The Gretsch Pages

Welcome to the Gretsch Pages

• Log in
• Register

ASCAP lawsuit/The Boss

• 

  • Rated: 5 ↑

  Feb 9, 2010 8:47 p.m. marz:

  This is the only BMI reference I could find related to acts performing covers in nightclubs; maybe they're sensitive about it? Note it's distributed on the basis of "surrogates."

  "BMI collects license fees from thousands of music users in addition to those listed in this booklet. These "general licensing" music users include, but are not limited to, hotels, restaurants, nightclubs, sports arenas, theme parks, airlines, jukeboxes and retail stores. BMI may choose an appropriate surrogate, such as radio or television performances, for the distribution of the fees. In such a case, general licensing revenue serves to increase the rates payable for other performance types which we determine are representative of the universe of performances of music used in general licensing categories.

  BMI also reserves the right to use surrogates when accurate distribution data is unavailable. However, we strive to distribute license fees derived from specific users of music to the songwriters, composers and publishers whose music is performed by those users. At any time, we may add a distribution source that was previously unmonitored, if accurate distribution data subsequently becomes practically available."
• 

  • Rated: 5 ↑

  Feb 9, 2010 8:57 p.m. marz:

  From ASCAP: "Of course, it would be impractical to monitor all performances in bars, clubs, restaurants and the like. ASCAP licenses tens of thousands of music users, such as these, that do not fall into the ASCAP surveys. The monies collected from these establishments goes into a "general" licensing fund and is paid out to members on the basis of feature performances on radio and all surveyed performances on television."

  So the payment amount and the distribution are based on ASCAP's stated perception of what is "practical."

  Basically, they just commit royalties from clubs to clients already receiving the largest percentages for radio and television.

  BMI wanted $2700 and threatened a lawsuit from an establishment - where I played once for tips in the parking lot - that had live music 3 times in 2 years. They'll never have live music again.
• 

  • Rated: 64 ↑

  Feb 9, 2010 10:07 p.m. FrequentFlyer909:

  I read the BMI and ASCAP materials on royalty collections at clubs, bars, etc. (the topic of this thread, when you get down to it). ASCAP sez:

  Of course, it would be impractical to monitor all performances in bars, clubs, restaurants and the like. ASCAP licenses tens of thousands of music users, such as these, that do not fall into the ASCAP surveys. The monies collected from these establishments goes into a “general” licensing fund and is paid out to members on the basis of feature performances on radio and all surveyed performances on television.

  It's "impractical" to figure out who really is owed the royalties (no, they didn't prove it, they just said it), so they just give more money to the members they're already giving most of the other money to.
  

  BMI says practically the same thing:

  BMI may choose an appropriate surrogate, such as radio or television performances, for the distribution of the fees. In such a case, general licensing revenue serves to increase the rates payable for other performance types which we determine are representative of the universe of performances of music used in general licensing categories.

  Yet somehow, the little Belgian version of ASCAP and BMI can send our Walter Broes a check from time to time.

  If there are, in fact, "tens of thousands" of these establishments (let's say just two "tens" -- 20,000) and they're all paying (on average, let's guess) $2,500 a year each to each agency, that's at least $100 million that is just getting tossed about willy-nilly with no true accounting.

  How is it that ASCAP and BMI members are happy about that?

  Edited to add this comment: Marz and I were on the same page(s), but he's faster than me. Paul/FF909
• 

  • Rated: 134 ↑

  Feb 9, 2010 10:21 p.m. Deed Eddy:

  Oh my gosh! Look who's got a copyright lawsuit going now!

  small world huh?
• 

  • Rated: 85 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 6:23 a.m. Jeff O(rdo ab chao):

  WTF

  The list the White Stripes as being from Detroit. They're not welcome here anymore. I spoke to 2 amp techs in the last week that're pissed off at Jack White. Demanding, and unpaying.
  

  Plus his amp has a Canadian Maple Leaf on it.

  And suing the armed forces - the one government body that truly has the good of the nation in their plans.

  FOR SHAME.

  GO AWAY.
• 

  • Rated: 64 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 10:25 a.m. FrequentFlyer909:

  Marz said: BMI wanted $2700 and threatened a lawsuit from an establishment - where I played once for tips in the parking lot - that had live music 3 times in 2 years. They'll never have live music again.

  That was bluster. There are plenty of anecdotes out there that demonstrate that BMI and ASCAP negotiate downward from their formula rates and their on-the-spot demands. A place that has live music 1.5 times a year can get a per-event license and probably pay $50 each.
  

