Are Bad Copyright Laws Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?
from the play-it-again dept
We recently wrote about Daniel Pink's new book Drive and how there are some situations where money is not just the wrong motivator for creativity, but it can actually harm creativity. While some in the comments falsely interpreted that to mean money is never a motivator or that it somehow means everyone should give up their money, others did have many thoughtful responses. That discussion got Ray Dowd, a copyright litigator in New York, thinking about a variety of topics related to motivation and copyright, noting that if the key point of copyright is to create incentives for creativity, the studies covered by Drive certainly should be an important part of the larger discussion.From there, he goes through a variety of situations where copyright is clearly harming creativity, rather than helping it, including a discussion on the bizarre notion that satire cannot be fair use, but parody can be. However, where it gets most interesting, is when he discusses how copyright, and the more recent draconian enforcement of copyright law, is having a massively negative impact on jazz and jazz musicians:
When the Copyright Society had its convention in New Orleans a few years back, I was struck by the plight of Jazz musicians: they didn't have the right to a compulsory license. So a bunch of white kids doing an exact cover of a Led Zep tune can force Led Zep to license the song at a cheap rate.That's a clear, concrete (and, as a jazz fan, depressing) example of an area in which copyright is clearly doing the exact opposite of its intended purpose. I'm really curious to hear from defenders of the copyright status quo (or who believe in even stronger copyright protections) to see how they defend this situation. I'm also reminded, yet again, of James Boyle's excellent chapter on how soul music owes its very existence to the fact that copyright laws weren't enforced that strongly a few decades back (and, the laws themselves weren't nearly as limiting).
But Jazz - which remixes, rearranges and is an art form that is derivative - can't get a compulsory license, and the changes and modifications to the original can't be protected without an additional license from the copyright owner - even though a sound recording in a cover song can.
According to the jazz musicians, the licensing practices of copyright owners have put them out of making a living and basically strangled their creativity. It was a heartbreaking presentation. Jazz and its successors which rely on sampling, borrowing, remixing - all activities emanating from African-American traditions - have been severely penalized, to the point of practical extinction.
In the face of increasing examples of such copyright policies doing exactly the opposite of what they intend, how is it that our elected officials continue to buy the claims from a few entrenched industries, that copyright needs to be made even more strict? How many more musicians have to have their art and creativity stifled?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, creativity, derivative works, jazz, music
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really surprising......
Copyright law, like patent law, is only about squeezing as much money as possible from others for as long as possible on ideas that are terribly obvious or if unique aren't shared with enough detail to help the rest of society.
The truly maddening part is that most of the entities holding those rights or benefiting from these byzantine laws, aren't even the the creators. Corporations, collection societies, and of course the ever present lawyers.
Promote the progress of .... well anything other than profits for the select few, isn't a part of 'intellectual property' law.
'Intellectual property' is poised to become the next 'war on drugs' or alcohol prohibition. Criminalizing a large swath of the population to the detriment of society in general.
If only we could get those in office to actually represent their constituents (I mean you and me, _not_ the corporate interests that pour money into their pockets). They would see that what's best for us, our shared culture and the economic health of the nation as a whole, would be a drastic scaling back of all aspects of 'intellectual property' law, if not an outright abolishment of same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really surprising......
It's not going to happen. That's why I say that if you want some of the abuses eliminated, you are going to have to work with someone who presumably will come from a more moderate position and will have the patience and legal skills to spend considerable time lobbying for some changes.
I'd start with confirming what fair use constitutes and making sure that some activity isn't stifled because of limits on fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Doesn't really matter.
Sooner or later the courts will be so tied up they won't even be able to consider a case.
People are losing respect for copyright at a very fast rate.
It could soon become law in Canada to be illegal to "time shift" tv shows. How will they know if I recorded a show on my vcr?
Laws that cannot be enforced are not laws.
Until we tell our children "not to share with your brother/sister" and they quit making multi-player games...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising....People are losing respect for copyright at a very fast rate...
ME; But the law and Governments , and their POLICE forces, are better enforcing copyright
REALITY !! enjoy it !!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising....People are losing respect for copyright at a very fast rate...
I showed an article around to family and friends where the local school board owed hundreds of thousands of dollars due to their copy machines.
My Mother did not have internet and lives far from the sea. How and what is she pirating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How and what is she pirating? Not really surprising....People are losing respect for copyright at a very fast rate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not really surprising......
It's not going to happen. That's why I say that if you want some of the abuses eliminated, you are going to have to work with someone who presumably will come from a more moderate position and will have the patience and legal skills to spend considerable time lobbying for some changes.
I think the odds of that happening are also pretty low. Personally I think the best bet is simply to route around those who still wish to rely on "all rights reserved" and build a community based on creative commons. I know that this could be quite restrictive for some types of artists since so much of their culture is "locked up" - but I have found that music sounds better to me when I know it is cc licensed. I just don't want to have anything to do with those that restrict the use their content.
This still leaves a few legal battles - mostly to take out the techno-legal roadblocks that big content tries to put in the way (where they pretend that all they are doing is protecting their own content - but actually "accidentally" damage those who wish to distribute freely).
However I am optimistic for the longer term - if you look at software - and compare the current situation with what we had just 15 years ago the change is a revelation. Then, if you wanted to avoid proprietary software you were stuck with a limited choice of open source alternatives which generally required significant technical effort to make work and wouldn't read files from the proprietary standards. Now all the major applications are available in open source form, and, although there are still a few niggles with device drivers, it is generally as easy to set up Linux as Windows.
The same thing can happen in other fields - and will once a critical mass of creators realize that "all rights reserved" doesn't actually do them any favours at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Yes, I think this is the best approach, too. If you don't believe in copyright, make your own works available to everyone, and build a community of like-minded people. Then if you can prove that what you are doing is actually commercially better than copyright laws, you'll have a much stronger case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. Unfortunately, they're not, so showing them logical actions with good outcomes probably isn't going to help much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
So what is your plan of action?
I don't get into debates about the rightness or wrongness of IP laws because I don't think things are going to change much.
But for those of you who feel strongly about this, what are your plans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Getting more people educated is a good first step.
Unfortunately, some people choose to put their head in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not really surprising......
Can I Use Someone Else's Work? Can Someone Else Use Mine?
• How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
• How can I find out who owns a copyright?
• I found someone infringing a copyrighted work that I registered. Can the Copyright Office help me stop this?
• How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
• How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
• How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
• Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
• Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
• Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
• I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to...
• Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty...
• Can a school show a movie without obtaining permission from the copyright owner?
• My local copying store will not make reproductions of old family photographs. What can I do?
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
As much media as I want is there for the watching, listening, and entertaining. I realize that the CD industry is dying, and musicians are probably breaking the law when they create but that doesn't stop them from creating and it doesn't stop me from consuming.
Amazing artists like Amanda Palmer and Nina Paley are blazing new paths, and to hell with the dinosaurs whom are getting left behind. You see, while they're having conniptions, we're having fun. :)
In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not the law changes anytime soon, because the people and markets have already changed. And in history, the law always goes slower than the people. It will follow, in time, probably after the dinos are bankrupt (which won't be too much longer...).
So, did you mean a plan to change the law, or some other sort of plan?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
That's pretty much how I view it. Musicians are already giving their music away, plus technology is allowing people to make their own original music, so I don't see that it's much of an issue.
I think before long we'll have the tools to make exactly the music we want to hear and it will be ours to do with as we wish because we will have created it ourselves. I see music creation being push farther and farther down until we're all making music to one degree or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Regardless, people do what they want, and that's bad for everyone, because it weakens all laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Regardless, people do what they want, and that's bad for everyone, because it weakens all laws.
Well, you either accept it or you do something to try to change it. That's why I sometimes ask people in Techdirt what they plan to do.
I'm very interested in politics, but IP laws aren't a priority for me one way or the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising......
Once again, not true. Most Americans aren't doing either of those things; they're just flat-out ignoring the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they're just flat-out ignoring the law.
ANS :EXACTLY.
Law is the law. Ignore the law,, go to jail; pay a fine; or try to say the law is UN-constitutional, before SCOTUS
Some laws you stand a chance (drug laws , esp: Pot)
COPYRIGHT is on the Constitution.
It cannot be nullified by SCOTUS.
PIRACY is ILLEGAL .
As Suzanne is saying , if you do not like that , you will have to change the U.S. Constitution to remove COPYRIGHT.
Ain't GONNA Happen.
-------------------------------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they're just flat-out ignoring the law./// The Amendment Process
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising.....Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. .
ANS : the law is logical. it is in the Constitution. the courts decide the logic of copyright ,, not techdirt posters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising.....Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising.....Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. .
Base your thesis on you comment here.
Get back to me with your grade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising.....Yes, that would be correct if most copyright proponents were basing their actions on logic. .
Where did you get your law degree, TP?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did you get your law degree, TP?
ME : Interesting that you ask.
1st some points:
1] Till recently many states did not require law school to
take the state bar exam. Well all know Clan ace Darrow , and Honest Abe did not got to law school ,, but were great lawyers.
2] Constitutional law , is a sub-discipline of Political Science. Many constitutional law professors ARE NOT lawyers.
3] Law school is as much about court procedures and the logistics of being a lawyer , as it is the Law , and legal theory itself.
4] I do not like school ,, I ain't going to law school ,after just finishing 8 years of college. I do not want to be a lawyer either [ sorry mom :( ],, BUT i still keep up with Supreme court decisions, and I enjoy reading them in full -- esp 1st admend stuff,, and that 4th admend stuff that happen this week past with police issues cellphones . ( I thought it was a good decision)
http://technopoliticalscience.blogspot.com/search/label/Supreme%20Court
-------------- -------------
Now spefics on my legal backround:
When I was head of a major tenants Group here in NYC , during the early 1990's -- see resume links in my techdirt profile -- I functioned as "staff attorney",, as I knew housing law as well as the lawyers,, I always read the court decisions relative to or case , and then returned my comment filled copy bacl to our tenant lawyers. No one questioned my skills. Our case was part of a LANDMARK New york city housing law case ( see my resume)
As well ,, I spend 6 years on staff @ NYPIRG, the flagship of the PIRG network-- i was surrounded by lawyers , and always picked their brains,
P lus I a got few judges as friends , a law school Dean too, and more lawyers than I care to admit as freinds ( a feww are "Rabbi-lawyers" so they are cool by me )-------, AND they treat as a legal peer when we talk law.
-----------------------
Answer your question ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where did you get your law degree, TP?
Yes. You have proven what an absolute hypocrite you are.
You have no law degree. You are clueless in the law, and when others point out that you are clueless in the law, you tell them *they* must go to law school. Then when challenged on this point, you admit that you don't think law school is important.
And you don't even realize what this makes you look like. Incredible. Really incredible.
You are ignorant and a hypocrite. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where did you get your law degree, TP?/// You have no law degree. You are clueless in the law
Me: clearly I am not , you just do not like my answer. I do have full references available on my "law " "background & acumen" if you'd like to see them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not really surprising......
I agree that a balanced approach is the "ideal" way of making progress in a public forum. I disagree that this ideal exists or the approach works at all in cases where there are entrenched commercial interests at work.
The system of getting things done in D.C. has changed little in the past 160 years or so. The day-to-day activities of mercantilism (closed door lobbying exclusive to well-capitalized entrants) was solidified during Lincoln's term and never purged. Sure, we did move to a fiat currency, but nothing else followed.
In short, I think the only real power that exists day-to-day in Washington (without external forces such as mass demonstrations and riots at play) is the weight of commercial interests and their omnipresent lobbyists.
As long as the people ask for things that have no commercial impact, they have some hope of getting attention during the tri-annual "family discount" days some lawmakers like to hold. If the people's will go up against commercial interests, they can expect very loud and obtuse resistance and likely to be made pariahs of some sort in the fallout.
I agree with Richard, in that the true impetus behind radical change and commercial upheaval in our society comes from the impetus and actions of people acting without government mandate.
