Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Scene)   Cover band caused "great and incalculable damage" according to BMI   (clevescene.com) divider line 240
    More: Fail, Medina, BMI, cover bands, performing rights, Rick Springfield, music licensing, brown eye, statutory damages  
•       •       •

16603 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 9:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



240 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 10:57:54 AM  
Pribar:
Not quite music of any sort, we have a local bar that hosts live bands, the rule is no covers, only original compositions so you can imagine how bad some of the music is (though you do get the occasional gem mixed in), regardless they received a demand letter from BMI who claimed to own copyright on several of the songs, they backed down when they found out that the bar kept recordings of every performance and had copies of all the named bands copyright filings on their songs. One semi amusing thing that happened was that a couple of the bands that BMI named in their original demand letter as having played covers of BMI songs filed Slander of Title suits against BMI, never did find out what happened with those

As someone who works for a company that is frequently getting hit with lawsuits for made-up environmental and occupational safety violations, usually by people who haven't even been in my state, I hope BMI got hung from their toes for that shenanigan.

Probably just wrist-slapped and told to be more careful next time.
 
2014-03-23 10:59:11 AM  

doglover: Mirandized: If they can't calculate the damages, then the suit should be dismissed.

"Your honor, we can't even calculate the damage!"

"Then how do you expect this court to assess damages? Case dismissed."

No, you set policy.

"Incalculable" means $0.00 and the case becomes a benchmark.


I like that even better. I don't believe BMI and the others add anything of value to the product, and they are the cause of copyrights becoming almost perpetual. At some point the public is best served by the copyright expiring.
 
2014-03-23 10:59:30 AM  
This is why my DVD copies of Northern Exposure sound nothing like my pirated versions of Northern Exposure and why it took so damned LONG for it to come out on DVD in the first place.
 
2014-03-23 11:04:10 AM  
The next big thing in bars.....Total Silence
 
2014-03-23 11:04:25 AM  
The judge should award them incalculable damages. Perhaps a shrubbery.
 
2014-03-23 11:09:31 AM  
This is why you don't see shiatty little cover bands in every bar on Friday night anymore.  And I miss that.
 
2014-03-23 11:14:18 AM  

BluVeinThrobber: The next big thing in bars.....Total Silence


Good.  That will make it all the easier to pick out which dumbass 19-year-old with low self-esteem is telling her friends "Oh God! I'm SO DRUNK!"
 
2014-03-23 11:15:24 AM  

unitednihilists: They had it coming, any band who plays "talk dirty to me' by Poison. Should be sent to Gitmo or somewhere equally heinous.


Exactly. The bar should just argue the band was was just doing a parody by making fun of all these cheesy old played out songs and the aging rockers that composed them. Bonus if the lead singer is bald and wears a bandana on his head.
 
2014-03-23 11:16:30 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: capt.hollister: I don't get why some people are upset. If you own a commercial venue that draws a financial benefit from someone else's property, it seems only normal that you should have to pay them a share. It's not even a large share.

A friend of mine who used to own a bistrot had to pay a license because he had the radio on.

So the rights holders got paid by the radio station *and* the bistro *for the same broadcast*. You said it yourself, but you're confused.

Hm?


Not confused. Just different laws in Canada, I think. If you are a business that plays radio for its customers, you pay a small license fee.
 
MFK
2014-03-23 11:17:40 AM  
The licensing fee, which this bar seems to have not paid, is relatively inexpensive and covers your ass against shiat like this. the Performing Rights Orgs like BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are how musicians get royalties for the use of their music. This particular bar seems to think that he shouldn't have to pay for having music in his establishment and is basically stealing it.  You can't go into a record store and say "I want to have that album by the Rolling Stones playing in my house" and just walk out the door with it without paying. It's kind of the same thing here. Most establishments that feature music aren't ignorant dickbags and pay the couple hundred bucks a year that allows them license to do whatever they want, but every now and again, you get a guy like this owner who thinks he shouldn't have to pay for the entertainment/atmosphere he offers his clientele so the PROs have to make a big stink about it and take him to court in order to make an example so others don't do the same thing.
 
2014-03-23 11:19:51 AM  

rolladuck: BluVeinThrobber: The next big thing in bars.....Total Silence

Good.  That will make it all the easier to pick out which dumbass 19-year-old with low self-esteem is telling her friends "Oh God! I'm SO DRUNK!"


