Music Licence For Beer Bar Or Restaurant

[trampjuice]

Does anybody know what is the score with licences in a beer bar or restaurant that wants to play non-Thai origin music.

I know that the fun police will come down on people playing Thai songs, but can anyone tell me if it’s the same for my Barry Manilow LP’s?

Cheers

[plasticpig]

Same, i would like to know this one.

i think a few beer bar boys can tell us all.

or even the fun police?

[trampjuice]

Same, i would like to know this one.

i think a few beer bar boys can tell us all.

or even the fun police?

Well what a coincidence about the “fun Police” with the previous threads about the Tourist Police Volunteers.

Maybe if any of you guys read this post you can find out from your bosses.

I may be wrong but I’ve been told that there is a copyright police squad in town, it would be good if any of you Volunteer Police could speak to them and find out once and for all what the law really is.

I’ve also heard the horror stories about fake “Copyright Police” shaking people down for cash and confiscating their computers, CD’s and other music paraphernalia. Is there any way to verify with the local cops or are they on the payroll?

One thing is for sure, they are not getting their hands on my Burt Bacharach tapes without a fight!

Come on all you TVP’s, there’s never a Police man around when you need one.

Edited October 6, 2007 by trampjuice

[plasticpig]

name='trampjuice' date='2007-10-06 21:25:49' post='1579640']

One thing is for sure, they are not getting their hands on my Burt Bacharach tapes without a fight!

Do you a swap for my Showaddywaddy tapes

[simon43]

When I owned some bars in BKK a few years ago, we had to have annual licences from each and every record company to play both Thai and western music. So each year, my wife would go and see Sony GMM etc and get these licence stickers for the bar. We had maybe 8 stickers each year, total cost probably around 8,000 baht. When the music police came visiting, we never had any problems. But other bars without these stickers had their expensive equipment confiscated!

Simon

[Humphrey Bear]

This topic is also in Pattaya News Clippings, as a recent thread.

[monty]

http://www.1stopmusic.com/

They provide you with the licenses to play non-Thai music. Different tariffs for pretty much any venue, from restaurants, to bowling alleys to dance halls.

Click on tariffs, then on the British flag to get the list of the prices in English.

For Thai music you have to get licenses from the respective recording houses of the different artists, much as Simon explained above. These licenses do NOT cover foreign music though, just the music from the artists who have recorded with them. For the foreign music the above link is the only legal license provider in Thailand.

[trampjuice]

Thanks guys, some very useful information. What do you recon about a small venue, playing only western music, in Pattaya. Is it worth getting a licence or is it are they more concerned about large go go bars and private clubs, ect?

Cheers

[monty]

It's definitely worth getting the licenses. They are not that expensive (for a 30 seat pub it would cost 6000 Baht/year, or 500 Baht/month).

The risk of getting caught is real, fines are high (80,000 Baht, often negotiable down to maybe 30,000 with some luck) plus confiscation of equipment etc. You can pay for several years worth of licenses with 1 fine!

[soundman]

http://www.1stopmusic.com/

They provide you with the licenses to play non-Thai music. Different tariffs for pretty much any venue, from restaurants, to bowling alleys to dance halls.

Click on tariffs, then on the British flag to get the list of the prices in English.

For Thai music you have to get licenses from the respective recording houses of the different artists, much as Simon explained above. These licenses do NOT cover foreign music though, just the music from the artists who have recorded with them. For the foreign music the above link is the only legal license provider in Thailand.

Handy link that one.

Some of those tariffs are downright ridiculous.

According to that link if you have a wedding party with 600 guests you are liable to pay 10,000B for any pre-recorded or live music you wish to play for the day.

Wait until this agency starts crashing weddings....

[intumult]

http://www.1stopmusic.com/

They provide you with the licenses to play non-Thai music. Different tariffs for pretty much any venue, from restaurants, to bowling alleys to dance halls.

Click on tariffs, then on the British flag to get the list of the prices in English.

For Thai music you have to get licenses from the respective recording houses of the different artists, much as Simon explained above. These licenses do NOT cover foreign music though, just the music from the artists who have recorded with them. For the foreign music the above link is the only legal license provider in Thailand.

Handy link that one.

Some of those tariffs are downright ridiculous.

According to that link if you have a wedding party with 600 guests you are liable to pay 10,000B for any pre-recorded or live music you wish to play for the day.

Wait until this agency starts crashing weddings....

I personally can think of a few people that would soon be out of business. Parties, weddings, funerals. Then what would the Thais do with no music for days on end???

Sound enough reason for a revolution, methinks

[monty]

According to that link if you have a wedding party with 600 guests you are liable to pay 10,000B for any pre-recorded or live music you wish to play for the day.

Wait until this agency starts crashing weddings.... blink.gif

Pretty much the same as all over the world, and I would guess if it is a free event they wouldn't bother/you are excempt.

If it is a revenue creating even, and you use the work and labour of other people (the artists) to make it a financial success for yourself, it stands to reason that those artists also get revenue from this!

[soundman]

Pretty much the same as all over the world, and I would guess if it is a free event they wouldn't bother/you are excempt.

If it is a revenue creating even, and you use the work and labour of other people (the artists) to make it a financial success for yourself, it stands to reason that those artists also get revenue from this!

Not according to that schedule. Even if you have a private dinner party for 15 guests that you play pre-recorded or live music, you are theoretically required to pay 2000B.

I fully agree that the artists should get revenue for their work, however, a business may pay 6000B per year in fees, the artists usually see very little of that money. (I have heard figures quoted by industry heavy weights of less than 1/2 of 1% getting back to the artists).

[trampjuice]

Pretty much the same as all over the world, and I would guess if it is a free event they wouldn't bother/you are excempt.

If it is a revenue creating even, and you use the work and labour of other people (the artists) to make it a financial success for yourself, it stands to reason that those artists also get revenue from this!

Not according to that schedule. Even if you have a private dinner party for 15 guests that you play pre-recorded or live music, you are theoretically required to pay 2000B.

I fully agree that the artists should get revenue for their work, however, a business may pay 6000B per year in fees, the artists usually see very little of that money. (I have heard figures quoted by industry heavy weights of less than 1/2 of 1% getting back to the artists).

I have not got a problem paying the artists or record companies for using their music. I do resent paying them via a third party company in Thailand.

With the amount of corruption in this country it would not surprise me at all if the foreign record companies did not receive a penny from these people.

It’s a shame there is no way of going to the record companies directly.

Maybe I’ll buy a piano, and if the copyright police come to take it away I can give them a Mickey mouse fine for listening to me tinkling away!!!

[monty]

A quote from 1stopmusic's faq:

A JV licence is required when sound recordings subject to our control are played in public. By ‘public’ we mean any event except a family or domestic gathering. An event such as an office party, a Christmas disco or a Valentine’s Day dinner dance is public. An example of a private event would be a wedding reception or birthday party. Many people ask, “If it’s my CD, why can’t I play it whenever and wherever I want?” Owning a sound recording does not give them an automatic right to play it in public. Very occasionally, when sound recordings are played solely to raise money for charity, JV may waive the licence fee. If you think your event falls into this special category, you should mention it when you apply for your licence.

So they do clearly state that private gatherings such as a wedding are exempt!

And yes, unfortunately it's all to true that the artist sees very little of these fees. I don't know 1stopmusic and how honest they are, in the end they don't even pay the artists directly, but the recording company which who the artist has his contract.

It is definitely the recording industry which makes the highest profits, it's also them pushing hard for intellectual rights protection, supposedly to protect the artist, although anybody knows it's just to protect their bottom line!

[trampjuice]

This might sound like a stupid question but where would you stand if you had the music playing on the TV (eg. MTV, not that I’d particularly want to listen to that c**p) or if you had everybody’s favourite radio station PCN FM playing (Howard, I expect a free S.W.A.T T-shirt)?

Would you still need a licence?

[monty]

Do I need a JV licence if I am using radio/TV?

A JV licence is needed if you play sound recordings in public - whether through a background music system, on CD, via radio/ television broadcasts or otherwise. However, in certain circumstances, a concessionary licence fee may be available for radio/TV use only. If you are in any doubt as to whether you require a JV licence, please contact us.

Not a very clear answer...

