Bar owner sued by record industry for copyright infringement

Perhaps they should only have bands that play original music, no covers. Also they could subscribe to MUSAK and pay a monthly fee that covers the royalties for public performance of a recording.

I owned a bar for about a year until the local police harassed my customers until they stopped coming, but that's another rant all together.
I played in a cover band on the weekends there and when we didn't have bands I would DJ. Every month I would get letters from BMI, ASCAP,ect... wanting $900 a year in fees because we had bands and DJ's.

These people are always looking for a hand out of some kind. I think it's the worse case of splitting hairs I've ever seen.

When teenagers get their first vehicle and start cruising around town with their big audio systems (that are usually worth more than the car they are driving) and they are booming their music in a heavy populated area, will the RIAA want to charge them a fee? It's being played in Public. There is a hair to split. I'm sure figure out a way to get the money in the end.

I think its obscene to try to take someone down for something that every one in the world is doing. It's hard for any business to succeed when you have companies like the RIAA trying to nickel and dime you to death.

Bars make money off of alcohol and food. The entertainment gets the people there, but they're not selling the entertainment.

Used to go here all the time... They've done a lot for Troy as a host for a lot of local artists/events. While I don't agree with any of the claims proposed by the RIAA here, Daisy Baker's charges an arm and a leg for a drink so they really should have been able to afford to pay royalties instead of waiting to take a hit like this...

Rock and roll used to be about sticking it to these ass clowns.

Now the ass clowns own rock and roll :(

re: Stevie Ray Vaughan... it's hard to cause much "great injury" and "irreparable harm" to a guy who's been deceased for nearly 19 years.

and this is why i stick to indy music.

Stupid. Lame.

The RIAA is a buch of morons!!! They are just grasping at anything to make a quick buck. They make me sick to my frickin stomach. I bet all of the bands that they signed in the past are sick of them too....even if they do get money from this, do you think they will distribute this money to all the bands that they claim were infringed upon......the eight ball says "it's not gonna happen".

Honestly, this is retarded, even for the RIAA.

Would everyone take a moment and think about this thought exp.
If the RIAA existed.. 6000 years ago, the dawn of creation ( like Sylvia Allen says) would we have been able to make the technological advanced in music, art, and science?
Now I know, the ends doesn't always justify the means, but for God's sake! It is human nature to share freely with each other. I'd say that the RIAA is an abomination to the order of mankind and nature. (forgive the mispellings)

The Club owner made a mistake by the RIAA has gone mad with authoritarian power. This is almost but not quite as bad as the woman who they sued for several hundred thousand dollars for her downloads. The RIAA doesn't protect the rights of artists it protects the rights of giant corporations like Sony. Screw the RIAA.

I was going to start buying CD's but its bullshit like this that stops me from giving a penny to these greedy fucks.

I get it, you have to pay the piper and all that, but the incident has caused "great injury to the plaintiffs" , come on man, really, how much damage could Prince and Stevie Ray Vaughn have sustained from some, no offense too small to be important band in some ruddy puit bar!

There is a broad discussion in libertarian circles regarding "intellectual property."

See the link:
http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.l...

I have not read enough to go in depth but I understand this much...

The producer of the property has a right to protect his/her creation. But there is a second entity that has a right too. Those who have a copy of the idea also have a property right. "The first property right encourages innovation. The second property right encourages diffusion, adoption, and improvement of innovation." See Jeffery Tucker's article, The New Frontier in IP.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker123.html

Here again we have monopoly privileges enforced by the State that ultimately stifle innovation and a better, less expensive, more efficient product.

As for this nonsense stated by the complaining attorney, "According to the Syracuse, NY attorney representing the musicians the incident has caused "great injury to the plaintiffs" and they "will suffer irreparable harm" if they are infringed upon again."