Easier pickins
 
2014-03-23 11:21:58 AM  
Farking parasites.
 
MFK
2014-03-23 11:23:52 AM  

Stoker: Farking parasites.


yeah, the musicians who spent all the time and money crafting, recording and distributing the music you want to hear when you go out to the bar are farking parasites for demanding compensation from people who use their work in their commercial endeavors.
 
2014-03-23 11:24:24 AM  

d23: Lokkii: The only people complaining about this lawsuit are those who have never created anything of value.oh dear. you need to shut up and go sit down over there.//produced dozens of DVDs...///just TRY to properly license music as a "little guy" and see how far you get


Ok, maybe what Lokkii should have said was: "...anything that is of value to another human being".
 
2014-03-23 11:25:12 AM  
Rock and pop music grew to great prominence and became the de-facto American musical form in a way that is usually antithetical to art and music flourishing.  A lot of culture comes to the fore in spite of commerce, but rock and roll, and those little 45's that sounded like hell and AM radio and all of the venues that supported it got huge BECAUSE people voted with their wallets.  It became a huge growth industry and it allowed for nice, old fat men in expensive suits to say "yeah, throw money at anybody who needs a haircut.  The kids love this stuff."  The label made money, the publishers made money, the bands made money, the venues made money.

Alles gut.  But you have to understand something.  Nothing in America survives, no religion, no art, no culture, no "movement", unless it moves money around.  Period.  So this was the perfect place for a huge industry to grow up around the kids forking over their lunch money for that new single.  This was implicitly how it worked.

And all in all, it worked well.  It allowed new artists to whang away at whatever their take on the music was and still eat and live indoors.  If you got a label deal, you essentially bumped up to the minors and had a chance to swing for the center field wall.  If you knocked one out of the park, you made it.  But here's WHY you made it.  People bought your records.  When the money flows in ANY given economy, it lifts all boats.  If you don't believe me, look at the pissant excuse for an economy we have now with 90% of the capital sitting comfortably up the asses of 1% of the people in the country.  The money isn't flowing.  It's static.  And unless you're in one of about 700 families clutching it like it was the antidote, you're probably not doing so hot.

And what flipped the off switch on this round robin of artist creates, records, gets paid, label gets paid, signs more artists?   Digital.  Digital, and to ay otherwise is ridiculous, took the money out of the equation because any mook with a torrent client, the P@P sites having been handily dismantled by kiddy fiddlers, can get your CD - the one you and your record label put a lot of money into to create - for free.  Eff Arr Eee Eee.  And that means making recordings is now a hobby.  Which is why that "way cool band that only you and your hippest friends know about" are playing some joint with 30 people in it and selling T-Shirts, CDs and hot sauce for a living.

So, what's left?  Publishing.  If you have songs that people play in bars, you get a performance royalty.  And that's a consolation prize, but it helps pay bills.  Is BMI full of sh*t?  Yeah, essentially.  So's ASCAP and the rest of them.  Are the people who say "OMG I am their biggest fan!" and never laid down 9.99 for the f*cking CD but have 8 copies of it, full of sh*t?  Yeah.  Are bar owners full of sh*t when they say they shouldn't have to oink up a few bucks to pay a few royalties, the stupid amount they are billed for them, not withstandinfg?  Pretty much.

The music isn't new anymore.  The form has arced and peaked.  And you really want to keep rock and roll alive and well, you're gonna have to start voting with your wallets again and BMI is going to have to stop getting blood from a stone.  I ain't holding my breath.
 
2014-03-23 11:26:05 AM  

FlashHarry: WGJ: The real crime here is BMI collecting $944 million and only distributing $814 million to songwriters, composers, and music publishers. And I'm guessing the publishers get most of that money as well.

In many cases, the songwriter IS the publisher. And as far as the money is concerned, BMI administers songwriting royalties for thousands of artists all around the world, calculating usage and distributing payment. And they don't charge the artists a penny for it up front. So I for one have no problem with them taking some off the top for administrative expenses.

/BMI songwriter since 1991


Write anything we'd know?
 
2014-03-23 11:29:20 AM  
The cover band is not responsible for the license fees: the venue is. This is pretty common knowledge and I'm guessing that 69 Taps has been being a jerk about paying the licensing fee.

