Legal Or Not? Options

[JusClownin]

Hi guys. Wasn't sure if this was the best forum for this, but here goes.

As a hobby, a friend and I record vocals on random instrumentals of recordings that we usually find on CD singles at the record store or on the net.

They are pretty humorous and have little or nothing to do with the artist who created the instrumental. We want to create site where we can share our renditions with the public for free. We both have full time careers and have absolutely no interest in selling these songs, not that anyone would buy them, or making profit off the site. It would be fully funded by out of our own pocket and we wouldn't have any advertisers. Just a personal site.

Does anyone know if we'd run into any legal problems by doing this? Like I said, it's just a hobby. Basically, we're just two old friends from high school that get together maybe 3 times a year, drink and have some fun jamming on these recordings. They are by far from "great" quality, but they're actually not so bad, for what it's worth.

Anyway, any input or advice would be great. I just fear having some big-wig artist or label sue us for something so trivial.

[kaboombahchuck]

Sound to me like you would run into copyright infringement issues...
You may want to look into licencing (sp) to keep from being sued.

[JusClownin]

Yeah, maybe it's pointless. I'm just wondering if it'd really be against the law to do that if you do not profit off it. Do cover bands pay when they sing copyrighted material at local bars?

We have fun, would really like to put our stuff on a site to share, but it's definitely not worth getting sued over or paying for rights to the instrumentals.

Anybody else have any knowledge on the issue?

[lepetitmartien]

The question is "does it goes under the "fair use" tolerance or not"…

I'm not sure they would bother really for a little "fan" site, but if it gains audience, the money sound will make the lawyers jump in.

[straydog]

Well I was in a cover band playing in a local bar and we had no problem whatsoever until we had the bright idea of going on a tour around Greek universities - one of the composers found out (before we had actually begun) and asked us to buy copyrighted sheet music (200 euros a song)if we were to play his songs... and we weren't getting any money for the concerts.

Since you're using material as is, there is a high chance lawyers will find a way to get you, if, as lepetitmartien said, you ever gain audience... unless, of course, you are so lucky to deal with composers that support free music distribution -but that's rare....

Anyway, perhaps (haven't checked) you can find more legal info here:

Creative Commons

But I don't think you should worry much... lawyers are usually after big fish and big profit, if they get annoyed by you, they would most likely just ask you to remove the material from your site.

Just forget about them and keep on having a good time with your friends...

[Mac Daddy]

You can't just take peoples music! Stupidity ain't no excuse. "Would you mind if I use your company Forms? Don't worry, I'll take your name off!"

This is the most dumb question I've seen/heard in a long, long time. Where are you from Hong-Kong? Russia? New York? Really pisses me off 'Big Time'. Thief. Cheat. Criminal. Action requires a serious ass whoopin', then legal.
Duh!!!!

[prrcomm]

Doesn't matter money or no. I own 30 copyrights with a small publishing concern. Legally, just the fact that you "copied" the songs without permission...technically. Practically, you can still get away with it, just don't go putting them on a website.

[lepetitmartien]

This kind of problems are ALWAYS better solved before occurring btw…

[abcdaniel]

Uh, hmm, wtf? Music is about expression, wether it is joy, sadness, anger, love or whatever. You should never let law take that away from you! Everything that is put out in the public domain is rightfully ours to use. If you don't like it, then don't put your music out to the public! It doesn't matter if it is "illegal" or not, it is our goddamn moral obligation to keep transforming music into something that makes our lives more beautiful.

Fuck the law. Make music that makes your life better.

On a side note i sampled Sonic Youth for one of my tracks, i met them and asked them if it was ok. They told me that unless I sold a heap of records it was ok. If I made a lot of money, it would be trouble. That is the truth for most cases, but it is still complete bullshit.

[JusClownin]

Mac Daddy, whoa, sounds like the anti-depressants aren't working, lol. Don't worry, not trying to start a flame war with this topic.

Seriously, the majority of the instrumentals we've used come from CD singles that have been purchased, not saying that gives me the "right" to re-record and publish the new material, but at the very least, someone is getting money off of it...too bad it's not the artist, uh, but that's a different topic...lol.

And abcdaniel, right on man. Look, bottom line is, we've got over 200 singles recorded. Like I said it's a hobby. And for any other hobbyist I totally recommend recording your performances, because there's only one thing funner than recording and that's listening to what you did, for years and years to come. We've been doing this for about 5 years now, and I THANK GOD everyday that I can put my headphones on and listen to the stuff we did.

It sounds like trouble would be right around the corner if we created the site, especially during times like these. It doesn't matter, a bummer yeah, but it won't stop us from doing what we do and continuing on. It's just too bad that like-minded individuals won't get to share in our fun.

Thanks for all the advice. If anyone knows anything more, please chime in.

Power to the People!

[hahaworld]

3 things (briefly):

1. Copying music is illegal whether the music is officially copywritten or not. Even if you don't make a profit off it, it's illegal.
2. There is a difference between music that is "public domain" and "out to the public." I put my original music out to the public, but I am still alive. Therefore, it's not public domain.
3. Fuck the law? Great idea! I'll be by your house later on to break in and rob you blind.

p.s. Congratulations, abcdaniel. You got goddamn and bullshit and fuck (albeit an abbreviated one in the wtf acronym) into your post! All three! Always a pleasure to wade through junior-high level vocabulary in these forums. Thanks for keeping the intellectual bar so high.

[abcdaniel]

Yeah, well, I was a bit drunk when I wrote that last post. But it is not junior high level, it is serious stuff. If you can't grasp that level, however you define it, then that is your problem.

The whole intellectual property legal fanatism is blocking creativity. When hiphop came along it used bits of old recordigs in a collage way, like had been done in visual arts for a long time. The idea was to build something with new meaning from known fragments of audio with a meaning and cultural interpretation already in place.

Many composers did it, had fun with music, chopping, changing meanings, digging after forgotten pieces of pop culture. Public Enemy then revolutionized popular music by taking this approach to the extreme, and really chopping and blending like crazy, making previously unheard music. The albums Public Enemy released around 1990 are still the most contemporary pop music around. Unfortunately, this music is illegal.

