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  
•       •       •

16532 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Mar 2014 at 9:46 AM (17 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-23 12:17:26 PM

stuffy: Of course the people who wrote/sang those song will never see a dime.


Again, actually, they do.  Dime is apt, but.. dimes none the less.
 
2014-03-23 12:17:38 PM
"'Incalculable' means we couldn't even bother to make up a number, like we usually do."
 
2014-03-23 12:17:47 PM
I'll just leave this here...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9aruzVcM8
 
2014-03-23 12:25:36 PM

Secret Agent X23: ryano913: Does BMI have a network of undercover moles in every bar? How do they know this happened? Any proof?

That's exactly what they do. I know someone who does this--go to the bar for an evening and then file a report on what music was played. The reason this bar got caught is just that they got unlucky enough for BMI to send someone there. I don't know what the basis is for deciding where to send these folks.


They also call companies and listen to the hold music to see if its something copyrighted.
 
2014-03-23 12:25:41 PM
Here's a simple test we should use in cases like this:Could anyone reasonably believe that this band was the original author or performer of any of this music?No?Then they could not possibly cause any harm to the original authors/performers/copyright holders.
 
2014-03-23 12:26:21 PM
Every cover song is somebody's original song.  So it goes.  And if we don't start laying down our 9.99 for stuff we like, we're all gonna end up in your bedrooms with a copy of Reaper, a Casio and our little sister trying to howl her way through our latest opus in Gm because the people who are good at it all work at Home Depot, now.
 
MFK
2014-03-23 12:26:59 PM

Bonobo62: 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.


This is not the case. The artist will indeed see money from these things.  PROs are not the recording companies. While some of the royalties may indeed go to some of the labels (if for instance your record deal guaranteed the label a certain percentage of publishing royalties) these are mostly songwriting royalties we're talking about here that go to the artist/songwriter.

The PROs are demanding payments on behalf of the musician so they can then turn around and pay them - which they do. This isn't anything at all like the RIAA coming in and suing downloaders on behalf of mega-corporations.

Incidentally, i believe the fee is the same for live or recorded music, so unless your bar/club is bathed in total silence, this is part of the cost of doing business.
 
2014-03-23 12:28:29 PM

ChrisDe: 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.


No, I want every court in America to bankrupt BMI and groups like them. Sue the little guy? Lose money.
 
MFK
2014-03-23 12:36:53 PM

doglover: ChrisDe: 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.

No, I want every court in America to bankrupt BMI and groups like them. Sue the little guy? Lose money.


in this case "the little guy" is stealing outright and then biatching to the media (who clearly has no understanding of the matter) when he gets caught. Why are you white knighting for a thief?  The guy knows he wants to serve beer in the bar and he understands he has to pay a distributor for it. He wants a certain kind of atmosphere/entertainment but refuses to pay for it and all of a sudden he's the victim? Gimme a break.
 
2014-03-23 12:37:46 PM

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


Myself as well although I've let my account lapse ( you need to renew every 2 years iirc)
One quarter writer credits and one quarter performer credits on two songs. Got a check for a few bucks when the album came out.

However now, the record company has made the album available for listening online and also for sale via rhapsody and iTunes.

I wonder if there's another couple bugs headed me way...sweet sweet passive income lol...
 
2014-03-23 12:45:06 PM

Relatively Obscure: I wish it actually did do great and incalculable damage.


I tire of classic rawk, too. Given my age, if I'm lucky, I'll have ten to fifteen years of listening to the hits of 1980 after the last monstrously self-regarding boomer is drooling into his or her Depends.
 
2014-03-23 12:47:10 PM

Valiente: Given my age, if I'm lucky, I'll have ten to fifteen years of listening to the hits of 1980 after the last monstrously self-regarding boomer is drooling into his or her Depends.


Yeah, the boomers.  How about you put a band together and blow all those old, stupid old people old songs off the radio.  S'easy.
 
2014-03-23 12:49:00 PM

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.


That's 86.2% of what is collected distributed to where it belongs if the numbers are true. I can live with >15% kept for the cost of collecting and processing payments. It's better than most non-profit/charity collection organization do. I expected the number to be more like 50%.

I was also surprised it was the bar that needed to be licensed...somehow I always thought the band/DJ had to pay the royalties.
 
2014-03-23 12:49:17 PM

Nemo's Brother: TV's Vinnie: To a copyright lawyer, someone somewhere out there singing a song IS the end of their sad f*cking world.

To Al Franken it is. He was placed into the Senate to ensure the entertainment industry is protected. He is why we will lose Net Neutrality too.


As if Mike McFadden wouldn't have bent over and grabbed his ankles when the RIAA commanded it.
 
2014-03-23 12:49:35 PM

d23: Secret Agent X23: ryano913: Does BMI have a network of undercover moles in every bar? How do they know this happened? Any proof?

That's exactly what they do. I know someone who does this--go to the bar for an evening and then file a report on what music was played. The reason this bar got caught is just that they got unlucky enough for BMI to send someone there. I don't know what the basis is for deciding where to send these folks.

For "church" venues at least, there is a recording period every 3 to 4 years where the venue has to file a report about what music they used as well.  Don't know about bars, but it wouldn't surprise me if they have to do something similar as this is how BMI decides how many pennies they are going to pay songwriters.

I suggest everyone reading this thread go read about how much other groups are actually paying songwriters.  This isn't about paying artists, this is just like 99% of everything else in U.S. society right now: it's about corporate greed and that's it.


Yeah for the first art. The exemption is for worship services. And they still need to have print licenses for printing the words. There are licenses for churches that cover non worship service events.

I don't know about the second part. My wife does not make much, but she has never had big exposure either. Don't lots of songwriters give up a lot of their royalty rights in order to get the exposure to make it big? Kind of like advertising costs.
 
2014-03-23 12:56:27 PM

Nemo's Brother: TV's Vinnie: To a copyright lawyer, someone somewhere out there singing a song IS the end of their sad f*cking world.

To Al Franken it is. He was placed into the Senate to ensure the entertainment industry is protected. He is why we will lose Net Neutrality too.


Oops, I guess you are a moron...

I googled: "Al Franken on net neutrality" and these were the top three results

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

To long didn't click?
1 Tech blog article about Franken's Support of net neutrality
2 Article on Franken's website about the importance of net neutrality
3 Petition hosted by Franken's website in support of net neutrality

Moral of the story?
Its kinda hard to spout blatant lies on the internet without proved wrong...and stupid
 
2014-03-23 12:58:17 PM

TurnerBrown: Don't lots of songwriters give up a lot of their royalty rights in order to get the exposure to make it big? Kind of like advertising costs.


If you can get anything like a band and a catalogue of songs together to the point where a label believes it will turn a profit to advance the recording cost, distribution and promotion, you got some good songs and a good band because getting people to pay for that product when it's free after the first torrent rip is a difficult thing to do.  As such, every deal is different.  This is why lawyers have snazzy German cars.
 
2014-03-23 01:01:16 PM

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."


That's why they're asking for statutory damages as provided in 17 USC 504(c), which can be no less than $200 and up to $150K *per infringement* (i.e., per song), plus the possibility of double the license fees he would have paid for up to three years.  If the bar owner can show that he wasn't aware he was infringing, it'd likely be on the lower end of that scale, but I think he's going to have a hard time proving that.
 
2014-03-23 01:07:35 PM
If anybody thinks BMI cares a flying fark about the artist and is doing this for any reason other than to get their fat white management even more money to waste on shiat they don't need, well you're stupid.
 
2014-03-23 01:08:37 PM
And this is why the small venue (i.e. bar) as a place for young groups to develope their craft is drying up.  You say that the fee isn't that much but most bar owners I know are tight fisted bastards.  For many small garage bands just getting a venue is amazing and important.  Money doesn't even figure into it for those guys.  Will they get hired/allowed to perform on some off night at Bubba's?  If the owner is paying or it, probably not.  I have always thought that there is value to the original band/songwriter just by the act of public performance by someone else.  There should be some consideration for that.  Advertising isn't free.
 
2014-03-23 01:10:37 PM

AgentPothead: If anybody thinks BMI cares a flying fark about the artist and is doing this for any reason other than to get their fat white management even more money to waste on shiat they don't need, well you're stupid.


And yet, they do pay the artists their royalties and publishing and are audited regularly.  So, while I can understand that the easiest thing to do is assume that like all corporations, they're thieving whores, BMI and ASCAP actually do cut checks for the agreed royalty rates to artists and their labels.
 
2014-03-23 01:11:36 PM

MFK: This is not the case. The artist will indeed see money from these things.  PROs are not the recording companies. While some of the royalties may indeed go to some of the labels (if for instance your record deal guaranteed the label a certain percentage of publishing royalties) these are mostly songwriting royalties we're talking about here that go to the artist/songwriter.

The PROs are demanding payments on behalf of the musician so they can then turn around and pay them - which they do. This isn't anything at all like the RIAA coming in and suing downloaders on behalf of mega-corporations.

Incidentally, i believe the fee is the same for live or recorded music, so unless your bar/club is bathed in total silence, this is part of the cost of doing business.



It isn't like the RIAA, but it isn't all peaches and cream either. The fee is on a "sliding scale" based upon the type of usage, which most places will be on the high end of.

http://www.bmi.com/forms/licensing/gl/ede.pdf

Just from BMI, that fee could easily hit $10K a year on an average 250 occupant establishment. Now times that by three.

$30K a year just to have music (outside of a jukebox) and be "near 100%" legal about it under any and all contingencies. That is WAY more than the revenue it brought the bar.
 
2014-03-23 01:12:50 PM
While I'm no fan of BMI, ASCAP and the rest, the venues can usually negotiate the license fee and it's based on how often you have music, what the seating capacity is, etc.  I once played a coffee house and after the gig, when it was time to get paid, I had to hear a 15 min. rant from the owner about how much music costs him, what with the licensing fees that add up to $1000/year.  I calmly pointed out to him that he has live music twice a week - 100 nights a year and his $1000 only comes to ten bucks a performance.  Never playing there again.
 
2014-03-23 01:37:35 PM

Old_Covered_Bridge: While I'm no fan of BMI, ASCAP and the rest, the venues can usually negotiate the license fee and it's based on how often you have music, what the seating capacity is, etc.  I once played a coffee house and after the gig, when it was time to get paid, I had to hear a 15 min. rant from the owner about how much music costs him, what with the licensing fees that add up to $1000/year.  I calmly pointed out to him that he has live music twice a week - 100 nights a year and his $1000 only comes to ten bucks a performance.  Never playing there again.



Did you bring him $10 a night in additional revenue on top of what he paid you? If so, probably wasn't really worth it for him and he was being nice to you...
 
2014-03-23 01:44:54 PM
The dream tune police, they live inside of my head.
The dream tune police, they come to me in my bed.
The dream tune police, they're coming to arrest me, oh no.
 
2014-03-23 01:51:20 PM
Audio for live has reached a level of refinement that allows for studio quality sound at shows.

Lighting has become astounding in it's scope, applications and ability to make performances engaging, although the programming often seems to take away from the creative aspects of directing a show.

Staging, video, production values are all very well done, now.   No more stack of Altecs trying to put the singer over a wall of too loud guitar amps.  Brilliantly mixed, lit and directed shows abound.  And cost a f*cking mint for the ger and personnel.

And for what?  A form of music that is languishing on the shelves, producing very little viable new artists and is "supported" with mouse clicks that often generate nothing more than a few inconvenienced electrons.  So nobody is paying and nobody is getting paid.  And the downloaders say "but they should just give the music away and earn money from playing live1"  How?  By taking the money they made selling 3,000 CDs last year out of their trunk and planning, booking, managing and hiring production for a tour?

So what's left?  Royalties from publishing.  And that is why an hour and a half after a new cool song comes out from an emerging band, it's being used to sell toothpaste and cars.  "SELLOUTS!" cry the hip, true believers.  Who pay for nothing but two PBR's and the 5.00 cover so they can say "I knew them before they sold out."

Try paying for their CDs and the tours get better, the quality gets better, and they don't have to sell Proctor and Gamble products to eat and live indoors.  If I ever manage to get something on the radiom iTunes and brick and mortar outlets, I hoep there's some guy in a suit pestering the people who make money off of it for my lousy 27.00 royalty check.

The problem isn't "greedy labels or BMI".  The problem is people slapping down 16.00 for three cups of yuppie coffe and rolling their eyes when that way cool band they love asks for 9.00 for a copy of something it cost thousands to produce.
 
2014-03-23 01:58:04 PM
Yeah, I tend to be more on the "consumer" side of issues such as these- things like downloading for personal use, etc, and there's  huge grey area in copyright law with regards to what is fair use and the like. That being said, the deal with ASCAP/BMI/ and SESAC is very well known, it enables creators to get paid in a way that they have accepted, and it DOES prevent the bands themselves from having to do all the legwork. This bar was certainly offered more than one chance to buy the appropriate license, which tends to cost between $500 and $3000 a year, depending on the venue, how often copyrighted music is played, how big it is, what they charge for, etc. I don't think that's unreasonable, and there's bars and the like claiming that they'd "have to close their doors" if they had to pay the $1000 a year for a license. I'm sorry, but if $1,000 a year ($83.33/ month, $2.78/day) is all that's between your bar and financial destruction, your bar is about to die anyway. Your liquor license costs more. Yes, people are paying for drinks. You know what else? A big reason that they're there, paying for drinks in the first place, is BECAUSE you have a band playing. Pay the farking fee, or shut up when you get sued- AFTER being given chances to pay the damn fee.

On the other hand, the license companies frequently go a bit too far with pursuing venues that don't play music that is covered under the license (local bands playing their own original stuff, etc.) And there's stories (whether totally true or not) where BMI/ ASCAP's "spies" just HAPPENED to be there one night where a band played ONE song that was covered under license without even knowing it and BAM! They get sued. I, for one, doubt this.

The license thing is NOT a little- known deal, the licensing companies typically are reasonable about things, and this band played, on the night in question, an entire repertoire of licensed music. I guarantee you that the other 52 weekends (or however often that bar has a band playing) that they had other stuff played, just that the night in question was the one that BMI had someone in the crowd documenting it. Sorry- I don't feel sorry for that bar at all.
 
2014-03-23 02:03:52 PM
good. bar music is always too goddamn loud anyway.
 
2014-03-23 02:06:53 PM
<CSB> BMI sent me a DMCA notice asking for $20 for downloading one song from The Flaming Lips's "Heady Fwends" album. Never ponied up the dough, still waiting for consequences to never be the same.
 
2014-03-23 02:09:36 PM

Greek: Yeah, I tend to be more on the "consumer" side of issues such as these- things like downloading for personal use, etc, and there's  huge grey area in copyright law with regards to what is fair use and the like. That being said, the deal with ASCAP/BMI/ and SESAC is very well known, it enables creators to get paid in a way that they have accepted, and it DOES prevent the bands themselves from having to do all the legwork. This bar was certainly offered more than one chance to buy the appropriate license, which tends to cost between $500 and $3000 a year, depending on the venue, how often copyrighted music is played, how big it is, what they charge for, etc. I don't think that's unreasonable, and there's bars and the like claiming that they'd "have to close their doors" if they had to pay the $1000 a year for a license. I'm sorry, but if $1,000 a year ($83.33/ month, $2.78/day) is all that's between your bar and financial destruction, your bar is about to die anyway. Your liquor license costs more. Yes, people are paying for drinks. You know what else? A big reason that they're there, paying for drinks in the first place, is BECAUSE you have a band playing. Pay the farking fee, or shut up when you get sued- AFTER being given chances to pay the damn fee.

On the other hand, the license companies frequently go a bit too far with pursuing venues that don't play music that is covered under the license (local bands playing their own original stuff, etc.) And there's stories (whether totally true or not) where BMI/ ASCAP's "spies" just HAPPENED to be there one night where a band played ONE song that was covered under license without even knowing it and BAM! They get sued. I, for one, doubt this.

The license thing is NOT a little- known deal, the licensing companies typically are reasonable about things, and this band played, on the night in question, an entire repertoire of licensed music. I guarantee you that the other 52 weekends (or however often that bar has a band pla ...


Times 3 on all your figures. If you are paying one of these companies, you are on the radar of the other two.

As for the stories of people scoping places out, it is true, and happens very frequently. This is especially true to any places not paying dues, or not paying dues to all three companies.

//Source: Spent 5 years providing audio/video rental to bars and clubs in the 3rd largest metropolitan market US, at a company with over 50% market share. 3 years after that with co-ownership in a bar.
 
2014-03-23 02:10:51 PM

Sticky Hands: good. bar music is always too goddamn loud anyway.


I've mixed over 3,400 live shows, many of them in bars, and I tend to agree with you.  I also blame snotty, arrogant guitar players whose dicks are hard wired to their volume knobs and get shirty when you ask them to turn the f*ck down so that the people can hear, oddly, the whole band and the whoel mix.  I realize your mom thinks you're Eric Clapton v.2.0 but if you suck at 93 dBA, you suck.   And adding another 10dB doesn't help.  It just makes the sucking physically hurt your ears.  Remember, kids.  If it's too loud, it's too loud.  And that cool, hip young person that is grimacing in the corner while you deafen them isn't cool and hip and he doesn't "get it", he just assumes that ear pain is a part of the process.  It isn't.
 
2014-03-23 02:25:51 PM
There's always room for a Free Bird in a set.
 
2014-03-23 02:28:43 PM

ReverendJynxed: There's always room for a Free Bird in a set.


You know, that's actually a prety good song.  So is Brown Eyed Girl.  Too bad they got played to the point of being self parodies.
 
2014-03-23 02:36:23 PM
And for all the Gen X / Y'ers pissing and moaning about "old peope music", if you don't start paying for new music, it's ALL gonna be old people music cause eventually, your music will be "old people music" too.  Ha ha.

/listens to everything
//has to as part of his job
///waiting for the great leap forward
 
2014-03-23 02:44:03 PM
I wish dick cancer on all of the plaintiffs and their lawyers.
 
2014-03-23 02:48:49 PM
And if you really don't value arts and music, paint every single thing you own white and put in a pair of earplugs and some sleep shades and spend your life in your lovely sensory deprivation tank.  Art keeps you sane, kids.  And it's cheaper than anti-psychotics and the doctor to prescribe them.  The guy who drew the crap on your cereal box got paid.  Cough up a few bucks for the band that did that song that benchmarks a time in your life.
 
2014-03-23 02:57:38 PM

HairyNevus: <CSB> BMI sent me a DMCA notice asking for $20 for downloading one song from The Flaming Lips's "Heady Fwends" album. Never ponied up the dough, still waiting for consequences to never be the same.


BMI or RIAA?
 
2014-03-23 02:59:18 PM
Churches (are supposed to) get CCLI licenses so that the Christian bands that write the songs get their cut.

/church musician
//getting a kick
 
2014-03-23 03:07:31 PM

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

Sort of. In more metropolitan areas they have moles. In the smaller areas they're more complaint-based. Usually, it's competition that sells a rival out to BMI for bands or jukebox music.


Do you really think they go through that much effort? It's just a computer program that cross checks a database of business licenses to their database of paying members. If you don't have a match it sets off a flag.
 
2014-03-23 03:20:38 PM
Any performance of music "outside a normal circle of family and friends" is considered a public performance that requires permission from the copyright holder.

Okay legal GEDs, I'm curious where the cut-off is.  How about the dude murdering Mr. Tambourine Man on open-mic night at the shopping mall?  What about the chubby chick with the cute face singing the Amy Grant songs in your local megachurch?    How about the guy playing playing Stairway to Heaven on the musical saw in the subway?  All meat for the lawyers?
 
2014-03-23 03:23:10 PM

trippdogg: Any performance of music "outside a normal circle of family and friends" is considered a public performance that requires permission from the copyright holder.

Okay legal GEDs, I'm curious where the cut-off is.  How about the dude murdering Mr. Tambourine Man on open-mic night at the shopping mall?  What about the chubby chick with the cute face singing the Amy Grant songs in your local megachurch?    How about the guy playing playing Stairway to Heaven on the musical saw in the subway?  All meat for the lawyers?


Scraps, actually.  Bars move money around because they buy stuff that is destroyed in use for about .45 to 1.20 a unit and move it at about 3.50 to 7.00 a unit.  You always go where the money already is if you want to sue.
 
