ASMP Cracks down on Restaurant

[Scott Fraser]

<>

 

I don't see that as clear at all. If I write a song that sells consistently, I want my my wife to be able to collect royalties from my work if I happen to get hit by a truck tomorrow. The value of my work doesn't expire with me. It can pass into the public domain long after my next of kin have shuffled along, just as current copyright law specifies.

 

Scott Fraser

[Justus A. Picker]

I wish to talk about whether the law itself is right. That's all. Is that clear?

Morality and legality are relative. Both embody the concepts of what is right and what is wrong, what is acceptable and what is not. The boundries of morality/legality are agreed upon by societies. Different societies come to different agreements on what is right and what isn't.

 

We, as a society, have agreed on the concept of private propety. What's mine is mine nd you can't have it unless A) I choose to give it to you and/or B) you give me some form of compensation for said property. We've also chosen to agree that property includes intellectual assets, labor and time. My time, labor or intellectual property (or the fruits thereof) can be used by someone else if I chose to allow them to and/or if they compensate me for them in an agreed upon manner. Violations of that social contract are wrong and therefore, by definition, immoral.

 

In societies where all property is agreed to be communal the inverse would be true. Keeping intellectual or physical property to yourself, or using them for personal gain, would be wrong/immoral.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

Whether the man in the article I posted has committed a wrong.

Ahhh...I thought that was pretty clear.

 

He did.thats why hes getting sued.

But I would agree that maybe the size of the lawsuit is a bit extremeand that maybe there should be some first-time leniencywith a smaller fine.

 

 

We're discussing whether the law is "right." Not whether we have the right to break it (we don't) or whether it should be broken. Not what the law is. But whether the law is right. Let's say for example, we were discussing whether people under 21 should be allowed to purchase alcohol. You can't just stop all discussion on it because the law's already set, right?

Yes...IMOthe law is right...since it protects property (yours, mineeveryones).

 

And who's trying to stop you from discussing?

I already said go ahead and discuss...but I do not think you will get anywhere with it.

 

Also...things like the legal drinking age...or speed limits....etc....are NOT the same as your more basic, fundamental, natural laws that have existed in most societies for thousands of years.

One of them being the acknowledgment of property ownership.

 

Here is the Wikipedia definition of property:

 

Property designates those real or intellectual goods that are commonly recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. It is disputed whether the authority of property rights arises from social convention, morality or natural law.

I think what you are really trying to discuss here is whether or not music creation should even be considered as property.

In that regard...there is little left to discuss, since it's been long established that it is...and it has been generally accepted as such by most societies.and certainly by most musicians.

 

But like I said...you go ahead and discuss that angle

though I have not seen much of a discussion on that angle from you

only your points that you wish to be free to discuss it.

 

This is all I found from you:

 

Originally posted by Ricardo_F:

Yet that system itself does not seem the best to me, as it results in dynasties that end up holding a stake in the company only by birthright. And we can mostly agree that it is legally fair, yet it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially when the descendants seem unfit for it.

Now Im a bit puzzled about your comment, it leaves a bad taste in the mouth, especially when the descendants seem unfit for it

what are you getting at?

 

Why shouldnt the descendants have a stake in the property rights?

If your father leaves you the house in his willwould feel it that it would be OK if after a few years you automatically lost ownership of that house?

Or if the government can tell you how much money you can get for selling that house?

 

Like I saidproperty ownership is a natural lawand the minute you try and deviate from itthen you truly WILL be living in the context of socialism!

You obviously hove some ideas/thoughts that would put songs/music in a non-property category.

 

I feel the opposite.

If I or you create itregardless whether its a touchy-feely thing or an intellectual work, like music or any other art formeven if it cant be touchedits STILL property.

[skipclone 1]

I think what some people are trying to get at is that some things that are regarded as private property also have a `fair use` clause, so that I can`t be sued for using my car to give someone a lift, on the basis that I deprived the car companies of a potential customer. Or more to the point, that someone can`t break into my Christmas party with their lawyer because I played a slightly tipsy version of `Grandma got run over by a reindeer` on the acoustic. Now if we`re talking about an established, headlining act which can draw a substantial crowd and therefore controls significant revenue, they can afford to and should be made to follow the laws of the sytem from which they`ve benefitted. What riles some people, perhaps rightly so, is that this same bear trap can be clamped down on a group that`s not even a regular band, playing in front of five people, three of whom are members` girlfriends, for the sheer pleasure of it. The question is, or should be perhaps, should this be considered fair use?

[Gruupi]

I guess part of the issue is that the people driving around town looking for violators live cover music aren't in it for the music and aren't the ones who have created or developed the music. They are basicly in it for money and are far removed from the initial creation. This isn't to say that they don't have legitimate claims to enforce, but they can be extreme and somewhat unreasonable. It has become a racket, I bet not much of that money goes to the original songwriters. It all gets taken up by the vultures and middlemen.

 

I do believe that the bar owners should have to pay royalties and that someone has to enforce the laws. But the system we have now only benifits the large publishers and not the artists on both ends of the spectrum. There ought to be a better way of accounting other than number of seats in an establishment as we all know bars are almost never full on weekdays.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

...that this same bear trap can be clamped down on a group that`s not even a regular band, playing in front of five people, three of whom are members` girlfriends, for the sheer pleasure of it.

No...I belive that bear trap would be clamped down on the establishment that they are performing in...and not the "group".

 

And I assume we are talking about "for profit" establishments...and not just performing in someone's basement.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

[QB] I guess part of the issue is that the people driving around town looking for violators live cover music aren't in it for the music and aren't the ones who have created or developed the music. They are basicly in it for money and are far removed from the initial creation.

NO they are not removed from it...as they are protecting the property rights of the creator!

 

They are not pocketing the money!

 

You could just as well say that cops patrolling your neighborhood are only in it for the bust...and they are not really doing it for your safety.

[skipclone 1]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

...that this same bear trap can be clamped down on a group that`s not even a regular band, playing in front of five people, three of whom are members` girlfriends, for the sheer pleasure of it.

No...I belive that bear trap would be clamped down on the establishment that they are performing in...and not the "group".

 

And I assume we are talking about "for profit" establishments...and not just performing in someone's basement.

Even if the esteblishment if `for profit`-if the performance is not, by any reasonable financial measure (usually the owner bitching and whining), should it not be considered fair use? If there`s no actual profit realized it`s four walls and beer.

In fact there`s a question-what about benefit shows? Is money that`s meant for charitable causes going to these groups instead?

[JeffLearman]

Originally posted by Bbach1:

Originally posted by miroslav:

...but here's another perspective.

 

If the only way a band can make any money (and the bar owner too) is by playing well known cover music that specifically attracts a crowd...

...then the reality is THEY are making money off the copyrighted material.

While that might be true, in what way does that take money out of the hands of the recording artist or record company? In fact, it may embellish sales if a bar patron decides they want an orginal copy of the music.

That's the greed factor I believe Craig is speaking of. Perhaps all that should be required is that you identify the original artist.

While on that subject, if you change the song is it ok then?

It's taking money out of the pockets of people who make a living by coming up with ideas (compositions) and selling the rights to use those ideas. If anyone could use their ideas without paying them, they'd be out of a job; they'd starve or give up composing and flip burgers.

 

Do you believe that songwriters should be paid for their efforts?

 

If so, by whom? Only big stars? Or perhaps by anyone making money off their work? Venues fall into the latter category. So do cover bands, but fortunately the venue foots the bill, passing it on to the customers (just as they pass on the cost of the band).

 

The law (intellectual property rights laws) also apply to cases where nobody's making any money, but fortunately there aren't copyright police stalking the beaches and listening in you living room and slapping a fine each time you play a cover. (There is also a certain amount of lattitude allowed under the "fair use" clause, which I won't go into.) But if you record it and post it for free on the internet, you just might be at risk (or the site where you post it might be).

