I asked Manny if he would consider moving this thread to the new Gig Reports subforum, where it seems most appropriate. Thanks, Manny. You do a great job with this forum.

Yee Haw, Dave! Your post made it back upstairs! Thanks, Greg and others who suggested moving it out of the lounge. Casual and controversial, perhaps...off topic, perhaps not!

Mike

First thank you to Manny for moving my post from the Lounge to this forum. If all the wheelbarrows of the world were filled with thanks, it would only be a start for everything you do for this forum. You are A Wizard, A True Star! *

Thank all of you for your heartfelt concern and kind comments. You are all my homeys! I have never faced anything like this. You do your best, you be creative, you make the gig happen, you increase business, you develop a following, you get great press- and then this.

So I still need an answer to my basic question:
WHAT DO I TELL THE PERSPECTIVE NEW VENUE - COFFEE HOUSE/SMALL CHIC RESTAURANT WHY I AM NOT PLAYING AT IO ANYMORE?

Please don't address the club scene,if they are having live music, they really should have their licenses in order. I am talking about mom & pop places just getting by and breaking even, but with enough vision to give the Stick and live music a chance. These are also the venues all of you will be seeking out too initially.

What do I tell them, when they scratch their head, that I increased business and have a following that IO dropped me?

Do i tell them that IO got hit with threats from ASCAP for a $150,000 lawsuit? that will only get me a door slammed in my face and shades drawn.

Do I tell them that if I advertise their place on FB events that I am putting them on the bullseye for these PRO's? ( They told Jeff that's how they knew he was having live music- his site would share my events)

Do I tell them that a MOLE came to IO and wrote my song list down? - oh yeah, I remembered he requested "Tenderly" which i bludgeoned my way through. Recent Check it is an ASCAP tune and I was set up. In Addition to him saying "was that Wichita Lineman" I said Yes, and then he wrote it down I asked why, and he sheepishly said "I'm going to add that" He sings Karaoke - IMHO is usually Neil Diamond not Glen Campbell/Jimmy Webb.
Also this character had sour grapes against IO because he was turned down about 7 times by Jeff to sing Karaoke there! not the right place- intimate not gaudy.

For Balance- MadSynthesist, players are NOT responsible for payment of the license, and eventually you'll find out, in my experience, you really can't tell the bar owners what to do- they are usually in opposition to you and just want to you make money and move drinks, whereas you need a place for people to hear you and your art. Plus, it can get pricey- Cefalo's, where I hold the Pittsburgh Stick Seminar usually with Greg, Tom G and Dave Tipton last time, that is Stick friendly, got hit with a $5,000 bill and Lenny Cefalo then quit all live music with the exception for us.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE MadSynthesist & ALL, - Jeff did strike a deal with BMI who was very reasonable and also purchased the XM commercial package, and extra digital box which monitors which stations and when it is used, in which XM covers the licensing issues.They did this to keep me playing. However, it was ASCAP and SESAC that came in and are independent PRO's.

How do I fight something I can't see-it's become a Kafka novel. or what banter or patter can I use to approach new gigs in a fair and true disclosure light?
Any help and ideas are appreciated focused on the direct questions above.
thanks,
Dave B "DBro"
*nod to a very early Todd Rundgren album

D Bro!

I think as a compassionate person you can only think about the impact on the people you are seeking to partner with, tell them what happened and what you think the risks are for them to have any live music in the venue (not just you), and let them make the decision.

At least under the current climate, I think that's the best you can do.

Also if they are happy with it, keep the promotion of the gigs off of mainstream social networks. Just use your website and local entertainment media.

Your story has prompted me to revisit my membership in ASCAP. If I am really helping them do this kind of thing to people I don't want to be a part of that. Is BMI really any different? Should I change to another PRO, for example or just go without?

I'll try to come up with an answer and act on it when I get back from Vancouver.

You're a good guy to think about the effects on others in this matter, as anyone who knows you would expect.

This is perhaps not the answer you wanted to hear, but trying to play music is tough enough without the stress that these risks can create. You have to realize that the liability for them right now isn't you, it's any live music.

Hope that helps.

I lost a gig this way 3 years ago. I wish there was something we could do as United musicians.

This is a threat to the very fabric of American music. I'll sign any petitions, picket whatever it takes.

I wish I had an answer for us

Brett

I am very late to this thread because I do not log on to Stickist as often as I should, but I thought I would offer my perspective as an intellectual property lawyer and musician. A couple of caveats - I am a BMI member and my professional experience in copyright law is limited - I mostly practice patent law. I do not have a dog in the fight other than as a musician and supporter of IP rights in general.

Intellectual property rights are always a balancing act between the rights of content creators and content users. In this case, ASCAP, BMI et al. (Collectors) are acting as intermediaries because the cost of each individual artist contracting with each individual user is too high. Of course, that sets up an incentive on the part of the Collectors to derive as much revenue as possible for their own benefit and (from their perspective) their members.

I hope there is no disagreement in this forum that musicians and artists should be paid for their services whether it is composition, recording, producing, mixing or performing. Since the value of recorded music is now next to nothing, providing services is all that many artists have left.

I also hope there is no disagreement that venues should have to pay for music (live or recorded) the same way they need to pay for food, alcohol, electricity, and employees. Just because music is ephemeral and intangible does not make it worthless. The cost of the music should be built into the price of the food, cover charge, etc. the same way as any other cost.

