WTF? Youtube is now rejecting all types of music videos.

[Robert Hendrix]

I read an article about a garage owner that got sued because music he was playing on a radio in the shop could be heard by other people. Publicly broadcasting content intended for private use, or some shit like that.

-Steve

WTF?? That's just stupid!

Its even worse than that. In my area apparently ASCAP and BMI are now going around to even small bars and threatening them if they have cover bands playing there unless the bar pays ASCAP and BMI fees. We have had two shows cancelled because of this because the places we play are too small to afford their fees and now have no gig New Year's eve. And these aren't the only shows that got cancelled! I hope they continue to lose money in sales, hopefully more than they can make up for by hitting up local bars for covers being played. Soon the days of kids taking up musical instruments and forming their first band in the hopes of playing out locally will be gone thanks to these bozos!
The way I see it, the local bands should be paid a royalty for exposing the artists' music to more people who may even go out and buy the record.

This has been going on for awhile. I rememer a couple of years ago there were a few clubs around the east coast that made the news about it. Most ended up shutting down because the fines levied against them were so large they couldn't afford to pay. I remember getting into an arguement about it on a local music forum with a couple of "artists" here that claimed they got a check from ASCAP every year and that it was all for the protection of the artists. Funny thing is, I've never heard these local artists music covered in clubs or even played on the radio.

Its pretty simple... Its called corporate greed.

I'm sure somebody is going to chime in and say it is to protect the artist, but I would say that you have to be pretty naive to believe that. Youtube is a great, free marketing tool for bands, which ultimately results in more revenue for them (and the labels). If the labels are worried about money (which I'm sure that is the bottom line), then they are shooting themselves in the foot by removing videos. It doesn't matter who is playing the music... more exposure = more $$$.

I agree 100% Besides, wasn't the original intent of music videos to promote the record. I mean back before MTV bastardized the whole thing.

[UFORocks]

WTF?? That's just stupid!

Yep, here it is (LINK) Happened just over a year ago in the UK. I could have sworn I heard about this happening here in the states too, but maybe I'm cornfused. Either way, its beyond ridiculous.

[joelayres]

If this shit keeps up, pretty soon YouTube will be a ghost town. The thing that pisses me off is that speaking for myself, I generally look for instructional stuff and live footage that has not been commercially released. Add to that the fact that the quality of the videos on YouTube is generally pretty shoddy so it's not likely that any of it is being used for any type of commercial gain.

The subject of performing covers is a bit trickier, but I think most artists in general are flattered that cover bands choose to cover their material. Those who are not need to remember the fact that in all likelyhood, they themselves performed cover tunes at one time in their career so they should get off their damn high horse.

With that said, I did a little research to find out what the "licensing fees" would be for a typical bar with live bands 5 nights per week. Please note that I'm not taking the side of the publishers here but merely stating simple facts. Take it for what it's worth. ASCAP does not make their fees available online, but I found a copy of the BMI Licensing Agreement for Eating and Drinking Establishments (link at end of post) and made some calculations based on a popular bar that my old band used to play at in the 80's. Yearly licensing fee for that particular establishment would be a total of $2,736.00 - which breaks down to $10.52 cents per night based on 5 nights per week, dancing allowed and an maximum occupancy of 320 persons. In all honesty, I don't know that many establishments would go bankrupt if they were to be forced to pay this fee, which amounts to a couple beers per night.

What is the proper solution to all of this bullshit? I don't pretend to know the answer, but this much is readily apparent - the stance that the publishers are taking at this point in time is more likely to result in negative public backlash which is going to end up crippling the industry much more than helping it. Someone needs to get their head out of their ass and come up with a solution that will be perceived as a fair one by the general public.

*** EDIT: The situation linked above by UFORocks in the UK is utter and total nonsense! For cryin' out loud, they're sueing because employees play a radio at work? That judge should be flogged for not dismissing this garbage. The radio station(s) has already paid a fee to broadcast the music. Would it make a difference if each employee had their own damn radio tuned to the same station? It is precisely actions like this that make the industry look like nothing more than a bunch of greedy imbeciles.

Anyone interested in viewing the BMI License Form can find it here:

http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf

[UFORocks]

Correct me if I wrong but the artist doesn't actually hold any rights to their own music as it is, right? Maybe that's changed over the years, but they're getting just as dicked over by the record companies as anyone else.

[joelayres]

Correct me if I wrong but the artist doesn't actually hold any rights to their own music as it is, right? Maybe that's changed over the years, but they're getting just as dicked over by the record companies as anyone else.

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I do know that I have read in recent years that artists such as Motley Crue have retained complete and total ownership of their catalog. Someone with firsthand knowledge would be appreciated to answer this question.

[Newc]

Most contracts stipulate that artists do "work for hire", meaning they are basically hired by the label to write songs for the label to be released under the name of the band, effectively making bands mere session players.

When a band fades into relative obscurity or at least far from the top like Motley Crue, they are able to buy their catalog back from the label.


The issue of bands paying royalties for cover songs is for each person in the audience, not the venue as a whole, so if a bar has a crowd of 300 people, that's $10.52 per person.

This is similar to MS expecting people to buy 3 separate Windows CDs to cover their personal desktop, their laptop, and their kids' desktop.

As for YouTube banning covers, blame that on the idiots who stick a camera in front of their stereo as an excuse to upload retail products that are available at retail, and those who dump store-bought videos.

