Should bands and Musicians be licenced?

[Fergie Fulton]

This question come about as continuation of the thread link below from a different angle as it raises different points.

bar sued for not paying royalty fees

Currently we have bars/venues that pay for a licence to play music live as in a band, or canned as in tapes Cds etc.

It seem these dues go to ASCAP and such agencies as it is their members music that is being played or covered by bands.

If the venue has original music and plays original music then is it exempt from these licences it seems. It is the venues responsibility to pay for the licence, not the band that plays covers of songs which the licence covers.

So who should pay for this licence the venue or the bands that play covers?

It is put that the venue absorbs these costs, as part of its running costs, but it come out of money you would have been payed as a band .( the venue knocks off $20 from what it would pay every band to pay for its licence)

If a bar has live music 7 nights a week and 3 of those nights are cover bands then he needs a licence. I say but what about the other 4 nights, are the bands that write original music in fact paying for the cover bands. The fact that the venue needs this licence for music, if all bands were original, supplied the venue with original music to play the venue would not need the the licence.
As a result there could be more venues for original music, helping promote new music and ideas.

If a band that plays covers had to pay to have a licence to play, then maybe they might write original music, rather than relying on a venue having a licence, which in covering them, also covers bands that don't need it.

Do cover bands then by their very exsistance prevent original music from flourishing?

I know many venues in the UK that put Indie, Blues, jazz, reggie soul, or songwriters night on once a month, never on a weekend it must be said, in favour of cover bands. Some of these venues have an audience evey weekend regardless, so any band that plays an instantly recognisable song is going to go down.

Is it not a case of different bands same songs, week in week out?

So should a venue pay so they can play, or should the bands pay because ultimately they are the ones that are using other peoples copyrighted music for there own gain?

[ggunn]

I vote no, but you knew that already.

Songwriters write music for their own reasons and the economics are rarely an issue. Besides, isn't there enough bad original music out there already?

I think that the present system in place in the US (which is apparently different from that in the UK), though not perfect, is preferable to charging anyone who wants to start a band a fee for playing covers.

[elgecko]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

Do cover bands then by their very exsistance prevent original music from flourishing?

No, horrible original music is what keeps original music from flourishing. If it's "truly" good music, it won't be suppressed by the easy availability of cover music.

[Din Of Win]

I'd rather hear horrible original music than well-played music that the bend did not write.

But that's just IMHO.

That being said, I vote NO as well. I respect any musician that gets up and plays in front of other people regardless of WHAT they are playing.

[southernrocker]

No. Maybe they should outlaw playing other bands' music in private, too.

[Phalex]

It's an interesting concept, but who pays what?? You've got cover bands that don't get out of the garage much, and don't make a lot of money from gigs. Would they pay the same fee as a cover band that's playing 3 or 4 nights every week?

If venues have music on a regular basis, paying ASCAP fees as well as paying bands to come play their clubs is part of their operating expense. If a venue could make as much, or better money booking all original acts, they'd have no use for ASCAP fees or cover bands at all. So, I'm thinking cover bands must make clubs money, otherwise they wouldn't ever get hired. Therefore, I would further surmise that paying ASCAP fees and having the ability to hire any band at all that they feel will sell the most drinks to the most patrons would be money well spent.

Of course: IMHO IME & YMMV

[TheVoiceless]

Let's not turn this is into original band against Cover bands. Both have their place. Great original bands have made a name for themselves by redoing a cover. The clubs should pay. It makes the most sense IMO. Bar owners should realize that if they want cover bands they need to pay the price. I play originals so I hope that some clubs will cater to local original bands more to save the money. But its safe to say that they will lose patrons. Just because I can't stomach another round of "Jesse's Girl" does not mean that others feel the same way. And to you cover guys out there, don't hate on original bands. It takes a bigger set of you know what to create something from nothing then to play connect the dots. I would much rather hear something different then the best cover of "Streetlight people". But thats me.

[Pilgrim]

Look, when you have live music, it's a given that not all of it will be original. The bar pays, it's part of their overhead, and that's life. We all need to get over it...because that's the way it is.

