Copied from my own post in a discussion of this issue on Flatpick-L:

********************************************************************

There's nothing wrong, in theory, with places that have music that's copyrighted paying for the privilege, with these caveats:

1) The payments should be to one central outfit - this thing of two or more outfits each demanding a separate payment is unreasonable. When you're doing a recording, you can work with just Harry Fox - I'm no fan of Harry Fox, but at least there's only one of them - not both ASCAP and BMI to start with, and gawd knows what other outfits coming out of the woodwork.

2) The total payment required should be reasonable in terms of the venue's cash flow _attributable to music_. Thus in a place where people go to do serious drinking and they have some poor stiff with a guitar in the corner, the payment should be very small even if the cash flow is huge.

3) Should not have to pay if they just have recorded or radio music. That's already had one royalty paid on it.

4) If they have live performers, the money should go to the composers in proportion to the amount of actual performance - not based on radio play as it is now. I'm glad to have Tom Russell get some money if I sing a Tom Russell song in a bar, but it burns my a** to think of Michael Jackson getting it.

I don't think the present system meets any of those standards.

Peter