you are a member.
ASCAP, BMI or SESAC?

In their pitch they will make it sound as if your music is already out there earning money and the PRO is just holding it for you, like a bank, waiting for your application. But the truth is that unless you write a hit song, or a soundtrack for a TV show like The Simpsons you are unlikely to see any significant royalties, even if you are a member.

In fact, it’s entirely possible that after you commit to a PRO, your song(s) could be earning money for them, but the PRO is paying you nothing in return. (See Part III about the pooling system for more on that...)

http://www.mosesavalon.com/why-you-should-wait-to-join-ascap-bmi-sesac/

...so, please direct me to an alternative PRO for re-registering my catalog of music which I have had with BMI since 1982.

One that will track it and pay me at least something, like what I get now, if not more than that.

Or, should I withdraw my catalog from BMI and just wing it?

In any case, owning the copyrights and publishing, as I do, also gives me the ability to do whatever I want with my titles, so the revenue from BMI is not necessarily the only thing going on.

Also, thanks for the link to the guy selling a book with his advice on the music biz.

"And if a venue doesn’t pay BMI licensing fees, it’s not even allowed to let Padfield play her own songs as she’s protected by the company."

http://www.fosters.com/article/20150412/NEWS/150419894

...but, having said that, I have never not been able to play my own BMI registered music live, in any venue I've ever played in, since 1980.

So, not a big issue for me.

[img][/img]



[img][/img]

The royalties go the the songwriters who have music played on commercial radio, because very little sampling is done for college or community radio, and none at venues. I never hear Lady Gaga or Justin Beiber covered at an open mic. Its usually Leonard Cohen, Ani DiFranco or other such artists. The licensing fees the bar pays goes towards the big stars (after ASCAP takes their 95%), not to the songwriters whose songs are ACTUALLY BEING COVERED! How fair is that?

I've been a lead guitarist for an all original band now for the last ten years. The money we have invested to put out our "product" is astounding. When I think back on all of the money we have spent on tours, recording engineers, studio time, and equipment, we are in the red. Never been able to quit my day-job, that's for sure. You're either in it because you love music, or crazy...

all they get is exposure.

i think you meant paid not played?

too?

No sampling is done at bars and resturants. BMI/ASCAP has no idea whose song was played. They just send a check to Beyonce, after taking their 95% cut. The usual place I hang out, there are no covers of pop music...yet the money they pay in licensing fees (about $8000/yr) goes to writers of pop music. How is that fair?

And a band can't play their original music...not if they have registered it, and the venue hasn't paid a licensing fee. Which is why I've been urging local songwriters to register with US Copyright office...so they can play their music whereever they want.

...artists here at DU is a reflection of that attitude, IMO. One of the worst marketing decisions I made was to run a banner ad here at DU, I had virtually zero response from DUers.

In any case, we often make our music available for free, just to promote it.

Unfortunately, I'm in no position to buy ads in Billboard Magazine, or actual billboards on Sunset Blvd hyping our latest release, so it's no-or-low budget options, including CD giveaways. I once advertised on Mike Malloy's radio show, and gave the first 150 people to join our mailing list a fee CD.

These days, social networking is the most affordable way to promote.

I hope to get the band out of the studio and into some clubs around L.A. in the near future, that's always the best way to move actual CDs, in my experience.

In the meantime, our digital downloads are available all over the internet tubes, at iTunes, Amazon, ReverbNation, CDBaby, CDUniverse, Spotify, RadioAirplay, etc.

message me. Thanks

response. Also, since most of us who have stars can block the ads, we don't see them. I write some, but I don't put it up on DU. I go to a writer's website to put up my writing and get feedback. You probably need to find a more music friendly place.

...I just thought I'd give advertising on DU a try, because it would at least help to support the site, so it was not a total loss.

I was also aware that Star members would not see the ads, as I have generally been a Star member myself up until fairly recently.

And yes, we are represented all over the internet on various sites, where we're streamed, or for downloading mp3s, buying the CD, etc.

industries. and contrary to your assertion, they don't get a cut of the operator's take.

nor does the operator make anything like what bmi is asking for from an open mike night.

it's a power grab.

Why is it that singers/writers/authors/moviestars should work for free?

Will everyone that complains do 5 days a week of whatever they do for free?

I never understand this.

If not for BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, etc. artists would have nothing.
BTW, most groups don't write their own songs, and the songwriter itself is unknown, and does not sell out Madison Square Garden or do TV shows.

The only money they have is from their songwriting, which, is not as easy as it looks.

Ask most 1950s, 1960s singers, especially those that wrote and sung the R&B hits.

Yet they call singers/ songwriters/ actors greedy.

BTW, restaurants can't legally sing Happy Birthday without paying for it.
When you go to a chain and they sing some different song, that normally is why.

And, btw, does the bars/restaurants that make a fortune on those open mic nights, do they give their booze and food away for free?

for the same music. By the time it ends up on the radio or in the saloon, they have made their money. Also restaurants often do give comps to customers because they are good customers or maybe won an open mic night. Remember too all those people that keep the restaurant running, the help. Don't they deserve a better wage? Or, should that money just trickle up to Paul McCartney and Madonna?

As an example- go into any country bar, and someone will sing
"Friends in low places" or The Dance.

Now, you may think that Garth Brooks is mega rich.
Might be true or not true

But guess what, he didn't write either of them, and the songwriters
(Tony Arata wrote Dance, and Dewayne Blackwell and Earl Bud Lee wrote "friends in low places&quot and I bet no one has ever heard of any of those three.

The only income they have is their songs.
They do not get a salary, they have no benefits that they didn't self-make.
They have bills like all of us.

And the very, very ironic part of this is, for a democratic board?

BMI and SESAC and ASCAP are like the unions
and the songwriters are the union members.

(and its the big names that are like the Ed Asner's and Martin Sheen's that fight for union rights.)

And if Paul mcCartney wanted to give his music away, he could.
And before putting them down, maybe one should look into how much they do or don't give.
Madonna has given millions and millions in time and money to AIDS.

Irving Berlin wrote God Bless America- and 100% of God Bless America goes to charity.
Anyone stealing it, is taking money out of a child's hand, so to say.

They don't. Speaking of unions, you need real unions not scams set up to make the stock holders rich.

That income doesn't really go always to the musician, writer or others involved. Only a small part. I knew people who were insiders and they admit it's mostly a scam to make money for the executives like health insurance is for the for profit health care industry.

Its nothing but an extortion racket. Bars, resturants, local musicians simply don't have the financial resources to fight the system.

The open bar is bringing in people who spend money.

If not, then they don't need to have the music.

I am sure people can converse or whatever people do at bars these days.
If those people would come in anyhow, then they don't need it.

If they get more people, and more drinks/food sold, then they do need it.

No one would hassle them if they just paid what is required.

BTW, does the owner of this place work for free? That is what you are asking songwriters to do. Work for free.

It would be a sad place if there was no more music in the world because songwriters all went broke.

Most artists and songwriters are broke. A big bunch that made it are robbed from.

and, if you are talking unions, maybe this establishment should be unionized, and the people that work there paid.
And the loading docks for the food and drinks should only have organized labor involved in the transaction, including the Teamsters and truck drivers.

How much money does the owner of this establishment pay the help?
ANd being that he/she thinks the things should be free,

Why not have free beer 7 days a week.
After all, if the music should be free, so would the beer.
Bet the crowd would be larger.
IMHO

not Wall Street, usually run by a family. However, you don't have to promote music to make money. When we had music in the place I worked, the musicians passed the hat cuz frankly a lot of them were amateurish, needed polish and they played a niche genre, Celtic music. Some times they drove out business, but my boss liked to give them a chance to perform. He usually didn't pay them because to do that you had to charge at the door and without name recognition for a start up band, no one was going to do that. Some of the bands played their own music they wrote themselves or they play old stand bys that probably date back to the Renaissance. This is what the music "protectors" claimed were copyrighted. Really? Most of the bards from times past were long dead and no one knew who originally had written them to begin with.

