nightclubs v the music companies & ppi

**the 12 th man** · 27/04/2004, 8:23 AM

big court case today involving the above involving music rights and loyalties
in ireland.many "heavy hitters" are due to give evidence.
anyone got the full lowdown ??

**sparkey** · 27/04/2004, 9:29 AM

FOURTEEN of the world's leading record companies will take on nine Irish nightclubs in the High Court this week in a landmark multi million euro copyright case that could have massive implications for the popular music industry.

The music of some of the top names in pop - including U2, Madonna, Queen and Michael Jackson - will feature in the case in which prominent figures such as U2 manager Paul McGuinness, Bryan Ferry and members of Status Quo may be called as witnesses.

The multi billion euro industry could be thrown into turmoil by the case over the alleged non-payment of royalties by leading Irish nightclubs. The outcome of the case will be watched closely by record moguls everywhere as it could call into question whether they own the music they sell on record.

The action is being taken by Phonographic Performance Irl Ltd (PPI), which is owned by the record companies and represents their interests here.

The record companies will have to prove copyright ownership with regard to 55 songs - a sample list which is expected to be tested by the court. EMI, Sony, Virgin, Warner and Polygram are just some of the international names involved in the case.

At the heart of the action is the key issue of whether the record companies can prove they own copyright to the music of artists such as U2, Jackson, the Eurythmics, Whitney Houston, Status Quo, Brian Ferry and George Michael.

It is understood McGuinness could be one of the first witnesses to be called, as four U2 songs feature on the Polygram list - including Mysterious Ways and One.

They may have to call witnesses in connection with each of the 55 songs - anyone from the artist or manager to people who wrote the contracts or sound engineers who were present when the music was recorded. Depending on the paperwork involved in the case, anything from 150 to 200 witnesses may have to be called.

The case is listed for hearing for up to three months beginning today and could turn out to be one of the most expensive cases ever dealt with here.

The nightclubs/hotels involved in the action include prominent Dublin venues such as Regine's Hotel, the Charlotte Inn and Club Sarah, as well as the Golden Grill in Letterkenny and The Imperial Hotel, Dundalk.

Top names in the nightclub/entertainment business such as John Reynolds, Peter Quinn, Philip Mahon, Bernard McGlinchey and Jim Reynolds of Longford are named in the action.

The PPI collects royalties here on behalf of the record companies and is claiming back-payment for 11 years between 1989 and 2000.

The action is being taken under the 1963 Copyright Act - since updated by legislation in 2000.

It is understood there has never been a case similar to this before, where major record firms will have to prove they own their music.

**max power** · 27/04/2004, 9:40 AM

right put in simple language, every year you pay an amount to the ppi for the rights to play their artists music.....if you don't pay you shouldn't play....they haven't paid, a majority of venues do pay, you'll see the sticker on the door of most bars and clubs......

**4tothefloor** · 27/04/2004, 1:10 PM

The record companies just get greedier and greedier. And they wonder why piracy is rampant?

**max power** · 27/04/2004, 1:34 PM

the amount the venues have to pay is minimal compared to what they make as well, record companies aren't the only greedy ones, why do you think empty vodka bottles are found in the toilets of there venues every weekend

**WeAreRovers** · 27/04/2004, 2:04 PM

Originally Posted by max power

the amount the venues have to pay is minimal compared to what they make as well, record companies aren't the only greedy ones, why do you think empty vodka bottles are found in the toilets of there venues every weekend

That's true Max but the point is that the record companies are looking to get paid twice for the same product. And that ain't fair.

KOH

**max power** · 27/04/2004, 2:10 PM

yes but when you buy a product you agree to the copyright laws attached to it, a bar pays �20 for a cd and then plays it every day for 6 months.....they have made more than 20�20 out of that cd by the public performance, thats the main point, if you are using someone elses work to entertain your clients you should pay for it, it would cost 10 cent i'd say of every door fee into a night club......

**WeAreRovers** · 27/04/2004, 2:16 PM

Originally Posted by max power

yes but when you buy a product you agree to the copyright laws attached to it, a bar pays €20 for a cd and then plays it every day for 6 months.....they have made more than 20€20 out of that cd by the public performance, thats the main point, if you are using someone elses work to entertain your clients you should pay for it, it would cost 10 cent i'd say of every door fee into a night club......

Again you're right but they are looking for mechanicals and they are not due mechanicals twice. The artists are due the copyright fee from venues NOT the labels hence the IMRO licence.

KOH

**4tothefloor** · 27/04/2004, 2:18 PM

Originally Posted by WeAreRovers

That's true Max but the point is that the record companies are looking to get paid twice for the same product. And that ain't fair.

KOH

Exactly, couldn't have put it better myself. The record companies are beginning to really **** people off with their attitude, me included. If you buy a cd you should be able to play it to whoever, or wherever you like. This public performance thing is a load of rubbish.

And with regard to the empty vodka bottles - patrons should not have to pay into a nightclub in the first place, especially when its just the local dj John Doe playing. My local club charges �12 in, which is a disgrace, and for what? So I can listen to the UK top 20, while paying over the odds for drinks and cloakrooms etc. I don't mind paying in to see live bands\acts or specialist dj's, but charging for your normal run-of-the-mill night is a joke, especially when you look at the profits from drink and cloakrooms etc. Maybe thats why the empty vodka bottles are so plentifull - like everything else in this country, nightclubs are right up there when it comes to ripping people off and overcharging. Fair play to the vodka brigade I say, and long may it continue.

**max power** · 27/04/2004, 2:24 PM

4tothefloor...i shall overlook your above dj comment !!!! i do believe in the copyright thing to an extent, everyone has to earn a living and the copying of work again and again isn't fair on the artist....no matter how much money htey earn, but i do feel record companies are the greedy ones here, you don't hear artists giving out to often about tribute band or cover bands, why ?? because they are promoting their product !!!

**4tothefloor** · 27/04/2004, 2:51 PM

Originally Posted by max power

4tothefloor...i shall overlook your above dj comment !!!! i do believe in the copyright thing to an extent, everyone has to earn a living and the copying of work again and again isn't fair on the artist....no matter how much money htey earn, but i do feel record companies are the greedy ones here, you don't hear artists giving out to often about tribute band or cover bands, why ?? because they are promoting their product !!!

The comment is aimed to show that we are paying too much into nightclubs as it is, nothing else. We've had this discussion before, so lets leave the lid shut on that one!

**Macy** · 27/04/2004, 3:48 PM

Surely it would be fairer if the DJ had to have a licence, or pay per performance... Essentially it's them that are making a living out of playing other peoples work? A DJ could be working 7 nights a week, whereas a club may only be open at the weekend....

**tiktok** · 27/04/2004, 3:52 PM

Originally Posted by Macy

A DJ could be working 7 nights a week, whereas a club may only be open at the weekend....

yeah, but where is the dj getting his work for the seven nights, and let's face it, who really takes in the cash.

**noby** · 28/04/2004, 8:22 AM

Originally Posted by Macy

Surely it would be fairer if the DJ had to have a licence, or pay per performance... Essentially it's them that are making a living out of playing other peoples work?

That's like saying the bar staff should have a drinks licence, cos essentially they're making a living out of serving.

**max power** · 28/04/2004, 8:24 AM

its a simple profit element, its easier to go after a venue rather than every band and dj in the country....could you imagine how much it would cost to do this......plus the record companies are on our ( dj's) side, i get music sent to me every week from the record companies in the hope that i'll play it or mention it over the mic thus publicity for them.......

also i am hired by the venue to play music on their behalf therefore from a legal point of view i am an empolyee just carrying out a duty, therefore the venues must hold the public performance licence......