Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Musicians sue South Beach (Nightclub sued for playing music)
Amarillo Globe-News ^ | 3.12.03 | Jim McBride

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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: mdm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-175 next last
To: mhking
Retail stores are subject to this same requirement.

If you're playing it to your customers and you aren't paying for it then you are in trouble. Realistically though, your chances of being caught are slim.

Ever wonder why department stores play that awful muzak? That's why.

61 posted on 03/12/2003 3:58:49 PM PST by Jhoffa_ (Yes, there is sexual tension between Sammy & Frodo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: proxy_user
"Ladies and gentlemen, the next selection will be Schubert's 'Arpeggione' sonata. This is the 1941 performance by Emmanuel Feuermann...

Actually, a 2003 recording of any public domain music would be just fine, since performance copyright applies only to the music, not to the particular performance embodied on the recording.

BTW, this is one of the reasons Great White wasn't doing well financially even before the fire: since their two top-40 recordings were covers of other people's music, they received no radio airplay royalties.

62 posted on 03/12/2003 4:44:14 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
I oppose a certain portion of the copyright law - a portion you apparently support because you profit from the law.

I support that part of the copyright law because I believe it is right. My support does not reside only with positions I have a stake in, thus my support of ending the war on drugs.

63 posted on 03/12/2003 4:54:34 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FrankR
It was, and still is, my contention that records would go nowhere without radio exposure

And without their records to play, radio stations wouldn't have anything to play.

64 posted on 03/12/2003 4:58:10 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: eno_
You obviously disagree with the copyright laws, but to say they are bought and paid for is simply a desperate attempt to undermine the validity of the law. The law is very valid. Notwithstanding your desire to benefit without compensation to the people enhancing your business, it's good law.
65 posted on 03/12/2003 5:04:18 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: eno_
restaurants could play non-ASCAP music and then sue the hell out of the ASCAP agent personally for all kinds of things and ruin them financially.

That's exactly what you should do. Don't play anything affiliated with ASCAP.

But if you do play something affiliated with ASCAP, by doing so, you are necessarily agreeing to their terms or you are playing their music illegally.

P.S. I'm puzzled thinking about what you would sue the ASCAP agents for.

66 posted on 03/12/2003 5:10:03 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: mhking
There is a solution to this and other problems like this.

Kill all the lawyers.

67 posted on 03/12/2003 5:26:02 PM PST by fifteendogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: supercat
In that case, I'll have the Rostropovich/Britten. Britten does wonderful things with the piano part, and Rostropovich is greatly underrated as a cellist.
68 posted on 03/12/2003 5:38:16 PM PST by proxy_user
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
Retail stores are subject to this same requirement.

With one notable exception: stores which sell music are allowed to play the music they sell on their PA systems without royalties or permission. IIRC, the store does not have to sell only music or even primarily music, but they must sell enough of the music that they're playing to make a bona fide claim that they are playing the music to enhance sales of the music (rather than just sales in general).

69 posted on 03/12/2003 6:03:43 PM PST by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
P.S. I'm puzzled thinking about what you would sue the ASCAP agents for.

ASCAP and its agents have been successfully sued under racketeering statutes.

Google up ASCAP. They are an extortion racket. A mafia.

they have been known to target businesses that post signs prohibiting musicians playing ASCAP tunes.

That's extortion. These are people that deserve to have mafia tactics used against them.

70 posted on 03/12/2003 6:20:51 PM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
"And without their records to play, radio stations wouldn't have anything to play."

Sooooo...which came first, the chicken or the egg?
71 posted on 03/12/2003 6:53:26 PM PST by FrankR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Google up ASCAP. They are an extortion racket. A mafia.

And if there weren't so many unrepentant theives, they wouldn't have developed that way.

ASCAP has been taken to terms for their methods a number of times, yes. But most of the time, they protect the copyrights of thousands of small songwriters, composers, and publishers who often have only their royalties to show as income.

In this case, we had a nightclub -- a place that makes money from selling drinks in an atmosphere of MUSIC and dancing -- ignoring repeated requests for the club to pay the songwriters for the performance of their work (notice, Kravitz and Ciccone are listed as songwriters in the case, not as recording artists). As a dance club, their business atomosphere *depended* upon music -- come for the dancing, buy the drinks while you're there....

When they felt too good to pay for something they made money with, and continued to ignore ASCAP, ASCAP sued. And I think they're in the right this time.

72 posted on 03/12/2003 7:35:57 PM PST by Anchoragite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Anchoragite
ASCAP may have been right in this case. Even a mafioso is right sometimes.

However, if the club had been owned by a thug who had the ASCAP agent's legs broken, ask me if I would have cared.

73 posted on 03/12/2003 7:58:19 PM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: eno_
ASCAP and its agents have been successfully sued under racketeering statutes.

If you can post me a link to the case, I'd like to see it. If I "Google up" ASCAP, no doubt I'd get a lot of anti-ASCAP ranting on blogs from people like you who just don't see anything wrong with using someone's product without paying for it.

they have been known to target businesses that post signs prohibiting musicians playing ASCAP tunes.

Huh? What businesses post signs prohibiting the playing of ASCAP tunes? Why would ASCAP go after them if they were consciously abstaining from playing the songs ASCAP represents? You're talking utter nonsense.

74 posted on 03/12/2003 8:08:24 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
Well, I for one am not against copyright as a legal construct, but it's high time for ASCAP and RIAA to realize that they are the candlemakers at the dawn of the electric light. The world doesn't need them anymore.

More to the point: Artists don't need them any more. THAT is what they are really afraid of. Any artist or band that wants to distribute their music to the whole planet no longer needs an industry group or a record company to do it.

This actually has little to do with artists getting paid for their talent. It has to do with all of the parasites that make money off of musicians, that are seeing the end of their gravy train.
75 posted on 03/12/2003 8:14:01 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: eno_
ASCAP may have been right in this case.

ASCAP was right in this case and this case is no aberration.

Copyright owners have the sole discretion to allow or disallow the public performance of their music. ASCAP is an agency that represents copyright owners in that specific area. I don't understand what's so complicated about this issue?

76 posted on 03/12/2003 8:15:31 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
it's high time for ASCAP and RIAA to realize that they are the candlemakers at the dawn of the electric light. The world doesn't need them anymore. More to the point: Artists don't need them any more.

I always see posts like this from people who are obviously not in any way involved in the music industry. This assertion is just laughable. I don't know any major artist who would prefer to do all the work that ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA, and the Harry Fox Agency does for them.

77 posted on 03/12/2003 8:18:18 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: tdadams
I always see posts like this from people who are obviously not in any way involved in the music industry. This assertion is just laughable. I don't know any major artist who would prefer to do all the work that ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA, and the Harry Fox Agency does for them.

Hehehe... OK. Stay tuned. We shall see. I'm curious... of the total gross for a "major artist", how much does the Artist really see? ...and how much of the take goes to ASCAP, BMI, the RIAA and the Harry Fox Agency (whoever they are)?

Marketing is overrated. Get used to it. :-)

78 posted on 03/12/2003 8:24:20 PM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
This actually has little to do with artists getting paid for their talent. It has to do with all of the parasites that make money off of musicians, that are seeing the end of their gravy train.

I only wish you knew how wrong you are. ASCAP has been in the business of collecting performance royalties for almost 90 years. Their monitoring and enforcement has always been vigilant. They are in essence hired to represent the interests of their clients and they do it well. There's nothing wrong with that.

If anyone's methods and practices are questionable, it's the establishments that play copyrighted music to bring in customers, enhancing their profits, but refuse to compensate the people who make the music that brings them customers.

You seem to suggest that ASCAP has stepped up collection efforts in some kind of last-hurrah effort to cash in before MP3s finish them off. That's just silly.

79 posted on 03/12/2003 8:26:06 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Ramius
I'm curious... of the total gross for a "major artist", how much does the Artist really see?

Well, assuming the "artist" is also the songwriter (i.e. the copyright owner represented by ASCAP et al), he would pay ASCAP and BMI just five percent. He would collect 95% of his allocation. If he were affiliated with SESAC, his share would be 50%.

80 posted on 03/12/2003 8:30:07 PM PST by tdadams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-175 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson