Hey I'm no fan of Creed or Janet but I think you guys are being silly.

Everytime a song gets played a royalty is owed to the writer of the song. Everytime a song gets played on the radio, that station owes money to the artist. If you play the song in public technically you the artist money no matter who you are strip club/radio/whatever. Now are they going to come after you for a DJ playing songs at your prom? No. But a strip club, sure why not. The club is making money by having dancers perform to a licensed song so why shouldn't they pay?

Think about it this way: I make a film and use music in it without permission from the artist. That movie gets distributed and starts making money. You think they won't come after me? I'm making money off their music without paying for it, I owe them a piece... whether I'm exposing the music to a new audience or whatever.

Royalties are extremely lucrative. It's my understanding that to this day Keith Richards and Mike Jagger each receive a low 5-figure royalty check every month for the song "Satisfaction". Is it money grubbing to expect to get payed for that? To me it seems pretty ludicrous to think so.

When you purchase a CD you pay for the right to play the CD for yourself not publically. It works the exact same way with movies. I can't buy a DVD, then set up a theater somewhere and charge people money to watch my DVDs. That's why every movie has a warning letting you know it isn't for public viewing. Music has the same restrictions whether you know it or not.

As for Jukeboxes, it's my understanding that the company pays a royalty everytime an individual song is played. Not a one time fee. Bob Seger has mentioned that he rewrote the lyrics to "Old Time Rock & Roll" but felt it wouldn't be a huge hit and he didn't need the money so he never asked for a co-writing credit. The song became the number one played jukebox song of all time, the original authors received a ton of money and Seger didn't see a dime for it.

These days, I wouldn't doubt if that was completely backward. It is probably the record company paying the radio station to force a certain band/artist on us two-three times an hour. There's no need for that.

I agree on the royalties thing.. sorta.. I mean in a movie/tv/radio great make your money. But to sue some stripper named Candy in podunk Alaska because she danced to "with arms wide open" last saturday night is just ridiculous. That, my friend, is greed. There is a line. SS & JJ have just crossed over it.

Well Payola is illegal, but supposedly record companies are now "sponsoring" songs on the radio... i.e. "This is Britney Spears "Toxic" brought to you by whatever her label is..." Basically a paid commercial where the commercial is the song. And yes with Clear Channel playlists and all that I agree it gets murky as to who owes what and to whom, at least for the current hit song. Everything else is pretty simple to follow and understand though.

And of course I agree that suing Candy (who does an amazing pole dance to "Arms Wide Open" btw) is plain greed. Scott and Janet probably agree too. That's why they're suing the strip club establishment and not the dancers in it. Like it or not, the music is being used for public entertainment purposes for which fees are being charged by the club, in the form of cover/food/alcohol.

IANAL, but I also think there are legal precendents involved as well. I would guess songright enforcement is similar to copyright enforcement. Say you don't sue strip bar A who is using your songs illegally. Strip bar B films their strippers dancing to the same songs A was dancing to and sells the video on late night TV ala Girls Gone Wild. You sue B because they're making millions using your music illegally. B says "hey, A isn't paying you royalties and you didn't try and enforce it so you have waived your claim to ownership". Courts would probably agree. That's the way it works in copyright law... you don't protect your copyright you lose it, so long as you had knowledge someone was using it illegally. Granted this is music but I don't see why the same principle wouldn't stand.

Personally I think this is the Strip club not wanting to cough up their <$1000 a month which they know they owe. If you can get away with it fine, but don't act surprised when you get sued. I think the RIAA is one of the more evil organizations in existence and I'm behind them 100% on this.

Does anyone make music for the sake of artistic expression anymore?

Nope. Artistic expression is the sole responsibility of the stripper now.

But still not as bad as the cable companies.

Earlier it was mentioned that this even hurts the small struggling artists. Actually any stuggling artist would be thrilled to hear their song played in a strip club (or any other club) because it gives them exposure. (something they don't get from the record company unless they are Janet Jackson or Brittney Spears). The only ones who complain are the ones who have it all anyway.

Exposure for struggling artists is good and all, but some band that few have heard of isn't going to benefit from being played in a strip club at all I wouldn't think. Granted I've never been to a strip club, but I would assume there isn't a lot of "Hey Mr. DJ, what was that last song" when some chick is naked on stage. I suppose this doesn't happen much at clubs either, but I would guess it's more common there since the audience is more likely to be musically inclined rather than boob inclined.