ASCAP is serious

[fhm555]

In principle, I am sympathetic to ASCAP and BMI or, more accurately, to the artists and writers they claim to represent. But in practice, until they

1) adopt a more reasonable fee structure and

2) provide documentation to show how much of these fees actually make it to the artists and writers

I say a pox on both their houses.

Same here. There is no way ASCAP can know which songs are used by bar bands so how do they know who to pay royalties to? Is it a pool with an equal split for all members, or is there some kind of scale or formula used to determine who gets what? How much do the enforcers pocket?
I’m most assuredly not against artists getting their due, but i am most certainly against collection of fees for the purpose of providing employment for fee collectors while some artists get theirs and others don’t.
To be fair those responsible for paying should pay for what they use and the artist who owns that music should get everything but a flat collection fee.

 

[JimChjones]

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.

 

[Gravedigger Dav]

I agree that there should be royalties, but the down side is live music is on its death bed now. Going after bands will put it in the coffin.

 

[210superair]

 

[downunder]

The idea of collecting publishing royalties is a good one. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the money never seems to make it back to the composers.

There is a jazz club here in Philly that I heard just refused to pay. ASCAP Picketed the club. But in the end they had no recourse and were unable to collect.

There was another club (this is going way back to the late 70s early 80s) that had a policy that bands could play original music only, to get around the ASCAP fees.

There’s a Restaurant near me that has a jazz jam session and some other entertainment. There’s no bandstand, no PA, no Piano, no nothing. ASCAP recently came in and socked them for $10,000. They rolled over and paid.

 

[JimChjones]

The idea of collecting publishing royalties is a good one. Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the money never seems to make it back to the composers.

Except it does - in the UK at least. For example a mate of mine whose band never got above the local small club level gets a few quid every year for plays of their back catalogue on radio and the like - and a few tenths of a penny from netflix...

 

[Ekulati]

We should all be FOR ASCAP and BMI raising money to pay artists and songwriters for the use of their intellectual property and copyrighted songs.

Cheap@$$ bar owners need to pay up!

This is a quick, simple perspective on a complex and difficult problem. True, artists MUST get paid better for their work.

But we, those of us who are gigging entertainers (i.e. the much-maligned "cover" musicians) must also admit that the more venues have to pay for licensing, the LESS likely it is we can expect them to pay us well for gigs. It's simply an inverse relationship.

And no, I don't know what "the" answer is.

 

[downunder]

Except it does - in the UK at least. For example a mate of mine whose band never got above the local small club level gets a few quid every year for plays of their back catalogue on radio and the like - and a few tenths of a penny from netflix...

OK so a little bit of the money makes it back to the composers. But I think most of it goes to pay the staff at ascap.
I make about $10 a month from a song that get streamed about 3000 times per month. The president of Spotify is a billionaire, and everyone who works there makes over $100,000 a year. Maybe I’m wrong; maybe that’s fair and equitable. If it wasn’t for them I wouldn’t make anything. Idk

 

[SaucyJackBass]

Its why several of the places we play demand 100% original. We aren't supposed to ever drop a cover into the set. I've never seen bands chastised for doing it, but the agreement is original only.

 

[landrybass]

We should all be FOR ASCAP and BMI raising money to pay artists and songwriters for the use of their intellectual property and copyrighted songs.

Cheap@$$ bar owners need to pay up!

I agree! My area seems to have a f*** ton of breweries popping up every week. One guys plays them all with a dumb acoustic guitar, plays only covers, and nobody gets the royalties they deserve... the breweries are sure as hell not paying BMI/ASCAP, the douchbag with the acoustic guitar im sure isn’t even paying TAXES on income, never mind royalties to he artists he rips off.

 

[JimChjones]

Someone above quoted ASCAP's overheads as 11.3% of income. Compare to Spotify and the like... Remember the likes of Spotify, Google, Facebook are the ones with an interest in destroying the rights societies.

 

[FerK]

Except it does - in the UK at least. For example a mate of mine whose band never got above the local small club level gets a few quid every year for plays of their back catalogue on radio and the like - and a few tenths of a penny from netflix...

Same here. My band gets a few francs a year from Spotify, local/regional radio, etc.

 

[Nev375]

Don't think so, Nev. Cover bands benefit from songs written by other artists, and the venue where they're played has to pay the authors. It's not taking money from one pocket to put it back in the other.

Cover bands and venues are part of the same exact music and entertainment industry. Same body, different organs.

What happens when it's no longer economically viable to have music at venues? Where are cover bands going to play then? Venues are paying bands less and less to play sometimes bands are paying for the privilege. How are they supposed to pay legal fees and outrageous licensing costs on top of that? This is just going to lead to fewer bands, fewer venues or venues opting for a different form of entertainment.

The technology is already here for computer algorithms to compose music on the fly and choreograph a light show. Just put a dancing girl on stage and a camera can track and interpret her movements, lay down a matching rhythm and procedurally generate chord and music sequences and even predict and adapt to changes in the routine. You are going to be seeing this roll out in just a few more years.

 

[SAlcott]

The business model of recorded music has changed since the turn of the century. Make it work for you or don't...

Folks who get upset about the current model either need to understand it better, do something to change it, or get out the business.

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

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

I've never heard of bands being liable. My understanding was that the venue is responsible for the performance licenses.

If they are worried about outcomes, then they might want to issue licenses to musicians?

 

[LBS-bass]

I’m thinking about my bands, that play 50-50 covers and originals, release albums, and whose members pay memberships fees to one or the other of those organizations. No one has seen one red cent, and I know for a fact that, at the very least, we play our originals in bars that pay those fees.

You bring up a point, but the counter point is whether that would amount to any actual money in terms of royalties. One band playing their own material in clubs how many times a year is probably very tiny change compared to the number of times Seven Nation Army or Uptown Funk get played by countless bands in countless venues. I don't know what the royalties per play would be, but yes it's an imperfect system that does require the music to at least be on someone's radar in order to get royalties paid.

I don't know if there's a way that an originals band can let them know they're playing their own music somewhere, but it you're getting paid for that performance by the venue it certainly eclipses what you might theoretically be owed by ASCAP, who would have no knowledge that the music is even being played unless someone tells them.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

Same here. There is no way ASCAP can know which songs are used by bar bands so how do they know who to pay royalties to? Is it a pool with an equal split for all members, or is there some kind of scale or formula used to determine who gets what? How much do the enforcers pocket?
I’m most assuredly not against artists getting their due, but i am most certainly against collection of fees for the purpose of providing employment for fee collectors while some artists get theirs and others don’t.
To be fair those responsible for paying should pay for what they use and the artist who owns that music should get everything but a flat collection fee.

Well obviously they don't know but that doesn't stop them from "estimating".

They must have an algorithm but most bar owners have complained that they aren't open enough hours to play the amount of music that ASCAP wanted to bill. The owners did try to get them to alter the numbers to something more close to reality, but they woukdn't.

Most were told "take us to court". That remark solidified more than one owner's opinion that paying the bill as rendered meant the amount of music played was correct. That also led to worries that it could be upped the following year.

This is a leftover decoration from the old payola days that has never had the light shined on it's practices.

Transparency would be welcome, but it won't be voluntary.

 

[eJake]

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

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.

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.

 

[Ross W. Lovell]

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

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.

 

[fhm555]

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.