ASCAP out of touch with reality

[Tom Wells]

I intoduce my wife to make a point about a very recent example of ASCAP being "over-reaching".
Adria,......


Hello radio people,
My OM, a frequent poster here, thought you might be interested in this link. I am a Girl Scout leader, and this was posted on one of my boards. All I know is, my girls are going to be singing loud and clear the next time we go camping. Why would these money-grubbers go after kids? Boggles the mind.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1996/08/23/MN14140.DTL

 

[Beerking]

No campfire singing?

hmmm...that leaves only scary stories...


One summer afternoon, right here at Majestic Pines campground, a large black automobile pulled up to camp headquarters. Inside the automobile were some of the scariest people you would ever want to meet. No, they weren't headless campers or crazed ax murderers. Scarier still, the long black automobile contained three ASCAP lawyers.

Anybody want to pick it up from here?

 

[RadioMan203]

Mark my words, judging by the actions of these creeps going after Girl Scouts, the greedy s.o.b.'s will pull off the following scenario in our lifetimes:

Picture this: a busy intersection in the middle of Manhattan. A traffic light turns red. A car stops at the intersection is waiting for the light to change. The driver is listening to the radio with the windows rolled down. All of a sudden several guys in black suits swarm on the driver. One of these guys is the "people meter", counting how many people are close enough to the car to hear the driver's radio. The second is a guy from ASCAP, presenting a driver with a bill for music royalties. The third thug is a guy from SoundExchange who, after a short chat with the guy who counted the people within the listening distance of the car, presents the driver with yet another bill based on the number of "listeners" the driver has.

If these idiots will go after the Girl Scouts, what next? We already know the RIAA goes after little old ladies and dead people. It makes me glad I've gone back to vinyl!

 

[KeithE4]

I intoduce my wife to make a point about a very recent example of ASCAP being "over-reaching".

"Recent?" The article is dated August 23, 1996! Almost 11 years ago! The Girl Scouts mentioned in this article are old enough to be scout leaders themselves now.

Is ASCAP still doing stupid stuff like this or is this just old news?

 

[oaktree]

Yes they are.

In a California community about 15 miles from me, radio station client happened to call me with the "news" a year and a half ago and said, "somebody from an ASCAP just called and said 'Are you listening to the radio?' I told her, yes, I was, thinking it was a radio promotion.

"The woman on the phone said, 'Are you listening at work?' I answered, again, 'Yes.' She then wanted to know how many speakers I had in the business and big the store was. Thinking that my little flower shop was going to get some good publicity, I said, 'Oh, I don't know...I think four speakers.'

"There was a pause for about a minute and she came back on the line and said, "We'll be sending you a bill for $183 to cover the cost of music licensing in your business for a year from our New York office. Thank you very much for your time."

The client was irate ... but doubting, until 2 weeks later, when she received a certified letter from ASCAP in New York for not only the "bill" but "additional charges" that included the cost of "certified mailing."

And just as she was thinking about just tossing the letter ... that very day, an ASCAP "monitor" who lives in the county walked in to confirm that, in fact, she had received the letter...and would, in fact, pay the bill "in question." He also noted that "ASCAP doesn't lose in court...ever." And he departed.

Yes, she paid...and I understand she shut off two speakers. We're talking a small flower shop in a town of 2000, if that many.

God help her if she has said she was "piping in" CD's or cassettes from the boombox she was using or ... Internet Radio.

 

[KeithE4]

Yes they are.

In a California community about 15 miles from me, radio station client happened to call me with the "news" a year and a half ago and said, "somebody from an ASCAP just called and said 'Are you listening to the radio?' I told her, yes, I was, thinking it was a radio promotion.

"The woman on the phone said, 'Are you listening at work?' I answered, again, 'Yes.' She then wanted to know how many speakers I had in the business and big the store was. Thinking that my little flower shop was going to get some good publicity, I said, 'Oh, I don't know...I think four speakers.'

"There was a pause for about a minute and she came back on the line and said, "We'll be sending you a bill for $183 to cover the cost of music licensing in your business for a year from our New York office. Thank you very much for your time."

The client was irate ... but doubting, until 2 weeks later, when she received a certified letter from ASCAP in New York for not only the "bill" but "additional charges" that included the cost of "certified mailing."

And just as she was thinking about just tossing the letter ... that very day, an ASCAP "monitor" who lives in the county walked in to confirm that, in fact, she had received the letter...and would, in fact, pay the bill "in question." He also noted that "ASCAP doesn't lose in court...ever." And he departed.

