ASCAP rides again
p2p news / p2pnet: ASCAP is short for American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and it rides herd on songs owned by its members.
Now it’s suing the Bull & Bear pub in Syracuse, New York, for allowing customers to have a good time by lip-syncing tunes.
ASCAP has membership of more than 240,000 composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers, and it, “files hundreds of lawsuits similar to the one against the Bull & Bear every year,” boasts lawyer Richard Reimer, in-house counsel for the society, quoted in the Central New York Business Journal. which goes on:
“A part of the society’s work is finding locations that don’t have licenses and signing them up, Reimer explains.
“In the Bull & Bear’s case, the bar is being sued for five specific copyright infringements that took place during a karaoke event at the bar, Reimer says. The pub’s Web site says it has karaoke every Wednesday.”
Pub patrons “performed” Bruce Springsteen’s Fire and Glory Days by, The Middle by Jimmy Eat World, All Night Long (All Night) by Lionel Richie, and Fly Away by Lenny Kravitz, says the story, but according to Reimer, although the songs weren’t “professionally performed,” the Bull & Bear should still have had a license, says the story, adding:
“The suit against the Bull & Bear asks the court to ban the bar from holding karaoke without a license. It also asks for financial damages. Copyright penalties range from $750 to $30,000 per violation, Reimer says.”
Digg this.
Also See:
Central New York Business Journal – Pub lacks karaoke license, sued for copyright violations, July, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
July 15th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Well done!! I think that people who sing in their car while on public streets should also need licenses from ASCAP and the others. The incredible damage to people like Springsteen from atonal singers like me is worse even than performances by people who can actually come close to singing.
And if you live with people other than immediate family (cousins are not immediate!) you should require licensing for playing recorded music as it becomes a ‘public performance’.
People who are self-entertaining are taking money away from the professionals.
Other groups should jump on the band-wagon as well. To wash your own car you should need a license from the oil companies who own/run most of the car washes. Drive yourself to work, and you should have to pay a royalty to the Public Transit Alliance. You eat, or wash yourself, get a license from Palliative Care Association.
In typing this response I owe the Data Entry Industry Coalition $0.03. I’d write them a cheque, but my license from American Script, Calligraphy and Printing Industry Inc. (ASCAP-II) has expired.
Yahoo
(Still unable to log in)
July 15th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Do you think I’ll have to pay a tax for using several words that are used in copyright protected books? How long will we have to wait for that one?
We no longer have freedom of ’singing’, so watch out self-expression. I guess I must have used several nut and bolts from the book ‘The Grapes of Wrath’ in this posting. I await the publishers legal writs with baited breath!
July 16th, 2006 at 10:46 am
So, do ASCAP and BMI go around suing all those people for singing the Star Spangled Banner? Despite the words having been written during the War of 1812 and the melody a long-forgotten tavern drinking tune, the US Copyright Office has over 200 registration of copyright on the US National Anthem.
Does this mean you can get sued for singing “Happy Birthday” to your elderly Aunt at a restaurant that lacks the license noted in the article?
A ‘license’ should only be required when a work is performed professionally, meaning that the performer is specifically hired and being paid to perform.
I guess it’s a good thing that most hymns are in the public domain or these people would be suing houses of worship.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
“I guess it’s a good thing that most hymns are in the public domain or these people would be suing houses of worship.”
FYI, most Latin American Hyms are registered with BMI, by the same person! The Mexican hymn is claimed by Warner! In a few words, The Ugly American has robbed the Latins, once more.
As to:
“A ‘license’ should only be required when a work is performed professionally, meaning that the performer is specifically hired and being paid to perform.”
I agree, if the money collected through the license were to go to the songwriter. Unfortunately it doesn’w work like that.
July 17th, 2006 at 4:04 am
Now let’s see … the owner of the Bull & Bear uses music to attract customers who purchase food, booze and anything else he has to sell – all of which generate profit for him… The people who provide the owner with the whatever he sells – right down to the manufactures of the salt that sits on his tables – make a profit from the goods and services they provide.
If music is the focal point that generates profit for everyone else that provides goods and services, shouldn’t songwriters be the first in line to be paid for their products?
Courts have unanimously agreed in every action foolish owners have attempted to litigate that songwriters are, indeed, entitled to compensation for the use of their music in commercial establishments.
Seems fair to me.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:36 am
“right down to the manufactures of the salt”
Sure, they ay for the saly and they get delivery of the salt. But a bar owner who pays ASCAP gets nothing but protection from being sued. Not even a catalog of licensed songs is delivered to bars and radio stations. And the money collected is not shared with the songwriters at all. As a matter of fact the songwriter does not even know that the bar paid any money or played his/her music in the bar. Just lookt at an ASCAP royalty report. It says nothing useful for auditing purposes.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:46 am
“Courts have unanimously agreed in every action foolish owners have attempted to litigate that songwriters are, indeed, entitled to compensation for the use of their music in commercial establishments.”
