Pirate radio and ASCAP & BMI Loophole? {exceptions}

[gr229]

I was looking at Bongwater's post about the FCC cutting back on field agents in the local area and throughout the U.S. and what about the other end of the spectrum. ROYALTIES! It's amazing the extent they go to collect this "fee" and how deep it is. Seems to cover every angle and then some.
It seems to me they may be a loophole for certain organizations will not have to pay these fees.
Maybe "loophole" is not correct word..."Exceptions" is much better
Although pirates are not licensed broadcasters ,they do fall into one (or more) of these listed.

Also I'm assuming that we all know who Harvey Reid is. http://www.harveyreid.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

These are some of the rules...ASCAP..BMI (Exceptions)
SESAC I don't know what their exceptions are.

1. religious organizations (during worship only)
2. non-profit educational institutions
3. record stores and other establishments where the primary purpose of playing the music is to sell it
4. government bodies (state and federal)
5. state fairs and agricultural events
6. certain veterans and fraternal organizations during charitable social functions (added in 1982 in a last-minute legislative session.)
7. various "non-commercial" and charitable performances that have no admission charge, commercial intent or paid performers
8. movie houses


Number 7 is my thought...
If I''m doing this as a hobby AND non commercial intent(at this moment) I'm not in violation of this right?
The big word in #7 "AND".....

Com'on someone burst my bubble and tell me there's a loophole to cover this loophole....sorry exception

 

[TheBigA]

Yet both ASCAP and BMI are sending bills to Part 15 and LPFM stations. And there is no such loophole in the digital performing rights act. So a lot of non-commercial hobbyists found themselves with invoices from SoundExchange demanding payment.

 

[TheBigA]

Let me add that ASCAP & BMI's exception #2 for non-profit educational institutions definitely doesn't apply to radio. College-owned radio stations and non-commercial FM stations are subject to publishers royalties. So while you can play music for free in the classroom, you can't on the air.

Looking at #7 again, it is probably for live performances, and not radio.

 

[gr229]

Just wanted to add that I did do a search on this board..Didn't find much Radio-Info(rmation) just a lot of complaining.

 

[Bongwater]

Yet both ASCAP and BMI are sending bills to Part 15 and LPFM stations. And there is no such loophole in the digital performing rights act. So a lot of non-commercial hobbyists found themselves with invoices from SoundExchange demanding payment.

Before ASCAP/BMI attempts to collect on royalties from pirate/Part 15 radio (INCLUDING the MILLIONS of tiny Belkin wireless FM transmitters out there for iPods/SiriusXM Radio - they play music too,) they'll have to PROVE they can do it. And with the MIGHT that's going to take, they'll have to start by collecting on the BILLIONS they're owed from ALL of US by singing "Happy Birthday To You" (yep, even THAT'S copyrighted) to our friends all these years.

Are YOU going to pay for THAT? Do YOU send the check out to BMI after every birthday party?

 

[TheBigA]

Are YOU going to pay for THAT? Do YOU send the check out to BMI after every birthday party?

Private birthday parties are exempt, according gr229's post. Radio is not.

 

[evolve991]

Does anyone else think ASCAP/BMI is eagerly chopping away at the limb they're standing on? ;D

 

[Bongwater]

Are YOU going to pay for THAT? Do YOU send the check out to BMI after every birthday party?

Private birthday parties are exempt, according gr229's post. Radio is not.

Ummm....I don't know about that. You see I worked in community theatre and the leech from ASCAP told me to my face that ANY live performance of "Happy Birthday" where there is more than ONE person present makes it "public". Regardless if it was in a private home or at a restaurant. Or before an audience of thousands. That's pretty much verbatim what he said.

"Now wait just a damn minute, did you just say in PRIVATE homes?"

"Yes"

"Now just how the hell are you going to enforce THAT?"

"All we have to do is get a report of it and how many people are attended that party and who sang it"

"So we can spot the narc the usual way, the one NOT singing, am I correct?"

"No, they can be exempt....."

"So everyone else gets a bill from you people right?"

"No, just the people hosting the party"

Finally I asked "Have you actually TRIED collecting on this before?" On THAT he couldn't answer.....

I am NOT making any of this up.

Fact is, if there are agents from ASCAP/BMI that can stand there and tell us we can't even sing "Happy Birthday" in our own homes with our own family and friends, then either we have one overzealous agent or an entire music industry hopelessly out of control with greed.

And since these little Belkin (or other manufacturers devices) of tiny FM xmitters for iPods and Sirius/XM ARE essentially Part 15 radio stations. And there's MILLIONS of those, how do you enforce the SAME rules against those without being completely duplicitous?