So if you can book name talent, you charge at the door and increase the prices of your product. You pay the groups part of the door actually most of it. In that case I would say yes, pay your license, but not what we were doing, nor what other mom and pop places are doing for open mic. That's just extortion.

btw about the free beer. That's what happy hours are about. You charge only what it costs you. Believe me the beer distributors don't give it to you free, but the retailer is basically giving it away for free. But happy hour is a good will gesture on the part of the owner and a way to get people to come into your place for the first time. If they like it they will come back even when it isn't happy hour.

The licensing companies allow registering an arrangement of a song. ASCAP has a hundred different arrangements of Happy Birthday registered for example. Then they go to the bar owner and say someone sang Happy Birthday on Nov 9th, 2012; prove it wasn't an arrangement we have registered or we'll sue you. So even many public domain songs cannot be safely played.

The only guaranteed method I have seen to work...permit only original songs that have been copyrighted through US Copyright office. Keep a setlist of each of these songs played. A recording might be even better. Then you have proof no song was played registered with BMI, ASCAP, whomever. And the US Cpyright office will give legal help allowing you to play your original songs registered through them when and whereever you want.

men.

and the money men are the ones pushing this crap, not the musicians.

BMI=union.
ASCAP=union.
SESAC=union.

A songwriter living in a different place, can't afford to go to every place that plays music and demand their money from their goods they are selling.

this crap.

I would not frequent an establishment that doesn't pay royalties.

If a songwriter gets 11 cents on the dollar, stealing his/her 11 cents means 11 cents less.

The rest is irrelevant.

I bet the same person in that blog (who seems to have an agenda) would hate Harry Chapin, because he only worked 85% of the time for charity.

Imagine working the other 15% of the time for his family and band.

BTW, why post links to those blogs? After all, they don't need the publicity, they work for free, right? They give theirs away, right?

ah, but that doesn't count, right?

poor songwriter who wrote 'be kind to your scouting friends' is sleeping in an alley somewhere for lack of royalties.

The money men get the lions share of everything collected. not the songwriters. most musicians registered with bmi/ascap get -- zip.

and then distribute most of the remaining 5% to the top 1% of its members? No union membership would put up with that crap, yet its the system we have.

BMI/ASCAP harassment came up frequently. Every one of them thought of it as a shake-down. And it went down just like the pizza place story above.

That's my 2 cents.

...in previous posts, as a composer, performer and publisher of original music, what other means of protecting my financial interests in my work should I be utilizing instead of BMI or some other performing rights organization? Copyrights are but one aspect of protection, because without PROs, those copyrights would likely be useless.

BTW, while I'm more familiar with the Los Angeles music scene/clubs and other venues, I have played in San Francisco from time to time over the years.

I have very little sympathy for clubs who feel they should be able to use other people's work without licensing it. Additionally, it's not completely unheard of for these clubs to generally treat bands/performers like shit, especially those just starting out, so, again, I have a hard time feeling their pain.

Another request I made was to provide some kind of reputable source which shows that BMI and other PROs are using "shakedown" tactics on behalf of the artists they represent. So far, only anecdotal evidence of such tactics has been presented, unless I missed it somewhere. Otherwise, in reference to the article linked-to in the OP, one of the club operators was assessed a fee which amounted to $7.12 per day, in order to properly and ethically use other people's work as a draw to bring in customers. If that is unaffordable, that is a strong indication that the management is either disingenuous about the financial impact of those fees, or incompetent at running their business. Possibly both.

Anyway, no hard feelings, that's just the way it is, and we likely disagree no matter what either of us have to say, so I'll leave it at that.

ON EDIT: Thanks to whoever for the heart, if you happen to see this post, I appreciate it very much.

Most of us work and are paid for the time, either as employees or small businesses. Some are paid for the production. I for example used to have a side business selling things I made. Just like your sound equipment, I had to invest in tools and equipment. I had to pay for materials too (hey you avoid that one at least). When I sold my products I was paid enough to cover my time, investment and (modest) ability.

