Can playing covers get you sued?

[ADL]

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

[Neil N]

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...

AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs. The teeth in this
is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.

The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

[Neil N]

Post by Neil N

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...

AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs. The teeth in this
is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.
The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

LOL, I just went back and read the date, what did happen?

[AJ Brown]

Post by Neil N

Post by Neil N

http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it...

AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs. The teeth in this
is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.
The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

LOL, I just went back and read the date, what did happen?

Well, as of January, they're still playing music there.

http://portland.citysearch.com/review/39400411

Patrons are complaining the band is too loud.

[Angus]

Post by Neil N
LOL, I just went back and read the date, what did happen?

http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3306/8340/#TheDarkSideofCoverSongs

David

[The Chris]

Post by Neil N

Post by Neil N

Post by ADL
http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?it
...

AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs. The teeth in this
is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.
The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.
It will be interesting to see what happens.

LOL, I just went back and read the date, what did happen?

I'll tell you what happened in my area last month. There's a tiny bar in
Thurmont, MD (near Camp David) that had to stop having bands because the
owners were hit with a HUGE fee.

My friend asked me if I had ever heard of such a thing (since I'm a gigging
musician) and I said I had heard of it, but, couldn't remember what I had
heard :)

So, it IS going down......

[Brian Running]

Post by Neil N
AFAIK, not as a hired performer. Whoever pays you can be responsible
to pay a tariff to the pertinent performing rights organization.
Usually a small percentage of entertainment costs.

That's right. It's the venue owner that's responsible. Private parties
at private residences and so on are treated as exempt by the licensing
organizations -- BMI, ASCAP, etc. This is nothing new, it's been that
way for decades.

Post by Neil N
The teeth in this is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, Neil, but if you mean what I
think you mean, that's not the way I see it going at all. Recent
amendments to copyright law have favored the publishers -- the "big
players" -- exclusively.

Post by Neil N
The amount mentioned in the article can't be for one performance, and
those few songs, it must be for some retroactive period of time.

I'd guess that it's the yearly license fee for a venue that size, for as
many years as the owner admitted he had been having live bands.

[Neil N]

Post by Brian Running

Post by Neil N
The teeth in this is found under copyright law, an area where all the big players in
music are fighting a losing battle these days.

I don't know exactly what you mean by this, Neil, but if you mean what I
think you mean, that's not the way I see it going at all. Recent
amendments to copyright law have favored the publishers -- the "big
players" -- exclusively.

I was alluding to the "free for all" that the internet has become.
Makes me wonder if the hard ball players are starting to crash soft
ball games ...

[js]

People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords of
the music business want I'm sure.

Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than compensation
for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT have
the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in jail,
any more than the Shriners do.

All they do is give some asshole a territory and a commission % and tell him
to go to any place that doesn't have a license and collect. Gee, do you
think he's gonna come up empty handed?


They then shake down the club owner, arbitrarily deciding what he owes them,
which is usually some astronomical sum. Then they offer to "cut him a deal",
and settle for a less astronomical sum - provided he buys a license of
course. How this is legal and not extortion is anybody's guess...

Even worse, some of these commission scumbags also work for other music
related companies. One guy I knew repped for both ASCAP and Digital Radio
(pre XM days). He'd go into a bar, notice that they had say, MTV on the
tube, and fine them a ridiculous amount (One I know of was $40GRAND). THEN,
he'd tell them he'd wave the fee if they subscribed to his radio system for
x amount of years. What you do think these poor slobs did?

If the club owner refuses to knuckle under, they can institute collection
proceedings against him like any other creditor (which he can refute or
refuse to pay, like any other debtor), or they can sue take him to court.
AFAIK, this doesn't happen that often.

Again this is very different than filing a criminal complaint under the DMCA
against a guy who has 10,000 mp3s on his hard drive, or breaking up a
Chinese CD smuggling ring and sending the perps to jail.

And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted and
get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily hand
over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?


If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file bankruptcy
rather than pay. Fuck 'em
--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks









"ADL" <***@Comcast.net> wrote in message news:***@comcast.com...
http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

[Benj]

Post by js
People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords of
the music business want I'm sure.
Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than compensation
for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT have
the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in jail,
any more than the Shriners do.

This is is true, unless they are in cahoots with local police (see
example in this thread) but they DO have the ability to sue you as
copyright owners. And it's worse than that, back when, there was an
agreement between bar owners and ASCAP & BMI that made the current
arrangement of fees charged to bar owners that are supposed to be
divided among all member composers. But as it usual in the legal biz,
if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
forces bar owners to cave. In this case he paid some back year fees,
which let's face it, he really owed, but they also socked him with
$750 each for three songs just to teach him a lesson. The idea was, of
course, his lawyer would have cost him much more.

Post by js
And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted and
get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily hand
over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?
If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file bankruptcy
rather than pay. Fuck 'em

Actually it's a civil case rather than criminal one. It's about going
against the settlement made some years ago between owners and ASCAP &
BMI. But let me tell you I remember how it was BEFORE this agreement!
In those days the goons used to come after MUSICIANS! Fake books were
totally illegal and you had to keep them really low and hidden at
gigs. You had to keep an eye out for enforcers and if you spotted one,
you had to be sure you played only public domain "standards". Of
course the good news was that in those days copyrights didn't extend
back forever the way they do now. As long as you steered away from pop
hits you were pretty safe if the fake book was kept low level. And
then on top of that there were the Union goons. If you didn't have
union cards they'd hit you up for dues and then hit up the venue for
fees. If you refused to pay, they'd bust up the joint (well, actually
an hour later some OTHER goons would suddenly come in the bar, order a
drink and then start a fight to bust up the joint). Ah! The good old
days! Now the whole hassle has moved onto to bar owners. And in some
cases it couldn't happen to guys more deserving. But you do hate to
see a guy trying to promote live music in his venue raked over the
coals for trying to promote the very copyrighted songs these guys are
using as excuses for extortion. You wouldn't want the old way of
making the bands pay the fees, but since musicians are usually dirt
poor anyway, they went for the "deep pockets" of the venue owners
instead. Decided you can't get blood from a turnip!

Obviously many of these organizations supposedly representing the
interests of musicians and songwriters never heard the tale of the
goose that laid the golden egg.

Benj

[Jim Carr]

Post by Benj
But as it usual in the legal biz,
if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
forces bar owners to cave.

Bar owners "cave" when they pay for the right to make money off of the work
of other people? How interesting! Do you put your money in the bank and not
expect interest? Just because an artist and label made money off the song
via record sales, touring, and so forth doesn't mean that they don't have
the right to expect a slice from *other* people making money off of their
efforts. It's no different than somebody selling tee shirts with a band's
logo and pocketing the profits.

We've had discussions here about what music to play when the bar owner is
staring at the band wondering nobody is dancing. Every single song was
written, recorded, distributed and made famous by someone else. If a band
and bar owner are going to make some money from that song, why shouldn't the
intellectual property owners get a slice? Mike said he worked at a club (a
decent sized one as I recall) where they paid about $10 a day for the
rights.

And of course they should be able to sue for more than just what somebody
would have owed had they simply paid up front. Otherwise, where's the
incentive to pay in the first place? Bar owners would simply hope to fly
under the radar if the worst that can happen is that they have to pay what
they should have been paying in the first place?

I go to a local bar every Sunday during football season to catch the
Redskins games with a group of about 15 other people. That's the only reason
the bar opens on Sunday mornings. He makes a decent chunk of change off of
us each time. If it weren't for the game, we wouldn't be there. Should he
not be required to pay a slice to the NFL?

[Benj]

Post by Jim Carr
Bar owners "cave" when they pay for the right to make money off of the work
of other people? How interesting! Do you put your money in the bank and not
expect interest? Just because an artist and label made money off the song
via record sales, touring, and so forth doesn't mean that they don't have
the right to expect a slice from *other* people making money off of their
efforts. It's no different than somebody selling tee shirts with a band's
logo and pocketing the profits.

No, they "cave" when they accept "penalties" and imaginary "damages".
You know, courts of law are there to settle cases of "damages" but
it's about REAL costs. Not some made-up crap: when the agreement which
was for you to pay this amount and since you didn't I've just decided
the fee is now XYZ, not because this actually cost me any losses, but
just because I want your money! Going along with this, THAT is
"caving"! Of course just blowing off your license fees for years is a
whole 'nother matter!

Post by Jim Carr
And of course they should be able to sue for more than just what somebody
would have owed had they simply paid up front. Otherwise, where's the
incentive to pay in the first place? Bar owners would simply hope to fly
under the radar if the worst that can happen is that they have to pay what
they should have been paying in the first place?

They can sue for more but asking isn't the same as deserving! They
have to prove damages. COURTS can assess "punitive" damages to induce
owners to pay in a timely way, but it seems the modern way is for the
COMPANIES to decide what punitive damages should be paid to THEM. For
more information go read the "rubber" contact the bank had you sign to
get a credit card. Mine say they can change ANY provision of our
agreement at ANY time WITHOUT giving me notice! That sound legal to
you? But the squeeze is they've got lawyers and can afford to bleed me
dry because I don't have the money to fight. THAT means I "cave". You
think this way of "doing business" is fair?

Post by Jim Carr
I go to a local bar every Sunday during football season to catch the
Redskins games with a group of about 15 other people. That's the only reason
the bar opens on Sunday mornings. He makes a decent chunk of change off of
us each time. If it weren't for the game, we wouldn't be there. Should he
not be required to pay a slice to the NFL?

SURE! In fact this copyright thing doesn't go NEAR far enough.

1. Copyrights should last FOREVER! EVERYONE SHOULD PAY SOMEONE FOR
ANYTHING! Public domain needs to be HISTORY!

2. Every time a copyrighted object is sold new royalties should be
paid! I mean used CDs, old T shirts, Old books, Computer software, old
appliances with registered trademarks. You name it! Each time one is
sold without royalties a $30,000 lawsuit ought to be hanging over the
head of the store or person running the garage sale!

3. TAB sites and lyric sites all need to be shut down forever. All
libraries need to be closed or assessed fees for each book, DVD, or CD
EACH time they loan it out! Luckily courts have decided that there is
basically no such thing as student fair use or "research".

4. All TVs and radios in bars or any other commercial establishment
should be required to fork over royalties for each and every program
logged while the receiver is on! (currently they only pay if
broadcasts are to an integrated system and not individual receivers.)
Sports bars are big money so by "deep pockets" theory some of that
money MUST be grabbed! An appliance store with TVs running in the
store window really should be assessed a license fee for that.

5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!
A nice State-issued "guitar learner's permit" with a later "bass
player's license" ought to do it! I mean you need a license to drive a
car, so why not to play an instrument? It's only sensible!

There! I think these few modest suggestions should "fix" the music
industry!

Benj
(Who notes that if you talk to any composers, all this extorted cash
doesn't seem to be going there!)

PS. By the way, I'm NOT against ASCAP & BMI venue fees! Composers and
copyright holders DO deserve some return for people using their work.
But what is stuck in my craw is business practices that are totally
detrimental to the business as a WHOLE! Fair is one thing,
destructive is another! Self-destructive is just plain stupid!

[Angus]

Post by Benj
5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!

You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.

David

[Brian Running]

Post by Angus
You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the
choice between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which
are identical in every way except price. Why would someone buy the
"music" CDs? Because they're labeled deceptively to make the gullible
schlub think that they're better for music somehow, or that "data" CDs
will not record music. I'd complain to my state's attorney general
about this obvious violation of fair-trade and deceptive-advertising
laws, but their solution would be to make ALL CD-Rs expensive, "music" CDs.

[Angus]

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>
;-)

David

[Glenn Dowdy]

Post by Angus

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout?
<ducks> ;-)

As someone who sells millions of CD-R and DVDR discs each you, I'd say
you're all wet. ;)

Glenn D.

[Benj]

Post by Angus

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>

That's because geeks aren't pals with enough guys named "Tony". If
you were, both types would cost the same, because, lets face it we
KNOW that everyone is going to use those data disks to illegally copy
software! What you need is some kind of Software trade organization
to handle "enforcement"! Bill can't do it all, you know!

I"m sure you all know that VCRs were nearly banned from sale upon
their introduction because everyone "knew" they'd be used for copying
copyrighted material. Only an agreement placing a fee on every blank
tape sold broke the deadlock. I believe cassette tapes also have a fee
like that.

The beauty of this system is that fee's get hidden in the purchase
price with tends to disguise them from the public view. This is why
the Euro "value added" tax is such a great invention. The public can
get soaked and they can't figure out why prices are so high in their
neighborhood!

Benj

[DrArm]

Post by Angus

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>
;-)
David

Hey!, according to Buttcrack Obama you didn't create that software
anyway and as such you have an obligation to your fellow citizens to
share it with them! After all, you used our roads, infrastructure,
instruments et al none of which you created in the first place.

Don't blame me, Buttcrack said it.

DA

[Jay S]

Post by Angus

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>
;-)
David

Hey!, according to Buttcrack Obama you didn't create that software
anyway and as such you have an obligation to your fellow citizens to
share it with them! After all, you used our roads, infrastructure,
instruments et al none of which you created in the first place.

Don't blame me, Buttcrack said it.

DA
and the award for digging up the oldest post in an attempt to troll through
the use of U.S. politics goes to....

Jay S

[*e#c]

Post by DrArm

Post by Angus

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price.

As someone that makes a living writing and publishing computer software, I
have to say that totally sucks... they should slap a levy on the "data"
CD-Rs and give the money to me. How come musicians have such clout? <ducks>
;-)
David

Hey!, according to Buttcrack Obama you didn't create that software
anyway and as such you have an obligation to your fellow citizens to
share it with them! After all, you used our roads, infrastructure,
instruments et al none of which you created in the first place.
Don't blame me, Buttcrack said it.
DA
and the award for digging up the oldest post in an attempt to troll through
the use of U.S. politics goes to....
Jay S

The only " soloing " you do "runny" is soloing on Societys COCK ,
when
you're sucking on it for your living, you scumbag CUNT.

The only " soloing " you do "runny" is soloing on Societys COCK ,
when
you're sucking on it for your living, you scumbag CUNT.

The only " soloing " you do "runny" is soloing on Societys COCK ,
when
you're sucking on it for your living, you scumbag CUNT.

The only " soloing " you do "runny" is soloing on Societys COCK ,
when
you're sucking on it for your living, you scumbag CUNT.

The only " soloing " you do "runny" is soloing on Societys COCK ,
when
you're sucking on it for your living, you scumbag CUNT.

[Mike Rieves]

Post by Angus
You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable
CD or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going
to be used to duplicate and share copyright material.

It's even better here in the US, David -- here, consumers have the choice
between "data" CD-Rs (cheap) and "music" CD-Rs (expensive) which are
identical in every way except price. .....

Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't record
on "data" CD-Rs.

[Brian Running]

Post by Mike Rieves
Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't record
on "data" CD-Rs.

I didn't know that, and I'm glad to hear there is some logical reason
for the two to exist. I guess. When you look at the packaging and
merchandising materials, there's no mention of any such thing, though,
and I don't think that's an accidental omission. They want people to
believe that "music" CDs will somehow sound better for recording music.
And they will, as long as you color the edges with a green felt-tip
pen. Ha! Just kidding!

Has anyone ever actually bought a stand-alone CD recorder?

[crow]

I have a stand alone cd recorder that uses the "music' discs. Mine is a
pioneer consumer model. My friend has a professional model which will record
on regular (data) discs. His has xlr analog ins & outs. Mine has RCA. they
both have lightpipe & coaxial digital connectors. Except for the difference
in connectors they are identical. We had them apart one day & the boards
were the same. All the board connections for the xlr i/o was there. There
were also several dip switches. These are switches built into a 'Dual Inline
Package' (dip) like a microchip there are 6 or 8 rocker switches on each
one. I think that if I copy his configuration my deck will be able to use
data discs too...I'll try it eventually but I need the thing as a mastering
deck in my pseudo studio & I have hundreds of 'music' blanks to use first.

-- jepp
if it sounds good...IT IS GOOD!

Post by Mike Rieves
Actually there is one tiny difference, the "music" CD-Rs have coding that
allows them to be used in stand-alone CD audio recorders, which won't
record on "data" CD-Rs.

I didn't know that, and I'm glad to hear there is some logical reason for
the two to exist. I guess. When you look at the packaging and
merchandising materials, there's no mention of any such thing, though, and
I don't think that's an accidental omission. They want people to believe
that "music" CDs will somehow sound better for recording music. And they
will, as long as you color the edges with a green felt-tip pen. Ha! Just
kidding!
Has anyone ever actually bought a stand-alone CD recorder?

[DrArm]

Post by Angus

Post by Benj
5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!

You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.
David

The same is true in the US, in fact since the 1950's every time you
bought a tape recorder, you were paying a 4% royalty fee to ASCAP
becxause they all knew that you were going to use the recorder for
copying their music.

