Broadway Collision Center

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved(I have reached an actual person at ASCAP and they are reporting that my inquiries are under review)I will wait and see if they resolve the matter for now Sincerely, [redacted] ***

This is ASCAP’s response to the consumer complaint filed with the Revdex.com Serving Metropolitan New York by *** *** on behalf of the business known as “*** *** ***,” located in Sumner, Washington (Revdex.com ID ***). ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors
and Publishers, is a voluntary membership association of nearly 600,composers, songwriters and music publishers ASCAP's members have authorized ASCAP to license public performances of literally millions of their copyrighted musical works under rights granted to the members by a federal statute, the U.SCopyright Law Under that statute, Congress has granted certain rights to those who create and own copyrighted musical works, including the right to be compensated for public performances of such works The statute is not self-enforcing, however, and so organizations like ASCAP exist to ensure that their members and affiliates are properly compensated for the use of their musicPerforming rights licensing organizations perform this vital role by contacting the operators of businesses like *** *** *** that offer musical entertainment for their customers and patrons to advise them of their obligations under the Copyright Law, and to offer licenses that authorized public performances of the organizations’ members and affiliates for a modest annual fee Turning to the Complaint, ASCAP representatives have contacted Ms*** and others involved in the operation of *** *** *** numerous times since March 2014, by telephone and e-mails, in an effort to explain the requirements of the Copyright Law and license the business’s performances of ASCAP members’ copyrighted music Regrettably, however, those responsible for the business have rejected ASCAP’s license offers while continuing to present “live” performances of music for the entertainment of their patrons, as evidenced by postings on the *** *** *** website and on various Facebook pages Until very recently, virtually all of ASCAP’s e-mails and telephone calls elicited no response from the owners of *** *** *** During a telephone conversation on May *, with ASCAP representative *** ***, *** *** ***’s Stephanie E*** apparently told *** *** that she needed time to consult with *** *** ***’s attorney to obtain advice with respect to ASCAP’s license offer In response, *** *** sent MsE*** an e-amail with information concerning ASCAP and an offer to speak with MsE***’s attorney to answer any questions about ASCAP and its members’ copyright rights ASCAP does not believe that any of its employees has exhibited rude or improper telephone manners during any prior telephone contacts with Ms*** or others Indeed, such conduct would be in violation of ASCAP’s standard of conduct for all of its employees Nevertheless, ASCAP representatives will no longer attempt to communicate by telephone with *** ***, MsE***, or others involved in the operation of Urban Timer Coffee However, if the business continues to provide musical entertainment, ASCAP may send additional e-mails or other correspondence to *** *** *** to ensure that its owners are aware of their obligations under the Copyright Law and the consequences of ignoring those obligations The latter include the possibility that anyone who permits performances of copyrighted music to be given without the permission of the copyright owners or their representatives may be sued in federal court for copyright infringement, and ordered to pay significant monetary damages to the copyright owners

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by ASCAP, the business in reference, to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.However, as I am affiliated with ASCAP, who supposedly represent my best interests, I fail to see why, without confirmation from BMI as to the changes to my work records as requested by me, it simply is not prudent for ASCAP to alter its work records on a permanent basis.It appears, ASCAP will take the word of someone (anyone) at BMI - Broadcast Music, Inc- (who does not represent me) for my work records but not mine
Sincerely,
*** ** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolvedI have not yet heard from the representative, but I hope to soon
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved
Sincerely,
*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved. (I have reached an actual person at ASCAP and they are reporting that my inquiries are under...

review). I will wait and see if they resolve the matter for now.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

This is ASCAP’s response to the consumer complaint filed with the Revdex.com Serving Metropolitan New York by Sharon Jackson, the Director of Student Activities and Orientation at Ripon College in Ripon, Wisconsin (Revdex.com ID [redacted]). ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors...

and Publishers, is a voluntary membership association of nearly 600,000 composers, songwriters and music publishers.  ASCAP's members have authorized ASCAP to license public performances of literally millions of their copyrighted musical works under rights granted to the members by a federal statute, the U.S. Copyright Law.  Currently, ASCAP licenses hundreds of thousands of businesses and other entities to perform ASCAP’s members’ music, including radio and television networks and stations, Internet sites and services, as well as colleges and universities.  Turning to [redacted]’s complaint, and having reviewed ASCAP’s records with respect to her recent e-mails and telephone calls with several ASCAP employees, it is readily apparent that there has been a lack of clear communication with [redacted] on the part of the ASCAP employees with whom [redacted] has had dealings up until now.  ASCAP sincerely regrets this, as it strives always to provide its licensees with service of the highest quality.  As to the specifics of [redacted]’s complaint, it is also apparent that much of the miscommunication resulted from the fact that Ripon College has for many years held both an ASCAP license that encompasses, among many other kinds of performances, performances of ASCAP music over the Internet, and a separate ASCAP license that covers only the College’s radio station, WRPN.  Thus, when [redacted] first called ASCAP on January **, 2017 to advise that the radio station would be transmitting its programming only via the Internet and no longer broadcasting over the air, and to ask whether the radio station still required an ASCAP license, those with whom she spoke did not immediately understand that the Ripon College license covered the internet performances, with the result, WRPN no longer needed to be licensed by ASCAP.  Regrettably, instead of correctly answering [redacted]’s question, she was advised to obtain yet a third ASCAP license, to cover the College’s Internet transmissions. The entire situation appears to have been exacerbated by the fact that the three licenses are administered by different areas within ASCAP Licensing.As matters now stand, ASCAP has noted its records that WRPN no longer engages in over-the-air broadcasting, and has ceased to bill Ripon College for license fees for the radio station.  Also, ASCAP has received confirmation that the $500.00 [redacted] paid on her credit card for an Internet license was refunded to her account on May *, 2017 (it appears that the reason that [redacted] was billed twice for the $250.00 license fee under that license is that she may have inadvertently clicked the “Payment” button twice).  And, most importantly, Ripon College’s ASCAP college license remains in effect and its account is current through June 2017.  ASCAP regrets that [redacted]’s issues took an inordinate amount of time to resolve, apologizes to her for any inconvenience, and agrees with her that matters of this sort should be capable of resolution without resort to the filing of a complaint with the Revdex.com.  For the future, [redacted] may feel free to communicate directly with any of ASCAP’s senior Licensing staff – pictured on the ASCAP website at [redacted] (scroll down to “Licensing”) – by using the contact information provided here: [redacted].  And finally, a senior ASCAP staff member will be sending a copy of this response to [redacted] and inviting her to call him directly if she has any questions concerning the Ripon College’s ASCAP license, or wishes to discuss the matter further.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me and the matter has been resolved.
Sincerely,
[redacted]

This is ASCAP’s response to the Complaint filed with the Revdex.com by Martin H. Samuel. [redacted], a member of ASCAP, complains that, at least up until now, ASCAP has not acceded to his request to change its records with respect to 22 musical works that he has written. Although this...

seems a simple request, there are very good reasons – explained below – why ASCAP determined that it was not appropriate to make the changes to its records that [redacted] has requested. Nevertheless, in response to [redacted]’s Complaint, ASCAP is provisionally making the changes to its records requested by [redacted], as described below. By way of background, ASCAP – the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers – is a voluntary membership association organized under New York law. ASCAP functions as a clearinghouse – more than 560,000 writer and publisher members have granted ASCAP a nonexclusive right to license nondramatic performances of their copyrighted musical compositions by those who perform music publicly. On behalf of its members, ASCAP license hundreds of thousands of music users throughout the United States -- the operators of radio and television networks and stations, cable networks and systems, restaurants, lounges, nightclubs, taverns, hotels, background music services and their subscribers, internet music services and many other businesses. The license fees collected are distributed, less operating expenses, to ASCAP’s writer and publisher members as royalties based on ASCAP’s extensive surveys of performances in a wide array of media. In order th at ASCAP may determine who is to be paid royalties for performances by ASCAP’s licensees of works in the ASCAP repertory, it is essential that ASCAP have accurate information as to its members’ musical works, including, among other data, the exact titles of the works and the names of all parties with interests in the works. According to ASCAP’s records, on November **, 2008, [redacted] submitted to ASCAP electronic registrations for 11 works that he had co-written with [redacted], a writer affiliated with Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), another U.S. performing rights licensing organization. Subsequently, two other entities – Songs To Your Eyes Publishing on March **, 2012, and Chicago Digital Music on August **, 2015 – submitted registration information to ASCAP for the same 11 works originally registered by [redacted], as well as 11 separate registrations for what were called “instrumental” versions of the works originally registered with ASCAP by [redacted]. Following several e-mail exchanges with [redacted], ASCAP’s Repertory staff attempted to reconcile the five sets of work registrations in November 2015, creating work records for each of the 22 separate works showing as the interested parties for each work (and their respective shares ) the following: [redacted] and [redacted], co-authors (each with a 25% share); [redacted] publishing company and an ASCAP member) as one co-publisher (with a 25% share); and Chicago Digital Music (a BMI music publisher affiliate), for itself (with a 12.5% share) and on behalf of Erwin Pitsch Publishing (a foreign publishing entity, also with a 12/5% share), as co-publishers. [redacted] has requested that with respect to all 22 works, the publisher interest corresponding with the interest of his BMI co-writer be changed from “Chicago Digital Music” to “Minstrel Fox Music” (another BMI affiliate); and that ASCAP delete from its records with respect to the 11 instrumental versions of his works the names of the BMI writer and publisher. As both of the changes requested by [redacted] involve affiliates of BMI, ASCAP followed long-standing protocol for dealing with such situations, and wrote to BMI to attempt to confirm that BMI’s affiliates – [redacted] and Chicago Digital Music – were in agreement with the changes requested by [redacted] for the 22 works. To date, ASCAP has yet to receive confirmation from BMI that their affiliates agree that it is appropriate to make the changes to ASCAP’s – and, presumably, BMI’s – work records for the 22 works as requested by [redacted]. Without confirmation from BMI as to the changes to work records as requested by [redacted] – and particularly in the absence of any documentation to support those changes, provided either by [redacted] or anyone else – it simply is not prudent for ASCAP to alter its work records on a permanent basis. Nevertheless, as an accommodation to [redacted], ASCAP is provisionally making the requested changes to its records, and simultaneously advising BMI that it is doing so. However, if BMI or its writer and publisher affiliates subsequently advise that either of the changes to the 22 work records requested by [redacted] are inappropriate and provide documentation to support BMI’s or its affiliates’ positions, ASCAP may need to reverse or modify in some other manner the changes it is now making in response to [redacted]’s Complaint. Finally, in his Complaint [redacted] also asked that ASCAP “reimburse me for any royalties paid.” It is unclear as to whether [redacted] is asking for payment from ASCAP of any royalties to which he may be entitled for performances of any of the 22 works at issue; or whether he believes that, at least for the 11 instrumental versions of the works, his co-writer, [redacted], and the BMI publishers were paid royalties by ASCAP that should have been paid to [redacted]. If [redacted]’s request is for the former, ASCAP’s records show that the royalties he and his publishing company have received from ASCAP for performances of any of the 22 works were correctly calculated. If [redacted]’s request is for royalties that may have been paid to the BMI writer and publisher, ASCAP would not have paid royalties to them in any event, so [redacted] would not be entitled to receive any additional royalties from ASCAP regardless of whether the BMI writer and pu blisher had erroneously been shown as having interests in any of the 11 instrumental versions of the works. If [redacted] has any other questions concerning his royalty payments from ASCAP, he should contact ASCAP Senior Vice President Seth Saltzman by phone ([redacted]) or email ([redacted]).

