Slashdot Mirror
ASCAP Seeks Licensing Fees For Guitar Hero Arcade
Self Bias Resistor writes "According to a post on the Arcade-Museum forums, ASCAP is demanding an annual $800 licensing fee from at least one operator of a Guitar Hero Arcade machine, citing ASCAP licensing regulations regarding jukeboxes. An ASCAP representative allegedly told the operator that she viewed the Guitar Hero machine as a jukebox of sorts. The operator told ASCAP to contact Raw Thrills, the company that sells the arcade units. The case is ongoing and GamePolitics is currently seeking clarification of the story from ASCAP."
IANAL but I'd tell the ASCAP flunky that the music's ALREADY LICENSED to start with. Otherwise it wouldn't even make it to the GH machine in the first place, right?
Sounds like an attempted shakedown of a small business that's not legally bound to pay anything in this instance.
Perhaps ASCAP need to be introduced to a different acronym: RICO.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
DDR is currently in a gray area, since it crosses the line between video game and jukebox. Especially if it's positioned in an area so everyone can watch it. There hasn't been a "ruling" one way or the other from ASCAP on it. There are complications, because a lot of DDR songs are unlicensed in the US or are original performances by Konami. GH is a better test case, which is probably why they're using it.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
We could get rid of them. If they didn't have the monetary muscle and clout to twist laws around and bunker behind a wall of lawyers (albeit the mental picture of RIAA lawyers being layered on top of each other like sandbags is appealing...), they would have lost most of the influence they have.
The point is that they have become obsolete. What's their trade? Basically it's being the middle man between producer of art and consumer, as you pointed out. Their job was to bring the music the artists make to the people who want to enjoy it.
And that's not needed anymore. I can see their fear of the internet. It is the perfect medium to distribute information. And that's basically the business they're in. If there is a free middle man, like the internet, who would pay one?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There was one bar here that actually went out of business because of ASCAP. He had no jukebox and hired folk bands; these bands played old folk music that was in the public domain, and ASCAP sued anyway. He wouldn't cave on principle and the legal costs bankrupted him and he lost his business.
We need a law which says that once a judge has ruled that a corporation has brought a frivolous lawsuit against someone, anytime it sues someone in the future it needs to finance the other side's legal fees, and only gets the money back if the judge rules they deserve it.
Why are you bashing U2? Because you probably weren't born when they WERE the club scene. Learn your music history dude. If you want to bash the "boy bands" and pop stars, thats fine, but not bands who worked their asses off to become the biggest act on the planet.
Or are you one of those cool kids who likes an act until it becomes popular, then you call them a sellout? If you like artists that are unknown, fine, thats your choice. But just because an artist sells a lot of records doesn't mean they aren't worthy of my listening.
I've seen the small club venues. I've seen the unknown acts. Sorry, but 90% of them suck. Can't play, can't sing. Every now and then, I see some real talent sneak through. I saw John Mayer in 2001 when he opened for Glen Phillips. I saw Dave Mathews when they were hitting the local bars in Virginia in 1993. I saw U2 when they played before 5,000 fans in 1983.
I would have self-represented if I was going on principle, and had trial in front of a judge. This is a pretty basic argument: they're suing me for playing music they have no domain over. Their only argument could be that the live performers could play some AC/DC live; at which point, I'd point out that I have electricity, and could bring in a CD player and an AC/DC CD, so maybe they should sue anyone with an electric utility. The only arguments they have are ridiculous, and ridiculing them with competent logical counter-arguments in front of a competent judge is viable.
The other thing to do is object to stupidity meant to load you with paperwork and keep you busy until you overrun some deadline on a court order to fill out papers/show evidence. It's not my job to show evidence for your case; demand solid evidence or have their case thrown out. Once their case fails, counter-sue (with lawyer) for harassment, citing that you successfully defended yourself against their legal firm (no, really, the only thing these people practice is lawing at you) by yourself because their argument was retarded and they were abusing the court system. Sue for maximum damages and push for fines for abuse of the court systems.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I would argue those are a little short- I would be happy with 24 years, or hell, anything shy of 50 years (maybe a 25 year with one extension if the author, and not his estate/corporate interest, desires). Software, on the other hand, should probably only have a 10 year copyright, at least until the pace of technological advance slows down massively. At that point we could revisit software copyrights...
http://marsandmore.com - Posters of space, spacecraft, and astronomy.
I think artists should be able to set the rates for their songs. If their song gets very popular they can slowly ratchet up the royalties and avoid being overplayed into oblivion. Modern technology makes this possible, we don't have to do it the way we have for a century. There would still need to be an organization such as ASCAP to operate the market, publish rates, and take tallies of songs played. Radio station software could show the royalties on each song and tally as they played. Juke boxes could store tallies and update rates on a different schedule.
On the other hand, there will always be people cheating the system, current or proposed. Copyright needs to be adjusted to match society, not the other way around.
Okay, without getting too personal (this is Slashdot, after all), I'll say that I'm both a composer and a publisher member of ASCAP (my one-person company publishes the works of four composers). It is all tied together so that without ASCAP, there is no network of resources to provide income (I'm not an academic). Those royalties, my paper score and recording sales, an annual award, commissions for new compositions, music engraving (computer typesetting) and recording/restoration make up my income. Some years performances are good, but last year performances (mine and the other three composers) were few because the economy kicked our butts, and I know already royalties this quarter won't be the majority of my income.
The IRS considers my income from composition.
Dennis