The Gretsch Pages: Discussions: Miscellaneous Rumbles: ASCAP lawsuit/The Boss

ASCAP lawsuit/The Boss

« » Page 1 2 3 4 5

- Rated: 62 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 11:50 a.m. MR TROUBLE:

Ok I guess I shouldn't play "Pink Cadillac" anymore, sorry barflies!

Someone pulled a fast one on The Boss.

Bruce Springsteen demanded Thursday that his name be removed from a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against a Midtown bar.

"Bruce Springsteen had no knowledge of this lawsuit, was not asked if he would participate as a named plaintiff, and would not have agreed to do so if he had been asked," his publicity firm, Shore Fire Media, said in a statement.

As the Daily News reported, a suit listing Springsteen as the plaintiff was filed Wednesday in Manhattan Federal Court against Connolly's Pub & Restaurant on W. 45th St.

The suit alleged that the bar collected cover charges from customers to hear a band that performed at least three Springsteen songs - without paying a licensing fee to the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers.

A call to the lawyers listed on the suit was referred to ASCAP, which said that although the suit was filed on behalf of Springsteen, the intent was to protect the rights of all songwriters.

But Bruce, long seen as a champion of the little guy, apparently wasn't too keen on his name being used to go after Connolly's for a $2,700 annual ASCAP fee.

"Upon learning of this lawsuit, Bruce Springsteen's representatives demanded the immediate removal of his name from the lawsuit," the statement said.

Lawyers for ASCAP could not be immediately reached Thursday and calls to Connolly's owners were not returned.

Link
- Rated: 97 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 12:31 p.m. Ratrod:

Even if the ASCAP-fee was payed for, how much would Bruce have gotten from it?

Organisations like that are common thieves, pretending to be Robin Hood.
- Rated: 79 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 1:22 p.m. roadjunkie:

I read that story several days ago. ASCAP did release a statement about the lawsuit saying they would have felt better about it if Bruce would be onboard with the action they are taking. I don't see how they can name him a plaintiff with out his knowledge. That's very disturbing!
- Rated: 45 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 3:14 p.m. atlantaspike:

Bruce has a pretty good history of putting his money where his mouth is on these kind of issues. IIRC, he declined to sue Luther Campbell's use of "Born In The USA" when he did "banned In The USA."
- Rated: 62 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 3:29 p.m. MR TROUBLE:

I think Luther asked permission first and sent Bruce a copy of the lyrics and Bruce said OK, if I remember correctly.
- Rated: 45 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 3:32 p.m. atlantaspike:

Could well be - the point is that Bruce has been a champion of fair use from the git go.
- Rated: 94 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 4:42 p.m. Walter Broes:

Ratrod said:
Even if the ASCAP-fee was payed for, how much would Bruce have gotten from it?

Organisations like that are common thieves, pretending to be Robin Hood.
Where do you even get this info? Were you ever ripped of by similar organisation?
- Rated: 64 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 4:42 p.m. FrequentFlyer909:

This ASCAP dustup isn't about fair use; this is long-established public display/performance of a copyrighted work generating revenue for the entity doing the displaying/performing, a right reserved to the owner of the copyright and subject to licensing.

Thuggish though their methods may be, ASCAP is legally authorized by its members to represent their interests and collect fees due. The Boss didn't like his name being hung out there; but he's contracted with ASCAP to be his bully on these matters, and he is, in essence, a plaintiff every time ASCAP takes legal action against an establishment for non-payment of those blanket licenses, whether his name's printed on the complaint or not.

I don't know whether ASCAP has to ID the songwriter(s) whose interest they represent when they file complaints. One thing is for sure, though: a failure to protect one's intellectual property against infringement can cause one's rights to lapse.

Luther Campbell's "Banned in the USA" is more about fair use, though whether it would be considered a satire (fair use) or a derivative work (reserved right) would make the difference. Bruce's OK settled the matter before it got to first base.