Yes, she paid...and I understand she shut off two speakers. We're talking a small flower shop in a town of 2000, if that many.

God help her if she has said she was "piping in" CD's or cassettes from the boombox she was using or ... Internet Radio.

I would hope that even a small business like hers keeps a lawyer on retainer - for exactly that reason. Besides, I thought blackmail shakedowns protection rackets business propositions of this kind were illegal.

 

[hammondo]

Tom (don't shoot the messenger here) but it's NOT "overreaching." (as silly as it sounds) They are TECHNICALLY ENTITLED to do this.

Keith said; Besides, I thought blackmail shakedowns protection rackets business propositions of this kind were illegal.
---
Well - No they are NOT illegal - just lightly prosecuted in the past. The right to prosecute this stuff exists by the contract the composer signs with the music licensor (ascrap/bmi/sesac).

The JOB of the licensor is to make money from their clients compositions. They get a "percentage" of the rights (for collecting and accounting) and the composer gets the rest.

A bit more than 25 years ago there was a "fuss " about "Happy Birthday to You" on the radio and at some restaurants like "Shakey's Pizza" who eventually HAD to pay for a list of past infrigements. Then those places changed from the "traditional song" to some other birthday song because of this.

Technically, the "Happy Birthday to You" SONG is licensed so therefore WHY SHOULDN'T the composer be compensated?

Its just in the past that ascrap/bmi did not pursue these kind of thing with the gusto they are entitled to. It's more in the news of late, with Napster's deal, etc. so you hear more about it because of the publicity it generates for the licencing company. I heard some of these kind of stories 30 years ago, but they were much more "the exception" than the rule.

I bought a radio station that was about to be sued out of business by ascrap for non-payment of the license. The old owner (who caused the problem) DIED and according to ascrap "THATS the only thing that saved his (personal) prosecution." His corporation settled out of court and payed ascrap a large fine, anyway.

 

[Walter Graff]

Good for ASCAP. These are artists and their life is creating the music that you all love. I support proper licensing of music, whether it be internet radio or the girl scouts. No, no one likes to think that their small flower shop should pay to entertain their customers, but they should.

 

[KeithE4]

Good for ASCAP. These are artists and their life is creating the music that you all love. I support proper licensing of music, whether it be internet radio or the girl scouts. No, no one likes to think that their small flower shop should pay to entertain their customers, but they should.

Why? You're not personally performing at that flower shop, nor are you exerting any form of labor if that flower-shop owner is playing one of your records. If that business owner is playing your music he/she already (hopefully - if not, then it's pirating and that's another issue) paid for that copy of your song.

If you are performing at that store then you have the undeniable right to be paid for your concert. But if that store owner is just playing a CD or MP3, assuming it was legally procured, you have already been paid the royalties you're entitled to with that owner's purchase of your music.

That flower shop is not in the business of promoting your music and, in fact, the fact that they play your songs as background is in-effect free publicity, just like radio airplay is. You should be thanking that businessperson for giving you some free publicity, not trashing him. Maybe one or more of his customers will say "Hey, that Walter Graff is a pretty good musician and I like his songs. I think I'll buy one of his CDs today."

But instead, you just come across like you're greedy. This isn't a Metallica-vs-Napster issue where the artists weren't being paid. Background music in stores is based on music on physical media that was paid for already by that store owner or employee. You were already paid for that copy sold. Chances are that the guy who runs the internet "radio" station with a few hundred listeners at most also already paid for his copy.

 

[dbdigital]

Good for ASCAP. These are artists and their life is creating the music that you all love. I support proper licensing of music, whether it be internet radio or the girl scouts. No, no one likes to think that their small flower shop should pay to entertain their customers, but they should.

This is the kind of logic that is hastening the demise of music as a shared experience.

To use ASCAP's reasoning if the same flower shop had floral printed wallpaper, the graphic designer who created the wallpaper should get paid a fee every time a customer comes in. Piped-in music is nothing more than aural wallpaper. They are both ingredients which help create an ambiance for the business. None is more important than the other and neither should be compensated for more than the other.

If I were the shop owner I would cease playing any ASCAP and BMI music immediately and find artists whose music is not associated with any publisher. There are plenty out there to choose from.

db

 

[hammondo]

If I were the shop owner I would cease playing any ASCAP and BMI music immediately and find artists whose music is not associated with any publisher. There are plenty out there to choose from

Great. Now how do you hear "hit music" - not wallpaper? ASCRAP and BMI have it all.

