Lawsuit over music

[missy]

How about this:

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

Ohhhhhhhh - I likes it!!!!!

[Denny]

much better!!

[Tyler]

/takes a bow

thank you, thank you

[harpmaker]

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

It can also be copyright infringement....see the article you posted

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.

However, the original author did get paid by the person buying the copyright, and therefore released any claims. The reason I asked it was because Caj indicated he might consider it an honor.

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.

Well sort of... I guess what bothered me was Caj's statement that when a person writes a song it doesn't belong to them. If that is that case, then how can they have any rights to it whatsoever? Why shouldn't a song be considered property? And why is music so often considered differently than other forms of copyright? Which was why I was asking about a research paper...I was wondering if Cajs feelings extended that way too.

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.

I have previously said that if people feel the copyright laws are wrong, then get them changed. But violating a law just because one doesn't like it doesn't help, and IMO the flagrant violation of copyright laws just helps make the situation worse. Please understand...I don't like the law any more than the next guy. It is overly complicated and is very hard to enforce.

[GaryKelly]

Please understand...I don't like the law any more than the next guy. It is overly complicated and is very hard to enforce.

You got that right, and therein, methinks, lies the rub.

The 'mob', as djm points out, too frequently uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, and the repercussion of *that* is enormous amounts of resentment. Resentment to the point, I think, of individuals subsequently cocking a snoot at the plethora of 'rights enforcement' corporations.

That snoot-cocking, like the newly-formed Society for Helping Independent Tappers Overcome the Niggling of the Recording Industry Artists of America, then leads to an escalation on behalf of the corporations to the extent that we've seen (such as a pub landlord being taken to court because a couple of his customers sang 'happy birthday' to a mate of theirs in his pub, which didn't hold the requisite 'entertainment licenses').

One pub franchise in the UK famously ripped out all its juke boxes and banned all live music as well, simply in protest against the 'entertainment tax' that all sorts of Rights organisations were demanding.

It's gotten so bad in the UK now that practically the only way you can perform music 'in a public place' (which includes your own back yard so long as anyone else can be 'entertained' by your performance) is to have a couple of Morris Dancers on hand (dear lord! The bells!). You can be done for simply busking, whether or not you're aim is to earn money from passers-by. And that sucketh.

[Scott McCallister]

You know, after following this thread for a week now, I'm surprised that no one has offered perhaps the most obvious solution. If it is that much of a pain in the arse to pay for the use of someone else's music, then write your own damned set of chunes and go play. You would own the copyrights as well as the performance rights. Throw a mini-disc in front of you and you will own the mechanical rights as well. No one will pester you about playing someone else's work, the bar owner will not be in jeopardy, and since the prevailing attitude is against organizations that function as the actual machinery that "supports the arts", you won't have any performing rights societies, giving any one any grief.

The only small hurdle here is coming up with a couple or three of hours of music. Oh and by the way, it should be something that is pleasant to listen to and won't drive off a paying crowd in a bar. Oh, and it should be widely known by other musicians who will come to play with you, and recognized by the patrons as well.

I offer this solution tongue in cheek. Crafting music well, even if it is only 16 bars of diddly music, is challenging. It takes some time. Much more challenging to further position it in a market place, which takes even more time.

I challenge any of you who seem to think BMI's actions in this instance are excessive to write and produce 45 minutes (one paying set in a bar or one CD's worth) of ORIGNIAL music that is good enough to draw interest by other players or even a casual listener and not feel a sense of accomplishment, pride, expertise, and ownership of the final product.

Some of you suggested that you would be willing to give up a tune you have written and not feel any sense of loss or need for recompense if it made it to the radio and was widely and frequently broadcast. That's fine. No one is going to twist your arm and make you play into the system. But if your work is really that good, a lot of people will make a lot of money from it, while the warm fuzzy feeling you get and $4.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

BUT... some folks out there, artists who are widely admired, DO in fact want a cash reward for the hard work they put into learning, perfecting, and practicing their craft. So they do play into the system. They register copyrights, they contract with publishers and record labels. They pay a substantial part of the income generated by the sales of their art, not only to PRS organizations, but to attorneys, accountants, agents, etc,... ad nauseum... to ensure that the artist themselves will receive financial benefit for their efforts as well.

