OT: BMI sues and wins...

Comments

Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 9:27 AM
"ASCAP and BMI are integrous organizations that protect the performance rights of others. "

BMI and ASCAP are there to protect their investment in an attempt to extort money any way that they can conceive of. BMI is there for BMI and the artists rights are the least of their concerns. It's their "excuse" if nothing more.

You want to read about how artists feel about this. Read some of the Courtney Love articles on the Web of how "artists" feel. Artists on the most part are afraid to speak up against the big corporations, because they ultimately have them by the balls. Many of you may view Courtney Love as a wack and disregard her information. Try to look past that because after all she is an "artists" and many artists can be considered to be wacks.

Read these articles and then tell me with a straight face that BMI and ASCAP are there to protect the artists.

http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html

http://www.school-survival.net/articles/other_stuff/Courtney_Love_speaks_against_record_companies.php

Those corporations are in business because of the artists, and the last person they protect is the artist. Many artists soon come to realize this once they're in the business and they're being used as a puppet guided by the corporate hand puppet masters.

These corporations are sweating bullets at this point and grasping at straws by going after these mom and pop shops. The internet is here and these corporations are trying by all means to keep themselves alive. I say let them dig their own grave, let the artists take back control of their "art". Soon these corporations will be unneeded because the artists will finally have their own way to distribute their music and market it thru the use of the internet. This is what these corporations are afraid of, that they will no longer be an eccential part of leaching off the artists. I say poor the salt and let the leaches slither off and dry up into nothingness and let the artists take back the control of their art.

As part of their "marketing" expenditures, these record companies send free copies or called "promotional material" to clubs, so that the DJs will play their "product." This encourages the patrons to become aware of their product and then give them an incentive to go out and purchase that product. How is this any different from the mom and pop restaurant owner playing Karoke disks to bring in customers? It's different because it doesn't have the marketing value to BMI, that a dance club has. Oh yeah, and the expense of this marketing "promotional material" is all charged back to the "artists" royalties which is peanuts to what the record company gets. These corporations are cartels in the truest form and are able to get away with "fraud" by using an excuse that they are there to "protect the artists rights". Yeah right, whatever. Wake up!!!

I encourage more artists like Courtney Love to speak out and let the "real" truth be known about these corporations.
t-keats wrote on 3/23/2006, 9:45 AM
So is there a "legal way" to use BMI or ASCAP music as music beds for videos sold to people for private home use?
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 9:46 AM
Courtney Love, Artist....someone to be listened to? During her coherent states? Or just when she's drugged?

Craftech, don't mix up the BMI/ASCAP with RIAA. They're partners to an extent, but not related in the general sense. ASCAP/BMI assist the RIAA publisher members, but that's it. They're often at odds.
ASCAP/BMI have no relationship nor coverage over downloads of legal or illegal songs, and nothing to do with sales of records/CDs/files. They are related to public performances only, with very narrow confines in which they can move outside those realms. In other words, think elevators, department stores, nightclubs, bars, vocal groups peforming other's works, theme parks, radio, some television, internet radio, any form of publically accessible broadcast, on-hold music, satellite radio etc. They don't have any authority over Walmart musiconline, iTunes, CDBaby, etc. They have no authority over music synced to video, they have no power over what you do in your home with music you buy.
Membership in any performance rights society is strictly by choice. If you want a publisher that can place your music, they'll likely force you to join, because they want to be paid for the placement of your music. If they assist in getting your music into a rotation (and an ASCAP rep can indeed assist with this) there are serious royalties to be collected from the radio network playing your rotated song, they are there as blanket organizations to collect those royalties. Otherwise, the radio station would have to pay them individually. Does that seem realistic? Having 1000 radio stations sending 1000 checks every quarter to every artist they play? Of course not. are the royalties ALWAYS fairly distributed? Nope.
Example:
Neil Diamond had a top 10 hit. Heavy rotation. Then the BMG (not to be confused with BMI) root kit scandal hit and his sales dropped into the toilet. Airplay and sales are occasionally related. Dropped sales told the rotation system to scale back play for a month. It happened to be a month of heavy sample-reading for peformance royalties. Diamond allegedly lost around 30k in performance royalties in addition to the damaged sales that caused his album to plummet from top 10 to #57 in 2 weeks. Is that fair that the sampling happened shortly after he was on top and had been on his way down? Of course not. (The songs are not inventoried per song, they're sampled, and then applied against a cue sheet nationwide, and an average is generated) So, he's threatening to sue BMG and ASCAP because of the lost royalties. He's not the only one. But that's a rare example. No one knew that the rootkit existed, and when it got out, it seriously torched sales and airplay of a few dozen artists.
Record companies and BMI/ASCAP/SESAC are not the same entity, and often disagree with each other both publically and privately. Moreover, if they were so "bad" for the industry, no artist or publisher would be a member, they'd find another means of collecting performance royalties. It's not a one-shot deal. Some people attempt to go it alone with no performance rights. Madonna tried. She gave up. It was too costly.
GenJerDan wrote on 3/23/2006, 10:11 AM
Someone said that BMI or ASCAP tried to strong arm them. BS. I don't buy it. Not for one second.