 

Someone mentioned YouTube, where we find numerous flagrant violations. I suspect it'll get hammered for this, though I don't really see it as a threat to most property rights owners. Quite the opposite: we get a chance to see stuff we might actually want a high-res copy of, which we go buy. If I was selling music DVDs, I'd want it to get popular on YouTube! But I bet the RIAA takes a different attitude and they'll get hammered. (IMHO, RIAA goes way too far trying to protect what they think is their members' best interests.)

[ThisSiteSucks]

Wow, what a topic!

 

In line with someone asking about a DJ, what about the billions of bars around the world with a jukebox.

 

Is artist getting a payback on that????

[Trucks]

I thought the law was if you are having cover acts or radio or cd players or whatever in your resteraunt you have to pay like a one off or monthly licencing fee... Im in 2 minds about it... one side says its total BS and they are money grabbing mofo's, the other says its a fair cop because its a broad licence that allows you to play 'music'.. not just a specific song or set list.

 

I dont think buskers should be charged a licence fee because thats just effin rediculous... Its an individual either trying to get some beer/crack money together or build up some confidence or just y'know.... have a good time....

 

But if a registered business wants to entice his customers into his establishment and keep them there spending $$$ by adding some good music to the atmosphere, then hell... Make the business pay... There aint nothin free in this place and if Ronald McDonald thinks he can make more dough out of playing one of my tunes then the red haired freak gots ta pay or y'know man, he can get an original band in and pay them directly.

 

Dont see the big deal.

[JeffLearman]

Sunday I was in Washington Square Park sitting in on mandolin with a singer/guitarist and a couple of harmonica players, doing scores of old tunes from lyric sheets with chords.

 

So far at least, that's legal to do without paying, ain't it??

Ignoring public performance licence (which is a local matter), this is not legal. However, it's not a crime, it's a civil matter, like breaking a contract. It's up to the injured party to take you to court, and not for the police to bust you.

 

However, the injured party can get a legal injunction, leading to the police showing up and locking the doors if you fail to comply, as most likely happened in the case mentioned above. The cops won't just show up because the owner didn't pay. They show up because ASCAP sued and got an order from a judge, and the venue ignored the court order. (Well, either that or there was hanky-panky involved. The authorities don't always follow the law.)

 

 

I think skipclone summarized the ethical issue pretty well in his second post above this, beginning "I think what some people ...".

 

He makes the distinction between for-profit and non-profit. However, posting a song on the internet for free, distributing it to millions, is also non-profit. But is it ethical?

 

Frankly, I post covers on the internet, but I serve the file on my own site or else do it where permitted (e.g., soundclick has a covers section that might be legal -- I don't know but you get the idea.) If any copyright owner asks me to remove it, I will be happy to comply. Meanwhile, my renditions aren't drawing any sales away. IMHO, I'm on an ethical gray line here, but I don't lose any sleep about it. In some cases I've tried to contact authors but with no luck.

 

I did contribute to a cover of Mercy Mercy Mercy where the leader actually did exchange email with Josef Zawinul, who gave him permission and was very cool in general. That was for a high school project, though, so qualifies under Fair Use anyway. But it's nice to know that Joe was cool about it!

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Rootstonian:

Wow, what a topic!

 

In line with someone asking about a DJ, what about the billions of bars around the world with a jukebox.

 

Is artist getting a payback on that????

Yes. Jukeboxes have their own schedule of licensing fees from each of the rights organizations.

 

Originally posted by skipclone 1:

...Even if the esteblishment if `for profit`-if the performance is not, by any reasonable financial measure (usually the owner bitching and whining), should it not be considered fair use? If there`s no actual profit realized it`s four walls and beer.

In fact there`s a question-what about benefit shows? Is money that`s meant for charitable causes going to these groups instead?

First, that's a really slippery slope you're suggesting, Skip. If a bar could keep the fees down by claiming little or no profit then they'd make sure they never made that much profit unless it was clear they would obliterate the cutoff level for "fair use". Who is going to decide where that level is and how the heck are they going to monitor every bar to get paid if and when the bar reaches the cutoff? In fact, creating that additional level of beauracracy would probably cost the venues more money than the current system, where they pay based on their expected capacity.

