Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by dreamwalker:
Which brings me to the crux of the matter: IF the venues pay ASCAP (and BMI if they show up) whatever they are assessed, isn't that for ALL the music used during ALL the hours of operation? If that's the case, the business doesn't save any money by cutting back live music entertainment. So I could perform there more often, without ASCAP charging them more for it. Am I right? This is the crucial question here, for me.
</font>


I *could* be wrong, but the way I understand it, YES, you're right. It's an "unlimited" license for however many songs (live, or recorded) they want to play throughout the entire year. If they're telling you they can't afford you because of ASCAP, BMI, etc, they are either lying or don't understand their own bill & license.

It would be a little like getting "unlimited long distance" on your phone calling plan and then still fretting over whether it was day or evening hours and how many minutes you used, when you make a long-distance call. It becomes a moot point.

It's possible they *think* the fees are for live music only--in that case they're wrong again. They save money by cutting back live gigs ONLY if they're paying the gigs ;-).

Is it possible ASCAP/BMI etc come nosing around more quickly if there's live music? hm.... maybe they just want to avoid that bill that keeps adding up??

I did some quick calcs a few weeks ago at their websites (don't remember if it was BMI or ASCAP, sorry) on what licensing a website would cost, just running some made-up figures thru their online calculator. The most I came up with "owing" was around $300 a year, which didn't seem bad to me. I'm guessing if the venue's getting hit up for $1000, maybe they've been sneaking by without paying for a while, or something.

Anyway that's how I see it. I'm new at this so I'm prepared to be wrong. [Linked Image]

Linda





------------------
====================
Linda Adams
http://www.alyssastory.com