KIAA Membership

[Lonman]

Originally Posted by ddouglass

How about getting their field agents to approach the KJ, identify themselves and ask to see there original disks to verify legality. If the KJ refuses, then make the assumption that they have something to hide and sue. I know that if someone approached me with proper credentials from Sound Choice/Sleptones and asked to see my original disks, I would gladly sit down and go through with them with him/her. I would however not accept the same if the individual was from the KIAA as they have no legal rights at all in this.
Then if they found one or more that I didn't have a disk for then let's discuss a settlement. I would then agree too the $6500 settlement as opposed to going to court. Quick and simple with less tying up the court's time, legal fees for both of us, and the bad press they are getting for their tactics.
Suing the venues is not only rediculous but is also shooting themselves and the entire industry in the foot. Most owners do not know where their entertainment, be it kj, dj, or even live, get there music from or whether any of it is legal. Oh I forgot....if they hire a KIAA certified KJ then they are guaranteed they are legal (or were at the time of their audit). This is like suing a home owner because he used an unlicensed plumber to fix a leaky faucet.

Hell i'll show anybody my discs on the spot. I had someone actually ask to see the 8125 I have because they 'said' they'd never actually seen it in existance, I pulled it out & showed them. Whether it was someone trying to 'sting' me or literally someone curious, I don't care. If I have time at a show, i'll show you any disc I own.

[muzicman144]

Just a thought, i guess the next "piracy" lawsuitswill be ASCAP/BMI -SEASAC suing the live acts for singing their songs commercially without paying. Same thing isn't it. Presently, they only go after the venues. I see no difference. It will never end.
muzicman144

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by muzicman144

Just a thought, i guess the next "piracy" lawsuitswill be ASCAP/BMI -SEASAC suing the live acts for singing their songs commercially without paying. Same thing isn't it. Presently, they only go after the venues. I see no difference. It will never end.
muzicman144

That one is already covered by my license agreement with these guys as a venue owner. Live performance, that is. The karaoke issue is for displaying the words on a screen that SC or others have produced. This not only requires a separate license for the audio portion and live performance, that is supposedly paid to the original artist/copyright holder, but also the lyrics display. Then the CDG producer for displaying their words requires that you paid for the CDG.

Also, it isn't a flat rate, or anything simple like that. It is figured on your total occupancy as if you were completely packed every night that you have karaoke. Then, if you charge a cover, (I don't) they want a piece of that too. That also is charged like you were completely full every time the doors are open.

Then you have to pay again for the privilege of playing the CDs in your jukebox, that you already paid for, even if the total income from your jukebox doesn't even cover the license fee.

[marklwood]

Just as a little more info on the licensing. BMI is really the big boy. They represent over 200,000 performers and songwriters. ASCAP only has about 60,000. SESAC is primarily European, Gospel, and Classical, but does represent Bob Dylan and Neil Diamond. One exception that I know of is Billy Joel. He negotiates his own performance fees. Does your venue have his OK?

Even though BMI has the biggest number of members, ASCAP is the oldest and still runs the show. They are the ones that primarily generate the airplay records that all of these guys are paid off of. ASCAP also has the lion's share of the biggest names. They pay the big boys most of the money and leave the rest without any compensation at all. BMI is a little bit better at feeding the small fish. They are also a non-profit. Probably why they have so many more members. SESAC is pretty much a non-issue in the US. If i didn't pay them, I not sure if they would even notice or care. I have never even received a renewal notice from them in 10 years. I just pay them at the same time I pay the other 2.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by marklwood

That one is already covered by my license agreement with these guys as a venue owner. Live performance, that is. The karaoke issue is for displaying the words on a screen that SC or others have produced. This not only requires a separate license for the audio portion and live performance, that is supposedly paid to the original artist/copyright holder, but also the lyrics display. Then the CDG producer for displaying their words requires that you paid for the CDG.

Also, it isn't a flat rate, or anything simple like that. It is figured on your total occupancy as if you were completely packed every night that you have karaoke. Then, if you charge a cover, (I don't) they want a piece of that too. That also is charged like you were completely full every time the doors are open.

Then you have to pay again for the privilege of playing the CDs in your jukebox, that you already paid for, even if the total income from your jukebox doesn't even cover the license fee.

I understand how that system works. That license only covers you as the venue owner, not the entertainer. I understand how and why they have not pursued the bands or "live acts". My question was what stops them from pursuing touring cover acts or even local acts other than the problem of collecting the money, which, would be the same problem with collecting the money from a kj.
Seems they (BMI/ASCAP, etc.) have the same option as SC to pursue the bands. A name is all they need, band's lead singer for example, and bingo, a court could rule just as they do in these karaoke cases.
muzicman144

[Lonman]

Difference is the band is not stealing the music.
ASCAP used to go after bands & dj's until they found it more sense to go after the clubs that hire the bands.

[marklwood]

Originally Posted by Lonman

Difference is the band is not stealing the music.
ASCAP used to go after bands & dj's until they found it more sense to go after the clubs that hire the bands.

The band or DJ is not obligated to pay the performance fees. That is strictly the venue's responsibility. It is not a matter of preference, that is just the way they made the rules.

The only thing the DJ/KJ is directly responsible for is the music must be legally obtained.

Interesting recent article pertaining to this very subject
http://www.citypaper.com/music/story.asp?id=19721
I have had this very thought, but not to this extent. I was just going to go with BMI and not play the others music. The reason I was going to pick BMI is that they are a non-profit. You just can't pick one though, fear of complaints kept me from doing it.

[Lonman]

Originally Posted by marklwood

You just can't pick one though, fear of complaints kept me from doing it.

Unfortunately that is true, the club needs to pay all even for tv, radio played, jukebox (although covered in most contracts with the jukebox comapny), any kind of entertainment that covers others musics, even dance floors or cover charges apply.

[muzicman144]

Originally Posted by Lonman

Difference is the band is not stealing the music.
ASCAP used to go after bands & dj's until they found it more sense to go after the clubs that hire the bands.

Basically, the bands are stealing the music and using it in a commercial way,
They just aren't pursued because it was found to be almost impossible to collect monies, as the bands would break up or take on a new name, therefore the venue was the easy target. There are no rules set as to whether a venue or performer can be targeted for these fees, and, anytime they choose, they can pursue individual performers using said music for commercial gain. I only inserted this because i believe they will be the next target for another orginization like KIAA.
JMHO
muzicman144

[billyo]

i dont know how and why they would go after dj's, from what i learned as long as you legally paid for a certain song or bought a regular disc, its up to you what you do with it, you can use it as a coaster if you wanted to, i learned that, and i posted this before, if you paid lets say $10 for a disc, portions of that goes to all the people that created that disc,in other words everybody gets paid, and you also did your part of paying them by buying the disc, and that is what the artist, producers etc. wants, they want the dj's, or non dj's to play it in public for them hear, if people likes it , then they ( the public ) might go out and buy it, it's free advertising to them .is it maybe that the the manufacturers of these disc didnt pay the people they're supposed to pay the reason why they're going after kj, dj's, venue owners? this is just an opinion