|
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Originally posted by Joe Rotax:
Originally posted by murph:
In Canada we have SOCAN (Not sure what it stands for). Looks like the usual socialist crap to me.
|
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4821
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Canadian example only:
As a former Restaurant owner I can tell you here, the venue is the one who pays. (I never did as I successfully challenged the rep who came around) If you are a live music venue, you can bet a Socan rep will be all over you like stink on ....
The musician is not responsible. (isn't that just practical? They never will be.)
It's a flat annual fee for most and distributed based on an arcane formula that has a lot to do with how involved you are in the process and phases of the moon.
A buddy of mine does self-reporting whenever he plays original tunes in a venue that is licensed with Socan. He gets a symbolic little payment every once in a while. (more, of course, on any of his stuff that is actually sold/downloaded.)
Play what you want and 'Don't ask, don't tell.' |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | It's the same the world over, and it's a far from perfect system. Yes, the venue is responsible, and that's how it should be. The venue will also pay according to capacity and frequency of use. The guy who self-reports (as my band does) for the handful of published original tunes he plays in a few local venues will be paid accordingly. Maybe not as much as he would like but that will change when he has a hit album and Sony want to use one of his songs on their next Bravia TV ad. Then he'll stop bitchin' about how little he's paid.
Music is ephemeral and as a result the public think it's for free. It fuckin' isn't. You produce a piece of work and somebody somewhere profits from it's use, then they pay for that. END OF STORY. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 1225
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Personally, I pay for the songs that I download, I don't buy pirated DVD's, I've never had a "magic" cable box, and I spend quite a bit of money on concert tickets. If that's not good enough, they can come after me for some of my "ahem" profits from a typical gig. Let's see...after I deduct for strings, gas, set up and practice time, I would say that I profit about $100.00 for a typical gig (if I'm lucky). I usually play about 50 songs per gig, so that works out to $2.00 per song. So the next time I play "Heart Of Gold" .... and Neil Young happens to stop in for a beer, I will gladly hand him half of my profits, which would be one dollar. I will even throw in a little extra to make up for the poor exchange rate. I would also ask for my money back for most of his CD's that I bought in the last 15 years, and ask him "what's up with the sideburns dude"? It's 2008.
Socialist crap? Don't get me started. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | The artists are not the enemy. The Record companies may be assholes but they are not the enemy either. The enemy are the people who think they can exploit intellectual copyright without paying for it. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2004
Posts: 1225
Location: Lake Hiawatha, New Jersey | Paul, most of my post was sarcastic. Personally, if they came up with a system that made sense, I would gladly get some kind of license for myself. I just don't believe that a guy strumming acoustic covers in a bar with an audience of maybe 30 people is a big problem for the artists.
I would ask Neil about those freakin' sideburns though ..... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | Originally posted by John B:
I just don't believe that a guy strumming acoustic covers in a bar with an audience of maybe 30 people is a big problem for the artists.
I would ask Neil about those freakin' sideburns though ..... It's not a problem for the artists, it's about the economy of the industry, and it's about principle. The guy playing in the bar ultimately makes money for the venue by attracting customers who buy beer or food or whatever. The venue is therefore benefiting from the use of copyrighted material. Therefore they need to pay for that privellage, based on capacity, frequency of use etc. Even if he was playing his own songs he could self-report and get paid a royalty on top of his undoubtedly laughable "fee".
And you and I both know that the venues who claim they can't pay their fees to royalty collection agencies are unable to do so because of the ridicuously high fees demanded by the guy who strums a few covers to 30 people.
And you're right about the sideburns. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
October 2005
Posts: 4028
Location: Utah | Originally posted by Jonmark Stone:
I'll also add as a BMI writer with copyright's that have charted and generated both domestic and international residuals, I don't ever recall seeing live venue revenues accounted for on any of my BMI statements. That doesn't surprise me, unfortunately.
This geographic area may be a bit different in a lot of ways, maybe the music scene too. Around here, most venues do not have a license, so they require only originals. It is clear in their terms that the band agrees to, with a proviso that the venue can "use any and all means necessary" to stop a cover in progress!
One difference around here is that we don't have a thriving bar scene for bands. There are a few clubs with live music, but not many and they don't pay well. Most venues don't draw their own crowd; the bands are expected to advertise and pull in fans themselves. The bands at non-bar venues take home less than gas money usually. Taking in $50 would be a good night, excluding CD and merch sales.
My hypothetical revolves around the reality that almost all the local bands around here are not members of BMI/ASCAP, and are intentionally unsigned with the major labels. It's the new music biz where everyone is indie and everyone retains their own rights. Which means that a lot of artists will cover other artists' works with verbal or email permission.
So they all just shut up and play the music.
My girls do play in a bar/restaurant on Wednesday nights which allows covers. The problem there is the drunk 25 yr old guys hitting on the girls, not knowing that they're only 16!
Here's Sara's thoughts on the issue this week:
" We got hit on by SO MANY drunk men last night.
They would stand directly in front of us and watch us.
And talk.
And wolf whistle.
And howl. " |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 1126
Location: Omaha, NE | Originally posted by John B:
Originally posted by Mark in Boise:
Short answer is yes, but the better question is "why?" It's because we are all getting rich playing cover material in bars!! :p
I think I'll name my new Jaguar "Freebird". |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2005
Posts: 4821
Location: Campbell River, British Columbia | Flysig; just get the girls t-shirts or guitar stickers that read "15'll get ya 20" and "No thanks, I don't have Daddy issues" |
|
| |
Legalities of covers without a license
