Music Industry Shaking Down Coffee Shops

realjd writes with news out of Florida that music licensing companies are now hitting small bars and coffee shops that offer live music, even if only occasionally and even if the musicians don't get paid. One coffee-shop owner told musicians they can only perform their own songs from now on. "A restaurant owner who doesn't even offer live music was approached for payment for having the TV on while the Monday Night Football theme played. And if the owners pay up to one licensing company, all of the others start harassing them, calling four times a day, demanding payment too. It sounds like they don't even check whether any copyright violations occurred, they're just sending bills to any business that may or may not have live music."

Artists Truly Devastated

I once played in a band in Minneapolis at tiny coffeehouses in Dinkytown or Uptown. In a three piece band we would play 50% originals and 50% covers to make things enjoyable for the crowds. We hoped that perhaps people who liked the covers would also like the other songs they heard and buy a CD.

<sarcasm>

I must say that it's about time they cracked down on these coffeehouses! I received no payment for playing but I watched customers repeatedly purchase drinks sometimes resulting in $1, $2 or even $3 transactions! Clearly this was only because the combo I was in was playing well known standards.

In the end, I apologize to Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beta Band, The Turin Brakes, The Beatles, The Doves and all the other bands we blatantly abused to slightly increase the sales at a small fledgling establishment. I know that these artists are undoubtedly ruined by the actions of me and my fellow band mates while we were in college. In the wrongest sense, we evaded the long arm of the law and all deserve felonies if we don't face life sentences.

However, this story has a happy ending, as one of the establishments we had the most shows at (The Purple Onion) is no more now that Starbucks has moved in across the street. Corporate America wins again in this story and we no longer have to suffer from the grave injustices committed near 15th and University Ave in Dinkytown. Hopefully all of these small time operations are shut down one after the other so I don't have to see walls beautifully covered with art featuring a different student artist every week. Instead, I can rest easy in my non-world-disrupting CEO approved mainstream environments ... with no other options. Truly the highlander of coffeehouses stood up one day in Seattle and said, "There can be only one!" and now there is today.

</sarcasm>

It's too bad that this cycle will take far too long for the public to realize what they'll be losing by allowing this to occur. It's also very sad that I'm probably a minority of people who live in remorse about this sort of thing--and for that reason it will probably continue to happen. When I saw this headline, it was equivalent to "Music Licensing Companies List 'Eating Kittens' as Favorite Pastime, 'Destroying Dreams' a Close Second."

If you can point me to proof that there's any artist out there that really wants things to be this way, I'd be shocked. This is a classic case of an idea and organization formed with good intentions that has slowly become an uncontrollable machine. The worst part is that if a coffeehouse is sued, I doubt the original artist can intervene as they've probably already signed contracts punishable by death. We would have to wait for a whole new generation of musicians to arise to avoid these mistakes though I doubt they could make it without the affiliation of the large governing organizations.

Hold your local artists that are on indie labels or making it by themselves on a higher level, America. Soon, they will face extinction and your relationship to them will be governed through a man in a suit.

I'll end this post with an excerpt from a Lynyrd Skynyrd song, Working for MCA:

Slickers steal my money since I was seventeen,
if it ain't no pencil pusher then it got to be a honky tonk queen.
But I signed my contract, baby, and I want you people to know
that every penny I make, I gotta see where my money goes.

Want you to sign the contract,
want you to sign the date.
Gonna give you lots of money
workin' for MCA.

My advice if you want to 'just happen' to hear some good live music would be to first leave the country.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

In the end, I apologize to Coldplay, Radiohead, The Beta Band, The Turin Brakes, The Beatles, The Doves and all the other bands we blatantly abused to slightly increase the sales at a small fledgling establishment.

Bands which, when they were just starting, also blatantly abused THEIR predecessors...

Sarcasm aside: pot, meet kettle.

