I don't see how playing these songs how they do is any different than playing a radio. How desperate are these companies!

Bowel Movement International

radio doesn't have to pay any licensing fee. Clubs and bars are required to pay for playing songs. Typically clubs and bars will pay a blanket license to cover all songs played in the club. This is how bands get publishing royalties.

Bar Molestation Industries

riaaradar.com

what if you are playing satellite radio in a bar?

since they can no longer profit off CD sales they are using lawsuits as a last resort

Bring Michael's Injections!

If you're playing radio in a bar, or a jukebox, or anything else that provides "entertainment" to your patrons, then you have to pay licensing fees.

This is just one of the ways that artists are compensated for their work. I guess if you're one of the fools who steals the music and thinks that artists should just get out and tour more to make a living, you probably think this is stupid.

If the bar just turns off the satellite radio, do you think that would make the bar a less attractive place to hang out? Of course it would. That's why they should have to pay. Even though the music isn't being played live, it's still part of the draw. The bar is still using that music to entertain their customers.

What if music is played in the background of a coffee shop off someone's ipod? Do they have to pay too?

The artists are getting free promotion by the bar playing their music. Licensing fees benefit the label to a much greater degree than the artist.

Thems the rules. This is also why bands had to play only original material at CBGB's back in the day. hilly krystal didn't want to pay the licensing fees.

Again, the music industry is ass backwards. By suing the clubs, you are putting them out of business, and in turn, bands have nowhere to play. Clubs are the NUMBER ONE promotion vehicle for labels or anyone selling albums. If ASCAP and BMI wanted to do this effectively, they would leave the clubs out of the process and try to get 10 cents on the dollar from Ticketmaster. It's a much more precise way of doing it than sending an ambigious blanket fee.

The guys at ASCAP have HUGE MONSTER expense accounts, so I don't wanna hear it.

licensing fees go nowhere near the label. totally different income stream.

"If ASCAP and BMI wanted to do this effectively, they would leave the clubs out of the process and try to get 10 cents on the dollar from Ticketmaster"

I still can't believe how many of you people just assume that Ticketmaster is raking in the cash. If they gave 10 cents on the dollar to ASCAP/BMI they would be broke.

"

"If ASCAP and BMI wanted to do this effectively, they would leave the clubs out of the process and try to get 10 cents on the dollar from Ticketmaster"

I still can't believe how many of you people just assume that Ticketmaster is raking in the cash. If they gave 10 cents on the dollar to ASCAP/BMI they would be broke.
"

Why would they be broke by adding 10 cents to every ticket? It's not coming out of Ticketmaster's take. Just make it a PERFORMANCE RIGHTS TAX. Right now, it's the equivalent of the mob coming into your business and paying them off for "protection".

B Meh I

yeah, i really think BV commentors are going to be the ones to come up with ideas to save the music business.

f you're playing radio in a bar, or a jukebox, or anything else that provides "entertainment" to your patrons, then you have to pay licensing fees.
>>
Somewhere along the line the artist is getting royalties already... if its on the radio then the stations are paying ASCAP/BMI, etc If it's on the jukebox then someone bought the CD and put it in there (mechanical royalties to the artist) People don't go to bar's just for the music... unless there's a DJ...so the next question is where do DJ's fit in to all this?. I understand the concept of that music is "entertainment" in a bar, etc...but it's really stretching things if you ask me.... and screams of desperation...

First of all, who is it that is documenting what songs are played and when by a bar?

It seems ridiculous, but a company I was at had to pay around $500 a year to even have "on-hold" telephone music.

that's why it's called a blanket license.

Butter My Insides

Correction...RADIO STATIONS ALSO PAY License fees to PRO's...ASCAP,BMI, SESAC

"radio doesn't have to pay any licensing fee."

This is NOT true. Radio does have to pay a licensing fee. They take a sample of the songs you play over a few days, and use that to "guess" what you play for the rest of the year. I've actually filled out various forms for radio licensing.

