ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are the three primary collectors of royalties for musicians and songwriters in the United States. When a song is played in movies, on radio or television, used in a jukebox, or played by a cover band in a bar, among other things, one of these organizations collects the money due for that use, and then gives a portion back to the songwriters.
This arrangement is simple enough, but the logistics of determining fees, specifically regarding using songs in a live setting, may be hurting musicians. For any place that allows live music, each of these three agencies asks the venue to pay a fee to pay for the costs of any cover songs played. The problem is that the fees are often too much for venues to pay, especially smaller venues with lesser-known musicians, and the fact that, despite many of these venues asking musicians to play only original music, these organizations still want to charge the venue these fees "just in case." In response, many of these live venues are simply not having live music.
With less places to play, this arrangement prevents musicians from making a name for themselves In addition, because royalties are so hard to determine logistically, ASCAP, BMI and SESAC have only been paying major musicians, whose royalties are easier to track. A BMI representative disgustingly quipped that musicians who are looking for their royalty payments should "write a hit song."
As venues give up live music and minor musicians aren't paid their royalties, it seems like these organizations are hurting the music industry just as much as a group like the RIAA. While ASCAP, BMI and SESAC aren't suing anyone, they are certainly making it harder for musicians to make a living playing music. [TechDirt]
I disagree with this article. I am by no means a major musician, though I have received many checks from BMI over the years... Not enough to live on (laughable), but it is money I never would have seen otherwise - Obviously one is going to make more money from royalties (if they start their own publishing and are the sole writer), if say, they have a song in a T.V. show, versus a song being played a few times on Internet radio... I mean, at a $.01 a play, it takes a lot of plays to add up... I just think this article is too slanted. These companies have been charging these fees for years, it isnt anything new. In the end, I think artists are better off being affiliated w/ these organizations, than not, as an occasional check for $350 is better than nothing... My 2 cents...
November 20, 2009 at 11:04 a.m.
Tony
I worked for a small bar/music venue and witnessed what were essentially Extortion techniques on the part of ASCAP, SESAC and BMI. I totally agree that something is better than nothing as far as the artist getting paid. But what if there are no more places for an artist to "start out"? For the giant venues that have the national/world acts coming through it's no big deal. None of these organizations can explain how they track what songs are getting covered where. It's just impossible to do! We're not talking small change for these small venues either... the venue I worked at ended up having to pay over $14,000 to these organizations... just to not get shut down for having live music! If I had a bar and was faced with such a situation, why would having live music be cost effective?
November 20, 2009 at 11:29 a.m.
jaybay
The licensing fees these organizations charge are not about simply live music. In many cases with small venues, even if the venue drops live music, their fees would not go down because they're allready facing minimum fees for the recorded music they play. Under copyright law, there is no distinction between live and recorded music. The royalties these organizations pay are the primary source of income for most songwriters who achieve commercial success in their profession
December 2, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.
Patricia Shannon
These organizations are also harassing small, non-profit, monthly coffeehouses, usually run by churches. Eg., ASCAP is harassing such a coffeehouse where all profits go to local charities, such as homeless shelters.
December 21, 2009 at 2:12 a.m.
Laura Marie
We've started a Facebook group in an attempt to start a dialogue with BMI. Please join "Keep Live Music Alive" here if you are interested:
Just to let you know, there will be no bashing, name calling, etc. We feel the best way to get answers is to enter into a civil discussion.
Thanks.
January 17, 2010 at 2:55 p.m.
Jesse Busch
I have run a local original music venue for eight years, and I can tell you that ASCAP is a crooked orginazation. They mailed us a letter about a show they alledgely attended, claiming our bands played five ASCAP-covered songs. I checked the date, and I can tell you ABSOLUTELY that these bands played no cover songs, much less the ones they stated. Unfortunately, it would cost us just as much in lawyer fees to fight it (and we would probably lose), so we had to pay it. I completely understand the right of artists to receive royalties on their music, but this was outright extortion. Anybody else experience these mob tactics?
I disagree with this article. I am by no means a major musician, though I have received many checks from BMI over the years... Not enough to live on (laughable), but it is money I never would have seen otherwise - Obviously one is going to make more money from royalties (if they start their own publishing and are the sole writer), if say, they have a song in a T.V. show, versus a song being played a few times on Internet radio... I mean, at a $.01 a play, it takes a lot of plays to add up... I just think this article is too slanted. These companies have been charging these fees for years, it isnt anything new. In the end, I think artists are better off being affiliated w/ these organizations, than not, as an occasional check for $350 is better than nothing... My 2 cents...