this is absurd

You drive to work with the radio on, listening to music carefully chosen by a radio station to keep you tuned in for the ads it sells;

Theme music identifies your favorite television program and background music stimulates your reaction to car chases and love scenes, medical emergencies and family reconciliations;

The music tempo is used to influence your buying decisions at the supermarket, clothing or other store;

At a nightclub, music creates that party atmosphere;

Music on hold makes the time you are on hold pass more quickly and pleasantly;

Have you ever been at a restaurant and wondered why it was so uncomfortable only to later realize it was because you thought everyone could overhear your conversation? Music surrounds you, creating the privacy you desire.

Music sets the mood and helps emphasize a corporation's message at company events on or off premises such as management conferences, sales meetings and training seminars. Imagine a company picnic, holiday or retirement party without music.


Those are all public performances. Business owners recognize that because music so strongly affects people, it can also help make their business successful. And, like other products, music is not free.

Whenever music is performed publicly the songwriter and music publisher, who created and own that music, have the right to grant or deny permission to use their property and to receive compensation for that use.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
You drive to work with the radio on, listening to music carefully chosen by a radio station to keep you tuned in for the ads it sells;

Theme music identifies your favorite television program and background music stimulates your reaction to car chases and love scenes, medical emergencies and family reconciliations;

The music tempo is used to influence your buying decisions at the supermarket, clothing or other store;

At a nightclub, music creates that party atmosphere;

Music on hold makes the time you are on hold pass more quickly and pleasantly;

Have you ever been at a restaurant and wondered why it was so uncomfortable only to later realize it was because you thought everyone could overhear your conversation? Music surrounds you, creating the privacy you desire.

Music sets the mood and helps emphasize a corporation's message at company events on or off premises such as management conferences, sales meetings and training seminars. Imagine a company picnic, holiday or retirement party without music.


Those are all public performances. Business owners recognize that because music so strongly affects people, it can also help make their business successful. And, like other products, music is not free.

Whenever music is performed publicly the songwriter and music publisher, who created and own that music, have the right to grant or deny permission to use their property and to receive compensation for that use.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html

music can also contribute to all of these things negatively

Originally posted by 6949:
Yes that includes borders-they probably pay a blanket license which covers a lot of songs in one shot. In the article it said this would've cost the restaurant owner $979 for a year's worth of music. Borders can afford that.

Not sure if that's true. Borders plays music that they sell. Arguably, they are demonstrating their merchandise.

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by SalParadise:
if they need to get a license to sell liquor, why not to play music as well?

that dying industry has to get paid somehow..

they arent selling music though. if a small restaurant purchased a cd to put in their jukebox i dont see why they would need to pay for the songs again.

neither are radio stations.

i agree it's excessive and a total reach.. but still legal.

Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html

i'd love to meet the person who had to write this

until i read it, i wasn't really sold on the whole "listening to music recorded by others" bit, but they laid out a pretty persuasive argument … thanks ASCAP!

Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:

Originally posted by 6949:
Yes that includes borders-they probably pay a blanket license which covers a lot of songs in one shot. In the article it said this would've cost the restaurant owner $979 for a year's worth of music. Borders can afford that.

Not sure if that's true. Borders plays music that they sell. Arguably, they are demonstrating their merchandise.

That's a great point but I can't imagine they are exempt from paying the fees. Check out this list. Maybe they are considered a music supplier.

Originally posted by SalParadise:

Originally posted by manimtired:

Originally posted by SalParadise:
if they need to get a license to sell liquor, why not to play music as well?

that dying industry has to get paid somehow..

they arent selling music though. if a small restaurant purchased a cd to put in their jukebox i dont see why they would need to pay for the songs again.

neither are radio stations.

i agree it's excessive and a total reach.. but still legal.

i see the point but when will ASCAP be busting into backyard BBQ's and house parties to demand money? just seems rediculous to me..

But like the restaurant owner mentioned in the article, if he's paying for music subscription services for his restaurant then the fees should be covered in what he's paying the company who pipes in the music. But maybe the owner is bullshitting to dodge the charges I have no idea.

He doesn't say what subscription service he uses. It could be something like napster where he pays $10/month for private use. If he used Muzak he would be all set because they cover the appropriate fees.

Originally posted by 6949:

Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Not sure if that's true. Borders plays music that they sell. Arguably, they are demonstrating their merchandise.

That's a great point but I can't imagine they are exempt from paying the fees. Check out this list. Maybe they are considered a music supplier.

Borders obviously falls under retail but not under "Music Supplier - Radio over Speaker." They may fall under "Mechanical Music - Chain Stores with Audio and Audio Visual Uses" (n.b. for some of you: "mechanical music" means recordings) but I think that may refer to stereo stores.

Anyway, record stores are (were?) pummelled with "demonstration" copies of recordings with the hopes that they would get played in the store. This is part of the reason why I think they would get an exemption.

I emailed BMI, SESAC and ASCAP because I have nothing better to do at work. If I get an official answer I'll post it here.

Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:
These laws aren't anything new. I find it hard to believe most people in the business don't know about them.

I agree, they've been around forever. That's why they invented - Muzak to take care of the licensing and music for you. About 10 years ago they went after bars that had their own jukeboxes and weren't paying the license.

RE: Borders and music stores

Under BMI's current guidelines, record stores are exempt if the sole purpose of the performance of music is to demonstrate and promote the sale of the CD's and tapes that are offered for sale.

If, however, in the future you decide to incorporate background music in your establishment, a music performance agreement would be required.

I agree that paying for the right to play music in ones business establishment is fair… However, there has been on occasion reports of thuggish behavior on the part of these organizations to collect their fees. One begins to wonder how much money truly gets back into the hands of artists when you hear of these orgs having people calling several times a day in order to collect.