As annoying and as seemingly unreasonable it is, it's the law. Don't want to pay the fee" don't play the music.

I used to have a place where I was the only musician to perform (cocktail piano) and, yes, I had to pay the licensing fee. The BMI rep wasn't a jerk about it; it was just business. No threats.

I also had this conversation a few times:

"How much do you get paid to play here?"
"Not very much [grin], why?"
"If you join the union, we can make the scumbag owner pay you more."
"Probably not. I'm also the scumbag owner. Any other benefits to union membership?"
"Oh, forget it."
 
2014-03-23 11:32:13 AM  

Lokkii: The only people complaining about this lawsuit  are those who have never created anything of value.


If a good deal of this money trying to be recouped were going to the original artists, or original song writers, then people would be "OK, that's cool".

Since I believe most of it just goes to bloat BMI, that is why people complain and don't have sympathy.
 
2014-03-23 11:35:06 AM  

dletter: I believe most of it just goes to bloat BMI


Acttually, and it's difficult to believe, no.  They are constantly audited by all of their member artists and their publishing concerns.
 
2014-03-23 11:40:32 AM  

Great_Milenko: edmo: Do they have a sales tax license? Liquor? Business? Do they steal ESPN?

It ain't rocket science.

Right.  The reason the hundreds of other bands out there playing cover songs didn't raise concerns is because the establishments hosting them were playing by the rules.  Unless The bar is being sued for eleventy kajillion dollars or some other comically excessive amount, I don't see the problem with this.   As for the "great and incalculable damage", that's just legal-ese for "if we let them get away with it, everyone else will do the same."


...and that's why people think lawyers are scum.
 
2014-03-23 11:41:12 AM  

doglover: Mirandized: If they can't calculate the damages, then the suit should be dismissed.

"Your honor, we can't even calculate the damage!"

"Then how do you expect this court to assess damages? Case dismissed."

No, you set policy.

"Incalculable" means $0.00 and the case becomes a benchmark.


Wouldn't it become a benchmark that sets precedence in that there was damage, and the value of that damage is zero? Every case after that would point to no damages being awarded.
 
2014-03-23 11:41:45 AM  

dletter: Lokkii: The only people complaining about this lawsuit  are those who have never created anything of value.

If a good deal of this money trying to be recouped were going to the original artists, or original song writers, then people would be "OK, that's cool".

Since I believe most of it just goes to bloat BMI, that is why people complain and don't have sympathy.


People would probably have more sympathy if they had a choice in the matter.  Kinda like some form of competition in the business, rather than just "pay these guys, and whatever happens, happens."

Like when Chik-fil-A went all anti-gay-derpy, I had the choice to say, "That's fine, Popeyes is good enough for me".  And when Wal-Mart pays their floor employees shiat and treats them like shiat, I have the choice to say, "That's fine, the Target a mile over is cleaner and their young cashiers are hotter and don't look like they have scurvy."

I know sometimes it gets into an oligopolist situation, but those are always vulnerable to one member deciding that it's time to screw over the rest.  And they all know it.

Currently, the music license situation, thanks to (effectively) perpetual copyright, is a nicely bundled monopoly that nobody can vote against except by forgoing that form of entertainment.  That's the point at which it ceases to serve the public good.

The rules should be re-evaluated, re-built, and the Mouse should butt the fark out while they do that.
 
2014-03-23 11:42:54 AM  

wambu: As annoying and as seemingly unreasonable it is, it's the law


cdn5.business-opportunities.biz
 
2014-03-23 11:43:39 AM  

MFK: Stoker: Farking parasites.

yeah, the musicians who spent all the time and money crafting, recording and distributing the music you want to hear when you go out to the bar are farking parasites for demanding compensation from people who use their work in their commercial endeavors.


I am fairly certain that the actual artists themselves earn either zero or very little of any licensing fee for public performances. This is pretty much all the publisher. I don't see the harm, really. Most of the bands in question did exactly the same thing, and I guarantee you paid $0 in licensing fees. The bigger problem is that cover and tribute bands are boring and unoriginal. Even if you cover the song well, it's a bad copy on the best of days. Yeah, you got that guitar solo, but hearing Jimmy Page improvise in his own concerts is something these bands can never do. I get copyrights. I just think they are retarded in how they are implemented.

So should we just cover dead people? No one is alive from the Jimi Hendrix Experience. But I bet that if there was a cover band in the subject bar, they would ask for money just the same.
 
2014-03-23 11:44:52 AM  

rolladuck: the Mouse should butt the fark out while they do that.


The mouse is the biggest record label on the planet and is kicking phat ass in an era when the "majors" and considering T-Shirt franchises.
 
2014-03-23 11:48:02 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: I am fairly certain that the actual artists themselves earn either zero or very little of any licensing fee for public performances. This is pretty much all the publisher


And that's why there are now several mobillion "publishing" companies that consist of cat with guitar and songs written by cat with guitar.  Cheap to charter and file and you own your own publishing.  Ray Charles was the first dude to own his master reels from a major.  After a lot of spandex farmers woke up to realize that they got .02 USD per song performance or sale and their publishers got .98 USD, they wised up.
 
2014-03-23 11:48:33 AM  
That's quite a varied repertoire.
 
2014-03-23 11:48:50 AM  

ryano913: Does BMI have a network of undercover moles in every bar? How do they know this happened? Any proof?


They do have agents.  Bars that don't pay the licensing fee try to get away with it by saying "We only have original music, no covers" and hope nobody checks up on them.

italie: BMI, ASCAP, SECAM....can all go to hell. The tactics they use are nothing short of old-school mafia "protection" scams.


You may not realize that those three agencies are the only ones that pay the songwriters anything.  RIAA is looking out for the record labels, BMI et. al. represent the songwriters.
 
2014-03-23 11:51:05 AM  

TheOther: BitwiseShift: Turn down any gig in any bar in Medina, man. And Mecca, too.  It's a bummer.

The Shareef don't like it


Nice
 
2014-03-23 11:51:22 AM  
This should be at the beginning of any copyright discussion.The copyright clause of the Constitution"

Congress shall have the right to ... promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

No one even considers that popular music is neither science nor useful arts, but frivolous entertainment. It is also not a discovery, and only sheet music constitutes a writing. Locking up ideas as property is ultimately no less a form of censorship than trying to suppress them. If I cannot say or write things that have been said or written before or even something similar because those words are someone's private property, then I do not have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. The original 1790 copyright law kept this in mind when limiting a copyright to 14 years, renewable once for a total of 28 years if the author were still living. Now, with Disney bribing another extension out of Congress every time Steamboat Willie is about to revert back to the public domain, where ideas once publicly expressed naturally belong, copyright is essentially perpetual and no longer tied to the original author.

It is worth noting that ASCAP and BMI money usually goes to record labels, not artists. How does that promote the progress of science and the useful arts? It doesn't. Copyright has gone against its very stated purpose in the Constitution ever since the 1790 statute was expanded. It may have never served that purpose. The worlds first copyright law, Queen Anne's Law in the UK, was about censorship and nothing else. The ruling class were afraid the Gutenberg printing press threatened their base of power. Copyright is incompatible with freedom of expression.
 
2014-03-23 11:51:26 AM  

MFK: The licensing fee, which this bar seems to have not paid, is relatively inexpensive and covers your ass against shiat like this. the Performing Rights Orgs like BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are how musicians get royalties for the use of their music. This particular bar seems to think that he shouldn't have to pay for having music in his establishment and is basically stealing it.  You can't go into a record store and say "I want to have that album by the Rolling Stones playing in my house" and just walk out the door with it without paying. It's kind of the same thing here. Most establishments that feature music aren't ignorant dickbags and pay the couple hundred bucks a year that allows them license to do whatever they want, but every now and again, you get a guy like this owner who thinks he shouldn't have to pay for the entertainment/atmosphere he offers his clientele so the PROs have to make a big stink about it and take him to court in order to make an example so others don't do the same thing.


Often the problem to a bar owner isn't the paying of a fee. It's paying  three or more fees. You have three major companies, all attempting to collect the same money. A bar owner has little control over what might be played over airwaves (unless he has something like the Sirius box mentioned). You generally aren't fully "Legal" unless you are paying all three, covering all the songs any of them may license.

//Correction to previous post "SESAC"
///Always forget the acronym on that one
 
2014-03-23 11:52:53 AM  

blair1: You may not realize that those three agencies are the only ones that pay the songwriters anything


Define "anything"?
 