What I didn't get is any cut on what happened with that product after I sold it. Resold? Not a penny. Loaned out? Nada. Used in public? Zip. Heck even as a corporate stooge, several companies are still using processes and systems I designed. They paid me once and then never again. That's the disconnect many people see in your argument.

Now surely I agree purely creative products are different. No argument. When you are selling what are essentially ideas there must be a different model. But even here the closest analog to songwriters is surely non-song writers. Novelists and the like. Yep they should get paid and not stolen from willy-nilly even in this digital age. But should a library pay them for every time the book is loaned (do they do this? No idea. Don't think so though). Are used book shops illegal pirates? Book clubs that involve live excerpt reading are thieves? My wife volunteers teaching at a literacy center. Should she be paying Hemingway's estate royalties - his simplistic language yet interesting stories are great for teaching adults BTW?

I straddle the fence here. I have sympathy for your plight, honestly. Yours is a product that is easily duplicated and with limited revenue streams for all but the lucky megastars. But I think BMI et al go too far too. That model is not fair. Creative products should be paid for absolutely, but to expect every single time someone is exposed to them to be financialized is unrealistic. The graphic artist of the billboard you mentioned is paid yes. But he's not paid per car that passes by, and he's not paid every time someone takes a picture of his work and poss it on Facebook. That's what BMI seeks - to charge every time someone is exposed to your music, no matter how many times people decided they want to own it.

You asked for a fairer model. My answer is that music should be like books. We should pay for them to have a copy. We should not pay for them every time we read them, even to a group of people in public. Now if I could directly make money reading a book to people - people paid to hear me read for some strange reason - then royalties are perhaps appropriate. But that model would make bands liable not bars, and only bands that are paid to play your songs, not those who are amateurs. The bar owner may make money when bands are there it's true - but they make money selling the booze and food for which they pay, with your song only as an enticement - a loss leader if they are paying the band.

Your revenue stram is barely tenable unless you sell copies, I get that. That's the market though - people need to be willing to pay to own your music. But your preferred solution is patently unfair - to be paid many times over any time someone uses your product. Even Microsoft can't quite manage that.

...given the seemingly love em or hate em general tone of this whole thread.

What some here do not understand or know about is that the licensing fees imposed on live music venues by BMI is but a fraction of the services they provide as the Performing Rights Organization - PRO - to which my music publishing company is affiliated.

It is correct that I will not likely be receiving anything through BMI over their settlements with the Pittsburgh clubs cited in the link in the OP.

But I do get royalties from other areas of activity monitored by BMI, and I have NEVER paid one cent to BMI for anything they do for me. They are a non-profit organization, they work hard for their members and affiliates.

So, really, PROs, one or the other or more, are the only options, even for unknowns like me.

That's my short answer, and I'm basically done with this whole thread!

juke box or radio. You'd think they would have gotten their pound of flesh when the music is first published. I worked in an Irish bar and we had a local band that played traditional Irish songs that were around a hundred years old or more. One of the record companies came around wanting copyright money from the band and owners. When they argued that the songs had been around forever, they replied that because the Clancy Brothers and other bands had recordings out that it was copyright infringement, the owner, an Irishman, got pissed off and threw everything out including the juke box.

It's about a business that refuses to change with growing technology and risking their precious profits, so they have to resort to drastic measures like this to recoup their losses. If you don't change with technology you will lose money. It's that simple.

learned about it. So this was still the age of vinyl and 45 rpm. Another saloon owner tried to tell my boss that the record companies had ties with mafia type gangsters and it was mostly a shakedown at the retail watering hole level and that they had managed to make legal. So he advised him just to pay it. My boss thought it was bullshit and went to an all sports, no music format in his place. It shut out starting musicians though, who actually didn't get any money from the license. I knew a girl who worked occasionally as a back up singer for groups in the recording studio and she did get a check now and then, but it wasn't very much.

That is where this is leading.

would try to get you to buy a license and it's legal.

Pay the fees or get original talent.

their song was plagiarized from another's work even though there might be a similarity, it's a stretch.

