Laws regarding cover bands!

I've had bands cover songs that we wrote, and I thought it was awesome.


It's stories like this that's making the music industry implode.
 
Congrats on your 420th post! ;-)
 
Notice that it wasn't the band that was sued, it was the venue, who had disregarded 40 or 50 letters informing them to get a license for $350 a year. The same would happen if they didn't have a license to serve alcohol or food.

Venues, shops, churches, etc. in Australia pay a license fee like this, based on numbers of people, numbers of songs performed, etc. and 90% of the money goes back to songwriters and artists through royalty payments. It's standard practice around the world.
 
In my part of the world, to even have a juke box, or one man band play music in an establishment, the owners must belong to ASCAP. I was in my local pub years ago when a suit walked in and shut the music down, and unplugged the juke box. The owner was also told not to play VH1 or MTV until such a license was obtained. In many cases the Juke box vendor will obtain the license for his machine but the bar owner must take care of the rest.
 
We have the PRS (Performing Rights Society) here in the UK. Every venue with music has to have a license and that includes a jukebox. It costs more if you're putting bands on. Hence why the live music scene has died here and everywhere is dj.

They do send out agents to venues, usually some banal incubus who harasses you about what songs you play. We used to make stuff up just to annoy them or name lots of dead artists.

I suppose the biggest trouble you can get in as a cover band is doing the tribute scene.
 
Most live music venues in Britain pay a fee to the performing rights society. That covers the composers.
 
If you read the fine print on DVD movies, or CD's, it says its licensed for personal use, not for public spaces or performances. Anywhere that plays music (or video) in public therefore needs a copyright license. Its the resonsibility of the venue.
Even my hairdresser plays the radio in his barbershop, so he has to pay a small fee each year based on a rough estimate of how many people come into his shop and how long they stay.
The authorities take random surveys of venues, radio and TV during the year and allocate royalties accordingly.
 
Well I guess I was just not aware of this practice. I wonder how many bars in this area pay the fee.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
In my part of the world, to even have a juke box, or one man band play music in an establishment, the owners must belong to ASCAP. I was in my local pub years ago when a suit walked in and shut the music down, and unplugged the juke box. The owner was also told not to play VH1 or MTV until such a license was obtained. In many cases the Juke box vendor will obtain the license for his machine but the bar owner must take care of the rest.
Click to expand...

Yes, ASCAP are very much present in the US and are often complete bullies! Any club that has live music is constantly threatened by lawsuits from ASCAP and BMI. Many clubs around me only allow original music now, and some have just cancelled live music altogether. The problem isn't just one group, it's both, and the fees are high. Even if you don't have live music, they charge you for TV and radio. If you convey TV or radio signal over more the 6 speakers at a restaurant/bar, you have to pay ASCAP fees.

In Europe, they have a similar organization called SESAC which does the same thing. They have employees who show up undercover at bars and clubs to see if they have music, and then report them to the organization, who starts legal proceedings. It's extortion-like.

Now, it's worth mentioning that I've done union gigs, and am generally a fan of the Musician's Union and the Pay for Play movement. I think artists should get paid for their work, but the licensing doesn't always work out. The fees are calculated based on the number of nights music is played (recorded or live) and the max capacity of the club (based on the fire department).

As a result, several cafes in the area can't afford live music anymore. Even if they have only original music, BMI or ASCAP agents could be there and if they hear even a reference to copywritten material, they'll file a lawsuit.
 
I get the why part of this. But......

I don't think the venue paid $350 for a year license. That is what they start at. This company rakes in tens of millions a year. And I doubt 90% goes back to the artists. The artists pay for the service to have these guys represent them in cases like this. It really is one of the problems of the music industry. They seemed to have crossed that fine line between getting their hands in your pockets and promoting their music. Sort of reminds me of the insurance that stores used to pay the mob to insure their store did not get destroyed. At some point it is going to bring down the internet as well.
 
I used to work in a few large retail stores and we were busted playing FM radio over the PA system. Elevator music or Musac(sp) took care of that since they had the licensing.
 
jmeirhofer said:
I get the why part of this.
Click to expand...

Well, let's just say it: it's greed. And people mainly tolerate it because they think they'll be on the right side of the stick eventually. But most of us aren't.

I get paying an artist for an album, or an MP3. I get paying an artist if you're running a radio station and selling advertising. But these people who go around to bars that are already squeaking by and hold the owners hostage for a fee because some band does a screechy cover of a Nirvana song, or they play a jukebox for quarters (which means the jukebox guy is already paying a fee) - that's nonsense.

It's the same as patent trolls. Patent an idea, sit back and let your lawyers sue everyone, and make money doing nothing ... except hindering invention and progress.
 
If you use music as a draw to bring customers into your bar/resturuant why shouldn't the artist profit as well. It's no different than the radio station using ads to make money. The fees aren't large enough to make any bar suffer. Bars pay bands based on how many customers they draw or bring with them at times, so they have to pay their fair share. I really see no problem.

Individual licensing fees vary based on a number of factors, including how a business uses music (live, recorded, audio only vs. audio/visual), its capacity, how many nights a week it hosts live music, etc. Smaller operations may pay as little as a dollar or two a day.

ASCAP offers more than a hundred different licenses, each with its own fee schedule, but we believe that similarly situated users should be treated similarly. For example, rates for restaurants of the same size, with the same use of music are the same regardless of whether the restaurant is in Oshkosh or New York City. You can find more specifics at www.ascap.com/licensing.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
In my part of the world, to even have a juke box, or one man band play music in an establishment, the owners must belong to ASCAP. I was in my local pub years ago when a suit walked in and shut the music down, and unplugged the juke box. The owner was also told not to play VH1 or MTV until such a license was obtained. In many cases the Juke box vendor will obtain the license for his machine but the bar owner must take care of the rest.
Click to expand...

When digital jukeboxes came about, bars would lease a Jukebox specifically to avoid ASCAP. The beauty of a jukebox is that the vendor has a record of what was played, when, how much money was put into it, and has pre-negotiated the revenue distribution with the right's holders.
 
Correct. Most have the license taped inside the front glass and normally registered to the vending company.
 
My brother's Beatles cover band was sued by another Beatles cover band a few years ago in federal court for unknowingly using the same name. Too many lawyers out there today. The matter settled but you really need to do you due diligence regarding names before selecting one.
 
NVIC said:
My brother's Beatles cover band was sued by another Beatles cover band a few years ago in federal court for unknowingly using the same name. Too many lawyers out there today. The matter settled but you really need to do you due diligence regarding names before selecting one.
Click to expand...

This is actually a servicemark (trademark) issue. This a really informative thread as I have always wondered how ASCAP actually works and how the rates are applied. It is interesting to note that this wasn't as big as issue until file sharing came along.


Mike

http://www.mikemccraw.com
http://www.dominoretroplate.com
http://www.patentcoachmike.com
http://www.youtube.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.myspace.com/drummermikemccraw
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mikemccraw
http://twitter.com/mikemccraw
http://www.skillpages.com/mike.mccraw
 
Mike that did wake the sleeping giant. Napster, if I remember, woke the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top