That is incorrect and ignores the law. How many times do I have to say it? Royalties only apply to commercial use, not personal use. You can play the music as many times as you wish, as loud as you wish . . . for yourself, your friends and family or a pasture full of country girls that are there to admire the cows. But no, you can't play it in a bar or a restaurant or a pasture full of country girls to whom you charged admission or sold things to. This is a commercial public performance. If you use somebody's copyrighted creation to make money with, you must pay them a royalty. It's not even a share of the profits! It's just a fee based on how much music you play, and to how many people. It is only fair and it is how all business is done. It should be noted that Neil Young is giving up a large amount of money. If he gave permission for Trump to use his song for free, he would still get royalties for every time that Trump used it on TV. And TV audiences are huge. Musicians love to hear their music on the radio and television because they get big ASCAP royalties. But a local bar and grill doesn't really have to pay that much. It's lots cheaper than what they would pay for live music or what they pay a DJ. What a poor analogy. Wearing a suit is not a commercial enterprise. You ain't making money off of the suit. Try this one . . . If you want to make your bar more attractive to customers by giving everybody an Armani suit, so that you can make more money, you can surely make a lot more money. But you have to pay Armani for the suits. If you attract customers with recorded music you can make more money, but you have to pay the artists whose performances you are using. It's a lot cheaper than Armani suits . . .
I don't think playing the radio at a restaurant is what attracts customers. It's just part of the background. If people like the food they are going to eat there whether music is played or not. Or the muzak at a department store. People don't generally notice it and when they do its annoying.
It's part of what makes the place attractive to customers. Ambience is everything in many commercial businesses and music helps set the ambience. A chain restaurant pays fees to its franchise holder for the same reason. The name helps bring in business. Irrelevant. Nobody is forcing them to play music, but if they choose to do so, they must pay royalties. Why do you think that Muzak does not play original recordings? Because no royalties are owed! Muzak records elevator music itself. Some new online music services play very old music now in the public domain and some play garage band music where royalties have been waived to get the exposure. But the ones that play the popular modern recordings that are protected by copyright have royalties built into the fee for commercial use. Even Muzak now has some channels that play original recordings . . . but it costs more to purchase it and ASCAP is paid.
The servers and receivers the cable and satellite companies use now constantly send signals to each other. They know what everyone is watching.
But it isn't, and that is the rub. I know of NO establishment that draws consumers because of what radio station is on. Not a single one. I have never made such a choice nor do I know anyone that has. Its the freaking radio. There is NO CHARGE for the god damned radio. Listen to it, I'm sure you will hear the same nation wide ad that I have heard "Radio is a FREE medium" therefore you do NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR IT!
Pinetta's used to play opera music. I hate opera but I ate there anyway because the food is great. And Muzak may not play original recordings but they do play their version of songs that have been recorded by famous artists. I have even recognized Beatles Muzak songs.
Then why do they play the radio? If you fucking think about it, you will realize why. Because the customers like it. It's why they pay for better music from services that pay royalties. Some pay for DJ's and live musicians. Music can be worth it on the bottom line. You are deliberately not paying attention. The discussion was about downloaded music, media music, disk jockeys, and "Playlists". I mentioned long ago that "radio" means a lot of things now that there is "Satellite radio" and "internet radio", some of which are pay services that build in ASCAP fees into their fee. But broadcasted radio music is fair use.
The point is that they don't owe recording royalties to the Beatles but to themselves because they are the artists. They may owe some composer royalties, which are even cheaper, but they paid them when they bought the sheet music.
So if a guy in a band goes to a music store and buys the sheet music for Stairway to Heaven and then records his own version and it becomes a huge hit he doesn't owe anybody any more money? Like when Otis Redding had a big hit with Satisfaction.
