Same Library For Multiple Systems

[SoftJock Rick]

You'll make a fine lawyer someday Bob... xf

When you pass the Bar, I might even hire you -- hell, you've managed to confound the heck out of me with a ton of BS, that has nothing to do with commercial use...

Perhaps you should run for Congress...

 

[Proformance]

You haven't demonstrated anything to be BS - just an unwillingness to accept or research it.

 

[Proformance]

Want to get really confounded?

If I want to make a sing-a-long instrumental CD of you rsong I only need a compulsory license (~$15). If I want to include a little paper booklet with the lyrics on it I need to get a publishing license from the lyricist (that may be you or someone else.) If I want to have he lyrics on screen (CD+G) on a blue background I need to expand my publishing license to include video, and negotiate a sync license to synchronize that video in time with your song. If I want to add pictures to the background I need to expand my sync license to include the new specific content.

There is a lot of karaoke product out there that was never fully licensed. Karaoke manufacturers went ahead and produced product assuming they would get or didn't need certain sync or publishing licenses and when those licenses were denied and their court claim rejected - they had already sold many thousands of the ill-produced discs.

 

[SoftJock Rick]

You haven't demonstrated anything to be BS - just an unwillingness to accept or research it.

I've been in court before a judge, been in front of a mediator. Have you?

You're copying and pasting stuff. That's why I asked your real world experience, and how many cases you have won.

You are an end user Bob -- I am a creator of content, that is MY IP. All you care about, is how you can make commercial gain off what people like me do. You don't do squat yourself -- you rely on other people to do it for you, and then you play their music so you can make money.

Spin it whatever way you like, but you are profiting off others hard work, and trying to shirk your responsibility for doing so. Nobody has busted some of your asses yet -- but perhaps it's time...

 

[JamesY]

So Rick...

Are you saying DJ's contracted for private events (regardless of venue - hotel, backyard, etc.) are legally bound to pay performance royalties to every artist who created every song they play that evening?

 

[steve149]

If you are DJing for money, then legally, SOMEONE has to pay for the performance rights, either the venue or you. I don't buy the deal that if you are doing a "private" party that somehow you are exempt, regardless of location .. if it's for money, someone should pay .. even churches need performance licensing for music played outside of a religious service (including for weddings). So, technically, we should be comparing all songs with the venues licensing to see if someone (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, or Rick) is entitled to performance royalties each time we go somewhere new and if the venue doesn't cover it, someone else needs to (maybe even the DJ).

Do I do it, no .. I assume the venue did .. here it is the traditional licensor. Should I, I don't know, that might be a viable discussion point away from the public/private issues.

 

[Proformance]

I've been in court before a judge, been in front of a mediator. Have you?

On what issue? What law? What was the judges specific interpretation? I'm perfectly willing to learn the relevance to music copyrights of some new decision. Just don't ask me to infer authority on the basis of breathing courthouse air.

Everything I've given you is well documented - much perhaps even on the internet.

You're copying and pasting stuff. That's why I asked your real world experience, and how many cases you have won.

I'm actually writing entirely out of memory. Perhaps if you look some of it up you can show it to be BS but, so far all you've shown is arrogance. This is not about me.

You are an end user Bob -- I am a creator of content, that is MY IP. All you care about, is how you can make commercial gain off what people like me do. You don't do squat yourself -- you rely on other people to do it for you, and then you play their music so you can make money.

Spin it whatever way you like, but you are profiting off others hard work, and trying to shirk your responsibility for doing so. Nobody has busted some of your asses yet -- but perhaps it's time...

I'm sorry you're so bitter - and that with respect to music copyright and people's asses being busted that you're also likely to be disappointed.

What is it exactly that you believe wedding DJs or another party is supposed to be doing on your behalf?

 

[Proformance]

If you are DJing for money, then legally, SOMEONE has to pay for the performance rights, either the venue or you. I don't buy the deal that if you are doing a "private" party that somehow you are exempt, regardless of location .. if it's for money, someone should pay .. even churches need performance licensing for music played outside of a religious service (including for weddings). So, technically, we should be comparing all songs with the venues licensing to see if someone (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, or Rick) is entitled to performance royalties each time we go somewhere new and if the venue doesn't cover it, someone else needs to (maybe even the DJ).

Steve, there is no "should" in the law ...I realize you may feel that way but, if you eventually come to understand why the law operates the way it does you'll realize that it really is fair to everyone: author/composers, DJs, venues, and clients.

