Live royalites

[Wyvern]

a) thanks for the info it is really interesting as I also was confused before
b) if some of those rules apply here there will be no bands at all as many bands play covers (and as far as I know nobody pays anything), not mentioning tribute bands.
c) I'm glad I'm not a musician

NP: The Tangent - 'Exponenzgesetz'

 

[Daybreaker]

I think when Weiki made the comment that I quoted back in 98 / 99 he probably meant it in a "I don't really want to give the old former employer of mine any more money than I have to out of spite so blow me" kind of way rather than really thinking that he was going to have to whip out the check book and sign away a Benz.


But again, seriously, for everyone who has chimed in here with the replies, thanks. I like the fact I can ask a serious question on this forum and not get bombarded by tardish answers that make no sense or dead silence. That's rare so, go us.

 

[SeaStorm]

I read this the other day:

Written by Brandon Daviet
Published February 24, 2007

The details of this are just starting to come to light but... http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/02/24/200714.php

Seems like everyone else has cleared up the confusion. I just wanna add that this blog cited has got to be the worst piece of music writing I've ever seen. Every single paragraph is flat-out wrong. The Vail news article he pulled his "facts" from isn't much better, although it is at least technically correct, though incredibly misleading.

"A sinister cabal of superior writers"? If by superior, you mean inferior, then yes.

 

[DMin42]

what if an American radio station (over the air, not Internet) wanted to play some European power or progressive metal?

Just curious...

If this ever happens, at least in my neck of the woods, I will be very happy for the few days left before the world comes to a fiery end.


I've really never understood how music rights work. I understand that a musician puts a lot of work into his craft and that he/she should be able to have the opportunity to profit from it. If people like the song then they buy the cd and/or go see it performed live. I also understand that a musician all by himself will have a hard time getting his music produced and distributed and that the people (ie record label) who do that work should also be compensated for the risk they undertake.

But explain to me how the heck it makes sense for something like Micheal Jackson owning rights to Beatles songs to happen?


And as a final note......any band, but especially ones as successful and stinky rich as Van Halen or Led Zeppelin, that sues some smalltime struggling band or the club they played in for doing a few cover tunes should be tarred and feathered.....actually scratch feathered......just set that tar on fire. Anyone who has ever enjoyed a concert knows that covers as a rule kick ass. Last fall as an example......Cristal Mountain? Cowboys From Hell anyone?

 

[eaeolian]

I think when Weiki made the comment that I quoted back in 98 / 99 he probably meant it in a "I don't really want to give the old former employer of mine any more money than I have to out of spite so blow me" kind of way rather than really thinking that he was going to have to whip out the check book and sign away a Benz.

Ding Ding Ding!

I suspect the club that's mentioned above doesn't feel like paying their ASCAP/BMI fees, so several prominent members decided to sue it.

 

[SeaStorm]

And as a final note......any band, but especially ones as successful and stinky rich as Van Halen or Led Zeppelin, that sues some smalltime struggling band or the club they played in for doing a few cover tunes should be tarred and feathered.....actually scratch feathered......just set that tar on fire. Anyone who has ever enjoyed a concert knows that covers as a rule kick ass.

This is exactly why bad blogging and bad journalism can be so harmful: people don't know enough to realize when the writer is 100% wrong.

Here it is, as simple as it can be explained. In the US, anyone can play any song by any band live and not have to pay for it. Who pays is the venue. The venue pays the ASCAP/BMI fee and that's how the copyright owner gets compensated. VH and LZ are not suing any bands. VH and LZ are not suing the club because the bands played cover songs. VH and LZ are suing the venue for not paying their ASCAP/BMI fees. That's it. It's a simple license fee payment dispute. This club owner deserves it. Every other venue pays their fees and this guy gets an unfair competitive edge by not paying the fee, yet still having cover songs. Either he has no idea how to run a music venue, or he's intentionally not paying it.

Bottom line: COVER SONGS ARE NOT IN DANGER. Play them at will in any venue.

It's too bad these bands have to get a black eye for doing nothing wrong because journalists and bloggers with no legal knowledge feel the need to write ignorantly about legal issues. I'm not surprised, I see it all the time, but still, it's too bad.

 

[kittybeast]

I learned a lot from this thread. I posted that blog I read because I thought it had a bit to do with the thread, but thanks to those more well informed than I to clear up some of the things the author had said. If he's not paying his dues, then by all means the club should be sued.

 

[SeaStorm]

Glad to be of help and glad I could help clear up some misconceptions (that many others on this thread had already addressed really well, I should add).

I'm three months out from getting a law degree, and I have focused on music-related stuff during my time in school (copyright law, trademark law, entertainment law, doing research on band name trademarks), so it's good practice for me and it's fun to share the knowledge

It's definitely a confusing topic when you don't have any legal training.

 

[KingsGene]

Here's some more interesting reading...

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html

http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html