Front Page  »  

SLO coffee shop facing legal pressure from music industry

December 19, 2012

Two music-licensing firms with clients ranging from Lady Gaga to Jay-Z have taken interest in acts performed by amateurs at a San Luis Obispo coffee lounge — which has put an end to “open mic night.”

Representatives of Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the Association of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) say that Kreuzberg, CA is illegally allowing performers to incorporate copyrighted songs into their acts at the downtown San Luis Obispo coffee shop and café. Both firms, which collect license fees and distribute royalties to their clients, have contacted Kreuzberg and have ordered the large coffee shop to purchase music licenses or discontinue allowing copyrighted material in performances.

Kreuzberg owner James Whitaker said he is well aware of the copyright infringement complaints.

“I’m getting letters from BMI attorneys like twice a week, and we’re getting called everyday,” Whitaker said.

Whitaker said he has suspended Kreuzberg’s weekly “open mic night,” the primary target of the copyright complaints, and that he would decide in the next week on how the business will handle the demands of the licensing agencies.

But, the Kreuzberg owner indicated that he would most likely not purchase the music licenses and opt instead to prohibit the performance of licensed songs at all events in his coffee house. Whitaker said that BMI is asking for a “huge, exorbitant fee.”

“We’re a small local business, not a big corporation,” Whitaker said. “We can’t afford to do that.”

Whitaker said Kreuzberg is being targeted because of the large square footage of the Higuera Street shop.

“We are like the biggest coffee shop ever.”

BMI spokesman Blair Keso confirmed that the size of a venue factors into the rate of a licensing fee and that Kreuzberg would have to pay a steep price for a coffee shop.

“The size of the place would require a very large licensing fee for a very small business,” Keso said.

Whitaker said he must look out for the survival of the business, even if it comes at the cost of open mic night.

“I’m a huge fan of local music. I’m a huge fan of open mic night,” Whitaker said. “I need to look out for the survival of the restaurant over one event once a week.”

Neither Keso, nor other BMI spokespeople disclosed the figure that the firm planned to charge Kreuzberg. However, an ASCAP spokesman told CalCoastNews the exact price his organization planned to charge Kreuzberg for an annual music license.

“They have a seating capacity of 50, and it would be $336,” ASCAP spokesman Vincent Candilora said.

Candilora added that Kreuzberg could purchase a discounted annual license at $304.02 if it the business chose to pay in full. The license would cover each of the approximately 8.5 million songs ASCAP licenses.

The ASCAP spokesman did not indicate, though, which copyrighted songs performed at Kreuzberg belong to clients of his firm. Neither did BMI spokespeople.

While the ASCAP license fee may cost significantly less than BMI’s rate, allowing the performance of songs licensed by ASCAP, but not by BMI, could prove troublesome. ASCAP claims to handle the licensing of about 1 million more songs than BMI. But, BMI still claims to represent clients with the combined rights to more than 7.5 million songs.

Both BMI and ASCAP have contacted Kreuzberg many times in regard to copyright infringement. Keso said BMI issued a cease and desist order to Kreuzberg, which the company says it does only after making numerous phone calls and sending letters and marketing material. Candilora said ASCAP representatives have emailed Kreuzberg and spoken with Whitaker on his cell phone. An ASCAP licensing manager also left a card inside Kreuzberg in March, Candilora said.

Candilora described the work of ASCAP licensing managers as similar to marketers who generate leads and produce sales. He said ASCAP sales representatives often approach new businesses that open in their areas. Kreuzberg, which has only been in business for two years, opened at its current location a little more than a year ago.

While BMI and ASCAP each seem to want to woo Kreuzeberg into becoming a licensee, they do pose legal threats to the coffee house. Candilora said ASCAP sues about 250 to 300 copyright violators each year.

“We only take legal action as a very, very last resort,” Candilora said. “It’s not in the best interest of our members to be suing people.”

BMI issued a similar statement pertaining to their encounter with Kreuzberg.

“BMI would prefer to educate, not litigate, and most times we are successful in this effort when business owners understand that music is a songwriter’s property.”

Both BMI and ASCAP supported the controversial Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) introduced in the U.S. House of Representative in October 2011. If passed, SOPA would require Internet service providers to block access to websites containing material infringing on copyrights.

