Copyrights and Sessions

[fearfaoin]

So, I figured out this relatively simple slip jig that was on Gaelic Storm's CD "Tree"
(track 13, first tune in the set). I then looked at the liner notes to find out the name
(it's "The Caterpillar"), and saw that it was written by their fiddler (at the time),
Kathleen Keene. Since I had originally considered teaching this tune to folks to be
played in a session, I was wondering: is playing copyrighted music in a public session
frowned upon?

I would have simply shelved the tune, and stuck with trad tunes, execpt for this:
Our old slow session was being held in a coffee shop on Sunday afternoons.
One day, a representative of BMI talked to the owner of this coffee shop, and
told her that if she had any kind of live music, she had to put up an anual fee
to cover any copyright issues. She didn't want to pay this fee just for us
(understandably), so we lost that session. Anyway, if a venue has ponied up,
do you folks feel that there's a problem with sessioners playing a trad-style
tune or two that is not in the public domain?

[glauber]

Our old slow session was being held in a coffee shop on Sunday afternoons. One day, a representative of BMI talked to the owner of this coffee shop, and told her that if she had any kind of live music, she had to put up an anual fee to cover any copyright issues. She didn't want to pay this fee just for us (understandably), so we lost that session.

[fearfaoin]

Agreed. I was very mad (I consider this extortion), but didn't want to make trouble for the owner...

[Crysania]

Those BMI louts did that to a place near me...they told them they would continue to have people playing original music and music that was in the public domain and to try to do something about it. They went away after that. There's really nothing they CAN do to stop such things.

~Crysania

[stiofan]

I haven't heard about this issue affecting ITM sessions, but ASCAP apparently has undercover agents who lurk around in music venues looking for copyright "violators." This story was in the SF news last year:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... CH5H26.DTL

this kind of bureacratic oppression is intolerable...

[MarkB]

The pub in which we have our sessions on Tuesday nights, pays the SOCAN (in Canada) fee to play recorded music and live music.

As to copyright tunes not in the public domain, that is something totally different. You could play that tune you learned from Gaelic Storm straight as recorded and take you chances that some undercover SOCAN or ASCAP spy hears it and rats you out. Or you could change a couple of bars and give it another name

MarkB

[Darwin]

One of 'em came into my son's restaurant and said that he had to pay just for having recorded music playing--even though it was all by Korean musicians who probably had no connection with BMI at all. This particular rule applies even to a dentist who has a radio playing in her waiting room--as though she is somehow making money by making things a bit more pleasant for her customers.

It's been pointed out on other forums that the fees that are paid in these cases don't go to the performers of the music that is actually being played, nor to their publishers, but are divided out on the basis of total sales within the music marketplace. As I understand it, you may be pretty sure that pop idols like Brittany and Beyoncé will get just about every penny that your pub owner pays for the privilege of playing CDs of Irish performers for his customers.

It seems like double-payment to me, as CD publishers and radio stations have already paid fees on the music--and have passed that expense on to their customers or advertisers. Just using music to add a little atmosphere hardly seems to warrant an additional fee on top of the one that has already been paid.

I'd be quite happy to have it pointed out if I'm wrong about all this, as most of my info is based on hearsay.

What's particularly obnoxious is that the BMI reps seem to have a sort of bounty hunter status.

[Darwin]

Or you could change a couple of bars and give it another name

I've heard that words, arrangements. and titles can be copyrighted, but not melodies. Does anyone know whether that is really the case?

[s1m0n]

Words and melodies can be copyrighted. Chord progressions cannot. Arrangements are somewhere in the middle.

[jbarter]

I was wondering: is playing copyrighted music in a public session
frowned upon?

I haven't heard of anyone being arrested for playing 'Fields of Athenry', 'Fiddler's Green' or the theme from 'Wallace & Gromit' over here yet.
Maybe we haven't cornered the market in petty bureaucrats after all. Some must have emigrated.

[GaryKelly]

I was wondering: is playing copyrighted music in a public session
frowned upon?

I haven't heard of anyone being arrested for playing 'Fields of Athenry', 'Fiddler's Green' or the theme from 'Wallace & Gromit' over here yet.
Maybe we haven't cornered the market in petty bureaucrats after all. Some must have emigrated.

They will be soon, the Licensing Act 2003 is about to kick in:


· 110,000 on-licensed premises in England and Wales would lose their automatic right to allow one or two musicians to work. A form of this limited exemption from licensing control dates back to at least 1899.
· Churches outside London would lose their licensing exemption for public concerts.
· Thousands of private events, hitherto exempt, become licensable if 'for consideration and with a view to profit'.
· The same applies to any private performance raising money for charity.
· A new licensing criterion is introduced: the provision of 'entertainment facilities'. This could mean professional rehearsal studios, broadcasting studios etc will be illegal unless first licensed.
· Musicians could be guilty of a criminal offence if they don't check first that premises hold the appropriate authorisation for their performance.
· Likewise someone organising a karaoke night in a pub.
· Buskers: similarly potential criminals - unless they perform under a licensing authorisation.
· Church bell ringing could be licensable.
· But... broadcast entertainment on satellite or terrestrial TV, or radio, is to be exempt from licensing under this Bill.

The penalties for breaking these new laws, for owners and performers is a maximum of a six month jail sentence or a £20,000 fine.

[Joseph E. Smith]

....sigh. This kind of thing has long been out of control, and it only looks to be getting worse. :roll:

[jbarter]

Don't worry Gary, you can use the Redesdale Amendment. Lord Redesdale (Gordblessim) managed to get an amendment to the bill exempting Morris Dancing and other associated traditional performances. Even if sessions aren't specifically mentioned all you need is everybody to learn one Morris tune and have a belled-up dancer on hand to leap into action if the busies come round.

[Joseph E. Smith]

AH, once again Morris Men come to the rescue!

[GaryKelly]

http://www.musiciansunion.org.uk/articl ... news.shtml

"The Licensing Act will for the first time extend entertainment licensing across all private members clubs, and registered members clubs. It also captures private events, such as charity concerts, if they seek to make a profit - even for a good cause. The Act also creates a new category of offence for the provision of unlicensed 'entertainment facilities', which would include musical instruments provided to members of the public for the purpose of entertaining themselves, let alone an audience."

"As now, where featured entertainment at pubs and bars is concerned, local authorities will be empowered to impose any condition relating to the provision of even minimally amplified live music which they consider 'necessary' for public safety and crime and disorder unless the premises qualifies for, and uses, the conditions concession for unamplified live music. If local authorities argue, as they have consistently in the past, that because live music may attract more customers than usual the installation of more toilets is necessary (public safety), or door supervisors are needed (crime and disorder), the only way for the licence applicant to challenge the conditions will be via appeal to the Magistrates court, or application for judicial review to the High Court. Both routes are are potentially costly and risky for the applicant, and likely to be beyond the means of smaller businesses. The delay between lodging an appeal and the hearing date can be months. And while licence conditions pertaining to regulated entertainment are in dispute the licensee must refrain from providing the entertainment, or implement the condition."

And we all know where our glorious "Local Authorities" stand when it comes to making a quick buck out of fines:

http://noiseloop.com/article.php/20040525044230781

"Recent experience indicates the lengths to which some local authorities go in applying the letter of the law. A landlord was fined £500, with more than £1,500 costs, for allowing four of his regulars to sing 'Happy Birthday' (without an entertainment license); another was threatened with court action when patrons were seen to be 'tapping their feet' to, and therefore being 'entertained' by, unauthorised music. The new Licensing Bill provides even more opportunities for 'jobsworth' interference in harmless activities."

:roll: