Scouts and the ASCAP Attitude
Marty Albert
Hello:
First, I sent a letter to ASCAP voicing my concern for their position
on royalty fees to Scouts for song usage...
Here is the reply I received from Bill Thomas:
-------- LETTER STARTS -----
>Not true.
>
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Bill Thomas
---------------- LETTER ENDS -----------
Next, here is my reply to Mr. Thomas:
---------------- LETTER STARTS --------------
>Bill:
>Thanks for your reply, but it really isn't much of an answer...
>Again, CNN has stated that ASCAP has answered the flood of complaints by stating that "...the letters sent were
>not intended to go to non-profit groups such as the Girl Scouts and were meant for various for-profit camps..."
>It seems that this situation needs more than a simple "Note true" to be totally resolved.
>It clearly IS true that ASCAP sent the letters to the Girl Scouts and other similar groups. There is a question in
>my mind as to if this was indeed intentional or not. I have the suspisicion that it was intentional and that only after
>the backlash was seen did ASCAP decide to "drop back ten and punt".
>In my view, it would look a better if ASCAP were to admit that there was an effort to bilk $$$ out of our children
>and then saw that the public would not stand for this.
>In other words, a simple appology, as opposed to denial, would be more in order.
>Thanks for your time.
------------ LETTER ENDS ----------------
Finally, here is the letter I received from Mr. Thomas in reply:
----------- LETTER STARTS ----------------
>Marty--
>Thanks for your message.
>I don't see that an apology is needed-- the Journal misreported this story
>from the start. ASCAP was never seeking to license the Girl Scouts for
>singing around the campfire. ASCAP did send a letter to the thousands of
>for-profit camps who are members of the American Camping Association, with whom
>we have an agreement for music licensing of their many music uses at their
>for-profit. The ACA camps have lots of music-- Friday and Saturday night
>dances and so on.
>The whole Girl Scout thing was a misunderstanding and nothing more. The Girl
>Scout Council in San Francisco should not have received the letter intended
>for the ACA members-- that is ASCAP's fault.
>Add in a sensationalist WSJ slant, and the media frenzy began...
>Ironically, they have the story completely backwards. Irving Berlin, one of
>ASCAP's founders, donated his ASCAP royalties to his song "God Bless America"
>to the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts many years ago. So far, the song has
>generated millions of dollars to the Scouts. I should know-- I am an Eagle
>Scout.
>Next time, try giving your fellow human beings the benefit of the doubt.
>Best regards,
>Bill Thomas
------------ LETTER ENDS -----------
Sort of condicending and self serving if you ask me.
Mr. Thomas did at least make an admission of error but sees no reason
to make an apology to anyone for this error.
Frankly, if I were an ASCAP member, I would be all over these folks to
get my name cleared before politcal or public backlash gets really
bad.
This is, in my opinion, a case of a large corporation working to
further undermine our culture and children for a profit. I suspect
that the ASCAP membership is either opposed to or unaware of ASCAP's
actions and the potential impact.
I intend to forward all communications on this to Congress and
encourage investigation and possible legislative actions to block all
such moves by ASCAP and similar corporations.
Take Care
Marty Albert - ma...@trucom.com
Amateur Radio: KC6UFM@KC6UFM.#SEMO.MO.USA.NOAM
Heartland Internet Services
**************************************************
Full Service Web Page Design from just $25.00!!
http://www.trucom.com/ppages/marty
**************************************************
Matthew H. Fields
In article <50lvtc$u...@thepit.trucom.com>,
Marty Albert <ma...@trucom.com> wrote:
>Hello:
The fact-part:
On 28 August 1996, 6 business days ago, ASCAP issued a very clear
press release on this matter. Several days ago, I posted a summary of
it. It said substantially what your e-mail said: ASCAP has no
intention of liscensing the Scouts, and letters suggesting otherwise
were sent to 16 scout camps among over 200 ACA member camps, purely by
accident. GSA and ASCAP are talking it over.
The opinion-part:
This is now old news. If the media hasn't caught up with this, I
suspect that somebody in the media is actively keeping this issue
alive to distract attention from the bills still sitting in front of
the senate that propose to exempt televangelists and the jukebox
industry from all concerns with copyright (see thomas.loc.gov,
www.sesac.com, www.bmi.com, and www.ascap.com for more info on that
matter).
--
_ || Composer and educator
/ \ * || URL:http://www-personal.umich.edu/~fields
* | * || URL:mailto:fie...@umich.edu
Dr. Matthew H. / ields || Phone 313-936-7579 days, 313-769-4836 eves.
Olin Murrell
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> In article <50lvtc$u...@thepit.trucom.com>,
> Marty Albert <ma...@trucom.com> wrote:
> >Hello:
> The fact-part:
> On 28 August 1996, 6 business days ago, ASCAP issued a very clear
> press release on this matter. Several days ago, I posted a summary of
> it. It said substantially what your e-mail said: ASCAP has no
> intention of liscensing the Scouts, and letters suggesting otherwise
> were sent to 16 scout camps among over 200 ACA member camps, purely by
> accident. GSA and ASCAP are talking it over.
>
> The opinion-part:
> This is now old news. If the media hasn't caught up with this, I
> suspect that somebody in the media is actively keeping this issue
> alive to distract attention from the bills still sitting in front of
> the senate that propose to exempt televangelists and the jukebox
> industry from all concerns with copyright (see thomas.loc.gov,
> www.sesac.com, www.bmi.com, and www.ascap.com for more info on that
> matter).
>
That is most probably the case here. It was opined early on in this
thread that the timing of the story was, well let's be kind and say,
suspicious. The bills of which you speak include the restaurant industry,
and several other businesses that would dearly love to be able to use
music to promote their own business, without paying for its use. And,
this story served nothing better than to inflame the masses against PRO's
and songwriters. Standard lobbying tactic these days, I'm afraid. Looks
like it worked too. :(
--
Olin Murrell
Austin, TX
ol...@bga.com
http://www.realtime.com/~olin
Don Wall
Marty,
Thanks so much for writing to ASCAP and then posting the
responses. Now we have some facts, instead of just opinion and
rumor on this issue. I agree with your appraisal of the reply,
but now at least we know that ASCAP does not intend, nor
apparently ever intended, to collect money from Scout
organizations for their incidental use of music. Now maybe the
ACLU wannabes will get off my case about the "rights" of the
composer to "fair compensation" for his or her music! It's nice
to know that somebody went right to the source for the
information on this issue, keep up the good work!
Don Wall
Cubmaster, Pack 66
Saugus, Massachusetts
Fox
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> The opinion-part:
> This is now old news. If the media hasn't caught up with this, I
> suspect that somebody in the media is actively keeping this issue
> alive to distract attention from the bills still sitting in front of
> the senate that propose to exempt televangelists and the jukebox
> industry from all concerns with copyright (see thomas.loc.gov,
> www.sesac.com, www.bmi.com, and www.ascap.com for more info on that
> matter).
I believe there are bills in the works or sitting on the house floor to
severely strengthen copyright laws as well. These bills are particularly
facsist when dealing with the digital world. I support neither these
bills, or the ones Matthew mentioned. They (to put it elegantly) suck.
--
Fox
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
o
| o
|\ | o
\0__ |0 _ /
| | /~~~~o | /
__| o |___/ |____0
| \ \ | \__o
~~ \_ \_ |_
The Phelps Clan prepares for battle
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=
Steve M. Schalchlin
Dear Marty Albert:
The Wall Street Journal has a vested interest in seeing organizations like
ASCAP ripped to shreds. Right now the restaurant association wants to
deprive songwriters of needed income and more and more the songwriter is
treated like crap in this world.
This was a political ploy to destroy what little hand we have as we go
into negotiations for a new copyright law detemining royalties. ASCAP has
acted with dignity while everyone around them has acted like children.
If ASCAP was not diligent in their collection of royalties, those little
Girl Scouts wouldn't been receiving those "millions of dollars" from God
Bless America.
Get you head out of your ass and quit whining. Just because you didn't get
the letter you want them to write. Songwriters are the lowest on the totem
pole in the music industry and when the few institutions that stick up for
us are treated with disrespect, it hurts all those who write and try to
make a living in a very difficult industry.
--
Steve Schalchlin
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1173
Living in the Bonus Round 2: A Window of Opportunity
K.C. Norseth
I think if these people were lawyers, they would be trying to sue ASCAP
for money. Of course, they would keep it for themselves.
I think it is time to forgive and forget. People are not perfect. Even
buisnesses. Let's go on with life and find positive things to work on,
not tearing people down when they are down. Let's think of the Scout
Law: ... Helpful,friendly, courteous...
All this effort could go to helping a boy become a man, a gril become a
woman and be rpoud to grow up, instead of learning how to destroy, put
people down and distrust our fellow man.
K.C. -
continously trying to improve, support and serve - and far from perfect.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...first part removed...
Richard L. Kaye
ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and
Publishers. I suppose one should note that a great deal
of their work is done for the PUBLISHERS. Very often, by
contract, it is the job of the publisher to see that the
composer (music) and author (words) receives a share of
their income, and there have been some internal struggles.
ASCAP's revenue disbursal system is set up to favor pop
music over classical, and popular composers over relative
unknowns.
The publishers, by and large, are businessmen. They do none
of the actual creative work, although they support the
creative talent under contract to them. Publishers buy and
sell music - or more often, RIGHTS to different aspects of
music. Publishers are inclined to slice hairs - along the
length of the hair, not across.
Take, for instance, a typical orchestral concert. If the music
is under copyright, the publisher most often will rent (not
sell) the score and parts to the orchestra. Then ASCAP will
come along, representing the same publisher, and demand a fee
to allow the performance of the music in public for a fee. Then
if someone wishes to broadcast this concert, ASCAP will exact
("Exact" is the right word, although "extort" often comes to
mind) a fee from the broadcaster on behalf of the same pub-
lisher to allow the music to be broadcast; if the broadcaster
wishes to record this for later broadcast on more than just
his own station, the Fox office, another creation of the pub-
lishers, wants a fee for the right to make a recording. And very
often the publishers will ask for a second rental fee for the
same scores and parts that you have already rented from them on
the basis that the broadcast is a separate performance from the
performance before an audience in the concert hall. To their
credit, the managements of most U.S. orchestras refuse this
extortionate fee, but Europeans, god bless 'em, pay it!
What the copyright laws of the US need is some rationalization.
This sort of multiple charge should be outlawed in favor of
some system that says when you rent the score and parts, you
have paid for all of the rights to concert performances during
the time span for which you have made this rental.
I could go on and on. ASCAP does serve some legitimate functions,
but they do (despite protestations to the contrary) want to
collect from the Girl Scouts - and your church or synagogue, and
the Boy Scouts - in fact, from any group that wants to perform
music they control in any sort of commercial situation where
there is an income stream to the performing organization resulting
in whole, or in part, from the use of their music. And if the
Girl Scouts charge you $25.00 for your little darling to attend
a campfire where an ASCAP controlled song will be sung, ASCAP
feels entitled to some portion of that $25 for their poor,
starving PUBLISHERS, who might just see that some composer or
wordsmith gets a nickel or two out of the whole deal. Despite
this negative presentation of the facts, this is quite legal, and
ASCAP is entitled to some consideration for the use of music
they control - besides, they have a stable of lawyers who will
see that they get their due.
RLK
Matthew H. Fields
In article <maGNywpQ...@world.std.com>,
Richard L. Kaye <rk...@world.std.com> wrote:
> ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and
> Publishers. I suppose one should note that a great deal
[...things suggesting publishers are inherently dangerous...]
OK, well,
> Take, for instance, a typical orchestral concert. If the music
> is under copyright, the publisher most often will rent (not
> sell) the score and parts to the orchestra. Then ASCAP will
> come along, representing the same publisher, and demand a fee
And the composer,
> to allow the performance of the music in public for a fee. Then
The fee is from the *venue*, not the *orchestra.* The *venue* has
just made money exploiting the performance of the orchestra, the creative
work of the composer, and the entrepreneurial work of the publisher.
ASCAP comes along at this point because the last two parties have a
vested interest in the performance at this point.
> if someone wishes to broadcast this concert, ASCAP will exact
> ("Exact" is the right word, although "extort" often comes to
> mind) a fee from the broadcaster on behalf of the same pub-
> lisher to allow the music to be broadcast; if the broadcaster
This is commonsense intellectual property law. If I sell you a copy
of my book, that transaction does *not* give you the right to publish
your own edition of the book for your own income.
> wishes to record this for later broadcast on more than just
> his own station, the Fox office, another creation of the pub-
> lishers, wants a fee for the right to make a recording. And very
> often the publishers will ask for a second rental fee for the
> same scores and parts that you have already rented from them on
> the basis that the broadcast is a separate performance from the
> performance before an audience in the concert hall. To their
This last practice has nothing to do with ASCAP.
>
> What the copyright laws of the US need is some rationalization.
> This sort of multiple charge should be outlawed in favor of
> some system that says when you rent the score and parts, you
> have paid for all of the rights to concert performances during
> the time span for which you have made this rental.
Elimination of this sort of multiple charge is tantamount to the elimination
of private property in the US. Get real.
> I could go on and on. ASCAP does serve some legitimate functions,
> but they do (despite protestations to the contrary) want to
> collect from the Girl Scouts
Provide evidence.
> - and your church or synagogue, and
AH, there's the rub. You've been reading those bills sponsored by
televangelists who want the right to sell anybodye else's music as
their own property by tagging "praise Jesus" on the end of it. Sounds
like you're in their pay, and the rest of this is distraction technique---
or like you're badly in need of a history lesson.
> the Boy Scouts
Provide evidence.
- in fact, from any group that wants to perform
> music they control in any sort of commercial situation where
> there is an income stream to the performing organization resulting
> in whole, or in part, from the use of their music.
That's their job. That's *exactly* what I hired them for. If you
don't feel like paying me to work, you don't have to exploit the fruits
of my work.
> And if the
> Girl Scouts charge you $25.00 for your little darling to attend
> a campfire where an ASCAP controlled song will be sung, ASCAP
> feels entitled to some portion of that $25 for their poor,
Please provide evidence that ASCAP has ever charged the GSA anything.
> starving PUBLISHERS, who might just see that some composer or
> wordsmith gets a nickel or two out of the whole deal. Despite
> this negative presentation of the facts, this is quite legal, and
> ASCAP is entitled to some consideration for the use of music
> they control - besides, they have a stable of lawyers who will
> see that they get their due.
I'm glad they have a stable of lawyers. I can't afford my own
stable of lawyers. Thank you very much for making my point for me.
Mark Northam
In article <maGNywpQ...@world.std.com>, rk...@world.std.com (Richard
L. Kaye) wrote:
> ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and
> Publishers. I suppose one should note that a great deal
> of their work is done for the PUBLISHERS. Very often, by
> contract, it is the job of the publisher to see that the
> composer (music) and author (words) receives a share of
> their income, and there have been some internal struggles.
> ASCAP's revenue disbursal system is set up to favor pop
> music over classical, and popular composers over relative
> unknowns.
>
> The publishers, by and large, are businessmen. They do none
> of the actual creative work, although they support the
> creative talent under contract to them. Publishers buy and
> sell music - or more often, RIGHTS to different aspects of
> music. Publishers are inclined to slice hairs - along the
> length of the hair, not across.
>
etc. etc.etc.
First of all, ASCAP collects performing rights royalties for BOTH
COMPOSERS AND PUBLISHERS. Each piece of music must have a composer, and
can optionally have a publisher. Other than a few big companies, most
publishers I know are songwriters or composers. That is, people who own
SMALL BUSINESSES.
This feeble attempt to create "class envy" by painting all publishers as
"big business" and the outright WRONG FACTS that publishers somehow make
sure that the composers under them receive income (the composers are paid
DIRECTLY by ASCAP, and have their own relationships with ASCAP) seems
pointless and full of misinformation - inflammatory misinformation at
that.
The days that publishers employed legions of composers are as outdated as
some of the "facts" in this post are).
My question is this... Richard, what do *you* do for a living, and what is
the point of this post?? Are you a disgruntled union musician who is
concerned that the union hasn't wrangled a piece of the composer/publisher
revenues away?? Are you a frustrated composer?? What gives here, and why
the vicious attack on ASCAP?? And why not BMI too?? They're in the same
business...
There's definitely something very fishy going on here.....
Just my opinion...
Mark Northam
--
Mark Northam Cinematrax
Los Angeles, CA Music for Film and Television
email: mnor...@cinematrax.com http://www.cinematrax.com
Don Wall
>Get you head out of your ass and quit whining.
Great lyrics; you should go far writing today's "music".
Don Wall
Olin Murrell
Reese Wilson wrote:
>
> mnor...@cinematrax.com (Mark Northam) wrote:
>
> M> >(Richard L. Kaye) wrote:
>
> M> > The publishers, by and large, are businessmen. They do none
> M> > of the actual creative work, although they support the
> M> > creative talent under contract to them. Publishers buy and
> M> > sell music - or more often, RIGHTS to different aspects of
> M> > music. Publishers are inclined to slice hairs - along the
> M> > length of the hair, not across.
> M>
> M> First of all, ASCAP collects performing rights royalties for BOTH
> M> COMPOSERS AND PUBLISHERS. Each piece of music must have a composer, and
> M> can optionally have a publisher. Other than a few big companies, most
> M> publishers I know are songwriters or composers. That is, people who own
> M> SMALL BUSINESSES.
>
> Thank you Mark... I'm a songwriter/publisher... I don't haev
> writers under me... I'm hardly what you'd call a "businessman" insofar as
> the suit-wearing, three martini lunch (beer is a different story) kind...
> I do ALL of the creative work, and have no one under contract to me... I
> don't buy or sell music or RIGHTS to different aspects of anything... I
> don't slice hairs in any direction... I write songs and would like to
> think I would be fairly compensated for those songs if you decide to use
> them for profit...
>
> M> This feeble attempt to create "class envy" by painting all publishers as
> M> "big business" and the outright WRONG FACTS that publishers somehow make
> M> sure that the composers under them receive income (the composers are paid
> M> DIRECTLY by ASCAP, and have their own relationships with ASCAP) seems
> M> pointless and full of misinformation - inflammatory misinformation at
> M> that.
>
> Completely... Although I'm a BMI writer, ASCAP works just the same
> basically... BMI sends me checks when I make the money, that simple...
>
> M> The days that publishers employed legions of composers are as outdated as
> M> some of the "facts" in this post are).
>
> Haven't even heard of this one happening in many many years...
>
> M> My question is this... Richard, what do *you* do for a living, and what is
> M> the point of this post?? Are you a disgruntled union musician who is
> M> concerned that the union hasn't wrangled a piece of the composer/publisher
> M> revenues away?? Are you a frustrated composer?? What gives here, and why
> M> the vicious attack on ASCAP?? And why not BMI too?? They're in the same
> M> business...
>
> It seems that it's another slick attempt to tarnish the creative
> writer's reputation by tarnishing their main source of income (the "ASCAP
> is so mean they even go after the girl scouts" BS)... He's probably either
> a restaurant owner or a restaurant lobbyist...
>
> M> There's definitely something very fishy going on here.....
>
> Smells like carp...
>
> Reese Wilson (Reese....@nashville.com)
Reese and Mark. You both are right. I'm a BMI writer, and they all work
about the same. You get a check when you make money, and you make money
by getting cuts, and getting airplay, and selling records. Pretty simple.
There are some publishing houses that hire staff writers, but to my
knowledge, they're treated pretty fairly these days, and I've known more
than a few who struck out on their own when their contracts ran out, and
even made co-publishing deals with their old companies.
This all smacks of an attempt to get folks on the restaurant owners'
association's bandwagon, so they won't have to pay a nickle for music
used to entice diners into their joints. I'm kind of like ASCAP on this
one, if the music's not important to their business, then do without it.
Larry Collins
Don Wall <d.w...@nunet.neu.edu> wrote:
I know that comment was satirical, but that really COULD be the
beginnings of a good song.
Now where was that guy who was looking for an idea and a first line...
Greg Bullough
In article <mnortham-100...@donatello.leonardo.net> mnor...@cinematrax.com (Mark Northam) writes:
>
>My question is this... Richard, what do *you* do for a living, and what is
>Mark Northam
>
>--
>Mark Northam Cinematrax
>Los Angeles, CA Music for Film and Television
>email: mnor...@cinematrax.com http://www.cinematrax.com
Ah, gee Mark, are you one of those 'musician substitutes' who uses a rack
of samplers and synthesizers to put 'disgruntled union musicians' out of
work, 30 scabs for the price of one, merrily replacing art with plastic?
Greg
Barry Kolsky
Richard L. Kaye wrote:
>
> [long self imposed idiotic ramblings]
Eh, Richard, I would suggest that research would be a good thing for
you, as you demonstrate a total lack of knowledge as to how the music
business works. Come back here when you've learned a thing or two about
music publishing, and I'll be able to communicate with you. Otherwise,
opinions are like assholes........
--
Barry
\\\^///
< •؟• >
~
http://home.earthlink.net/~kolsky
Reese Wilson
gr...@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) wrote:
G> >My question is this... Richard, what do *you* do for a living, and what is
G> >the point of this post?? Are you a disgruntled union musician who is...
G>
G> >Mark Northam
G> >
G> >--
G> >Mark Northam Cinematrax
G> >Los Angeles, CA Music for Film and Television
G> >email: mnor...@cinematrax.com http://www.cinematrax.com
G>
G> Ah, gee Mark, are you one of those 'musician substitutes' who uses a rack
G> of samplers and synthesizers to put 'disgruntled union musicians' out of
G> work, 30 scabs for the price of one, merrily replacing art with plastic?
G>
G> Greg
Maybe, maybe not... But no one would be working without a song to
start with and that's what the original topic is about, right???
Reese Wilson (Reese....@nashville.com)
Eric Clarke
Olin Murrell wrote:
> That is most probably the case here. It was opined early on in this
> thread that the timing of the story was, well let's be kind and say,
> suspicious. The bills of which you speak include the restaurant industry,
> and several other businesses that would dearly love to be able to use
> music to promote their own business, without paying for its use. And,
> this story served nothing better than to inflame the masses against PRO's
> and songwriters. Standard lobbying tactic these days, I'm afraid. Looks
> like it worked too. :(
Ya know, I have had a major problem with the way ASCAP treats
businesses for a long time. There is such a thing as getting
your just due. However there is also such a thing as use strong
arm tactics to get a great deal more than your just due.
You might ask what the heck am I talking about? Take the example
of a business that tunes a radio to some radio station and then
plays that music over the PA system in the business. The radio
station has already paid ASCAP some amount of money based on
the number of people listening to the station. If some business
listens to the station they are increasing the overall audience
for the station. The station can there for charge more for
their advertising and should pay ASCAP more for royalties. There
is no reason that the business should have to pay any direct
royalties to ASCAP. ASCAP has already gotten their rightful
money for the songs played. The business has already "payed"
their rightful royalties for the songs by listening to the adds
that the radio station plays.
Without going into the issue as to whether or not ASCAP was
trying to get the Girl Scouts to pay royalties, I believe that
ASCAP has gotten greedy. It is just like unions. They were
needed to put the employees on equal footing with the large
corporations. Now the unions are the greedy "robber barons."
ASCAP is quickly becoming very much like the unions and
should be careful or they will kill their industry.
--
Eric S. Clarke INTERNET: ecl...@qcktrn.com
440 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043 PHONE: 415-694-6642
Bill Sheehan
>Don Wall <d.w...@nunet.neu.edu> wrote:
>
>>Get you head out of your ass and quit whining.
>
>Great lyrics; you should go far writing today's "music".
>Don Wall
>
What are you nuts? I give it a 45. You can't dance to it.
P.S. ask your father if you don'tunderstand this!
Mike
> gr...@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) wrote in article
<gregDxK...@netcom.com>...
> In article <mnortham-100...@donatello.leonardo.net>
mnor...@cinematrax.com (Mark Northam) writes:
> >
> >My question is this... Richard, what do *you* do for a living, and what
is
> >the point of this post?? Are you a disgruntled union musician who is...
>
> >Mark Northam
> >
> >--
> >Mark Northam Cinematrax
> >Los Angeles, CA Music for Film and Television
> >email: mnor...@cinematrax.com http://www.cinematrax.com
>
> Ah, gee Mark, are you one of those 'musician substitutes' who uses a
rack
> of samplers and synthesizers to put 'disgruntled union musicians' out of
> work, 30 scabs for the price of one, merrily replacing art with plastic?
>
> Greg
>
Uh, since this issue was settled by ASCAP, and it really no longer
concerns scouts, just someone's gripe session, can the scouts be removed
from this list and future threads on this matter, so we may move on to
more meaningful discussions. Like perhaps how to needlepoint?
(maybe I shouldn't say that, I may open a whole new can of worms, uh,
threads...)
--
----
Michael Iliff
mr...@daka.com
<<aspiring author, philosopher, psycologist and human being...>>
Larry Collins
w...@en.com (Bill Sheehan) wrote:
Why??
By The Grace Of God and Medical Science, Dick Clark's still only 30
years old. :-)
Don Wall
>What are you nuts? I give it a 45. You can't dance to it.
>>>P.S. ask your father if you don'tunderstand this!
>
My satirical comment about today's "music" should have tipped you
off that I'm old enough to understand the reference to American
Bandstand; I just wish I looked as good as Dick Clark!
Don
Mark Northam
>
> Ah, gee Mark, are you one of those 'musician substitutes' who uses a rack
> of samplers and synthesizers to put 'disgruntled union musicians' out of
> work, 30 scabs for the price of one, merrily replacing art with plastic?
>
> Greg
Since you asked, Greg...
1. I am a union musician. I have studied classical piano for 14 years,
and make my living scoring film and television projects here in LA.
2. I do use synthesizers and samplers (as do virtually all film composers
today), but we make a special issue of having LIVE MUSICIANS in almost
every project we do, budget allowing. (typically we spend over 50% of the
music package price on live musicians) Many of our competitors and peers
laugh at us for doing this - many of them use all
synthesizers/electronics. We use live musicians because the music sounds
*much* better when even a few musicians are used.
3. Your attitude ("30 scabs for the price of one") indicates a typical
bitterness I've seen in some people who insist on burying their head in
the sand when it comes to the realities of technology today.
Technology marches forward, and the people who PAY FOR MUSICIANS (in my
business, the production companies) are WELL AWARE of technology, and
demand that it be used to reduce cost. It's a constant struggle to get the
filmmakers to provide for the use of live musicians - and we composers
(who have NO UNION and constantly have to fight declining wages with no
"scale" to protect US) are put in the position of having to fight so that
YOU (live musicians) can get a gig and NOT get replaced by electronics.
Think about it - we've got the Musician's Union on one side being rather
inflexible about low budget productions. They'd rather pretend it was like
the "old days" when production companies were huge operations with big
pocketbooks, so they drag out the old "us vs. management" thing and ignore
the fact that many production companies today are very small entities.
Only a few visionaries like Dennis Drieth of the LA Recording Musicians
Associations are looking at the situation and starting to accomplish some
realistic progress towards making union music more competitive and
practical with current day practices.
Then we've got the production companies, who are increasingly saying "why
do we need to do it "union" when we can get just a good sounding a score
in London without dealing with the union's inflexibility, red tape, and
high costs".
And we (the composers) are in the middle.
Greg, IMHO it's people with attitudes like yours that only fan the flames
of the exodus of good paying musician work from the unionized orchestras
of the US. Sure, the "A" list players in any city will always work, and
employers will pay whatever the current union wage (or more) is. However
the other (union) musicians are losing BIG TIME because of this exodus.
THEIRS are the jobs that are leaving, and it's too bad the musician's
union doesn't quite get it. Your kind of belligerant, chest-pounding,
extremism is EXACTLY the problem today.
Mark
Krieger S.M.
>Without going into the issue as to whether or not ASCAP was
>trying to get the Girl Scouts to pay royalties, I believe that
>ASCAP has gotten greedy. It is just like unions. They were
>needed to put the employees on equal footing with the large
>corporations. Now the unions are the greedy "robber barons."
>ASCAP is quickly becoming very much like the unions and
>should be careful or they will kill their industry.
Regarding the Girl Scouts issue, I believe it was two or three
weeks ago that ASCAP put an ad in the New York Times explaining
how this happened and that it was mistake to have ever expected
the Girl Scouts to pay. As I remember it, regarding the entire issue
of royalties, etc., ASCAP negotiated a royalty payment with some
summer camp trade organization, where each camp would pay a fixed
amount for use of copyrighted songs in campfire, etc., programs.
Unknown to ASCAP at the time, some Girl Scouts camps were included
in the membership of this camping organization, which is how they
were included in the list of camps expected to pay royalties or
were notified to pay royalties.
--
Disclaimer: all opinions expressed are those
Stanley M Krieger of the author and not necessarily those of the
s...@sco.com Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Stan Fornaszewski
> Eric S. Clarke wrote:
> Ya know, I have had a major problem with the way ASCAP treats
> businesses for a long time. There is such a thing as getting
> your just due. However there is also such a thing as use strong
> arm tactics to get a great deal more than your just due.
I would like to know what your problem is with the way ASCAP treats
businesses. Is it that these "resturant" businesses make the choice to
use copyrighted material and don't want to pay the value of it?
> You might ask what the heck am I talking about? Take the example
> of a business that tunes a radio to some radio station and then
> plays that music over the PA system in the business.
At this point the business is extending the range of the broadcast. It's
the resturant's PA and they have the exclusive right to play or not play
music.
> The radio
> station has already paid ASCAP some amount of money based on
> the number of people listening to the station.
That amount is based on the radio stations number of listeners.
> If some business
> listens to the station they are increasing the overall audience
> for the station.
And that business is liable for the charges incurred by the use of the
music (copyrighted material written and owned by its composer) because
the business made the choice to re-broadcast it.
> The station can there for charge more for
> their advertising and should pay ASCAP more for royalties. There
> is no reason that the business should have to pay any direct
> royalties to ASCAP. ASCAP has already gotten their rightful
> money for the songs played. The business has already "payed"
> their rightful royalties for the songs by listening to the adds
> that the radio station plays.
That is not the case. It is not already paid for by the station, because
the station did not make the choice to extend the music into the
resturant. The resturant increased the number of listeners.
Radio stations do not licence there music to resturants for free use.
Yes, they do allow it to go on because it makes the advertisers happy
and looks good for the station. However, those businesses made the
choice to tune in to "the music" not the commercials, and are receiving
the benefit of listening, to copyrighted material. ASCAP (composers)
don't get any benefit from that until they charge for it.
Simply put, if you are attracting customers with the stations music,
ASCAP or BMI will and should charge you for its use. The music is owned
by the composer and ASCAP has been assigned the right to collect on the
composers behalf. Why in the world should composers allow their music to
be extended into resturants without receiving any benefit? If I want
your food, I pay you. If you want my music - you to pay me.
> Without going into the issue as to whether or not ASCAP was
> trying to get the Girl Scouts to pay royalties, I believe that
> ASCAP has gotten greedy. It is just like unions. They were
> needed to put the employees on equal footing with the large
> corporations. Now the unions are the greedy "robber barons."
> ASCAP is quickly becoming very much like the unions and
> should be careful or they will kill their industry.
If girl scouts needs to use someone's product then they should pay for
it. I like their cookies, and I pay a lot more per cookie than they have
to pay for each performance credit.
Who will collect for the composers without ASCAP or BMI? You? Do you
think businesses pay out money voluntarily?
NO!
ASCAP & BMI do there best to collect from every liable source that
should pay. They do pretty well - however, they don't have the manpower
to hit everybody that should pay, and alot get free use for years and
years.
If you don't like to pay for things then don't buy it.
If you don't want to pay for music, then turn it off. Don't buy it. You
may find that soon you won't enjoy your conversation quite as much at
the dinner table anymore. Or, your food may not taste as good as it use
to. Or, possibly Hospitals that use music to soothe and aid healing
patients, may have higher sickness, and longer recoveries.
Music just doesn't affect your ears. It affects the whole mind & body.
Resturants are trying to get off the hook. We'll, BOO HOO (that's
another song). In a Court of Law, they call that "Attempt to Chisel!".
Sincerely,
Stan Fornaszewski
BMI Composer
Olin Murrell
Eric Clarke wrote:
>
> Olin Murrell wrote:
>
> > That is most probably the case here. It was opined early on in this
> > thread that the timing of the story was, well let's be kind and say,
> > suspicious. The bills of which you speak include the restaurant industry,
> > and several other businesses that would dearly love to be able to use
> > music to promote their own business, without paying for its use. And,
> > this story served nothing better than to inflame the masses against PRO's
> > and songwriters. Standard lobbying tactic these days, I'm afraid. Looks
> > like it worked too. :(
>
> businesses for a long time. There is such a thing as getting
> your just due. However there is also such a thing as use strong
> arm tactics to get a great deal more than your just due.
>
> of a business that tunes a radio to some radio station and then
> station has already paid ASCAP some amount of money based on
> listens to the station they are increasing the overall audience
> their advertising and should pay ASCAP more for royalties. There
> is no reason that the business should have to pay any direct
> royalties to ASCAP. ASCAP has already gotten their rightful
> money for the songs played. The business has already "payed"
> their rightful royalties for the songs by listening to the adds
> that the radio station plays.
>
It's called "re-broadcasting," when you attach more external speakers to
the radio or tape player than came with the set. This is really quite
well established in case law, and I have little or no sympathy for a
restaurant that gets caught in this "trap."
True, ASCAP has already gotten their money from the radio station, but
nothing was paid for the re-broadcast.
There are two very simple, very easy things restaurants and other
businesses can do to avoid this problem. Use the radio or tape player as
it was built, with NO additional speakers, OR........do without music.
> Without going into the issue as to whether or not ASCAP was
> trying to get the Girl Scouts to pay royalties, I believe that
> ASCAP has gotten greedy. It is just like unions. They were
> needed to put the employees on equal footing with the large
> corporations. Now the unions are the greedy "robber barons."
> ASCAP is quickly becoming very much like the unions and
> should be careful or they will kill their industry.
> --
I gotta tell you something, Eric. ASCAP and BMI do act like pirates and
thieves every now and then, but collecting royalties from businesses who
re-broadcast copyrighted material ain't one of them. One of the things
that I see as the ultimate greed is the notion that everybody deserves to
make a profit but musicians. And, make no mistake about it, when you make
the claim that a restaurant should be able to re-broadcast music without
payment, that's exactly what you are saying.....that the legal owner of
that copyrighted material should expect no payment.
Using THAT logic, would it not also be fair for all the composers of the
world, who have charted music, to wander into a restaurant every now and
then, order a meal, eat it and leave without paying? It amounts to the
same thing!
