Copyright laws playing modern songs?

[ChrisDowning]

Here in the uk its the domain of the Performing Rights Society. The venue needs a music license from them to play any covers live. They also need a licence to play any recorded music (including playing the radio) if the public can hear it. They also may need a local authority licence to play live music of any sort.

We as players are not responsible for the licensing.

But all sheet music is copyright and any arrangement would incur a royalty payment. Legally you can't copy any music, even for teaching - but you can to help yourself with 'page-turning' copies.

So if you are live playing, don't worry. But if you want to write arrangements, record standards, or make videos - beware. I'm not at all certain the YouTube issue has finally been sorted out. None of this should worry you if you have no assets at all because sueing you won't acheieve much of a result. For everyone else - join your Musicians Union for their help, insurance, and legal help, and tread carefully - you do not want to get into negotiations with Lawyers. Far worse than your agent and manager! (In my case the wife!)

[JohnRoss]

Theft of intellectual property... It's a fact... How low is it to steal food from the mouths of children? ...

It's clear that copyright has joined politics and religion as verging on a taboo subject of conversation, feelings are so high about it. The odd thing is that the most emotional reactions don't come from those who have any particular stake in the matter, but from bystanders. In that way, it seems to be just that, a question of faith, creed. It gets otherwise rational, caring people foaming at the mouth, like this. But many of us think it isn't theft, it isn't a fact and it isn't stealing food from anyone, and what's more it isn't sacrilege to say so.

[ChrisDowning]

There are soooo many bystanders helping themselves to others artistic work for nothing, it is hard to avoid upsetting the majority.

[TieDyedDevil]

Incidentally, unless youtube changed something, it was perfectly legit to put up videos of your own interpretations of copyrighted songs/tunes. I think youtube was/is considered a venue in this regard and therefore it's their responsibility to obtain the rights for performances. The reason one can't legally put up other copyrighted songs/music videos is because one needs to have a license to distribute the recording...

For instance, using Nirvana as an example, you can put up a video of your own rendition of "All Apologies" because for all sakes and purposes the video streaming from the youtube site itself is considered a performance. You can NOT, however, put up the rendition of "All Apologies" from either the Unplugged CD or DVD video because, in addition to the copyright of the song itself, there is also another copyright on the recording.

I believe that "perfectly legit" in this instance is a gross overstatement. I think that a large percentage of potentially infringing videos on YouTube are simply ignored because the cost to the copyright holder to demand a removal of the video is out of proportion to the loss of revenue caused by allowing the video to remain available.

AIUI, YouTube will honor a "take-down" request from the copyright holder. Furthermore, YouTube is thought (based upon preemptive rejection of content with certain titles) to have a list of copyrighted materials that they simply won't allow. (I don't know why certain titles and not others; one might presume that the copyright owner had enough leverage to compel YouTube to apply a blanket restriction.)

I have read that in certain cases YouTube and the copyright holder will negotiate to put ads on very popular infringing videos and divert some portion of the ad income to the copyright holder in lieu of the royalties due.

So... no, I don't believe that YouTube is treated - for purposes of copyright law - in any way as a "venue". Think about it: if YouTube really was a venue, they'd be on the hook to make payments to the performing rights organizations.

I understand mechanical royalties, but haven't yet been able to learn much about royalty payments for streaming (and other online) distribution. If anyone has pointers, please share.

[Bill C]

It's clear that copyright has joined politics and religion as verging on a taboo subject of conversation, feelings are so high about it. The odd thing is that the most emotional reactions don't come from those who have any particular stake in the matter, but from bystanders. In that way, it seems to be just that, a question of faith, creed. It gets otherwise rational, caring people foaming at the mouth, like this. But many of us think it isn't theft, it isn't a fact and it isn't stealing food from anyone, and what's more it isn't sacrilege to say so.

I'n not a professional musician, but I have a couple of tunes published and they earn a little pocket money each year. If a musician were to play one of my tunes at a bar and get paid for the gig, and the bar owner makes some profit from the gig as well, isn't it fair that I should get paid by PRS?

[Dad3353]

Theft of intellectual property has made it very hard for every professional musician to feed their kids. It's a fact. How low is it to steal food from the mouths of children? It's a reflection on an ignorant and selfish culture.

...there are two old ladies who own the copyright on it and are vicious about collecting their royalties...

How many 'starving children' do these old ladies have right now, I wonder..?
I believe in paying for work done; an hourly rate could be established. Once the work has been paid for, that's the end of it, as far as I am concerned, just like a plumber or whatever. Having to pay for every play for the next 90years, where no more work has been provided, seems to me to be a strange affair. Intellectual property..? Fine, why not. Name your (fair...) price, as does a plumber, and once it's paid for, it's paid for.
No, not a popular view (especially amongst copyright holders...), but that's how I see things, from a moral stand-point, law or not. Laws are not always fair.

