ASCAP Targets Establishments Performing Copyrighted Music without Permissi

[The Straight Story]

ASCAP Targets Establishments Performing Copyrighted Music without Permission

NEW YORK - The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) filed 24 separate copyright infringement actions against nightclubs, bars, and restaurants in 11 states.

According to a press release by the Society, these establishments (listed below) have publicly performed the copyrighted musical works of ASCAP's songwriter, composer and music publisher members without receiving their permission to do so, resulting in lost income for these music creators.

"ASCAP is simultaneously filing these 24 actions to create awareness among music users and the public that it is a Federal offense to perform copyrighted music without permission," said Senior Vice President of Licensing at ASCAP Vincent Candilora.

"Taking legal action is always ASCAP's last step in a long process of contacting, informing and educating business establishments of their obligations under the Federal Copyright Law. With many of these cases, ASCAP's licensing efforts have been ongoing for well over a year, so they have had plenty of time to do the right thing."

http://www.ag-ip-news.com/GetArticle.asp?Art_ID=2763&lang=en

[htuttle]

1. You're never allowed to listen to music without paying first...

...sometimes three or four people have to pay down the line. The bar already bought the CD-ROMs and paid once. Then, if they want to let anyone else within earshot hear it, they have to pay AGAIN.

I'm frankly surprised they haven't outlawed external speakers on boom boxes yet...(unless you pay an additional fee).

[spanone]

16. How do you think songwriters make a living?

The bar already bought the booze too, why don't they give that away? The restaurant already paid for the food. Now they gotta pay the damned waiter?, The chef? Songwriters and performers make their money SELLING THEIR PRODUCTS just like any other business person.

[Solon]

18. Bad comparisons...

First, the bar has to recompense the money paid from the booze by SELLING it to customer, they attract customers using the music they bought and paid for. As far as Waiters, bartenders, and cooks, that's just stupid, unless the bar in question actually EMPLOYS the songwriters to write the music for them exclusively, that is also a bad comparison. The songwriters, composers, artists, and distributers were ALREADY paid by the damned bar or club through the PROCESS of buying the CDs. Hello, these people also pay for the public perfomances as well, they get DJ "Licenses" for this type of crap, just an FYI. Plus, I don't really see an example of a case here, they are only broadcasting the song, not copying it and giving it to customers for free. Hell, this probably increases the EXPOSURE of the song to potential customers, free advertising, wow, that might actually, like, increase SALES. What's next, are they going to sue people with 2000 dollar systems in cars that "thump" down the street(not defending them, public noise laws etc. are GOOD things to me). But really, how far will they go?

[Lethe]

2. no more cover bands or karaoke bars?

wtf?

[The Straight Story]

3. Guess I won't be playing music at my party....

Licensed for two ears only, your friends cannot listen to music in your room....well, just give it time and the legislation will be there for such a thing.

[Deja Q]

4. Society? Or group of thugs?

The more they eliminate the outlets for music being played means the fewer bucks they rake in; people will NOT spend $20 for something they don't have a clue about and especially when they can't get a refund if they're dissatisfied with the quality of the product. And THAT is thievery too.

[mom cat]

5. Be careful what you hum.

[Don Claybrook]

6. couldn't this only serve to HELP the musicians?

Songs performed at clubs=more album sales for the original version.

Screw these people. If I'm not mistaken, they're the same Nazis who are planning on suing websites that post lyrics to songs.

It's a real damned shame that the internet is just bursting with fake books, sheet music, and lyrics. Bite me, you fuckwit Junior-RIAA-HitlerYouth wannabe's.

[OKNancy]

7. I've been paying them for years and years

$384.00 per year is what I pay now. They are aggressive too.

[Don Claybrook]

8. paying them for what, exactly?

Does the $384 cover you playing any of their members' songs? I'm just wondering how this works. Thank you.

[The Straight Story]

9. How much does that allow you to play?

And is that for music across the board or just a particular genre/label/et al?

[OKNancy]

11. I'll answer you and Don Claybrook

I own a dance school ( ballet-tap-jazz - a traditional school)
First I fill out a questionnaire with how many students I have and what percent is ballet. Most classical music is in the public domain so we pay less for that.

They have a chart, based on the above and then you pay what it says.

Payment allows unlimited use of their artists.

[Don Claybrook]

13. thank you n/t

[Solon]

19. Wait a second here...

You said this:

Most classical music is in the public domain so we pay less for that.

Uhm, its my understanding that Public Domain stuff is, you know, free, I can blast Mozart as much as I want and not pay a penny, why do you pay anyone for that?

[NashVegas]

10. The Rationale For Every Place That Uses Music

Whether it's a restaurant, nightclub, what have you.

The club is using the music as a business tool to draw people in. Just like radio uses music for the same purpose.

So you pay ASCAP fees.

My advice: instead of using personal CDs, get a jukebox.

[Occulus]

12. They would force you to forget the music if they could

so they could charge you every time you HEAR it, and if they could get away with figuring out when you're humming the tune, they would find a way to charge you for THAT too.

Their actions justify filesharing.

[U4ikLefty]

14. If an establishment is making $$$ then they should pay the artist.

This is NOT fair use. Someone is making bank from the performance of the material and they should pay. This is about PERFORMING the song...not listening to the song. Get it straight!!!

[Don Claybrook]

15. That's not what I'm reading above

OKNancy says she pays $384 per year to play the songs, not to perform them. Sounds to me like she knows of what she speaks.

And do tone down on barking orders punctuated with three exclamations. Please.

[Squeech]

17. ASCAP is not RIAA

Although they do have similar ugly effects on consumers.

But U4icLefty is right: if you use music that belongs to someone else in a profitable endeavor, you should compensate that musician, and ASCAP is one of the tools to make that happen. Unfortunately ASCAP is all too often a blunt instrument...

ASCAP stands for American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers. What they do is license the compositions of their members. (Note that this has nothing to do with the phonographic copyright of the specific recording. If I sell a record of polka arrangements of Metallica songs, ASCAP will see to it that Lars Ulrich gets some of my money, as one of the composers. But I haven't violated his copyright, even if you can freely download my polkas.)

The scheme was worked out for the benefit of songwriters and their publishers. Tin Pan Alley made money by getting dance bands to play their songs, at which point they got paid by the dance halls, the radio broadcasters, and the record companies for their various uses of the songs. Musicians were not so closely associated with their own compositions back then (1930s/40s) but would generally play whatever was popular. Nowadays bands play mostly their own songs, largely to make sure they get the composers' royalties (a more reliable income stream than getting paid by your record label), so the rationale for ASCAP has changed: so songwriters can get money from radio play, and from those damn ubiquitous speakers in every shopping mall playing J.Lo and Britney.

The big problems with ASCAP are (1) that they don't do a real good job of monitoring airplay for anybody who isn't already a major star, so if you're a young songwriter making your first record, you're likely to get a better deal from BMI, the other major performance rights licensor; (2) they look like they absorb a *lot* of overhead (their offices are very lavish, and they hire some really expensive lawyers); and (3) their strongarm tactics alienate a lot of bars and similar venues who should be their clients, who all too often decide not to have music rather than pay these assholes. As a musician-wannabe myself, I find this really regrettable: I need more bars to hire my band.

Anyway, that's the ASCAP story in a nutshell. Hope this helps.