Hey, it you dont want people copying "your" music then keep it to
yourself! And as Buttcrack Obama has stated "You didn't create that
product all by yourself anyway" so you don't really have any rights to
it. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm exposed to it, then it is mine and I
dare you to try to take it from me because dem's fightin' words!.

DA

[[e-mail]]

Post by DrArm

Post by Angus

Post by Benj
5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!

You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.
David

The same is true in the US, in fact since the 1950's every time you
bought a tape recorder, you were paying a 4% royalty fee to ASCAP
becxause they all knew that you were going to use the recorder for
copying their music.
Hey, it you dont want people copying "your" music then keep it to
yourself! And as Buttcrack Obama has stated "You didn't create that
product all by yourself anyway" so you don't really have any rights to
it. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm exposed to it, then it is mine and I
dare you to try to take it from me because dem's fightin' words!.

I was just sort of satirically spouting off above, but I'm sure you all
know the issues of "covers" has been settled some time ago. Back in the
day one one COULD get arrested for playing covers! But that was settled
with a fee that all live music venues pay each year to cover the
royalties in general without worrying about sorting out what is played
and what copyrights are being used. But it's the VENUES that pay not the
musicians or students. I was just being mouthy.

It is interesting to note that the whole idea of copyrights is NOT to
insure that authors get paid for their works but to further the arts for
betterment of society as a whole. The idea is that IF creators are
assured some return to cover costs and give a profit it will encourage
arts in general. But these days it seems as if the whole thing is being
greed-driven (as in the hideous things that Hollywood thinks up with
DVDS) which discourages arts. Suing students for having a copy of some
music is hardly encouraging arts.

[stratovarius]

Post by ***@teranews.com
It is interesting to note that the whole idea of copyrights is NOT to
insure that authors get paid for their works but to further the arts for
betterment of society as a whole. The idea is that IF creators are
assured some return to cover costs and give a profit it will encourage
arts in general. But these days it seems as if the whole thing is being
greed-driven (as in the hideous things that Hollywood thinks up with
DVDS) which discourages arts. Suing students for having a copy of some
music is hardly encouraging arts.

I've always wondered how these flat payments are redistributed, is it as
one would expect on the basis of other income form copyrighted
intellectual property (as a gauge of market share) or is it like "I'm
one of 1000 artrists so I get 0.1%"?

[benj]

Post by stratovarius

Post by ***@teranews.com
It is interesting to note that the whole idea of copyrights is NOT to
insure that authors get paid for their works but to further the arts
for betterment of society as a whole. The idea is that IF creators are
assured some return to cover costs and give a profit it will encourage
arts in general. But these days it seems as if the whole thing is being
greed-driven (as in the hideous things that Hollywood thinks up with
DVDS) which discourages arts. Suing students for having a copy of some
music is hardly encouraging arts.

I've always wondered how these flat payments are redistributed, is it as
one would expect on the basis of other income form copyrighted
intellectual property (as a gauge of market share) or is it like "I'm
one of 1000 artists so I get 0.1%"?

Me too! My cynical guess would be it's one of those things where the
money goes in but it doesn't come out, but I don't know that. :)

[stratovarius]

Post by benj

Post by stratovarius

Post by ***@teranews.com
It is interesting to note that the whole idea of copyrights is NOT to
insure that authors get paid for their works but to further the arts
for betterment of society as a whole. The idea is that IF creators are
assured some return to cover costs and give a profit it will encourage
arts in general. But these days it seems as if the whole thing is being
greed-driven (as in the hideous things that Hollywood thinks up with
DVDS) which discourages arts. Suing students for having a copy of some
music is hardly encouraging arts.

I've always wondered how these flat payments are redistributed, is it as
one would expect on the basis of other income form copyrighted
intellectual property (as a gauge of market share) or is it like "I'm
one of 1000 artists so I get 0.1%"?

Me too! My cynical guess would be it's one of those things where the
money goes in but it doesn't come out, but I don't know that. :)

I didn't get that far but really wouldn't see eye-2-eye with any
arrangment other than pro-rata cut to individual and still living
artists against *declared income from other and actual royalty sources*,
the idea being to shed the coat-tail clingons or perhaps even such who
never played a thing in their lives :-)

[Les Cargill]

Post by ***@teranews.com

Post by DrArm

Post by Angus

Post by Benj
5. ALL musicians and music students should be required to send money
periodically to ASCAP and BMI because...well...hey we all KNOW that
sooner or later they are going to be illegally playing some cover
without forking over so they might as well just pay up ahead of time!

