Decline in diner gigs due to right’s societies?

[JohnRoss]

A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.

At the same time. Playing recorded music is not a public performance, not even playing a video of a public performance. Unless you're going to let the lawyers write the dictionaries, which doesn't seem like a good idea.

[paynow]

At the same time. Playing recorded music is not a public performance, not even playing a video of a public performance. Unless you're going to let the lawyers write the dictionaries, which doesn't seem like a good idea.

John,

What I'm saying here is that they are blanket licenses. If they are playing any kind of music, they have it, and are lying if they tell a musician "the reason we can't hire you is because we have no license", and as you stand there listening to that BS, you hear the radio going in the background.

[czardas]

I have been receiving mailshots from a website called the live music forum for a number of years now, and I have to say that live music in the UK is no where near as common as it used to be.

The Live Music Forum, Campaign For Live Music.

My income has suffered, along with that of many UK musicians, due to licencing acts that put small venues out of pocket. When I hear someone say do I have a licence to play my flamenco guitar, this is like asking Bob Geldof to donate the proceeds from Band Aid to develop chemical and biological weapons. IMHO!

[MikeJ]

In Australia it wasn't only copyright licencing..

"Live music venues face tough licensing conditions, such as being required to provide extra security staff when holding live music events, regardless of their safety record. The requirement, also faced by cafes and restaurants with live music, has substantially increased the operating costs of many small venues."

a quote from People power for live music | Green Left Weekly (this was the first that came up in a search)

Not sure where its all at these days as I play for my own enjoyment and have long ago given up on the thought of ever earning a dime playing for others..

Cheers

Mike

[mike_k]

I just want to clarify a couple points on copyright law that have come up in this post. First, I want to state this should strictly not be taken as legal advice. I am an attorney, but I am not providing specific legal advice with the following statement (or any other statement on this forum).

Copyright differs from country to country. Within the United States, laws differ for how long a work may be copyrighted by the author depending upon when the work was copyrighted. Most tunes in the jazz standards books are still under copyright and are not part of the public domain. That means that the holder of the copyright has to grant permission for public performance of the song. What is overwhelming done by holders of songs' copyrights is that they assign the collection duties to ASCAP or BMI to collect fees on their behalf (as a practical matter, it is ridiculous to have a copyright holder track down every individual who wants to perform a song and negotiate performance compensation).

ASCAP and BMI in turn issue licenses to places where performances are held. Essentially, if an establishment wants to perform songs in one of the company's catalogs then that establishment needs to negotiate with ASCAP and/or BMI. These groups calculate a rate based on market, size of the establishment, and number of other factors.

It is important to note that U.S. Copyright provides and exception for playing "homestyle" devices in an establishment. This exemption allows for the play a radio in a restaurant without having to obtain permission from copyright holders. This is also the same exemption that is widely used by sports bars so that people can watch the big game at the bar.

This boils down to, for federal copyright law, if a live musician is playing, the establishment will almost certainly need a license. If the establishment is merely playing the radio (not c.d.'s or an ipod, etc.), then no license is required in the U.S. Please note that in addition to any federal law, state and local laws apply. Additional regulations may apply, especially when alcohol is available at the establishment.

[fumblefingers]

IMHO-it has very little to do with that. Gigs are down because these places are going to the wall because of the global downturn. Much easier to blame things like high licence fees rather than admit you're going broke because of idiot capitalists being greedy.

uh-huh. along with the idiot utopian politicians who believed that everyone deserved a mortgage, even if they weren't good credit risks.

kind of like the idiot utopian politicians who believe that health care is a right, and not a privelege, and that we should print money to pay for it.

[Spirit59]

kind of like the idiot utopian politicians who believe that health care is a right, and not a privelege, and that we should print money to pay for it.

Hey I know - let's somehow shift the topic to something benign and innocuous...something like.....politics!

[Bill C]

At the same time. Playing recorded music is not a public performance, not even playing a video of a public performance. Unless you're going to let the lawyers write the dictionaries, which doesn't seem like a good idea.

Playing recorded music in a commercial setting is - in the UK at least - most definitely a public performance. If not, how would TV/media composers receive royalties for performance of their work?

[JohnRoss]

Playing recorded music in a commercial setting is - in the UK at least - most definitely a public performance. If not, how would TV/media composers receive royalties for performance of their work?

Dunno, I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about vocabulary. Playing recorded music is most definitely not a performance, not in English or any other language I know. And how TV/media composers make a living is pretty near the bottom of my list of things I care about.

