And, Next, We'll Arrest You For Singing In The Shower
from the this-cannot-be-serious dept
The copyright wars continue. We've already seen things like the industry cracking down on bars that offer karaoke without compensating the industry, and now it appears they're going after harmonica players as well. At least that's the story that Slashdot points us to of a 73-year-old man who was arrested in Japan for playing Beatles tunes on his harmonica at a bar he managed. Apparently the industry has been after him for a long time, saying he's repeatedly performed such works at the bar, and hasn't paid them for the privilege. A court ordered him to stop playing the songs, and when he did it again, he was arrested. As Slashdot notes, this certainly sounds like an article from The Onion. Of course, this whole story has to raise one very important question: will he be allowed to play his harmonica in jail?Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the porn issue still applies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #2 Post
Performers get paid by the performance! He was not making recordings, he was performing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Paul owns the rights to roughly 50% of the Beatles library, as I understand it. Michael Jackson had to sell a lot of it off to cover his debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$$$$$
I do agree with comment #2 if he is doing it as a performance then he should pay but if he was just playing for the sake of playing then leave him alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: $$$$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: $$$$$
You are so wrong on this one, Corey. In fact music performances do not EVER constitute copyright infringement. The copyright being referred to in MOST of the copyright cases we discuss, (especially regarding illegal downloads) involves the copyright to the recorded material. Not the written or published work. One would have to steal words or music and claim them as their own to infringe the copyright of a written/published work.
Furthermore, this is an issue of business use versus personal use, not Public vs. Private use. Public performance of copyrighted recordings is similar to illegal copying/downloading, and therefore there is a significant distinction between the public and private display of copyrighted recordings.
However, what the quote you were referring to was suggesting is that if he was not playing beatle's songs for business purposes, and just his personal enjoyment, he should be left alone, which (here in the US, at least) is correct.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Technically, yes, cover bands are supposed to pay royalties. However, most "above board" venues belong to either ASCAP or BMI, and any performances are covered under the venues' dues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
American Idol????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: American Idol????
The network producing American Idol covered the royalties as part of their production costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI ETC
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BMI ETC
He did not get in trouble for PLAYING the music. He got in trouble because he manages the bar. The venues are responsible for paying ASCAP/BMI fees.
This is not a new DMCA-related power grab. This has always been the case and it's why ASCAP and BMI were created.
It's supposed to make it EASIER to play live music, not harder. No one cares which songs you play or how many times you play them (except for very rough estimates); if you pay the license fee, you are legal for any artist whose rights are covered by that organization.
When BMI sends someone to investigate your bar, they don't care if it's Beatles tunes, or if you're 73, or if it's a harmonica. What they want to know is:
(1) Does your bar ever feature live music of BMI artists?
(2) Are your BMI fees paid up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the real reason...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fees
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fees
I used to own a cyber cafe that had an open mic night and I was expected to pay a fee to three different organizations. That's just one of the reasons I'm no longer in that business... :-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fees
That's all well and good, until they get caught. And, eventually, they will. And then, they'll either pay, or there will be a large chain on their door. I've seen it happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bootleg copies have been illegal for a long time now, at least to sell. Purchasing I think there might be a minor fine if anything, but I know for DISTRIBUTING bootleg copies it can be jail time. Just look at the FBI warning on video tapes for the perfect example.
Now what IS wrong that the *AA duo keep doing is suing excessivley, usually innocent people, and for excessive ammounts of money on ridiculous premises.
If someone has 30gigs of downloaded music that they did not purchase online, nor own the CDs for (or at least can prove that they have OWNED it at one time or another) I'd personally say they are SOL. That IS like stealing the actual CDs except it is far more easily accomplished. Also it FEELS less like stealing so people who wouldn't normally shoplift don't mind doing it all the time.
Note that this is only truley provable in the case of whole albums being on people's computers (tags included). If you have only one song and its the only one you like I don't think they should be able to prosecute you as that is like when your friend makes a mix tape/cd and gives it to you. You can still record off the radio as well for free. Its been that way since the 70's. This would include streaming on your pc now probably.
Now lets move on to the topic at hand. This is obviously a money grubbing strategy that is completley supercilious and pretentious. For years people have been able to do stuff like that for free as long as they weren't charging for it. If this is what it appears to be, subway musicians the world over beware! This is truley getting out of hand and they need to be stopped. I can see how Kareoke bars need to pay royalties or possibly if you are doing a cover (though in my opinion that is damned stupid if you are giving credit for the work you are covering anyways, original or not) but for just playing your harmonica to entertain your friends (even bar regulars can be friends, and you can bet he's a regular if he's that old and going there).