That wasn't me, was it?

They were actually quite nice about it when I called them to explain that I wouldn't be paying royalties on my own music.

Just a little whoopsie on their part.

Although just how they found the music, my site, and me...I don't know. And why they didn't check to see if the "artist" was due any royalties, instead of just assuming, I don't know.

Does BMI just handle everything broadcast-y, whether the artist is signed up or not? Might have been interesting to go ahead and pay the blanket and see if any checks every showed up in the mail. But not $400 interesting (or whatever it was they had asked...it was 4 years ago and I've forgotten).
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 10:15 AM
"Courtney Love, Artist....someone to be listened to? During her coherent states? Or just when she's drugged?"

Yeah, we all know no other artists have dabbled in drugs right? It seems to me that those articles are well written for someone that is on drugs....no? Maybe all her lawyers and managers are all on drugs too?

It seems the information on those pages bring up a lot of valid points in regards to RIAA and AFTRA in regards to copyright issues. I find those articles more intelligently delivered and coming from the heart than anything else I've read. I'll give them more credibility since they seem to be coming from the heart and seem very informative even IF they where written in a drug enduced state. So where does your personal interests lie with the artist or with the corporations that the artist is making a lot of money for? I'm on the side of the artist.

Yeah...Courtney Love "Artist". Someone that has been in many films and sold a lot of albums.

Here's a paragraph that YOU should be personally interested in because you seem to get highly upset about someone stealing your name:

"Although I've never met any one at a record company who "believed in the Internet," they've all been trying to cover their asses by securing everyone's digital rights. Not that they know what to do with them. Go to a major label-owned band site. Give me a dollar for every time you see an annoying "under construction" sign. I used to pester Geffen (when it was a label) to do a better job. I was totally ignored for two years, until I got my band name back. The Goo Goo Dolls are struggling to gain control of their domain name from Warner Bros., who claim they own the name because they set up a shitty promotional Web site for the band."

So become an artist and lose all rights to your own name, and then you're going to defend the corporations responsible for this to happen?
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 10:47 AM
GenJerDan,
They indeed may have collected royalties for you if you have a cue sheet referencing your name. I'd be checking with them. In a recent situation for us, we had some cues on a television series that were used, and they didn't have a publisher name assigned. So, royalties were collected, but we didn't see a check for 5 years. The check was small, but they'd held the funds for all that time, until they could associate the funds with our organization.
If you have a possible cue or two, I'd be contacting them.
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 11:12 AM
Read the truth as told by an "artist" in regards to copyright issues, and how the artist really feels instead of believing the lies propagated by the corporations It's crap!!!

What's on the horizon scaring the corporations

Artists Ban together
Coursedesign wrote on 3/23/2006, 11:25 AM
Alex,

This forum has been very civil for a long time now, and many people here would like to keep it that way.

Change is stressful for everybody involved, certainly some more than others, especially those who have been making a very good living off the status quo.

The best way to achieve change is to show people a better alternative.

Insulting people doesn't teach anybody anything.

It just makes people defensive and angry. This then percolates to counter-accusations and more anger.

Meanwhile, no change is accomplished!

So let's be civil, and let's educate rather than insult.

Please.

Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 11:33 AM
Keep showing your ignorance 'Lex.
BMI and ASCAP are not part of the RIAA. They are separate entities, started by ARTISTS to collect royalties for public performance.
How ASCAP started
Artists have no way and no resource to track all the public performances of their works.
In truth, it *is* a union of sorts, but I'd guess you and your boss can't quite ferret that out. This discussion is a totally separate issue from the two links you posted. Does your heroine reference ASCAP or BMI, or even SESAC? No. Because she's smart enough to realize that these organizations are there to PROTECT the artist. Who do you think it was that broke the payola scandal from the 50's? ASCAP. Additionally, Courtney Love was honored by ASCAP, she's a current member of ASCAP, and was recently displayed in Playback (ASCAP magazine) because she's presenting at ASCAP's "I Create Music Expo" next month. Chances are, if it wasn't for ASCAP, she wouldn't get a quarterly paycheck. Her albums aren't selling (Billboard/Pollstar stats) but she's likely getting at least sizable checks from ASCAP for public performance on radio, television, etc.
Therefore, the relevance of Courtney Love's rant is related to your point and attack how?
You and your friends welcome to call me names, but the truth is, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 11:43 AM
"So let's be civil, and let's educate rather than insult.

Please."

Done...messages edited to be more informative.
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 11:53 AM
"Who do you think it was that broke the payola scandal from the 50's? ASCAP. "

Payola is alive and well today. That was also mentioned in those articles. Artist pay a "consulting fee" to have their material played on the radio. They pay to meet with a "consulting expert" who then evaluates their material to see if it is worthy of their market audience. So it's not called payola anymore today, it's called a "consulting fee". Whatever you want to call it, it's still payola. Isn't that interesting that someone would have to pay to have the material played on the radio and at the same time the corporation in charge of "protecting the artists interests" is going to take a small restaurant to court for doing the same thing of playing their music for a smaller audience? So let's get real. I know how the industry works, and BMI's actions are not in the best interest of the artist. BMI is doing this for BMI, so that the record industry has complete control of how material is distributed. So your point about "payola" is not valid in my opinion.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 12:34 PM
Good job of tap dancing. First it was that Courtney Love and some other guy don't like ASCAP, but that was proven wrong. Then it was about your hatred for big record companies, but now it's that payola is alive.
The thread is about whether the bar/restaurant should or shouldn't have to pay back royalties to artists via the performance rights organization that the artists hired to monitor performance royalties. The PRO sent letter after letter, phone call after phone call. They were ignored by the business owner. That is the jist and point of this thread.
Not courtney love, not big record companies, not payola, and not musicians unions.

Bottom line, we all pay insurance just in case things happen. Had the business owner responded to all the letters and phone calls he'd gotten, that could/would have been insurance. Had he paid the 325.00 per year in licensing fees that would have allowed him to hold Karaoke as an incentive to his customers, that would have been insurance.
If he'd have paid the required licensing fee of 325.00 per year, then he wouldn't have to be concerned about paying 40k in fees after the fact. That's what insurance is for. Had BMI walked in the door with zero previous contact and filed suit against him, I'd feel they were clearly wrong even though they would be well within their right. That's not what happened.
GenJerDan wrote on 3/23/2006, 12:43 PM
Nah...no way there's any money waiting for me. I may call it music, but few else do. :))

And there's always been a "free-to-use" statement of one sort or another up there, so that kinda puts the kabosh on it from the the get-go.

7 years of loss-leaders...but one of these days. ;^)
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 1:09 PM
I'm not totally against BMI, ASCAP.....but are they doing more harm than good? Your view is that they're there to protect the artists. I can see that point of view when checks are rolling in, but what about smaller artists? Couldn't one consider that the interference of BMI, and ASCAP by limiting the marketing and sales of a smaller artist by limiting it's marketing by allowing it to be heard by a wider audience?

Well, there's others that feel the same way I do. That's what the Courtney Love articles had to do with in reference to this thread. So I'm not tap dancing around anything.

Read this discussion where both points are viewed:
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/16/wil_wheaton_so_ascap.html

Is ASCAP and BMI there to protect the artist? Well let's see, you have an opportunity to have the aritists material to be heard by a huge market segment, and ASCAP is there to discourage it. Free large scale advertisement......and yet ASCAP is there to "protect" the artist?

ASCAP friend or foe? You have your opinion about it, I have mine.

You want to see how successful ASCAP was in their Payola efforts, then read more here:
Payola Today

You're right though, I probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I don't get all my information from the Sony forums.
craftech wrote on 3/23/2006, 1:23 PM
BMI and ASCAP are not part of the RIAA. They are separate entities, started by ARTISTS to collect royalties for public performance.
How ASCAP started
Artists have no way and no resource to track all the public performances of their works.
===========
OK, I read it but a couple of questions come to mind:
1. How is it that the power given to them in 1913 by a New York Circuit Court goes unmonitored and unchallenged and not subject to any public scrutiny to this day? No one regulates an organization with worldwide influence that got it's power in 1913 from a lower court in one of the states?? If the other states try to pass laws to circumvent them Federal law overrides the state to protect ASCAP as far as I can tell.
2. How do they get to go after people who don't pay a fee for something in the public domain like a Mozart piece if an ASCAP artist did a recent arrangement of it? That's what I read.
3. With the internet, radio, television, and other means of mass delivering the music why are there THREE organizations to deal with instead of one? You end up often paying more than one of them for the rights.
4. You have 12 people on the Board of Directors making all the decisions as far as I could determine and the membership is not allowed to vote unless they received royalties from ASCAP the year before. Is that true?
5. The amount of money they distribute to artists after settlements seems arbitrary and they don't appear to have to account very much for their "operating costs".
6. What's up with the rating system that gives some artists high ratings and others squat ratings? I see a lot of complaints about the royalty rates. How is their "random logging" method fair? They can't log all the technologies today for delivering music. What about foreign royalties?

Or do I have this information wrong?

John
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 1:25 PM
Couldn't one consider that the interference of BMI, and ASCAP be limiting the marketing and sales of a smaller artist by limiting it's marketing by allowing it to be heard by a wider audience?

A performance rights organization has nothing to do with marketing or sales or airplay. They collect performance royalties on behalf of artists. Period. They're not in the business of PR, they're not in the business of promoting an artist over another, etc.

Become an artist. Get airplay, jukebox play, whatever public performance play. Then you get to chase around everyone who is playing your music and demand money from them. They'll tell you to join ASCAP and get paid along with everyone else when they make their yearly licensing payment.
you clearly don't know what you're talking about, you're mixing subjects at every turn; it's like watching a tiny dog jumping up and down at it's master's bidding. Additionally, since you've likely never received a royalty check from ASCAP or BMI, or had a song played on the radio, you not only don't know what you're talking about, you're fighting a fight that bears no weight on anything of substance. The general public doesn't pay for licensing to ASCAP/BMI. The general public doesn't need to know who pays for the elevator music they hear. Before someone makes the ridiculous argument that the general public pays via higher prices to visit a public space that figures in the cost of the license with the cost of the french fries they buy, lights, water, taxes, employees, insurance, repair, cost of consumables, costs of non consumables are also figured into the cost of those french fries, just like the cost of a performance licence.
farss wrote on 3/23/2006, 1:40 PM
DSE,
suggesting that the worth of what someone has to say is related to other matters in their personal life puts this debate on a very slippery slope. I for one totally reject the very notion and find it quite offensive, as we say down here 'play the ball, not the man'.

And lets look at what has been said to date:

1) Membership of BMI is restricted to an elite.
2) BMI claims they exist for an altruistic purpose.
3) We should pay BMI "insurance" to prevent bad things happening to us.

Putting that into the one equation and one word pops up, "thug".
The word came into english from a group who did exactly what you've described. Very different time and place but if the shoe fits.

Bob.
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 1:50 PM
"3. With the internet, radio, television, and other means of mass delivering the music why are there THREE organizations to deal with instead of one? You end up often paying more than one of them for the rights."

Exactly John. Everyone has their hand out for the artists money, but they're there to protect the artists? It's rediculous. You have a Jukebox with a song you pay one licensing fee. You have a Karaoke machine with the same song you pay another. You decide to stream that same CD on a podcast, and you pay again. Next, I'll have to pay a licensing fee to play the new music CD I just purchased for some guests in my living room. Let's just forget the fact that the more people that hear a piece of music, the more people that might be inspired to go out and buy a CD or attend a concert because they found out they really liked that artist when they first heard a song at a local restaurant during a Karaoke performance. That money doesn't go into ASCAP's pocket.

DSE, I don't have to sell a million albums to figure out if I give my song away for free and a trillion people decided download it and like the music, then I can recoupe the costs by doing performances, and selling T-shirts, as well as giving them an incentive to purchase the actual CD. So this has everything to do with "marketing". I didn't say ASCAP was in charge of marketing. I said it's "limiting" the marketing value.
winrockpost wrote on 3/23/2006, 2:27 PM
triple sigh,
Remeber, (as far as I know), all BS spouting on this subject are from people who may know a lawyer , paid a lawyer, sister is a Lawyer whatever. Bottom line ,cover your A@@ ,have insurance,have a lawyer, or go to law school and a have a fool for a client. enough already, the horse is dead ,has been dead, will be dead in the next #$% thread
Sorry , out a prozac.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/23/2006, 2:31 PM
....OK, my last post on the subject.
As far as number one....of course there is no "public scrutiny" because it's not a public organization. it's a private society, of which you have to meet specific requirements to join, and joining is voluntary. Why should the public even care? it doesn't affect them as to the rules that the organization sets. The public's only interaction with them is a set, non arbitrary, very fixed set of license fees based on projected and actual use of public performance of recorded works. It doesn't cost the public a dime, unless they choose to ignore the license fees and they're running a business that plays music. Wanna avoid those fees? Fine. Buy ACID and spend a long time composing music, let it play in your store, elevator, on-hold, whatever. If you're a store that doesn't need to fit a current music clientele need, this is somewhat common, actually. There are companies that sell music for these purposes specifically to circumvent the cost of licensing. If you're a store that caters mostly to a pet clientele for instance, you probably don't want Kenny G playing over your loudspeakers, you'd rather have music made for the pet industry, and it might well be that the pet music is specifically created for pet stores, and therefore there is no publisher, and no performance rights society collecting performance royalties on the music use. Either way, it doesn't affect the cost to the general public. The end question is, why should a music industry organization that is governed by the music industry via voluntary membership have any responsibility to allow the general public to govern any aspect of what they do as a society? Should say....a group of grocery buyers have governance or even input on what NAB does? Should NAB control what SMPTE does? Should SMPTE control what AES does? Of course not.

your reference link isn't a survey of ASCAP members, which numbers nearly 100,000 members. Even if were a survey of members, only 300 people responded. The survey is about film music/television costs, not about ASCAP royalties to artists. Even if it were artists, I'd wager that 300 out of 100,000 is petty. I'm sure there are at least 40% of ASCAP members who would like to see some things different at ASCAP. But if you're not a member, why do you even care? It doesn't affect you in any way, shape or form.

Your #2 question confuses me. How do they go after fees for a public domain song? They don't. If an ASCAP artist does a recording of Mozart, the performance is copyrighted to that artist, and therefore they enjoy performance royalties of that recording just like it was any other song.

You NEVER end up paying more than one organization for rights, this is exactly why an artist can't be a writer on more than one of the three, which is really only two. SESAC has very few members, and their organization leaves a lot to be desired.

yes, it's correct that if you aren't receving royalties from ASCAP, you're not eligible to vote. Thank heaven. I don't want people who joined in 1940 and haven't recorded a song in 30 years voting for what affects me. Look at what non-informed voting has done on a greater level in this world. So what? It doesn't affect you. You're not a member.

