Restaurants, Bars Say They're Getting Squeezed by Rising Music Licensing Costs (bloomberg.com) 157
Restaurants and bars face mounting financial pressure from music licensing fees as the number of Performing Rights Organizations has expanded from three dominant players to at least six nationwide. The National Restaurant Association reports members pay an average of $4,500 annually for music licenses, representing 0.5% of total sales for small establishments. Hotels have experienced even steeper increases, with one major chain seeing costs rise 200% from 2021-2025, and some properties facing 400% jumps.
The proliferation stems from streaming's revenue surge, which attracted new PROs seeking market share. Since many songs involve multiple songwriters affiliated with different organizations, venues must secure licenses from each PRO or risk lawsuits carrying penalties up to $150,000 per infringement.
The proliferation stems from streaming's revenue surge, which attracted new PROs seeking market share. Since many songs involve multiple songwriters affiliated with different organizations, venues must secure licenses from each PRO or risk lawsuits carrying penalties up to $150,000 per infringement.
Can't speak for anyone else... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only speak for myself... but (with a few exceptions, like live performances) I'd actually prefer NO MUSIC at these establishments.
Re:Can't speak for anyone else... (Score:4, Funny)
You can speak for me.
Re:Can't speak for anyone else... (Score:4, Funny)
You can speak for me.
The two of you are making too much noise, I can't hear the muzak. :-)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
More importantly, did he get a +5 for expressing his desire to lick butts?
Re: Can't speak for anyone else... (Score:3)
Re: Can't speak for anyone else... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Also to make people talk louder, which causes dry mouth, which makes people thirsty so that they order more drinks.
Re: (Score:3)
I kinda agree but background music should be just that; like wallpaper. If you actually hear the music, it's too loud, your paying too much attention to it or both. Most venues are way too loud which just inhibits conversation and limits socialization, meanwhile, a lot of musicians are vain and want their music to dominate the place. Louder is not better except at heavy metal concerts.
Of course, if copyright law wasn't corrupted, most of this music would already be in the public domain, as it should be.
Re: (Score:2)
I can only speak for myself... but (with a few exceptions, like live performances) I'd actually prefer NO MUSIC at these establishments.
I'm having a hard time recalling any music at a bar or restaurant. Other than a live act or a paid jukebox. More likely a TV with a game, or the noise pretty much a room full of customer voices.
Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's really simple - people want to be paid for their work. If you can't afford it all of a sudden, then stop playing licensed works.
If these licensors start seeing revenues falling from people cancelling over price hikes, they'll either get the message and knock it off, or watch revenue sink.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The wealthy aren't the problem with inflation. Giving money to them (or not taxing it away from them, same thing) isn't inflationary, they'll more or less invest the money to increase their wealth. Rich people always want more money.
Ah, but for the most part, that money just sits there. Investing money in stocks has only limited impact on anything, in practice, which is why it doesn't impact inflation much. The money doesn't ever get spent on anything that meaningfully contributes to strengthening the economy.
Cutting checks to people on the street, that's inflationary because they spend the money on goods.
It is, but not proportionately. The increase in funds availability does increase demand, which increases scarcity, but the price people spend on goods and services doesn't increase to absorb all of the extra money going in
Re: (Score:2)
Price increases = inflation. Reducing the value of your currency.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:40x income is still 40x paid to gov't (Score:5, Interesting)
If there are literally no deductions, then the tax is on gross revenues rather than on profits, and that's just not feasible for people running businesses whose profit margin is small, or who have significant costs associated with their employment (e.g., rideshare drivers need to keep up a motor vehicle).
