Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Starts To Act Like the RIAA
Scott Lockwood writes "Below Average Dave, a Dr. Demento style parody artist, has been shut down by the ASCAP. This collective, acting as badly as the RIAA, is now attempting to ignore the 2 Live Crew Supreme Court decision that parodies are new derivative works. Just like the RIAA, ASCAP seems intent on misrepresents the law. If you know anyone who can help BA Dave in his plight, please contact him." This artist doesn't have the resources to fight the ASCAP, even though the law is pretty clearly on his side. Anyone at the EFF or the ACLU interested?
More like "ASSHAT".
If you know anyone who can help BA Dave in his plight, please contact him.
Number of certified lawyers that read Slashdot: 5.
Number who actually give a shit: 1.
Paging Ray Beckerman alias NewYorkCountryLawyer.
My work here is dung.
BMI and ASCAP have been thugs for a long time, threatening bar and club owners for licensing agreements for offering live music. For this reason, AS220 in Providence no longer allows musicians to perform any cover songs!
-mkb
Once the animal rights people get involved, it's game over.
ASCAP has been in this much much longer than RIAA.
Will the ASCAP be targeting Weird Al now?
I can't say I'm surprised, from the limited knowledge I have on the subject, these guys along with BMI have been on the bullies for years. For a good example from a couple years ago, check out The Richard Phillips vs BMI Story in which an independent artist, who only performed his own music (no covers, etc.), which he owned the copyright to, was pushed out of a job.
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
Bankrupt you with costly legal fees. Which is why these conglomerates go after people who don't have the financial ability to defend themselves.
They can file a lawsuit. Do you have any idea how expensive those are, even if you settle before any substantial court apperances? Lawyers don't stop charging just because you're in the right.
I'm never one to stand in the way of a murderous rampage (in fact I stand as far away as possible) but I think perhaps you're overreacting just a bit. Why not just boycott them? No one is forcing you to use them or any of their "properties". Just leave them to drown in their own cultural dregs.
What the Supreme Court said was that if a parody was sufficiently transformative, this would operate in its favour when weighing up the fair use factors. BA Dave is taking the position that because he created a parody, fair use applies, but the Supreme Court stamped on that theory pretty sharply:
"Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioner's suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact than the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair."
Now I've no idea how transformative BA Dave's parodies are, but this quote should at least show him that he needs to do a little more than cry "parody" if he's going to convince them to back off. Let's hope he can. And let's be grateful he is in the US where parody is given some recognition as a fair use. In the UK, for instance, it's viewed as being no more legitimate than any other form of copying.
What a totally unbiased article summary. It doesn't automatically take a position or make assumptions about anything. I expect a fully qualified, objective discussion to follow presenting both sides in a fair and factually-based light.
There is no other way out.
I don't know, suicide worked pretty well for me - you should try it!
which is totally what she said
They grew that way because its so durned easy to hum a tune, write it down, and then expect to make a lifetime income off of that melody you came up with when you were on the crapper. Once people became hooked on a lifetime of income for a few days work, it became expected and their representative groups took up the fight against all threats, legal or otherwise. Seeing as the end consumer doesn't care about where the music comes from, its up to the RIAA and ASCAP and company to make the consumers care.
What was the quote? Evil is what happens when good people do nothing? Well nobody did anything, so evil happened.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Why is it that the music industry seems to be so corrupt?
I think that's why it seems worse. Because, to some degree, it is.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Or you could just use this.
http://www.riaaradar.com/
There is a war going on for your mind.
Very well put.
I think the zeitgeist on Slashdot is this: we dislike record labels, but we like artists. We want artists to make money directly -- and that's why actions like pirating the music and then "going to a concert" or "buying a t-shirt" are acceptable, as more money goes to the artist.
In short, we like it when artists make money directly, without record labels being involved.
And that's exactly what ASCAP is -- a collective of songwriters and lyricists, creating a revenue stream that's largely untouched by the record labels. It provides artists a way to do what they love and get money for it, even if they're not signed to a label or selling CDs.
We want them to have rights. We simply don't want them to get all uppity and enforce those rights. You artists can have all the rights you want, but if claiming your rights gets in the way of us doing something with your music without paying you -- such as recording a new song using your melody -- then the proper response is to sit down, shut up, and know your place.
It's quite sad, really.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Then, what should I do if I'm an aspiring musician, and I'd like to draw on some of my cultural heritage -- and yes, copyright lasts so insanely long that we are talking about cultural heritage here -- and these thugs come and sue me?
In other words: What do we do about The Grey Album?
For that matter, as part of my "boycott", should I stop singing Happy Birthday?
Fuck no. I will not spend my life avoiding our culture because it happens to be owned by a few corporations. I will continue to assert that this is our culture, not theirs.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
In a case of this nature, the guy's best bet is, in my opinion, Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts or EFF.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
There is no other way out.
I don't know, suicide worked pretty well for me - you should try it!
so you're telling me you created a highly advanced artificial intelligence to respond to /. articles before you killed yourself? and all that from your basement?
and you did not make the code open source? shame!
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
(1) Take down the website. This stops their claim of damages. They probably have no damages anyway.
(2) Study the law of copyright and federal civil procedure. This could take awhile. Find a lawyer to help explain the rough spots to you. Study up very carefully about Rule 11 sanctions, because the SOBs are going to accuse you of Rule 11 violations if they decide to fight you. You may also be able to claim some damages from them for abuse of copyright--research that too.
(3) File a declaratory judgment action in federal court asking that your rights be determined to be fair use, and seek any damages you are entitled to.
(4) The industry must then respond to your lawsuit. This is VERY expensive to them in relationship to the damages that they can recover (probably zero). It is a bad business decision for them to hunt you down. In THEIR best scenario, they'll have to pay at least a few thousand dollars to kick your ass in a situation where they can't get any money out of you. (If you're a mean, vindictive, son of a bitch, you can get your musician-friends to file their own declaratory judgments actions after your case is over).
(5) If they fight you, do your best. If you win, you're a demigod and you get a federal judge ruling that your use is a fair use. If you lose, what the hell--you fought and you made the corporation pay. If they don't fight you, you get your order saying that your use is a fair use. After you file your lawsuit, they may very well be willing to negotiate (a copyright lawyer is very useful here).
(6) You can keep your costs way down if you represent yourself. They have to pay a lawyer a few hundred dollars an hour. That's your edge.
You can torture those sons of bitches if you know the law and if you're in the right. They know that. They'll sing a different tune when faced with litigation costs.
i think your viewpoint is quite sad.
'we' want artists, authors and others to have a copyright. but those 'we' want this copyright to be reasonable.
that includes reasonable terms on time and reuse restrictions.
really, macaulay probably wasn't the first, but he put it the best, as far as we know. on copyright extension... in 1841.
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.
Rich