Bret Michaels Sues Pianos!

What about music on a jukebox? What about a cover band?

Its bs... if we let the lawyers control our world, we wouldn't have libraries! Musicians make money by playing live and selling stuff at their shows. They get a buzz by word of mouth (downloading and filesharing is part of the buzz).

Yes, music on a jukebox needs to be paid for.

You don't know what you are talking about: musicians make money a number of ways not related to physical product. In this case we are talking about performance royalties.

Wait, I'm confused - if I own a bar and play songs off an ipod or dj out loud I need to pay royalties?

Yes.

Huh. Can someone explain to me how royalties in regards to commercial establishments works? And if restaurants or bowling alleys and bars would need to pay as well as concert venues?

I know I could look this up, but I'm lazy.

If I remember correctly the ASCAP/BMI deal for bars do not provide the artist with any money, for the simple reason that ASCAP/BMI have no idea which artists are being played on the radio/iPod/jukebox on a nightly basis. The money payed should cover any radio plays, live covers, etc., since ASCAP/BMI are publishing houses, not record companies. They are not concerned with the actual recording, but the publishing rights to the song.

good point...if it's on my ipod i most likely paid for it from iTunes...dont they get their $$ from that already? And the want more?

What about people blasting their music from their cars? Do I pay royalties then?

Shit what about when I'm SINGING along in my car?

greedy.

I will keep my opinion about Poison, Piano's and Hipsters to myself because its not important but what is important is that people read what Steve Albini wrote regarding these issues. Do a search for The Problem With Music by Steve Albini if you want to argue in favor of artists receiving what they deserve and then make your point because anyone who thinks they get something for this type of thing is pretty naive.

That essay is over 15 years old and about major record labels, not publishing companies.

Times have changed, the business model is different, get with it, old fogies.

What model, exactly? Remember that record labels and publishing companies are two entirely different beasts.

Just admit you don't know what you're talking about and get all your music information off of BoingBoing.

It's funny after years of listening to Metallica my last memory of them was being a bunch of greedy a-holes trying to sue everyone and siding with the RIAA. The progressive artists out there understand that the more they can spread their music, however it happens, the greater the ripple effect, and the broader the range of opportunities. If a song catches fire primarily from illegal downloading you can bet that artist will be psyched to put it on Itunes and selling 500,000 $.99 tracks. Suing bars and restaurants is beyond lame, if Bret Michaels went to Piano's (minus the lawsuit) I guarantee he'd sit in the back sipping free $150 bottles of bubbly all night. So he can screw off with the rest of them.

You know the same argument was used for early file-sharing in that the more your music was out there with the consumers via illegal downloading, the more an artist would make from things like licensing, including being played in bars and other public spaces.

Someone has to pay up at some point. If I had my choice of a working model incorporating some tolerance of those that refuse to pay, I'd rather the burden fall on bars and other institutions rather than the individuals that actually give the music real value.

What does your screed have to do with performance royalties? Oh yeah, nothing.

You want to play pre-recorded music live in a public setting you pay your rates. It's that simple.

"You want to play pre-recorded music live in a public setting you pay your rates. It's that simple."

Just a point of clarification: this doesn't apply only to pre-recorded music. In a venue like Pianos, it's as likely that the cited performances were covers by live bands.

In any case, it's really ridiculous for a venue not to simply pay the licensing fee. Unlike the more well-known cases involving Internet downloads, the fees being requested are pretty small. And the licensing agencies are very willing to negotiate them. While a well-known place like Pianos might be socked with something that comes down to the above-mentioned $3 day (which, come on, is insignificant to a place like that), smaller places will be asked for much less. My most recent personal knowledge involves a small Brooklyn bar that paid $650 to BMI for a performance license. That fee was offered by the BMI rep who showed up to drop off some legal documentation of cited violations (they send people to different locations to log what's being played); a higher prices was quoted in the paperwork, but when the bartender on duty pointed out that this was just a small local bar that couldn't afford that, the BMI guy said "we'd really probably take something like $750." When the owner talked to BMI's people directly, they agreed on $650.

A better point than the negligible cost: you get paid for doing your job, musicians should get paid for doing theirs. Writing, recording and releasing music is their job. ASCAP and BMI are protecting musicians' rights here, Piano's is attempting to rip them off.

Whether Bret Michaels or Van Halen really need the money is irrelevant...they deserve the money for their music just like the owner of Piano's deserves money for the beer and food they sell.

The fact that it's less than a thousand dollars a year just makes me furious. It's not as though Piano's some fledgling bar struggling to make rent. They probably made over a thousand dollars from me in 2008 alone. Absolutely no excuse.

I'm actually surprised this didn't happen sooner..that place is crawling with industry because of all the showcases there.

"We need more Bort license plates in the gift shop!"