Rep. Kevin Van De Wege Takes on the Music Mafia
State Rep. Kevin Van De Wege has introduced HB 1763, which would slightly mitigate the arbitrary steamrolling tactics and complete unaccountability of the Music Mafia: BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.), ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) and SESAC (Society of European Stage Authors and Composers.
Van De Wege introduced HB 1763 after talking with the owner of The Oasis Bar and Grill in Sequim. The above-mentioned music enforcers have tried to extort almost $9,000 from The Oasis Bar and Grill for copyright infringement, i.e. featuring live or recorded music at the nightclub.
Van De Wege's bill would require music licensing companies to file with the Washington Secretary of State and pay an annual fee of $1,500. This money would be used for a consumer alert campaign to make sure club owners who feature music know their rights and responsibilities when dealing with music licensing companies. Van De Wege said:
“Live music venues are being unfairly targeted by New York and Tennessee-based licensing companies that force payments at random, threaten business owners, and seemingly vanish once they receive payment. By regulating their activity and verifying their claim to certain performing rights, we’re protecting small businesses all across the state and generating revenue to make sure these venues know their rights.”
The owner of The Oasis Bar and Grill said:
“In the end the fees that they sought made music not viable for our business. Nobody wins and one thing that is certain, no one buys music that they can’t hear.”
Van De Wege introduced HB 1763 after talking with the owner of The Oasis Bar and Grill in Sequim. The above-mentioned music enforcers have tried to extort almost $9,000 from The Oasis Bar and Grill for copyright infringement, i.e. featuring live or recorded music at the nightclub.
Van De Wege's bill would require music licensing companies to file with the Washington Secretary of State and pay an annual fee of $1,500. This money would be used for a consumer alert campaign to make sure club owners who feature music know their rights and responsibilities when dealing with music licensing companies. Van De Wege said:
“Live music venues are being unfairly targeted by New York and Tennessee-based licensing companies that force payments at random, threaten business owners, and seemingly vanish once they receive payment. By regulating their activity and verifying their claim to certain performing rights, we’re protecting small businesses all across the state and generating revenue to make sure these venues know their rights.”
The owner of The Oasis Bar and Grill said:
“In the end the fees that they sought made music not viable for our business. Nobody wins and one thing that is certain, no one buys music that they can’t hear.”
posted by Tom Harper at 12:09 AM
6 Comments:
Carry on, godfuckingdamnit
Will be interesting to see how this turns out!
I'm not sure I understand the issues, though. If the music is copyrighted, and the original producers want a fee for the use of their product, isn't that okay?
Yes, we get used to getting things for "free", but most times, that is an illusion. Somebody is paying, just not you.
If you roof a house, shouldn't you get paid for the job? Do we expect to get our car fixed for free?
So, what is the issue, here?
They want a LOT of money. And they keep coming back. When I buy a roof, I'm done paying for it. I don't have to pay again every time it rains.
When a museum buys a painting, the artist only collects once.
I cannot tell it from a protection racket.
I've never understood it so it isn't possible for me to make an intelligent comment about it.
Every time I go to see a movie or a play, I have to pay every time.
Every time I go to the skating rink, or pool, I have to pay.
If I buy software for my computer, I can use it for my own personal use. BUT, if I want to use it for commercial purposes, I have to pay for that usage.
Yes, the museum only pays once, but you have to pay every time you want to go see that painting.
As I said, I'm a bit unclear about what the real issue is here.
Basically this is a $2 billion industry that benefits the top 1% of performers. For practical purposes, no one else sees doodley-squat of that money. Ordinary performers pay their dues to avoid trouble.
I like to play old folk music. A lot of it is "public domain" -- it's old, no one knows who wrote it and they're dead anyway. But if anyone has recorded & registered an arrangement thought to resemble mine, I'm supposed to pay to perform it. Even if I was playing it before they were born. So where's the "public" in that? They are stealing our culture from us.
Those are my issues, anyway. Oh wait -- musicians can join and get discounts on health insurance. Well, I guess that's nice and I should be grateful and not say these things.
Apart from that, the bill is pretty wimpy, but have at it, Kevin.
Post a Comment
<< Home