Copyrights and Sessions

[jsluder]

It sounds like it's time for more kitchen sessions.

[Azalin]

It sounds like it's time for more kitchen sessions.

The only problem is that kitchens make me remember I don't cook, hopefully living rooms will do

I had a great home session last night, I really think they're the best, because you usually end up with people you like to play with.

[anniemcu]

...
And we all know where our glorious "Local Authorities" stand when it comes to making a quick buck out of fines:

http://noiseloop.com/article.php/20040525044230781

"Recent experience indicates the lengths to which some local authorities go in applying the letter of the law. A landlord was fined £500, with more than £1,500 costs, for allowing four of his regulars to sing 'Happy Birthday' (without an entertainment license); another was threatened with court action when patrons were seen to be 'tapping their feet' to, and therefore being 'entertained' by, unauthorised music. The new Licensing Bill provides even more opportunities for 'jobsworth' interference in harmless activities."

:roll:

So... what's next? Are we going to start seeing patrons fined for that toe tapping? "The nerve of these people! Enjoying themselves! How Dare They! And to music! I mean, what do people think music is *for*, after all?!?"

PErsonally, I'm kind on the side of the fence that says, "to enjoy and share". I do expect to be paid royalties for each copy sold, and for any cover done and sold *as a recording*, but otherwise... it gets ridiculaous.

Hmmm... as an artist (graphic, mostly) I am familiar with the concept of 'borrowed' and or stolen work, and the frustrations of seeing others making money using my hard work while I get nothing. It's not a happy thing.

However.

There are some key points to this dilema (sp?). I make the original art (equivelent to writing the tune or song), and present that original work for show and sale. There is only one copy of it unless I make prints.

If I make prints, and they actually sell, I get paid. Either the original, or one of those prints sometimes turn up on the walls of, say, the dentist office. Now... should I be able to charge the dentist for each time someone looks at my artwork, or did I get paid for that artwork when he purchased it?

I got paid for it when he purchased it. He now owns that piece, or the print thereof, and is free to do with it as he sees fit... even to the point of painting over it, or lining his bird cage with it, if that is his choice. The point where it would become a problem is if he chose to charge people admission to come look at *that piece* of art, and did not pay me royalties for the money he made by direct use of my art. But using BMI's precident, since he makes money everytime people come through his door, and since they see, or have the opportunity to see my artwork every time they go by it, I should have the right to either be paid a fee or require that he remove my artwork. Of course, he would certainly not be very interested in ever procuring any mre of my work, and therefore my income would actually suffer, rather than be improved.

He has a business that is not art related, so the appearance of my art on his walls does not threaten my making a living. In fact, if people who enjoy the art on his walls see my name on one and seek me out to purchase some for themselves, I might actually be getting "free advertizing"... so... should I be paying him for exposing my work to a wider audience?

So... if, as BMI implies, the mere playing of tunes in a place of business (not directly related to the sale of music in printed or recorded form, or ticketed concert), constitutes making money from the use of copyrighted music ownership, then conversely, the owners of said music might be held responsible for the marketing boost that such exposure provides. Perhaps *that* is why they are so all fired bent on seeing to it that it doesn't get played? Rather a foolish view, I think.

I have bought much music because I heard some of it somewhere (usually other than the radio) or because someone recommended the artist (often at a session or in conversation at a place of food and beverage). If I had never heard anyone play a tune I liked, and answered my question of "Where'd you get that?" with the name of some artist, I'd likely never have bought, or grown interested in, a lot of music - traditional or new.

Why do you sell recordings? To have them played. Why do you pay for advertising? So people who don't already own your music will hear some and want it. So... why not bask in the glow of popularity through free exposure? After all, you already got paid for the contract, the original release and subsequent disc sales.

Greed. It's a very self defeating practice.

Incidently, this view of 'make em pay til they bleed' happened at about the same time that big name companies discovered that they could actually get people to pay them for T-shirts that advertize their products. Think Nike.

They *used* to just give away T-shirts at store opiennings etc. Now people pay, and quite handsomely, for the "priveledge" of wearing advertizing for already big name merchants. Interesting, eh?

[ChrisA]

I would have simply shelved the tune, and stuck with trad tunes, execpt for this:
Our old slow session was being held in a coffee shop on Sunday afternoons.
One day, a representative of BMI talked to the owner of this coffee shop, and
told her that if she had any kind of live music, she had to put up an anual fee
to cover any copyright issues. She didn't want to pay this fee just for us
(understandably), so we lost that session. Anyway, if a venue has ponied up,
do you folks feel that there's a problem with sessioners playing a trad-style
tune or two that is not in the public domain?

I have to say, this is so much crap. They do -not- have any right to any fees for
the performance of trad tunes, (or even to modern jigs and reels composed by artists
they don't represent, but best be careful there.) BMI is a private entity, and they
have -only- the power of copyright law, and there -is no copyright- on trad tunes.
This is lawyer-backed extortion at its worst.

The Brits, on the other hand, it sounds like they enshrined their extortion scheme into
its own statute with no exception for public domain works, so Britney Spears and her
manager get a cut every time some plays Bucks of Oranmore on the pipes. Makes tons
of sense, I'm sure.

The Korean music case is also most like a case of flat-out lying extortion. There just isn't
much Asian music pressed by American labels. Unfortunately, there is some, so even if
all your CDs come from Asian imports, you have to know if any of those CD titles also
have given American distribution rights to BMI, and such.

I hate the f***ing music industry.

[McHaffie]

I'll never forget later part of last year when a BMI "agent" came into a coffehouse we were playing at regularly and told the manager / owner that he would have to pay an annual fee also.

He basically told the guy to go ---- himself and that there wasn't anyway he was paying a fee for music that wasn't under their licensing. That same guy came and sat in on our sessions for 2 months!!!! Every single week!

What a jerk! All we played were trad tunes, and we all especially watched it when he showed up for the night. He actually approached us one night and asked us the name of the tune we had just played. It was Wind That Shakes the Barley. He frantically wrote it down in some booklet and left. That was the last time we saw him. I don't know if he got a butt-chewing for wasting time on a traditional session when he checked out the tune, gave up, or what.

I wonder if you can copyright arrangements of tunes? Surely not?

The owner of the coffeeshop did end up having to get rid of his tuesday open-mic night over it because of people playing well known songs.

It's all a bunch of crap in my opinion. That would be like me wanting payment for every time someone played their whistle after they bought it from me. What the heck is that? "Hey, hey, hey! Gimme my nickel! You played my whistle again!" Doh! Whatever. Might as well be a lease.

-John

[ChrisA]

I'll never forget later part of last year when a BMI "agent" came into a coffehouse we were playing at regularly and told the manager / owner that he would have to pay an annual fee also.

He basically told the guy to go ---- himself and that there wasn't anyway he was paying a fee for music that wasn't under their licensing.

Yay! Many kudos to the coffeehouse owner! Tell him he's a hero on the board.
(At least he's a hero from my point of view )


--Chris

[BrassBlower]

This is why I try to...

[walrii]

First, a clarification to a previous post: The money collected by ASCAP/BMI/whoever for public performances of copyrighted music goes to the song writer, not the original performer. Performers get paid from CD sales and tours, not performances by other artists. So, Spears, et al aren't getting your money unless they actually wrote the song you are performing.

Song writers roylaties are not very high. I'm not sure of the exact numbers but a song writer either has to write many, many songs or get a mega-hit to make any money. A performer, on the other hand, can at least make a living if he's good, works hard and plays music that's popular in his locale.

BMI and ASCAP may be increasing their efforts to collect roylaties because of all the lost revenue from file sharing. CD sales are falling as people get music free over the net. I suspect BMI, etc. are engaged in a "copyright awareness program." If their tactics really are as goonish as described above, this may backfire on them.

[anniemcu]

...The owner of the coffeeshop did end up having to get rid of his tuesday open-mic night over it because of people playing well known songs...

Yup, that free advertising is dangerous stuff... and think about it... what if the guy playing it did a terrible job?... or worse... better?

It's pretty darned petty, and ... well... there is a time when the term is quite suitable - stupid.

[Darwin]

First, a clarification to a previous post: The money collected by ASCAP/BMI/whoever for public performances of copyrighted music goes to the song writer, not the original performer. Performers get paid from CD sales and tours, not performances by other artists. So, Spears, et al aren't getting your money unless they actually wrote the song you are performing.

You're right. But it's still unlikely that the writers of unpopular songs will get anything. I betcha that BMI guy who came to my son's restaurant couldn't even pronounce the names of the songs being played, much less find out who wrote them.

