[Bill Graham]

vdubreeze wrote:
Bill,

Start a new thread if you want to rant more about BMI. This is way
OT.

But just to clear up some of your misstatements:



I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be
played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling
anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about".

??? You're leaving out the entire issue. If an establishment pays a
set nominal fee they can play anything they want. If they insist they
deserve the world for nothing (and maybe they're paying you nothing
when you should be getting $300) they should try that with the AC
installer. I guess you're saying that music, including your own,
isn't worth paying for, but I've never been in that camp, as a player
or as a business owner.


I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI
and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you.
but that's not what's going on.


??? You don't pay any dues as a writer to be a BMI member, Bill.
In fact, I don't think they have ANY dues except if you set up a
publishing company for them to deal with, and that is the grand sum of
a $150 one time fee. I'm a BMI member and I've never paid anything
besides that fee 25 years ago.

They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI
to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music
written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people
who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And
you are happy with that?

Ay yi yi. Let's take this elsewhere, Bill. But, and pardon the all
caps, BMI DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING!!! EVER!!! THEY DON'T OWN MUSIC
BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING 1927!!!!!! The song owners own them!! The
writers!! The publishers!!! The songwriters who self publish!!!
That's not even close enough to be an Urban Myth! : )

You're on Bizarro world with this one : ) But please start a
new thread for further fun misfacts.

v

Why should I clear my subjects with you before I comment on them? Who the
hell are you, anyway? Somebody wanted $1000 a year for my friend Blake to
play dixieland music at our local Pizza joint once a month. That was too
much for the owner to pay, so Blake lost the gig. I know this to be true.
So, you can do all the hand waving you want, but I know what I know. If you
want to join a moderated group, then do so. Otherwise, either kill file me,
or carry on a rationasl conversation with me.,
But don't tell me what I am allowed to post on here. That is not your
business.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
Why should I clear my subjects with you before I comment on them? Who the
hell are you, anyway? Somebody wanted $1000 a year for my friend Blake to
play dixieland music at our local Pizza joint once a month. That was too
much for the owner to pay, so Blake lost the gig. I know this to be true.

Have you ever played a game of telephone? Somebody tells the pizza store
owner something, that owner tells Blake something, Blake tells you something
and by the time it gets to the end of the chain the information has become
totally distorted.

But don't tell me what I am allowed to post on here. That is not your
business.

It's bad to post incorrect information, especially when you realize
yourself that it's third-hand information and probably not so accurate.

You might want to actually speak to the store owner and to the rep and see
what really happened.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
ONce again Bill Graham pollutes another thread.

On 2011-05-18 said:
You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual
facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people
who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't
care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to
read and understand, even when you've been given good practical
suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in
your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care,
because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza
pub.

I'm not sure that the owner of the pizza joint isn't just
using the agencies such as bmi to keep from telling this guy
that his close mic'd trumpet with the octave pedal sounds
like ****. HE's probably trying to be kind to this
bullheaded deaf octogenarian.

Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already
know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you
won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still
remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather
than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with
prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in,
you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own
fault. No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with
that?

HE's too pig ignorant to understand what you're saying to
him, which is why I killfiled MR. Graham months ago. HE's
an obnoxious old geezer who doesn't have the guts to live up
to his so-called principles.



Richard webb,

I understand that Blake, (who plays beautifully, without any electronic
enhancements, by the way) cannot play his once a month appearances at our
local pizza parlor because some chicken-**** outfit demands $1000 a year
from the owner because some of the dixieland songs Blake's group plays were
written after 1927. I also understand that 1927 was 84 years ago. I think
this is a crock of ****, and I have the right to say so right here, on this
forum, or anywhere else, for that matter. And, so I do. All you schills for
the government, who are out there assuming that everything your reps do and
the SCOTUS does is the cats whiskers can go to hell. I have lived here 75
years and I can tell you this. This country is going to hell in a handbasket
and it won't be too long before none of you will be able to live free any
more, or enjoy anything anymore. So you better listen to old geezers like me
and try to change the direction we are headed before its too late. Either
that, or you can go meekly into your assigned padded cells when the time
comes.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be
played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling
anything to any customers.

So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney
did, and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did.
They lost a Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss
might be better than you'd otherwise expect.

I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from a
venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue owner
almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he is
dealing with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough
motivation for him to actually do a bit of research and figure out
what really went on.

But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving
problems. --scott

No, I like watching idiots like you dismiss other people's problems until it
comes around to restricting you from doing what turns you on, and then
hearing you wimper about how bad things have become. Its easy for you to
turn your backs on other people being screwed by the system. I sure wish I
could be here to listen to you when the screwers get around to screwing you.

[timewarp2008]

On May 19, 7:48*pm, "Little Willie" ranted:
*But don't tell me what I am allowed to post on here. That is not your
business

So you're telling him what he's allowed to post here! But it's not
your business!