So, at the very least one needs deductions for the expenses that were spent to gain the revenues. But now a lot of complications come back. Do we allow expenses to get carried over? And what exactly counts as an expense? Some jobs require a uniform and some jobs just require looking business-like--do both types of clothes count as a deductible expense or only one? Say, you travel for business. Do you get to deduct the full cost of food when traveling on business or the cost of food when traveling minus how much it would cost to eat at home (and how do you calculate the latter)? Do you cap the cost of the food you can deduct? You probably should be able to deduct the cost of entertaining clients. But what counts as entertaining clients and what is just having fun with people who happen to be clients? Or you buy a painting to put in your office. Is it there for you to enjoy, or is there "a business purpose" for it, say to impress clients with your taste.
And, anyway, what is income? If someone gives you a gift, that's just a gift, not something you earned. But what if they give you the gift because they were impressed with how nice you were on your job or how smart you are. Now it's a tip or a prize. What if instead of giving you money, they give you a meal? If that counts as income, then do you tax that based on the retail price or the price it costs them to give it to you? And if it doesn't count as income, we have a giant loophole where you can be paid in kind instead of in money.
I am afraid that any system will raise a ton of questions, and now we need tax lawyers. Sure, we can reduce how many we need. But it will still have complications.
Re: (Score:3)
I knew someone with a life-size bronze sculpture of a horse rearing up. It was given to him as a wedding gift and he absolutely hated it. But it was basically a white elephant he couldn't get rid of or conceal, so he posted it in the lobby of his company HQ, where it actually got a lot of positive comments. Everyone was happy, including the people that gave it to him, but just to make sure he never had to take it home, he later sold it to the company for $1. As far as I know, it's still on display.
Re:40x income is still 40x paid to gov't (Score:5, Informative)
Other countries have solved these problems.
In the UK, most people dont have to file taxes - there are no deductions for the vast majority of people, you dont get to deduct your mortgage costs, healthcare costs or anything else. You pay your tax in monthly instalments taken from your wage by your employer, based on well known tax codes and your level of earning, and at the end of the year you get a piece of paper saying how much you paid. If you switched jobs and earned more but underpaid tax, your tax code is adjusted for the next financial year and you pay more tax per month to cover both the previous years shortfall and your new tax requirement.
If you run a business, then the business does file returns, and does have deductions - so that covers your business, Uber driver, travel expenses and everything else. People travelling for business claim expenses through the company, and the company deals with the tax implications.
A businesses accounts and the accounts of the business owner are very very strictly separate - the business owner does not get to dip into the business for their own usage, they get paid a wage or dividend, which is taxed like everyone else as income.
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they should switch to purely AI generated music. It's not like people are actually listening anyway, it's just there for ambiance.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd often prefer that they didn't have any, but that depends on how loudly the people at the next table are talking.
Re: Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Informative)
It's going to happen. It's basically already happened in some stores. IKEAfied Swedish clone brands have for years had their own in-house music channels for their stores, playing basically knockoff pop music.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony of that is that Max Martin is considered to be the worlds greatest pop music creative (not performer), and he's Swedish; so IKEA is knocking off their homelands greatest musical artist... Unless he's the one with the contract to spooge out a couple of tracks a year for their rotation lol.
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright holders are too powerful. They'll be a knock down dragout fight all the way to the Supreme Court, and possibly to an Article V convention before that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should switch to purely AI generated music. It's not like people are actually listening anyway, it's just there for ambiance.
This is exactly what is going to happen. Some things are incredibly predictable.
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:4, Interesting)
This might actually be an improvement in some ways, as it could eternally make up new tracks and never have to loop. It would be better than the same four songs on infinite repeat, even when they're four good songs.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
You don't even need to generate it, there is plenty of copyright free music especially because of streamers.
Copyright-Free Music for Twitch and YouTube [fairlyoddstreamers.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So pre-1930. That would go over really well today.
[ObDisclaimer]: I actually do like some of that stuff, especially the jazz.
Re: (Score:2)
Eww. Just grab some sheet music that's too old to be under copyright, and run it through a synthesizer. You'll get an uninspired performance, but at least the composition will be good. Much better than AI-generated slop.
AI still pumps out better quality than 90% of the slop made by real people that ends up on the radio or on TV.
Re: Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Insightful)
They were getting paid, but they saw opportunities for more extraction of value without doing additional work. Its the definition of rentseeking. Its also not something that's in the public interest - the work was created already, the artists presumably paid. If they weren't, maybe they should learn to negotiate. But this is just extortion.
The only thing left is to find one of them using the slogan "that's a nice establishment you've got. Wouldn't want a nasty lawsuit to happen, now would you?"
It works not because there are underpaid people, but because music license are so convoluted that it's impossible to risk it.
A few years from now you may have 20 organisations, because it seems like free money. And I bet that none of the artists will get paid any better than they are today.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it extortion if the product is completely optional?
Who goes to a bar / restaurant / hotel to listen to the recorded music? You go there for drinks / meals / a bed to sleep in.
If the price is too hard to swallow, find a different provider or turn it off.
Re: Pay up or shut it off. (Score:4)
How is it extortion if the product is completely optional?
I think that was addressed with this part:
It works not because there are underpaid people, but because music license are so convoluted that it's impossible to risk it.
Basically, we have a system where, without having a licensing agreement, the damages can technically be astronomical if, for example, one of your employees at your restaurant turns on the radio one day. Maybe even if a customer plays music out loud. Basically, if a "public performance" can get pinned on your business, it could potentially go bankrupt. Will it really? Probably not. Probably you could get out of it through some form of settlement, but the threat is there.
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's really simple - people want to be paid for their work.
from tfa:
The proliferation stems from streaming's revenue surge, which attracted new PROs seeking market share. (...) venues must secure licenses from each PRO or risk lawsuits carrying penalties up to $150,000 per infringement.
i'm not really sure whose "work" is being paid for exactly here. "creator's livelihood" was a good talking point for ip law strenghtening and the emergence of these collection agencies a couple decades ago, now that they have become mostly tools for censorship, lawfare, monopolies and wholesale extraction while most creators still barely subsist on a few crumbs (who would have thunk!) i don't think they hold that much weigh anymore ...
Re:Pay up or shut it off. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, it's like believing Disney when they changed the copyright law to make copyrights last (nearly) forever.
On some level, yes, if an author's book is worth $X, then in theory if you extend the copyright on it, it will now be worth $X + $Y. If you just stop thinking right there, you think "copyrights are good for authors" and side with Disney.
But when you look at the reality, the vast vast majority of authors will never see a single extra penny from the copyright extension. It's only the Disneys of the world that benefit, and they do so at a cost of stifling creativity for everyone else.
Same deal here: I guarantee you 99%+ of music artists are not making any more money as a result of these deals.
Re: (Score:2)
The IP owners have mainly been bought by holding companies. Holding companies don't give a shit about supply and demand. They will raise prices, fewer people will buy their stuff, then hike prices again on the remaining customers exponentially.
It isn't about supply and demand... it is about short term propping stock up.
Re: (Score:3)
The IP owners have mainly been bought by holding companies. Holding companies don't give a shit about supply and demand. They will raise prices, fewer people will buy their stuff, then hike prices again on the remaining customers exponentially.
It isn't about supply and demand... it is about short term propping stock up.
IP owners in the music business are in on the same path as the MPAA. Essentially, squeeze the customers until it starts to impact profits, then whine and gnash their teeth about piracy affecting profits while raising prices again claiming they have to to combat piracy. Go-to-1, repeat until nobody wants to pay any of them. Gee, I wonder why nobody wants to support the arts anymore? Maybe the arts weren't supposed to be turned into a profit-first industry?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pay up or shut it off. (Score:2)
I too want to be paid in perpetuity for work I did in the past. Sadly my lawyers aren't as well-connected as the entertainment industries'.
Re: (Score:2)
If I could get a $0.001 for every time a person uses a toilet that I have cleaned multiplied by the number of times that I have cleaned it I wouldn't be a janitor anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
The system for handling this is completely broken.
