VAN HALEN, LED ZEPPELIN Members File Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Colorado

**EJC** · 02.23.07, 12:18 PM

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/bla...wsitemID=67638

Steve Lynn of Colorado's VailDaily.com reports:

Several famous musicians are suing a local business owner for copyright infringement for allowing cover bands to play their songs without permission.

Van Halen Music Company, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, John Paul Jones and Patricia Bonham are all named as plaintiffs in a lawsuit alleging that Vail business owner Steven Kovacik allowed public performances of their songs at 8150, the lawsuit says.

Kovacik, owner of 8150, said he would not comment on the lawsuit. The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Colorado, names Kovacik and a company named Big Snow Ball LLC as defendants.

The plaintiffs alleged 10 counts of copyright infringement because the defendants allowed bands to play 10 copyrighted songs on Jan. 15 and 16 at 815, the lawsuit says. The plaintiffs are suing for as little as $750 per song and as much as $30,000 per song, plus attorneys' fees, according to court documents.

Read the entire article at VailDaily.com.

**Eddymon** · 02.23.07, 12:22 PM

Can't anyone PLAY someone elses songs, but not record them without permission?

**charlesresta** · 02.23.07, 12:24 PM

Without permisssion...so every song played has to be an original. What about Karoke? This is lame..

**Blount5150** · 02.23.07, 12:46 PM

I may be wrong on this, but the club should be okay if they had a license from BMI, ASCAP, or Sesac. I'm sure problem lies within the club making money off of the performance of the songs. It's funny to think a covers band from Pasadena is suing someone for the performances of non-original material...

**ZeoBandit** · 02.23.07, 12:49 PM

This is probably why the tour got cancelled. Eddie is too busy suing for $750.

**Bassman** · 02.23.07, 12:54 PM

What?!? So every bar owner that hires a cover band has to have permission from the label? Never heard that before.

**Van Halens** · 02.23.07, 12:58 PM

Don't they have more important things to do, like rehearse or rehab or remorse or repent or redemption?

**ZORBA5150** · 02.23.07, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Bassman

What?!? So every bar owner that hires a cover band has to have permission from the label? Never heard that before.

that's completely false, unless it's something that never gets enforced, like jay-walking, going 30mph in 25mph zone, etc

**AVH Blues** · 02.23.07, 01:14 PM

Interesting they are suing the bar and not the bands. I'm guessing the thought behind that is that they don't want to hurt the bands but by suing the bar they are hurting the cover bands as they won't have a place to play in the future. I guess Edward can contiue to pickle himself because VH can sue just about every bar in the country.

**fullbug5150** · 02.23.07, 01:21 PM

you are correct, it has to be enforced-which is the resp. of the pub rights co's

**Grover** · 02.23.07, 01:23 PM

The bar in question more than likely did not have it's ASCAP or BMI license. ASCAP and BMI just represent the publishers. The publishers are the one who actually have to file suit, not ASCAP or BMI.

ASCAP and BMI will make a recommedation to file to their clients if there is good reason. Good reason would mean that ASCAP/BMI have offered a settlement, given the business ample warning and have proof in hand that the business is in violation of copyright law.

It takes a lot to get to this stage. ASCAP does recommend that their clients follow through on lawsuits otherwise everyone would skip out on paying.

The Van Halen brothers probably have no knowledge that this is even going on. And by the way, the publishers will win.

**Grover** · 02.23.07, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by AVH Blues

Interesting they are suing the bar and not the bands. I'm guessing the thought behind that is that they don't want to hurt the bands but by suing the bar they are hurting the cover bands as they won't have a place to play in the future. I guess Edward can contiue to pickle himself because VH can sue just about every bar in the country.

Can you imagine trying to keep track of every bar band in the country? They change names, change members, break up... It wouldn't be possible to keep up with that.

**vanzefflin** · 02.23.07, 01:29 PM

It is common knowledge among club owners that they are responsible for licensing fees to publishing companies. Many opt not to pay them, sometimes at their own peril.

**BrownSound1** · 02.23.07, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by vanzefflin

It is common knowledge among club owners that they are responsible for licensing fees to publishing companies. Many opt not to pay them, sometimes at their own peril.

Absolutely true. It is the club owners, not the bands, that are responsible. A band can play anything it wants to at a show. For some reason I think this also applies to clubs that only have DJs as well. If you are charging money for people to come in and hear published music, then you have to pay the fee.

AT · 02.23.07, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Grover

The bar in question more than likely did not have it's ASCAP or BMI license. ASCAP and BMI just represent the publishers. The publishers are the one who actually have to file suit, not ASCAP or BMI.

ASCAP and BMI will make a recommedation to file to their clients if there is good reason. Good reason would mean that ASCAP/BMI have offered a settlement, given the business ample warning and have proof in hand that the business is in violation of copyright law.

It takes a lot to get to this stage. ASCAP does recommend that their clients follow through on lawsuits otherwise everyone would skip out on paying.

The Van Halen brothers probably have no knowledge that this is even going on. And by the way, the publishers will win.

This is all true--how it is. And it's good for musicians overall.