PDA

View Full Version : Companies pushing to have nightclubs pay royalties on songs



burvowski
June 1st, 2009, 07:40 PM
I find intellecual property issues extremley interesting, especially in an age where almost anyone could make and publish their own music, movies, books, etc. So I found this news story quite interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/media/01iht-music01.html?_r=2

thoughts?

CJ Master
June 1st, 2009, 07:47 PM
thoughts?

Idiotic.

oldsoundguy
June 1st, 2009, 07:54 PM
Some cities have, for years, put a licensing fee and a usage tax on juke boxes. A logical carry over would be to tax for use of a "DJ".
(I shudder at that term, as a DJ is on RADIO, not some clown with an attitude that can be replaced in a hot minute with another clown with an attitude!)
So this is not as far fetched as it may seem!

LIVE musicians have to pay fees to the local union in order to be able to play in the club(s) .. those fees, however, go into the UNION fund and not to the record companies.

monsterstack
June 1st, 2009, 08:02 PM
Here in the UK the Performance Rights Society have taken to phoning small businesses, and then they demand money if they can hear music being played in the background. Nice bunch of folk.

burvowski
June 1st, 2009, 08:09 PM
Here in the UK the Performance Rights Society have taken to phoning small businesses, and then they demand money if they can hear music being played in the background. Nice bunch of folk.

Wow, you're right. I just looked them up on Wikipedia

"In 2008 the PRS expanded their legal battle against people who don't pay their dues to include stopping 61 year old mechanic, Paul Wilson from playing his radio when he worked by himself[/URL] , a bakery that played a radio in a private room at the back of the shop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_Right_Society#cite_note-4) and demanding payment from community centres that allow children to sing carols in public[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_Right_Society#cite_note-6"]."

Grez
June 1st, 2009, 08:33 PM
Intellectual property rights are interesting.

I'm the worship leader in a Church where we project lyrics of the hymns and songs onto a big screen using computer & projector. We also use photocopied words for other services as well as hymnbooks.

I also have the task of filing a report each year to CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing Institute) telling them which songs we've copied/projected so that the copyright holder can get his/her share of the licence money.

As far as it goes, there are four types of song:

(1) Songs covered by the licensing agreement between CCLI and the copyright holder

(2) Songs which are not covered by the licence due to no agreement between the copyright holder and the CCLI

(3) Public Domain songs - Songs where the copyright has expired (70 years and older) or ones declared to be free of copyright by the writer etc.

(4) Songs used by the express permission of the writer but not licensed through the CCLI - for which you may or may not have to pay depending on the writer and the agreement.

It seems complicated, but...

If your JOB is to be a songwriter, that's your living and so you need to get paid for it somehow. Without being paid, the songwriting would only be a hobby that you fit in between your real job and so, theoretically, there wouldn't be as many quality songs written. The debate here then usually rages "well it's not a proper job anyway and why should someone be paid for what's essentially a pastime." The person who says this is usually a supporter of a pro sports team who he pays each week to watch them pursue what is essentially a pastime. :D

If songwriting is a pastime, you're less likely to have a publishing deal because you're not really bothered about getting money for it. If people sing your song you see it as a compliment rather than a business opportunity lost. You're more likely to declare the song public domain or allow use of the words for free with permission.

So I can see the argument from both sides and I don't have any problem with it. I used to do ("free") engineering drawings as part of a service offered by the steel fabrication company I ran. However, it used to really annoy me when I'd sent in my sketch for a job, get told it was "too expensive" and then find the customer getting the job I'd designed built by another "whack it and weld it" company who weren't equipped to do the design, therefore had fewer overheads and would then be asked to quote from my design drawing! However, I'm quite happy for the church to use my songs without paying me for the privilege, because one is my hobby and the other was my job. (Some people think my songwriting was better than my design skill but that's another story!)

OK I'll stop boring you now. I'm just off to pirate a load of software...
;)

not really!

PuddingKnife
June 1st, 2009, 08:38 PM
Utterly bizarre.

cariboo
June 1st, 2009, 09:03 PM
This is really old news, I managed a club in the late 70' early 80's, we were paying yearly licensing fees to ASCAP back then. As far as I remember, this included all clubs and pubs in British COlumbia.

RaZe42
June 1st, 2009, 09:05 PM
In Finland taxis that have the radio on when there's a customer in the car have to pay royalties. The greed of these companies is ridiculous.

burvowski
June 1st, 2009, 09:07 PM
In Finland taxis that have the radio on when there's a customer in the car have to pay royalties. The greed of these companies is ridiculous.

