quote:

---

"A BMI spokesman told Fratangeli that without a license, his pizza shop no longer will be permitted to hire local musicians, even for such special occasions. Fratangeli said the BMI representative told him it doesn't matter if a hired musician performs only his own music, "because sooner or later, he's going to play a copyrighted song."

---

They are not interested in the singer,players or even the material. They only want the money. The greedy dipwadds.

I bet,If they could, they would go after the guy playing in his own house. I mean playing any kind of musical insturment. (Hey, listen up BMI ASCAP, I know your stupid enought to try that) Pretty soon, they will try to go after the consumer just for listening to a radio,CD or tape. Now,you know all this stuff is copyrighted,so if you get any kind of enjoyment from the music,you should pay them money for the option to even hum a tune while you work. They can kiss a part of my body that I cain't.

You see what they done to music row and 16th ave. It's a deserted area now.

------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~crookwf/

[quote]Every song is an original song written by somebody.And every song is or should be copyrighted and published by somebody. And every song publisher is an affiliate of BMI,ASCAP or SESAC [/unquote]

Now don't you think that is up to the individual? This is still a somewhat free country. And I don't think that every song publisher has to be an affiliate. If they do, thats just another infringement on everyone's personal liberty. Ever heard of self-publishing?

As far as owning the CDs, but not the music, I think that is quite assinine. The purpose of copyright laws is to protect the copyright owner against someone copying the work without permission. But I disagree that playing the CD amounts to copying it. Where is the copy? All I'm hearing here is greed, greed, greed.

I certainly hope your get your 1.5 cents from the pizza parlor proceeds.

Bill www.wgpeters.com

This message Copyright (c) by William G. Peters Ph.D Unauthorized copying of this messages will result in an unpleasant day.

[This message was edited by William Peters on 17 May 2004 at 03:07 PM.]

The licensing agencies argue that if a business uses music to increase revenue, it should pay royalties.

I've told this story before but it applies here and so bears retelling. My wife's veterinary clinic was visited by ASCAP agents. They said that because the radio is played by the staff behind the counter for their own enjoyment, it makes the lobby of the clinic "more enjoyable" for those clients with their pets waiting to see the doctors. Therefore she should pay royalties. They also said that because someone who calls the clinic and gets put on hold listens to radio over the phone, she should pay royalties.

We'll ignore the fact that the music isn't part of the attraction of the business in the first place, as it would be in a bar. Nor is the music necessarily adding to the ambience of the place to make customers linger and spend more money, like in a restaurant. The customers of the clinic would be there regardless of the ambience because their main intent is to see the doctor.

The fact remains in this situation that royalties have already been paid by the radio station to the licensing agency. So the double taxation exists because people are paying to play the music, and people are being asked to pay for the music by simply listening to it after royalties have already been paid.

What did my wife do? She took the "music on hold" feature off her phone, and she instructed the staff to listen to whatever they wanted on the radio and ASCAP can take whatever action they want.

No response from as yet from ASCAP. It's been about seven years now.

------------------
Herb's Steel Guitar Pages
Texas Steel Guitar Association

[This message was edited by Herb Steiner on 17 May 2004 at 03:54 PM.]

All I'm sayin' is, if it's ME playin' MY OWN DAMN songs in some Starbucks coffee house, and I ain't affiliated with BMI, NO WAY should BMI get a penny from anybody. And for BMI to threaten shutting down a shop because "sooner or later" I'm gonna play one of their songs is immoral (Convicted and fined before doing the crime!) Will ya at least grant me that point, Michael?

They ought to go back to shaking down Boy Scouts for singing "America the Beautiful" around the campfire. That's so much more respectable, doncha think?

[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 17 May 2004 at 04:53 PM.]

quote:

---

damn right I want my 1.5 cents. -MJ-

---

Well, I certainly hope you get all that's coming to you.

Think about this. Should a restaurant have to pay continuing royalties to Martha Stewart because they painted their dining room with her signature paint? After all, they did it to increase the ambiance? People are looking at it. Think this is crazy? Its just the visual equivalent of music. And most of the time the music played in restaurants is about as interesting as paint.

How about an artist whose painting is displayed in a public place? Same goes here. If anyone looks at it, the owner should have to pay a fee by your thinking.

Bill

This message NOT Copyrighted by William G. Peters Ph.d, who has been infringed upon thousands of times by software pirating. Have a nice day.

If that's not a shake-down I don't know what is.