Or is it? I guess it depends which orifice you're speaking out of.
Either way, you're spewing utter ****e, mitigated only by the two feet
that you've thrust in. Into two different orifices, apparently. Now,
please, back to your ranting about your own ignorance and refusal to
understand reality. After all, as you have boasted, utter stupidity is
good enough for you.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Why should I clear my subjects with you before I comment on them?
Who the hell are you, anyway? Somebody wanted $1000 a year for my
friend Blake to play dixieland music at our local Pizza joint once a
month. That was too much for the owner to pay, so Blake lost the
gig. I know this to be true.

Have you ever played a game of telephone? Somebody tells the pizza
store owner something, that owner tells Blake something, Blake tells
you something and by the time it gets to the end of the chain the
information has become totally distorted.

But don't tell me what I am allowed to post on here. That is not your
business.

It's bad to post incorrect information, especially when you realize
yourself that it's third-hand information and probably not so
accurate.

You might want to actually speak to the store owner and to the rep
and see what really happened.
--scott

I agree. I should do that. But Blake tells me that if he played only songs
that were written before 1927, then there would be no problem. Also, I have
read on the internet, that the burden of proof is his. IOW, Blake would have
to find sheet music for all the songs he plays that were published before
1927, so he could provide the proof that the music he playes was written
before then. If true, this tells me that ALL music written after 1927 has
been copyrighted by these people, whoever they are.

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

vdubreeze wrote:
Bill,

Start a new thread if you want to rant more about BMI. This is way
OT.

But just to clear up some of your misstatements:



I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be
played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling
anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about".

??? You're leaving out the entire issue. If an establishment pays a
set nominal fee they can play anything they want. If they insist they
deserve the world for nothing (and maybe they're paying you nothing
when you should be getting $300) they should try that with the AC
installer. I guess you're saying that music, including your own,
isn't worth paying for, but I've never been in that camp, as a player
or as a business owner.


I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI
and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you.
but that's not what's going on.


??? You don't pay any dues as a writer to be a BMI member, Bill.
In fact, I don't think they have ANY dues except if you set up a
publishing company for them to deal with, and that is the grand sum of
a $150 one time fee. I'm a BMI member and I've never paid anything
besides that fee 25 years ago.

They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs
written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI
to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music
written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people
who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And
you are happy with that?

Ay yi yi. Let's take this elsewhere, Bill. But, and pardon the all
caps, BMI DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING!!! EVER!!! THEY DON'T OWN MUSIC
BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING 1927!!!!!! The song owners own them!! The
writers!! The publishers!!! The songwriters who self publish!!!
That's not even close enough to be an Urban Myth! : )

You're on Bizarro world with this one : ) But please start a
new thread for further fun misfacts.

v

Why should I clear my subjects with you before I comment on them? Who the
hell are you, anyway? Somebody wanted $1000 a year for my friend Blake to
play dixieland music at our local Pizza joint once a month. That was too
much for the owner to pay, so Blake lost the gig. I know this to be true.
So, you can do all the hand waving you want, but I know what I know. If you
want to join a moderated group, then do so. Otherwise, either kill file me,
or carry on a rationasl conversation with me.,
But don't tell me what I am allowed to post on here. That is not your
business.

Hey, **** off, fool. You refuse to address the FACTS pointed your way.
You talk **** like you know ****, but you don't know **** about the
thing you're talking about.

No matter what happened to your buddy and the situation at the
restaurant you have the FACTS of the matter misconstrued, and you rant
at windills thinking they're after you. Further, nobody at BMI owes your
pal a job playing music. No composer and/or publisher owes you, your
pal, or the restaurant anything, either.

People have posted volumes of info here about it but obviously learning
**** ain't your game. That, at least, is consistent throughout your
ignorant blathering in this newsgroup. You are welcome to keep posting.
We haven't had an idiot of your caliber here in quite a while.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

wrote:
ONce again Bill Graham pollutes another thread.

On 2011-05-18 said:
You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual
facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people
who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't
care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to
read and understand, even when you've been given good practical
suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in
your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care,
because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza
pub.

I'm not sure that the owner of the pizza joint isn't just
using the agencies such as bmi to keep from telling this guy
that his close mic'd trumpet with the octave pedal sounds
like ****. HE's probably trying to be kind to this
bullheaded deaf octogenarian.

Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already
know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you
won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still
remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather
than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with
prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in,
you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own
fault. No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with
that?

HE's too pig ignorant to understand what you're saying to
him, which is why I killfiled MR. Graham months ago. HE's
an obnoxious old geezer who doesn't have the guts to live up
to his so-called principles.



Richard webb,

I understand that Blake, (who plays beautifully, without any electronic
enhancements, by the way) cannot play his once a month appearances at our
local pizza parlor because some chicken-**** outfit demands $1000 a year
from the owner because some of the dixieland songs Blake's group plays were
written after 1927. I also understand that 1927 was 84 years ago. I think
this is a crock of ****, and I have the right to say so right here, on this
forum, or anywhere else, for that matter. And, so I do. All you schills for
the government, who are out there assuming that everything your reps do and
the SCOTUS does is the cats whiskers can go to hell. I have lived here 75
years and I can tell you this. This country is going to hell in a handbasket
and it won't be too long before none of you will be able to live free any
more, or enjoy anything anymore. So you better listen to old geezers like me
and try to change the direction we are headed before its too late. Either
that, or you can go meekly into your assigned padded cells when the time
comes.