Unhitch a few of your wagons and consider the entirety of an event the way that the law does:

If all of this activity takes place under a tent where music is being played - the law only concerns itself with why you put the tent up in the first place and if the incident of music means the tent will have more money in it when you leave than it did when you arrived. ​

When you're gone there is only the tent, a bride, and she has no more revenue in the tent than when you began. You have only left with the bride's money - she and the music created no commercial gain. The money you left with was already there - it was not generated by the use of the music.​

​

If this tent were a bar that sells food/liquor to any member of the public who cares to attend and/or there is a cover charge - then there will always be more money in the tent at the end of the night than there was at the beginning. That money is presumed to be higher when music is used to attract people into the tent.

Music does not attract people to a private tent because it is closed to just an individual's family and circle of friends.

 

[steve149]

Bob - Only going by what is written into the ASCAP and BMI (did not look at SESAC) Licensing.

From ASCAP:

A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances.) A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt.

From BMI:

"public performance" of music is defined in the U.S. copyright law to include any music played outside a normal circle of friends and family. Songwriters, composers, and music publishers have the exclusive right to play their music publicly and to authorize others to do so under the copyright law. This is known as the "Performing Right". This right was designed to enable and encourage music creators to continue to create music.
When you see the words "All Rights Reserved" on a movie that you've rented or purchased, you know that playing that movie before a public audience is prohibited. The same restrictions apply to music that is purchased, broadcast, or live musicians that are hired to play in a public setting. Every business or organization must receive permission from the copyright owners of the music they are playing before playing it publicly.


Unless someone can show me a legal definition of a wedding under a tent that doesn't count as "any place where people gather" .. and please don't tell me that 100 relatives and work guests are somehow a "small gathering", HOW am I reading something into this? Unless you were doing it for free, how are you exempt?

 

[JamesY]

If you are DJing for money, then legally, SOMEONE has to pay for the performance rights, either the venue or you. I don't buy the deal that if you are doing a "private" party that somehow you are exempt, regardless of location .. if it's for money, someone should pay .. even churches need performance licensing for music played outside of a religious service (including for weddings). So, technically, we should be comparing all songs with the venues licensing to see if someone (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, or Rick) is entitled to performance royalties each time we go somewhere new and if the venue doesn't cover it, someone else needs to (maybe even the DJ).

Do I do it, no .. I assume the venue did .. here it is the traditional licensor. Should I, I don't know, that might be a viable discussion point away from the public/private issues.

So you won't be DJ'ing any private events for individuals then? ASCAP, etc. do not issue licenses to DJ's. I confirmed that last year directly with them.

But whether you buy it or not, the writing is there, I've posted it with links to the legal entities including the US Law that governs it. I don't know what else there is to provide.

It's based on the type of event - ASCAP & the US Law make that perfectly clear. It is not based on location. You even make a statement to that affect in your own argument that churches may need performance licensing depending on the event - religious service vs. weddings - even though they are conducted in the same building. If you're even making statements that agree with what the law states, but then continue to argue against what you even say yourself, then I don't know what other evidence can be given.

 

[steve149]

ASCAP and BMI state their exemptions and church "religious" service is included. Other church uses aren't. I did not see an exemption for wedding in a tent or in a park or under a bridge or wherever.

I do not assume the license factories will go after DJs for performing, it's not in their interest when they can go after venues. But that in and of itself does not mean someone is legally off the hook.

 

[JamesY]

Bob - Only going by what is written into the ASCAP and BMI (did not look at SESAC) Licensing.

Unless someone can show me a legal definition of a wedding under a tent that doesn't count as "any place where people gather" .. and please don't tell me that 100 relatives and work guests are somehow a "small gathering", HOW am I reading something into this? Unless you were doing it for free, how are you exempt?

ASCAP took some liberties with their paraphrasing of the actual law in their description. "small gathering" is not what the law says. Also, BMI states a "normal gathering" - not small. So as you see, even they gear their language to their benefit somewhat.

The actual law (again):

"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place
where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family
and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the
work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device
or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the
same time or at different times."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf

So a SUBSTANTIAL number of persons within your hypothetical wedding party of 100 would have to be outside a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances. It has nothing to do with size. It has to do with a normal circle of a family - aka circle as in mother, father, daughter, son, grandkids, cousins, uncles, aunts, grandparents, in-laws, etc. Social acquaintances - that's a very broad net there - so there is no reason to think that a wedding of 100 persons would not fit into a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances.

 

[ahoustondj]

I believe that if you rent a Hall and are Producing a Show for Profit (Cover Charge, Selling drinks etc) using Recorded Music, then you need to get a Temporary License Based on expected attendees, Revenue, location, purpose etc.

I do Shows/Productions but I do not rent the venue my fee is calculated a bit differently.