 


Loading...
Subjects:                     
Related:


29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is completely ridiculous! I don’t blame the coffee shop for not paying the stupid fees. Its an Open Mic night! Not like he is selling tickets to a show! What does that mean for any venue that has live music, cover bands, Mic nights, Karaoke or even just playing the radio for your customers? This opens up unending possibilities for law suits.

A few years back there was a CDG (karaoke disc mfgs) that was going around to bars shutting down the karaoke and to Vegas to shut down the “BE a Rockstar-Record a Video” places, Because on their CDG’s they had a stipulation in tiny tiny print that they could NOT be played in public! Many bars/shops were sued until a judge finally stopped the madness. Enjoy the music while you can! I don’t think we will be hearing it in venues for much longer. You think they would appreciate the exposure their “Artist”, but such a SAD SAD sign of the times!!


0

Lady CaCa and Jay Z? ACK.

Local musicians should be the ones GETTING paid to play such crappy music.


0

Just never sing “Happy Birthday”


http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/birthday.asp


0

“We only take legal action as a very, very last resort,” Candilora said. ‘It’s not in the best interest of our members to be suing people.”


Think about it, this notion of said music companies would include EVERY music venue in San Luis Obispo County and the state of California! Who in the hell hasn’t heard our local and statewide music venues singing the songs of their licensed artists, and possibly not paying for this act to do so?


BMI and ASCAP should not be hypocrites to their cause. Therefore, they should initiate teams to go out and enact lawsuits statewide in ALL MUSIC VENUES, big or small, that are violating these seemingly inane acts, post haste.


BMI and ASCAP, don’t be selective hypocrites, go statewide and nationally, or STFU!


Don’t these music companies realize that Jesus hates hypocrites? (Matthew 23:27)


0

Sorry Ted, but it seems you don’t know much about the industry at all Almost every music venue in this county DOES pay ASCAP and BMI fees. It’s a standard cost of doing business as an entertainment venue, just like having insurance and paying for a business license. DJ’s that are hired for functions also have to pay the same fees. Buying a CD of music only entitles you to listen to that music for personal use. If you play another artist’s music as part of a commercial activity or for public performance, you must pay the fees. This is common knowledge. The only surprising thing here is that the owner of Kruzberg is complaining about having to pay it and acting like he is being persecuted. He’s not. He’s just trying to skate out of paying a fee that every other business pays, and he’s making a desperate attempt to get a little free publicity out of it at the same time.


0

paragon,


Thanks for the enlightenment.


But, it should still hold that ASCAP and BMI should seek out EVERY entity that plays music for this infraction not to be hypocritical to their cause, because I know of a few places where live music is played locally, and they do not pay any fees whatsoever.


0

Wrong again, Ted. ASCAP and BMI have not legal obligation to seek out every violator of their licensing arrangements. This has NOTHING to do with “hypocrisy”.. That is absurd. This is called “business”. There is NOTHING hypocritical. Get real, please. When a cop tickets only a fraction of the people who speed by him each day, that is also NOT hypocrisy. It may be “selective enforcement”, but ASCAP and BMI have the right to do selective enforcement.


0

WiseGuy,


Hpocrisy: the practice of professing standards, beliefs, etc, contrary to one’s real character or actual behaviour, esp the pretence of virtue and piety.


Do the simple math.


0

He is crying over chump change, a few hundred dollars that he can make back from two or three tables buying lattes and alcohol. It does seem wrong that someone can become a middle man with licensing fees and extort money from any performer.


0

Are those who purchase music permits required to post them at the door. Many do not know about them and may choose to not patronize those establishments.


0

Asinine. The extent of a copyright should be to prevent someone else from reproducing your work and making money off of the distribution of it. Nobody should ever be allowed to OWN information whether it be music, software, or anything else. The opensource software industry has this idea right, and charges for the service of implementing the software. I am a software developer, and that is what I charge for as well. Owning information takes us back to the time when people were not literate and where a chosen few controlled the dissemination of information. The potential cost is too great.