Anyways recap: If you are gonna rag on the RIAA and music industry do it for the right reasons. Wanting music for free cause you are a cheapskate and think everything should be given to you is a BS reason, and if you were making a product and one person bought it then a bunch of others saw how great it was and wanted it and got it for free from the guy you sold one to, you'd be bitching like none other.
And second, RIAA needs to be destroyed. Almost all of these lawsuits you see from the RIAA are unjust and half the time just plain stupid. I'm amazed Judges are even allowing it to go on. Most of that is probably the fact most of the current Judges don't understand the technology and mediums involved.
Suing people cause you're business model needs to change isn't right or fair. Doing it because you can is fairly facist/communist. You shouldn't beat up your customers for more money. That's just dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Who the hell said anything about bootlegging????
Why the hell would you write 5 paragraphs about something no one even mentioned and THEN write:
"Now lets move on to the topic at hand."
Least helpful, most poorly written filth I have encountered since I left the bathroom Sunday morning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regarding Music in the Car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(that could be dirty if read by the wrong person)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can i play music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: can i play music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same old, same old
Here's one article I found on the subject:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/22/093516.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Playin music at a Party
That could really add up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Playin music at a Party
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW
I, by no means have an exhaustive knowledge of the topic, but at least have gained a basic understanding.
In the US:
As feral (#2) said, if he was playing it for business purposes he would owe royalties, to Michael Jackson most likely (I think he still owns publishing rights to most Beatle's songs), not Sir Paul, or Apple.
Additionally, the American Idol contestants have song banks they can choose from that Fox pays for.
Cover bands DO have to pay every time they play a song.
Playing a recording and playing a song are two completely different acts.
Playing a recording (CD, mp3, record, tape, radio, tv performance) is more expensive, more regulated, and more controversial. That is what people are getting in trouble for sharing music for, copyright infringement. Unless you have the rights to a recording, or rights to use the recording, you cant, copy the recording, use the recording in your original work, or do anything EXCEPT listen to the recording, and even then you have to lock yourself in a soundproof box to do it. DON'T INVITE YOUR FRIENDS.
Playing (ie "covering") a song that someone else wrote, recorded, whatever is a different process altogether. If done for financial gain, you are supposed to contact the company and negotiate a price for doing so. Most publishing companies have set rates for cover bands etc, that they charge across the board. HOWEVER, if negotiations fail, a performer still has the right to perform the song, I cannot remember if they are supposed to then pay a "reasonable" fee, or don't have to pay anything at all.
BUT apparently this happened in Japan, so I have no idea which of these apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
leave paul out of this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jez
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
heard a story that mcarthy actually lost a bidding war for the rights to one of his own songs to jackson
thats big busisness
but surely playing it on a harmonica, with no lyrics and no other music cant count as copyright violation.. it would be too different sounding to be considered the same. plus hes not recording it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Music Business
As part of the many rights performers have, they have the right to sing any song at any different venue they wish, and they never have to pay a royalty. Remember, this is 'live' performances. You can sing 'yesterday' all night long at the club, and never be charged as a performer. Who does get charged then? The venue. The venue is charged a set amount for the reason of paying the songwriters.
The man in the bar must have been the owner and refused to pay the dues that the songwriter rightfully owns.
Ill write a little more on this subject.... but i've got some business classes to attend!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
just out of curiousity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In response to #34
Anyways! As I was saying in my previous post, Live performances aren't subjected to royalties by the performer, but the venue must pay. If you ever decide to 'record' a previously written song, then you must pay a mechanical royalty to the songwriter. If you wish to use it in a movie, or TV, you must get a synchronization license from the songwriter. Remember, how else would the songwriter get paid for their hard work? It isn't as easy as you think to create a hit song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another reply.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just another reply.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just another reply.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
reply to #41
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
don't you humans have anything better to do...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: don't you humans have anything better to do...
Should I have to pay to express this opinion, or should I be paid for it? You can construct a perfectly valid and consistent argument for both positions using human logic. In the final analysis it is who shouts the loudest and who holds the guns that decides "truth" for humans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: don't you humans have anything better to d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fees for performing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fees for performing.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Burden of Proof
Nor can they prove that I redistributed any of those mp3s. They would have to download the files themselves to know it. If they are downloading the files from me, to prove that I uploaded the files to them, then they are doing the illegal copying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]