I do know you are not allowed to show UBC (Truevisions) in public places such as a pub or a restaurant. You need a special subscription from UBC to be allowed to do that.

I guess the extra price you pay for such a subscription is what they call the "a concessionary licence fee" mentioned above, where UBC pays the fees out of the money received from you...

[exgov]

Pretty much the same as all over the world, and I would guess if it is a free event they wouldn't bother/you are excempt.

If it is a revenue creating even, and you use the work and labour of other people (the artists) to make it a financial success for yourself, it stands to reason that those artists also get revenue from this!

Not according to that schedule. Even if you have a private dinner party for 15 guests that you play pre-recorded or live music, you are theoretically required to pay 2000B.

I fully agree that the artists should get revenue for their work, however, a business may pay 6000B per year in fees, the artists usually see very little of that money. (I have heard figures quoted by industry heavy weights of less than 1/2 of 1% getting back to the artists).

Unless we are speaking of a legit rep of the music business in America or Australia, or Europe, the locals policing the music is also illegal. The artists and their agents should get their money. Are the locals licensed to police? I am confused. I was in line behind a local "official" while we were both buying a local "copy" of a Windows product. Can someone post a list of legal and illegal music, software, DVD's, clothing, purses, etc.? Surely no one wants to break the law once we know the law.

[Humphrey Bear]

Chatting with some friends a couple of days ago, both with restaurant/bar businesses.

Both hit last week - the American was slapped with a hundred thousand baht fine, the Thai lady with an 80k fine. (Subsequently negotiated down to 25k)

The Thai lady said she had all the Thai licences, also a Western one, but they were not covering all she was playing.

Is there somewhere where one can identify all the licences needed for one's own library? Might be worth discarding one or two CDs if this also eliminated a need for one particular licence.

[musiclover]

A quote from 1stopmusic's faq:

It is definitely the recording industry which makes the highest profits, it's also them pushing hard for intellectual rights protection, supposedly to protect the artist, although anybody knows it's just to protect their bottom line!

Rubbish! Its the recording industry that has to PAY intellectual rights to the copyright owners. Sometimes the Artist owns the rights sometimes not. Who created the copyright? (song)

Agencies such as PRS protect the copyright owner ,not the recording industry.

Without such organisations I would be broke .......... after 30 years in the industry.

[soundman]

A quote from 1stopmusic's faq:

It is definitely the recording industry which makes the highest profits, it's also them pushing hard for intellectual rights protection, supposedly to protect the artist, although anybody knows it's just to protect their bottom line!

Rubbish! Its the recording industry that has to PAY intellectual rights to the copyright owners. Sometimes the Artist owns the rights sometimes not. Who created the copyright? (song)

Agencies such as PRS protect the copyright owner ,not the recording industry.

Without such organisations I would be broke .......... after 30 years in the industry.

Yeah a 99.5% recording company 0.5% deal for the copyright owner is a really good deal.

[musiclover]

A quote from 1stopmusic's faq:

It is definitely the recording industry which makes the highest profits, it's also them pushing hard for intellectual rights protection, supposedly to protect the artist, although anybody knows it's just to protect their bottom line!

Rubbish! Its the recording industry that has to PAY intellectual rights to the copyright owners. Sometimes the Artist owns the rights sometimes not. Who created the copyright? (song)

Agencies such as PRS protect the copyright owner ,not the recording industry.

Without such organisations I would be broke .......... after 30 years in the industry.

Yeah a 99.5% recording company 0.5% deal for the copyright owner is a really good deal.

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

[monty]

Chatting with some friends a couple of days ago, both with restaurant/bar businesses.

Both hit last week - the American was slapped with a hundred thousand baht fine, the Thai lady with an 80k fine. (Subsequently negotiated down to 25k)

The Thai lady said she had all the Thai licences, also a Western one, but they were not covering all she was playing.

Is there somewhere where one can identify all the licences needed for one's own library? Might be worth discarding one or two CDs if this also eliminated a need for one particular licence.

Foreign music is clear cut, 1 license covers all.

Thai music is troublesome, since you need to have every artist (and their respective recording company) in your library covered. The enforcement team are certified *ssholes, there is a very popular Thai song at the moment, but they did not record with one of the major recording companies. The enforcers know this, they know the song is popular, so they just look for that song and hit you because you will not have the proper license (the respective recording company has only very few artists, so not worth having a licence for them...)...