Buy my CD and play it for the entire world. Who knows, there might be 4 or 5 folks out there that like it enough to buy their own copy and I might actually make a little cash without any help from the gestopo police aka BMI and their extortion tactics.

Personally I have not purchased a new Garth Brooks CD in years because he got so greedy that he said that any retail outlet that sold used CD's could not sell his new CD's because he was not making anything on the sales from the used CD's with his mucic on them. I only buy the used ones so he can't make his 1 and 1/2 cents off of me

Just the Opinion of a musician who believes that the music is meant to be heard by everyone. BTW "MUSICIANS" are a vanishing breed, Now there are "PERFORMERS" who are in it for the paycheck and the music is just secondary.

------------------
Mullen SD-10, Nashville 400, Peavey Profex II

quote:

---

Yeah Jim I'll grant you that if it's you playing your own unpublished songs in Starbucks,you don't owe me 1.5 cents.

---

So, are you saying that if his own songs are published that he owes you money?

Bill

I think you would be much better off in all respects just sell your product yourself (like most of the players,singers and writers are doing now) instead of giveing most of your money to the greedy BMI but*****. I'm sure your income from your music would increase far more than the 18cents BMI paid you,while they ride around in their Caddy's and Town cars,which was paid for by money you should have received.

------------------
http://home.comcast.net/~crookwf/

Now consider another angle. A-Z Fishing Tackle store has a radio on behind the counter. Joe Fisherman comes in to buy bait. He hears a song on the radio, and then an ad plays for burgers at Frank Furter's down the street. Joe responds to the ad and goes and gets a burger at Frank's. Should A-Z Fishing Tackle pay ASCAP for the radio music and also get a fee from Frank's for providing a conduit for advertising? The radio station already pays music fees and receives advertising fees based on a presumed listening audience. If A-Z Fishing Tackle should pay music fees (on top of what the radio station pays), why shouldn't they receive an advertising stipend?

There's also the assumption that music played on a radio in a business environment will enhance business. I know there's no accounting for taste, but I don't necessarily like what I hear on the radio in these places, so the "enhancement" factor is debatable. In the gym I belong to, I don't like their selection of radio station. I go there anyway for the sake of my health, but I'd be a happier camper if I could change the station (I tried once, it got changed back later on).

ASCAP/BMI/SESAC provide a valuable service to help make sure music artists are fairly paid. I just think that music enters a complex web once it is released into the world, and in the arena of its use as an almost whimsical element in some store's ambience, some reasonable latitude should be allowed.

------------------
Bill, steelin' since '99 | Steel page | My music | Steelers' birthdays | Over 50?

[This message was edited by Bill Llewellyn on 18 May 2004 at 09:44 AM.]

If some whacked out dude approached me as mentioned above concerning me playing my own copyrighted songs in public at the local Pizza joint....the first thing I would make certain is that he represented BMI and spoke for them. The second thing I would do is file a huge CIVIL action suit against BMI.

Lets see what happens..

Right after winning the suit, I would write a book, go on Oprah, buy a new Vette', retire, and just hang out all day and do nothin'...

I thought this stuff still only happens in the movies..

Michael..it's good that you are being paid for your tunes..but thats not the issue here..telling someone to cease playing live music even though it is owned by the performer is like being in the Godfather movie..my thought is that this guy ( Self proclaimed BMI guy) was a local nobody with a desire to be a somebody..but without any chance of being a somebody with that total lack of common sense.

t

[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 18 May 2004 at 08:02 AM.]

the topic is about one thing and one thing only..

Some small guy with a Pizza shop was told that no one could perform music in his little Pizza shop even if they were playing there own music self written music because of some BMI so called rule which I doubt even exists.

BMI is a great service..but putting a strong arm on someone who is playing there own music in public is a Civil Suit they are not gonna' win.

This has nothing to do with written/copyrighted/published/BMI contracted music which is available for sale or use by other artists. THAT music has every right and should be covered under licensing.

This is not a misunderstanding it is a response to what was told to a small local shop owner in response to LIVE music..

So let me ask this to the BMI guys..

Are we headed towards no LIVE music anywhere if a BMI Licensing fee isn't paid ? Is this where we are heading with this ?

Recently one of the major Internet Radio show sites (Live365)started charging an extra mothly fee for licensing...I could not figure out where the money was going so I shut my show off. No one could even explain where the fee was going..they called it a blanket fee..still do..so who gets the money ? The writers or the adminstrators ? They never asked for a song list..they said it was generic..a generic fee..now thats something we can all appreciate.
Lets just send in the money and all be happy..