Matthew H. Fields
In article <3236ED...@quickturn.com>,
>> That is most probably the case here. It was opined early on in this
>> thread that the timing of the story was, well let's be kind and say,
>> suspicious. The bills of which you speak include the restaurant industry,
>> and several other businesses that would dearly love to be able to use
>> music to promote their own business, without paying for its use. And,
>> this story served nothing better than to inflame the masses against PRO's
>> and songwriters. Standard lobbying tactic these days, I'm afraid. Looks
>> like it worked too. :(
>Ya know, I have had a major problem with the way ASCAP treats
>businesses for a long time. There is such a thing as getting
>your just due. However there is also such a thing as use strong
>arm tactics to get a great deal more than your just due.
Really, now.
>You might ask what the heck am I talking about? Take the example
>of a business that tunes a radio to some radio station and then
>plays that music over the PA system in the business. The radio
Yes, let's take exactly that example. That's the example people seem
to have the most problem understanding: why when one person buys a
work of art (a copy or a right to broadcast it once), they do not then
automatically gain the right to rebroadcast it or republish it for
their own gain. Why is it that bootleg tapes of concerts are so
illegal, and xeroxed copies of magazines from your doctor's office
likewise? Could it be that were it not so, an author would spend
capital and work creating a work and then sell it to person A and A'd
sell one copy to B and shortly thereafter there'd be an infinite
amount of copies out there sold by B to everybody else with no
compensation to the author for their effort and all the financial
gains to B thereby won? Use yer noggin.
>station has already paid ASCAP some amount of money based on
>the number of people listening to the station. If some business
>listens to the station they are increasing the overall audience
>for the station. The station can there for charge more for
>their advertising and should pay ASCAP more for royalties. There
Perhaps.
>is no reason that the business should have to pay any direct
>royalties to ASCAP. ASCAP has already gotten their rightful
In *that* case, if there's no reason for the business to pay
ASCAP or BMI or SESAC for the royalties, there's no reason for
that business to exploit the hard labor of composers, authors,
and publishers to add atmosphere to its surroundings.
>money for the songs played. The business has already "payed"
>their rightful royalties for the songs by listening to the adds
>that the radio station plays.
This is precisely wrong. When Campbells takes out an advert in the New
Yorker and thus enables the New Yorker to publish a newly written
literary work by your favorite author, this does not entitle any owner
of the issue to republish the story without any liscence and financial
arrangement with the author. Rebroadcasting broadcasted music in your
business for the financial gain it brings your business is exploiting
the work of musicians and their assistants. Doing so without a liscence
would be exploiting the work of musicians without compensating them.
If you don't need to compensate them, you don't need their music.
>Without going into the issue as to whether or not ASCAP was
>trying to get the Girl Scouts to pay royalties, I believe that
>ASCAP has gotten greedy.
At this point, I think it's clear you need to show facts and figures.
How and where has ASCAP gotten greedy? What exactly does ASCAP's
balance sheet look like? Who is benefitting from the labor of
composers, and how much? Anybody want to contribute? This sounds
like open slander, part of the campaign to push S1137 and hr768
through on sheer misinformation, if you ask me.
Have folks out there actually gone over to thomas.loc.gov and *read*
these bills?
Matthew H. Fields
In article <323B75...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>Eric Clarke wrote:
>Using THAT logic, would it not also be fair for all the composers of the
>world, who have charted music, to wander into a restaurant every now and
>then, order a meal, eat it and leave without paying? It amounts to the
>same thing!
Hey, if being a composer-member of a performance rights group entitled
me to 3 free meals of my choice per day at the restaurant of my choice,
that'd be a start towards repayment for the use of music---in fact, that'd
be positively Soviet of them!
Sticking to capitalism for the time being, let's stick to liscensing and
payment.
Seth Jackson
rk...@world.std.com (Richard L. Kaye) wrote:
> ASCAP is the American Society of Composers, Authors, and
> Publishers. I suppose one should note that a great deal
You started out OK, but except for the opening sentence, this is one
of the most ignorant and irrational posts I've ever seen in this
newsgroup. "Ignorant" is probably the wrong word, since the tone of
the post would suggest that you know exactly what the situation is,
and that you posted this mess of misinformation in an attempt to
deliberately mislead people in order to generate support for your
hidden agenda.
> The publishers, by and large, are businessmen. They do none
> of the actual creative work, although they support the
> creative talent under contract to them. Publishers buy and
As if this is somehow a bad thing. As in any other industry, sales,
marketing, finance, and administrative functions are necessary to keep
a business running and generating a profit. People who perform these
functions are known in common parlance as "businessmen", or more
correctly "businesspeople", since this is the '90s.
> sell music - or more often, RIGHTS to different aspects of
> music. Publishers are inclined to slice hairs - along the
> length of the hair, not across.
This is a content-free statement that is supposed to imply that
publishers are somehow evil and different from other businesspeople in
that they want to make their businesses as profitable as they can.
> Take, for instance, a typical orchestral concert. If the music
> is under copyright, the publisher most often will rent (not
> sell) the score and parts to the orchestra. Then ASCAP will
> come along, representing the same publisher, and demand a fee
> to allow the performance of the music in public for a fee. Then
> if someone wishes to broadcast this concert, ASCAP will exact
> ("Exact" is the right word, although "extort" often comes to
> mind) a fee from the broadcaster on behalf of the same pub-
"Extort" is a nice judgmental word you've chosen to suggest that
something is somehow improper, but you have nothing in the way of
justification for the use of this term. Publishers no more "extort" a
fee for the use of their product than your Lincoln/Mercury dealer
"extorts" $300 per month or so for you to lease one of their cars.
> lisher to allow the music to be broadcast; if the broadcaster
> wishes to record this for later broadcast on more than just
> his own station, the Fox office, another creation of the pub-
> lishers, wants a fee for the right to make a recording. And very
Imagine wanting to receive payment for the use of one's property! The
nerve of these people!
Oh, and by the way, you might want to get your facts straight. There
is no fee for making a recording. There is a royalty paid only when a
record is sold. And the law imposes a ceiling on the amount a
publisher can charge in royalty payments, unlike most other
industries, where businesses are permitted to charge market prices.
> often the publishers will ask for a second rental fee for the
> same scores and parts that you have already rented from them on
> the basis that the broadcast is a separate performance from the
> performance before an audience in the concert hall. To their
Which, of course, it is. What you describe is no different from a
software company like Microsoft charging license fees for its products
based on the number of users. A performance in a concert hall is heard
by a few hundred or a few thousand listeners. A broadcast is heard by
a far greater number. Furthermore, the fee is paid by the venue and by
the broadcaster, not by the performer, a fact that you omitted either
intentionally or due to ignorance.
> credit, the managements of most U.S. orchestras refuse this
> extortionate fee, but Europeans, god bless 'em, pay it!
Europeans traditionally have always had more respect for artists and
musicians than Americans do.
> What the copyright laws of the US need is some rationalization.
> This sort of multiple charge should be outlawed in favor of
> some system that says when you rent the score and parts, you
> have paid for all of the rights to concert performances during
> the time span for which you have made this rental.
There is nothing rational about your proposal, and there's nothing in
anything you've said that would justify further restrictions on the
compensation that songwriters are allowed to receive for the use of
their work. Your "reasoning" sounds amazingly similar to the
rationalization of restaurant and bar owners who believe they should
be exempt from paying royalties on music on the grounds that they
think they can get away with it.
> I could go on and on. ASCAP does serve some legitimate functions,
> but they do (despite protestations to the contrary) want to
> collect from the Girl Scouts - and your church or synagogue, and
> the Boy Scouts - in fact, from any group that wants to perform
> music they control in any sort of commercial situation where
> there is an income stream to the performing organization resulting
> in whole, or in part, from the use of their music. And if the
Yes, they do want to collect for public performances in any sort of
commercial situation where there is an income stream to the performing
organization. That's exactly what they're supposed to do. You say this
as if there's something wrong with it, when in fact, this is exactly
how it should be. Your entire line of reasoning seems to be based on a
vague notion that "music should be free", which ignores the fact that
music is a product produced by an industry that requires payment for
the use of its products, and that these fees are the only means by
which this industry can collect these payments.
> Girl Scouts charge you $25.00 for your little darling to attend
> a campfire where an ASCAP controlled song will be sung, ASCAP
> feels entitled to some portion of that $25 for their poor,
> starving PUBLISHERS, who might just see that some composer or
> wordsmith gets a nickel or two out of the whole deal. Despite
It's obvious that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts to
try and advance your agenda, which is to have free use of other
people's work for your personal gain. PUBLISHERS are not the bad guys,
and if you wished to present anything that actually resembled facts,
you would have explained that songwriters never get paid less than
half of what the publisher collects in royalties and license fees
instead of trying to make it sound as though the writers get nothing
but crumbs from the big, bad publishers.
> this negative presentation of the facts, this is quite legal, and
> ASCAP is entitled to some consideration for the use of music
> they control - besides, they have a stable of lawyers who will
> see that they get their due.
As well they should.
--
Seth Jackson
Seth Jackson's Songwriting Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/speaker
Songwriting and the Music Business, plus the Online "Country Notes" for the Los Angeles area
Olin Murrell
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> In article <323B75...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
> >Eric Clarke wrote:
>
> >Using THAT logic, would it not also be fair for all the composers of the
> >world, who have charted music, to wander into a restaurant every now and
> >then, order a meal, eat it and leave without paying? It amounts to the
> >same thing!
>
> Hey, if being a composer-member of a performance rights group entitled
> me to 3 free meals of my choice per day at the restaurant of my choice,
> that'd be a start towards repayment for the use of music---in fact, that'd
> be positively Soviet of them!
> Sticking to capitalism for the time being, let's stick to liscensing and
> payment.
>
I think you may have missed the point, which of course has EVERYTHING to
do with capitalism....i.e. an exchange in which both parties benefit.
What the restaurants want is the use of music, sans payment. What I was
suggesting was the use of THEIR property, sans payment.
And, while I'm at it, how DID you get "three meals per day," out of
"wandering in now and then?"
Allegheny Enterprises
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>It's called "re-broadcasting," when you attach more external speakers to
>the radio or tape player than came with the set. This is really quite
>well established in case law, and I have little or no sympathy for a
>restaurant that gets caught in this "trap."
Bill Miller's Barbecue in San Antonio had a BIG case with Ascap over
this a few years ago, when they were using a home stereo in each
store, nice tuner and two external speakers.
Now each store still has no ASCAP decal, but they use a single
tabletop radio receiver that's designed to look like one of those
antique "cathedral" shaped cabinets, mounted about 8 feet high, with a
built-in 6-inch speaker.
Now everyone seems to be happy. You can't hear the radio over customer
conversation, unless the place is nearly empty, but I don't go there
to listen to radio anyway, and I doubt if anyone else does either.
Matthew H. Fields
Scouting groups removed from distribution.
In article <323C40...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>And, while I'm at it, how DID you get "three meals per day," out of
>"wandering in now and then?"
I was deliberately escalating it to what I'd consider an absolute
minimal exchange for free use of music as part of business atmosphere.
Were all composers guaranteed a free meal on demand for free music on
demand, that'd be a start. Of course, that'd lead to incessant
bickering about who qualifies as a composer, etc. In theory,
something fair could be worked out without the exchange of funds---but
it'd require a *very* carefully planned bypass of capitalism all
around. In practice, something fair is not even remotely what s1137
etc. proposes.
Olin Murrell
Matthew H. Fields wrote:
>
> Scouting groups removed from distribution.
>
> In article <323C40...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> >And, while I'm at it, how DID you get "three meals per day," out of
> >"wandering in now and then?"
>
> I was deliberately escalating it to what I'd consider an absolute
> minimal exchange for free use of music as part of business atmosphere.
> Were all composers guaranteed a free meal on demand for free music on
> demand, that'd be a start. Of course, that'd lead to incessant
> bickering about who qualifies as a composer, etc. In theory,
> something fair could be worked out without the exchange of funds---but
> it'd require a *very* carefully planned bypass of capitalism all
> around. In practice, something fair is not even remotely what s1137
> etc. proposes.
>
OK. In any event, it would appear we are both opposed to s1137? I know
that I am opposed to it, as I believe what the restaurant owners are
asking amounts to legalized theft.
Olin Murrell
Good! I don't go there for the bbq either. Matter of fact, I don't go
to Bill Miller's, period. If they want the music heard by everybody in
the store, let 'em pay the fee.
Laura Gillenwater
s...@sco.com (Krieger S.M.) wrote:
>Regarding the Girl Scouts issue, I believe it was two or three
>weeks ago that ASCAP put an ad in the New York Times explaining
>how this happened and that it was mistake to have ever expected
>the Girl Scouts to pay. As I remember it, regarding the entire issue
>of royalties, etc., ASCAP negotiated a royalty payment with some
>summer camp trade organization, where each camp would pay a fixed
>amount for use of copyrighted songs in campfire, etc., programs.
>Unknown to ASCAP at the time, some Girl Scouts camps were included
>in the membership of this camping organization, which is how they
>were included in the list of camps expected to pay royalties or
>were notified to pay royalties.
Now I'm confused - why are the Girl Scouts any different from any other
camping organization? Isn't the issue about whether kids sitting around
the campfire singing songs should result in payment due to ASCAP, not
about *which* camp these kids are going to? I, personally, don't think
that a group of people singing songs together for pleasure should have to
pay royalties, but, if they do, I don't see why GSA camps should be
exempt but not other camps. Did I miss something - I have to admit I
never saw the ad in the NYT...
TIA for any clarifications,
Laura
Richard L. Kaye
BTW, it is all well and good to complain about ASCAP, BMI, and
SESAC, and they sometimes behave quite poorly, but you must
understand that without them there would be anarchy as users
tried to clear music with thousands of copyright holders, some
of whom have conflicting ownership claims.
RLK
Seth Jackson
Alle...@pop.net (Allegheny Enterprises) wrote:
>conversation, unless the place is nearly empty, but I don't go there
>to listen to radio anyway, and I doubt if anyone else does either.
This statement misses the point. Of course customers don't go to a
store or restaurant to listen to radio. However, the establishment
uses the music to enhance the atmosphere, which helps attract and keep
customers.
Mike
ONCE MORE. LEAVE THE SCOUTS OUT OF THIS. THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE NOTHING TO
DO WITH US, SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED. WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO
THAN READ PEOPLES BITCH SESSIONS.
YES I KNOW I'M YELLING. STOP POSTING TO THE SCOUT GROUPS, AND I'LL STOP
YELLING!!!
--
----
Michael Iliff
mr...@daka.com
> Eric Clarke <ecl...@quickturn.com> wrote in article
<3236ED...@quickturn.com>...
> Olin Murrell wrote:
>
Mike
ONE MORE TIME!!!
LEAVE THE SCOUTING NEWSGROUPS OUT OF THIS. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED FOR
THE SCOUTS, END OF STORY. WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN READ YOUR BITCH
SESSIONS.
YES I REALIZE I AM YELLING. STOP POSTING TO THE SCOUT GROUPS AND I'LL STOP
YELLING.
Greg Bullough
In article <mnortham-130...@donatello.leonardo.net> mnor...@cinematrax.com (Mark Northam) writes:
>
>1. I am a union musician. I have studied classical piano for 14 years,
>and make my living scoring film and television projects here in LA.
Paying dues and holding a card so the grips don't walk off when you arrive
on the lot doesn't make you 'union.' You can still pay union dues and
carry the card in your back pocket, while dwelling snug in the back pocket
of the multi-national conglomerates. There's a word for that, rhymes
with 'fool,' and it sounds just like something you sit on.
>2. I do use synthesizers and samplers (as do virtually all film composers
>today), but we make a special issue of having LIVE MUSICIANS in almost
>every project we do,
Those must be the lucky guys who play instruments that can't yet be
reproduced in plastic.
> budget allowing. (typically we spend over 50% of the music package
>price on live musicians)
Yeah, at eight dollars a ticket a dozens of millions of dollars gross
(check out any of the web sites with box-office scores via yahoo), a
dozen or two studio musicians at Union scale (no residuals) is going
to break the bank. Real grafters, these guys. Good thing Demi isn't
so demanding, or we'd never have had 'Stripper' to show to future
generations in lieu of 'Citizen Kane.'
> Many of our competitors and peers
>laugh at us for doing this - many of them use all
>synthesizers/electronics. We use live musicians because the music sounds
>*much* better when even a few musicians are used.
Yes, music does sound better when musicians are used. Funny, that.
>3. Your attitude ("30 scabs for the price of one") indicates a typical
>bitterness I've seen in some people who insist on burying their head in
>the sand when it comes to the realities of technology today.
Technology? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we were talking about *art*. As
in, 'supporting artists by paying them to do work.'
I guess I'm a Luddite, as I somehow think that the fact that HUMAN
BEINGS produce music give that music its inherent value. Or, to put
it another way, that music is a human, not a mechanical, activity.
Ever watch on old C.B. DeMille production, note that the whole thing
is pretty silly, then take a second to *listen* to that two hours of
audio track? Consider the effort involved to score, learn, and play
every nuance of every sound on the track? And consider that *most*
of the playing was done buy guys who could walk in, plop down, take
a part, and pass it down, and play it right, either out of the box
or after maybe two 'takes?'
I'm perfectly willing to take a few bucks out of Mr. Sony's pocket
so we can have people around who can do that. When they're not doing
studio stuff to feed their kids, they really do some great music.
>Technology marches forward, and the people who PAY FOR MUSICIANS (in my
>business, the production companies) are WELL AWARE of technology, and
>demand that it be used to reduce cost.
Duh. That's why you have unions, who in turn demand that technology
*not* be used to replace living artists with black boxes which sound
inferior.
> It's a constant struggle to get the
>filmmakers to provide for the use of live musicians - and we composers
>(who have NO UNION and constantly have to fight declining wages with no
>"scale" to protect US) are put in the position of having to fight so that
>YOU (live musicians) can get a gig and NOT get replaced by electronics.
So make a union, and stop putting out plastic music! You actually
have a skill... ...scoring... which isn't immediately replacable
or interchangable. If actors can form a union, you can. I'd venture
that there are probably more skilled actors around than there are
composers.
Honestly, Mark, you change clothes faster than a presenter at the
Academy Awards. Up top, you were a card-carrying Union musician. Now
you're a beleagured composer. Soon, we'll hear that you 'really want
to direct.'
>Think about it - we've got the Musician's Union on one side being rather
>inflexible about low budget productions. They'd rather pretend it was like
>the "old days" when production companies were huge operations with big
>pocketbooks, so they drag out the old "us vs. management" thing and ignore
>the fact that many production companies today are very small entities.
Mark, Mark, Mark. Management has been crying 'poor' for years. The old
studios did so, until the 'system' got broken by the actors. If the little
boy would quit crying 'wolf,' someone could afford to take him seriously.
>Only a few visionaries like Dennis Drieth of the LA Recording Musicians
>Associations are looking at the situation and starting to accomplish some
>realistic progress towards making union music more competitive and
>practical with current day practices.
'Current day practices?' What does that mean? Trading art for garbage,
originals for prints?
>Then we've got the production companies, who are increasingly saying "why
>do we need to do it "union" when we can get just a good sounding a score
>in London without dealing with the union's inflexibility, red tape, and
>high costs".
And the answer should be 'because you grips and electricians will walk,
Ed Asner will call you and tell you that your actors ain't gonna show
up, and those that do will be wearing makeup pasted on by you mother-in-law's
Avon lady.'
The answer should also be, 'because the London musicians also joined
the union.'
>And we (the composers) are in the middle.
If that's where you put yourself. Looks like you've settled in to
being a 'composer,' since calling yourself a 'musician' is getting
uncomfortable. Bet you'll sing a different tune when someone concocts
a music composer which reads the brain waves of someone viewing a print
and spits out music to fit the mood and tension of the scene. Then you'll
wish you'd said 'no real musicans, no score.'
>Greg, IMHO it's people with attitudes like yours that only fan the flames
>of the exodus of good paying musician work from the unionized orchestras
>of the US.
Let's sum up my 'attitude':
1. People who pay for 'art' ought to get something made by human
endeavor, not by some mad scientist's art-machine
2. That a society which desires art ought to employ artists
3. That artists ought to have some compensation commensurate with
the money the industry brings in
4. That profit-making busnesses should not unilaterally dictate
the shape of the field on which their industry plays
>Sure, the "A" list players in any city will always work, and
>employers will pay whatever the current union wage (or more) is. However
>the other (union) musicians are losing BIG TIME because of this exodus.
No, they're losing out because pseudo-artists and great big entertainment
corporations are getting together to replace art with pap, and to put
out the cheapest product for the highest return. We have on one side
greedy studios who want to cut their music costs in half and on the other
sell-out musicians who are willing to take the jobs of 15 of their fellow
musicians (perhaps even those who taught and inspired them) for maybe
twice the salary. The word, I believe, is 'greed.'
>THEIRS are the jobs that are leaving, and it's too bad the musician's
>union doesn't quite get it. Your kind of belligerant, chest-pounding,
>extremism is EXACTLY the problem today.
Thank you. It's an honor to be counted among those to whom those epithets
have been applied. I count among my fellows Peter Seeger, Woody Guthrie,
Cisco Houston, Lee Hayes, John Handcox, Joe Hill, Thomas West...
Bet you think that 'Solidarity Forever' refers to the warranty on your
new sampler.
Greg
Ram Samudrala
Followups and newsgroups trimmed.
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>Yes, let's take exactly that example. That's the example people seem
>to have the most problem understanding: why when one person buys a
>work of art (a copy or a right to broadcast it once), they do not then
>automatically gain the right to rebroadcast it or republish it for
>their own gain.
It could be argued whether restaurant owners are actually profiting
from the secondary transmission, and whether it really is
rebroadcasting it. In any case, there are certain limitations on
exclusive rights with regards to this as well (Section 111 in the
Copyright code covers this), and all the restaurant owner has to do is
stay within those boundaries. For example, a hotel transmitting music
from the radio to the rooms and not directly charging for it seems to
be okay under section clause (1) and clause (3) of 111a below.
This (my post) has nothing to do with the question 'is ASCAP getting
greedy?' I have no opinion on that topic.
--Ram
--
(a) Certain Secondary Transmissions Exempted. - The secondary
transmission of a primary transmission embodying a performance or
display of a work is not an infringement of copyright if -
(1) the secondary transmission is not made by a cable system,
and consists entirely of the relaying, by the management of a
hotel, apartment house, or similar establishment, of signals
transmitted by a broadcast station licensed by the Federal
Communications Commission, within the local service area of
such station, to the private lodgings of guests or residents
of such establishment, and no direct charge is made to see or
hear the secondary transmission; or (2) the secondary
transmission is made solely for the purpose and under the
conditions specified by clause (2) of section 110; or (3) the
secondary transmission is made by any carrier who has no
direct or indirect control over the content or selection of
the primary transmission or over the particular recipients of
the secondary transmission, and whose activities with respect
to the secondary transmission consist solely of providing
wires, cables, or other communications channels for the use of
others: Provided, That the provisions of this clause extend
only to the activities of said carrier with respect to
secondary transmissions and do not exempt from liability the
activities of others with respect to their own primary or
secondary transmissions; (4) the secondary transmission is
made by a satellite carrier for private home viewing pursuant
to a statutory license under section 119; or (5) the secondary
transmission is not made by a cable system but is made by a
governmental body, or other nonprofit organization, without
any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, and
without charge to the recipients of the secondary transmission
other than assessments necessary to defray the actual and
reasonable costs of maintaining and operating the secondary
transmission service.
m...@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams.
---Eleanor Roosevelt
Matthew H. Fields
In article <51in5m$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Timothy Kelly <mid...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hi All,
> I have a bunch of campfire songbooks. As far as I know singing for
>ones own pleasure and entertainment has never been something one ever
>had to pay a royality on.
> Singing is groups for the simply joy of singing has also always been
>exempt from anything to do with royality payments.
> Royality payments only get involved when the musician is getting
>paid, and or the audience is paying to be there.
Try: When the venue is exploiting the music as part of what they're
selling to the audience.
> Which I assume since campgrounds charge for admissions, some greedy
>lawyers came up with the idea.
The liscenses in question pertain to mess halls within the campgrounds
that use music to attract people to buy there, i.e. that exploit
music commercially.
> What next, lawyers at DMV seeing what radio stations you listen to
>in your car, or secret microphones hidden in everyones showers.
What's next, forced labor camps for composers to compose in without
compensation?
Lee McGee
Michael Hyman wrote:
> I have some copyright texts (which I didn't write) from
> misc.legal on my Web pages if anyone is interested in reading some
> correct information.
Who cares?
Make music, not war, my friend. Do you talk to your lover this way?
-
Lee McGee leem...@well.com |
(415)390-2403 FAX (415)961-9584 GRUMMAN _|_
http:/reality.sgi.com/lmcgee_corp/ AA-5B ____/___\____
"When I fly, I feel an isolation ___________[=o=]___________
extreme and radiant" TIGER e/ o \e
- Peter Garrison
Timothy Kelly
Hi All,
I have a bunch of campfire songbooks. As far as I know singing for
ones own pleasure and entertainment has never been something one ever
had to pay a royality on.
Singing is groups for the simply joy of singing has also always been
exempt from anything to do with royality payments.
Royality payments only get involved when the musician is getting
paid, and or the audience is paying to be there.
lawyers came up with the idea.
in your car, or secret microphones hidden in everyones showers.
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox - Worlds 1st Real Time Voice to Midi. BioSensor Neckband
+ Rack Mount Brain.
Hum, Sing, Scat, Talk, Rap, Croon. AES Best in Show. EM's
Editors Choice. Keyboard "MidiVox Roars."
Matthew H. Fields
Unfortunately, this entire line of argument is a losing battle. We're
stuck with "Scientists' machines" like horns, trumpets, trombones and
all the rest. A capella movie scores aren't going anywhere. All the
actors, grip, etc. walk off the set, and they produce "Toy Story."
After doing it a few times, they make it dirt cheap. What will bring
back live musical performance is the excitement of live musical
performance, not film, records, CDs, laser shows, skin displays by
microphone-bound celebrities, etc. People will eventually get bored
with all of the latter, no matter how shocking it gets.
Larry Collins
Like you have no "Delete" function in your news reader.
I could simply choose not to read your screaming, ranting and raving,
just as you could choose to simply not read messages with this title
in it.
However, I think I'll choose to reply twice to anything more posted
like this. Maybe even 3 times.
"Mike" <mr...@daka.com> wrote:
>ONCE MORE. LEAVE THE SCOUTS OUT OF THIS. THESE DISCUSSIONS HAVE NOTHING TO
>DO WITH US, SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SETTLED. WE HAVE BETTER THINGS TO DO
>THAN READ PEOPLES BITCH SESSIONS.
>YES I KNOW I'M YELLING. STOP POSTING TO THE SCOUT GROUPS, AND I'LL STOP
>YELLING!!!
>
>
>--
>----
>Michael Iliff
>mr...@daka.com
>
>
Michael Hyman
In article <51in5m$r...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, mid...@ix.netcom.co says...
>
>Hi All,
> Singing is groups for the simply joy of singing has also always been
>exempt from anything to do with royality payments.
Wrong! - If you are publicly performing copyrighted works (whether or not you
charge for it, or if you profit from it, or if it's done as a "free"
performance), it is in violation of US Copyright laws to do so unless
permission is obtained from the copyright owner.
> Royality payments only get involved when the musician is getting
>paid, and or the audience is paying to be there.
Wrong! (Again.) If it's a public performance, then you (or the establishment
where the music is being performed) owe royalties to the artist or his
collecting agency (ASCAP, BMI, etc.). Whether you charge the audience makes
little difference (it can affect the damages awarded if you are taken to
court), and it's still a copyright violation.
> Which I assume since campgrounds charge for admissions, some greedy
>lawyers came up with the idea.
Yeah, to hell with the commercial value of copyrighted works and ignore the
rights of the copyright owner to decide if they want you to publicly perform
their work for free. Just blame the "greedy lawyers" for everything you don't
like (or more correctly, understand) Timothy.
> What next, lawyers at DMV seeing what radio stations you listen to
>in your car, or secret microphones hidden in everyones showers.
Or secret electroglottograph transducers monitored by the CIA?
> Happy Singing
> Timothy Kelly
> MidiVox
Whatever. I have a suggestion for you Timothy - stop posting misinformation.
It really is quite irresponsible of you.
I have some copyright texts (which I didn't write) from misc.legal on my Web
pages if anyone is interested in reading some correct information.
--
Mike
mi...@op.net ENSONIQ Resources on the Internet:
http://www.op.net/~mikeh/ http://www.op.net/~mikeh/ensoniq.html
Matthew H. Fields
Some other sources of correct copyright information:
http://lcweb.loc.gov (US Library of Congress)
http://www.sesac.com http://www.bmi.com http://www.ascap.com (US performance
rights organizations)
Galadriel O'Meara
>As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
>royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
>*surprised* to see a composer defend them.
>
>A restaurant that tunes in our station is NOT "extending the range of our
>broadcast", it was always there. BMI and ASCAP have NEVER asked or
>measured the size of our audience, their fees are based SOLELY on station
>revenue. and here's the part you need to know, STan.....THEY HAVE NEVER
>ASKED FOR A COPY OF OUR LOGS OR PLAYLISTS...they just want the checks.
Funny thing, though. I work at a commercial college radio station, and we
pay small amounts to both Ascap and BMI, blahblah. BMI DOES ask us for
logs of our playlists about twice a year! And believe, me there are probably
people getting paid about 3.00 because of our playlists. I talked to a guy
at BMI once about them looking at our playlists and he stressed how much they
like getting stations like ours to send them in precisly BECAUSE people
are getting money who normally would be getting nothing.
>
>It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
>stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
>then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
>same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
>shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
>reimbursed.
Well... college radio is certainly not top 50 Radio Market, and the Shaggs get
more airtime than Allanis does... (and Xenaxis gets more than Mozart...)
>
>And people wonder why MUZAK took over...sheez.
>
>BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
>performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
>are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
>
Okay, I disagree!!! obviously because I HAVE taken part in the filling out of BMI playlists
and they are a PAIN! it would be hard to forget doing it. (it can be very difficult
to find out who composed a lot of things...). And we play all of the above mentioned.
sigh.
-caroline
ps. otherwise i do agree with the above... I mean, it seems hard to believe that non
top fourty stuff gets the money diserved.
Matthew H. Fields
Well, it seems perfectly obvious to me that if an agent is not profiting
from rebroadcasting music, they don't need to rebroadcast it---in fact, the
expense of doing so cannot be justified. If that expense *can* be justified,
they're profiting from it, and should be liscenceable. And I'll continue
to lobby for exactly that, and for revisions to laws that undercut that.
Larry Collins
Greg Bullough
In article <3236ED...@quickturn.com> Eric Clarke <ecl...@quickturn.com> writes:
>Now the unions are the greedy "robber barons."
Having worked at non-union jobs under a sucession of three CEOs who ran
profitable Fortune 500 companies into the toilet, and then made MORE MONEY TO
RESIGN IN FAILURE than you or I will likely earn in our working lifetimes,
I'm compelled to ask:
'Eric, have you ever actually thought about the term "robber baron"
in any depth?'
Greg
will...@miworld.net
In article <323AE9...@Calvin.spiff.net>, drum...@Calvin.spiff.net wrote:
> > Eric S. Clarke wrote:
> > Ya know, I have had a major problem with the way ASCAP treats
> > businesses for a long time. There is such a thing as getting
> > your just due. However there is also such a thing as use strong
> > arm tactics to get a great deal more than your just due.
> > You might ask what the heck am I talking about? Take the example
> > of a business that tunes a radio to some radio station and then
> > plays that music over the PA system in the business.
> That is not the case. It is not already paid for by the station, because
> the station did not make the choice to extend the music into the
> resturant. The resturant increased the number of listeners.
> Radio stations do not licence there music to resturants for free use.
> Yes, they do allow it to go on because it makes the advertisers happy
> and looks good for the station. However, those businesses made the
> choice to tune in to "the music" not the commercials, and are receiving
> the benefit of listening, to copyrighted material. ASCAP (composers)
> don't get any benefit from that until they charge for it.
> ASCAP & BMI do there best to collect from every liable source that
> should pay. They do pretty well - however, they don't have the manpower
> to hit everybody that should pay, and alot get free use for years and
> years.
> If you don't like to pay for things then don't buy it.
> If you don't want to pay for music, then turn it off. Don't buy it. You
> may find that soon you won't enjoy your conversation quite as much at
> the dinner table anymore. Or, your food may not taste as good as it use
> to. Or, possibly Hospitals that use music to soothe and aid healing
> patients, may have higher sickness, and longer recoveries.
>
> Music just doesn't affect your ears. It affects the whole mind & body.
>
> Resturants are trying to get off the hook. We'll, BOO HOO (that's
> another song). In a Court of Law, they call that "Attempt to Chisel!".
> Stan Fornaszewski
> BMI Composer
ASCAP & BMI soak the radio stations all right, and the restaurants, and
the markets and the malls, "anywhere more than two speakers are used to
amplify the music".
As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
*surprised* to see a composer defend them.
A restaurant that tunes in our station is NOT "extending the range of our
broadcast", it was always there. BMI and ASCAP have NEVER asked or
measured the size of our audience, their fees are based SOLELY on station
revenue. and here's the part you need to know, STan.....THEY HAVE NEVER
ASKED FOR A COPY OF OUR LOGS OR PLAYLISTS...they just want the checks.
It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
reimbursed.
But that doesnt bother them!! They are too busy sending the goon squads
into every Pizza Stand in America and threatening the owners with fines
and court action for JUKEBOXES. As if they didnt already collect from the
record company, the jukebox company, the radio station, now they want the
pizzamaker to pay too! And they NEVER check the contents of the box to
note artists, or record of performance...allocating the money fairly to
the composer is THE LAST THING they care about.
And people wonder why MUZAK took over...sheez.
BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
Alan
--
"The eyes of honesty can achieve.."
Eric Clarke
Olin Murrell wrote:
>
> Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> >
> > >Eric Clarke wrote:
First I rather strongly object to someone attributing words to me
that I did not write. Particularly since the attribute is the
exact opposite of what I said.
> >
> > >Using THAT logic, would it not also be fair for all the composers of the
> > >world, who have charted music, to wander into a restaurant every now and
> > >then, order a meal, eat it and leave without paying? It amounts to the
> > >same thing!
