Legal Use of Beatle Songs

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon May 09, 2005 8:04 am

Me, too...it cracks me up to watch millionaires shaking down regular people for nickels...

Howard, remember Bruce's dancing about in the live video stuff from the eighties, like, in his headband-wearing aerobics period? Looks to me like he's had more than one swift kick in his career...

route66guitars · Post by **route66guitars** » Mon May 09, 2005 9:44 am

You guys are missing the point. If it was your music that others wanted to play you'd want to get paid for it, pure and simple. These people are millionaires because millions of people enjoy what they offer. Why begrudge them that? There are billionaires walking around this planet who have offered nothing, only taken...

Any business that offers live music pays a fee to do so. Just as they are supposed to if they play 'canned' music, or broadcast or satellite radio, or any other music produced by ASCAP or BMI writers. Incidentally, this money is divided up amongst the writers, not the performers or publishers.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Mon May 09, 2005 10:07 am

Partially true, Scott. The licensing agency (BMI, ASCAP, Sesac) pays an equal amount of roylaties to both the publisher and writer based on performance, airplay etc. True, the publisher cannot share the writers royalties but the writer, depending on his bargaining skills, can get a larger share of the publishers royalties.

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Mon May 09, 2005 6:20 pm

>>>Any business that offers live music pays a fee to do so.

May be true in theory, but when we get paid in cash and there are no tax forms filled out, something tells me that the fine upstanding establishment who is paying us is saying to themselves "licensing fees? we dont need no stinkin licensing fees!"

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Tue May 10, 2005 7:52 am

Yes, well here's a point: somewhere along the line it gets hard to defend a society that rewards some musicians (regardless of their 'talent') by making them millionaires, when schoolteachers can't make enough to pay their bills...

I have the same opinion of pugilists, guys who drive in a circle, guys who put the ball in the hole, etc....nothing wrong with these activities, but they don't merit this kind of reward in anything but the most 'Roman' of societies...

Steal a hit song and play it for some hard-working drunk Americans in a small room with bad ventilation today! It's like throwing tea into a harbor...

route66guitars · Post by **route66guitars** » Tue May 10, 2005 8:33 am

Kent, unless you are playing in someone's garage then the bsiness has a license with the city/county, etc., and that means they also pay a license fee for having live music. That has nothing to do with how, or if, the band is paid.

DPT, spoken like a true drunk American.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Wed May 11, 2005 6:13 am

Where would we be without us?

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Wed May 11, 2005 9:45 am

>>>somewhere along the line it gets hard to defend a society that rewards some musicians (regardless of their 'talent') by making them millionaires, when schoolteachers can't make enough to pay their bills...

I agree (especially about the teachers who should be better paid) but only to a point. This is one of the weirdnesses you get when you have a free society. It's weird because people are often weird. To paraphrase Churchill, it may not be great but its better than the alternatives.

If you can bring pleasure to lots of people, then lots of little green paper will flow your way. You dont necessarily need much talent either, its just got to catch on.

>>>a license with the city/county, etc., and that means they also pay a license fee for having live music.

And does ANY of that money make its way back to the music company? I may be wrong (it's happened before), but somehow I doubt it.

Scastles · Post by **Scastles** » Wed May 11, 2005 10:09 am

All monies made off radio stations, businesses' etc pay a percentage to the licensing agency (not the record company)...the license agency in turn pays an equal amount to the composer(s) and the publisher.
In radio, for instance, we are billed a percentage of our annual billing which is paid directly to the licensing agencies, BMI, ASCAP and SESAC.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu May 12, 2005 6:23 am

All that just to sell Viagra and hair replacement...but seriously, I have a barely related question: How the *ell did Rush Limbaugh get permission to use the vamp from The Pretenders' 'Ohio' on his radio show? And furthermore, why?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Thu May 12, 2005 6:29 am

I'm allergic to RL. Also to Viagra and hair replacement.

But I like the Pretenders.

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Thu May 12, 2005 6:41 am

Same here...maybe Chrissie could get him back by doing a video of 'Tattooed Love Boys' with a Rush look-alike...

I was gonna quote some of the lyrics, but I dare not...

brammy · Post by **brammy** » Sun May 15, 2005 6:42 pm

>>How the *ell did Rush Limbaugh get permission to use the vamp from The Pretenders' 'Ohio' on his radio show?

I once heard Chrissy Hinds (sp?) talk about it. She said she wasn't a Rush fan herself but had no problem with him using it. In fact, she probably coun't have stopped it if she had wanted to since Limbaugh probably just pays the record company a fee to make it legal.

>>And furthermore, why?

Because it sounds cool?

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon May 16, 2005 5:40 am

Rush doesn't seem to be concerned with 'sounding cool' at any other point in his delivery...just in his choice of incidental music. Rock-n-Roll now belongs to the very people it evolved to combat...

'Won't Get Fooled Again' my a**...

wayang · Post by **wayang** » Mon May 16, 2005 5:43 am

Case in point: any current U.S. military recruiting ad on broadcast media...