 

[JamesY]

ASCAP and BMI state their exemptions and church "religious" service is included. Other church uses aren't. I did not see an exemption for wedding in a tent or in a park or under a bridge or wherever.

I do not assume the license factories will go after DJs for performing, it's not in their interest when they can go after venues. But that in and of itself does not mean someone is legally off the hook.

Right. They are not going to list every single possible social gathering of a normal circle of a family and their social acquaintances - it would be impossible.

Also, you'll note, I don't believe the religious service is mandated to be inside of the actual church in order to be exempt. Many religious services happen outdoors - and yes even by open riversides where people are baptized. So once again... the event - a "religious service" - is the focus... NOT the location.

 

[steve149]

I do a bar gig where the patrons are a normal circle of family AND its acquaintances .. is that exempt? If so, I can tell the owner you all agree he does not have to pay the fees.

And then a wedding for a 100 is good, but one for 350 probably isn't, is that what we're saying?

Look, I wouldn't think many of us would pay the fees for such a thing, but I'm having a hard time with the justifications used vs. the language which is pretty clear.

 

[steve149]

Right. They are not going to list every single possible social gathering of a normal circle of a family and their social acquaintances - it would be impossible.

Also, you'll note, I don't believe the religious service is mandated to be inside of the actual church in order to be exempt. Many religious services happen outdoors - and yes even by open riversides where people are baptized. So once again... the event - a "religious service" - is the focus... NOT the location.

The venue is not important ONLY for the fact it is still a religious service. The tent wedding is not the issue, it is the public performance.

Please don't try to make the case that ALL weddings or reunions or sweet 16s are a normal circle of family and friends.

I do not pay the licensing for such venues, assume the venue owner does (haven't done a park or tent so not sure who it is there), and am only bringing it up in the context that was discussed.

 

[JamesY]

I do a bar gig where the patrons are a normal circle of family AND its acquaintances .. is that exempt? If so, I can tell the owner you all agree he does not have to pay the fees.

And then a wedding for a 100 is good, but one for 350 probably isn't, is that what we're saying?

Look, I wouldn't think many of us would pay the fees for such a thing, but I'm having a hard time with the justifications used vs. the language which is pretty clear.

If a person has family and social acquaintances that number 1000 - then it is still exempt.

Is your bar closed to ONLY the normal circle of family and its social acquaintances? Or if 5 randoms walk through the door are they invited in, charged, and served?

 

[SoftJock Rick]

Everything I've given you is well documented - much perhaps even on the internet.

Gee, I feel better now -- it's on the the internet...
[/quote]

I'm actually writing entirely out of memory.

That sort of sums it up...

I'm sorry you're so bitter

I'm not all that bitter Bob, I just know what I've had to go through to protect my IP. I'm sorta guessing you have no IP of your own, and have never had to do that. I have to pony up the bucks up front, to hire a lawyer, and sue somebodies sorry ass. I usually win, but it costs me, and I sometimes never get the money. You people disappear under the table faster than an empty beer can.

I got a bud at Apple, developer I used to work with on some projects. He appears to have the ears of some higher ups, so I'm gonna send him an email regarding this issue, and see if we can get some clarification...

 

[JamesY]

The venue is not important ONLY for the fact it is still a religious service. The tent wedding is not the issue, it is the public performance.

Please don't try to make the case that ALL weddings or reunions or sweet 16s are a normal circle of family and friends.

I do not pay the licensing for such venues, assume the venue owner does (haven't done a park or tent so not sure who it is there), and am only bringing it up in the context that was discussed.

So there are weddings, reunions, and sweet 16's where people attend who are not a normal circle of family and their social acquaintances, whereby the purpose for the event is to make a profit? Who is going to these types of private events without invites from the private event "owners" who are not social acquaintances of these "owners"? What profit do the event owners - say the Bride & Groom - receive by inviting these non-social acquaintances? Are they Bride & Groom attempting to skirt performance fees mandated by ASCAP by inviting people who are not social acquaintances to their wedding just so those people can hear the music of a DJ who is likely playing Top 40 music?

 

[Proformance]

Steve,

ASCAP and BMI are not the place to look for the specific definitions you are looking for but, even they should be clear enough to you.

Can you please explain why you are so desperate to see your paycheck as some kind of "special" copyright revenue? How did the music enrich the bride who, is the person charged with obtaining the license? What was the bride selling that the music brought people in to buy?

How does the nature of our example versus yours change if you do the job for free?
Do you think we should pay Rick a percentage of whatever fee we charge?
Should higher priced DJs pay more?
Is it our event or the bride's? How much of a say should we give her on the issue?