[redacted]    In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, set forth below (and also attached as a Word document) is ASCAP's Response to the Complaint referred to above.  Please add my e-mail address -- r[redacted] -- to your records so that in the future, I may...

file ASCAP's responses to any complaints online.  Thanks very much for your assistance.   Richard R[redacted]  ---------------------------------------------- This is ASCAP’s response to the consumer complaint filed with the Revdex.com by [redacted] with regard to the [redacted]    ASCAP, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, is a voluntary membership association of nearly 600,000 composers, songwriters and music publishers.  ASCAP's members have authorized ASCAP to license public performances of literally millions of their copyrighted musical works under rights granted to the members by a federal statute, the U.S. Copyright Law.  Under that statute, Congress has granted certain rights to those who create and own copyrighted musical works, including the right to be compensated for public performances of such works.  The statute is not self-enforcing, however, and so organizations like ASCAP exist to ensure that their members and affiliates are properly compensated for the use of their music. Performing rights licensing organizations perform this vital role by contacting the operators of businesses like [redacted] that offer musical entertainment for their customers and patrons to advise them of their obligations under the Copyright Law, and to offer licenses that authorized public performances of the organizations’ members and affiliates for a modest annual fee.               Turning to the Complaint, ASCAP representatives have contacted [redacted] and others involved in the operation of [redacted] numerous times since March 2015, by telephone and e-mails, in an effort to explain the requirements of the Copyright Law and license the business’s performances of ASCAP members’ copyrighted music.  According to ASCAP’s records, no one involved in the operation of the business ever responded to any of ASCAP’s e-mails, and it was apparently not until a telephone conversation with an ASCAP representative on July *, 2016 that [redacted] explicitly stated that she was not interested in obtaining an ASCAP license.    ASCAP representatives will no longer attempt to communicate directly with [redacted].  She should be aware, however, that the consequences of ignoring one’s obligations under the Copyright Law include the possibility that anyone who permits performances of copyrighted music to be given without the permission of the copyright owners or their representatives may be sued in federal court for copyright infringement.  The copyright statute provides for significant monetary damages to be awarded against infringers.  Therefore, while [redacted] will no longer be hearing from ASCAP, she should seek the advice of an attorney if she is going to continue to provide musical entertainment for her customers without an ASCAP license.  ----------------------------------------------   ---  Richard H. R[redacted], Esq. Sr. Vice President - Legal  ASCAP [redacted]
[redacted]
[redacted]