Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jason Dominy on November 7, 2009 at 2:49pm

I only mentioned Pandora, because I know of several shops that use it in their shops, including several around our area. Thanks for posting the legal info, bottom line is, I guess, unless your using the radio, or playing music yourself with your own instruments, own songs, and aren't signed up with ASCAP or BMI to handle your song portfolio, you're going to have to pay the piper to play the music. Even if very little of the money goes to the artist, and even if it seems highway robbery sometimes for something that can add very little to your bottom line itself.

Brady said:

From http://www.pandora.com/legal/ ...

"Pandora is for personal use only, that means you can't play Pandora for the patrons in your bar, coffee shop, etc."

If you have questions about other specific streaming services, a quick check of their terms of use should answer them.

On that note, a quick look over the material on the ASCAP, BMI, etc, websites is also time well spent.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brian Williams on November 8, 2009 at 10:54pm

It's my understanding that this is where it's going, or at least by design should be. As of now, cafes are a new element in the demographic. We all need to be more involved in and understanding of the process, and force more thought on the process than just a sampling of clear-channels top 100's.

Ask questions.


Brady said:

Royalties in the US are paid out according to how often the artists' compositions are played on a sample of radio stations. The PRO's do not disclose which radio stations are sampled, however it would obviously bias all pop artists and pretty much bypass any artists operating at the fringes - which is usually who we in coffeehouses are preferring. So NONE of the licensing fees that a small cafe would pay would go to the artists they were hiring to play.

That's not to say that I feel that outfits like ASCAP, etc are always bad for musicians. I know several artists that get checks from them when their music is used in films. However, the actions of some of their reps to attempt to collect in cases where there is no cause, and the threats that come along with saying "no thanks", do not benefit the small independent musicians. Its just a situation of a good idea gone wrong, done in by greed.

It is too bad. Maybe the US can get to a situation more like you describe in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joseph Robertson on November 8, 2009 at 10:58pm

Brian,
Thank a ton of the best espresso beans for your very clear thought on this topic. I am in complete agreement with you. Time to act instead of re-act to these changing times.
Joe

Brian Williams said:

It's my understanding that this is where it's going, or at least by design should be. As of now, cafes are a new element in the demographic. We all need to be more involved in and understanding of the process, and force more thought on the process than just a sampling of clear-channels top 100's.

Ask questions.


Brady said:

Royalties in the US are paid out according to how often the artists' compositions are played on a sample of radio stations. The PRO's do not disclose which radio stations are sampled, however it would obviously bias all pop artists and pretty much bypass any artists operating at the fringes - which is usually who we in coffeehouses are preferring. So NONE of the licensing fees that a small cafe would pay would go to the artists they were hiring to play.

That's not to say that I feel that outfits like ASCAP, etc are always bad for musicians. I know several artists that get checks from them when their music is used in films. However, the actions of some of their reps to attempt to collect in cases where there is no cause, and the threats that come along with saying "no thanks", do not benefit the small independent musicians. Its just a situation of a good idea gone wrong, done in by greed.

It is too bad. Maybe the US can get to a situation more like you describe in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brady on November 9, 2009 at 5:03pm

Agreed. Wouldn't it be great if the SCAA could take the sort of member advocacy/lobbying role that the National Restaurant Association has taken on legislative issues like this? Perhaps they have and I'm just not aware.

Until then, I believe its been said that ASCAP, et al have never lost a court case. Right or wrong, they are certainly much better funded.

Joseph Robertson said:

Brian,
Thank a ton of the best espresso beans for your very clear thought on this topic. I am in complete agreement with you. Time to act instead of re-act to these changing times.
Joe

Brian Williams said:

It's my understanding that this is where it's going, or at least by design should be. As of now, cafes are a new element in the demographic. We all need to be more involved in and understanding of the process, and force more thought on the process than just a sampling of clear-channels top 100's.

Ask questions.


Brady said:

Royalties in the US are paid out according to how often the artists' compositions are played on a sample of radio stations. The PRO's do not disclose which radio stations are sampled, however it would obviously bias all pop artists and pretty much bypass any artists operating at the fringes - which is usually who we in coffeehouses are preferring. So NONE of the licensing fees that a small cafe would pay would go to the artists they were hiring to play.

That's not to say that I feel that outfits like ASCAP, etc are always bad for musicians. I know several artists that get checks from them when their music is used in films. However, the actions of some of their reps to attempt to collect in cases where there is no cause, and the threats that come along with saying "no thanks", do not benefit the small independent musicians. Its just a situation of a good idea gone wrong, done in by greed.

It is too bad. Maybe the US can get to a situation more like you describe in the future.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Julie MacDowall on January 31, 2011 at 12:41pm

Hi Sue,

 

We too have been hounded to death by ASCAP. They threatened us for playing our IPOD in the shop, so we went with a Sirius Business Subscription.  Sirius pays the royalties, so they still get there money, but not from my pocket directly. (gives me some mild sense of satisfaction).  These industry vermin will stop at nothing...pandora is also not legal according to them.  This is a recent example of what can happen http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/federal-lawsuit-seeks-50-000-judgm...

 

My husband and I are both ducks.  Love Eugene.  We wish you the best...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brady on January 31, 2011 at 4:08pm

Incidentally, the SCAA has recently negotiated a reduced rate for a BMI license for SCAA members.  Though shops should still get both ASCAP and BMI licenses, saving 30% on BMI is a big step in the right direction.

 

Read more here.

 

Thank you, SCAA and BMI, for making this happen!

Brady said:

Agreed. Wouldn't it be great if the SCAA could take the sort of member advocacy/lobbying role that the National Restaurant Association has taken on legislative issues like this? Perhaps they have and I'm just not aware.

Until then, I believe its been said that ASCAP, et al have never lost a court case. Right or wrong, they are certainly much better funded.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brady on January 31, 2011 at 4:09pm

Also, I believe that Radio Paradise is ok.  It is also great listening.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page