Paul/FF909
- Rated: 13 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 5:26 p.m. MikeSchindler:

I find it interesting that ASCAP lawyers use musician's names as plaintiffs without seeking permission and probably without compensating them. Wait- isn't that what they're alledging people do with music sharing and ulawful use of recorded material. Maybe we should file suit on ASCAP. No doubt there are other musician's that do not agree with certain aspects of these suits in certain situations.
- Rated: 86 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 5:32 p.m. Jeff O(rdo ab chao):

I may not like Bruce's music, but I sure respect his stance in this matter.

BRUCE !!!!
- Rated: 135 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 6:39 p.m. Deed Eddy:

Mike Schindler said: I find it interesting that ASCAP lawyers use musician's names as plaintiffs without seeking permission and probably without compensating them

ASCAP represents songwriters, Bruce happens to be one of them. ASCAP collects the royalties for them. It is their job. They are contractually bound to do it.

Do you think that Bruce should get paid when his tunes are played on the radio? Just wondering.
- Rated: 79 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 7:17 p.m. roadjunkie:

It would just seem that if someone was being sued in my name and my name was physically on the docket I should at least know about it. It would be one thing had someone in Bruce's camp been notified and still he didn't know about it. It seems here that no notification was made or at the least owned up to.

It just seems hinky that your name could be on a legal paper brought before court and not have any knowledge of it. I'm not saying ASCAP doesn't have the right to file on behalf of the musicians named but they should at least know they are being named on their behalf.
- Rated: 135 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 7:22 p.m. Deed Eddy:

Re: Luther Campbell... All songs published by Pac Jam Publishing (BMI) Except "Banned In The U.S.A." published by Bruce Springsteen (ASCAP)

Bruce gets money from Luther.
- Rated: 11 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 7:24 p.m. soundjunkie:

Who's Bruce Springsteen?
- Rated: 6 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 7:33 p.m. marz:

This ASCAP/BMI garbage is nonsense. They've only started trying to enforce corporate copyright practices against little local joints recently. Of course artists should take their names off the suits - how many players don't cut their teeth on covers at little joints? How much do you suppose Springsteen owes Mitch Ryder in back royalties if you enforce this for artists in arrears. Meanwhile, ASCAP and BMI are killing the live music industry. The culture of folk music passed along by ear existed before the copyright laws.

I had my name on songs that received airplay and never saw a cent because we weren't big enough to crack the stats - it's a system where the big artists and the collectors screw over the small artists through the use of statistics. It's Robinhood in REVERSE. (I figure Michael Jackson owes me about $1.50 LOL). It's evil and it's wrong and it needs to stop.

We set up and played folk songs for free in the parking lot of a restauraunt that seats about 50-60 people on a Friday afternoon - and BMI was there the next week demanding thousands of dollars with no evidence ANY BMI songs had been played.

The best thing that could happen is these ASCAP guys get into the wrong joint owned by the wrong people and get what they really deserve. Swim with the fishes ASCAP and BMI.
- Rated: 6 ↑
Feb 7, 2010 7:46 p.m. marz:

One other thing...the idea that these companies are contractually bound to go after little ma & pop operations sounds nice and legal on its face. But as has been pointed out in previous posts, rights not enforced may be forfeit - and ASCAP and BMI have been in operation for a long time and NEVER attempted to enforce intellectual property rights for their clients against small clubs until recently. I'll bet you the artists had no idea it was the intent of these entities to do this. I know I didn't when I signed up with BMI.
- Rated: 62 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 12:41 a.m. MR TROUBLE:

Hey is Eddie's family getting any royalties when Paul McCartney plays "Twenty Flight Rock"?

All I know is anytime I'm in a bar and I hear a band do "Hotel California" or "Mustang Sally" I'm calling BMI or Ascap investigators immediately to make sure the proper fees have been paid.
- Rated: 31 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 12:59 a.m. redrocker:

I can say this: the licensing investigators have been working this angle for awhile -- when I was in grad school around 15 years ago, a few classmates would go out to bars or roadhouse venues and work as ASCAP "spies" ...

