PROVIDENCE — Patrick’s Pub, a favorite Smith Hill political haunt, will pay $14,000 over three years for violating federal copyright laws.

The copyright holders sued the pub and its owner, Patrick T. Griffin, last year for violating laws four times when a band played reggae legend Bob Marley’s “Is This Love,” Tom Petty’s “The Waiting,” the Grateful Dead’s “Friend of the Devil” and “Ventura Highway” by Dewey Bunnell one night last February. They had sought $750 to $30,000 for each violation.

“He obviously learned his lesson in a costly fashion,” Daniel P. McKiernan, the pub owner’s lawyer, said of his client in the wake of the consent agreement reached yesterday in U.S. District Court.

Though the suit was brought by the copyright holders, it was the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers that pursued the case. A membership organization of more than 330,000 composers, songwriters and music publishers, ASCAP requires bars, restaurants, nightclubs and even stores to pay license fees to gain unlimited access to its repertoire of millions of songs. Royalties are then distributed to publishers and writers, according to ASCAP.

Griffin repeatedly rebuffed efforts to get him to enter a license agreement, according to Richard Reimer, a lawyer for ASCAP. As a result, an ASCAP investigator went to the pub and saw the performance. Griffin has said he mistook ASCAP’s pursuit of a license as a scam.

McKiernan said the pub now has a license agreement with ASCAP and all appropriate copyright organizations.

Patrick’s Pub will hold a fundraiser called Save the Music Party on Thursday to help raise money to pay for the settlement, McKiernan said.

Boo! Most venues in this area are just making it. That kind of fine would put them out business.

I just left a three year job because the venue couldn't afford to pay liscensing fees. Actually, I got pissed off at the reps and made the decision to leave. The owner wanted to pay, and I suggested that he not do it. 5 upper end restaurants in Lexington have stopped music because they didn't want the ASCAP hassle. That didn't result in putting any money in the pockets of the writers. I'm kind of suspicious of the method these guys (ASCAP, BMI and others) use to divide up the fees, anyway.

These guys are gangsters, and would do much better if they dropped the "attitude" and negotiated fairly. I haven't seen one that didn't look like he came off of the set of the Supranos.


Russ

Do nursing homes require the licensing/fees?
Lee S.

Yes

------------------
Bill in Dayton

What would anyone believe writers should not be paid to reproduce or perform their works for financial gain. I don;t understand the issue. Anyone who doesn't believe they should get paid should perform ONLY their own songs and see how many gigs come their way.."Griffin repeatedly rebuffed efforts to get him to enter a license agreement...."

No sympathy here. One cannot use music in their business for profit without licensing it.

Songwriter OWN the music. They license the music. Thats how they make their living as songwriters. The guy in the example was warned.

Music isn't free. Few play and perform for free. Support the writers who provide popular music one plays to make their living. They deserve it. Not everyone can achieve a hit song that gets requested over and over in a local pub.

Music is not free. It is licensed.

The problem in negotiations comes after the fact. When the performer or venue owner tries to escape the rules. They are in a very weak position with regard to the courts AFTER they have already used the music without permission for profit. Most businesses don't have a problem with the PROS. A few who try to skirt the rules become headlines.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 02-28-2009).]

Here is a new one: Why isn't there a law governing the length of the license, for example 7 years!
Heck, patents have an expiration date why not music licenses! I don't see any difference!

Copyrights and patents are two totally different concepts http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm

There are basically five major legal differences between a copyright and
a patent in the United States: subject matter protected, requirement for
protection, when protection begins, duration, and infringement. There's
also a sixth practical one: cost.

Subject matter: A copyright covers "works of authorship," which
essentially means literary, dramatic, and musical works, pictorial,
graphic, and sculptural works, audio-visual works, sound recordings,
pantomimes and choreography. A patent covers an invention, which
essentially means a new and non-obvious useful and functional feature of
a product or process.

Requirement for protection: In order for a work to be copyrighted, it
must be original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression; no
formalities are required (see section 2.3). In order for an invention to
be patented, it must be novel (i.e., new), non-obvious, and useful and a
patent must be issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Start of protection: Copyright protection begins as soon as a work is
created. Patent protection does not begin until the patent is issued.

Duration: A copyright generally lasts for the life of the author, plus 50
years (see section 2.4). In the U.S., a patent lasts for 17 years from
the date granted (in some nations, particularly Japan and most European
nations, the duration is 20 years, and is measured from date of
application).

Infringement: For a copyright to be infringed, the work itself must have
actually been copied from (either wholly or to create a derivative work),
distributed, performed, or displayed. If a person other than the
copyright owner independently comes up with the same or a similar work,
there is no infringement. In contrast, a patent confers a statutory
monopoly that prevents anyone other than the patent holder from making,
using, or selling the patented invention. This is true even if that
person independently invents the patented invention.

Cost: A copyright is essentially free. Even if you want to register the
copyright, the cost is only $20, and the paperwork is much less
complicated than the 1040A short form for filing your income tax, well
within the capabilities of the person registering the copyright. A
patent, on the other hand, is much more costly; there are fees to the
Patent and Trademark Office, and the patent application process is much
more complex, usually requiring the services of a registered patent agent
(and perhaps a lawyer) to draft and prosecute the application, adding to
the cost.

Philosophically, you can look at a copyright as protecting the author's
rights that are inherent in the work; in contrast, a patent is a reward
of a statutory monopoly to an inventor in exchange for providing the
details of the invention to the public.http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-11-What-s-the-difference-between-a-copyright-and-a-patent.html

[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 02-28-2009).]

There are several liscences needed in the business world to operate. Beauticians need to pass a state exam and be given a liscense, for example.

In that case, however, the individual providing the services is responsible for the liscense, not the facility.

A quick look at the ascap website shows various brouchures detailing the variety of liscenses they provide: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/brochures.html

Here's one that applies to health facilities: http://www.ascap.com/licensing/pdfs/brochures/music_is_good_health.pdf

Does anyone know if these companies that hire musicians for their residents have these liscenses?

------------------
Bill in Dayton

Kingfrog is right...writers should get paid. I'm a member of one of these organizations. My probelem is not with the theory, it's the attitude.

These guys are gangsters.


R.