OK, in a nutshell, what we have here is this: Chisholm (and his partner Yeager) have been behind in their annual music licence fees for Oz to "The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers" (aka ASCAP) as of December of 2006. ASCAP fees are paid in advance, so this would have been the first month they stopped paying.
(BTW, for those not familiar with ASCAP licence fees, what they're for, and who has to pay them, see here; it's more or less a standard cost of doing business that a music-playing establishment has to incur to operate legitimately)
And after a couple years of unsuccessful collection attempts, it looks like ASCAP decided "no more Mr. Nice Guy" in a manner of speaking, and sent in an investigator to gather evidence of music copyright infringement. And he/she caught Oz red handed playing three songs out of the ASCAP repertory: Girls Just Want To Have Fun, Do It Again, and I Want Your Sex:
As a result, Oz, Chisholm and Yeager now face statutory damages in the range of $750.00 to $30,000.00 per song, or a total of $2,250 to $90,000 in damages.
And this will probably be the one and only post you'll see here on this particular Chisholm lawsuit. Reason being, IMO, it doesn't really have anything to do with the OMW calamity of 2009, EXCEPT in one respect: It does tend to show the financial rot which began to beset the Chisholm party empire around the time of the Paris disaster of 2007, and beyond. These ASCAP fees are not terribly burdensome for large nightclubs like Oz. They are based on a rather arcane fee schedule, but as near as I've been able to determine, fees for a dance club like Oz would have run only about $1000 to $2000 a year. So, there is really no logical excuse for a club the size of Oz to run the risk of not paying it except perhaps for financial problems.
And that point has been adequately made by the mere existence of this new lawsuit, I think. Interesting though this case is, unless there is a hue and cry from my readership, we'll leave this one be from here on out.
"Johnny Chisholm was JustCircuit's very first inductee into the Circuit Hall of Fame(tm), and for very good reason."
ReplyDeleteQuote, unquote. Need I say more?
Um...as a dj who has played at Oz within the past two years, what is my exposure to a lawsuit now, due to this fuckup?????
ReplyDeleteRichard,
ReplyDeleteLOL, well, you know, that quote is probably true from their perspective. Being able to portray Chisholm as a "renowned expert in the party promoting business" to unsuspecting "investors" by bestowing imaginary awards on him, is no doubt a "good reason" when you look at it thru their eyes.
Anonymous 7:55, let me get back to you on that...
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:55, on second thought I'm going to refrain as a matter of policy from giving legal advice here. This is not the ideal setting for that sort of thing. I suggest you contact your own attorney directly with that question.
ReplyDeleteI will say this, however: it appears to be ASCAP's policy not to pursue DJs and entertainers over this sort of thing; according to their FAQ (para 12):
"Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license."
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html
This is not legal advice, mind you, merely an observation.
You could also contact ASCAP directly with your question (framing it in the form of a hypothetical, of course).
Thanks Jim, I'll do that.
ReplyDeleteFastastic blog by the way, keep up the great work!