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.

[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?