Re: [ARSCLIST] ASCAP follows RIAA down the road guaranteed not to make friends

[Dismuke <dismukemail@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am afraid that I am going to have to defend ASCAP on
this.

First off, if one believes in the concept of
performance royalties - well, then it follows that
there needs to be some method of enforcing them. 
Otherwise, organizations such as ASCAP become little
more than a voluntary "tipping jar" for those who wish
to do something nice for composers.

Second, ASCAP hardly uses the tactics of the RIAA
which goes after and targets people whose names they
do not even know on nothing more than an IP address. 
ASCAP does not drag people into court, and, when it
discovers that the defendant could not possibly have
been the one who was using the IP address to download,
simply asks that the case be dismissed in such a way
that leaves the innocent defendant on the hook for
thousands of dollars of legal bills and no way to sue
to get them back.

According to the ASCAP press release, the bars were
contacted by ASCAP ahead of time and were given
opportunities to come into compliance.

I agree that ASCAP's attempts in the past to shake
down businesses for the radios their employees listen
to on the job was absurd and abusive.  But a bar IS an
establishment that one can make a very strong case for
saying that it is profiting from the performance of
copyrighted music.  My guess is music is a major
element of how such bars define what they are all
about.

Furthermore, at least in the areas I have looked into
it, ASCAP rates are not especially expensive.  Of
course, as a webcaster, the area I am most familiar
with is the rates for Internet broadcasters.  My
royalties at present are covered by my service
providers.  But if I were to go it alone, my ASCAP
rate for Radio Dismuke would be $288 per year which
works out to $24 per month.  Based on their
methodology, my rate actually would be MUCH less - but
$288 is their annual minimum.  To the best of my
knowledge, I do not play any BMI or SESAC recordings. 
By contrast, under the pending SoundExchange rate
increase for sound recording royalties, a station with
an audience of similar size as mine that plays on
average 19 recordings per hour as mine does, during
2010, the last year of the new rates, the
SoundExchange royalties would be about $1083 per MONTH
for a station that already has a negative cash flow.

Finally, ASCAP regards royalties as a means collecting
revenues for its members.  It does not seek to drive
those who pay royalties out of business because that
would be contrary to its memberships' interests.  By
contrast, SoundExchange is controlled by and seeks to
promote the interests of the RIAA and regards
royalties as a means of driving broadcasters who
promote non-RIAA artists and non-RIAA approved formats
out of business in order to neutralize and marginalize
their emerging competitors.

Bottom line, compared with a certain other royalty
collection agency, ASCAP is civilized, friendly,
reasonable and affordable.




--- Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/3bzguo
> 
> I'd love to know what genius lawyer came up with
> this tactic, especially since it's backfired in 
> spades against the RIAA. Keep it up and even
> grandmas will feel it's OK to stiff "those jerks"
> and 
> steal music. How deep do these fools think a
> bar-owners pockets are? If they get back enough
> money 
> to feed one musician for one month, I'll be
> surprised.
> 
> One man's opinion, etc.
> 
> -- Tom Fine 
>