Posted on 03/12/2003 10:48:04 AM PST by mhking
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.
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.
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.
And without their records to play, radio stations wouldn't have anything to play.
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.
Kill all the lawyers.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. :-)
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.
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%.
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.