TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Nightclubs to pay extra for play
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Nightclubs to pay extra for play
* Clubs to pay $1.05 per patron to play music
* Dance parties to pay $3.07 per person
* Clubs threaten to go silent
NIGHTCLUBS might charge $20 for entry and $8 for a beer but until now they have had to pay only 7c for each person to listen to a night's worth of music.
From today, clubs like Q Bar in Sydney and Melbourne's Revolver will have to pay a lot more for the right to have recorded music played on their premises, following a court ruling yesterday on copyright licence fees.
The increase awarded to copyright collection body the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia means that clubs will now pay a licence fee of $1.05 a person, based on the club's capacity, as opposed to the previous figure of 7c a person.
That means a club that holds 500 will pay $510, even if only 100 people attend the venue.
Dance party organisers will now have to pay $3.07 a person, up from 20c.
About 80 per cent of all music played in clubs and at dance parties is copyrighted.
Yesterday, Melbourne DJ Kads One, 26, said the dramatic rise could have a detrimental effect on clubs and DJs in Melbourne's nightclub scene.
"It's going to make a difference, such a big increase," he said.
"There is so much music played in licenced premises and so much of it is played by DJs."
Clubs may be silent
Anthony Ball, executive manager of policy for Clubs NSW, which represents more than 1300 clubs in the state, said that the ruling in favour of the PPCA, which distributes royalties to recording artists, could mean clubs withdrawing music from their venues.
"It seems to be out of step with commercial reality," Mr Ball said.
"If you are going to increase by that much, clubs will simply make the choice of unplugging the music.
"The economics don't stack up, and they will withdraw the service, and that will be disappointing in suburban and regional parts of Australia where a club is the only place to go to have a dance.
"I think it's short-sighted and counterproductive."
To come to an appropriate figure, the Copyright Tribunal had to delve into the world of late-night clubs and work out what exactly constituted a dance party.
It heard from a consulting company whose staff had traversed the country visiting nightclubs, noting how much it cost to get in, how much the drinks cost, and how much it cost to have their coats checked (some venues charge $5 for the privilege).
"A good DJ works through the music in an endeavour to keep the crowd involved and will read the crowd to keep people enthusiastic and dancing," the tribunal noted, adding that some well-known DJs earned up to $100,000 for a two-hour set.
Bankrupt threats 'unconvincing'
Earlier this year, a spokesman for the Australian Hotels Association said that clubs could go out of business as a result of such an outcome, but PPCA chief executive Stephen Peach disagreed yesterday.
"I find that very unconvincing, as did the tribunal," he said.
"We're talking about the amount of money that is about half the price of checking a coat, or less than 20 per cent of your average beer.
"To suggest that is the difference between nightclubs being profitable and going out the back door is frankly ludicrous."
At present, royalties distributed by the PPCA from nightclub fees are based on the ARIA dance charts.
Mr Peach said with greater revenue at their disposal, a more accurate system, based on DJs logging all the music that they play, could be introduced.
Kads One said this would be impossible.
"We often remix tracks on the spot or beforehand," he said. "It becomes a constant blur.
"There would be no way we would be able to keep track of it."
from here
Re: Nightclubs to pay extra for play
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kelsta "It seems to be out of step with commercial reality," Mr Ball said. "If you are going to increase by that much, clubs will simply make the choice of unplugging the music. "The economics don't stack up, and they will withdraw the service, and that will be disappointing in suburban and regional parts of Australia where a club is the only place to go to have a dance. "I think it's short-sighted and counterproductive." |
Re: Nightclubs to pay extra for play
| quote: |
| Originally posted by kelsta adding that some well-known DJs earned up to $100,000 for a two-hour set. |
i was just talking about this with some mates...here are my thoughts
The pay increase is a good thing for everyone, it will make clubs provide decent set lists meaning that artists will get paid more money from APRA
The winners here are artists and producers, whats an extra 3 bucks on the door, its one beer or half a bourbon.
If the artists don't get paid then we don't get any new music, its that simple! If it means that we have to pay an extra three bucks on the door to insure that artists get paid then so be it...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by James Brooke i was just talking about this with some mates...here are my thoughts The pay increase is a good thing for everyone, it will make clubs provide decent set lists meaning that artists will get paid more money from APRA The winners here are artists and producers, whats an extra 3 bucks on the door, its one beer or half a bourbon. If the artists don't get paid then we don't get any new music, its that simple! If it means that we have to pay an extra three bucks on the door to insure that artists get paid then so be it... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN oh yeah. adding hundreds of thousands of dollars to the operating costs of dance nights that struggle as it is is a good thing for everyone |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by James Brooke clearly you missed the point here, the extra 3 dollars per person would be made up by the punters at the door... its hardly hundreds of thousands of dollars... its a few hundred for small clubs and in bigger clubs it is only a few thousand! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN its shit to be charging clubbers even more on the door than we have to already. or the fact that a night that doesn't get in many patrons will still be charged the full amount. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by James Brooke yeah it sucks but there isn't much we can do about it... |
sex and zen?
