Topic: Copyright question

[disco]

I called a jazz player today to see if I could drop in and tape his next performance (Jeff Solon Jazz Duo)
He asked me what I wanted it for, which is a question I've now come to love, and what I planned to do with it. I told him I'm just here to preserve and pass on. I mentioned torrent distribution to which he responded, "what do you do about the royalities for covers?" I told him I thought that only applied to sold music, but he didn't feel real comfortable with my answer. I only had the phish "Cuyahoga Jam" type stuff as a reference (phish limits the length of covers so they pay lower royalty fees, I've been told) so I told him I'd ask the collective brain here to see what the consensus was. Thanks

[DMBprez]

I called a jazz player today to see if I could drop in and tape his next performance (Jeff Solon Jazz Duo)
He asked me what I wanted it for, which is a question I've now come to love, and what I planned to do with it. I told him I'm just here to preserve and pass on. I mentioned torrent distribution to which he responded, "what do you do about the royalities for covers?" I told him I thought that only applied to sold music, but he didn't feel real comfortable with my answer. I only had the phish "Cuyahoga Jam" type stuff as a reference (phish limits the length of covers so they pay lower royalty fees, I've been told) so I told him I'd ask the collective brain here to see what the consensus was. Thanks

Wow, I had no idea. 

[page]

Wow, I had no idea. 

Yep, thats the reason for the splits in Drowned and Rock and Roll when the venture off.

It's cliche, but when I ask someone who doesn't normally get taped (like Jazz bands):

1) Get the show taped, worry about distribution later. You can always ask about distribution after the show is taped. Sharing is nice, but getting it taped comes first.
2) Follow Rule 1.

From what I understand, the venue should be paying royalties for the performance, the band pays it for distribution, and nobody has tested the waters in regards to fan made recordings (similar situation to fansubs in the 90s for imported films). Part of the beef with Phish's stream is that supposidly they dont want to go and get the rights to live broadcasting (which I do understand is a different), so I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't some legal aspect that we are just falling under the radar for.

[Chuck]

Here is a good starting point if you want to start learning about Copyright law:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/WEBPAGEINDEXCOPYCORNER.htm

Public Domain info from the same author:

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer legal questions, but I do have to deal with some copyright issues from time to time in my job.

[bgreen]

this is an interesting topic, I've been working on a few things with harry fox and here are some excerpts from their site

mechanical licenses

If you are manufacturing and distributing copies of a song which you did not write, and you have not already reached an agreement with the song's publisher, you need to obtain a mechanical license. This is required under U.S. Copyright Law, regardless of whether or not you are selling the copies that you made.

digital licensing

I am not charging anyone to access these songs on my website. Do they still have to be licensed?

Yes, it is required under U.S. Copyright Law. This is how the publisher - and ultimately the songwriter - gets compensated for the use of their song.

then they follow up with a peer to peer definition that says this

Peer to Peer (P2P)

Also referred to as file sharing, peer-to-peer is a popular type of application in which, rather than accessing files from a central server, users access a common network hub and open up portions of their own computer's hard drive to the public for downloading. Any unlicensed P2P activity is illegal and can result in criminal prosecution and/or fines.

I'm sure there is some loophole or special provision, but I just have to wonder how lma allows streams and downloads of bands playing cover songs without obtaining the proper licenses? I can understand his point, I've wondered about it as well. Another big grey area

[rastasean]

I'm sure there is some loophole or special provision, but I just have to wonder how lma allows streams and downloads of bands playing cover songs without obtaining the proper licenses? I can understand his point, I've wondered about it as well. Another big grey area

this is exactly what I wonder too. Do you really think every cover band in the world pay royalties to bill withers when they sing "ain't no sunshine"? hell no. what if the band plays it for free or performs an a Capella version of "stairway to heaven" (essentially reading versus aloud), is that in violation of a copyright since it is being digitally transmitted via p2p and/or streaming? 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

He asked me what I wanted it for, which is a question I've now come to love, and what I planned to do with it.

I agree with page.  My response to that is always something like "that depends on what you prefer.  I can just sit on it, or we can do something with it."   The fact is, I'm so far behind on shows it isn't funny (though...  I have friends who are years and years further behind..)

this is exactly what I wonder too. Do you really think every cover band in the world pay royalties to bill withers when they sing "ain't no sunshine"?