  BMI publishes its formula for determining the blanket license rates on its license application. ASCAP's formula either is not on its web site or is well-hidden.

  Here's what it takes to approach an annual $2,700 blanket license with BMI (in parentheses is the charge per-customer-capacity for the whole year):

  
  1. Live bands 5-7 nights per week ($5.45)
  2. Charge a cover ($1.70)
  3. Allow dancing ($1.70)
  4. Customer capacity of 300
  

  Here's the math: ($5.45 + $1.70 + $1.70) x 300

  That actually brings it to $2,655, and the venue receives a 10% discount if they pay it all within 30 days of applying, making it $2,390, or slightly under $8 a day if the place is open 300 days a year.

  Plus, it's a business expense and gets written off at tax time, so that puts a little of that money back in the till, too.

  Here's an interesting analysis of ASCAP and how it does business.

  Paul/FF909
• 

  • Rated: 67 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 10:50 a.m. Joel:

  macphisto: said: the use right for that song has been (or should be) compensated already by the radio stations and providers of jukeboxes. to claim otherwise is no less than demanding the right to charge for what you've already sold to someone else. or, perhaps more accurately, wanting to collect for selling to a wholesaler and from the subsequent retail customer.

  Well, not all establishments have fancy digital linked or even rented jukeboxes from a provider. Our local bars own their jukeboxes. Most are considered obsolete by today's standard (...meaning they play CD's). Some are vintage late 80's/early 90's. I know the guy that owns the one at one of the local bars (....called "Willy's"). Every quarter put into that box goes into the jukebox owners pocket. So, folks like Bruce Springsteen, The Beatles, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc helped buy the the guy some new power amps and speakers so he could make his Kareokee side business bigger. Don't know this scenario contributes to the whole "sticking to the man helps bands" argument. There's just too many angles on a subject like this. It's not black and white. Sometimes the man doesn't live in some ivory tower in a fancy suit. Sometimes he's doing Kareokee on Wednesday night. It's not about who deserves what and these people deserve this and these don't. If someone has rights to a song that's there property. Until it becomes public domain it's there's. To me it makes sense to give back to live bands. Cut them some slack on playing covers and such. That's what got most of the people who've made to where they're at. Now a bar using music to create atmosphere in order to sell their drinks. That's a whole other story. I think bands learn at an early age that bar's will financially screw you. The one's that don't or won't try are few and far between. When you're famous they can screw you with you not even being in the room...
• 

  • Rated: 67 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 10:58 a.m. Joel:

  Jeff O(rdo ab chao): said: And suing the armed forces - the one government body that truly has the good of the nation in their plans.

  I don't think they're anti-military as they said. This is more like (...oh no, not another Springsteen controversy, LOL) when Ronald Reagan used "Born in the USA" for his campaign. It's a political issue. Some people believe what we're doing is wrong. Some believe it's right. The beauty of this country is you can be of either opinion and not risk being executed, jailed, tortured or whatever. Even if I agree/disgree I say America's a great country. My main beef is if he's getting any cash out of it. If he says nicely, "please stop using it" and if they take the proceeds of the ad and give it to a worthwhile cause I think that would be fine. As long as no profit is pocketed from it. Otherwise the whole reason for objecting is negated. Lord knows in the political climate today, a guy like Dwight Eisenhower would be drawn out and shot. For the record - I like Ike...
• 

  • Rated: 134 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 11:09 a.m. Deed Eddy:

  First, there must be proof regarding his claim of copyright infringement. You can't just say, "Hey, that sounds like my song, so stop using it!", you must go to court and provide evidence.
• 

  • Rated: 46 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 11:19 a.m. TwangOmatic:

  Jeff O(rdo ab chao) said: Plus his amp has a Canadian Maple Leaf on it.

  Maybe he recognizes our superiority.
• 

  • Rated: 43 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 11:23 a.m. atlantaspike:

  It must be to Bruce's unending bewilderment that a song that very specifically calls to account poor treatment of veterans has somehow morphed into a pseudo-nationalist anthem.
• 

  • Rated: 48 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 11:37 a.m. Suprdave5150:

  That's a long read, Paul.

  Which brings up more questions.

  If ASCAP and BMI and SESAC are competitors then you only need to pay fees to one of them? AND, if they are charging every radio station/T.V. station/restaraunt/bistro/Wal-mart/GAP... then why are they chasing down little mom and pop shops and benefit shows held outdoors at the local park?

