As a board member of the FAR-West Region of the International Folk Alliance we have a taken a special interest in the PRO's (Performing Rights Organizations) fees which have shut the doors of many music venues. For the vast majority of songwriters rarely will they receive a check from these PRO's.
The overwhelming amount of money for these license fees are collected from the music played on Commercial Radio and TV for which they charged per play. College, Public and Community non-profit radio stations pay a flat rate fee and submit a play list for a single week of the year from which these PRO's will pay for air play. If you are the songwriter who has his music played on the 51 weeks of the year but not that one you are out of luck with the procedures for the non-profit stations.
There are good reasons for the flat rate fee for non-profit but I will not go into those. This is about those small venues spoke of in this article which is very close to the edge of breaking even let alone making a profit. For these they have to deal with the "field agent" who is paid commission from the part of the license fee he is able to collect. In our area a small venue was paid one PRO $300 for year only the have a second one demanding $3,000 or shut down, no compromise. The Federal Law unfortunately is on the side of the agent and the PRO's and in spite of all the creative ways some try to get around this that agent can shut you down if you don't pay. This is an annual fee which is subject to change at any time.
Read this and if you love live music and do frequent any venue that is like those of this article you might want to pass this on and also have them go to http://www.folkalliance.org/ and find out about the organization.
I had a conversation last week with Renee Bodie regarding the progress of the negotiations. It is coming closer to reaching an agreement with the PRO’s but a membership with the Folk Alliance will be a requirement as this will be an umbrella agreement. The fee structured to size of venue, average attendance and number of performances is not that easy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tough choices: Coffeehouse owner Bruce Schrader had to shut down open-mic night.
Tony Avelar/The Christian Science Monitor
Play it again ... and we'll sue
Venues for up-and-coming artists are disappearing as copyright licensing fees get stiffer, although some relief is in sight.
By Tim Holt | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor
from the January 9, 2009 edition
After a 30-year run, the owner of the Sacred Grounds Coffee House in San Francisco has shut down the Thursday night open mics. Mamma Llama, a small coffeehouse in Weaverville, Calif., no longer features musicians from near and far. Open mics at the Ragged Edge Coffee House in Gettysburg, Pa., are down from 50 to 60 audience members to no more than 15 these days.
These grass-roots music events, spawning grounds for the next generation of musical talent, have come up against the demands of US copyright law, as enforced by a handful of companies who act as collection agents for songwriters and composers. The law states that no performer in a public venue can present someone else's copyrighted music without their permission and, usually, without compensating them. A number of agencies, chief among them Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), charge music venues an annual copyright "license fee" ranging from $300 to nearly $10,000 for the privilege of presenting someone else's music.
Much of the music at those Ragged Edge open mics was written by the performers, but there was also cover music from the likes of Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead. ASCAP wanted a license fee of $900 a year from Ragged Edge owner Jake Schindel. He paid up and, to recoup that expense, started charging a cover fee, which caused attendance to dwindle. He was losing money, stopped paying the fee, and has cut back his musical offerings to unadvertised – and often poorly attended – events.
Bruce Schrader, who owns the Sacred Grounds Coffee House, tried to keep his open mics going by having his performers sign waivers stating they were playing only their original songs. Nevertheless, he was faced with demands for $6,000 in license fees from the agencies and had to shut down the weekly event last year.
"Their argument," Mr. Schrader said, "was that I couldn't possibly know whether the performers were singing any of the millions of copyrighted songs they represent, so I'd better get a license if I didn't want to get sued."
As soon as Mamma Llama owner Steve Friedman agreed to pay ASCAP an $800 annual fee, two other agencies demanded license fees. So he just stopped offering live music. "It was impossible to have the music without getting continuous calls and e-mails from these guys demanding payment," he recalls.
Smaller music venues around the country are struggling to pay these licensing fees. Many simply get worn down by repeated demands from the agencies for payment and threats of costly lawsuits and simply drop live music offerings altogether.
"It's killing the local music scene," laments folk musician Spook Handy, who's seen performance venues in his hometown of New Brunswick, N.J., drop from around 40 in the mid-1980s to half a dozen now. "We're not bringing up a new generation of musicians. They just don't have places to play."
There's general agreement in the music industry that the number of small venues offering live music is declining, although it's not clear how much of this is due to enforcement of copyright law.
Vince Candilora, ASCAP's vice president for licensing, says the fees are set at a "very good rate," adding, "What gives anyone the right to use someone else's property, even though they're not making money on it? I can guarantee you the phone company's going to charge you whether you're making money or not."
Despite this tough talk, there has been a softening in fees: ASCAP lowered its rates for the smallest venues last January, down from around $1,000 a year to $350, closely matching BMI's current rates.
And there's the possibility of more reductions: The Memphis-based Folk Alliance, an advocate for up-and-coming artists, is negotiating with BMI to cut fees even further. BMI is receptive to the idea, according to Alliance negotiator Renee Bodie, and she hopes new rates will be in place in the next six months and that ASCAP will match any new BMI fees.
"We're discussing ways to give these smaller places a break," acknowledges BMI spokesman Jerry Bailey. "We realize they're helping to support the next generation of performers."
If that's the case, BMI has some fence-mending to do. Coffeehouse owners complain of intimidation tactics. Bailey says lawsuits are threatened, and sometimes pursued, only when BMI has proof that violations of copyright law have occurred.
One southern California coffeehouse owner, who asked to remain anonymous, said he was able to get his total annual fees down to $1,000 from three agencies by telling them he wouldn't open unless he got rock-bottom rates. That was 10 years ago. He's still in business, but not happy about having to pay even those fees: "We're the people who give performers their start, and we have to pay for the privilege."


Salon.com
Comments
So are the fees based on anything, or do the PROs just pull a number out of thin air? And how many PROs are there? It sounds like there could be three or four "Draculas" feeding off of the same venue.
Also, it's not clear to me how a coffee house owner with an open mic night could be charged for using someone else's "property," without the PRO proving that the property was actually used. And why is the coffee house owner charged the fee rather than the performers?
There is a lot about this that doesn't make sense to me. It must be the federal law in action. . . . .
Had no idea about this and it saddens me.
Don't get out enough to see live singers as much as I'd like but sure do not want to see them go away, or proprietors of these venues be penalyzed for letting them perform. Doesn't seem right at all.
So, don't sing too loudly in the shower?!?
The PRO’s are ASCAP, BMI and SEASAC. Each has a different fee structure, principally it would be a formula that takes in seating and number of performances. The agent makes the call and here I have seen where they have overestimated the seating in one case over double what was practical. Also average size of audience being pretty nebulous. The venue I spoke of in which one PRO through negotiations agreed to a $300 license fee had another which refused to negotiate but gave a demand of $3,000, or shut down the music.
Some agents are reasonable others are not. The reason they can ask for licensing of open mics is they often have people covering music and even if they proprietor demands only original music can he absolutely guarantee that, not possible. One cover and you need a license.
The Folk Alliance has been working on this license arrangement for a few years. Only recently has it seen progress as one of the PRO’s refused to even talk. The first agreement has been with House Concerts which was pretty easy as the agreed to rules mean the presenter asks for donations, not an admission. They cannot make a profit or even charge for expenses. The entire donation is given to the artist.
Ubrellakinesis,
I am absolutely opposed to illegal downloading of music. You are stealing from the artist. When you download a music file that you have not paid for you are taking away from that artists income. The PRO's license fees here are for publishing and songwriters. If the artist is covering anothers song y have taken away from them a part of the income.
Illegal downloads are now over 95% of music that is downloaded from the internet. That means a 95% reduction in income which compounds the problems for recording artist, large and small.
As it is for every rich performer who you listen to and see there are several hundred who are lucky to even break even. That hope for the big break is much more difficult that ever before.
This has been a fight that has been going on for years. The President of one of the PRO's was immovable that there would be no negotiations. He could care less how many venues went under, you paid our you closed.
He is gone and now there is progress.
The music business is a brutal on on the more Commercial end, less so for the independents as they often form into communities. The independents income is not that great so often the bond because of need.
The Folk/Lore and music communities are often like a huge extended family. When you get to the big money that the large Arena Acts command it is a not very nice environment which I prefer not to bother with it. There greed takes over and all the excesses that often go with it. It becomes very cut throat.
I recall Suzy Boggess when she came off stage at the Strawberry Music Festival commenting on how nice it was to be back with her kind of audience, the commercial market was nice for the money but the audiences were different and that cut throat business was a killer.
Monte
There are a few public events that are not required to have a license, very few and there are specific requirements for those to not pay a fee. The Woody Guthrie Festival is not one of those. It has to pay a fee.
Last week I was told that one of the premiere music festivals in the US is in a battle with one of the PRO’s which is threatening to shut it down or pay. This festival has PRO’s members appearing at the festival. A few of the songwriters are also among the premier songwriters in the US and do receive large checks from the PRO’s as their music has been covered by some major recording artist. However the overwhelming majority of those who appear at the festival receive little to none from these PRO‘s. This festival organizer and most others I know of have a problem with paying an out such high fees to the PRO’s knowing that most of the artist more often than not do their own music and most of these do not receive compensation.
This is the problem with the unnamed festival organizer and the PRO’s. It also would require an increase in ticket prices that this year went up with a large increase in the lease for the site.
