I can understand copying music and selling it, or recording someone elses music being a no-no, but this is going too far.
I'm sure that Lez Zeppelin's tunes (Led Zeppelin Covers I assume) were not reproduced in exacting detail (note for note, tempo, sonic characteristics etc), and they probably were not paid a whole lot of money for the performance - at least not enough to pay Led Zeppelin to re-unite with a different drummer and play the gig. So what are they being sued for? They will have to sue every club in the world at this rate. Totally ridiculous.
The artists were not out of pocket anything as a result of these performances and they do not compete with any product that is currently available from the bands as they are not currently playing live together either. If anything, clone bands promote the bands that they cover. A complete and utter sham.
It's the way its worked for decades. Bars have to pay fees to perfoming right societies like ASCAP for permission to publicly perfom music of the artists that are members of that society. It's how composers get paid. It works the same for canned music. If this bar just paid the licensing fee, it wouldn't be an issue. I guess they wanted to save a few bucks. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.
I would have to say that this hasn't worked for decades. I've worked in the music business for almost two decades now and I think I have been inside of one club that actually paid fees to SOCAN, but only because the owner himself was a card carrying member.
I whole heartedly believe that writers and musicians should be paid for their recorded work, and that their rights to make money by touring in support of that work should also be protected. But, if the artist is no longer touring to support the sales of the product that is a different story.
No damage has been done to the artist in this case, so there are no grounds for a suit. If anything, it is arguable that the artist may actually benifit from these performances.
Clubs are in the business of selling alcohol (and possibly chicken wings), they are consumers of the music business, that is their part in it. They pay bands to play at their establishments, and without them there would be few places for bands and musicians to hone their art. I can see no way for The Music Business to succeed by treating their Customers in this way.
The act of punishing a club for paying a band for a performance is both counter-intuative and counter productive. In this case, there is no evidence that the original artists suffered any type of financial loss at all. Any Music Industry Society that would choose to punish a consumer and supporter of the Music Buisiness does not have the societies best interest at heart and should re-examine the pricipals on which it was founded (i.e. to protect the music industry and those who are part of it).
The copyright protects the tangible product and the artists right to profit from it. The artists tour in support of the product would fall into this category, and any public playing of the product (i.e. songs played directly from the recoring) would also fall into this category.
The public playing of the recording should be paid for by those who directly profit from it. That would be radio stations and 'should be' club DJs. Charging a fee to a club for having these recordings played in their establishment is akin to charging an additional fee to advertisers who place adverts on radio stations that play music. The one who directly profits should pay the toll (in this case it would be the radio station and the DJ, as they charge for their services).
(Most) Musicians do not use the tangible product in their performances. And as long as they do not interfere with the artists profits that would be earned durring the tour in support of the product, no harm is done. No harm - no foul.
I would agree, that in extreame cases cover bands that tour extensively performing one bands material and taking on their persona and appearance would be an exception to this rule - but again this should only hold true if the original atrists are actively touring themselves. (i.e.. cover all the dead artists with total impunity)
Music has been performed live since the beginning of time, copyright law is a relitively new concept in relation. Enforcing it in such ways does not benifit musicians or the (any) society at all.
Again, charging clubs a fee to support the music industry is not the right thing to do and to me, sounds like more of a feeble attempt at a cash grab than anything else.
I'm not sure if you're saying that's the way it is or that's the way it should be. If you're saying the former, you're very wrong in your understanding of how copyright works.
They did just fine without it for a few thousand years.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
The Canadian Guitar Forum
1.4M posts
21.8K members
Since 2005
A forum community dedicated to guitar owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, displays, models, styles, amps, modifications, kits, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!