BMI, ASCAP, etc. suing bars?

solo-act said:
Thanks - does it separate out revenue from live music licenses?

In a perfect world, there'd be reports for live music license revenue from small venues (less than 75 or 50 seating capacity). These venues often tell me they're being very aggressively pursued, multiple calls per day, every day, by three agencies as well as in-person contact.

I'm curious who the majority beneficiary is in a game that decreases customer exposure to product (live performance of covers) vs. increasing customer exposure to product -- which might help generate more streaming, subscriptions etc. of that product (industry needs all the help it can get). You think the latter would help grow revenue, but apparently the former is where all the short-term money is.
Click to expand...

Rick Beato has a great series on his youtube channel where he analyses great hits and what kind of writing and recording tricks went into making them great songs. And all to often some of his videos get taken down by youtube because some bands don't want others uploading their music on youtube. They would rather have limited exposure via their own channel, then from countless of other users showcasing their music. Rick even has to re-record those songs himself and play them intentionally wrong just to fool youtube algorhythms.

This is why he bitterly complains that rock music is dying. Young people are no longer being exposed to it as the old rock dinosaurs zealously guard their music to the point that their audience ages with them. He tells the story of taking his son to a Pat Metheny concert and his son noticing that the entire audience consists of old men with grey hair, not a young person among them. And that Pat Metheny is one of those who insists that youtube takes down anything with his music on it.

These small venues tell me they're being asked to pay for the same product three times over: On a jukebox, on any streaming device that runs when customers aren't using the jukebox, and for the live music. And not based on actual foot traffic, but maximum seating capacity -- as if that small venue is packed 7 days a week. That's what I hear on the street.

I also hear they don't threaten venues that CAN afford to meet them in court; they threaten the little ones who can't. It's very aggressive and relentless so there must be a lot of money in it. Question is how much, and how much of that specific revenue goes to artists?

The pessimist in me is thinking revenues are down since overall industry revenue is down; they're filling that gap through aggressive pursuit of small live venues; and they're not clearly separating out that specific part of their revenue because it's making up the difference.

I'm guessing there's some kind of oversight or regulation in place. If so, a breakdown of revenue and payout from pursuing license fees in smaller venues would be available somewhere.
Click to expand...

That's short term capitalism for you. All about extracting the most money in the shortest amount of time, with no eye whatsoever on the long term sustainability. As for the legal oversight, the copy rights mafia has Washington's ear, so don't expect politicians to do anything about them. They own them.

This is part of why I think rock music is doomed. Its getting less and less exposure, and its becoming harder and harder for new bands to get decent gigs. Venues get squeezed between the copy rights racket and dwindling audiences. So if they're going to book live music, they want an act that is guaranteed to pack the house. And in that regard rap and DJ's are beating rock musicians.

lqdsnddist said:
Yes... I'm sure they realistically would mind....

I'm just making a bit of light of the situation, and find the idea that fear of "the man" (who perhaps is working diligently for the due rights of the artist) could result in a future bar landscape where live/recorded music becomes essentially "underground".

I grew up in an era, right or wrong, where live music was on stage most nights, typically poorly done covers, and likely with little compensation to the original artist, and when said live music wasn't on, there was always a juke box, or sometimes just the bar staff playing CD's from their personal collections.

If they had a tv they also probably had Monday Night Football playing, even without express written permission from the NFL lol

Maybe that era was in the wrong, maybe artists got screwed, but it was pretty much the post work/weekend entertainment for a lot peoples youth, and there music which essentially provided the "soundtrack" for it. Its an odd thought to think that some venues might start doing away with live music, juke boxes etc, if they don't want to "pay to play" so to speak.

I'm talking half-joking here, but at the same time, its a real question of how things are going to look moving forward ?
Click to expand...

Back then the artists and labels may not have been getting much from all of those venues and cover bands, but they probably didn't need it as they had their record sales to comfortably see them through. Since that has all but dried up they're desperate for new revenue streams. Until this one also dries up. And then, if we're lucky, this racket will finally die. And then we'll be in terra incognita. Professional artists will probably not like it, that's my guess.
 
fractalz said:
BMI is around $4/head/year for "1x/week solo act" and $3/head/year for recorded music. ASCAP is probably the same. $3,000 / year would apply to someone with 200+ capacity.

https://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf
Click to expand...
Per that doc, a 75 person venue with solo performer, piped house music and a jukebox that is being asked to pay BMI, ASCAP and SESAC similar fees -- quick calc comes out to about $3,000, so what I'm hearing on the street isn't far from reality.
 
To further illustrate and clarify my point, I get checks to my label from Spotify, and checks from BMI and the Motion Picture and Television payments funds to me personally. But all the accounting is broken out to the penny from actual performances of specific works, so where there is actual accounting, that system is working.

Again, the problem is the public performance “fees” are not part of an actual accounting, and by no logical argument is the money always or even mostly going to the artists being played...
 
solo-act said:
Per that doc, a 75 person venue with solo performer, piped house music and a jukebox that is being asked to pay BMI, ASCAP and SESAC similar fees -- quick calc comes out to about $3,000, so what I'm hearing on the street isn't far from reality.
Click to expand...

And their formulas assume way too much/constant occupancy, and that the businesses are making profits enough to pay all their bills. In fact, more than 50% of all bars and restaurants fail in the first 3 years in my city. So this notion that everybody in that business is rolling in profits is totally the opposite of the truth.

Again, these mathematical formulas are crude and inflexible and nothing like the venerable practice of accounting..:)
 
Nice to hear from some folks that are actually a part of the system. Totally agree, the artists should receive their due reward accurately. I don't think anyone disagrees that some system should be in place to that end. What that looks like in reality is tough. Without an actual plan - even one that doesn't include the tremendous detail necessary to carry it out - the larger mechanics of making these changes can easily get lost in the labyrinth that is law making. I'm betting BMI et al have lobbyists, and they're only the most visible group that would be paying for legislation. Kind of an overall f*cked-up system. The music industry has changed so radically over the last decade (who buys albums? etc. etc. etc.), that the powers that be haven't ironed out all of the details of how to use the artists output for mo' money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom