HELP please, before another music venue goes down tubes....

[Lisa]

I don't know details as my husband is the one that takes care of things like this. But I do know that its hard to pay a band what they want, plus all of the associated fees with having entertainment such as additional insurance costs, more utilities costs, extra staffing, etc out of the cover charge. Its also hard to pay it out of the bar sales because the customers in our area complain about paying more than $2.25 for a bottle of bud.

The one thing that I noticed about the BMI fees is that it does not consider at all the area in which the venue is located. For example, we have a big area as far as our sq. footage is concerned. However, that does not mean that we regularly get in what a bar in State College may get in the same sq. footage area, or even in a club in Washington DC.

[Lisa]

Here's a great solution.....

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/articl ... 4/90108011

[lonewolf]

ASSCAPPED

This needs added to Wiktionary

[REDillon]

Just think of all those starving rock stars who will be affected if the Castle doesn't pay the Asscap/BMI fees. Come on! How will they live with only ONE Bently or TWO summer homes? You selfish bastards, taking money out of their freshly collegen injected and perfectly veneered childrens mouth/toofers! Do you expect them to eat at Wolfgang Pucks EVERY night? And wear last years fashions from Fendi?? Travesty! Get your priorities straight ya fuks!

I'm an asshole and I approve this message.....

[songsmith]

and song writers should have exclusive rights to the performance of their song.

Intellectual property is one of the cornerstones of our country/civilization.

For some reason everyone and their brother thinks that music should be free.

Songwriters do not have exclusive performing rights. America is a compulsory license country, meaning if I write a song, anyone is automatically allowed to record or perform it at will, HOWEVER, they must pay to do so. This is to both allow the free exchange of ideas, and maximize the commercial impact of the intellectual property. This compulsory license does not apply to patents or trademarks, as far as I am aware, though in some instances, it may be possible. When you see "used by permission," or "appears courtesy of," there's been an agreement between both parties that supercedes compulsory license, which is allowed as long as everybody's happy. Those usually happen when the song in question has likely seen it's most commercially viable period pass, or when the association would benefit one or both parties over remaining seperate.
It's kind of messed up. If somebody liked your song enough to cover it, you could literally turn on the radio, and there would be someone playing your song! Of course, it's not the best business practice to simply snipe someone's song, so the vast majority of those doing a cover song ask for permission first, if only to let the writer know he's got some income on the way, and usually, if you're covering someone's song, you admire the writer, and it's a great way to become friends and business associates with your hero.------>JMS

[moxham123]

A friend of mine, who is also a musician, recently put his family bar business up for sale after over 50 years in business and one of the main reasons was the ASCAP & BMI issue. This guy had occasion jam sessions at the bar maybe 3 or 4 times a year and karaoke maybe 1 or 2 times a month. It was the only way he could attract people to the bar since it was very much out of the way of any population area and people needed a reason to go there. If it was packed elbow to elbow, you might get 100 in the place but a crowd of 50 - 75 was more common on a jam night.

ASCAP & BMI ordered him to pay up and I am not sure which one wanted $1,300 a year for his little bit of music entertainment. He could not even play there himself. He needed the music to make money; but, since times were already tough, he could not afford to pay the fees and went out of business. A real shame. As he said to me, it was not as if he was running music every week and he tried to negotiate a lower fee for an occasional event and they said no.

[Korruption4ever]

Wouldn't this maybe have something to do with the bands being paid for playing someone else's copyrighted material? Would it be allowed if there was no cover charge and the band was playing for free? Just wondering?

[DirtySanchez]

Wouldn't this maybe have something to do with the bands being paid for playing someone else's copyrighted material? Would it be allowed if there was no cover charge and the band was playing for free? Just wondering?

I doubt it. They would just argue that the music was drawing in business.

[JackANSI]

I can only think of two bands off the top of my head that could do a nights worth of entertainment without falling under this (ie not using covers). Hurricanes and Marauders. (Not sure of the exact length of time it takes to consider a song public domain, so there might be others.)


I don't know exactly where the music was coming from new years eve, but I believe the castle had on satellite radio (XM style, not muzak) until we switched on our stuff. They might be getting hit because of that too. But I'm not certain as to the source.


You should still be allowed to play it, someone somewhere along the way paid some fee. How else did the band hear it and learn it?


I wonder why a popular band doesn't go after the 'tribute' version of themselves directly?


When a band plays 'break' music while they are off stage, does that mean the bar would have to pay the DJ and band fee for that night? What if you have a 'DJ' in your band?


The whole thing seems shady to me... There is no way that -insert band here- is seeing any money directly from us playing one of their songs. Without us turning in a set list each night, they have no idea how to break it down.

[moxham123]

Here is information addressing some of the questions that have arisen on this thread.

