Elderly harmonica player arrested playing copyrighted songs

[Denny]

Who owns the coyright of the Beatles Tunes these days anyway? Didn't P McC sell them off, or something?

Bet he's like his share of the tips that bar manager got, to help pay for his divorce.

Last I knew it was Michael Jackson (about a year and a half ago)
Ah...publishing rights

Michael Jackson owned the commercial rights (if the song was used in an advertisement) but not the performing rights.

Ya...dat's why I added the

Ah...publishing rights

[fearfaoin]

I wonder what the rest of the story is, here. Does Japan allow a bar owner to
pay his "protection money" so copyrighted tunes can be performed in the bar?
Did this guy refuse to pay it as some sort of protest?
Or can you just not perform Beatles tunes in Japanese bars?

[Flyingcursor]

Amazing. Every bluegrass festival/open mic/jam I've ever been to played other people's music at least a few times. In face my Dad and I played a bunch of tunes just this summer at a place in Howard City Michigan. We weren't arrested.

[fearfaoin]

Amazing. Every bluegrass festival/open mic/jam I've ever been to played other people's music at least a few times. In face my Dad and I played a bunch of tunes just this summer at a place in Howard City Michigan. We weren't arrested.

Tokyo is a long way from Michigan...

[missy]

Amazing. Every bluegrass festival/open mic/jam I've ever been to played other people's music at least a few times. In face my Dad and I played a bunch of tunes just this summer at a place in Howard City Michigan. We weren't arrested.

Flydood - one of the festivals I've been at where ASCAP "attempted" their strong arm tactics was the Caesar Creek one. John got a state trooper (it IS state property) to "escort" the lawyer off of it.
And there are venues and festivals we participate in where we've specifically been asked to ONLY play traditional material.

[Scott McCallister]

Just to play devil's advocate

How's it go? You hum it, I'll noodle...is it copyrighted?

It is if your noodling makes it "tangibly fixed".

Kind of an odd coin to see both sides of.

On one side you have Joe's Auto Body ten miles out of town on a dirt road where three mechanics have a raido playing in a two bay garage. ASCAP comes in and smacks them with a steep fee for "rebroadcasting" copyrighted material in their catalog only because it is a place of business, not a person's home. Kind of a goofy situation if you ask me.

Meanwhile back in town, in the middle of a trendy shopping district, a gourmet cooking utensil shop is playing the same tunes, but sidestepping the ascap police because they are offering for sale the albums that the music was published on. (only later to be sued by ASCAP for an even larger amount because they popped in a different CD that they weren't offering for sale) Here I think they should have been spanked even harder.

Bottom line is that Music adds to the ambience of any situation and can heap loads of emotional sentiment upon the listeners concious and subconcious mind. Most purchases are emotionally driven. Wether it is buying a beer or a car, music can loosen a buyer's wallet and their cash to the benefit of the broadcast agent.

It's not unreasonable to expect pay for the addition of that emotional element into a point of sale. The money should go back to the copyright holder.

I don't even want to hear the arguement that McCartney is a Billionaire and doesn't need the money. It's through the protection of his intellectual property rights that he has earned that money.

[anniemcu]

Just to play devil's advocate

How's it go? You hum it, I'll noodle...is it copyrighted?

It is if your noodling makes it "tangibly fixed".

Kind of an odd coin to see both sides of.

On one side you have Joe's Auto Body ten miles out of town on a dirt road where three mechanics have a raido playing in a two bay garage. ASCAP comes in and smacks them with a steep fee for "rebroadcasting" copyrighted material in their catalog only because it is a place of business, not a person's home. Kind of a goofy situation if you ask me.

Meanwhile back in town, in the middle of a trendy shopping district, a gourmet cooking utensil shop is playing the same tunes, but sidestepping the ascap police because they are offering for sale the albums that the music was published on. (only later to be sued by ASCAP for an even larger amount because they popped in a different CD that they weren't offering for sale) Here I think they should have been spanked even harder.

Bottom line is that Music adds to the ambience of any situation and can heap loads of emotional sentiment upon the listeners concious and subconcious mind. Most purchases are emotionally driven. Wether it is buying a beer or a car, music can loosen a buyer's wallet and their cash to the benefit of the broadcast agent.

It's not unreasonable to expect pay for the addition of that emotional element into a point of sale. The money should go back to the copyright holder.

I don't even want to hear the arguement that McCartney is a Billionaire and doesn't need the money. It's through the protection of his intellectual property rights that he has earned that money.

another side of that scenario though...

You hear a tune you like being played by a musician at an event, ask her what it was, she tells you the group and the album, you go out and buy same. The same thing in any place that plays music in the background... you like it, you ask, you go buy.

So... the group, the publisher and the middle men just made money from the FREE FREAKING ADVERTIZING that the musician or store ambiance just gave them. I don't see them showing up to pay him a finders' fee.

It's gotten down right ridiculous. The owner of the rights gets paid if someone *records for sale*, but getting paid for each and every time it is played somewhere is insanity!!!

There... I've calmed down now... mostly...

[djm]

It's not unreasonable to expect pay for the addition of that emotional element into a point of sale. The money should go back to the copyright holder.

But even Chrisian church music is now copyright. Churches have to pay for the right to "perform" hymns. Where is the point of sale?

djm

[alurker]

Methinks that there is more to it than meets to eye. I am guessing that the society mentioned is equivalent to the music rights organisations that exist in most countries who collect royalties on behalf of artists. As it was the bar manager who was the performer, I am guessing that he refused to pay the standard performance venue liscensing fee to the society and they then took this legal action in order to make an example of him so that other bars would not follow suit. It would pretty much undermine their whole raison d'etre if such a high profile case went unpunished. It does sound more like an action against a venue than against a performer. Beatles music is massively popular in Japan and is heard everywhere so I doubt that musicians/performers are likely to routinely get targeted for performance copyright infringement.

Unfortunately, with these performer rights organisations, it always seems to be the performers who need it the least that benefit the most. In my experience the chances of the ordinary struggling muso receiving a deserved royalties cheque are slim.

[missy]

Unfortunately, with these performer rights organisations, it always seems to be the performers who need it the least that benefit the most. In my experience the chances of the ordinary struggling muso receiving a deserved royalties cheque are slim.

A close friend stated to me once that in the over 20 years he had been a member of ASCAP, he received one check for $25. One. He thought is was a mistake.
He's now deceased, so ASCAP is off the hook.

[fearfaoin]

I am guessing that he refused to pay the standard performance venue liscensing fee to the society and they then took this legal action in order to make an example of him so that other bars would not follow suit.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking. Surely there's some way to perform others'
music in Japan. Was he purposely trying to get around that, or ignoring it,
and singled out for that? Note there's no mention of the pianist being charged,
so maybe it was his rolae as a manager who allowed the music to be played
that got him in trouble rather than his role as the performer.

[I.D.10-t]

JASRAC approached him in 2001 to pay required fees for his performances (just like every other establishment) and continued to do so afterwards. He refused to pay those fees for five years. First they got an injunction, when he didn’t stop, they went to the police and asked them to enforce the law. He knew what the laws were and refused to obey them. He may be trying to use civil disobedience to make a point, or he may just be a cranky old man.

If the guy was in his thirties and played a guitar this wouldn’t have even made the news.

[fearfaoin]

JASRAC approached him in 2001 to pay required fees for his performances (just like every other establishment) and continued to do so afterwards. He refused to pay those fees for five years. First they got an injunction, when he didn’t stop, they went to the police and asked them to enforce the law. He knew what the laws were and refused to obey them. He may be trying to use civil disobedience to make a point...

Thanks for the info. I thought this sounded like civil disobedience, myself.
If I were a crotchety old man, it sounds like something I'd do.

[I.D.10-t]

He may be trying to use civil disobedience to make a point, or he may just be a cranky old man.

Thanks for the info. I thought this sounded like civil disobedience, myself.
If I were a crotchety old man, it sounds like something I'd do.

I must admit my speculation presents a false dichotomy.

[anniemcu]

It's not unreasonable to expect pay for the addition of that emotional element into a point of sale. The money should go back to the copyright holder.

But even Chrisian church music is now copyright. Churches have to pay for the right to "perform" hymns. Where is the point of sale?

djm

Think... "Protection Racket".