2014-03-23 11:54:39 AM  
Well, I think the lesson here is: Be in a band(or own a bar that hosts bands) that play original material, and aren't trying to scrape up 50 year old cooze to the tune of Jesse's Girl.
 
2014-03-23 11:54:59 AM  

Ennuipoet: Was it these guys?


Came for The Final Countdown, leaving.
 
2014-03-23 11:55:02 AM  

uncoveror: No one even considers that popular music is neither science nor useful arts, but frivolous entertainment. It is also not a discovery, and only sheet music constitutes a writing. Locking up ideas as property is ultimately no less a form of censorship than trying to suppress them.


And any attorney who could find his ass with both hands would handily argue that into the dirt in about 3 minutes.  This gray area is the very gist of the law as an arguable construct.
 
2014-03-23 11:59:03 AM  

neongoats: Well, I think the lesson here is: Be in a band(or own a bar that hosts bands) that play original material, and aren't trying to scrape up 50 year old cooze to the tune of Jesse's Girl.


This, and mainly because cover and tribute bands suck. "Wow, he did the scream well from Won't Get Fooled Again" is a low bar to set. The Iron Maidens have a huge following because they are incredibly hot aside from being good musicians. But all these bands play to the album or a well-known live performance. Boring.
 
2014-03-23 12:02:38 PM  
Labels were never anything more than investment banks offering per client contracts with advances, fees, and profit distribution agreements.  Labels care about what people think is "the best music" as much as GM cares about what people think is "the best car".  Just move units.  Organizations who collect sales and performance and air royalties are nothing more than the goon at the door with a clicker and a hand stamp.  And for  while, it worked when people still payed for recordings.
 
2014-03-23 12:03:19 PM  

darch: My town (Hoboken, NJ) has the most bars of any similarly-sized town in the country and most of them don't have live music anymore. It's a shame. Am thinking that this silliness might have something to do with it.


It does.  My dad used to play in a folk band as a hobby, but they pretty much stopped when the bar they played in ran afoul of this same thing.  The extra bullshiat there being that they were a trad band, and the songs they were playing were mostly written by people who died before there ever was such a damn thing as the BMI.
 
2014-03-23 12:03:37 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: The Iron Maidens


EXCELLENT!!!

www.billandted.org
 
2014-03-23 12:03:40 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: neongoats: Well, I think the lesson here is: Be in a band(or own a bar that hosts bands) that play original material, and aren't trying to scrape up 50 year old cooze to the tune of Jesse's Girl.

This, and mainly because cover and tribute bands suck. "Wow, he did the scream well from Won't Get Fooled Again" is a low bar to set. The Iron Maidens have a huge following because they are incredibly hot aside from being good musicians. But all these bands play to the album or a well-known live performance. Boring.


Art is subjective.  T'was ever thus.
 
2014-03-23 12:05:59 PM  

UndeadPoetsSociety: the songs they were playing were mostly written by people who died before there ever was such a damn thing as the BMI.


Which is why there are publishing houses sucking up every song thay can get their hands on and assigning it to their song base.  See "Happy Birthday To You."  Everybody is harvesting, nobody is planting.
 
2014-03-23 12:06:34 PM  
I write music.  None of it will ever be played in bars or on the radio (because I write barbershop quartet music for barbershoppers. It's aca-awesome, but that's not relevant.).  So, if I write a bunch of stuff and submit it to BMI, it's their job to hunt around looking for people playing my music in bars to see if they owe me money?  Sounds like a waste of time and resources, to me.
 
2014-03-23 12:07:26 PM  

browser_snake: No news here. If you have a bar that has music of any sort, you need to be a BMI member. They are seeking statutory damages, which means there's a standard amount of liability that's awarded so often, it doesn't even need to be documented in the lawsuit paperwork - they just cite the statute.


This is incorrect. If I have a bar, and I play only music that I've created myself, or background noise I've personally recorded, then NO, I don't have to be a member of or have a license from BMI, ASCAP or any other entity. If I was a member of ASCAP, or under contract as a musician I would though. But to say outright that you NEED any sort of license or pay fees with regard to music if you own a bar is absurd. Want to restrict to your live performance to unsigned bands and absolutely NO COVERS? Sure. You won't have to pay crap to anyone.

If you think I'm wrong, then by all means point it out, because I've ONLY ever seen performance licenses and fees applied when BMI, ASCAP, and other entities, is when copyright coverage becomes involved with the musical acts and their choice of songs, and standard background music.

Case in point, a dive bar down the street from where I live has license to play music, but not live performances. So what does she have for live performances? Poetry slams, comedians, a piano that anyone can play at any time. Afaik, the piano player it doesn't constitute as live performance under their terms, since it isn't a scheduled appearance nor are they charging a cover, or paying the performer. I'd like to see them try and sue under that and have a jury trial side with the plaintiff. A company fining an establishment for patrons peaceable assembling and letting loose? Good luck with that.

As I said, if I'm wrong please point it out. Devils in the details, and there are ways around this crap. Might not have the most popular song selection, but beats being locked into the music MAFIAA.

/ Non-ASCAP and unsigned professional musician here, not that it matters...
 
2014-03-23 12:09:47 PM  

blair1: italie: BMI, ASCAP, SECAM....can all go to hell. The tactics they use are nothing short of old-school mafia "protection" scams.


You may not realize that those three agencies are the only ones that pay the songwriters anything.  RIAA is looking out for the record labels, BMI et. al. represent the songwriters.


I completely understand this. I also understand the multitude of bar owners who are sick of their shait.

I have no complaint against the service they provide to the artist. I have a complaint against the tactics they use. I have personally seen them, companies I've worked for have lost money because of them. I've had bars pull audio equipment just to silence the harassment.

"We had someone here who heard songs x,y,z coming from the kitchen radio, and it was within earshot of someone walking to the bathroom. Pay us or face legal hell." [obviously a scenario where people were coming to the bar to hear the kitchen radio]

(caller) "Hi, this is Joe from ASCAP, we noticed you aren't paying us due. This could seriously harm your business is one of our songs are played"...(owner) "But I'm already paying SESAC and BMI, and I don't play any of your music"...(caller "Funny that, we were in there last night and hear someone playing  songs x,y,z from their cell phone"  [obviously a scenario where people were coming to the bar to hear a cell phone]

"Hi, Joe from ASCAP again. I know we talked this morning [and yesterday, and the day before that], but I just wanted to make sure you knew what exactly you were in for by not licensing with us as well"


These people can be bastards. I'm sure not all of them are, but a good majority often cross the line from spirit of the law, to copyright-trolling-magnitude letter of it.
 
2014-03-23 12:09:48 PM  

PC LOAD LETTER: neongoats: Well, I think the lesson here is: Be in a band(or own a bar that hosts bands) that play original material, and aren't trying to scrape up 50 year old cooze to the tune of Jesse's Girl.

This, and mainly because cover and tribute bands suck. "Wow, he did the scream well from Won't Get Fooled Again" is a low bar to set. The Iron Maidens have a huge following because they are incredibly hot aside from being good musicians. But all these bands play to the album or a well-known live performance. Boring.


Exactly. No problem with the occasional cover thrown in the middle of a set, or at the end of a show, or whatever. But yeah.
 
2014-03-23 12:10:43 PM  
derpy:
There is an exemption for churches. In the law.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/ Se ction_110



We are not a Bar.
We are a house of alcoholic worship.
Now if you will all grab your hymnals....turn to page 244..
let us all sing... ' the Rodeo Song'
 
2014-03-23 12:12:17 PM  
69 Taps is a shady bar. I live halfway between this location and the original in downtown Akron. Used to go there in my twenties. They always ran out of different beers. We used to call it 45 taps.

TL;DR:
It couldn't have happened to a more deserving bar.
 
2014-03-23 12:12:31 PM  
On one hand everybody's gotta eat - on the other hand, Patent trolling is pretty slimey.
Would that bars Friday and Saturday night really contribute much to anything?
Even if it is in the Paris of the Mid West . . .
 
2014-03-23 12:15:20 PM  
Of course the people who wrote/sang those song will never see a dime.
 
2014-03-23 12:16:38 PM  

MFK: Stoker: Farking parasites.

yeah, the musicians who spent all the time and money crafting, recording and distributing the music you want to hear when you go out to the bar are farking parasites for demanding compensation from people who use their work in their commercial endeavors.


The musicians aren't demanding compensation, the recording company is.  If damages are awarded, the artists won't see a penny of it.

Hell, even a tapeworm can't absorb all of the nutrients you take in. These guys are worse than parasites.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report