If a venue pays some kind of annual fee, how on earth do the people collecting that fee know how to distribute the money? Do they have someone at every performance, noting down the names of all the songs being done? Or, do they require that the owner of the place report that to them?

I don't have the slightest objection to paying royalties to the actual song writer for every song that I make money playing. However, it's obvious that this is not what's happening. Surely some kind of reform is needed. Maybe some clever person should figure out what really needs to be done, then the rest of us could start bugging our government folks to get it to happen.

I do think it's a gyp that background music should require payment. I doubt that anyone would put background music over food quality in a restaurant, and I sure don't pick my doctor or dentist based on whether he or she even has music in the waiting room. So, it seems ridiculous to argue that these folks are making even a penny by playing music for their customers.

[Hiro Ringo]

JASRAC here,the same annoying ridiculous thing.


I have never been interested in the music which can be shared by files(frankly thats not even 'music' to me, that's just so called 'information').

So even if that sort of music turned out to be unprofitable,I wouldnt mind.I wouldnt mind something really predictable.

[Jon-M]

Here's a long and well-informed discussion on this subject from the Session site:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/d ... 5/comments

[anniemcu]

Here's a long and well-informed discussion on this subject from the Session site:
http://www.thesession.org/discussions/d ... 5/comments

Excellent! I am printing out a copy of that letter (From the assistent General Counsel to the Congressman) to keep with me in my instrument bag for the inevitiable challenge.

[anniemcu]

Part of the absurdity of and irony of this whole issue is that in seeking to protect the copyright and ownership of *intellectual property*, we ignore, deny or effectively prohibit the fact that such stuff influences all who see, hear or read it.

If you grew up listening to the radio in the 50's, you are likely to have experience, auditorily (is that really a word?) a lot of music that leads you to independently think of certain patterns and little snips and clips (is using that ancient expression now copyright infringement?) of melodies and patterns in your own creative works.

The same would be true for any era, and any locale, and any social tradition that puts a particular body of work within your experience are.

So... how do we ... and more importantly, *should* we really be turning the entire historical tendency of humans to hum, sing, whistle, tap, manipulate sound into something of marketable ownership?

A book is published and presented in concrete form. A song can be done so too. If I quote a poem from a book I've read to a friend, am I stealing the author's work, or recommending that my friend experience the author themselves?

Now, if I am being *paid* to recite those lines, then they'd either better be my own, or I better have permission to use them. But if I'm not being paid? Who should have the right to decide what I can think and share with someone?

We're not talking about a pack of trading cards here. We're talking about experience. How do we, and again *should* we, be ascertaining, monitoring and charging for the influence thought and creativity have on individuals?

This is so much more than a question of who owns what. We are arguable made up of the things we see, hear, read, etc. When does my hearing a tune quit being my own experience and become someone else's "product"? I know that there are some clear examples, such as if and when I copy that tune or the majorly recognizable portions of it and use it as my own. Plagiarism is understandably illegal. But if I whistle a tune I like while I walk down the street, ride a bus, sit on a park bench, or sit with friends around a pub table, am I sharing an experience or stealing someone's property? Again, I think that as long as I acknowledge the original artist, or the book or recording I got it from, which is the frequent outcome of "Great tune! What was that?", I am not doing damage to the copyright owner, but a service.

In that view, the logical reaction might be to turn the legal tables and sue for undue influence, interference, 'thought pollution', and other forms of outrage at having my experience of life overly changed by hearing a disgusting song over and over and over again.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm...

[brewerpaul]

Sheesh! Given the thousands of trad and pseudo-trad tunes out there, plus the multiple names that many of the tunes, do you really think these goons would know a copywrighted tune if they heard it? Lets face it, a lot of trad tunes sound awfully similar.
I'm not advocating taking someone elses work and performing it for profit without paying the fees, but for a bunch of people sitting around having a good time playing for their own enjoyment to have to put up with this is ludicrous (I realize that some of these sessions take place in commercial places like pubs, and the owners are in some way profiting from this music, but c'mon...).
A suggestion-- teach the freakin' tune, and make up a name for it! Someone posted an online Celtic Tune Title Generator a while back. Let THEM try to figger it out!
Personally, if Iwrote a tune, I'd be honored and pleased if folks liked it enough to play it for their own enjoyment.