Nobody here is living "free", so again, you are blowing farts right out
your mouth. Suck it up and learn something.

Tell us what kind of "engineering" you did. Most of us ain't gonna
listen to much you say until you show some sign of intelligent life.

Are you drawing any retirement money? Social Security? A pension in any
form? These simple questions can be handled with "yes" or "no", if
that's not too much for you to manage.

Why would I listen to a geezer like you when there are far smarter
geezers almost everywhere I turn? Why follow somebody too stupid to
learn when there are old folks about who still have active minds?

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be
played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling
anything to any customers.

So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney
did, and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did.
They lost a Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss
might be better than you'd otherwise expect.

I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from a
venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue owner
almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he is
dealing with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough
motivation for him to actually do a bit of research and figure out
what really went on.

But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving
problems. --scott

No, I like watching idiots like you dismiss other people's problems until it
comes around to restricting you from doing what turns you on, and then
hearing you wimper about how bad things have become. Its easy for you to
turn your backs on other people being screwed by the system. I sure wish I
could be here to listen to you when the screwers get around to screwing you.

You couldn't handle Scott's soldering iron, let alone stand a chance of
making him look like an idiot.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-19 (hankalrich) said:
HE's too pig ignorant to understand what you're saying to
him, which is why I killfiled MR. Graham months ago. HE's
an obnoxious old geezer who doesn't have the guts to live up
to his so-called principles.
Tell us what kind of "engineering" you did. Most of us ain't gonna
listen to much you say until you show some sign of intelligent life.
THink he's been asked that question before. I think he
mentioned something about designing power supplies, I"d
guess for rf stuff since I"m assuming it was military
related, which means that on that subject he might actually
know his onions.

Are you drawing any retirement money? Social Security? A pension in
any form? These simple questions can be handled with "yes" or "no",
if that's not too much for you to manage.
IF he is then he gives the lie to his own so-called
principles. DOllars to donuts he is.

Why would I listen to a geezer like you when there are far smarter
geezers almost everywhere I turn? Why follow somebody too stupid to
learn when there are old folks about who still have active minds?

INdeed, and I interact with some of them every day. HE just
doesn't happen to be one of them, which is why I only see
his drivel when quoted by others.
MIster libertarian says everybody oughta be able to make a
buck, except songwriters, musicians, etc. THing is, after
people like him would rip us off there's no safety net for
us to rely on either. NIce guy huh?


HE's welcome to post whatever he likes, but then he
shouldn't complain when others call him on his bull****.

CAlling MR. Dorsey an idiot, as I saw in another quoted
reply ... Mr. DOrsey has been around here for years, and
been in the industry for years. a year ago we hadn't heard
of some doofus octogenarian nitwit named Bill Graham.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[hank alrich]

wrote:

On 2011-05-19 (hankalrich) said:
HE's too pig ignorant to understand what you're saying to
him, which is why I killfiled MR. Graham months ago. HE's
an obnoxious old geezer who doesn't have the guts to live up
to his so-called principles.
Tell us what kind of "engineering" you did. Most of us ain't gonna
listen to much you say until you show some sign of intelligent life.
THink he's been asked that question before. I think he
mentioned something about designing power supplies, I"d
guess for rf stuff since I"m assuming it was military
related, which means that on that subject he might actually
know his onions.

Then he also ought to know plenty about "socialism", because the US
military is a completely socialist rig. (If we exclude Blackwater. g)

Are you drawing any retirement money? Social Security? A pension in
any form? These simple questions can be handled with "yes" or "no",
if that's not too much for you to manage.
IF he is then he gives the lie to his own so-called
principles. DOllars to donuts he is.

Why would I listen to a geezer like you when there are far smarter
geezers almost everywhere I turn? Why follow somebody too stupid to
learn when there are old folks about who still have active minds?

INdeed, and I interact with some of them every day. HE just
doesn't happen to be one of them, which is why I only see
his drivel when quoted by others.
MIster libertarian says everybody oughta be able to make a
buck, except songwriters, musicians, etc. THing is, after
people like him would rip us off there's no safety net for
us to rely on either. NIce guy huh?


HE's welcome to post whatever he likes, but then he
shouldn't complain when others call him on his bull****.

CAlling MR. Dorsey an idiot, as I saw in another quoted
reply ... Mr. DOrsey has been around here for years, and
been in the industry for years. a year ago we hadn't heard
of some doofus octogenarian nitwit named Bill Graham.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:

No, I like watching idiots like you dismiss other people's problems until it
comes around to restricting you from doing what turns you on, and then
hearing you wimper about how bad things have become. Its easy for you to
turn your backs on other people being screwed by the system. I sure wish I
could be here to listen to you when the screwers get around to screwing you.

Bill, the reason why you're getting screwed is because you aren't doing
anything about it. You're just sitting there whining instead of actually
doing something about the problem. Consequently, people don't have a lot
of sympathy for you.