[monty]

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

Maybe wrongly written, there is a difference between the actual artist and the copyright owner (most often the recording company, through the contract the artist has with that company).

The artists are getting next to nothing out of their record sales. The main income they get from touring! Buying CD's makes the record company rich, not the artist....

[soundman]

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

Maybe wrongly written, there is a difference between the actual artist and the copyright owner (most often the recording company, through the contract the artist has with that company).

The artists are getting next to nothing out of their record sales. The main income they get from touring! Buying CD's makes the record company rich, not the artist....

Prime example:

DJ friend had top ten dance music hit, weeks of airplay, used on popular advertising campaign, sold fifty thousand odd singles, was included in a number of compilation albums & after about two years waiting for the royalties to come in the record company gave him a cheque for a few thousand dollars. Take it or leave it.

Artist Sting has made substancially more money out of one song than all others he has ever been involved with including touring revenue because he owns all rights including distribution to that song.

[musiclover]

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

Maybe wrongly written , there is a difference between the actual artist and the copyright owner (most often the recording company, through the contract the artist has with that company).

Thats simply not true! The copyright owner is NOT normally the record company but most often a separate publishing company and a standard Artist contarct will NOT give over the copyright ownership to the record company .. .(it does happen occasionally!)

The artists are getting next to nothing out of their record sales. The main income they get from touring! Buying CD's makes the record company rich, not the artist....

Thats cos sales are low!

Prime example:

DJ friend had top ten dance music hit, weeks of airplay, used on popular advertising campaign, sold fifty thousand odd singles, was included in a number of compilation albums & after about two years waiting for the royalties to come in the record company gave him a cheque for a few thousand dollars. Take it or leave it.

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Compilation albums wont be much and all in all it sounds a very good return to me as also the Performing rights will be paid separately and mechanicals FROM the record Company to the Copyright Owner . Him?

Artist Sting has made substancially more money out of one song than all others he has ever been involved with including touring revenue because he owns all rights including distribution to that song.

Yeah that was a oneof deal with Virgin and its mechanicals that are relevant here .

[soundman]

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

Maybe wrongly written , there is a difference between the actual artist and the copyright owner (most often the recording company, through the contract the artist has with that company).

Thats simply not true! The copyright owner is NOT normally the record company but most often a separate publishing company and a standard Artist contarct will NOT give over the copyright ownership to the record company .. .(it does happen occasionally!)

The artists are getting next to nothing out of their record sales. The main income they get from touring! Buying CD's makes the record company rich, not the artist....

Prime example:

DJ friend had top ten dance music hit, weeks of airplay, used on popular advertising campaign, sold fifty thousand odd singles, was included in a number of compilation albums & after about two years waiting for the royalties to come in the record company gave him a cheque for a few thousand dollars. Take it or leave it.

Artist Sting has made substancially more money out of one song than all others he has ever been involved with including touring revenue because he owns all rights including distribution to that song.

Thats cos sales are low!

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Compilation albums wont be much and all in all it sounds a very good return to me as also the Performing rights will be paid separately and mechanicals FROM the record Company to the Copyright Owner . Him?

Yeah that was a oneof deal with Virgin and its mechanicals that are relevant here .

Well that is exactly the point - the single has generated millions in sales of various descriptions - direct - indirect etc. & the artist has seen less than a tenth of one percent. And a notable point is that this particular artist has gone on to even better releases & remixes & so-forth & is still rubbing his hands together to produce a penny, while the owner of the record label (a business aquaintence of mine) owns a top series BMW, nice apartment & lots of other goodies, partly paid for by sales from this particular artist (DJ).

And BTW - anything selling 50k copies in Australia is doing pretty well.

Sorry - fixed your formatting.

Edited December 16, 2007 by soundman

[musiclover]

Sorry I dont get that! Can u explain what you mean?

Maybe wrongly written , there is a difference between the actual artist and the copyright owner (most often the recording company, through the contract the artist has with that company).

Thats simply not true! The copyright owner is NOT normally the record company but most often a separate publishing company and a standard Artist contarct will NOT give over the copyright ownership to the record company .. .(it does happen occasionally!)