Public Enemy, along with many others, had to stop their creative pursuit, because lawyers figured out that you could sue these artists for all their money. That doesn't hold up. No more contemporary music.

That we, as creative artists, are letting this happen, and even endorse it, is really depressing. How can music be illegal?!? How can creativity be illegal?!? This is dystopia.

I make music, I like to get payed for it, but when you put something out to the public, wether it is art, litterature, music, commercials, whatever, it must be free to be used by the public. It is a question of freedom, openness and of a societal dialogue and evolution. If you desperately want to control your work, if you don't want anyone to play around with it, then leave it in the drawer. And I'm not talking about piracy here, only about letting the public discourse be public.

How would you feel if you had to pay royalties to architects for every photo you took with a building in the background? How would you like to get sued over the photos you took? i'm an architect too, I know a bunch of others, we could probably do you in quite good.

I make illegal music.

Ce message a été modifié par abcdaniel - dim. 2 avril 2006, 10:21.

[Mac Daddy]

Like I said: This is plain dumb. Stupid. You are stealing from musicians no matter what you or any others say. What don't you understand about: Thou Shall Not Steal? Nothing wrong with my thinking... I know too many music thieves... I detest them...

Only 7 notes in music, can't you create anything. Ain't about lawyers, it's about basic right and wrong. All who support this are the lowest smallest least talented suck butts of all... That's right, especially... You.

[straydog]

Thou shall not possess what is, by its own nature, unpossessable (unless you are willing to keep it to your headphones, of course)

Degrading music to such a low as pure materialism is a pretty shallow way of thinking, to say the least. Music always worked by applying one's creativity upon another's, before hip hop there was jazz and before jazz there was blues, and it always involved listening to one another and exchanging ideas to create new ones. What has changed nowadays?

We're gonna play a game that's funny
get the get the get the money

This whole copyright paranoia, as supported by the big music bussiness, has sadly found its way into artists who probably have their eyes fixed into their pockets rather than their instruments, forgetting the simple fact that if what you make is good it can never be harmed, no matter how many interpretations...But that's not the point, right?

Money money money money money

Next thing we know we're gonna be sued for playing a riff that was in a '60s song we never even heard of, or be arrested by the FBI for humming a tune in the streets....

Jusclowning, it's a good thing you changed your mind about the website. Even if lawyers weren't after you in the beggining, mac daddy would be sure to get them now

(I don't play "illegal" music, but I support it every chance I get)

[JusClownin]

It's good to know there are actual people who can see behind all of the corporate crap and get down to the essence of what's real. Look, any of you who are offended at the idea that someone is out there laying down their own vocals on someone else's instrumentals, well, I'm sorry you take offense to that. As a musician, albiet an amateur one, but a musician no less, I am in the grand pursuit of what is music to MY EARS.

But, I guess that's what's beautiful about life. I can do the things that make ME happy, as long as those things do not hurt or intrude on anyone else's life. I'm not here to get rich off of someone else's hard work, believe me. I have a job and I know just how much blood, sweat and tears can be put into someone's music, but at the same time, that music was made to be enjoyed, and dare I say it, don't put out an instrumental version of your song if you don't want people singing on them. For all of you who do, thank you for providing me tools for me to make great songs that I listen to every day...thus providing me with joy, which is I'm sure was you're whole intent.

Oh, and Mac Daddy, for someone harping on originality so much, gotta say I love the name, change Mac to Puff and I think you have your idol...he uses other people's beats, but he paid for them, so that makes it great right? hahah.

[prrcomm]

Let's extend this f**k the law concept.

Given that line of logic, whatever a painter, sculptor, actor, director, author or anyone involved with the creative arts should not get paid for his or her work.

If one feels so passionately about one's art that he or she wants to create it and let it be used by the world without compensation, God bless you. There are, however, some artisans that would like to make a living at what they do. How dare anyone deny them of that right? Copyright laws are designed to protect those people.

I am a voicover artist by trade. I'm not independently wealthy; matter of fact, I'm downright poor. Someone uses one of my works, I want to be paid. It's my right. Don't crack my stones because of it. I will certainly respect your right to do as you wish with your art.

And i9nsn't that what it's all about...respect?

[JaMen]

"Oh, and Mac Daddy, for someone harping on originality so much, gotta say I love the name, change Mac to Puff and I think you have your idol...he uses other people's beats, but he paid for them, so that makes it great right? hahah."


The name "Mac Daddy" has been around for years, even before Sean Combs was employed at any place of business.

[abcdaniel]

The law prohibits us from making certain music. That is not acceptable. Laws shouldn't regulate how we are allowed to express ourselves.

This discussion is not about payment, but about control vs freedom. It is about our creativity. Obviously we should get payed for our work, but once it is out in the public sphere, it must be allowed to be used by the public. Control ends there. Should litterary quotes be banned? Paraphrases, caricatures, reworks, references, who owns them? Who should be allowed to do them?

The answer is: Everyone.
That is our dialogue, our culture, our society.

If you are involved in creative arts, you do a job and you get payed for it. You make a record, someone buys it, you get money. Your music is played on the radio, you get money. Simple. You make a sculpture, someone buys it. You make a play, people pays for entrance. We should get payed. We should be allowed to be as creative as we can imagine too.

[banevt]

copyright laws? When an object of art is exposed to the public it really isn't your property anymore, it belongs to the public whether or not you like it. Your idea/art/interpretation has affected them. If you say something to someone you can't really ever take it back. What's done is done, they will always remember or at least have taken into account what you said in their overall impression of you. You can try to fight and claw for every dime you can get "legally" but thinking that you own it is a very strange idea to me. I can understand wanting to be paid for what you do and if someone were to copy word for word and try to take credit for something you did I can understand the anger. On the other hand they do say that imitation is the highest form of flattery. This is a tough topic to nail down with an overall right and wrong, black and white attitude or solution. I have a friend that I get together with and we take bits of TV, movies, sounds and sometimes visuals from where ever and layer and affect them with our own sounds and interpretation to make sort of an audio/visual collage. We'd like to think that it is a new form of art once we have processed all that input information, even if it happens to use pieces of other peoples creativity. If I were to take a bass track and cut up the notes to make a new bass part would that be my work or the original bass players work? If I took the bass track unedited and created a new song around that bass part is that my work or the bass players? All of humanity is built from one persons ideas taken by other people and used in different ways or added to and creating totally new or only slightly different ideas. The idea that you can own something abstract or "intellectual property" has come from the greedy mindsets of commerce. I guess we have to ask ourselves whether we are artists or merchants.

[JusClownin]

I'm sorry to have started such a dialogue here. If you look back to my original post, you'll find that what I was asking was not "will I be sued if I rip someone's music off to make money off of it."

I guess it goes as far as, "should someone be sued for singing karaoke at home and recording it so they can enjoy it with their friends and family?"

Of course you should feel entitled to compensation if someone uses your work for firnancial gain or even notoriety that leads to it. What would worry me more is how little of these artists get any kind of compensation while the big wigs in the recording industries make out like fat cats.

At the end of the day, I believe, that you should be creating art to feed your soul not your stomach...if you can make money from it, all the power to you, but the fact that others are enjoying your creation as much as you should be great too.

Regardless, I understand the differing views and please believe I have respect for the artists.

[lepetitmartien]

To get back on the problem sui generis, as long it can be heard publicly and not only in the friends/family circle (the letter of the law is even more restrictive, but we can say it's still fair use) and "like that" on the net (without some ID system to keep passerby off) it's touchy.

One thing you can do is to credit the rights owners (even with a generic sentence not explicitly naming them) like: all rights to the original composition etc./whatever belongs to their owners. If you are the owner of representing him and find this offending your/his rights in any way, we'll remove the offending material on simple demand. Please do not copy this material in any way etc. The only purpose of this material here is for the entertainment of my family and friends only.

That's the idea, you're a good boy, don't want to offend and you keep low profile. Note I'm NOT a US lawyer (note that with our DADVSI law here, it's going to be very very funny soon…)

[coldharbour]

On a side note i sampled Sonic Youth for one of my tracks, i met them and asked them if it was ok. They told me that unless I sold a heap of records it was ok. If I made a lot of money, it would be trouble.

Moneywise that's the way it goes, but on a side note : the band / artist itself can not give the permission to use any of the samples etc. of their material unless they hold the master copyrights and the song copyrights themselves. This very rarely is the case, as the record company owns the master and the publisher owns the song. The attorneys working for big companies couldn't care less if they wanna sue you and you tell them the band itself gave you the permission.

Public Enemy then revolutionized popular music by taking this approach to the extreme, and really chopping and blending like crazy, making previously unheard music. The albums Public Enemy released around 1990 are still the most contemporary pop music around. Unfortunately, this music is illegal.

It's not illegal, the samples PE used were cleared and paid by the record company. You can still make tracks like that, but of course it's quite expensive as you might have to pay quite a big sum of money for every sample you use - that's just the way it goes.

Many big hip hop / rnb artists nowadays don't sample anymore, they recreate the bits they wanna use by simply playing them again and tweaking the sound to sound like the original. This way you don't have to pay the master copyright (for the sample), you just pay royalties to the publisher according to the song copyright.

I think it's absolutely clear that if you use something someone else has created, you are to do it at his / her terms. If the original artist wants money, then you will pay or not use the sample. If you don't think it's worth it, then just don't use it.

Nevertheless, many artists still rely on heavy sampling, take Fatboy Slim and DJ Shadow for instance.

[straydog]

Things would be simpler if artists could just solve these matters between themselves, it's just a matter of respect for one's wishes, as prrcom said, yet there are always individuals willing to abuse this understanding, and then the law and the lawyers and the record companies come in, making things even more complicated... law is always a cold, dumb thing, unable to understand the difference between use and abuse or between intention and result, yet more and more each day the record companies are taking away artistic freedom and the goverments are voting new laws to support them earning on the backs of musicians. Where are the laws that would protect myself concerning the terms of my contract, where are the laws that would prevent them from marketing in anyway they think, even if I find it degrading for my product, where are the laws that would give me full copyright on what I want or not want to be done to my music, where are the laws that would keep them from making a fortune on my creations and myself getting a few pennies?

I remember a case where a local band had recorded a draft demo and had been -naturally- giving it around to gather opinions and fans. Somehow it got to the hands of a greedy record company, which published it as part of a collection, after of course getting the copyright for it, which the band thought was too early to worry about... the band saw it when it actually hit the record stores and, of course, they couldn't believe their own eyes. But the law could not protect them. Shouldn't it be obvious that you have the full copyright for something you have played, recorded and produced on your own?

It should be, but laws are there to protect the interests of bussinessmen and their pockets, not artists and their creativity, I think this was the whole "fuck the law" concept from the begginning...because if artists could get a decent portion of what the companies are making, nobody would actually have to worry about a small site using their music or a DJ using an 8 second sample... unless there was something ethical in the way, of course.

LepetitMartien, what is DADVSI law?

By the way, I always find such conversations thrilling... it's very interesting and helpful exchanging opinions on these matters that concern us all (though I would still prefer being able to play music without having to think about them at all)

Ce message a été modifié par straydog - lun. 3 avril 2006, 11:28.

[abcdaniel]

No, PE didn't get their samples cleared and payed for by the record company until the "Apocalypse '91" album. On that album they moved away from their style of intensely cut up collages, because they couldn't afford to pay for it. Read about it here: http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/archives/2...blic_enemy.html Goodbye pop music evolution.

The basic premise is like this: It is illegal to use samples of recordings you don't have copyright to, but if you got enough money, you can pay for the right to use them. At startingpoint, it is illegal. You can buy yourself legal.