You missed one. Here in Canada, when you buy a blank tape or
recordable CD
or DVD, you pay a fee because...well...hey we all KNOW that it's going to be
used to duplicate and share copyright material.
David

The same is true in the US, in fact since the 1950's every time you
bought a tape recorder, you were paying a 4% royalty fee to ASCAP
becxause they all knew that you were going to use the recorder for
copying their music.
Hey, it you dont want people copying "your" music then keep it to
yourself! And as Buttcrack Obama has stated "You didn't create that
product all by yourself anyway" so you don't really have any rights to
it. As far as I'm concerned, if I'm exposed to it, then it is mine and I
dare you to try to take it from me because dem's fightin' words!.

I was just sort of satirically spouting off above, but I'm sure you all
know the issues of "covers" has been settled some time ago. Back in the
day one one COULD get arrested for playing covers! But that was settled
with a fee that all live music venues pay each year to cover the
royalties in general without worrying about sorting out what is played
and what copyrights are being used. But it's the VENUES that pay not the
musicians or students. I was just being mouthy.

Right - see also ASCAP and BMI.

Post by ***@teranews.com
It is interesting to note that the whole idea of copyrights is NOT to
insure that authors get paid for their works but to further the arts for
betterment of society as a whole.

Which is a non-goal if there ever was one. First, "betterment"? Whut?
And "society"? as opposed to what?

This is, IMO, in common with most other things from Ben Franklin's
time, when the General Public was substituted for $DEITY in the
ethics of political governance, to erode the case for Divine Right
Kings.

Post by ***@teranews.com
The idea is that IF creators are
assured some return to cover costs and give a profit it will encourage
arts in general.

Meanwhile, Guitar Center mainly sells to people who never do a
public performance or just "play in a worship band."

That's all about profit, too. And chasing tax loopholes.

Post by ***@teranews.com
But these days it seems as if the whole thing is being
greed-driven (as in the hideous things that Hollywood thinks up with
DVDS) which discourages arts.

It is hard to call a desire to get paid "greed." According to an
interview with the playwright Arthur Miller, it's just
because so much money is now involved that you have a defacto
"winner take all" monopoly. That's the way everything goes
these days.

Meanwhile, Louis C.K. is bucking the system hard, and for now,
winning.

Every person who watched "American Idol" is complicit in this
...noise.

So you can't really lay this at, say, Disney's feet.

Post by ***@teranews.com
Suing students for having a copy of some
music is hardly encouraging arts.

People can't find employment that would better suit them,
so they spend their time bayonetting the wounded.

[Lumpy]

...they [bar owners] "cave" when they accept
"penalties" and imaginary "damages".
You know, courts of law are there to
settle cases of "damages" but
it's about REAL costs...

Bar owners fuck up by knowingly avoiding paying
the ASCAP/BMI license fee because they think
they can get away with it. Do they also cheat
on their income taxes? City/State license fees?
Alcohol permits? How about cheating the customers?
Exactly what point should they stop/start
being dishonest?


Lumpy

[js]

Um, I believe I DID say it was a civil, not criminal case. In fact, that was
the crux of my rant. I also said that they (as well as the "liberal media")
DELIBERATELY confuse the two.

And the reason they don't go after musicians is that musicians don't have
SHIT. They tried that in the late '70's and there were so many fake names
floating around it was ridiculous. So they went after the "deep pockets"


All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but FREE
ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the artist
wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.

If anything, ASCAP/BMI should be paying US.


But I digress...
--
Check out my band, West Eats Meat http://www.myspace.com/westeatsmeat

My Homepage, Back By Popular Demand: http://www.jmsjazz.com

"I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it
comes out."

- Bill Hicks

Post by Benj

Post by js
People seem to confuse "rights organizations" with "copyright
infringement" - which I'm sure is EXACTLY what the corporate overlords of
the music business want I'm sure.
Thing is ASCAP (of which I am a sometime member), BMI etc. have no LEGAL
authority to charge you with copyright violations, other than compensation
for their artists. They are PRIVATE organizations, and as such DO NOT have
the ability on their own to charge you with a crime or to put you in jail,
any more than the Shriners do.

This is is true, unless they are in cahoots with local police (see
example in this thread) but they DO have the ability to sue you as
copyright owners. And it's worse than that, back when, there was an
agreement between bar owners and ASCAP & BMI that made the current
arrangement of fees charged to bar owners that are supposed to be
divided among all member composers. But as it usual in the legal biz,
if some venue is blowing them off for years, they don't just sue for
back fees, but add that mythical "damages" and "penalties" which they
would be hard pressed to prove in court (although banks and gummint do
this all the time which is nothing more than setting fees at whatever
you feel like at the time) but the prospect of heavy duty legal fees
forces bar owners to cave. In this case he paid some back year fees,
which let's face it, he really owed, but they also socked him with
$750 each for three songs just to teach him a lesson. The idea was, of
course, his lawyer would have cost him much more.

Post by js
And I'm sure ASCAP/BMI COULD put together a criminal case if they wanted and
get someone to prosecute. But why bother, when these guys will readily hand
over their money to the schoolyard bully for free?
If it were me, and the place was already losing money, I'd file bankruptcy
rather than pay. Fuck 'em

Actually it's a civil case rather than criminal one. It's about going
against the settlement made some years ago between owners and ASCAP &
BMI. But let me tell you I remember how it was BEFORE this agreement!
In those days the goons used to come after MUSICIANS! Fake books were
totally illegal and you had to keep them really low and hidden at
gigs. You had to keep an eye out for enforcers and if you spotted one,
you had to be sure you played only public domain "standards". Of
course the good news was that in those days copyrights didn't extend
back forever the way they do now. As long as you steered away from pop
hits you were pretty safe if the fake book was kept low level. And
then on top of that there were the Union goons. If you didn't have
union cards they'd hit you up for dues and then hit up the venue for
fees. If you refused to pay, they'd bust up the joint (well, actually
an hour later some OTHER goons would suddenly come in the bar, order a
drink and then start a fight to bust up the joint). Ah! The good old
days! Now the whole hassle has moved onto to bar owners. And in some
cases it couldn't happen to guys more deserving. But you do hate to
see a guy trying to promote live music in his venue raked over the
coals for trying to promote the very copyrighted songs these guys are
using as excuses for extortion. You wouldn't want the old way of
making the bands pay the fees, but since musicians are usually dirt
poor anyway, they went for the "deep pockets" of the venue owners
instead. Decided you can't get blood from a turnip!
Obviously many of these organizations supposedly representing the
interests of musicians and songwriters never heard the tale of the
goose that laid the golden egg.
Benj

[Jim Carr]

Post by js
All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but FREE
ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the artist
wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.

How about looking at it from their perspective? A bunch of talentless hacks
sit around waiting for the *real* musicians to come up with the good songs.
The hacks get paid to do a poor imitation so the local bar can make some
money as well. Every Friday and Saturday night 500 bands around the country
are doing "Play That Funky Music" because they know it will get the crowd
going. And those bastards think they are doing *us* a favor by copying our
music. They think it's a rip-off for a bar owner to pay $5 to $10 per day to
have the rights to a huge catalog of music. What a bunch of cheapskate
freeloaders.

[Mike Rieves]

Post by js
Um, I believe I DID say it was a civil, not criminal case. In fact, that was
the crux of my rant. I also said that they (as well as the "liberal media")
DELIBERATELY confuse the two.
And the reason they don't go after musicians is that musicians don't have
SHIT. They tried that in the late '70's and there were so many fake names
floating around it was ridiculous. So they went after the "deep pockets"
All of which is utterly ridiculous to me as a cover band is nothing but FREE
ADVERTISING for your artist. The band wouldn't be playing them if the artist
wasn't hot, and the artist wouldn't BE hot if his single wasn't in the
moron's faces 24/7. People know what they like and like what they know.
If anything, ASCAP/BMI should be paying US.

The money collected for performance rights at clubs doesn't go to the
artists, it goes to the writers. The whole idea is that the club owners are
supposed to be paying the writers for the right to have bands perform their
songs.

[Lord Valve]

I've heard some cover bands that *ought* tro be sued. Spon Com, for instance...

LV

[Kloka-mo']

Are you making enough $$ of the songs for "the greedy people" to notice?

[ptooner]

Post by ADL
http://www.blogs.oregonlive.com/oregonian//newsupdates/default.asp?item=214112

No, but if you operate a venue for live (or any kindof) music and you don't
get an ASCAP license you can and will be sued. That appears to be the case
here.
Gerry