If you know about “every action”, you must be one of the many ASCAP lawyers hired to fend off the songwriters who want accounting and never get it from their alleged “Society”, which is actually run for and by music publishers. A troll.
You know too much…. “every action”, “songwriters”. This is the giveway. We now know where you come from.
ASCAP uses “songwriters” as RIAA uses “artists”.
July 17th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
““files hundreds of lawsuits similar to the one against the Bull & Bear every year,” boasts lawyer Richard Reimer, in-house counsel for the society”
presequisitue of filing a copyright infringement lawsuit is that the party filing the lwasiot must have a copyright registration in its own name. Meaning: Only the copyright owner can sue and ASCAP is not a copyright owner and therefore cannot sue.
Mr Reimer should explain how ASCAP gets away with it.
ASCAP owns no copyrights. ASCAP licenses on behalf of copyright owners (mostly publishers who pull the strings at ASCAP)
I doubt ASCAP has ever really filed a lawsuit by itself as plaintiff and won.
July 17th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
Chylon, “All The World Loves A Lover,” “A Tell Her You Love Her” Firedragon are not registered with ASCAP, BMI or SESAC… It’s kind of a prerequisite to getting paid. But why sweat the details.
July 18th, 2006 at 12:40 am
This has nothing to do with artists.
This is about the owners of the copyrights related to the songs – could be a songwriter, could be a music publisher or it could be a songwriter who is a music publisher.
It’s true, the artist may be the songwriter, but, again, the rights granted to artists under the copyright law are not at issue here.
You are correct, ASCAP is not the plaintiff in these cases, the owners of the copyrights are. However, the owners of the copyrights have given ASCAP the right to act on their behalf when it comes to protecting their rights… and ASCAP funds the litigation because these suits benefit all of the members of ASCAP by reminding users of music in commercial settings that such use requires payment of a license fee to do so.
By the way …. those fees, for the most part, amount to less than the cost of one glass of beer per day. If the owner of a business can’t afford that, he won’t be in business very much longer.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:24 am
It is self evident that most posters here post in ther personal capacity.
When a poster writes to represent the interests of an organization, he or she should identify him/herself and the organization. That is called honesty, a word not in ASCAP’s (uour) vocabulary. Otherwise you are a troll.
As an ASCAP troll you are being consisten with ASCAP. ASCAP takes songwrites for a frauddy ride. And you/ASCAP and the music publishers you really represent now wants us to take the same frauddy ride.
July 18th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Definetely you are an ASCAP troll. Why were you not honest and say in the beginning. Not honest, just like ASCAP.
And the claim that there are songwriters on the board. That is crap. The board is completely controlled by the publishers.
Imagine, the Actors Association being controlled by a board, half of the directors being unknown actors and half of them foxy movie company executives that represent less than 1 percent of the absolute membership. That would be a joke board, just like ASCAP’s.
Hey, it is rummeored that the same music publishers have members on the board at ASCAP competitor BMI? Is that for spying purposes? Is ASCAP and BMI so dumb (or too foxy) as to allow the competition to infiltrate it’s board? Man, if I were an ASCAP or BMI member I would be asking who is fooling who?
July 18th, 2006 at 10:39 am
This has nothing to do with artists.
You must be an ASCAP lawyer. So dumb as to not know that songwriters are artists. Most are also performer artists. Composition is an art.
July 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Now that Congrees is is the mood to make to make all youth criminals for sharing music, and stealing absolutely nothing, we need to see this news fron Congress:
“A new law will make it a crime to providing fraudulent information regarding the distribution of public performance or broadcasting fees to songwriters directly or throught a music publisher.”
Of course that would make ASCAP a criminal entity.
August 15th, 2006 at 4:54 am
Paying licensing fees for the right to play CD’s or even a radio for on-hold music is another ripoff by ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. I know, because I checked it out. According to a BMI representative, on-hold music is not surveyed even when licensing fees are paid specifically for the right to play on-hold music. Instead, the royalties are distributed based on radio air-play. This means that if your business is paying licensing fees and playing on-hold music that is obscure and therefore never played on the radio, the poor songwriter and publisher of said music won’t receive one dime from BMI, ASCAP or SESAC. Instead, songwriters of popular music played on the radio will receive your licensing fees in the form of unearned royalty payments. Better to use royalty-free music or arrange to pay the songwriter and publisher directly.