BMI Licensing Issues - Frequently Asked Questions & Answers

http://bmi.com/licensing/entry/C1162/pdf533759_1/

ASCAP Licensing Issues

http://ascap.com/licensing/about.html

[lonewolf]

Wouldn't this maybe have something to do with the bands being paid for playing someone else's copyrighted material? Would it be allowed if there was no cover charge and the band was playing for free? Just wondering?

No. Its the material that is being licensed, not the band. The venue still profits from it (hopefully).

[lonewolf]

Somebody needs to grab BMI & ASCAP by the short hairs and make them realize that it would be in their best interest to charge less to venues who provide live entertainment (without DJ & Karaoke) than to those that provide DJ & Karaoke.

[Blue Reality]

No Lisa you are right that doesn't apply to you that's why I said "most". Take a trip to SC and see what you find. And I've seen this in more than one place in this country. There's been a huge shift that I've seen over the last decade. In State College there used to be a music scene and bar owners made a living and had bands all week. They took a chance on new bands, new musicians. You used to be able to play your way into a following and build momentum. All of the bars in the area have changed hands and have been purchased by musicians themselves here in town. Everyone is maximizing dollars and there is no scene to support real music in the area.

A real music scene needs venues where musicians, grow, experiment, learn and that's not always "profitable". Bar owners don't give a damn about good music. Music is simply a vehicle to bring in a crowd and maximize sales. They'd put a chimp on a seat banging a drum smashing bananas in it's face if people would pay.

They own the bars, they can do as they please. But music suffers because of it.

Now I know this does not apply to every bar owner, but I think this is definately the trend....

[VENTGtr]

In State College there used to be a music scene and bar owners
made a living and had bands all week. They took a chance on new bands, new musicians.
You used to be able to play your way into a following and build momentum.

This.

They'd put a chimp on a seat banging a drum smashing bananas in it's face if people would
pay.

And that...although...I might pay to see that as well...BUT NOT ON A REGULAR BASIS!

[bassist_25]

A real music scene needs venues where musicians, grow, experiment, learn and that's not always "profitable". Bar owners don't give a damn about good music. Music is simply a vehicle to bring in a crowd and maximize sales. They'd put a chimp on a seat banging a drum smashing bananas in it's face if people would pay.

Wait a minute!!! Are you telling me that club owners aren't in it for the art?!?!?!?!?!?! Man, I thought that the new project I was putting together that features songs in 11/8 time with didgeridoo solos and an arrangement of Captain and Tenille's Muskrate Love played entirely on keyboard from a fire engine siren sample was going to be supported by the local club owners. I thought that my art was more important to them than paying their electric bills and putting food on their families' tables. How foolish I have been.

Sorry bro, I'm just busting your balls here, but club owners wanting to book the most profitable acts is nothing new. In my experience, many club owners are willing to work with you and help you develop a following. However, just being a good band is not the only thing that's going to get your foot in the door. It's not a cake walk around here, but more musicians need to hit up LA or New York, then come back and see how they feel about Central Pa. I'm all for bettering the scene. I'm not one of those people who tells people to just leave the country if they have a legit complaint about its management. However in my experience, complaining is the least successful way of changing something.

[Blue Reality]

Bust Away. There used to be more art than business but it is shifting the other direction. Some club owners will help others will not. The entire concept of music is changing. People used to go out, and experience what was happening. It's what they did. Now people don't head to bars like they used to and the ones who understood the scene are getting older. They don't go out nearly as much. The following generations live life via technology less by experinece. There's a shrinking market of bar/music consumers and a bar like every business has never had as many demands on it's revenue with energy costs, insurance blah blah blah. As with the recording industry and the demise of the labels, I think there is a similar shift happening in the live scence. Look over the threads. Way too many "We've lost another venue" threads. Will it all go away? No but it's on its way to being quite different....

[bassist_25]

I can see your point. I guess I've just never been one to spend too much time trying to hold onto the "good ol' days," even when it comes to music. Then again, I've always been a future-oriented person anyways. I hate seeing venues close. I really hate it when it's something political like the PLCB and the owner(s) is making an honest effort to be successful, but many times, clubs close because the management just doesn't have a flippin' clue about anything. Ask our singer Rob; he worked for one such place. (not saying that's the case with the Castle. The management there wants to succeed, hence Dawn coming on to ask our advice).

Take it from me; we've never been handed anything on a silver platter, and I've watched three month-old bands waltz right into A-list rooms because they're hobnobbing with a manager. It's incredibly frustrating. It just makes us work harder and truly appreciate it when we do break into that room we've been trying to get a chance at. There are two types of people in this world who go out to see live music. The first are casual people who simply go out to dance or want something to do on the weekend. The next are the true deal, and you have to earn these people as fans - There's only one way to earn them, and that's always the hard road. I definitely feel that the hard road is worth it.

[Blue Reality]

I agree with you. You have worked hard and earned it. But the times they are a changing. In good times mismanagement can be over come. You can out earn stupidity. Times are not as they were and bands and bars have to be on top of their games. The scene is changing and easier to see these days IMO.