My real beef is that BMI told the above Pizza Joint that you can not play your songs there. BMI just cost you a gig.

I agree that it's no more of a rip off than the "Out of work Horn Player" from the AFM that cards band members. Still a rip-off.

Our local AFM can no longer recruit an enforcer due to the incident that happened to their last enforcer a few years back.

Lucky for her she wasn't a guy, or more than her car would have been damaged, at least that's the story I hear. She's still a union member, but no longer a band leader, her gigs are limited to Karakoe in dives.

[This message was edited by Joey Ace on 18 May 2004 at 11:29 AM.]

Copyright yes (I have composed songs that are copyrighted myself) but the article is about another "shoot rockets at mice" case. The guy who runs a bar and attracts people with (copyrighted) live music without paying for licenses steals from others (the composers), no doubt.

The guy who runs a pizzeria, sun studio etc. who plays either radio or CD in the background does not steal, IMO, because he plays licensed music that was already paid for (for buying the CD or by the radio station). Threatening and suing places like that is a total rip-off.

The worst thing (if it's true) is to forbid playing self composed live music. I never heard about anything like that. It's nobody's business but the musician's (composer's) what happens to his music. Even more, BMI steals money from the guy because he is not allowed to play his music, they do the same thing they accuse others for.

Kind Regards, Walter

www,austriansteelguitar.at.tf

quote:

---

There seems to be a huge comprehension gap around here when it comes to what BMI actually is and does

---

I don't think there is any huge comprehension gap here. Whether BMI or ASCAP is one individual driving a 1970 Volkswagen, or 1000 suits driving Beemers is irrevelant. The issue is whether shop owners with radios should have to pay protection money to BMI and ASCAP to keep from getting sued. You don't seem to grasp that issue. You as a music writer or musician were already paid for your work.

Personally, I think all background music playing should be stopped, and the sound of ocean waves breaking in the surf should be substituted. That is a lot more soothing to me than what is usually being played. The whole issue would go away, but artists won't sell as many recordings. Crime would probably decrease though, as people would be more sane when they weren't constantly exposed to rap music.

Consider this. It is never the shopowners who actually foot the bill for things like this. It is the customers who pay through higher prices for whatever goods or services they are purchasing. So, I as a customer am forced to buy something I didn't want in the first place. Its not the same as putting $1.00 in a jukebox, which would have been my choice to make.

quote:

---

it's not some corporate behemoth of rich secret agents driving around in Bentleys taking pleasure in running mom and pop restaurants out of business

---

Sounds to me like it is. I don't know the figure for BMI, but ASCAP took in $688 Million buckos last year, and kept $90 Million of it. The average Joe was paid $341.71 according to my calculations. These numbers came from their annual report. Man, you can buy a lot of legislation with that kind of money.

Here's another example of BMI's deplorable behaviour, threatening to sue a schoolteacher who didn't even use any BMI licensed music. I didn't have to look very hard to find it. Nothing but pure harassment it is. Ethically its not any different than breaking kneecaps for fun and profit.
http://articles.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1083/is_n6_v72/ai_20650585

BTW, No one is saying that you shouldn't get royalties for your published works. You should.

quote:

---

And if Jim's own songs were published(and I'm sure they are)and he was a BMI affiliate as am I,he wouldn't owe me money - BMI would owe us both money - get it?

---

Now you will have to explain to me why BMI should pay you for Jim playing his own music.
I really don't understand that. You did absolutely nothing to deserve it. Why should Jim's listeners be forced to pay you?

All you guys that have sound clips on your websites.... YOU'RE NEXT!

I remember when, as a club player, we couldn't play "Looking For Love" unless we paid a certain amount of money to ASCAP(?)

Now when a musician is making $40 a night, of we had to pay royalties for a every song we played, we'd end up having to pay out more than we made.

quote:

---

All you guys that have sound clips on your websites.... YOU'RE NEXT!

---

Got my "Mechanical License" for my website's tune. The last thread like this scared me bad

Gonna get another couple for this summers recording session ... which will end up on my site.

$42 a song ... keeps the "muscle" from squeezin' me for $$$$ ...

------------------

www.horseshoemagnets.com

[This message was edited by Rick Aiello on 19 May 2004 at 07:33 AM.]

quote:

---

This fee is then sent to all BMI songwriters as a quarterly dividend in hopes that everything averages out so some of the songwriters whose songs are used are actually compensated a few bucks

---