Can playing covers get you sued? [Archive]

04-08-2007, 02:38 PM

People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords of
the music business want I'm sure.

Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than compensation
for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT have
the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in jail,
any more than the Shriners do.

All they do is give some asshole a territory and a commission % and tell him
to go to any place that doesn't have a license and collect. Gee, do you
think he's gonna come up empty handed?

They then shake down the club owner, arbitrarily deciding what he owes them,
which is usually some astronomical sum. Then they offer to "cut him a deal",
and settle for a less astronomical sum - provided he buys a license of
course. How this is legal and not extortion is anybody's guess...

Even worse, some of these commission scumbags also work for other music
related companies. One guy I knew repped for both ASCAP and Digital Radio
(pre XM days). He'd go into a bar, notice that they had say, MTV on the
tube, and fine them a ridiculous amount (One I know of was $40GRAND). THEN,
he'd tell them he'd wave the fee if they subscribed to his radio system for
x amount of years. What you do think these poor slobs did?

If the club owner refuses to knuckle under, they can institute collection
proceedings against him like any other creditor (which he can refute or
refuse to pay, like any other debtor), or they can sue take him to court.
AFAIK, this doesn't happen that often.

Again this is very different than filing a criminal complaint under the DMCA
against a guy who has 10,000 mp3s on his hard drive, or breaking up a
Chinese CD smuggling ring and sending the perps to jail.

And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted and
get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily hand
over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?

If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file bankruptcy
rather than pay. Fuck 'em

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"ADL" <ADL@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnefMoYdTeYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

Lord Valve

04-08-2007, 03:01 PM

I've heard some cover bands that *ought* tro be sued. Spon Com, for instance...

LV

Kloka-mo'

04-08-2007, 10:57 PM

Are you making enough $$ of the songs for "the greedy people" to notice?

--
-rob Bartlett, TN
O>
/(\)
^^
"ADL" <ADL@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnefMoYdTeYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

Mike Rieves

04-09-2007, 01:11 AM

"ADL" <ADL@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnefMoYdTeYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

I was a club manager and it's been my experience that the club owner is
responsible for paying royalties to BMI and ASCAP for music played at the
club, whether it's a live band, a DJ playing records, karaoke or even a
jukebox. There are different categories, but in general, the club is charged
based on seating capacity. We paid about four thousand dollars a year for a
band and a DJ and we got stickers to put on the front door saying that we
had paid for each year. They do indeed send spies out to check clubs at
random. We had been paying ASCAP, thinking that we only had to pay one or
the other but not both, then a BMI rep came by and demanded that we pay them
too. BMI billed us for three years back pay, but ended up settling for us
paying the current year in advance, about two grand, and half the previous
year, another grand. I knew of one club owner who absolutely refused to pay,
and they shut him down, the local police came by and pulled his business
license and beer license off the wall.

Benj

04-09-2007, 03:01 AM

js wrote:
> People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
> infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords of
> the music business want I'm sure.
>
> Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
> authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than compensation
> for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT have
> the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in jail,
> any more than the Shriners do.

This is is true, unless they are in cahoots with local police (see
example in this thread) but they DO have the ability to sue you as
copyright owners. And it's worse than that, back when, there was an
agreement between bar owners and ASCAP & BMI that made the current
arrangement of fees charged to bar owners that are supposed to be
divided among all member composers. But as it usual in the legal biz,
if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
forces bar owners to cave. In this case he paid some back year fees,
which let's face it, he really owed, but they also socked him with
$750 each for three songs just to teach him a lesson. The idea was, of
course, his lawyer would have cost him much more.

> And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted and
> get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily hand
> over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?
>
> If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file bankruptcy
> rather than pay. Fuck 'em

Actually it's a civil case rather than criminal one. It's about going
against the settlement made some years ago between owners and ASCAP &
BMI. But let me tell you I remember how it was BEFORE this agreement!
In those days the goons used to come after MUSICIANS! Fake books were
totally illegal and you had to keep them really low and hidden at
gigs. You had to keep an eye out for enforcers and if you spotted one,
you had to be sure you played only public domain "standards". Of
course the good news was that in those days copyrights didn't extend
back forever the way they do now. As long as you steered away from pop
hits you were pretty safe if the fake book was kept low level. And
then on top of that there were the Union goons. If you didn't have
union cards they'd hit you up for dues and then hit up the venue for
fees. If you refused to pay, they'd bust up the joint (well, actually
an hour later some OTHER goons would suddenly come in the bar, order a
drink and then start a fight to bust up the joint). Ah! The good old
days! Now the whole hassle has moved onto to bar owners. And in some
cases it couldn't happen to guys more deserving. But you do hate to
see a guy trying to promote live music in his venue raked over the
coals for trying to promote the very copyrighted songs these guys are
using as excuses for extortion. You wouldn't want the old way of
making the bands pay the fees, but since musicians are usually dirt
poor anyway, they went for the "deep pockets" of the venue owners
instead. Decided you can't get blood from a turnip!

Obviously many of these organizations supposedly representing the
interests of musicians and songwriters never heard the tale of the
goose that laid the golden egg.

Benj

Jim Carr

04-09-2007, 03:32 AM

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1176098513.810939.291600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

> But as it usual in the legal biz,
> if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
> back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
> would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
> this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
> you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
> forces bar owners to cave.

Bar owners "cave" when they pay for the right to make money off of the work
of other people? How interesting! Do you put your money in the bank and not
expect interest? Just because an artist and label made money off the song
via record sales, touring, and so forth doesn't mean that they don't have
the right to expect a slice from *other* people making money off of their
efforts. It's no different than somebody selling tee shirts with a band's
logo and pocketing the profits.

We've had discussions here about what music to play when the bar owner is
staring at the band wondering nobody is dancing. Every single song was
written, recorded, distributed and made famous by someone else. If a band
and bar owner are going to make some money from that song, why shouldn't the
intellectual property owners get a slice? Mike said he worked at a club (a
decent sized one as I recall) where they paid about $10 a day for the
rights.

And of course they should be able to sue for more than just what somebody
would have owed had they simply paid up front. Otherwise, where's the
incentive to pay in the first place? Bar owners would simply hope to fly
under the radar if the worst that can happen is that they have to pay what
they should have been paying in the first place?

I go to a local bar every Sunday during football season to catch the
Redskins games with a group of about 15 other people. That's the only reason
the bar opens on Sunday mornings. He makes a decent chunk of change off of
us each time. If it weren't for the game, we wouldn't be there. Should he
not be required to pay a slice to the NFL?

The Chris

04-09-2007, 11:07 AM

"Neil N" <daltonmusic@rogers.com> wrote in
news:1176040576.657886.42480@w1g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com:

> On Apr 8, 9:54 am, "Neil N" <daltonmu...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 8:49 am, ADL <A...@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it
>> >...
>>
>> AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
>> to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
>> Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs. The teeth in this
>> is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
>> music are fighting a losing battle these days.
>>
>> The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
>> those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see what happens.
>
> LOL, I just went back and read the date, what did happen?
>
>
>

I'll tell you what happened in my area last month. There's a tiny bar in
Thurmont, MD (near Camp David) that had to stop having bands because the
owners were hit with a HUGE fee.

My friend asked me if I had ever heard of such a thing (since I'm a gigging
musician) and I said I had heard of it, but, couldn't remember what I had
heard :)

So, it IS going down......

Brian Running

04-09-2007, 11:36 AM

> AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
> to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
> Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs.

That's right. It's the venue owner that's responsible. Private parties
at private residences and so on are treated as exempt by the licensing
organizations -- BMI, ASCAP, etc. This is nothing new, it's been that
way for decades.

> The teeth in this is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
> music are fighting a losing battle these days.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, Neil, but if you mean what I
think you mean, that's not the way I see it going at all. Recent
amendments to copyright law have favored the publishers -- the "big
players" -- exclusively.

> The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
> those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.

I'd guess that it's the yearly license fee for a venue that size, for as
many years as the owner admitted he had been having live bands.

Susan

04-09-2007, 11:52 AM

Neil N wrote:
> On Apr 8, 8:49 am, ADL <A...@Comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...
>
>
> AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
> to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
> Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs.

I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
the performers were not allowed to do.

So assuming that one of these days my band will be ready to gig, and
that we are at a place that has paid its ASCAP and BMI fees, how would
we know if we had songs on our setlist that were forbidden? I'd like to
avoid that! (I assume we won't be invited back if we get the place busted!)

Thanks,

-Susan

Angus

04-09-2007, 12:00 PM

"Mike Rieves" wrote:
>
> whether it's a live band, a DJ playing records, karaoke or even a jukebox.

If the ASCAP and BMI fees cover *all* music, even a juke box, then what's
with all these stories of bar owners discontinuing live music because they
can't afford it? Are their bars dead silent?

David

Brian Running

04-09-2007, 12:09 PM

> So assuming that one of these days my band will be ready to gig, and
> that we are at a place that has paid its ASCAP and BMI fees, how would
> we know if we had songs on our setlist that were forbidden? I'd like to
> avoid that! (I assume we won't be invited back if we get the place busted!)

It's up to the owner to let you know. ASCAP and BMI cover the vast
majority of music out there, I've never run into a place that had one
license but not the other.

Brian Running

04-09-2007, 12:17 PM

> If the ASCAP and BMI fees cover *all* music, even a juke box, then what's
> with all these stories of bar owners discontinuing live music because they
> can't afford it? Are their bars dead silent?

As with any business venture, you have to do some profit-loss
projections before you get into it. ASCAP and BMI licenses are part of
your overhead, part of the nut you have to cover in order to make money.
If your live music doesn't generate enough revenue to leave you a
profit after you pay your expenses, then it makes sense not to do it.
ASCAP and BMI license fees are not punitive, they don't make it
prohibitively expensive to have music in a bar. The fact is, the bar
business doesn't attract a lot of MBAs, the people running those places
are not business whiz-kids, and they're not extraordinarily ethical.
Instead of trying to run their businesses right, they will (1) run it
illegally, by failing to get the necessary permits, failing to pay
taxes, failing to comply with zoning and building codes, failing to pay
minimum wages, etc., etc.; and (2) when they are inevitably busted, they
piss and moan about how crooked the system is, and how it drove them out
of business. Whining about ASCAP and BMI is their cover-up for the fact
that they failed at running a profitable business.

Benj

04-09-2007, 01:40 PM

Jim Carr wrote:
> Bar owners "cave" when they pay for the right to make money off of the work
> of other people? How interesting! Do you put your money in the bank and not
> expect interest? Just because an artist and label made money off the song
> via record sales, touring, and so forth doesn't mean that they don't have
> the right to expect a slice from *other* people making money off of their
> efforts. It's no different than somebody selling tee shirts with a band's
> logo and pocketing the profits.

No, they "cave" when they accept "penalties" and imaginary "damages".
You know, courts of law are there to settle cases of "damages" but
it's about REAL costs. Not some made-up crap: when the agreement which
was for you to pay this amount and since you didn't I've just decided
the fee is now XYZ, not because this actually cost me any losses, but
just because I want your money! Going along with this, THAT is
"caving"! Of course just blowing off your license fees for years is a
whole 'nother matter!

> And of course they should be able to sue for more than just what somebody
> would have owed had they simply paid up front. Otherwise, where's the
> incentive to pay in the first place? Bar owners would simply hope to fly
> under the radar if the worst that can happen is that they have to pay what
> they should have been paying in the first place?

They can sue for more but asking isn't the same as deserving! They
have to prove damages. COURTS can assess "punitive" damages to induce
owners to pay in a timely way, but it seems the modern way is for the
COMPANIES to decide what punitive damages should be paid to THEM. For
more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign to
get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
you? But the squeeze is they've got lawyers and can afford to bleed me
dry because I don't have the money to fight. THAT means I "cave". You
think this way of "doing business" is fair?

> I go to a local bar every Sunday during football season to catch the
> Redskins games with a group of about 15 other people. That's the only reason
> the bar opens on Sunday mornings. He makes a decent chunk of change off of
> us each time. If it weren't for the game, we wouldn't be there. Should he
> not be required to pay a slice to the NFL?

SURE! In fact this copyright thing doesn't go NEAR far enough.

1. Copyrights should last FOREVER! EVERYONE SHOULD PAY SOMEONE FOR
ANYTHING! Public domain needs to be HISTORY!

2. Every time a copyrighted object is sold new royalties should be
paid! I mean used CDs, old T shirts, Old books, Computer software, old
appliances with registered trademarks. You name it! Each time one is
sold without royalties a $30,000 lawsuit ought to be hanging over the
head of the store or person running the garage sale!

3. TAB sites and lyric sites all need to be shut down forever. All
libraries need to be closed or assessed fees for each book, DVD, or CD
EACH time they loan it out! Luckily courts have decided that there is
basically no such thing as student fair use or "research".

4. All TVs and radios in bars or any other commercial establishment
should be required to fork over royalties for each and every program
logged while the receiver is on! (currently they only pay if
broadcasts are to an integrated system and not individual receivers.)
Sports bars are big money so by "deep pockets" theory some of that
money MUST be grabbed! An appliance store with TVs running in the
store window really should be assessed a license fee for that.

5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!
A nice State-issued "guitar learner's permit" with a later "bass
player's license" ought to do it! I mean you need a license to drive a
car, so why not to play an instrument? It's only sensible!

There! I think these few modest suggestions should "fix" the music
industry!

Benj
(Who notes that if you talk to any composers, all this extorted cash
doesn't seem to be going there!)

PS. By the way, I'm NOT against ASCAP & BMI venue fees! Composers and
copyright holders DO deserve some return for people using their work.
But what is stuck in my craw is business practices that are totally
detrimental to the business as a WHOLE! Fair is one thing,
destructive is another! Self-destructive is just plain stupid!

Angus

04-09-2007, 01:49 PM

"Benj" wrote:
>
> 5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
> periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
> sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
> without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!

You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.

David

Neil N

04-09-2007, 03:58 PM

On Apr 9, 10:36 am, Brian Running <brunn...@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
> > The teeth in this is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
> > music are fighting a losing battle these days.
>
> I don't know exactly what you mean by this, Neil, but if you mean what I
> think you mean, that's not the way I see it going at all. Recent
> amendments to copyright law have favored the publishers -- the "big
> players" -- exclusively.

I was alluding to the "free for all" that the internet has become.
Makes me wonder if the hard ball players are starting to crash soft
ball games ...

Derek Tearne

04-09-2007, 06:58 PM

Susan <sjd@freeshell.org> wrote:

> I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
> for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
> the performers were not allowed to do.

Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?

The list of songs performers aren't allowed to do has probably more to
do with the sensibilities of the owner or bar staff than licencing
issues...

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

Deputy Dumbya Dawg

04-09-2007, 07:40 PM

Hope one of those BMI/ASSCAP guys does not raid guitar center
and bust all those cover artists trying out new ax's.

peace
dawg

Susan

04-09-2007, 11:33 PM

Derek Tearne wrote:
> Susan <sjd@freeshell.org> wrote:
>
>
>>I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
>>for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
>>the performers were not allowed to do.

> Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?

Tehehe, I'd ban ABBA, anyway:) And I probably wouldn't put "Stairway" on
a setlist, so many other songs to do that haven't been overplayed:)

> The list of songs performers aren't allowed to do has probably more to
> do with the sensibilities of the owner or bar staff than licencing
> issues...

It was a theme night run by the Songwriters Association of Washington,
the performers were supposed to do Beatles songs. The guy running the
show had a list of Beatles songs that people weren't allowed to perform.
I wish I remembered which ones they were, but I don't. And a google
search did not tell me that the venue only belonged to ASCAP but not BMI
or something like that.

My best guess is that this was the problem, though I don't really know.
I was originally wondering if there are songs that are licenced some
other way, why not? Though who could keep track of it! I did see a
notice on the saw.org calendar about another of their venues for open
mics, "No BMI or SEASAC songs, please, original songs or ASCAP songs only!"

For those of you in cover bands, is this something that you run into
very often, and that you take into consideration when coming up with set
lists?

Thanks:)

-Susan

Neil N

04-09-2007, 11:36 PM

On Apr 9, 5:58 pm, d...@url.co.nz (Derek Tearne) wrote:
> Susan <s...@freeshell.org> wrote:
> > I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
> > for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
> > the performers were not allowed to do.
>
> Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?
>
> The list of songs performers aren't allowed to do has probably more to
> do with the sensibilities of the owner or bar staff than licencing
> issues...

Way back when I was studying jazz at Humber college, a few of the
teachers said, " Don't belittle country music, it'll likely put a
whole lot more coin in your pocket than jazz will"

For me, it really should have been don't laugh at ABBA ... Past couple
of years, I've got a whole lot of work doing ABBA , two bands as
bassist, and one as sound system supplier .. That's three ABBA bands
at once. And these aren't bar gigs, they're all theatre and corporate
dates.

Who can knock rooms full of people having a great time, and a decent
pay cheque at the end of the night, which btw, is 10:30 or 11:00
pm..

Anyways, I like that seventies stuff ...

Mike Rieves

04-10-2007, 02:30 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:vOsSh.13156$JZ3.8289@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>> If the ASCAP and BMI fees cover *all* music, even a juke box, then what's
>> with all these stories of bar owners discontinuing live music because
>> they can't afford it? Are their bars dead silent?
>
> As with any business venture, you have to do some profit-loss projections
> before you get into it. ASCAP and BMI licenses are part of your overhead,
> part of the nut you have to cover in order to make money. If your live
> music doesn't generate enough revenue to leave you a profit after you pay
> your expenses, then it makes sense not to do it. ASCAP and BMI license
> fees are not punitive, they don't make it prohibitively expensive to have
> music in a bar. The fact is, the bar business doesn't attract a lot of
> MBAs, the people running those places are not business whiz-kids, and
> they're not extraordinarily ethical. Instead of trying to run their
> businesses right, they will (1) run it illegally, by failing to get the
> necessary permits, failing to pay taxes, failing to comply with zoning and
> building codes, failing to pay minimum wages, etc., etc.; and (2) when
> they are inevitably busted, they piss and moan about how crooked the
> system is, and how it drove them out of business. Whining about ASCAP and
> BMI is their cover-up for the fact that they failed at running a
> profitable business.