[JayBird]

$900 a year is peanuts if the bands are the main drawing factor in the annual income of the establishment. However, the original showcase night a few weeks back sure proved that this issue could all be eliminated!!!

[Pizon]

Night Train lost a good gig in murraysville because of that bs. owner had
a huge place, and ascap or bmi charged him by how many tables he had
in the place. That ended live bands there. Also, a few years back,
there were people comin to bars for the fees, but after all was said and done, it was found that they were scam artists trying to shake down the bars and make some easy money. The band i was in at the time got to
witness the bar owner and some patrons beat the livin crap out of a guy who tried to pull that stunt. So, if any club owners are reading this thread, make sure the person is legit.

[MeYatch]

...compulsory license...

thanks, I'd never heard that term before.

I don't know exactly where the music was coming from new years eve, but I believe the castle had on satellite radio (XM style, not muzak) until we switched on our stuff. They might be getting hit because of that too. But I'm not certain as to the source.

when a buisiness subscribes to satelite radio, they have to pay more than if you install one in your car, the additional cost is to cover performance rights.

The whole thing seems shady to me... There is no way that -insert band here- is seeing any money directly from us playing one of their songs. Without us turning in a set list each night, they have no idea how to break it down.

I don't know how they do the math as to how much revenue goes to a particular songwriter. But as I said before, BMI, etc does not own the rights to these songs. They collect licensing fees on behalf of songwriters, because it would be a logistical nightmare to pay all song writer's individually for every single performance. It would probably also never happen, which is why songwriter's join these things. Even if Britney spears is getting 1% of the fees for your Britney Spears free set, its still better than a songwriter you do cover not getting anything.

[MeYatch]

Q: What Happens To The Fees We Pay And How Much Profit Does BMI Make?

BMI operates on a non-profit-making basis. All fees, less BMI’s operating expenses, are paid to our affiliated songwriters, composers, and music publishers in the form of royalties. Currently, more than eighty-six cents of every dollar of your organization’s licensing fee goes to our affiliated copyright owners.

[mjb]

jack Ansi wrote: Not sure of the exact length of time it takes to consider a song public domain.

i think i heard one time it's 65 years. not sure where to look it up.

[mjb]

Since 1978
Before 1978, unpublished works were not covered by the federal copyright act. Rather, they were covered under (perpetual) common law copyright. The Copyright Act of 1976, effective 1978, abolished common law copyright in the United States so that all works, published or unpublished, are now covered by federal statutory copyright, with the exception of sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972.[9] The claim that "pre-1923 works are in the public domain" is correct only for published works; unpublished works are under federal copyright for at least the life of the author plus 70 years. For a work made for hire, the copyright in a work created before 1978, but not theretofore in the public domain or registered for copyright, subsists from January 1, 1978, and endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.[10] If the work was created before 1978 but first published 1978–2002, the federal copyright will not expire before 2047.

Until the Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988, the lack of a proper copyright notice would place an otherwise copyrightable work into the public domain, although for works published between January 1, 1978 and February 28, 1989, this could be prevented by registering the work with the Library of Congress within five years of publication. After March 1, 1989, an author's copyright in a work begins when it is fixed in a tangible form; neither publication nor registration is required, and a lack of a copyright notice does not place the work into the public domain.


[edit] 1964 to 1977
Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form in the years 1964 through 1977 automatically had their copyrights renewed for a second term.


[edit] Before 1964
Works published with notice of copyright or registered in unpublished form on or after January 1, 1923, and prior to January 1, 1964, had to be renewed during the 28th year of their first term of copyright to maintain copyright for a full 95-year term.[11]

With the exception of maps, music, and movies, the vast majority of works published in the United States before 1964 were never renewed for a second copyright term.[12]


[edit] Sound recordings
Very few sound recordings are in the public domain in the United States. Sound recordings fixed in a tangible form before February 15, 1972, were generally covered by common law or in some cases by anti-piracy statutes enacted in certain states, not by federal copyright law, and the anti-piracy statutes typically have no duration limit. The 1976 Copyright Act, effective 1978, provides federal copyright for unpublished and published sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972. Recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are still covered, to varying degrees, by common law or state statutes.[9] Any rights or remedies under state law for sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, are not annulled or limited by the 1976 Copyright Act until February 15, 2067.[13] On that date, all sound recordings fixed before February 15, 1972, will go into the public domain in the United States.

For sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, the earliest year that any will go out of copyright and into the public domain in the U.S. will be 2043,[14] and not in any substantial number until 2048.[15] Sound recordings published on or after January 1, 1978, and before March 1, 1989, which did not carry a proper copyright notice on the recording or its cover entered the public domain on publication, although the owners of the copyrights had up to five years to remedy this omission and reclaim the copyright.

[TORNBLAK]

NEXT THEY WILL BE COMING AFTER THE LIVE BANDS AND MAKING US BUY A LICENSE ALSO.