BMI is suing a bar in Indiana for holding karaoke contests without paying a license fee.
In a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, Broadcast Music Inc. alleges an eastside bar violated copyright laws by hosting karaoke and live music shows without paying licensing fees to use popular songs.New York-based BMI is a performance rights organization that collects license fees on behalf of songwriters when their music is played on radio, TV, the Internet, or is performed publicly.
First, the music industry places marketing ahead of the music, resulting in bland mediocrity, and foist that onto the listening audience. Then, they fix prices so they can overcharge people for their crap. Next, instead of embracing the new distribution system of the Internet, they try to cling to the dark ages and their incestuous distribution system. Then, they sue kids who, rather than spend $18 to get the one decent song on the album, download it instead. Now they're going after the bars, where people actually get to hear live music, that might actually inspire them to go out and plunk down some cash for a new CD.
Now I can understand paying a license for a live band. The songwriter needs to get something for his work. But on karaoke night, there are no bands, just a CD that the bar owner has already purchased. Why should he pay another fee just to play it?
This is a move which could seriously reduce the venues for small bands to build a following, which will make commercial music even dumber than it is now.
Posted by Rich at September 12, 2003 1:19 PM | TrackBackYou are right.
I would think the bar owner already pays a blanket fee to allow them to play music in general, and that
should cover live bands playing 'covers' as well as
recorded music.
Karaoke music is generaly not done by the original
band. The 'CDg' mfgs. are also up in arms with the
Karaoke Jockeys who freely make copies and then swap them or include them in multiple show locations at the same time.
The law is clear, but I am not a lawyer and can't
advise.
But before the air clears of this, the KJ will have
moved on. Network directly to KJ's home office from the venues. Content is downloaded as the
singers select them from touch screens.
But the future may be suggested by Jon Sinclair
(Hollywood's top vocal coach) who asked me if it
would be possible to set up something brand new.
Original music custom selected for karaoke singers (from the piles of files Jon has.)
As for following the rules, I have watched with great interest as other have attempted to contact folks such as own these rights and noted the mass
confusion and dead ends which resulted.
I suggested to one CDg mfg. they simply charge a
fee to the clubs and ignore the casual CDg piracy
of the KJs.
The CDg's are expensive, and the KJ will likely
have thousands of songs, or hundreds of CDg's with them at a show.
As for the bar owner, he should somehow clearly
know what the law reads. Was he un-informed? Poorly-informed? Mis-informed? Disbelieving?
Next time maybe he should put a 'for sale sign' on the CDg's he is playing tracks from. Would that not
make playing a track simply 'fair use' as defined
in the copyright law? Well, it's not for me to advise folks, but someone might ask a lawyer just
how far 'fair use' can be stretched. (Fair use lets
folks 'show' stuff in order to sell it.)
I agree with you. The bar owner bought the disc which is intended to be played by the maker, and
did not sign any further contract regarding the
number of people who might be listening while he
played it.
Further, the bar owner did not charge folks to
listen to the CDg's. He profits by the beer, eh?
It might be intersting to find out how much they
made vs how much the music composer made vs how
much the lawyers made vs the musicians.