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. ASCAP and BMI have enforced their copyrights, legitimately, for nearly as long as there has been recorded music.
I think it's great... slowly but surely, Hollywood and music are starting to lose their financial incentive to poison the minds of our children.
Geesh you sound like the looters from Atlas Shrugged. Scary.
"Any profit the establishment makes from the music being played should be offset by the exposure the music gets to potential purhcasers. This isn't the same as making copies of a product and handing it out for free."
Would the restaurants, bars, and clubs have the same atmosphere and draw the same number of patrons without the music?
Of course not, but would they have the same atmosphere if they didin't have lights, toilets or a floor? Should the toilet manufacturer get a yearly fee for the use of the tolilet? I mean, the owner purchased it and is undercutting the toilet maker by allowing public use of it, right? I see no real difference.
Could your being from Nashville have something to do with your unusual attitude? Maybe a proprietary interest?
So9
That's not what the copyright law says. The recordings are sold for private use only, no public performance, same as videotapes.
How about if I rented a DVD and showed the movie at my coffee house or bar? "Come see free movies every night!" I could say. And I'd make more money, because people who wouldn't come to buy my coffee WILL come to see a movie and THEN buy my coffee.
It doesn't matter whether you're directly charging for the product or not. You're enhancing your profits by using someone else's work. If you don't like their work, or think it's too much, do the capitalist thing and turn it off.
You're wrong. Read the copyright law. Public performance is a specific right of the statute, a right possessed by the copyright owner, not you.
Drunk cowboys don't sing nasty, it just sounds that way.
So9
I guess that's a nice idea, but that's not the law. You're free to disagree with the law, but don't be surprised when ASCAP comes and tells you to either buy a license or shut down. They have the law on their side.
I fully admit my vested interest, but that doesn't change what the law says, does it?
If I am privately listening to my music at work am I expected to afirmatively prevent others from easedropping?
This is preposterous bullsh!t on a level with the International Olympic Comittee using their copyright on the word "Olympic" to shut down Greek restaurants that have the word in the title. These are perhaps correct in law, but they are laws that need changing.
So9
There's no point in arguing this if you're going to be absurd. If toilets came under the scope of copyright law, maybe you'd have a point.
Sheesh.
It depends. Are you imposing a cover charge for people visiting your cubicle?
I fully admit my vested interest, but that doesn't change what the law says, does it?
You pick and choose, based upon your wallet, what issues you will be "libertarian" on, I see.
Sorry to hear that.
No, but that's not what's happening here, is it? What is happening is the club is playing the recordings with the intention of it being public, for the purpose of enhancing their business. Why are you entitled to make money from someone else's work?
I am not arguing against what the law says. I am trying to show that the argument that "music creates an atmosphere in which the establishment profits" is bogus because there are many consumer products and raw material which create the same "atmosphere" that music does. You can take anyone and say, "see without 'x', they wouldn't profit as much".
It depends. Are you imposing a cover charge for people visiting your cubicle?
I certainly charge people a fee for sitting in my office. Is that a cover charge? Does ASCAP try to collect from surgeons who play music in the operating room?
Every time ASCAP files a stupid suit like this they convince more people of the necessity of rewriting the copyright laws. You are digging your own graves for pennies.
So9
I'm Gillette. I make razors. In order to let people know I have a new product, I send out a bunch of freebies. Of course, I'll never make money if I give it away free all the time, so I have to charge sometimes too. It's up to me when I charge or give them away.
What people around here are saying is that, just because you're allowed to hear something on the radio without paying for it, the music should always be free. You should be able to open a business that profits from that music without paying for it.
Just like any other business, it's my choice when I give away my goods or services gratis and when I don't. And copyright law makes it pretty clear that public performance of these materials is not one of those gratis moments.
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.