It's odd that so many people don't understand that they do not need the government's blessing to improve their lives.
When the sheep have left the pasture, the shepherds must follow or lose the flock forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Not really surprising...I agree with Richard, in that the true impetus behind radical change and commercial upheaval in our society comes from the impetus and actions of people acting without government mandate...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They don't buy the claims, the elected officials are bought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Believe me ,,i know politicians are flawed creatures by nature ,, and they are the first to admit it.
But most all politicians , are genuine , intellectually honest , and do mean well in advocating their belief's.
I disagree with Sen, Orin Hatch alot -- except copyright,, for sure ---- but I know Sen Hatch , is honest and his philosophy legit == and we both want a world full of love and peace,, we just disagree on the the best political polices that are needed to make the world a better place-- again , EXCEPT for "copyrights vs piracy" ,
By Sen. hatched motive ,, T do not question.,, he is 100% honest and had full integrity ,
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=56579
"RIAA, Senators Blast Nations Lax on Piracy"
"Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain have been named the “top- priority countries" with inadequate intellectual property enforcement by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who co- chair the Intl. Anti-Piracy Caucus, as well as Reps. Adam Schiff (D- Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)."
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/news.php?id=56579
=====================
+
============ ==========
e n d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who co- chair the Intl. Anti-Piracy Caucus------- Sen. Hatch's motives ,, I do not question.,, he is 100% honest and has full integrity ,.....
BUT Sen. Hatch's motives ,, I do not question.,, he is 100% honest and has full integrity ,.....
corrected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm gonna become the grammer nazi today....
People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.
Secondly, I like many like to have fun, and i actually know that when you have a similar thought you group it into what is known as the .....PARAGRAPH.
The paragraph first came into being right around the time the first lawyers began making sentences and leaving spaces after each sentence. WE the people decided ENOUGH already and demanded reforms. Lawyers of course like to point out '.' misuse and sentence structure issues while avoiding this most ancient issue.
DEMAND PARAGRAPHS NOW
.............
Of course it harms them( Jazz etc. ) It harms anyone that must for a living mix and create off others works.
Mark my words this won't go well in a future with this much technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm gonna become the grammer nazi today....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm gonna become the grammer nazi today....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First off, i'd like to thank mike for anonymous ability. People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.
+++People are often more....honest when they don't have to worry.++
ME : You are wrong.
People break "laws" and "social norms "MORE if granted "anonymous ability."
----------------------
----------------------------
( Exception : " anonymous ability." is good for journalistic sources, in instances of "whistle blowing.")
===================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The 'list" grammerizational studies 101
While pointing to a list of ideas it may in fact be more prudent to put them in a structured or ordered list. IN FACT this was one of the first html abilities of web browsers way back to the Netscape 1.0 days.....
1) IT allows people to see the idea clearly.
2) When doing this it allows them to compare your ideas.
3) IT allows them to use , copy, or make comments easier.
Hope this helps at least two people above whom think like lawyers....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The 'list" grammerizational studies 101
I'm going to have to confiscate your Grammar Nazi card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hrmmm...
http://afrocityblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/thats_racist_animated1.gif
Just sayin'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money talks, Mike...money talks...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Money talks, Mike...money talks...
the law is power .
Money is money .
"Power is the worlds greatest aphrodisiac" -- not $$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All that jazz..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
really,
taking small amounts of an item for free, getting loaned some items, and jumbling those items up and selling the end product, emanate from African-American traditions? and that is not a ridiculously incorrect and borderline racist statement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That you interpret what Mike said as anything close to being racist shows that you're either way too sensitive, or perhaps, a racist yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This fact isn't always obvious to anyone who doesn't produce creative works themselves, which is one of the reasons I decided to go independent with some friends rather than pitch my stuff to a publisher . Too much of the recording and publishing industry is owned and operated by people who've never once attempted to create anything of their own and therefore don't really get how it's created. Unfortunately I can't see a good solution to that; it's one thing for Dyson to expect management trainees to assemble one of their famous vacuum cleaners on their first day, but it would be slightly trickier for a record label to only hire people who have their own GarageBand page.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We all came from Africa if you go back far enough....
"...taking small amounts of an item for free, getting loaned some items, and jumbling those items up..."
(I'm not so sure about the "...and selling the end product" especially when we are talking about true jazz musicians)
Since, if you go back far enough, we all come from Africa. Calling that activity African-American traditions is just pointing out how old that behavior is.
I mean, if early homo sapiens, probably early hominids, were already engaging in that practice, why are we trying to make it illegal now? [que the "to make lots of ill-gotten profit" choir]
It's not ridiculously incorrect and it's only borderline racist if you're looking for racist comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
are they?
....let's hope so.
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
attaching race to overly general statements is what.....
"Jazz and its successors which rely on sampling, borrowing, remixing have been severely penalized, to the point of practical extinction."
Do you feel this statement lost meaning, is no longer qualified, or maybe just lost controversy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still I will agree he should not have used that expression, because there are a lot of insecure people that will think it is demeaning instead of flattering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who will defend this strawman ?
For a start, the foundation of jazz is not from 'remixes' and "rearranges" as its art form.
Jazz originated in New Orleans in the early 1800s that is about 200 years ago, for those counting, at those times, there were now many mixing machines, and the "rearranges" in jazz refer to variations upon a pre-composed theme or structure. Its called improvisation, that does not mean each performance of a song is different, that it cannot be recognised as what it is, it just means that the specific lead, can vary between performances, as the player improvises upon his/her predefined structure, that structure will be the chord progression, and the timing and syncopation.
This is no different to blues, rock, swing (from which jazz also derived). All forms of music are derivative to an extent, they all derive from scales, chords, timing, and notes.
Blues, is also a highly improvisational form of music, that is very derivative in that blues (like jazz and rock and classical) is based on standard or common chord progressions and timings.
That is why you can copyright a blues song, but you cannot copyright "12 bar blues", it's just in blues, the various chords and progressions, timings and scales are different between the different music forms.
Blues will use the blues scale, or the major pentatonic scale, and major and minor chords, and standing rotations, such as 8 bar or 12 bar blues. (and of course the key can vary as well).
Jazz is no different, but it tends to use more exotic timings, syncopations, back beats, off beats, and different modes and scales, you find jazz players playing around a few simple chords, and improvising from scales or modes, but the chords are usually augmented 7s and diminished 5, and suspended thirds, blues and rock tend to be major chords, blues scales (pentatonic), and standard progressions.
Jazz, blues, rock they are all their own art form, they are all derived from scales, chords, notes and timings, jazz is no different, jazz is a composed form of music just as rock and blues, jazz tunes are just as recognisable as any other music form. So there should and is no distinction between jazz, blues, rock, classic, swing, pop or whatever that would disadvantage jazz.
Do you think people do not recognise Louis Armstrongs "what a wonderful world" and can you explain why that would not be able to have copyright protection just as any other form of expressions can have.
We are not critical of writers for using words on books, they are just not allowed to exactly use someone else's words, same with music, nothing is stoping you from using the 12 bar blues, or chords, notes, scales etc, you just cant use the exact same notes, timing, scales that would constitute the same piece of music.
So quit ragging on Jazz please, you say your a jazz fan,
So I put it to you Mike, as you ask to see how to defend this situation, I'm saying there is no situation to defend, its a strawman. It's the creation of an issue where no issue exists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Explain how some people won in court after some rapper took 3 accords from a song, changed the tempo and tone that was nothing like the original but he still lost the case.
Copyright today negate creativity, deprive the public of their natural rights and freedoms and it gets obviously by the day that is not about artists but companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Explain how some people won in court after some rapper took 3 accords from a song, changed the tempo and tone that was nothing like the original but he still lost the case.
--------------------------------------------
You :
dont like mike trick you into a discussion about "sampling" when the article is about "jazz musicians".
Me: Mike "mis-understands" both, either way.
=========================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
perhaps you would like to cite some actual examples of true jazz artists having issues with copyright? most of them play single songs, identifiable as the original, and credit as such. very few of them are combining multiple songs into a single song, although sometimes they will make passing reference (a lyric or musical phrasing) that pays hommage to another song or another time.
can you actually give us some examples of who has been a victim of this situation, or is this nothing more than a non-issue blown up to feed the techdirt choir?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Good to hear. I'm a big jazz fan and hadn't hear of anyone running into copyright issues, but I thought perhaps I had missed something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
If that was addressed to me, then perhaps you can point me to some specific examples. I know quite a few jazz musicians and copyright issues haven't ever been mentioned.
Could you provide some quotes for me? I'm interested to know what you know. I'm a bit of a research fanatic and like to track down stories that interest me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I think I have found the answer
Here's from one musician who has done it and is happy with the process.
Recording, Releasing, and Performing Cover Songs: "The benefits of releasing cover songs outweigh the hassle of tracking sales and paying for royalties, especially with services like Limelight streamlining the process for independent musicians. The cover songs I've released have generated more sales than my original music, either from individual downloads or by leading people to buy my full album as either a download or CD. I'm currently working on a covers album with a friend (and regardless of when you read this article, that statement is probably true). This is simply an easy way to create some steady income as a musician."
___
And here is something that specifically addresses what we have been discussing in terms of jazz.
Permission to Arrange for Live Performance: "Permission to record is not required because the copyright law provides for a compulsory license. (It's called compulsory because although you must pay, they can't say no to you.) Permission to arrange is not required because it is included in the right to record. This is not a grey area, just simple law.
... the theory behind the statutory provision here is Congress' wise recognition of the fact that there is no way to record without arranging. There is no such thing as a performance that does not also embody at least a slightly new arrangement, if examined in fine enough detail....
Even if every single one of the notes were the same, the differences in timbre, tempo, dynamics, key, style, instrumentation, voicing, etc. would all contribute to whether the arrangement had been varied to some degree. Even a dead-on, sound-a-like tribute band would still vary the arrangement somewhat. And a varied arrangement, however slight, is a new arrangement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
We're not talking about covers.
Permission to Arrange for Live Performance: "Permission to record is not required because the copyright law provides for a compulsory license. (It's called compulsory because although you must pay, they can't say no to you.) Permission to arrange is not required because it is included in the right to record. This is not a grey area, just simple law.
We're not talking about live performances that are rearrangements.
We're talking about musicians who build new works on top of aspects of old works. Which is an awful lot of jazz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
If you play a song that someone else has written, you are covering that song. That's what people mean by "covers."
We're not talking about live performances that are rearrangements.
While the title of the article referred to live performances, the part I quoted was in reference to obtaining a license to record a song. The people who want to check out the article now have the link, so they can read it for themselves if they are curious about the legalities of recording a song but arranging it differently. This whole discussion led me to do some investigating so I learned something new and hopefully so will some other folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
You're (probably deliberately) ignoring an entire third section of music. There are covers, there is completely original music, and there is derivative music. The law doesn't allow derivative music, and that's a problem, especially in jazz.
You see the same problems in art, such as the Damien Hurst issue, you see it in films, and you definitely see it in science.
In other words, the problem that you're carefully ignoring is everywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
I think the difference is that a jazz player is actually playing the music, while someone who is creating a remix or a mashup is using pieces of another recorded album.
The jazz musician is not looping another album. He's playing the actual notes on an instrument and not using any notes/sounds taken from a recorded piece from someone else's vinyl or digital file.
If the music originates from your instruments and/or your voice and you perform it or record it, you have arranged it.
If you digitally copy segments from a previously recorded album, you are remixing.
Another way to say it: Are you playing it or are you using a form of copy-and-paste? In one case you are dealing with a songwriter. In the other case you are dealing with the copyright holder of the recorded song. These are two different sets of copyrights and licensing arrangements.
So we aren't talking about the same thing. Music licensing is complicated and just because you have been told you can't do one thing doesn't mean you can't do another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Can you give me some specific citations? I have been spending hours on Google looking at music licensing. If you are recording someone's else's song, you get a compulsory license and you can record it.
In order to claim it as your own, so you can copyright it yourself, you have to make substantial changes in the original. Otherwise you are just recording theirs. In terms of jazz, basically everyone is just doing variations upon a theme, and that doesn't count as a derivative.
Please point me to what you are finding. I am very interested. I have looked at the actual laws, plus multiple interpretations. Sounds like you have the citations to back up what you are saying and I'd like to read them myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Can you give me some specific citations? I have been spending hours on Google looking at music licensing. If you are recording someone's else's song, you get a compulsory license and you can record it.
A compulsory license that can take away much of your own revenue from the song.
But for examples of this causing all sorts of issues:
http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_brightharrisongs.html
Or see the recent controversy over Cold Play vs. Joe Satriani.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
From Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music "Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine."
____________
We covered this, I believe, in the ASCP/BMI discussion. You can't record someone else's song and call it your own. I'd treat that as a different issue than making a derivative song. If it has been discovered that you have used someone else's song unintentionally, but it is a song under copyright, then you have to pay up at that time.
Same with the Coldplay issue. You can't pass off a song as yours if someone else copyrighted it first.
That's why I was curious what you guys were talking about. You can record the song, give the proper credit, and pay the compulsory fee. But you can't record the same song and call it your own.
Most improvisational jazz (which is what some of us have been pointing to because the whole point was whether derivatives and the law were a problem in jazz) is intentionally embellishing on a known song. It falls under arrangement and isn't a problem. As jazz is commonly played, no one is trying to claim the song is anything other than an arrangement of someone else's song.
Yes, I realize these are fine points, but legally it makes a difference. Like I said, I wanted some clarification about what you were thinking because everyone will learn something from it.
The issue with this was specific to jazz, so I was looking for examples related to jazz as it is commonly played and how most people discuss jazz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Forcing people to pay to express their creativity is a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
What I am suggesting is that if Dowd is especially concerned, he can use his legal skills to fight the laws. I think that would be great.
I won't pay those fees because I'll just tell the musicians, "There isn't any money in music. Get a day job and play music for your family and friends."
Unfortunately it is a tough life and I don't think changing IP laws will make much difference for most musicians. It's not IP laws but excess supply that is making it hard for a lot them.
Now, if I can get more people elected who will help the environment and the health care situation, I will put money toward that, and have. (And for that matter, I HAVE helped a number of musicians. But health care, environment, and energy interest me more at the moment as my "causes.")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Dowd is a litigator, not a policy person.
I won't pay those fees because I'll just tell the musicians, "There isn't any money in music. Get a day job and play music for your family and friends."
Wow. You would tell a professional musician to give up their life's ambition. Lovely.
And now you're admitting that copyright stifles music. And you don't even realize it. You are a frustrating person in your blatantly obtuse statements. I am still amazed that any musician works with you when you seem to wish they all go out of business.
And if you won't pay any fees, you are ADMITTING THAT COPYRIGHT LAW IS STIFLING MUSIC, because you're saying it's not worth paying those fees.
So first you claim "oh it's no big deal, they can just pay fees," and now you're admitting "it's not worth paying the fees."
Which is it Suzanne?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
I think you'll need to have some of the laws challenged in court to see any changes, so his services would be needed.
Wow. You would tell a professional musician to give up their life's ambition. Lovely.
Most people in music will tell people not to give up their day jobs. I'm telling everyone to make music. And by encouraging everyone to make music, I know I am increasing the supply to such an extent that it will be hard to sell it. You've already posted how financial gain may stifle creativity and I think that may be the case. I AGREE WITH YOU. Don't make music for money. Do it for yourself.
And now you're admitting that copyright stifles music. And you don't even realize it.
What I am saying is that everyone is getting their music for free anyway, so the laws will become irrelevant. You can get upset about them, or you can focus on other things.
And if you won't pay any fees, you are ADMITTING THAT COPYRIGHT LAW IS STIFLING MUSIC, because you're saying it's not worth paying those fees.
If you are playing for friends and family, copyright won't be an issue. No, you don't have to pay fees if you are sitting on your back porch having a jam session. I've lived that life. It works. Music flows freely and is shared by the friends, family, and neighbors hanging out with each other. That is the past and future of music. The labels will go away. The lawsuits will diminish. Chill and let it flow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Indeed. Thankfully, there are a bunch of good, smart litigators (Dowd included) working on this.
If you are playing for friends and family, copyright won't be an issue. No, you don't have to pay fees if you are sitting on your back porch having a jam session. I've lived that life. It works. Music flows freely and is shared by the friends, family, and neighbors hanging out with each other. That is the past and future of music. The labels will go away. The lawsuits will diminish. Chill and let it flow.
What a massive shame. My favorite musicians don't live near me and I can't sit on the back porch with them. My life would be significantly worse off if I couldn't listen to the music I'm listening today, made up of a 12 piece band from Spain. According to you that's good? How so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Rather than hoping that the 12 of them will find the financial resources to come perform for you live, you should go visit them and listen to them in their community. Combine a visit to Spain with a vacation or a business trip. It's a lot cheaper than trying to get all of them over here.
There are also ways for them to stream some performances to you. So they can stay where they are and you can stay where you are and still enjoy each other.
And in the meantime, you can invite some local musicians to come over and jam at your house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
I'm not trying to get them to come over here. What gave you that idea? And, yes, I may very well go visit them in Spain. But if they followed your rules they would not be able to play for me without paying up.
There are also ways for them to stream some performances to you. So they can stay where they are and you can stay where you are and still enjoy each other.
They would need to pay licenses to do so. Are you going to pay? You already said you wouldn't.
You seem to be contradicting yourself.
And in the meantime, you can invite some local musicians to come over and jam at your house.
Indeed. I can. But I want to listen to these guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Paying to whom? The PROs, which cover live music, collect from venues, not from musicians.
As for streaming, they can stream a private show to you and pay no licensing fees. And they could charge you a lot for it -- one of those special scarcities. "Have your own private show streamed to you and your friends for $2000."
You can do pretty much anything you want for private use.
That's what I am trying to say. There's more leeway than people realize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Um. ASCAP/BMI/SESAC cover live music.
SoundExchange covers streamed music.
Know your collection agencies...
You can do pretty much anything you want for private use.
Not legally, you cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
There are exceptions for private events and house concerts. That's what I have been trying to say. I can point you the reference. Even if it is in a public venue, like a hotel, but it is a private event, no one has to pay ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.
As for streaming music, if it is between two parties on a private line, I'm not sure who is going to interfere with that. People sing over the phone to people all the time. Install video and it's the same thing. Private party to private party. You can sing in your shower and in your car. No one is coming after you.
That's your scarcity for you. Have a band call someone up or do a private video broadcast and it's a special, not-for-public consumption event.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Under what conditions is a license not needed? A public performance is defined as a performance "at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances are gathered". Using this definition as a guide, and realizing that a company or organization's employees and supporters constitute a "public", you can probably feel comfortable organizing wedding receptions and other family social gatherings and parties without permission or a music performance license.
If a corporate event you are planning is being held at the company's office, campus, or other company-owned facility, there is most likely a "Music in Business" license already in place. Companies are required to keep this type of license in place so they can have music in all areas of the office, telephone "music on hold", and for other internal uses. Just for your protection when planning a meeting at the company's place of business, it is a good idea to ask if the office has a "Music in Business" license in place. This license, however, may not cover performances in areas generally open to the public.
Performances used by instructors or students during face-to-face teaching activities of non-profit institutions, music in the course of religious services at a place of worship, and in some cases, the use of radio and television broadcasted transmissions will most likely not require any music performance license agreement. Performances at charitable functions are exempt only if there is no commercial advantage and no person is paid, including the musical performers. If there were piped-in music or other type of subscriber service supplying music, you would only be required to obtain a license if you are charging admission for your event. If the music or its arrangements are old enough to be in the public domain or have never been copyrighted, you may not need permission. Also, you would not need to obtain a license if the music is part of a dramatic presentation such as an opera, musical comedy, or other musical theater.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Wait. You're suggesting that this band halfway around the world has nothing better to do than to play a private concert for me and me alone?
I should have stuck with my promise not to engage with you any more. It just makes me bang my head.
We must live in totally different realities.
That's your scarcity for you. Have a band call someone up or do a private video broadcast and it's a special, not-for-public consumption event.
The economics of that do not make much sense. Yes, perhaps every once in a while for a superfan, but... huh? And you're saying that this band shouldn't record any of those songs, because recording them would only mean they have to pay royalties.
So there only option is to keep their songs secret, and then just HOPE I find out about them halfway around the world, and then ask them to stream a personal concert for me?!?
Am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
BINGO. It's the Jill Sobule approach. Play private concerts and charge thousands of dollars. It's a scarce good.
And you're saying that this band shouldn't record any of those songs, because recording them would only mean they have to pay royalties.
Sure. Keep those songs scarce. Or go out and change the laws. Or break them.
I honestly don't care what solutions people come up with. I'm just trying to explain the copyright laws as I understand them. If people want to ignore them or fight them, that's their option.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not really pro or anti-music copyright. I'm just trying to provide info, and to encourage people to do more than just bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Suzanne. How do I know about the band, and why am I willing to pay $5,000 for a house concert when you just told them not to record anything or distribute any music publicly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
You told me that you like a 12 piece band in Spain. You already know about them, right?
How did you hear about them? Sounds like you are already a fan so whatever they did is working. You were asking how you might see them play, so I suggested that you go visit them, or they set up a private online concert for you.
And it appears that YouTube could be an option, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Yes, but only because they recorded stuff.
You are telling me they shouldn't do that, because they might get sued.
How did you hear about them? Sounds like you are already a fan so whatever they did is working.
Yes, because they recorded stuff. This was in response to your ridiculous assertion that musicians shouldn't record music, because they'd then have to pay royalties.
Now you seem to have forgotten what you said. Incredible.
You were asking how you might see them play, so I suggested that you go visit them, or they set up a private online concert for you.
I never asked how I would see them play. I asked how I would have *heard them* if they didn't record.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Did they record their own material, of songs written by someone else?
No licenses needed if it was their own material.
I never asked how I would see them play. I asked how I would have *heard them* if they didn't record.
No, this is what you said:
But if they followed your rules they would not be able to play for me without paying up.
So I gave you ways they could play for you without a license.
And YouTube is turning out to be a license-free way to get yourself out in the world covering other people's stuff. In fact, a MUCH better way to promote yourself than a record.
Music - Eastern Promise - YouTube Helps Legaci's Breakout - NYTimes.com: "The video was barely up for one day when the group received a call from Scooter Braun, Mr. Bieber's manager, who just three years ago had discovered Mr. Bieber in much the same way, watching him perform his own cover versions on YouTube. Mr. Braun was so impressed with Legaci's take on the song that he invited the group to join Mr. Bieber."
Mike, the problem with the music copyright discussions on Techdirt is often all forms of music copyright are lumped together, when in fact they are operate differently. I'm trying to explain the difference.
Everyone bitches about how awful music copyright is, but no one here actually does anything about it. So it becomes a vehicle for people to be anti-copyright with absolutely nothing changing. And since nothing will change, I am giving practical advice as to how to negotiate around the situation.
And to tell you the truth, if you ask most musicians what is more important to them: copyright law changes or affordable health care, they will say health care. That's why, when I pick my battles, it's going to be on issues like health care rather than spending much energy battling for or against copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Music - Eastern Promise - YouTube Helps Legaci's Breakout - NYTimes.com: "But it was Legaci's version of "Baby," the ubiquitous spring smash by Mr. Bieber, that changed everything. Joined by Ms. Nguyen and the rapper Traphik (another YouTube mainstay), the group stripped "Baby" of its slick production and re-arranged it into a passionate slice of pop.
