ASCAP is serious

[Music Attorney]

Yes, they do. It's the duty of the venue to file for every single song played live, own or cover.



I hope it's just a slap on the wrist. It IS the band's duty to list all songs they will perform, ESPECIALLY if they're not theirs.



That doesn't give them the right to support their business at the expense of others (i.e. musicians who don't get compensated for the use of their work). If they're broke, it's their fault for running a business that's not profitable. I'll think twice before doing a public viewing of a Marvel movie at my almost-bankrupt bar. Why should playing MY music be different? Just because I can't enforce it? That's what author societies are for.



I don't think that's correct. ASCAP, like almost every author society, is a non-for profit. Excluding admin costs (Invalid Link Removed), all the money they collect goes to the musicians. You can challenge the way they sample performances, but the money does go to authors.



I can't speak for ASCAP, but most societies do offer different pricing schemes depending on the type, scope and magnitude of venues. Based on what I just read in their site, they DO:

The annual rate depends on the type of business. Generally, rates are based on the manner in which music is performed (live, recorded or audio only or audio/visual) and the size of the establishment or potential audience for the music. For example, rates for restaurants, nightclubs, bars and similar establishments depend on whether the music is live or recorded, whether it's audio only or audio visual, the number of nights per week music is offered, whether admission is charged and several other factors.

Concert rates are based on the ticket revenue and seating capacity of the facility. Rates for music used by corporations ("Music In Business") are based upon the number of employees. College and university rates are based upon the number of full time students; retail store rates depend on the number of speakers and square footage. Hotel rates are based on a percentage of entertainment expenses for live music and an additional charge if recorded music is used.

Because ASCAP has over a hundred different licenses and rate schedules, one will likely fit your needs. ASCAP operates under the principle that similarly situated users should be treated similarly. This assures fairness and consistency in our licensing. For example, rates for restaurants of the same size, with the same use of music are the same regardless of whether the restaurant is in Oshkosh or New York City.

Finally, some sanity.

 

[Music Attorney]

Its the art of the possible though isn't it: if you have a collector in residence at every live venue in the country to record exactly what is played then all the income will be spent on collectors and none will be left for the artists. The "fairer" it is in that sense then the less anyone gets. I think you'll find there is nothing secret about any of it, at least as far as the society members are concerned, and its all documented, but you'll also find that the useful idiots spread rumours and lies as anti rights society propaganda. Folks need to ignore the rumours and lies and go to the societies. And the other thing to do is, like anything with artistic industries, look at the bottom line. I'd rather have 20% of a million than 50% of 100,000.

Yay.

 

[Music Attorney]

I've survived in the business for 50+ years. I'd love to hear how you make Spotify work for you.

If the only thing you have is the music, then it probably won't. Although people in the industry don't all agree, the general range of agreement is that 1 million streams is worth about $3,500-$5,500. Not sure what making it "work" means, but I have a number of clients who would never have made money in the traditional label system, but are doing well because Spotify and others provide a platform to draw a crowd.

If your music draws a crowd, then you monetize the crowd.

I understand many people have strong feelings about this, but, in general, you almost have to view music as a loss leader to sell something else like tickets, merch, sponsorships, endorsements, etc.

If your music doesn't draw a crowd, then Spotify, in and of itself, is unlikely to work.

 

[Music Attorney]

No prob my dude but I'm going to be brief.

One of the major positives that come from Spotify is that you can locate where your listeners are. This allows you to Target your social media adverts to the right places. It also allows you to book road shows that you know will have good turnouts.

To name a few.

On another note I don't feel like Spotify is inherently evil. I'm not sure if you've done the research or not but theyre not very profitable. The big 3 still take all their money.

And their equity Sony Has Sold Half of Its Spotify Shares

 

[Music Attorney]

We are in the ade of 360 deals. Revenue streams come from monetizing music in many ways.

Have to stop looking at getting it all from one place.

Yep.

 

[Music Attorney]

Just look at the hard facts.

The performance royalty for airplay (paid to the songwriter and / or to their publisher) as I recall is $0.06 per spin.

And you "bass" that on what?

Radio pays huge blanket fees that go into big pots at ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. From each of their pots, the PROs make determinations as to who gets what based on a huge number of factors. It's about as inexact a process as you get. I am not aware of any information that could support a per-spin rate, but I'm happy to be educated.

 

[Music Attorney]

I guess you missed the part where Family Man Barrett had to sue ASCAP for his Wailers royalties. It was in the millions of dollars.

Are you talking about this lawsuit Invalid Link Removed

If so, it doesn't mention ASCAP and I can't find anything online that does. Not saying it didn't happen, but would appreciate a link to supporting evidence. My guess is that ASCAP didn't want to payout because there was a dispute over the money and until that dispute was settled, they didn't want to pay the wrong person and then try to get it back.

I've had several clients involved with high-profile infringement claims and in each of those cases all the labels, publishers, PROs, and other collection agents withheld royalties until the matters were settled. Nothing nefarious by any of them.

In fact, scummy lawyers (redundant?) know this and file nuisance claims because they know everyone involved wants to get paid their money and not have it held up for years (6 years for one client) while the matter is being litigated.

 

[Music Attorney]

But from what I can make out that was not because ASCAP were malevolently withholding the money, but because the Wailers finances and ownership of rights was a complete chaotic mess, and there have been numerous other lawsuits related...

I don't know anything about the case, but my money goes here.

 

[crazyBassClown]

You have no clue what you're talking about. Are the PROs perfect? Of course not. Are there things about their systems that raise an eyebrow or two? Sure. The job they do is so massive and intensive there are going to be mistakes, favoritism, and other less flattering descriptions. But you're way off base.

So everyone keeps saying. How do they determine the distribution of these fees they are taking?
If they aren't going to the actual copyright owner of the songs being played, which I find highly unlikely in a live bar band situation, it should go directly to the people playing. Anything else is incredibly hard to justify.
But please enlighten me.

 

[Slevage]

Royalties for use on broadcast medium such as TV and Radio are also paid by these organisations. I have no doubt these are paid to the intended recipients with minimal problems.
This thread is specifically about fees payable by bars and similar.

Directly from that article

If they have to send an investigator to the bar to see what is being played, who are they paying the royalties to for this normally? That is the whole issue I have with this.
They are demanding the bar pay royalties that will never have a specific person to be paid to, just whoever they think it should be. ie taylor swift or whatever other big name is popular at the moment, even if all they have are cover bands playing classic rock from the 70's.

Interesting—-
Do you have a credible source that explains how ASCAP fines are used/distributed?

 

[Slevage]

So everyone keeps saying. How do they determine the distribution of these fees they are taking?
If they aren't going to the actual copyright owner of the songs being played, which I find highly unlikely in a live bar band situation, it should go directly to the people playing. Anything else is incredibly hard to justify.
But please enlighten me.

So everyone keeps saying. How do they determine the distribution of these fees they are taking?
If they aren't going to the actual copyright owner of the songs being played, which I find highly unlikely in a live bar band situation, it should go directly to the people playing. Anything else is incredibly hard to justify.
But please enlighten me.

Why would it go to the people playing?
They don’t hold the copyright— they’ve already agreed on a fee for their service.

 

[HolmeBass]

No they don't and yes they do.

There are a number of collection and administrative hoops that come into play in order to answer your question, but assuming you have done all the right things to claim money owed to you, there is still the issue of whether the PROs will allocate some portion of the venue's license fee for the performance of your originals. Unless your songs have some traction, it's unlikely you'll see anything.

These two posts effectively contradict each other, don’t they?

 

[dbsfgyd1]

There are pretty well established formulas for determining fees and they are based upon things like occupancy, the number of nights a venue has live music, etc. Those formulas are available online, so that part of the process is fairly transparent.

"Mob shakedown" seems a little melodramatic, but that's what I keep hearing. I'd like to hear your proposal for how this can be done differently. The only part of this that seems at all like a shakedown is the fact that representatives randomly visit the venues to make sure they're in compliance with the law. That's the law, as in, those things all of us get busted on if we don't follow them. But everyone wants intellectual property rights to be no man's land and for those laws to be breakable without reproach.

And is the net revenue distributed to the artists transparent as well? For instance, I own a death metal club and I’m charged a $4,000 fee. How much of that gets paid to Weird Al Yankovic, who’s music will never be played in my establishment? My guess is none, which makes this a tax as there is no control over the dispersion of the proceeds. If he does, then I’m paying for something I’m not getting.

 

[Indiana Mike]

The exclusive performance right still exists it's just that the people in control of the right to perform the songs are in a position to grant the venue the permission it needs on whatever terms are agreed (including free).



Not sure what you mean, but performance royalties are not fed to artists in their capacity as an artist, they are paid to publishers/songwriters (which may be the same person as the artist, but they are wearing a different hat). Lawyers are not fed performance royalties unless you mean the percentage that some lawyers (5%), managers (15-20%), Agents (10%), Biz Mgrs (5%) receive from their songwriter clients. But if that's what you are referring to, then they get a piece of what their client earns so they are in the same boat when it comes calculations, payouts, etc.

Just wondering if this is primarily pursued by firms for profit ( for themselves) ,or to actually protect artists.

Is the intent to protect artists interests genuine, or is it taking advantage of laws for profit. Like patent trolling.

If the intent is genuine that's fantastic.

 

[JimChjones]

And is the net revenue distributed to the artists transparent as well?

The curse of these sorts of discussions is people posting what they think is happening rather than going back to the primary sources. And now I'm going to repeat the same error and make things worse.

But when I investigated the UK rights societies a few years ago my understanding was that they crunch data from a lot of sources. For the major/high income sources they attempt to get all the data. For small/low income events they get a sample of the events out there, and multiply the numbers they get across all the events in that category.

I don't know whether they've changed since I last looked it all up, but as its as fair a method as can be devised without spending all the income on collecting data I doubt it. I didn't go into all the subtleties, it seemed obvious to me that they were attempting to strike as good a compromise as they could between making the data gathering as accurate as possible, and minimising the overheads on what they distribute.

 

[dbsfgyd1]

Well intended or not, still is about as transparent at the government. I don’t mind paying for what I’m using, but The libertarian in me says don’t bill be for what I’m not using for “the greater good”. That is where I draw the line.

 

[JimChjones]

Just wondering if this is primarily pursued by firms for profit

The rights agencies are not firms. They are societies whose membership is the artists they represent. I'm not a member of a UK music rights agency, but am a member of a publishing one. They hold elections for the senior posts, and the entire membership gets to vote. I don't bother to vote because I'm not that interested in the internal politics, which is doubtless as complicated and nasty as any other body, or the mechanics of how they work. They seem to do an OK job. The one thing for sure is that they do an infinitely better job than I could do on my own.

Transparency.
What people who talk about this don't seem to realise is that transparency costs. If you are going to publish every tiny detail of all the data and all the formulae and everything else in a format the majority can understand then that's going to be a hell of a lot of money. Money that comes off the bottom line that's paid to the membership. Then added to that there will also be a number of people who contest the detail and they all need to be replied to, explained and everything else. And that's yet more time and money. I know something about this because I'm a volunteer on a sports body that does number crunching to produce handicaps for the sport. Again its the art of the possible. A significant number of our complainants will never be satisfied and will yell about unfairness and bias when it doesn't exist. I've been accused of bias towards mass market manufacturers (which is comical to those who know my background in the sport) taking under the table payments and goodness knows what else. Its rather like trying to educate flat earthers. So, for a society, is it reasonable to squander large amounts of the members income on providing "transparency" that most of the members couldn't give a damn about, and which will never satisfy the loudest critics anyway, or is it better to do what the society is there for and hand the cash out to the members?

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

I was just thinking, rather than have a separate "union" for collection of royalties and multiple smaller unions repping musicians directly, why not have a national union and every member is responsible for policing the misuse of copyrighted material. Musicians are busy but I don't know a single successful independent contractor or self employed individual who isn't, especially if the amount of work is in direct proportion to your earnings.
Or maybe require anyone who wants to play in public become a union member and part of that responsibility is to self report the songs you cover and pay a flat rate per song based on a percentage of what you earned to play that song, say one percent. You play a typical bar night and make a hundred off a 40 song setlist, you pay forty bucks for the use of those songs. To keep everyone honest, kick them out of the union if they refuse to pay. They can still play, but only original compositions and they have no authority to collect on the use of that material because they are not a member of the union. In short, give everyone making the music a stake in the game and quit relying on someone else to collect your money for you except for someone in the same situation. If music venues didn't have to pay all the enforcers, they can afford to pay bands a little more so paying to use someone else's music won't hurt the bottom line as bad for everyone involved. In an era where you can reach the world from anywhere you have a connection to the internet, you could even take it one step further and put all member music in a single location and anyone who wants it has to go there to get it and any money earned goes directly into the song owners account less a small admin fee to keep the service up and running.
It seems if musicians took advantage of the technology currently available and worked together, all those billionaires paying you a couple cents a song would need to find someone else to exploit.

Yep.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

And you "bass" that on what?

Radio pays huge blanket fees that go into big pots at ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. From each of their pots, the PROs make determinations as to who gets what based on a huge number of factors. It's about as inexact a process as you get. I am not aware of any information that could support a per-spin rate, but I'm happy to be educated.

So Music Attorney........with the advent of 360 deals where the artist is doing more of the work with an attorney, what is the rationale and justification for the ASCAP fee still being so disproportionate?

Seems like when a service has a cost benefit ratio that is this poor with all the new deals around, it needs to be reexamined?

This is a leftover from "The Payola" days.

 

[Nevada Pete]

You should really consider not posting.

After I put that up there I realized my error, but the forum doesn't let you edit the posts anymore later than an hour after they go up. You can't delete a post anymore either after the time limit has expired. I figured somebody would figure it out.

Welcome to talk bass. May I point out that it takes a giant ego and no class whatsoever to say something like, "You should really consider not posting", on any forum. It displays a lack of character on your part and an undeserved sense of entitlement. You can refute anything you want, but what you said is actually over the line. But go ahead and rage on. I've met plenty of people who act like your acting in the music biz. It goes with the territory. Alcohol often plays a part in this behavior.