Laws regarding cover bands!

AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken said:
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.
Click to expand...

Greed? By the songwriter who crafted the song which the venue and band both profit from? The songwriter shouldn't benefit financially from his craft? The songwriter who is now getting stiffed by music streaming, iTunes and file sharing?

ASCAP, at least theoretically, provides a way for the songwriter to be compensated for such intellectual property which the songwriter created. Sometimes, I think far too many people are getting too used to the idea of everything being "free". This is why there are few good record deals any longer; the record label presents an artist, whom they have put time, money and effort into (investment), with the intent of making a profit (return). The label which is successful takes that profit and finds more artists to develop and nurture (investment), again, with the intent to make a profit (return). The problem is in the current state of "free" music is that profit has become so small that the record labels are now just a few people repackaging the hits of bands into collections rather than develop new talent. Bottom line; while there are many people consuming music, few are actually paying for said consumption.


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
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
Mike that did wake the sleeping giant. Napster, if I remember, woke the world.
Click to expand...

And I remember thinking how big of a jerk Lars Ulrich was until I learned what it was that he was actually fighting for! Napster was allowing the free distribution of copyrighted material - everyone's copyrighted material - and claiming that they were not responsible. I also recall some people making fun of me because i was still paying for music!

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
 
Skitch said:
Greed? By the songwriter who crafted the song which the venue and band both profit from? The songwriter shouldn't benefit financially from his craft? The songwriter who is now getting stiffed by music streaming, iTunes and file sharing?
Click to expand...

Yes. Greed. As in, excessive desire for profit from your endeavor. I enumerated the many ways in which songwriters are compensated for their craft. Surely there are reasonable limits. Or would you be cool with a $1 fee auto-charged to your credit card every time you hum "Wonderwall"?

Skitch said:
ASCAP, at least theoretically, provides a way for the songwriter to be compensated for such intellectual property which the songwriter created. Sometimes, I think far too many people are getting too used to the idea of everything being "free".
Click to expand...

That might possibly be relevant had anyone proposed any such thing.

I agree, a lot of people want stuff for free. Try making a living developing apps, for example: we're actually told that $1 is 'too much' for any app, no matter what it does. But it's also the case that the millionaire singer-songwriter is a recent invention, and one that has quite probably passed its prime. Those Tin Pan Alley guys didn't get rich writing songs, and Frank Sinatra got rich doing performances and selling albums, not hustling guys mimicking his style doing 'My Way'. If Lars Ulrich wants to own a big mansion, he should earn that from performances and sales, not sketchy extortion revenue schemes enforced by ASCAP weasels.

But that's just my opinion :p
 
Last edited:
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken said:
Yes. Greed. As in, excessive desire for profit from your endeavor. I enumerated the many ways in which songwriters are compensated for their craft. Surely there are reasonable limits. Or would you be cool with a $1 fee auto-charged to your credit card every time you hum "Wonderwall"?



That might possibly be relevant had anyone proposed any such thing.

I agree, a lot of people want stuff for free. Try making a living developing apps, for example: we're actually told that $1 is 'too much' for any app, no matter what it does. But it's also the case that the millionaire singer-songwriter is a recent invention, and one that has quite probably passed its prime. Those Tin Pan Alley guys didn't get rich writing songs, and Frank Sinatra got rich doing performances and selling albums, not hustling guys mimicking his style doing 'My Way'. If Lars Ulrich wants to own a big mansion, he should earn that from performances and sales, not sketchy extortion revenue schemes enforced by ASCAP weasels.

But that's just my opinion :p
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you smell like patchouli. Only people that take more than they give think that sharing should be a law. It's their property, so it's their right to charge you if you're making money from it.
 
Lets hope you never make any product that people rip off at will. You may well change your mind. How much money does Coca Cola make. You feel OK in going into a store and just walking out with a can because they too are weasels? Wow. Lots to learn....

Humming Wonderwall and making money off of it are two different things.
 
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in your explanation as to how protecting a patent is hindering progress. I'd argue the reverse is true. Why bother going through the cost & effort to innovate when others will simply copy your idea? Additionally, have you any idea of the cost of defending a patent?

To play devil's advocate however, there's aways the charge of patents being granted too readily despite clear evidence of prior art. I'm not able to give any drum industry examples of that - obviously ;) ;) ;)
 
Skitch said:
And I remember thinking how big of a jerk Lars Ulrich was until I learned what it was that he was actually fighting for! Napster was allowing the free distribution of copyrighted material - everyone's copyrighted material - and claiming that they were not responsible. I also recall some people making fun of me because i was still paying for music!
Click to expand...

Some of us have the best of both worlds (a library card). I can sign out any music I wish for free, because we've already paid for it with our taxes.
 
I'm not sure why any self-respecting musician would go off on ASCAP, etc.

Are you saying it's okay that the song writers, et.al. don't deserve to get any sort of royalties for the performances of their songs?

I was reading this thread and frankly pretty surprised by the attitudes of some of the posters. As another poster noted, I think it has a lot to do with the "everything should be free" attitudes by so many people in society. It blows my mind.

If bars and clubs want to have music, live or otherwise, they'd better pony up. Do you think sports bars just have cheap "home cable service" for all the ball games and multiple televisions? The licenses for that stuff is expensive.

Music deserves the same respect.
 
SEA said:
I'm not sure why any self-respecting musician would go off on ASCAP, etc.

Are you saying it's okay that the song writers, et.al. don't deserve to get any sort of royalties for the performances of their songs?
Click to expand...

I think he was saying ASCAP uses extortive practices to force venue owners to pay a license that they often don't need, and that the revenue distribution of proceeds doesn't benefit artists in the manner it should.

Many of us are for an ASCAP, just not the incarnation of ASCAP that we've been handed.
 
KamaK said:
I think he was saying ASCAP uses extortive practices to force venue owners to pay a license that they often don't need, and that the revenue distribution of proceeds doesn't benefit artists in the manner it should.

Many of us are for an ASCAP, just not the incarnation of ASCAP that we've been handed.
Click to expand...

+1 KamaK. I think a lot of folks, myself included, think ASCAP goes above and beyond what is expected to be reasonable. And I do not see it benefitting the musician as they would claim.

I used to do Motorsports photography. People used my images not just on their web pages but in publications without permission on a regular basis. And some still do. I likely could find several hundred right now with a simple Google search, many of which have had my copyright mark removed. My point is that we are in a digital age where file sharing has become inevitable. You are not going to control that without killing it entirely. What is next? Will you have to pay a fee to resell your CD or DVD? What about your legally purchased digital files? If you post a cover you do of a song on YouTube, will you have to pay a fee? There are a lot of untapped venues out there for ASCAP to go after. They are just at the tip of the iceberg.
 
SEA said:
I'm not sure why any self-respecting musician would go off on ASCAP, etc.

Are you saying it's okay that the song writers, et.al. don't deserve to get any sort of royalties for the performances of their songs?

I was reading this thread and frankly pretty surprised by the attitudes of some of the posters. As another poster noted, I think it has a lot to do with the "everything should be free" attitudes by so many people in society. It blows my mind.

If bars and clubs want to have music, live or otherwise, they'd better pony up. Do you think sports bars just have cheap "home cable service" for all the ball games and multiple televisions? The licenses for that stuff is expensive.

Music deserves the same respect.
Click to expand...


Full agreement here with everything said!

Thank you, SEA!
 
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken said:
Yes. Greed. As in, excessive desire for profit from your endeavor. I enumerated the many ways in which songwriters are compensated for their craft. Surely there are reasonable limits.
Click to expand...

Everybody's for "reasonable limits" on incomes when it comes to artists. For every other business on earth, not so much. It's an anti-art position that I'm always a little shocked to hear from people who are nominally artists themselves.
 
toddbishop said:
Everybody's for "reasonable limits" on incomes when it comes to artists. For every other business on earth, not so much.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that this is true. We elect congress to regulate interstate commerce. We chartered the FDA to make sure the food and medicine we buy won't kill us, and the FCC to regulate the air waves. Just about every industry is a balance between overregulation and corporate greed.

My gripes with ASCAP are the following:

1: Lack of license options. If I want to have a musical Christmas party in my non-musical venue (no radio, no performances, etc), I am encouraged to pay an annual license, despite only needing a one-day license. I think the current license is something like Occupancy*$3 with a $350 minimum. (other licenses exist, but are rarely presented, especially after a violation)

2: Venues that do not play music are encouraged to get a license even if they don't need one because someone "might" play music. Examples: A restaurant gets hit with an ASCAP violation because the dishwasher is listening to a personal radio.

3: ASCAP demanding fees for music that they do not hold rights to (Clubs that host original music). I do not want ASCAP collecting fees for 'my' music that they do not hold rights to, and giving the proceeds to label-artists who did not contribute to the work.
 
Last edited:
toddbishop said:
Everybody's for "reasonable limits" on incomes when it comes to artists. For every other business on earth, not so much.
Click to expand...

