From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #344 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Tuesday, December 18 2001 Volume 01 : Number 344 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [loud-fans] Between the journey and the rest...... ["O Geier" ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing ["O Geier" ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [dana-boy@juno.com] [loud-fans] Music Licensing (last one) [dana-boy@juno.com] [loud-fans] ridiculously cheap Loud Family records.... [DOUDIE@aol.com] [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Chris Prew ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing ["Brandon J. Carder" ] Re: [loud-fans] Christmas Tuneage [Aaron Mandel ] [loud-fans] Big Shot Chronicles back cover up ["robert toren" ] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [dmw ] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone ["Joseph M. Mallon" ] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone ["Andrew Hamlin" ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [dana-boy@juno.com] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [AWeiss4338@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone [AWeiss4338@aol.com] Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone ["Pete O." ] RE: [loud-fans] freaky links ["Dennis McGreevy" ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Dana L Paoli ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Stewart Mason ] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] Christmas Tuneage [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Tim_Walters@digidesign.com] Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing [Dana L Paoli ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:15:59 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: [loud-fans] Between the journey and the rest...... This is really sad, and I think this might spur a revival of one of my favorite bands. <> <> _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:44 -0500 From: "Aaron Milenski" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing >>Lets say I own a small business, and I decide to throw the muzak system >>out >>in the trash and play CDs for my patrons. As I understand it, I need to >>pay >>performance rights for any music I play. A small coffee shop in Lakewood, OH, where I live, has been in the local news several times over the past year because the BMI dorks have been hitting them up for money. The owner asked if they would accept a playlist from her to make sure that the royalties would go to the accurate artists (she planned to play all local music), and they said that the money would just go into the regular fund, i.e. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys and whoever is top of the pops this week. The system isn't designed to protect the artists at all, or at least not the little ones. I guarantee if she played the Loud Family every day Scott wouldn't receive a cent from BMI for it. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:02:47 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing I played in a small bar in Richmond, VA, which was being hit by ASCAP frequently, so much that the owner knew him by sight. One night, he came in, and the owner came over and told me 'no covers til this guy leaves' . He stayed until I took a break. He then informed me and the owner that we were in violation due to the music I was performing. I then asked him to tell me whose music I was playing. He said, 'Well I heard a Dylan song, and Springsteen song, etc'. When pressed to name the song titles, he pulled the 'don't give me that shit, you what songs you did'. I then informed him that every song he heard was either my own, or by an acquaintance who has given me permission to perform them. He left in a huff. All bluster! Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Aaron Milenski" To: loud-fans@smoe.org Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:44 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [141.110.91.169] Received: from [66.89.201.78] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBDE8943D0091400431614259C94EFA3D0; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:48:51 -0800 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIDm3Rj013706;Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:48:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) with SMTP id fBIDm01L013704;Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:48:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.10); Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:57 -0500 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIDluRj013685for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:56 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) id fBIDlt2Z013684for loud-fans-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from hotmail.com (f164.law10.hotmail.com [64.4.15.164]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIDloRj013678 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:47:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:47:44 -0800 Received: from 141.110.91.169 by lw10fd.law10.