But there is no fixed sum for how much a sample costs. Some copyright holders are very aggressive, demanding millions. Like you said, it is most often not the artist, as in the case even with indie templates Sonic Youth, but the record company who owns the copyright of the recording.

It would be really nice to rework the framework of intellectual rights and payments, so that it actually enhances the the position of musicians and composers, instead of just fortifying control and cash-flow for record companies. You could have fixed rates for samples, like 20% off the revenue of that song to be split among the sampled artists. You could have the Internet Service Providers sending part of the revenues they get from the filesharing push for broadband, to the the downloaded artists.

JusClownin: I think you can put your music online. The lawyer army probably won't bother you until you make cash, and the lawyer army is costly, so they won't be engaged in something that isn't likely to bring in at least a heap of cash. The little disclaimer lepetitmartien suggested seems like a good idea.

Ce message a été modifié par abcdaniel - lun. 3 avril 2006, 11:47.

[Mac Daddy]

You have got to be the most dumb person on Earth. Not a musician, use/misuse/abuse musician hard earn work, without paying them (Sweat Shop Personified) Enter a musicians Forum and ask if its alright if you rip us off and then some other dumb ass thief says: "It's ok? He does not speak for me. Use my stuff, like I said, I'll kick your ass, physically, then have my lawer kick whats left. Power to the people... Son you don't know what that saying means or how many died up holding it... It sure had nothing to do with "Ripping People Off"... More like ripping the Government off. You suck. Nothing wrong with my temperment by the way, I smoke some of the finest 'Stuff' Europe has to offer... Usually keeps me very calm and mellow... Then I see ugly wrong crap and go the other way... Hope you do some time for the crime... Bet you're real pretty?!

[straydog]

"Nothing wrong with my temperment by the way, I smoke some of the finest 'Stuff' Europe has to offer... Usually keeps me very calm and mellow... Then I see ugly wrong crap and go the other way..."

You should go back to your "normal" temperament, I have trouble understanding what you're trying to say...

[Mac Daddy]

I'm old enough to be Diddys daddy and your daddy too from the sounds of things. Only thing I steal is hearts son. Original... I don't think there is anyone on Earth more original than me. DOB 11-11. Four one's. There's a thang called Numerology... Check out dem numbers. Son I'm the Alpha-Omega if there was ever one.

Just don't steal son... that's what this is about. Your inability to create. Can't help you there... But, rest assurred there are more of your "types" than creatives.

Mac Daddy is because this is the Mac Forum. I am hardly a Daddy when it comes to Mac Computers... I thought it was funny. My name is: 'King'

If Mac Daddy has been around for 60 years then I get to use it Sonny. You probably were not even born when I was Macking back in the 60's sucka... You ain't got enuff game to play with me son... I don't want to say something to destroy your little mind, so go on and play with some of your peers... You can't hang.

[straydog]

Now I understand... it has been your huge egoism that has been blocking your eyesight from the beginning and preventing you from adressing all of the important questions published here. And your simplistic black/white approach and insults have been just its concrete reinforcements.

By the way, who asked to play with you????

[lepetitmartien]

LepetitMartien, what is DADVSI law?

It's the french law under examination which is so stupidly made that it will just make more piracy… it's not definitive, but if it becomes so, it'll be a disaster for private liberties and authors alike. Even the Majors (intensively lobbying behind for this text) will gnaw their fingers in the end.

It can even make forbid free software or mail clients…

I'd like the discussion on the side issues to keep civil, MM is no boxing ring and we are clearly against piracy on the site by respect to people visiting (editors, composers, developers…) and for legal reasons. And it's certainly not a subject people can get violent in.

We are on a limit of fair use here, and it's certainly not to make cash, so cool down.

Have a bier

[straydog]

So, France is under copyrights confusion too... In Greece laws are still pretty unclear, and most new ones are directly imported from the U.S., without actually having much to do with how people think of the whole copyright issue... and piracy is still at large...

You are absolutely right about violence, it was not my actual intention, but if you find my last comment to be offensive you are more than welcome to delete it.

And since we are talking about laws and perhaps need to lighten things a little, the most stupid law to ever hit Greece was when, about two years ago, a TV journalist (sort of anyway) had "exposed" cases of internet gambling. Everybody went crazy, and the result was a law actually banning all forms of electronic entertainment and closing down internet cafes... of course it was never actually put to extended use, a few cafes shut down, but the gamers did their own little revolutions and it was soon put away. Anyway, it goes to show how bad an advisor panic is, and how little law-makers are actually in touch with new technology or the public demands.

I guess you have some of those geniuses in France too...

Wanna share???

[abcdaniel]

Maybe we as musicians, composers and producers, should be more active when it comes to new copyright laws? It seems like it is going haywire all over the world.

The majors are setting the agenda, and getting their stuff into legislation steamroller style. What do we really want? Both as artists and music fans; there must be a way to balance the new technology and peer-to-peer distribution, with solid and fair payment to creative artists. There must be ways to incorporate new ways of making music, for example sampling and dj:ing, into the legislation and the payment procedures.

in the first half of last century, it seems like they overcome many of the problems with massmedia, the printing and distribution of notes, pianorolls etc, that threatened musicians and composers, and settled on solutions that both satisfied the music fans and the artists and composers: piano rolls didn't become illegal, the demand was great and the technology was in place, but makers of piano rolls had to pay fees to the composers.

Now we got new technologies and new music, it is time for new solutions, the way we want them. The majors are only concerned with keeping their monopoly on distribution, and outlawing filesharing. For us as creative artists, filesharing is a great distribution, if only we could get payed for it.

Yeah, let's have a beer Oh, wait, when I had a beer last time, I wrote that "fuck the law" post.... damn... you go ahead

[straydog]

Check out this interesting link:

Pirate party

Haven't checked out how serious this actually is (might be a total fraud), but if they exist and manage to actually be elected, it will be an interesting experiment, beneficial to all countries for observing and making the best out of. Of course, lucky Sweden is so rich it has room for such experiments. I'm hearing that artists there are actually paid for their basic needs by the Swedish goverment ... oh,well.

