Henry H Perrit Jr.'s View on the Proposed Chicago Event Promoter License

An incredible supporter of the independent artist community Henry Perritt has asked everyone to help distribute his White Paper, "Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected".

Please read it, repost it and repost it again. ANY and ALL feedback welcome.

Why the Event Promoters Ordinance should be rejected
[27 May 2008]

• The proposed ordinance does not address any public need



• Often justified as a response to the 17 February 2003 stampede in the E2 nightclub, which killed 21 people, the proposed ordinance does not address the problems that led to that tragedy:



• Too many people (1100) were in a venue that could safely accommodate only 300



• The City of Chicago had not determined the safe capacity of the venue



• The City had not acted on known building and fire code violations



• The venue’s security staff did not respond appropriately



• The proposed ordinance does not strengthen the City’s inspection and enforcement resources, powers, and will to act; instead it indemnifies the City from liability



• The ordinances regulating places where food is offered for sale require periodic city inspections; neither the proposed ordinance nor the existing PPA requires inspections



• The proposed ordinance targets event promoters rather than venue owners, although circumstances leading to the E2 tragedy were within control of the venue manager and not third-party promoters



• Venue owners, not third-party promoters, are in a position to control everything that might jeopardize the health or safety of fans



• The proposed ordinance does not fit the realities of how some of Chicago’s best music is made and promoted



• The 2007 Chicago Music City report prepared by a group at the University of Chicago for the Chicago Music Commission concluded that music in Chicago generates a payroll in excess of $1 billion annually and fuels the overall economy in Chicagoland.
• Significantly, it concluded that Chicago offers more kinds of music regularly than anywhere else except Los Angeles and New York, mostly in small clubs



• Most of the small clubs are operated informally and present bands and other performers that operate on a financial shoestring, rarely earning more than a few hundred dollars for a performance, and rarely netting more than a few thousand dollars per year for their music



• These bands and performers and the venues in which they perform scramble to attract an audience, relying on the band’s circle of friends and an occasional part-time amateur street team to distribute flyers and generate word of mouth



• The proposed ordinance contains several provisions that would burden small venues and less-known bands disproportionately



• It defines the regulated activity ( § 1-157-010, definition of “Event Promoter”) to include advertising so broadly that it would include:
• Word of mouth generated by a band or its supporters
• Distribution of flyers or posters publicizing a performance
• Free notices of performances on websites such as MySpace music pages, while exempting paid newspaper advertising


• It imposes unnecessary insurance requirements on promoters who have no control over safety in venues and thus are unlikely to be liable for injuries



• It prohibits fans under the age of 21 from engaging in promotion activities, although younger fans other play a crucial role in encouraging turnout for performances



• It would intimidate fans and band members from promoting a performance by requiring them to be fingerprinted and to fill out burdensome forms and keep burdensome records



• Paradoxically, it would regulate promoters for events at small venues while leaving intact the existing exemption for the venues themselves (PPA § 4-156-305(c))



• It exempts instrumental performances by groups with fewer than eight pieces (§ 4-156-305(f)) while providing no such exemption for small groups performing other kinds of music



• It exempts large venues, where any risk to public health and safety is greatest



• The proposed ordinance is unconstitutional
• It violates the First Amendment by regulating speech in the form of advertising over-broadly


• It violates due process by excluding ex-felons who have paid their debt to society and persons convicted of petty theft; federal court cases require a rational relationship between regulation of entertainment and risks to public health and safety; there is no such relationship here



• It violates equal protection of minority groups by disproportionately burdening promoters from such groups



• The City of Chicago should be supporting and promoting its smaller venues and lesser-known bands, but the ordinance imposes burdens instead



• The City should publish and distribute to hotels and airports a directory of smaller venues and lesser-known bands



• - It should provide links on its websites to private websites that offer current information about scheduled performances



• - It should provide financial support to smaller venues and lesser-known bands

Henry H. Perritt, Jr.
Professor of Law
Chicago-Kent College of Law
Member of the Illinois Bar
hperritt@kentlaw.edu
(312) 906-5098

Save Internet Radio

Dear SaveNetRadio supporter,

It has been a year since an increase in royalty fees for webcasters put the future of Internet radio at risk. Since then, more than 2 million people have called on Congress to save Internet radio, the Internet Radio Equality Act has been cosponsored by 150 Members of Congress, and a hearing was held in the House Small Business Committee. In spite of all this - nothing has changed. We need your help.

On Thursday May 15, Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas will introduce the Internet Radio Equality Act (IREA) as an amendment to the Orphan Works Bill (S. 2913) while it is being considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee . As you know, the IREA would level the playing field for Internet radio webcasters and promote greater parity within the radio industry, while doing away with the discrimination that now forces webcasters to pay fees more than twice as high as their closest competition, cable and satellite radio.

