Restaurateur Loses Copyright Suit To BMI 389
Frosty P writes: BMI claims Amici III in Linden, New York didn't have a license when it played four tunes in its eatery one night last year, including the beloved "Bennie and the Jets" and "Brown Sugar," winning $24,000 earlier this year, and over $8,200 in attorney's fees. Giovanni Lavorato, who has been in business for 25 years, says the disc DJ brought into the eatery paid a fee to play tunes. "It's ridiculous for me to pay somebody also," he said. "This is not a nightclub. This is not a disco joint . . . How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
As many times as they possibly can.
Obviously.
A few.. (Score:5, Insightful)
One license for transferring music data off a storage medium. One license for converting digital music data to an analog form. One license for each speaker reproducing the sound, including woofers and tweeters. One license per 10m^3 of space where the mean audio is within two deviations of the average loudness of the music.
If you are listening to said music, you need a license for that, and another if you are planning on remembering listening to the music, plus a re-performance license if you are going to hum a substantial portion of the primary melody in the shower later.
Re:Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple sentences on a piece of paper with a signature would have sent the Thugs after the "disc jockey Disc Jockey" he hired instead of taking it himself.
I think you should check history before making such statements. The RIAA has a history of going after who will have the money to pay, not the responsible party. Perhaps the contract would have been used for the RIAA to go after both parties, but the guy with money always gets sued. Who has money here, the DJ or the business owner? Hint: I have not seen a wealth DJ ever.
learn to google (Score:2)
But still, your point is valid.
Re: (Score:2)
None of them count for a number of reasons. First, none of them are from the US where the RIAA would sue them. Probably more importantly, the people you mentioned are not wealthy only because of being a DJ. They are all wealthy because of being producers, musicians, etc...
Now that said, I never stated that being a wealth DJ was impossible. I stated that I had never seen a wealthy DJ. Radio DJs can make a good living, but the DJ in question was not the same variety. The majority of people performing w
Re: (Score:3)
How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?
Infinite.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Funny)
For the record labels, every passing thought of the melody or lyric constitutes an infringement. The only thing that's stopping them right now is their inability to read minds.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
50% of BMI fees go to the songwriters
*Which* songwriters is the real question.
Re: How many times? (Score:5, Informative)
ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC are the three main performing rights organizations in the US. All of them represent the holders of the music copyrights (e.g. songwriters), not the sound recordings made by artists.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a CD and play it in my home, how many others may be in the same room listening before I need to pay a fee?
If a company buys a CD and plays it at their place of business, who else may be in the room listening before they need to pay a fee?
I do not know the answer buy my personal opinion is "as many as I want" unless as a business the main reason why customers are paying me is to listen to those specific songs, in that case I am re-marketing them.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
Open your windows and play it as loud as you can.
What you do in your own home is private consumption.
Really need to start tacking RICO act violations to the RIAA ASCAAP, BMI, etc...
They are just thieves out to steal as much money as they can without benefiting anyone but themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't private property - it was a farm / ranch where cattle were raised for profit IIRC. This meant that farmhands who were working there heard the radio.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
If I buy a CD and play it in my home, how many others may be in the same room listening before I need to pay a fee? If a company buys a CD and plays it at their place of business, who else may be in the room listening before they need to pay a fee?
I do not know the answer buy my personal opinion is "as many as I want" unless as a business the main reason why customers are paying me is to listen to those specific songs, in that case I am re-marketing them.
In the case of a business, you're playing music for the same reason the artist is making it; to entertain others.
Don't want to pay for that entertainment? Fine, let your customers do whatever they want to do in your store in silence.
And it doesn't matter if our personal opinions match here. All that matters is the "logic" a lawyer needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If not, then you agree there are times when music in a business isn't subject to extra licensing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they should be sued for $22 million or more. That is the stance of ASCAP/BMI and the record labels.
Re: (Score:2)
In the case of a business, you're playing music for the same reason the artist is making it; to entertain others.
Same reason you play it in your own home when others are also present.
That's why a music CD costs a lot more than a blank CD, correct?
What price CDs? (Score:3)
In the case of a business, you're playing music for the same reason the artist is making it; to entertain others.
Same reason you play it in your own home when others are also present.
That's why a music CD costs a lot more than a blank CD, correct?
The price of CDs were established when they first went public based on the cost of manufacturing. Now the cost of manufacturing is 5 cents and they still charge the same amount because they know that's the price the market will bear.
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you ever try to get a license for a "performance" like this? I did, once, just to see how difficult it is.
Turns out that, at the time, neither BMI nor ASCAP had a way to legally play their music unless you were a professional DJ, were pressing at least 200 CDs, or were re-mixing their music.
After 6 weeks of phone calls and emails, and getting shuttled off to various other agencies, it turned out that they had no license that would allow an individual or a business to play songs from their catalog for a single event.
Of course that does not prevent them from suing for lack of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer is here [ascap.com]. Essentially if you have a gathering that is not family and friends, you'll probably have to pay. If it's just your family and friends, then you're good (but if you're a bartender, good luck trying to get the judge to believe that all your clients are friends).
Re: (Score:2)
There are stark differences between what a private individual can do for family and friends, and what a business owner can do when serving clientele from the general public. For example, it is not illegal to be a raging racist in one's personal life, but bringing that to your business relationships may have negative legal ramifications -- that is how it is.
Now, it is true that the difference be a private activity and a licensed public business is not 100% clear. But that is not the issue in this case here
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Informative)
The article is unclear but it sounds like the DJ pays a fee to pay the music.
One would logically assume that fee would cover the restaurant who pays the DJ to provide music.
Why should the DJ pay a fee to play the music in a public place AND the restaurant pay a fee when the DJ plays the music in their restaurant. One or the other fee should cover the song.
It would be like paying for the meal- then paying a fee for having the meal on a plate- then paying a fee for having the meal on a table- and then paying an extra fee if the meal is eaten with wine instead of a soda.
If the DJ pays a fee, that should cover all music the DJ plays. The restaurant wouldn't logically have to pay another fee.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Informative)
it's not the musicians, it's the business. Same reason (or should be, but often isn't) business owners charge a cover when music is being played in the venue (although, often times said cover is also paid to the musicians themselves).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you quite grasp the concept of hiring a DJ.
Re: (Score:2)
"the law says" (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That is fucking ridiculous (not saying it's illegal, just ridiculous). The DJ paid fees to be able to play the music, and they expect the restaurant to also pay fees?
I stopped reading after this because you didn't follow the link or read the text. The DJ paid the same fee you do for a CD. Period. End of story. (S)He may have paid for the PA equipment as well. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that someone is using this for entertainment in his place of business as a way to encourage more business.
[Having now taken the moment to read your piss poor analogy, let me throw a more apt one at you]
It's more like if I write a book and then someone creates a
Re: How many times? (Score:3)
Or like an ISP charging a user for Internet access to use Netflix and then charging Netflix for access to the ISP's users.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many times? (Score:5, Insightful)
They already did apparently. They just wanted to charge more than one person for the same "performance".
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
When I go to a restaurant I want food, not music.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not a reason to call it good, this is anything but reasonable.
If you're inconvenienced by music, I suggest you pick one of the >90% of restaurants that don't play any.
Are you serious? I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing. Usually through crappy, tinny speakers into a cavernous room with 30 foot high ceilings made out of metal, and bouncing off of all the exposed ducting and metal girders.
Trying to have a conversation over a dinner outside of the home is not even a remote possibility anymore.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, I can't remember any place I've been in the last few years that didn't have some crap blasting through their $5 speakers.
Jimmy Johns sub or whatever has the music so loud you literally have to shout to order food. We got sick of that shit real fast and left before the food came. It was just too damn loud, and the music was some mindless pop-horsecrap.
Seriously, restaurant owners, TURN THAT SHIT DOW
Benefits of no backgroiund music (Score:2)
You get more mileage from a cheap pair of speakers.
One of the most popular cafes in this town is successful in great part because of their lack of background music. It's not a fancy place at all, just a deli-style counter with fairly good sandwich and salad makings, lots of good pastries, and a variety of (non-alcoholic) drinkables. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen groups decide to go there explicitly because conversation is possible.
Of course, I can see other restaurant owners deciding to go with the music because it interferes with c
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
The Taco Bell I used to go to had no music, but every other fast food restaurant I can think of plays something. Maybe a few non-sit downs don't, like a pizza joint without tables.
Though a few are wising up. They play from sources that don't require a re-license.
But an actual sit-down restaurant? The only ones without music are way outside my price range. The super-expensive restaurants usually don't have music (except live, piano or violin). But the Denny's/Chili's'etc all have music blasting too lo
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's because you are relatively poor, and go to fast food, or occasionally low-end chain restaurants. Quality restaurants will generally not have music, and even semi-decent restaurants will either not have music, or will have it playing at barely-noticeable volumes.
Creative Commons revolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Artists need to hop on the CC bandwagon. Things have changed drastically since the music industry started strangling them as well as consumers.
If we had a sizable pool of popular CC licensed music, this kind of thing would be less of an issue because establishments like this could simply use it instead. There are tons of new ways for artists to get paid via CC licensed music. Maybe we can brainstorm on ideas and models for this to become a reality? I'm thinking some sort of croudfunding model might be a good first step.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that even if you use only music where you have explicit permission from the copyright holder (Creative Commons or otherwise) the rights enforcement goons will still come after you and sue you (and since they are much bigger and more powerful they will probably win or at least make it too expensive to fight rather than settling)
Re: (Score:2)
I would expect a massive crowdfunding campaign would cover any legal costs if the "rights enforcement goons" tried to sue someone for using CC BY redistributable music. The first case would (if it hasn't already been done anyway) form a stare decisis [thefreedictionary.com].
I would assume other (i.e. non-CC but cleared by copyright holder) music would be more difficult since there is not as much legal evidence to go off of as CC licensed music but definitely the public would be behind them as long as there is enough evidence to pr
Restautantosaur (Score:3)
I was just reading about Jurassic world, so when I looked at the headline I thought it said Restautantosaur. How cool would that be?
Re:Restautantosaur (Score:5, Funny)
Gordon Ramsey?
Re: (Score:2)
I bet I can guess what next year's Hells Kitchen intro is going to look like
Re: (Score:2)
That would be 'Tyranorestaurantasaur Rexsey'.
Poor guy never answered the complaint (Score:5, Informative)
So most establishments have a defense. Maybe this one did. But the judge heard from only one side since the restaurant never showed up to court. Too bad.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> “I don’t talk to the judges. I don’t talk to anybody. I just don’t want to talk to any of these people, because it’s illegal to try and take money from people,” he insists.
I wish there were more people like him. I hope they spend tons of money trying to get him to pay up, and fail.
Re: (Score:2)
How does his restaurant make money if they can't regally take money from people in exchange for food and service?
The restaurant doesn't take their money. The customers give the restaurant money. You can bet we'd all have a different opinion on restaurants if they took your money by threat of force whether you wanted to buy something from them or not, even if they then gave you food.
Re: (Score:2)
Kinda makes you wonder how could it be that the complaint was never answered yet the restaurateur was down $8200 in attorney fees. Especially if the case was so cut-and-dry that the Fairness In Music Licencing act already covered him.
Re: (Score:2)
The court didn't actually weigh the case, since the restaurant never answered [justia.com] the complaint.
And that's the end of any sympathy they might have had coming from me. No matter how ridiculous the lawsuit is, if you don't answer it, you deserve to lose.
Re:Poor guy never answered the complaint (Score:4, Insightful)
One organization sues people to justify its existence. The other makes food. No point in the second bothering to answer in court any more than the BMI lawyers should agree to a cook-off. The outcome in either case is pre-ordained, and answering can only drive up the costs.
Re: (Score:2)
'I've never understood that whole "you lose if you don't show".'
The way courts in the US work is that the judge is only supposed to base their decision on the case as presented by the plaintiff and the defendant. This is to prevent a judge form injecting their own "facts" as all of the relevant testimony, law, and precedent are public records.
and they wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
and they wonder why people feel no guilt about pirating music. the BMI/RIAA/MPAA/most record labels are corporate middleman thugs who care nothing about the content they are "licensing" but only about how many $$ they can extract out of the pipeline.
how many of those $24k went to the 4 ARTISTS who's work was "infringed"? probably about 0.7 microcents.
how much "damage" was actually done to those artists by the infringement? they probably actually made money as likely somebody at that restaurant that night heard the songs, was reminded of a happier time in their life and went on iTunes and bought a Rolling Stones or Elton John CD.
Greed (Score:2)
"How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
Every time you play it.
Every time you hear it.
Every time you hum it.
Every time you think it.
Refrain: Greedy buggers bugger you every time they can!
I claim prior art on Brown Sugar (Score:2)
It's an old blues song and BMI owes a lot of people a lot of money
This line TFA is confusing (Score:2)
BMI regularly sues eateries, bars and other businesses for playing music without coughing up licensing fees, which range from $357 annually for a jukebox to $5.85 per audience member for a week's worth of live performances.
Do they mean live performances by the artist that recorded the song? If so, that's an even bigger scam than I would have guessed.
If it's for a band that is covering the song, WTF? back when I played in various bands, you could cover anything you wanted to live. It was only an issue if it was newer than 20 years (or whatever the period of time was) and sold it on a recorded format. As far as I can recall, once it was past a certain age, anyone could make money off of recording their own version of it. You
"stupid music" nails it too (Score:2)
Said the what with the what now? (Score:2)
Giovanni Lavorato [...] says the disc DJ brought into the eatery paid a fee to play tunes.
Can we have that in English? The article isn't much better...
The disc jockey DJ brought into the eatery by his son also paid a fee to play tunes
Brought in by whose son?
Dateline: New York (Score:2)
Rohr, who represented Bobby Dee’s
- but sounds like he's representing BMI -
said it makes sense for businesses to be in harmony with licensing groups like BMI. “It’s actually foolish not to do it,” he said, noting the licensing cost is less than a legal proceeding.
Is that like how it makes sense to pay protection money, because it costs less than having your store smashed up or burnt down?
It shouldn't be "foolish not to do it." It should be "fair to all involved to do it."
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, a lot of law practice is like that these days -- you pay not because it's just, but because it's cheaper than going to court.
Ignorance of the law (Score:2)
is not an excuse. The law itself may be unjust, but I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. There may be a reason you run a restaurant instead of work as a quant, but still.
I have a solution (Score:2)
All restaurants should switch to that fake "teenage" music from 1970's sitcoms.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably owe something to Warner Brothers now. (Or was it EMI?)
Re: (Score:3)
you forgot "child sexual predator"
Re:Capitalist logic (Score:5, Funny)
I am pretty sure you serve the same meal once, you cannot serve it 2 or more times, unless you are waiting in the bathroom to get what comes out the other end.
Re: (Score:3)
"How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
Dunno. How many times do you want to get paid for serving the same stupid meals?
Sure, we all hate the MAFIAA, but it's rather odd how you feel capitalism is suddenly a one-way street.
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.. Each new meal requires new material, each play of a song does not.
If the DJ did indeed pay a fee to play said songs, then I don't see why another should be paid by the restaurant owner.
Re:Capitalist logic (Score:5, Interesting)
EXACTLY. What if the DJ had played the songs in a park? Would the city have to pay BMI's licensing shakedown fee?
Re: (Score:2)
Would the city have to pay BMI's licensing shakedown fee?
I don't see why not. I'm sure BMI agrees with my legal analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
EXACTLY. What if the DJ had played the songs in a park? Would the city have to pay BMI's licensing shakedown fee?
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
Re: (Score:3)
If the owner of the park (the city government perhaps) were charging admission or otherwise benefiting commercially from the performance of the music, then yes they would have to pay the license fee.
You mean like if they charged property taxes or sales taxes to maintain the park?
~Loyal
Re: (Score:2)
>If the DJ did indeed pay a fee to play said songs, then I don't see why another should be paid by the restaurant owner.
I doubt the DJ did pay the correct commercial performance royalty fee in the first place (in fact, I bet lots of them are not paying the correct fees). Although I don't see how that could make the RESTAURANT liable, it would make the DJ liable, if he was hired. I read the article and it is not well written and lacks key information necessary to form any real conclusions.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think the atoms are usually recycled.
Re: (Score:2)
"How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
Dunno. How many times do you want to get paid for serving the same stupid meals?
Sure, we all hate the MAFIAA, but it's rather odd how you feel capitalism is suddenly a one-way street.
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.. Each new meal requires new material, each play of a song does not.
If the DJ did indeed pay a fee to play said songs, then I don't see why another should be paid by the restaurant owner.
Odds are rather good that the DJ did not pay the fee that is associated with entertaining an audience. Most DJs are unaware that's any different from buying the CD itself.
The fact that he probably even advertised (not made clear FTA) that there was a DJ playing makes the restaurant far more culpable as an "entertainment" venue than merely a restaurant. As many other posters have pointed out, this was used as a form of entertainment and should be treated as such. I don't necessarily like the tactics, no
Re: (Score:2)
food cost is typically going to be 10% yes, but labor is going to be 20-40%, then rent, electricity, etc. You will be lucky if you get a 20% profit margin. BMI gets 100% profit off this.
Re: (Score:2)
Costs they paid and investments they made in the past are still things that happened. No way is it 100% profit. Just like licensing an old movie or TV show to play on air, or serve from a streaming service...yeah it was made a long time ago and the creators and publishers aren't exerting any effort now, but when they made the initial investment, part of their calculation was the return on the long tail.
Re:Capitalist logic (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are going to mix physical and intellectual property rights, let's do it properly.
If you go to McDonalds and buy a big mac, and go home to eat it, but aren't actually that hungry and decide to share it with a family member, McDonalds should be able to sue you for unauthorized distribution of their property. When you purchased your big mac you were only purchasing the right for yourself to eat it, not the public at large. When you shared your big mac with someone who did not pay for it, you deprived McDonalds of a potential big mac sale, and are therefore culpable for restitution owed to McDonalds.
Re:Capitalist logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that's the problem about comparing music with, well, pretty much anything else: Everything else gets consumed and has to be replaced when it's being, well, consumed.
When he serves a meal, it's eaten and he has to redo it to sell it again (provided he doesn't engage in disgusting practices like "recycling" uneaten food). When my bartender serves me a cocktail, he has to make another one if he wants to sell it again. Pretty much anyone but content providers have to manufacture something again after they sold their original one if they plan to sell another one.
That's not the case with content. Content can be reproduced ad infinitum at little to no cost. There is very little else that you could use as a commodity that shares this trait.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times do you want to get paid for serving the same stupid meals
Bad analogy.
The restaurant paid for the flour they used to make your pasta. Now the FIAA is coming after you because you enjoyed the pasta made from their flour but you did not pay them for the right to enjoy their flour. Never mind that you paid the guy who paid for the flour, you're a flour-stealing thief because they say so.
Re: (Score:2)
If I request that the authors and musicians perform their same old song once more, and they do in fact show up, then they can expect to get paid again. If I play the damn recording that I paid for on equipment that I paid for in an establishment that I rent, decorate and heat, then they can fuck the hell off.
So, artists should only get paid for live entertainment. Got it.
Just curious what's a reasonable amount to charge for any recorded works then? Would $500 a CD be reasonable for a budding artist? I mean, it might be a while before they can eat again if they're not touring for food 360 days a year.
(Believe me I'm on your side, let's both remember these legal actions and reactions are mainly for the lawyers that created them.)
Re: (Score:2)
BMI pays the songwriters. They're basically authors, not entertainers.
Re:Trifling (Score:5, Insightful)
. Stories like this one is why I will never feel bad about piracy.
It should make you feel bad about being a pirate. By pirating music, you let the company know that you enjoy their music and are too cheap to pay for it. Instead, you should abstain from it altogether. If nobody bought it and nobody pirated it, they would get a clue.
Re: (Score:2)
By pirating music, you let the company know that you enjoy their music and are too cheap to pay for it.
They don't know I pirate any more than they know I made recordings of the radio in the '70s. They'll lie up statistics regardless of whether I do or don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Stories like this one is why I never feel bad about not using music those parasites have any finger in.
Re:From the TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like BMI tried to be reasonable and get him to license the music but he ignored them. From his quotes it sounds like he probably pissed them off and they decided to go after him.
It's not like the license is all that expensive or hard to obtain or that services to pipe in music don't exist. I don't feel bad for this guy, likely all he needed to do is stop playing copyrighted stuff when he was made aware of the violation and then obtain a license as required if he needed to continue.... Or, BUY a music service for his business from somebody and let them keep up with the licenses.
I've been working on a "public" free holiday light display, I'll be playing copyrighted music, and even though it's only in the idea stage, I've already approached BMI about required license arrangements (which they claim is none). Their E-mail response will be printed and kept.
Re:From the TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like the license is all that expensive or hard to obtain or that services to pipe in music don't exist. I don't feel bad for this guy, likely all he needed to do is stop playing copyrighted stuff when he was made aware of the violation and then obtain a license as required if he needed to continue.... Or, BUY a music service for his business from somebody and let them keep up with the licenses.
If you would RTFA, or even the summary, you'd notice that he already did that. He hired a DJ, who had already paid licensing fees to play the music.
At issue here is that the licenses were already paid through the DJ, and BMI was demanding that they get paid again because ... well, that's the question, really ... why should he pay the licensing fees again when the music is already licensed?
Re:From the TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Former Restautantosaur here. These BMI/ASCAP people are thugs. They cold call random businesses, threatening potential legal penalties if you don't buy a blanket license. They basically say, 'if you don't buy a license now, one of our inspectors might come out to your shop, and if we hear any of our music playing we're gonna sue your ass.' Then they go after random people like the guy in the article 'to set an example.' Thugs, it's all extortion.
Re: (Score:2)
They own the copyright so it is their right to do this if they wish. It may be thuggish in your view, but it is their stuff to license and it's their job to enforce their license terms.
If you own a venue that plays music, pay your fees directly or buy your music from a service that does it for you. If you choose to go without a license, you are violating the copyright and they can come after you if they want. Sorry, but that's how this works.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like it was the Mob's hooch to sell...
Re: (Score:2)
Probation made hooch illegal... They where acting outside the law to start with, one would need to expect them to not care about the law at all. But that's not the case here.
BMI isn't acting outside the law, as much as people would like to imply that they are. They are working totally within the correct legal and ethical grounds. If you are going to use somebody's property, the owner of the property has the right to set the terms.
IF they require you get a license and pay for the privilege to use their wo
Re: (Score:3)
This is why I'm glad this kind of rent-seeking thuggery is illegal in my country.
A copyright holder is not permitted to cold call businesses to threaten legal action or extort license fees. They are not permitted to conduct raids and secret investigations and they are definitely not permitted to sue without evidence (fur
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From the TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
You need to meet the terms that BMI puts forth if you play their material. Their website deals with this issue and they CLEARLY tell you that it is the owner of the venue, not the DJ who is liable.
Yeah, and those boxes that pop up on computers CLEARLY tell you that the IRS is going arrest you if you don't call this number and give them your credit card. That doesn't make it true.
Or, for an example a little more on point with how BMI operates, police will often say something like "I'm going to need to come inside and look around". The implication is that they are legally allowed to enter simply by saying so, when this is completely untrue - they actually cannot come in at that point unless you signal your acceptance for them to enter. What happens is that 99% of people will step back and hold their door open for the officer after he says that, thus legally extending the officer an invitation to enter (even if the invitation was caused by an implied lie).
Sure the DJ may have claimed to have the licenses required, but the business owner is the one who is required to obtain the licenses.
BMI can state that the venue is responsible all they want, but if you read between the lines on what they actually say on their website, you can have DJs (or whoever) be responsible for the licensing, it's just that you may be liable if the DJ isn't properly licensed. If the terms of a contract with a DJ requires the DJ to be responsible for the music, then there's a good chance that's exactly how it will work - either by direct assignment of responsibility, or by being responsible for any damages the business incurs due to their negligence.
Simply put, BMI words their statement like this because they want to double-dip into the licensing revenue stream. Even if the DJ already has all the proper licenses to play it in whatever venue they want, BMI will use vague language about who needs the license and use scare tactics to try make venue owners pay again for licenses that have already been paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything we can drink we loot first though...
Start with the auto parts store, they carry antifreeze.