now this i'd travel the world for...

[cj hood]

http://www.myspace.com/beastieboystributeband

[facedownfall]

thanks for posting that. :) (y) that is hilarious...they probably do more shows than real beastie boys

[pshabi]

I always wanted to do something like that. Shit, that'd be fun. And I'd do a much better job than these dudes.

That guy doing Yauch in the SWW vid was fucking bullocks.

[balohna]

Those videos are hilarious. You can tell it's pretty much a joke, it sounds like they didn't even read the lyrics to the songs, just listened to them and guessed what they might be. They're probably playing a burned CD with the songs on it through a karaoke machine or something.

[Kid Presentable]

hahaha

Police knee, what shoes ee is what chew get

[JohnnyChavello]

Let's see: trademark infringement, check; copyright infringement, check; incredibly embarassing, check.

[pshabi]

Those videos are hilarious. You can tell it's pretty much a joke.

Actually, I'm 99% sure it's serious. I mean, you don't get bar gigs as a "joke." I wouldn't call it a "tribute" though.

[Kid Presentable]

Let's see: trademark infringement, check; copyright infringement, check; incredibly embarassing, check.
They haven't infringed anything, unless they're releasing licensed property. You can perform. Otherwise karaoke bars would require waivers.

[DandyFop]

Hah...I watched a bit of the brass monkey one, I didn't think they sounded too bad actually. I guess I'm kind of a sucker for cover bands, I'm cheesy like that

[pshabi]

Hah...I watched a bit of the brass monkey one, I didn't think they sounded too bad actually. I guess I'm kind of a sucker for cover bands, I'm cheesy like that
Brass wasn't bad. See the other one though.

[YoungRemy]

you all missed your chance to join this groundbreaking tribute band (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=70665)

[kleptomaniac]

edit-damn you remy :rolleyes:

were you stalking me or what?

[KENNY GUIDO]

I did this 20 years ago. these guys are wwwwwwwwwaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy too late!:p

[JohnnyChavello]

I'm sorry counselor. Where did you say you went to law school? Section 106 of the US Copyright Act gives the owners of copyrights in musical compositions the right to perform the works publicly. And yes, this means that karaoke bars must license musical compositions, and sound recording copyrights if they original recording is used, in order to avoid infringement. If they aren't getting a license, they are infringing and ASCAP will probably track them down at some point.

Moreover, the fact that they are using the Beastie Boys name, a registered trademark, in commerce qualifies their MySpace page as an act of trademark infringement under section 32 of the Lanham Act.

Personally, what they're doing doesn't bother me. It is particularly good, but it doesn't bother me. Then again, I'm not the one who wrote and created the songs/personas that these guys are usng to make money (presumably).

[Kid Presentable]

I'm sorry counselor. Where did you say you went to law school? Section 106 of the US Copyright Act gives the owners of copyrights in musical compositions the right to perform the works publicly. And yes, this means that karaoke bars must license musical compositions, and sound recording copyrights if they original recording is used, in order to avoid infringement. If they aren't getting a license, they are infringing and ASCAP will probably track them down at some point.

Moreover, the fact that they are using the Beastie Boys name, a registered trademark, in commerce qualifies their MySpace page as an act of trademark infringement under section 32 of the Lanham Act.

Personally, what they're doing doesn't bother me. It is particularly good, but it doesn't bother me. Then again, I'm not the one who wrote and created the songs/personas that these guys are usng to make money (presumably).
They call themselves a 'tribute', that's how they get away with it. Then again, the insane litigous American culture will probably mean that they will get in trouble.

[Kid Presentable]

The funniest thing to me is that every person I've heard do a Beastie Boys 'tribute', be it fans on here (minus cj, who owned it) or dweebs on the internet, is that they have not even one iota of the charisma the Beasties do. And they're usually meatheads, or think they're doing a good job. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

[KENNY GUIDO]

Let's see: trademark infringement, check; copyright infringement, check; incredibly embarassing, check.


artists are permitted to use other artists material, as long as they are not profiting off of it.

look at all the "samples" MMM used live in concert: dont you think he should pay the artists? no, because its "live" and its not recorded (unless illegally, of course)

[KENNY GUIDO]

artists are permitted to use other artists material, as long as they are not profiting off of it.

look at all the "samples" MMM used live in concert: dont you think he should pay the artists? no, because its "live" and its not recorded (unless illegally, of course)

[JohnnyChavello]

You cannot legally just "use" someone else's material without paying for it. The Copyright Act gives owners of musical works and sound recordings a number of exclusive rights. One of them is the right to perform the work publicly. If you want to do that you have to pay a license. I am positive that MMM pays ASCAP and/or Harry Fox for some kind of blanket license to use the works he plays with in concert. Moreover, when the Beastie Boys use the instrumental from another song in concert to mix in with one of theirs, they also have to pay for a license.

Calling yourself a "tribute" band is not a way to somehow get around copyright or trademark infringement. There's no exception for "tribute" bands and if they want to use the work, they have to license it.

[pshabi]

Moreover, when the Beastie Boys use the instrumental from another song in concert to mix in with one of theirs, they also have to pay for a license.



No they don't.

Also, by what you're saying, every cover band at thousands of bars across America are either a) spending a lot of money for the $350 gigs on Friday night or b) committing crimes every time they perform.

[pshabi]

The funniest thing to me is that every person I've heard do a Beastie Boys 'tribute', be it fans on here (minus cj, who owned it) or dweebs on the internet, is that they have not even one iota of the charisma the Beasties do. And they're usually meatheads, or think they're doing a good job. In fact, the two aren't mutually exclusive.
Excuse me? You best not be including moi in this group.

[JohnnyChavello]

1. Yes they do.

2. The amount of money they're spending depends on the costs of the license. It might not actually be that expensive. If a cover band isn't paying for a license, they are committing copyright infringement. It really is that simple. Copyright infringement is ordinarily a civil offense, but in certain circumstances, it may constitute a crime. When Biz Markie was sued by Gilbert O' Sullivan for sampling Alone Again (Naturally) in the early 90s, the judge deciding the case recommended criminal action. Fortunately, the Biz was never locked up.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

[pshabi]

1. Yes they do.

2. The amount of money they're spending depends on the costs of the license. It might not actually be that expensive. If a cover band isn't paying for a license, they are committing copyright infringement. It really is that simple. Copyright infringement is ordinarily a civil offense, but in certain circumstances, it may constitute a crime. When Biz Markie was sued by Gilbert O' Sullivan for sampling Alone Again (Naturally) in the early 90s, the judge deciding the case recommended criminal action. Fortunately, the Biz was never locked up.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
There is NO FUCKING WAY that more than 1% (if that many) of cover bands nationwide pay a god damned penny to play any songs, period. If it's a crime, it's comparable to jaywalking.

[JohnnyChavello]

It's not a crime, it's a civil offense. You're probably right that an insignificant number of cover bands pay to use the songs they perform. All I'm saying is, they're supposed to and if they don't they'll either be forced to stop or fork over some money if the people who own the copyright, or the companies that handle the licensing for the copyright, happen to catch them doing it.

[camo]

ha ha awesome!

[Kid Presentable]

You cannot legally just "use" someone else's material without paying for it. The Copyright Act gives owners of musical works and sound recordings a number of exclusive rights. One of them is the right to perform the work publicly. If you want to do that you have to pay a license. I am positive that MMM pays ASCAP and/or Harry Fox for some kind of blanket license to use the works he plays with in concert. Moreover, when the Beastie Boys use the instrumental from another song in concert to mix in with one of theirs, they also have to pay for a license.

Calling yourself a "tribute" band is not a way to somehow get around copyright or trademark infringement. There's no exception for "tribute" bands and if they want to use the work, they have to license it.
DMC or the ITF don't pay licenses for their contests. Technically you can't play a DVD in public either, but it's sort of like the laws prohibiting marrying a horse. They would have payed for licenses for the stuff used on AIFST, but not for shows. That's why some of the beats were changed for the DVD.

[KENNY GUIDO]

1. Yes they do.

2. The amount of money they're spending depends on the costs of the license. It might not actually be that expensive. If a cover band isn't paying for a license, they are committing copyright infringement. It really is that simple. Copyright infringement is ordinarily a civil offense, but in certain circumstances, it may constitute a crime. When Biz Markie was sued by Gilbert O' Sullivan for sampling Alone Again (Naturally) in the early 90s, the judge deciding the case recommended criminal action. Fortunately, the Biz was never locked up.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.
"sampling" and "covering" are 2 totally different animals.

[KENNY GUIDO]

It's not a crime, it's a civil offense. You're probably right that an insignificant number of cover bands pay to use the songs they perform. All I'm saying is, they're supposed to and if they don't they'll either be forced to stop or fork over some money if the people who own the copyright, or the companies that handle the licensing for the copyright, happen to catch them doing it.


they dont have to get permission.

did you know that if you were a "musical group" and you borrowed someone's song and you re-recorded it, you dont have to pay? well.....not in the begining.

If I rerecorded "sabatoge" with my former group, I would not have to pay the beastie boys anything......until my sales reach $100,000. thats when I have to pay up. If I make $30,000 in sales, I dont pay the boys.

[YoungRemy]

nobody is stopping anybody from playing their music...

I play in a Zeppelin tribute band and we have gigged with tribute bands to Joplin, Hendrix, the Doors, and Pink Floyd...

I have seen numerous other tribute bands, and none of them, NONE, have ever had to pay royalties or any other costs to play live music...

small potatoes, these cover bands... and no one in the music industry really cares that they play gigs at small clubs across the country nightly....

it isnt copyright infringement, it isnt a crime, it isnt a civil ofense...

[cj hood]

me and my New Yorkian friend plan on seeing these guys......

[AndILoveMike!]

Wow! You're a posse of lawyer. I didn't knew all these things, thanks for the lessonn of the day

[JohnnyChavello]

Sampling and covering are two different things. Here's the difference: a recorded song has two separate copyrights. There is a copyright in the musical composition, which is the underlying notes and melody, and there is another copyright in the sound recording, which covers the actual sounds emodied in the record.

If you sample you have to clear both copyrights (unless, in rare circumstances, the musical composition is unrecognizable and the sampling is de minimis). If you cover a song, you don't need to clear a license to the sound recording because you aren't using the actual sounds. You do need to get a compulsory license under section 115 of the Copyright Act, though. And no, you can't just do it and wait until you sell a million records to pay for it. That's bullshit. I don't know who your lawyer is, but I'd fire him.

[JohnnyChavello]

I think what everyone is talking about is the fact that small-scale uses of other artists' material are "unlikely" to ever be noticed. That's true. If a cover band that's playing local venues plays other people's music, they don't "need" to pay for it because they aren't going to get caught. If someone records a version of someone else's song and gives it out to some friends and people that show up at a live show, they probably don't "have" to pay the compulsory license fee because it is "unlikely" that anyone will ever pick up on it. This is just a cost-benefit thing, though. The truth is that all of the local artists that are doing that are committing copyright infringement. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide for yourself. I'm not saying one way or the other what I think the law should be, I'm just telling you what the law is.

[YoungRemy]

fair enough, Johnny C

[b-grrrlie]

I have seen at some concerts these copyright people. They write down every track the band plays and notes down the composers so they get paid.
Once my friends (http://www.humppa.com/) played at a festival, they're a "cover"band making humppa-versions of all kinds of hits. Sometimes it's very difficult to recognise the original track (lyrics are totally changed into Finnish, and they're about drinking, dancing humppa, getting drunk and not getting any... but always have hints to the original song). There was a woman writing down the songs, but as she couldn't recognise most of them she asked me and the merchandise guy what the original tracks were. There was a few that we were uncertain at that time so we just said they were Trad. (traditional) :D

[cj hood]

http://events.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.detail&eventID=153126.64224&hashcode=759E5789-7D11-452F-9558-4C61FBF2A34C

[Kid Presentable]

I think what everyone is talking about is the fact that small-scale uses of other artists' material are "unlikely" to ever be noticed. That's true. If a cover band that's playing local venues plays other people's music, they don't "need" to pay for it because they aren't going to get caught. If someone records a version of someone else's song and gives it out to some friends and people that show up at a live show, they probably don't "have" to pay the compulsory license fee because it is "unlikely" that anyone will ever pick up on it. This is just a cost-benefit thing, though. The truth is that all of the local artists that are doing that are committing copyright infringement. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is for you to decide for yourself. I'm not saying one way or the other what I think the law should be, I'm just telling you what the law is.
Fair enough. (y)

[YoungRemy]

http://events.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=events.detail&eventID=153126.64224&hashcode=759E5789-7D11-452F-9558-4C61FBF2A34C

what are you , their publicist? :D

seriously, are you friends with the band members or something?

[cj hood]

why are people always hounding me about this group.....can't i just like them.....can't i just post when their shows are without getting harrassed.......the admins obviously see this and do nothing about it......well i'll take this bs......i'll take it for every other male board member on here getting harrassed.......

anyway....i set up a website for this beastie cover band for all of the nonpoopie heads out there......enjoy.....

http://www.beastieboyscoverbandfansfornonpoopieheads.com