Re:Pay up or shut it off, is it really so simple? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the one hand, yes, people must be paid for their work.
But on the other hand, the people who actually -did- the work in this case are not the ones setting the price, and they are not the ones getting the money. Music creators don't see a nickle of licensing, most of the time.
If an Applebees in Podunk Nebraska plays a Hendrix song, does his estate or his heirs get the money? Or is it some conglomerate that acquired the rights in a hostile takeover 20 years ago? Yep, the conglomerate.
And a quick reminder, the owner of the Podunk Applebees is not the one who ultimately pays for that license fee. YOU are. Because costs are passed on to the customer.
Thus we have a situation where people are being gouged for license fees and the musicians are still getting nothing.
Things are never as easy as one might hope.
You might have a point (Score:2)
The licenseers have a practical Monopoly because of how music gets out to the public. Radio stations are owned by a handful of billionaires and Spotify is a de facto Monopoly with a laundry list of anti-competitive practices that prevent anyone from competing with them.
Restaurants need music for multiple reasons. Music contributes to an atmosphere of fun and parties which makes it much more
But it's not "really simple" .... (Score:2)
The issue they're talking about here has to do with artists affiliated with multiple rights-holders, causing a big increase in costs to stay legal, trying to play their music in an establishment.
I'm no expert on this, but I did play in a local band once and got a taste of the music licensing "scene". Bars and other smaller venues NEVER liked paying these rights-holders, because the entire thing felt like little more than a money-grab. It's one thing if you set up a digital jukebox at your bar that makes th
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright should last like 5 years. Then there would be plenty of public domain music to play.
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
Fill this niche (Score:5, Interesting)
AI to the rescue (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They already do, and they don't even know they're doing it. Two local Thai and Chinese places both play the same Spotify playlist of AI-generated garbage. They did not know until I told them, can't tell, and don't care if it's AI crap or not. They have to hear it all day, so they mentally tune it out. That is probably causing them brain damage in some way, but so does tuning out shitty background music that's human generated. I hear a lot of AI generated covers of popular songs in different styles. Elevato
Re: (Score:3)
only streams songs which are in the public domain.
Music recorded over 100 years ago? More likely will be an AI generator for what we used to call "elevator music".
Re: Fill this niche (Score:3)
Sounds like we need a new streaming service which only streams songs which are in the public domain.
I think you meant recordings that are in the public domain. If I get an orchestra together and record the 1812 Overture that recording is covered by copyright even if the music itself isn't. That may be pedantic but I can easily imagine some startup being stung trying something like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Big data and a complete lack of antitrust law enforcement means la
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like we need a new streaming service which only streams songs which are in the public domain.
There are commercial services that you can subscribe to that include a license to play the music in public. You only need to be paying ASCAP, BMI etc directly if you are just playing from a Spotify playlist or MP3 server or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Public domain is going to be a problem considering the quality of recordings before 1930. There is plenty of music composed before 1930, but if you are using a recent recording, the performer still has copyright.
But there are already companies that sell cheap subscriptions (in the order of $10/month) for music that is not covered by performance rights organizations and that you can play in bars and restaurants. Maybe acceptable for background music, but definitely not the same quality and recognition as mai
Jukebox (Score:2)
Just put in a jukebox and be done with it.
AI music? (Score:2)
Re: "put in a jukebox"
There used to be Jukebox inspectors to make sure everything was legal. If enough turn back to that, it would probably become a thing again.
But there is something fun and nostalgic about jukeboxes in that customers can select the tunes played, and they have colorful glowey shit on them. One problem is that coins aren't worth much anymore, and bill or credit card interfaces would be awkward.
AI-generated music may become a thing if hits charge too much. If it's merely background "mood" mu
Re: (Score:3)
Out in the hinterlands of Seattle they started to switch to internet connected Jukeboxs about a decade ago.
I found that out after I had put my money in and the tunes I selected began playing then other songs were interspersed with mine.
