Music Nazi's

Stylerod · 08-01-2007, 06:52 PM

Music suit creates discord

By Kristi Heim

Seattle Times business reporter

A Seattle restaurant is among more than two dozen venues swept up in a music-licensing crackdown for allegedly failing to pay royalties to play copyrighted music in public.

Without a special license, owners of bars, clubs and restaurants could be sued for playing any one of 8 million recorded songs, even from their own CDs.

The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) says that equates to performing copyrighted music without permission, and the group is going after local businesses that haven't paid them for the privilege.

On Monday, ASCAP said it had filed 26 separate infringement actions against nightclubs, bars and restaurants in 17 states. Among them is a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Seattle against the Ibiza Dinner Club downtown.

The group sued to spread the word that performing such music without permission is a federal offense, said Vincent Candilora, ASCAP senior vice president for licensing.

On Tuesday, Ibiza owner Abi Eshagi said he had not received information from ASCAP regarding a lawsuit and insisted his restaurant did not violate any rules.

ASCAP says that besides broadcasting songs over the radio, television and Internet, the definition of performing copyrighted music includes playing it "any place where people gather," with the exception of small private groups.

For restaurants, that includes playing songs as background music, by a DJ and even music-on-hold over phone lines, according to ASCAP's Web site.

"As long as it's [played] outside a direct circle of friends and family, it is considered a public performance," Candilora said. "A musical composition is somebody's property."

ASCAP alleged that a DJ at Ibiza played three copyrighted pop songs without paying a licensing fee, which Candilora calculated would have cost Ibiza $979 a year, considering the size of the venue and the type of performance.

"I think it's absurd," said Eshagi. "Not only DJs have bought that music, I also subscribe to an online music-use service, and I'm also paying the cable company for the same thing. I don't know how many times we have to pay for a song."

ASCAP, whose 300,000 members include such artists as Coldplay, Dr. Dre, Avril Lavigne and Elvis Costello, has investigators working in cities across the country to identify new restaurants, bars, theme parks or other establishments where music is used, Candilora said.

They visit venues to find out what songs are being played, then check to see whether the owner paid for a license.

While many business owners may not be aware of it, such legal action is becoming common, said Eric Steuer, creative director of Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that has been critical of current copyright laws and supports alternative licensing plans.

The hardball legal tactics resemble when the recording industry sues students, Steuer said.

"What I don't think many venue owners — nor probably the majority of DJs — understand is that almost all of the music that they play requires a performance license," Steuer said. "I think that there's a misunderstanding that because music is 'indie' or not widely known, that it's OK to play."

Many DJs get music free from record labels so they can play and promote it, Steuer added. "I'm sure that they'd never imagine that they're committing a federal offense by playing this stuff without paying for the right to play it."

ASCAP is seeking up to $30,000 in damages per infringement from Ibiza. Candilora said the group has tried for two years to get the restaurant to comply with its requests.

Eshagi said he plans to fight. He said he was contacted by an ASCAP representative by phone and had asked the group to send a list of songs they claimed were infringed.

Eshagi said he told ASCAP he pays for two music-subscription services.

"I don't really know what is the basis for [a lawsuit]," he said.

So this DJ played 3 songs that would have cost him over $900 a year!? Holy crap. My brother-in-law has hundreds of songs he carries with him when he DJ's. If he has 300 songs with him does that mean he would have to pay them $90,000 a year to be able to play them

Bullllshit....

Roonie · 08-01-2007, 06:56 PM

this is crap. suprised they can get away with filing the infringement actions in court.

RMNIXON · 08-01-2007, 07:45 PM

How dumb can you get? Playing that music is a free promotion for the artists just like any radio station.

DosEquis · 08-01-2007, 09:08 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How dumb can you get? Playing that music is a free promotion for the artists just like any radio station.

No kidding, their ultimate goal is always free play so that more people are exposed to their music and go buy it. Its not like the DJ is burning cd's and handing them out after the show. This is a bunch of bull.

Diesel66 · 08-01-2007, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How dumb can you get? Playing that music is a free promotion for the artists just like any radio station.

radio stations pay to broadcast them.

jimeigh · 08-01-2007, 11:50 PM

crap

jimeigh · 08-01-2007, 11:52 PM

i was lifeguarding and at my job ive got this lil boombox type thinger that i play next to me to keep me sane sometimes. should i have to pay to be able to do that? crap.

WickedLou9 · 08-02-2007, 09:35 AM

I've said it before.. the music industry is digging thier own graves. By filing suit against thier own fans they alienate them and make them resentfull. If you knew that Eminem was suing his fans, would you be more or less likely to pay him for his music? I know what my answer is.