A pint of Guinness for me please!!!

Cheers everyone

[abcdaniel]

Being Swedish and all... yeah, the Pirate Party is for real. Don't know if I will vote for them, though, since it is a bit hazardous to vote for a party without any social program whatsoever.

But anyway they are a success, since they put questions about information and culture-sharing, and, importantly, personal integrity, on the agenda. Basically they're up to date with technology and what both people and authorities can do with it. Personal integrity and civil liberties has been worth nothing globally since post 9/11 terrorist hunt, and that is definitely a bigger reason to vote for the Pirate Party imho. Nice that someone talks about it again. Basically they're good guys. Don't think they make it into parliament, though, sadly. Need 4% of the total votes in Sweden to make it into parliament, but they got a strong point in saying that the anti-filesharing laws are criminalizing a majority of the population. Might get 4% just from such a statement. English version of their site.

It will be an interesting election in Sweden. We also got a newly started feminist party, which is getting loads of media They will probably make the 4% limit. It seems like people are having some kind of vision in parliamentary politics again.

i'm not getting paid by the government but there is an "artists salary" which you can be awarded after several years of high quality artistic work, which is recognized as such by leading institutions and critics. Then you get your basic needs covered for life! And you can just indulge in your art. At least that's the idea.

I have to pay for my beer myself.

[lepetitmartien]

I won't comment on the social issues in France, but for artists and people working around the live arts (technicians) it's very difficult for 3 years now as the governments are changing their status and half of them will loose the 'Intermitent" status, also, there's something very wrong afoot in the way the social system is organised for plastician artists. On top of that we have person with very little knowledge about the internet, no knowledge about P2P, open software, economic issues abut the music distribution save what the majors are telling them who are making a law on all this. we had already the "LEN" about 18 months back which was "regulating" some issues about the responsibilities of site owners, servers hosts and ISP, not a total disaster, but somewhat blind to realities.

It's the DADVSI law which may pull Apple ITMS out of the french market… for stupid reasons. The fun stuff is the majors are enforcing DRMs on one side but in the law, Netshops like ITMS must be interoperable enforcing either multiple DRM or none. And in the same time, some majors announced they won't use the blocking DRMs on HD DVD coming as not to penalize customers as they have to be supported by all the chain (reader, computer, graphic card, screen) and almost no hardware does support these DRMs…

The world is mad!

Meanwhile, they just make piracy and hence no revenue for the artist (after the other actors have taken their toll) easier than all this protection system.

Depressing. Especially as the first to suffer of all this are small record companies that are taking risks, discovering artists etc. and the artists themselves. It's just walking on the head.

[abcdaniel]

In Sweden we have a new law since july 2005, that criminalizes downloading of copyrighted material. Before it was ok to copy for personal use, including downloading. It wasn't, however, ok to spread copyrighted material. Anyway, at the same time as downloading became illegal, there was also introduced a penalty fee on CD-Rs, DVD-Rs, and mp3-players. So on the one hand it is illegal to download music, on the other hand you pay a fee for downloading music every time you buy a CD-R!

The fees are spread to composers and copyrightholders according to how much radioplay they get, not according to how much they are downloaded. This is obviously deeply unfair, since independent artists can get thousands of downloads and still never get radio play.

At the same time the penalty rate for downloading copyrighted material is so low, like a parking ticket, that the Swedish police has stated that it won't put any resources into it; they got more important stuff to do.

This is all ok, and not really outrageous. The majors got their criminalization, the people are still downloading, the copyrightholders get some more money.

What is apparent, though, is that it isn't really dealing with any of the problems, and that it is just an illogical piece of legislation. Criminalizing people is a bad idea, and spreading royalties from downloads according to radio play is just incredibly passive and blind to the realities of P2P-distribution for indies.

it is still better than in France, i guess

[coldharbour]

No, PE didn't get their samples cleared and payed for by the record company until the "Apocalypse '91" album.

Yes they did, everything was cleared and paid by the record company aftewards. Here's a quote from the Stay Free interview you linked :

Stay Free!: Did you have to license the samples in It Takes a Nation of Millions before it was released?

Shocklee: No, it was cleared afterwards. A lot of stuff was cleared afterwards.

The basic premise is like this: It is illegal to use samples of recordings you don't have copyright to, but if you got enough money, you can pay for the right to use them. At startingpoint, it is illegal. You can buy yourself legal.

Umm.. Would you say buying a car is "buying yourself legal" because you could have just stolen it without paying anything? Or if you go to a grocery store to buy food, is it "buying yourself legal" because you could just steal the food without paying?

What's the difference in using a sample without paying?

You could have fixed rates for samples, like 20% off the revenue of that song to be split among the sampled artists.

What's wrong with the master copyright holder dictating the price? I think fixed rates would be like someone being able to take whatever you own and just telling you "you get 20% of whatever I make". He makes a million and you get 20%, even if the whole track was based on your stuff. I don't think that's fair.

But of course (as you said) these rates can be negotiated. If you make a potential hit song there won't be difficulties in clearing any samples, because if it makes it big, everybody gains.

Where are the laws that would protect myself concerning the terms of my contract, where are the laws that would prevent them from marketing in anyway they think, even if I find it degrading for my product, where are the laws that would give me full copyright on what I want or not want to be done to my music, where are the laws that would keep them from making a fortune on my creations and myself getting a few pennies?

When you make a recording deal or a publishing deal, everything is defined in the contract. If the contract you sign and agree says you only get 0,5% royalty and the company can market your music in a "degrading way" then it's your own fault. Nobody forces you to sign any kind of lousy deals with anybody.

I remember a case where a local band had recorded a draft demo and had been  -naturally- giving it around to gather opinions and fans. Somehow it got to the hands of a greedy record company, which published it as part of a collection, after of course getting the copyright for it, which the band thought was too early to worry about... the band saw it when it actually hit the record stores and, of course, they couldn't believe their own eyes. But the law could not protect them. Shouldn't it be obvious that you have the full copyright for something you have played, recorded and produced on your own?

The company had no right whatsoever to release the song without the band's permission. I doubt this is possible anywhere in the civilized world today. They should have sued the company (they probably still can) and they would have most definately won the case.

Remeber, nobody can steal your music or do anything with it without your permission. It's your property, just like anything else you own.

[straydog]

"When you make a recording deal or a publishing deal, everything is defined in the contract. If the contract you sign and agree says you only get 0,5% royalty and the company can market your music in a "degrading way" then it's your own fault. Nobody forces you to sign any kind of lousy deals with anybody."


This sounds too good in theory, but in the real world negotiations aren't that simple... because I'm not (nor any other struggling musician) in any position to argue with them, or hire a bunch of lawyers to talk it over and review the contract. That's why we need laws determining such simple aspects as minimal royalties, to protect even those of us that are naive or desperate. In this strong capitalism we live in it is sadly not a matter of common sense and understanding, but a budget vs budget competition. And please keep in mind that I live in Greece, where the free market concept has never worked the way it should have.


"The company had no right whatsoever to release the song without the band's permission. I doubt this is possible anywhere in the civilized world today. They should have sued the company (they probably still can) and they would have most definately won the case."

Hmm... I don't know if it would have worked so easily here since laws seem to always be bent and distorted to a horrible extent. Anyway, yes they could have sued, if they had the money. But until they could have gathered it (we're talking about working class kids around their twenties) the company would have sold whatever it was intending to. And I doubt that the money they would get back (if they got any) would be more than the law fees.

"Remeber, nobody can steal your music or do anything with it without your permission. It's your property, just like anything else you own."

I still see music as something more open-ended than "My property", but I understand the point you're making. Yet even famous bands have been forced to do albums with companies they didn't want to cooperate with anymore, because they weren't able or willing to pay the huge fees for breaking their contracts. It's almost standard company policy that when a commercial artist leaves them, they make some stupid collection and publish it at the same time he puts out his new album. And many artists have heard their music being played in lousy TV shows f.e., without ever getting a chance to think (ethically, politically or otherwise) if they want it to. Yes, it's the contract, but it still means you don't have absolute control. And they are in the position to even blackmail... that's why I believe we need laws protecting our basic rights. Unless of course the whole system is torn apart, but that's a wholy different utopic subject.

(I messed up with the quote function and was too bored to do it again, hence the quotation marks)

(Still drinking beers here)

[kaboombahchuck]

Just a bit of info for those that don't want to be taken advantage of... You should always copyright your material.. it is simple to do. Just go to The Library of Congress click on the sound recording link, and follow the instructions. Note.... you do not have to do one recording at a time, you can do an intire album. or works, whitch can include mutible albums. Also you can copyright you lyrics, notation ect... Check it out, it is your right, that is if you are an American, or wish to protect your works in the USA. DO NOT RELY ON POOR MANS COPYRIGHTS!!

[abcdaniel]

Oh, i was wrong about PE not having the samples cleared, sorry, my bad, was a long time since I read the interview myself. They did it afterwards, so I was half right ... they couldn't have afforded making those records if they knew the price.

But anyway they had to change their music, because of legal stuff. The funny thing is that sampling was ok for a while, but then someone made a heap of money from sueing sampling artists, and everyone wanted in. Who was it? De La Soul sampling som Turtles track no one ever heard?

Well anyway, you're not stealing when you are sampling, just as you, coldharbour, were not stealing when you quoted my text. Music, as all other culture, is part of the dialogue in our society and we have the moral right to play around with it and use it. Stealing is taking something away from another, sampling is playing around with something, while not in any way hampering the original, its creator or its use. You can't do that with a car. Apples and oranges here.

I'm not talking about rip-offs, since that is independent of sampling. I mean you can rip-off entire compositions without touching a sampler. Do the chord progress exactly like the original, do another arrangement, add some new lyrics, et voila! It happens time after time, and it is not funny. Who has copyrighted the progression G-C-D?

The wrong thing with the wild west of sample clearences, is that we can't afford to make the music we like. Even PE couldn't afford it. But you have a point with rip-offs. Still people are having rip-off court battles all the time, so there would probably be rules and precedents that prevent full scale rip-off. I bet there already is.

Coldharbour, hahaworld and others: What do you think of the situation? Have you got any ideas on solving copyright issues, both with respect to sampling and file-sharing? Or is everything ok as it is? Not trying to beef, i'm just curious

Ce message a été modifié par abcdaniel - mar. 4 avril 2006, 16:04.

[JusClownin]

Just another question to toss into this bucket:

Do any of you consider what DJ's do, that is mix and remix songs and play them at various clubs and events, to be illegal or wrong? I know several DJ's at legit clubs that download music all day and then they do mash-ups, remixes, etc.

Personally, I think it's cool because they're still highlighting the original artist but also showing their own creativity as well. But for those of you who are anti-downloading, doesn't this fall under the "using someone else's music for financial gain" as most of the DJ's do not create the music themselves. Or is this okay because the DJ is getting your music out there to the masses, so it's a fair trade-off?

[kaboombahchuck]

Most clubs where DJs and cover bands play pay fees to ASCAP or BMI. This makes what ever is played in their clubs leagle (just like radio stations do). I have seen clubs shut down for not paying fees.

[prrcomm]

I've found this conversation stimulating, to say the least. It;s obvious a whole lot of people are PO'd at the Bigs, and, in a lot of ways, I can see their collective point. But, I must say that, when I was in country radio, I was close to a lot of the folks in the bigs, and, for the most part, found them to be decent people. That being said, I think there's some confusion on copyright law, royalties, and so forth. If I may...

If you read anything about copyright law, you'll read that a work is copyrighted (NOT "copywritten") from its moment of inception. Copyright registration just makes that a matter of public record and establishes the claimant as legal owner. YOU CANNOT GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS UNLESS YOU SIGN THEM AWAY TO SOMEONE ELSE.

In a commercial recording, there are TWO copyrights: the underlying work, that is, the song itself and the performance copyright, the actual sound recording. They are exclusive of each other. The underlying copyright usually belongs to the author or the song's publisher TO WHOM THE AUTHOR HAS TENDERED HIS OR HER RIGHTS in exchange for promotion, royalty collection, and other compensation. The performance copyright generally belongs to the record company, because it has recorded the song. But, the record company MUST RECIEVE PERMISSION FROM EITHER THE AUTHOR OR THE PUBLISHER TO DO SO. There is a concept called "compulsory license" which means that once a song is performed in public one time, a license MUST be issued by the copyright holder.

A record company is in the business of making and selling records. An artist does, however, sign over rights to allow them to do what they do. Given that, I know they get out of hand sometimes.

In today's climate, here's what I'd do. If a record company wants to sign you, that means they think you can sell records for them. These days artists are not as naive about "the business" as in days past. So if it happens to you, YOU call the shots. YOU retain publishing (it's not hard to start your own company). YOU retain creative control over production, etc. If they don't like it, go somewhere else. There are plenty of independent labels that will be happy to have you. Of course, there'll have to be SOME give and take. Or else, start your own label! With the Internet, you can get your music out there more easily than ever.

Writers receive royalties from public performance (through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC) and mechanical reproduction (record sales). If your song is published, you receive 50% of public performance royalties, and a designated percentage of mechanical reproduction royalties (at the very least what is called the "statutory rate"). Publish your own stuff, you get it all.

I wish everyone luck with his or her music, no matter what your viewpoint. It's all about the music.

[coldharbour]

But anyway they had to change their music, because of legal stuff. The funny thing is that sampling was ok for a while, but then someone made a heap of money from sueing sampling artists, and everyone wanted in. Who was it? De La Soul sampling som Turtles track no one ever heard?

PE used sampling very creatively, but the companies started getting interested as sampling became mainstream and some artists and producers started ripping off tracks straight, like sampling the whole chorus of a track and rapping over it, etc. That kind of stuff just couldn't be overlooked.

Stealing is taking something away from another, sampling is playing around with something, while not in any way hampering the original, its creator or its use. You can't do that with a car. Apples and oranges here.

Depends on the case, but if someone wanted to sample my track I sure wanted that person to ask permission first and I'd like to hear the music and the context before giving it the green light. Not so that I just read somewhere that my track has been sampled in a track for the election campaign of George W. Bush, if you catch my drift.

The wrong thing with the wild west of sample clearences, is that we can't afford to make the music we like. Even PE couldn't afford it.

There's a lot of things people can't afford. I'd like to record in Tokyo with Trent Reznor producing - I think that would effect my music much more than sampling some old track - but I can't afford it. PE probably could. I don't think sampling is the only way being creative or evolving music.

Coldharbour, hahaworld and others: What do you think of the situation? Have you got any ideas on solving copyright issues, both with respect to sampling and file-sharing? Or is everything ok as it is? Not trying to beef, i'm just curious 

I think sampling things should be the way they are - if someone wants to sample your track they should ask your permission. It's up to you if you want a pint of beer beer or USD 10.000 for it, really. Unless of course your material is administred by some big company, but then again it has been your choice to do so.

Do any of you consider what DJ's do, that is mix and remix songs and play them at various clubs and events, to be illegal or wrong?  I know several DJ's at legit clubs that download music all day and then they do mash-ups, remixes, etc.

Personally, I think it's cool because they're still highlighting the original artist but also showing their own creativity as well. But for those of you who are anti-downloading, doesn't this fall under the "using someone else's music for financial gain" as most of the DJ's do not create the music themselves.  Or is this okay because the DJ is getting your music out there to the masses, so it's a fair trade-off?

It's definitely not legal do download music from p2p and then play it on a club. If you get caught you'll have to pay fines, depending on how many tunes you have with you. Worst case scenario : there was this case about a year ago where an Italian DJ was fined 1.4 million euros (USD 1.8 million) for having a couple of thousand pirate music files in his computer and playing them in a nightclub.

Like "kaboombahchuck" wrote, the clubs and venues have deals with copyright bureaus and part of the ticket sales go to the copyright fees. I think this depends on the country, but in Europe all venues must have these kind of deals.

However, this covers only playing records that have been bought on CD, Vinyl, etc. If you buy music from for instance iTunes Music Store the license of the music you buy covers only your private use. You have to pay extra license fees in order to play those tracks for the public. If you don't have the license you'll be fined if you get caught.

But mash-ups, remixes, edits - I do them all the time, but I use original material that I have either bought or obtained from the record company or producer / artist to put them together. I'm not certain how it goes legal-wise, but if someone should ask I say "this is my work" or show a blank-CD telling that "I just got this from someone".

Writers receive royalties from public performance (through ASCAP, BMI or SESAC) and mechanical reproduction (record sales). If your song is published, you receive 50% of public performance royalties, and a designated percentage of mechanical reproduction royalties (at the very least what is called the "statutory rate"). Publish your own stuff, you get it all.

Publishing companies' royalty shares differ. In Europe the most common share is 1/3 for the publishing company and 2/3 for the songwriters, this is true even with the big houses I've worked with.

It's true that you can publish your own stuff (or just leave it unpublished, makes no difference if you're working for instance for a small domestic market) but then you'll be missing the extra effort that comes with the publishing houses. They're very eager to get your music heard as their income depends straight from the income you're making.

As "prrcomm" wrote, there are also good people working for the companies. If you're starting out you do best offering your stuff to some small indie company who has maybe one or two full time people working, but if they really like your stuff they work hard and don't abandon you. They usually even answer the phone and mail. In big companies people change constantly and when the nice A&R guy who signed you leaves, the new A&R guy might hate your stuff and put you on a sidetrack.

I wish everyone luck with his or her music, no matter what your viewpoint. It's all about the music.

Right on.

Ce message a été modifié par coldharbour - mer. 5 avril 2006, 12:12.

[straydog]

A few remarks:

There are decent people everywhere, of course. Usually those that are close to the actual music production (not managers etc.). But, no matter what their intentions, they usually have little power to change overall company policy.

In Greece there is only one company allowed to deal with royalties and they don't allow partial commercial use (not sure if it's the correct term, but anyhow you're not allowed to ask for money from the TV or the Radio only, or whatever you see fit, it's all or nothing.). Otherwise you're stuck with bored goverment guys and have to do all the legal hunting yourself. Monopoly...

A few years ago some artists went against them in court, demanding they should allow this partial use, and increase minimum percentage for newly signed artists from 11% to 25% (might be a slight mistake in numbers, don't have the time to look it up). Artists won the court, but the company never actually did what it should. Why? Because they found out it would be cheaper for them to pay the monthly fine than actually increase their giveouts to artists. Justice can't be blind when it has money in its hands...

Don't know if it still works that way now since I'm still not publishing records, and unless some newspaper writes something, my information is a bit outdated. Anyway, I hope that sometime we get close to the rest of Europe.

The internet has been a huge revolution for artists and independent companies alike, we should indeed try to figure out ways to make it so that things become fairer and better, before salesmen seize absolute control of it....

"Depends on the case, but if someone wanted to sample my track I sure wanted that person to ask permission first and I'd like to hear the music and the context before giving it the green light."

I wouldn't want to check out the music so much, since I think I'm not in position to judge how someone interprets it, but political? Sure.

Yes, it's still all about the music....
And this is a very interesting conversation indeed.

(Off to play some tunes)

[abcdaniel]

coldharbour, I think we could go on forever...

There's a lot of things people can't afford. I'd like to record in Tokyo with Trent Reznor producing

True, I should have written:

We can't afford to make the music we have the right to make.

Music, like all other arts, are part of public dialogue in our society. We have the right to use it. Quotations and collages are ok in other arts and dialogues, and it is ok in music too. Money or no money.

It might be nice to regulate sampljng, so that no one would feal cheated, just as playing cover songs and dj:ing is regulated. As far as I know, you cannot refuse someone to cover your song, as long as they don't do major changes to it. You will, however, get all the underlying work royalties, but the recording royalties goes to the covering artists.

That's where the 20% to sampled artists fit in. To provide some moderation betwen creativity and the providers of pieces used creatively.

I mean, you don't have to ask permission to play and cover a song (at least in Sweden we got the right to cover everything we want, globally, except in some very important instances), why would you have to ask permission to sample?

It would be really f'ed up if George Bush should cover one of my songs, but he hasn't got the right to do so publicly. You have to ask permission from us, if you want to use our works for religious, political, commercial or pornographic purposes. At least if you're a member of the Swedish right-holder associaiton. If this is a concern, check with your own organization.

That fine the Italian dj had to pay really makes my blood boil. That is witch-burning. It is such a petty crime compared to much other. 2000 mp3 files, that's maybe 20 000 EUR in retail vinyl at most, and if he has reported his playlists, then the artists on his harddisk would have recieved royalties anyway. 1,4 million EUR in fines!!! Copyright legal fanatism at its worst.

Happy musicmaking!

[JusClownin]

To me, money corrupts culture. Yeah, yeah, I know, I have my head in some never-to-be utopia, but honestly, if there was nothing to gain, money or otherwise, would you be so upset if someone sampled your work or covered your song?

Personally, even with the small-time stuff I do, I absolutely feel thrilled whenever one of my friends recites one of my verses or hums one of our choruses. It's not that I do it for that attention, but it sort of reinforces self-confidence in what you do.

I think like any other artform, the artist does what is appealing to him/her, first and foremost. Whenever I read interviews of certain popular artists say that they barely listen to their own recordings it blows my mind. I have to ask: 1)Is it because the end-result is so far from what the original concept was; after so many hands, ie producers, etc., have got into the mix...or 2)They're tired of playing the songs so much, thus listening to them as well.

Again, I love listening to the stuff I do, is it just me or do you all really love your own work too? And if so, then I say, keep doing what you do - and just worry about it when you're trying to sell it. Maybe use it as a platform to get noticed then find ways to do whatever it is legit. For instance, I can't make music, but I think I can freestyle pretty cool on good beats. If I ever wanted to make this a career, of course, I'd seek ways to have someone make beats for me specifically. But until that happens, I'm surely not going to deprive myself of musical expression.

[zooot]

when the clever part of your work was the clever part of someone else's work you should not be compensated cause you are not clever.

[uvbnskoold]

Ummm... yeah. You don't wanna know what I think.

JusClownin.... just put the stuff up on www.metacafe.com or www.youtube.com and stuff like that. Places like that are ripe with "illegal" or "copyright infringed" works and it's all in good fun. I believe there is actually something about "parody" in law that you can get away with doing a parody of a song without infringing on the original artist's rights, so long as it is obviously a parody.

Seriously people... everyone's going to have there own opinion, and they are entitled to that opinion whether it supports copyright law or not. Try to have an open mind before flaming someone for having different beliefs than you... all too often that is how bad things happen.

Uvee.

[zooot]

The question is "does it goes under the "fair use" tolerance or not"…

I'm not sure they would bother really for a little "fan" site, but if it gains audience, the money sound will make the lawyers jump in.

i am trying to put a cd out and can't find the fair use rules. some of the material contains a lot of quotes and i need to know if there is a tine or messier limit.

[Mac Daddy]

when the clever part of your work was the clever part of someone else's work you should not be compensated cause you are not clever.

Zoot, yes, I agree 100%. I think you missed the joke and the point. I have often been the fool for speaking out and asking a question. But, I end up wiser for it, and so do all the others who are silent. That's what it was... an iJoke.

[zooot]

The question is "does it goes under the "fair use" tolerance or not"…

I'm not sure they would bother really for a little "fan" site, but if it gains audience, the money sound will make the lawyers jump in.

i am trying to put a cd out and can't find the fair use rules. some of the material contains a lot of quotes and i need to know if there is a tine or messier limit.

that's time ........ measure i hope this comes out o k . so does anyone know where to find the rules?