Decline in diner gigs due to right’s societies?

[mike_k]

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.

If music is about community and sharing, then with whom is it shared? Last I checked, this is a forum where a community of guitarists can share information. If you look at my posts over the years, I have tried to do that.

You sir are the one flaming "law", when the topic was about copyright and its possible relation to decline of dinner gigs. By the way, I do not practice it as an "academic subject." I practice it as a profession.

Your opinion is just that, and is really not contributing to this topic with any sense of community or sharing.

[fumblefingers]

this drunken rant makes musicians look like childish, sheltered inarticuate morons.

[czardas]

Hmm, fscinating. Music has at least an audience. Perhaps you disagree, but I consider this to be an integral part of the definition of music. When you charge me for having an audience, or communicating with an audience, the first thing that springs to mind is that you are a third party. The second infringement that draws my attention is that you falsely believe you have the authority to interfere with my communication, or that you can earn a living from it, which is clearly untrue in any universe.

At this point it becoimes obvious to me that your means of earning a living is to leech off the backs of others. It's like some kind of theft. I now think to myself that dispite the fact that you you were never invited to interrfere with my performance, all anarchy has now been set loose due to your conviction. What do you have to contribute to society as a lawyer?

Given the choice of a lawless society and a placid society without music, which would you choose? I know my answer.

[mike_k]

1. You obviously don't understand the concept of copyright. It is specifically designed to protect artist rights. If a song is covered by someone, the writer of song should be compensated. Similarly, if a recorded song is played in public, the writer, producer, etc. should be compensated.
2. Your posts contain personal attacks and are not civil.
3. I don't even practice intellectual property. I am sharing knowledge relevant to the thread. Also, I don't make the law. I help people interpret the law and guide them through legal proceedings.
4. Your argument is ridiculous and incoherent, and I will engage it no further in this thread.

[fumblefingers]

right. who do you think the lawyer is working for? the artists who created the original, and their business partners. your beef should be with them. you need to tell them that their work should go uncompensated. just because.

[czardas]

Yes my argument looks somewhat incoherent to me this morning too. I just get so wound up because I see stupid things happening, like pub owners being fined because their customers sang happy birthday, and artists being ripped off by performing rights societies etc... While I shouldn't have tried to voice any opinion in the state I was in last night, which is no excuse, I still feel quite strongly that there are too many people earning a living off the music who shouldn't be. The music we play, or at least myself, is part of an ongoing process where artists copy ideas and reproduce them, perhaps with a few changes. If someone were to tell me that proceeds of the money I pay would be distributed among the Spanish Gypsy community, I wouldn't believe them. That just doesn't happen, and as this is the music I play, I can't agree with it.

Edit
My comments were not intended as a personal attack on any individual BTW. I see why it might have come across that way. It was an attack on the legal profession in general. I realize that there are a few individuals who practice law who are passionate about justice, I don't think it's generally true. You may be an exception.

[Bill C]

Yes my argument looks somewhat incoherent to me this morning too. I just get so wound up because I see stupid things happening, like pub owners being fined because their customers sang happy birthday, and artists being ripped off by performing rights societies etc... While I shouldn't have tried to voice any opinion in the state I was in last night, which is no excuse, I still feel quite strongly that there are too many people earning a living off the music who shouldn't be. The music we play, or at least myself, is part of an ongoing process where artists copy ideas and reproduce them, perhaps with a few changes. If someone were to tell me that proceeds of the money I pay would be distributed among the Spanish Gypsy community, I wouldn't believe them. That just doesn't happen, and as this is the music I play, I can't agree with it.

Edit
My comments were not intended as a personal attack on any individual BTW. I see why it might have come across that way. It was an attack on the legal profession in general. I realize that there are a few individuals who practice law who are passionate about justice, I don't think it's generally true. You may be an exception.

The performing rights societies raison d'etre is to collect royalties for their members, who are music writers or writers' representatives - aka music publishers. I don't understand how artists are "ripped off" by the rights societies - the royalties you get as a member reflect the usage of your music - that seems to me to be a fair and practical way to reward music writers for the value their work adds to other commercial activities.

Regarding the point about "too many people earning a living off the music who shouldn't be". A lot of people working in the music business add real value for artists and writers and - from my own very limited experience - do a far better job of it than the musicians could do themselves - for example music publishers getting tracks used in TV.

[czardas]

Well, okay I admit that I may be taking things to extreme, but for whatever the reason, I see a big decline in venues. I see some stupid things happening and perhaps exaggerate a little. However I find it very sad that society's laws interfere with the public performance of music. I don't trust the PRS, and it goes against the grain concerning the essence of the music I play.

[fumblefingers]

if your music is good enough you should be able to find a venue. if not you can always open your own place. you could possibly find some partners who are fellow musicians.

with regards to the legal profession, i certainly don't need to defend them, they can do that themselves. it is quite common for people to complain about them.

however, you comment about them being unknowledgeable.....

if they are so lacking in knowledge, how do they pass the LSAT? how do they get through all that law school? how do they pass the bar?

do you believe that the average pro guitarist or other college dropout could do that?

