Lawsuit over music

[Mitch]

Yah,

Well, I was once a songwriter, a professional musicain and a member of the copywright organisations that suposedly re-imburse artists for their creations. Here's what I think:

It is an absurdity to try to copywright a tune. _ Should we have every second person on the planet following every third around in order to tax them if they whistle a catchy tune?

I'm sorry - intellectual utterance can never be property - if this were true then our very thoughts would be in debt to "artists" and their middle-men. It simply cannot be enforced.

An intelectual utterance lays down and becomes the dust that has, over thousands of years, built the mountain that our civilisation is built upon.

The falacy lies in the paradigm of money. Money is devoid of cultural value.

For any artist or "intellectual" to be re-imbursed for his/her contribution to the social pool (value) - it must be an act of social reimbursement (value) - not financial.

I propose that artists be granted free food, lodging and services by virtue of the value they donate to the world. The providors of services should be free to say no to any artist they dislike. Habitual deniers of value will simply be without music. If music has value then so be it.

Money is something for politicians, lawyers and bankers - make no mistake - it has never been at the service of human beings.

This is not a crackpot notion - we are not very far removed in history from a time where this arrangement has worked very well.

What we have now could never last.

Be brave artists - the time is soon. All survivors enjoy a tune.

I'm pretty sure that most savvy artists have already seen this all coming and distribute directly via the web - the major music companies are just going through their death throes, making lots of noise and just generally dieing gracelessly - stinks, but will be compost before long.

Give them a nudge and refuse to buy from anyone except the artist direct. It will reduce greenhouse gas and there will, ultimately, be no one left to commence a littigation.

Or you could continue to support the bullsh*t and continue to pay middle men for your music and fuel their lawyers. If you do, then you have chosen what kind of world you want. Welcome to it and stop bitching.

[GaryKelly]

Using someone elses work beyond the scope of exising copyright laws and/or without their permission is theft. Period

No it isn't. Period.

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Performing a piece of copyright music does not permanently deprive the composer of it, and you'd have a hard time proving that the performance was a dishonest appropriation of 'property' carried out with the specific intention of such permanent deprivation.

Bullhockey. By your definition if I came around to your house and took your possesions, all I would have to do is say, "Well, I wasn't taking them permanently...I was going to return them."

If someone takes off in your car without your permission, are you going to just smile and nod when he returns it? Yeah, right.

I will never understand why normally honest people are willing to defend copyright infringement or theft or what ever you want to call it. I've known people who wanted a particular peice of music, but instead of buying the book it's in, ask someone who has it to just photocopy that page. My responce is "do you want me to reach into the composers pocket and take some money while I'm at it?

I have had this sort of discussion before and have heard all sorts of defenses for the taking of another persons work. But there is no way to cover up the fact that it is taking someone elses work without their permission.

And where I come from, that is just wrong.

It's not bullhockey at all, and neither is it my definition. It is the definition of the offence of Theft according the Theft Act. Laws have precise definitions for a purpose. So do words.

In your example concerning my house possessions, it would be for the prosecution to prove and the jury to decide whether or not your appropriation of my belongings was dishonest and done with the intent of permanently depriving me of them, or whether you genuinely intended to return them too me (if, for example, you were holding them hostage against an unpaid debt).

In your example of someone driving off in my car, there is a specific offence of "Taking without the owner's consent" (TWOC for short over here). This offence was created specifically because most "joyriders" have no intention of keeping the car they've driven off, merely using it and then dumping it somewhere, which is not theft by definition (no intention to permanently deprive the owner).

Performing a copyright work is not "taking another person's work". It is reproducing it, or copying it. You cannot 'take' something which does not actually exist until performed. Hence the offence of infringement of copyright.

Of course infringement of copyright is an offence, and thus "just wrong". That's what an offence is, and what the Copyright Act is all about.

But please don't continue to propagate the weasel nonsense that it's theft. It isn't, any more than copying software (which doesn't exist until 'performed' by suitable hardware) is 'piracy' or running over a hedgehog is murder.

I've known people who wanted a particular peice of music, but instead of buying the book it's in, ask someone who has it to just photocopy that page. My responce is "do you want me to reach into the composers pocket and take some money while I'm at it?

Unless the composer holds the mechanical rights to the printed work, it'll be the mechanical rights holder's pocket (usually the corporation who published the book) not the composer's.

Consider a book of traditional tunes, for example, where none of the tunes are copyright, but photocopying a page is an infrigement of the publisher's copyright. No composer's pockets would be harmed and nothing would be 'taken' from the publisher... the publisher simply doesn't earn revenue from another sale and thus doesn't profit from the copying.

If the composer is still extant, he or she will already have been paid by the publisher for the mechanical rights and will receive either no more money or perhaps a pittance in royalties (assuming the book sales earn out the composer's advance).

It's still an infringement of copyright. As is singing 'Happy Birthday' to someone, which is why I'm not going to sing Happy Birthday to Cheetah in celebration of his 75th. Nor am I going to sit silently lest I infringe against Mr Cage. Instead I shall compose my own ditty on the fly and mumble it quietly to a public domain melody.

[missy]

Lemme try this one more time.

I have NO problem paying an artist for his intellectual "whateveryouwanttocallit". I'VE DONE SO MANY TIMES! I've played in venus that have asked that we only do public domain stuff - and we honor that request. We always ask before we play somewhere what we can or can't play to stay "legal".

I have problems paying MIDDLE MEN for intellectual "whateveryouwanttocallit". I don't buy CDs from box stores if I can help it, I buy them directly from the artist if it is at all possible. With all the computer capabilities available, it's very easy to do all your CD "in house", and I'm sure production companies and clearing houses are in a panic.

We have one song on our CD that it took us three weeks of digging, emailing, and all kinds of things to find out who "owned" it. We knew it was written by someone, but it took quite a while to figure it out. When we did, we dutifully payed our 8 1/2 cents per copy (minimum 500 copies) to Harry Fox to filter to the correct person. We can't play it in public unless the venu also has a performance license, even though we payed to record it (I still would like to know how much of that $42.50 the composer got). We can't TAB it out because that would take yet a third license, even though we payed to record it.

ALL I WANT TO DO IS PLAY MUSIC! I don't have a legal degree! I never claim a song as "mine" - if we are playing somewhere that has paid their fees, we always state who wrote it, where we learned it, why we play it.

And when we found out that a song we had TABed out and offered on our site was NOT public domain, as we were told, but was written in 1990, we took it down, wrote the author, and offered financial compensation with an apology. He could have sued us - but he was human (and a fellow musician) and understood easily what had happened and refused to take money.

[Tyler]

Using someone elses work beyond the scope of exising copyright laws and/or without their permission is theft. Period

No it isn't. Period.

A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Performing a piece of copyright music does not permanently deprive the composer of it, and you'd have a hard time proving that the performance was a dishonest appropriation of 'property' carried out with the specific intention of such permanent deprivation.

Bullhockey. By your definition if I came around to your house and took your possesions, all I would have to do is say, "Well, I wasn't taking them permanently...I was going to return them."

that's a sh*t loophole, and you know it. And to be completely clear, that is the legal definition of theft.

Since you have an interest in the semantics of the issue, lets have a look at what you said:

Using someone elses work beyond the scope of exising copyright laws and/or without their permission is theft. Period

No, that's copyright infringement under definition of federal law.
When cases of music piracy go to court, never is the term "theft" heard, because the case in question is about the infringement of copyright law, not the deprivation of personal property or materials.
Intellectual property, being something unable to lay hands on by definition of law, needed to be dealt with differently under the law (material goods and personal properties have set dollar values, while it is impossible to affix a dollar value to an "idea"), which is why copyright law stands as it is today.

at any rate, this is probably fodder for Jared's forum at this point.
Anyone up for moving the discussion?

[fearfaoin]

at any rate, this is probably fodder for Jared's forum at this point.
Anyone up for moving the discussion?

Not until someone tells me who the hell Harry Fox is...

[Tyler]

Harry Fox (25 May 1882, Pomona, California - 20 July 1959, Woodland Hills, Los Angeles, California), born Arthur Carringford, was a vaudeville dancer and comedian, most famous for giving his name to the Fox Trot dance. His steps were recorded by dance instructor F. L. Clendenen in his 1914 book Dance Mad as "The Fox Trot, as danced by Mr. Fox". Harry Fox made a few recordings of popular songs and appeared in a few silent films, most notably the serial "Beatrice Fairfax". In the early sound era he made some talking short films such as "Harry Fox and his American Beauties" and "The Fox and the Bee" (with his partner and wife Beatrice) but by the 1930s his fame was over and he lived a life of obscurity getting work in films playing bit parts. In the 1920s he was briefly married to one of the famous Ziegfeld performers The Dolly Sisters. He was still living in 1945 when the biographic picture "The Dolly Sisters" was made. The movie shows the marriage happening during World War I, a subsequent divorce, and a reunion after Jenny Dolly's accident.

from Wikiworld

[missy]

http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp

this is who you pay for a mechanical (recording) license.

[Martin Milner]

I can see how playing pre-recorded music in a pub or bar without permission is a no-no, and the licensee should pay for the priviledge - presumably the licensee is playing the music in an attempt to boost beer sales.

I can't see how a group of sessioneers playing a "copyrighted" tune can do anything bad for the composer or copyright owner. They're more likely to boost awareness of the tune, and possibly result in more sales.

[fearfaoin]

http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp
this is who you pay for a mechanical (recording) license.

Thank you! I may need this info before too long.

I wonder if a mech. license is needed for recording parodies?
I would assume so, since you're using the melody, but parody
is covered under Free Use...

[missy]

I don't know about paradies, but I have several friends who do them. Next time I see one of them I'll ask.
***************************************

Here's some truly illegal stuff that we can't do a darn thing about - SINCE WE AREN'T MEMBERS OF BMI OR ASCAP!!!!

People have "stolen" our MP3s off of our site. They didn't ask, they didn't notify us, but I occasionally do a google search on us and find them this way. Most of these sites are impossible to even find contact information on, but I did communicate with one of them. They basically told me it wasn't "their" problem and there was nothing I could do about it.

http://xfanlfbk.0catch.com/screek/s-creek.htm
http://mp3search.01-mp3search.com/top53-tom-and.html
http://freedownload.mp3-search.hu/hangm ... man-0.html

We've also heard there's a MP3 being sold that has us prerecorded on it. Again - no permission asked, nothing.

So, please don't tell me this is all in place "for the artists".

[fearfaoin]

Ugh, that sucks. I talked to a small musical group who worked at
Reanaissance Faires (so they depended greatly on live performance),
and when they first found their mp3s on a site one member called
the other and said, "Hey, someone thinks we're good enough to
steal! Awesome!" So, I guess you can take a positive view of it...

The group in question has started releasing stuff under the Creative
Commons license, so their fans can now legally make videos using
their music and post them on youtube, or record themselves playing
the tune, etc, as long as credit is given to the original writer/performer.
This seems like a good move, for them at least, because it expands
their potential exposure to new fans.

[djm]

Here's some truly illegal stuff that we can't do a darn thing about - SINCE WE AREN'T MEMBERS OF BMI OR ASCAP!!!!

We've also heard there's a MP3 being sold that has us prerecorded on it. Again - no permission asked, nothing.

So, please don't tell me this is all in place "for the artists".

You're not a member, so you are not covered under their protection racket. So what have you got to complain about? You are, in fact, proving their point, that you need their protection to keep your rights from being abused. You can't have it both ways.

djm

[missy]

Here's some truly illegal stuff that we can't do a darn thing about - SINCE WE AREN'T MEMBERS OF BMI OR ASCAP!!!!

We've also heard there's a MP3 being sold that has us prerecorded on it. Again - no permission asked, nothing.

So, please don't tell me this is all in place "for the artists".

You're not a member, so you are not covered under their protection racket. So what have you got to complain about? You are, in fact, proving their point, that you need their protection to keep your rights from being abused. You can't have it both ways.

djm

djm - IF they did something about this, what would it be?

Close down the site? The people would just open another one.

Legally go after the site? Fine, and after they get their fees paid what would that get us? I doubt it would get us whatever they yearly membership fees are. And, again, these people would still just go and open up another site.

But IF they were really in place for the artist, wouldn't they go after this kind of stuff regardless of whether WE are members or not? Nah - they'll go after someplace that there's at least a hope of getting money from.

And - yeah - if these sites would have at least ASKED first, we wouldn't have any problem with it (although one of those songs we'd really prefer they didn't have up). But they didn't ask, they just took them off of our website, and it's not even the whole song because WE didn't put that on our website!

The point is we weren't asked. We aren't being given credit. There's no link to our site. And if BMI was in place "for the musician" they would be trying to do something about this, whether we're members or not.

[djm]

I don't know a magic answer for theft of recordings. Obviously the recording industry hasn't got one either. They terrorize the odd college campus now and then, or beat up on a bar owner, but no-one has found a tool that is really effective.

Canadian singer/songwriter Jann Arden found that by putting up an exclusive web-only song every now and then that she actually helped boost her iTunes and CDs sales. Who knew?

But why would you complain about people giving your music away for free on-line, but get upset about BMI enforcing a license on a bar owner who was playing recordings (maybe even yours) publicly without consent or any recompense?

The impression I get is that the law suits and license enforcements are attempts to disuade people from acting in an illegal manner. Like anything else, it works on law-abiding people and fails with the criminals.

djm

[missy]

I'm just saying it's inconsistant. I really could care less whether BMI cares what's on the internet (I'm just upset that someone feels they don't have to at least ask), but I think it's inconsistant to go after one venu and not another. And I know they've gone after some websites, too - again it just seems so inconsistant in how they do it.

Ideally - I'd much rather music was handled like a patent and not as it is now. Have a set length of time for exclusivity, then it goes into public domain. We can thank "the Mouse" for the stupid length of times before stuff goes to public domain now.
Why should Jimi Hendrix' 2nd cousins make money if I play a song of his? Why should Michael Jackson (ok, I know ,he sold this and this is no longer the case) make money if I play a song John Lennon wrote in a commercial?
One of the songs we plan to record in the future was written by the friend I reference in a previous post that died in August. I have NO idea who or what David's estate is. I have NO idea who we are going to pay (it's not on Harry Fox). I have an idea WHO I would like to profit from it, and I think he would have approved, too (Blair School of Music) but I have no idea if that is legally permissable. So when we do get to recording it, I can see we'll probably have another month long search to go through. Oh - and this is one of the songs that has been "pirated" from us.