I disagree - there are 'reasonable limits' on all kinds of things, such as 'fair use' policies, permitting things like the use of clips from a movie to make a video telling people why you think it sucks. Normally showing clips from a movie would get you pegged by some other thuggish trade union (they still try to do it even with the law in place).

If a pharmaceutical company jacks up the price of a pill 500x society generally shouts them down and Congress gets involved.

Also, it's worth considering what makes art different. This is an old argument: to what extent does an artistic creation belong to the artist, and to what extent does it belong to the people?

toddbishop said:
It's an anti-art position that I'm always a little shocked to hear from people who are nominally artists themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that's errant nonsense. There is nothing "anti-art" about finding it obnoxious to hustle club owners or bands because they want to cover a popular song. At some point the mechanism becomes more about perpetuating itself than it does about 'protecting artists'. With ASCAP, RIAA, etc., I think we passed that point a long time ago.

But I imagine yet another person will gloss over this reply and insist I'm saying that artists "shouldn't be paid!!!!", so whatever.
 
SEA said:
If bars and clubs want to have music, live or otherwise, they'd better pony up. Do you think sports bars just have cheap "home cable service" for all the ball games and multiple televisions? The licenses for that stuff is expensive.

Music deserves the same respect.
Click to expand...

Quick question: if a club hosted people re-enacting a play from a ball game, would they have to pay a licensing fee?
 
I didn't gloss over and I don't think you are saying artists shouldn't be paid. But playing someone else's music for four hours a night, in a band, and getting paid for it does not fit the definition of fair use by any means. Showing a clip of a movie, to tell someone you think it sucks, would be a reasonable definition of fair use. Copying someones music files to avoid paying for them, Napster, or using a band, that is making money, to draw a crowd to your pub, to make money, is not fair use, and will never be confused as fair use. If you don't feel these rules are worthy or that ASCAP oversteps it's bounds, then I would find a way to make money where you are not infringing on someones else's work. You cannot make a T-shirt with someones likeness on for profit without permission. You cannot make a copy of the Mona Lisa even if you have the skill to paint it yourself, and sell it for profit. Copying a term paper, which you are doing for a class, and not money, is illegal, because you don't own the material but are representing it as yours. You don't have to like it, but for now, it's the law.
 
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken said:
Quick question: if a club hosted people re-enacting a play from a ball game, would they have to pay a licensing fee?
Click to expand...

If you watch televised pro games there is a statement about using it without permission, or copying or re-enacting without permission. So yes you may be violating copyright law. I say may, that's a bit different than using the entire game and not just one play. ESPN has a to get permission to show replays from any sports league.
 
GRUNTERSDAD said:
Copying someones music files to avoid paying for them, Napster, or using a band, that is making money, to draw a crowd to your pub, to make money, is not fair use, and will never be confused as fair use. If you don't feel these rules are worthy or that ASCAP oversteps it's bounds, then I would find a way to make money where you are not infringing on someones else's work. You cannot make a T-shirt with someones likeness on for profit without permission. You cannot make a copy of the Mona Lisa even if you have the skill to paint it yourself, and sell it for profit. Copying a term paper, which you are doing for a class, and not money, is illegal, because you don't own the material but are representing it as yours. You don't have to like it, but for now, it's the law.
Click to expand...

Again, I am not defending, nor have I ever defended, actual theft such as Napster.

But the issue here is one of scale. Why is making a video with movie clips considered 'fair use' (for now)? Because it's making a new form of entertainment with aspects of someone else's property. The discussion wouldn't be possible without the use of the media, it doesn't replace or usurp the original media.

Can't the same be said about cover bands?

Certainly there are limits. I have friends who run a very successful Tom Petty cover band, and they ran into some issues recently because a local radio station wanted to broadcast a show they were playing (as some local 'cover band-a-palooza' thing), and it all fell through because they couldn't get rights. And I can kind of see that: it's a cover band, being broadcast on the air, by a radio station, to sell advertising. There's a mechanism there.

But the same cover band just playing a gig in a bar, getting people to buy some drinks, making $400 for the night? I just don't see that being an issue, being about 'hating art and artists', or not wanting the right people to get paid.

And the problem is when you empower people with these laws they lose all ability to be nuanced and even-handed with the laws. It's the Feds busting kids for opening lemonade stands.

I'm not a musician, I'm a programmer, and I've frequently lamented not having gone to music school ... then I reflect on how you never see someone programming on a street corner for ready cash. It's true that I don't really have to worry much about making a living from music. But on the other hand, maybe the people who are trying to make a living at music are looking for too many easy ways to keep the cash flowing with minimal effort?

There are lots of bands that make a very decent living - more than I earn, certainly - selling their own records and selling out live shows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top