cross bossPerorming rights societies. Whose interests do they really represent? As with all big agglomerations, the opinions of the individual member can get somewhat swamped, and as the big societies are used to throwing the weight of their legal department at whatever industry gnats fly into their path they can overstep their bounds and pursue cases that are innapropriate, unpopular or just downright wrong. In the last link, ASCAP are suing a Manhattan venue for playing music without paying them, and name Bruce Springsteen as one of the plaintiffs in their case as one of the artists whose music has been performed without licence. Fair enough, right? Bruce’s music is on their books, and they’ve got a stated schedule of fees that venues are supposed to pay to perform music (not that the venues get any say in defining how much the fees should be). Ummm… no. Bruce Springsteen wasn’t asked about the case, and doesn’t endorse the court case – he in fact his publicists have this to say about it:

In regards to the ASCAP lawsuit against Connolly’s Pub and Restaurant, ASCAP was solely responsible for naming Bruce Springsteen as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Bruce Springsteen had no knowledge of this lawsuit, was not asked if he would participate as a named plaintiff, and would not have agreed to do so if he had been asked. Upon learning of this lawsuit this morning, Bruce Springsteen’s representatives demanded the immediate removal of his name from the lawsuit.

Techdirt has a very strong anti rights-agency opinion, and has published some informative posts about it – the thrust of their argument being that the various agencies need to be more sensitive to the opinions of the artists they are supposed to be representing, and encouraging growth throughout the music industry, rather than their current punitive profiteering from grass roots venues and minor infringers.