No doubt you had the usual problem - couldn’t get near the bloody bar for Morris Men. 
I can envisage three possible outcomes from this sort of Puritan behaviour (the Government legislation and the Sam Smith ban)
-
public live music is killed stone dead
-
it has little effect, we continue to play music, but in our own homes, or pay through the nose for the pleasure of entertaining others
-
anyone who had a hand in enacting the new laws is mercilessly hunted out and impaled on a Bb Generation, and we return to the good old days of yore.
Martin - while, I personnally, prefer choice #3:
“3) anyone who had a hand in enacting the new laws is mercilessly hunted out and impaled on a Bb Generation, and we return to the good old days of yore.”
If we did that here in the US, some Congress person would then have to try and have all Bb Generation owners be registered, which in turn would possibly lead to the banning of all Bb Generations, which could then mean all whistles could be banned because there’s really no use for any of them, and on and on and on…
Missy
They can have my Gen Bb when they pry it rfrom my cold dead fingers!
It’s my favorite whistle!!
Yes, but this is simply payment to the to the artists who do, really, deserve to be compensated for their works.
It specifically excludes works which have never been copyrighted. So, if you ensure to play only public-domain works, and take care to do your own “arrangement,” you should not be liable to pay the fees. The establishment should have already paid the yearly fee, in any event.
Yes, music on a home radio connected to home-type speakers is exempt regardless of the size of business.
Think about it this way . . . the music encourages patronage. If I’m playing Enya in my bodywork clinic to enhance relaxation and promote a therapeutic atmosphere, I should be paying for the commercial use of it, just as I pay for oils and lotions, building rental, and the people who install and maintain the goldfish pond in the atrium. If I’m playing music in my restaurant, I’m providing an inducement to eat there by making it more pleasant, so I should be paying for the commercial use of it, just as I pay for rental of the building. If I’m using music on my phone system, to keep callers placated and hanging on until my employees can talk to them, I should be paying for it.
Why? Because in each case I am making money from the use of that music. In each case, the music is an inducement to patronize my establishment.
Of course, that raises another spectre. You know the background designs on fabric and carpet and such? Wait until the designers gang up and start extorting funds for commercial use of them . . .
Peggy wrote:
“Yes, but this is simply payment to the to the artists who do, really, deserve to be compensated for their works”
As I said above, I have absolutely NO problem paying an artist for their intellectual property. But paying BMI, ASCAP or whatever fees doesn’t insure that the artist who’s works YOU are playing will get paid. The moneys go into a general “fund”, the lawyers, etc. get paid, then the fund is distributed based on % of play time and air time (please, if I’m mistaken, someone correct me). So, your Beach Boys and Michael Jacksons of the recording industry will make money, your lowly folk artist may get a few cents.
A friend who’s been a member of BMI for over 20 years has gotten ONE check for $20 during that entire time (and he’s done a lot of recording, both on his own and session). He still thinks it was a mistake!
Missy