Monte,
You understand how the difficulty of negotiations. It is becomes even worse when you have multiple conditions asked for from both parties. Among the more difficult problems in the beginning was to get the venues together. That was like herding cats. Then of course was the entrenched bureaucracy for the PRO’s, and refusal to negotiate or recognize there was a problem. This was more so with one of the PRO’s. It does little good to have an agreement with one and not the others. Such is the case I cited. I was a consulted on when the first agreement was reached but the second PRO coming along two years later is not the least bit interested in talking, “this is the price, pay it”. If I can find it I will copy an email I sent to a list regarding the discussion of this problem.
Rich,
It is a racket, for the agents who work on commissions. A used car salesman would love to have such a job. The PRO’s are a necessary evil. In the beginning a great idea and worked for the songwriters/publishers as there were not that many and their licenses fees were manly for the small at that time media market. This began to spiral out of control with the sudden explosion of songwriters and expansion of the media market. The media market is probably well over 95% of these fees. I don’t have solid figures for this. The PRO’s look for “aggressive sales people” with a stipend for a salary and commissions for what they collect. Included in the fees are bars and restaurants. The Bars have a greater source of revenue and do use almost exclusive cover bands. The bring in the customers so they can purchase alcohol at a very good profit margin, something these venues don’t have for a revenue source .
I floated the theory and found general acceptance that those aggressive agents use the big hammer and force the shutdown of smaller music venues as examples of what they can to a Bar which are far more willing to pay that higher license fee to keep their customers happy with those often marginal cover bands. Most of us doubt there is much interest in these agents in maintaining a viable live music market. I even doubt some understand accounting as some of the agents are not at all interested in looking at the books.
The other problem is if you don’t join a PRO and suddenly you hear your song you composed on a major syndicated TV show you may not be able to collect any royalties. It is a game of gotcha and here I will have to also mention there are some employees who are in management positions who are showing concern. It also didn’t hurt when one of the PRO’s top management was elected to the Folk Alliance Board of Directors and although conflict of interest has him on the sidelines in the negotiations he did helped getting all the parties to sit down with each other.
There is progress and I hope sometime this year that there is an agreement.
The house concert scene is the only one that appears to be growing and they are not subject to the PRO’s fees. In your area of Monterey there are couples I believe. There is a very active discussion regarding House Concerts on the FAR-West Folk Alliance list right now. One of the posters on this discussions is near your area and has a highly successful House Concert series.
Yes let us hope we don’t see that “Greed is Good” slogan for a while and more of “Community”, a word that I am not sure if many have caught as much as I have in Obama’s speeches.
I also know that in Europe they openly laugh at the 'greed' of the Americans over supposed copyrighted music that is not copyrighted in their countries. Sweden just had a huge expose on a channel I looked at on the internet. The subject was the same one you list here. Amazing? hardly.
As they say, yesterday's solution becomes tomorrow's problem. When my friends and I sing to the residents in local nursing homes, we do not charge fees, nor do we pay fees for the songs we sing. Should we? Is that an exception?
What happened to singing for joy, alone?
There is something very sad about this situation, but I thank you for sharing what is going on.
I believe that Creative Common licensing provides the opportunity for many talented but unrecognized songwriters to share their music with young artists who can perform in small venues. I guess I would classify myself as an unrecognized songwriter, a household name only in his own household. In the introduction to my second songbook, I write:
The songs presented in this book are the exclusive intellectual property of Curtis Brand and are neither licensed to BMI, nor to ASCAP, nor to any other predatory organization. The intent is to allow the performance of these songs by independent musicians in small venues without placing those venues at risk for suit by BMI, ASCAP, or any other licensing organization. These songs may be performed in venues holding less than 100 people without permission and without any reimbursement to the author as long as the song is verbally attributed to the author at the time of performance. Likewise, neither permission nor reimbursement is required for any performance in which the major (greater than 50%) portion of the proceeds goes to the benefit of a nonprofit organization (once again, the song is to be verbally attributed to the author at the time of performance).
Those wishing to use the songs presented in this book for commercial purposes other than specified above must receive the written permission of the author and should expect to pay a direct licensing fee to the author.
My clear intent is to provide the opportunity for musicians to play this music and for patrons to enjoy the songs without creating a financial liability for those small venue owners who have been good enough to provide a space where music can be shared and enjoyed.
To wax mildly grandiose for a moment, this country began with a refusal to pay an unjust and predatory tax on tea. A few courageous individuals joined together and threw the tea into Boston Harbor and began drinking coffee. Let us do the same for our music. Support artists who are local, support coffee houses which provide a place where their music can be played and enjoyed, and be aware that BMI and ASCAP are driving live music out of the small venues.
Perhaps Folk Alliance will be able to strike a deal with these operations, but only if all those invested in indie music begin to pressure their elected National represenatives (actions taken by state legislatures have been judicially overruled) to create more music friendly regulations.
Peace