« The school redistricting story ... | Main | What's the real future of the youth prison? »

March 13, 2006

It's all about the music

Liberty Steakhouse & Brewery ran afoul of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers last year. Now they're suing.

ASCAP is one of the big-three, along with BMI and SESAC when it comes to performers' rights and licensing. Basically, if I'm a songwriter and I want to get paid for other people performing my song, I join one of these groups. And if I'm a business owner and want to have music in my joint, then I'm supposed to make sure it's original or come to some kind of licensing agreement with these groups.

ASCAP claims Liberty didn't have a license when five of its songs were played there last summer. Now they're seeking damages. And Liberty's not alone. ASCAP filed 24 similar cases around the country last month.

One of Liberty's co-owners talked with me about it last week. He wasn't too happy about the suit, as one might understand. But he also said he doesn't want to cheat songwriters out of their due.

As someone who has worked in bars and restaurants that I'm pretty darn sure didn't pay any licensing fees (let's just say if there was any extra money to spread around it wasn't going to a licensing group in New York) when we had the occasional band, I can see how easy it would be to land in hot water. And in a way it seems tough to require a joint to get an expensive license to have the occasional cover band.

As someone with friends who've tried and are trying to make it as professional musicians, it's nice to know there are groups like ASCAP that vigorously protect copyrights. If someone was playing my work and I wasn't getting paid, I'd be a might bit hot.

I guess what I'm saying is that this is one of the stories where I think it's easy to understand both sides.

Anyway, check out tomorrow's paper for a story on it.

Posted by Jonathan Jones at March 13, 2006 8:15 PM

Comments

This is the most outrageous thing I ever heard. The cover artist should in-turn then charge the artist a promotion fee for putting that artist's music in front of people who will then maybe buy it. It's the best free P.R. any recording artist could get. EVERY recording artist out there built his chops playing covers and never paying the original artist a damn thing and they all know it. This is yuppie lawyers gone mad-the same thing that is f------ the whole country to hell and back.

It's also completely ridiculous to the point of absudity to go after Liberty when you consider the thousands of venues where covers are performed.

Posted by: Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death at March 14, 2006 11:25 AM

GML,

The legal doctrine behind the idea that a business owes royalties for the music played there is long established -- it dates to a case from 1914 in which the Supreme Court decided as much. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote the majority decision.

And Liberty's not alone in being targeted. It's just the only one in N.C. that got caught up in ASCAP's latest round of lawsuits.

All that said, I certainly understand your point. You're spot on that most musicians hone their chops on other people's music.

And the argument you're making is very similar to the one people have made in favor of file-sharing programs such as Napster -- that the free play of the music actually helps the artist by spreading it to a wider audience and in turn drives up sales.

I call it the Grateful Dead argument-- they allowed their concerts to be taped and retaped and traded and swapped to no end -- all of which led to greater popularity. And when they started selling higher quality versions of the performances that had since become legendary... people couldn't get enough.

Posted by: Jonathan Jones at March 14, 2006 12:01 PM

This means that you can't sing Happy Birthday in a restaurant, without paying royalties. Liberty must have pissed off somebody.

How could they possibly target Liberty when there are hundreds of places in NC that do this on a daily basis and not just on weekends?

This would make social life of any kind impossible. People would have to dance only to somebody's original music. Our whole society would collapse. Just because there's laws on the books against something does mean jack. There are states where BJ's are banned under sodomy laws. If this was suddenly enforced we're talking comoplete societal collapse here.

What about DJ's and recoreded music?

Posted by: GML at March 14, 2006 2:29 PM