Since you have exhibited similar behaviours here before, you should not be
surprised that the well of sympathy has gone dry.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

You might want to actually speak to the store owner and to the rep
and see what really happened.

I agree. I should do that. But Blake tells me that if he played only songs
that were written before 1927, then there would be no problem.

That's true but irrelevant. If he plays anything that is PD, he's fine, and
that includes most of that music. If he plays anything that is copyrighted
but not represented by BMI, he's fine from BMI's standpoint, but not really.

Also, I have
read on the internet, that the burden of proof is his. IOW, Blake would have
to find sheet music for all the songs he plays that were published before
1927, so he could provide the proof that the music he playes was written
before then.

That's one possibility, but he can also go into the Harry Fox website and
check the current status, which only takes a minute. He can also go to the
BMI website and look in their database, though many songwriters are represented
by ASCAP or SESAC instead.

If true, this tells me that ALL music written after 1927 has
been copyrighted by these people, whoever they are.

No, not at all. All music written after 1927 has the possibility of being
copyrighted. Some songwriters use BMI to represent their copyrighted material.
Others don't.

Most of that older material has fallen out of copyright, but some is still
in copyright, and if so you will have to get permission from the folks who
hold the rights.

Let's say you want to play a modern piece like Satin Doll. You can go to
http://www.harryfox.com/songfile/pub...blicsearch.jsp

put in "Satin Doll" and it shows up as an Ellington piece. Currently owned
by Sony/ATV Harmony. You can write them a letter and ask for rights to
perform it, and they will often give them to you for free. Or you can license
it through ASCAP (not BMI) online, which is easier but will cost a couple bucks.

Or you can look at an Ellington record and it will show who wrote the
original song and who represents them on the label. The record will
say SATIN DOLL-- ELLINGTON (ASCAP) on it.

Many venues get blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which means
performers don't have to worry about rights. You don't need to get a
blanket license, but it makes life easier. The cost of the blanket license
depends entirely on how good a negotiator you are and what you are performing.
I have seen folks actually negotiate free ones for festival sites.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Some songwriters use BMI to represent their copyrighted material.
Others don't.

Let's keep in view that BMI doesn't represent the material the way a
pulisher might. BMI, along with ASCAP, SESAC, etc., is concerned with
performance royalty collection.

Many venues get blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which means
performers don't have to worry about rights. You don't need to get a
blanket license, but it makes life easier. The cost of the blanket license
depends entirely on how good a negotiator you are and what you are performing.
I have seen folks actually negotiate free ones for festival sites.

Long ago in a faraway time PRO's came to AWHQ with demands that would
have immediately put us out of business. We negotiated reasonable rates
and thereafter enjoyed productive relationships for the duration of the
business.

Basically you often start out dealing with a near-goon with the bearing
of a collection agent, and if you have informed yourself (Graham's real
problem right there) of their parameters and rules you quickly wind up
dealing with a thinking human being who can help figure it out to
everyone's benefit. But this takes work on one's own part and clearly
some are not into that. Others are intimidated by the pseudogoon and
freak out at the gitgo.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Bill Graham wrote:

No, I like watching idiots like you dismiss other people's problems until it
comes around to restricting you from doing what turns you on, and then
hearing you wimper about how bad things have become. Its easy for you to
turn your backs on other people being screwed by the system. I sure wish I
could be here to listen to you when the screwers get around to screwing you.

Bill, the reason why you're getting screwed is because you aren't doing
anything about it. You're just sitting there whining instead of actually
doing something about the problem. Consequently, people don't have a lot
of sympathy for you.

Since you have exhibited similar behaviours here before, you should not be
surprised that the well of sympathy has gone dry.

Pump was delivered without a handle.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[vdubreeze]

On May 20, 12:39*pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Some songwriters use BMI to represent their copyrighted material.
Others don't. *

Let's keep in view that BMI doesn't represent the material the way a
pulisher might. BMI, along with ASCAP, SESAC, etc., is concerned with
performance royalty collection.

Many venues get blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which means
performers don't have to worry about rights. *You don't need to get a
blanket license, but it makes life easier. *The cost of the blanket license
depends entirely on how good a negotiator you are and what you are performing.
I have seen folks actually negotiate free ones for festival sites.

Long ago in a faraway time PRO's came to AWHQ with demands that would
have immediately put us out of business. We negotiated reasonable rates
and thereafter enjoyed productive relationships for the duration of the
business.


Hank, that's a good point and there's also the other kind of club,
where the owners plead poverty and claim the place can only function
at a certain low level, but in fact they have been making enough to
support multiple dwellings for both owners and their families, put
their kids through college, and live a VERY high life. NYC folks will
immediately think of the Bottom Line, where the owners (pretty much
reviled for their uber stinginess, by the artists, who wanted a place
to play when there was no other in NYC, and the staff, where even the
nicest waitresses were renown for padding the checks to make up for
their abuse. When their landlord NYU said "Enough of this far below
market rent for decades. We're bringing it up to market value", and
rather than negotiate for long, The Bottom Line claimed large club
expenses past due and a few hundred thousand in other debts and
closed. If you asked anyone who worked there how they could possibly
cry such poverty and debt when they paid the artists (and I know,
having both worked for a booking agency and played there) and staff
next to nothing while paying way under market sweetheart rent for
decades and charging top ticket and bar prices, you'll get a very big,
sad laugh.