There is nothing "arbitrary" about how they distribute funds. The royalty statements are very concise (IMO) about it. Do you really think the artists would allow for "arbitrary'" reporting? I don't know about you, but I sure like what's coming to me, and it's EASY to verify their reports. I've disputed their reports, and they've always been good, if not great, about either demonstrating their numbers, or admitting an error. Again, so what? It doesn't affect you. You're not a member.

And for me, that's really the bottom line. It's like people in America worried about the color of shoes people in Brisbane wear. Does it really matter? Since you're not a member, and if you don't have a business that relies on public performance of music, why is it such a tough subject? You're not a member. Therefore you are free to do whatever you want. I'm a member, so I'm not free to do whatever I want. I entered into an agreement with ASCAP that I've chosen to renew each time it comes for renewal. It doesn't cost you or save you money if I do or don't renew. It doesn't cost you or save you if the store does or doesn't pay licensing fees. It doesn't cost you or save you if the radio station doesn't pay the fees. It doesn't cost you or save you if the artist is a member of ASCAP or BMI. It's like a home viewer complaining because George Lucas is using Sony brand tape vs Ampex tape. Why does it even matter?
I'm a member of ASCAP as a writer. I'm a member of BMI as a publisher. I can't complain at all about ASCAP, and my complaints about BMI are minimal.

DSE, I don't have to sell a million albums to figure out if I give my song away for free and a trillion people decided download it and like the music, then I can recoupe the costs by doing performances, and selling T-shirts, as well as giving them an incentive to purchase the actual CD. So this has everything to do with "marketing". I didn't say ASCAP was in charge of marketing. I said it's "limiting" the marketing value.

Be my guest. If it were that easy, then why isn't everyone doing it? Even business geniuses like Eminem got this one figured out. Maybe you should go manage him. Additionally, you clearly aren't getting it. ASCAP has nothing to do with downloads, either. Those are sales or piracy, and either way....doesn't figure into the peformance rights arena.

Farss
1) Membership of BMI is restricted to an elite.
In the US, different than it is there, if you want to pipe a radio station over your store's speaker system, you pay for that right, because your business is benefitting from using the creative works of others. Said others assign ASCAP or BMI the rights. They don't have to. They could decide to never join ASCAP or BMI, and get their songs played. They would never be compensated for such. Therefore, it's usually the artist's desire to be compensated for when their songs are played on the radio, elevator, karaoke bar, wherever the public might be able to listen to the music as a mass body. Membership is entirely voluntary, restricted to those that can benefit from membership, and not at all forced. With some doing, you can transfer rights from one organization to one of the others, you can transfer them to yourself, if you think you've got the ability to administer your own collections. Or you can never collect. Lots of choices. But they're the ARTIST's choices to make. One way or another, those choices never affect the private sector. They only affect people who have a reason for public performance of creative works.
You can choose which rights group you want to belong to, if you choose to join one of the three.
If you are a film/CD artist, then ASCAP is likely your best choice, because that's their strength.
If you're a jingle writer/television scorist, then join SESAC, because that's their charter and strength. They don't have a single "hit" artist.
If you're a radio artist, with strong touring but not strong sales to film/video/record label, then join BMI. That's their core.
ASCAP and BMI are now close contenders/competition, because of the growth of some of the musical genre's, so it's a fairly free landscape for artists to choose from based on their needs. I don't see how any of that fits into the description of "thug."

In a way, what many in this forum are engaging in is no different than the government peeping into people's bedrooms. When it doesn't affect you as a citizen, what right do you have to tell me or any other artist whom we can and cannot assign our performance rights administration to? The money comes out of our pocket, not yours. It's a service *most* artists are appreciative of, and were it not so, membership in the two PRO's would be diminishing, not climbing. But unless you're a copyright holder with works being performed publically, I fail to see any reason to get your panties in a knot. Fun to discuss, great stuff to know, and it's a good experience overall, but the upshot is...it affects no one but the copyright holder (artist) and the businesses that take advantage of those copyrighted works for public performance. Not downloads, not video sync, not your home stereo.

Winrock, I agree. This horse is dead. And if you read this far....ouch. Sorry, I didn't realize I had so much to say. Forgive me if you read to the bottom. :-)
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 3:48 PM
"But they're the ARTIST's choices to make."
Let me ask you this then.....it's the artist choice right? And BMI in the case originally mentioned is representing the artists right? So this BMI representative sits down at a restaurant and notices some of the BMI artists songs being performed on a Karaoke player. Now does this guy from BMI contact the artist and inform them of the situation and what their plans are? Do they get ANY consent from the artists they are representing in this manor? So the guy wrote down the list of artists music that was playing. I don't see it mentioned anywhere that the artists where contacted and made aware of the situation and given any decision to make. I would have a hard time seeing an artist raking a small business over the coals for this situation. I agree what BMI/ASCAP is doing on the most part can be a good thing, but you also need to know where to draw the line and pick your battles. BMI has gone way across that line on this matter. It sounds like a new BMI employee excercising his new found knowledge and power to me, rather than having anything to do with "protecting the artist".

"Be my guest. If it were that easy, then why isn't everyone doing it?"
I think I covered this one already, the artists don't own their own material to do so.
vitalforce2 wrote on 3/23/2006, 4:00 PM
"First, we kill all the lawyers..."

Actually it wasn't a king who said that. A thief said it to Shakespeare's Dirk the Butcher as part of a conspiracy to overthrow the government. Or did someone whisper it to Cheyney on a hunting trip?

Yeah, I'm a lawyer (pause for boos and hissing) and an editor, etc. The Constitution answers a lot of the passion offered in this post in creating a right of intellectual property, then conditioning the right on a time limit. The "limited time" question is defined by statutes which have gradually made the time limit longer and longer. But I wouldn't say it comes "crashing down." Eventually, believe it or not, copyrights expire. It's just there's ways around that.

I have a movie being sent out to festivals and by George, I expect my own copyright to be honored. It has music in it--for which I paid license fees.
Coursedesign wrote on 3/23/2006, 5:15 PM
Alex,

Your apparent suggestion that BMI should treat every violation on a custom basis seems very impractical.

Sounds a bit like you produce a film, and then you get a phone call from a movie theater ticket booth somewhere saying "an old man is asking for a discount on the ticket, would you agree to have that taken out of your earnings from today's performance dues?"

And then your phone rings again at 1am because you're in NY and this time the call is from an L.A. theater asking about giving a discount "for a student to see the 10:15pm performance?"

I don't think so.

And let's bring back the old name for a lawyer: an "advocate".
Somebody who speaks for somebody who is not able to speak well enough for himself.
Alex_Talionas wrote on 3/23/2006, 7:35 PM
Coursedesign,
I really have to wonder if you're capable of forming your own opinions on the topic or if you're just here to criticize points about mine?


"Sounds a bit like you produce a film, and then you get a phone call from a movie theater ticket booth somewhere saying "an old man is asking for a discount on the ticket, would you agree to have that taken out of your earnings from today's performance dues?"

That's not what I'm saying at all. If I'm paying to be a member of a service, and that service is really there for my best interests, then you bet I want to be consulted by that service to make sure that their decisiions are really in my best interest. Ultimately that service is being paid by me, so yes I would want to be consulted. If I feel that service is going after some little mom and pop shop and then says they don't give a damn about them, "They've been warned", then that service really isn't acting in my best interests now is it? I'm not even saying they would have to contact me regarding this problem, I would expect them to be able to make good judgement and leave well enough alone. Do you really think the $365 licensing fee that the restaurant would have had to pay benefitted me more than having my music played and enjoyed by a small audience? It makes BMI look like a thug as Farss mentioned. Oh, you don't "think" you have to pay our licensing fee and can just ignore us......well, we have the money and power to show you otherwise Mr. Mom and Pop restaurant owner. I'm not even saying what the restaurant owner did was right. The point is like I said, BMI should be smart enough to pick their battles wisely if they're really there to "protect the artist." This doesn't look like the actions where done in the best interest of the artists at all to me. Now if you don't agree with that than fine.......how about sharing your own opinion and information then? Well, I happy to see that I could at least motivate you say something. Have a nice day, I'm out.