Because all the general public knows about this is NOTHING. And all ASCAP/BMI has (at least BMI) is this:

http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/radio/part_15_radio_license.pdf

(Found this buried below a bunch of other links...and on a PDF file....)

So what's the double standard for? And how does it HELP performers/artists (most of whom will take ANY kind of airplay whatsoever?)

And will ASCAP/BMI launch a MAJOR public awareness campaign about this? Telling people if they use a wireless FM transmitter to play music from one end of the house to the other that they HAVE to pay $219 a year and - dig this:

8. Upon reasonable notice, Part 15 Radio Broadcaster agrees to furnish BMI
lists and certain required information concerning its performances of all musical
works on forms provided by BMI. Such lists need not be furnished for more than
one (1) week of each year of the term.

Like I said...TRY to enforce this with MILLIONS of average, non-radio people who own these tiny FM radio transmitters out there.....

And how will it help the music industry on a whole?

Or is it just another dirty way for BMI to make a buck?

 

[TheBigA]

And how will it help the music industry on a whole?

BMI can only worry about BMI's part of the industry. Same with ASCAP. If you notice, none of the PROs are supporting the RIAA's performance royalty. Why? Because they're concerned the money will come out of their percentage.

There is no czar for the music industry as a whole. Just a bunch of special interests trying to retain their small part of the pie. The songwriters only care about themselves, the artists only care about themselves, the promoters only care about themselves, the managers only care about themselves, and on and on. That's how it is.

 

[Bongwater]

Yet both ASCAP and BMI are sending bills to Part 15 and LPFM stations. And there is no such loophole in the digital performing rights act. So a lot of non-commercial hobbyists found themselves with invoices from SoundExchange demanding payment.

Well everyone wants their slice of the pie. But what I'm trying to get at here is how does Part 15 radio transmitters in general come into any equation in this? Or does it specifically target "non-commercial hobbyists" And if so, what's the difference?

 

[TheBigA]

I don't know exactly, but I sense a desire on the part of those who collect the money (ie, PROs and Sound Exchange) that dealing with hobbyists (as passionate as they are) is troublesome, and they'd just as soon they all went away. Although they'll put up with them as long as they pay. It's all about controlling how the copyrights are being used, and money is the weapon.

 

[DJ Alan]

I was wondering how long it would be before I saw a good debate about royalties on the board… Here is my take (and for the record; I have been in commercial broadcasting since 1978 and started pirating at a very young age in 1970… still do of course, got a lot of friends in bands etc. yada yada)… anywho;

As a commercial broadcaster I totally understand sharing the revenue from advertising with the publishers as has been the standard for years. Over the years I believe the formula for achieving the payments has changed and not really for the better. I believe that it really should be based on a percentage of an individual station’s ad sales… period.
It seems the payment schedule has taken on a ‘tiered’ model that I really don’t personally subscribe to as top selling stations get off pretty cheap compared to the millions they can rake in whereas small stations that are barely able to keep the stick lit have to jump an unfair hurdle height. And I also personally feel that when radio made the original agreement and paid these fees, we did so with the thought that we had certainly made a fair agreement, in good faith, with all parties involved including performers.

Wasn’t it not too many years ago that performers got nil from the sales of records as well. PLEASE- Correct me if I am wrong, but as I remember it going, the unions ended up settling on splitting the royalties evenly between ‘songwriter/copyright holder’ and the performers. I feel that this is the approach that should be taken in the current fight that performers have going. It has precedent and like I mentioned above, I do feel that radio did make the original agreement in good faith.

Also on my mind about this issue; Where did everything get all messed up here? It used to be that artists used to do everything they could to get a station to play their music. In return, stations loved to be the first to play the next new hit and promote the bands shows etc. Hell-that even got way out of hand with the payola scandals of the 50’s-60’s… the ‘snortfest’ that was the 70s and 80’s. We do need the radio industry to get back in touch with the record reps on a local level again- hopefully without the pay-4-play scandals, or the manic Peruvian marching. One can easily see a main area (and era) where this got messed up; when corporate stations killed off the last speck of authority that local stations music directors had and cut them off from local record reps. So ya, I can see where the bad feelings could have been hatched.

As a current pirate, I ain’t rakin’ in the cash here at all. I am running psa announcements, soon live read as well so I can super serve the local organizations that need a voice in the local community. I plan on working with local bands/acts too. Seattle has some killer talent and I’d love to give them some airtime and get people excited about their shows and albums/CDs. I hope to build up relationships with local reps and bands, just like we had in the old days- AGAIN- MINUS THE THUG ACTION…AND THE MARCHING! Soon, 101.9 will have a concert and show calendar on air- you just can’t beat The Stranger though- really. I feel I am promoting music if anything- and not getting anything for it. I do have plans for a station website, and that will be a game changer. Listeners will be able to buy CDs and legal downloads- something that artists and performers benefit from… and I’ll get in line with whatever payment schedule I need to be on once I got the scratch comin’ in the door.