 

[Walter Graff]

Chances are that the guy who runs the internet "radio" station with a few hundred listeners at most also already paid for his copy.

Chances? Pay to listen. Pay to use the music to entertain. Pay to play it to a few hundred people on the web. That's reality, not chances. Sorry, but artists deserve to be paid to entertain you, even if they are not there live. Most internet radio is the same thing as all the wannabe filmmakers out there. It's fun to act the role. But if you want to act the role, you have to pay.

 

[KeithE4]

Great. Now how do you hear "hit music" - not wallpaper? ASCRAP and BMI have it all.

It's not hit music if folks don't buy it. Folks don't buy it if they don't hear it and like what they hear. Folks usually don't hear it unless they are tuned into a form of free media (radio, internet streaming, hearing it as background music in a store, etc.) - a new song played during a live performance being an exception.

The free play of a given song at limited time intervals in the above-mentioned media is called "Free Publicity." Sniveling about not getting a penny per listener per play or whatever the rate is, is called "Foolish Greed." Greed because someone wants to be paid for a previous performance that they have already been paid for. Foolish because that form of greed only creates bad will between that performer and his/her fans that can only hurt a career. The last thing I would want if I was an artist of any kind would be to alienate my potential audience (read: Paying Customers whom I would like to see purchase what I create).

The licensing companies' sniveling about pennies in the short term could very easily cost hard-working artists big dollars in the long term. Unfortunately, such greed and arrogance is way too common in business today.

 

[dbdigital]

If I were the shop owner I would cease playing any ASCAP and BMI music immediately and find artists whose music is not associated with any publisher. There are plenty out there to choose from

Great. Now how do you hear "hit music" - not wallpaper? ASCRAP and BMI have it all.

Who said anything about "hit music"? The woman runs a flower shop, for crying out loud, not a radio station. If background music is all she needs, ambient or similar a genre would do nicely and she can easily download that from the internet. There are a whole slew of little or unknown artists who are writing and recording that type of music.

db

 

[BRUSSTAR]

I'd personally like to thank Mr. Graff and his co-horts for their shortsighted attitudes of greed.

Every week hundreds of wonderfully talents acts are recording terrific songs and albums and choosing NOT to sign on with major RIAA labels. They're writing beautifully entertaining and catchy tunes yet choosing not to affiliate with ASCAP or BMI. Some are choosing SESAC, which of the three, is the only one which comes even remotely close to "getting it" when it comes to the way today's consumers view and hear music.

The wallpaper analogy is right on, and I thank the postor for making that point so eloquently.

It's a good thing guys like Mr. Graff aren't authors. (If he is, I've never heard of him, which is easily explained by his seemingly misinterpreted views on U.S. Copyright Law.) He'd be suing hundreds of thousands of American libraries for royalties he'd feel were applicable to every person who checked his book out.

Then again, few would read his book because few would know it existed. And that would be directly because of his greed. Much like ASCAP/BMI and the RIAA, he'd be suing the people he should be thanking.

That being said, I support Mr. Graff and his ilk's right to have the opinions they do. And I support their right to be greedy and impractical. I support their right to do whatever it takes, for whatever insane reason, to keep their works of art from the public.

And most importantly, I encourage stations, both terrestrial and Internet-delivered, to use their power to say "TO EFFING HELL WITH YOU. KEEP YOUR CRAP. THERE ARE TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GREAT RECORDS OUT THERE. WE DON'T NEED YOU. GOOD RIDDANCE."

Unfortunately many audio stations, and even more so terrestrial radio operators don't have the brass ones to make those statements. And that's why the RIAA, ASCAP, and BMI have them by the short and curlies. Seriously. Grow a set. You don't have a "right" to play the music of idiotic greed-mongers. We don't on AUDIO 18. And we're doing just fine, listenership-wise. That's why we don't need to cry and whine to the government or politicians for help. When we launched the place, we looked into music licensing. And after five minutes, I realized I didn't need their crap. It's a shame other stations lack the creativity or talent to move forward without the crutch of licensed music, already abundant at tens of thousands of other venues.

Idiots like Mr. Graff, I believe, have the right to be idiots. And we have the right to walk away from them laughing. Let's exercise that right.

I'm well aware airplay, whether terrestrial radio, Internet, or satellite, HELPS musicians a thousand times more than it screws them. But it's not our call. It's their stuff. If they don't want our help, who are we to use government to "force" them to take it? Haven't you ever done something, and been offered help, but chose not to accept?