As an example… let’s take two children. One of them comes from a wealthy home and they can afford whatever software they want; Microsoft Excel for example. That child is able to use the software to learn skills which will maintain their standard of living. The other child comes from a poor home which cannot afford such software, preventing them from learning skills which could improve their life. It is not like Microsoft is not going to make money from selling the software complete with manuals and support to the people and businesses that want additional services.


The recording industry is less than 100 years old. Prior to that time, we had music and musicians made their money from live performances. The fact is that most musicians actually make their money from live performances to this day, and it is merely all the middle men… the record company execs… that make the money from the distribution. And they should be allowed to, but they shouldn’t be allowed to protect that information in a way that prevents others from using it.


0

“The extent of a copyright should be to prevent someone else from reproducing your work and making money off of the distribution of it. Nobody should ever be allowed to OWN information whether it be music, software, or anything else.”


Your first two sentences contradict each other. If you cannot assert ownership of your own work (music, software, etc) how can you hope to prevent someone else from reproducing and making money off it?


I agree that in some cases copyrights have gone too far, but if you do not provide basic protections to artists, what is my incentive to spend time and effort coming up with a great catchy song when any half-rate artist can rip it off at open mic night and leave me with no compensation for my hard work?


“The other child comes from a poor home which cannot afford such software, preventing them from learning skills which could improve their life”


Rather than stealing Microsoft Office, there are plenty of better free options, such as OpenOffice and google docs. If people explored and promoted the free and open alternatives, then MSOffice wouldn’t have such a stranglehold on the industry.


“The recording industry is less than 100 years old. Prior to that time, we had music and musicians made their money from live performances.”


100 years ago you also couldn’t make a recording of an artist and distribute thousands of perfect high fidelity copies of them around the globe in minutes. Technology is the game changer here.


0

Let me use the example of Microsoft Excel again to explain why those sentences don’t contradict each other. What I am saying is that someone should not have a right to take that software and copy and distribute it for money. But they should have a right to use it. Only the copyright holder should be allowed to distribute it for money., Why then would people pay for it you ask? Because the copyright holder distributes it as a value-added product, with support.


You are correct that there are viable open source alternatives, and perhaps my example of Excel is a bit outdated. But at one time there were not viable alternatives.


Finally, you are right, technology is the game changer here. And as you can see with things like ITunes, people are willing to pay for distribution and convenience even though they can copy the music if they really want to.


0

Let me add that I appreciate your intelligent response. I don’t claim to know everything and I am willing to change my views when presented with a good argument. I still cling tightly to my view that information should be free, but your arguments are pretty good. I feel compelled to express my appreciation for intelligent responses because so many times on here people just get mean and personal. :)


0

Open mic nights are one thing (lots of copyrighted songs performed) but no mention in article that they also had to cancel Songwriters at Play on Tuesdays. Which is, as the name implies, songwriters performing their original material.

The fee structures (especially in BMI’s case) have been the subject of great debate for over 20 years and, at one point, part of a Congressional hearing. I have a foot on both sides as I consult for small businesses in the area and I receive royalty payments for songs of mine that have been recorded.

The ASCAP fee sounds fair and equatable and I’d like to see the rationale of why BMI thinks they can charge significantly more … I don’t think they license that many more songs than ASCAP.


0

Sounds like the work of an overly enthusiastic licensing manager, either that or Whittaker really pissed someone off.


In addition to being a mountain/molehill situation, I would think a case could be made that they are going after the wrong target. It is the performers who are pirating the copyrighted work, not the venue. Why is Whittaker getting the heat?


0

“Why is Whittaker getting the heat?”


If you’ve ever dealt with Whittaker, you’d know why. The man is haughty and self-absorbed — his arrogance is legendary. That kind of attitude would get you on anyone’s radar fast.


Example: “We are like the biggest coffee shop ever” (…and who does the music industry think they are telling us what to do.)


Kreuzberg is hardly the biggest coffee shop ever, but they are big enough (and charge enough for their food and drinks) that the ASCAP fee of $336 is a small fraction of their daily income. Sorry, Whittaker but that is the cost of doing business – if you aren’t prepared to pay it then yes you probably shouldn’t be having open mic nights. What’s next – an article about Whittaker complaining that the State Board of Equalization is “pressuring” him to collect sales tax? Must have been a slow news day.


0
1 2