> >
> > Hey, if being a composer-member of a performance rights group entitled
> > me to 3 free meals of my choice per day at the restaurant of my choice,
> > that'd be a start towards repayment for the use of music---in fact, that'd
> > be positively Soviet of them!
> > Sticking to capitalism for the time being, let's stick to liscensing and
> > payment.
> >
>
> I think you may have missed the point, which of course has EVERYTHING to
> do with capitalism....i.e. an exchange in which both parties benefit.
> What the restaurants want is the use of music, sans payment. What I was
> suggesting was the use of THEIR property, sans payment.
I think that you missed the point of my original posting. I did
not suggest that the restaurants should get a total free ride.
What I did suggest, which has been discounted by a least one
other who sent mail to me directly, is that the restraurants
and other businesses do pay their fair share and no more than
their fair share. You can scream how unfair the businesses are
to musicians all you want. The bottom line is that they just
like individual listeners, businesses are paying for the music
that they receive by the fact that it is loaded with commericial
advertisements. If the radio station is not pay "enough" to
cover the businesses that are tuning in the station, then it
is the station NOT the business that is under paying.
It is obvious that ASCAP does not agree with this view. It
is also obvious that a number of music publishers and musicians
don't agree with this view. I do believe that congress agrees
this is the correct point of view. That is why the new laws
are being written. ASCAP as a reasonable organization should
not oppose them. Why, you might ask. Because it should make
very little difference to the total revenue stream. However,
it makes it hard for ASCAP to justify their job. Why? Because
ASCAP is there to find people that don't pay their share. If
everyone pays their share through the proper payments from
the radio stations, ASCAP would have a hard time finding "new"
sources of revenue.
--
Eric S. Clarke INTERNET: ecl...@qcktrn.com
440 Clyde Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043 PHONE: 415-694-6642
Ram Samudrala
Michael Hyman (mi...@op.net) wrote:
>Wrong! - If you are publicly performing copyrighted works (whether or
>not you charge for it, or if you profit from it, or if it's done as a
>"free" performance), it is in violation of US Copyright laws to do so
>unless permission is obtained from the copyright owner.
Umm, there are certain exceptions to this and I'm going to go into the
copyright code again---look up a previous post of mine which cited the
relevant sections, with regards to secondary transmissions. With
regards to your statement, there are exceptions under section 110 as
well.
The whole idea of copyright (which I vehemenly oppose anyway) was to
balance out the various public interests. Look up the history of the
ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Your statement above is also misleading, just like the statments made
by various people on their works: "no part of this <document,
recording, etc.> may be reproduced without written permission from the
copyright owner." Depending on the circumstances, the amount of
reproduction, and the reason, it CAN be reproduced.
Finally, if an action violates a law, it doesn't say whether it's
right or wrong, or even legally actionable.
--Ram
TOTAL CRIMIMALIZATION was the greatest idea of its time and was vastly
popular except with those people who didn't want to be crooks or outlaws.
So, of course, they had to be TRICKED INTO IT... which is one of the
reasons why MUSIC was eventually made ILLEGAL. ---Frank Zappa
Seth Jackson
will...@miworld.net wrote:
>ASCAP & BMI soak the radio stations all right, and the restaurants, and
>the markets and the malls, "anywhere more than two speakers are used to
>amplify the music".
"Soak" is a loaded, judgmental word that means nothing more than
"collects from". You're complaining about having to pay the creators
of the music for the use of their product. BMI and ASCAP no more
"soak" you than you "soak" your advertisers when you charge them for
airtime.
>As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
>royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
>*surprised* to see a composer defend them.
You shouldn't be surprised, because if ASCAP and BMI didn't collect
license fees from radio stations, the songwriters would never get
paid.
>A restaurant that tunes in our station is NOT "extending the range of our
>broadcast", it was always there. BMI and ASCAP have NEVER asked or
>measured the size of our audience, their fees are based SOLELY on station
>revenue. and here's the part you need to know, STan.....THEY HAVE NEVER
>ASKED FOR A COPY OF OUR LOGS OR PLAYLISTS...they just want the checks.
A restaurant that tunes in your station is rebroadcasting the music.
They are not licensed to do so unless they pay a license fee to BMI
and ASCAP (and nowadays, SESAC).
>It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
>stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
>then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
>same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
>shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
>reimbursed.
It's a common technique called statistical sampling. The system may
not be perfect, but it's the best they can do without incurring the
unreasonable expense of monitoring every radio station in America 24
hours a day.
>But that doesnt bother them!! They are too busy sending the goon squads
>into every Pizza Stand in America and threatening the owners with fines
>and court action for JUKEBOXES. As if they didnt already collect from the
>record company, the jukebox company, the radio station, now they want the
>pizzamaker to pay too! And they NEVER check the contents of the box to
Again, your use of loaded, judgmental words do nothing more than to
show your bias against these organizations, based on the fact that you
don't want to have to pay for music. You emphasize the word
"jukeboxes" as though this is supposed to be a shocking revelation.
It's not. As a songwriter, I would be quite disappointed if these
organizations failed to collect fees from public performances via
jukeboxes.
Your comments are also stated as if we should be shocked that BMI and
ASCAP would want pizzamakers to pay. There's nothing shocking about
this whatsoever. What's really shocking is that a pizza restaurant or
any other business would believe that it has a right to use music for
their commercial gain without paying for it, and to try and push
through legislation that would allow them to do this.
Such legislation would save a typical restaurant about a buck a day,
yet it would cost the typical professional songwriter 20% of his
income, and possibly more. Contrary to popular belief, most
songwriters are not rich, and the small percentage of them who make
enough money to live on from their songwriting typically have a middle
class lifestyle at best.
>note artists, or record of performance...allocating the money fairly to
>the composer is THE LAST THING they care about.
Whether or not this is true is highly questionable, but one thing for
certain is that they care about the composer a hell of a lot more than
you do.
>And people wonder why MUZAK took over...sheez.
Muzak must pay royalties just like any other music broadcaster.
>BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
>performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
>are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
Even if this were true, which it isn't, why would this be of concern
to you? I think this is just a smokescreen to allow you to paint BMI
and ASCAP as bad guys to further your own self-interested agenda of
avoiding paying for the music you use.
Keysound Prod
well said!
Olin Murrell
Eric Clarke wrote:
>
> Olin Murrell wrote:
> >
> > Matthew H. Fields wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <323B75...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
> > > >Eric Clarke wrote:
>
> First I rather strongly object to someone attributing words to me
> that I did not write. Particularly since the attribute is the
> exact opposite of what I said.
Eric, if I'm the one who did that, I appologize, but I was responding to
another post entirely, and I have no control over how someone else
handles attribution.
> > >
> > > >Using THAT logic, would it not also be fair for all the composers of the
> > > >world, who have charted music, to wander into a restaurant every now and
> > > >then, order a meal, eat it and leave without paying? It amounts to the
> > > >same thing!
> > >
> > > Hey, if being a composer-member of a performance rights group entitled
> > > me to 3 free meals of my choice per day at the restaurant of my choice,
> > > that'd be a start towards repayment for the use of music---in fact, that'd
> > > be positively Soviet of them!
> > > Sticking to capitalism for the time being, let's stick to liscensing and
> > > payment.
> > >
> >
> > I think you may have missed the point, which of course has EVERYTHING to
> > do with capitalism....i.e. an exchange in which both parties benefit.
> > What the restaurants want is the use of music, sans payment. What I was
> > suggesting was the use of THEIR property, sans payment.
>
> I think that you missed the point of my original posting. I did
> not suggest that the restaurants should get a total free ride.
Eric, YOU may not have suggested that, but restaurant association
spokespeople have suggested exactly that. They've made the claim quite
publicly that the music is "incidental" to their business, that they
don't "use it to enhance the atmosphere." Arguments to which I
respectfully counter, "Bull!"
> What I did suggest, which has been discounted by a least one
> other who sent mail to me directly, is that the restraurants
> and other businesses do pay their fair share and no more than
> their fair share.
Here, I would strongly agree with you. I have posted here, and complained
to BMI about the fees charged small venues. I think they're entirely too
high in many cases, and have resulted in venues being closed to
musicians.
You can scream how unfair the businesses are
> to musicians all you want. The bottom line is that they just
> like individual listeners, businesses are paying for the music
> that they receive by the fact that it is loaded with commericial
> advertisements. If the radio station is not pay "enough" to
> cover the businesses that are tuning in the station, then it
> is the station NOT the business that is under paying.
>
What you don't understand here, and what the courts have ruled every time
this issue has come up is that piping music around an entire restaurant
amounts to re-broadcasting, and as such is subject to another licensing
fee. This is not some new concept cooked up by ASCAP last week.
> It is obvious that ASCAP does not agree with this view. It
> is also obvious that a number of music publishers and musicians
> don't agree with this view. I do believe that congress agrees
> this is the correct point of view. That is why the new laws
> are being written. ASCAP as a reasonable organization should
> not oppose them. Why, you might ask. Because it should make
> very little difference to the total revenue stream. However,
> it makes it hard for ASCAP to justify their job. Why? Because
> ASCAP is there to find people that don't pay their share. If
> everyone pays their share through the proper payments from
> the radio stations, ASCAP would have a hard time finding "new"
> sources of revenue.
>
The business DOES have a choice regarding music, as it does regarding
every other service it offers its clients. It can pay for it, or not. You
can argue that the restaurant bill's language is fair all you wish, but
as I saw it written originally, it very clearly stated that no payments
would be made UNLESS ASCAP/BMI provided a written list of licensed songs.
You ARE aware, are you not, that that list would be obsolete the moment
you hit the print key? Phrased in that way, the bill is tantamount to
giving the restaurants a free ride.
Now, if you want to discuss the rate schedule, OR the fact that a
songwriter playing in any given venue won't get a nickle from his/her
songs that night (in terms of PRO royalty checks), then I'm with you, but
I am NOT in favor of dilluting income streams for songwriters.
If the venue wants to provide live, or canned music, they must pay a
license fee under current law, and I don't really think Congress is going
to change that dramatically when it comes right down to it. Further, I
don't think they should.
Ted Boucher
In article <3236ED...@quickturn.com> Eric Clarke,
ecl...@quickturn.com writes:
>Subject: Re: Scouts and the ASCAP Attitude
This thread has gotten to be a real fracas, and it is no wonder--because
it strikes on some very sensitive issues--for me, as for everybody else.
As a one time singer/songwriter, instrumentalist and as a currently
aspiring composer, I am very sensitive about the questions of money and
music.
My experience has been that musicians and composers, more than anyone
else in the arts, seem to be expected to provide services for uplifting
spiritual reasons, or for righting of social injustice or something else
that leaves no bread on the table for the evening meal.
The remarkable thing is how absolutely vicious the lovers of art/and or
the common people can be. We get accused of being mercenary, or our
agents and representatives get accused of being the greatest evil of
all"people who aren't even doing creative work". Let me assure you that
none of the "Woody and Me" crowd have raised a fuss about the broker for
the paper company collecting a fee on the paper used to print the
songbooks, the fees paid to the bookbinders, the shipping, the ink, no
its just the composers and their reps that they are angry at.
We seem to have to suffer to fullfill their ideas of some sort of
"people's art". And then of course, our hooligans are shaking down
resteranteurs--it's getting so bad you can't have music with your dinner
without having to pay."
We'll, I don't want the free meals others have proposed--If these people
want to have music that they don't have to pay for, why don't they just
make up their own songs and sing them into thru the extra speakers?
And they same goes for you "Folk music, the property of the people"
crowd--you want music for free? Write your own. Remember, the stuff you
just knock off in 10 minutes or so is generally is pretty bad--you've
gotta spend the whole day polishing it up if you want it to be good--and
then you've got to worry ab out dinner.
Discordantly,
Ted
Olin Murrell
Raj Dixit wrote:
>
> Ted Boucher (cn...@voicenet.com) wrote:
> : In article <3236ED...@quickturn.com> Eric Clarke,
> : ecl...@quickturn.com writes:
> : >Subject: Re: Scouts and the ASCAP Attitude
> :
> : This thread has gotten to be a real fracas, and it is no wonder--because
> : it strikes on some very sensitive issues--for me, as for everybody else.
>
> I agree with some of what you say. However, why can't a
> restaurant owner or store owner play a CD that he/she
> bought over his/her sound system? Why should the
> musician continue to derive profits? The profit
> should end after the retail purchase.
>
I, of course, am not the original poster, but I do know of one restaurant
that has gotten around the licensing issue by buying (not leasing, or
using a record service) his own juke box and records. The coin slot is
taped over, so you CAN'T put money in. All you gotta do is make your
selection. Absolutely free. His records. His jukebox. No problem.
This is one of the many reasons I have so little sympathy for a
restaurant that gets caught programming live music or re-broadcasting
radio shows. It is just too easy to provide music legally.
> It is legal for a restaurant owner to play
> a CD that he/she owns in the restaurant, as
> long as the equipment used is similar to that
> which would be found in the ordinary home.
> Similarly, the owner may have the radio
> going in such a situation.
>
Here's where the rub comes in. When you buy a CD, you purchase the right
to listen to it in your home, your car, your office. That does not
necessarily convey the right to play that CD in a public place. I rather
suspect if the restaurant I cited above were to begin to ballyhoo it's
"free" jukebox, the ASCAP/BMI/SEESAC folks might start sniffing around,
looking for a licensing fee. He's not. It's just there. Folks can listen
if they care to. As often as not, it's quiet.
Another way for a restaurant to avoide ASCAP/BMI fees is to simply avoid
programming ANY licensed music. That can easily be accomplished by hiring
only songwriters, and requiring them to sing ONLY their own songs. Of
course, that might not sit too well with a patron who REALLY want's to
hear "Stairway to Heaven," or "Blue Eyes Cryin' In the Rain," or
whatever.
Raj Dixit
Ted Boucher (cn...@voicenet.com) wrote:
: In article <3236ED...@quickturn.com> Eric Clarke,
: ecl...@quickturn.com writes:
: >Subject: Re: Scouts and the ASCAP Attitude
:
: This thread has gotten to be a real fracas, and it is no wonder--because
: it strikes on some very sensitive issues--for me, as for everybody else.
:
I agree with some of what you say. However, why can't a
restaurant owner or store owner play a CD that he/she
bought over his/her sound system? Why should the
musician continue to derive profits? The profit
should end after the retail purchase.
It is legal for a restaurant owner to play
a CD that he/she owns in the restaurant, as
long as the equipment used is similar to that
which would be found in the ordinary home.
Similarly, the owner may have the radio
going in such a situation.
Raj K. Dixit
Seth Jackson
Eric Clarke <ecl...@quickturn.com> wrote:
>What I did suggest, which has been discounted by a least one
>other who sent mail to me directly, is that the restraurants
>and other businesses do pay their fair share and no more than
>their fair share. You can scream how unfair the businesses are
>to musicians all you want. The bottom line is that they just
>like individual listeners, businesses are paying for the music
>that they receive by the fact that it is loaded with commericial
No, they are not like individual listeners, because they are
rebroadcasting the music, and they need to be licensed for that.
>advertisements. If the radio station is not pay "enough" to
>cover the businesses that are tuning in the station, then it
>is the station NOT the business that is under paying.
No, because the stations are licensed to broadcast the music, but the
restaurants are not licensed to rebroadcast it. If ASCAP and Congress
were to accept your analysis, you'd hear the radio stations screaming
bloody murder.
>It is obvious that ASCAP does not agree with this view. It
>is also obvious that a number of music publishers and musicians
>don't agree with this view. I do believe that congress agrees
>this is the correct point of view. That is why the new laws
>are being written. ASCAP as a reasonable organization should
No, the reason new laws are being written is because bar and
restaurant owners have lots of money to throw at legislators. The fact
that the laws haven't yet been passed despite the intense lobbying
efforts of the bar and restaurant owners, who far outnumber
songwriters and publishers, would indicate that Congress knows that
the copyright owners' view is correct.
>not oppose them. Why, you might ask. Because it should make
>very little difference to the total revenue stream. However,
Where do you get your misinformation? Songwriters would lose at least
20% of their total income if commercial users were exempt from license
fees.
>it makes it hard for ASCAP to justify their job. Why? Because
>ASCAP is there to find people that don't pay their share. If
>everyone pays their share through the proper payments from
>the radio stations, ASCAP would have a hard time finding "new"
>sources of revenue.
What it boils down to is that you don't know what you're talking
about.
Seth Jackson
ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
>I agree with some of what you say. However, why can't a
>restaurant owner or store owner play a CD that he/she
>bought over his/her sound system? Why should the
>musician continue to derive profits? The profit
>should end after the retail purchase.
No, it shouldn't, because copyright holders derive a major portion of
their income from royalties on public performances, and you are
proposing to eliminate a large chunk of those royalties. When you buy
a CD, you buy the physical medium and a license for private,
noncommercial use of the CD. If you play the music in a business
establishment for the purpose enhancing the atmosphere for customers,
then you are using the music for a purpose for which you are not
licensed, unless you pay a license fee for such use.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <51qv5u$1...@marina.cinenet.net>,
Seth Jackson <spe...@cinenet.net> wrote:
>ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
>
>
>>I agree with some of what you say. However, why can't a
>>restaurant owner or store owner play a CD that he/she
>>bought over his/her sound system? Why should the
>>musician continue to derive profits? The profit
>>should end after the retail purchase.
>
>No, it shouldn't, because copyright holders derive a major portion of
>their income from royalties on public performances, and you are
>proposing to eliminate a large chunk of those royalties. When you buy
>a CD, you buy the physical medium and a license for private,
>noncommercial use of the CD.
Look, Raj, go to a book publisher and explain to them that you're
going to buy one c opy of their book, then xerox it and hand a copy to
anybody who enters your establishment, as an encouragement for them to
come sit down. Why should the author and publisher continue to derive
profits? Please explain yourself in terms that do not invoke a
supposed future communist workers' haven but rather deal with life in
the here and now.
Reese Wilson
will...@miworld.net wrote:
>ASCAP & BMI soak the radio stations all right, and the restaurants, and
>the markets and the malls, "anywhere more than two speakers are used to
>amplify the music".
Bullshit... You've got a relative in the restaurant business don't
you???
>As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
>royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
>*surprised* to see a composer defend them.
You shouldn't be... Without them, I'd be writing songs for people
like you who expect them for free...
>A restaurant that tunes in our station is NOT "extending the range of our
>broadcast", it was always there. BMI and ASCAP have NEVER asked or
>measured the size of our audience, their fees are based SOLELY on station
>revenue. and here's the part you need to know, STan.....THEY HAVE NEVER
>ASKED FOR A COPY OF OUR LOGS OR PLAYLISTS...they just want the checks.
Lame argument... Do you really expect (or think it's humanly
possible) for either of them to monitor EVERY radio station EVERY minute of
the day??? As far as "just wanting the checks", do you play the music???
Then what's wrong with them "just wanting the checks"??? I'll tell you
what's wrong with it... It bugs you because you're another one of those
people who think it's a songwriter's duty to write and simply be happy
hearing it on the radio... Doesn't make a rat's ass to you whether we can
pay our bills or not...
>It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
>stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
>then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
>same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
>shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
>reimbursed.
The "major label artists" are only reimbursed if they wrote the
song... As far as their methods of monitoring go, it ain't perfect, but as
I said, are you seriously stating that they should monitor EVERY station
EVERY minute of the day??? It's the best system in place at the moment and
when BMI and ASCAP have even so much as suggested using a computer method
such as soundscan, half the radio people raise hell about it... Look in
your own backyard for blame on THAT little problem...
>But that doesnt bother them!! They are too busy sending the goon squads
>into every Pizza Stand in America and threatening the owners with fines
>and court action for JUKEBOXES. As if they didnt already collect from the
>record company, the jukebox company, the radio station, now they want the
>pizzamaker to pay too!
Let's see... Pizzamaker uses my songs to add to the atmosphere of
HIS establishment, he shouldn't pay me... I order one of his pizzas to add
to my nourishment, I SHOULD pay him... I don't get your logic...
>And they NEVER check the contents of the box to
>note artists, or record of performance...allocating the money fairly to
>the composer is THE LAST THING they care about.
Really??? Then explain why I've received these checks... I
suppose that was just an afterthough on their part...???
>And people wonder why MUZAK took over...sheez.
Huh??? Muzak is required to pay royalties just like anyone else
who uses our music is...
>BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
>performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
>are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
Until you go down to BMI or ASCAP and check their records, I'd
suggest you quit posting misinformation... This is blatantly wrong...
Well, it's nice to know that not only do we have to put up with the
public bootlegging our stuff, the restaurant owners wanting us to provide
their music for free, and the Wall Street Journal making us out to be armed
bandits, we also have to put up with radio people (who make megabucks in
commercial revenues) trashing us with statements that are, for the most
part in THIS particular post, untrue... Thanks radio... You've proven
yourselves yet again...
Reese Wilson (Reese....@nashville.com)
Mike
> gr...@netcom.com (Greg Bullough) wrote in article
<gregDxt...@netcom.com>...
> In article <mnortham-130...@donatello.leonardo.net>
mnor...@cinematrax.com (Mark Northam) writes:
Here we go again.
Let me explain for those of you who don't know how to do it.
PLEASE remove the scouting groups from your postings. All this garbage
back and forth about union musicians, people who use synthesizers etc, has
nothing to do with scouting. We have better things to do than wade through
the incredible amount of postings on this subject.
When you "REPLY to NEWSGROUP" use the little "I" bar cursor to highlight
the "SCOUTING" newsgroups. Then press the delete button.
There. See how simple that was.
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson
[Scouting groups dropped from list]
Just a question for someone who knows the state of the
law:
Someone stated awhile back that restaurant owners, etc.,
have to pay a "rebroadcasting" fee whenever they put radio
feed over a PA system, i.e., attach their tuner and amplifier
to more than two speakers. Does that mean that they can
use as many speakers as they like without paying a fee, as
long as there is a separate tuner connected to every set of
two? Or would that also constitute "rebroadcasting"?
And while we're at it, if a restaurant owner is "profiting"
from music by letting the diners hear it, is he not also
profiting from it if he puts a radio in the kitchen so that
the staff can listen while they work, if doing so makes the
staff happier and improves their performance? Can anyone
make a principled distinction between the two cases? (And what
if the music from the kitchen "just happens to" be audible from
the dining floor too?)
Michelle Dulak
Stan Fornaszewski
Obviously there's a lot to talk about. But, we need to get some facts
straight. There is a system in place that allows composers to collect a
small amount of money for the performance of their own work.
Until there is a better system, it should not change. A better system is
not a system that allows businesses to benefit from the use of the music
without paying for it.
will...@miworld.net wrote:
> ASCAP & BMI soak the radio stations all right, and the restaurants, and
> the markets and the malls, "anywhere more than two speakers are used to
> amplify the music".
>
> As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
> royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
> *surprised* to see a composer defend them.
What do you consider soaking? What do you mean by cheating?
Non-payment for services rendered is CHEATING.
Why should I bite off the hand that sends me a check every year for the
performances of my works.
Do you think I'm going to bill you for 6+ cents everytime you play my
song? Would you actually write a check for 6 cents and mail it?
I should be paid even when one speaker is used. But, 2 speakers to
cover the room has been long set as a standard. Its used to prove the
intent to play the music to the customers, and not the employees(saying
it was for private use only).
> A restaurant that tunes in our station is NOT "extending the range of our
> broadcast", it was always there. BMI and ASCAP have NEVER asked or
> measured the size of our audience, their fees are based SOLELY on station
> revenue. and here's the part you need to know, STan.....THEY HAVE NEVER
> ASKED FOR A COPY OF OUR LOGS OR PLAYLISTS...they just want the checks.
The resturant isn't extending your broadcast??? Then how do people hear
the music without your signal??? You are billed for what you do.
Your fees are based upon what YOUR STATION does. The resturant is billed
for what they do. The resturant's fee is based on the resturants seating
capacity.
You evidentally need to go to the library to find out more about the
methods and formulas used by ASCAP and BMI. Both are different, and yet
the end results of who did what is pretty close.
> It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
> stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
> then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
> same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
> shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
> reimbursed.
More likely than not, most Radio Stations will try to emulate in some
way shape or form, the music of the top 50 Radio Markets.
BILLBOARD does the same thing!! Do you think that regional artist is
going to get listed if they play Big Band Music? There is no category.
There are over a hundred Big band Stations, and some are 24 hours. Does
billboard assume there is no market?
> But that doesnt bother them!! They are too busy sending the goon squads
> into every Pizza Stand in America and threatening the owners with fines
> and court action for JUKEBOXES. As if they didnt already collect from the
> record company, the jukebox company, the radio station, now they want the> pizzamaker to pay too!
To busy doing their business?
They collect from the record company for the the number of units sold.
The record company make money for my work - so do I.
They will collect from the Pizza owners, too when the pizza owner uses
my music in his establichment (via radio, jukebox, or tape). It makes
his customers happier. When they are happier, they buy more pizza! He
uses my product - I want to be paid for it.
Yes, they collect from the jukebox company too. The jukebox company
makes money when the customer pays to hear my song. That's when they
owe me my share.
And they NEVER check the contents of the box to
> note artists, or record of performance...allocating the money fairly to
> the composer is THE LAST THING they care about.
I don't make pizza. But, I guarantee you the mushroom man made his fee,
the tomato man made his, and the music man is going to also.
The rate ASCAP or BMI pays me is set by congress, and the matter of
payment is left between me and ASCAP. Nonpayment to ASCAP for the use
of my work is even more unfair.
> And people wonder why MUZAK took over...sheez.
Muzak is billed too.
> BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
> performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
> are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
Sorry, to inform you. But, yes they are part of the sample base. It is a
small piece of the whole pie, but these markets are accounted for. My
songs are primarily in those markets(big band, jazz, and original/age),
and I recieve payment for those markets. When my songs play on NPR, I
get paid half of what I get from your station.
Now, call the corner snow cone stand, and ask them to buy a sound system
to play more of my music. If they can't afford it, then have them call
me up, and I'll sell them my songs for a lot less than ascap's blanket
rate. They won't have to pay ascap, they would just pay me direct. Of
course, they may get tired of my songs in about a week. But, it would be
cheaper.
Now, Smile! :-) You cheapskates!!!
Stan
Tom Swiss
Laura Gillenwater <twor...@pop3.nfi.com> writes:
>
>Now I'm confused - why are the Girl Scouts any different from any other
>camping organization? Isn't the issue about whether kids sitting around
>the campfire singing songs should result in payment due to ASCAP, not
>about *which* camp these kids are going to?
It makes a difference whether the camp is using musical performance as
a profit-making attraction or not.
When I'm camping with friends, drag out the guitar, and we sing around
the campfire, no problem. But if I said "Come on out to Tom's Camp-a-way!
Hiking, bugs, dirt, and _nightly campfire singing_, only $5!", that's a
different matter.
Similarly, if the dishwashers in the back of the local eatery turn on
some music while they work, or even sing, hey, no problem. But if they put
the music out front as a customer attraction - whether radio, tape, or live
- the songwriter deserves a cut.
== Tom Swiss/t...@tis.com ==== "Born to die." === Keep your laws off my brain! =
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe
Wethern's Law:
Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.
Robert M Derrick
Now, I do not think that restaurants et. al. should be given a
completely free ride. On the other hand, I don't think that any
one should have to pay a fee for something that they may not even
do. That is, it is not appropriate for Michael Jackson and Bahbah
Streisand to be paid for the playing of songs by Stan Rogers.
I believe that the purpose of ASCAP is good and useful, and
even necessary. But the application is questionable. It unfortunately
may fall under the "it may not work 100%, but it's the best system
we've got" category. Arguably. But with instances like the following,
reported by Harvey Reid, happen, one wonders...
from http://www.woodpecker.com/articles/royalty-politics.html
The promoter of a small bluegrass festival informed me that they
were cited by ASCAP because a Bill Monroe song was performed:
Monroe's music is all BMI, but the song in question, Uncle Pen,
had been arranged and recorded by Ricky Skaggs, an ASCAP artist!
Rob Derrick
-----------
(*) also from: http://www.woodpecker.com/articles/royalty-politics.html
Peppercorn, a store in Boulder, Colorado that sells gourmet cookware recently
lost a case in which they were playing music that was being sold in the store
(supposedly an exemption), but because they were selling other things than music,
they were ruled non-exempt and fined.
Ram Samudrala
Followups and newsgroups trimmed.
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>Look, Raj, go to a book publisher and explain to them that you're
>going to buy one c opy of their book, then xerox it and hand a copy to
>anybody who enters your establishment, as an encouragement for them to
>come sit down. Why should the author and publisher continue to derive
>profits?
If the people who read the copy liked it so much that they went and
bought their own book. It happens around me all the time. I know
several people who photocopy entire textbooks (and I personally don't
feel this is unethical or wrong, for the record, since I don't believe
in the notion of intellectual property in any conventional sense). If
these people use a certain textbook extensively, then they go and buy
the hardcopy. This happens with music as well (i.e., people make a
copy, listen to it, and if they like it, buy the product), and I know
many many (full-time and hobby) musicians who support this.
If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits? In
any case, there is a significant number of people who believe that the
distribution of their creations should not be abridged in the name of
profit. Perhaps the restaurant owners would be well-advised to use
such people's resources. First software. Then music. <-:
>but rather deal with life in the here and now.
It's the story of my life.
--Ram
Your shadow, the white one, who you cannot accept and who will never
forget you --- Rolf Jacobson
Reese Wilson
spe...@cinenet.net (Seth Jackson) wrote:
S> ez06...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Raj Dixit) wrote:
S>
S>
S> >I agree with some of what you say. However, why can't a
S> >restaurant owner or store owner play a CD that he/she
S> >bought over his/her sound system? Why should the
S> >musician continue to derive profits? The profit
S> >should end after the retail purchase.
S>
S> No, it shouldn't, because copyright holders derive a major portion of
S> their income from royalties on public performances, and you are
S> proposing to eliminate a large chunk of those royalties. When you buy
S> a CD, you buy the physical medium and a license for private,
S> noncommercial use of the CD. If you play the music in a business
S> establishment for the purpose enhancing the atmosphere for customers,
S> then you are using the music for a purpose for which you are not
S> licensed, unless you pay a license fee for such use.
Exactly Seth... Note that Seth said "license for private,
noncommercial use of the CD"... That's exactly what a CD is sold for...
It's the same concept as DSS and USSB with their satellite broadcasting...
When you call to have the service turned on, one of the first things they
verify is if the service is for a residence or a business... If you'll
read the regulations regarding this service, it plainly states that the
residential service is intended for "private, noncommercial" use and goes
on to explain that friends are considered private and noncommercial... On
the flip side, if you're buying the NFL Sunday Ticket and using it as a
drawing point to make your business more profitable, you're using DSS and
USSB to do that and they should be reimbursed...
Near the end of every NFL game, they clearly state basically the
same thing... They don't want you making money off of them without them
getting what is rightfully theirs...
Most people don't seem to have a problem understanding this, but a
lot of people can't see that the songs are the very same thing... What's
so hard to understand???
Reese Wilson (Reese....@nashville.com)
BB Johnson
I'm sure you speak for every one that reads the scouting newsgroup,
especially with all the messages from others in that group that have
been coming in to protest.
You're the only one I see bitching, and even if you weren't, two or
three don't speak for the hundreds that read the group.
Find the delete key.
And then Get A Life.
You can't censor the internet, and you aren't the Apointed Spokesman.
=====================================================
Seth Jackson
Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>I, of course, am not the original poster, but I do know of one restaurant
>that has gotten around the licensing issue by buying (not leasing, or
>using a record service) his own juke box and records. The coin slot is
>taped over, so you CAN'T put money in. All you gotta do is make your
>selection. Absolutely free. His records. His jukebox. No problem.
>This is one of the many reasons I have so little sympathy for a
>restaurant that gets caught programming live music or re-broadcasting
>radio shows. It is just too easy to provide music legally.
The restaurant owner you describe is not providing music legally.
Playing a song on a jukebox is still a public performance, and this
restaurant owner should be liable for license fees. I think the best
you can say about it is that he's getting away with it for now. If
this practice became widespread, I'm sure BMI and ASCAP would start
cracking down on it.
Forrest Fang
>If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
>emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits?
What kind of logic is this? You mean, if I don't like a book or a
recording, I shouldn't have to pay for it??! What ever happened to
accountability....sheesh.
In
>any case, there is a significant number of people who believe that the
>distribution of their creations should not be abridged in the name of
>profit.
Who are these people --starving artists? Of course, any musician
would want to be compensated for his work...Just ask the many who have
been stiffed by their record labels or distributors...they'll tell you
in no uncertain terms.
Forrest
Seth Jackson
"Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson" <mal...@best.com> wrote:
>And while we're at it, if a restaurant owner is "profiting"
>from music by letting the diners hear it, is he not also
>profiting from it if he puts a radio in the kitchen so that
>the staff can listen while they work, if doing so makes the
>staff happier and improves their performance? Can anyone
>make a principled distinction between the two cases? (And what
Using the music to attract paying customers is a direct means of
generating business and increasing revenue. Employees listening in
the kitchen is not.
>if the music from the kitchen "just happens to" be audible from
>the dining floor too?)
If you mean "accidentally on purpose", then the user would be trying
to circumvent the law, and would be in violation of copyright.
Stephen C. Dahl
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson (mal...@best.com) wrote:
: And while we're at it, if a restaurant owner is "profiting"
: from music by letting the diners hear it, is he not also
: profiting from it if he puts a radio in the kitchen so that
: the staff can listen while they work, if doing so makes the
: staff happier and improves their performance? Can anyone
: make a principled distinction between the two cases? (And what
: if the music from the kitchen "just happens to" be audible from
: the dining floor too?)
: Michelle Dulak
Well......just how far do you want to take this? If I open the Walkman
Deli and every seat comes complete with a personal stereo and headphones
so my customers can "tune in and tune out" while they're munching my
pastrami, am I within the letter of the law? What does your common sense
tell you? Am I profitting from the radio usage? Am I trying to get away
with something? How do you feel about the OJ case?
It should go without saying that no law is perfect and that there are
countless fuzzy zones for each. Ya' do the best you can to make things
work, and this is probably where the single tuner--2 speaker line came
from. Should a disco pay for music use? Most would agree. Should a
bar? If its using the music to set an ambience then I think most would
also agree. If its a radio next to the Absolut....then maybe not if its
just keeping the bartender amused or the people in the kitchen amused.
What if its a small disco that can go it with a 100 watt Pioneer and some
JBL's??? Would you apply the 2 speaker and a tuner rule? Or would you
think that the business exists strictly on the use of music so they gotta
pay anyhow?