Yeah, we paid out about four thousand dollars a year for a five hundred
seat club that was packed every Friday and Saturday and around 75% full on
Wednesdays and Thursdays, with a five dollar cover every night (band and DJ
Wed, Fri, & Sat, just DJ on Thur, Karaoke on Sunday, no cover)). That's
about 80 bucks a week to take in over $8000 a week just in cover charges.
The bands, DJ and KJ were well paid and the owner still made a profit on the
door, plus what he made on the bar. I'd say the money paid to BMI and ASCAP
was a good investment. I know my boss never complained about it. :-)
Small bars around here typically have a jukebox supplied by a local
amusement company. The bar owner typically gets 25 to 50% of what the
jukebox takes in, and the amusement company supplies the music and pays for
the BMI/ASCAP licenses on the jukebox. The amusement companies around here
have a deal with BMI and ASCAP where they pay a flat rate per year per
jukebox, and I'm sure it's the same elsewhere. Some of those small bars have
a band on weekends and I've never seen any of them harrassed about it by BMI
or ASCAP, as long as they have a jukebox with the BMI/ASCAP stamps on them.
I guess the reasoning is that if the band wasn't playing the jukebox would
be and the dues for it are already paid.

Gary Rosen

04-10-2007, 03:31 AM

"Susan" <sjd@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:kICSh.175$2q7.97@newsfe19.lga...

> My best guess is that this was the problem, though I don't really know.
> I was originally wondering if there are songs that are licenced some
> other way, why not? Though who could keep track of it! I did see a
> notice on the saw.org calendar about another of their venues for open
> mics, "No BMI or SEASAC songs, please, original songs or ASCAP songs
> only!"

That would put a crimp in most "oldies" bands. In the early days of
rock 'n roll, songs were overwhelmingly licensed through BMI. ASCAP
was the venue of the traditional Tin Pan Alley songwriters and they
looked down on the upstart rockers. In fact I think ASCAP was
partly behind the old "payola" scandal - they wanted to bust DJ
Alan Freed who was playing mostly BMI songs (and getting
songwriting credit in return).

- Gary Rosen

04-10-2007, 05:04 AM

Um, I believe I DID say it was a civil, not criminal case. In fact, that was
the crux of my rant. I also said that they (as well as the "liberal media")
DELIBERATELY confuse the two.

And the reason they don't go after musicians is that musicians don't have
SHIT. They tried that in the late '70's and there were so many fake names
floating around it was ridiculous. So they went after the "deep pockets"

All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but FREE
ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the artist
wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.

If anything, ASCAP/BMI should be paying US.

But I digress...

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1176098513.810939.291600@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> js wrote:
> > People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
> > infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords
of
> > the music business want I'm sure.
> >
> > Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
> > authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than
compensation
> > for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT
have
> > the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in
jail,
> > any more than the Shriners do.
>
> This is is true, unless they are in cahoots with local police (see
> example in this thread) but they DO have the ability to sue you as
> copyright owners. And it's worse than that, back when, there was an
> agreement between bar owners and ASCAP & BMI that made the current
> arrangement of fees charged to bar owners that are supposed to be
> divided among all member composers. But as it usual in the legal biz,
> if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
> back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
> would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
> this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
> you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
> forces bar owners to cave. In this case he paid some back year fees,
> which let's face it, he really owed, but they also socked him with
> $750 each for three songs just to teach him a lesson. The idea was, of
> course, his lawyer would have cost him much more.
>
> > And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted
and
> > get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily
hand
> > over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?
> >
> > If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file
bankruptcy
> > rather than pay. Fuck 'em
>
> Actually it's a civil case rather than criminal one. It's about going
> against the settlement made some years ago between owners and ASCAP &
> BMI. But let me tell you I remember how it was BEFORE this agreement!
> In those days the goons used to come after MUSICIANS! Fake books were
> totally illegal and you had to keep them really low and hidden at
> gigs. You had to keep an eye out for enforcers and if you spotted one,
> you had to be sure you played only public domain "standards". Of
> course the good news was that in those days copyrights didn't extend
> back forever the way they do now. As long as you steered away from pop
> hits you were pretty safe if the fake book was kept low level. And
> then on top of that there were the Union goons. If you didn't have
> union cards they'd hit you up for dues and then hit up the venue for
> fees. If you refused to pay, they'd bust up the joint (well, actually
> an hour later some OTHER goons would suddenly come in the bar, order a
> drink and then start a fight to bust up the joint). Ah! The good old
> days! Now the whole hassle has moved onto to bar owners. And in some
> cases it couldn't happen to guys more deserving. But you do hate to
> see a guy trying to promote live music in his venue raked over the
> coals for trying to promote the very copyrighted songs these guys are
> using as excuses for extortion. You wouldn't want the old way of
> making the bands pay the fees, but since musicians are usually dirt
> poor anyway, they went for the "deep pockets" of the venue owners
> instead. Decided you can't get blood from a turnip!
>
> Obviously many of these organizations supposedly representing the
> interests of musicians and songwriters never heard the tale of the
> goose that laid the golden egg.
>
> Benj
>

04-10-2007, 05:18 AM

Then again, it's not terribly ethical of a "rights" organization to waltz
into an establishment and DEMAND $x0,00(or $x0,000) in payments for any
participating artists which MIGHT have been played there MAYBE at some time
in the past, and use this fake info to essentially EXTORT a license
agreement out of a business - as if ASCAP had the same clout as the IRS.

And as I said before - if anything, cover bands are doing them a FAVOR by
keeping their catalog alive while NOT representing it as their own, but
that's a whole other topic.

--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:vOsSh.13156$JZ3.8289@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
> > If the ASCAP and BMI fees cover *all* music, even a juke box, then
what's
> > with all these stories of bar owners discontinuing live music because
they
> > can't afford it? Are their bars dead silent?
>
> As with any business venture, you have to do some profit-loss
> projections before you get into it. ASCAP and BMI licenses are part of
> your overhead, part of the nut you have to cover in order to make money.
> If your live music doesn't generate enough revenue to leave you a
> profit after you pay your expenses, then it makes sense not to do it.
> ASCAP and BMI license fees are not punitive, they don't make it
> prohibitively expensive to have music in a bar. The fact is, the bar
> business doesn't attract a lot of MBAs, the people running those places
> are not business whiz-kids, and they're not extraordinarily ethical.
> Instead of trying to run their businesses right, they will (1) run it
> illegally, by failing to get the necessary permits, failing to pay
> taxes, failing to comply with zoning and building codes, failing to pay
> minimum wages, etc., etc.; and (2) when they are inevitably busted, they
> piss and moan about how crooked the system is, and how it drove them out
> of business. Whining about ASCAP and BMI is their cover-up for the fact
> that they failed at running a profitable business.

Brian Running

04-10-2007, 10:19 AM

> Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?

Say what you want, but ABBA were some of the most talented pop composers
and performers that ever were. Every one of their songs was catchy,
hooky and just plain pure pop at its best.

Brian Running

04-10-2007, 10:24 AM

> Then again, it's not terribly ethical of a "rights" organization to waltz
> into an establishment and DEMAND $x0,00(or $x0,000) in payments for any
> participating artists which MIGHT have been played there MAYBE at some time
> in the past, and use this fake info to essentially EXTORT a license
> agreement out of a business - as if ASCAP had the same clout as the IRS.

True, but... All the participants know how the game is played. All the
bar owners play dumb, all the agents know the bar owners are playing
dumb. There's not a single bar in the entire United States that doesn't
have music playing from some source, everyone knows that. The majority
of ASCAP/BMI licenses are "extorted" because of commercial radio being
played in the bar, in my experience. Remember how you talk about the
vicious, cutthroat way that bars are run, John? The Mad Max scenarios
you always conjure up? Are these the guys you think are more ethical
than BMI/ASCAP reps? I think that, in the end, after all the wailing,
weeping and gnashing of teeth, rough justice is accomplished. Even if
it seems that the reps are extorting the licenses.

Oci-One Kanubi

04-10-2007, 10:52 AM

On Apr 10, 9:19 am, Brian Running <brunn...@xxtdsxx.net> wrote:
> > Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?
>
> Say what you want, but ABBA were some of the most talented pop composers
> and performers that ever were. Every one of their songs was catchy,
> hooky and just plain pure pop at its best.

Yup. I don' like 'em much, but I sure do respect 'em.

