From Russia, With Stupidity: Band Must Pay Fines To Itself

from the in-russia-songs-copyright-you dept

Fri, Jul 10th 2009 10:57am — Mike Masnick

Reader Wesha sends in the news that the band Deep Purple has been fined for performing its own songs in Russia without first getting a license from the Russian Authors' Society (NGO). And it wasn't a small fine either, approximately $1,000 per song. Oh, but wait, it gets better. According to one news organization, the money will be passed along to the victim, a band called... Deep Purple. Yes, that's right. Apparently, the band needs to pay a fine for performing the songs without properly licensing them from itself... so now it'll pay the fine and the fine will be given to the band (minus a commission to the Russian Authors' Society, of course.) Common sense just died.

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

Filed Under: deep purple, fines, music, performance rights, russia
Companies: ngo

63 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:02am

""

My guess is that a portion of the money will be passed along to Deep Purple. A very small portion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:03am

"the money will be passed along to the victim"

My guess is that a portion of the money will be passed along to Deep Purple. A very small portion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:04am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, I'm a retard.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Yeah, I'm a retard."
    
    Wait, I've never been able to say this before:
    
    I completely 100% agree with the above statement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:29am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Wait, I've never been able to say this before..."
      
      You've never agreed with someone 100% before?!
      
      2+2=4 is too hard to completely accept? The earth is round, not flat, not enough evidence? Sex is fun, never tried it yet?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "2+2=4 is too hard to completely accept?"
        
        I'd like to see the RIAA's take on that math, since one infringement of one song = $80k
        
        "The earth is round, not flat, not enough evidence?"
        
        Are you talking about the Earth in it's totality, because certainly certain segments are flat.
        
        "Sex is fun, never tried it yet?"
        
        Yes, tried it, not excessively but enough to know that the blanket claim that sex is fun is not always true. If you haven't had enough sex to know that some sex is so bad that it isn't fun, have more and you'll come to know the truth.
        
        *Self admitted arguholic*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wow, I actually believe you. This was the first time you believed something 100% So, are you a philosophy major, or is picking a major too much commitment for you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "This was the first time you believed something 100% So, are you a philosophy major, or is picking a major too much commitment for you?"
        
        Psych major, but yeah, I find differentiating sides of arguments interesting :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Philosophy or psych, two completely different degrees with nearly the same result.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        anonymously cowardly, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        having a career asking people, "Would you like fries with that?"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        DJ (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        just wanted to get my two cents in...
        ok I'm done.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 3:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember that 1+1=3... for very large values of 1. It's true, and I can prove it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 1 Nov 2009 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But the earth ISN'T round. It's egg-shaped
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ryan, 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You 100% agree with the statement that you've never been able to say this before?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, now you're just making my brain hurt. Go back to something I can understand, like defending the wealthy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ok, now you're just making my brain hurt. Go back to something I can understand, like defending the wealthy."
        
        I 99% agree with the above statement...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        neo, 18 Aug 2009 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        IT ISN'T A STATEMENT
        
        AND STOP TROLLING
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ryan, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        FYI, I finally replied in that post's comments. I agree with making everybody play by the same rules, I just disagree with blaming individual players for actions made in a faulty system. And I definitely disgree with putting a firm limit on what is "excessive" wealth and what isn't, which seems totally subjective, unfair, self-defeating, and unnecessary to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:32am

Original Band
I wonder. Is the current incarnation of Deep Purple the original band, with original writers and musicians, or is it basically a cover band, or a cover band with one of the original bandmates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Derek Kerton (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:47am
  
  Re: Original Band
  Did my homework, answered my own question:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Purple
  
  The band has had many incarnations. The drummer is the only original bandmate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - VanCardboardbox, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:32pm
    
    Re: Re: Original Band
    Well, Ian Gillan and Ian Paice can pretty much be regarded as original members since they were in the band from 1969 on and appear in every important DP recording except Kentucky Woman, a Neil Diamond cover, their first single in 1968. I'd bet they played no material from that first record at their Russian shows.
    