The video was barely up for one day when the group received a call from Scooter Braun, Mr. Bieber's manager, who just three years ago had discovered Mr. Bieber in much the same way, watching him perform his own cover versions on YouTube. Mr. Braun was so impressed with Legaci's take on the song that he invited the group to join Mr. Bieber."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Both. But their music often references famous works. Which is what this post is about.
No, this is what you said:
I only said that AFTER you started talking about them performing.
And YouTube is turning out to be a license-free way to get yourself out in the world covering other people's stuff. In fact, a MUCH better way to promote yourself than a record.
Um. Putting up covers on YouTube is NOT license free. I don't know who told you that.
Mike, the problem with the music copyright discussions on Techdirt is often all forms of music copyright are lumped together, when in fact they are operate differently. I'm trying to explain the difference.
I'm all for trying to explain the difference, but you are making assertions in this thread that simply aren't true.
Everyone bitches about how awful music copyright is, but no one here actually does anything about it
That is not true. Why do you say that?
So it becomes a vehicle for people to be anti-copyright with absolutely nothing changing. And since nothing will change, I am giving practical advice as to how to negotiate around the situation.
Why do you keep saying nothing will change?
And you think we AREN'T giving practical advice? Your "practical advice" is "give up and get a day job." Our practical advice is to show them business models that work.
And to tell you the truth, if you ask most musicians what is more important to them: copyright law changes or affordable health care, they will say health care.
False dilemma.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
It operates as a license-free environment in many cases. The license holders often do not interfere and in fact encourage people to use copyrighted material.
Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright | Video on TED.com
So my advice is that if you want to perform someone else's song, do it, upload it to YouTube, and the worst that can happen is that they make you take it down. On the other hand, multiple artists have launched careers this way. It's turning out to be a great promotional vehicle.
And you think we AREN'T giving practical advice? Your "practical advice" is "give up and get a day job." Our practical advice is to show them business models that work.
You have provided some examples, but a lot of the working details don't get covered here and the comments tend not to come from working musicians. If anything, when people ask questions, they are given snarky responses. This is not the best place to see balanced discussions.
Here are some good places to go for more detailed discussions:
MTT - Music Think Tank
creative deconstruction
The reason I tell people to get a day job is for two reasons:
1. One, as you have cited in a different post, the grind of trying to make a living in a creative field can negatively affect your creativity. Mike, you have said this yourself. I AGREE WITH YOU.
2. As more people have the tools and the opportunity to be creative, the average income will go down. Those dynamics are happening in a number of creative fields. Collectively we will have a more creative society, but individual creators may find that their potential audiences are divided among millions of creators. So I am trying to prepare people for what is coming up next in the creative world. The more people you have making music, art, writing, film, etc., the more they will be making their own stuff and not consuming other people's. We are generating a mass of consumer generated content and it is driving the prices down.
Make music yourself (I will point you to tools that will allow you to do this). Write stories yourself. Make your own movies (I have listed some tools in another Techdirt thread). You can be your own artist. Paint and hang your own pictures on the wall. Make your own t-shirts. Make your own clothes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
That is not true. The fact that some copyright holders don't ask for money DOES NOT mean that it is a "license free" environment. Telling people that is bad advice that will get them in legal trouble.
1. One, as you have cited in a different post, the grind of trying to make a living in a creative field can negatively affect your creativity. Mike, you have said this yourself. I AGREE WITH YOU.
You are misrepresenting my words. I do not believe that is actually true in most cases.
2. As more people have the tools and the opportunity to be creative, the average income will go down.
You have a very narrow view of the market, unfortunately. Because while there may be more competition (the only thing you seem to notice) you IGNORE that the barriers to all other aspects of being in business have gone down: the cost to make, produce, distribute and promote have all gone down, meaning that it's also EASIER to make more money.
So I am trying to prepare people for what is coming up next in the creative world.
Your prediction is almost certainly wrong. What you are telling people is bad advice.
The more people you have making music, art, writing, film, etc., the more they will be making their own stuff and not consuming other people's.
This is such a confusing statement. It's statements like these that always frustrate me in talking to you. I don't know ANY musician who consumes less of others' music because he/she can create their own. If anything, it makes them MORE interested in consuming music from others. You seem to live in this world that is totally different from mine.
Make music yourself (I will point you to tools that will allow you to do this). Write stories yourself. Make your own movies (I have listed some tools in another Techdirt thread). You can be your own artist. Paint and hang your own pictures on the wall. Make your own t-shirts. Make your own clothes.
But I don't want to make my own music. I don't want to make my own movies. What makes you think I would?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
I didn't used to. But once I saw that TED video, I feel comfortable pointing to that to show that YouTube is aware of unlicensed videos being shown and the fact that it often works well for both performer and copyright holder.
Your prediction is almost certainly wrong. What you are telling people is bad advice.
Then we disagree. I feel all I am doing is giving a heads up to the industry that more changes are coming, just like they did when MP3 became the norm.
This is such a confusing statement. It's statements like these that always frustrate me in talking to you. I don't know ANY musician who consumes less of others' music because he/she can create their own. If anything, it makes them MORE interested in consuming music from others. You seem to live in this world that is totally different from mine.
Music consumption is still there, but now we're more likely to find new stuff daily. So millions of users are uploading content, their friends and family check it out. In some cases it goes viral, often dropping off considerably after a week. With the new iPhone/iPad applications that facilitate making music, time spent on those means less time listening to other people's music. I think that's we're headed. There is music everywhere. But most of it flows in and out of our lives quickly, plus we're making our own music and playing games etc. We're not passive audiences anymore. Given the choice between consuming someone else's music and being rock stars ourselves, I think most will opt for the latter. Time is the limiting factor. When we run out of time, and given the choice between listening and creating, I think creating will win out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know ANY musician who consumes less of others' music because he/she can create their own.
ME : besides being a poorly written sentence ,, your point is also faulty.
I perform "bob dylan" and "beatle" songs because I WANT to ,, not because I have too.
I got plenty of my own stuff.
So does dylan , so does the beatles,, but both Bob and the Fab Four , cover many other artists -- for pure fun of the music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPp3eCjGE4
The Beatles - You Really Got a Hold on me (Rehearsal)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is not the best place to see balanced discussions.
ME : I know ,, too bad -- because it could be ,,,,if Mike was really a truth-seeker , as opposed to an (falsely inflated ) egomaniac
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And to tell you the truth, if you ask most musicians what is more important to them: copyright law changes or affordable health care, they will say health care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz
"Soon after that, he established the Jazz Composers Guild, a cooperative organization intended to create bargaining power with club owners and build greater media visibility. Mr. Dixon played hardball: he argued for a collective strike on playing in jazz clubs and hoped for the support of John Coltrane, the wave floating most boats of the “new thing.” The strike never happened, and the Guild fractured within a year. "
"In the late 1950s, he was raising a family and working during the day as a secretary at the United Nations. By 1959 he was booking the new music into West Village cafes, including the Phase 2 and Le Figaro. Thus began a long-running role as bootstrap activist and outspoken critic of nearly all the systems of jazz: how it is presented, taught, promoted, recorded and written about. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/arts/music/20dixon.html?ref=obituaries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE: Am I missing something?
Arguing "copyright laws" with you Mike, is like arguing with a "Holocaust Denier".
No matter what "Fact and History" says, you deny it,, and/or twist it with "Pirate-Pretzel-Logic."
--------------------------------------
Do you also say President Obama was NOT born in the USA? Probably you do, Mike. ( Just a guess.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE :"The economics of that do not make much sense."
For Artists, is is not about $$$ .
It is about the Art , making it & performing /displaying it.
99.% of Artists are not rich form their Art.
As long as you Mike , keep harping on economics as the CORE of the copyright debate, you look silly.
Artist Control of Artist's Art: That is all copyright is .
( see http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/ . read it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Or you could just risk not getting caught.
p.s. Is there a way I can make this comment more than one word wide?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
If they're doing a live streaming performance, the use is not selecting the songs...
p.s. Is there a way I can make this comment more than one word wide?
At the top, there's an option for "flattened" view of comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
(probably meant "user")
Yes, but it's the "private" part I don't know about. If a band, say, charges $10/person to access a live stream (from their own website) of a private performance, is that covered by SoundExchange?
My impression is that they mostly covered stations who "simulcast" their programming to the web, and services like Pandora or Last.fm. They explicitly do NOT cover services like MySpace. Neither do they cover "audiovisual" streams like music videos. So, it's a question that does not have an obvious answer, at least to me.
If they offer that performance as a permanent download, then they would need a digital license from Harry Fox. That much I know...
At the top, there's an option for "flattened" view of comments.
Yeah, that's how I'm viewing it now, but I lose track of the various conversations. Oh well, can't win 'em all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
" Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact."
Q:Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
A: Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html#website
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am still amazed that any musician works with you when you seem to wish they all go out of business.
I am a musician, i would follow Suzanne to the "End-s of the Earth" on these issues.
BECAUSE Suzanne has my BEST Artistic interests in mind 100%.
You , Mike , and all other Pirates ,, want to rip me off,, and take something -- my ART -- for nothing.
See you in SCOTUS & Congress, You will loose Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am still amazed that any musician works with you when you seem to wish they all go out of business.
BECAUSE Suzanne has my BEST Artistic interests in mind 100%.
Really? She's telling you not to bother trying to make money. She's telling you to give up your efforts to be a musician.
Meanwhile, I'm making suggestions on how you can make more money.
How do you figure her ideas are in your best interests?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am still amazed that any musician works with you when you seem to wish they all go out of business.
It is about getting it out there to be seen and heard by as many people as possible - while STILL maintaining full Artistic Control as allowed by copyright.
SL has to make a living too. So do I .
But just making Art to get rich ,, no.
I make my Art , in sickness and health , through rich and poor , and till death do we part -me and my art.
SL shares that philosophy.
We have become good cyber-buddies through out meeting here- facebook , linkedin ,, We email several times daily now sometimes, exchanging links and research on Music and stuff.
I trust her with my Artist interests.
( but yes I got a cousin who does law ,, some things like contracts -- family only lawyers. Trust no one -- to paraphrase John Lennon who said :" Do not sign anything unless the person who wrote the contract is both a lawyer and your brother.")
----------------------
and when are you going to finish your homework MIKE , and do my Bruce vs. John McCain 2008 question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am still amazed that any musician works with you when you seem to wish they all go out of business.
About a hundred people have already pointed this out to you: copyright has NOTHING to do with artist control. Why you keep insisting otherwise only highlights your ignorance and unwillingness to learn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About a hundred people have already pointed this out to you: copyright has NOTHING to do with artist control.
Copyright is about Artist control.. Most artist have no $$$ , and i are due not $$ often for infringement.
If some dude films me playing an original song I have written , then posts it on you tube w/o my permission,,i seek no $$$$ ,, just that the video be removed from public view -- as I control who sees my Art and in what forum -- that is COPY RIGHTS !!!!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're still liable because of bad laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The courts have repeatedly ruled that if your 'arrangement' is similar to someone else's, you're violating their ip.
Me : 1] no citation to back your claim ( what court decisions?)
2] you are wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JAZZ vs other forms of music on copyrights ////////////// I think I have found the answer
"The jazz musician is not looping another album. He's playing the actual notes on an instrument and not using any notes/sounds taken from a recorded piece from someone else's vinyl or digital file.
"If the music originates from your instruments and/or your voice and you perform it or record it, you have arranged it."
"If you digitally copy segments from a previously recorded album, you are remixing."
---
ME : very accurate and understanding Suzzane !!!!
,, If you are not a musician ,, or deeply involved in music ,, no way you can really understand the ART of Jazz an how innovation , jamming , a "stealing riffs" fit into jazz ( and blues too ) composition.
very tough copyright issues ,,
REMEMBER :: "good faith ed musicians will never sue good faith-ed musicians ",
, is probably no more so than in Jazz and Blues,,, Melody ( and the riffs) is a messy copyright issue.
Chords you cannot copyright at all,,
and lyrics in Jazz , are never the issue.
Jazz is very tricky with Melody copyrights,,
i do not think a Jazz musician , "could sue another Jazz musician" , and ever expect to gig again..
They are a very tight group ,, even in NYC ,, most all jazz pros know each other.
Jazz is really a "musician sub-culture".
Jazz musicians usually only play with other jazz musicians,
, as opposed to ,, "folksingers" and "rockers" and "acid electric - head bangers" ,, who will all jumble together and call himself Niel Young.
Mike , you are just of of your league , legally and musically , on Jazz and copyright issues specifically ,,
and just ARTistIC copyright generally
------------------------ end ==============
BUT Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Suzanne, I know what covers are.
We're not talking about covers.
We're talking about jazz music -- jazz music which is derivative. Not covers. Not new arrangements. New songs that build off of elements from older songs.
While the title of the article referred to live performances, the part I quoted was in reference to obtaining a license to record a song.
But we're not talking about recording another's song.
Do you really not understand this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
There's no problem at all with performing music, so that's a non-issue in this discussion. Not one is preventing jazz musicians from playing whatever they want in front of an audience. The only laws there have to do with ASCAP/BMI/SESAC.
If you are talking about recording music, then I have already explained that in a separate message. If you are playing your own notes, you play the song and pay the fees. You can embellish the song.
If, on the other hand, you are using pieces of recorded tracks from someone's album, that falls under a different set of licenses. But that's remixing rather than improvisational jazz.
Jambands play 10 minute songs all the time and run one song into another. It's totally common. The jam band movement is stronger than ever. It's very similar to improvisational jazz.
And check out this. Pretty Lights Music Not billed as jazz, but very much reminds me of it. Hugely popular and successful. People aren't getting shut down at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Um. Wow. I give up. Suzanne. I cannot talk to you when you make such ridiculous statements. Because you found one non-jazz band that hasn't been shut down, you conclude that no jazz artists are having copyright problems.
I give up. You live in your own world. It is not the world i live in. I cannot communicate with someone like you. Every time we discuss stuff we run into the same problem. I don't understand the prism through which you view the world, but it does not match up to mine at all. I do not know if we just communicate differently, if you are being purposely ridiculous, or if this is some form of performance art. Because I do not understand you, and after trying many times, I have found that it is not worth my time to figure you out.
Good luck. I believe you are going to need it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uzanne. I cannot talk to you when you make such ridiculous statements.
I have gotten to know Suzanne , here & through our private emails on copyrights.
Suzanne is one of the Sharper Minds , and Better Writers , I have ever met -- online or in person.
She is a music professional;. she deals with musicians and music issues,, and Suzanne WRITEs very well on music .
She is the EXPERT on the Musicians , Music , and Music industry ,, you are not Mike.
If you cannot debate reasonable with Suzanne Mike , the FAULT IS WITH YOU ,,
not her.
-----------------------------------
You a a jerk on this one Mike. Because you choose to be egomaniac --" un- deserving -ly " -- on music industry ,, stuff , you can not possibly know -- from the Musician's perspective.
===============================================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
"Phil Collins wins Johnny Mercer songwriting award"
----interesting little piece about musician culture,, but you will have to read between the lines a bit ,,to understand the music culture highlights here -- so Mike you will miss it for sure .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
Me : because you are a shallow geek Mike. It is not about $$$$.
It is about POWER-- ARTIST CONTROL --- POWER over their ART.
$$ --who cares --- most Artists would really die poor and homeless,, than compromise their ARTistic values.
You cannot see it Mike,,
because you lack an Artistic soul.
go count your $$4 ,, it will make you happy...
leave Artists and Musicians alone.
Respect the law .
respect copyright
do not be a soul-less Pirate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
(Because it's not about the money. It's about the art.)
Or Nina Paley, who wants you to copy and distribute her movie?
(Because obscurity is way worse than piracy.)
Like Doctorow, who allows, and has always allowed, his works to be copied for free?
(Because free ebooks sell print books. Because he copied his ass off when he was 17 and grew up to spend practically every discretionary cent he has on books when he became an adult. Because he thinks that the idea that he'd get dyspeptic over people -- readers -- celebrating what he writes is goddamned bizarre.*)
Or a soulless pirate like you, who illegally distributes the music of other artists.?
You're right, Techno, it is about power... But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens. Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright. It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
You see, you're part of a dangerous group of anti-copyright activists, not me. You pose a clear and present danger to the future of authors, publishing, music, art, and science, not me.
You have no respect for property or laws, and your abhorrent views are backed by organizations that are powerful and organized, and have the ears of lawmakers and the press.
People like you don't believe in copyright law. Copyright law says that when you buy a book, an mp3, or a piece of art, you own it. You can give it away, you can lend it, you can pass it on to your descendants or donate it to the local homeless shelter. Owning books has been around for longer than publishing books has. Copyright law has always recognized your right to own your books. When copyright laws are made -- by elected officials, acting for the public good -- they always safeguard this right.
But you don't respect copyright law, and you don't believe in my right to own property. Instead, you abuse my legal ownership with bullshit talk about 'licensing' and 'power', and the copyright law that you claim to want to protect is superseded by the thousands of farcical, abusive words in the license agreement you click through on the way to sealing the deal.
So which one of us doesn't respect the law, and artists again?
*Shamelessly paraphrasing Doctorow for most of this... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I don't understand the prism through which you view the world,
ME : you bey I am right on that point
YOU :But not your power, as an artist, but our power, as American citizens.
ME: there is a fundental problem with you sentance, that shows you have never studies , Law, ppolitical theiry or Civil Liberties at a College level.
Ms. Welch , 'you keep creating dogmas out of you own warped mind'. That is THE definition of intellectual dishonestly
YOU : Respect for the law includes respect for the citizens who use their legal power to grant you your limited copyright.
ME : Again really wrong.
The CONSTITUTION grants me as an Artist copyrights. While humans wrote the constution , the constution is what is known as a "living documet" --- as its "power" stems from itself. All the Government does is "Enforce" the Constution's "power". ( Pol-sci 101)
Other citizens , Artists or Not ,, are bound to follow that law-- as long as it is law,
YOU : It does not include respect for some sort of fairy-land idea of copyright as a natural right.
Me : "Natural right" = "Property Rights" =" Intelectual Property"= "Copyright"
Did you ever read John Locke -- and take test and write a paper -- and get all "A" s ???
ME by ME :
"How Voltaire and Samuel Johnson Deal with
John Locke’s Emotional Problems."
http://tilliebaum.blogspot.com/2002/05/how-voltaire-and-samuel-johnson-deal_03.html
end========================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shows that you have never studied , "Law", "Political Theory" or "Civil Liberties" at a "College level".
corrected
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amanda Palmer, who celebrated her release from Roadrunner with a free track, amongst many other free tracks?
ME : EXACTLY MY POINT !!!
10x over !
Ms. Palmer -- a musical genius 100% plus -- was EXERCISING her FULL RIGHTs of ARTISTIC Control , in telling her label to bug off. ( right on Amanda !!)
---------------------------
In my " perfect world", ARTISTS would be given the RIGHT to negate ANY contract on use or sale of their MUSIC --- at will.
Many musicians if empowered enough -- Modonna -- write their own contract,, and the labels just have to bid. [ soon ,,mom :) ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if you are being purposely ridiculous, or if this is some form of performance art.
Me : SL ,, would never be "purposely ridiculous". she has too much intergety ,, and respects ART & Artist too much. And SL writing is ART.
You Mike are just "naturally ridiculous" every time you touch a keyboard and write on Copyright and Artist's rights therein .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Did you read anything I wrote in on the posts about ASCAP/BMI/SESAC? The PROs are preventing venues without licenses from playing music. But they don't go after the musicians. The musicians do not have to obtain licenses to play music by other musicians.
ASCAP/BMI/SESAC obtain money from venues, not from the musicians playing there. Even if you are a DJ playing lots of CDs by other people, it's the venue who has to pay. Not the DJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Not directly, but this still affects musicians. To say that it doesn't affect and restrict musicians is nonsense at best. If a musician has no venue to play his/her music because the "pros" keep on demanding tons of money from the venues preventing them from playing music or restricting how they play music then musicians are affected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
I already covered this at length last week in Techdirt in the thread on ASCAP/BMI.
Yes, it does affect the number of venues where people can play music and I'd like to see those laws changed.
But it's important to know how these laws are administered if you want to change them. That's why I am being so nitpicky. I see a lot of people on Techdirt complaining about laws, but very little being done to change them. I'm trying to provide, when I can, as much info for you so that if you feel strong about this, you can do something.
I'm inclined to think people get more fun in complaining about IP than in putting in the work to actually make changes.
That's why I suggested that someone Ray Dowd might be a good resource because he is a lawyer.
IP is not something I care passionately about. But I've read some misinformation here, esp. about music, and I know you'll never get very far operating with misinformation. Lots of rants, but that won't do you much good.
What don't you guys work with me to explore the subject rather than attacking me if I say something different than Mike? By not covering the fine points, you guys aren't serving as a good music copyright resource.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
B: Alot of people disagree with you because you say crazy, illogical things.
C: What misinformation? Like insisting that ASCAP & Co. aren't stopping artists from performing? That is information, by anyone's definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
But ASCAP will not sue the musicians. They are free to play wherever they can.
The PROS will sue venues that don't have the proper licenses. But they won't sue musicians.
So if a venue operator invites you to play in his club and pays you $1000, take it. You don't need a license. If ASCAP harasses anyone for not having the proper license, it will be the venue owner. Not you. You're free and clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
people disagree with you because you say crazy, illogical things
ME : SL is a very smart person, She has both "grades" and "resume" to back her up. You Rose,, would not know "logic" if it bit you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see a lot of people on Techdirt complaining about laws, but very little being done to change them. I'm trying to provide, when I can, as much info for you so that if you feel strong about this, you can do something.
Me : exactyl 100 % . this has been the point of my posts for weeks.
------------------------------------
TO : Ms. Welch.
Go to law school -- if you can even do well on the LSATs ,,to get in , in the 1st place,
Graduate law school .
Then get back to me on Law and Copyright.
You words are ridiculous here -- 99%.
You too Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yes, I think I have found the answer
ANS : Very true. As a musician who come out of a "jam band" " battleground" :),,, i know this well.
And for those of you geeks who doubt me :
An indepentant link , not nine , on my music history::::
http://www.sashasroots.com/kennygwyn.htm.
"Kenny [Gwyn] made many of his musical connections on Bleecker Street, which was hopping with all kinds of different music clubs, as was down town New York in general. Jazz musicians from the Blue Note or the Village Vanguard would show up at Kenny's shows and jam with him. Folk, bluegrass, and blues artist from Folk City would do the same thing, singer songwriters from the Bitter End or the Bottom Line would drop by, as would classic artist from the 60's and 70's who were playing the Lonestar or the Ritz. Countless musicians who came through New York would hit Bleecker Street, be blown away by Kenny, and want to Jam with him. Prince was one of them, so was Maryanne Faithful, Jorma Kaukonen, Paul Butterfield, Jaco Pastorious, and Rick Danko.
I want to focus on Kenny's time at a club called the Inner Circle, that revolved around his talent. He performed there 6 nights a week, I believe from late 1984 to early 1986. This club was on Jane Street and the Westside Highway, right on the Hudson River in a desolate part of town right below the meat packing district that was crawling with nothing but transvestite hookers.
The story as I got it is that "Rueven Adam Halperin," [ME !!!!} a fellow musician who played with Kenny at Mills Tavern and in the Park, was a resident of the Jane West Hotel. He pushed for the owners to open the vacant basement bar as a venue to showcase Kenny's talent, and Kenny played his heart out there 6 nights a week. This is the year of heavy metal and hair bands, Madonna rules the charts, rap is gaining momentum, NY has a thriving hard-core scene, MTV and NY rock stations are inundating our ears with Duran Duran, Hall and Oates, and Phil Collins. There was no good rock radio in NY and no such thing as a classic rock format at this time. WPLJ, WNEW, and WAPP played a few classics, then it was heavy metal, Journey, and some Huey Lewis and the News.
http://www.sashasroots.com/kennygwyn.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE ::Suzanne, I know what covers are.