Only now you can't do it any more. YOU are a criminal (or soon will be!). THEY weren't.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

Man, this is so harshly on target. Beatles played all old school rock'n'roll songs in Hamburg and for MONEY. My pick no one bothered to collect money from them then.

And word "abused" is totally wrong here. Every serious group claims that they got their talents in mastering of their instruments trough playing cover songs.

I think it is time for serious peaceful revolt against so called "copyright collectors".

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

Man, this is so harshly on target. Beatles played all old school rock'n'roll songs in Hamburg and for MONEY. My pick no one bothered to collect money from them then.

Right. And history will correctly judge The Beatles not as brilliant songwriters but as the cold-blooded criminals that they were.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

These assholes need to be put against a wall and shot.

Make that "in the kneecaps" and I'll buy it.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

The purple onion is still there, they just moved a block over to a new location.

ORLY?

This is a classic case of an idea and organization formed with good intentions that has slowly become an uncontrollable machine.

O MFING RLY? [wikipedia.org] Good intentions? I disagree! I unconcur!

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

I received no payment for playing but I watched customers repeatedly purchase drinks sometimes resulting in $1, $2 or even $3 transactions!

This whole deal is not at all even remotely new or even new at all. This isn't about the record industry, either. Its about composers! This is not at all like the RIAA who wants you to buy that damn AC/DC album you bought when you were 10 years old 15 times more in your lifetime. Unlike RIAA who sues grandmas and students who basically gain nothing from their alleged piracy, this is about getting composers paid by venues that use their music to make money. BMI/ASCAP/SESAC have been doing this exact shakedown for years and years - and it is very much a legal and fair situation given that often times the music being played is actually MAKING MONEY for the venue or band who is playing it. The system is even extra cool to musicians - the VENUE pays for the license, not the musician.

Case law goes back forever on this. Basically, if you perform music in a commercial setting (i.e. it's part of the ambiance or a promotion for you business), you owe the composer a royalty for using his or her work. It's not about the recording labels at this level. It's about the actual composers... and it's about people using their work to make money (e.g. cover band sells out small bar who pockets a cool $8,500 in sales for the night plus tips).

The exceptions are: band plays only their own music, you play live off the public airwaves or you use a service like Muzak (it's not just bad instrumental covers) for in store music. The live off the public airwaves doesn't work out because competitors advertise there. Services... well... it works sometimes.

What sucks is that the coffee house people didn't see this coming.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

I owned a coffee shop about 5 years ago and BMI showed up demanding a music license. We had DirecTV music channels playing in the shop and had a commercial license. Didn't matter, BMI wanted their cut on top of our existing permit. We told them to buzz off since we already paid whatever we needed to DirecTV. Two weeks later, they were back. We had live music where the artists were playing all original stuff and BMI literally told us "nobody can write that much music, they must be doing covers". HUH? Where do you think all this music comes from? Sit in and see for yourself. They didn't do that. We finally got rid of them by buying a junior license of some sort for $50 (they wanted $850 originally). Assholes.

Re: off topic reply to this story

Years age the state of N.H. had some state sponsored liquor stores on
the interstate. Residents of Mass. would cross the border to buy liquor
cheap in N.H. (bootlegging ?). Well Mass. get pissed off at loosing
state sales taxes on booze so they had the Mass. state troopers stationed
in unmarked cars in front of the N.H. liquor stores to radio license tag
numbers back to troopers on the Mass. side of the border. The Mass. cops
would then arrest those who crossed the border with the booze.
The N.H. state police got even. They arrested the Mass. troopers for loitering.

live venue equals paycheck

work is work! I get a check for physical work. If I want another check, I have to do it again, or do something different, then I get another check. I can't tell my boss "ooohh, that work I did last month was performance art! Ya, that's the ticket, performance art! You owe me royalties now every time you even think about it! And if you *dare* have someone else do the same exact work, I'll sue for copyright infringement!!1one" "

Nope, sorry, "artists" want money, they can go to work same as everyone else. They want to make more on the side, sell schwag and CDs right at the venue. Get famous enough, sell freakin autographs.