    Of the principal writers, however, only Gillan remains, as Ritchie Blackmore and Jon Lord are no longer performing with the Purple. So Gillan will have to pay so that Gillan can get paid. The crazy remains.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re: Original Band
    So, I guess with that information on hand, the question is which set of band members are on record to be paid by the NGO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gord Wait, 11 Jul 2009 @ 11:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Original Band
    Actually, three of the current members were the "Machine Head" lineup, IE Smoke on the Water, arguably the most identifiable version of Deep Purple.
    Unfortunately John Lord is unable to play the hammond much, due to arthritis, else it would be four of them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:32am

This make perfect sense
I really don't know why you could disagree, how else do you expect NGO to pay their bills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eric (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:37am

In Russia, songs license you.

Dr E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:39am
  
  Re:
  God, it really needed to be said, didn't it!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:48am

move on
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ima Fish (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  What? Are you the techdirt cop? If you won't give us your name, at least give us your badge number!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "If you won't give us your name, at least give us your badge number!"
    
    I 89.4% agree with the above demand.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - monkyyy (profile), 11 Jul 2009 @ 9:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      really i only 25.785% agree
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dark Helmet, 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:49am

you too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:50am

Well this could actually be a good experiment
It will let the band see how much of the money paid in license fees actually get to them... :=/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 10 Jul 2009 @ 11:56am

Dear God, it's like a black hole of stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re:
  It's not a black hole of stupidity. If it were, you wouldn't know it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ryan, 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:12pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I am surmising that a Black Hole of Stupidity refers to a black hole that prevents any intelligence or reason from escaping the event horizon, leaving only a giant hole of stupidity in the fabric of space-time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sea Man, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:09pm

I can't believe no one has yet said...
In soviet Russia, fines pay you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Imagination (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:09pm

I didnt read all the comments, but am I too late..?

"In Soviet Russia..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Osno (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:11pm

Sorry to break it to you, Mike, but common sense died a long time ago. I think it was right after the Napster trial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanC (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:36pm

The promoter, not Deep Purple?
According to this article, it's not the band itself but the concert promoter who failed to pay the proper public performance licenses.

The whole matter still seems incredibly ridiculous, however.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
william, 10 Jul 2009 @ 12:45pm

not uncommon?
awhile ago I send in the story about the Taiwanese collection agency MUST... apparently they requires the Artist to apply to them for permits when they are planning to have concerts too.

I just don't understand how such silly and illogical situation can arise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:00pm

What is so amazing that a politically backward country such as Russia is tied up with the same stupidity that occurs in 21th century societies. From what I can see, there isn't much difference between Russia and most African countries when it comes corruption.

It would be news worthy if they didn't have the same stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:27pm

Ohhh, they beat other agencies to this - I bet the RIAA and others are jealous!

You think they'll try to copyright this idea and sue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- David (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re: (OverCast's comment)
  You can't copyright an idea. You have to patent it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:59pm
    
    Re: Re: (OverCast's comment)
    Hands down best comment I have read in a long time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - monkyyy (profile), 11 Jul 2009 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: (OverCast's comment)
    wow a patent on a way to abuse copyright laws
    the system works
    
    how long till siaa/ascap starts infringing on that patent
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 1:56pm

They asked for it...
Well, Deep Purple is an RIAA affiliated band and the record industry has been pressuring Russia to crack down on licensing, so here you go. Sometimes, what goes around comes around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maclizard (profile), 10 Jul 2009 @ 3:31pm

Lets be serious
Common sense just died.

Come now, common sense has been dead for years now. You might not remember though; much like Farra Fauset's death being over-shadowed by that of the king of pop, the death common sense was pushed aside by the death of privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon, 10 Jul 2009 @ 4:24pm

And in other news RIAA lawyers collectively facepalmed themselves and said why didn't we think of that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Big Content, 10 Jul 2009 @ 4:43pm

Makes Sense To Me
Remember, Russia isn't a Commie country any more. Now that they have all the benefits of Western-style freedoms, along with that goes Western-style responsibilities, which means they have to respect property rights, just like we do in the West. Even property that's "all in the mind" (intellectual property) needs to be respected, albeit in a mindful way. One thing's for sure, it DEFFINNATELY beats the old Commie hidebound bureaucratic way of doing things. Isn't Capitalism awesome?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy (profile), 11 Jul 2009 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Makes Sense To Me
  no
  capitalism is better then commieism
  but it still kills everything it touches
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anon, 18 Aug 2009 @ 6:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Makes Sense To Me
    Wow! By this logic every government kills everything it touches. Maybe we should all be anarchists XD
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2009 @ 4:48pm

All I know about this is that once upon a time one could go to a bar in the US and there was live musicians playing. Now you go to a bar and there is a TV playing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jong, 10 Jul 2009 @ 7:22pm

It's only ridiculous because it's ridiculous that this far from Deep Purple band is touring as Deep Purple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr Dave, 11 Jul 2009 @ 4:34am

Just like the UK
Here in the UK, an organization called PRS (prsformusic.com) would go after the venue owner for the fees, but the PRS rep would tell the venue owner that they should collect the fees from the band, so it's still the band that pays for the right to play their own songs. I believe they take about £14 per performance (per song?) and give less than £1 of that back.

There's no way out of it either, other than releasing all the songs into the public domain, the law says the PRS may collect for any performance of copyrighted music!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AlfeG, 11 Jul 2009 @ 2:24pm

It's deep puprple submit to court
You are not right.

It's Band of Deep Purple was get to the court for the russian concert hall, that need to pay all royalties for the Deep Purple. It's a little stupid but it's the DeepPurple issue not russians(because DP not own there songs, single members of band own all rights for the songs).
Please learn all documents before complain.

You can find information in the russian habrahabr.ru: http://habrahabr.ru/blogs/copyright/63217/ (yep it's russian)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
petr999 (profile), 12 Jul 2009 @ 7:27am

dp pays R. Gov. as as a legal play
So, Deep Purple pays itself as a legal consequence of fair play of authors'rights and human rights, right?
In deed, Deep Purple pays to Authors' society its commission , right.
Deep Purple, beloved by president Medvedev, who picked a shot of himself among them behind the scenes at a concert, Deep Purple pays royalty to legacy organization controlled, licensed and so on by... Russian Government. right?
And here the Prime Minister Vladimir Putin comes out. Just what's about him?
Being altogether all over Medvedev's election campaign, they were split on that Deep Purple's concert. No, Putin picked no shots with these celebs for his sweet memory giving food for kremlinologists' considerations. As well, no jeans wear on him in public noticed.
Although there are much more powers whom these both officials are tend to serve as a face of intentions, powers those are about to be the people of Russian Federation, right? Since the officials are simply the faces of the Forcing Rule, I'm about to consider their acts as a messages.
So again, Putin had not visited Deep Purple's concert with Medvedev, just like speaking to us "it's not his favor".
Now, Government, headed by Putin, faced by Authors' Society, charges Deep Purple, just like speaking to us "it is not a favor".
Looks like little somebody, now Government-related, did it to them again. :-)
So I have 2 questions: 1. Why was it needed to send such a message again. 2. Why here is a tech, not political, dirt :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
johnney, 12 Jul 2009 @ 10:20am

Old news. there was one other article about a hair salon I think, I can't remember where, playing some ipod music or other, and the 'music police' came in and fined them for publicly broadcasting an artist without having a license. Absurd if only because playing a portable radio in public is totally legal most anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 12 Jul 2009 @ 8:23pm

I Love this .....
Yet another band to pick up .... lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JILL, 13 Jul 2009 @ 2:39am

DEEP PURPLE
RUSSIA NEVER FINED THE BEATLES FOR PLAYING THEIR OWN MUSIC ABOUT RUSSIA,IN RUSSIA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
0ffh, 13 Jul 2009 @ 5:26am

Same happens here in Germany if a Band plays its own songs without first telling GEMA (NGO) that it will perform a gig! Or if it performs a gig of songs which are of no concern to GEMA (because the writers of the songs have no agreement with GEMA) without telling the GEMA first there will be a gig and list all the songs to prove they are all non-GEMA! Not funny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sebastian velasquez, 21 Jul 2009 @ 7:00am

Common Sense
Actually, common sense died when the Russian Goverment Agency fined the band and not the producer of the concert. It is he, the producer who in fact should pay for this licence for which deep blue would be paid too afterwards by the group's own society...which should have a reciprocity contract with the russian agency....so in fact...it is the concert's producer whi should have paid the fine...

sebastian velasquez
Copyright Lawyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ttownbeast, 19 Aug 2009 @ 5:22pm

sounds like...
To me this just sounds like racketeering after all the RSA receives a cut for doing nothing really except making threats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gut, 3 Nov 2009 @ 3:18pm

stupid stupid stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]