-Richard, His Kanubic Travesty
--
================================================== ====================
Richard Hopley Winston-Salem, NC, USA
.. rhopley[at]earthlink[dot]net
.. Nothing really matters except Boats, Sex, and Rock'n'Roll
.. rhopley[at]wfubmc[dot]edu
.. OK, OK; computer programming for scientific research also matters
================================================== ====================

Mike Fleming

04-10-2007, 11:35 AM

In article <kICSh.175$2q7.97@newsfe19.lga>, Susan <sjd@freeshell.org>
writes:

> It was a theme night run by the Songwriters Association of Washington,
> the performers were supposed to do Beatles songs. The guy running the
> show had a list of Beatles songs that people weren't allowed to perform.

It wasn't simply that they had a Special Guest Band playing and didn't
want any of the songs they were going to do done by anyone else, was
it?

--
Mike Fleming

Jim Carr

04-10-2007, 04:50 PM

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:461b4523$0$17153$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but
> FREE
> ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the
> artist
> wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
> moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.

How about looking at it from their perspective? A bunch of talentless hacks
sit around waiting for the *real* musicians to come up with the good songs.
The hacks get paid to do a poor imitation so the local bar can make some
money as well. Every Friday and Saturday night 500 bands around the country
are doing "Play That Funky Music" because they know it will get the crowd
going. And those bastards think they are doing *us* a favor by copying our
music. They think it's a rip-off for a bar owner to pay $5 to $10 per day to
have the rights to a huge catalog of music. What a bunch of cheapskate
freeloaders.

Brian Running

04-10-2007, 05:20 PM

> For more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign to
> get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
> agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
> you?

Gee, I don't know, Benj. Did you sign the agreement? Yes? Did anyone
have a gun to your head at the time? No? Then I guess it's legal.

> But the squeeze is they've got lawyers and can afford to bleed me
> dry because I don't have the money to fight. THAT means I "cave". You
> think this way of "doing business" is fair?

Benj: "Mr. Lawyer, I signed an agreement in which I agreed to pay 18%
annual interest plus penalties, fees and any other charges the credit
card issuer wants to charge me. And guess what? Now they're doing
exactly what they said they'd do! The dirty rotten bastards! I'm mad
as hell and I want to sue! Will you take my case? For free?"

Mr. Lawyer: "Are you presently, or have you been recently, under the
care of a psychiatrist?"

Benj: "You dirty rotten bastard!!"

Brian Running

04-10-2007, 05:25 PM

> You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
> or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
> used to duplicate and share copyright material.

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the
choice between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which
are identical in every way except price. Why would someone buy the
"music" CDs? Because they're labeled deceptively to make the gullible
schlub think that they're better for music somehow, or that "data" CDs
will not record music. I'd complain to my state's attorney general
about this obvious violation of fair-trade and deceptive-advertising
laws, but their solution would be to make ALL CD-Rs expensive, "music" CDs.

Angus

04-10-2007, 05:52 PM

"Brian Running" wrote:
>
> It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
> between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
> identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>
;-)

David

Derek Tearne

04-10-2007, 06:43 PM

Brian Running <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote:

> > Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?
>
> Say what you want, but ABBA were some of the most talented pop composers
> and performers that ever were. Every one of their songs was catchy,
> hooky and just plain pure pop at its best.

Absolutely true, it's also true that a lot of people don't like
listening to ABBA and particularly don't like listening to bad cover
versions of ABBA songs - which was my point.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

Glenn Dowdy

04-10-2007, 06:44 PM

"Angus" <angusporridge@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QOidnTM7utK5ZIbbnZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@magma.ca...
> "Brian Running" wrote:
>>
>> It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
>> between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
>> identical in every way except price.
>
> As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
> have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
> CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout?
> <ducks> ;-)

As someone who sells millions of CD-R and DVDR discs each you, I'd say
you're all wet. ;)

Glenn D.

Brian Running

04-11-2007, 12:09 AM

> Absolutely true, it's also true that a lot of people don't like
> listening to ABBA and particularly don't like listening to bad cover
> versions of ABBA songs - which was my point.

Oh, I know, Derek. I just didn't want to let anyone get started
ABBA-bashing. Pre-emptive strike.

Derek Tearne

04-11-2007, 12:17 AM

Brian Running <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote:

> > Absolutely true, it's also true that a lot of people don't like
> > listening to ABBA and particularly don't like listening to bad cover
> > versions of ABBA songs - which was my point.
>
> Oh, I know, Derek. I just didn't want to let anyone get started
> ABBA-bashing. Pre-emptive strike.

Mamma mia,
here we go again,
flame wars,
how can we escape them?

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

Brian Running

04-11-2007, 09:54 AM

> Mamma mia,
> here we go again,
> flame wars,
> how can we escape them?

Swedish haiku!

ArBeeBee

04-11-2007, 10:50 AM

I haven't any issue in paying an artist to use a song. My issue is
when it turns into extortion. Forcing a bar to pay an annual "fee" for
songs that might be played, is just a bad process. So ASCAP decides
to use this method then BMI comes in and says "You have to pay us an
annual fee also, just in case...". Where does it end?

I do understand that they can't rely on the honor system. Not all
people will be honest enough to pay as it happens and it is too
expensive to have all the clubs watched. However, this process seems
to come out of the Mafia method of business management.

--Russ
"Some people are like a Slinky. They serve no real purpose in life,
but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the
stairs."

ptooner

04-11-2007, 04:44 PM

"ADL" <ADL@Comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ZLCdnefMoYdTeYXbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

No, but if you operate a venue for live (or any kindof) music and you don't
get an ASCAP license you can and will be sued. That appears to be the case
here.
Gerry

ptooner

04-11-2007, 10:03 PM

"Susan" <sjd@freeshell.org> wrote in message
news:rrsSh.249172$ia7.189869@newsfe14.lga...
> Neil N wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 8:49 am, ADL <A...@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
>> to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
>> Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs.
>
> I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
> for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
> the performers were not allowed to do.
>
> So assuming that one of these days my band will be ready to gig, and
> that we are at a place that has paid its ASCAP and BMI fees, how would
> we know if we had songs on our setlist that were forbidden? I'd like to
> avoid that! (I assume we won't be invited back if we get the place
> busted!)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Susan
Susan I've been playing for $$ for almost half a century and I have never
heard of such a thing. I have heard of lots of places that didn't allow a
particular song or several - usually Free Bird or Brown Eyed Girl. The
reason being that the management couldn't stand the songs.

Gerry

Susan

04-11-2007, 10:14 PM

Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <kICSh.175$2q7.97@newsfe19.lga>, Susan <sjd@freeshell.org>
> writes:
>
>
>>It was a theme night run by the Songwriters Association of Washington,
>>the performers were supposed to do Beatles songs. The guy running the
>>show had a list of Beatles songs that people weren't allowed to perform.
>
>
> It wasn't simply that they had a Special Guest Band playing and didn't
> want any of the songs they were going to do done by anyone else, was
> it?

Tehehe, well, Paul and Ringo and their friends must have had other plans
that night, so no, no Special Guest Band. Just a bunch of local folks
who felt like playing a couple of Beatles songs:)

-Susan

Benj

04-12-2007, 02:16 AM

Brian Running wrote:
> > For more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign to
> > get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
> > agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
> > you?
>
> Gee, I don't know, Benj. Did you sign the agreement? Yes? Did anyone
> have a gun to your head at the time? No? Then I guess it's legal.

Spoken like a true lawyer, Brian! Mr. lawyer, I was given a fine
print legalese contract to sign just to get a credit card. Later in
perusing the fine print I discover that not only can the bank change
the interest rate at any time (as it common these days with credit
agreements), but that they ALSO can change ANY terms of our agreement
without any notice to me!

I know it's really difficult for a lawyer to understand the difference
between contracts and fraud, but seems to me a contract in which one
party can modify the agreement at will is really no contract at all. I
believe slavery and indentured servitude are not legal anymore. I'm
sure if I hired you to represent me in this matter you'd very much
agree!

Let us note that is also bordering on fraud to ask people to sign a
credit agreement merely to get a credit card for which understanding
it requires hiring a lawyer. This is simply unreasonable. Also while
this is no argument, because, well, that was then and this is now, but
today it seems common interest charged today for such credit would
have made you a felon in days of yore. I'm not even sure I can cancel
our agreement per the original terms of the agreement given that they
can change THAT provision any time they choose as well!

> > But the squeeze is they've got lawyers and can afford to bleed me
> > dry because I don't have the money to fight. THAT means I "cave". You
> > think this way of "doing business" is fair?
>
> Benj: "Mr. Lawyer, I signed an agreement in which I agreed to pay 18%
> annual interest plus penalties, fees and any other charges the credit
> card issuer wants to charge me. And guess what? Now they're doing
> exactly what they said they'd do! The dirty rotten bastards! I'm mad
> as hell and I want to sue! Will you take my case? For free?"

Mr. Lawyer, I signed a weasel-worded agreement in which I agreed to
pay any interest they asked, but which also said I could cancel the
agreement at any time. Now they say under the provisions I'm not
allowed to cancel our agreement and because I paid the former amount
rather than the updated amount (for which they gave me no notice)
there is a half million dollar "penalty" added on!

Do I have any case here? PS. Mr. Lawyer, I'll give you 80% of any
money we win in a lawsuit....

