Posted on 01/26/2005 3:01:13 PM PST by Brian Mosely
Napster II?
So many ASCAP violations, so little time. I'm guessing most infractions are the dad at home looking to set his home movies or wedding photos to music, the church of 100 that throws together a 30 second video to promote donations to their favorite missionary, school teachers who put together a graduation video for their senior class, and millions of clips from personal websites. And most of these folks do this innocently - without even knowing it's a violation.
It's probably something as simple as the business playing the radio or jukebox without paying ASCAP their "fee"...
I own a couple of health clubs. And just two hours ago an ASCAP rep called me to "sell" me on membership.
Although I didn't admit it to him, we use downloaded music over the intercom.
(BearShare)
http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=10&screen=newsprint&news_id=38769
Wolfy’s sued by ASCAP
By Chris Lewis, clewis@nashvillecitypaper.com
January 25, 2005
Wolfy’s, a lower Broadway restaurant and bar, was sued by the performing rights organization ASCAP Monday for failing to pay royalties for music played in the nightclub over the past several years.
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Nashville after attempting for several years to collect payment from Wolfy’s, said Vincent Candilora, ASCAP’s Nashville-based senior vice president of licensing.
“We went in there literally 10, 15 times, and they keep just kind of thumbing their nose at us. This is what will happen eventually,” Candilora said.
Wolfy’s owners, Robert Wolf and Grey Wolf Productions, could not be reached for comment Monday. Several phone calls placed to the establishment went unanswered.
The suit was one of 24 copyright infringement actions ASCAP filed Monday against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 15 states and the District of Columbia.
The suits allege that the establishments have publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP’s member songwriters, composers and music publishers without permission.
ASCAP collects royalties on 8 million copyrighted songs and compositions on behalf of its more than 200,000 members.
Candilora said ASCAP filed the suits simultaneously to garner widespread attention of the seriousness of businesses honoring licensing agreements.
ASCAP is one of three U.S. performing rights organizations (PROs), including BMI and SESAC, that are entitled by law to collect royalties on publicly performed works.
Because of the complications in tracking each song played in each establishment, the PROs issue blanket licenses to businesses based on factors such as the size of the venue and whether they use live or recorded music.
The licenses, which club owners typically sign with each PRO, entitle them to unlimited use of the PRO’s entire catalog. Candilora said the typical license amounts to about $2 per day.
Candilora said ASCAP first signed a license agreement with Wolfy’s in 1995, but cancelled the license in 1999 for non-payment of fees.
He said ASCAP officials made several attempts to collect the money and re-establish the license. Candilora said the lawsuit was the last resort.
“Wolfy’s [is] right here in Nashville and a lot of our writers perform there. And they do some showcases,” Candilora said. “So we tried to work with them and tried to explain to them that this is a very high-profile writer community. But when they continue to say, ‘Hey, sue me,’ what are you going to do?”
Candilora said he couldn’t think of any other Nashville establishment that ASCAP has sued in eight or nine years.
“I would say it is very rare that we have to resort to any type of legal action in Nashville, because they’re probably more aware and educated than users in other cities, just because of the profile of Music City, U.S.A.,” he said.
ASCAP claims that during 2004 it achieved a 100 percent success rate with its copyright infringement litigation, either through settling the cases or winning favorable judgments in court.
I'm a member of ASCAP. The thing the public doesn't understand is that people who write music usually do so as a way of making a living.
Suppose that after working for a week and it came time for your paycheck, you were told that you wouldn't get one because the people who were supposed to pay for the service that you had preformed, didn't pay your company?
No, not Napster II. This kind of litigation has been going on for a very long time, and it's cut-and-dry. If a bar or restaurant or store or any other public place of business plays music to their customers in the normal course of business, they're obligated to pay royalties to ASCAP. In turn, ASCAP distributes the royalties to the songwriters; I'm sure they use a sampling system in determining which songwriters get paid.
MM
I recall years ago sitting in a neighborhood watering hole and an ASCAP guy called the owner over and pointed at the Stereo speakers on either side of the bar. The place never had "entertainment", but the owner would put the radio on during the day. The ASCAP guy said that if he was playing music in the joint through more than one speaker, even though it was from broadcast radio, he had to pay a fee. The owner told him to get lost, but after talking to his attorney, took down one of the speakers. The ASCAP guy had the law on his side.
Precisely - evidently the new laws extend to playing a recording in public for customers. So even if one has paid for the CD previously, one cannot play it in public without paying additional fees.
My brother makes a living and performing music, he's a member of ASCAP, and I have recorded with him on multiple occasions with at least 100,000 copies sold. I have a dog in this fight, and I'm telling you THIS move is motivated by greed. This move to "lock down" the performance of pre-recorded music will put the final nail in the coffin of already-dying industry, and those artists who wish to stay in business should look to the alternatives already out there.
I'd rather put the product out there independently that to do it as part of a "cartel" of greedy corporate suits who have no interest in music as an art. And one CAN MAKE A LIVING outside the machine... it all depends on live performances in small-medium venues, as well as independent sales on the internet.
Do you believe that the songwriters receive any additional money from each ASCAP contract with these establishments? Not 1 cent of the money they collect goes to the songwriter in almost all situations. Being a songwriter, I have looked into this several times. This is why we songwriters are so poor. We don't get money from the "catalog houses" who are virtually the only ones who will purchase songs these days.
I thought you could play AM in an establishment but not FM. I may be wrong but he could have use that excuse.
It's probably something as simple as the business playing the radio or jukebox without paying ASCAP their "fee"...
I doubt it. ASCAP gets paid by the respective companies for radio and jukebox play.
It is live cover bands that ASCAP is worried about.
this also applies to music performed live by a band doing covers.
not primarily music being played over the radio alone.
just because you buy the sheet music to 'stairway to heaven' does not mean you can play it in public, by note or by lyrics without paying a fee to the ascap.
and it's baloney.
know several 'live music' clubs that have been burned on 'covers'.
most restaraunts now no longer sing, 'happy birthday' using the traditional tune... and yes I understand that the brownies organization got burned for some camp fire songs.
wow.
I don't quite get this. Is ASCAP seriously cracking down on the owner of a gym who plays his favorite CDs over the business's stereo while people work out? Or the bar owner who, when his juke box is broken, plays the CD player? Or even if he turns on the radio?
That is all illegal? If so, that's news to EVERYONE not among members of ASCAP and their lawyers. I can see charging radio stations, because they profit by selling ads between the songs they play and attract listeners. Your average dive or gym that plays music is not drawing people in for that reason. To charge them for what amounts to free advertising for their artists is completely stupid.
If they insist on pressing this, perhaps bar owners can play 29 seconds of a song, like talk-show hosts do as bumper music, and then just go on to the next song. Or, even better. Play 29 seconds of a song (to slide under the legal limbo bar), pause 3 seconds, play the next 29 seconds. Repeat until song is over.
Artists should be paid for their craft if it's used by a political campaign (Lord knows that Fleetwood Mac made a bundle off Clinton). Or as a jingle on TV to sell a car. Or played in one of those giant nightclubs in the big cities. And, of course, they are paid when it is recorded, and when it is played by a radio station (which, again, is DIRECTLY profiting from their art). But to nickel and dime and harass bar owners who just want to provide appropriate background music for their patrons is insanely dumb.
From what I understood, it was anything more than one speaker. But you could be right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.