You want to feel sorry for someone??? Pity the comedian! No one wants
to hear a joke twice and the material enters the public domain
instantly...bummer.
Steve
Matthew H. Fields
In article <51sk0f$c...@hecate.umd.edu>, Ram Samudrala <m...@ram.org> wrote:
>several people who photocopy entire textbooks (and I personally don't
>feel this is unethical or wrong, for the record, since I don't believe
>in the notion of intellectual property in any conventional sense). If
So how *do* you propose that fairness occur? Do you propose that all
artists accept the notion that they're part of a slave caste destined
to serve others without compensation?
>these people use a certain textbook extensively, then they go and buy
>the hardcopy. This happens with music as well (i.e., people make a
>copy, listen to it, and if they like it, buy the product), and I know
>many many (full-time and hobby) musicians who support this.
No accountability here. Any guesses how many units of shareware
are actively used without compensation to the author?
>If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
>emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits? In
The copy itself has intrinsic value, else nobody would have made it.
Robert M Derrick
Seth Jackson (spe...@cinenet.net) wrote:
: Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
: >I, of course, am not the original poster, but I do know of one restaurant
: >that has gotten around the licensing issue by buying (not leasing, or
: >using a record service) his own juke box and records. The coin slot is
: >taped over, so you CAN'T put money in. All you gotta do is make your
: >selection. Absolutely free. His records. His jukebox. No problem.
: The restaurant owner you describe is not providing music legally.
I think that you need to realize that there is not some all-encompassing
moral imperative universal and absolute law when it comes to copyright.
How can you say that it is "not providing music legally"?
It sounds to me as if they meet the letter of the law, as currently
provided. To whit, the device is being used as sold, without additional
speakers or amplifiers, etc. No profit ensues from the use.
Now, it does not mean that if they were cited and sued that they
would win. But it is my understanding that that decision is up to the
justices handing down the decision, subjecting this case to the full
weight of copyright law and precedent, and of course, the amount
of $$$ that are thrown at it.
Unless you know much more about the particular laws than we do, in
which case I respectfully ask that you enlighten us, rather than
just assert.
Rob.
---
The last time I engaged in such a discussion, my honorable debating
partner hinted is his last post that he was a lawyer, and knowledgeable
in these things. And that was the last I heard of him. It seems that
there is a lesson to be learned here, but damned if I know what it is.
SD
Michelle Dulak and Geo. Thomson wrote:
>
> [Scouting groups dropped from list]
>
> Just a question for someone who knows the state of the
> law:
>
> Someone stated awhile back that restaurant owners, etc.,
> have to pay a "rebroadcasting" fee whenever they put radio
> feed over a PA system, i.e., attach their tuner and amplifier
> to more than two speakers.
Now that we've dropped the scouting newsgroups, could you retitle this
topic? It no longer is dealing with the scout issue. Thanks It saves us
scout leaders from wading through stuff that is no longer related to us.
Thank you.
Sandi
A Scout leader
will...@miworld.net
In article <51o7qh$o...@marina.cinenet.net>, spe...@cinenet.net (Seth
Jackson) wrote:
> will...@miworld.net wrote:
> >As a Sales Mgr at a Radio Station, I can tell you we don;t mind paying the
> >royalties. But these sharks cheat businesses AND the composers and I'm
> >*surprised* to see a composer defend them.
> >It is well-known that BMI and ASCAP sample only a small number of radio
> >stations which are entirely contained with the top 50 Radio Markets. They
> >then ASSUME that every station in America plays those artists works in the
> >same proportion, and allots the fees accordingly. Even a 'Regional hit" is
> >shortchanged by this system, and the major label artists unfairly
> >reimbursed.
> >But that doesnt bother them!! They are too busy sending the goon squads
> >into every Pizza Stand in America and threatening the owners with fines
> >and court action for JUKEBOXES. As if they didnt already collect from the
> >record company, the jukebox company, the radio station, now they want the
> >pizzamaker to pay too! And they NEVER check the contents of the box to
>
> Again, your use of loaded, judgmental words do nothing more than to
> show your bias against these organizations, based on the fact that you
> don't want to have to pay for music. You emphasize the word
> "jukeboxes" as though this is supposed to be a shocking revelation.
> It's not. As a songwriter, I would be quite disappointed if these
> organizations failed to collect fees from public performances via
> jukeboxes.
> >note artists, or record of performance...allocating the money fairly to
> >the composer is THE LAST THING they care about.
>
> Whether or not this is true is highly questionable, but one thing for
> certain is that they care about the composer a hell of a lot more than
> you do.
> >BTW, campus radio and NPR stations, which carry the bulk of the public
> >performance of jazz, classical, esoteric forms and small label releases
> >are NOT part of the sample base....AT ALL.
>
> Even if this were true, which it isn't, why would this be of concern
> to you? I think this is just a smokescreen to allow you to paint BMI
> and ASCAP as bad guys to further your own self-interested agenda of
> avoiding paying for the music you use.
> --
Are we having a problem in reading English? I was *quite* clear that we as
a business have no objection to paying composer's royalties. My objection
focuses on two main points.
#1. Inaccurate and unfair payment based on a biased sampling.
#2. Repeated "performance" payments along multiple steps of the
distribution process.
As for 'extending the range of broadcast', by this logic any passerby when
my stereo is blaring, or any jogger with a walkman is liable to pay for
having LISTENED! The Radio Station HAS paid for this performance, and
rather handsomely, too.
BTW, to correct myself, BMI has sampled two separate weekend playlists
from my station in the last four years, ASCAP has never requested this
information in the last 15 years.
Alan
--
"The eyes of honesty can achieve.."
will...@miworld.net
In article <51quhv$1...@marina.cinenet.net>, spe...@cinenet.net (Seth
Jackson) wrote:
> Eric Clarke <ecl...@quickturn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >What I did suggest, which has been discounted by a least one
> >other who sent mail to me directly, is that the restraurants
> >and other businesses do pay their fair share and no more than
> >their fair share. You can scream how unfair the businesses are
> >to musicians all you want. The bottom line is that they just
> >like individual listeners, businesses are paying for the music
> >that they receive by the fact that it is loaded with commericial
>
> No, they are not like individual listeners, because they are
> rebroadcasting the music, and they need to be licensed for that.
You have the weirdest definition of broadcasting I have ever seen. By this
statement you indicate your willingness to have your stereos and car
radios licensed and assessed by ASCAP/BMI. I have the transmitter, you
have the reciever...I broadcast...you receive...savvy?
> >advertisements. If the radio station is not pay "enough" to
> >cover the businesses that are tuning in the station, then it
> >is the station NOT the business that is under paying.
>
> No, because the stations are licensed to broadcast the music, but the
> restaurants are not licensed to rebroadcast it. If ASCAP and Congress
> were to accept your analysis, you'd hear the radio stations screaming
> bloody murder.
Again, as a Radio Sales Manager, I tell you you're wrong. We would prefer
that restaurants and nightclubs be exempted from the fees because time and
time again their response has been to REMOVE the sound system,which, when
a station was played, removes the commercial exposures.
> >It is obvious that ASCAP does not agree with this view. It
> >is also obvious that a number of music publishers and musicians
> >don't agree with this view. I do believe that congress agrees
> >this is the correct point of view. That is why the new laws
> >are being written. ASCAP as a reasonable organization should
>
> No, the reason new laws are being written is because bar and
> restaurant owners have lots of money to throw at legislators. The fact
> that the laws haven't yet been passed despite the intense lobbying
> efforts of the bar and restaurant owners, who far outnumber
> songwriters and publishers, would indicate that Congress knows that
> the copyright owners' view is correct.
>
> >not oppose them. Why, you might ask. Because it should make
> >very little difference to the total revenue stream. However,
>
> Where do you get your misinformation? Songwriters would lose at least
> 20% of their total income if commercial users were exempt from license
> fees.
How much of the collected revenues is eaten by 'administrative costs' at
BMI/ASCAP? as a composer I would be interested in knowing THAT
percentage...
> >it makes it hard for ASCAP to justify their job. Why? Because
> >ASCAP is there to find people that don't pay their share. If
> >everyone pays their share through the proper payments from
> >the radio stations, ASCAP would have a hard time finding "new"
> >sources of revenue.
>
> What it boils down to is that you don't know what you're talking
> about.
What it boils down to is that you cannot see more than one side to an issue.
HTurner381
It seems that the other parties involved Composers/Authors are being
overlooked - when ASCAP collects for the "publishers" they are also
collecting for the Composers and Authors . . .
Harvey
--------Holton Media Services---------
FREE Classified Ads - Free Links for Country - Christian Country and
Southern Gospel Music at:
http://www.holton.com/hmsmusic
Drop by And List Your Opportunity For FREE! Even the visit is free!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
jaq...@en.com
In article <williams2-200...@pm1-23.miworld.net>,
will...@miworld.net wrote:
> Again, as a Radio Sales Manager, I tell you you're wrong. We would prefer
> that restaurants and nightclubs be exempted from the fees because time and
> time again their response has been to REMOVE the sound system,which, when
> a station was played, removes the commercial exposures.
Personally, that sounds like a wonderful reason to _increase_ the fees.
I've eaten a lot more dinners that were ruined by bad music than enhanced
by good music.
--
Jeffrey Quick
http://www.en.com/users/jaquick
D. Terry Hazelrig
Dear Sir,
In essence, all property is *intellectual* in that, it requries the
legal
fiction of a *title* for proof of *ownership*. If(as you say), you do
not
believe in the *concept* of *intellectual* property, then by definition,
you do not believe in ownership of *any* property, be they physical, or
intangible. Perhaps you would not mind my coming over to your house, and
simply helping myself to your computer, television, car, dishwasher,
range,
washer/dryer, or any other household good(or even the house itself)? All
of these things are *intellectual* property. Perhaps they differ(to
you)
in some way, but in point of leagality they are *exactly* the same. The
main difference lies in the fact that household goods(or their absence)
affects *you* directly. Whereas, the loss of royalties from creative
material
being *used* by others for free does not. Pehaps this is the basic
difference
between one who creates....and one who simply envies the creative.
I am, sir, most sincerely yours,
D. Terry Hazelrig
Timescape Recording
>
> If the people who read the copy liked it so much that they went and
> bought their own book. It happens around me all the time. I know
> several people who photocopy entire textbooks (and I personally don't
> feel this is unethical or wrong, for the record, since I don't believe
> in the notion of intellectual property in any conventional sense). If
> these people use a certain textbook extensively, then they go and buy
> the hardcopy. This happens with music as well (i.e., people make a
> copy, listen to it, and if they like it, buy the product), and I know
> many many (full-time and hobby) musicians who support this.
>
> If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
> emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits? In
> any case, there is a significant number of people who believe that the
> distribution of their creations should not be abridged in the name of
Gregory J. Wageman
In article <000027E3...@nashville.com>,
Reese Wilson <reese....@nashville.com> wrote:
> Near the end of every NFL game, they clearly state basically the
>same thing... They don't want you making money off of them without them
>getting what is rightfully theirs...
> Most people don't seem to have a problem understanding this, but a
>lot of people can't see that the songs are the very same thing... What's
>so hard to understand???
Reese,
It's been my observation that the uneducated public (the folks that
haven't a clue as to how the music business works, and I know because
I was one of them until a year or two ago) believe that it is the
Big Rich Record Company (TM) which is trying to increase its profits.
Lots of people are unaware that the famous rich artists don't write
all their own material, and that the people who do aren't necessarily
famous or even rich.
They don't know anything about how a songwriter gets paid for his/her
work, and I suspect if you asked your average person on the street they
might even think that just getting your song on a record and/or on radio
would be payment enough... Lots of people don't realize that songwriting
is a business that you should be able to make a living at, just like
writing books or computer programs.
Writers would be well-served by their performance rights societies if
those societies educated the general public exactly as to how all this
works. I heard one restaurant owner quoted on the radio as saying
that "The record companies are double-dipping".
--
-Greg
----
"It is not the hand but the understanding of a man that may be said to
write."
-Miguel de Cervantes, "Don Quixote, Pt. 2, bk. III preface"
Larry Collins
will...@miworld.net wrote:
>BTW, to correct myself, BMI has sampled two separate weekend playlists
>from my station in the last four years, ASCAP has never requested this
>information in the last 15 years.
Doesn't ASCAP tape broadcasts and then audit the tapes?
Ram Samudrala
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>So how *do* you propose that fairness occur? Do you propose that all
>artists accept the notion that they're part of a slave caste destined
>to serve others without compensation?
From an ethical standpoint, I don't do music FOR other people. I do
music for myself, and many people I know view music as art, not as
entertainment. I don't believe compensation is /required/ if people
use my music.
Fairness occurs when someone who listens to the music recording, or
finds a textbook useful, donates some
money/encouragement/candy/whatever to the creators in order to
enable the creation of more work. I don't however believe a reward is
required.
>No accountability here. Any guesses how many units of shareware
>are actively used without compensation to the author?
I'm not sure, but I'd never do this intentionally, at least not with a
shareware program I was happy with. The point is that I am not
against compensating people myself---in fact, I'm scrupulously
fair---I just don't believe in requiring compensation.
>>If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
>>emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits? In
>The copy itself has intrinsic value, else nobody would have made it.
I don't buy that. The value in the music to the listener is based on
what the listener gets out of it. It is why I encourage others to
copy my music, and pay me (they're not required to, but they can, and
some do) whatever they wished. You'd be surprised at the amounts I
get.
Free Software is eventually going to triumph, and it has taken 13
years to get to where it has (Linux now outranks many commercial
operating systems). Likewise with Free Music, in the age of
electronic distribution. Don't understimate the power of the freedom
of distribution---Netscape isn't Free Software, but look at why it's
so popular.
--Ram
He is most powerful who has himself in his own power. ---Seneca
Seth Jackson
will...@miworld.net wrote:
>In article <51o7qh$o...@marina.cinenet.net>, spe...@cinenet.net (Seth
>Jackson) wrote:
>> will...@miworld.net wrote:
I read English quite well thank you, and your brief disclaimer about
not minding paying royalties rings hollow after you followed it with
reams of biased and misinformed flammage about the evils of ASCAP and
BMI, whose job, as it happens, is to collect those royalties that you
don't mind paying. Complaining about being "soaked" by these "cheats"
are not the words of one who doesn't mind paying.
>#1. Inaccurate and unfair payment based on a biased sampling.
I'm glad you're so concerned about the welfare of songwriters. If you
were as truly concerned as you seem to want us to believe, then you
can stop supporting the efforts of the restaurant owners to pass a law
that will let them use our music without paying for it.
>#2. Repeated "performance" payments along multiple steps of the
>distribution process.
...which are legitimate and legal, and which they have every right to
collect on behalf of the songwriters who derive their income from
these license fees.
>As for 'extending the range of broadcast', by this logic any passerby when
>my stereo is blaring, or any jogger with a walkman is liable to pay for
>having LISTENED! The Radio Station HAS paid for this performance, and
>rather handsomely, too.
Your logic makes sense only if you refuse to see the obvious
difference between what you describe and a bar or restaurant that
pipes in music for the purpose of generating business from paying
customers.
>BTW, to correct myself, BMI has sampled two separate weekend playlists
>from my station in the last four years, ASCAP has never requested this
>information in the last 15 years.
That's because ASCAP doesn't use station logs to calculate royalty
payments. They employ people to monitor the broadcast and make their
own logs. Before you go flaming these organizations, it would be
useful if you got up to speed on the facts.
Seth Jackson
will...@miworld.net wrote:
>In article <51quhv$1...@marina.cinenet.net>, spe...@cinenet.net (Seth
>Jackson) wrote:
>> Eric Clarke <ecl...@quickturn.com> wrote:
>> >to musicians all you want. The bottom line is that they just
>> >like individual listeners, businesses are paying for the music
>> >that they receive by the fact that it is loaded with commericial
>> No, they are not like individual listeners, because they are
>> rebroadcasting the music, and they need to be licensed for that.
>You have the weirdest definition of broadcasting I have ever seen. By this
Well, my "weird" definition just so happens to be the same definition
that has been recognized by the courts time and time again. If you've
never seen this definition before, that would indicate that you are
not very well-informed on this issue.
>statement you indicate your willingness to have your stereos and car
>radios licensed and assessed by ASCAP/BMI. I have the transmitter, you
>have the reciever...I broadcast...you receive...savvy?
The obvious difference between my car stereo and a restaurant is that
when I play music in my car, it is for my private, noncommercial use,
but when a restaurant pipes in music, it is for the purpose of
generating business from paying customers.
>> No, because the stations are licensed to broadcast the music, but the
>> restaurants are not licensed to rebroadcast it. If ASCAP and Congress
>> were to accept your analysis, you'd hear the radio stations screaming
>> bloody murder.
>Again, as a Radio Sales Manager, I tell you you're wrong. We would prefer
>that restaurants and nightclubs be exempted from the fees because time and
>time again their response has been to REMOVE the sound system,which, when
>a station was played, removes the commercial exposures.
I'm sure you'd like to have businesses exempted from fees, but in
order to do this without taking income from songwriters, the
difference would have to be made up by charging higher fees to the
radio stations. Would you honestly rather pay a higher fee?
Even if the answer were yes, the point is that these businesses are
making commercial use of a product, and they need to pay for it. If
the businesses do not feel that it's worth the money, then they can
avoid the fee by choosing not to use the music.