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:47:44 GMT From owner-loud-fans@smoe.org Tue, 18 Dec 2001 05:50:34 -0800 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Dec 2001 13:47:44.0892 (UTC) FILETIME=[92311BC0:01C187CA] Sender: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org Precedence: bulk >>Lets say I own a small business, and I decide to throw the muzak >>system >>out >>in the trash and play CDs for my patrons. As I understand it, I >>need to >>pay >>performance rights for any music I play. A small coffee shop in Lakewood, OH, where I live, has been in the local news several times over the past year because the BMI dorks have been hitting them up for money. The owner asked if they would accept a playlist from her to make sure that the royalties would go to the accurate artists (she planned to play all local music), and they said that the money would just go into the regular fund, i.e. Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys and whoever is top of the pops this week. The system isn't designed to protect the artists at all, or at least not the little ones. I guarantee if she played the Loud Family every day Scott wouldn't receive a cent from BMI for it. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:18:09 -0500 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing The system isn't designed to protect the artists at all, or at least not the little ones. I guarantee if she played the Loud Family every day Scott wouldn't receive a cent from BMI for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can't vouch for the Loud Family, but I have one friend who was in an extremely obscure no wave band in the eighties who still receives the occasional check from BMI, presumably because some German radio station played his songs. We're not talking millions here, but the amount that he's getting is probably commensurate with the amount of airplay that he's likely getting. As far as the owner of the coffee shop's request to send in a playlist, I'm not sure whether BMI's refusal is obnoxious or not. Does their contract with the artist specify that BMI will record each and every instance of the artist's song being played, or does it say that BMI will use some sort of formula to figure out the payments? If the latter, then I don't see why the coffee shop owner should feel that she has the right to insert herself into a contract between two other entities. If the former, then she really ought to contact the artists who she plays so that they can pursue a complaint that BMI is violating its agreement. I hate to be cynical, but my experience with small businesses (in my old job as a bookkeeper) is that they try to pay people off the books, they skim revenue, they pay for personal expenses out of business funds, they do anything to avoid worker's comp or unemployment, and they mess with the sales tax. And then complain about high taxes. It doesn't surprise me at all that they'd try to get out of paying for the public performance rights, even though it states explicitly on most CDs that such rights are not granted with the purchase of the CD. Just so everyone is on the same page, here's the statement from a Spacemen 3 CD on that evil major label "Space Age Recordings" (well, actually they may really be evil, but that depends on which ex-member of Spacemen 3 you're talking to): "All rights of the manufacturer and owner of the recorded works reserved. Unauthorized public performance, broadcasting and copying of this record prohibited." So which part of that is confusing? - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 09:59:56 -0500 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing BTW, re: the BMI/ASCAP fees, BMI has a very nice website that includes the ability to print out a contract and figure out the fees due. The contract for restaurants is at: http://www.bmi.com/licensing/business/groupc/index.asp According to my calculations, the yearly fee for a restaurant with a 100 person capacity, to play CDs of BMI artists, comes to $265.00 which is BMI's minimum charge. The maximum charge (which would only be invoked, as far as I can tell, if you owned a stadium) is $7960. Meaning, that those poor harassed coffee shops are basically trying to get out of a $265 annual charge. The charge can be paid quarterly, meaning that the coffee shop owner is apparently unable to come up with $66.25 every three months. Of course she might want to license from ASCAP as well, in which case we'd be talking about a little over $500 a year, but if money is tight, I'm sure that there are enough BMI artists around to fill the need for background music. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:15:59 -0500 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: [loud-fans] Music Licensing (last one) Wow, the internet really is amazing. So, with reference to the coffee shop owner who wants to send a log of the CDs that she plays to BMI, she might want to read the following. And, as far as I can tell from reading BMI's pretty straightforward contracts, there's absolutely nothing to prevent the coffee shop owner from negotiating public performance rights directly from the local artists whose work she wants to play and bypassing BMI altogether. 