They are clinging to a dying form of media and like a sick dog they are growling and snapping at anyone who comes near them.
This isn't communist russia where the market demands you. The market is determined by the consumer. If the consumer isn't willing to pay for your product, you can't sue them to force them to pay. It's ridiculous. They are not giving the consumer something that they are willing to pay for. They need to find new lines of business.
I still feel that the future of this industry is going to be subscription based. You will pay a monthly fee and be able to download and listen to whatever you want. Everything will be managed with DRM, you can listen to the music so long as you keep paying your monthly subscription. There is a service like this called "ruckus" for college students. I can use it because I am going back to school and taking night classes. It's awesome. I can download whatever I want legally and listen to it on my PC. If I want to transfer it to say, an iPod, the DRM won't allow it, you need to pay an additional monthly fee for the rights to transfer it to another device.
This is actually GOOD for the music industry. It's good because people will be able to download and enjoy music that they would never have considered buying, but now these lesser known artists are getting royalties and are able to earn income. Instead of an economy where you are either an uber rich rockstar, or a homeless starving artists, you end up with a middle class of artists who can support themselves. This increases variety, increases competition etc.

I hope the RIAA is reading this. They need to take thier heads out of thier asses. People want to download music. They don't want to pay 15 dollars for a CD with 1 friggin song they like and 12 songs of garbage. They don't want to pay a dollar for every song they download either. The rights to listen to music are not worth what you are charging that is why no one wants to pay. Sueing people will not solve the problem.
GIVING THE CONSUMER WHAT THEY WANT = $$$

jimeigh · 08-04-2007, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I still feel that the future of this industry is going to be subscription based. You will pay a monthly fee and be able to download and listen to whatever you want.

that's what Zune does

WickedLou9 · 08-04-2007, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

that's what Zune does

That's why MS makes billions of dollars. Brilliant market strategists.

RMNIXON · 08-04-2007, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

i was lifeguarding and at my job ive got this lil boombox type thinger that i play next to me to keep me sane sometimes. should i have to pay to be able to do that? crap.

And I will pass a law that says you will keep a record of what you play and it is properly taxed!

JaJae · 08-04-2007, 05:27 PM

When I saw the topic here I thought it was the story about Marylin Manson being sued by his ban for spending millions on Nazi stuff... interesting title.

jimeigh · 08-05-2007, 01:22 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

When I saw the topic here I thought it was the story about Marylin Manson being sued by his ban for spending millions on Nazi stuff... interesting title.

it echoes of the "soup nazi"

willis · 08-06-2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

radio stations pay to broadcast them.

SoundExchange, Caught Lobbying, Says Lobbying Bar Does Not Apply

technically they don't pay artists or labels, they pay authors and publishers..

dunno.. i have a hard time feeling bad for anyone but consumers with music industry battles.. things like ascap / soundexchange / riaa are beyond evil, but I really have a hard time feeling bad for clearchannel and the like..

and I really don't understand how the industry doesn't think these type of actions are just going to kill them though..

Diesel66 · 08-06-2007, 08:51 PM

[quote=willis;127746
technically they don't pay artists or labels, they pay authors and publishers....[/QUOTE]

because that is who owns the music.

It is simple, when you buy a cd or mp3 you are buying a specific right to that piece of work. This is the same thing as software, you cannot buy one version and install it on 100 computers.

If you break that agreement and you are a business, expect to get hit by those who want their money.

willis · 08-06-2007, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

because that is who owns the music.

i know, i thought you were saying the artist got paid directly for plays on the radio.. my bad

It is simple, when you buy a cd or mp3 you are buying a specific right to that piece of work. This is the same thing as software, you cannot buy one version and install it on 100 computers.

If you break that agreement and you are a business, expect to get hit by those who want their money.

i could not disagree with the rationale behind this statement more (dunno if you are supporting it or just stating it) but am too lazy to write / reason out why..

Donkey® · 08-06-2007, 11:13 PM

It's funny that "artists" do everything including BEG to give away their first CDs...it is all about their "art". Once they sign a deal, they become as greedy as the label that signed them.

Stylerod · 08-08-2007, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's funny that "artists" do everything including BEG to give away their first CDs...it is all about their "art". Once they sign a deal, they become as greedy as the label that signed them.

Oh, no shit. Remember the Dixie Chicks and their battle with Sony. They talked about how corrupt they were and the Dixie Chicks said they were going to fight them so smaller artists weren't taken advantage of like they were. Then all the sudden they renewed their contract with Sony and would not say another bad thing against them. Ends up they were just as greedy as they said Sony was.