The money that ASCAP,BMI & SESAC Collect does not go to the artist it goes to the “SONGWRITER”

drinks are too expensive @ pianos anyway

"The artists are getting free promotion by the bar playing their music. Licensing fees benefit the label to a much greater degree than the artist."

ahhh, the old chestnut of promotion. Good thing that the bars aren't making any money from their customers. Maybe they'd like to have no cover/open bar nights. That'd be a really great promotion for them, don't you think? They could even do it every night, or take it on the road, going from bar to bar, pouring free drinks and promoting free shows, so that people hear how great Piano's is!
The big broadcasters tried to pull the same scam in the 30's with radio, and MTV did it in the 80's. This is nothing new, just on a smaller scale. The principle remains the same.
ASCAP & BMI are not-for-profit companies. They take 11-13% from the fees collected to run their organizations. Every remaining cent goes back to the creators of the music played. Licensing fees (in the neighborhood of probably $300-$1200/yr at a venue like this) that go unpaid year after year tend to result in a law suit, so that this money can be collected, and paid out to the artists who are driving the clientelle of these businesses.

RADIO LICENSING INFO...

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/radio/Blanket_Radio_License.pdf

Public performance royalties are paid by PROs (ASCAP, BMI & SESAC) to songwriters and publishers, not to artists and labels. These BV posts could not be full of more misinformation if my kids wrote them. Everyone has an opinion about how the music business is run poorly and should be run differently...ironically, these same people have no idea how it is currently run.

AS220 in Providence has a good rundown of performance rights and why they don't even allow bands to play cover songs in their space.

AS220 aims to support original music. In addition, a boycott of all music licensed by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC is in effect. This means that ALL material performed at AS220 must be original or must be in the public domain. Please see this discussion of how we define original work if you need clarification on this policy. Or, for more information about this boycott you may download this PDF information sheet/FAQ..

From http://as220.org/about/booking.html

Anonymous 1:59 -- suck a bag of dicks.

are they FUCKING serious??

Sure that isn't just Jay Belin's computer blaring "Talk Dirty To Me" from upstairs at the Bowery Presents office?

Somebody's working *really* hard here to defend BMI, and they were on it quick too. Pay must be pretty OK.

"Public performance royalties are paid by PROs (ASCAP, BMI & SESAC) to songwriters and publishers, not to artists and labels."

To be fair, in the case of the songs mentioned in the post, I believe the artists and the songwriters are one in the same. To be even fairer, the acts mentioned are also on major labels, all of which have music publishing divisions.

Michael Jackson is dead, surely he can't need more royalty money. We all know 90% of it went to him anyway.

anything to make money. a bunch of greedy fucks!

@ 2:22

"yeah, i really think BV commentors are going to be the ones to come up with ideas to save the music business."

yeah lets just have a blanket dismissal of everyone's opinions, that seems reasonable

its not like anybody that is passionate about and engaged with music on a daily basis like i would say most commentators on this board are could possibly offer any insightful ideas as to how the industry could be improved

but lets face it, if anyone in the biz had any creativity in the first place they never would have failed as musicians....

fuckin gay rights

This rules. Pianos is a terrible venue, hosts a shit-eating crowd of douchebags, and should be fined until they close. At least BMI is targeting the right one this time.

Before I even get to making rational points, let me first note that Piano's is a painful boil on the ass of the music industry; known by musicians the world over as perhaps the least friendly place to play a show. The staff of Piano's seems to revel in an adversarial role they've assumed, as if it's some band's fault that the soundguy agrees to work in a sewer of a club, mixing 5 crappy bands for $60 a night. The management and staff have built up such karmic debt that whatever bad happens to that place is probably nowhere near bad enough to make up for the misery they've inflicted on hundreds of touring bands. By not paying for a license they're just screwing over the bands in one more way.

Now, with that off my chest:

Yes, even in a coffee shop with someone's iPod you're supposed to be licensed with any of the Performing Rights Organizations who administer the publishing of any of the stuff you're playing. (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC are the three in the US)

Bands aren't getting "free promotion" from clubs playing their music, it's a symbiotic relationship. Clubs use music to bring in customers and make more money. This is why it matters whether a club plays good music or crap. If it was just a matter of clubs playing anything, and the bands realized some large benefit from a club playing their stuff, there would be a huge market for promotion of music to club DJ's. But there isn't; what does that tell you?

And ASCAP/BMI/SESAC have nothing to do with money collected for tickets. Getting three separate companies involved with Ticketmaster in that process would be so ridiculously cumbersome that it wouldn't be 10 cents of each ticket, it would be more like 2 or 3 dollars. And what about clubs that don't use Ticketmaster? What about clubs that don't have live music, but have DJ's?

ASCAP's expense accounts: irrelevant. If that's how they choose to spend their marketing dollars that's their decision. FYI, ASCAP and BMI are operated on a not-for-profit basis. As far as I know, Piano's is not.

And I can damn near assure you that CBGB was licensed. I have a faint memory of seeing the stickers to the left of the door on the window of one of those weird window boxes that were there.

Here's what the Better Business Bureau has to say:
http://www.bbb.org/Alerts/article.asp?ID=451

The way ASCAP & BMI go about collecting these blanket license fees is extortion, plain & simple. There may be a noble intention somewhere in there, but the amount of money they ask for is completely arbitrary, basically determined by what they think they can get, and the money is distributed to their rights holders by some internal algorithm of what they think was likely to have been played...it's not like some BMI employee is sitting in Pianos every night writing down every song that's played, or that the club could or would submit a setlist of its PA music even if they were interested in paying BMI. So, in practice, the majority of the money earned from that blanket license goes to the huge rock star acts who don't need it, and indie musicians who actually need it are effectively excluded...

I would assume the three songs cited are because they were the only ones the BMI rep sent to spy on the club actually recognized.

@ End of Irony:

That PDF on AS220's website pertaining to "Original Music" gets it wrong in the first sentence. Just because a musician is performing their own compositions it doesn't exempt the venue from needing a license from whatever PRO the musician/composer registered the song with. You can't just opt out of the obligation to pay royalties.

Whoever wrote that should talk with an IP lawyer. And if you're going to make some sweeping anti-lawyer statement that's fine, but you may need one when you get popped for that ridiculous "policy" not covering you.

@ 4:59:

What do you think would happen to the license rates if the PRO's had people in every business, every day, all day and night? As it is, ~85% of the money goes back to composers.

I don't think the solution is perfect, but I do know people who collect enough annually from these organizations to make a difference in their lives. But I guess band members don't deserve to make any money from what they do. I've heard that argument from plenty of people who have never been in a band and trying to make a living doing it.

PRO's are no more extortionists than the water company or the electric company. If you want to use music to sell your product, you should pay. It's not that hard to wrap your head around.

id hit that

Piano's is the best fucking benue in the city.

who cares pianos sucks and my waitress is always on heroin

acscap sued the girl scouts for singing happy birthday...true story.

BULLSHIT!!!
The licensing fees collected by the PROs from live venues, is divided amongst the TOP 200 ticket grossing acts. Unless you are playing Madonna, Kanye West, or some shit like that, the money these venues are expected to fork over to the PROs does not go to the artists that you are playing.
BMI has some fucking asshole redneck from Atlanta named James Ridge, that will call you and harass you EVERY FUCKING DAY!! He is a real piece of shit.
And it doesn't matter whether or not the performers are playing original music or covers. PROs still demand that you pay even if bands are playing their own songs if they are published through the PROs.

acscap sued the girl scouts for singing happy birthday...true story.

Ascap and BMI are just like bill collectors, except there's no service provided. They just bill and harass.

They also give all the money they collect to the top 200 grossing acts, but claim to collect on behalf of everyone.

everything should be free.

I don't think everything should be free, I just think that Ascap and BMI are fraudulent scams.

I get checks from BMI. And, I'm nowhere near the "top 200"...

The problem with these comments, and the reason (I figure) that the joke about BV commenters solving all of the problems of the music industry, is that most of you are clearly COMPLETELY FUCKING CLUELESS about how the people who make the music that you enjoy actually earn a living from it.

You suggest that nobody goes to a bar or restaurant for the music that's being played in the background. That's just bullshit. While it may not be THE REASON to go, if they turned off that music, their patrons would complain. If they don't count on that music to provide an atmosphere that their patrons enjoy, then they're perfectly entitled to turn it off. If they choose not to, then they should pay for BROADCASTING it. It's not as simple as saying "I paid for the CDs in the jukebox". They're BROADCASTING the music.

As someone who respects the bands who make the music that I love, I have no problem paying for CDs or paying a licensing fee to play music should I ever open a business that uses music to entertain my customers.

I have no love for the RIAA. But, I think that the way that they're going after people, and the way that the PROs are going after venues and restaurants, is FUCKING HILARIOUS. It gives me an extreme amount of joy to see a bunch of fucking whiny little bitches, who apparently love music enough to seek it out for "free", but who are ethically challenged, and spoiled enough to think that they should get it for free, squirming like the little fucking babies that they are.

The music industry will survive. And, art will continue to flourish, because people who truly love the music will continue to compensate the people who create it.

"I get checks from BMI. And, I'm nowhere near the "top 200"..."

Not from venue licensing fees.
Royalty checks for the majority of musicians come from licensing their music for commercial purposes other than performing them live. The venue licensing fees that are collected by BMI is not dispersed amongst the musicians who are not major grossing acts.

It doesn't matter. The point is, just like illegal downloaders, if they just paid what they were supposed to begin with, then they wouldn't be dealing with penalties that other unscrupulous people (who figure that it could happen to them) see as "unfair"....

You don't just get to decide that you'll only pay if you get caught. If you get caught, then there is a penalty. It's not like Pianos didn't that they weren't supposed to pay. They just took a chance that they wouldn't get caught. Then, they did. Oops. Why am I supposed to feel sorry for them again?

Do sports bars have to pay the NFL, NBA, NHL, etc ?

actually they do. its called cable. or satellite. or whatever.

and if you've ever watched a professional sports game you would know that with 2 or 3 minutest let they run the disclaimer, "re-broadcasting or re-distribution of any sort without the express written consent is prohibited"

in your fucking face

Thats my point though... they don't directly pay an organization that represents the athletes themselves. Radio stations pay the PRO's already in way that's a lot less arbitrary than this idea and in the case of Satellite radio how is that different than TV ?

It totally matters! the system for collecting royalties is arbitrary and absolutely vague. They pay who they feel like, and collect from who they feel like. Not a single check or balance in the entire system.

Though I support the idea of musicians getting paid when their music is used by others to make money, I'd prefer a system whereby the music is free to play in public places over the radically unfair system that BMI and Ascap have in place today, where money is collected in the name of starving musicians but is actually distributed to bloated fat cats.

The numbers collected and the numbers paid bear no resemblance to a system, it's just random pantomime of phony fairness in order to mask the reality - which is that only the big players ever see a dime from the system, and Ascap and BMI spend no time or energy checking their numbers as to who gets allocated what, and who gets fined what.

so, even assuming that it's only the fat cats getting paid... just how rich do you have to be before you don't deserve to get paid when your music is used for entertainment? Take away the "starving artist" argument.

And, the fact still remains that Pianos and every other bar or restaurant KNOWS that they're supposed to pay in order to make broadcasting music a part of the entertainment that they offer. Just because they got caught doing something that they know they shouldn't, isn't enough to make me feel sorry for them. What about the bars that DO pay? Is it fair for them to have to compete with some shithole like Pianos that tries to skate by under the radar?

I agree that HOW artists are compensated, and how it often screws smaller, independent artists, is shitty and unfair. And, I'm sure that we'll see a lot of changes in the coming years as we try to figure out the most fair way of doing things with current technology. I'm sure that accounting will get better simply because the tools for tracking and accounting music plays is getting better. But, yeah... I agree that it needs work.