10. How does BMI keep track of performances of my works on radio and television? Because there are so many local radio broadcasting stations, it is impossible to keep track of everything each one of them plays every day of the year. Instead, a scientifically chosen representative cross section of stations is monitored each quarter. The stations being monitored supply BMI with complete information as to all music performed. These lists, known in the industry as logs, are put through an elaborate computer system that multiplies each performance listed by a factor which reflects the ratio of the number of stations logged to the number licensed. BMI monitors approximately 500,000 hours of commercial radio programming annually. Non-commercial college radio is monitored using the same methodology, with the more-than-50,000 hours of programming tracked resulting in separate payments for these performances. Television feature, theme and cue music performed on networks, cable TV stations and local TV stations is reported to BMI on music cue sheets, which list all music performed on a program. Performances are logged using such sources as TV Data, cable program guides and local TV station logging reports. Through cue sheets and computerized data BMI pays for all performances on network, syndicated, and cable television on a true census basis, keeping track of over 6,000,000 hours of programming annually. 11. Is information available as to which radio stations are being monitored at a given time? No. Even BMI personnel do not know which stations are being monitored in a given month, until after the monitoring period is over. The selection of stations to be monitored is made on the basis of a scientifically chosen sample, and communication with stations to be monitored is handled by an independent accounting firm. - --dana ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:44:04 EST From: DOUDIE@aol.com Subject: [loud-fans] ridiculously cheap Loud Family records.... If any of you don't own all of the Loud Family's records... look at these ridiculous prices. Steve Matrick http://www.half.com/search/search.jsp?ad=null&product=music&search_by=keyword& query=loud+family ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:14:57 -0600 From: Chris Prew Subject: [loud-fans] Music Licensing Yes, my wife and I, along with a partner, bought a small local restaurant. Its been a tremendous pain in the ass getting started, but a fun learning experience. I9m glad my wife has that business degree. I hate the idea of forking out money to keep Britney and J-Lo and that ilk afloat in capital, while we are actually playing music by Morphine and Television, who don9t get a thing from it. The money isn9t the issue--$265 a year is chicken feed compared to other business expenses. When we get around to it, we9ll probably pay one of them, just to keep our noses clean. Chris P.S. Although, you have to admit, being an ASCAP/BMI enforcer would be a good loud-fan job. At least the part about playing 3name that tune2 all day long. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:26:16 -0800 From: "Brandon J. Carder" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing He said, 'Well I > heard a Dylan song, and Springsteen song, etc'. Gosh, in that case he should have offered you a publishing contract! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:35:52 -0500 (EST) From: Michael Mitton Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing (last one) Just to add a bit from what Dana posted, in addition to sampling the music being played on radios and television, they also sample music in coffee houses, bars, restaurants, you name it. So if our beloved coffee house happened to be part of the sample when the Loud Family was being played, then yes, Scott would get some money for it. But for the owner who wanted to play all local music, there's nothing about BMI or ASCAP that prohibits her from licensing performance rights directly from the artists themselves. I imagine when it comes to local music, simply asking would suffice, or perhaps something scribbled on paper to show when the BMI man cometh. One of the first projects I worked on in my present job was for ASCAP. ASCAP operates under a consent decree, and if they can't agree on licensing fees, then it goes to court for a judge to set the fees. We were working on a case between the cable networks and ASCAP, and our job was to determine how much music each station played. We picked a bunch of random days over a 5 year period, and ASCAP supplied us with a database that listed every song (anything over 5 seconds) that was played on all the normal cable stations, how long the song lasted, who the composer is, etc. The record keeping these guys do is truly amazing. That case eventually settled (or is perhaps still in the process of settling), but it looks like we'll be inolved in another round, this time with radio stations. - --Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:37:33 +0000 From: "O Geier" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing I didn't think of it that way. He looked like the 'Phil Collins/Tina Turner' type. Support anti-Spam legislation. Join the fight http://www.cauce.org/ - ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Brandon J. Carder" To: Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:26:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from [66.89.201.78] by hotmail.com (3.2) with ESMTP id MHotMailBDE8D6420008400432574259C94EA20A0; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:30:34 -0800 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIITmRj024458;Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) with SMTP id fBIITkTs024456;Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:46 -0500 (EST) Received: by smoe.org (bulk_mailer v1.10); Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:42 -0500 Received: from smoe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIITeRj024439for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:40 -0500 (EST) Received: (from majordom@localhost)by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16/submit) id fBIITdnY024437for loud-fans-outgoing; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx-out.daemonmail.net (mx-out.daemonmail.net [209.75.5.3]) by smoe.org (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id fBIITZRj024426 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:29:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from mx0.emailqueue.net (localhost.daemonmail.