damnportlanders: my aplogies if this was already talked about

Cheers Darling (

snowbunny1983) wrote in

damnportlanders,
@ 2006-10-10 17:29:00

my aplogies if this was already talked about
Imbibe owner gets smacked with a lawsuit

(Post a new comment)

	lokidecat 2006-10-10 05:46 pm UTC (link)
	Well that's bullshit. Hendrix isn't even alive. Fuck the estate. IF a lawsuit has to be presented, sue the fucking band for playing it. For cryin' out loud. (Reply to this)

	33mhz 2006-10-10 05:49 pm UTC (link)
	This is a great example of copyright law run amok and strangling musical culture. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	lx 2006-10-10 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	Seriously. So utterly inane. Rather reveals the parasitic nature of the music business people. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	kathyrhino 2006-10-10 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	Wow, that's just sad. Are the musicians who performed the covers being sued as well then? The other odd coincidence is the little MacDonald's ad on the page saying "Communities Grow with McDonalds, together we thrive." Somehow that just makes me cringe, but maybe that's just because it was placed next to an article on a locally-owned business in a thriving community. (Reply to this)

I have been pissed about this for years

davethegreat
2006-10-10 06:28 pm UTC (link)

The music associations have been blackmailing bar owners for years. If you play the radio (even broadcast radio), you have to pay. If you have a jukebox, you have to pay. If a cutomer walks in with his laptop ad the speakers are playing a copyright song, you have to pay.

I wish SOMEBODY would stand up to them.

It does not bother me so much if they sue the musicians; after all they are using other musician's work without permission (you would be pissed if a local band played your songs, morally that is the same concept from the big groups). But a bar owner? They are bystanders. Innocent bystanders.

And they also never, ever have enough cash to fight back. So this goes on and on and on and on. . . .

(Reply to this)

	tangeryne 2006-10-10 06:32 pm UTC (link)
	I am not privy to laws and such, but why isn't the band being sued? I mean, they are the ones that chose the music? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	nexusvt100 2006-10-10 06:42 pm UTC (link)
	because the band is a local and has no money. They can sue the business and get $100,000. They can sue the band and maybe get a half eaten twinkie. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

listme
2006-10-11 04:08 am UTC (link)

Actually, it's because the band is considered to be working FOR the club. It'd be different, if the band rented out the venue for a party, for instance: then, it's their responsibility. From a legal standpoint, the band is hired by the club to provide entertainment. So the club is responsible for choosing the band, and for letting them know what's okay in their venue or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

varro
2006-10-10 07:32 pm UTC (link)

Yeah...it sucks....but ASCAP technically is right. Most places that have live music get a blanket ASCAP and/or BMI license to make sure things like that doesn't happen, and commercial music providers like XM/Sirius/Muzak put the licensing fees directly into the fees for music programs intended to be played at commercial establishments.

littlebluedog, any other comments?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	cheekyassmonkey 2006-10-10 08:54 pm UTC (link)
	i'm not little, blue, or a dog, but i've looked at the standard ascap and bmi blanket licenses, and it is all about producing income. if you pay for the blanket costs, they ignore you. if you blip on their radar, and you don't have a blanket, they're coming after you. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	cheekyassmonkey 2006-10-10 08:55 pm UTC (link)
	oh, and the liability lies with the venue owner because the music is an enticement to additional business. just like they need licensing for video poker, booze and strippers. (Reply to this) (Parent)

listme
2006-10-11 04:06 am UTC (link)

I feel compelled to start a small fire in this post.

Imbibe's a cool place, great food, they treat local musicians well.

It's a shame if this drives them under. However. However. This isn't a case of the big bad music business monster trying to drive out some poooor helpless local restauranteur, this is a case of a self-righteous local business owner making an irresponsible decision.

First of all, ASCAP doesn't do shit like this without prior warnings to business owners.

Now, say, for instance, that Imbibe didn't want to pay the blanket license. Its booking staff could have easily made it clear to the bands who play there that the club is not licensed to play compositions administered by ASCAP or BMI, and required that bands agree not to play any such songs (or, for a rule even a musician can understand: NO COVER SONGS, just to keep things simple).

