JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Industry Message Forum ASCAP fees for small venues

Joel,

Just because you want something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Period. End of Discussion. = )

The 900 dollar license in question still breaks down to 2.47 a day. If the venue chooses to only use a portion of those days, that's their choice. It's like suggesting you should only have to pay for your cable for the exact hours you watch TV. That's not going to happen. If they aren't open on some days, that's a business decision. If they want to have candles on tables, that's a business decision. If they want to use music to enhance the ambience of their location, that's a business decision. All of those cost money. It's their choice.

To answer Dream's question, if they pay the license, live music and recorded music (as described in your post) would result in the same license and coverage and thus no further fee. If they aren't paying you to play, and you sound as good or better as recorded music, you'd think they'd want you there open to close. Keep in mind that often venues use other excuses to not book people to keep from confrontation or hurting feelings. I've heard the "license" argument used many times by venues who really don't want to book live performers in the first place. Any rational business person would already understand the daily cost of a license and would make a rational decision on whether a business expense produces additional income enough to cover or not. If they decide no more live or recorded music, then their decision is that it doesn't add enough extra money to their business to cover it. Either that or they have little or no clue how to run their own business. I'll let you decide which applies.

In most cases, this is really just a pissing match. Venue wants it free. It's like getting free cable. Once the cable company finds out, they expect you to pay if you've been getting free cable illegally. That often pisses people off too. This is no different. Their ignorance that music should be free is not ASCAP or BMI's or your problem. It is their problem as the infringer. They wouldn't likely use music unless it enhanced their business. They should pay for that use. ASCAP and the PRO's have been given the right/responsibility by the writers they represent to collect their fees. The government set up fees to make them CHEAPER and EASIER for venues and others to use music, not the other way around. There are PLENTY of writers who would LOVE to do away with those statutory rates. But the government intervened to help everyone else BUT the writers use music freely for a reasonable (and some say too low) blanket rate. Joel's rant about a TAX is misguided. That "tax" benefits the venues and other music users far more than songwriters as a cost measure. I am sure that many hit writers would love to price gauge for the use of their popular music.. but the government won't allow them to get market rate. Venues and even guys like Joel should be happy that Statutory rates exist. Otherwise nothing OTHER than the most popular music and artists would EVER get used if venues had to pay for each and every song individually that was played/performed. And the cost of keeping track and paying thousands of different parties would be impossible.

Brian

Brian