Royalties All Around
Restaurant Sued For Playing Copyrighted Music
Music group sues Porky’s over copyright
Tony and I had a conversation about this very subject at Dragonmead a few months back. It’s a little known fact that restaurants and bars must sign licensing agreements and pay royalties to play BMI published material. BMI covers the vast majority of mainstream recorded music.
Interesting stuff. It sounds like the restaurant owners were given ample time and opportunities to comply. Considering that if they had just paid BMI the $600 licensing fee (and probably a similar fee to ASCAP), they would have avoided this lawsuit, it kind of makes them look silly.
I personally feel that a restaurant should have to pay a licensing fee to play published music (I’m not implying that you feel otherwise, Randy), especially since BMI adjusts the fee depending on the size of the restaurant, how much music they play, etc. Songwriters register with these companies for a reson, after all. Furthermore, all things considered, the fee is pretty small.
I’m pretty surprised at BMI’s diligence though. I wonder how many people they employ to do “surveillance” like they did at this restaurant.
I’m not completely against you this time Tony. It’s a bit gray for me. I understand that the music a restaurant plays directly correlates to the mood it has. Thereby the artists played in a restaurant are partially responsible for its setting and that may help retain customers.
My only frustration is this fee is completely one sided. The BMI ignores the fact that the relationship between artists and venues is symbiotic. Without venues (I’m including bars, record stores, dentist offices, malls, and restaurants) artists would have fewer avenues for promotion.
It’s tough to track the statistical relation of Bob’s Corner Bar’s playing Seger to Seger sales but I’m sure it exists. Yet, it’s never taken into consideration.
Also, I’m sure college coffee shops play a lot of Modest Mouse and Postal Service. Should those shops be charged for possibly helping move a few Good News For People Who Love Bad News, and Give Up units? Paying $1800 (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC) per year might really hurt places like that.
Oh yeah, I read a comment on this story earlier making a pretty interesting point. Paraphrased:
“Can the craftsmen that designed and produced the chairs and tables the restaurant uses also charge a yearly fee for creating the ambiance customers pay for?”
He makes a point. Look at the art on a restaurant’s walls, shouldn’t those photographers and painters be charging the same fee musicians are charging?
Based on the factors used to determine the fee that the article mentions, the fee for a college coffee shop would probably be lower than for a sizable restaurant. And still, I think the symbiotic relation that exists IS acknowledged by the smallness of the fee. $50 per month is pretty reasonable to be able to play BMI’s entire catalogue. A party of 2-3 people would easily cover your fee for the month. Even if you’re paying multiple agencies, the cost is still not very steep. I feel this is a nod to the symbiotic relationship that you mentioned.
Re: your second comment: It is an interesting point, However, the restaurant owner has to pay for the furniture and art that fills the restaurant, so the “licensing fee” is built in to the cost of the merchandise. You might say, “What if the restaurant plays records out of the owner’s personal collection, which he paid for?” True, but he paid for the right to play the music for his own enjoyment, not for commercial purposes, and I think the album has that condition printed right on it, right? That’s how I would answer the overall question.
But a local artist’s work isn’t going to keep charging year after year. If they did we’d accuse them of racketeering.
For the most part I don’t see a problem with the fee. Yet, I’ve been doing a little research on the subject and it’s not as simple as the above case is trying to make it.
There are many instances in which a venue doesn’t play any BMI (ASCAP SESAC) works and yet the BMI insists they pay the fee. Most of these venues have live performances by completely original artists. But BMI insists live acts “might” play something out of their catalog and being the huge entity it is, they usually win any cases that go to court.
I agree the fee is small. But when a venue doesn’t play anything BMI related it’s like taxation without representation.
In one case BMI sent a letter to hundreds of Girl Scout Camps demanding the fee. Scout leaders were afraid to have campfire sing-along of Puff the Magic Dragon. That’s pretty pathetic.
Here are a few articles of note:
ASCAP & BMI—Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?
ASCAP
APPENDIX BMI
Good articles. The first one is pretty enlightening. ASCAP definitely seems more shady than BMI, particularly when it comes to their method of sampling. BMI’s method, using actual playlists, is much more logical. And the fact that there is no set percentage of fees collected that ASCAP must pay out to members is mind-blowing!!
I remember posing this question when we discussed the possibilities with royalties from downloaded music. When there are millions of downloads, how do you make sure that every member gets their proportional share?
Regarding the art/furniture thing, my point was that, in essence, there is a “one-time” licensing fee that is charged when you buy the product. You buy the right to use the chair or table or painting as you see fit, just like you have to pay for the right to use someone’s copyrighted music as you see fit. There is no need to charge fees year after year for the use of a chair when you charge $50 for it to begin with.