More On Galaxy Hut Karaoke
I did some more research on last week’s post on the death of karaoke at the Galaxy Hut. Begins with a little recap:
Arlington’s Galaxy Hut has killed karaoke. Owner Lary Hoffman says he pulled the plug last December after getting legal threats from “one of the agencies” that collect licensing fees for songwriters and composers.
Music copyright laws are effectively enforced by three licensing agencies, BMI, ASCAP and SESAC, which collect money from places that play music composed by the artists they represent. DJs, jukeboxes and karaoke machines all count as performances, giving songwriters a claim to royalties and the agencies a motive to collect. The agencies charge yearly fees based on a bar’s size, how often they play music and the kind of music they play (live, recorded or “enhanced recorded music,” like karaoke). The minimum fee for BMI, which claims to hold the licenses for half of the music played in the states, is $309. The maximum is more than $9,000. A BMI spokesman confirmed that the agency hires contractors to make anonymous rounds surveying which bars are in compliance. Songwriters get dibs on the pool of fee payments based on estimates of how often their songs get played. That arithmetic factors in radio plays, national tours and, to a small extent, karaoke performances.
Hoffman wouldn’t specify which agency came a-knocking, or just how much money they demanded. He did say the sum would eclipse any extra revenue he earns with the attraction of yodeling for a crowd of intoxicated strangers. Hoffman adds that he shelled out a hefty sum to pay back fees. Now, unless there’s a live band (and he says he books indie bands that don’t have licensing agreements), Thursday nights will feature the same entertainment as the rest of the week, tunes from an internet jukebox, which pays the fees automatically.
7 Responses to “More On Galaxy Hut Karaoke”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- Sean Taylor’s Officially Fair Game (0
)
On WTEM's "Monday Morning Quarterback" show yesterday, host Andy Pollin led a discussion of Sunday's… - AU Professor Proposes Using Complex Online Scheme to Make D.C. Simple to Understand (0)
Washington, D.C. is a complicated place. Journalists in D.C. bureaus are getting laid off in droves.… - Postcards From Home: Film and Paper Archive (0)
Medical Museum, 1993… - Biking to the Inauguration (0)
Yesterday, Loose Lips Daily linked to San Francisco Bike Blog-- which thinks the Washington Area Bi… - Will The Kerstetter Shooting Spark Reforms With D.C. Police? (0)
On the morning of November 6, two D.C. police officers responded to the home of David Kerstetter. Th…
- Sean Taylor’s Officially Fair Game (0
February 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I’ve been told that freelancers usually exaggerate the fees due, since they get paid on a percentage basis. That’s why it’s important to check their claims. I’m no fan of karaoke, but there you have it.
February 11th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Actually, the dude from BMI told me the “freelancers” get paid for their time and expenses and nothing else. Don’t know if that applies across the board.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:35 am
They should play classical instead. That would improve mass taste. Besides, no royalties to pay. To whom indeed? Vivaldi, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart?? The BMI could simply go fuck itself then. Who needs pop-trash when real music is available for free?
February 12th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Actually, these fees dues are not determined by the “freelancers” at all. These are fees calculated by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC prior to these “freelancers” even going into the establishment. The only job of the “freelancer” is to hear the copyrighted works being played. And not all copyrighted music is “pop-trash”, there are many jazz and classical songwriter members of all organizations. It is true you could simply only play music that is currently public domain, but there is also nothing wrong with supporting songwriters and new music, that is after all how many of them make any money at all, not off of record sales.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I disagree. The overwhelming majority of karaoke music (or jukebox one, for that matter) was made by the individuals ranging from quite comfortable to rich-beyond-avarice as it is. The copyright is primarily designed to provide for the numberless middleman rather than the actual artists.
This particular karaoke shutdown is an absurd. It was a fun night. Now what’s next? I purchase a CD and the next thing I know an enforcer comes knocking to extort extra money for my actually playing it?? I know, I know, we aren’t quite there yet but the way things are going it won‘t be long yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah… before they crucify us.
February 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I agree, karaoke is fun, that’s why bars hire companies to come in and provide that service, but I actually work for a performing rights organization and I know how little it actually costs a bar/restaurant to license for the music that they have … and I also know how many “middle men” AREN’T getting these fees, they actually DO go to the songwriter - not the performer - the songwriter. It doesn’t work the same way that a record label works ….
It’s too bad that intellectual copyright isn’t valued in this country, everybody thinks that music is free.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:40 pm
These are the same guys who threatened the Girl Scouts with paying licensing fees for singing campfire songs, and only dropped their threat because of the bad P.R.
Now HOW exactly do they distribute the karaoke license fees? If Britney Spears “Hit Me Baby One More Time” is sung 100X more than Barry Manilow’s “Coca Cabana”, does the songwriter get 100X as much?
I’m doubting it. I’m thinking Barry gets screwed.