They'd sit for hours writing down all the music played there -- either live or on CD/jukebox -- and get a free meal, drinks and an hourly wage.

I never could do it; even though (I guess) it protected artists rights, it always seemed kind of jive.
- Rated: 62 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 1:10 a.m. MR TROUBLE:

Didn't ASCAP sue the Girl Scouts of America for singing songs around a campfire?
- Rated: 114 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 1:12 a.m. bonedaddy:

Damn Mr. T, don't give them any ideas if they haven't
- Rated: 97 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 9:57 a.m. Ratrod:

Walter, don't make me dig up all those articles about artists never getting any money, how much money stays within those organisations, how much their directors and managers stick in their own pocket, bar owners having to pay three times for the same piece of music resulting in bills that reach into the thousands.
- Rated: 94 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 11:09 a.m. Walter Broes:

Ratrod, were you ever involved with anything involving a similar organisation, firsthand?

My experience has been that stories about the European equivalents of ASCAP and BMI are all over the place, and some of the people who love telling them (and wild, wicked variations of them) most are 1) Bar owners 2)other business owners who get charged for playing music in their place of business.

News flash : these groups of people tend to hate anyone and everyone they get bills from! To a bar owner, the ASCAP guy is just as bad of a boogie man as the tax man - the only thing the bar owner knows or cares about is he owes them money - and he could care less if some of that money indeed goes to writers! IF, indeed, an establishment that has live music should owe organisations like these thousands of dollars it could only mean they put on a lot of live music, in a large capacity room, and they could more than easily afford whatever they owe as a result.

Another scary principle at work is that people feel they should get music in any shape or form for free.

Add another few unhappy circumstances to that: - a LOT of musician/writers who could easily claim and GET money from these organisations don't even realise it, and are scared off by the outdated legal texts that come with every piece of paper these organisations issue. Ignorance about the legalities of copyright, royalties, intellectual property and the organisations that go along with it is suprisingly big - a lot of people seemingly prefer complaining about "the man" instead of sticking their nose in a couple of legal documents and/or educating theirselves a little. You'd be amazed at the number of amateur/not so amateur musicians who still assume "they have to pay someone" if they want to record a cover song and other, worse misunderstandings.

Like I've said before on here, no system is perfect, but as the music business goes, I've been suprised at how at least part of this system actually does work - and I've been suprised too at a lot of people who turned out not to have an inkling of a clue of what they were talking about shooting it down because of some fourth-hand bar owner story they heard.

It keeps suprising me again and again how on a duscussion forum that's supposedly mostly guitar players, the recurring theme seems to be "yeah, screw those bastards, music should be free and screw those annoying writers!" I know that for myself, and most of my musician buddies who perform and record their own material, I'm glad there IS a system like this, and some kind of authority enforcing it and paying us.
- Rated: 13 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 11:16 a.m. MikeSchindler:

DeedEddy- I belive that as a musician you should be able to decide if your music can be played somewhere. When and how should be up to you. Especially if your the composer. I have no problems with unions but I fear that once you sign a contract you sign your life away sometimes and the ability to have a voice or choice.That's the record business.I realize its there lively hood and bread and butter but some of these things about music in bars in friggin silly. I can agree with music share but cmon. Greed at its finest. I more of a fan of individual freedom and rights. I feel there should be stipulations within these civil contracts that allow an INDIVIDUAL to make a certain choices especially when it comes to something like your work and have the ultimate say in certain matters. Its the same crap with everything nowadays. Way over the top.
- Rated: 135 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 11:24 a.m. Deed Eddy:

Hey is Eddie's family getting any royalties when Paul McCartney plays "Twenty Flight Rock"?

I don't know if the performance royalty goes to Eddie's remaining family members, or whoever, but the answer is yes.
- Rated: 38 ↑
Feb 8, 2010 11:24 a.m. fauves:

There are a couple of bars that have recordings I am on the jukebox. It always put a smile on my face when someone played it.

both sides have valid points. its a tough one alright