It's manipulative journalism for this article to label Mr. Dorr a "restaurant owner", and I cry foul - he's more than that, he is also the owner and proprietor of a concert venue for music. A nightclub. We know this: ALL bars in Oregon are restaurants; the OLCC requires it. Anyone who's been to Imbibe knows that it is both a restaurant and a LIVE MUSIC VENUE. It hosts live music SEVEN NIGHTS A WEEK. The floor plan is designed entirely around the STAGE on which MUSICIANS PERFORM.

In the dozen or so evenings I've spent there, I have heard at least one cover song EVERY TIME. And I don't mean obscure stuff, I mean, on the order of Hendrix, War (great song, by the way), and Stevie Wonder. Pretty sure I heard a U2 cover the last time I was there. I call bullshit on the owner's claim of surprise. As for local bands? Name one worth their mustard who's never played a cover song.

A) If you've got a problem with bands playing cover songs, it is your responsibility to let them know, and enforce that policy.

B) If you allow bands to play cover songs in your fucking MUSIC VENUE, it is your responsibility, legally and ethically, to pay the blanket license, or to pay individual licenses for each performance.

Damnportlanders, this is not some big-business-RIAA-conspiracy plot: ASCAP and BMI are not big sleazy corporations. There's no fee for membership, they have very little overhead, and the money collected by this type of license primarily goes to pay SONGWRITERS. C'mon, man. I, for one, like it when artists get paid.

The fact is, Mr. Dorr shirked his responsibilities. I have no more pity for him than if he was upset that the power company shut off his lights for not paying his bill. These licenses are part of the COST OF DOING BUSINESS in the industry in which Imbibe operates. Just like paying the rent and utilities.

The people I feel sorry for are his family and employees, who probably had no say in the foolish gamble that Mr. Dorr engaged in, and that he appears to be losing.

</rant>

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Got my pitchfork... am I late?

lx
2006-10-11 08:26 am UTC (link)

What if all the songwriters in question are dead? Or obscenely rich? Or obscenely rich and dead? (Can you be obscenely dead?)

Obviously the law is blind to such arbitrary thought exercises, but I'm curious whether or not you feel the same way on the basis of persistence of estates beyond the lifetime of the artist (like Hendrix), or beyond the obvious need for such ancillary income (like U2). Your argument is perfectly rational and, assuming your understanding of the songwriting-compensation laws are accurate (which I assume they are, given your profession), legally sound. The specific cases cited in this article, and in your rebuttal, though, just don't strike me as morally worth enforcing.

Gosh, this wasn't a very good flame was it? Um.

You stink?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Got my pitchfork... am I late?

listme
2006-10-11 07:55 pm UTC (link)

Who are you or I to say when an artist has made "enough" money that we can stop compensating them for their creations? Apple's made a lot of money. Are they "obscenely" rich yet? Does that mean we can all have free iPods?

We're not morally obligated to stick up for only the art we like. I'm no U2 fan, I know about the infighting in Hendrix's surviving family, but, once again, those guys've worked hard and succeeded at a very tough enterprise. There's no accounting for taste.

I mean, to take an extreme example of dislike, it is important to me that Ann fuckin Coulter gets paid for her book as copies sell. I just don't want them to sell. But that's not up to me.

As for the dead, look, a lot of people collect residual income from past work. Example: If I own a piece of rental property and take in residual income from that, is it okay with you if I pass that property on to my heirs, and they continue to collect income from it? Even though they didn't buy the property or do anything to "earn" it in the first place? Maintaining the license to a copyrighted work is not dissimilar to maintaining a piece of property, and just as my heirs in the above example would probably hire a property management firm to fix the plumbing, etc., Hendrix's heirs have a publishing company and a performance rights organization handle the administration of their inheritance. I think it'd be a shame if artists were the only people exempt from passing on the financial fruits of their labors. Or are you disputing the legal notion of inheritance altogether?

I've really got to take a shower, if you can smell me from over there. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Got my pitchfork... am I late?

lx
2006-10-11 09:11 pm UTC (link)

No, I was more curious on your personal feeling of the validity of such enforcement in these specific instances, not the legality as it stands, which is pointless to debate since our Congressmen are too busy figuring out how not to get caught in a photo with Mark Foley right now than to modify any practical legislation.