Nobody scoffs at paying the price for a computer (these days they're pretty cheap actually for some) but resentment for having to pay for software is normal, almost expected, and hey, can I borrow your Install disc?

One is meaningless without the other. Shouldn't the creators of both be paid for their work?

It's a hard world we live in today. Remarkably it seems to keep getting harder. Watch the 10:00 news any day of the week and tell me different.

A rare few individuals are able to find a sense of self and purpose and meaning by creating something that is beautiful, in stark contrast to the ether it manifests from. Something that others find beauty in or in some small way, respite and soft comfort from the hard world we move through every day.

Most of us go through a week consuming hundreds of dollars worth of consumer goods, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, without so much as a second thought about it. It is the asphalt of our path in life. Why then is it so hard to conceive that the art, whether it be music, or painting, or sculpture, or dance, or whathaveyou, that adds the beauty to this hard place and makes it more bearable, is not worthy of the few shekels that should be paid?

It's most disturbing to see a bunch of (even casual) musicians take this stand.

[missy]

Scott - please , PLEASE read my original post over again.

I have NO PROBLEM paying a composer for his work. I HAVE paid mechanical fees. I HAVE paid performance fees. I totally feel that is the correct thing to do. We spent THREE WEEKS researching one song to figure out who to pay. We could have just as easily blown that off, if it took us that long to figure out the composer, no one else would have probably figured it out that it wasn't our own composition.

What I have a problem with is paying a middle man. The LAWYER didn't compose the song. BMI, ASCAP, or whomever didn't compose the song. WHY, because they can go after others, should I pay THEM?

Jimi Hendrix's 2nd cousin removed didn't compose the songs. Why should I pay him?

Do you understand what my problem is? It's not that I'm trying to get by with something for free. I'm doing my best to not do something illegal.

I'M NOT TRYING TO FINANCE A LAWYER'S NEW BOAT!

Do you understand the difference????

[djm]

Some of you suggested that you would be willing to give up a tune you have written and not feel any sense of loss or need for recompense if it made it to the radio and was widely and frequently broadcast.

Get a grip, Scott. This is an ITM forum. When we talk about writing a tune we are talking about a new reel or polka, not top 40 hit parade material. When people in ITM write a new tune and they hear other people play the tune at the local session its a big rush, an honour and a compliment. That is how tunes by Paddy Fahey or Vincent Broderick have gotten so well known.

They did not ask for recompense other than that people play their music. Where does BMI or any other organisation get off charging a bar owner a license fee for the sessioneers to play these tunes? That is what people are arguing here. BMI doesn't own the music. The authors didn't pay anyone to register the music. What is the license for?

djm

[Caj]

I guess what bothered me was Caj's statement that when a person writes a song it doesn't belong to them. If that is that case, then how can they have any rights to it whatsoever?

...because it's a statutory right. The Constitution allows Congress to invent artificial time-limited rights to control inventions and compositions.

These are assigned to you not because you own the thing, but because it is good for the economy to give you a short-term financial incentive to create.

And chew on this: before Disney's lobbying, copyrights were only 14 years long, and you had to apply to have one, like a patent. Does that sound like some kind of natural property right? In fact, it's impossible for Congress to make copyrights indefinite, like property rights: the Constitution doesn't grant them that power. All copyrights must expire, because the end goal is enriching the public domain.

Edited to add:

I have previously said that if people feel the copyright laws are wrong, then get them changed. But violating a law just because one doesn't like it doesn't help, and IMO the flagrant violation of copyright laws just helps make the situation worse.

I think a lot of people agree on this point. I don't think the dispute is over whether we should obey the law, but over what the law means, and how much it covers.

