This is a good place to drop general and weird news, entertainment, and general show prep material that might be interesting to air talent or producers. Hot dog threads ALWAYS welcome.
A Seattle restaurant is among more than two dozen venues swept up in a music-licensing crackdown for allegedly failing to pay royalties to play copyrighted music in public.
Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege.
On Monday, ASCAP said it had filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states. Among them is a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the Ibiza Dinner Club downtown
I've always wondered when this would start happening, yet so many businesses get away with it. Frankly, they THINK they're paying for the right when they pay for the distribution service (musak, MOD, cable, etc)
"I think it's absurd," said Eshagi. "Not only DJs have bought that music, I also subscribe to an online music-use service, and I'm also paying the cable company for the same thing. I don't know how many times we have to pay for a song."
The club owner's wrong. He's not paying for the song again, he's paying for the right to play it.
Bob Loblaw wrote:
The club owner's wrong. He's not paying for the song again, he's paying for the right to play it.
they might wanna be careful with this. eventually the only place you'll be able to listen to music, without paying for the "right to play it", will be on earbuds. the "public" will get frustrated with this, and it'll be the artists, song writers etc... that will take it in the ass then.
I've always thought that such "unnecessary (from the consumer's point of view) complexities" cause not just frustration but also an overall disrespect for the institutions that administer such things and the desire to rebel.
Which might be a good thing....as long as you're not in "the institution."
The easy and obvious example for radio folks -- freelance. You voice a spot at some agency, make a pesonal appearance at some place, or jock a few wedding receptions, and the money comes directly to you, not to and through the station and its payroll structure. Because you've earned few hundred dollars "outside the system," you're suddenly supposed to learn a six-foot-tall stack of tax regulations, anticipate this income, and make quarterly payments in advance. Such is an "unnecessary complexity" and does nothing but create "criminals" and strife.
If these kinds of "rights" and regulations are going to exist, then the associated "fees" need to be built-in "upstream." The logical place to deal with this is at the "service" -- it knows its customers and all the titles played.
This frustration, though, creates an opportunity, I think.
All over LA, NY, Nashville, Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and other places are very, very talented musicians and singers who, for one reason or another, just didn't quite make it.....heck, let's admit it -- it's often for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of performance.
What if groups of these folks got together, made "good" vocal and/or instrumental music, and sold it outright to a music service...hey, maybe a service that they, themselves, owned? No ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC fees for anyone to worry about...customers take the service, and they're done.
Such music, though lacking familiarity, could create environments about as well as anything that's out there now. I mean, don't many places -- coffee shops, for instance -- already pride themselves on having "unusual" music that people don't hear anywhere else? This would be the same thing...sort of...it would just be by musicians who aren't going the usual route and are choosing a different business model.
It could be the greatest "jobs program" ever for music folks, and licensing agencies would have wound up screwing themselves and those they're (supposedly) representing the best interests of.
It would be a fascinating lesson, too -- "make things easy for and truly serve the end user or face extinction."
"I don't know the same things you don't know."
"Yes, you do; you just won't admit it!"
"Yeeee...it looks like a 'Belt Buckle & Ball Cap' convention in here......"
Arp2 wrote:I've always thought that such "unnecessary (from the consumer's point of view) complexities" cause not just frustration but also an overall disrespect for the institutions that administer such things and the desire to rebel.
This is true of more than just the recording industry... It also happens when government policies get too heavy-handed. *cough*
I cannot think of many businesses that could exist even a day with a SOP of suing and abusing their customer base, and then claiming victimhood themselves.