>> >not oppose them. Why, you might ask. Because it should make
>> >very little difference to the total revenue stream. However,
>>
>> Where do you get your misinformation? Songwriters would lose at least
>> 20% of their total income if commercial users were exempt from license
>> fees.
>How much of the collected revenues is eaten by 'administrative costs' at
>BMI/ASCAP? as a composer I would be interested in knowing THAT
>percentage...
How is this relevant to the point being discussed? You said that
exempting businesses from fees would make very little difference in
the revenue stream. I explained that this is incorrect, and that it
would cause severe financial hardship on songwriters to the tune of a
20% or more cut in annual income.
Your question about administrative costs is a diversion. Of course
ASCAP, like any commercial organization, has administrative costs. You
ask this question as if you have evidence that these costs are
excessive. Unless you have such evidence, you have no reason to bring
this up except as a smokescreen to obscure the relevant points.
>> >it makes it hard for ASCAP to justify their job. Why? Because
>> >ASCAP is there to find people that don't pay their share. If
>> >everyone pays their share through the proper payments from
>> >the radio stations, ASCAP would have a hard time finding "new"
>> >sources of revenue.
>> What it boils down to is that you don't know what you're talking
>> about.
>What it boils down to is that you cannot see more than one side to an issue.
That's a strange assertion coming from someone who refuses to see the
difference between private use of music on a car stereo and commercial
use of music by businesses to attract customers. The truth is that I
understand all sides of the issue quite clearlyl.
On one side of the issue is that business owners want to use music to
enhance the atmosphere of their establishments, but they don't want to
pay for it. The logic is that music should be free.
On the other side is the songwriter and publisher whose income is
derived from license fees that cover such use. Their reasoning is that
they need to be paid for their hard work in creating and distributing
this music that so many people enjoy listening to.
D. Terry Hazelrig
Dear Robert,
The basic problem here lies in the definition of *profit*.
An eating, or drinking establishment is selling more than
just their *product*. They are in the business of selling
*atmosphere*. If this were not so, then every such business
of equal quality would survive. However, they do not. If you
do not believe this is so, I recommend that you open a posh
five start eatery, and pipe hard core heavy meatal, or rap
into your sound system, and then count the number of patrons
that return. If, instead, you furnished a semi-classical, or
other lighter material, you *might* have a chance of holding
on to a business.
The music provides as much of the *atmosphere* of such business
as does the relative quality of the food itself. So to dismiss
off-hand the role that the *free* jukebox playes in the conduct
of business interests is simple minded.
By the way, the same thing holds true of retail of any discription.
Have you ever walked into a Mall, and failed to hear music on the
sound system? There is a reason for that. People spend(and this
has been proven in many independent studies)more money when there
is music in the background, than they do when there is not. Also,
and equally as valid, the presence of music in a drinking establishment
(of more mellow types) tends to reduce the amount of violence that
occurs within. This *ALONE* is worth the moderate fee's charged for
the use of material in a business.
I am, sir, most sincerely yours,
D. Terry Hazelrig
Timescape Recording
>
Ram Samudrala
Forrest Fang (ff...@value.net) wrote:
>What kind of logic is this? You mean, if I don't like a book or a
>recording, I shouldn't have to pay for it??! What ever happened to
>accountability....sheesh.
This logic, from a practical standpoint, is called "customer
satisfaction". I make it a point to deal with people who offer me
products this way, and I use credit cards all the time and I've even
been known to refuse payment on a product I'm not satisfied with.
"100% satisfaction or your money back." Funny how often that's used.
Heck, I offer this deal with people who buy my CDs (the music can be
copied for free).
>Who are these people --starving artists?
Some of them (including myself---certainly, the income I make per year
is close to the poverty level and I don't sign to BMI or ASCAP even
though I have received radio airplay since I think it's unethical).
Thanks to you, I can now plug my Free Music Philosophy:
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp.html
Note that that talks only about nonprofit use. I personally allow
commercial use of my music without compensation (though you might well
ask who in their right minds would want to :). There's a "Progress
and Prospects" article which I just wrote which talks about how I've
used Free Music to market my CD.
http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp/fma.html
>Of course, any musician would want to be compensated for his work.
Not I. Anything that encourages my work would be nice but it's not
required. So the "want" part is what I object to, and many people I
know have this attitude (many starving full-time musicians).
>Just ask the many who have been stiffed by their record labels or
>distributors...they'll tell you in no uncertain terms.
I have. From bands on major labels that I've interviewed, to bands on
smaller labels---bands like Skunkweed, Deep Purple, etc.---have stated
in public that they don't mind people bootlegging their stuff. Then,
of course, there's the Grateful Dead.
--Ram
Tell me why I have to be a powerslave?
I don't want to die I'm a god why can't I live on?
When the life giver dies all around is laid waste.
And In my last hour I'm a slave to the power of death. ---Iron Maiden
Galadriel O'Meara
Hmmm, what about businesses that rebroadcast radio stations on their phone
systems when you are put on hold?
Do they have to pay a fee? And if so is that why so many of them are now
making in house tapes?
-caroline
Ram Samudrala
D. Terry Hazelrig wrote:
>In essence, all property is *intellectual* in that, it requries the
>legal fiction of a *title* for proof of *ownership*. If(as you say),
>you do not believe in the *concept* of *intellectual* property, then
>by definition, you do not believe in ownership of *any* property, be
>they physical, or intangible. Perhaps you would not mind my coming
>over to your house, and simply helping myself to your computer,
>television, car, dishwasher, range,
The distinction is simple: you're more than welcome to come to my
house, and make a copy of my computer, televison, car, etc., and take
it with you, leaving the original intact. Your definition is wrong.
>in some way, but in point of leagality they are *exactly* the same.
Not at all. If you infringe on my copyrights, it's civilly
actionable. You can only sue for damages, and as far as I know, you
cannot be sent to prison (except for contempt of court). If you take
my car without my permission, it is a criminal offense, you could end
up going to jail. Even the law recognises them to be different.
>between one who creates....and one who simply envies the creative.
As a creator in many fields, including music, I feel no loss due to
the fact that I encourage people to copy my writings, my programs
(which are valuable enough for my University to fight fo them), and my
music freely. (The free refers to freedom, not price.)
The GNU Hurd is coming.
--Ram
I had a dream, when I was young, a dream of sweet illusion.
A glimpse of hope and unity, and visions of one sweet union.
But a cold wind blows, and a dark rain falls, and in my heart it shows,
look what they've done to my dream. ---Queen
Matthew H. Fields
In article <51vrl9$v...@hecate.umd.edu>, Ram Samudrala <m...@ram.org> wrote:
>Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>>So how *do* you propose that fairness occur? Do you propose that all
>>artists accept the notion that they're part of a slave caste destined
>>to serve others without compensation?
>From an ethical standpoint, I don't do music FOR other people. I do
>music for myself, and many people I know view music as art, not as
>entertainment. I don't believe compensation is /required/ if people
>use my music.
So if I chain you to a computer in my basement and make you turn out
music that meets your criteria of beauty and then I sell it and get
rich on it, would this be ethical enough?
>Fairness occurs when someone who listens to the music recording, or
>finds a textbook useful, donates some
>money/encouragement/candy/whatever to the creators in order to
>enable the creation of more work. I don't however believe a reward is
>required.
OK, then what are you going to live on? Does this society value the
work of artists? Does it value any work? Why should anybody donate
money to you when I could run off copies and slap my name on them and
sell them as my own, and if I'm richer than you, I can innundate the
market? (remember, the argument "but that's illegal" would circularly
take you back to exactly the premises that you're calling into
question, here.)
>>No accountability here. Any guesses how many units of shareware
>>are actively used without compensation to the author?
>I'm not sure, but I'd never do this intentionally, at least not with a
>shareware program I was happy with. The point is that I am not
>against compensating people myself---in fact, I'm scrupulously
>fair---I just don't believe in requiring compensation.
Hmmm, I think it's fair at this point that I reveal that I lived in
student cooperative houses for ten years. My experience shows that
relying upon altruism to create fairness works exactly when everybody
is equally altruistic. This maxes out at groups of about 6 people,
beyond which unfairness tends to appear. When you remove "requiring
compensation" or explicit consequences for unfairness, a single
selfish person can turn the whole soviet into an exploitive situation
overnight. Human groups are necessarily dynamic. There's no such
thing as a "worker's paradise" that stabilizes without being prone to
this kind of disruption and the need to constantly adapt to it, sorry.
>>>If the people didn't profit from the copy (either monetarily or
>>>emotionally), do the author and publisher really deserve profits? In
>>The copy itself has intrinsic value, else nobody would have made it.
>I don't buy that. The value in the music to the listener is based on
>what the listener gets out of it.
So why did the listener make a dub of the music if they didn't get
anything out of it?
> It is why I encourage others to
>copy my music, and pay me (they're not required to, but they can, and
>some do) whatever they wished. You'd be surprised at the amounts I
>get.
Indeed, I might be surprised that you get anything, much less fair
compensation.
>Free Software is eventually going to triumph, and it has taken 13
>years to get to where it has (Linux now outranks many commercial
>operating systems). Likewise with Free Music, in the age of
>electronic distribution. Don't understimate the power of the freedom
>of distribution---Netscape isn't Free Software, but look at why it's
>so popular.
Netscape Corp. wouldn't be alive today if it didn't sell patented and
copyrighted products. The browser is a come-on used to sell the
server, advertising time on Netscape's webserver, etc. Were all of
those things "exploit at will, pay if you want to", the company would
have already folded. Or don't you think a megamultinational would
exploit all Netscapecorp's resources without paying them a red cent?
Matthew H. Fields
So, look, if music really does not contribute to the sellable ambiance
of a place, why do they want the music?
Olin Murrell
Seth, his question about administrative costs is more than a smokescreen.
It borders on terminally ignorant. BMI's administrative costs run about
18%, and I imagine ASCAP's run about the same. SEESAC's may be slightly
higher, as they are a for-profit organization.
What is at the bottom of this sales lizzard's argument is a way to
inflate the value of HIS product, the commercial. If he can claim to a
client that his radio station is heard in (pick your favorite number
here) XXXX restaurants, he can more easily justify the advertising rate.
If his argument bears ANY merit, then it would stand to reason that the
broadcasting industry's licensing fees should go up, and dramatically so!
But, I hardly think you'll find any broadcaster who'll agree with that
logical extension of the argument that businesses should be allowed to
re-broadcast without paying the fees.
Even more telling, when you consider that BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc) was
started by the radio industry, in part, to help keep royalty income down,
it becomes very clear that what's being requested here is the ability to
exploit someone else's property for their own gain, WITHOUT compensation
to the owners of the music.
As a veteran 25 year broadcaster, I can tell you the radio industry is
VERY quick to use the copyright process to its own ends, and quite
vigorous in enforcing anything it copyrights.
Every part of the industry, that is, except the sales department. Herb
Tarlick was perhaps THE most accurate comedic character ever invented for
televison (WKRP).
--
Olin Murrell
Austin, TX
ol...@bga.com
http://www.realtime.com/~olin
Olin Murrell
Seth Jackson wrote:
>
> Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> >I, of course, am not the original poster, but I do know of one restaurant
> >that has gotten around the licensing issue by buying (not leasing, or
> >using a record service) his own juke box and records. The coin slot is
> >taped over, so you CAN'T put money in. All you gotta do is make your
> >selection. Absolutely free. His records. His jukebox. No problem.
>
> >restaurant that gets caught programming live music or re-broadcasting
> >radio shows. It is just too easy to provide music legally.
>
> restaurant owner should be liable for license fees. I think the best
> you can say about it is that he's getting away with it for now. If
> this practice became widespread, I'm sure BMI and ASCAP would start
> cracking down on it.
>
Seth, you may be right, but I think his idea is legal, using the
two-speaker stereo argument, and the fact that no money is charged. What
I was really trying to point out is this though, that there are so many
legal ways for a restaurant to provide music for free that it's idiotic
that any of them would ever get caught in the licensing trap. And, I
really have NO sympathy for those that do.
Olin Murrell
Robert M Derrick wrote:
>
> Seth Jackson (spe...@cinenet.net) wrote:
> : Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> : >I, of course, am not the original poster, but I do know of one restaurant
> : >that has gotten around the licensing issue by buying (not leasing, or
> : >using a record service) his own juke box and records. The coin slot is
> : >taped over, so you CAN'T put money in. All you gotta do is make your
> : >selection. Absolutely free. His records. His jukebox. No problem.
>
>
> I think that you need to realize that there is not some all-encompassing
> moral imperative universal and absolute law when it comes to copyright.
>
>
> It sounds to me as if they meet the letter of the law, as currently
> provided. To whit, the device is being used as sold, without additional
> speakers or amplifiers, etc. No profit ensues from the use.
>
> Now, it does not mean that if they were cited and sued that they
> would win. But it is my understanding that that decision is up to the
> justices handing down the decision, subjecting this case to the full
> weight of copyright law and precedent, and of course, the amount
> of $$$ that are thrown at it.
>
> Unless you know much more about the particular laws than we do, in
> which case I respectfully ask that you enlighten us, rather than
> just assert.
>
Rob, I'd have to say that Seth is a music professional, and as such knows
his stuff pretty well. I should amplify on the jukebox a bit. Most of the
songs on it are, or were, "classic" country songs, long out of airplay
rotation. As such, most were still subject to airplay royalties, and if
the guy were "re-broadcasting" them, the restaurant WOULD be subject to
the licensing fee.
My contention was that this businessman was using his own jukebox in much
the same way others use a radio or CD player, i.e. out of the box with no
additional enhancements, to play music for their customers. In that
context, it may be legal. Though, I suspect Seth is right in his
assertion that BMI/ASCAP would see it differently.
Matthew H. Fields
In article <32442A...@bga.com>, Olin Murrell <ol...@bga.com> wrote:
>
>Seth, you may be right, but I think his idea is legal, using the
>two-speaker stereo argument, and the fact that no money is charged. What
>I was really trying to point out is this though, that there are so many
>legal ways for a restaurant to provide music for free that it's idiotic
>that any of them would ever get caught in the licensing trap. And, I
>really have NO sympathy for those that do.
Yeah, but that free music might not enhance their sales as much as
liscenceable music might. What they want is to use the labor of
living songwriters without compensating them, and they don't want to
do anything risky like open mike.
Ram Samudrala
Matthew H. Fields (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>So if I chain you to a computer in my basement and make you turn out
>music that meets your criteria of beauty and then I sell it and get
>rich on it, would this be ethical enough?
This has /no/ relation to my argument. By chaining me, you're
infringing on other freedoms of mine. Something you don't do when you
copy music that I have created when I want to.
>OK, then what are you going to live on?
Everything except "my intellectual property". It's ethically wrong,
as many people believe, to require compensation. As someone who
thrives through academia, I don't have a notion of intellectual
property for the ideas I come up with, the programs and papers I
write, etc., but yet I live. Read for the destruction of more myths:
http://www.duke.edu/~eagle/anarchy/docs/ipmyths.html
>Why should anybody donate money to you when I could run off copies
>and slap my name on them and sell them as my own, and if I'm richer
>than you, I can innundate the market?
You can, but then I'd have to kill you (mainly because I find the
notion of attribution important). <-: Seriously, in a truly
capitalistic society, you would be able to. But it wouldn't prevent
me from selling stuff, and I'm confident I could still sell as much as
I wanted even if you did this. In fact, I encourage this to happen to
an extent (except for attribution) and people do sell copies of my
music, and they even send me money when they do it.
>relying upon altruism to create fairness works
You're mistaking my reasons for how fairness could occur with a demand
for fairness. Life isn't fair, and I certainly don't believe for one
moment that the things you create "belong" to you. This is my
fundamental objection---you do not create it in a void. It belongs to
EVERYONE. Physical property belongs to NO ONE (so you have first-come
first-served claims). I do not for a moment claim human economics is
statitic---in fact, all my theories are based on complexity and
non-linearity. It is traditional economic theory that is based uses a
static equilibrium model of economy.
>So why did the listener make a dub of the music if they didn't get
>anything out of it?
To make the judgement.
>Indeed, I might be surprised that you get anything, much less fair
>compensation.
Believe it or not, I've outdone many bands who've had an opposing
view, sold over 500 CDs, and well on my way recouping every cent I
spent in the duplication, plus a bit more. Read
<http://www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/fmp_progress.html>.
>Netscape Corp. wouldn't be alive today if it didn't sell patented and
>copyrighted products. The browser is a come-on used to sell the
>server, advertising time on Netscape's webserver, etc. Were all of
>those things "exploit at will, pay if you want to", the company would
>have already folded. Or don't you think a megamultinational would
>exploit all Netscapecorp's resources without paying them a red cent?
Nope, because that example was simply used illustrate the power of
free distribution (Mosaic, before Netscape, was in a similar
situation, and if Netscape hadn't done this, it'd have never taken
off). But the real example is GNU, where megamultinationals CAN
exploit GNU resources without paying them a red cent. But it doesn't
happen because these cases would come to light and the multinational
would suffer a backlash. When you can get stuff freely from GNU why
bother dealing with a multinational? Enough of them do pay GNU,
however, to support its staff and keep the freeware flowing.
Intellectual property is a relatively new. People have created for
millions of years, exploitation or not, and people will continue to
create when the notion of intellectual property is destroyed.
--Ram
Based on the principle that if we were all crooks, we could at last be
uniform to some degree in the eyes of THE LAW... Once we had all broken
some kind of law, we'd all be in the same big happy club. ---Frank Zappa