That 'commercial setting' is an insidious little phrase as well, it illustrates how rights collection organizations have managed to turn things upside down. The primary reason for going to a restaurant or bar is not to listen to musicians, but to eat or drink. Restaurants and bars may, it is true, gain a commercial advantage by having music of one kind or another. To extrapolate from that to the conclusion that this is a 'commercial setting' and that they should therefore have to pay copyright collection agencies is the kind of insanity only lawyers are capable of conning people into believing - by the same logic, interior designers and toilet cleaners should get a percentage of every meal. And why stop there? The furniture makers and the manufacturers of the toilet-cleaning fluids should also have a cut.

[billkath]

uh-huh. along with the idiot utopian politicians who believed that everyone deserved a mortgage, even if they weren't good credit risks.

kind of like the idiot utopian politicians who believe that health care is a right, and not a privelege, and that we should print money to pay for it.

Hmm-that's a very Fox News way of looking at it- full of non seqiturs.

I DO believe Everyone deserves a home. I don't believe people should be stupid enough to lend to those who can never afford to pay it back- rent to them at a rate they can afford.The state retains the asset. The more they earn, the more they contribute to the rent. When the amount of rent equals the amount a mortgage would cost, provide the mortgage to them, reducing the "asking price" by monies paid for rent.

I don't believe health care is a privilege - it is a right. A caring society looks after all it's citizens, irrespective of wealth. You don't print money to pay for it-society pays for it with taxation.

I've watched Fox News a lot recently, and they seem to be telling you that a social democracy is about just giving stuff away-handouts to freeloaders.
It's not-it's about a hand up.

[Bill C]

Dunno, I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about vocabulary. Playing recorded music is most definitely not a performance, not in English or any other language I know. And how TV/media composers make a living is pretty near the bottom of my list of things I care about.

That 'commercial setting' is an insidious little phrase as well, it illustrates how rights collection organizations have managed to turn things upside down. The primary reason for going to a restaurant or bar is not to listen to musicians, but to eat or drink. Restaurants and bars may, it is true, gain a commercial advantage by having music of one kind or another. To extrapolate from that to the conclusion that this is a 'commercial setting' and that they should therefore have to pay copyright collection agencies is the kind of insanity only lawyers are capable of conning people into believing - by the same logic, interior designers and toilet cleaners should get a percentage of every meal. And why stop there? The furniture makers and the manufacturers of the toilet-cleaning fluids should also have a cut.

It's essentially software licensing. For home use you buy the cheapo version. For business use it costs more, because the software potentially "adds value" to your business. And it must add value, because pretty much every high street shop and bar you go into is awash with piped music.

Music writers as well as players deserve to get paid for their work - particularly where others are using it for commercial advantage. The rights organisations are made up of their members - music writers and their publishers.

[mike_k]

Dunno, I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about vocabulary. Playing recorded music is most definitely not a performance, not in English or any other language I know. And how TV/media composers make a living is pretty near the bottom of my list of things I care about.

That 'commercial setting' is an insidious little phrase as well, it illustrates how rights collection organizations have managed to turn things upside down. The primary reason for going to a restaurant or bar is not to listen to musicians, but to eat or drink. Restaurants and bars may, it is true, gain a commercial advantage by having music of one kind or another. To extrapolate from that to the conclusion that this is a 'commercial setting' and that they should therefore have to pay copyright collection agencies is the kind of insanity only lawyers are capable of conning people into believing - by the same logic, interior designers and toilet cleaners should get a percentage of every meal. And why stop there? The furniture makers and the manufacturers of the toilet-cleaning fluids should also have a cut.

Well, that's the way that the law has been for a long time. It is the same law for all forms of recorded media in the U.S. If you go to a movie theater, the theater pays for the right to show the movie to be performed. In fact, the same goes for plays and musicals, etc.

I agree sometimes the copyright police argument for not having performers is a little ridiculous. However, keep in mind that far more restrictive laws were on the books in municipalities at the peak of Jazz. In fact, Thelonious Monk lost his NYC cabaret license a number of times, and this caused great financial stress for him and his family.

[paynow]

Dunno, I wasn't talking about law, I was talking about vocabulary. Playing recorded music is most definitely not a performance, not in English or any other language I know. And how TV/media composers make a living is pretty near the bottom of my list of things I care about.

