| Author | Topic | | AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts |  Posted - 09 May 2007 : 06:26:59  
| It seems that the former owner of a night club in Vail, Colorado has agreed to pay $40,000 because a cover band performed 10 cover songs at his club, without him paying the required ASCAP fees.
Here's the original TechDirt article with links to their source articles:
quote:
Club Owner Has To Pay $40,000 Because A Cover Band Played 10 Songs
Wed, May 9th 2007
by Mike Masnick
In the past, we've covered some of the ridiculous claims that come out when ASCAP goes around suing restaurants, bars and clubs for performing music without securing a license first. The idea that having music playing in a restaurant without a license somehow causes "irreparable injury," seems ridiculous. If anything, having songs played in public places where people can hear them is likely to get those songs more attention, providing more opportunities to make money for the musicians behind the song. In the latest twist on this theme, Stephen writes in to let us know that the former owner of a night club in Vail, Colorado has agreed to pay $40,000 because a cover band performed 10 cover songs at his club, without him paying the required ASCAP fees. Note that the band itself didn't have to pay anything. The thing is, he got off cheap. ASCAP could have tried to charge him up to $30,000 per song. Again, it's unclear how this benefits anyone (other than some lawyers). All it does is make it a lot less likely that venues will want to play songs licensed via ASCAP. It's short-term thinking that destroys long-term value.
I have to say that I'm with Mike on this one. How does having your music played in a public area (thus exposing people to your music) harm you? |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 10 May 2007 : 18:33:56
| I don't think that the band or the club owner are getting paid for the massive advertising that they do for these artists and, by default, the recording industry. If we're going to split hairs, then pehaps the clubowner ought to sue the RIAA for non-payment of advertizing space.
To me, there is no question that when a band plays a cover tune, nobody mistakes the cover band for the actual composer of the song. I am all for proper compensation of recording artists for their work, as it was the recording industry that screwed the artists out of a whole lot of profits early on, but I do not believe that there's any purient reason why the RIAA is doing this. This is all about money, and if they cannot cheat the artists any more, then they'll try to cheat the public. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |  |
| AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts | Posted - 10 May 2007 : 21:53:44
| The real irony is that the more they try to squeeze the small stuff, the more people start going on "non-RIAA" affiliated shopping sprees. When they put the squeeze on internet radio, the broadcasters started looking towards those "independents" since they knew that at least whatever was charged would get back to them, and that they were more likely to see it as advertising/promotion for their next concert and/or CD sales.
It seems to almost be an obsession with making sure every penny that can be made is, and I think its going to hurt them in the long run.
Its probably worth mentioning that part of the reason they do this is because the labels have (so far) been able to hide behind the RIAA moniker. As long as people don't realize that its EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and Warner Music Group - they're safe. People rail against "the RIAA" but those same people then go and buy a Sony artist not realizing that they are supporting "the RIAA".
|
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers | |
| | | Topic | |
 |
Media