> Mr. Lawyer: "Are you presently, or have you been recently, under the
> care of a psychiatrist?" (I never take cases I can't win and those sued don't have deep pockets)
>
> Benj: "You dirty rotten bastard!!"

Is there some point here?

Benj

Benj

04-12-2007, 02:27 AM

Angus wrote:
> "Brian Running" wrote:
> >
> > It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
> > between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
> > identical in every way except price.
>
> As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
> have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
> CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>

That's because geeks aren't pals with enough guys named "Tony". If
you were, both types would cost the same, because, lets face it we
KNOW that everyone is going to use those data disks to illegally copy
software! What you need is some kind of Software trade organization
to handle "enforcement"! Bill can't do it all, you know!

I"m sure you all know that VCRs were nearly banned from sale upon
their introduction because everyone "knew" they'd be used for copying
copyrighted material. Only an agreement placing a fee on every blank
tape sold broke the deadlock. I believe cassette tapes also have a fee
like that.

The beauty of this system is that fee's get hidden in the purchase
price with tends to disguise them from the public view. This is why
the Euro "value added" tax is such a great invention. The public can
get soaked and they can't figure out why prices are so high in their
neighborhood!

Benj

Derek Tearne

04-12-2007, 08:17 AM

Benj <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote:

> Brian Running wrote:
> > > For more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign to
> > > get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
> > > agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
> > > you?
> >
> > Gee, I don't know, Benj. Did you sign the agreement? Yes? Did anyone
> > have a gun to your head at the time? No? Then I guess it's legal.
>
> Spoken like a true lawyer, Brian! Mr. lawyer, I was given a fine
> print legalese contract to sign just to get a credit card. Later in
> perusing the fine print I discover that not only can the bank change
> the interest rate at any time (as it common these days with credit
> agreements), but that they ALSO can change ANY terms of our agreement
> without any notice to me!

Hey Benj. I'm not a lawyer.

However, there's an excellent movie called 'maxed out' which explains
all this in a way ordinary people can understand.

I suggest you watch it.

http://www.maxedoutmovie.com/

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 01:45 AM

"ArBeeBee" <russbbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176299421.689956.44400@l77g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>I haven't any issue in paying an artist to use a song. My issue is
> when it turns into extortion. Forcing a bar to pay an annual "fee" for
> songs that might be played, is just a bad process. So ASCAP decides
> to use this method then BMI comes in and says "You have to pay us an
> annual fee also, just in case...". Where does it end?
>
> I do understand that they can't rely on the honor system. Not all
> people will be honest enough to pay as it happens and it is too
> expensive to have all the clubs watched. However, this process seems
> to come out of the Mafia method of business management.
>

In the thirteen years that I managed clubs, we had four visits, two each
from BMI and ASCAP. In all four cases the agent showed us identification and
thanked us for our participation with them We might have had other visits
where the agents didn't identify themselves. However, we were right down the
road from the main offices in Nashville, so clubs further away might never
see an agent.
I think the writers have a right to get paid performance royalites for
their works, but looking at the fancy, multi-million dollar headquarters
buildings and the expensive new cars in their parking lots, I'm not sure how
much of the money actually gets to the writers.

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 01:48 AM

"Derek Tearne" <derek@url.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1hwefku.6m8tcvdysbojN%derek@url.co.nz...
> Brian Running <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote:
>
>> > Let me guess. Stairway to Heaven and anything by ABBA?
>>
>> Say what you want, but ABBA were some of the most talented pop composers
>> and performers that ever were. Every one of their songs was catchy,
>> hooky and just plain pure pop at its best.
>
> Absolutely true, it's also true that a lot of people don't like
> listening to ABBA and particularly don't like listening to bad cover
> versions of ABBA songs - which was my point.
>
I think it's more that people just don't want to admit that they like ABBA
because of fear of being made fun of. Somebody was buying all those albums.
:-)

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 01:54 AM

"ptooner" <nobody@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:EzfTh.1067$Pq5.557@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "Susan" <sjd@freeshell.org> wrote in message
> news:rrsSh.249172$ia7.189869@newsfe14.lga...
>> Neil N wrote:
>>> On Apr 8, 8:49 am, ADL <A...@Comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...
>>>
>>>
>>> AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
>>> to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
>>> Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs.
>>
>> I have a question on this. A couple of years ago, I was at an open mic,
>> for a Valentine's Day Beatles night. The venue had a list of songs that
>> the performers were not allowed to do.
>>
>> So assuming that one of these days my band will be ready to gig, and
>> that we are at a place that has paid its ASCAP and BMI fees, how would
>> we know if we had songs on our setlist that were forbidden? I'd like to
>> avoid that! (I assume we won't be invited back if we get the place
>> busted!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -Susan
> Susan I've been playing for $$ for almost half a century and I have never
> heard of such a thing. I have heard of lots of places that didn't allow a
> particular song or several - usually Free Bird or Brown Eyed Girl. The
> reason being that the management couldn't stand the songs.
>
I agree, other than a couple of all-original clubs who didn't allow any
cover songs, I've only seen a few clubs that didn't allow specific songs and
in those cases it was always either because management hated those songs, or
because the songs caused fights. In one redneck club I know of, playing
"Sweet Home Alabama" would invariably get beer bottles thrown at the band.
:-)

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 01:57 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:DpSSh.2159$Q23.27@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net. ..
>> You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable
>> CD or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going
>> to be used to duplicate and share copyright material.
>
> It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
> between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
> identical in every way except price. .....

Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't record
on "data" CD-Rs.

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 02:05 AM

"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:1176354959.972094.312700@q75g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Brian Running wrote:
>> > For more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign
>> > to
>> > get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
>> > agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
>> > you?
>>
>> Gee, I don't know, Benj. Did you sign the agreement? Yes? Did anyone
>> have a gun to your head at the time? No? Then I guess it's legal.
>
> Spoken like a true lawyer, Brian! Mr. lawyer, I was given a fine
> print legalese contract to sign just to get a credit card. Later in
> perusing the fine print I discover that not only can the bank change
> the interest rate at any time (as it common these days with credit
> agreements), but that they ALSO can change ANY terms of our agreement
> without any notice to me!
>
> I know it's really difficult for a lawyer to understand the difference
> between contracts and fraud, but seems to me a contract in which one
> party can modify the agreement at will is really no contract at all. I
> believe slavery and indentured servitude are not legal anymore. I'm
> sure if I hired you to represent me in this matter you'd very much
> agree!
>
> Let us note that is also bordering on fraud to ask people to sign a
> credit agreement merely to get a credit card for which understanding
> it requires hiring a lawyer. This is simply unreasonable. Also while
> this is no argument, because, well, that was then and this is now, but
> today it seems common interest charged today for such credit would
> have made you a felon in days of yore. I'm not even sure I can cancel
> our agreement per the original terms of the agreement given that they
> can change THAT provision any time they choose as well!
>
>> > But the squeeze is they've got lawyers and can afford to bleed me
>> > dry because I don't have the money to fight. THAT means I "cave". You
>> > think this way of "doing business" is fair?
>>
>> Benj: "Mr. Lawyer, I signed an agreement in which I agreed to pay 18%
>> annual interest plus penalties, fees and any other charges the credit
>> card issuer wants to charge me. And guess what? Now they're doing
>> exactly what they said they'd do! The dirty rotten bastards! I'm mad
>> as hell and I want to sue! Will you take my case? For free?"
>
> Mr. Lawyer, I signed a weasel-worded agreement in which I agreed to
> pay any interest they asked, but which also said I could cancel the
> agreement at any time. Now they say under the provisions I'm not
> allowed to cancel our agreement and because I paid the former amount
> rather than the updated amount (for which they gave me no notice)
> there is a half million dollar "penalty" added on!
>
> Do I have any case here? PS. Mr. Lawyer, I'll give you 80% of any
> money we win in a lawsuit....
>
>> Mr. Lawyer: "Are you presently, or have you been recently, under the
>> care of a psychiatrist?" (I never take cases I can't win and those sued
>> don't have deep pockets)
>>
>> Benj: "You dirty rotten bastard!!"
>
> Is there some point here?
>

It may be bordering on fraud, and it may be unethical, but at this point it
is perfectly legal. The credit card companies have a huge amount of power
with Congress, just look at how they got the bankruptcy laws modified in
their favor. There is only one thing that can be done and that is for
EVERYONE to let their congressmen and senators know they won't get
re-elected if they don't quit catering to the credit card industry.

Mike Rieves

04-13-2007, 02:09 AM

"js" <NOSPAM@carolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:461b4523$0$17153$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Um, I believe I DID say it was a civil, not criminal case. In fact, that
> was
> the crux of my rant. I also said that they (as well as the "liberal
> media")
> DELIBERATELY confuse the two.
>
> And the reason they don't go after musicians is that musicians don't have
> SHIT. They tried that in the late '70's and there were so many fake names
> floating around it was ridiculous. So they went after the "deep pockets"
>
>
> All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but
> FREE
> ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the
> artist
> wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
> moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.
>
> If anything, ASCAP/BMI should be paying US.
>
The money collected for performance rights at clubs doesn't go to the
artists, it goes to the writers. The whole idea is that the club owners are
supposed to be paying the writers for the right to have bands perform their
songs.

Brian Running

04-15-2007, 09:14 PM

> Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
> allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't record
> on "data" CD-Rs.

I didn't know that, and I'm glad to hear there is some logical reason
for the two to exist. I guess. When you look at the packaging and
merchandising materials, there's no mention of any such thing, though,
and I don't think that's an accidental omission. They want people to
believe that "music" CDs will somehow sound better for recording music.
And they will, as long as you color the edges with a green felt-tip
pen. Ha! Just kidding!

Has anyone ever actually bought a stand-alone CD recorder?

crow

04-15-2007, 10:17 PM

I have a stand alone cd recorder that uses the "music' discs. Mine is a
pioneer consumer model. My friend has a professional model which will record
on regular (data) discs. His has xlr analog ins & outs. Mine has RCA. they
both have lightpipe & coaxial digital connectors. Except for the difference
in connectors they are identical. We had them apart one day & the boards
were the same. All the board connections for the xlr i/o was there. There
were also several dip switches. These are switches built into a 'Dual Inline
Package' (dip) like a microchip there are 6 or 8 rocker switches on each
one. I think that if I copy his configuration my deck will be able to use
data discs too...I'll try it eventually but I need the thing as a mastering
deck in my pseudo studio & I have hundreds of 'music' blanks to use first.

-- jepp
if it sounds good...IT IS GOOD!

"Brian Running" <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:FdzUh.23698$G23.4058@newsreading01.news.tds.n et...
>> Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
>> allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't
>> record on "data" CD-Rs.
>
> I didn't know that, and I'm glad to hear there is some logical reason for
> the two to exist. I guess. When you look at the packaging and
> merchandising materials, there's no mention of any such thing, though, and
> I don't think that's an accidental omission. They want people to believe
> that "music" CDs will somehow sound better for recording music. And they
> will, as long as you color the edges with a green felt-tip pen. Ha! Just
> kidding!
>
> Has anyone ever actually bought a stand-alone CD recorder?

Brian Running

04-16-2007, 12:48 PM

> Spoken like a true lawyer, Brian! Mr. lawyer, I was given a fine
> print legalese contract to sign just to get a credit card. Later in
> perusing the fine print I discover that not only can the bank change
> the interest rate at any time (as it common these days with credit
> agreements), but that they ALSO can change ANY terms of our agreement
> without any notice to me!

So, the fine print was perfectly understandable, you figured out what it
meant. It's just that you didn't do it before you signed it. What
could a lawyer do to help you?

> Let us note that is also bordering on fraud to ask people to sign a
> credit agreement merely to get a credit card for which understanding
> it requires hiring a lawyer.

Whoops, wait a minute... It wasn't understandable then? So, you still
don't know exactly what it says? Why are you complaining, then? For
all you know, all that fine print actually favors you.

> Mr. Lawyer, I signed a weasel-worded agreement in which I agreed to
> pay any interest they asked, but which also said I could cancel the
> agreement at any time. Now they say under the provisions I'm not
> allowed to cancel our agreement and because I paid the former amount
> rather than the updated amount (for which they gave me no notice)
> there is a half million dollar "penalty" added on!

So you DID understand it, after all. And then you signed it, in spite
of there being a half-million dollar penalty for cancellation. What
could a lawyer do to help you? That kind of help is provided by other
professionals, not lawyers.

> Is there some point here?

No, just like everything we talk about here in a.g.b., none of it really
matters very much.

Brian Running

04-16-2007, 12:51 PM

> It may be bordering on fraud, and it may be unethical, but at this point it
> is perfectly legal. The credit card companies have a huge amount of power
> with Congress, just look at how they got the bankruptcy laws modified in
> their favor. There is only one thing that can be done and that is for
> EVERYONE to let their congressmen and senators know they won't get
> re-elected if they don't quit catering to the credit card industry.

Just for the heck of it, Mike, explain why people should be able to run
up huge credit-card balances for purchases of unessential items and then
be able to discharge the obligation to pay using the government's
bankruptcy courts? What is the moral basis for expecting credit-card
companies to absorb those costs and bear those losses?

Mike Rieves

04-16-2007, 10:49 PM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:nYMUh.45$H_.10@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
>> It may be bordering on fraud, and it may be unethical, but at this point
>> it is perfectly legal. The credit card companies have a huge amount of
>> power with Congress, just look at how they got the bankruptcy laws
>> modified in their favor. There is only one thing that can be done and
>> that is for EVERYONE to let their congressmen and senators know they
>> won't get re-elected if they don't quit catering to the credit card
>> industry.
>
> Just for the heck of it, Mike, explain why people should be able to run up
> huge credit-card balances for purchases of unessential items and then be
> able to discharge the obligation to pay using the government's bankruptcy
> courts? What is the moral basis for expecting credit-card companies to
> absorb those costs and bear those losses?

Considering the morals and ethics shown by the credit card compaines, I'd
say it's tit for tat. They charge exorbitant interest rates, give cards to
college and even high school students, engage in predatory lending
practices, etc.
Just for the record, I've never had a credit card and have no plans for
ever getting one. I don't believe that it's right for someone to run up
credit card debt and walk away without paying, but I think the credit card
companies have as much to do with what's happening as the public does. In
particular, I don't think they should raise someone's interest rate to 25%
30%, or even more just because they were a day or two late on a payment (and
yes, that happens all the time). I don't think they should be allowed to
raise customers' interest rates without notifying them first. I don't think
that it's ethical to advertise 0% interest for 12, 18, 24 months, or even
longer, when in fact, the interest accrues during the so-called interest
free period and if even one dollar is left owed at the end of the
"interest-free" term, the total interest is added to the customer's balance,
or if the customer is even one day late on any payment, the total interest
is added to the customer's balance. I also don't like the fact that credit
card companies often add undocumented charges to customers' balances. Yes,
they'll usually remove them if the customer complains, but how many folks
check their balances down to the penny every month?
The fact is that credit card companies encourage folks to run up excessive
credit card debt, and I never hear anything from them about borrowing
responsibly in any of their ads. It's kind of like an adult encouraging a
child to eat all the candy he or she wants until a belly ache results and
then whipping the child because it is crying.
Responsible adults, as a rule, don't run up excessive credit card debt,
but if the credit card companies were more responsible about encouraging the
general public to run up debt, they would not have nearly so many customers
with excessive debt. They don't because in spite of record credit card debt,
the credit card companies are raking in more profits than ever!

Brian Running

04-16-2007, 11:49 PM

>> Just for the heck of it, Mike, explain why people should be able to run up
>> huge credit-card balances for purchases of unessential items and then be
>> able to discharge the obligation to pay using the government's bankruptcy
>> courts? What is the moral basis for expecting credit-card companies to
>> absorb those costs and bear those losses?
>
> Considering the morals and ethics shown by the credit card compaines, I'd
> say it's tit for tat. They charge exorbitant interest rates, give cards to
> college and even high school students, engage in predatory lending
> practices, etc.
> Just for the record, I've never had a credit card and have no plans for
> ever getting one....

[snip]

Are you going to answer my questions?

Mike Rieves

04-17-2007, 12:16 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@xxtdsxx.net> wrote in message
news:VAWUh.24434$G23.21878@newsreading01.news.tds. net...
>>> Just for the heck of it, Mike, explain why people should be able to run
>>> up huge credit-card balances for purchases of unessential items and then
>>> be able to discharge the obligation to pay using the government's
>>> bankruptcy courts? What is the moral basis for expecting credit-card
>>> companies to absorb those costs and bear those losses?
>>
>> Considering the morals and ethics shown by the credit card compaines,
>> I'd say it's tit for tat. They charge exorbitant interest rates, give
>> cards to college and even high school students, engage in predatory
>> lending practices, etc.
>> Just for the record, I've never had a credit card and have no plans for
>> ever getting one....
>
> [snip]
>
> Are you going to answer my questions?

I have a question for you, what is the moral basis for credit card
comapnies ripping off those who do pay their bills?
There is no moral basis for expecting credit card companies to absorb the
costs and bear the losses that come from people running up credit card bills
for nonessential items. Folks shouldn't go out and buy things they can't
afford just because they have a credit card to charge it on. On the other
hand, credit card companies shouldn't encourage their customers to run up
debt they have little hope of paying. "What's in your wallet?"
When there isn't any cash in mine, I don't buy anything. I just don't
think the credit card companies should be taking advantage of the American
public the way that they are, and if you don't think that the credit card
companies are taking advantage of the American public, kindly explain why
you don't think so.
The new bankruptcy laws make it difficult for those who have run up
essential debt (medical bills are the number one reason for filing
bankruptcy
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) What
about those people? None of us are exempt from facing illness or injury that
will put us deep in debt and often make us physically unable to work and pay
off that debt. Insurance is prohibitively expensive or impossible to obtain
for many of us and medical costs have skyrocketed. If you or someone close
to you need expensive medical treatment and you had no insurance and little
in savings, would you hesitate to pay for treatment with credit cards?

Brian Running

04-17-2007, 11:48 AM

> I have a question for you, what is the moral basis for credit card
> comapnies ripping off those who do pay their bills?

Give me an example of how they do that, and I'll respond.

> On the other hand, credit card companies shouldn't encourage their customers to run up
> debt they have little hope of paying.

Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?

> I just don't think the credit card companies should be taking advantage of the American
> public the way that they are, and if you don't think that the credit card
> companies are taking advantage of the American public, kindly explain why
> you don't think so.

I have to make your argument for you? Okay, how 'bout this: Giving
someone a credit card does not cause them to over-spend. The vast
majority of credit-card holders are responsible and pay their debts. How
do you explain them? If the credit-card companies are trying to rip
off American consumers, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. How can
you blame the lack of self-control and responsibility of a portion of
society on credit-card companies?

> The new bankruptcy laws make it difficult for those who have run up
> essential debt (medical bills are the number one reason for filing
> bankruptcy http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) What
> about those people?

What about them? You mean all those people who pay their medical bills
with credit cards? Which new bankruptcy laws are you referring to? Is
bankruptcy supposed to be easy? Are we, as irresponsible consumers,
entitled to a God-given right to spend beyond our means and them expect
someone else to bear the cost? You can't be serious. What is your
suggested remedy, by the way? To make bankruptcy easier, and to be able
to discharge credit-card debt more easily? Who will bear the costs of
that? Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay those bad-debt
losses? Jesus Christ, think for a minute, will you?

> If you or someone close to you need expensive medical treatment and you had no insurance and little
> in savings, would you hesitate to pay for treatment with credit cards?

Would I then expect to be able to discharge all those debts in
bankruptcy? You make the plight of the poor, beleaguered consumer sound
so noble. You're confusing the high cost of health care and health
insurance with an easy ability to discharge debts in bankruptcy. Turn
your brain on for a second, and think -- those people who default on
their bills and then declare bankruptcy, who do you suppose ends up
paying those bills? You think those debts just disappear? I got news
for you, the providers pass it on to you and me. You want to make it
easier for people to skate on their credit-card obligations, fine, but
you can expect to have to pay those skaters' debts out of your pocket.
Is that what you really want?

Derek Tearne

04-18-2007, 12:54 AM

Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:

> Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
> issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?

http://www.maxedoutmovie.com/

It's a documentary, with an agenda, but they do indeed document exactly
this behaviour - with compelling examples.

--- Derek

--
Derek Tearne - derek@url.co.nz
Many Hands - Trans Cultural Music from Aotearoa/New Zealand
http://www.manyhands.co.nz/

Jim Carr

04-18-2007, 01:35 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:Y75Vh.102$im2.18@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .

> Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
> issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?

Well, in a way they do. I'm sure your law firm does the same thing. Every
business knows that a certain percentage of what they bill won't get paid.
Some clients are riskier than others. The reality is that as long as you
make a bigger profit taking on the riskier customers than you would without
them, you do it. Hell, even a cash and carry retail shop knows they will
have merchandise stolen. Does that mean they encourage theft?

I think Mike has in issue with credit card companies that take on higher
risk customers such as teens or people with not-so-good credit. The thing is
the higher interest rates and fees offset the higher percentage of bad debt.
In the end the credit companies make money and people who couldn't otherwise
get credit get some credit. Unfortunately, some people get in financial
trouble.

Apparently, as you said, Mike thinks that it's the responsibility of the
credit card companies to keep these people from making bad decisions. In the
process he ignores that much larger proportion of people getting credit who
couldn't otherwise. The *only* way to ensure zero bad debt is to not give
any credit at all. Beyond that it's a matter of charging an interest rate
high enough to offset the higher percentage of bad debt. The interest rates
are capped by the states as well as by what the market will bear. Therefore,
bad debt is also capped.

It's not like they say, "Hey, *this* guy won't pay us back. Let's give him a
credit card!" What they say is, "We expect 6% of clients like this to not
pay us back. We expect another 25% to be slow payers that will require
expensive individualized attention to keep them paying. They are willing to
pay 22% interest and $35 every time they have a late payment. Once we crunch
all the numbers, we'll make a decent profit, so we're willing to take on
these types of clients."

I don't think that's a bad thing. Nobody is being coerced.

> Would I then expect to be able to discharge all those debts in bankruptcy?
> You make the plight of the poor, beleaguered consumer sound so noble.
> You're confusing the high cost of health care and health insurance with an
> easy ability to discharge debts in bankruptcy. Turn your brain on for a
> second, and think -- those people who default on their bills and then
> declare bankruptcy, who do you suppose ends up paying those bills? You
> think those debts just disappear? I got news for you, the providers pass
> it on to you and me. You want to make it easier for people to skate on
> their credit-card obligations, fine, but you can expect to have to pay
> those skaters' debts out of your pocket. Is that what you really want?

In my now outdated experience in the world of credit, most people don't put
the medical bills on credit cards. The people who end up in trouble
typically incurred expensive medical bills while also being unable to work.
The bills were separate from credit card debt. Sometimes there was none at
all. Do I personally have a problem ultimately footing the bill for these
folks? No, not really. It's probably just a few extra bucks per month, but I
can't back up that figure.

Where I *do* have an issue is when I would see people run up large credit
card debt and do a refinance on the house to pay off the credit cards.
Almost invariably they would run up the credit cards again buying Sea-Doos
or taking vacations to Hawaii. When these folks would go bankrupt, it would
annoy the piss out of me.

As a society most of us have at least *some* level of compassion that says,
"Hey, you're in a screwed up place, but you did the best you could. We want
to give you a second chance." The hard part is creating a system that helps
those that truly need help and discourages deadbeats from using bankruptcy
to finance a frivolous lifestyle.

Mike Rieves

04-18-2007, 01:40 AM

"Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
news:Y75Vh.102$im2.18@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .
>> I have a question for you, what is the moral basis for credit card
>> comapnies ripping off those who do pay their bills?
>
> Give me an example of how they do that, and I'll respond.

Just try addressing the specific points I made in my previous posts. This
isn't something I'm making up as I go along, I see these issues on the news
frequently.

>> On the other hand, credit card companies shouldn't encourage their
>> customers to run up debt they have little hope of paying.
>
> Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
> issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?

If they aren't encouraging people to use their cards for virtually
everything, why are there so many credit card commercials on television and
radio? I have yet to see one commercial that sayd anything about using their
credit cards responsibly. If you're aware of one, please let me know what
credit card company aired it and when it was aired.

>> I just don't think the credit card companies should be taking advantage
>> of the American public the way that they are, and if you don't think that
>> the credit card companies are taking advantage of the American public,
>> kindly explain why you don't think so.
>
> I have to make your argument for you? Okay, how 'bout this: Giving
> someone a credit card does not cause them to over-spend. The vast
> majority of credit-card holders are responsible and pay their debts. How
> do you explain them? If the credit-card companies are trying to rip off
> American consumers, they're doing a piss-poor job of it. How can you
> blame the lack of self-control and responsibility of a portion of society
> on credit-card companies?

I'm not blaming them for anyone's lack of self control, I'm blaming them
for taking advantage of it. Why do poeple who have just discharged a
bankruptcy constantly get offers for credit cards? I see it all the time. I
have one friend who went through a chapter thirteen and a week after it was
discharged he got an offer for a five thousand dollar limit Mastercard, he
applied and was approved.

>> The new bankruptcy laws make it difficult for those who have run up
>> essential debt (medical bills are the number one reason for filing
>> bankruptcy
>> http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) What
>> about those people?
>
> What about them? You mean all those people who pay their medical bills
> with credit cards?

Yeah, because they couldn't get affordable insurance, they needed
expensive medical treatment and had no other way to pay for it.

> Which new bankruptcy laws are you referring to? Is bankruptcy supposed to
> be easy?

Why do credit card companies constantly give cards to poor risk people?
Never mind, I'll tell you why, because they can charge those poor risk
customers exhorbitant interest rates to make up for what they lose on those
who don't pay. Bankruptcy is at it's highest level in history, yet the
credit card companies are making record profits. Can you explain that?

> Are we, as irresponsible consumers, entitled to a God-given right to
> spend beyond our means and them expect someone else to bear the cost? You
> can't be serious. What is your suggested remedy, by the way? To make
> bankruptcy easier, and to be able to discharge credit-card debt more
> easily?

I just want them to go back to the way it was before the new bankruptcy
laws went into effect. If you think bankruptcy was easy before the new laws,
you're wrong.

> Who will bear the costs of that?

The credit card companies will pay for it, and then maybe they won't be so
quick to give cards to poor risk people.

> Where do you suppose the money comes from to pay those bad-debt losses?
> Jesus Christ, think for a minute, will you?