And this is exactly why I hare BMI, the RIAA and the copyright police.

“It would cost like $2,600 a year and for a venue the size of the place here it's just not worth it, Robbins said.

and try to keep your prices low, that's a lot. Some places only have juke boxes or maybe have a band on the weekend. They don't function as R&R clubs all the time so this is asking a lot. Most bands get some money from the owner or in tips, so they aren't working for free and they can get some exposure to the public. By doing this they won't have that opening for them because they don't see a dime of the BMI money.

...or music supplied by services contracted to provide restaurants, bars, even grocery stores with "piped in" music - what used to be called "muzak" - named after the company that originally provided such a service - as do others now. Remember the phrase "elevator music"? That music was paid for under license by the building or property management company.

The fees are not only assessed on venues that put live performers on stage, doing other artist's songs. They apply to all manner of using licensed and protected by PROs music which a venue may use as a draw to bring in customers, whether it is live performance or recorded and played back in the venue by any means.

$7.12 is not too much to ask, if the management cannot afford that amount, they are inept.

and often your clientele don't care about. I notice more and more that most bars and restaurants don't play music anymore but have adopted the sports bar model just like my boss did back in the seventies and he never looked back. It seems that this shakedown needs to stop if bands are ever to get a foothold back into the bars and nightclubs again. You should be paid for original work. You should be paid for performing. You should make money off your CDs. Radio stations should pay for your playlists or whatever it is they pay for to play on the radio. Even the juke box guy should pay a small license since he makes money from the juke box. Then I think it should end there. Bands should be able to play whatever they want that is over fifty years old when they perform live. Open mic shouldn't be charged for and for chrissakes background music in public places shouldn't be charged for.

However, what I don't understand is this:

1) You pay BMI $7.12 per day to keep their artists from being ripped-off. Fine.

2) A musician walks into the bar and plays a song written by Billy Joel.

3) How does any of that $7.12 find its way into the hands of Billy Joel?

4) What if you have a bar that plays nothing but songs written by Jonathon Coulton all day long? Shouldn't a huge chunk of your $7.12 go to Jonathon Coulton, and none of it go to Billy Joel?

5) Suppose you have a national chain called Bar out of Hell that plays nothing but the music of Jonathon Coulton-- thousands of restaurants, sprouting-up all over the place like Starbucks. Shouldn't Jonathon Coulton be getting fabulously wealthy off of the BMI payments from your chain, and Billy Joel not seeing a damn cent?

6) If you own a chain of bars that play both kinds of music-- Country AND Western-- shouldn't only Country and Western writers be getting paid from your BMI payments?

7) I think that BMI should work similarly to how Spotify works. The venue should pay their $7.21 a day, and submit a playlist, and then a portion of the dues should be divided-up among the songwriters in accordance to how often their songs are played.

If I buy an mp3 from iTunes, and my friend who didn't buy the song but listened to it with me, by your logic, then, he should pay a small fee to listen to it as well.



When does the greed end?

...if you look at the link to the article in the OP, a venue owner does not want to pay a $2600 annual fee to license the use of BMI affiliated music in his bar or whatever it is. That works out to a whopping $7.12 per day. If that amount will break their bank, then management is incompetent, and they will most likely fail whether they pay the fee or not.

And, no, I do not expect anything like what you state in your post, that is an absurd scenario not being discussed in this thread.

What I am saying is how far down do you expect payment for writing/singing a song? Should I have to pay Lady Gaga everytime I sing along to one of her songs in my car?

I don't care if it's "only" $7.12/day. It's ridiculous what BMI is doing to this bar.

...it isn't just "this bar," other bars actually pay the fee because they recognize the value it brings to their operation.

It's just that "this bar" is run by incompetents who do so poorly at generating revenue that they blame a $7.12 licensing fee for all of their difficulties.

I stand by my statement that if the management is doing so poorly at generating enough revenue to afford a $7.12 daily fee for the use of quality, licensed music, then the BMI fee is NOT management's real problem - their actual problem is incompetency at running their business - and they will likely fail whether they pay the fee or not.