Slashdot Mirror
Restaurateur Loses Copyright Suit To BMI
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?"
How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?"
As many times as they possibly can.
Obviously.
How many times do they want to get paid for the stupid music?
Infinite.
When I go to a restaurant I want food, not music.
. 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.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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.
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
> I can't think of the last time I have been in a restaurant where there wasn't music playing.
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 DOWN. It's background music, not a f*cking mosh pit.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
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.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
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.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
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.