I think the most interesting part of this is that most of the music played in the clubs that we all go too comes from overseas, not from local artists. So who is actually therefore getting the money from the $1 per person? Certainly not the artists who produce most of the music.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson I think the most interesting part of this is that most of the music played in the clubs that we all go too comes from overseas, not from local artists. So who is actually therefore getting the money from the $1 per person? Certainly not the artists who produce most of the music. |
And what bout lots of the unreleased stuff or your own compilations/edits/remixes. I do a bit of remixing and most of the tracks that I play are from overseas downloaded from beatport etc..
I can't see how copyright laws for mainstream music can successfully be applied to electronic music, the whole scene works differently.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson So who is actually therefore getting the money from the $1 per person? Certainly not the artists who produce most of the music. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Cetra� And what bout lots of the unreleased stuff or your own compilations/edits/remixes. |
Buut for club nights James you don't do tracklists, only for dance parties.
The $1 a head gets paid according to the capacity of the nightclub from what i understand and that money goes to apra or whatever, but you are not required to submit a tracklist for regular club nights etc, so who does that money go to?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson Buut for club nights James you don't do tracklists, only for dance parties. The $1 a head gets paid according to the capacity of the nightclub from what i understand and that money goes to apra or whatever, but you are not required to submit a tracklist for regular club nights etc, so who does that money go to? |
Which means that thbe majority of the money goes into APRA's pocket as the majority of events are not specifically 'dance parties' but club nights etc.
Submitting tracklists would be great in theory but extremely hard, almost impossible to manage.
Considering that the majority of the funds from this going to APRA will be heading straight into their pocket i think the amount is extremely exorbatent. I'm all for supporting artists, however this doesn't achieve that either.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson Which means that thbe majority of the money goes into APRA's pocket as the majority of events are not specifically 'dance parties' but club nights etc. Submitting tracklists would be great in theory but extremely hard, almost impossible to manage. Considering that the majority of the funds from this going to APRA will be heading straight into their pocket i think the amount is extremely exorbatent. I'm all for supporting artists, however this doesn't achieve that either. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson Which means that thbe majority of the money goes into APRA's pocket as the majority of events are not specifically 'dance parties' but club nights etc. Submitting tracklists would be great in theory but extremely hard, almost impossible to manage. Considering that the majority of the funds from this going to APRA will be heading straight into their pocket i think the amount is extremely exorbatent. I'm all for supporting artists, however this doesn't achieve that either. |
It's actually not APRA when you read it, it's the PPCA which was set up to represent the labels i believe. How surprising...
who the fuck was sitting on the other side of the table when these decisions were being made?
Was talking to a Melbourne club owner about this this afternoon and apparently it's taken quite a few people by surprise. Basically the clubs were invited to put forward their cases about this around 2 years ago (when the dialogue started) and that was kinda the last they heard of it, until reading it in the paper today. Doesn't sound like there was much debate or inculsion, but this is only coming from one source so who knows.
Interesting post over at news.com.au with relation to the article from Marcus at Ffour...
There seems to be some confusion. There are 2 bodies that collect royalties APRA for the artists, and PPCA for the recording companies - Sony BMG and the like, this article refers to the latter. This money is going to a business not an artist. The way that PPCA charges is based on the capacity of the venue, not how many people come in - so if the venue holds 400 people it needs to pay $420 per night it is open. Most clubs don't reach their capacity every night of the week, so they are payong for people who are not there. If you take the same venue open an average of 3 nights a week the cost per annum is $65,520 - up from $4368. That is an enormous increase. A business like a night club has many overheads including DJ's, Advertising, Cleaning, Staff, Alcohol as well as all your normal costs of running any business. There are some who believe that they are run by lazy, criminal drug lords, but most are run by young passionate and professional types. The front line of these businesses are the staff who are not paid a lot, work long hours through out the night with loud music - hence they don't stay in the industry very long, and training is always an issue. These businesses do not make the money many of you think, and earing a 10%net profit margin is considered good. This will effect many clubs, and the diverse range of music people are offered to hear, and it is all because the enormous multinational recording companies who earn billions have not been making the same profits due to illegal down loads. Please consider
Posted by: Marcus of ffour 11:26am today
how sensitive new age jew : /
ah blah? I swear i just heard this on the radio and they only said it would be WA...
This sucks.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Dean Millson and it is all because the enormous multinational recording companies who earn billions have not been making the same profits due to illegal down loads. Please consider |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.