# Were poor, we need more wine money.......



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Or should that be whine money?................

http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20070222/NEWS/102220054


----------



## nine (Apr 23, 2006)

"Lez Zeppelin". That made me giggle.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

I have always understood that if you know of a copyright infringement as the copyright holder and do nothing about it, you lose the copyright. So it may look extreme on the surface, but if they want to continue to hold copyright they have to act to protect it. You can't just do it selectively.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

That's sick.

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.


----------



## J S Moore (Feb 18, 2006)

I was thinking of trademark, and patent as well. I have always thought they operated in much the same way. It just seems reasonable that if they didn't pursue this situation they wouldn't have much success in the next. It's not about money but protecting your interests.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> 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.


Hi JR (JRoberts),

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).


----------



## mandocaster (Jan 11, 2007)

Hamm Guitars said:


> 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).


Here Hear! Unfortunately, this is precisely the action of many societies who claim to be acting in the interests of their members, or worse, "society at large". It's a bunch of legal smokescreening which benefits nobody except some lawyer burning to flex his muscle. The one that occupies the space usually reserved for brains.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> So, copyright in the songs you have written should be lost as soon as you stop touring? :confused-smiley-010
> 
> 
> 
> It seems inuitive to me. If a couple of clubs who don't pay their license fees are sued, maybe more clubs will pay their license fees.


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.


----------



## rippinglickfest (Jan 1, 2006)

*money*

I agree that artists should be paid what they are due...........but c'mon the bands mentioned in this litigation are friggin millionaires how many times over.
They are going to come out looking like Metallica and the Napster fiasco.


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

You really have to wonder if at any time the people suing for things like this ever look in the mirror, and say, "Ya know Im a real greedy asswipe." Just because you have the right to do something, doesnt mean you should. In a place like the US, lawsuits like this dont surprise me, they sue for anything they can to tie their court system up. The only winners down there are the greedy lawyers who push there clients to sue for anything and everything..........


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> 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.


I'm saying that is the way that it should be. Obviously it's not the way it is or the club in question wouldn't be facing the problems that they are.


----------



## Hamm Guitars (Jan 12, 2007)

jroberts said:


> So, you would do away with the entire concept of performing rights? I don't think a lot of composers and songwriters would be happy with that.


They did just fine without it for a few thousand years.


----------