Typically, the venue plays a flat license so the bands that perform can play those covers.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I called a jazz player today to see if I could drop in and tape his next performance (Jeff Solon Jazz Duo)
He asked me what I wanted it for, which is a question I've now come to love, and what I planned to do with it. I told him I'm just here to preserve and pass on. I mentioned torrent distribution to which he responded, "what do you do about the royalities for covers?" I told him I thought that only applied to sold music, but he didn't feel real comfortable with my answer. I only had the phish "Cuyahoga Jam" type stuff as a reference (phish limits the length of covers so they pay lower royalty fees, I've been told) so I told him I'd ask the collective brain here to see what the consensus was. Thanks

When I talk to questionable artists, I usually make sure they know that they can have a copy for their own use.  I also make it clear that if they prefer, I will not distribute the recording.  I tape for my own use, and distribution is just a benefit...  If an artist prefers I not spread a tape, I'm happy to do so...

Somewhere around here, there is a "contract" that I wrote up when I taped an Sitar and Table duo from India once.  I basically signed that I would provide a copy to the artist, and that I wouldn't distribute the recording.  He was VERY sceptical at first, but once he realized what I was wanted to do, he was very cool about it.

As far as the "copyright" issue, the venue generally pays fees that provide for "covers".  If your particular artist is worried about being sued by another artist for covering a song (and your tape is proof), I'm not sure how you placate him... 

Good luck!

Terry

[disco]

i'll prolly try terry's route of "I'll tape, we each get a copy and it goes no further."
see if that works, but who knows. Being in a small town the venues are often restaurants or bars, I doubt they pay a license of any sort.
Certainly a fun gray area that won't go away anytime soon I'm guessing.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

Certainly a fun gray area that won't go away anytime soon I'm guessing.

If this is so, then "help" the artist.  If you can offer them a free service (a free tape of their show that night) with a reasonable guarantee that they won't be bootlegged, I think most artist would be cool with it...

Terry

[stevetoney]

My response to the question the OP received ('what are you taping for and what will you do with it') is always the same...I'm a hobbyist that records for my own enjoyment and, if you allow me to record, I'll do with it whatever you (the artist) prefer me to do with it.  At that point 95% of the time the response is simply that they ask for a copy (they don't even say 'don't sell it).

If a copyright question were ever to come up (which it never has), my response would be simple...this is my hobby and I insist there's never anything financial related to what I do.  I'm not a business or a profession, so there's no need for legal agreements beyond a handshake.  If they insist on taking it further, I'd break down and wouldn't record.

[printguy]

Maybe it's different in the US than in Canada but to my knowledge there are no royalties to be paid when an artist performs a cover in concert; only if they sell the recording of that performance. And if an artist wants to put a cover version on their CD they do not need the permission of the original artist - they just have to complete the correct paperwork, and fork over the corresponding share of the profits.

But that notwithstanding, the suggestion from tonedeaf is the route I take.

[rastasean]

while we're on the topic of copyright, here's two interesting articles on sharing music. the first one is a little dated, 2001, and the next is just a couple years old but both very accurate, IMO.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/im-not-afraid-to-try-popular-new-things,10767/
http://www.newmusicstrategies.com/2008/04/03/should-i-be-worried-about-piracy/

[datbrad]

My response to the question the OP received ('what are you taping for and what will you do with it') is always the same...I'm a hobbyist that records for my own enjoyment and, if you allow me to record, I'll do with it whatever you (the artist) prefer me to do with it.  At that point 95% of the time the response is simply that they ask for a copy (they don't even say 'don't sell it).

If a copyright question were ever to come up (which it never has), my response would be simple...this is my hobby and I insist there's never anything financial related to what I do.  I'm not a business or a profession, so there's no need for legal agreements beyond a handshake.  If they insist on taking it further, I'd break down and wouldn't record.

I agree completely with this approach. Usually, offering the artist a copy of a performance that would otherwise not be recorded and assuring that you will keep it to yourself if that is desired will often allow you to keep rolling. It's always worth it to ask nicely.

[SmokinJoe]

I have a friend who plays in a Bar band where they sing mostly covers.  The story he tells me is that years ago he was approached by someone from ASCAP telling him the band needed to buy a license every year.  So the band broke up and reformed under a different name, to keep under the radar.

I record a local "Open Mic night" and we are putting out a CD, and 80% of it is covers.  We were nervous about it, and someone (who is a lawyer and seemed to know what they were talking about) agreed that what we were doing was technically gray area, but that since we were going to donate any profits to a charity (which we are), we are not "low hanging fruit".  The ASCAP folks and RIAA have bigger fish to fry (the Napsters of the world), and if/when they found out about us and the charity they would leave us alone for fear of bad publicity.

[rastasean]

I have a friend who plays in a Bar band where they sing mostly covers.  The story he tells me is that years ago he was approached by someone from ASCAP telling him the band needed to buy a license every year.  So the band broke up and reformed under a different name, to keep under the radar.