Point of that tirade is that sometimes establishment owners simply lie
about why they can't do this or that, or pay you for this, or why you
can't do that here. Knowing that Hank's tale of negotiating is the
actual way it goes, the next time a club lays that BS line on you that
they can't afford to pay a performance fee, show them Hank's post and
say "It actually won't cost more than the yearly dock fee for your
boat in East Hampton"

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
Are you drawing any retirement money? Social Security? A pension in
any form? These simple questions can be handled with "yes" or "no",
if that's not too much for you to manage.
IF he is then he gives the lie to his own so-called
principles. DOllars to donuts he is.


Nonsense! Anyone should draw from whatever fund he has contributed to over
the years. After all, it's his money. Of course I draw Social Security.
but that doesn't mean I like the institution. They confiscated the money
from me for 40 years. I didn't have anything to say about it. Now, they are
giving it back to me when I no longer need it. And I am supposed to be happy
about that? And shouldn't take it? Give me one of your stupid liberal
breaks!

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

No, I like watching idiots like you dismiss other people's problems
until it comes around to restricting you from doing what turns you
on, and then hearing you wimper about how bad things have become.
Its easy for you to turn your backs on other people being screwed by
the system. I sure wish I could be here to listen to you when the
screwers get around to screwing you.

Bill, the reason why you're getting screwed is because you aren't
doing anything about it. You're just sitting there whining instead
of actually doing something about the problem. Consequently, people
don't have a lot of sympathy for you.

Since you have exhibited similar behaviours here before, you should
not be surprised that the well of sympathy has gone dry.
--scott

Exactly what shiould I do about a problem like this? I am 75, and have
already gotten my education and spent my life in another field altogether. I
can't go back and go to law school and petition SCOTUS to make changes in
fields where I see problems. I am not asking for, "sympathy". All I am doing
is calling to the attention of other people some of the things that I see as
a problem with the laws. If you agree, then perhaps you will do something
about them, or bring them to the attention of others who might do something.
If you disagree, then say so and why, or just ignore me. God knows that I
have been ignored many times before. I have a huge list of things that I
believe should be changed. For example, do you know that every retiree is
screwed out of one SS check by the Social Security administration? This
amounts to 2-1/2 Billion dollars a year that the SS administration steals
from us geezers. Someday YOU will be one of us. Are you happy with that? Are
you at all interested? If not, then crawl back into your cocoon and ignore
me. I am used to it.

[vdubreeze]

On May 20, 8:28*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

You might want to actually speak to the store owner and to the rep
and see what really happened.

I agree. I should do that. But Blake tells me that if he played only
songs that were written before 1927, then there would be no problem.

That's true but irrelevant. *If he plays anything that is PD, he's
fine, and that includes most of that music. *If he plays anything
that is copyrighted
but not represented by BMI, he's fine from BMI's standpoint, but not
really.

Also, I have
read on the internet, that the burden of proof is his. IOW, Blake
would have to find sheet music for all the songs he plays that were
published before 1927, so he could provide the proof that the music
he playes was written before then.

That's one possibility, but he can also go into the Harry Fox website
and
check the current status, which only takes a minute. *He can also go
to the
BMI website and look in their database, though many songwriters are
represented by ASCAP or SESAC instead.

If true, this tells me that ALL music written after 1927 has
been copyrighted by these people, whoever they are.

No, not at all. *All music written after 1927 has the possibility of
being copyrighted. *Some songwriters use BMI to represent their
copyrighted material. Others don't.

Most of that older material has fallen out of copyright, but some is
still
in copyright, and if so you will have to get permission from the
folks who
hold the rights.

Let's say you want to play a modern piece like Satin Doll. *You can
go tohttp://www.harryfox.com/songfile/public/publicsearch.jsp

put in "Satin Doll" and it shows up as an Ellington piece. *Currently
owned
by Sony/ATV Harmony. *You can write them a letter and ask for rights
to
perform it, and they will often give them to you for free. *Or you
can license it through ASCAP (not BMI) online, which is easier but
will cost a couple bucks.

Or you can look at an Ellington record and it will show who wrote the
original song and who represents them on the label. *The record will
say SATIN DOLL-- ELLINGTON (ASCAP) on it.

Many venues get blanket licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, which
means performers don't have to worry about rights. *You don't need to
get a
blanket license, but it makes life easier. *The cost of the blanket
license depends entirely on how good a negotiator you are and what
you are performing. I have seen folks actually negotiate free ones
for festival sites. --scott

I have no bitch against the writers of music copyrighting their works and
benefitting from them. But 1927 was 84 years ago. None of the original
writers of that music are still alive. I think the year should be: Later
than that, and: Move up a year every year, rather than be fixed at that one
year that continues to grow older and older and more and more ridiculous.
But apparently, I am the only one on this Earth that thinks that. Or, if
some others agree with me, they are too wimpey to say so.


I'll take the check, please.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
I have no bitch against the writers of music copyrighting their works and
benefitting from them. But 1927 was 84 years ago. None of the original
writers of that music are still alive.

Yes, and consequently (even in spite of Disney), almost all of the music
from that era is PD. Not all of it is, but most of it is. The stuff that
is, you can play without worrying. The stuff that isn't, you need to
get rights for.

You can get rights a bunch of different ways, some of them free, some of
them expensive. For the most part, the free ways require a lot of time,
the expensive ones save time. That's how the world works.

I think the year should be: Later
than that, and: Move up a year every year, rather than be fixed at that one
year that continues to grow older and older and more and more ridiculous.
But apparently, I am the only one on this Earth that thinks that. Or, if
some others agree with me, they are too wimpey to say so.

Oh, I'd be in favor of shortening the term of copyright, but that's
irrelevant and really doesn't have anything to do with your problem,
you know. You keep going on and on about this when it really does not
bear on the issue of making sure you have rights to play whatever you play.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-20 (ScottDorsey) said:
You can get rights a bunch of different ways, some of them free,
some of them expensive. For the most part, the free ways require a
lot of time, the expensive ones save time. That's how the world
works.
INdeed, and those methods work, but sitting here on a usenet
group populated by many who earn their daily bread thanks to
the rights systems already in place is counterproductive.
THose of us who aren't writers ourselves benefit from the
business those folks bring us. SOMe hobbyist who took up
music as a hobby in his dotage coming to us telling us that
we should cheer him on for wanting to throw out the systems
which help us get paid, or at least are the best we can hope
for, because he doesn't understand them isn't going to gain
much traction here. Using methods already available to you
to get what you want might get you results, and then the old
geezers can again play dixieland at the pizza joint.
OTherwise, MR. Graham doesn't have a dog in this hunt. HE
is not an audio professional, nor a professional musician,
nor a songwriter or publisher. What he thinks systems which
ensure that rights holders get paid should look like is
irrelevant. But there again, he spouts off about his
so-called libertarian principles and neglects the
cornerstone of libertarianism, I ought to be able to set a
price for my goods and/or services that assures me of a
profit without interference from government or those who
don't have a legitimate interest in them.

Bill, Mr. DOrsey has given you some good pointers to move
forward with the owner of the pizza joint and BMI. THat's
the only game in town if you want to assist your associate
with this one. It also works reliably, if you use it.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Richard Webb[_3_]]

IN a previous article I wrote:
cornerstone of libertarianism, I ought to be able to set a
price for my goods and/or services that assures me of a
profit without interference from government or those who
don't have a legitimate interest in them.

THIs is why there are two major agencies doing rights
collection, Ascap and BMI. BMI is the later comer to that
game, and was started because Ascap did not meet the needs
of many songwriters and publishers. Iirc back in the day
Ascap was more highbrow and didn't really offer their
services to the writers of country and other popular forms
of music. Scott Dorsey has pointed you toward solutions,
including attempting to deal with the rights holders
individually for the songs you wish rights for. DOn't like
those options? Too bad, those are the ones you have, plus
one more. That one is to start up an organization such as
Ascap and BMI that improves the process. IF it improves the process for the writers and publishers they'll use your
agency. IF it doesn't, then you're out of luck.
But wading in here as an old diletante spouting off about
what you don't know hasn't won you many friends here.


Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:
I have no bitch against the writers of music copyrighting their
works and benefitting from them. But 1927 was 84 years ago. None of
the original writers of that music are still alive.

Yes, and consequently (even in spite of Disney), almost all of the
music from that era is PD. Not all of it is, but most of it is. The
stuff that is, you can play without worrying. The stuff that isn't,
you need to
get rights for.

You can get rights a bunch of different ways, some of them free, some
of them expensive. For the most part, the free ways require a lot of
time, the expensive ones save time. That's how the world works.

I think the year should be: Later
than that, and: Move up a year every year, rather than be fixed at
that one year that continues to grow older and older and more and
more ridiculous. But apparently, I am the only one on this Earth
that thinks that. Or, if some others agree with me, they are too
wimpey to say so.

Oh, I'd be in favor of shortening the term of copyright, but that's
irrelevant and really doesn't have anything to do with your problem,
you know. You keep going on and on about this when it really does not
bear on the issue of making sure you have rights to play whatever you
play. --scott

Why do you think that, "That doesn't have anything to do with my problem?"
Of course it does. I will be dead and gone before I can play the music I
love In the local Pizza house. That impacts me directly. This music was
written in the thirties and forties. Playing music is my only skill and
hobby. I must either defy BMI or curl up and die. As a matter orf fact, the
older I get, the more I must either defy sombody or other, or curl up and
die. I can't wait until this, or something similar happens to you.

As a libertarian, I believe that the only purpose for a law is to protect
someone's rights from someone else. But more and more, I see laws that are
made just to steal money from someone to give it to someone else, and
individual rights be damned.

