Lawsuit over music

[missy]

yeah - we looked into internet rates for something we were doing. It's based on how many "downloads" (that doesn't mean intentional downloads, that means the download that happens every time someone hits the website) you would have. How the heck do I know how many hits the site would have??????

Needless to say, we didn't do that particular thing on the website.

And Tom has been VERY careful to make sure he doesn't have copyright music on any site he does.

[fearfaoin]

It doesn't matter because, due to the chilling effect of the lawsuits, many venues that used to be session-friendly are now hesitant to provide a venue.

James, I wonder if this is the whole story. I don't disagree that it
is hard to find a place to host a session, but I've noticed (at least
around here) that the copyright issue is not the culpret. Even bars,
coffeehouses, and bookstores who host live music and pay their
BMI/ASCAP dues do not seem to want to host sessions. There
appears to be a growing distaste for live music that is not in a
concert format.

A friend of mine was trying to find a place to hold a songwriter's
group, where songwriters would meet to share their songs and get
feedback from other songwriters. One bookstore manager told her
that they'd had those kind of sessions before -- where the music
was for the players rather than for an audience -- and that they'd
had complaints from other bookstore customers who were confused
because the musicians weren't engaging the audience. The manager
was more than happy to host a "songwriter's showcase" concert,
though.

I'm sure that your experience will bear out your statements, but I
wonder if other factors may be at work against sessions.

[djm]

Your best bet for sessions is to find a time when the bar is regularly empty and ask the bar owner if you can jam during that time. A session is for the musicians, not the audience, as has been pointed out. If the bar owner understands that then there will be no misunderstandings or disappointments later if people do start showing up just to listen.

djm

[Caj]

Ok, maybe I was just raised differently from a lot of the people here who defend copyright infringement. I was taught to not take what doesn't belong to me and don't use something that doesn't belong to me without asking. I also learned that if I did, be prepared for the consequences.

I'm sure those other people have the same morals you do, and agree that it's wrong to take other people's stuff.

Obviously the disagreement is over something else: whether singing a song or whistling a tune really counts as "taking what doesn't belong to me." Legally no: copyrights are not property rights, songs do not "belong" to the people who write them, and quoting or singing or reading or listening is not "taking." It is sometimes an infringment of a limited statutory right to control a song's distribution.

Or let's put it this way: if that was theft, then we wouldn't even need copyright law. If it was theft you could just call the cops and have the singer arrested for theft. But you can't. You can't because it isn't theft.

Okay, but I'm oversimplifying: the real issue here is singing a song when money is involved. Once you start making money off it, the moral picture is different---and no surprise that money is half of the 4-point legal test for fair use. But again, big gray fuzzy area: what if you're not making any money, but someone else benefits in an indirect and intangible way? For example should girl scout camps be sued because the girl scouts sing copyrighted songs on hikes or around the campfire? That's indirect benefit to the camp.

Caj

[harpmaker]

Caj, I am trying to understand your viewpoint, but before I do, I need o ask a couple of questions.

Let's say you wrote a song one night while at a session. A month later you find out the same song is now a hit on the radio and you realise that the performer was at the session. Would you be ok with that?

Ok, now a similar scenario, but this time instead of hearing it on a radio, you hear it being played out somewhere and are told that it is a "traditional tune". Would you be ok with that?

[Caj]

Caj, I am trying to understand your viewpoint, but before I do, I need o ask a couple of questions.

Let's say you wrote a song one night while at a session. A month later you find out the same song is now a hit on the radio and you realise that the performer was at the session. Would you be ok with that?

Yes, although I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority there.

In the rare situation that I have enough creativity to compose a tune, I declare it public-domain straight away. Technically anyone can use it in any way, commercial or non, and I relinquish all control.

I understand, though, that most people would feel cheated by such an appropriation of their work. But think for a moment about why. You'd feel cheated because (1) someone else is stealing credit and claiming authorship, and (2) someone else is making money by selling your work.

Neither of those are true when you reverse the roles, where you write a song that's a hit on the radio, and someone else plays it at a session without your permission. This person is neither claiming authorship of your work nor seeking to profit from it. Now, I think most people won't consider that much of an injustice. In fact, it would be a slam-dunk case of fair use if it wasn't for the indirect financial benefit of whoever owns the bar.

Ok, now a similar scenario, but this time instead of hearing it on a radio, you hear it being played out somewhere and are told that it is a "traditional tune". Would you be ok with that?

That's different: I'd consider that the awesomest thing ever.

It would be like painting a portrait and later finding it on the wall of a museum.

Caj

[harpmaker]

Caj, I am trying to understand your viewpoint, but before I do, I need o ask a couple of questions.

Let's say you wrote a song one night while at a session. A month later you find out the same song is now a hit on the radio and you realise that the performer was at the session. Would you be ok with that?

Yes, although I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority there.

In the rare situation that I have enough creativity to compose a tune, I declare it public-domain straight away. Technically anyone can use it in any way, commercial or non, and I relinquish all control.

I understand, though, that most people would feel cheated by such an appropriation of their work. But think for a moment about why. You'd feel cheated because (1) someone else is stealing credit and claiming authorship, and (2) someone else is making money by selling your work.

Neither of those are true when you reverse the roles, where you write a song that's a hit on the radio, and someone else plays it at a session without your permission. This person is neither claiming authorship of your work nor seeking to profit from it. Now, I think most people won't consider that much of an injustice. In fact, it would be a slam-dunk case of fair use if it wasn't for the indirect financial benefit of whoever owns the bar.

Ok, now a similar scenario, but this time instead of hearing it on a radio, you hear it being played out somewhere and are told that it is a "traditional tune". Would you be ok with that?

That's different: I'd consider that the awesomest thing ever.

It would be like painting a portrait and later finding it on the wall of a museum.

Caj

Ok...a few more questions..

What if you wrote a paper based on research you had done, but later found it printed up under another persons name?

Or, going back to music, let's say found a song you had written on a CD by a band you had never heard of? (I understand you don't write music,...I am just exploring your thoughts here...so pretend a bit ) And on that CD they had taken the song and really butchered it up. Would that bother you?

[GaryKelly]

Ok...a few more questions..

What if you wrote a paper based on research you had done, but later found it printed up under another persons name?

That's plagiarism. Which is distinct from copyright infringement.
See wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism

Or, going back to music, let's say found a song you had written on a CD by a band you had never heard of? (I understand you don't write music,...I am just exploring your thoughts here...so pretend a bit ) And on that CD they had taken the song and really butchered it up. Would that bother you?

Caj already answered that. It's just a re-hash of your previous "radio" question but with CD as the broadcast method instead of the wireless.

There's nothing, for example, preventing someone buying the copyright to a much-loved song, then releasing a "butchered up" version of it; the songwriter, no longer owning the copyright, might feel hard-done by but there would be no copyright infringement in this case. There are plenty of legitimate 'covers' out there, as well as movie re-makes, which are complete chud compared to the originals.

What exactly is your point? I've seen no-one in this thread disputing that copyright infringement is an offence in law.

What's being debated is the sense and sensibility of the law, and the often grossly disproportionate means that large, wealthy, and powerful corporations employ to enforce such laws, and mostly for their own benefit, and quite possibly at the expense of live music as a whole.

[Caj]

Ok...a few more questions..

What if you wrote a paper based on research you had done, but later found it printed up under another persons name?

That would be wrong: but not for the act of copying, but for the false claim of credit and authorship.

For example, if the other person peer-reviewed my paper, rejected it, then sat down and wrote his own paper exhibiting the same idea, it would be just as bad, the same injustice, even though he didn't print "my" paper. Whether he committed copyright infringement would be secondary.

I think this is an example of finding an immoral act of copying that is immoral for reasons other than the copying.

Or, going back to music, let's say found a song you had written on a CD by a band you had never heard of? (I understand you don't write music,...I am just exploring your thoughts here...so pretend a bit ) And on that CD they had taken the song and really butchered it up. Would that bother you?

Again, I'm a weird case: my favorite genre of music is weird cover songs, so half my iPod consists of songs exactly like this.

My most recent acquisition is Don Ho singing "Shock the Monkey," rest his soul.

By the way, you don't need to ask permission to cover someone else's song on your CD. You can pay a default royalty to ASCAP/BMI and just do it. So this scenario isn't even a violation of copyright law.

Caj

[djm]

Caj, I am guessing here that harpmaker is trying (unsuccessfully) to find a scenario where you might feel a sense of ownership of something, and empathise with the sense of loss or outrage at having someone else take from you what you consider to be yours. That seems to be the basis of his arguments for copyright enforcement.

But GaryKelly is correct. The theme of the thread is when copyright enforcement goes beyond protecting the individual music author's rights and into extremes where all music, public or private, is included in these licensing schemes, so that it becomes more of a protection racket. Just like the thugs who run protection rackets for the mob, these music industry guys are counting on the individual bar owners as being too small to fight back against something as big, well organised and well funded as the mob ... er ... recording industry.

djm

[Tyler]

Caj, I am guessing here that harpmaker is trying (unsuccessfully) to find a scenario where you might feel a sense of ownership of something, and empathise with the sense of loss or outrage at having someone else take from you what you consider to be yours. That seems to be the basis of his arguments for copyright enforcement.

But GaryKelly is correct. The theme of the thread is when copyright enforcement goes beyond protecting the individual music author's rights and into extremes where all music, public or private, is included in these licensing schemes, so that it becomes more of a protection racket. Just like the thugs who run protection rackets for the mob, these music industry guys are counting on the individual bar owners as being too small to fight back against something as big, well organised and well funded as the mob ... er ... recording industry.

djm

Maybe we could form some sort of bar owners union or something to 'get organized.'
The local 169 Brotherhood of Tappers, Barkeeps, Brewers, Muglifters, Soda Jerks, Barroom Musicians and Cover Artists.

[fearfaoin]

Maybe we could form some sort of bar owners union or something to 'get organized.'
The local 169 Brotherhood of Tappers, Barkeeps, Brewers, Muglifters, Soda Jerks, Barroom Musicians and Cover Artists.

Sounds like the Stonecutters



We could strive to control the British Pound,
and perhaps keep the Metric System down.

[buddhu]

...
Maybe we could form some sort of bar owners union or something to 'get organized.'
The local 169 Brotherhood of Tappers, Barkeeps, Brewers, Muglifters, Soda Jerks, Barroom Musicians and Cover Artists.

Tyler, I'm disappointed. You could at least have chosen the words to give a rude acronym.

[Tyler]

...
Maybe we could form some sort of bar owners union or something to 'get organized.'
The local 169 Brotherhood of Tappers, Barkeeps, Brewers, Muglifters, Soda Jerks, Barroom Musicians and Cover Artists.

Tyler, I'm disappointed. You could at least have chosen the words to give a rude acronym.

You're right, I'm below my game today (on second cup of coffee, taking longer than normal to boot up this morning).
I'll slap something together.
Since it's Friday, i'll throw in an extra dose of offensiveness

[Tyler]

...
Maybe we could form some sort of bar owners union or something to 'get organized.'
The local 169 Brotherhood of Tappers, Barkeeps, Brewers, Muglifters, Soda Jerks, Barroom Musicians and Cover Artists.

Tyler, I'm disappointed. You could at least have chosen the words to give a rude acronym.

How about this:

the Society for Helping Independent Tappers Overcome the Niggling of the Recording Industry Artists of America