You can help. At least one of your Senators is a Member of the Judiciary Committee and we need their support. Call them today and ask them to support independent artists, small businesses, and the future of Internet radio. You can find their phone number and talking points here: http://www.capwiz.com/saveinternetradio/alert_9738601.html.

Ask your Senator to support the Brownback Amendment to S. 2913.

We need your help to remind Congress that though Internet radio is still on the air and artists are still being paid for their work by webcasters, nothing has been resolved and we need them to act.

On behalf of webcasters, artists and fellow Internet radio listeners everywhere, thank you. Let's finish what we started a year ago.

City of Chicago's Event Promoter License & Me

Ok, so what's the big deal about the Event Promoter License that the City of Chicago wants to enforce?

Here's the deal. I consider myself an Event Promoter. I might only put on 2 concerts a year and 1 dj night a month but that's considered an Event Organizer/Promoter.

So now, if this license passes I have to pay $2,000 a year in order to do what I like to do, at this point, as a hobby. Even though my events are within legitimate venues that have all the permits and licenses that are required. Even though I haven't made any money at all doing this in the past 2 years. In fact, I've given money away for these things to happen.

Technically, this effects every person that puts together any type of an event. A dj night, a concert, an art opening, any type of event that charges a cover at the door.

Well, they did change the terms of the license since last year.

Last year this license went all the way across the board. It effected every single person that ever put on a show. Here's one of the major ways it changed.

The license fee before was $2,000 for every 2 years, for everyone. For the little people like me all the way to the charity organizations and up to major organizations like, everyones friends, JAM Productions.

Here's how the license fees changed.

License fees, payable every two years, would range from $500 to $2,000, depending on the size of the venues in which the promoters operate. The city, non-profit organizations promoting their own events and promoters at "fixed-seating" venues with at least 500 seats, such as the United Center, would be exempt.

So here's a quick thought. Last year the license got shot down. You know why? Because places like the United Center, JAM Productions, the Rosemont and all the other major players said they'd take their business to the burbs. An action like that would culturally crush the city of Chicago. Not to mention the amount of money the city would lose out.

So now the city is listening to the major players and they decided that they shouldn't have to pay for this license. Even though, out of all the people that will be effected, the major players are the only ones that could afford such a ridiculous fee.

Here's another thing that I noticed from the Tribune's article. It's in regards to the E2 incident that happened almost 5 years ago.

Months after the stampede, an independent panel that reviewed the disaster and emergency response concluded that inadequate city inspection procedures and lack of city agency coordination allowed the club to stay open months after a court ordered it shut.

So wasn't it the city's fault that all this happened? Oh yea, the city doesn't do anything wrong.

If you want more information on this please follow these links.

Chicago City Council panel OKs licensing plan for event promoters
Chicago's promoter's ordinance: What the city wants, the city gets?
Jim DeRogatis' Blog
Chicago Music Commission's site
Rules inspired by E2 stampede approved


If you are an event promoter please contact your Alderman and express your concerns BEFORE Wednesday May 14th.. If you don't then don't feel bad that you have to leave the city to do the events that you like to do.

The floor at this meeting is not open to the public. It's a hearing for the Aldermen to vote on whether or not to impose the license.

This site will help you find out who your Alderman is and how to contact them.

http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycouncil/alderman/find.html

Go there, find them and contact them. Let them know your concerns and let them know how it will effect you.

If you can, appear at the hearing. Maybe if enough people show up to boo down the license they'll listen.

The hearing is on Wednesday May 14, 2008, at 10:00 a.m.

The City Council meets in the Council Chamber located on the Second Floor of City Hall, 121 North La Salle Street.

Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007

Saying anything bad about this bill or how stupid I think it is could land me in Federal Prison if this passes and becomes law.

I'm not going to go into huge detail about it but I will leave the links for you to look at and research yourself. Basically, this bill says that if you speak your mind about politics or say that the current President is a dipshit you could go to prison. The bill states:

". . . the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States or any possession of the United States to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

Which suggests that if you said, "John McCain is an idiot and should be tossed off a cliff" you could be arrested for planning and threatening an occurance that might or might not happen.

It could also mean that bands that have music that suggest violence or acts against the government will be censored. Bands such as Rage Against the Machine, System of a Down, Megadeth and so on.

Feel free to research this farther and make your own desicions. Here are some links that will help you.

Track the bill through it's process here: GovTrak.us

Daily Congressional

Congresspedia

Contact your Representatives and Urge them to shut down this bill.

I'd also like to thank Look What I Did for bringing this to my attention. Check them out on their Myspace Page. If you add them let them know where you heard about them and why.

Contact your Representatives and let them know where you stand. It does make a difference and it can help to shape the world.

Let's help stop our government from becoming too obtrusive and too censor happy. The world doesn't need another China.