Unjustified threat letters from SESAC
So, for the past several months I have been receiving letters from SESAC regarding music licensing.
For any of you who are not aware, I am one of the co-hosts of America’s Debate Radio, and online political call-in show. The show airs once per week on Wednesdays. During each show, we usually take two breaks that last about 10 minutes each. During these breaks, we play music.
Now, before we started broadcasting I personally contacted every single music licensing agency for pricing and usage information: ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, SoundExchange, the Harry Fox agency. I contacted everyone. Some took months to respond, some never responded.
According to many of the agencies, we would need two separate licenses in order to broadcast music from their respective catalogs: One for the podcast since the music contained within a podcast is downloadable, and a separate license for the streaming broadcast.
The general summary of each licensing agency that responded is that the licensing costs per year were well above our total annual operating budget for the radio program– $200– and even above our entire annual operating budget — about $2,000– for America’s Debate in its entirety. Obviously, we could not afford to use commercially licensed music, and needed an alternative.
That alternative came in two forms: Music licensed under the Creative Commons license, and music released by independent artists and used only with permission.
The Creative Commons music that we use on America’s Debate Radio — ALL of it– is from GarageBand.com. Garageband allows artists to release their music to the public under several different licenses, one of which is the Creative Commons license. That license allows us to play and distribute that music within our broadcasts provided proper attribution is given. So, Jaime and I spent two days hunting through GarageBand.com for music released under that license. We saved every song we found, and we reviewed it for airworthiness at a later date.
The music released by independent artists is really music from one guy, his old band, and another band from right here in Georgia. Dirk Lind, formerly of Baaba Seth and currently a staffer from America’s Debate, gave me permission to use music from his old band. Not only did he give me that permission, but he also gave me permission to use the new music he has composed and listed at his website. The Georgia band is The Robbie Ducey Band, a blues band from Georgia. Robbie Ducey himself gave me permission via email to use his music, provided proper attribution is made.
So, that is the music we play. Free music used under its license, or music that has been given to us by bands who are unsigned and not under contract with any of the major music licensing agencies.
Back to SESAC. For the past several months, SESAC has been sending me letters accompanied by payment envelopes. These letters don’t so much as state that I have used their music in violation of their license, but it is certainly implied. Here is the letter I received today:
As you can see, it is quite threatening in nature.
“The unauthorized performance of copyrighted music represents an infringement of copyright and is a violation of Federal Law.”
Yeah, no joke. That is why we don’t use any copyrighted music. That fact won’t change, no matter how many implications of infringement you assert.
“Despite several notices of your need to obtain permission to perform the copyrighted compositions of our affiliates, we have not heard from you nor have we received the signed license agreement that would authorize such performances.”
Right, I ignored most of the notices since we do not play music owned by SESAC, and therefore we are under no obligation to pay licensing fees for music that we have not used. I did respond to the most recent letter stating that we only use Creative Commons music, and asking that I be removed from their mailing list.
“Enclosed is additional information regarding SESAC and the requirements placed upon music users under the United States Copyright Act. It makes good business sense to obtain a SESAC blanket license and avoid infringing the copyrights of our affiliated music composers and publishers.”
There was no enclosure. Regardless, I know the law, and nowhere in the law does it place any requirements upon me to license music I have not used.
“If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me at 928-757-5326, by facsimile at 952-674-1910 or by email at music.ross@starband.net.”
I did contact him. The results will be my next blog post.
“Please complete, sign and return the SESAC Performance License together with your license fee payment. Upon receipt of the signed license agreement and payment, an executed copy of the document will be returned to you for your records.”
Again, we don’t need to license music we don’t use. Just as the federal government requires a license before, oh, say, opening up a strip mine, that does not mean I must obtain a license just because I own a shovel and that shovel could be used to illegally strip mine without a license. Yeah, I’m capable of broadcasting your music. That doesn’t mean I have broadcast it, nor does it mean I need a license to broadcast it as long as I– you guessed it– don’t broadcast it.
“Additional information about SESAC and our licensing service is available at www.sesac.com.”
Great, I have a website too.
As you can tell, this letter is meant to scare me into paying for licensing I do not need.
If I had used their music without a license, all they would need to do is send a certified cease and desist letter to our Registered Agent as is on file with the Georgia Secretary of State. The letter would come from an attorney and not a Music Licensing Consultant. And the letter would specifically list the materials upon which I have infringed and the date and time of the infringement.
