« Deerhoof | 2007 Tour Dates & Christmas MP3 | Main | MTA to boost L, G lines service »
Posted in industry | music on December 5, 2006
ASCAP suing Black Betty in Brooklyn & others
"In each of the cases filed today, the business establishment had signed a license agreement with ASCAP, but failed to comply with the license's payment terms. ASCAP reached out to each of the establishments repeatedly over a significant period of time before taking legal action -- in some cases over a period as long as two years." [Yahoo]
Black Betty in Williamsburg is one of the places being sued.
Posted on December 5, 2006 11:26 AM
Leave a comment
Powered by Ajax Comments
« Deerhoof | 2007 Tour Dates & Christmas MP3 | Main | MTA to boost L, G lines service »
Comments (8)
As much as licensing fees suck, did the owner of Black Betty really think he/she was gonna get away with not paying it?
Posted by Anonymous | December 5, 2006 11:49 AM
night club license fees are bullshit. the only artists that see royalties are rock stars. the "small business" type artists don't see a dime from these license fees.
Posted by Anonymous | December 5, 2006 12:36 PM
Most small artists either don't take the time to register with ASCAP or, if they do, don't let them know of their shows. Not that it would yield a huge payout, but I don't think its realistic to for ASCAP to keep up to date with Black Betty's calendar and pursuing those bands in order to pay them their 25 cents in performance royalties.
But still, they're just taking money from small clubs to give to big rock stars. Agreed.
Posted by Anonymous | December 5, 2006 12:53 PM
can someone explain what Black Betty owes money for? And what if a club doesn't sign a contract with ASCAP - do they owe the same fees? Is this the law or just for people who sign contracts? What is the benefit to a club for signing? thanks.
Posted by Anonymous | December 5, 2006 1:06 PM
the "performers rights" organizations don't even track the individual compositions that are played at a particular venue. The money all goes into the same place and is distributed to the top-selling artists as roylties. Whether or not the venue plays those artists' compositions or not is irrelevant.
I think that if you play the top-selling artists' music, you SHOULD have to pay them. On the other hand, if you're playing more underground-type stuff, you're actually paying the artist by promoting their music for free to people who would otherwise never hear them. I guess that it would require too much effort though for companies like ASCAP to make the distinction.
The laws for copyrights were established at a time when "music business" was strictly for the elite and there was, obviously, no such thing as indie-rock.
Posted by Anonymous | December 5, 2006 2:18 PM
must be all those brazilian artists from the 1970's suing to get their 15 bucks in royalties.
Posted by aljo | December 5, 2006 2:57 PM
wow, my band is actually playing black betty tonight!
should I call ascap to make sure i get my free falafel?
Posted by adam | December 5, 2006 5:29 PM
you wouldn't make enough of a payout to even buy a falafel
Posted by Anonymous | December 14, 2006 8:09 PM