Music Licensing Groups Argue That A Homeowners Association Playing Music At The Pool Is A Public Performance
from the no-it-isn't dept
Sometimes it feels like these copyright collections groups are in some kind of insane competition in which the winner is whoever can make the dumbest claim about something being a public performance in order to collect royalties for themselves artists no, seriously, the artists barely get anything. From stereos in rental vehicles, to any kind of cloud-music-streaming, to freaking ringtones, it's all been tried and most of it has failed.
The latest entry to this tournament of greed comes from licensing group Sesac, which has been targeting homeowners associations that have stereos and speakers at communal areas for homeowners, such as swimming pools and barbecues.
A neighborhood in Matthews got a letter from Sesac, which is one of the big three music licensing companies in this country, and the tone of the letter unnerved them. It wasn't the first letter from them suggesting they may want to get a music license to play music at their pool or at the clubhouse during holiday gatherings, or any gathering for that matter. The letter also pointed out that violating copyright law is expensive and, "under the law, damages up to $150,000 may be awarded for each copyright infringed."The problem with all of this is that, of course, a communal swimming pool or clubhouse within a neighborhood under a homeowners association isn't a public venue. Put another way, there's an obvious difference between a public swimming pool and a communal pool to be used by a specific neighborhood or gated community. It's not...you know...open to the public. These are private gatherings among neighbors, more akin to a block party than a concert setting or a swimming pool open to the public.
What they're saying is, if you are playing music in a public venue, like a pool or a community club house, and you don't have the license to do it, you have to pay the royalties to the artist who wrote and performed the song originally.
At the link, Sesac claims they were just reaching out to "make an offer", an offer which just happened to come along with the helpful information that thousands of dollars might be coming in fines should its "offer" not be accepted.
We talked to John Nipp who is a patent and copyright attorney with Additon, Higgins, and Pendleton, P.A. in south Charlotte.They're scammers, in other words, using threats and the complexity of the law to extract money from the innocent. It's damned time victims of these tactics had some kind of recourse for having to endure these threats.
"What those groups are using to their advantage is the complexity of the copyright law. They're using that to their benefit by putting things in there like you could be liable for $150,000 in damages".
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: block party, collection societies, copyright, home owners associations, licensing, monetize everything, music, royalties
Companies: sesac
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Haha! The shower is generally a private place. Perform all you want! Could be a closer call if you're at a public bath house, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Close but equally insane, right?
As private as the shower is, the sound leaks to the outside, to the public space. Thus public performance! Or so the nuts from the AA's of the world would love it to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Should that be a public performance? Only the copyright maximalists would think there is any marketability to a naked person whistling a tune in the shower. Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Does the expectation of privacy depend on how good the person's whistling is, or whatever other features might attract an audience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"public" performance if "enough" other streams went at the same time.
All of them carrying different data because each stream was encrypted with a personal key.
Future trials would be needed to define what "enough" means in the real world.
Instead we got "Looks like a Duck" !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless everybody starts bringing in their whole Facebook friends and friends of friends to the pool this point doesn't apply. Even if the pool serves 500 people from the same gated community (there are such places here that house 128 thousand people though the one I visit that has that absurd number inside the gated area has about 6 communal pools). What's substantial here?
My street recently had a block party, and I met a substantial number of people I didn’t already know.
Is it a gated place? If so it is still not a public performance whatsoever. Regardless of if everybody invited a friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think you need to distinguish between private, public, and semi-public places. One of Congress's intentions in adding the public place clause was to make clear that semi-public places are "public": H.R. REP. 94-1476, 64, 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5677-78.
Under this broader understanding of "public," courts have considered private clubs to be engaging in public performances: Ackee Music, Inc. v. Williams, 650 F. Supp. 653, 655-56 (D. Kan. 1986).
There's many more examples in the case law. There can certainly be close cases, but I don't see how the HOA party is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A gathering for some other primary purpose that happens to play a radio or other source of music should not qualify as a public performance. To think otherwise is to mean that music should become a very private thing that people only hear in private. Of course, when that is taken to its logical extreme, it would have the upside of meaning the death of the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Gosh, even if someone just had a book and let others see the cover seems to be an infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I don't think there was, but I have sung "Happy Birthday" in public before. Don't tell my masters!
Gosh, even if someone just had a book and let others see the cover seems to be an infringement.
Try Section 109(c): "Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (5), the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly, either directly or by the projection of no more than one image at a time, to viewers present at the place where the copy is located."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since it's a private area I thinbk you will find they are all
"social acquaintances".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This imo is going a step too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
IOW, your still batshit crazy. What else is new?
*clicks report*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
*clicks report*
Good grief. I stated an opinion politely. I backed it up with statutory text, legislative history, and case law. I see that you and several others have abused the "report" button and hidden it. We couldn't dare have people disagreeing and explaining why, right? Ugh.
The irony is that Techdirt freaks out about abuse all the time, yet it tolerates its own system to be abused. It's strange how TD is so concerned about an abusive DMCA notice, but it says nothing as its own system is abused by those who openly brag about doing it.
Are opposing points of view really so scary that you can't even bear to look at them? Apparently so. How incredibly sad. Of course, Mike will never say anything. I guess he likes abuse when it suits him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm not sure who you mean by "Techdirt" here. Do you mean the readers? In any case, it's not true that we say nothing. I've spoken up many times.
Also, there are two huge differences between the two things that you're comparing here. First, DMCA notices are about forcing other people to remove content, where the "report" button is a mechanism that the site owner is applying to hit own site -- and it doesn't even remove any content (comments). Second, DMCA notices are effective with just one person's actions. The report button is not: many people have to click that button in order for it to do anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The tenor of many comments by others in response shows me that their interest in actual learning lags far behind cluelessly expressing righteous indignation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maximalists and the law
I get the feeling they avoid such places due to being rather attached to their limbs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maximalists and the law
No music is listened to at all. Except secretly, in private. Just the way the copyright maximalists want it.
The end result of both kinds of insanity are the same. If the only way you can listen to music without it being a ('public performance' | 'punishable crime') is to do so secretly in private, then that is the only way that music will be listened to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maximalists and the law
I get the feeling they avoid such places due to being rather attached to their limbs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are "educating" the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They are "educating" the public
It's not like anybody WANTS to pay every time they hear a Taylor Swift song.
Used to be that was why we bought physical media. Now, of course, they claim everything
is LICENSED not bought so you need to pay more whenever they say you should.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They are "educating" the public
They will no longer need to shake people down.
Every time you hear Justin Bieber sing you won't have to be concerned whether you have paid the proper licensing.
The solution: brain implants. Implanted at birth. Any time you see or hear anything copyrighted, your credit card is automatically charged. Problem solved. Everyone happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: They are "educating" the public
But I fear that they will go further and if you dream three notes of a song, charges occur, and I have had situations where some old song that I haven't hear in many a year get 'stuck' in my head for days at a time. I for one could not afford what they might want in retribution, um consideration, er performance fees.
And think, what if it becomes a reality that ESP or Vulcan mind melds are a thing, then thinking of something becomes a 'public performance' with all attendant consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whom exactly needs a License?
All of those places openly play music. Want to bet how many of them have supposed license to do so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whom exactly needs a License?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whom exactly needs a License?
All of them. And, with a small percentage of exceptions, they all do have a license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whom exactly needs a License?
The law does say that the user actually has the responsibility to obtain their own license. So establishments like these often reach out to the societies first, before the societies even get to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: books
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Some great Ideas for SESAC...
Or go find that moron whose car stereo bass is so loud that it rattled my dentures loose!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Someone tries to help you? Sue 'em, that'll teach them!
Yet more evidence that it has nothing to do with 'protecting the artist', and everything to do with the middle-men getting paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone tries to help you? Sue 'em, that'll teach them!
Well, when your whole business is collecting money for plays, you will for reasons to charge people for plays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a few corrections and citations
2) SESAC (and the other performing rights societies) don't represent artists at all. They represent songwriters, the heirs of deceased songwriters, and music publishers. Well, they represent artists in the case of people who write their own material, but they're not representing them as artists. The societies issue licenses for use of the songs (words and music), not use of particular recordings.
3) I don't think SESAC is out of line to argue that this a public performance. Copyright owners of musical works have the exclusive right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly" (§ 106 (4)), which is defined (redundantly) as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public" (§ 101).
It seems like about once a year, one entity or another is started by one of these letters, and it makes the news. This has been going on for decades, with everyone surprised by it anew each time (with me being surprised that everyone else is surprised). This isn't new. It's exactly what the societies have been doing for over 100 years.
The HOA is free to argue that this isn't a public performance, or to not play music, or to get a license, and/or to lobby for a change in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a few corrections and citations
I care as much about how they're spelled as much as they care about fair use rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a few corrections and citations
Individuals and the public at large are not the people who have misappropriated the artists' money to spend on lobbying for new laws or changes to the existing laws. Its pretty fricking tough to fight what should never have been instituted in the first place by these lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a few corrections and citations
I think you're splitting hairs here. SESAC and the like do represent artists. They just don't represent performing artists. (Unless you're trying to say that authors of lyrics, music, novels, etc., aren't artists).
"Copyright owners of musical works have the exclusive right "to perform the copyrighted work publicly" (§ 106 (4)), which is defined (redundantly) as "to perform or display it at a place open to the public" (§ 101)."
A circular definition is logically the same as no definition at all, so "public performance" is effectively undefined. Which, I suppose, is why these companies can get away with making ludicrous claims about what constitutes a "public performance". (Note: I'm not saying this is or is not one of those times.)
"with everyone surprised by it anew each time (with me being surprised that everyone else is surprised)"
Why do you think anyone is surprised?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take it to the courtyard
There should be a law written that if these scammers think they can physically take it from our wallets, then by all means let them reach in and try to take it..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
You're wrong. Legally speaking, it is a public performance. I actually dealt with this issue representing a homeowners' association.
https://randazza.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/copyright-and-the-clubhouse.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But, a later case seems to focus it more. Fermata v. Champions Golf Club, 712 F.Supp. 1257 (1989) (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19891969712FSupp1257_11784.xml/FERMATA%20INTERN.%20MELODIES%20v.%20C HAMPIONS%20GOLF%20CLUB)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
exemptions
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101
go down to section 110 and paragraph 5
the licensing agencies (BMI,ASCAP,SESAC) wont tell anyone this, which may not be legal on their part. A class action lawsuit for harassment should be considered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You Misunderstand Copyright Law
"To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display [or transmit via any device or process] it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered . . . ."
17 U.S.C. § 101 (2014).
Here, the HOA has transmitted, via whatever device they use to play music, at a "place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of family and its social acquaintances is gathered." The fact that the pool is not open to just anyone does not render the performance non-"public" within the meaning of § 101. Otherwise, any for-profit establishment would be able to escape paying licensing fees simply by limiting entrance to some segment of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You Misunderstand Copyright Law
Otherwise, any for-profit establishment would be able to escape paying licensing fees simply by limiting entrance to some segment of people.
Then the smart thing to do would be to realize that this event isn't a for-profit event, you dumb copyright apologist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]