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx-out.daemonmail.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id KAA88644 for ; Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:29:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brandon@cypresshouse.com) Received: from UncleMike (UncleMike [63.193.12.165]) by mail.cypresshouse.com with SMTP id M3N0s7T2 Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:29:32 -0700 (PST) From owner-loud-fans@smoe.org Tue, 18 Dec 2001 10:32:36 -0800 Message-ID: <003401c187f1$7c5507e0$0c01a8c0@UncleMike> References: X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-loud-fans@smoe.org Precedence: bulk He said, 'Well I > heard a Dylan song, and Springsteen song, etc'. Gosh, in that case he should have offered you a publishing contract! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:37:59 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Christmas Tuneage On Sun, 9 Dec 2001 Tim_Walters@digidesign.com wrote: > http://www.doubtfulpalace.com/artists/Mercaptan/invismis.mp3 I have to say, it's downright weird to hear one of Franklin Bruno's songs done in such a jaunty manner. It did, however, make me want to explore the rest of the Palace, and I ask: can I buy a Slaw CD somehow? aaron ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 18:39:49 +0000 From: "robert toren" Subject: [loud-fans] Big Shot Chronicles back cover up Big Shot Chronicle back cover on gametheoryphotos A medium-size version in Photos/BSC Plus one very similar outtake Larger version in Files/Big Shot Chronicle Cover Photos ok_ happy holidays to one and all Robert _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:49:37 -0500 (EST) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Chris Prew wrote: > I hate the idea of forking out money to keep Britney and J-Lo and that > ilk afloat in capital, while we are actually playing music by Morphine > and Television, who don9t get a thing from it. Dana's indignant accusations of selfishness took me aback a little, but he's right about how the system works (or supposedly works -- can't vouch for it): if you're playing records by nothin' but underappreciated BMI artists, then most of your check still goes to buy Britney exfoliating gel... but you've increased the proportion of everyone ELSE's check that goes to the underdog artists you play. Money's fungible like that. a ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:53:40 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > gay/lesbian music and entertainment magazine for Philly. Pretty wild to hear > it here, Joey wasn't gay. The songs were a cover of What A Wonderful World, doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay the rent (or the smack bill)? or is the legs mcneil book all bullshit? - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:02:48 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Chris Prew wrote: > 1. realistically, what are the odds of getting busted by any one of the > above agencies? hard to predict, but they'll go up the longer you're in business, and you will drastically increase them if advertising, web presence etc. indicates that you play music in the joint. > 3. I assume, if I9m licensed, burning CDs for this use is perfectly fine. no. burning cds requires a license for mechanical reproduction; not the same as public performance at all, and licensed by completely different parties (the copyright holders, i.e., the record companies). if you want to keep your nose clean, be cautious; copying for personal use can (still, at the moment) be defended as "fair use," but as soon as you talk about a commerical application, fair use goes out the window. somewhere somebody asked; in the US ASCAP, BMI and SESAC are it. in all likelihood you could avoid playing SESAC artists; they're much, much smaller. 4. i'm not certain, but i think in-store play of promotional copies is specifically and legally exempted; typically review copies and copies sent to radio stations do not include the 'not licensed for broadcast or public performance' disclaimer, and it clearly benefits the record companies to have instore play (assuming anybody at all likes what is played.) some record companies even produce special mix cds specifically for instore play; 've got one from reprise hyping the second aimee mann solo record back when it was going to be on reprise. however, i always thought that 30 second clips of songs on retail sites like cdnow probably benefited the record companies to the extent that no one would complain, and i was wrong about that. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:05:05 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone At 01:53 PM 12/18/01 -0500, dmw wrote: >doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally >before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay >the rent (or the smack bill)? or is the legs mcneil book all bullshit? I don't have the text at hand, but I'm 99% positive it was Dee Dee who was a hustler, not Joey. ("53rd and 3rd" was his song.) S ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:06:11 -0800 (PST) From: "Joseph M. Mallon" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, dmw wrote: > On Sun, 16 Dec 2001 AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > > gay/lesbian music and entertainment magazine for Philly. Pretty wild to hear > > it here, Joey wasn't gay. The songs were a cover of What A Wonderful World, > doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally > before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay > the rent (or the smack bill)? or is the legs mcneil book all bullshit? I think that was Dee Dee - see "53rd & 3rd". J. Mallon ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:08:57 -0500 (EST) From: dmw Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Stewart Mason and Joe Mallon wrote more or less the same thing: > At 01:53 PM 12/18/01 -0500, dmw wrote: > I don't have the text at hand, but I'm 99% positive it was Dee Dee who was > a hustler, not Joey. ("53rd and 3rd" was his song.) 'kay, sorry, i consider myself duly bitch-slapped. serves me right for not doin' ma research. - -- d. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:16:14 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone >doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally >before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay >the rent (or the smack bill)? or is the legs mcneil book all bullshit? That was Dee Dee, actually. "53rd and 3rd," from the Ramones' debut, is Dee Dee's own account of selling himself on that Manhattan street corner. Richard Lloyd joined in, too. As for is as does, well, I think it comes down to what you feel under your skin, as opposed to what you're doing with your skin. William S. Burroughs, after finding himself married with a kid, wrote to a friend, something along the lines of "I can have hot dogs until the end of time, but that will never quell my underlying longing for steak." I am yam, Andy "Where did you get your eyes so blue? Out of the sky as I came through." - --George MacDonald, from "At The Back Of The North Wind" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:13:29 -0500 From: dana-boy@juno.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing > Dana's indignant accusations of selfishness took me aback a little, >>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise Aaron's characterization of the BMI employees as "dorks." Given the evidence at hand -- BMI has been asking to be paid, on several occasions, and the situation has made the local news -- it seems a likely conclusion that the owner of the coffee shop has refused to pay to secure the rights that she needs to play CDs at her restaurant. Apparently she didn't have the five minutes that it took me to go to BMI's website and figure out what was what. She also didn't take the time to figure out that she could pay local musicians directly for the rights. I don't think it's a stretch to conclude that she's mainly interested in keeping the money in her own pocket. That's my theory. Does anyone have the original news story? - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:28:02 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone In a message dated 12/18/01 1:54:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dmw@radix.net writes: > doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally > before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay > the rent (or the smack bill)? or is the legs mcneil book all bullshit? > > I've not read Legs's book, and didn't know this about Joey. Since Legs was there, I suspect this might be true. So he was gay.....cool. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:29:30 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone In a message dated 12/18/01 2:09:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, dmw@radix.net writes: > 'kay, sorry, i consider myself duly bitch-slapped. serves me right for > not doin' ma research. > > Me too, read this before I read the others. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 11:48:13 -0800 (PST) From: "Pete O." Subject: Re: [loud-fans] New Joey Ramone - --- AWeiss4338@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/18/01 1:54:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, dmw@radix.net > writes: > > > > doesn't the legs mcneil book claim that he was hustling professionally > > before he hoined the ramones? or is not gay if you're just doing it to pay > > the rent (or the smack bill)? ... or in prison! - - Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 14:13:56 -0600 From: "Dennis McGreevy" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] freaky links Dr. Murt sez: Okay, I'm a hypocrite, or at least a petty liar. I searched for "Ludacris" on the web. [Second cup of coffee] I got far enough to go to www.ludacris.net, where I am met with the phrase "word of mouf." I'm not sure what that is. Then I find out I can "get down on some Fish-N-Grits, Monkey Music and more." I like grits but I've never had them with fish. Do I have enough information