The Federal Government chose, long ago, to stick its nose way too far (as usual) into Copyright Law. Compulsary/statuatory licensing of art was not intended by the Founding Fathers to have been one of the functions of the Federal Government. Sorry to break this to some of you, but it's true. Now, that being said, since that same government chose to get involved, then I DO BELIEVE it's incumbent upon that government to treat ALL FORMS OF MEDIA in a fair and equitable manner. And for that reason alone, I support the "Internet Radio Equality Act", resigned to the fact that the government will keep it's nose into American music.

I'll still be online, legally, after July 15th, regardless of what does or doesn't happen.

I'd love for the "Internet Radio Equality Act" to become law as a businessman, though, because the stronger Internet-delivered audio stations become as a "medium", the better shot I'll have at getting a piece of the bigger pie.

And as a libertarian, I'd love to see the government get the hell out of this nonsense. Completely.

But either way, I'll still have my tiny little empire.

Those who disagree are welcome to call into the Racket this Friday night and tell me why I'm a moron.

 

[hammondo]

Who said anything about "hit music"? The woman runs a flower shop, for crying out loud, not a radio station. If background music is all she needs, ambient or similar a genre would do nicely and she can easily download that from the internet. There are a whole slew of little or unknown artists who are writing and recording that type of music.
____
I DID. Kepp your unlicensed sttuff. Nothing good has been recoreded snce about 1985 or so, anyway. I'm looking for recognizeable songs - songs I know - "the great American songbook - not wallpaper. Gershwin and Berlin, Lennon and McCartney, etc.

SESAC indeed. TWO Sesac songs are in top top thousand hits since 1955.

HIT Music. You have to reeducate your minority of an audience on music all over again.

 

[dbdigital]

I'd personally like to thank Mr. Graff and his co-horts for their shortsighted attitudes of greed.


The wallpaper analogy is right on, and I thank the postor for making that point so eloquently.

It's a good thing guys like Mr. Graff aren't authors. (If he is, I've never heard of him, which is easily explained by his seemingly misinterpreted views on U.S. Copyright Law.) He'd be suing hundreds of thousands of American libraries for royalties he'd feel were applicable to every person who checked his book out.

Thank you. And your point about the books highlights a fear of mine that I think could realistically happen; namely that anything that is designed or created could be fair game for a royalty fee beyond the price already paid by the user for the item or creative work.

Can you imagine, for example, the designer of your dining room furniture getting a royalty fee for everyone not directly related to you who used that furniture? Any guests you invite over for dinner who are not in your immediate family and who sat down and ate dinner on your table you would now be responsible for keeping track of on some form?

And heaven help you if failed to keep an accurate count as Congress had passed some bogus 'Miscellaneous Fair Use Royalty Act' that would make it a felony if you didn't.

Yes, I can see that coming.

db

 

[Walter Graff]

"Idiots like Mr. Graff,"

It's sad when people have to make something personal. And sadder when they have to call someone names that they don't even know. It says a lot about the poster. It's sad enough that people don't have the decency to use their own names. Sadder when they have to call others names. This board is filled with some pretty low level people who can't discuss a topic in a mature manner.

As an artist, I respect people whose music I use and pay appropriate fees. They total many thousands of dollars a year and I'm happy to pay for it. From the responses here it's clear that many have little idea bout how the industry works or any idea what an artist deserves and why broadcasting others work for free is wrong.

Sad...

 

[jeffryan]

As an artist, I respect people whose music I use and pay appropriate fees. They total many thousands of dollars a year and I'm happy to pay for it.

But keep in mind that for every one person who's willing to whip out a checkbook, there are 10 others who'd rather not. With music being as ubiquitous as it is, new artists will see the value in getting their music out there at any cost. And that will happen eventually if enough distribution channels (i.e. - radio, satellite, internet... mainly internet) turn their backs on these fees and say to hell with it, as George said. It all comes down to market forces and supply and demand. Considering how fiercely competitive music is (mainly because the floodgates of distribution are wide open), an artist would be wise to just get their stuff out there and not nickel and dime people to death. While I understand a musician's need to make money, how can you justify an artist saying "Please please please play my music... and oh yeah, you gotta pay." A capitalist economy doesn't work that way.

I also reluctantly support this bill. Mainly because the same rules that apply to radio and satellite should apply to internet audio. It's only fair. Everyone has a right to be greedy, even if it's not in their own best interest... and I will support that.