The artists are getting next to nothing out of their record sales. The main income they get from touring! Buying CD's makes the record company rich, not the artist....

Thats cos sales are low!

Prime example:

DJ friend had top ten dance music hit, weeks of airplay, used on popular advertising campaign, sold fifty thousand odd singles, was included in a number of compilation albums & after about two years waiting for the royalties to come in the record company gave him a cheque for a few thousand dollars. Take it or leave it.

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Compilation albums wont be much and all in all it sounds a very good return to me as also the Performing rights will be paid separately and mechanicals FROM the record Company to the Copyright Owner . Him?

Artist Sting has made substancially more money out of one song than all others he has ever been involved with including touring revenue because he owns all rights including distribution to that song.

Yeah that was a oneof deal with Virgin and its mechanicals that are relevant here .

Sorry I screwed up my reply totally as I was trying to reply to 2 posts at once ..........

In reply to Soundman. .........

Thats simply not true! The copyright owner is NOT normally the record company but most often a separate publishing company and a standard Artist contarct will NOT give over the copyright ownership to the record company .. .(it does happen occasionally!)

In reply to Monty .............

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Compilation albums wont be much and all in all it sounds a very good return to me as also the Performing rights will be paid separately and mechanicals FROM the record Company to the Copyright Owner . Him?

The overall point Im making is that normally the record Company does NOT own the copyright but itself has to PAY the copyright owner . It has to pay the Artist according to its( each) individual deal but copyright royalties are paid separately and are fixd by law.

50 k sales are not normally worth any Artist royalty at all and the Record Company might not even break even if it extra costs .promotion stuff etc

A few thousand dollars sound great for such a small sale ! ( OK not great but you know what Im getting at)

"Take it or leave it " is just a standard royalty statement and he can question this and even do an audit

if he thinks its wrong . It may well be incorrect but if its a bona fide company it can be rectified, but it does sound acceptable ( though of course I dont know the exact deal)

[musiclover]

DJ friend had top ten dance music hit, weeks of airplay, used on popular advertising campaign, sold fifty thousand odd singles, was included in a number of compilation albums & after about two years waiting for the royalties to come in the record company gave him a cheque for a few thousand dollars. Take it or leave it.

Artist Sting has made substancially more money out of one song than all others he has ever been involved with including touring revenue because he owns all rights including distribution to that song.

Thats cos sales are low!

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Ok, as for this point whats the problem here? The weeks of airplay are nothing to do with record royalties but are paid by PRS quite separately! 50k singles are nothing!! Probably an advance was paid but with these low sales a few thousand dollars sounds about right to me. What do you think 50ksales should get?

Compilation albums wont be much and all in all it sounds a very good return to me as also the Performing rights will be paid separately and mechanicals FROM the record Company to the Copyright Owner . Him?

Yeah that was a oneof deal with Virgin and its mechanicals that are relevant here .

Well that is exactly the point - the single has generated millions in sales of various descriptions - direct - indirect etc. & the artist has seen less than a tenth of one percent. And a notable point is that this particular artist has gone on to even better releases & remixes & so-forth & is still rubbing his hands together to produce a penny, while the owner of the record label (a business aquaintence of mine) owns a top series BMW, nice apartment & lots of other goodies, partly paid for by sales from this particular artist (DJ).

And BTW - anything selling 50k copies in Australia is doing pretty well.

Sorry - fixed your formatting.

I didnt read this before my 2nd reply and it sounds like your friend was simply cheated!! It happens a lot as it is probably a small dance lable!!!!!!!

Yes in Oz 50 k IS a lot but but still a low royalty earner!!! I sell 500k each year in OZ (all compilations) and receive less than £1000 a year from this in mechs and less than £200 from the record Company ( who are definitely conning me) This is a major label too ........

[rgs2001uk]

frank zappa summed it up perfectly in the song tinseltown rebellion band.

as much as i am not a great fan of their music i applaud the likes of george michael and elton john for taking on the corporate greed of the music industry.

look at the situation of the beatles music and michael jackson.

and they wonder why people get so disenchanted and dont bother to buy, long live the pirate bay.