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

That a songwriter gets paid when you play her song?

I've been the poor musician, the DJ and the radio station. No, the songwriter doesn't get paid when you play their song in fact. The RIAA "guesses" what songs you would have played, and pays the songwritters according to these guesses. The system is far from exact.

And if you worked in a "sucky little coffee shop" is so bad to work for, why did you work at one for a dozen or so years? It couldn't have paid THAT good that you would have put up with it, could it?

Re:Artists Truly Devastated

What you say is probably very true. Unfortunately, there probably are musicians that love this sort of thing, while others dont seem to care. Iron Maiden, for one, often promote cover bands that play their music. I guess they see the benefit of people getting to hear their music, and then want to find and buy the originals... though they dont even go apeshit about that part (the buying part) as YouTube, with thousands of Maiden performances prove, and their own statements telling their fans feel free to share our music with each other.

Keep in mind though, many bands are in a different boat than them. Maiden owns the rights to their songs - which is rare. Maiden does their own production - which is rare. They arent indebted to a record label with insane contracts. If the label wants them, it's on Maiden's terms - and so far never at the detriment of their fans. Most musicians, unfortunately, like you said, rely on revenue from ASCAP/BMI - as they dont get much (any?) from their label. Maiden is lucky enough to be able to do what they want... when it became widely known that India bootlegs tons of Maiden stuff (that they'll never see a dime for) they announced they were thrilled that their music was reaching India - through whatever means, then re-arranged their tour to play down there because they realized they had so many fans - and in the end, after airlifting (literally) tons of stage and show props/equipment to India, chances are, even with a massive sold out show, they lost money - to which they responded it didnt matter, the people in India deserved it for being so loyal in showing their interest in Maiden.

That attitude though, is a great way for most artists to become destitute - or spend most of their lives working other jobs just to survive.

ASCAP & BMI are unfortunately necessary evils (and far less evil than the RIAA - though still evil in some of their tactics) to provide some sort of compensation for artists. Until the music industry as a whole changes, making artist compensation something worthwhile, things like this will continue, and there will be numerous artists who have no choice except relying on ASCAP and BMI to provide them some sort of income - while hoping their label eventually makes it worthwhile - or heck, even just lets them write and play the music that they want. I sometimes wonder if a lot of the bands out there wouldnt turn out to be great if they were allowed to write and record what they wanted instead of the same old regurgitated shit. Stabbing Westward is one that went on record talking about how that happened to them (when their label forced them to write music of a certain type)... all music I didnt bother listening to... once free of those shackles, their music once again (IMHO) soared to the quality I originally expected of them. Maiden was similarly approached - but told the label "F___ you, we play want we want." - which few can.

Instead of debating this stuff, we should all be pushing for (or thinking of) methods to reform the music industry.

Humming?

Damn, now I'm afraid to even hum a tune in Starbucks!

Not the RIAA

Before you guys get all worked up, remember that it's NOT the RIAA behind this. It's the LICENSING companies.

Re:

How is it different? Why do you assert that it isn't the same people? They're doing the same kinds of things, using the same kinds of tools. I.e., legal threats based on unjust laws.

Also, why, even if they aren't the same people, shouldn't I think equal

Re:Not the RIAA

"You ASSERT that it isn't the RIAA. To me they look like the same group of people. Until I see a significant distinction, then I'm not going to differentiate."

The RIAA is run by and for record labels.

ASCAP and BMI -- the "bad guys" in this situation -- are run by and for artists.

If you believe that anybody who demands money for music is evil, then by all means -- you are 100% correct. Both the RIAA as well as ASCAP/BMI deserve your hate. You can stop right here.

For those who would like more information:

Here is information about ASCAP [ascap.com]. Here is information about BMI [bmi.com].

As others have pointed out, ASCAP and BMI have been providing performance rights licences for many decades. It's a great way for composers and songwriters to make money without having to rely on record companies. We want artists to succeed without having to rely on record labels, right? Performance rights are the way for us to enjoy music for free, to avoid giving money to record companies, and for artists to make money doing what they love. It's sad that this is not enough for you.

I'm a bit boggled by your statement that the RIAA "purchased the law that this abuse is based on." ASCAP and BMI have been looking out for artists' rights for longer than the RIAA has been around. Please clarify.

Right to Read

Honestly, this is getting crazy. It reminds me of Stallman's short story/essay, "Right to Read" where you have to have a license to read a book you borrowed from the library or from a friend.

Music has always been something that was freely exchanged throughout human history. Songs belonged in the public domain, even if no one thought of it and framed it in those terms. There were just songs that people had always sang or played, and had no apparent author.

Now we are entering a period where the RIAA seems to think they should get a dollar from you if you whistle a tune when you walk down the sidewalk. Has the hookers and cocaine money train really slowed down that much for them? They must be a bunch of paranoid, power-mad f*cks with an extreme sense of entitlement.

Re:Right to Read

I agree with your points, but consider what a boom this might be for people writing their own music. We might think of this as a good thing in ten years.

The world is a better place with a few cover bands less... (You won't believe me, but I heard a local band that did Bowie as good as the original. I'm more of a jazz, folk and death metal man, but they were good -- I hope they can write!)

Re:Right to Read

Now we are entering a period where the RIAA seems to think they should get a dollar from you if you whistle a tune when you walk down the sidewalk. Has the hookers and cocaine money train really slowed down that much for them? They must be a bunch of paranoid, power-mad f*cks with an extreme sense of entitlement.

The RIAA isn't involved in this mess. The people asking for money is ASCAP, BMI, and other licensing companies - these companies (unlike the RIAA) collect money for the writers to pay out for the royalties on the original music, not to the publishers for the recording. Typically, these organisations are less evil than RIAA. It should also be noted that they're charging $300 a year, which should be pocket change to a business (and they likely wouldn't even charge a regular person - when was the last time you heard of ASCAP suing old grannies?)

Re:Right to Read

Typically, these organisations are less evil than RIAA.

ASCAP and BMI? No, they're just less flamboyantly evil. They've been shaking down businesses for having the radio playing or a TV on, or for live performances featuring public domain music (by playing the "arrangements game" -- they claim to own 1536 arrangements of some public domain tune, YOU prove the performance wasn't one of them, and if you can't you're liable for copyright violation unless you buy a license). They've even shaken down the Girl Scouts for campfire songs. And how do they distribute the proceeds? According to a formula known only to themselves, which is said to tilt the scales far more in favor of a few popular songwriters than they are in reality? Sound familiar? The RIAA probably learned the game from these people.

Re:Right to Read

I don't even know where to begin.

The radio play (etc.) was traded for the extended copyright several years ago.

The license is for live music, and the royalties (less about 10% admin) go directly to composers, and the formula, though complicated to a layperson, is pretty clear.

The license for broadcast music is different, and because of the massive number of broadcast stations, is pro-rated by random surveys.

The copyright for arrangements lies with the original owner, but arrangements of public-domain materials can be (depending on the extent of new material) be copyrightable and licensable.

The Girl Scout thing was just stupid -- even though the law was on their side, we ASCAP members (it's a membership organization where each composer votes on the board) raised a ruckus.

What's the fee? It depends. We have a performance organization and our royalty bill for 2006 was $29 because we listed what we played. Want a cheaper bill? Have the cover bands keep a performance log, and pay exactly the amount of the bill.

Nothing is hidden. ASCAP operates under a decades-old court order allowing it to represent its member artists, and has to go back to the court for every change. Otherwise, we'd each negotiate individually, and the last thing a presenter needs is to be descended on by the lawyers for thousands of composers.

I know this is Slashdot, but this multi-age mangle is just bizarre.