But, that's not going to change anything for people like Pianos who try to get by without paying ANYTHING. The idea that Pianos somehow is fighting the good fight because they know that that licensing money doesn't go to anyone but Britney Spears and Mick Jagger, is fucking comical. Those fuckers were trying to save money so that they'd have more to spend on cocaine. They were betting on not getting caught. And, they got caught. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Those waiting around for some fucking digital hippie utopia where "music is free, man" need to wake the fuck up. Technology isn't going to make it impossible to sell music. It's going to make it EASIER for you to buy it legitimately, easier to track plays in broadcast situations, and easier to tell who's cheating. And, in the end, regardless of how many people think that "it's unfair!!", it's always going to be cheaper to be honest and pay upfront, than to try to get away with something, get caught, and then pay fines. That's the whole fucking point of fines. It's not a free for all that you only have to pay for if you get caught. There are PENALTIES.

The day that music becomes more of a commodity than a thing of beauty and connection between fellow human beings is the day we have lost our way. I'm all for just compensation for artists, but to claim that playing songs in a club without a fee attached is causing "great and incalculable damage" is ridiculous.

This sort of language is used by corporations and lawyers to create an exaggerated claim to restitution that is wildly incongruent with the situation at hand. And as corporations and lawyers are prone to doing, they will use excessive attention-grabbing lawsuits as warnings, to scare others into not treading outside the strict lines red tape lines.

Artists must be compensated fairly, this is true. But if one is angered the negative impact Piano's infraction will have on the artists, they are directing their anger in the wrong direction. It's like complaining about secondhand smoke from a smoker nearby when you're standing outside a factory---there are much larger threats to your health, just as labels are much larger threats to the financial well-being of bands.

i would love to be able to eat my food in peace and quiet or have a drink and a conversation in peace and quiet. but unfortunately the music is usually just too loud and too horrible to boot. i hate what bmi and ascap are doing, but i hate what restaurants and bars do even more with music that causes indigestion and hoarseness. if i am going to an event, i am prepared, stoked and don't mind.

i'm worried that Pianos' infraction will have a negative impact on other local bars and restaurants who do play by the rules and pay licensing fees for the music that they play. again, if Pianos had just payed for the licensing to begin with, it would have been a lot less expensive for them.

They're not fighting the good fight. They're cheating. They're cheating artists (whoever they are) and they're cheating other businesses that are competing with them with the disadvantage of being honest and paying the licensing fee.

if the system isn't paying all artists fairly based on actual usage, then it isn't a system or paying artists at all - it's just an extortion game masquerading as a way to pay musicians.

hey 10:57, you're sure it's going to get more fair, huh... well why the fuck hasn't it gotten more fair already? I've sen no changes.

Really, it just sounds like you're a beneficiary of the current system, and hence an apologist for it.

These organizations have a legal right to collect these fees. They're also authorized by the artists to do this. Even the artists that don't get treated fairly, have agreed to let these organizations collect fees on their behalf.

The bar/restaurant owner's rights only extend to whether they'll pay the fee, in which case they can play the music legally, or not pay the fee, in which case they cannot play the music legally.

They cannot simply decide that they don't like the system, so they'll choose not to pay, but will play the music anyway.

how many fucking BMI and Ascap and RIAA mployees are on here?? give it a rest, it sounds like you guys assigned a pack of lawyers to Brooklyn Vegan comment duty.

you're really making asses of yourselves.

this thread is like a propaganda operation by the music industry equivalent of the American Enterprise Institute.

you guys sound like you've got to convince yourselves that Ascap and BMI are valid before you try to convince the rest of us. The arguments are pretty flimsy, here's the gist of what you're saying:

"sure the system is completely unfair and overpays the people who are already well payed, and doesn't even attempt do what it's mission is to do (pay all artists fairly based on actual usage), but since the idea of paying musicians sounds fair, our arbitrary shitty system it must be preserved at all costs!"

In reality, you just defend the system because it pays you and your friends, everyone else be damned! Your system is no more valid than if a bunch of self defined artists hired the mob to go around robbing and extorting random bar owners and shopkeeps as payback for usage of their creations, based on their own completely unquantitative hunches about what amount of art those businesses are probably using.