This appears to be nothing more than a bullying tactic based on a poorly-researched hunch, and backed up by federal law that they have interpreted as having granted them the right to bully and harass legitimate and legally-operated organizations.
I called the number listed. I will post the summary of the conversation as my next blog post.
Mike
February 13th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Heh, they’re taking lessons from the RIAA. It’s all just scare tactics.
Worse come to worse… just go through LoudCity (http://www.loudcity.net) and be covered.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Yeah, but if we went with LoudCity, we would lose our embedded player and lose control of our streaming page.
LoudCity’s license is only for streaming and not for downloading. That means I would have to go through and remove the commercialized music in post production– kind of a pain in the butt. We would still have use Creative Commons music on the lead-ins and lead-outs, as well as for the show introduction because those need to be included in the podcast.
All that and it would only cost us $35.28/month– $423.36 per year– to use the music.
We play an average of 5 songs per show. We do 52 shows per year. That means we play about 260 songs per year. Our cost per play with loudcity would be $1.63 per song. We average about 9 live listeners per show (hundreds of downloads on the podcast, but they wouldn’t get the commercial music). That means we would have to pay a little over 18 cents per song per actual listener tuned into the stream. And, assuming that people use the breaks as we do– to use the bathroom, get a drink, get a snack– our listener count probably cuts in half during the breaks even though the listeners tuned into the stream remains the same.
Any way you add it up, we have paid zero for our music to this point. $423+ dollars for break music? I don’t think so. We’re a political talk show. Music is not our focus. It would be a waste of money for us.
Mike
February 22nd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Well? We spoke on the pohone. Were’s your follow up? I see YOU published my contact info, while you protect your’s. Very interesting tactic.
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Hi Ross,
Interesting that you can read my personal blog, Ross, yet you couldn’t read my radio website before sending harassing letters.
Particularly, you missed the part that says:
You also missed these fourteen links where we list every song we’ve ever played!
But you have the time and inclination to read my personal blog.
Maybe you should consider doing you research before you send harassing letters to people with whom you have no business relationship.
And Ross, there is no expectation of privacy for any piece of mail you send to me. Certainly you know that.
I’ll post whenever I am ready. I guess you’ll just have to keep visiting back to read whatever it is that I end up posting.
Have a great day!
Mike
February 22nd, 2007 at 6:10 pm
And by the way, Ross, you listed your URL wrong. It’s SESAC, not SECAC. Exactly how often are you right?
Ross, if you want me to remove your information, just ask nicely. I know you’re just trying to do your job.
February 23rd, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hey Mike
Your saga about trying to get music licensing for your show is a good example of just how hard it is to navigate this whole process. You spent months tying to get it — what if we don’t have months to spend? What if we just want it for a small, one time thing? It seems like most people, when faced with such a hassle, will just pirate. The music companies are missing a big revenue stream — cheap, easy licenses.
Your post reminds me of an article I read on Media 3.0. Shelly was writing about the hassle of trying to get a license. If you’re interested, you could check it out here:
http://advancedmediacommittee.typepad.com/emmyadvancedmedia/2007/01/is_this_a_crime.html
- Dave
October 19th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I just filed a complaint with the BBB about Sesac’s harassing “playbook” tactics. I would like to know how prevalent this problem is to see if class action suit will get the proper attention to this issue. As far as I am concerned, the stress and anguish caused by a couple of years of harassment is worth thousands of $.
I own a cafe that host small NON COVER bands who play their own music. Not a single one is associated with any of the music agencies. SESAC told me that their basis for harassing me is that statistically since we have live music, someone is likely to be SESAC protected. I didn’t realize that bad statistical analysis formed the basis for harassment and formed the basis for SESAC’s desire to impersonate LLCs. I had a conversation with the “sales rep” called “account manager” who covers my area and the amount of lies and misinformation she had at her finger tips was astounding. She had no accurate records of how often we had been contacted, she had no accurate records of any previous conversions I had with other reps at SESAC. She claimed to have visited my website and discovered we play live music so I asked her how many of the artists that have played my venue are SESAC(since every one is listed there) and I could hear all hampster go flying off the wheel in her peabrain as she had no answer.
December 5th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Uhm, yeah. Count me in. We’ve been harassed on a monthly basis for oh, 13 months now. The letter you posted looks all too familiar.
I too own a small cafe that hosts local musicians. These musicians play their own, original music but SESAC does not seem to understand this. The harassment continues. I’d love to see a follow-up to this blog post!