NIVA Says “We’re Not Gonna Take It”: Blanket Performance Licenses Under Fire

Key Takeaways

• Independent venues are challenging the traditional blanket license model used by performing rights organizations (“PROs”), arguing that venues often pay licensing fees for music that is never performed.
• Advances in setlist reporting and audio-recognition technology are fueling calls for usage-based music licensing that more directly compensates songwriters and performing artists.
• The debate is no longer whether songwriters should be paid, but whether music licensing can be modernized to reduce venue costs while preserving efficient copyright compliance.

Twisted Sister’s song “We’re Not Gonna Take It” remains a familiar anthem of rebellion for the punk rock generation of the 1980s, and for independent venues staring down letters from multiple performing rights organizations, the sentiment may sound familiar. For generations, venues have been told that if music is performed in the room, the room needs a license. That advice is generally correct. But as technology makes data more accessible, a harder question is taking center stage: should venues still pay for entire catalogs of songs that never make it onto their stages?

Under U.S. copyright law, songwriters and music publishers control the “public performance” of their songs. In plain terms, a bar, club, promoter, festival, or other business generally needs permission before music is played for the public, unless an exception applies. Because it would be impossible for each venue to negotiate with every songwriter individually, PROs such as American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (“ASCAP”), Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), Society of European Stage Authors and Composers (“SESAC”), Global Music Rights, and AllTrack license large catalogs of songs on a collective basis.

To solve that clearance problem, stakeholders developed the “blanket license,” which allows a venue to pay a fee for access to a PRO’s repertoire rather than clearing each song, show, or setlist one at a time. That model made obvious sense in a world where no one could reliably track every song performed in every room on every night. Blanket access was imprecise, but it offered a scalable and efficient solution.

How the Blanket License Became the Default

In the live space, a PRO typically charges a venue based on capacity, ticket sales, or a similar metric in exchange for the right to perform any song in that PRO’s catalog at that venue. Because touring artists and songwriters may belong to different PROs, a single club must carry multiple blanket licenses to make sure every writer on the bill is covered.

The rub is that each PRO generally receives its fee whether or not any songs from its repertoire are actually played that night. If a setlist is provided, the PRO may use that information to pay its own writers, but if none of the songs performed are in that PRO’s repertoire, the venue’s money can still flow into a general distribution pool. This means a venue may pay several licensing collectives while the writers whose songs actually filled the room see little or nothing in return.

The Complaint from Independent Venues

On June 12, Billboard recapped a conversation from the 2026 National Independent Venue Association (“NIVA”) conference that took aim at the blanket license regime. City Winery owner Michael Dorf relayed an all-too-common story for venue owners: he recently received letters from PROs such as AllTrack threatening statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song after he asked which songs in the PRO’s catalog were actually being performed on his stages.

Some panelists reportedly characterized PRO enforcement tactics as “mafioso, thug-like practices,” but the argument is not that songwriters should go unpaid. Rather, the consensus thesis from the commentators was that the old licensing architecture is extracting money from the very rooms and artists it was designed to support. Studies cited by the National Independent Talent Organization (“NITO”) suggest some artists paid more than $15,000 in PRO-related fees during a tour while receiving as little as $26 for performing their own songs. From the perspective of many observers, the system is broken and irredeemable.

Can Technology Fix the Problem?

Venue and artist advocates are not calling for the abolition of PROs. They are asking whether the default must remain “pay for everything just in case” in a world where detailed setlist reporting and audio-recognition tools are increasingly available. New technology platforms allow artists to submit setlists with minimal friction, so PROs can allocate payments based on the songs actually performed.

In the UK, PRS for Music, in partnership with Audoo and the Music Venue Trust, is proving that real-time tracking across grassroots venues is possible. If implemented carefully, a usage-informed model could reduce or recalibrate blanket fees, tie payments more directly to actual performances, and move more money into the pockets of the songwriters and touring artists whose works are performed.

The Hard Part: Less Friction, Not More

From a songwriter’s perspective, tying royalties more directly to actual setlists is hard to dismiss. If a band plays ten songs, there is a strong fairness argument that the money paid for that night should follow those ten songs rather than subsidize unrelated repertoire. For independent artists who currently see minimal live-performance royalties despite heavy touring, better reporting and targeted payments could be meaningful.

But blanket licenses still solve two stubborn problems: transaction costs and liability. PROs license everything from restaurants and retail stores to arenas and tiny rooms that may or may not submit accurate setlists. If the industry moves toward work-by-work or pay-per-setlist models, someone must verify the data, reconcile usage across multiple PROs, and chase noncompliant users. That administrative burden will not disappear just because the technology improves.

There is also an equity question between big and small players. Large festivals, arenas, and corporate chains can usually afford either model and often have the leverage to negotiate bespoke arrangements. Independent venues, by contrast, can be squeezed under both systems: blanket licenses can overcharge relative to actual use, while song-by-song reporting may create new administrative burdens, data disputes, or technology fees layered on top of royalties.

The most realistic near-term improvement may be to tighten the blanket model rather than burn it down. Venues could receive credits or offsets when usage data shows that few or none of a PRO’s works were performed over time, and standardized, low-friction reporting pipelines could reduce the perceived need for aggressive enforcement.

The debate is not whether songwriters should be compensated. The more nuanced question is whether a century-old licensing model can be modernized so that payments more closely reflect actual music usage while preserving the efficiency of collective licensing. For independent venues, touring artists, PROs, and policymakers, finding that balance is where meaningful reform is most likely to land.