Members Queequeg Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys 1. It's a homage to the recently banned beachbum. 2. You likely know jack squat about copyright laws so are making a snide comment to cover up for the fact. 3. The people who want to bail this guy out with a paypal account are suckers. Some guy claims "gee we don't play any covers except when this guy happens to walk in and hear them" and people here believe it. Had your Angry Flakes for breakfast today, didn't cha?Best not to make up quotes and attribute them to somebody else that you don't know and wrap them in quotation marks like he said it, or even implied it, when in fact neither one of those things took place. Let the political radio guys do that. They get paid for it.Have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theGOOCH Posted October 16, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 I predict that they will go after guitar instructors who teach copywritten songs next. I'm telling you, by the time my kids are grown everyone will have to take their personal lawyers with them to go anywhere Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg Had your Angry Flakes for breakfast today, didn't cha? Best not to make up quotes and attribute them to somebody else that you don't know and wrap them in quotation marks like he said it, or even implied it, when in fact neither one of those things took place. Let the political radio guys do that. They get paid for it. Have a nice day. And this proves you know what, exactly?BTW, those quotations marks were for satirical purposes... ya know, one of those creative things people can do. Why do they do that? To prove a point.The point is we know very little of the actual facts besides this guy didn't pay ascap fees and an ascap representitive was there the night ASCAP represented songs were played. Everything else is just a claim made- not evidence of anything. Yet people are rushing to send their hard earned money to this guy - and they have no idea what kind of money this guy has or is making. The story is rather poorly written, and apparently intended to evoke sympathy rather than report the facts. We don't get a direct quote from the owner on just how many covers ARE played. Instead we get this exercise in vaugeness:"Because his place features local musicians and covers are rare, he didn't think he had to pay the musicians and publishers group an estimated $2,000 to cover performances of copyrighted tunes."(Btw, that's an excerpt, generally allowed under fair use rules, so don't get riled up)We get "covers are rare". A good reporter would have asked, and reported, just how rare covers are. Are they played once a month? Once a week? Once a night? If they're so rare, isn't it odd that the same night the ASCAP guy visits, a band plays several covers? Maybe it's because going beyond "rare" would actually put a number of past infractions in print. But even by saying 'rare' it does indicate prior use of covers, which in inself indicates an infraction.Satire is intended to get people to actually think instead of react. Right now people are just reacting to this saintly bar owner saying he's doesn't really have bands playing covers. No evidence of this is provided. But there are sob stories about how he might have to close his bar - complete with the fact that he's the father of two, which probably means they're going to be out on the street and homeless because of that evil old ascap (there's that artistic license again). People here are reacting on an emotional level, just like the story was meant to do. Instead of thinking things through and balance evidence (Very skimpy in this case, but what it is leans towards ascap's side of the story) people are wanting to send this guy money. It's rather funny.BTW, here's some truths I've learned dealing with people and copyrights / IP over the years:1) The people who know nothing about copyright and IP laws will be the most vocal in attacking them2) The people who have never produced copyrighted works / IP (that other people actually want) will be the first to defend the misuse of other people's intellectual property without compensation.3) The very minute they produce a piece of IP that people actually want, they will be the first on the phone to a lawyer if they see people using their work without receiving proper compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Michael Martin Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys 1. It's a homage to the recently banned beachbum. Jimmy Buffet was banned? What did he do, sign on with the Dixie Chicks?But really--what's that about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Queequeg Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys And this proves you know what, exactly? truly, all tremble at the fiery logic of your searing intellect, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theGOOCH Posted October 16, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Oh brother, here we go again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knockwood Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys The people who have never produced copyrighted works / IP (that other people actually want) will be the first to defend the misuse of other people's intellectual property without compensation. How much dough from the lawsuit do you figure will end up in Hendrix's pocket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theGOOCH Posted October 16, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 This reminds me of a news story I saw. There was a day care center where one of the employees had hand painted Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck etc. on the walls inside the playroom. Disney threatened to sue them and forced them to repaint the walls, covering up the artwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kwakatak Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 ugghhh! whatever... FWIW I did my part and took all my recordings of covers of my putfile page. Next time I play any of them in the comfort of my own home I'll be sure that everyone is asleep (and therefore not listening) so that I don't get slapped with a "performance fee". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WaveRay Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys 1. It's a homage to the recently banned beachbum.2. You likely know jack squat about copyright laws so are making a snide comment to cover up for the fact.3. The people who want to bail this guy out with a paypal account are suckers. Some guy claims "gee we don't play any covers except when this guy happens to walk in and hear them" and people here believe it. Well, You're assuming as much as anybody else here so think about the fact that you know absolutley nothing about me or how much I know about anything else. My comment was not about you, it was about a larger concern. Which turns out to be a huge understatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JasmineTea Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Lunch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kwakatak Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by JasmineTea Lunch? Anybody up for McDonald's? My kid didn't eat his chicken nuggets. He decided to suck the ketchup packets dry instead. $3 down the tubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bjorn-fjord Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Whenever a law is proposed, the possible negative consequences of enacting such a law must be of equal consideration as the benefit of the law. In our leaders' zealousness to establish an "ownership society" (as Bush puts it) and to protect intellectual property rights, I feel they have lost sight of this basic concept. Of course, we should all be rewarded for our contributions but if we take this concept too far we are really shooting ourselves in the foot. To take it a step further, a society's success can be determined, in large measure, by the ability of its members to share information and technology. Isaac Newton in his "I stand on the shoulders of giants" speech said that he owed his success to the efforts of those that came before him. If we make it too difficult to share information and to build on the advancement of those that came before us we will be removing a social mechanism that is absolutely vital to a healthy society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members theGOOCH Posted October 16, 2006 