!! It is NOT in public domain!
| Karaoke Scene's Karaoke Forums https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/ |
|
| Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees https://mail.karaokescene.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9489 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | maninblack [ Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:59 am ] |
| Post subject: | Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
ELLENTON, Fla — No dough, no 'Cotton Eye Joe' was the tune one Florida bar heard after failing to pay fees for copyrighted songs played by DJs, karaoke performers and live musicians at the venue. Woody's River Roo bar near Sarasota found itself the target of a $150,000 lawsuit filed in federal court by the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), which distributes royalties to songwriters and publishers. The suit alleges the operators failed to pay fines and licensing fees for several copyrighted songs. The lawsuit alleges that the tunes, whether spun by a DJ, covered by a local performer or belted out by karaoke singers, were performed at Woody's without the required royalty fees. Pat O'Leary, general manager for the 250-seat casual dining restaurant/bar, said the lawsuit was a total surprise and the restaurant hadn't been served with legal notice yet. "The first we heard about it was in the paper," O'Leary told FOXNews.com."This has never happened to us before ... this is all new stuff." He said due to a clerical error, the bar operators failed to pay yearly licensing fees to one of the three major firms that holds music copyrights, but they are willing to pay ASCAP the money they owe. After contacting ASCAP, O'Leary said he is sure a settlement will be reached out of court, but for less than the $150,000 being sought in the lawsuit. "They're not looking for damages" said O'Leary. "It doesn't leave a bad taste in our mouths." According to a report in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, ASCAP said said it sent a private investigator to the bar last September to document any unlicensed music being played. He listed several songs including 'Cotton Eye Joe' by Rednex, 'Margaritaville' by Jimmy Buffett, 'Charlie Brown' by The Coasters, 'Midnight Train to Georgia' by Gladys Knight and The Pips, and Tone Loc's version of 'Wild Thing,' according to the reports. Phones calls to ASCAP's New York and Miami offices were unreturned Thursday. All copyrighted songs played in public require the payment of fees for usership. Smaller bars usually pay fees between $150 to $500 a year. ASCAP counts 275,000 U.S. composers, songwriters, lyricists, and music publishers among its membership and licenses billions of performances a year, according to its Web site. The licensing fees are based on the scope of the medium and the type of performance. The Associated Press contributed to this report. |
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Fri Feb 23, 2007 8:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
This will be pretty interesting. "Cotten Eye Joe" is in public domain. There is no law that says you have to pay ASCAP for anything. In fact, US V ASCAP 1941 says you don't have to pay them at all. |
|
| Author: | knightshow [ Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
| !! It is NOT in public domain!
|
|
| Author: | karyoker [ Fri Feb 23, 2007 4:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
We have pasted many ascap stickers in the glass in jukebox covers when putting them in a new bar.. I can halfway agree with the fees in large clubs or lounges where big name bands are regular weekend attractions and the jukebox is attended and filled with the latest hits But some of these people make a million dollars/ month on tours plus cd royalties. I think it is out and out greed when they milk a few dollars out of a little mom & pop corner bar that is not even in the black.. I have read on some sites where less than 10% actually is returned to the artist or writer.. If it was going to these small bands bustin their (@$%&#!) in small clubs I would totally be in favor of it.. As this happens more and more less bars will have karaoke whether it is a fair practice or not.. Gradually one reaps what he sows... I have a gift that has turned many crowds on it has given wings to souls given people inspiration made people happy and even got >imagination required here> once and an occassional drink I have sang for benefits but in sixty years I have never charged for it for it is a gift that I share with my friends and strangers.. I still contend that if I sing a song and it frees one soul for a few moments then that song belongs to nobody but us.. I can put you on a spiritual high and would accept no payment other than a thanks or appreciation or love.. I sing from the heart not from greed... Let my children sing and their children.. And dont expect to make money off of it.. |
|
| Author: | Flipper [ Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
I have to disagree with you exweedfarmer. ASCAP and BMI have the ability to prosecute and frequently do when they get a difficult bar owner that wants to challenge them. I've seen it happen many times here in our area. They seem to be quite aggressive here in Oregon. If the bar owner asks me, I say you might as well pay them and get over it. They will eventually get their money. I also mention that I would really prefer that they would provide me a way to pay the fee so the bars or venues I play at do not have to deal with it. But nothing like that is available...they want each venue to pay. Frankly I wish all of the royalties and fees were run through one agency so we could get past this format shifting and royalty thing. I'm so sick of reading and talking about it I could puke 
|
|
| Author: | timberlea [ Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
Here in Canada only one agency collects royaly fees for performance and that is SOCAN. For copying discs in Canada, ALVA is responsible. You pay a licencing fee and you can make copies of your music to use publicly. However, CDG are not covered because of the sync licencing. It's getting closer in Canada but not quite there for karaoke. |
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
knightshow @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:25 pm wrote: LOL!! It is NOT in public domain!