The reason I raise it is just that I can't begin to feel offended by the idea of performance of live music which does not result in the compensation of the artists (or their estates) who continue to receive their primary income through means related to mechanical reproductions, which I feel is more legitimately enforceable and am inclined to suspect accounts for a considerably more substantial percentage of their income something like 100% of the time (if this is a misconception, correct it!).

I recognize that not all songwriters and musicians are one-and-the-same, and that there are pure songwriters; even so, I have a hard time with the idea of paying a songwriter for a live performance of their work on what I will now cynically describe as the piddly local level, and the two cases (over-rich, over-dead) above simply exaggerate that feeling. Maybe it's just me. Your analogy for the iPod doesn't really help because it costs Apple to physically produce them, it does not cost U2 a thing if I hum "In the name of love" in the shower, or over an emo guitar line at Imbibe (and in fact it could lead to further sales when the audience, weepy-eyed, goes home, full of beer, and decides they need that U2 song from the iTunes Music Store).

Of course, I realize that in the ideal case these live performances do result in an exchange of goods/services, even on a piddly local level, such that the performer or venue makes some amount of money, but how many bands generate enough revenue (for themselves, for the venues) to adequately cover the expenses? Does live cover music become prohibitively expensive unless you are A) an inordinately successful venue, or B) an inordinately successful cover performer? Not rhetorical, I really don't know!

I suppose I'll survive if I never have to hear another terrible version of "Love Will Tear Us Apart" (slam on myself out of nowhere!), but certainly some people like to hear these things. Your analogy about the cost-of-business and getting the power turned off for not paying the bill is valid, though it does fill me the creepy sense of cultural commodification: hot and cold running art! I personally haven't been involved with the economics of music venues to know whether or not it's frequently or infrequently viable to allow covers, as a cold matter of revenue against expenses, though obviously audiences on some level value them, or Imbibe would have simply made the policy of disallowing them.

Anyway, yes, I'm not challenging any of the legal precedent as much as suggesting situations that might suggest there are problems of imbalance with the present arrangement. If you don't agree, well, we obviously have nothing in common and must, in the future, strike a comically combative stance at every possible opportunity.

I shall see you bow before me, Son of Jor-El.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Got my pitchfork... am I late?

listme
2006-10-11 09:34 pm UTC (link)

It's not economically viable to, say, insure your restaurant against fire if it turns out that it never catches fire. I mean, as a cold matter of revenue against expenses. :)

Hadn't we better continue this conversation over alcoholic beverages whilst a flimsy local band plays "Play That Funky Music" for the umpteenth time?

More reply either at that time or when I have more time at the computer, whichever comes first.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Got my pitchfork... am I late?

lx
2006-10-11 10:39 pm UTC (link)

Good sir, I think that it undermines your position slightly to compare the artist's associations with the random chaos and wanton destruction of man's ancient enemy, fire. Or insurance (aka "protection money") in general, for that matter.

"Nice music venue you have here... shame if something should happen to it." *knocks over a bass guitar*

Zing! Yes, let's continue this in person, perhaps at Embers tonight? Unless you want to destroy me in public, in which case here.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	Re: Got my pitchfork... am I late? listme 2006-10-11 09:48 pm UTC (link)
	Your offer of an indefinite future of comically combative duels is, by the way, duly noted. I, too, can see no alternative. (Reply to this) (Parent)

moxieparadox
2006-10-11 04:33 pm UTC (link)

ya know, i was in this position myself last year. I was one of the worker/owners at a now defunct collective cafe in the SE and we were being pursued by BMI to buy one of their blanket licenses for something like $800/year, which may not sound like much for a business, but would have in fact doomed us, as they didn't allow payment plans. they had calculated that figure using an inflated occupancy number and assumed that every performer we had would play covers. at first we attempted to fight it by claiming that the stereo was in the kitchen and for the worker's enjoyment, however we had an open kitchen and whatever was playing in there was heard in the cafe so... in the end we decided that we couldn't financially or philosophically bow down to their extortition and took a policy of only playing local, independent artists and having all musicians sign a contract stating that they wouldn't play covers. we told them that we actaully didn't care, it was just to cover our asses legally and that the chances of anyone ever finding our were slim. now i see this and i think we were lucky that dropped off of their radar. however, though they're both in the same busiess, BMI and ASCAP have different motives. BMI owns the enforcement rights to something like 5 million songs. ASCAP is a group of actual musicians and music makers trying to ensure that they are not taken advantage of and have their songs profitted off of by others. A minor difference, but kinda signifigant. Anyhow, my two cents. RIP Back to Back Cafe.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	listme 2006-10-11 08:31 pm UTC (link)
	aww... i loved the back2back. :( (Reply to this) (Parent)

