A few days ago a friend sent me a link to a discussion on MusicBanter.com which had posted an article from The Detroit Free Press.
The article is about a gourmet coffee shop in Florida and it’s anger over ASCAP approaching them for payment for live, in-store performances. The shop has been asked to pay $400/year and the owners are angry. It always amazes me how some folks think… or don’t.
I posted a response and want you all to see the immediate reaction I received. The general public is so naïve in that they perceive a “right” to free music. These folks don’t seem to understand they couldn’t buy groceries if they weren’t employed by a business that sells a product or service.
I have a very good friend who’s a professional airline pilot. He’s definitely no dummy, yet he’s taken part in illegal peer-to-peer music swap sites for several years and no matter how many angles I use to describe to him that it’s stealing, he fails to get my point (of course if a stowaway were discovered on my friends airplane I suspect he’d be the first to become red-faced and toss them off).
People that would never load their grocery cart or buggy at Wal-Mart then walk out without paying are stealing on a regular basis. I suspect it’s often not actually a failure to understand, as much as knowing they won’t be caught. The only difference between those folks and shoplifters at Wal-Mart is tenacity.
Below is my post in regard to the Detroit Free Press article and the first response to that post:
“$400 per year is likely a great investment in their business. It's $1.10 per day. If performance of cover tunes causes customers to come in or 'hang-out' longer, how many coffees, teas, or muffins do you suppose they'll have to sell before they recoup that $1.10 investment and then reap the rewards of more sales?
Even if the other two performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC are the only ones in the U.S., NOT the "three biggest") are paid the same amount, it's a total of $1200 for the entire year, equaling roughly $3.30 per day.
The article quotes the gourmet coffee shop owner as saying, "It makes me so angry"... "I feel like the greedy music industry..."
GREEDY?? Really? For wanting to be paid for use of a product?
Next time I travel through Florida I'll have to swing by their coffee shop, drink a cup of coffee, tea, or eat a muffin, then walk out without paying. Surely the GREEDY owners of the product won't expect me to pay for it.”
Four minutes later I received this response:
“What utter rubbish.
Could you imagine the state of the world if the publishing industry took the same example with books? Imagine schools having to pay money out to quote books , imagine libraries being closed down because of illegal sharing of free books.
The music industry is full of crooks & opportunists and don't let anyone tell you otherwise.”
Sadly, many share this perspective based on ignorance. So I answered by explaining that books are not different than music when it comes to paying for use. I explained that libraries and schools are permitted use of copyrighted material by way of “Fair Use” which is part of the U.S Copyright Act.
I explained that libraries have to purchase many of their books with our tax money, spending an average of 20-30% of their budget for materials, with around 85% of that funding coming from taxes and not donations. Based on this I suggested he should include book publishers in his description of "crooks and opportunists".
Of course, just like my friend he didn’t get it; and I’ll still be expected for some strange reason to pay for my next cup of joe at my favorite coffee house tomorrow.