Regarding coverage: copyright law doesn't let you prohibit someone from covering your song. Nor does it let you prohibit "fair" acts of copying or performance, e.g. non-commercial performances that don't impact the market for your work. Those are generally fair use.

After all, the right is granted to help you make money: it is power to stop other people from making money that belongs to you. It doesn't really give you control over situations outside of that framework.

Regarding meaning: some people seem to think that a copyright implies that they own songs. No; neither does marriage mean that you own your spouse.

Caj

[Scott McCallister]

Scott - please , PLEASE read my original post over again.

I have NO PROBLEM paying a composer for his work. I HAVE paid mechanical fees. I HAVE paid performance fees. I totally feel that is the correct thing to do. We spent THREE WEEKS researching one song to figure out who to pay. We could have just as easily blown that off, if it took us that long to figure out the composer, no one else would have probably figured it out that it wasn't our own composition.

It's admirable that you went to such lengths to pay for that tune. What would you have done if you needed to use 8 hours of music? At 3min/song =20/hour x 8 hours = 160 songs x lets say only 3 DAYS not weeks to find each composer = 1year and 4 months or so to get that worked out. That's for 1 night's worth of bar music from 5:00p- 1:00a No one is going to do that...

Most bars are open about 300 days a year.
A PRS license is useful here, do you see?

What I have a problem with is paying a middle man. The LAWYER didn't compose the song. BMI, ASCAP, or whomever didn't compose the song. WHY, because they can go after others, should I pay THEM?

You're obviously pretty savvy about this stuff, you know that a PRS is the vehicle that will get the rights holder paid. The artist doesn't have the resources as a single individual to go around collecting fees from every radio station, movie studio, bar, restaurant, concert hall or retail shop that has their tune playing. So the artists agree to pay some of their performance royalties to PRSs to have them collect the fees, and now they can get on with the business of being a musician.

Jimi Hendrix's 2nd cousin removed didn't compose the songs. Why should I pay him?

Do you understand what my problem is? It's not that I'm trying to get by with something for free. I'm doing my best to not do something illegal.

I'M NOT TRYING TO FINANCE A LAWYER'S NEW BOAT!

Do you understand the difference????

Ya, I do. But you have to look at some other rules. Copyright is currently set at Life + 75. That means that the estate of the composer will continue to enjoy copyright for the duration of her life, plus an additional 75 years after they die. So in the instance of Hendrix, or Elvis, or Joplin, (Scott or Janice) the heirs to their estate are entitled to the earnings from the use of the song for 75 years. If that happens to be a 2nd cousin removed, or Lisa Marie, so be it. The attorneys are just another cog in the machine. They get paid too, and if they want to buy a new boat, I don't see why they shouldn't.

Get a grip, Scott. This is an ITM forum. When we talk about writing a tune we are talking about a new reel or polka, not top 40 hit parade material.

The difference here being...? I don't see it. You're saying because it is less popular than top 40, ITM shouldn't enjoy the same protections and rights? That doesn't make sense to me.

When people in ITM write a new tune and they hear other people play the tune at the local session its a big rush, an honour and a compliment. That is how tunes by Paddy Fahey or Vincent Broderick have gotten so well known.

It's also a big rush for writers of contemporary music. It's quite an ego stroke.

But if you don't think ITM is hitting any kind of mainstream audience where some real money is attached, have a look at the 2nd installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy. There is a fight scene in a bar which happens to have a band playing. The tune? Fisher's Hornpipe. This movie has box office grossed to date $1,065,659,812 world wide. (this isn't including any kind of merchandising or other media, like video games or fast food promos) Now, Fisher's is public domain, I believe, but lets pretend a moment it was currently protected by copyrights. If the composer had been contracted to use this song, a typical "buyout" fee would run $35k-$50k. (not exactly chump change, eh?) If the composer was smart about the movie franchise, they would lessen the up front fee and negotiate for points. Typically 1-2.5 points for a full score. Even at 1/16th of a point that's over $665 thousand dollars... for the use of a little hornpipe. How does that "grip" you?

They did not ask for recompense other than that people play their music. Where does BMI or any other organisation get off charging a bar owner a license fee for the sessioneers to play these tunes? That is what people are arguing here. BMI doesn't own the music. The authors didn't pay anyone to register the music. What is the license for?

AH! Here's the difference! The people that BMI are collecting for DO ask for recompense for their work. They have by their own choice, registered as an artist with that PRS and (get ready for this) expect a check every quarter from them!

BMI is not collecting for an O'Carrolan tune written hundreds of years ago. They are collecting for the BMI artists that are played via Muzak all the rest time in the establishment. The bar owner gets additional relief from any infringement suits for any live band who plays a piece by a BMI Artist. Let's not forget the bar in question is a Blues hall. While it might not be top 40 it has a decidedly bigger market than ITM and as such will garner more money, which makes them a bigger blip on BMI's radar. It's just a guess, but they probably weren't hosting many sessions... an not because they were afraid of a PRS knocking on their door.

[djm]

But if you don't think ITM is hitting any kind of mainstream audience where some real money is attached, have a look at the 2nd installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.

Sorry, but you clearly haven't got a clue about ITM or sessions. You are going way off into la-la land with this. People who learn ITM learn in sessions and from the people they meet in sessions. It is a culture in itself. If anyone from that culture started screwing the people in the culture with rights violations they would find themselves and their music quickly turfed out.

AH! Here's the difference! The people that BMI are collecting for DO ask for recompense for their work. They have by their own choice, registered as an artist with that PRS and (get ready for this) expect a check every quarter from them!

AH! yourself. That is exactly where you are getting it screwed up, and the whole basis of this thread. The bar owner is charged for session musicians playing public domain ITM tunes, not for copyrighted material. Thus my analogy of these collectors being nothing more than thugs running a protection racket for the mob. No-one here is arguing with you about registered copyright material. We are concerned that licenses are charged for amateur musicians performing public domain material in a public place. That has absolutely nothing to do with any of yuor arguments about rights holders.

djm

[Scott McCallister]

But if you don't think ITM is hitting any kind of mainstream audience where some real money is attached, have a look at the 2nd installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy.

Sorry, but you clearly haven't got a clue about ITM or sessions. You are going way off into la-la land with this. People who learn ITM learn in sessions and from the people they meet in sessions. It is a culture in itself. If anyone from that culture started screwing the people in the culture with rights violations they would find themselves and their music quickly turfed out.

You're really reaching here. What has any of that go to do with BMI collecting it's licensing fees? Are you trying to confuse the issue?

AH! Here's the difference! The people that BMI are collecting for DO ask for recompense for their work. They have by their own choice, registered as an artist with that PRS and (get ready for this) expect a check every quarter from them!

AH! yourself. That is exactly where you are getting it screwed up, and the whole basis of this thread. The bar owner is charged for session musicians playing public domain ITM tunes, not for copyrighted material. Thus my analogy of these collectors being nothing more than thugs running a protection racket for the mob. No-one here is arguing with you about registered copyright material. We are concerned that licenses are charged for amateur musicians performing public domain material in a public place. That has absolutely nothing to do with any of yuor arguments about rights holders.

djm

um... Are we talking about the same news blurb that is linked at the beginning of this thread? It mentions non of the reactionary, panic driven, sky-is-falling, fairy tales you are talking about above.

In its entirety...

The former owners of an Old Port night club have agreed to pay $12,500 to a music licensing corporation for using copyrighted music without permission.

William and James O’Brien, who owned the Big Easy Blues Club until last year, were accused of failing to pay a licensing fee to Broadcast Music Inc., which represents about 300,000 songwriters in most popular genres.

Almost all music is copyrighted and if it is presented to the public on record, live concerts or through a television program the songwriter is entitled to a fee.

According to the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Portland, the Big Easy failed to pay an $1,800 annual fee under the O’Briens’ ownership from 2000 to 2006. They faced up to $360,000 in fines and legal fees

See..? No mention of the mob, or sessioners, or public domain music. Just a PRS doing what they were hired to do.

BMI has a tough enough time getting fees for work that they can legitimately collect on. Do you really think they are going to try shaking down some business or amature session musicians for playing music in the public domain in public?

Relax, man!

Any challenge of the fees has to be defended in a court of law. No copyright, no fees. BMI has better things to do. Come to think of it, so do I.

Best regards, all
really

Scott

[djm]

<sigh> I agree that the initial article quoted was about someone who was clearly in breech. I also agree that he got a fair deal where his "sentence" was to pay up his license fees. But the concerns that followed clearly showed that the license fees in Britain are being applied to all musics, that CCÉ have bee bught off and are not fighting to protect the performance of public domain music in sessions in bars there.

You have skirted this issue with wild eyed tales of Walt Disney and Disney movies, but not addressed the reported fact that all folk music sessions are under the thumb of licensors in Britain, and that there is a good possibility of it happening on this side of the pond. That is the concern of ITM sessioners on this forum and the part that you refuse to address and go running off on other tangents.

I fully support your stand that those who write commercial music and register it for personal profit have the right to make money from others performing that music. But the concern that is being raised here is about bars being charged license fees for amateur musicians playing public domain music in public, and the licensors taking advantage of the bars' being unable to to afford lengthy litigation to defend themselves.

djm

[BrassBlower]

How about this:

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

Hey, Tyler, how do you like my signature now?
|
|
|
|
V

[bepoq]

It would seem to make speed of thought during a session more important than ever. As, while playing your umpteenth reel in a row, the Green Banks of Rossbeigh, say, you are thinking of what to go into next, it appears, to be safe for either yourself or the pub, you must consider whether that next tune that pops into your head is in the public domain. Hmmm... the first eight tunes that present themselves to me I have no name for and as I picked them up in a session, I am not sure of their origins (those sessions not being declared as all PD at the time) so better keep searching. The next one, I have a name for - Jackie Daly's - 'course I'm not entirely sure if it is just associated with him or if he wrote it - better avoid that one too. Brendan Tonra's after that, now I know he wrote most of his, and even put them in a book, but did he copyright them? Better try something else. Would Jackson's do, he's not been around for a while, ah, but that's in Em, don't think it will sit well behind the other- sod it, keep searching. This is ridiculous of course, at this point one would be no longer thinking of what tune would sit well next, but just any tune at all that would be acceptable.

With regard to Irish Traditional Music, for I care relatively little about the rest (or at least know where things mean enough to me to make a last stand).

Perhaps, one should only learn tunes known to be in the public domain - therefore one wouldn't pick up the wrong sort of tune to play in public.

Perhaps one should carefully schedule all the tunes one is going to play in advance so as to know their provenance.

Perhaps though, this is a tradition that does not sit well in intent, culture, understanding, tradition or usage in laws clearly never designed for it, (or a tradition like it) and it is a sort of vicious economic imperialism to insist that it must fit to those laws and an abdication of responsibility by those that claim to represent the tradition to allow themselves to be bought off in that pursuit. (Still, Bru Boru did well out of it)

Perhaps those that write tunes for and within that tradition, having gained their music from that tradtion have, or maybe ought to have, an understanding that they are contributing their part to that tradition, as others did (largely unpaid) before them - to a cannon of tunes held in common and for the benefit of all within the tradition, to be drawn on by all players withing that traditon at need.

As for myself, I have written a few indifferent tunes, recorded one, and you would all be welcome to them. the only thing that I would ask is that you would not claim them as your own compositions and perhaps (though I blow back and forth on this part) give me a credit (just a name that is) if you came to record them yourselves.

I have gained I am sure more than I myself readily understand from this tradition, and tunewise from the generous understanding of the vast majority of its past practitioners of how the repertoire works and lives - that is, freely. I would feel ashamed to demand payment or claim to hold anything more than referential ownership for tunes that that mode of tradition allowed me to make.