How is that abuse?
Re:Abuse?
djberg96 on 2005-01-27T16:59:34
It's not. However, it's total numskullery for any musician/composer/writer to do this. Someone playing your music, to me, is a form of free advertising."Oh, you want to charge us for playing your song? Guess what? We just won't play it. Nyah, nyah". Let them cut their own throats if they like.
Re:Abuse? This is old old old news.
n1vux on 2005-01-27T18:26:50
This sort of ASCAP suit is *not* new, it's at least 50 years old.Someone playing your music for themsleves, yeah, that's cool, no problem. Someone playing it for profit, that requires royalties, always has. (Profit - admission, cover charge, or incidental entertainment at a place of commerce.) That's the whole point of copyrighting musical performances and compositions.
Your music plays on a radio station, they pay ASCAP and ASCAP pays your label/agent/you. Your music plays in a bar, they pay. This is why Bars and Stores have subscription closed-pipe Muzak or sub-carrier commercial-free "radio", not to not annoy you the customer with commercials but because the Muzak provider takes care of the licensing fees. If you play WOLD 98.7 in your barbershop, technically you owe each artist played royalties, since the station only paid for commercial broadcast, non-commercial listening. Every year they sue a few bars etc that play records locally w/o an ASCAP contract or that play the broadcast radio, not only to lean on them but to remind the others that might have "forgotten".
Likewise, if the staff at a restaurant sang Happy Birthday, they owed the spinsters a check
... I haven't heard if their estated sucessfully renewed under the MickeyMouse act. Re:Abuse? This is old old old news.
djberg96 on 2005-01-27T19:41:49
"Someone playing your music for themsleves, yeah, that's cool, no problem. Someone playing it for profit, that requires royalties, always has. (Profit - admission, cover charge, or incidental entertainment at a place of commerce.) That's the whole point of copyrighting musical performances and compositions."The "incidental entertainment" is where I take issue. Also, I thought the main point of copyrighting music was to prevent illegal copying/plagiarizing, not *playing*.
Re:Abuse? This is old old old news.
jdavidb on 2005-01-27T19:55:40
As for the main point, that's been quite obfuscated, and I think that's been deliberate on the part of those who profit from the institution of copyright at all.
According to the Constitution, the purpose of the allegedly-limited monopolies we grant under the names of copyright, patent, etc. is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts." I have a lot of beefs with this. I do not take it as axiomatic that "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts" is even a domain of government, although most people seem to accept it without question and vilify me for even raising the possibility of disagreement. I am also unconvinced that these monopoly grants even succeed in this goal. And, of course, in this case I'm upset that this whole system is intruding in the area of incidental entertainment, where I am under the impression it has previously not.
Now, to many of those who support this system and its expansion, the main point of copyright is to recognize a natural right that a creator or discoverer has over his intangible work. But legal authorities haven't established it this way. If it were truly such a right, it would not be for a limited time, but instead be perpetual. The truth is that society through government makes a deal with these creators to grant them this temporary privilege. It's supposed to be a positive tradeoff for all involved.
Re:Abuse?
jdavidb on 2005-01-27T18:16:17
It's a new encroachment on an area that has traditionally been considered to be out of bounds, even if perhaps it was not so legally. Watch old episodes of "Happy Days"; do you think the kids playing songs in Al's burger hangout had to contact somebody to ask permission?
I'll admit they have the legal right to do this, but since traditionally this kind of thing has been allowed, it is an encroachment and I consider it to be abuse. I don't consider them to have a moral right to do this.
Re:Abuse?
chromatic on 2005-01-28T17:00:10
Watch old episodes of "Happy Days"; do you think the kids playing songs in Al's burger hangout had to contact somebody to ask permission?
Do you mean the songs on the jukebox? No, they didn't have to ask permission for each song. That's the purpose of clearinghouses such as ASCAP and BMI and (apparently) the Jukebox License Office.
The JLO history page suggests that this licensing started in 1978, not soon enough to catch Happy Days in its timeline but soon enough to cover the show (which being television would either have paid royalties diligently or fought it as hard as possible).
Re:Abuse?
jdavidb on 2005-01-28T18:03:29
Do you mean the songs on the jukebox?
No, not the jukebox, but the live band present in some episodes, often made up of Richie and his friends.
When a bunch of kids get together and form a band, and actually get the privilege of performing in public, I think it's wrong to expect them to pay license fees and equate them with "thieves."
I am certain that the Happy Days show paid appropriate licensing fees or at least had licensing agreements. I am talking about real people doing what was depicted on the show, and I am certain that noone went around in the 50's making little groups obtain licenses to perform popular songs in local hangouts.