Oh wait... that is what you guys do! Just substitute "lawyers" for "the mob."

I'm a musician and a music fan. I don't work for any of these organizations. I just happen to be able to recognize when something is wrong.

If any bar or restaurant feels that the current system treats artists unfairly, they're welcome to NOT make music a part of the entertainment that they offer.

The problem here isn't that people (yes, real people like me) are recognizing what's wrong with a venue cheating the system and competing unfairly with other businesses. The problem is that there are still idiots who think that it's unfair that Bars like Pianos are actually (gasp!) penalized for cheating this way.

Nobody is forced to join one of these organizations. Yet, nearly every recording artist chooses to become a member of one of them.

The argument here is very similar to the illegal downloading argument. On one side, you've got people who legitimately don't understand that music doesn't just appear out of thin air. Unfortunately, this side also includes a lot of assholes who know exactly what they're doing, but they figure that if they don't get caught, then it's worth it. On the other side, you've got people who love music, and who understand that without ANY money involved, there would be a lot of very talented people who just couldn't devote the time to create the art that we all love so much. Of course, on this side, we've also got plenty of assholes who are ONLY concerned with the money part of it and who seem to want to penalize both the artists and the fans.

I went out to dinner tonight. I don't think that it's fair that the restaurant owner makes a killing, while the waitress is making next to nothing for busting her ass serving me for an hour. But, that's not a good justification to walk the check.

Fix the system then. And, until there's a system that you're happy with, just don't fucking play the music. It's that easy.

You have two legal choices:

1. pay for the licenses and play the music.
2. don't pay and don't play the music.

Voting with your wallet is a tough pill to swallow sometimes. You sometimes have to choose to NOT HAVE something that you want, because you don't agree the terms. Voting with your wallet DOES NOT MEAN just stealing something until you get caught.

Cheating the system is not fixing the system. And, people who think it is are just as deranged and idiotic as those who try to suggest that the RIAA is in it to protect the artists.

If anything, cheating the system just reinforces to these assholes that what they're trying to sell is actually quite valuable. The fact that someone wants something badly enough to steal it, and risk the consequences, definitely demonstrates a demand.

arguMEHnt

Music must be in the bar, otherwise it will stop suschestvovat.Chto respect of payment-in for all you have to pay.

P.S. The best
torrents search engine.

Music must be in the bar, otherwise it will stop suschestvovat.Chto respect of payment-in for all you have to pay.

P.S. The best
torrents search engine.

Music must be in the bar, otherwise it will stop suschestvovat.Chto respect of payment-in for all you have to pay.

P.S. The best search engine
http://www.queentorrent.com

"how many fucking BMI and Ascap and RIAA mployees are on here?? give it a rest, it sounds like you guys assigned a pack of lawyers to Brooklyn Vegan comment duty.

you're really making asses of yourselves."

I love whenever someone comes on the BV message boards with rational thought and common sense in regards to the music industry they are "accused" of being employees for this-or-that organization. No my friend, you are the one making the ass of a comment.

Accusing someone you disagree with of being a shill for a big, scary organization is much easier than actually coming up with a rational argument against what they're saying.

Most bars and restaurants don't pay. the PROs only REALLY go after you if you advertise or get lots of press (e.g. Pianos). They are lazy fucks when it comes to actually doing any leg work. they really are just a collection agency.

pianos is nice and the staff is too. no complaints. great happy hour place. but yeah, they got lazy on the blanket license and are getting slapped. they are not amateur venue owners, so they should know about this.

more armchair quarterbacks. Unless you actually make a living from music keep you uninformed hating to yourself. Blanket licenses are absolutely in the artist's favor. Why is it that everyone is an expert about the music industry yet none of these brave souls do it full time? Blanket licenses feed musicians.

More at http://rapid4me.com

Quite an interesting opinion, really glad that I have found this post.
http://healthnova.org

Most bars and restaurants don't pay. the PROs only REALLY go after you if you advertise or get lots of press (e.g. Pianos). They are lazy fucks when it comes to actually doing any leg work. they really are just a collection agency.
http://www.torrentgamez.com