3 of 3

Write now Article Tools

Imagine a coffee shop. We'll call it Acoustic Coffee. Judging from the name, one would expect to hear a live performance from a singer/songwriter every time they ventured inside. Now bring yourself to the foreground of this controversial subject and realize this: There's no more music here.

Over the last ten years, many small venues have been contacted by BMI and ASCAP. They repeatedly and more frequently remind the owners that the open mic nights, live shows (which they have only charged a cover once for,) and even the playing of CDs from local artists are supposedly all covered under US laws which allow them to charge a yearly " blanket membership fee" for each form of entertainment.

ASCAP was formed in 1914 and initially gathered compensation for those performances for which the audience had paid. But in 1917, after a Supreme Court ruling, they were able to charge for all uses of copyrighted work, even for those events where no cover fee was paid. This meant that ASCAP was essentially collection agencies gathering blanket fees based on income. 1940 brought the rise of BMI, and the battle was well under way to hold sway over the performances, recordings, etc. of the represented publishers, composers, and musicians.

From Maine to Southern California, and now even in Canada, small venues of all kinds have felt the impact of the law suits handed down by BMI (Broadcasting Music Inc.), ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers), SESAC (Society of European Stage Authors & Composers), and CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International). Handfuls have tried and failed to stand their ground. This is due almost completely to ignorance of existing laws and precedents.

In the case of Richard Phillips versus BMI, however, there was a victory for a performer and the restaurant he performed in. Phillips makes a bold and clear statement in an article published online (http://www.woodpecker.com/wri ting/essays/phillips.html) which reads "No venue is in need of a performance license unless one or more of its musicians are performing compositions or arrangements copyrighted and licensed through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC."

In other instances, venue owners have reportedly drawn up contracts for performers requiring they perform only original works, or arrangements of traditional songs. Legally this is fair, and should be observed by these licensing giants, but they continue to attack venues insisting that they 'doubt the originality of the performers songs.' But As Richard Phillips found out, with help from Congressman John McHugh of New York state, and Marilyn Kretsinger, Assistant General Counsel of the United States Copyright Office, it is considered by the courts to be extortion if Broadcasting Music Incorporated demands payment of yearly licensing fees for original works not found in their 4.5 million song catalogues.

For tiny coffee shops with singer songwriters, there seems to be a reprieve. This controversy on the whole is far from over. The stand against these companies is fraught with intimidation and mountains of legal fees that are simply not in the realm of affordability for any small business, unless you know you can win. But the precedent is there. The massive license holders can be avoided. So get up there and sing your own song...just make sure you've got the papers to prove its your.

Learn more about this author, David Magario.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about BMI & ASCAP taking law suits too far?
We want to hear your view. Write now!