2014-03-23 03:41:56 PM
Bowel Movement Inc?
 
2014-03-23 03:45:40 PM
ASCAP does not post rates on its website.

Could be $500 a year, could be FARK YOU, we'll charge what we feel like.
 
2014-03-23 04:02:42 PM
Let's say anyone of you Farkers wants to buy a bar and have live music.

Let's say you want to do everything by the book and pay your dues.

Now try to google anything you can to find the price and who to pay.

Not so easy.
 
2014-03-23 04:07:45 PM

bunner: Every cover song is somebody's original song.  So it goes.  And if we don't start laying down our 9.99 for stuff we like, we're all gonna end up in your bedrooms with a copy of Reaper, a Casio and our little sister trying to howl her way through our latest opus in Gm because the people who are good at it all work at Home Depot, now.


I buy copies of all the music I listen to (with the exception of Spotify, where I pay $5 a month to find/try new music before I buy it) and I always have. But there has to be a happy medium somewhere in between "Music should be free because after all the Internet" and the strong-arm tactics of gold-digging groups like the RIAA and BMI.
 
2014-03-23 04:07:55 PM

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.


Um, no, you're just 1/2 right here... The band bears no responsibility for this at all. It's completely the responsibility of the venue.
 
2014-03-23 04:16:51 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: bunner: Every cover song is somebody's original song.  So it goes.  And if we don't start laying down our 9.99 for stuff we like, we're all gonna end up in your bedrooms with a copy of Reaper, a Casio and our little sister trying to howl her way through our latest opus in Gm because the people who are good at it all work at Home Depot, now.

I buy copies of all the music I listen to (with the exception of Spotify, where I pay $5 a month to find/try new music before I buy it) and I always have. But there has to be a happy medium somewhere in between "Music should be free because after all the Internet" and the strong-arm tactics of gold-digging groups like the RIAA and BMI.


Agreed.  I believe it more then likely simply honesty and fairness on the part of the people who both produce and own music keeping each other's lights on.  Nobody would have the balls to walk into a McDonalds and leave 99¢ on the counter for a 4.99 sandwich, but yet, a 45 costs 1.09 in 1964 and so far, it hasn't been caught up to infaltion.  And yet, you're buying something you want that you can keep forever and keeping the people who make it living indoors.  That's a fair deal and the more peope wh subscribe to it, the better music will be.
 
2014-03-23 04:21:05 PM
Why not copyright eggs over easy or a steak medium rare?
 
2014-03-23 04:30:49 PM

bunner: Fuggin Bizzy: bunner: Every cover song is somebody's original song.  So it goes.  And if we don't start laying down our 9.99 for stuff we like, we're all gonna end up in your bedrooms with a copy of Reaper, a Casio and our little sister trying to howl her way through our latest opus in Gm because the people who are good at it all work at Home Depot, now.

I buy copies of all the music I listen to (with the exception of Spotify, where I pay $5 a month to find/try new music before I buy it) and I always have. But there has to be a happy medium somewhere in between "Music should be free because after all the Internet" and the strong-arm tactics of gold-digging groups like the RIAA and BMI.

Agreed.  I believe it more then likely simply honesty and fairness on the part of the people who both produce and own music keeping each other's lights on.  Nobody would have the balls to walk into a McDonalds and leave 99¢ on the counter for a 4.99 sandwich, but yet, a 45 costs 1.09 in 1964 and so far, it hasn't been caught up to infaltion.  And yet, you're buying something you want that you can keep forever and keeping the people who make it living indoors.  That's a fair deal and the more peope wh subscribe to it, the better music will be.


Then bar owners should also get a discount for any deaf patrons in the place.
 
2014-03-23 05:11:57 PM

SwingingJohnson: Why not copyright eggs over easy or a steak medium rare?


Because you can't.  It doesn't fall under the laws that govern copyirghts and you were bing silly.

SwingingJohnson: Then bar owners should also get a discount for any deaf patrons in the place.


Wouldn't be cost effective.  Also silly.  We need more silliness, but the fun kind.  Not the "we should all wear cheese neckties!" kind.
 
Displayed 50 of 240 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report