The BMI 'music spy' controversy

Those organizations exist to ensure that composers and/or their estates get the song royalties due to them. This is clearly an important function — it’s how composers make their livings.

Club and restaurant owners all over the country have been complaining about this for years, and now musicians are feeling the pinch as well. They claim that the fees being demanded by BMI et al are making it financially impossible for clubs to continue providing live music, which of course makes it even more difficult for musicians to earn their livings. Further, club owners complain about receiving repeated letters and phone calls asking for the fees owed, and there are even instances of “spies” showing up at the venue in order to hear just what copyrighted tunes are being played.

So who’s in the right here? The truth — at least for someone like me, who has been playing live music for more than 50 years — lies somewhere in the middle.

Who’s paying now?

Many venues with live music are paying musicians little or nothing to begin with. Players often work for a percentage of an admission or music charge and are also solely responsible for publicizing the gig and bringing in their own followers to fill the seats. Does the musician’s union protect against such practices? Unless a performer is working for the Philadelphia Orchestra, no: Club owners can set up any policy they choose.

The bottom line is that venues using this policy are getting music with no expense — and not even any financial risk. But evidently that’s not enough — many of them are bitching about having to pay an organization like BMI a fee in the neighborhood of $1,000 per year, which works out to $2.74 per day. Even that, it seems, is too high a price.

The claims that club owners are receiving phone calls and letters seeking payment are likely true. This happens when a business ignores bills that are supposed to be paid. “Spies?” Probably true as well. But aren’t these performing rights organizations entitled to know what compositions are being played?

Can’t we all just get along?

Instead of complaining, venue owners and musicians — yes, even those who think $2.74 per day is too high — should know that BMI and the others are ready to work with venues. A compromise price structure can consider a number of factors, including the venue’s size, how music is being used, how much original music is performed, and cover and minimum charges. My suggestion to venue owners who have a problem with ASCAP and BMI fees is to contact them and work something out where everyone is happy. Ignoring these organizations is not the answer.

It seems that more and more people assume that music should be free for everyone. We see this attitude in many quarters, most notably on YouTube. And in line with the BMI and ASCAP issue, some are saying that it may no longer be relevant to have to pay royalties on 70-year-old songs. Should music be free for everyone? It’s getting close to that, but somewhere and somehow, some piper should be paid.