[Justus A. Picker]

In line with someone asking about a DJ, what about the billions of bars around the world with a jukebox.

 

Is artist getting a payback on that????

Yep.They actually get a more accurate count of what's played and who is owed what from jukeboxes than they do from cover bands. The majority of jukeboxes are owned by a third party who buys the ASCAP/BMI license places the jukebox in the bar/restaurant and then splits the take with the establishment.

 

Today, with an increasing number of jukeboxes connected to remote servers that hold an huge number tunes it is far more likely that obscure regional acts are getting their fair share of the pie.

[Eric Iverson]

Originally posted by learjeff:

Sunday I was in Washington Square Park sitting in on mandolin with a singer/guitarist and a couple of harmonica players, doing scores of old tunes from lyric sheets with chords.

 

So far at least, that's legal to do without paying, ain't it??

Ignoring public performance licence (which is a local matter), this is not legal. However, it's not a crime, it's a civil matter, like breaking a contract. It's up to the injured party to take you to court, and not for the police to bust you.

 

However, the injured party can get a legal injunction, leading to the police showing up and locking the doors if you fail to comply, as most likely happened in the case mentioned above. The cops won't just show up because the owner didn't pay. They show up because ASCAP sued and got an order from a judge, and the venue ignored the court order. (Well, either that or there was hanky-panky involved. The authorities don't always follow the law.)

 

 

I think skipclone summarized the ethical issue pretty well in his second post above this, beginning "I think what some people ...".

 

He makes the distinction between for-profit and non-profit. However, posting a song on the internet for free, distributing it to millions, is also non-profit. But is it ethical?

 

Frankly, I post covers on the internet, but I serve the file on my own site or else do it where permitted (e.g., soundclick has a covers section that might be legal -- I don't know but you get the idea.) If any copyright owner asks me to remove it, I will be happy to comply. Meanwhile, my renditions aren't drawing any sales away. IMHO, I'm on an ethical gray line here, but I don't lose any sleep about it. In some cases I've tried to contact authors but with no luck.

 

I did contribute to a cover of Mercy Mercy Mercy where the leader actually did exchange email with Josef Zawinul, who gave him permission and was very cool in general. That was for a high school project, though, so qualifies under Fair Use anyway. But it's nice to know that Joe was cool about it!

My take on it is, if the public performance is for money, it's one thing... fair enough.. bar owners should pay their due. Should band members contribute? Maybe... depends on the situation!

 

But for it to be a legal issue to sit around in a park and sing songs you like with your friends... I have a problem with that!

 

Didn't most of us get our start playing with our buddies, in parks or apartments, singing songs we liked.. mostly written by others??

 

PS Do you think that Paul McCartney and Bob Dylan OBJECT to the fact that people sit around in parks playing tunes they wrote 30 or 40 years ago??

[skipclone 1]

Yup-how many McCartneys or Dylans never would have even got started if they had to worry about legal/financial consequences every time they got together with other people to jam on songs they all knew.

[picker]

Originally posted by A String:

How is the record company losing money because some local cover band is playing a Hendirx tune in some local restaurant? They aren't. They are just being money grubbing scum.

What about the Hendrix estate? They are the ones who get the royalty money, not Reprise Records, who initially recorded and distributed Hendrix's music. That's the issue, really, who gets the money. The artists are the ones who get most of the royalty monies, although the record companies may get a piece if they were draconian enough to demand it as part of their contract.

[Scott Fraser]

<>

 

Reprise gets mechanical royalties on each Hendrix record sold or downloaded. That's separate from songwriting & publishing, which is owned by the Hendrix family. A cover recording of a Hendix tune will generate composer's & publisher's revenue for the Hendrix family, but nothing for Reprise, since they only have rights to the actual sound recording of Hendrix playing the original version.

 

<>

 

Some record labels have forced contracts demanding a share of the publishing from new unestablished acts, even though publishing is not in the purview of a record label's job description. It's not by any means a given, though, & certainly an established artist will have the leverage to strike any such elements from a recording contract.

 

Scott Fraser