Dennis
We Are All Mozart [maltedmedia.com]

Derivative Works?

Moving beyond the point that this has to be the most purely dick move I have ever heard of, isn't a live performance of a song written by someone else a cover? Isn't a cover a derivative work protected by law? I mean, Weird Al does derivative performances that copy nearly exactly the music of some artists (he usually alters only the lyrics) and every time he does a M. Jackson song he gets sued by MJ, and he always wins. What's the difference here?

Re:Derivative Works?

A cover is not a derivative work, it is a performance of the song, which is the melody and lyrics. A cover is usually using the melody and lyrics in their entirety, even if the arrangement is change (and arrangements do not have copyrights). Weird Al is protected because it is a derivative parody and satirization, which is specifically protected under copyright law. Further, I would bet that he/his label licenses the music anyway just to be safe.

Re:Derivative Works?

I mean, Weird Al does derivative performances that copy nearly exactly the music of some artists (he usually alters only the lyrics) and every time he does a M. Jackson song he gets sued by MJ, and he always wins. What's the difference here?

He still has to pay royalties to the song writer. Note, by this I mean the person who wrote the music, not the original lyrics.

Re:Derivative Works?

BTW, what's the ASCAP fee for your sig?

Just curious :-)

Re:Derivative Works?

The way I understand it, there's a concept of compulsory licensing in the music industry. If you want to perform a cover of another artist's song, the other artist can't stop you from doing that (imagine you're Slayer and you want to cover a song written by Oral Roberts). But you do have to pay the original artist; I believe the agreed-upon fee is a set percentage of the profits of your recording.

For venues that allow live music, which might "give public performances" (i.e. play out loud) any number of songs, the way they work it is that ASCAP/BMI offers a program where the venue can play a flat fee that allows them to play unlimited songs.

For radio stations it's a little different ... if you worked at your college radio station, you might recall that radio DJs are required to keep meticulous records of all the songs they play. The flat-fee approach for bars and restaurants allows them to avoid this recordkeeping.

Most bars actually don't complain about this, because for them the fee really is actually fairly reasonable. People come to bars to get drunk, order more beers and shots than they originally planned, plug quarters into the juke box and the pool table, and the bar owner is happy. Few people buy more than two lattes at a coffee shop, on the other hand.

It sounds to me like the coffee shop owners aren't getting "shaken down" any more than any other business (like a bar or restaurant) is. What they seem to be saying is that, unlike bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, they can't afford it.

Re:Derivative Works?

Coolio's "Gangsta Paradise"

Itself a blatant ripoff of Stevie Wonder's "Pasttime Paradise", from "Songs In The Key Of Life". If anybody, Weird Al should have gotten permission from Stevie. Is Coolio so deluded as to think that this work actually belongs to him? Talk about pretzel logic! Oh well, nothing makes sense anymore.

Out of Hand

This is really getting out of hand. Pretty soon you're going to have to pay royalties if you have the radio on with passengers in your car, which isn't that far a stretch from paying royalties for songs played on a TV in a bar. It's not going to be much longer before either someone sane intervenes or the recording industry collapses under the weight of thousands of lawsuits against its primary customers.

We can hope for the latter.

Wait how many licensing agencies are there?

At first I was just going to blow this off as yet another bar that was trying to get away with not paying it's ASCAP fees, then I read the part where one owner had already payed ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, and were still getting billed by other piss-ant licensing companies trying to extort money out of him. Are these people for real or are they just scammers? I thought the entire purpose of having a statutory license for live performance was to avoid crap like this.

This in't just about cover songs

My coffee shop was shaken down by ASCAP a couple years back, and they were very clear about the fact that even if it was original music, they still wanted to be paid. In fact, when I pointed out we did not have a stage and did not have live music, They said in no uncertain terms that since we could not absolutely prove to them that no music was ever performed there, we had to pay anyway or face litigation, prosecution (yea, right), and an injunction shutting us down. That and what they wanted was not just a grand or two, I don't remember, but it was excessive. We told them to piss off and gave them our attorneys number, and we never heard from them again. Other shops in the area did pay out, though, and one CLOSED because of the legal harassment. What a racket.

Re:This in't just about cover songs

Disclaimer: I am not advocating this. Not! This is just an observation.

You know, I'm surprised we don't hear about anyone going on a shooting spree inside the offices of the MAFIAA or ASCAP, etc. It's kind of a testament to human goodness that so far, no one driven out of business by these terrorists (yeah, I said it) has freaked out and decided to take their antagonists with them. I mean, given how many hundreds of small businesses have been ruined be these shenanigans, not a single owner has been unstable enough to want revenge? Again, I'm not saying that's what should happen. I'm just kind of surprised that it hasn't.

Re:This in't just about cover songs

Yep. This garbage has been going on for years and years. Here's a story from the SF Chronicle about a bar that quit having live music all together after constant threats from ASCAP. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/ 12/03/BUGL13CH5H26.DTL [sfgate.com]

Nothing new here

This has been how it's worked for decades. ASCAP/BMI are assigned the public performance rights to songs, and they can be very thorough about collecting from everybody owes them. In the past, they've even harrassed companies where the employees played music in areas that could be heard by the public. Own a small retail store and play CD's in the background? Then you owe them a licensing fee.

While ASCAP/BMI can be very heavy-handed, I have to say that it's hardly the worst aspect of IP law. The good part of the arrangement is that a band can perform whatever cover songs they want, and licensing is the club owner's responsibility. And, y'know, if you write a song and somebody else performs it, you ought to get paid.

The bad part is that the convenience of uniting all the performance rights under a single umbrella creates an overly powerful organization.

Re:Nothing new here

What makes you think the musicians ever see a dime? Every time someone's had enough muscle to insist on an accountant going over the books they've discovered massive fraud.

Actually, that's too strong. That should be "Every time I've ever heard of that someone's had enough muscle ..."

Re:Nothing new here

I see many dimes -- no enough to pay the rent, but enough to pay the electric bill. I get 90% of what ASCAP collects from my performances, and every one they miss for which I have evidence (a program, recording, poster, etc.), they confirm and collect for. They're right downtown across from Lincoln Center, easy to find. Go upstairs and make an appointment with the ASCAP rep for your region.
Dennis

Corporate fascism ad portas?

Funny how people think that fascism is related to loud patriotic parades, exposition of insignia and group thinking, oppression of freedom and... well you get the idea, when it can just metastasize from within the society, perfectly legal (if it is not, new "sponsored" legislation will make it so) creeping up not on freedom itself but on its "pricelessness".

Do you want to be free? There is a price for it (brought to you by $favorite_company). Did you just glance while walking down the street at the store window TV playing Super Bowl? You owe $favorite_company money my friend! Our new eye movement, eye direction-focus detectors never lie. Your eyes were focused on the TV screen for 0.134s, thus you owe us royalties buddy...


Oh, I know how all this will end alright...and it won't be pretty...

And?

I'm not certain why the article is trying to suggest that it's unfair for small companies to have to pay when they use copyrighted material to help their business. I'm not certain that I even disagree with the price some of the companies are asking for in licensing.

I'm sure some people will rant about freedom of music but the original example was $400 or £200 I honestly don't think £200 a year is that much to ask in licensing costs. The particular café should have factored in the cost of playing someone else's music when they offered the service. Reading the other examples it seems the companies are requesting proportional fee's depending on venue, this isn't some evil RIAA tactic it's a company defending its IP against small business's who have been abusing it.