now to carry on an intelligent conversation about the illuming brilliance of this new prophet-minstrel? About all I can offer is that his moniker is very well chosen. - -----Original Message----- I can't see any benefit to searching for "Ludacris" on the web, even if it's just to be able to hold a pop culture conversation. I am doing just fine without Ludacris occupying any synapses, and I'll keep on truckin' just so. <><><><><><><><><><> I was in some corporate record store or another (Crow's Nest, maybe?) last week and heard this bit of wisdom dropped by Ludacris, who was being played on the house stereo at an unignorable volume: "Givin' me a hard time Will get you nowhere fast But a hard dick Will make the sex last" Ludacris seems to have no sense of rhythm whatsoever on this bit that I heard of his work. Either that or hip-hop may have thoroughly embraced the free jazz precept of soloing off the beat, since I last touched base with it. I'm not sure if he's talking about his own generative organ, or someone else's. In any event, I assure you all that I'd never have mentioned this if the discussion were not already happening. - --D is for Dennis, that's good enough for me ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 12:35:48 -0800 From: "Brandon J. Carder" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] freaky links > "Givin' me a hard time > Will get you nowhere fast > But a hard dick > Will make the sex last" > I'm not sure > if he's talking about his own generative organ, or someone else's. > I think Mr. Ludacris is attempting to make a pun on "hard" where giving him a hard time has been sublimated into giving him a hard dick. Once his dick has been made hard, there is the promise of lasting sex. Apart from the shallow rhyme, we are made to see a negative correlation in which a hard time yields a short time (nowhere fast) and a hard dick yields a more lengthsome thing (sex last). Oh yeah, that's HIS cock. no dee dee ramone, bjc ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:11:08 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing My blurbage re Aaron's contention that small artists are underrepresented in BMI/ASCAP's distributions, Dana's comments re small business owners, and Oz's story about the obnoxious rep: It appears that theoretically, small artists would reap what they (overall) sow, given the verbiage from BMI that Dana quotes. The problem arises between the two types of jerks Dana and Oz describe: between the small-business owner trying to save pennies and the enforcer mentality of the BMI guy, they practically guarantee that the system isn't particularly accurate and fair. That said, I know some folks who publish w/BMI or ASCAP - - and yes, they do receive regular, if small, amounts for their music. Doug's thing about exemptions for promo copies is curious: of course, if you're sitting in a bar and the sound system's playing the Loud Family, there's no way to tell (or really, for anyone to prove) that it's coming from a promo copy of the CD or a commercial copy. I suspect that if a business owner who was accused of underpaying the publishing agencies tried to use "I play only promo copies" as a defense, that defense wouldn't get very far. The interesting thing about Oz's story (about his band, playing all originals or otherwise unpublished material - yet the rep accused them of playing covers) is that that, too, is hard to establish or prove. Let's say you owned a small hip club and decided you wanted to play only local, unpublished music, and lots of local bands agreed to provide you with CDRs of their material. (We're assuming no covers here.) I know any number of times I've heard a song and been pretty sure I've heard it before...but could not establish whether in fact I have. (Last example: first time I heard "Half a Man" by Chocolate Genius.) I suppose, like with anything else, the more and better records you keep, the better off you are. But I think that if I owned a small business, unless I *were* playing *only* unpublished music (by which I mean music not published by BMI or ASCAP or whatever the third one was), I would rather pay BMI and ASCAP to be on the safe side (and so that, proportionately, Scott Miller and the other folks I'd play would get paid). You could, of course, be generous and set aside extra money to pay artists you play directly...but I have a feeling that might create some sort of weird accounting nightmare. (Anything involving accounting is nightmarish to me, so...) BTW: the one small business I've worked for that played music pretty much confirmed Dana's stereotype, btw. I do have some sympathy - so much is stacked against small businesses and in favor of large, in terms of the complexity of the tax law, required fees etc., not to mention the cost of bookkeeping - but the line between trying to save a slightly shifty dollar and ripping people off is thin, sketchy, and nearly erased in practice. - --Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::the sea is the night asleep in the daytime:: __Robert Desnos__ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:26:25 -0500 From: jenny grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey wrote: > > Doug's thing about exemptions for promo copies is curious: of course, if > you're sitting in a bar and the sound system's playing the Loud Family, > there's no way to tell (or really, for anyone to prove) that