That 'commercial setting' is an insidious little phrase as well, it illustrates how rights collection organizations have managed to turn things upside down. The primary reason for going to a restaurant or bar is not to listen to musicians, but to eat or drink. Restaurants and bars may, it is true, gain a commercial advantage by having music of one kind or another. To extrapolate from that to the conclusion that this is a 'commercial setting' and that they should therefore have to pay copyright collection agencies is the kind of insanity only lawyers are capable of conning people into believing - by the same logic, interior designers and toilet cleaners should get a percentage of every meal. And why stop there? The furniture makers and the manufacturers of the toilet-cleaning fluids should also have a cut.

Because most toilet cleaners and interior designers make a steady living.

[JohnW400]

Bar's/Lounges that have juke boxes must pay a fee to have the box. If the bar has cable/fios the price they pay is based on occupancy. Then on top of that the city/town may require a license.

Some towns have been lax to enforce the fee's , but in today economy I'll bet they check everyone.

[fumblefingers]

Hmm-that's a very Fox News way of looking at it- full of non seqiturs.

I DO believe Everyone deserves a home. I don't believe people should be stupid enough to lend to those who can never afford to pay it back- rent to them at a rate they can afford.The state retains the asset. The more they earn, the more they contribute to the rent. When the amount of rent equals the amount a mortgage would cost, provide the mortgage to them, reducing the "asking price" by monies paid for rent.

I don't believe health care is a privilege - it is a right. A caring society looks after all it's citizens, irrespective of wealth. You don't print money to pay for it-society pays for it with taxation.

I've watched Fox News a lot recently, and they seem to be telling you that a social democracy is about just giving stuff away-handouts to freeloaders.
It's not-it's about a hand up.

the number$ aren't with you my friend. nice philosophy though. have a good day.

[paynow]

The discussion was about copyright and licensing issues, not healthcare, O'Reilly, Fox, CNBC or what have you. There's so much of that everywhere else, is it really necessary here?

[markf]

I also think that if you can show that you will bring in more $ than you take out, you will have more gigs.

not sure how you develop a reliable fan base.

I do not have one.

[mike_k]

The discussion was about copyright and licensing issues, not healthcare, O'Reilly, Fox, CNBC or what have you. There's so much of that everywhere else, is it really necessary here?

+1

[Jazzaluk]

.This is more a case of music getting to the point where it has so little monetary value in today's culture, regardless of the economy.

Good point. I wonder why the licensing levy doesn't recognize basic market forces and lower the cost. This is the puzzling part. The law of diminishing returns should dictate that fees go down so that volume goes up and revenue increases for the members.

I am amazed at how many restaurants try to sidestep fees by playing GarageBand loop tracks that some employee mashed in their bedroom. Then they put up a few indigo lights and go all new age on the customer ... like this is the new hip moody environment ... Bogus beyond belief.

My wife was hilarious at one off these restaurantS ... She asked the waitress to turn down the video games while we were dining.

[JohnW400]

My wife was hilarious at one off these restaurantS ... She asked the waitress to turn down the video games while we were dining.

This one I'm going to have to remember.

[czardas]

My first intoxicated rant.

I find it rather perplexing that this thread exists at all. It gives an almost disrespectful impression. Music is the first consideration. Any legal professionals are bound to take a back seat in this respect. Music does not care about this kind of nonesense. Lawyers talk crap and artists comunicate. There's no way to tame something on this scale. Attempting to do so shows complete ignorance and imaturity.

[paynow]

My first intoxicated rant.

I find it rather perplexing that this thread exists at all. It gives an almost disrespectful impression. Music is the first consideration. Any legal professionals are bound to take a back seat in this respect. Music does not care about this kind of nonesense. Lawyers talk crap and artists comunicate. There's no way to tame something on this scale. Attempting to do so shows complete ignorance and imaturity.

I was going to ask if you were loaded when you wrote this, then I happened to notice the first line.

What are you talking about?

[czardas]

I just was about to delete this, but you quoted me. It's a bit embarassing, but I get really wound up about music being licenced. To me this is complete nonesense. Music is about community and sharing. The very idea that lawyers earn from music makes me sick. Learning law is a soft option compaired to lerning music. I don't consider people in these type of professions as being particulrly knowledgeable. In fact I really don't consider law to be an accademic subject. Perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but never mind.

[paynow]

I just was about to delete this, but you quoted me. It's a bit embarassing, but I get really wound up about music being licenced. To me this is complete nonesense. Music is about community and sharing. The very idea that lawyers earn from music makes me sick. Learning law is a soft option compaired to lerning music. I don't consider people in these type of professions as being particulrly knowledgeable. In fact I really don't consider law to be an accademic subject. Perhaps it's just my personal opinion, but never mind.

I get you now. You were so riled that it wasn't coming across.

[czardas]

something like that yeah. Thank goodness for spell checker