ME :Sorry Mike ,
, re: Jazz ,, you do not , understand Covers vs inovation AT ALL
,, this is something even musicians debate,, there is deep music the "ort" involved with JAZZ ,, and what is original and what is innovation.
Most good jazz players have encyclopedic knowledge of Jazz history and its music--
As i said Jazz is a deep musician sub-culture,, they live on their own Jazz Planet.
( i play the blues pretty well ,, and that is how i get to "talk" to them musically--- "the blues" is our common "musical language")
I DO NOT don't play pure jazz ,, WHILE Mingus & jazz guys don't sing Bob Dylan folk tunes.
"Blues ", we can "talk" ( i.e. Jam ) , us , Folkers & Jazzers.
But Jazz unto it self,, really "very different planet musically"
.
Very different sub-culture in music.
Mike you can not possibly understand it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Are you suggesting Ray Dowd is lying? Note that you are "agreeing" with a particular commenter here who is known for making stuff up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Which commenter am I agreeing with who is known to make stuff up? Is it an AC? I can't tell them apart, so I have no way of knowing who is credible or not.
I think Ray Dowd sounds like a credible person, which is why I said that to change copyright laws you'd need more people like him willing to put in the time.
But in the meantime I went looking for some info on whether or not jazz would be hard to obtain licenses for, and it appears it is doable since licenses allow for arrangements. I'd love to have more in-depth discussion of this and welcome as many examples as people can supply.
I'm going to research the hell out of anything that interests me, so whether or not the research turns up here, I'll still keep looking for it. Knowing what is and isn't allowed in music is useful info for me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
There is an AC who only uses lower case letters. He's widely known in this forum for making up stuff repeatedly. On nearly every post today he has pretend I said something I have never said.
What's sad is when you then agree with him. It suggests that you do not actually read what he writes.
But in the meantime I went looking for some info on whether or not jazz would be hard to obtain licenses for, and it appears it is doable since licenses allow for arrangements.
We're not talking about new arrangements. Jazz music is not new arrangements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
That is what some of us are talking about. Improvisational jazz. You take a song that has already been written and interpret it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
Not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MIKE ::We're not talking about new arrangements. Jazz music is not new arrangements.
Unless you are a "Jazz Jedi Master" ,, you cannot possibly understand what you are writing about with , "Jazz", "innovation", and "cover", RE: copyright issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who will defend this strawman ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm going to research the hell out of anything that interests me, so whether or not the research turns up here, I'll still keep looking for it. Knowing what is and isn't allowed in music is useful info for me.
The Silent Majority of readers ,, KNOW you are right SL.
----------------------================
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain have been named the “top- priority countries" with inadequate intellectual property enforcement by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who co- chair the Intl. Anti-Piracy Caucus, as well a
"Canada, China, Mexico, Russia and Spain have been named the “top- priority countries" with inadequate intellectual property enforcement by Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who co- chair the Intl. Anti-Piracy Caucus, as well as Reps. Adam Schiff (D- Calif.) and Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All About Jazz . com
Musicians Dig AAJ!
"AAJ is a rare bird: a widespread publication 'saying like it is' not only from a broad based musicians' perspective, but also from sympathetic critics who are really trying to spread the word about the latest in jazz and improvised music. I'm really grateful that AAJ does not have the narrow minded 'box mentality' that seems to permeate so many other publications and the music industry in general."
—Burton Greene
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All About Jazz . com
I doubt it .
you never reply to 99% of the facts i write.
If you admitted you are wrong on copyright --
esp, this post , and Jazz,
, you would have to quite your job .
It you had integrity --YOU WOULD !!!!
((( or a least give it up on "Copyrights" and "Artist Rights" ,, AS they are the same)))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who will defend this strawman ?.... So I put it to you Mike, as you ask to see how to defend this situation, I'm saying there is no situation to defend, its a strawman. It's the creation of an issue where no issue exists.
-----------------
ME : great post
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@7
HOW THE HELL they are gonna enforce this is ONLY by putting cameras in your homes.
COMING UP NEXT.....
and im not kidding the day they do this in canada, i am getting a gun and i WILL start offing politicians
more i get the better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also @ 7
THIS becomes a 20000$ fine per each tape. Because it is for the purposes of a library. THUS making tons of old people that usually vote for the conservative party HARD CORE LIFE IN PRISON CRIMINALS.
RAT THEM out and we wont have to worry about the conservative party no more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Are Bad Samplers and Remixers Killing Jazz And Harming Jazz Musicians?"
lay the blame where the blame belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
making stuff up
Like what ???
I think he was suggesting that Ray Dowd is wrong, but in your binary world, its all good Vs evil. And any one who does not agree with you 100% are "makign stuff up".
So what did I make up again ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: making stuff up
Darryl, the claim of lying was not directed at you.
Please look at the threaded comment view. My response to Suzanne's response was to an anonymous commenter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the more common problem for jazz musicians
_________
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v21/21HarvJLTech233.pdf
John Coltrane's recording of the song My Favorite Things is an example of his striking ingenuity. On the recording, Coltrane performs a fourteen-minute "overhaul . . . of the saccharine show tune" originally from The Sound of Music. Some commentators have claimed that jazz musicians would not play My Favorite Things today, "had Coltrane not established its surprising potential." Despite Coltrane's transformative contributions, the Copyright Act does not grant him, as the performer, the right to exclude others from publicly performing his rendition. Coltrane is not entitled to receive royalties when his recording is played on the radio, on television, or in a public setting such as a restaurant or hotel. Rather, the Copyright Act grants the composers of My Favorite Things, Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, the exclusive right to authorize the analog public performance of the song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the more common problem for jazz musicians
Mike ,, you should pour lighter fluid on your keyboard an light on fire,, as homage and sacrifice of those who know and write better than you , on jazz , music , copyRIGHTs and art.
---------------
Jimi Hendrix Guitar Burn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOzhbj1BVOU
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This is the more common problem for jazz musicians
1. John Coltrane recorded My Favorite Things in 1961, under an entirely different Copyright Act.
2. John Coltrane was recording an updated cover version, as you noted. Yet we have already discussed about a thousand times in this thread, that we're NOT TALKING ABOUT COVERS. Why you keep going back to that is beyond me -- other than that you seem unwilling or unable to comprehend what is actually being discussed.
3. You also have misread what is being discussed in the article. Coltrane very much has a copyright in *the original parts* of his version of the song. The reason the article says that the Copyright act does not grant him the right to exclude others from performing the rendition is due to the way copyright law is structured with compulsory rights. But there is a copyright on it and it is different than the copyright on the original version from the sound of Music. It's just that you can perform his version if you have paid for the rights. That is NOT the same thing as saying there is no copyright on his version that Coltrane holds and it is NOT the same thing as talking about jazz musicians being stifled from creating NEW songs -- not covers, and not new arrangements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This is the more common problem for jazz musicians
Me :
1] Go before SCOTUS as the "Solicitor General" of the USA.
2] Repeat this paragraph.
3] Watch SCOTUS laugh --- 9-0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright hurts music
This is mostly inspired by the standoff between Mike and Suzanne. Neither one, as far as I can tell, is being dishonest or disingenuine, but their different areas of interest have made them talk past each other instead of to each other. Partly I'm writing this to bridge that gap, partially to enlighten and/or encourage discussion, and of course partly just to show how smart I am (ha).
For background:
In music, there are actually two different areas of copyrights: those of performing artists, and those of songwriters. The artists are the ones who control the copyrights on their sound recordings (performances fixed in a physical medium). The songwriters control the copyrights on their songs (lyrics, and the part of the music that can be transcribed). It's like the difference between a composer and an orchestra.
The RIAA represents major labels, who control artists' copyrights. The PRO's (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC - radio/live) and Harry Fox (recordings) represent songwriters' copyrights. There are two things to consider: statutory rights only apply to songwriters' copyrights, and those rates are set by the Library of Congress. Also, songwriters are the only ones who get performance royalties (from terrestrial radio and live music venues). Both groups get royalties from physical sales ("mechanical royalties"), but they're computed differently (artists royalties are from units sold, but songwriters royalties are from units pressed).
Of the two, songwriters' royalties are the ones that make the most money for their copyright holders. (Because of the way label contracts are set up, nine out of ten musicians on a label will never see any artist royalties whatsoever).
So, how does this affect jazz musicians, or musicians who do samples or remixes?
1. Jazz covers of others' songs. If jazz musicians do this, they will never earn any songwriter royalties. In the case where Coltraine reworked "My Favorite Things," he will never see any money from radio play, even though his version is probably played more often than the original.
2. "Copping a phrase." This is sort of the performers' version of "sampling." During an improvisation, the musician blurts out a couple bars of a famous tune, for whatever reason ("when the truth hits, you got to testify"). Under current law, this would be infringing on the songwriter's copyright. You would need to pay the statutory rates to perform it (the venue would pay in this case), or to record it (the artist/label would pay Harry Fox).
3. Sampling. This effects hip-hop (&etc) more than jazz, but it really effects everyone. For rather famous non-jazz examples, look at Negativland, or industrial music, or search out all those releases that cut up the "Amen" drum break. One important thing to consider here is that you cannot pay only the statutory rates for these - in addition, you also need to enter into a specific contract with the artist (or more likely their label). This is per sample, so the costs can skyrocket quickly.
4. Derivative works. As an example, see the article Mike linked, which explains how all of soul music is basically "derivative" of one gospel hymn (and how that would be unlawful today). Or the Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music case, where George Harrison unintentionally wrote a song that kind of sounded like "He's So Fine," and was found guilty of copyright infringement. (Other examples include mash-ups, Plunderphonics, etc.)
This last one is the one that is the most bothersome. I'm not a huge jazz fan, so instead let's talk about blues.
Say, I write a song, in the key of E, whose sections are twelve bars long, with a I-IV-V progression, a "swing" feel, and call-and-response between the vocals and the guitar, and a melody that ends on the fifth in the first bar and the tonic in the second.
I now own the songwriter's copyright on nearly every blues song ever written. Were the laws the same prior to 1972, every blues musician would owe Robert Johnson a cut of his income, and perhaps the Devil would finally get his due.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright hurts music
Most of the attention in recent years has been as a result of the RIAA, which gets involved with recorded music.
That's different than whether musicians rework other people's songs by playing the notes themselves (rather than sampling).
It's important to sort out the distinctions if you are involved in music so that you know which copyright laws you may or may not be breaking. Or you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
Me : Exactly .
(It is a Musician Culture Thing.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
If the current copyright laws win out, then pretty much everything will be illegal - including 90% of what you (rightly) call "musicians culture."
Ten years ago, nobody was even considering suing individual copyright infringers - they were focused on the entities that "allowed" it. Since then, we've seen Jammie Thomas sued for $1.9 million for sharing 23 songs, and producers of the Hurt Locker sue thousands of downloaders, something that most people wouldn't have even considered "unlawful infringement" back then.
And the PRO's weren't shutting down indie coffee shops, like they are now. Rights holders weren't suing users for what clearly falls under public domain (e.g. the Downfall videos). Before 1997, non-commercial infringement was perfectly legal.
None of this is true now, and if it was true 15 years ago, there would not be any sort of "musicians culture." Folk would be illegal, blues would be illegal, most jazz would be illegal. That is the system you're supporting. Hell, from what you've posted, you do cover songs - and because of licensing crackdowns from the PRO's, all of those gigs you had in the 80's would not be possible nowadays.
Over the past 20 years, the control of music has shifted away from actual musicians, and into corporate hands. You think multinational corporations (like EMI, Sony, Warner, Universal) care one whit about "musician's culture?"
So, yeah. Fly under the radar all you want. All of us musicians have been doing that since the '80s DIY scene (at least). We'll do like the punks did in '81 no matter what happens.
Does that mean we shouldn't be alarmed when the radar picks us up? Does that mean that we shouldn't stand up for ourselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
Sorry, I meant "what clearly falls under fair use."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copyright hurts music //you can just play music in such a fashion that you fly under the radar and probably no one will bother you.
That's why I've tried to be as accurate as I can about what kinds of licenses you are supposed to get.
Musicians don't need licenses to play shows. That's the venue's problem. And some shows, like private parties and house concerts, are exempt anyway. On the one hand, a lot of open mics and coffee house gigs get eliminated, but as an alternative you can start playing in people's houses. Or, if you really want to start making an issue of it, musicians can start holding play-ins as a way to bring attention to the situation. But keep in mind that if you have joined ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC, you have given them permission to collect money on your behalf. Don't join if you don't want that.
If you record a song someone else has written, you are supposed to get a mechanical license for it. When I have done the paperwork for albums and the artists covered songs, we did pay for those licenses. It wasn't that much. If you are too broke to pay for the license to record someone else's song, I'd recommend that you don't do it.
However, if you cover another person's song on YouTube, surprisingly you often have no problem. In fact, I know one artist who is heavily promoted by YouTube and she covers well-known songs without having obtained any licenses to do so. YouTube knows she mixes covers with her own songs. I have recently learned why YouTube doesn't automatically ask you to take down a song that isn't yours.
Margaret Gould Stewart: How YouTube thinks about copyright | Video on TED.com
There is very little incentive in Washington to change the copyright laws, so I don't think they will change anytime soon. At the same time, I think there is going to be less and less money to be made from copyrighted materials, so at some point the entities doing the suing may not bother anymore.
As I have said, my vision for the future is that everyone will be a creator and will be making their own art/content rather than using someone else's. We're going to have millions of people putting out their own material and (1) they won't be using other people's material and (2) even if they did, no one is going to have the money to sue them because the labels and publishers will have disappeared.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here are the options
2. Actively lobby to change the laws. Organize people. Gather money.
3. Ignore the laws. Go underground. Whatever.
Folks, do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here are the options
A Better Way Forward: Voluntary Collective Licensing of Music File Sharing
Now, if only anyone would listen...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Here are the options
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
The problem is logistical. You would need:
- To get all the labels on board. (Good luck.) Indie labels would probably sign up sooner, but if you don't have the ultra-popular acts on board, you won't make much headway. Sadly.
- To also make it user-driven, rather than industry-driven.
- To make it "opt-in," and not mandatory (like the RIAA's proposed "internet tax").
- To allow different software to use the system. (Open source/open standards.) That also means no DRM.
- To have a system to track users' download stats. Since P2P is decentralized, this is actually trickier than it sounds. Add in the different software/OS issues, and it becomes even trickier.
Still, I think it could easily be done. My specific idea:
- The only paid element is the tracker, which will be searchable.
- Each file can be approved for everyone, for paid users only, or not approved at all.
- Everything will be shareable, but only approved content would be searchable.
- Artist may sign up to have their art automatically approved (e.g. CC licensed music).
- There should be some mechanism where users can prove they bought an album (maybe by entering UPC codes), and they could automatically add those albums to their "approved content" list.
- Include lots of social networking features: profiles, chat rooms, PM's, etc.
Hopefully all this would be completely private, but perhaps free subscribers could use the site if they agreed to have their data aggregated by the labels. Or not.
Anyone wanna give me a million dollars for this startup?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
This is actually one thing I disagree strongly with the EFF on. I don't think it'll work at all, and I've discussed it multiple times in the context of Choruss, which is an EFF-supported startup trying (and failing) to do this:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081209/0144083060.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/article s/20090318/0304264167.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090324/1439024238.shtml
http://www. techdirt.com/articles/20090521/1714594965.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090901/020558606 6.shtml
Note that on the second to last one, Jim Griffin promised to answer all of our questions about it. I sent them all to him over a year ago. Every time I've emailed him since he has promised to do so, but has not come through.
To get all the labels on board. (Good luck.) Indie labels would probably sign up sooner, but if you don't have the ultra-popular acts on board, you won't make much headway. Sadly.
Yeah, this is nearly impossible. Choruss was "incubated" by Warner Music, but cut ties with it a couple months ago. Universal Music is vehemently against Choruss. EMI has its own problems.
- To make it "opt-in," and not mandatory (like the RIAA's proposed "internet tax").
Yeah, Griffin kept claiming this would be "opt-in" but there was no way to make it actually opt-in. He was targeting universities and ISPs to opt-in, meaning it would effectively be mandatory.
To allow different software to use the system. (Open source/open standards.) That also means no DRM.
Sometimes it sounded like this was Griffin's plan... sometimes not.
To have a system to track users' download stats. Since P2P is decentralized, this is actually trickier than it sounds. Add in the different software/OS issues, and it becomes even trickier.
Yup. Griffin seemed to think this was an easy problem. It's not. Also, it can be costly, so that's overhead that takes away from money to musicians.
My general problem with the concept is you're increasing overhead when I think other business models allow for more efficient use of money. My fear, honestly, is that you have a situation where fans sign up for this, and then they feel they don't need to support CwF+RtB style support offerings because they "already paid." But, because of the way things are "measured" the big artists get paid the most, and the artists that fans actually want to get the money to don't get nearly as much as they really deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
I didn't know about Choruss. Having checked it out, it is not really what I envisioned. I'm thinking of a commercial service, like a cross between Last.fm and Soulseek. I guess this is not actually "voluntary collective licensing." It has the same goal, though.
Yeah, this is nearly impossible. Choruss was "incubated" by Warner Music, but cut ties with it a couple months ago. Universal Music is vehemently against Choruss. EMI has its own problems.
In my opinion, this is the single biggest roadblock to making this happen. The other stuff is mostly technical, and technical problems can be solved (rather quickly if you open-source them). Sheer bullheadedness can't.
The whole "label incubation" thing is one reason I think it would have to be done by a third party. Any sort of "incubation" by a rights holder will naturally result in benefiting that rights holder above all others (including users).
With EMI doing so badly, you would think that they would try out something like this. At this point, they literally have nothing left to lose. I guess if they were that smart, they wouldn't be in this situation.
Yeah, Griffin kept claiming this would be "opt-in" but there was no way to make it actually opt-in.
Personally, I meant "opt-in" by both a user and a rights holder. You'd need to give users a reason to buy, partially with access to more music, partially with faster download speeds, and partially with other things (e.g. easy access to other music fans). The reason for the rights holders to opt-in would be an additional income stream that costs them nothing. (And, if it went all Facebook-style, access to aggregate user data, provided users were OK with that.) If rights holders don't opt-in, no problem - you can't search for their stuff.
My general problem with the concept is you're increasing overhead when I think other business models allow for more efficient use of money. My fear, honestly, is that you have a situation where fans sign up for this, and then they feel they don't need to support CwF+RtB style support offerings because they "already paid." But, because of the way things are "measured" the big artists get paid the most, and the artists that fans actually want to get the money to don't get nearly as much as they really deserve.
You make some good points. But there are a couple of reasons I still think it could work:
1. About inefficiency: Better business models would be more efficient, of course. But the major rights holders are not, and never will, try them. For example, they didn't sell MP3's, so iTunes stepped in. An inefficient business is better than no business, which is essentially what we have now.
2. About users already paying: The whole thing would have to be a very small cost, one that wouldn't greatly impact their other purchases. $5/month seems about right to me. I pay triple that for Netflix, and I buy as many DVD's as I used to (which admittedly is not many).
3. Also about users already paying: I'm not sure how much "I alrady paid" is a deterrent. People support CWF+RTB because they want to, not because they feel they're obliged to. Honestly, I think the "I already paid" crew probably isn't really going to pay in any case.
4. About measurement: That is indeed tricky, but it is really a technical problem (if no backdoor deals occur, which is a big if). That's why I wanted the paid portion to be mostly the tracker: it would log subscriber traffic, and divvy the subscription payouts equally per authorized file. No humans involved, no ASCAP-style "sampling."
...But if anything like this does happen, it would have to have some major financial muscle behind it (like Apple/iTunes). That ain't me, so at this point it's all dust in the wind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
We need to move beyond the "pay for play" mentality and realize that once content is publicly released, it is part of culture that will be shared and built upon. Instead, consider selling just the very first release, and by all means set ways to give your fans reasons to buy.
In addition to Mike's links above, I've talked about this in a few articles:
http://mistypedurl.com/2009/10/how-to-save-the-music-industry/
http://mistypedurl.com/20 10/01/bennet-lincoffs-proposal-has-a-familiar-stink/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
You may not even be able to sell the first release, if you mean a set number of copies sold on the day they become available.
Someone I know just did a successful Kickstarter project to fund an album. He said that they were trying to raise money in advance of putting it out because once it comes out he doesn't think there will be sales. He's not saying that he doesn't think it will be good. Only that once it is released, it will end up being free no matter what the band does.
So the Kickstarter model essentially sells pre-release copies, with the idea that the people most interested in supporting the album will commit to sending in some money in advance.
That seems to be much of how Kickstarter is operating for music. The lower level premiums involve getting a digital copy or a physical copy of the CD. It's not really a new concept -- bands have been doing it for awhile now, without the benefit of Kickstarter. But what may have changed is the recognition that the money will come in before the release or not at all.
So rather giving away music for free in hopes people will become fans, you sell it in advance to pre-existing fans. Of course, you may pick up new fans after it is out, but your model becomes one where you collect in advance rather than down the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
I've suggested that in some cases the artists/bands may stop recording altogether and just encourage fans to tape live shows, which has been a standard practice for jambands for years. I also think artists/bands may just do inexpensive videos to put up on YouTube as their promotional vehicle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
No, the market for copies is significantly reduced, if not dead entirely. What I meant is what you describe later, selling the release recording itself for everybody to make copies of and share - buyers and non-buyers alike.
your model becomes one where you collect in advance rather than down the road.
There is nuance here. A good business model realizes that "money for art" is part of the "reasons to buy," not the reason. Sharing music for free is an excellent way to build your fanbase by letting your talent speak for itself, and the money required to make those recordings can be recouped even if the recording itself is never sold.
With technology the way it is, the cost to record a quality album is much lower, so I disagree that artists won't care about it. That assumes that the only incentive to make those recordings is to sell them directly. Again, there is nuance - a lousy recording isn't going to get shared, and when that is a significant way people find out about you, I think most if not all artists will want to do their best.
When you have more widespread publicity it's certainly possible to calculate how much it will cost to make an album, and raise the money Kickstarter-style to create it. But a good model will always include ways of continuing to give those fans reasons to buy - as we know, there is much more to sell than recordings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
One thing I have noticed, which I think is going to change the economics of arts creation, is that the money people are trying to raise is relatively small.
It tends to be in the $2000 to $10,000 range. There are reasons for that. If the artists can't raise the entire amount, they don't get any of it, so there's an incentive for them to keep the asking amount to something doable.
That means they are looking to fund the creation of their projects, but not using Kickstarter as the source of their living expenses. So we may start thinking of these things as project-by-project rather than as careers.
Here's my exploration of that concept.
The Rise of the "Creative Thing"
The other thing I have noted about Kickstarter is that it is hard for anyone to be successful there without a preexisting fanbase. Many of the initial donors are people they already know. There have been several articles written by people who have or haven't suceeded with Kickstarter and they are sharing what they have learned about the process. It's very useful in terms of what works and doesn't work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
That's because of the role shift in things like recordings. A career band is going to be making their living money on all those other "reasons to buy." Rather than using that directly to fund creating another album, they can let their fans collectively buy the album not just for themselves, but for the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
I'm not so sure there is going to be any difference between what they offer on Kickstarter and what they would offer anyway.
The stuff that is available to purchase on Kickstarter is pretty much the very same "reason to buy" stuff that musicians are offering elsewhere. The only difference is the collection method and in the Kickstarter option it amounts to a presale.
I don't think we have yet seen artists that launch projects on Kickstarter and then go on to make hundreds of thousands dollars beyond Kickstarter. For the most part, the Kickstarter artists seek to raise funds to finish projects and offer goods and services related to that, and then there doesn't appear to be a lot of marketing of the project afterwards. Upon completion it tends to be available for free or for the same amount as it was on Kickstarter.
I think we'll see a lot of projects totally start and finish at Kickstarter. And then when people want to do something new, they start the process again. In other words, by the time the project is finished, the majority of the marketing/sales have been done and it's time to start a new project and raise funds for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
Once you have "sold" a lifetime pass to that person, you can't do it again. It's a one time deal per person. So if you want to raise funds for the next album, that person is out of the running for that promotion.
You could, I suppose, trying to find new buyers of lifetime passes, but those are self-limiting, too, because at some point you won't be able to get enough tickets for each show to cover the people you have promised lifetime passes to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
I suppose for some people, producing an album is an end in itself. But I think that's a footnote for most musicians - certainly the ones able to make it a career going forward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Here are the options
I haven't said that. The people on Kickstarter are doing all the same things that bands do -- they are selling t-shirts, they are offering sponsorship perks, etc.
Most aren't raising money for touring via Kickstarter, but they are raising money the way most bands raise money. It's just not very much. Anything that bands do, short of telling tickets, I think you'll see on Kickstarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a law against killing jazz!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_davis
On November 5, 2009, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan sponsored a measure in the US House of Representatives to recognize and commemorate the album Kind of Blue on its 50th anniversary. The measure also affirms jazz as a national treasure and "encourages the United States government to preserve and advance the art form of jazz music."[3] It passed, unanimously, with a vote of 409–0 on December 15, 2009.[4]
So there! :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a law against killing jazz! //Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz By BEN RATLIFF Published: June 19, 2010
"Soon after that, he established the Jazz Composers Guild, a cooperative organization intended to create bargaining power with club owners and build greater media visibility. Mr. Dixon played hardball: he argued for a collective strike on playing in jazz clubs and hoped for the support of John Coltrane, the wave floating most boats of the “new thing.” The strike never happened, and the Guild fractured within a year. "
"In the late 1950s, he was raising a family and working during the day as a secretary at the United Nations. By 1959 he was booking the new music into West Village cafes, including the Phase 2 and Le Figaro. Thus began a long-running role as bootstrap activist and outspoken critic of nearly all the systems of jazz: how it is presented, taught, promoted, recorded and written about. "
---------------------
Bill Dixon, 84, Leading Edge of Avant-Garde Jazz
By BEN RATLIFF
Published: June 19, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/arts/music/20dixon.html?ref=obituaries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
How do I get permission to use somebody else's work?
You can ask for it. If you know who the copyright owner is, you may contact the owner directly. If you are not certain about the ownership or have other related questions, you may wish to request that the Copyright Office conduct a search of its records or you may search yourself. See the next question for more details.
How can I find out who owns a copyright?
We can provide you with the information available in our records. A search of registrations, renewals, and recorded transfers of ownership made before 1978 requires a manual search of our files. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). There is no fee if you conduct a search in person at the Copyright Office. Copyright registrations made and documents recorded from 1978 to date are available for searching online. For further information, see Circular 22, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 23, Copyright Card Catalog and the Online File.
How can I obtain copies of someone else's work and/or registration certificate?
The Copyright Office will not honor a request for a copy of someone else's protected work without written authorization from the copyright owner or from his or her designated agent, unless the work is involved in litigation. In the latter case, a litigation statement is required. A certificate of registration for any registered work can be obtained for a fee of $35. Circular 6, Access to and Copies of Copyright Records and Deposit, provides additional information.
How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent. See Circular 14, Copyright Registration for Derivative Works.
Somebody infringed my copyright. What can I do?
A party may seek to protect his or her copyrights against unauthorized use by filing a civil lawsuit in federal district court. If you believe that your copyright has been infringed, consult an attorney. In cases of willful infringement for profit, the U.S. Attorney may initiate a criminal investigation.
Could I be sued for using somebody else's work? How about quotes or samples?
If you use a copyrighted work without authorization, the owner may be entitled to bring an infringement action against you. There are circumstances under the fair use doctrine where a quote or a sample may be used without permission. However, in cases of doubt, the Copyright Office recommends that permission be obtained.
Do you have a list of songs or movies in the public domain?
No, we neither compile nor maintain such a list. A search of our records, however, may reveal whether a particular work has fallen into the public domain. We will conduct a search of our records by the title of a work, an author's name, or a claimant's name. Upon request, our staff will search our records at the statutory rate of $165 for each hour (2 hour minimum). You may also search the records in person without paying a fee.
I saw an image on the Library of Congress website that I would like to use. Do I need to obtain permission?
With few exceptions, the Library of Congress does not own copyright in the materials in its collections and does not grant or deny permission to use the content mounted on its website. Responsibility for making an independent legal assessment of an item from the Library’s collections and for securing any necessary permissions rests with persons desiring to use the item. To the greatest extent possible, the Library attempts to provide any known rights information about its collections. Such information can be found in the “Copyright and Other Restrictions” statements on each American Memory online collection homepage. If the image is not part of the American Memory collections, contact the Library custodial division to which the image is credited. Bibliographic records and finding aids available in each custodial division include information that may assist in assessing the copyright status. Search our catalogs through the Library's Online Catalog. To access information from the Library’s reading rooms, go to Research Centers.
Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
You can ask for it.
This does work. If you are a filmmaker who is broke but you want to use a song in your movie, try asking if you can use it for free or offer to pay something if the movie makes any money. It will probably be hard to get such a deal from a major label, but if you ask an artist who has put out his/her own music and doesn't have a publishing deal, the artist is quite likely to say yes. I've okayed those contracts myself.
At the same time, it's really nice when a TV show that has money sends you a check for $3000 to use 30 seconds of your song in a scene.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#permission
But it is the only system we have , now.
But very glad you pointed out the system "flaw",,, I am sure some in Congress understand this flaw, and want to "fairly" "correct it" , to better "help" and "protect" all "parties" involved.
But any "correction" still has to been within the "constitutional framework" of the copyright clause.
Please do not take this above as a "criticism" of you SL. It is not. I think you are Great. I love reading every sentence you write. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each.
Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states.
This is the route taken by all current amendments.
Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions.
This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in ++"political science circles" ++ about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too.
The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known).
He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html
Web site designed and maintained by Steve Mount.
© 1995-2010 by Steve Mount. All rights reserved.
Please review our privacy policy.
Skin this site.
Last Modified: 30 Jan 2010
-------------------------------------
( ME: the website is educational,, EVERYONE WHO POSTS HERE SHOULD READ IT)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
© 1995-2010 by Steve Mount. All rights reserved.
You are such a hypocrite.
You keep arguing about the importance of copyright, and yet time and time again you post entire copyrighted material on this site.
Do you not even recognize what an absolutely blatant hypocrite you are?
I don't copy stuff. I am not a pirate. You, by your own definition, are. And yet you attack me for pirate logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
these are "copied" form non-comercial educational purposed only webites.
I give full citation.
they copyright their work, for CREDIT academically,,, not for $$$
My posts are fair use 10%
----------------------------
And while we are here , you still have not answered by "Bruce Springsteen vs. John McCain" pop quiz.
Did Bruce have the :
Legal ?
Moral ?
Natural?
and/or G-D Given RIGHT ?
to tell the McCain 2008 gang ,
Not to use his songs.
Please explain your points fully , with direct citations from "SCOTUS decisions", "law", and "major philosophers"
------------------------------
Your failure to answer this pretty simple COPYRIGHT question -- for 2 weeks now ---,shows you are afraid to post you answer.
Why ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.My posts are fair use 100%
------------------------------------------------------
And where is your TechDirt POSTING POLICY ????
I would like to read it !!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
I miss nothing, other than your total lack of understanding of copyright law, even as you insist others must go to law school or cite supreme court rulings before telling you that you are wrong.
TP, you aren't just wrong, you are so far wrong that anyone who knows anything about copyright law would laugh you out of the room.
these are "copied" form non-comercial educational purposed only webites.
Copyright law does not care where it is copied from. You are wrong.
The content from non-profit and educational websites is still covered by copyright law. Copying it would likely be infringing.
But the main point stands, you keep claiming that it's wrong to copy, yet here you are doing it all the time.
I give full citation.
Citation has nothing to do with copyright law. You are wrong.
they copyright their work, for CREDIT academically,,, not for $$$
Copyright has nothing to do with credit. You are wrong.
My posts are fair use 10%
I don't even know what this means.
All of your points about copyright are wrong. 100% wrong.
And yet you try to tell others that they need to go to law school?
You are wrong. You are ridiculously wrong and you are making a total fool out of yourself. Please stop.
At some point, will you at least admit that you are near totally ignorant about copyright law? You are embarrassing yourself badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are embarrassing yourself badly.
You can say I am wrong all you want -- who cares --PROVE it ,,in a full formal debate forum.
MIKE :
You are embarrassing yourself badly.
Me : to who ? Pirates?
I stand by every word I write -- with Pride and Comfort
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
Did Bruce have the :
Legal ?
Moral ?
Natural?
and/or G-D Given RIGHT ?
to tell the McCain 2008 gang ,
Not to use his songs.
Please explain your points fully , with direct citations from "SCOTUS decisions", "law", and "major philosophers"
You are not my teacher. I do not accept homework assignments from those who are totally ignorant and unwilling to admit their ignorance.
Besides I addressed this situation in previous posts (not with Bruce, but with two other artists who got upset with McCain). If you don't know how to use a search engine, I am not here to help you with that either.
Your failure to answer this pretty simple COPYRIGHT question -- for 2 weeks now ---,shows you are afraid to post you answer.
Not afraid. It's just that wasting time with supremely ignorant people is not worth it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
why duck this one?
Because it would expose your not -so-well- "hidden" agenda -- which is to KILL COPYRIGHT.
It you put in so many words,, techdirt , would sink , and the media would be all over you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Besides I addressed this situation in previous posts (not with Bruce, but with two other artists who got upset with McCain). If you don't know how to use a search engine, I am not here to help you with that either.
Welcome to "face the Nation" -- TP style
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enough
You have said countless times how you are going to stop posting to him. You no longer have to try to have a reasoned debate. Whatever he says is for his own amusement. He'll use asinine posts and texts to make a sophisticated argument. He can not have a Socratic debate where the logic comes through. Instead, it's all about how he plans to "win" by any means including baiting you. In the end, I've said my points and he ignores them. He wants to flame, great, fine, whatever. But we no longer have to feed the troll. All he can do is look worse than he really is since he has no legs to proverbially stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Enough
--------------------------------------
It is not just Mike towards me , but SL too.
Suzanne L. is a music pro ,, being doing this before mike could even write, speak or was born for that matter.
( sorry SL, but you were on earth and a young women when the Beatles made it first big -- as you have written elsewhere on other websites,, just want the children to show a little well deserved respect towards you )
The words and accusations Mike wrote towards SL are gross.
Calling her "ridiculous"
Suzzanne L. is an "established academic of" &" professional in" the Music Industry.
She eats off of writing an these issues.
Mike's attitude toward SL is quite very immature.
He should be ashamed.
------------------------------------
If he had a boss -- he would get fired.
And that is the problem.
Mike feels is is answerable to no one on copyright.
Not Me. Not SL ,
and most of all not fact .
and law &
human history
Honestly , that is a very sick way to debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have nothing further to say to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
compulsory license
that copyright laws are "stifling creativity".
I'm a jazz musician and I have solved this problem completely.
I write my own music.
End of argument.
Patrick Lockwood
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: compulsory license
write songs as good as the standards.
No one is stopping you.
Patrick Lockwood
www.jazzytunes.com
In the meantime, check out my song at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlRaZmseb8
[ link to this | view in chronology ]