Yeah it is. I personally sang it in 1964 and it was in public domain then. Earlist recording I can find on a quick search was 1925 and if I searched the library of congress I bet I could find sheet music predating the civil war. That's as public domain as public domain gets. |
|
| Author: | ok What Now [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
just wondering but, do u have to have a lic. if ur in a band and u sing other artist songs? and is the lic. for the music for the writer r the artist that covered that song? i see no different in a band playing someone elses songs and someone singing it then i do karaoke playing the music of another artist songs and singing to it... and there is not 1 performer out there that has not sung cover songs getting to the top.... |
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
Flipper @ Sun Feb 25, 2007 10:50 am wrote: I have to disagree with you exweedfarmer. ASCAP and BMI have the ability to prosecute and frequently do when they get a difficult bar owner that wants to challenge them. I've seen it happen many times here in our area.
They have the ability to prosecute but they don't have the ability to win. Like I said before, the second amended final judgement in US V ASCAP 1941. I believe it's section 8 if memory serves, which prohibits a music licnesing agency from collection on a per/song, per/use basis. US copyright law says that the author of a work is only entitled to collect on a per/song, per/use basis. ASCAP is prohibited from collecting the only fees the author is entitled to. You may buy a license from ASCAP to CYA but you don't have to. That's what the law seems to say anyway. |
|
| Author: | timberlea [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
A particular song may be in the public domain, but arrangements of those songs can be copyrighted. Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven's music is all public domain. However, if John Williams creates an arrangement of their work, those arrangements can and are copyrighted. |
|
| Author: | knightshow [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
exweedfarmer @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:09 pm wrote: knightshow @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:25 pm wrote: LOL!! It is NOT in public domain! Yeah it is. I personally sang it in 1964 and it was in public domain then. Earlist recording I can find on a quick search was 1925 and if I searched the library of congress I bet I could find sheet music predating the civil war. That's as public domain as public domain gets. NOT the version that gets sang and played that's so popular. |
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
timberlea @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:41 pm wrote: A particular song may be in the public domain, but arrangements of those songs can be copyrighted. Bach, Brahms, and Beethoven's music is all public domain. However, if John Williams creates an arrangement of their work, those arrangements can and are copyrighted.
True. But if we're talking karaoke, the arrangement is simular but not exact as it lacks the lead vocal and the intended use isn't the same. All that could be copyrighted in that case would be the song itself, and that, in the case of Cotten Eyed Joe is in public domain. |
|
| Author: | MorganLeFey [ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
 snogs weedy
|
|
| Author: | hamsamich [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
yes, true, but this doesn't sound cut and dry weedy, what would a jury say if the re-made song was played and then the karaoke version was played? or what would a truly impartial judge say? they may be inclined to think the song was enough like the re-made version no to include it in the Pubic Domain. vanilla ice ring a bell? |
|
| Author: | TopherM [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
hamsamich @ Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:30 am wrote: yes, true, but this doesn't sound cut and dry weedy, what would a jury say if the re-made song was played and then the karaoke version was played? or what would a truly impartial judge say? they may be inclined to think the song was enough like the re-made version no to include it in the Pubic Domain. vanilla ice ring a bell?