I agree that the harassment tactics the companies are using is wrong and its what the article should have been about. Perhaps it should have centred itself around the idea that record companies aren't checking to see if their IP is being infringed just sending bills and harassing small business owners into giving them money. I will admit the TV theme tune demand is planly stupid and I'm not sure it would be legal. But obviously the current system needs reworking and *shock* maybe some government regulation or control so small business could navigate the system as well as put what seems rogue traders like man who claimed to own gospel IP and the TV tune claimers out of business.

But as far as I'm concerned small business's getting stung by this have only themselves to blame. Its not hard to ask a performer for a list of songs they plan to play at your venue, its not hard to google those songs and make sure that your not infringing copyright by letting them play, as for the article suggestion this is hurting budding artists I really don't care about cover bands its when the companies try to stamp out original works being played (through asking for a license fee) I'd be worried.

See?

Can't you see what's happening? Its been happening for over a decade now.

The music industry is slamming the small music scenes trying to make more people buy CDs because they can't find any local shows. Either that or pay $300 for a ticket to a concert that they're running 300 miles away. They're trying to kill the competition.

And yeah, they pretty much just go through the phone book and pick coffee houses to harass. I would say that if you're a coffee house that has paid and you haven't broken any obvious laws, that you should be entitled to that money back PLUS administrative fees.

What if I walked in, said you were violating a law that you were not, and demanded payment. What's that called again?

Vexatious Litigant

It sounds like they don't even check whether any copyright violations occurred, they're just sending bills to any business that may or may not have live music.

I don't know if this applies to boilerplate letters like this, but it seems like just randomly trying to threaten small business owners like this is probably prohibited. Take a look here [ca.gov] and here [ca.gov] for information on vexatious litigants.

I am copyrighting the term "anonymous coward."

Pay up suckers.

Nothing New (Or Particularly Bad) Here

First of all: IAAL, but this ain't legal advice.

1. This is nothing new. Public performances have had to be licensed since right around 1900, and ASCAP has been collecting fees for blanket licenses since 1914. This is not a new campaign designed to squelch independent musicians, as some comments have intimated.

2. This isn't controversial or surprising. It's not an issue of free speech or fair use, at least as far as public performances in profit-making business establishments are concerned. The EFF and the ACLU, I suspect, wouldn't be interested -- and neither would some random Congressman be shocked to have to pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC fees, as one comment suggested. Maybe it would be good to allow unlicensed performances of music in business establishments, but that hasn't been the law for a very long time.

3. My sense is that around a dozen businesses decide to "fight" blanket license fees each year, thinking that somehow they won't end up having to pay or that the licenses aren't needed in order to play copyrighted songs in their establishments. They always lose.

4. ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC have occasionally been accused of "shaking down" businesses that really don't play any music for which they need a license -- like, say, bars that only play traditional Irish songs that are in the public domain. If those stories are true, the shakedowns are bad, wrong, and potentially liability-producing. (See also 17 USC 110 [cornell.edu].)

If you still want to be mad at somebody (and there may be good reason to be mad about some of this, just not most of it), at least be mad at the right people: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, who work as the agents of owners of copyright in musical works (not sound recordings). The RIAA is a group of copyright owners in sound recordings, and has nothing to do with this (except that some of the music publishers and some of the record labels are commonly owned).

Re:You call it a shakedown...

Let's look at the poor, poor coffee house that has the MNF theme playing; the MNF theme (and Monday Night Football itself) is licensed for home viewing. When you're taking that broadcast and then playing it in a commercial venue, the business is violating the license--this is where the "express permission of ESPN and the NFL" thing comes in.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't sports broadcasts (Footbal et al.) have a very large portion of their time taken up by commercials? Isn't it beneficial for the broadcasters to have their commercials put in front of hundreds of consumers? It's not like bars/restaurants mute the TV or change the channel or use PVR "commercial skip" measures during commercial breaks. The volume is also typically quite loud so the broadcast can be heard over the normal bar banter so what's the problem?

Further to this, commercials broadcast during a football game are generally geared towards the very demographic of those patrons in the bar. 20-50 year old males with a propensity towards alcohol, women, social activities, cars/trucks, etc. so the commercials are being broadcast directly into a testosterone filled den of the core target audience. Moreover, you know if these men are at a bar they have the disposable income with which to purchase the promoted products so they're more likely to have a positive input for the advertisers and therefore the network(s) broadcasting the event.

Am I missing something here?

Re:

I agree with lots of the posts from Americans I have seen here in slashdot before that state that if USA is *this* terrible why are people still willing to live there? I really can not understand it, what is it there in the USA that people, even some Brito

Re:Good

I agree with lots of the posts from Americans I have seen here in slashdot before that state that if USA is *this* terrible why are people still willing to live there? I really can not understand it, what is it there in the USA that people, even some Britons (I live in Britain today) want to live there??

I don't know. Ask the Mexicans.

Re:Good

I don't know. Ask the Mexicans.

Two points:

1. Many of the people you refer to as Mexicans are actually from Guatemala, El Salvador, Panama, Nicaragua, Peru, etc. Washington policy has always wanted latino labor to be a cheap, exploitable commodity. US corporations have always seen Latin America as their rightful property, toxic dump and political/military playground. The influx of latin immigrants (whether they come from Central or South America, northern Mexico is the portal to the USA) is just another example of selfish and shortsighted Washington policy coming back home to roost.

2. It's a two way street. Do you have any idea just how many gringos live in Mexico? Quite a lot. In fact, many more than you might imagine. Just check out most of Baja, San Miguel De Allende, Cuernavaca, Merida, etc. And it's not just Mexico, of course, gringos are everywhere.
From the OP: What is it there in the USA that people, even some Britons (I live in Britain today) want to live there??
While it's true that some people from all over the world may want to live in the USA, let's not ignore the fact that a large number of USA citizens have had it up to here and bailed ship already.

Re:I hope they keep it up

Performance rights organizations been doing this for years. At least, ASCAP has been.

They've shut down mom-and-pop bars that rent juke boxes from vendors but didn't pay a the fee to have music in their public place. You'd think that buying the CD would be enough to cover the royalty, but no. You'd think that because almost all the money goes to vendor who owns the machine that it would be the vendor's problem, but no. Go over to ASCAP site and read through the press release archive ... every year they sue the business out of a dozen or so places that they decide to make examples of. It's only a tiny, tiny fraction of the business not paying the license, but if you put one business out of business, every remaining business in that market will pony up if it can.

But every year the fees go up and up and up. And now it's way way way more expensive to pay the fee than to risk it.

I ran a newspaper that wrote a story (reported by Michael Carmody) about this last year. Here's a solid quote from the story that supports what I'm saying:

"It's extortion, is what it is," says a local tavern owner, who would only comment anonymously for fear of reprisals from the PROs. ("I don't want to give ASCAP any ammunition against me," he explains.)

"It goes in waves," he says. "They'll hassle you for a while, then disappear, then come back. There's always a letter coming from somewhere -- BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, I think there's a fourth one now, too. It's a scam, I know, because you can negotiate with them. They came once and asked for $900, and I said, 'Well, 900 dollars, that's ridiculous,' and sent them $500 and they accepted it. If it's truly a license as they claim, they wouldn't do that. They just try to scare you into registering."

Re:I hope they keep it up

I used to be in the DJ biz in the 80's and I know several still in it today. Absolutely NONE pay BMI or ASCAP fees of any kind. Most have resorted to simply changing their business name yearly to hide.

From what I have seen I would bat that nationwide that 90% of party, bar and school DJ services are not paying the fees.

just work under a LLC and rent all your gear. If they catch you they wont get crap.

Re:

You'll probably find that there's a bit of an overlap between the two groups.

I'd be surprised if there weren't...

Re:

For bitching when you try to make more of a profit (or less of a loss in the case of the people who can't figure out how to run a profitable coffeeshop in the first place) by profiting off someone else's work... suck it up when you're finally asked to pay