A bar in New York got sued for using unlicensed songs. The bar didn't put out a CD with music so what did they do wrong?
They allowed guests to sing karaoke to songs that the bar apparently did not llicense on forehand.
In a lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers claimed that the bar violated copyright laws. ASCAP lawyer Michael Sciotti said the bar had plenty of warnings since it opened in 2002.
"There were 27 contacts before it got to me," he said. "We bend over backward to educate businesses and answer questions and most comply voluntarily. Thousands of businesses do it with no problem."
Now using songs illegally is wrong. But if a bar allows the people to sing from a list of 60 songs and only five songs are apparently on the list of not licensed it starting to sound like extortion to me.
Yes they should have paid for those songs. But on the other hand the bar doesn't really make money from the people singing the songs, but it entertains the people. So indirectly the lawsuit is effectively destroying the fun of fans that like to sing those songs.
Nothing new here. This is what ASCAP has been doing for many years, sending people into bars to see if songs are being played without a license.
If they did contact the bar 27 times, as they claim, then the bar owners should have just removed the five songs from their selection until the issue was resolved, rather than say "well, it's only five songs performed poorly, so what's the big dead?" I agree suing over five songs is a bit tacky, but it sounds like the bar had plenty of warning.
Don't confuse ASCAP with "the music industry." The mp3/file sharing lawsuits are filed by record companies. ASCAP represents the songwriters (aka, the artists), as well as publishers, and it's their job to make sure the songwriters are getting paid for performances of their songs. Heck, since they use a sliding scale, based on the type of performance, I can't imagine the bar was asked to pay that much for a stinkin' karaoke performance.
The bars DO make money from those karaoke songs. Did people go into that bar? Did they order drinks? buy food? Then the bar was making money while that song was being sung. Period.
Then why isn't there a license needed when they just play the radio with the *SAME* song.
I agree the composer should be getting a fee because their songs might be played, but make it a flat fee for a bar. don't make them license every single song they MIGHT use or might NOT use at some point.
ahh, but there is a fee to "just" listen to the radio in a public place! If you don't pay for it, you can't play it. That's what our lawyers found out when a patron complained that we were playing the radio in our public place, for everyone to hear. The radio is for private use only. So if you have the public present, you better be paying for a service (like, gasp, Musak!), or your business can be fined.
It's true. ASCAP and BMI, the two songwriters groups, collect licensing fees from bars, restaurants, etc for "performances" for public consumption, which can include radio/tv broadcast. According to ASCAP's definition: "A public performance is one that occurs 'in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered.'"
As for the licensing fee, it can be a flat fee. It all depends on the bar/restaurant/club, it's revenue, what type of license it needs. For example, a club that hosts live bands most of the week would probably get a flat fee license. But for just one or two shows a year/month, it might be better to get a per concert license.
Page :
1
This topic is closed for Guest reactions, if you want to react on this article you will have to register