Are you saying a company shouldn't try to make as much money as possible if they can get away with it?

hkgonra
June 1st, 2009, 09:07 PM
(I shudder at that term, as a DJ is on RADIO, not some clown with an attitude that can be replaced in a hot minute with another clown with an attitude!)




....and a DJ on the radio is not a clown with an attitude ?

monsterstack
June 1st, 2009, 09:08 PM
Intellectual property rights are interesting.

I'm the worship leader in a Church where we project lyrics of the hymns and songs onto a big screen using computer & projector. We also use photocopied words for other services as well as hymnbooks.

I also have the task of filing a report each year to CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing Institute) telling them which songs we've copied/projected so that the copyright holder can get his/her share of the licence money.

As far as it goes, there are four types of song:

(1) Songs covered by the licensing agreement between CCLI and the copyright holder

(2) Songs which are not covered by the licence due to no agreement between the copyright holder and the CCLI

(3) Public Domain songs - Songs where the copyright has expired (70 years and older) or ones declared to be free of copyright by the writer etc.

(4) Songs used by the express permission of the writer but not licensed through the CCLI - for which you may or may not have to pay depending on the writer and the agreement.

It seems complicated, but...

If your JOB is to be a songwriter, that's your living and so you need to get paid for it somehow. Without being paid, the songwriting would only be a hobby that you fit in between your real job and so, theoretically, there wouldn't be as many quality songs written. The debate here then usually rages "well it's not a proper job anyway and why should someone be paid for what's essentially a pastime." The person who says this is usually a supporter of a pro sports team who he pays each week to watch them pursue what is essentially a pastime. :D

If songwriting is a pastime, you're less likely to have a publishing deal because you're not really bothered about getting money for it. If people sing your song you see it as a compliment rather than a business opportunity lost. You're more likely to declare the song public domain or allow use of the words for free with permission.

So I can see the argument from both sides and I don't have any problem with it. I used to do ("free") engineering drawings as part of a service offered by the steel fabrication company I ran. However, it used to really annoy me when I'd sent in my sketch for a job, get told it was "too expensive" and then find the customer getting the job I'd designed built by another "whack it and weld it" company who weren't equipped to do the design, therefore had fewer overheads and would then be asked to quote from my design drawing! However, I'm quite happy for the church to use my songs without paying me for the privilege, because one is my hobby and the other was my job. (Some people think my songwriting was better than my design skill but that's another story!)

OK I'll stop boring you now. I'm just off to pirate a load of software...
;)

not really!

Let's make things even more complicated. Consider the influential mash-up song "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2elYnsqG-MM)" [youtube.com].
This song, of course, is a parody of Kanye West's Golddigger, which the author has appropriated for a political statement. Golddigger of course borrows from a much older song. Ray Charles' "I Got a Woman", which itself was a mash-up of blues and gospel, and arguably the birthplace of what we now call soul music. Charles' song is based on a much older Christian hymn, "Jesus Is All The World to Me", written by a chap called Will Lamartine Thompson, in 1904. Now, an interesting side-note here is that if we had have had the same copyright laws we do today in 1955, Lamartine's hymn would have still had its copyright, and Charle's song would have been illegal, and the birthplace of soul music would have had to have happened elsewhere. Even so, Lamartine's song reused melodies that first appeared in the fourteenth century.

So, uh, how about those royalties, then? Pay me, someone, uh, yeah.

gtr32
June 1st, 2009, 09:33 PM
In Finland taxis that have the radio on when there's a customer in the car have to pay royalties. The greed of these companies is ridiculous.
If the radio company already paid the royalties for broadcasting that song, it's not reasonable to demand that payment twice for the same usage. Now, if he played a CD instead...

oldsoundguy
June 1st, 2009, 09:43 PM
Having been in the music business for most of my life, I have seen what the RIAA's greed is doing to the actual performers.

Radio/TV stations in the US pay an annual licensing fee to ASCAP (and BMI) to play music ON THE AIR. Distribution is based on a random sample across the country where every song played (including those backgrounding commercials) is logged in and those logs submitted to the agencies.
Those funds wind up (after fees) going to the WRITERS (not the performers) of those songs.

So RIAA steps up and starts demanding it's pound of flesh and SAYS it is for the ARTIST. When, in actuality, MOST of it winds up in the pockets of the record labels, executives, accountants, lawyers and the rest of the leeches. And the poor guys/gals that made the record get little or NOTHING (after "expenses").
Since their "advance" deal is NOT met by sales alone, their GOLD album still leaves them owing the record company and having to pay INTEREST on the advance.

Then there is PAY FOR PLAY in the US. Paying a program service (that sets up the play list for hundreds of radio stations) to put your song on their list usually runs between 200 and 400 grand depending on the length of time the song remains on the list. The record company will COVER the amount, but you still wind up OWING them for it!

A few, such as Dave Matthews and Metallica and some others have gotten around this simply by SELLING so many units that they can NOT be ignored.

Grez
June 1st, 2009, 09:47 PM
Now, an interesting side-note here is that if we had have had the same copyright laws we do today in 1955, Lamartine's hymn would have still had its copyright, and Charle's song would have been illegal, and the birthplace of soul music would have had to have happened elsewhere. Even so, Lamartine's song reused melodies that first appeared in the fourteenth century.

So, uh, how about those royalties, then? Pay me, someone, uh, yeah.

Not necessarily illegal, because anyone can use anyone else's work with permission.

With a 70 year and not a 50 year copyright span, "I Got a Woman" could have become credited to Lamartine/Charles and the ensuing royalties could have been split between Ray Charles and Lamartine's estate.

The point I was trying to make, however, was that if writing music is your LIVING, and singers, radio stations, record companies, advertising agencies are using your music for profit, why shouldn't you as the originator of the music be entitled to a part of that if you want it?

If you clean houses, cut lawns, play football, write computer programs, take photographs, make birthday cards etc. you can either do it as a business or do it as a hobby. If you don't want to pay for the professional service or the entertainment, you don't have to use it. So why expect that someone's music should always be free?

drawkcab
June 2nd, 2009, 01:34 AM
A few years ago the RIAA paid someone to visit a number of stores in the town I was living in. If the store was playing a cd or the radio, this person reported back to the RIAA with a list of specific songs they were playing. A number of businesses received letters from the RIAA asking them to either stop paying for music or contact them to negotiate payment.

swoll1980
June 2nd, 2009, 01:38 AM
Why not? I don't think the DJs have much right to make money of other people's work.

Harii
June 2nd, 2009, 01:43 AM
a old bar owner told me it was "like working with the mob"
i thought he was kidding!

zmjjmz
June 2nd, 2009, 02:26 AM
a old bar owner told me it was "like working with the mob"
i thought he was kidding!

The RIAA's business tactics represented those of the mob for some time, by threatening people with expensive lawsuits unless they agreed to settle. Most people would rather pay the settlement instead of having to hire a lawyer, show up in court, waste valuable time, etc. This way, the RIAA could get away with suing random people with little or no valid proof.

Dimitriid
June 2nd, 2009, 03:02 AM
If I had a club I would just reply:

"Dear Mr. CM Burns:

I am pleased to inform you that my night club is no longer in violation of any infringement claims. Starting today my club will no longer charge any kind of admission fee whatsoever, and we will broadcast nothing but radio stations, TV stations and other material that has paid for this broadcasting rights in advance.

We truly regret that we could not send you a check, but I do not doubt my club will be able to stay open by revenue from drinks alone.

Yours Truly..."

lisati
June 2nd, 2009, 03:15 AM
....and a DJ on the radio is not a clown with an attitude ?

If I had tried (in my pre-teen days) the kind of jockeying of disks some so-called DJs do I would have been on the receiving end of a lecture from my parents about how it's not good for the record player, and possibly received a wallop with the wooden spoon if I'd persisted. Another term that's sometimes misused: MC. He's the Master of Ceremonies. Again, the clown suit is optional.

As for the fee for playing music at clubs: difficult at times to police it, let alone enforce it!

HappyFeet
June 2nd, 2009, 03:24 AM
If people don't want to pay, they could just start playing music that is released under Creative Commons.

RaZe42
June 2nd, 2009, 07:38 AM
If the radio company already paid the royalties for broadcasting that song, it's not reasonable to demand that payment twice for the same usage. Now, if he played a CD instead...

Exactly my point :)

SunnyRabbiera
June 2nd, 2009, 07:43 AM
Totally stupid, this could put a lot of hard working independent DJ's out of work...
I mean yes its not their songs but come on how much power must the RIAA must throw around before someone finally repays their efforts with a well deserved killing spree?