Posted on 03/12/2003 10:48:04 AM PST by mhking
Musicians sue South Beach
By JIM McBRIDE
jmcbride@amarillonet.com
Attorneys representing singer-songwriters Madonna and Lenny Kravitz are suing the owner of an Amarillo nightclub, alleging the club infringed on their federal copyrights by playing their songs without authorization.
The copyright infringement suit was filed in federal court March 4 against Scott Williams Elkins and Pickerington Bicycle Club, which operates South Beach, 2600 Linda Circle. The suit says the club is owned by Elkins.
The Globe-News was unable to reach South Beach representatives for comment on the suit Tuesday.
According to the suit, the various plaintiffs secured exclusive rights and privileges to copyrights for various songs.
The suit claims the club infringed on the plaintiffs' copyrights by giving public performances of copyrighted songs on the club premises.
The suit claims the defendants have not sought or obtained a license agreement from the plaintiffs or the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, known as ASCAP, a performing rights licensing organization that the plaintiffs belong to.
Plaintiffs claim ASCAP representatives contacted the defendants and sent numerous letters informing them of their liability under federal copyright law and that the defendants have continued to perform copyrighted music without permission during business hours.
Songs named in the lawsuit include "Justify My Love," written by Madonna Ciccone and Lenny Kravitz; "Erotica," written by Madonna and Shep Pettibone; "Nasty," written by James Harris III and Terry Lewis; and "Get the Party Started," written by Linda Perry.
Plaintiffs are seeking between $750 and $30,000 in damages for each of the five counts of copyright infringement named in the suit.
The suit also asks that the club be barred and permanently restrained from publicly performing the songs named in the suit.
Not true. I buy a CD, and I don't have to pay (yet) the artist an additional fee every time I listen to it, or, for that matter, how many people I have in the car with me. OK... Maybe I'll grant that the only reason I don't have to pay more is because they haven't figured out a way to enforce that (yet)...
In the final analysis, I'm also suspicious that this is all a huge red herring. All of the people that I know that download lots of music as MP3's ALSO have enormous CD collections and have bought copies of just about everything they download. They're into music. They buy music. They download music. Big hairy deal.
I have had many titles on vinyl. I've gone out and bought much of it on CD's to supplant the old vinyl records. But: If I already own the recording, couldn't I download it from the Internet for listening in another format? Do I have to pay for it again as an MP3?
Maybe it's the business model that's the problem.
I'm not saying it would be wrong for them to be able to do it. What I'm saying is that they were never lucky enough to come up with a way to make a dime off it. The business model wasn't there. I'm pretty sure that Rembrandt likely got paid for a painting, and the "performance" of the display of the painting went on for many years and millions of people, without anything going back to him. Is that wrong, or just way it is?
Musicians have been lucky enough to have control over the medium of distribution for a long time now, but that time is over. It's not about right or wrong. It's about the reality of the situation. The business model that has been in place is simply no longer workable. I don't know what will replace it, but whoever comes up with it will be very, very, very wealthy. :-)
Yup. Completely agree. The problem now is defining the words "performance", "permanent", "copy" and who knows how many other terms...
If I have every song ever written available to listen to all of the time wherever I am, so that I never have to bother making my own copy... then this stuff gets just plain wacky.
NOTE: This is merely the dimension of the problem TODAY with today's technology. Just wait a few years. These issues will not get easier to define and understand. They'll get harder, more intricate and complex, and even more impossible to enforce.
That's because you've purchased a private license that allows you unlimited private use. It allows you other rights under copyright law, such as the right to transfer that intellectual property to other media (tape, mp3, etc.), as long as its only used in accordance with private use copyright. It's called "Fair Use."
ASCAP is enforcing payment for public performances, which are not covered by the license you've purchased for personal use. The artists are saying, "If you just want to listen to music in your home, it will cost you this much. If you want to use our music to enhance your business, it will cost you a different amount, depending on what part music plays in your business."
I'm sorry, but what part is unworkable? Despite all the theives -- sorry, "entitled businessmen" -- ASCAP is effective, as the article shows. Recording labels are still making money. Exactly what isn't working? There may be millions of copyright violations every day, but without ASCAP et. al., nobody would be getting paid at all. Seems the balance between theft and policing is working just fine.
I thought ASCAP was in it for the artists, not the labels?
If I play a CD in my home, but it is really a business meeting for my clients and I am using the music to enhance my business, do I owe ASCAP any money?
I don't recall signing that, but I'll take your word for it. You'll probably say something silly like merely buying the CD is agreement to the license. It sort of like sending a check to the city of San Francisco for a dollar, with a inscription "payment in full for the golden gate bridge", then claiming that since they cashed the check it was a sales contract.
Let me cut to the chase here:
The record industry is in a panic now, because they have discovered that they've been selling the wrong thing the whole time. They thought they were selling music, when in fact they were only selling records, and then later CD's. They were selling little pieces of plastic, because nobody's been able to figure out how to make money off of music itself. They only think they're in the music business. No, they're in the little round bits of plastic business, and now nobody really needs the little round bits of plastic anymore.
They're fully correct in being in a panic, but there's a reason that the "R" in RIAA stands for "Recording". It's not the "MIAA", and maybe it should have been.
You should listen to yourself. With a straight face you defend outfits like ASCAP and SESAC. OK EVERYONE, USE THE GOOGLE! Google up ASCAP and SESAC, and see what people have to say about them: racketeering, extortion, price fixing, corruption, etc. Your defense of them is as credible as a New Jersey wiseguy defending a Newark trash hauler.
Your responses show you know these companies and their licesing terms intimately. Then you would also know that if the blanket fee structure were overturned and a pro-rated, per song structure put in place, their extortion racket would collapse.
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.