[czardas]

The folk music circuit in the UK was a very popular and thriving thing until some licencing acts. Now it is practically dust. I was out of the UK when these changes took place, so I saw the overall result in one hit, as opposed to the slow decline that may have actually took place. Also I'm pretty fed up with gigs and haven't played any in a while. To be honest I can't keep chasing city gangsters to get paid for them. It's unhealthy.

I am perhaps a bit out of order to say that people in the legal profession are unknowledgeable. However the UK has been run by ex-lawyers over the last decade or so, and I can see some of the problems these lawyers have had to face, and the way they have handled International situations doesn't seem too bright to me. One thing I find particularly dumb is the fact that they resort to using language that nobody else understands. The whole system seems to be geared towards some kind of exclusive club. They tend to dissacociate themselves from the rest of society, and that I find rather suspicious. It certainly doesn't inspire confidence in the profession.

But like I said, there are probably a small percentage of legal professionals who are more in touch with reality, and have a desire to do good in society. I think most of them are just selfish though. Their fees are totally unreasonable. But I don't intend to post anything while intoxicated again, so you won't have to listen to anymore of my rants.

[paynow]

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.

Mike,

I had meant to thank you for this info and to thank you for correcting my own misinterpretation; upon looking closer at the ASCAP rules I realize that they mean a public, live performance that is being broadcast into a venue, not the radio playing pre-recorded material. My mistake.

Here is where I stand on this issue. I hold many copyrights on tunes I've written and of course would like to get someone to record the ones I actually think are good, and furthermore, someone with a name so they'll hit and I can get royalties. Now, do I really care that the "Irv Lipschitz Jazz Tuba Quintet" gets a hold of a song of mine that was published and performs it for 3 drunks in the basement of some obscure restaurant? No, I don't. Do I want him to be prevented from doing so, even if his nephew tapes it, throws it up on YouTube and 14 people watch it? No. I care, as I said, that someone well known records my material.

That being said I understand why they collect the fees from these places and while I think it can be a bit heavy-handed and probably requires some adjustment, I'm willing to compromise because of the invaluable service they perform going after the important stuff that believe me, you would not be able to track down yourself.

I do think that they should not be able to prevent people from playing original work in these venues. There was someone who has posted here, who when I visited his site was protesting BMI because they wouldn't allow him to play original tunes in some restaurant. I agree 100%. That's ridiculous.

I'm curious as to how the license fees are distributed, in so far as they are general and I'm sure they don't know which tunes are being played in a specific venue. I wonder if every artist gets a small percentage, whether their work was played or not, by a portion of that money they collect being added to their direct royalties.

[JohnRoss]

...the concept of copyright. It is specifically designed to protect artist rights.

The performing rights societies raison d'etre is to collect royalties for their members, who are music writers or writers' representatives - aka music publishers.

Googling 'music publishers,' the third link down on the first page I got was EMI. The MPA's website also includes Sony as a publisher. I haven't investigated further, but many of us think that EMI and Sony march to their own drumbeat, which has little to do with the interests of musicians.

The world has changed, and performing rights societies have acquired new power and visibility. Twenty years ago, no-one except professional musicans here, and by no means all of them, could even have named the Spanish royalty collection agency, the SGAE (pronounced 'sky'). It is now a household name, almost always spoken of with hostility, not by musicians, particularly, but by your proverbial man-in-the-street, plumbers, electricians, office workers, etc.

It is clear to me that these collection agencies are much stronger and more aggressive than they used to be. It is also evident, if only from what has been posted here, that there has been a 'decline in diner gigs.' Cause and effect? Perhaps not, almost certainly not on its own. But it isn't helping any.

[mike_k]

Paynow,

You make a number of insightful points. You are right, ASCAP, BMI, or other rights group does not have the ability to track every song at every venue. What I do know is that some rights groups do drop in on venues to sample the song playlists. Also, they do monitor licenses issued for recordings and they do monitor much of the world's broadcasts (with propriety computer programs that automatically recognize the tunes played). My guess is that they calculate the revenue to distribute based upon on an algorithm estimating the number of plays of an artists work.

These groups should not have the right to prevent people from playing their own 100% original works. Where that occurs, I suspect that there is some other regulation that applies, e.g. the requirement of a cabaret license (or, the club owner/manager is using the licensing fees as an excuse to politely decline entertainment in the establishment).

Again, my info is limited to U.S. copyright. I am not aware of the specific rights in other jurisdictions.

https://www.ascap.com/licensing/generallicensing.html

The above link explains what ASCAP licenses cover for restaurants and clubs. The FAQs linked from that page provide further useful information.

Copyright can get a bit hairy sometimes, especially where there are exceptions to the rights (e.g., fair use, homestyle, etc.). Keep in mind that the licensing groups will most certainly take a legal interpretation that is in the best interest of their members, and not necessarily the licensee.

[czardas]

Twenty years ago, no-one except professional musicans here, and by no means all of them, could even have named the Spanish royalty collection agency, the SGAE (pronounced 'sky'). It is now a household name, almost always spoken of with hostility, not by musicians, particularly, but by your proverbial man-in-the-street, plumbers, electricians, office workers, etc.

And these are exactly the people I fraternize with. It is their observations and complaints, that mould my opinions. I don't know if my attacks are unjust. I really just see a destructive effect. While some of the proceeds from such collections may go to the artists, I think it needs to be made apparent, and that doesn't seem to be the case. It certainly would surprise me if the Spanish authorities have not been corrupt in this regard.

[Bill C]

Googling 'music publishers,' the third link down on the first page I got was EMI. The MPA's website also includes Sony as a publisher. I haven't investigated further, but many of us think that EMI and Sony march to their own drumbeat, which has little to do with the interests of musicians.

My own very limited experience (in library music) is that major music publishers take a sizeable cut, but deliver far more cash to the writer than you get by going it alone.

My local jazz club - set up by by a couple of musicians and hosted in the back room of a pub - presumably PRS-licensed - is about to celebrate its 12th anniversary.

[Bill C]

These groups should not have the right to prevent people from playing their own 100% original works. Where that occurs, I suspect that there is some other regulation that applies, e.g. the requirement of a cabaret license (or, the club owner/manager is using the licensing fees as an excuse to politely decline entertainment in the establishment).

In the UK, I believe I'm right in saying that PRS will pay out for performances of original compositions by members if they submit a relevant set list.

[JohnRoss]

It certainly would surprise me if the Spanish authorities have not been corrupt in this regard.

Was insulting lawyers in this thread not enough for you? Going for ethnic, now, as well?

[czardas]

Was insulting lawyers in this thread not enough for you? Going for ethnic, now, as well?

No, I'm pretty angry to be honset. The legal profession have a vested interest in crime. That's how they make a living. It's just a vicious cirlcle. To disrupt people's enjoyment of music is just another way they can make a living out of people, and I consider it a lack of concern for humanity.

[Hypno]

I do think that they should not be able to prevent people from playing original work in these venues. There was someone who has posted here, who when I visited his site was protesting BMI because they wouldn't allow him to play original tunes in some restaurant. I agree 100%. That's ridiculous.

I have not heard of this before. BMI has a new thing; it is BMI Live. BMI Live | FAQ | BMI.com

As I understand it, if you perform original material in clubs, you can fill out the form with the set lists for your originals to receive royalties.
It says to enter performance day and time, set list and venue information. And only the performing songwriter can enter the performance info.

[paynow]

I have not heard of this before. BMI has a new thing; it is BMI Live. BMI Live | FAQ | BMI.com

As I understand it, if you perform original material in clubs, you can fill out the form with the set lists for your originals to receive royalties.
It says to enter performance day and time, set list and venue information. And only the performing songwriter can enter the performance info.

Very interesting. I wonder if ASCAP has something similar; as a songwriter I think you have to join one or the other, but can't join both. I believe if you're a publisher you can join both. Thanks for posting that.

[fumblefingers]

Was insulting lawyers in this thread not enough for you? Going for ethnic, now, as well?

it would not surprise anyone if a few old world countries were corrupt. in some countries (i won't name them) bribes are a cultural norm, and at all levels of society.

[czardas]

Well now that I have sobered up somewhat, I can say that it hasn't changed my general opinion. Although some of you may be ignoring me by now, I'm sure that Mike is not one of the corrupt professionals I have been knocking. However, I find it most disturbing that something like this can do so much harm to that which it is meant to protect. The only people that can afford these live music licenses are crooks. The politicians in my country are corrupt. The last several years of mailshots from live music campaigners is a clear indication of this. My anger is unlikely to subside until this mess is sorted out.

Stopping children from having live music in school plays, prosecuting people for singing happy birthday and eroding a whole musical culture on the pretence that you are protecting the rights of a few individuals just doesn't wash with me.

[Spirit59]

.... prosecuting people for singing happy birthday....

Good lord man - you weren't exaggerating!

snopes.com: Happy Birthday Copyright

[czardas]

Good lord man - you weren't exaggerating!

Not at all! My above statements are all based on newspaper articles I have come across.

I just did a bit of searching myself and I found this. It appears to be a UK parliamentary debate on music (and sport) licensing. While is quite long, and I haven't examined the whole thing in depth, the first section makes an interesting read. It's a farly old article and I believe that some amendments have since been made, however the core nature of the debate continues to this day.

Licensing Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 12 December 2002)

[max chill]

If ignorance is bliss, this thread is ecstasy. When in doubt, choose ignorance. Truth? That takes too much effort.