I remember my friend telling me he called the star agency and asked them if he could buy the sun. The lady on the line told him that there are millions of other stars, and that the sun is not for sale. He asked why? She just said that it was not. He asked if they owned the stars? She said they sell them. And he asked again if he could buy the sun because it is a star. When he didn't get the answer he was looking for he asked to speak to the manager. They had a long conversation about why the sun is not for sale and about why they own the stars when in reality they don't...
This story fragmented into my head the other day when my boss walked in and said we cannot have any more open mic's in the shop because this place called and said that they can slap a fee on top of the business, basically they can sue us and we have to waive the fee in court and prove that we did not play any of their music. They do not even have to step foot into our shop to press charges because apparently "EVERY store/business in America plays their music at LEAST once a year." (that's very prideful)
My question is whether or not artists receive any money from their songs? Plus, now, how do we foster musicians to be musicians if a local business has to pay ridiculously large sums of money for a licensing fee?
It just seemed to me that money was more important than being an aid to foster musicians to create. Just like the numerous starts in the sky, do we have a right to sell these? Are the stars seeing the money that has sold them to other's loved ones?
...
4 comments:
Yes, they are paid royalties, though (typically) not what you might think fair. It's a little misguided to go after "Open mic" nights, but in some cases, charging for public performances of works makes sense. Your favorite music group probably writes all its own songs, but the best selling material, Top-40 stuff, generally has separate performers and songwriters--and so public performance fees are a standard method of payment.
but isn't this frustrating?
A local business has to pay a large lump sum in order to allow community members and students to perform their talents and gain understanding of the arts.
How does it make sense?
not to mention that, from what i understand, you're pretty careful to not let them perform cover stuff. that is thoroughly frustrating.
The buisness mind set is slowly and surely destroying the arts. BMI just nearly sued Culpeppers for the same thing, though in their case, they were allowing artists to come in and do cover songs without paying the licensing fee.
There was a time when composers were just glad to have someone performing their music.
Post a Comment