I record a local "Open Mic night" and we are putting out a CD, and 80% of it is covers.  We were nervous about it, and someone (who is a lawyer and seemed to know what they were talking about) agreed that what we were doing was technically gray area, but that since we were going to donate any profits to a charity (which we are), we are not "low hanging fruit".  The ASCAP folks and RIAA have bigger fish to fry (the Napsters of the world), and if/when they found out about us and the charity they would leave us alone for fear of bad publicity.

.


Do you have any idea the cost of the annual license? It also seems like going after religious institutions may be bad publicity as well.

I just find it hard to believe that every club from corner to corner in america has some kind of license to play cover songs live. What about all the clubs that just play radio music or DJs who have a vast collection of CDs. Would they have to pay royalties on top of purchasing that album?

either way, this has been an interesting thread.

[bgreen]

around here, they don't. non of them. Not a single bar has ever filed anything from what I've dug up.

and from talking to a few folks at these royalty brokers, they don't know of one that exists.... It's per song. If you get a express live license from harry fox, you buy a day grace period to file(even if not distributing for $), but when I asked about a blanket license, I got a blank response.

So how does LMA operate. is there a chance that someday Bob Dylan is gonna come and file a suit against all musicians covering his song tangled up in blue, are tapers or folks torrenting or uploading to lma responsible for making it public?

I'm sure there is something out there, something that makes lma so adamant about it being all non profit to keep it all legit. certainly has me curious, anyone?

[page]

For sold recordings, it's based on volume produced. If you keep it under 500 or 1000 copies, you pay one license, but jump above whatever the magical number is, and suddenly you have to pay a royalty specifically to that label or artist. I have a friend who explained that they sign the simple licenses and do limited edition releases of singles that have covers on them that way.

[printguy]

Here's a good article on what you need to do to record and release covers: http://www.cleverjoe.com/articles/music_copyright_law.html

And here's another that speaks to the venue paying the fees, nit the performer: http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/recording-releasing-performing-cover-songs/

[greenone]

So how does LMA operate. is there a chance that someday Bob Dylan is gonna come and file a suit against all musicians covering his song tangled up in blue, are tapers or folks torrenting or uploading to lma responsible for making it public?

I'm sure there is something out there, something that makes lma so adamant about it being all non profit to keep it all legit. certainly has me curious, anyone?

I honestly don't know. Every so often we get a band asking us the same question, and the answer is always that we've never had problems with it. There's nothing anywhere on the site specifically dealing with royalties or licenses, just the general language regarding what steps to take if you believe your copyright has been violated. I did a good amount of searching after this question was posted and all I could find was the licensing language regarding copies of a given recording. Not selling the recording, just how many copies are made. I would tend to think that this is a real gray area - yes, the Internet Archive is a non-profit 501(c)(3), so that may have a lot to do with it as well. If you're curious, you could write to info@archive.org and see what their response is. That's the general queries mailbox and maybe you'll get an answer there...I doubt you'll get a full legalese run-down though.

[setboy]

I just find it hard to believe that every club from corner to corner in america has some kind of license to play cover songs live.

They don't, but ascap and the like sure want them to. i know of a few places around here that have had the ascap/whatever the other name is come to their place to try to shake them down for $$$. most of them just tell them they are only booking people that don't play cover and some other pay it just to keep the crap off their backs

[setboy]

I just got word today that ascap shut down a local open mic near me....pretty freaking sad.....all people want is money these days...........

[printguy]

I just got word today that ascap shut down a local open mic near me....pretty freaking sad.....all people want is money these days...........

As greedy as ASCAP, RIAA, etc may be - it doesn't excuse the fact that your local club was breaking the law. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can ignore it.

The club makes money at the door, on booze and food from the patrons who attend the open mic night... Shouldn't the owners of the music being performed get their share?

[rastasean]

I just got word today that ascap shut down a local open mic near me....pretty freaking sad.....all people want is money these days...........

As greedy as ASCAP, RIAA, etc may be - it doesn't excuse the fact that your local club was breaking the law. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can ignore it.

The club makes money at the door, on booze and food from the patrons who attend the open mic night... Shouldn't the owners of the music being performed get their share?

if its a bad law, why not break it. freeing slaves was illegal. if this was the time period of slavery and you knew people who were freeing slaves, you would turn them into the authorities since it was illegal?

 I would tend to think that this is a real gray area - yes, the Internet Archive is a non-profit 501(c)(3), so that may have a lot to do with it as well.

Is there a list of donations that sponsor the archive? How can we donate to the archive?

[runonce]

I just got word today that ascap shut down a local open mic near me....pretty freaking sad.....all people want is money these days...........

As greedy as ASCAP, RIAA, etc may be - it doesn't excuse the fact that your local club was breaking the law. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can ignore it.