You know, that is exactly the reason why *some* of the weird versions of songs out there exist. Basically, the karaoke manufacturer didn't have the license, so they re-arranged the song, maybe changed a word here or there to cover their azz, and blamo, they ended up with a version that they could adequately argue as "different" in court. The most infamous example of this is the Weird Al disc from SGB with the laugh/applause tracks over the songs. I'm sure in that case, they had already invested in and completed the musical tracks but were denied the license, so instead of eating the production costs, they altered their version drastically enough that they didn't need the license to release it. The end product is the absolute worst karaoke CDG ever made!! I already know if I am raided by the karaoke police, that I may be able to get away with arguing that the drunken versions of the songs MY patrons sing should certainly be considered nothing short of PARODY!! |
|
| Author: | hamsamich [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
| youre too funny toph! I just saw Woody in that Larry Flint Movie for the 4th time. He reminds me of these conversations/issues. I love the part where it went to the supreme court. I know the movie is based on a true story, but I wonder how accurate the preceedings were when they focused on the supreme court part of it? ding ding ding de de de ding, ice ice baby. I wrote my own version while in the navy. a really nasty piece worthy of singing in front of only the filthiest of people in a most drunken state.
|
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
knightshow @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:12 pm wrote: exweedfarmer @ Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:09 pm wrote: knightshow @ Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:25 pm wrote: LOL!! It is NOT in public domain! Yeah it is. I personally sang it in 1964 and it was in public domain then. Earlist recording I can find on a quick search was 1925 and if I searched the library of congress I bet I could find sheet music predating the civil war. That's as public domain as public domain gets. NOT the version that gets sang and played that's so popular. |
|
| Author: | knightshow [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
the version you sang in 1964 is not the same as the one that was released recently. We're not talking the exact same arrangement, and you know it. I'll grant it's VERY similar. I like Kim Wilde's version of "You keep me hanging on", a cover by the Supremes. There's a disctinct difference. Same thing with Johnny Cash's "Hurt" as opposed to Nine Inch Nails, or Psuedo Echo's version of "Funkytown" that Lipps, Inc did. The SONG is public domain, but not the version. |
|
| Author: | exweedfarmer [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
NOT SO! The version I sang in 1964 was IDENTICAL! They owe me Money!!! I think your arguement just fell apart. |
|
| Author: | karyoker [ Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Bar in Florida faces lawsuit for not paying licensing fees |
I various professions I have had dealings with the FBI FCC (once got cited a an FCC agent as the CE of od a tv statiob because the tower needed painting and my transmitter logs were not up to date.) That same place I ran of a couple of OSHA agents that tought they could show their badge and do anything they wanted. They informed me that they had a report that the building was reported to be unsafe and they were going to inspect the foundation.. It was a structure made out of concrete blocks and had stood mid west winds on the highest ridge around for 20 years. One broke out a little folding shovel and headed for the buliding in a defiant manner. I laughed and told him this building is sourrunde by a 6" copper ground strap which is attached to that tower. The tv braodcast is 300 KW the fm is 100 KW.. If one of you get fried dont come ballin to me!! I recommend you put that shovel back in your trunk and go talk to the GM downtwn He will make an appountment wth you and we will schedule an inspection.. I havnt seen them since. Another 10 year stint I worked for an operator who was a member of the AMOA and as such we advised bar owners and worked with mant ASCP agents.. Yet another thread on what they are going to do with illegal karaoke stuff... You couc be sittin ther with 4 stlolen guitars 4000 illegal CD'S and downloding porn off the net. Your wife could be naked but if she was singing one of the songs on their list they woild want their fees paid by the bar owner..They do not have the authority or could care less about copyright viloatons... RIAA however represents the artists and recording industry They are concerned with direct copyright violations and as far as I know they dont represent karaoke cd manus. If they did anybody would have a hell of a time proving in court how some drunk singing an imtitation of the original in some small bar is threatening their profit or livlihood. or in any way violating the original copyright That is the cd manus responsibilty not mine or the bars.. A young deputy busted us one time for riding a horse while intoxicated for a DUI. The assistant DA and I had a good laugh and he sent me home... I wish some insane (@$%&#!) would instigate an actual couurt case that would test the fair use act in a KJ or DJ's case Until that happens all this is pure conjecture. Show me any state or federal leglislatio in this country that addresse the new technology other than ipods or what they are really concentrating on now is the net and people are losing rights and privacy Thats where my concerns are And that is where everybody elses ateention is also... |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 8 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|