I have three suggestions:

1. Improve the pricing models:

An enforcement system that drives live music away from small venues is not a good system. It hurts the small business and the performing artists. It also hurts the content owners because there is no source of revenue when there is no music. It imposes costs on the Collectors who have to run around spying on businesses and incurring legal expenses.

As the RIAA (and defendants in their lawsuits) found out the hard way, just because you have the right to take legal action doesn't mean you should. Instead, you should find a way to make the cost manageable depending on the size of the venue and the amount of music they use. If the cost is too high you will either drive the music away or decrease compliance. In either case, the result is bad for everyone.

Streaming services have figured this out to some degree (not without creating other problems for artists) - if you price a service correctly, you will get better compliance and you avoid a PR disaster.

it is also important to recognize the difference between a solo artist playing a mix of originals and covers at a small coffee house and a professional wedding band playing covers only gigs multiple times a week etc. These factors need to be taken into account when developing pricing models.

2. Choice for content owners:

Artists should have the option of offering a lower cost or creative commons type of license for their catalogs and a list of these songs should be made publicly available. For example, Bruce Springsteen should be able to decide that he does not want the Collectors to charge venues for live performance of his music much in the same way some bands allow fans to record their concerts.This way, performers/venues that either do not want to pay anything or want to pay a reduced rate could limit their cover songs to this list. Fans can lobby the artists to put their catalogs on the list - easy enough to do these days.

3. Copyright Reform

This is long overdue - the current system is antiquated and woefully behind the times. For those interested, I co-wrote an article on the issue of copyright in the internet age that makes some suggestions although it does not focus on performance rights (http://tinyurl.com/l7cvjvl). Compulsory licensing, if done fairly, could solve the problem of overzealous enforcement against the wrong targets to the benefit of all.

One final note. The Collectors operate under an antitrust exemption which allows them to coordinate in a way which otherwise would not be allowed. The US Department of Justice administers the consent decree - http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ascap- ... eview.html. You can make your voice heard there (even though the public comment period for latest review is over). You can also see comments from all sorts of stakeholders here - http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ascapbmi/index.html.

Thanks.

Jeremy

Interesting post, Jeremy. I think the model for change you suggest is more than fair and could be a positive step toward recreating a music scene that includes more variety(except in the cover department, that is...unless the "list was fairly extensive).

Personally, I have always preferred a bands original music. And hope for a day when bands feel more confident in what they have created themselves. The quote I have heard, "How do we know how good you are if you don't play songs we know to judge by", has always troubled me though if I stretch my imagination enough(or shrink it, as the case may be) I can accept that other people feel this way.

So how does one go about promoting and idea like Jeremy's and see it to fruition?

Mike

Thanks Mike. These days, there are many options to get the ball rolling including online petitions and trying to get big artists who might be sympathetic on board. ASCAP/BMI etc. need to get pressure from folks who might matter more to them.

If big name artists get on board with pressuring ASCAP/BMI to exempt small venues (venues that hold <100 people?) from performance rights fees or greatly reducing the rates that would provide one form of pressure to move things along. On the other side, comments from organizations to the Department of Justice would also help. But in my experience, contacting your local Congressman could bring faster results depending on where you live. The issue can easily be framed in terms of helping small business and it could be an issue a local (or regional or national) Chamber of Commerce can get behind.

I will look into the issue some more.

Jeremy

You CANNOT address this issue without a call to arms where the club scene is concerned. The entire framework for licensing clubs to host cover bands is a JOKE. It is IMMORAL to place the financial burden at the feet of musicians who play covers and the clubs for the ostensible purpose of reimbursing the musicians, because THE AUTHORS WILL NEVER SEE THE MONEY. Sorry, but Steven Pearcy from RATT will not see a dime of the money earned from some guy's cover of "Round and Round." I understand the concept of intellectual and artistic property. I also understand reality. It ain't gonna happen. ASCAP is using the money to control music and musicians as they have always done.

Bring this topic back into focus. The entire issue concerns whether there should be licenses at all for poor musicians playing cover tunes for people eating chicken fingers and enjoying a drink at happy hour after work on a Thursday evening. Who cares?? Why should this be enshrined into law? Why should the clubs have to submit to a licensing infrastructure in order to have poor musicians come to their clubs and play?

More often than not, regulation stifles growth and thwarts prosperity. In this case, both the clubs and the musicians lose; on top and on bottom. There is no argument against this very simple, supremely observable FACT.



Your best bet is to not mention a word about IO. ASCAP has already stigmatized you. That's how they work. You are either with them or against them. This is how they strongarm working musicians in favor of those who still labor under the misapprehension that prostituting themselves is a requirement for success in the industry. The fact is, the internet has pushed the reset button, and ASCAP was the last to get the memo.

I don't understand why left-leaning musicians would support such a corporate infrastructure. They rail against Monsanto, rail against Wall Street, rail against monoculture, but crawl into the armpit of ASCAP. Nonsense. ASCAP is the Monsanto of the music industry. I thought corporations were the bad guys. Right?



Not in the context of getting a gig. The fact is, you'll have to bullshit at this point to get a gig because ASCAP screwed you.



No, tell everyone else, though. And drop names. The people who feel this sort of activity is okay need to be driven out of town. Even a guy on this forum has identified himself as one person who feels this is okay. Well, it isn't okay... It's really just screwing clubs and the musicians who play there in order to make a dollar. Totally cutthroat activity.

Just keeping things honest.

K Rex

I wonder where BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC stand on the issue of mechanical music licenses.