Performance Rights Org issues - any suggestions?

[John N]

Sorry for the cross post - I wasn't sure where to post this at first so I posted it in the Moan Zone as well.....

OK, here's the deal, my wife and I perform regionally as an acoustic act doing almost entirely original material. Like a lot of singer songwriters we have day jobs and are getting to the point where we would like to put more emphasis on our music but the reality is that to gig at all we are dependent on cafes and coffeehouses and smaller listening rooms to make any money with music at all and almost all of our CD sales are at gigs.

So a gig just got cancelled because the owner of this little cafe in a semi-rural area outside of Boston had to suspend (if not permanently cancel) her Friday night music series because she was threatened by a lawsuit by a PRO (not sure which one yet). She is basically being told that she must pay hefty royalty fees on the assumption that covers will be played there. I guess it doesn't matter that this place is small, the musicians just get the hat passed and she can probably ill-afford the fees.

I promised this woman that I would let her know if I come up with any helpful information on how to deal with this so I putting it out there to the GS community.

I have my take on this and frankly I think it sucks for the little guy: the musicians, songwriters and the audience. These venues are going to fold or stop hosting live music making it all the harder to get gigs and sell a few effin CDs. I completely believe in IP and a writers fair share in monies made - I am, after all, a songwriter. But I'm a songwriter who is still trying to build an audience and get heard. This seems like one more example of corporate greed making it harder to get heard.

There's gonna be a lot of us on the other side of the moat and eventually we're gonna get our pitchforks and torches and fight back.

Am I missing something here?

Thanks
JN

[chrisso]

It's generally not a very expensive annual license.

Of course the coffee shop, bar, or restaurant benefits from having live music performed, so it's only fair to do the right thing (legally) and get a music license.
'Hefty royalty fees' are NOT the words I would use.

[John N]

this is a small place that has music once a week - acoustic stuff mostly.
I was told they want $1200 a year.

jn

[lagavulin16]

I think there should be a waiver that an artist like yourself can sign - basically saying that you agree to perform regardless of the fee. Such a waiver may not exist.

The only other option I guess would be pay to play - one performance a week, they'd have to charge each band 25 dollars to perform. Not a good solution but not sure what else you can do.

[kubimusik]

There's a reason they have music there, it helps them sell their coffee. Without the music it's just a bland, boring place that smells nice. So I'm completely in favor that establishments using music to sell coffee/liquor/booze/anything have to pay the composers/songwriters their fair share back.

Having said that, there are a number of legitimate ways to not have to pay a license to the PROs, i.e.

• If they enforce a strict "no cover" policy (there may be a spot check and they will get sued to kingdom come should that get violated). PRO licenses are non-exclusive, so any creator has the right to also license directly. That's exactly what a songwriter does if they decide to play an unlicensed venue with their material, which you are free to do. In other words, if you as a performer decide you don't have to get paid, that's fine, but you can't make that decision for anyone else. So you'll have to stick to your own material, no covers.

• If they sell legitimate copies of the exact same material that gets performed (guess why Starbucks and Urban Outfitters are selling CDs...?) This usually applies to piped-in music at places that have the same CD for sale. Reasoning being, songwriters stand to gain a lot more from the sale of a legitimate CD than from the licensing fee, so it's basically a "promotional performance". And of course it does work that way and everybody wins. I guess this could also be applied if the songwriter has CDs for sale, and if the covers on the CD are the only covers performed at the venue. You may want to check that second one with a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure it would fly. Of course if the CD has covers not licensed by Harry Fox, then this point is obviously moot and you'd be infringing twice.

PS: Do they also pipe in music? Then the $1200/yr fee is not just for the live music on Fridays, but for all music piped in, too. Even if it's radio, btw. If they don't have a license, they can't play back CDs or radio either, again with the two above-mentioned exceptions.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by John N

this is a small place that has music once a week - acoustic stuff mostly.
I was told they want $1200 a year.

jn

That sounds about right.

I agree with kubimusik, it's the same situation for everyone (although I'm not sure the 'no covers' idea works with PRO's).
Health codes need to be complied with, as do liquor licenses for bars. It's part of running a business.
No can afford, no music I'm afraid. (no music off CD or tape either!)

[kubimusik]

Originally Posted by lagavulin16

I think there should be a waiver that an artist like yourself can sign - basically saying that you agree to perform regardless of the fee. Such a waiver may not exist.

No waiver is necessary, but you can only directly license rights you actually hold - so you can waive the fee only for your own, original material.

[kubimusik]

Originally Posted by chrisso

(although I'm not sure the 'no covers' idea works with PRO's).

I'm quite certain the PROs couldn't do anything about that, and in fact would get into trouble if they tried. BUT they may at some point send some dude to secretly tape performances or otherwise log playlists, and if the policy ever got violated slam the place with all they got.

Same with CDs, if they had a bunch of local artists with legitimate CDs selling their CDs visibl in the place (like at starbucks) they can pipe that in and get around the license. But no other CDs, no radio.

[chrisso]

I just read a similar thread where another club was refused a 'no covers' policy.

I guess it's similar to the UK where you have to own a tv licence if you own a tv. people have tried for years to say they only use the TV to play videogames, or to watch DVD's etc.... but the authorities don't buy it.
I'm lead to believe the PRO's don't buy the concept that you'll have live music for a year and not one single ASCAP/BMI work will be played, even by accident, let alone no recorded music will be played.

When you think about it, it is unlikely.
How many venues are completely silent, except for the odd time someone's playing unreleased material?

[ButchP]

Originally Posted by chrisso

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;...............
I'm lead to believe the PRO's don't buy the concept that you'll have live music for a year and not one single ASCAP/BMI work will be played, even by accident, let alone no recorded music will be played........

?

not to hijack this thread but i I find i curious that SESAC seldom gets mentioned when PRO's get brought up.They must feel like the redheaded black female stepchild......

IMO scenarios like this are being sited more and more as the PRO's put on the squeeze.I would make a large wager the little guy composer won't see a penny of this "legal" shakedown.The ritch(big selling artist ...label/publishers) will become ritcher to make up for other lost revenue.All the more reasons for a composers union rising on the horizon to level the playing field(ever seen what royalties for instumental composers get for a cue compared to a "lyric" song......insane!!!)

Once fingerprint tracking and detection system are in place(I know SESAC is already on board and working hard to implemenet it ...not just the in house stuff....) for ALL the PRO's(as far as I know ....ASCAP and BMI HATE this!!) there will continue to be shakedowns by those who have the big guns (lawyers and money!)

IMO if not for the fact the pockets being lined will be the PRO's and pubs I think a $100 a month for a VIABLE marketing tool is chicken feed.If a venue can't afford that how can they stay in biz.

The biz is in for a WIIILD!! ride in the next decade.Get your crash helment on if you get on board.....

BP

[kubimusik]

Originally Posted by ButchP

not to hijack this thread but i I find i curious that SESAC seldom gets mentioned when PRO's get brought up.

That's because they are a very elitist organization that will only accept relatively high earners and are thus torpedoing the concept of solidarity that is the foundation of how the whole royalty system really works. If they go under, all the better.

[ButchP]

Originally Posted by kubimusik

That's because they are a very elitist organization that will only accept relatively high earners and are thus torpedoing the concept of solidarity that is the foundation of how the whole royalty system really works. If they go under, all the better.

This is an unsubstantiated statement.They are a biz yes...but torpedoeing elitist...... They accept writers that are willing to work in the biz not every lyricist playing the songwriter lottery that signs up dreaming they will get a Kenny Chesney cut.

I am FAR from a high earner (production music) and they accepted me.I talked to a rep for an hour an he graciously answered all my questions and gave me every reason without bashing the competition that I should jump ship.(my choice)

There pay quicker and will at least match a BMI or ASCAP cue of the same weighing not to mention they are onboard for watermarking and finger printing ...etc....On the other hand I could barely get the time of day from my current PRO rep when I had a few important questions that would make us both money.

As far as going under I have no idea where you even got that impression.It amazes me how little most folks know about their PRO's(me included).Try to get a straight answer from ASCAP of why an instrumental composition weighs a fraction what a lyric compostion does.

BP

[kubimusik]

Originally Posted by ButchP

As far as going under I have no idea where you even got that impression.

Sorry, that was unclear. My point was, I wouldn't miss them if they did.

Glad you're having a good experience with SESAC, but I fully stand by my assertion that a PRO that doesn't accept anyone and everyone who needs to have even just a handful of published tracks licensed is undermining the system - they only can get away with it because ASCAP and BMI take care of everyone until they reach a point where SESAC may or may not graciously deign to accept them. Think about it - where would you have been without them all those years, before you were making enough to get in SESAC? If the SESAC-type approach was the only game in town, who reps you when you get started?)

SESAC is basically having someone else take care of the hard work for them, only to then siphon off revenue once that hard work pays off for some of the artists, without shouldering any of the cost and toil of getting them there. Hence "elitist" and "torpedoing". IMHO, there's really no other way of putting it.

As for getting time from my PRO rep, no problems here - I have excellent personal rapport with a number of people at ASCAP (my PRO) both in NYC and LA, and even with folks at BMI here in LA, despite the fact they don't even rep me. Now I'm sure that SESAC's service is first-rate - but of course that's easy to do when you cherry-pick only the top earners.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by John N

I was told they want $1200 a year.

jn

That's only $23 per the once a week performance. They can't afford that?!?!@?

BTW, it also means that if they refuse, they can not play music the other 8424 hours of the year either. I'd suggest they pay to play.

[drBill]

Originally Posted by ButchP

not to hijack this thread but i I find i curious that SESAC seldom gets mentioned when PRO's get brought up.They must feel like the redheaded black female stepchild...

It's because they generally don't have much clout BP. EXPECIALLY internationally (where a huge percentage of my income comes from) After our conversation I talked with several of my publishers. They all said SESAC has some good IDEAS, but not enough juice to bring it home. They'd love to see it happen, but just don't expect it to. I hope you do OK with SESAC, but I'll be stickin' with BMI here.....

signed,

the ORIGINAL bp

(lowercase)