Author Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by kwakatak Anybody up for McDonald's? My kid didn't eat his chicken nuggets. He decided to suck the ketchup packets dry instead. $3 down the tubes. Look at it this way...He probably added 6 months to his lifespan by not eating those things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by Queequeg truly, all tremble at the fiery logic of your searing intellect, sir. Thanks for proving my point yet again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kwakatak Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by theGOOCH Look at it this way...He probably added 6 months to his lifespan by not eating those things * eats nuggets and rips July through December off the wall calendar * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members WaveRay Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by knockwood How much dough from the lawsuit do you figure will end up in Hendrix's pocket? because this is the only time a cover song has been played in this venue, right? I swear, musicians are their own worst enemies. This thread is an example of that and why they end up getting screwed with record deals- almost no business sense and understanding.One one hand, you have a venue owner, and nothing more than a claims that 1) covers are rarely played and 2) because of this he might have to close his bar. Oh, and he has two kids as well. Everybody get a good Oprah sized cry in for this guy, ok?On the other hand, we have an oganization (ASCAP) that is actually does something rare - it fights for the rights of the creators of music. Not big labels, but the people who write the song and the people own the songs. Their very existance helps insure that composers and artists can make money off their work - either by licensing fees or by selling their catalog outright (which only has value if the buyer knows the catalog will be protected by copyright law)So we have this oraganization that protects the rights of musicians, and a bar owner that has, apparently by his own admission, had copyrighted works played in his venue before without paying the fees required by law.Which side do the alleged musicians side with? No, not the one fighting for them - but with the one who had the sob story printed in the newspaper - the one devoid of actual facts in his favor.This should shock me, but it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by WaveRay mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine Another illustration of the brillance of the average musician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knockwood Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys because this is the only time a cover song has been played in this venue, right? You've repeated this enough times in this thread to make it clear that you somehow find the frequency of cover songs being played in this guy's establishment to be a central point. Not only is it not central, but it is not relevant. What's being questioned is whether or not the law is being applied in the spirit in which it was conceived, and whether its enforcement is - at least in this case - disproportionate. And unless you've spent enough time in this guy's establishment to be able to say with any genuine authority whether or not he's being truthful about how often covers are/are not being played there - not matter how immaterial - you are entirely unqualified to impugn his claims of the goings-on in his own place. Or perhaps your obsession with the black and white of what is legal and what is not does not extend to the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt to a defendant.Whether a cover came through this guy's joint once an hour or once a month, he harmed no one. The response to this non-harm is absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ihateyouguys Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by knockwood You've repeated this enough times in this thread to make it clear that you somehow find the frequency of cover songs being played in this guy's establishment to be a central point. Not only is it not central, but it is not relevant. What's being questioned is whether or not the law is being applied in the spirit in which it was conceived, and whether its enforcement is - at least in this case - disproportionate. And unless you've spent enough time in this guy's establishment to be able to say with any genuine authority whether or not he's being truthful about how often covers are/are not being played there - not matter how immaterial - you are entirely unqualified to impugn his claims of the goings-on in his own place. Or perhaps your obsession with the black and white of what is legal and what is not does not extend to the principle of extending the benefit of the doubt to a defendant.Whether a cover came through this guy's joint once an hour or once a month, he harmed no one. The response to this non-harm is absurd. you don't get it. one = a violation a violation = harm The actual number doesn't matter. Once there is a violation, it IS a violation - harm has been done. The creator or owner of a copyrighted work gets paid for use of his work. If he doesn't get paid, the user (in this case the venue owner) benefits from the use of the copyrighted work (entertainment) without having to pay to do it. So party B gets money from something party A created. Party A should be compensated for it. Party A wasn't because Party B never paid the fees that would compensate them...there's the harm. Duh. Don't want to pay, don't use it. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hudman Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by kwakatak ugghhh! whatever... FWIW I did my part and took all my recordings of covers of my putfile page. Next time I play any of them in the comfort of my own home I'll be sure that everyone is asleep (and therefore not listening) so that I don't get slapped with a "performance fee". Actually, I think it only applies to profit situations. The bar owner made money selling booze and food to the patrons that came to watch the band. The band made money from the bar owner by playing cover tunes.Your Putfile covers aren't for sale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cldplytkmn Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 in this particular case, i think its obvious that neither jimmy or stevie were harmed financially... but i think we have to strip away those particulars and hit the broader points... (as an aside, nobody is harmed when i speed or cross a double yellow...) i'm not even necessarily with the black and white crowd on this... its not as if anybody is saying that by playing covers, money is being taken from the artists pockets... but the fact is that ASCAP pays artists alot of money every year for all sorts of things... that money has to come from somewhere, and licensing is one of those places it comes from. Another issue is just the simple fact that bars profit from the works of artists performed by other musicians... the original artist deserves his cut. the enforcement may be erratic, and the repricussions severe, but i don't find the law to be at fault. i think the arguments of the free-trade crowd would be more respected if the emotionalism and sensationalism were turned down or eliminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Cldplytkmn Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by Hudman Your Putfile covers aren't for sale. putfile and myspace, etc... usually have their own wording in the user agreement though prohibiting using someone elses copyrighted works... i don't think you can be persued legally, but they can delete the files or your account, etc... just to get technical... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members knockwood Posted October 16, 2006 Members Share Posted October 16, 2006 Originally posted by ihateyouguys The actual number doesn't matter. Once there is a violation, it IS a violation - harm has been done. Who has been harmed by the covers played in this guy's place??? The artists? I cannot recall the last time I heard an artist bitch about small venue covers. Nor can I fathom a justification for bitching of that sort - from artists. From some fatass bloodsucking production executuve? Certainly. I also find it rather silly to continually insist that anyone who doesn't agree with one's position is either ignorant or they simply "don't get it." I get it. I disagree anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.