To sum up my thoughts and what seems to me to be fair for everyone involved; Performers and writers/copyright holders both should share in the royalties that are collected- though I feel at ‘an across the board set percentage of ad sales income for all stations (web ad sales for a site that also streams would be included in the stations ‘total ad sales income’).

Performers get paid, big stations pay a fair share, and small stations pay a fair share while having a better chance at survival and perhaps one day becoming larger contributors ‘in the system’.

Hmmmmm… I guess that does just sound like way to simple of a solution and quite a love fest along the journey too~ It obviously then… WOULD NEVER WORK!

Just my opinion, of course, and I am interested in hearing what everyone else has to say about this topic. It has been brewing for awhile.

Have a GREAT DAY!!!
DJ Alan ;D

 

[TheBigA]

To sum up my thoughts and what seems to me to be fair for everyone involved; Performers and writers/copyright holders both should share in the royalties that are collected- though I feel at ‘an across the board set percentage of ad sales income for all stations (web ad sales for a site that also streams would be included in the stations ‘total ad sales income’).

That's not the plan Congress is considering as proposed by the RIAA. They want an additional royalty beyond what radio is already paying writers. And the percentage would be set by the same people who are responsible for digital royalties, which could mean 30% of your revenue goes to performers.

 

[LITTLEBOYBLUE]

So, assuming broadcasters fight back with the same response as AFTRA got with their ONLINE hassles....silence.
My suggestion to artists would be to ponder what that last "A" in RIAA stands for .... and start releasing everything out of Canada! Canada would love the new industry + attention + revenue; and then the FIRST THREE letters of the RIAA would become an exhibit in Smithsonian.

When dealing with lawyers...I find it's just not productive to try to argue with a sick mind. Don't try.

 

[DJ Alan]

That's not the plan Congress is considering as proposed by the RIAA. They want an additional royalty beyond what radio is already paying writers. And the percentage would be set by the same people who are responsible for digital royalties, which could mean 30% of your revenue goes to performers.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification on the proposal BigA. WOW, and OUCH! That seems totally out of line.

Also, my ideas were just that, my thoughts on what I feel is fair. After all, radio is a great promotional tool for bands, artists, etc. It would be sad to see them not only just 'bite the hand that feeds', but to 'completely rip the hand off the arm and kill' that promotional tool would certainly be a foolish move.

Have a GREAT EVENING!!!
DJ Alan

 

[gr229]

Big A you kinda sound like your not completely sure about that #7 rule...then again I'm sure this has been challenged in court already.Interesting that they want fees for lpfm & college radio & Part 15.
I'm not sure but I think a guy did win some time ago against ASCAP..or was it the FCC..? His lawyer proved that he was just a hobbiest and the case was dismissed? Not sure about this though.
I'm a veteran but I don't belong to any fraternal org..But I could start one and squeeze in there that way or start a church and worship Hip Hop or Rock&Roll all day...lol

So what your saying is terrestrial radio is completely taken out of this?(exceptions)
Part 15 and those Belkin things can legally transmit 300ft or less...What audience?..of 1 or 2 people?
If not already I'm sure the royalty cost has been included when purchasing these.

Like DJ Dan says we are promoting the music...I'm not making any money and spending a lot for cd's & downloads. Didn't the artist use to pay the dj to play record?..or radio station?
From what has been said here is that when I spend $19-$25 for a cd and play it for a group of say like 10-15 people I'll have to pay royalties? (sick)
I read that they have copyrighted over 80 versions of Row Row Row Your Boat....

Do you think that the chaos in piracy industry is the cause of these outrageous fees?
30% of your revenue...WOW!!!

I thought John Gotti was dead.

Thanks Big A for busting that bubble ???

 

[TheBigA]

Big A you kinda sound like your not completely sure about that #7 rule.

I'm not. But the wording leads me to believe that broadcasting is not included.

I'm sure this has been challenged in court already.

That could be. I don't know, which is why I'm not completely sure.

Like DJ Dan says we are promoting the music.

That's not seen as qualifying as an exemption. The RIAA is currently promoting a new law in Congress that says radio's claims of promoting the music are unjustified.

Do you think that the chaos in piracy industry is the cause of these outrageous fees?
30% of your revenue...WOW!!!

I don't know. I think we have a conflict between the needs of the copyright owners to make money on their property, and the ability of copyright users to share files for free. In other words, the only reason broadcasters are being made to pay royalties is because they have traceable addresses. Which is a bigger crime? Operating an unlicensed radio station or playing unlicensed music? I imagine that question will be decided in court.