On one hand I agree with it because it means those of us who write our own originals are not being drowned out by everyone and their mother posting covers they learned from a magazine. As well it leaves room for those who wish to post their own instructional videos (i.e. lessons they designed themselves rather than Steve Vai's 10-Hour Workout or Troy Stetina's Speed Mechanics).

[Spivonious]

After going through that BMI form, the most a place would have to pay per year is $11,515. That's $31/day.

We might not like the copyright laws, and I agree that they need to be revisited, but just because you don't like the law doesn't mean you can break it. These videos getting taken off YouTube was inevitable.

[joelayres]

Ooops! Made an error in calculations as I forgot to include a fee for playing recorded music during band breaks through the PA as is common practice. This would increase the yearly fee to $3,552.00, which breaks down to $11.10 per person, per year - or $13.66 per night based on 5 nights per week, 52 weeks per year. I have included the fee schedule below which shows how this calculation was reached for a small bar with a capacity of 320 persons.

[Cleveland Metal]

Yeah, with how amazingly great the economy is, and how cheap, utilities, insurance are, and how DUI laws are really keeping people home in general, another 3-12k a year for a local bar (that is hardly able to stay open anyways) that has bands Friday and Saturday to play for their 100 customers, to pay out shouldn't be a problem at all...

Very few people want to hear originals... On youtube or in the bar...

Fucking ridiculous...

[Spivonious]

Oops I messed mine up. It says at the bottom of the form that the maximum fee is $9,560 a year. $26 a day, $183 a week. Let's say the average customer has three beers a night, 100 customers on Friday, 100 on Saturday, that comes to 600 beers. Raise the beer price by 33 cents and you've paid your BMI fees.

I really don't feel bad for bars that didn't get the proper license when it's that cheap. I'm sure the fines for not getting one are far more expensive.

And despite what the news keeps telling me, I really don't see any effects of the bad economy, except for Linens n Things going bankrupt and closing the local store. My company's revenue is up 15% from last year, and we're hiring new people every week.

[joelayres]

The really rediculous thing is that according to the fee schedule above, BMI expects a small local bar that has a TV to pay them a licensing fee (see section 5 Television and Radio). This is utter and total bullshit because the TV station, network or producer has already paid a license fee to use the music. Pretty soon, you'll need a license to play the radio in your car if you are carpooling to work - public broadcast. God forbid you might want to play a CD for a friend - thats public broadcast too.

I really don't have a problem with a bar having to pay the fee for live performances - in the example above it's $13.66 per night. Any bar that can't afford that minimal expense probably does not have enough customers to warrant having a live band in the first place. Or, the band can reduce their fee by $13.66 to cover the cost. I don't know what bars are paying now, but back then it was usually the door take, which at 5 bucks a head and 300 people in the house equals $1,500.00. No one's budget is being broken here.

[Cleveland Metal]

And despite what the news keeps telling me, I really don't see any effects of the bad economy, except for Linens n Things going bankrupt and closing the local store. My company's revenue is up 15% from last year, and we're hiring new people every week.

You're kidding right?

Hahahaha... Yeah, it's great out here... My unemployment check almost pays half my mortgage... It's all good, haha...

[diablomozart]

the biggest problem i have with the riaa lawsuits is that the record companies get the money...the artists usually never sees a dime...so it's not protecting or benefitting the artists at all...d.m.

[UFORocks]

The really rediculous thing is that according to the fee schedule above, BMI expects a small local bar that has a TV to pay them a licensing fee (see section 5 Television and Radio). This is utter and total bullshit because the TV station, network or producer has already paid a license fee to use the music. Pretty soon, you'll need a license to play the radio in your car if you are carpooling to work - public broadcast. God forbid you might want to play a CD for a friend - thats public broadcast too.

I really don't have a problem with a bar having to pay the fee for live performances - in the example above it's $13.66 per night. Any bar that can't afford that minimal expense probably does not have enough customers to warrant having a live band in the first place. Or, the band can reduce their fee by $13.66 to cover the cost. I don't know what bars are paying now, but back then it was usually the door take, which at 5 bucks a head and 300 people in the house equals $1,500.00. No one's budget is being broken here.

Found this info here (LINK)

Under the public performance right, a copyright holder is allowed to control when the work is performed "publicly." A performance is considered "public" when the work is performed in a "place open to the public or at a place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered." A performance is also considered to be public if it is transmitted to multiple locations, such as through television and radio. Thus, it would be a violation of the public performance right in a motion picture to rent a video and to show it in a public park or theater without obtaining a license from the copyright holder. In contrast, the performance of the video on a home TV where friends and family are gathered would not be considered a "public" performance and would not be prohibited under the Copyright Act.

Not sure exactly how valid or accurate that is, but it sounds right.

So based on this definition you would not be required to pay a fee to let your friend listen to your CD. On the other hand they might be able to nab you for playing a CD in your car with the windows rolled down.

-Steve

[UFORocks]

the biggest problem i have with the riaa lawsuits is that the record companies get the money...the artists usually never sees a dime...so it's not protecting or benefitting the artists at all...d.m.

I agree, but regardless of who benefits from the suit a judgement upwards of 800% the value of the shared and/or downloaded material is simply ridiculous and borderline un-constitutional. This has happened multiple times.

-Steve