[Steve]

If the licensing included a competancy test so garbage bands that flod the market and kill the wage couldn't work....

I'd be all for that.

[Phalex]

Originally Posted by Steve

If the licensing included a competancy test so garbage bands that flod the market and kill the wage couldn't work....

I'd be all for that.

Hey!

I guess I could stay home and work on my yard........

[Steve]

I gotta pay a license fee every year to work as an electrician.

I had to pay a license fee and take a competancy exam every two years when I was a Paramedic.

I had to have a friggan wall full of test certifications when I was a computer nerd.

Around here that are a lot of working bands with guitar players that can't even play in tune let alone play well. I'd be happy if that went away.

[jmattbassplaya]

The more I read about this stuff, the more I think that this whole liscence thing is nothing but bull.

Playing covers isn`t like going out and being an electrician, or a plumber, or a nuclear engineer. Is the original artist really losing much profit? Not really, if at all. That`s because the main bands who are being covered are usually only the bands big enough to be worth covering in the first place! Take any cover band who plays a gig for $500 a night at their local bar by playing AC/DC covers. That is nothing but free exposure for AC/DC, and IMHO, would actually increase profits for AC/DC because
1) their music just got played without them having to do any work for that night
2) The cost for AC/DC to fly there and play that gig for that price would end up costing them a ton more money for the same price as the cover band, and
3) people who hear the songs might become more likely to go out and buy AC/DC`s cd`s because they want to hear the orignal again.
That`s free exposure plus profit from doing nothing. And even with the cover band playing at local bars around town X amount of times a year, that still wouldn`t stop people from going out and paying over $100 a ticket to see the real AC/DC live.

I mean hell, bands signed to major labels see most of their money from tours and merch alone, and a few cover bands playing one or two of their songs wouldn`t in away take away from their profits.

But that brings up the next factor - What about indi bands that see most money from music sales?

Lot`s of factors to consider but I`m out of time for now.

More later.

[ggunn]

Originally Posted by jmattbassplaya

The more I read about this stuff, the more I think that this whole liscence thing is nothing but bull.

Playing covers isn`t like going out and being an electrician, or a plumber, or a nuclear engineer. Is the original artist really losing much profit? Not really, if at all. That`s because the main bands who are being covered are usually only the bands big enough to be worth covering in the first place! Take any cover band who plays a gig for $500 a night at their local bar by playing AC/DC covers. That is nothing but free exposure for AC/DC, and IMHO, would actually increase profits for AC/DC because
1) their music just got played without them having to do any work for that night
2) The cost for AC/DC to fly there and play that gig for that price would end up costing them a ton more money for the same price as the cover band, and
3) people who hear the songs might become more likely to go out and buy AC/DC`s cd`s because they want to hear the orignal again.
That`s free exposure plus profit from doing nothing. And even with the cover band playing at local bars around town X amount of times a year, that still wouldn`t stop people from going out and paying over $100 a ticket to see the real AC/DC live.

I mean hell, bands signed to major labels see most of their money from tours and merch alone, and a few cover bands playing one or two of their songs wouldn`t in away take away from their profits.

But that brings up the next factor - What about indi bands that see most money from music sales?

Lot`s of factors to consider but I`m out of time for now.

More later.

Well, I am in favor of songwriters benefiting monetarily when their works are used to earn money for others. I believe, however that a blanket license purchased by the venue is a better way to compensate the artists. Obviously, many others think that as well, seeing as that is the way it is done.

[Fergie Fulton]

Well, I am in favor of songwriters benefiting monetarily when their works are used to earn money for others. I believe, however that a blanket license purchased by the venue is a better way to compensate the artists. Obviously, many others think that as well, seeing as that is the way it is done.

Just because thats the way its done does not make it right, it makes it easy. Remenber things change whether we want them or not, see the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4736039.stm


"Not my problem" was one answer given if the venue did not have a licence, on anothe thread. See how this link reads

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...ic/2775821.stm

This is a link to just one town in the UK about entertainment

http://www.eastbourne.gov.uk/busines...entertainment/

After reading that link, and that still does not cover all bar/venue expenses as part of "the business setup" does any band come of good in these deals?

This is happening now, it is changing and being ammended all the time to venues. You may think, "but that will never happen here".......i can tell you we thought the same thing.

That's the thing about a licence, one day you don't need one, the next day you do. The organisations that push these proposals through, do so for there own gain, using the law to back them up. Councils and local authorities use Courts and "health and safety" laws to control their licences for their own coffers.
So a licence is just not about copyright, that's just one side of it, its about having the power to work where and when you want.
If there ever was just one licence to cover all these points, so just a one off payment every year cleared the way for venues or bands to play and promote what ever they wanted, who should have to pay for that licence...hypothetical of course?

[fdeck]

It seems like what you are talking about is some sort of general business license, not a license to use copyrighted music owned by ASCAP.

For now, ASCAP is a private business, and will do what is best for their business, which is probably to collect from venues and not bands. Collecting from bands would seem like a nightmare. I don't care if they collect from the band or the venue, either way I still get my money to play bass.

As for general business licensing, the US has always been more freewheeling than other countries in terms of small business regulation. Here in Wisconsin, the laws for professional licensing strictly state that licensed professions must involve some risk to public safety.

In terms of collecting tax revenue, I think it would be remarkably difficult to collect a usable amount from bands, and bands are already taxed in the same way that other businesses are taxed, through the income tax.

[alapantera]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't any venue (i.e. bar) with a jukebox need a license anyway? Since the majority of venues will already have their licenses, unless they don't want any music at all, isn't this pretty much a moot point?

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by Fergie Fulton

So should a venue pay so they can play, or should the bands pay because ultimately they are the ones that are using other peoples copyrighted music for there own gain?

The premise is false. "Ultimately", they both are using other people's copyrighted music for their own gain. Technically, the bar is "ultimately" responsible because they contract the bands. The bar determines the kind of music to be played (cover or original) based on their business needs and then pays the band out of the profit that they make.

Ultimately, that music is played in that bar on that night because the bar made it happen.

Mike

[fdeck]

To make an analogy, I use computer software for my day job, but my employer pays for the software licenses.

[mike_v_s]

Originally Posted by fdeck

To make an analogy, I use computer software for my day job, but my employer pays for the software licenses.

That statement right there should end this discussion. Thank you.

Mike

[jmattbassplaya]

Originally Posted by ggunn

Well, I am in favor of songwriters benefiting monetarily when their works are used to earn money for others. I believe, however that a blanket license purchased by the venue is a better way to compensate the artists. Obviously, many others think that as well, seeing as that is the way it is done.

But how much is a band actually benefiting? Let`s say we have a typical sized band of 4 members. Let`s say they play out 4 times a month(fairly typical for a band that still plays dominantly covers). Let`s say on average they make $400 a night for a 4 hour gig(also typical)(Gotta love that number 4! )

At the end of the night each member is only making $100 before gas, food, and drink, which averages out to $25 an hour... How much is a band really benefiting from playing another bands music? I`m only 19 myself and I`ve already had two jobs that`ve paid more than that per hour. I`m also willing to bet that most people on this forum have actual careers where they make $30-$50 an hour. After the time it takes to move equipment, set up, play the gig, tear down, and go home, most people are already out a loss just because of how much time it takes out of their lives.

So are the bands really benefiting? Meh... IMHO, not really. At least not in regards to the almighty $$$. Are the bars? Let`s just say I rather them pay a fee than me!

Even after saying all of that, I still believe that artists should be benefiting from their work if it`s being covered. My problem lies more with ASCAP. IMHO, they shouldn`t be making money as a middle man when they(from my understanding) really do nothing. They don`t write the music. They don`t record the music. They don`t play the music. They don`t distribute the music. And yet they somehow are benefiting from the music. Like a person posted on the sister thread to this, I see the owners of ASCAP looking like the guys from the Sopranos.