What about radio?

davethegreat
2006-10-11 05:18 pm UTC (link)

It's one thing to enforce copyright, I don't think any reasonable person has a problem with that, but how can they justify fining a business for a radio being overheard? The radio stations already pay for the right to broadcast that music. It goes out over the public airwaves. The business has no control over the scheduling on a radio station, nor any approval over its content before the fact.

So what legal ground does BMI use for fleecing them?

It's blackmail in my book. They do it because they can, and the people they pick on are not able to defend themselves. Imbibe may be an exception to the rule, but the fact is bars and restaraunts across the country are at the mercy of these record groups with little to no justification.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: What about radio?

listme
2006-10-11 07:32 pm UTC (link)

Uh. Not to get all Tina Turner on your ass, but what's radio got to do with it? I'm pretty sure (but IANAL) you can play the radio in your restaurant, and I'm very sure that you can play Muzak or DMX or whatever those subscription services are. If you're playing CDs where the customers can hear em, you're supposed to pay a license for those 'tunes, and the blanket license is the easiest way to do it.

Also, FYI, BMI and ASCAP are not "record groups".

I'm just here to set a few facts straight. No offense intended, but your posts on this thread appear a little bit underinformed. I'm all for being inflammatory as regards things you feel strongly about, but please, get your facts straight first, lest you fan the flames of an already unfair witch hunt.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: What about radio? listme 2006-10-11 07:34 pm UTC (link)
	For further clarification: ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are what's called Performance Rights Organizations. See here for a Wikipedia article on this type of organization. Thanks. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: What about radio?

davethegreat
2006-10-11 08:59 pm UTC (link)

BMI went after Galileo's bar in Oklahoma City because a rep walked in and heard them playing the local radio station (KATT fm). They sent the warning letter, and the restaraunt stopped at that point. I assume they would have backed up the warning with a lawsuit if the radio was not turned off.

Ok, not a "record group," if you want to get technical on the terminology, but a "songwriters group." It was pretty obvious what I meant, but fair enough that they don't actually make records, just rep the owners of the songs.

Still, talk to any five restaraunt owners and listen to their horror stories.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: What about radio?

listme
2006-10-11 09:45 pm UTC (link)

From ASCAP's licensing FAQ (http://www.ascap.com/licensing/generalfaq.html):

1. I'm interested in playing music in my restaurant or other business. I know that I need permission for live performances. Do I need permission if I am using only CD's, records, tapes, radio or TV?

Yes, you will need permission to play records or tapes in your establishment. Permission for radio and television transmissions in your business is not needed if the performance is by means of public communication of TV or radio transmissions by eating, drinking, retail or certain other establishments of a certain size which use a limited number of speakers or TVs, and if the reception is not further transmitted (for example, from one room to another) from the place in which it is received, and there is no admission charge.

BMI's FAQ is harder to read (http://www.bmi.com/licensing/business/generalfaq.asp) but from what I can tell, the licensing requirement only applies to radio if you're charging admission.

Without going into it much, I have been on the restauranteur side of this particular issue myself, which is part of how I learned so much about it.

I still stand by my original point: if you have a business and you want to make other peoples' creative works part of that business, you ought to see that you compensate them for it. I've scanned through the terms of the ASCAP license, and it seems really fair: basically, if you're not making money in connection with the performance of copyrighted works, you don't have to pay (like, if you're blastin tunes in the kitchen, where customers can't hear, or if you're not charging admission and you're playing the radio as background music, etc). I like art and I like artists, and I believe in artists being compensated for their work when they put it out there for that purpose. Plenty of artists choose to go the Creative Commons route, for instance, and that's cool, too. If you choose to exploit (legal term, not the vernacular, pejorative term) the work of an artist, and that artist has chosen to appoint a PRO to administer that particular work, you need to either play ball with the PRO or find another piece of art to incorporate into your business.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs