BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment

from the 'irreparable-damage'?-if-only dept

BMI is back doing what BMI does best: hauling in the “rent.” This time BMI is going after a nightclub in Michigan for not taking advantage of its “services.”

Broadcast Music, Inc., the music licensing group, is suing the Lady Godiva’s nightclub and its owner, Mark London, claiming the club has violated copyrights. BMI filed a lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids, alleging the club played songs by artists Rivers Cuomo (“Say It Ain’t So”), R. Kelly (“Ignition”) and Amy Winehouse (“You Know I’m No Good”) without paying the proper music license fees. The suit claims the songs were played at the club — without BMI permission — on September 27, 2010.

As has been shown before, BMI needs nothing more than a few songs to build a claim against a business and it got the songs it needed. The filing (embedded below) is light on details but runs long on hyperbolic doomsaying. It would appear from BMI’s own wording that unless Lady Godiva’s rogue actions are stopped, the very future of performance rights groups is in peril. Check these out (page 4):

The specific acts of copyright infringement alleged, as well as the Defendant’s entire course of conduct, have caused and are causing Plaintiffs great and incalculable damage.

Holy hell! A single nightclub in Grand Rapids, MI (Pop. 188,040) has broken BMI’s calculator with its alleged course of conduct! Somebody needs to stop Godiva before its kills/breaks math again! But who?

Unless this Court restrains Defendants from committing further acts of copyright infringement, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law.

It’s worse than I thought! BMI will have to go on the Injured Reserve List! For life! How many among us have carelessly “infringed copyrights” without thinking of the little people, like BMI, ASCAP and so many other battered acronyms? Who will nurse their “irreparable” wounds? Will BMI have to resort to vigilante justice to collect its fees? Is that the way we really want it? Limping performance rights organizations operating outside the law? I submit to you that we do not.

But that’s only half the story (and what a half it is…) According to Lady Godiva’s owner, Mark London, attempts were made to pay the licensing fees, but BMI tried to change the agreement.

London tells WZZM 13 News that BMI is seeking to have him sign a licensing agreement registering his club as an adult entertainment business, which he says it is not. He says that while his club does feature women dancing it is not a topless venue, as a 2006 Grand Rapids city ordinance no longer allows nudity.

London says he is in good standing with ASCAP and other licensing agencies. But when he sent checks to BMI to pay for music rights, London says the group voided the payments.

So, suddenly, “enough” just isn’t enough for BMI. It wants more and it isn’t shy about dragging a business into court until it’s happy with the dollar amount. Understandably, BMI’s filing says nothing about this dispute over categorization and relies solely on the testimony of three well-known tunes. This is a pretty thin filing for BMI, which probably explains the overwrought language.

BMI may have an incredible success rate with its lawsuits but trying to convince a judge that a business that could not possibly be an adult entertainment business is, in fact, an adult entertainment business is going to be a pretty tough sell, no matter how much supposed ongoing “irreparable damage” is involved.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: bmi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “BMI Says Club Is Too Sexy For Standard Fees, Voids Check, Sues For Non-Payment”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
119 Comments
Someantimalwareguy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

So, background music is one rate. And music that the girls dance to is a different rate.

So you are saying that if a number of attractive women sitting at the bar suddenly jumped up and decided to dance to a favorite tune while not working for said bar, would require higher licensing fees?

At least it would keep me from having to embarrass myself when asked to dance the next time…Sorry honey, this bar didn’t pay the dancing fee so we will just have to sit here and enjoy our drinks…

Anonymous Coward says:

I love it when you guys are intentionally dense.

“The specific acts of copyright infringement alleged, as well as the Defendant’s entire course of conduct, have caused and are causing Plaintiffs great and incalculable damage.”

The damage isn’t just in the doing, it’s in others seeing them do it and thinking they can get away with it to. The old “slippery slope”, or perhaps on par with jealously protecting a trademark. If you stop protecting it in all ways, others will think it is okay and the problem compounds itself.

As for the variable fees, consider it the difference between someone playing background music (say a jukebox in a bar) compared to live performance to music. There are different classifications to keep the fees in line for smaller, less music centric establishments.

Don’t give up your day job Tim. You don’t have the same ability with moral outrage that Mike has, and you certainly don’t know when to draw the line before you slide into parody of your own ideas.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that such an establishment could work very well. Yes, you’d need some kind of background track, but nobody is going to a strip club for a high quality musical experience. A half-wit on a Casiotone would do the job well enough. Or even just somebody pounding out a rhythm on a pair of bongos.

HothMonster says:

Re: Re:

“The damage isn’t just in the doing, it’s in others seeing them do it and thinking they can get away with it to. The old “slippery slope”, or perhaps on par with jealously protecting a trademark. If you stop protecting it in all ways, others will think it is okay and the problem compounds itself.”

so how do patrons know whether they paid BMI or not?

PrometheeFeu (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“The damage isn’t just in the doing, it’s in others seeing them do it and thinking they can get away with it to.”

Last I checked, you are not responsible for the potential future actions of others. Should OJ Simpson be sent to jail for “felony getting away with murder” because everyone thinks he did it and people might therefore believe that they too could get away with it?

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The damage isn’t just in the doing, it’s in others seeing them do it and thinking they can get away with it to.

I know every place I walk in that has music playing proudly displays the “We paid BMI for this music” placard. It makes me know that I’m in a trusted music playing establishment. If they aren’t displaying that placard, I make sure to leave posthaste, as I don’t want to be frequenting any shady and disreputable venues.

Some Other AC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

While your basic argument holds water, it fails to accommodate for the statement by the clubs owner.
“But when he sent checks to BMI to pay for music rights, London says the group voided the payments.”
Now, I submit the possibility that he is lying. However, if he has the voided/cancelled payments or statements from BMI relating to this, then BMIs standing in this case is about as solid Jell-O on an August day in Texas.
Please take the entire article into consideration before posting. It will make your one side arguments much more appreciable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

BMI wasn’t complaining about “LIVE performance to music” (they knew it was a nightclub and licensed it accordingly), they were complaining about “NUDE performance to music”…except the performance WASN’T nude! (Scantly-clad, perhaps, but NOT nude!)
Add to that the fact that payment, as agreed to by both sides in a signed contract, WAS made, but BMI refused to accept it, and you have a company acting in bad faith.
Y’know, boy; if you had half a brain, you’d have half a brain more than you have now.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: I'm confused

“The owner of the copyright in a musical composition enjoys the exclusive right to publicly perform the composition. If someone else does it without the copyright owner’s authorization, it’s infringement (with some exceptions).”

Except the club HAD the permission (a signed contract with BMI) and had paid for it!
BMI refused to cash the checks!
Who’s in the wrong, boy?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I'm confused

I obviously don’t know all the facts here, but it sounds like BMI is saying they had permission to do X but they were really doing Y.

If they were publicly performing the songs outside the scope of their license, then that’s unauthorized.

From what little I know, there seems to be a gray area both factually and in terms of what the licensed covered, as to whether they were authorized.

MAC says:

Copyright...

Playing the song constitutes ‘use’ and use of copyrighted material without permission is against the law.

Let’s say you come up with a software widget that makes existing cars get 100 miles to a gallon. Barring the oil companies either buying you out or killing you; you obtain a copyright to the software.

Some numbskull gets hold of your software and incorporates it into his new fuel injection machine.

You have been violated! They are using your stuff. How would you feel?

Like sueing the numbskull thats how.

So it is with the artist and those who represent them…

Dan Smith (profile) says:

Re: Copyright...

Justify your argument how you like. You Douche bag lawyers and copywright asshats only have one thing in mind when suing clubs/people/companies. Money – Not that any of it actually gets to the artist. F*ck you and your system. You have bloodied the law waters with this stuff too long. If you really represented the artist, please show how much of these law suits reach them and what you got in compensation. Is the money comparable? If we knew a majority of it went to the artist, we would give back to them. but we know better.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Copyright...

Let’s say you come up with a software widget that makes existing cars get 100 miles to a gallon. Barring the oil companies either buying you out or killing you; you obtain a copyright to the software.

Well, I for one would release my software under the GPL or similar OSS license for the betterment of humankind in the first place. Monetary gain isn’t the only reason for creating something.

[Side note]: There is no “obtaining” of a copyright – it’s automatically copyrighted the moment it’s created.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Copyright...

“Playing the song constitutes ‘use’ and use of copyrighted material without permission is against the law.”

This is not true. Copyright does not grant an exclusive right to “use” a protected work. It gives an exclusive right to do specific things (e.g., copy, distribute copies of, publicly perform, display), but a vague exclusive “use” right is not included.

B Pickel (profile) says:

Re: Copyright...

MAC, I think your example of using a software in that scenario starts simular but falls away from this issues raised/concerned within the article

As per your scenario I can see where your coming from;
I made/designed/created something(in your case a widget) and now someone was obtained it without compensation and has packaged it with other ideas/equipment that you
a) Hadn?t thought of.
b) Had thought of but couldn?t/hadn?t implemented.
c) Had thought of and is currently working on releasing it.
And then option d) Had thought of it and already has a released version competing in the market place.

Now as you go down thought the options you will find that people become more irate about this violation (often called theft) is generally because of the more money they potentially lost. What they don?t see (or turn a blind eye to)is that as you go further now the list the original something (widget) now has a larger marketplace to be used in or even demand for more or possibly improved versions to replace it. You can sue them or you can approach them and try to strike up a licensingsubscriptionproduct pricing deal with them (you know offer them first access to upgrades or quicker/better support of the product).

Now if your just chasing the ?entitled? money the first approach of suing them seams the best way to obtain the cash, but the second approach is a much more sustainable long term approach.

The issue I get from the article is not that they didn?t purchase the music but that there was conflicting beliefs on the terms set up in the original licensing agreement.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Copyright...

Some numbskull gets hold of your software and incorporates it into his new fuel injection machine.

You have been violated! They are using your stuff. How would you feel?

1. How would you know that it was not his own code?

2. Personally I wouldn’t feel that bad about it. This whole “feeling you’ve been violated” thing is frankly very bad for the person concerned. Getting all proprietorial about things is bad for moral and mental health. If you suffer from this affliction I suggest you seek help.

MAC says:

Thank God!

Thank God that we don’t have to deal with this when we are playing copyrighted material privately.

The reason they don’t go after private is
1) The law does not allow it.
2) You don’t want to piss off your largest customer base.
3) It was just plain impractical however, with modern technology, it is now feasable to figure out who’s playing what.

Let’s just hope some A$$ H0!! lawyer does not get some bright idea and lobbgy congress, they’ve got enough on their plate to screw up…

Anonymous Coward says:

Tim, when you mock what you don’t understand, you look worse and if you simply admit that you don’t understand something.

The language you quote is legal terminology basically arguing that money damages won’t be sufficient to repair the harm BMI or its artists have suffered, so the court shoul issue an order stopping the club from playing BMI songs in the future.

It has nothing to due with the *amount* of harm BMI or its artists have allegedly suffered.

At any rate, who the hell plays “Say It Ain’t So” at a strip club?

Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The language you quote is legal terminology basically arguing that money damages won’t be sufficient to repair the harm BMI or its artists have suffered, so the court shoul issue an order stopping the club from playing BMI songs in the future.

The fact that it’s legal language doesn’t make it any less hyperbolic.

Mark London sounds like he’d be more than happy to stop playing BMI music. He even sounds like he’d be fine paying for the “privilege” of playing music from BMI’s roster. He just doesn’t see the need to pay the higher adult entertainment rate since his club is clearly not an adult entertainment venue. If bikinis make your nightclub a strip club, then you had better start carding down at the beach.

At any rate, who the hell plays “Say It Ain’t So” at a strip club?

That’s a valid question and I’ll admit that I don’t readily have an answer. Perhaps the BMI investigator requested it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Does not worry you that hyperbole is integrated in the law already like it is something normal?

How can something be incalculable and irreparable?
If you can’t calculate something, measure it or quantify it how can one assert that it is irreparable?

Hence logic in the law profession apparently is long gone.

Term of art or not there is a problem with those kind of fillings and it is not a minor one.

JMT says:

Re: Re:

“The language you quote is legal terminology basically arguing that money damages won’t be sufficient to repair the harm BMI or its artists have suffered…”

You say Tim’s mocking makes him look worse, and then you offer thatas an explanation? Geez, no wonder the general opinion of copyright supporters and lawyers is falling so fast.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "but runs long on hyperbolic...."

The PETA post was filled to the brim, surprised any references got in there at all, then you point out the hyperbole in others in your very next post. The runs long aspect flickers, the overt subjectivity is always on.

The third person reference is new, though that may balance it all out.

Jeremy7600 (profile) says:

Great and incalcuable damage? What is this “great” “harm” that BMI or the artists suffered that can’t be paid back?

And how it is great and incalcuable if I have never heard those three tracks (and I haven’t) but heard them there first and decide I want to hear more so I buy one of the three albums from whence the songs came?

You guys are off your fucking rockers.

Jz (profile) says:

“are causing Plaintiffs great and incalculable damage.”

Obviously if someone presupposes ‘incalculable’ with ‘great’ then they haven’t understood what it means not to be able to calculate an amount. Perhaps it is legaleze shorthand for ‘lawyers need more money’.

‘Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law.’

No. Really no. It will be incalculable and irreparable until they are asked how much money they want to make it all better. One song in one nightclub does not construe an apocalyptic nightmare of unimaginable horror worth the income of a small nation.

Karl (profile) says:

Performance fees

I’m actually not opposed to performance fees at all. If your music adds value to a business, it’s only fair that you be compensated, to some small degree.

The different “tiers” of payments are set by BMI themselves, and are an attempt to pay less or more depending upon the role the music plays in the business. (Thus, live music requires a much higher rate than a jukebox, since live music is more of a “draw.”) It stands to reason that strip clubs pay a higher rate than others, since the music is a much bigger part of the act (they are “dancers,” after all).

Likewise, the language (while hyperbolic) is pretty standard fare for legal documents, and it uses such phrases as “irreparable injury” because those are the phrases that show up in the statutes.

Where it gets ridiculous is in the fact that BMI refused payments, and sued, based on the mistaken idea that the club is a strip club, when in fact it is unlawful for them to be a strip club. If this is true, then obviously BMI has its head up its ass.

Does it mean BMI will lose the case? Dunno. Under the letter of the law, the club probably should have not used the music until after the deal was already worked out. On the other hand, since they obviously made good-faith efforts to resolve the issue, I’m betting the judge would only fine them for innocent infringement at most.

Of course, I have other problems with BMI… mostly in how they distribute the money to artists. If you’re a member, pretty much the only way you’ll get paid is if you have a Top 40 hit on the radio. (They are better than ASCAP, but that’s a small comfort.)

And, obviously, PRO’s need to stop shutting down music at the smaller, and especially non-profit, establishments. For one thing, that helps nobody, especially not the PRO’s. For another thing, often the PRO’s do this when the venue in question doesn’t even play their music.

That doesn’t appear to be the case here, though.

PappyCaligula (profile) says:

Pay UP...

BMI, Ascap, and Sesac right to sue for compensation goes back to atleast 1917…Just like pirated software, pirated music is stealing and has been for over 90 years per Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes landmark decision on licensing.

Music must be licensed. Period. Without a license. You will eventually be found. Why did this all come about?. Because crooked owners of establishments both large and small, promised musicians and artisans PAY and didn’t deliver!

What we need is more compliance to keep the riff-raff, small and large out of thinking they’re doing a musician a favor by letting them play at max for tips thrown their way while same musicians efforts make the unscrutable thief a ton of cash!..

Venues would benefit as well if they just did it legal.
They’d atleast show some measure of respect for those who work hard on-the-road to entertain them.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...