  They're making a killing and the artist MAY get a fraction of a penny?

  I'm all for policing the issue and the artists getting their monies but that still ain't right in my book.
• 

  • Rated: 326 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 11:52 a.m. Proteus:

  It must be to Bruce's unending bewilderment that a song that very specifically calls to account poor treatment of veterans has somehow morphed into a pseudo-nationalist anthem.

  And disappointment and chagrin, no doubt. How devastating to an artist to realize that not only is part of the audience unable to parse irony – but part of the part that can't are people in such positions of power and authority that they could mis-choose such a song as a sales tool.

  Gives you great faith in the capacity of our political caste, donit? It's a wonder the man didn't completely lapse into cynicism.
• 

  • Rated: 17 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 12:47 p.m. macphisto:

  "meaning" is in the eye of the beholder.
• 

  • Rated: 326 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 12:54 p.m. Proteus:

  Oh, of course – but artists often do have intentions. Particularly one as frequently polemic as Springsteen.

  I suppose one could argue that he didn't do a sufficient job of tipping off his intentions in the song...still, an awful lot of people did pick up the irony. I suspect you did.
• 

  • Rated: 43 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 1:22 p.m. atlantaspike:

  You'd have to really work to get the "meaning" wrong

  I got in a little hometown jam And so they put a rifle in my hands Sent me off to Vietnam To go and kill the yellow man

  [chorus]

  Come back home to the refinery Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me" I go down to see the V.A. man He said "Son don't you understand"

  [chorus]

  I had a buddy at Khe Sahn Fighting off the Viet Cong They're still there, he's all gone He had a little girl in Saigon I got a picture of him in her arms

  Down in the shadow of the penitentiary Out by the gas fires of the refinery I'm ten years down the road Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go
• 

  • Rated: 85 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 1:36 p.m. Jeff O(rdo ab chao):

  joel said: if they take the proceeds of the ad and give it to a worthwhile cause I think that would be fine

  How about the proceeds being manning an army that insures his freedom so he can continue to play any music he chooses, practice any religion (or none at all) he feels fit, and generally lives in a capitalist society that allows him the luxuries he enjoys?
• 

  • Rated: 85 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 1:37 p.m. Jeff O(rdo ab chao):

  TwangO

  I'm not a hater. Some of my best friends are the underprivileged from Canuckville.
• 

  • Rated: 5 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 1:37 p.m. GreatGretsch:

  You better watch out and grab your wallet...the man may be coming after you for printing words without permission.

  Is it possible that you are projecting meaning and reason onto those who chose the song.

  Or is it possible the song was chosen for the 300 times the same line of the song repeats itself. I know I couldn't tell you any other words in that song other than the chorus.
• 

  • Rated: 59 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 1:43 p.m. MR TROUBLE:

  Well the song that ended up on the official album became a full rock anthem. The original version, which was acoustic, sounded completely different. In fact, early rehearsals of the song were done with Max and Gary Tallent in a rockabilly style. I think the meaning of the song got lost in its power and repeated shouted chorus of Born In The USA.

  That's one reason he brought back the acoustic version and added a slide guitar to it:

  Born In The USA
• 

  • Rated: 43 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 2:05 p.m. atlantaspike:

  Love your avatar, GG.
• 

  • Rated: 134 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 2:22 p.m. Deed Eddy:

  Born in the USA!, Ain't That America, for you and me!, This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land!....

  Funny how that happens.
• 

  • Rated: 326 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 2:30 p.m. Proteus:

  Tis at that.

  I stood at the tip of the point in Charleston, SC one time, looking around at that real estate – and realized this land ain't made for you and me.
• 

  • Rated: 43 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 2:51 p.m. atlantaspike:

  In the case of This Land Is Your Land the commonly omitted last verse is the difference maker -

  There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me;
  Sign was painted, it said private property;
  But on the back side it didn't say nothing;
  This land was made for you and me.
  

  I do love Woody and his music.
• 

  • Rated: 134 ↑

  Feb 10, 2010 3:07 p.m. Deed Eddy:

  My point was that these very "American" phrases seem to have become "more" than the original intent of the songwriters, to the point that they have become adopted as "anthems" if you will, to say "Yes, we're Americans and we love our country."

  Irony is ironic, eh?

• Articles
• Contact
• Site Map
• Store
• Radio

© Tim Baxter/APT Group 2006. Gretschpages.com is not affiliated with the Gretsch Guitar company. Powered by Django.