I know exactly where the money comes from, it comes from those high
interest rates the credit card companies charge those who do pay. I'll bet
you never tried to raise a family of four on less than ten thousand a year,
I'll also bet you have good health insurance, many Americans don't have any
because they can't afford it. Until you take a walk in those peoples' shoes,
you shouldn't be so quick to judge.
Sure there are people who go out and run up credit card bills with no
intention of paying, but there are many more people who run up credit card
debt because of medical bills, or simply because it's the only they and
their families can survive. Are you for punishing the latter because of the
former?
I am thinking

>> If you or someone close to you need expensive medical treatment and you
>> had no insurance and little in savings, would you hesitate to pay for
>> treatment with credit cards?
>
> Would I then expect to be able to discharge all those debts in bankruptcy?
> You make the plight of the poor, beleaguered consumer sound so noble.
> You're confusing the high cost of health care and health insurance with an
> easy ability to discharge debts in bankruptcy. Turn your brain on for a
> second, and think -- those people who default on their bills and then
> declare bankruptcy, who do you suppose ends up paying those bills?

As I already stated, the people who do pay their bills pay for those who
don't. When have you seen a credit card company go broke? The fact that
those companies are making record profits tends to make me non-sympathetic
towards them.

>You think those debts just disappear? I got news for you, the providers
>pass it on to you and me.

They don't pass it on to me, I have better sense than to pay ridiculous
interest rates to get something that I can save for a while and pay cash for
at zero percent interest. The credit card companies are always pushing the
"buy now, pay later" philosophy because it lines their pockets in spite of
those who don't pay. BTW, the only debt I have is medical debt and that was
unavoidable if my wife and I wanted to keep on living.

> You want to make it easier for people to skate on their credit-card
> obligations, fine, but you can expect to have to pay those skaters' debts
> out of your pocket. Is that what you really want?

See my paragraph above, it ain't me that's paying. Why are you defending
the credit card companies? Are you in favor of them charging 30% and more to
poor people who don't have it to spare, but have no other choice? What do
you think about the check cashing companies and car title loan companies who
charge poor folks excessively high interest rates? If you don't approve of
them, why are you defending the credit card companies who are doing exactly
the same thing?

We might as well drop this right here, because until you've tried to survive
with a below poverty level income and major health issues, you have no clue
as to what those people are going through. I see your point, I just don't
agree with it because you are lumping those who have no other choice but to
use credit cards to survive with the deadbeats. Bankruptcy laws also don't
see the difference, and that's my whole point.

Mike Rieves

04-18-2007, 03:05 AM

"Jim Carr" <newsgroups@azwebpages.com> wrote in message
news:8ghVh.527745$Ju2.144448@newsfe16.lga...
> "Brian Running" <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote in message
> news:Y75Vh.102$im2.18@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net.. .
>
>> Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
>> issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?
>
> Well, in a way they do. I'm sure your law firm does the same thing. Every
> business knows that a certain percentage of what they bill won't get paid.
> Some clients are riskier than others. The reality is that as long as you
> make a bigger profit taking on the riskier customers than you would
> without them, you do it. Hell, even a cash and carry retail shop knows
> they will have merchandise stolen. Does that mean they encourage theft?
>
> I think Mike has in issue with credit card companies that take on higher
> risk customers such as teens or people with not-so-good credit. The thing
> is the higher interest rates and fees offset the higher percentage of bad
> debt. In the end the credit companies make money and people who couldn't
> otherwise get credit get some credit. Unfortunately, some people get in
> financial trouble.
>
> Apparently, as you said, Mike thinks that it's the responsibility of the
> credit card companies to keep these people from making bad decisions. In
> the process he ignores that much larger proportion of people getting
> credit who couldn't otherwise. The *only* way to ensure zero bad debt is
> to not give any credit at all. Beyond that it's a matter of charging an
> interest rate high enough to offset the higher percentage of bad debt. The
> interest rates are capped by the states as well as by what the market will
> bear. Therefore, bad debt is also capped.
>
> It's not like they say, "Hey, *this* guy won't pay us back. Let's give him
> a credit card!" What they say is, "We expect 6% of clients like this to
> not pay us back. We expect another 25% to be slow payers that will require
> expensive individualized attention to keep them paying. They are willing
> to pay 22% interest and $35 every time they have a late payment. Once we
> crunch all the numbers, we'll make a decent profit, so we're willing to
> take on these types of clients."
>
> I don't think that's a bad thing. Nobody is being coerced.
>
>> Would I then expect to be able to discharge all those debts in
>> bankruptcy? You make the plight of the poor, beleaguered consumer sound
>> so noble. You're confusing the high cost of health care and health
>> insurance with an easy ability to discharge debts in bankruptcy. Turn
>> your brain on for a second, and think -- those people who default on
>> their bills and then declare bankruptcy, who do you suppose ends up
>> paying those bills? You think those debts just disappear? I got news
>> for you, the providers pass it on to you and me. You want to make it
>> easier for people to skate on their credit-card obligations, fine, but
>> you can expect to have to pay those skaters' debts out of your pocket. Is
>> that what you really want?
>
> In my now outdated experience in the world of credit, most people don't
> put the medical bills on credit cards. The people who end up in trouble
> typically incurred expensive medical bills while also being unable to
> work. The bills were separate from credit card debt. Sometimes there was
> none at all. Do I personally have a problem ultimately footing the bill
> for these folks? No, not really. It's probably just a few extra bucks per
> month, but I can't back up that figure.
>
> Where I *do* have an issue is when I would see people run up large credit
> card debt and do a refinance on the house to pay off the credit cards.
> Almost invariably they would run up the credit cards again buying Sea-Doos
> or taking vacations to Hawaii. When these folks would go bankrupt, it
> would annoy the piss out of me.
>
> As a society most of us have at least *some* level of compassion that
> says, "Hey, you're in a screwed up place, but you did the best you could.
> We want to give you a second chance." The hard part is creating a system
> that helps those that truly need help and discourages deadbeats from using
> bankruptcy to finance a frivolous lifestyle.
>
I don't have a problem with credit card companies giving high risk people
credit at higher interest rates, I do have a problem with them encouraging
those people to charge everything, and run up lots of debt. I have a problem
with them charging such exorbitant interest rates that the interest is what
takes the debt over the top and produces problems for many people who would
not have problems paying off their debt if the interest rate was lower. I
also have a problem with them using their political power to change the
bankruptcy laws so that many of those who really need debt relief cannot get
it. I think it would be fairly easy to look at what a person buys with
credit cards and decide who is financing a frivolous lifestyle and who is
just trying to survive. Why not set things up so bankruptcy courts can make
those judgements?

5 String

04-18-2007, 11:16 AM

> Brian Running <brunning@XXameritechXX.net> wrote:
>
>> Give me an example of this. You really believe that the credit-card
>> issuers encourage spending that can't be repaid?

don't the swarm of "points systems" and rewards for spending constitute
at least a small incentive? While they may not actively encourage Joe
Smith in Your Town USA to overspend, those 3m skymiles and the promise
of a vacation anywhere but home would seem to be a strong inducement.....

"For everything else there's XXX card.."

--
> www.google.com <enter> <
> search<insert query here> <enter> <
> <
> avoiding newsgroup wiseasses.... PRICELESS. <
> <
> For some things there is usenet <
> For everything else there is google............. <

Jim Carr

04-18-2007, 01:14 PM

"Mike Rieves" <mriev@hotspam.com> wrote in message
news:cziVh.6003$Zm3.467@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

> I don't have a problem with credit card companies giving high risk
> people credit at higher interest rates, I do have a problem with them
> encouraging those people to charge everything, and run up lots of debt.

And just how do they do that? Mike, businesses struggle just to get people
to buy their products and services. They put ads on TV, radio, newspapers,
magazines, Internet, and so forth, yet many go out of business every year.
How exactly are credit card companies magically getting people to not just
spend money, but to overspend themselves into bankruptcy while K-Mart
struggles for business?

>I have a problem with them charging such exorbitant interest rates that the
>interest is what takes the debt over the top and produces problems for many
>people who would not have problems paying off their debt if the interest
>rate was lower.

First off, Mike, nobody is forcing anybody to partially pay off their credit
cards. If you pay it off in full every month, you're not paying any
interest. Second, interest rates are commensurate with your credit rating.
You want low interest rates? Fine. Maintain really good credit.

Furthermore, it's not the interest rate that is the problem. If you have
$1,000 you want to pay off in a year, the payments would be $88 at 12%
interest and $93 at 22% interest. Please don't tell me that this $5 is
keeping you in debt. It's the continued *spending* that gets you in trouble.

> also have a problem with them using their political power to change the
> bankruptcy laws so that many of those who really need debt relief cannot
> get it.

Can you be more specific? Pretty much the only new provision that seems at
face value to not be such a great idea is that they calculate your income
based on a six month average rather than what it is now. If you're
unemployed, that really sucks. But in all fairness just because you are
unemployed now doesn't mean you will be in six months, so why shouldn't we
look at reasonably expected future income when doing the means test?

>I think it would be fairly easy to look at what a person buys with credit
>cards and decide who is financing a frivolous lifestyle and who is just
>trying to survive. Why not set things up so bankruptcy courts can make
>those judgements?

Fairly easy? Nope. I'd say exceedingly difficult to administer.