The Virginian-Pilot
©
SUFFOLK
Would you pay almost $14,000 to hear a local band play a cover version of Tom Petty's hit "I Won't Back Down"?
Randy White might, and he's not happy about it.
White's problems began Aug. 10, 2007. It was a Friday night, and a crowd came to his club, called Randzz, to drink beer, play pool and maybe listen to the band.
At least one person listened - closely. The band's playlist, which included hits by Stone Temple Pilots and Bob Sege r, got that person's attention.
About 10 months later, several music publishers filed a lawsuit against White, accusing him of copyright infringement. They argued that he was allowing bands to play copyrighted songs without their permission or the proper license. In late May, a federal judge ruled in their favor.
White said he plans to appeal. "I just don't feel I'm responsible for it," he said. "They should be talking to the bands."
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers says otherwise. For an annual fee, ASCAP issues licenses that allow TV networks, radio, restaurants, nightclubs and a slew of other venues the right to play clients' music - an inventory of about 8-1/2 million songs.
The 2009 licensing fee, based on seating capacity and other factors, would cost White $1,501.20 for his business.
"This is how songwriters make a living," said Vincent Candilora, ASCAP's senior vice president of licensing. "I think the problem with the public is they don't separate the songwriter from the recording artist. They think that everybody is Bruce Springsteen or Rob Thomas."
For a place that isn't easy to find, Randzz Restaurant & Pub drew ASCAP's attention quickly after it opened in 2006.
Randzz sits on a 55 mile-per-hour stretch of Holland Road, surrounded by farm fields. Motorcycle parts, Harley-Davidson memorabilia, quirky signs and women's lingerie line the walls. Its slogan: "Conveniently located in the middle of nowhere, but worth the ride!" It bills itself as more than a biker bar, with live music most Friday and Saturday nights.
ASCAP has teams assigned to monitor whether businesses are following the public performance aspect of copyright law. About five employees cover Virginia and North Carolina, scouring the Internet for leads and making note of openings and closings, Candilora said.
They will call and send letters to remind business owners that they need a license to play songs in the ASCAP inventory - whether on compact disc or performed by a live band. Most comply, Candilora said.
White didn't.
Between September 2006 and August 2007, he received at least nine letters regarding the need for a license or artist permission, according to an opinion filed May 22 by U.S. District Judge Mark S. Davis.
White said he ignored the letters and also some phone calls because he thought they were "bogus."
"How does this little place do irreparable damage to some Joe Blow who wrote a song 20 years ago?" he asked.
ASCAP sent an investigator to the bar on that August night in 2007. The investigator cited three instances where ASCAP members' songs were performed live.
The publishers of those songs - "I Won't Back Down," "Interstate Love Song" and "The Fire Down Below" - filed the copyright infringement lawsuit almost a year later, after White still refused to buy a license from ASCAP.
"I guess he figured he was the small fish: 'I'm in Suffolk, Virginia. They must have bigger fish to fry,' " Candilora said of White. "It isn't about the size. They gave us no choice."
White said t he performances are done by garage bands made up of people who play on weekends.
"I have nothing to do with the playlist for the bands," White said.
It d oesn't matter, Candilora said. People go out to eat or drink for the atmosphere, for which music is a critical component. White benefits from having a band play live, he said.
The judge agreed.
"Defendant asserted to ASCAP that the performer has the sole responsibility to obtain permission or a license to perform copyrighted material. This argument is without merit," Davis wrote. "As Defendant was operating an ostensibly profit-making establishment, he had a financial interest in the infringing activity."
Davis forbade White from allowing performances of any music in the ASCAP inventory without authorization and ordered him to pay $10,500 in statutory damages, plus about $3,300 for the music publishers' attorney fees and other costs.
White said he might close down if he loses the appeal.
Hattie Brown Garrow, (757) 222-5562, hattie.brown@pilotonline.com

Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Randzz
In reading this article and the comments a few things come to mind...
1st...Randzz is being sued over 3 songs the band played? Does that mean that the band was covered for a license for the other songs they played? I'm pretty sure they played more than 3 songs. And if so, the person who's job it is to go into these places and take notes on which songs were played and if they were covered by the license had to do some digging. If that is the case, why do the bands AND Randzz need to get a license? You can't be tried for the same murder twice in this country, why do the license companies get 2 payments for the same songs played at a bar...the band pays one and the venue? Sounds like double dipping to me.
2nd...Proponents of the license claim that the money goes to the songwriters...it would be interesting to learn just how much of the licensing fees actually make it back to the song writer...does anyone know? I have a feeling the percentage is very, very small.
Surpised
Being a local musician and a published songwritter I am surprised at several of the post's about this article.
1. I am surprised at the number post's by supposed musicians that seem to have no idea just what ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC are, how they operate, why they exist, or just how utterly normal and everyday them requiring clubs to have a liscence to play copywrited material in thier venues is. This isn't something that popped up yesterday folks and anyone who actually is a musician and not just some weekend wannabe who has ever aspired to be a songwriter knows this. Don't get me wrong fella's have fun playing and more power to ya but don't act like your some professional musician when you've never played a decent gig in your life, played 6 nights a week for a living with no insurance and lived off of truckstop food and Munchos. Serioulsy, it just makes you sound noobish. Like it or not without orginazations such as ASCAP to back them up songwriters havent got a chance. It would 1950 all over again. early songwriters completely screwed for a long time before such orginazations.
2. I am surprised at just how quickly this club owner threw the bands up under the bus. You obviously
Yes Strangek Fairness is Precisely the issue, Why do you think
Randy let the matter go to court? Maybe you've been a musician so long you've forgotten that occasionally some people do not accept the status quo and they take a matter to court. Thank God America isn't filled with the likes of you. May you accept every law that has a negative effect on you as gospel and never question it. ASCAP is a SHAM! It is NOT the bar owner that is violating copyright law. It is the musician by playing copyrighted material THEREFORE the responsibility for paying copyright fees SHOULD be on the violator, NOT the DEEPEST AND EASIEST pockets. When the laws were made that allowed ASCAP to become an extortion racket the buying, and listening of music was very different than today. The laws regarding ASCAP need an overhaul. I have asked some questions in prior posts and as I've seen no answers from those supporting ASCAP I can surmise that with you as an exception most support Randy and No one can come up with a valid argument supporting ASCAP as it exists today. Nor can anyone show an example where ASCAP has made a difference for artists.
Bottom line
Whether or not anyone thinks the law is fair isn't the issue. The issue here is that the law has been around, club/bar owners know about it, and he didn't pay, and he got caught. This doesn't give him the right run the bands he has there under the bus and say that it's their problem. As a local musician myself, I can assure you that he's gonna have a hell of a time booking anyone, real band or cover band there again.
The main reason ASCAP goes after the business owners
is because they are easily found and easy to collect from. The only way to go after the bands is to force them to register, obtain a license, and pay a yearly fee to ASCAP before they can play anywhere. Ditto for disc jockeys who play bars and nightclubs. This method would be nearly impossible to enforce.
But the truth is, bar owners make hundreds and often thousands of dollars a night with a live band while they only pay the musicians a minimal fee. Most bands in my area earn on average $50 to $65 per band member to play a weekend night. Sometimes they can opt for a percentage of the door take after haggling with the owner.
So, the establishments have a permanent address where notices can be sent and they are the ones making the money, so ASCAP goes after them because it can actually enforce and collect from them.
One other thing...maybe ASCAP doesn't go after the performers because they are future clients? Just a thought.
For all those think the ASCAP extortion/fees are reasonable
and to those that think they are experts on the law concerning ASCAP:
If a business or bar sets up a stereo system and allows the customers to bring and play their privately purchased music are ASCAP fees still to be paid?
Let's say I have a waiting room in my business and I play my personally bought CD's do I still owe ASCAP fees?
I Think the fees charged by ASCAP are pretty arbitrary and I think Randy is being an All-American by standing up to an extortion racket. As I've said before I have yet to hear of any emerging songwriter or artists that were made or broke because of ASCAP. I also have never met an artist who received but token benefit from ASCAP. The majority of the money collected goes to the collectors and record labels. ASCAP is a sham, the fees charged for the same music played in one venue are totally different from another venue and can't be justified.
Pretty soon, we'll have to pay to sing "Happy Birthday"
ASCAP is still going too far. Who cares that the fees amount to only $1500 per year? They are trying to make money by going after those who are least able to defend themselves. Instead - how about producing some good music that people will actually buy? Their current tactics are as ridiculous as ASCAP suing little old ladies for downloading songs through Napster. The truth is, those of us who have been and are working in the music business are quite happy that someone sings our songs - in bars, following along the radio, etc. It's an incredible compliment, and advertises our wares almost as good as the real song playing on the radio.
They complain that this all started with file-sharing (funny, the ridiculous lawsuits started then, too). Metallica helped them reach the peak of hypocrisy when they sued Napster - even though Metallica, early in their career, sold their own unlicensed recordings of cover songs from the trunks of their cars. The fact is that record sales began to drop significantly BEFORE file-sharing because of something the music industry still won't come to terms with: the vast quantity of music produced these days is lousy (this is why people would rather buy one
tough pickle
Dang if you don't, dang if you do. both sides have arguments. Reflex reaction is how bogus. Then when it's discovered just shy of $1500 a year would've saved a ton of headaches after lots of notices, and here we are now $14k into it and tons of hassle...where does principle and stupidity stop/start?
I say it needs to be compromised, pay the reasonable back fee and now costs/fines and move on before he runs his business into the ground over it.
Balance...
...will very soon pay back all human intolerance in kind. Keep pushing though, all that imaginary money will not stop anything.
An aside here..
Interesting aside here: also on the front page today is the story how Creigh Deeds won the Dem nomination for governor. The article said that the song, "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey, was played at his headquarters. I wonder if HE paid for that privelige. Afterall, the entertainment industry is overwhelmingly in the Dems corner, and 'looking out for the little guy' is supposed to be something they stand for. That doesn't appear to be the case for this Suffolk bar.
Just a thought...