A person informed me that people could use an app to pay/play songs and for a small premium they could get preference on what the next song would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the "play next" feature in TouchTunes is dumb. It's not just limited to the app, you have the same feature available standing at the machine too. It's happened quite a few times where I'd queue up a few songs, then sit there for an hour while someone else is throwing crap in front of them. Just send a crabby message to TouchTunes, they'll refund the plays at least.
I do enjoy "music sniping" people with the app though. Wait till there's a pause in the music and someone walks up to the jukebox to p
Re: (Score:2)
You can use the app to sneak in some annoying song, or just something that doesn't "fit" with the establishment or person that was just up there, before they get their selections in. You can occasionally overhear a pretty good "I can't believe you played this crap" type of reaction when they get back to their table. (Yes, I know. Stupid. But hey, simple pleasures in life.)
Oh good, so everyone in the bar has to listen to music you purposely picked out to be shitty and not blend well for the bar's patrons. You sound more like a dick then a funny man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "I wonder if everyone will like this song" (Score:2)
After listening to over an hour of some drunks "music" on the jukebox that even the bartender was grimacing at I decided I would leave so I put "Sink The Bismark" on to play 3 times in a row on my way out the door.
I can still hear it in the distance.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that everyone has their own tastes does nothing to change the fact that purposely doing something to annoy others is being a dick.
It's the consciously choosing to do something for the explicit reason of annoying others part that makes you a dick..
Re: (Score:2)
I have extensive experience in the business but I won't talk about it on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I guess the fact that people pay into the jukebox helps cover the cost of the licensing. Then you have to deal with people with awful taste in music choosing what's being played in your restaurant unless the owner wants to spend eons setting permissions for bands and songs though.
Re: Jukebox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Jukebox (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Because modern jukeboxes are just streaming services in a box with a UI and offer shit tons of music. Hence my comment "...unless the owner wants to spend eons setting permissions for bands and songs though."
Re: (Score:2)
You are still supposed to pay the PRO's licensing fees even if it's just a jukebox. IMO - PRO's have long been an extortion racket and RICO charges should be brought.
Re:Jukebox (Score:5, Funny)
An all-time internet classic writing
I Played ‘The Boys Are Back in Town’ on a Bar Jukebox Until I Got Kicked Out [vice.com]
Re: The Boys Are Back in Town (Score:2)
Thank you for posting that JSR.
Read the entire article and as you said it's an all-time internet classic writing.
Get rid of it! (Score:3, Funny)
Most of you fuckers play that shit WAY TOO LOUDLY anyway! Just rid of it so we can have a conversation at our table.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right about that. Plus it seems like all new construction is a concrete floor with a steel ceiling with no sound deadening. Just loud terrible acoustics all over.
How does this affect SiriusXM for Business? (Score:2)
How does this affect customers who use SiriusXM for Business?
Regular, private SiriusXM customers have to pay around $15-$25 per year for music licensing fees.
AI Elevator Music Inbound (Score:2)
I don't know why these establishments would spend a cent on mood music anymore.
Hire a live musician? (Score:3)
Yes, I know that 4,500 annually is a lot less than hiring a live musician, but:
1) Don't complain about how your attempt to avoid paying technology to do something much cheaper than a person is now costing your more money.
2) For a chain with say 100 hotels/bars, it is not unreasonable to hire 3 groups of live musicians for 8 hour shifts and broadcast it live at all locations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I know that 4,500 annually is a lot less than hiring a live musician, but:
.. venues still need to pay PROs for live performances: the songwriters still need to be paid. And, even if the artist claims to perform only self-written music, the PROs will attempt to find a bar or two that can be heard in some commercially licensed music.
Oh I got the evalator no go blues (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every decent song has ALWAYS been full of plagiarism. Liszt copied music from the Gypsies. Irish Bards used to be *forbidden* (by their guild) to create new tunes. They were only allowed to set new words to old tunes. Copyright law is an abomination in the realm of music. (In some other places I'd argue that it was just too long, but in music it just shouldn't exist at all.)