it's coming > from a promo copy of the CD or a commercial copy. I suspect that if a > business owner who was accused of underpaying the publishing agencies > tried to use "I play only promo copies" as a defense, that defense > wouldn't get very far. I thought he was only talking about promo copy play in record stores, not other types of establishments. Jen ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 17:27:58 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing I'm at home now, without access to the archives, and therefore I have to phrase this as a question. The last message I picked up was from Jeff, who with great wisdom pointed out that there is evil on both sides. I believe that he cited the satanic coffee shop owner as an example of small business evil, and the goons from BMI who heard nonexistent Bob Dylan covers as an example of corporate evil. My question, because I can't check: didn't the Bob Dylan situation originally arise because the club owner instructed the band to take part in his plan to defraud BMI and its artists, by pretending that they played only original material? I'll sleep better for knowing. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:41:25 -0700 From: Stewart Mason Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing At 05:27 PM 12/18/01 -0500, Dana L Paoli wrote: >My question, because I can't check: didn't the Bob Dylan situation >originally arise because the club owner instructed the band to take part >in his plan to defraud BMI and its artists, by pretending that they >played only original material? It seems to me like there's a difference between "Don't play any covers while he's here" (which is the gist of what the owner said) and "Say 'and here's a new song I just wrote called 'Like a Rolling Stone.''" The situation was that the band played all original material in that set and the BMI guy -- who you would think would know better -- thought they were playing Dylan and Springsteen songs. You're still welcome to arrest Oz as an accessory if you must, of course. Stewart ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:03:42 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing Does anyone else think it would be fun to lock Dana in a room with a TV that is on all the time and plays only episodes of the sitcom "Yes, Dear" and not let him out until he violates a copyright? Just asking, Later. --Rog - -- When toads are not enough: http://www.reignoffrogs.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:13:39 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Christmas Tuneage >I have to say, it's downright weird to hear one of Franklin Bruno's songs >done in such a jaunty manner. Hm. I think the original is pretty jaunty, what with the roller-rink organ and all. It's not "Uninsulated Wall" or anything. >can I buy a Slaw CD somehow? The CD's been done for a while, but we haven't found a label or put it out ourselves yet. Probably the latter, probably soon. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 16:31:11 -0800 From: Tim_Walters@digidesign.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing >We're not talking millions here, but the amount that he's [Scott Miller] getting is >probably commensurate with the amount of airplay that he's likely >getting. It depends on what you mean by "commensurate". It's a common misconception that BMI royalties are based on estimated plays at a set rate per play, but in fact the rate structure is such that more popular songs receive a greater payment for each play as well as a greater number of payments. At the extremes, one play of "Beat It" is worth four times as much as one play of "North San Bruno Dishonor Trip." Fine, one might say, that's what Scott signed up for. But given that the choices for a songwriter are BMI, ASCAP, or go-fuck-yourself, and that there's not much to choose between BMI and ASCAP, I think one can reasonably question whether this is fair. I don't feel that I have enough information to opine on the restaurant in question. For starters, it's not clear to me from Aaron's post whether they were actually playing BMI/ASCAP material. (BMI/ASCAP would hassle them even if they weren't, hoping for a slip-up, e.g. the espresso jerk whistling "Feelings".) - --Tim (aka Doubtful Palace Music, BMI) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 21:09:09 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Music Licensing It seems to me like there's a difference between "Don't play any covers while he's here" (which is the gist of what the owner said) and "Say 'and here's a new song I just wrote called 'Like a Rolling Stone.''" The situation was that the band played all original material in that set and the BMI guy -- who you would think would know better -- thought they were playing Dylan and Springsteen songs. You're still welcome to arrest Oz as an accessory if you must, of course. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The only point really is that it's odd to criticize BMI when your own business is clearly trying to defraud them. It's hard for me to get overly worked up about BMI's evil in such a situation. In fact, it makes me sympathize with their employees, who probably have to deal with unimaginable amounts of bullshit from restaurant/club owners who "never play BMI material, never never!!" - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #344 *******************************