 

[oaktree]

Hmmm. The lady in the flower shop in Santa Margarita thanks you, incidentally. I have some concerns, though, with some of these posts: "You have a 'right to be greedy?'" Hold on ... I missed the update to the Declaration of Independence on that one. "...the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness," are the "God given rights" on this worn copy of the Declaration. Maybe I missed the memo.

It says nothing about "greed." Wrong reason, imo, to support this bill.

Many have missed the point, here, and I disagree with Mr. Brusstar, (which is among the rights we have in a nation of free speech and expression.)

First, I do NOT believe that this new "royalty" that pays "singers, artists and performers" is necessary. My contention is that the deals made with the record labels and associates of the RIAA (which is, in effect, nothing more than a union,) and the major conglomerates of record labels should deal with the artists and performers as a way of compensating them for PERFORMANCE. It is a shameless "tax" and is, in fact, greed. Unfair "taxation" (without representation) is NOT a God given right under the Constitution of this country. The government of "We the People" ONLY have the right to "tax". The RIAA does not. It is a trade union or "association." Period.

Second, I DO believe that composers and publishers, as they have for nearly 100 years, from sheet music PUBLICATION to the COMPOSITIONS they have created, deserve the "royalty" of said musical compositions. They do not deal with "labels." They are in the "publishing" business and their livelihood comes from the publishing - not the performance - of their works UNLESS they are also the artist/performer as well on a given composition. Lennon & McCartney get paid by the label (EMI) which, in turn, gets sued, rightfully, for "holding back" royalties on PERFORMANCE based on SALES. As composers of many of those works, they also deserve payment from those USING those compositions. Two different scenarios.

Third, broadcasters pay directly to the "Performing RIGHTS Organizations (ASCAP, BMI & SESAC,) as they have under complicated rules that are decades old that disallowed radio to even play those "Compositions" without a fee, hence, why we pay music fees each year based on REVENUES.

If a station, webcaster, flower shop, nightclub, bar, etc. fails to license that composition through the "collection agencies" (to save us having to pay the publishers directly,) we would not have the "right" to play those compositions. That is "rule of law." It is a "copyrighted work" and those copyrights are valuable to composers and publishers of those who "write" the music or books we enjoy. Performance "rights" by artists are completely different and should be dealt with by the entities involved as point of "selling" the work ... in effect, the record labels.

Fourth, because radio soon learned that if "fees" weren't paid in the days of "live broadcasts" -- musicians (through the American Federation of Musicians) would merely walk off the stage or not show up at all, because unless the composer got paid, they didn't get paid to play, either ... so, they didn't ... because their UNION (the AFM) would not allow it.

So, no music, lots of dead air. Limbaugh hadn't been born yet during those days. There was no such thing as "free music" on the radio. Never has been, never will be. But it had to do with composers and compositions ... not artists. The "players" protected the copyrights, or they didn't get played, period.

Fifth, which brings us to now. Ever fail to turn in a quarterly BMI logging request? Ever fail to do a yearly week of a BMI log? Ever fail to pay an ASCAP or SESAC licensing fee (which amounts to about 5% or station revenues?) I can personally guarantee that you have not. I worked for a station that was $15,000 behind in music "licensing" fees years and years ago. The owner could not sell his radio station, because there was a lien against it. ASCAP and BMI do NOT hesitate to take you to court for non-payment of music licensing fees.

And...ASCAP will be the first to tell you, and it's true -- they have N E V E R lost a case. EVER.

That's why the threat is mighty against us...because THEY CAN. And what makes it worse is the fact that so many "bedroom broadcasters" do not make the rules any more fair by NOT paying a licensing fee to re-broadcast music on the Internet.

I think they should and be shut down if they don't. Why should I have to pay when you're thinking you'll get away with it if you don't? What makes you so special? And don't say, "I own the CD." No...actually, you don't. You own the plastic the music came on, the print, the label, the case ... but the music remains owned by the copyright holder ... often, not the performer, artist, band, etc.

Again, this "new" royalty for "artists" is unfair to webcasters as it does not apply to radio.

At the same time, in fairness, composer rights should be paid by all webcasters, as they are to radio, or stay off the air. Many of us are paying "licensing fees" to assure ASCAP, BMI & SESAC the "right" to SUE your happy ass with many many high priced lawyers by not following the rules in the first place. That's what makes it tough on everyone.

This stupid "royalty" for Internet webcasters makes it even more difficult. Nothing is "free" in this life ... and that includes "freedom."