AI is not going to come back & drink at your b (Score:2)
Re: AI is not going to come back & drink at yo (Score:2)
If you value music, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, 0.5% is not. But if you add X% for local sales tax, Y% for State Sales Tax, Z% for State and Fed Income Tax, etc., those small percentages start to really add up.
Public domain... Creative commons... live bands... (Score:2)
Stop complaining and reinvent yourselves!
Wonder how long till they switch to AI (Score:2)
Better when quiet (Score:2)
When it's quiet we can talk and hear each other in a restaurant. That's how I like it. Someone found that playing loud music and loud colours helped make it a hostile environment and people eat quicker and leave faster. The big question for the operators is, is the music cost worth it?
If you're going to penny pinch and make it awful, you can do the maths.
In a pub though, I quite like live local bands, so long as they're not too loud of course. Open mic nights are great. Give me something new and interesting
Time for AI tracks (Score:2)
Greed will kill their revenue as users shift to public domain music and AI Tracks.
They never learn.
Turn it off (Score:2)
It's a scam.... (Score:2)
First of all, the amount of money that gets back to the creator is vanishingly small compared to what's kept by the cartel. While you think you're supporting the creators when you pay your license, you're really just supporting a vast army of middlemen leaching the money out. I'll say that to the apologists in this thread.
Secondly, they'll hit you up for a license even if you're just playing over the air radio. A radio station that's already paid a license and is playing advertising to pay for it.
rent seeking (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody wants to be a middleman. That's where the profit is. You don't have the hassle of creating something, you don't have the hassle of selling something. You just sit in the middle and collect rent.
Of course it's totally reasonable to expect a commercial establishment to pay for entertainment. But the proliferation of 'rights organizations' along with the farce of naming 20 songwriters on a hit recording that's a 1-chord riff, aren't doing a thing for the working musician. The ultimate outcome will be less music in public, less exposure for artists, and bigger profits for those who sit on top of the music industry food chain.
This is just the private credit playbook, played out in the music industry.
Drop the muzak (Score:2)
Apps like Wotja can create live ambient music on-device—no streaming fees, no copyright issues.
Re: (Score:2)
Your recommendation is to swap overlords for a less expensive and arguably inferior overlord? No Thanks.
How much is paid to the artistes ? (Score:2)
Of the money raised it goes to two sorts of artistes:
* The composer of the music and the lyricist (ir there are words)
* The performers, ie band/orchestra and singer
Of the money taken from the venue where the music is played, how much goes to the artistes above ?
BMI/ASCAP (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, being an ASCAP member and receiving checks for every time someone plays my music, can confirm. It's been a while since I made any real dance tracks but they still get played and I still get payed as it should be.
Clubs make a lot of money charging per head to let people in. If you took away the music completely, they wouldn't have a business. They used to hire big bands and have guest singers or put on variety shows with girls dancing the can-can and stuff like that, but that's been replaced by the DJs.
Re: If you own a bar and you own a CD... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If you own a bar and you own a CD... (Score:5, Insightful)
If your bar is open to the public, then you must pay the PRO license to play the music at that bar even if you own the CD - same If it's live music, or music played on TV.
If you don't, then you are bound to get caught eventually. These PRO organizations regularly search business listings for bars and places of public accommodation that don't have licensing on file and get undercover agents visiting them to see if there is music and capture evidence of violations.
Re:If you own a bar and you own a CD... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. I live in a small town in a rural area, and local hole-in-the-wall dives have gotten big bills in the mail from some licensing org just for some yokel plunking on a banjo during an open mic (if he's playing a recognizable copyrighted tune). They really do have undercover agents, and they really pursue any violations they can find.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're wrong, though it might depend on where you live. I believe that in the US owning a CD doesn't give you the right to commercial activities involving playing that CD. You can argue that it *should*, but I don't believe that it does.