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
On 2011-05-20 (ScottDorsey) said:
You can get rights a bunch of different ways, some of them free,
some of them expensive. For the most part, the free ways require a
lot of time, the expensive ones save time. That's how the world
works.
INdeed, and those methods work, but sitting here on a usenet
group populated by many who earn their daily bread thanks to
the rights systems already in place is counterproductive.
THose of us who aren't writers ourselves benefit from the
business those folks bring us. SOMe hobbyist who took up
music as a hobby in his dotage coming to us telling us that
we should cheer him on for wanting to throw out the systems
which help us get paid, or at least are the best we can hope
for, because he doesn't understand them isn't going to gain
much traction here. Using methods already available to you
to get what you want might get you results, and then the old
geezers can again play dixieland at the pizza joint.
OTherwise, MR. Graham doesn't have a dog in this hunt. HE
is not an audio professional, nor a professional musician,
nor a songwriter or publisher. What he thinks systems which
ensure that rights holders get paid should look like is
irrelevant. But there again, he spouts off about his
so-called libertarian principles and neglects the
cornerstone of libertarianism, I ought to be able to set a
price for my goods and/or services that assures me of a
profit without interference from government or those who
don't have a legitimate interest in them.

In a true libertarian society, government wouldn't be allowed to give the
rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out of hand. this is
not libertarianism by any stretch of the imagination.

[timewarp2008]

On May 22, 5:17*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Playing music is my only skill and hobby.

That's your own choice, so don't whine to everyone else about it. Do
something about it, or accept it.

I must either defy BMI or curl up and die.

Actually, other reasonable options have been pointed out, but you're
just to much of a ****ing moron to acknowlege that. The real problem
here is that you're an insufferable asshole.

[timewarp2008]

On May 22, 5:40*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
In a true libertarian society,

There is no such society.

government wouldn't be allowed to give the
rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out of hand.

And governement has not done so. Your brain is stuck on stupid, and it
seems that no amount of fact correction will get through to you.
You're a hopeless idiot, and apparently you're happy with that. Maybe
you should consider the curl-up-and-die option,.

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-22 said:
On May 22, 5:40ÿpm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
In a true libertarian society,
There is no such society.
government wouldn't be allowed to give the
rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out of hand.
wtf is this dude talking about? One of the guiding
principles of libertarianism is that I should be able to
protect what is mine from intrusion by others. tHe
protection of private property is one of the cornerstones as
it were.

And governement has not done so. Your brain is stuck on stupid, and
it seems that no amount of fact correction will get through to you.

THis is indeed true.

You're a hopeless idiot, and apparently you're happy with that.

THe sad fact is that he's not politically astute enough to
realize that his quibble is with the laws as they stand, and
that's a matter to bring to his congress critters. That
one's going to be an uphill battle for him or the mythical
pizza joint owner as there are some folks with some mighty
deep pockets want the status quo, or even more onerous laws.
But being a pig ignorant old fossil he doesn't have that
good a grasp of reality. GUess it must be the meds he's
taking or something.

Maybe you should consider the curl-up-and-die option,.

We have a second!!!



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
On 2011-05-22 said:
On May 22, 5:40ÿpm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
In a true libertarian society,
There is no such society.
government wouldn't be allowed to give the
rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out of
hand. wtf is this dude talking about? One of the guiding
principles of libertarianism is that I should be able to
protect what is mine from intrusion by others. tHe
protection of private property is one of the cornerstones as
it were.

And governement has not done so. Your brain is stuck on stupid, and
it seems that no amount of fact correction will get through to you.

THis is indeed true.

You're a hopeless idiot, and apparently you're happy with that.

THe sad fact is that he's not politically astute enough to
realize that his quibble is with the laws as they stand, and
that's a matter to bring to his congress critters. That
one's going to be an uphill battle for him or the mythical
pizza joint owner as there are some folks with some mighty
deep pockets want the status quo, or even more onerous laws.
But being a pig ignorant old fossil he doesn't have that
good a grasp of reality. GUess it must be the meds he's
taking or something.

Maybe you should consider the curl-up-and-die option,.

We have a second!!!



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

You will get and deserve the world you accept without question.

[timewarp2008]

On May 22, 9:54*pm, "Little Willie" wrote:
You will get and deserve the world you accept without question.

Someone fed you a bunch of utter ******** about BMI, and you accepted
it without question. And you got what you deserve: contempt and
ridicule. And nobody has to listen to you play any more. Didn't
everyone get what they deserve here?

You don't get to use other people's music fo business purposes for
free. That's what you deserve, Little Willie. Write your own music,
stop being such a leech.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:
Why do you think that, "That doesn't have anything to do with my problem?"
Of course it does. I will be dead and gone before I can play the music I
love In the local Pizza house. That impacts me directly. This music was
written in the thirties and forties. Playing music is my only skill and
hobby. I must either defy BMI or curl up and die. As a matter orf fact, the
older I get, the more I must either defy sombody or other, or curl up and
die. I can't wait until this, or something similar happens to you.

If you made a couple phone calls you could be playing that music today,
but instead of finding out what the problem is and solving it, you are
obsessing over an irrelevant detail.

As long as you keep thinking the term of copyright is your problem, you
aren't going to get anywhere. Until you figure out what your problem
is, you can't solve it.