[Bill C]

How many 'starving children' do these old ladies have right now, I wonder..?
I believe in paying for work done; an hourly rate could be established. Once the work has been paid for, that's the end of it, as far as I am concerned, just like a plumber or whatever. Having to pay for every play for the next 90years, where no more work has been provided, seems to me to be a strange affair. Intellectual property..? Fine, why not. Name your (fair...) price, as does a plumber, and once it's paid for, it's paid for.
No, not a popular view (especially amongst copyright holders...), but that's how I see things, from a moral stand-point, law or not. Laws are not always fair.

If a plumber fixes your heating system, only your heating is fixed, not mine or millions of other householders.

But consider this situation. You write a piece of music and it is used in a TV advertisement - again and again and again ... Sales of the product advertised increase massively. Wouldn't you want to be paid on a per use basis in this situation?

I know I would, and I think that is fair from a moral standpoint. In this situation, the composer is creating massive added value and deserves to benefit from it. The song belongs to the composer - he or she has the right to name his or her terms of use.

Royalties reward *talent* - fixing a heating system is a skill that most of us could acquire with some effort - writing a great song is a talent - very few people will ever write a great song.

If, as you suggest, the composer was paid a flat fee for their work, who pays that fee?, and how does the purchaser recoup the money paid for the song?

[docbop]

How many 'starving children' do these old ladies have right now, I wonder..?
I believe in paying for work done; an hourly rate could be established. Once the work has been paid for, that's the end of it, as far as I am concerned, just like a plumber or whatever. Having to pay for every play for the next 90years, where no more work has been provided, seems to me to be a strange affair. Intellectual property..? Fine, why not. Name your (fair...) price, as does a plumber, and once it's paid for, it's paid for.
No, not a popular view (especially amongst copyright holders...), but that's how I see things, from a moral stand-point, law or not. Laws are not always fair.

Take you plumber and he invents a new faucet that will never leak. What's he do, he patients the thing so he can collect license fee moving forward. Big different between manual labor and invention/creating works of art.

[ColinO]

Copyright and intellectual property in general is interesting in that it is almost entirely an artificial construct. Normally theft involves taking property away from another individual. With respect to intellectual property, the property actually remains with the original owner and the only way that the thief can commit the "theft" would be if he already possesses that property. It's a bit of a paradox.


Using your plumber example, it would be like if the first plumber to figure out how to fix a particular problem with a faucet could prevent every other plumber who learned the secret, either by figuring it out himself or by looking over the first plumber's work, was prevented from using the knowledge that he obtained by otherwise legitimate means.


Not only that, but in the case of instrumental music, the composer's particular ordering of the 12 notes of the scale (and really usually less than twelve) has probably already occurred in the past thousand years or so of music composition and so the "invention" is probably already a reinvention in reality. So if I happen to arrange the notes in the same order as someone else has who owns the copyright or if I figure out a piece of music after listening to someone else's composition, then the law makes me a thief even though I have not depriced the original owner of the property and I have only used what I already possess.

Further, the prohibition is selective. I can use chord progressions created by others and I guess I can use portions of melodies (which blooze dudes call licks and jazz players call vocabulary) without any legal or moral trepidation. And I can use whole tunes under some circumstances such as teaching or just for my own pleasure. Why I can pleasure myself without paying the actual owner but can't pleasure others, I don't see the logic in.

I'm not saying that it's OK to use other people's works, but just that it is a very odd law in my view.

[Bill C]

Copyright and intellectual property in general is interesting in that it is almost entirely an artificial construct. Normally theft involves taking property away from another individual. With respect to intellectual property, the property actually remains with the original owner and the only way that the thief can commit the "theft" would be if he already possesses that property. It's a bit of a paradox.


Using your plumber example, it would be like if the first plumber to figure out how to fix a particular problem with a faucet could prevent every other plumber who learned the secret, either by figuring it out himself or by looking over the first plumber's work, was prevented from using the knowledge that he obtained by otherwise legitimate means.

This happens all the time. Technology companies are constantly suing each other for allegedly copying design features.

Not only that, but in the case of instrumental music, the composer's particular ordering of the 12 notes of the scale (and really usually less than twelve) has probably already occurred in the past thousand years or so of music composition and so the "invention" is probably already a reinvention in reality. So if I happen to arrange the notes in the same order as someone else has who owns the copyright or if I figure out a piece of music after listening to someone else's composition, then the law makes me a thief even though I have not depriced the original owner of the property and I have only used what I already possess.

Further, the prohibition is selective. I can use chord progressions created by others and I guess I can use portions of melodies (which blooze dudes call licks and jazz players call vocabulary) without any legal or moral trepidation. And I can use whole tunes under some circumstances such as teaching or just for my own pleasure. Why I can pleasure myself without paying the actual owner but can't pleasure others, I don't see the logic in.

I'm not saying that it's OK to use other people's works, but just that it is a very odd law in my view.

The system isn't perfect by any means, but it does ensure that if someone is making money though the use of someone else's composition, that the composer is financially rewarded to some degree.

The thing is, we are not just talking about the Great American Songbook here. Say someone like Adam Rogers or Pat Martino gets a radio play of an original composition, or one of their tunes is played by another act at a major festival. Don't they deserve a performance royalty for that use of their creative work?

[Dad3353]

I'm sure we'll just have to differ in our morals and aspirations on these points. I don't mind being alone (or almost...) in believing that getting a 'fair' pay for what one has done is just reward enough. A plumber (or sheetmetal worker, or waitress, or accountant, or artist...) spends a certain amount of time acquiring their skills. They then spend a certain amount of time producing whatever they produce (goods, services; tangible or virtual, it doesn't matter...) for which they deserve payment (...and, I would hold, equal payment...). Anything else is gain without effort (such as speculation, or usury and other ills...) and is not, imho, morally defensible. I cannot, to myself, see any justification for anyone on earth gaining money just because he/she has once written a very popular song. Rewarded for the time/investment/training for that work is fine. Any more is not, in my book. That's just how I see things, though; others, I admit, have other opinions. A pity, really...

[cosmic gumbo]

I'm no bystander, and food has been taken out of the mouths of my children. I find that others's total ignorance of how the music business operates to be widespread. Nobody will question that it's illegal to go to the store and steal food for my children.

[Space Pickle]

I can pleasure myself without paying the actual owner but can't pleasure others, I don't see the logic in.

what.

[docbop]

I'm sure we'll just have to differ in our morals and aspirations on these points. I don't mind being alone (or almost...) in believing that getting a 'fair' pay for what one has done is just reward enough. A plumber (or sheetmetal worker, or waitress, or accountant, or artist...) spends a certain amount of time acquiring their skills. They then spend a certain amount of time producing whatever they produce (goods, services; tangible or virtual, it doesn't matter...) for which they deserve payment (...and, I would hold, equal payment...). Anything else is gain without effort (such as speculation, or usury and other ills...) and is not, imho, morally defensible. I cannot, to myself, see any justification for anyone on earth gaining money just because he/she has once written a very popular song. Rewarded for the time/investment/training for that work is fine. Any more is not, in my book. That's just how I see things, though; others, I admit, have other opinions. A pity, really...

the songs they write are a product and that product is purchased and resold for payment just like any business that manufactures products. some products are physical, others a service (labor), then some intellectual and sold via license or royalty.

like I said earlier if this was before the digital era would you go into a record store take a album and walk out without paying, I say for most the answer is no. But somehow today that a album when binary code you don't feel you need to pay for it. The sad part back then and now the part of the price that is the songwriter royalty is only a couple cents. How much per hour do you make and can expect at each paycheck. The songwriter only gets a few cents and unless a huge hit could take years to make what you made on your last paycheck. Yes the songwriter choose a risky career, and now your want to deny them their paycheck. Go meet a songwriter and ask them to show you a royalty check, you will be thankful for your paycheck from your day gig that comes on a regular basis. Even a musician gets a more regular pay than a songwriter.


Okay I've said enough on this thread. It's interesting what the how the digital age has changed people, the things they would never say or doing when face to face, they will when away on a computer.

[mfa]

ColinO, you are so on target with this subject, i felt i had to show some support. intellectual property, and thus intellectual copyright, is an illogical and false concept from the get go, and you did a good job highlighting why. but the most telling aspect of IP is that even those who support and enforce it think that it should disappear after a certain number of years... absurd.

if you think about it logically, it's clear: there should be no prohibitions on making your own use of conceptual ideas that may have originated in, or been inspired by other's minds. we are talking about something that has found its way into your head, so to prosecute for intellectual copyright is to prosecute for thought crime. it is to say "you can not use this thought" "this thought in your mind belongs to someone else"

ColinO, don't cave into the pressure from these emotional people, who don't even back up what they say with any kind of reasoning. based on what you pointed out, it IS ok to use other peoples intellectual work, just like it was ok for them to use their predecessor's work. just like it's ok for me to speak english, a language i did nothing to create.

unfortunately, what is moral isn't always what is legal in this world.

my advice to people not caught up in the corporate and government propaganda about IP is to go ahead and ignore it. just make sure that you are flying below the radar so to speak. no one is going to sue you for playing a beatles cover in your local cafe. if you want to do things on a bigger level, you may have to fall back in line.

[ChrisDowning]

There is just so much ignorant discussion about this subject it's hard to take a stand when so many just want art for free. If you want to engage a writer of songs to do you one song and pay once, then he can quote a price. No problem. But these rolling royality deals are there to protect the income of the original composer where there's no one off deal. And even then the final 'owner' of the music (think Michael Jackson buy a lot of the Beatles back catalogue) will set up another licensing income stream. It's just how the music business works. And the computer software business, and writing books, and patent law, and television licenses - its just the way it is.

Now if you want to get around the legal trading laws - pirating software, photocopying books, making recordings of others original work - then you run the obvious risk of paying the penalty - as many do, although not much publicised. Just because a musician or composer is not in a strong financial position to sue for damages, isn't an excuse to do it.

If you don't like all this then you have options. Move to a society that doesn't have strong property law. Move to China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria...

Now I fully expect to get flamed because the vast majority don't want to abide by the rules. MFAa's attitude is typical of the majority. Or he's just trying to be sarcastic and contraversial.

[ChrisDowning]

Look at it this way. Your in a band that needs some new numbers for an album. I'll write you songs for a fee of $5000 a song. Or I'll take $500 a song and a % of the future sales. Or I'll write for nothing and a bigger %. Which one would you take? Probably the last as is represents the lowest risk route. So what happens to me when everyone is copying the songs for nothing and sales plummet? Would I offer to do that deal again? Will bands be prepared to do the one off deal or make covers of existing songs? What's happening to my income for the many earlier deals I did for a % rather than a flat fee?

[ColinO]

mfa - Thanks. However I would encourage everyone to comply with the law. It is not perfect but it is one of the things that allows society to function. You can't just ignore laws you don't agree with.

I must say that, although I find copyright laws difficult to justify logically, I am sympathetic to the argument that creators of original ideas ought to be able to profit from them. It's how that is accomplished that I have difficulty with.

I'm not sure how making copies of digital recordings got into it, but that's really not what I was talking about.

I'm not sure what to say when accused of advocating the starving of children. I guess if your children aren't getting enough food, you should probably think about not paying for your internet account or selling a couple of guitars or something. I will certainly add a few more dollars to the collection plate with the hope that it finds its way to your kids if that would help.

[Bill C]

if you think about it logically, it's clear: there should be no prohibitions on making your own use of conceptual ideas that may have originated in, or been inspired by other's minds. we are talking about something that has found its way into your head, so to prosecute for intellectual copyright is to prosecute for thought crime. it is to say "you can not use this thought" "this thought in your mind belongs to someone else"

Ok, so how do software engineers, music composers, writers, inventors, journalists, film makers et al earn a living ...?

Do you not respect the right of the creator to determine the terms of use?

no one is going to sue you for playing a beatles cover in your local cafe.

This is correct in, for example, the UK. If the cafe is a reputable business, they will have a PRS licence. PRS then pay the income from this license to the composers they represent.

[ColinO]

what.

Double entendre intended.

[JohnRoss]

I'm no bystander

Sorry, cosmic, I didn't know you were a professional composer.

[JohnRoss]

Move to a society that doesn't have strong property law.

Already there, thanks. And more than a bit fed up with this vapid Disney imperialism that presumes US legality is the same as morality and so can be imposed on the rest of the world. Leave us alone.

[Bill C]

Already there, thanks. And more than a bit fed up with this vapid Disney imperialism that presumes US legality is the same as morality and so can be imposed on the rest of the world. Leave us alone.

Ok, let's say I write a piece of music. I enjoy writing music in my spare time - let's say I have a day job that I don't especially care for but which pays the bills. I get the song published via a music library which places music with film and TV. Let's say I earn about 50 euros a year in royalties - it's getting occasional use on TV shopping channels - great, I can buy a few sets of strings for my guitar. Suddenly, the song gets used on an advert for a new smartphone - worldwide - loads of plays all over the world - the phone is a huge success - - everyone loves it and has to own it.

Don't I deserve to be rewarded - through royalties protected by copyright - for my contribution to the success of this product?

[ColinO]

Ok, let's say I write a piece of music. I enjoy writing music in my spare time - let's say I have a day job that I don't especially care for but which pays the bills. I get the song published via a music library which places music with film and TV. Let's say I earn about 50 euros a year in royalties - it's getting occasional use on TV shopping channels - great, I can buy a few sets of strings for my guitar. Suddenly, the song gets used on an advert for a new smartphone - worldwide - loads of plays all over the world - the phone is a huge success - - everyone loves it and has to own it.

Don't I deserve to be rewarded - through royalties protected by copyright - for my contribution to the success of this product?

Ok let's say all that happens and some asshat at the record company that owns the rights to some other song notices that it is strikingly similar to that other song that you have never heard of and decides that all of the money that has been paid to you should go to them. Sound good to you?

[ColinO]

PS Copyright laws protect the big guys not the little guys.