He cannot conclusively prove that the estate of SRV or that the artist Prince is irreparably injured by the covering of their songs by a group of musicians playing in a bar. As a counter it could be presumed that the possibility exists that any member of the audience may have been exposed to those covers for the first time and may have been so inspired as to go buy those famed artists' records.

Next time you have people with you, where ever you happen to be, and you all decide to listen to music, be sure it is only original unpublished music otherwise the music police from BMI and ASCAP will have you beaten and taken into custody.

next they sue you for singing in your shower!!

If I copyright "asshole loser greedy fuckheads", can I sue the RIAA for infringement? Because lets face it, RIAA and "asshole loser greedy fuckheads" sound the same to me.

people will sue you for any thing these days. What happens when I play there music on the beach for every one to hear. you comeing for me next?

so......... i cant play my favorite tunes to an audience without being taxed... or possibly sued?

So when did music stop being about art, expression and joy for all people, and start being about making greedy individuals rich?

Concerts alone provide enough income (EACH) for an above average standard of living. Why do they need to sue/charge people for simply playing and enjoying their music? Free music is a great way to get the word out about an artist, if people enjoy it, they'll buy a CD or go see a Concert and they'll get their income.

Maybe without all this corporate greed BS musicians will have to drop the heroin habit and settle for lifetime supplies of marijuana (I know, I know, but hey- ya gotta make sacrifices, just like everybody else!) And these corporate shysters will have to settle for less than 500,000 a year...but we really think they deserve more considering how they exploit decent, hardworking people?

The record industry and RIAA are nothing but leechers that are trying to find ways to screw people, both musicians and the audience, over. They claim that they want to make sure that people aren't stealing the songs from the artists. But, these artists have signed away their rights to their OWN song. I have a friend who is a musicians that has a contract with a company. By signing that contract, he is NOT ALLOWED to play his own songs that HE created, HE performed, without their consent. He can actually be SUED for copyright infringement for performing his songs without their notification and approval.

As someone has said, fuck the RIAA. They're nothing but profiteering leechers.

Stupid copyright laws. This is the dumbest thing that I have heard in a while...but it's still not as bad as that mother who's going to have to pay $80000 per song...assholes in the music industry...

Yes, Amber, I think we know what royalties are.

What about the real question here: "Great injury to the plaintiffs"? "Will suffer irreparable harm"?

Seriously?

Tell me you believe this. Tell me that Prince is "suffering" more than a club owner being forced to hire lawyers.

Please.

This is for everyone commenting who dosn't know the way live performance and cover music has always worked.

Every bar or club that has live cover music pays ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC a fee to have music at the bar. The bar/club then reports what songs were performed by the cover band, and the Royalty collection agencies pay out to the artists there share of "Performance Royalties".

I am surprised this is a shock to some people especially the Club owner, but this is always been the way the business has been. The club owner got them selves into this situation, knowing what they were doing. This happens all of the time.

Now more than ever musicians (living on Ramen Noodles, not showering very much, and living out of their van) make money from live performance and performance royalties. The owner could have payed a very small amount of money, but now is being sued.

The owner should know better, I have worked with many clubs, and a lot of these owners are scum. The bands that played probably got ripped off and never paid for all of their work. I wouldn't be surprised if the owner has a coke problem, or is a drug dealer. That is the reality of the club business.

I am all about file sharing and watching free TV from China, but this is a very different situation. So now you guys know how this has always worked since the beginning of Publishers and royalty collection agencies.

Either they've never heard of a cover band or they're desperate for money so they'll try anything to get it, or both. most likely both

Sorry, forgot to add the bands whose music was played. I can see internet piracy, but is this going too far?

fight the fucking RIAA, go to court make the story live. even if you loose you have to get this out there. people have to see the evils of the RIAA

PLUS they have no fucking right so sue. bars, clubs, radio stations etc... have to buy a liscence from P.R.O's like BMI ASCAP SESAC and so on. the RIAA has no say in this matter

They will come to great harm because...
Wait...
What?