{"id":131,"date":"2026-09-08T10:39:10","date_gmt":"2026-09-08T17:39:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/syncpoint.media\/blog\/?p=131"},"modified":"2026-09-08T10:39:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-08T17:39:13","slug":"ascap-bmi-demand-letter-what-to-do","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/syncpoint.media\/blog\/ascap-bmi-demand-letter-what-to-do\/","title":{"rendered":"Got an ASCAP or BMI Demand Letter? What to Do Next"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

A BMI demand letter or ASCAP demand letter is usually a licensing demand backed by a file \u2014 investigator notes, calls, songs listed. It is not the same thing as a judgment. Ottobar in Baltimore is what the file looks like after years of outreach and a karaoke night the venue thought was already covered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On June 23, 2026, a federal magistrate ordered Ottobar to pay about $12,048.75<\/strong> in statutory damages (the Daily Record\u2019s wording: \u201cslightly over $12,000\u201d) plus $6,500<\/strong> in attorney\u2019s fees to BMI<\/strong> and three publishers (Sony Music Publishing, EMI Blackwood Music, and All Clear Music). The Daily Record<\/em> (25 June 2026) headlined it at $18.5K<\/strong>. The Banner<\/em> wrote \u201cover $18,000.\u201d It was not a background-stream case. BMI sued over three karaoke<\/strong> songs: \u201cTake On Me,\u201d \u201c(I Just) Died in Your Arms,\u201d and \u201cGoodbye Earl.\u201d The venue conceded liability. Magistrate Judge J. Mark Coulson entered a permanent injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Owner Tecla Tesnau told The Banner<\/em>: \u201cWe have licensing agreements with other agencies, and I mistakenly thought that we were completely covered. \u2026 That was incorrect.\u201d BMI told the court it had reached out more than 30 times since 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That is BMI demand letter path, taken all the way to a judgment. Most owners who get mail are earlier in the same path.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice.<\/strong> If you mix SyncPoint with other music sources, talk with your counsel or the relevant PRO about those other sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the letter usually is<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Performing rights organizations license the public performance of the songs they represent. The New Mexico Restaurant Association names five<\/strong> U.S. PROs: ALLTRACK, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, and GMR<\/strong>. Each represents a different catalog. A license from one is not a license from the others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

BMI\u2019s own FAQ says the same thing. A license from another PRO covers that PRO\u2019s catalog only. It does not cover BMI\u2019s. Spotify, Pandora, and Apple Music subscriptions do not provide the clearance to play those songs in a public setting:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Although your digital music subscription gives you access to an enormous catalog of music, it does not provide the necessary copyright clearance to play those songs in a public setting. Once you decide to play any copyrighted music publicly, you need permission from the copyright owners.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The venue owner \u2014 not the DJ, the band, or the karaoke host \u2014 is the one BMI licenses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

NMRA\u2019s FAQ on \u201cI received an email, call, or letter from a PRO\u201d is blunt: \u201cMost likely, yes.\u201d Licensing is almost always cheaper than ignoring the file.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"ASCAP<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

How the letter usually gets written (the pattern commercial-music vendors describe \u2014 including CloudCover\u2019s mail guide \u2014 not a clone of anyone\u2019s sample reply):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Outreach first \u2014 mail, email, phone.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. An investigator visit. Agents walk in, listen, and log songs.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. A demand that names a catalog, sometimes specific titles and dates, and a response window.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Follow-ups if nothing changes. Then, in some cases, a federal complaint.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Custom Channels hears the same owner sentence: \u201cWe got a letter, and we were confused. We just play music off the iPad behind the counter.\u201d That iPad is often a personal Spotify account on the house speakers. Personal accounts are licensed for private listening. We already covered that in Spotify for business<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Karaoke is not a background stream<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Ottobar\u2019s three songs were karaoke in Otto Upstairs. That matters for two reasons.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    First, a background-music account is not a karaoke license. CloudCover\u2019s own letter kit says the steps they outline apply to background music played through their service \u2014 not live, not karaoke. NMRA: a background service never covers live bands, singers, DJs, TVs, karaoke, jukeboxes, or consumer apps. If any of those show up during the year, the venue still has a separate conversation with the PROs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Second, SyncPoint does not cover karaoke, live bands, or DJs spinning other catalogs. Licensing<\/a> (effective July 21, 2026) lists those as out, next to personal Spotify, YouTube, and extra locations. A SyncPoint stream or Music Pack would not have covered Ottobar\u2019s three karaoke titles.<\/strong> Do not read a background subscription as a blanket for every speaker in the building.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The same split shows up in older cases, with different facts:<\/p>\n\n\n\n