You seem much more interested in beating your fist on the floor like a
twelve-year-old than actually playing that music. If you really wanted
to play that music, you'd be on the phone to the venue owner right now.
But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

As a libertarian, I believe that the only purpose for a law is to protect
someone's rights from someone else. But more and more, I see laws that are
made just to steal money from someone to give it to someone else, and
individual rights be damned.

In this case, it's clear you don't understand what the law is or how it
works. You need to figure this out before you can justifiably complain
about the law.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:

In a true libertarian society, government wouldn't be allowed to give the
rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out of hand. this is
not libertarianism by any stretch of the imagination.

But nobody ever did that. It is a figment of your imagination.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote:

In a true libertarian society, government wouldn't be allowed to
give the rights to anyone for all the music written after 1927 out
of hand. this is not libertarianism by any stretch of the
imagination.

But nobody ever did that. It is a figment of your imagination.
--scott

I don't think so. The laws stopped my friend from playing, even though he
got nothing for it. I have heard that those laws have stopped others in a
similar way, too. I believe that you are just another liberal schill for the
government. Anything they do is right in your eyes, and you will defend it
against all odds. I know that my liberties have been seriously compromized
in the last 50 years, and I can see the direction our government is going
and I don't like it. Someday, you too will live to not like it, but I will
be dead and gone by then.

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill Graham wrote:

I don't think so. The laws stopped my friend from playing, even though he
got nothing for it. I have heard that those laws have stopped others in a
similar way, too. I believe that you are just another liberal schill for the
government.

And now it's the government?
Why don't you actually go and figure out what happened and stop acting like
a child?

Anything they do is right in your eyes, and you will defend it
against all odds. I know that my liberties have been seriously compromized
in the last 50 years, and I can see the direction our government is going
and I don't like it. Someday, you too will live to not like it, but I will
be dead and gone by then.

This might well be true, but it has absolutely nothing to do with why
your friend can't play at the restaurant.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense. Mores the
pity.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Rick Ruskin]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:11:41 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense. Mores the
pity.


If he wants free music to perform, he should write some and give it
away. Otherwise, he should shut the **** up.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[[email protected]]

On 2011-05-23 said:
Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense.
Mores the pity.
If he wants free music to perform, he should write some and give it
away. Otherwise, he should shut the **** up.

That probably isn't simple enough for him Rick. I think he
should choose the "curl up and die" option from the menu of
choices he presented earlier. sOmebody else could use that
perfectly good food water and oxygen that's obviously wasted
on him.





Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Ben Bradley[_2_]]

On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:18:15 -0700, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:11:41 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense. Mores the
pity.


If he wants free music to perform, he should write some and give it
away.

It's enough to make one go baroque.

Otherwise, he should shut the **** up.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music - Seattle WA
http://www.liondogmusic.com

[Bill Graham]

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:18:15 -0700, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:11:41 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense. Mores
the pity.


If he wants free music to perform, he should write some and give it
away.

It's enough to make one go baroque.

Otherwise, he should shut the **** up.

That music was written like 60 years ago. The people who wrote it are all
dead and gone. BMI has no business collecting a dime for any of it. It
should all be in the public domain. Instead of a fixed year, (like 1927) the
year before which music enters the public domain should go up a year every
year. Maqybe 1927 was a good cut-off point 30 years ago, but today it should
be 30 years after that, or 1957. If BMI collects money for its performance,
then who do they give that money to? Do you suppose they keep it for
themselves? I think they do. I think they are just a bunch of lawyers lining
their own pockets with money they are stealing from the public.

[PStamler]

On May 26, 1:25*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
If BMI collects money for its performance,
then who do they give that money to? Do you suppose they keep it for
themselves? I think they do.

You might talk to a real musician who has written something covered by
BMI before saying that. I have friends who have composed music and
registered it with BMI, and once a month they get a check from BMI.
Not a huge one -- their stuff is niche material, not mass market --
but a real check they can deposit.

I have some quarrels with BMI and how their royalties are calculated,
but the fact is they do pay the composers that register with them, and
I gather the percent of operating expenses deducted is surprisingly
small.

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Bill Graham wrote:

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:18:15 -0700, Rick Ruskin
wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2011 08:11:41 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

But you don't care about anything other than caging sympathy.

Ah, finally I get it. He's in a cage. Now it all makes sense. Mores
the pity.


If he wants free music to perform, he should write some and give it
away.

It's enough to make one go baroque.

Otherwise, he should shut the **** up.

That music was written like 60 years ago. The people who wrote it are all
dead and gone. BMI has no business collecting a dime for any of it. It
should all be in the public domain. Instead of a fixed year, (like 1927) the
year before which music enters the public domain should go up a year every
year. Maqybe 1927 was a good cut-off point 30 years ago, but today it should
be 30 years after that, or 1957. If BMI collects money for its performance,
then who do they give that money to? Do you suppose they keep it for
themselves? I think they do. I think they are just a bunch of lawyers lining
their own pockets with money they are stealing from the public.

You're in a loop and you can't get out, because your mind is closed and
your mouth is open. See Mose Allison for help.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri