This copywrite stuff is getting out of hand

[Cock Puncher]

Read the bold portion:

http://www.theindychannel.com/enter...670/detail.html

Lawsuit Seeks To Silence Indy Karaoke Bar
Agency Claims Bar Didn't Pay Licensing Fees

INDIANAPOLIS -- A music licensing agency that represents singers such as Sheryl Crow and Dolly Parton has filed a federal copyright lawsuit that could silence karaoke nights in central Indiana.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Broadcast Music Inc. alleges an eastside bar violated copyright laws by hosting karaoke and live music shows without paying licensing fees to use popular songs.
New York-based BMI is a performance rights organization that collects license fees on behalf of songwriters when their music is played on radio, TV, the Internet, or is performed publicly.

The lawsuit claims that Parrotheads Bar and Grill failed to pay licensing fees for using songs such as "God Bless the USA," and "Old Time Rock and Roll."
Parrotheads would likely have to pay annual license fees of about $1,000, said Jerry Bailey, a spokesman for BMI.

Besides the bar, the lawsuit names former owner Gary S. Neumann and Triple L. Inc. as defendants.
Neumann was out of town, his wife said Wednesday when The Associated Press called seeking comment. There was no number for Triple L. Inc. in Indianapolis listings. The phone at Parrotheads rang unanswered.
The lawsuit lists as plaintiffs songwriters, a trust for the late Sonny Bono and several publishing companies.

"People think music is free, but it is not. This is how songwriters make a living," Bailey said.

"These businesses are using the music to draw in people to eat and drink," he added.

Scores of nightclubs and restaurants in Indianapolis play music without paying licensing fees, and the lawsuit could lead some to reconsider karaoke and live music shows, The Indianapolis Star reported.

"Everyone will be watching to see how this turns out," said disc jockey Justin Posav, of GTI Sounds in Noblesville. "Many of them view BMI like the police."
Though restrictions on playing music have been eased by lawmakers in recent years, there is still widespread disagreement about how the laws work, said John Livengood, executive director of the Restaurant and Hospitality Association of Indiana.

"This has been a constant source of friction," Livengood said. Many bar owners and restaurateurs "feel if they buy a CD they should have a right to play it," he said.

The BMI lawsuit was filed the same day the recording industry sued hundreds of individual music lovers accused of illegally downloading and sharing songs over the Internet.

Both lawsuits underscore the music industry's increasing aggressiveness in protecting copyrights.



WTF? So I guess when we buy CD's we're just supposed to hang them on the wall and look at them now...

[Hey Bubu]

You can play them as long as they are for personal use only. It's all about lincensing fees.

Essentially what they are trying to do is make juke boxes and cover bands illegal. Juke boxes and cover bands are an easy, cheap form of advertising for artists. I guess the record companies aren't concerned with record sales anymore, they are now so focused on the "principal" of this issue, that they've let it get out of hand.

They (the record industry) has become so focused on proving they are right, they have forgotten what they were argueing about.

Like, I've said before, they are winning the battles, but they will eventually lose this war.

Hell. . .what's next? Are they going to crack down on church choir's who sing technically licensed songs every Sunday? Many churches use their choirs to draw worshipers, who donate money in the offering plate. So this is theoretically a viloation of a licensing fee, since the churches are making money off the songs. Not just talking about "old time hymns" here, lots of churches are playing pop music now-a-days.

[johnny861]

patents have also gotten way out of hand....


People are patenting mathmatical algorthyms now...

This is only going to burden technological/ scientific progress


patents / licensing (not all though)

[hepkatmama]

Originally posted by designbydance
Essentially what they are trying to do is make juke boxes and cover bands illegal. Juke boxes and cover bands are an easy, cheap form of advertising for artists.

they aren't trying to make playing music illegal.

they just want to pay the artists that created that music.

i just joined ASCAP last month (who is like BMI) because i got a couple of songs pressed on vinyl coming out soon.

now first let me say that i create music cause i love it. none of the producers pay me vocal fees.

i get paid thru advance checks (when distributors pick of the track) & royalty %. the royalties are paid by groups like BMI & ASCAP who get the $$ from the record company for the records we sell and ALSO get $$ from licensers (like the karaoke bar or cover band or radio station who plays my song). so my % is based on the records sold AND how many ppl pay licensing to play the song in public.

this is how songwriters live. i used my very first advance check to get my electricity turned back on.

it is not a whole lot of money. i'm told to expect a monthly check sometimes as low as $7 or less. if the song doesn't hit, the checks will eventually end unless someone pays to relicense it.



look at it this way. i was a newspaper writer for years. if someone reprinted my story & didn't give me credit or pay me for it... it would be plagerism. i could sue them. with BMI & ASCAP they sue for me if someone is using my words without paying me for it.

most clubs (& places with jukeboxes) pay monthly licensing to someone like BMI or ASCAP. who then divies it up & gives it back to the artists.

this way the artist can focus on art & let them keep up with the $$ & legal stuff.


u said that letting ppl hear the music is cheap advertising for the artist, but publicity doesn't get the electricity turned on. girl hasta pay the bills even if she's popular.

[KiloWatts]

To be honest, I have no problem with the fact that BMI is taking action like this, because it's the way it was supposed to have been done in the first place.

They probably would've been sued 10 years ago for the same thing - has nothing at all to do with the music industry's increasing agressiveness.

However, it's being lumped in together with the "Music Industry Demon" image due to all the RIAA lawsuits against downloaders and copyright infringement. That makes me somewhat glad, simply because it puts more focus on the fact that the RIAA are losing their minds.

My view still remains that mp3s and downloading are a brilliant promotional tactic, and just like the mother-effing radio. However, when one plays these songs out in public, either at a venue to draw people in and make more money, or as a DJ who is getting paid for his work, it is performance of the music, and the original artist should get paid for it.

Whenever music is being used to generate revenue for a DJ or venue, the artist damn well better get his share.

Good points. . .good points. . .especially the one about the newspaper article. . .

This is a tough, tough issue, made even more complicated by rapidly changing technology. It will be interesting to see who the winners and losers are in the next twenty or so years, while it all gets worked out.

When you spin at a party (where admission or cover is charged) are you in violation of copywrite laws, reguarding the records you are spinning, since you are making money off the event? Or are you only in violation if you make a MixCD and try and sell it?

[Cock Puncher]

damn music companies

[johnny861]

If I remember correctly, I believe it is the responsibility of the promoters and/or venue owners to secure a license for playing copyrighted music.

Originally posted by designbydance
When you spin at a party (where admission or cover is charged) are you in violation of copywrite laws, reguarding the records you are spinning, since you are making money off the event? Or are you only in violation if you make a MixCD and try and sell it?

chances are, most producers who stuff you would hear at a party is from a small label, and love for people to play their stuff out, because they dont have millions backing one song.

[KiloWatts]

not to mention, most artists on small independant electronic labels haven't bothered to sign up with ASCAP, BMI or SESAC because most of their tunes aren't played enough in public places/radio or by people who keep track enough to collect any decent royalties.

[hepkatmama]

those agencies do more than collect royalties, they represent the legal interests of the artists.


i don't know my song will be played on the radio... but if 30 years from now after i'v forgotten it somebody might use it for a commercial or something.

small labels are eligible too. most of the agencies don't charge artists a fee.

i think there are just a few requirements. like it has to be a commercial recording (intended for sale) or performed live once in a place that pays licensing fees.




considering how many old blues musicians died unknown & broke as hell only to have their beats looped & lyrics stolen in their old age... its worth the trouble to sign up.