Posted on 10/30/2010 9:25:25 AM PDT by Reeser
Good plan guys. The music industry has taken a beating, what should we do? I know, let’s come down on the very establishments that are promoting music! Are these guys really this stupid and short sighted?
Essentially correct, Bob, however an individual person must be profiting financially to be tagged like this.
Based on this article, there seems to be a separate license for live music, separate from any juke box or TV considerations. Every establishment that uses live performers won't necessarily have a juke box.
Since when? I've seen it done a thousand times.
Follow the thread awhile, you'll see what's up.
The problem is not enforcing the copyright (which I am in favor of)... it’s that Sweet Home Alabama is now 35+ years old, and if we still had our original (sane) copyright law, it would be in the public domain by now.
I just went and read up on it on Wiki. I fell out of my chair!
Seems like there are a number of folks who get all “share the wealth”-oriented when it comes to a copyright which is part of the life’s work of someone else. My copyrights will go beyond my lifetime and, if they are making any money, that is part of my estate and belongs to my heirs. They are not there to provide free entertainment for a bar owner, radio or TV station or whoever might like to use it.
Hey, if these idiots don’t want people playing their “music”, play something else. See if that helps the author’s revenue.......
Well, it would seem that they are playing the “music” which the folks who are buying the drinks want to hear. It’s simply part of the cost of doing business. If the bar owner would like to maybe he could write and record a boatload of songs which he could offer for free in his joint?
Why should the rules be different today than they’ve been for the last 80 years?
>>>>What if I whistle a tune in public?
If you do that in the presence of an audience, you’d technically need a license.
“Am I just paranoid, or is this as frightening as it sounds?”
Why is everything around here frightening? It’s simply a blip that will require lawsuits and legislative action...on both sides. This is why we have legislative bodies and judicial benches.
Where then is the “rule of law”? If the law says, “Thou shall not infringe the copyright of thy neighbor,” how do you square that with your fears? The law is the law. No?
When they come for my assets I will ask what part of my 1973 trailer park house do they want? I guess they can have the back stairway, since it is falling apart anyway. I will throw in the 1970 B&S lawnmower as well. Looks like the county will get the whole thing in about 18 months anyway. Maybe it will be a battle between the RIAA for my unauthorized Happy Birthday renditions and the county for back payment of taxes. They will have to negotiate with the trailer park for the lot rent. It don't come cheaply around here. One plus is we have a good view of the river which floods every couple of years. This is why the mobile home is all jacked up like it is.
The last 80 years? If I remember correctly, until 1978 a copyright lasted 28 years and was renewable for another 28 if that were done in the last year. Then, it became “life of the writer(s) plus 50 years”. Should the writer and/or artist contribute his life’s work for free use of anyone who wants to sell drinks and keep a crowd in his joint? Radio only plays music to keep people tuned in until they get to the next commercial which is where they make their money. Maybe we should do that for free, too?
“A live performance of two songs has subjected a local bar to a fine of at least $1,500 and potentially as much as $30,000 per tune over alleged copyright violations involved.”
So hire bands with original music.
Hey! Come on now.
I was gettin’ Jiggy wid it! lol :o)
If a plumber fixes your pipes with tools originally stolen by the plumber, the police do not go after you to pay for the stolen tools just because you benefited from them.
Therefore...no surprise that this whole thing does not feel just with the limited amount of information we have been given.
If the musicians are EMPLOYEES of the bar (unlikely), then the bar should pay any legitimate expenses related to the performance. ASCAP should go after the bar.
If the musicians are INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS (usually the case) then the MUSICIANS are responsible to pay for any supplies and tools of their trade that they are using to provide the service. ASCAP should go after the MUSICIANS.
I think it is outrageous that ASCAP gets away with automatically going after the bar. They clearly have a conflict of interest in not wanting to anger musicians, so they pursue an unjust resolution. Democrats.
We have a way of dealing with that request....it involves several of us in the band raising our middle fingers, and yelling back, “here’s your free bird!” The rest of the audience laughs, and we carry on with what we’re going to play, which certainly isn’t that overplayed song. Besides, I’ve never heard a cover band do that song correctly, they all slaughter it, badly.
You raise a good and legitimate point. I think that it could be a contractual matter between the musicians and the owner of the venue. Performers usually have a standard contract.
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.