The club makes money at the door, on booze and food from the patrons who attend the open mic night... Shouldn't the owners of the music being performed get their share?

if its a bad law, why not break it. freeing slaves was illegal. if this was the time period of slavery and you knew people who were freeing slaves, you would turn them into the authorities since it was illegal?

 I would tend to think that this is a real gray area - yes, the Internet Archive is a non-profit 501(c)(3), so that may have a lot to do with it as well.

Is there a list of donations that sponsor the archive? How can we donate to the archive?

http://www.archive.org/donate/index.php

[printguy]

I just got word today that ascap shut down a local open mic near me....pretty freaking sad.....all people want is money these days...........

As greedy as ASCAP, RIAA, etc may be - it doesn't excuse the fact that your local club was breaking the law. Just because you disagree with a law doesn't mean you can ignore it.

The club makes money at the door, on booze and food from the patrons who attend the open mic night... Shouldn't the owners of the music being performed get their share?

if its a bad law, why not break it. freeing slaves was illegal. if this was the time period of slavery and you knew people who were freeing slaves, you would turn them into the authorities since it was illegal?

Really? You're comparing this to freeing slaves?

[stevetoney]

The bigger picture is that when people sing an artists songs, they're keeping the songs alive so that the artist will continue to reap the rewards of the copyright.  Nitpicking local bars for copyright infringement on open mic night is greediness to the Nth degree and is simply biting the hand the feeds you.

Do they REALLY expect that bars would start paying in favor of just shutting down open mic nights?  So what has been accomplished? 

Effin' idiots.

[rastasean]

Really? You're comparing this to freeing slaves?

I know its very extreme but I'm just pointing out that there are bad laws that I would break if I disagreed with them, I would work on freeing slaves if it was illegal.

All this copyright nonsense is even a bigger reason we need to start using creative commons licenses on our work.
http://creativecommons.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_commons

[Elana]

So how does LMA operate. is there a chance that someday Bob Dylan is gonna come and file a suit against all musicians covering his song tangled up in blue, are tapers or folks torrenting or uploading to lma responsible for making it public?

I'm sure there is something out there, something that makes lma so adamant about it being all non profit to keep it all legit. certainly has me curious, anyone?

I honestly don't know. Every so often we get a band asking us the same question, and the answer is always that we've never had problems with it. There's nothing anywhere on the site specifically dealing with royalties or licenses, just the general language regarding what steps to take if you believe your copyright has been violated. I did a good amount of searching after this question was posted and all I could find was the licensing language regarding copies of a given recording. Not selling the recording, just how many copies are made. I would tend to think that this is a real gray area - yes, the Internet Archive is a non-profit 501(c)(3), so that may have a lot to do with it as well. If you're curious, you could write to info@archive.org and see what their response is. That's the general queries mailbox and maybe you'll get an answer there...I doubt you'll get a full legalese run-down though.

I've wondered about this too, but I don't think the site is high traffic enough to warrant scrutiny.

I've had issues w/ covers and Youtube though.

I have a video of someone covering "Brown Eyed Girl", and I got contacted, and said that the song was copyright and if I wanted to keep the video up there, I had to put a message that said who held the copyright and that they gave me permission to put the video up.  At least it was nice of them not to try and yank it.

Then I have another video of someone covering I think Living on a Prayer, and it was yanked from Youtube as a copyright voilation.  But I also have other videos covering this song and those weren't taken down, so I think it may be random checks or something.

But Youtube obviously gets tons of traffic and is a target for copyright violations.

I'm hoping people just don't care enough about the LMA.

[rastasean]

I have a video of someone covering "Brown Eyed Girl", and I got contacted, and said that the song was copyright and if I wanted to keep the video up there, I had to put a message that said who held the copyright and that they gave me permission to put the video up.  At least it was nice of them not to try and yank it.


I'm hoping people just don't care enough about the LMA.

the van morrison people will NOT tolerate ANYTHING that violates his copyright at all. I had a time-lapse with a song of his and it was up for about 3-5 days and someone called the web sheriff contacted youtube and me to remove the video. It was about 45 seconds of audio from the middle of one of his songs but that didn't matter.

I hope the do-gooders leave LMA and the entire archive alone or it will be censored much worse than youtube.

[Elana]

I have a video of someone covering "Brown Eyed Girl", and I got contacted, and said that the song was copyright and if I wanted to keep the video up there, I had to put a message that said who held the copyright and that they gave me permission to put the video up.  At least it was nice of them not to try and yank it.


I'm hoping people just don't care enough about the LMA.

the van morrison people will NOT tolerate ANYTHING that violates his copyright at all. I had a time-lapse with a song of his and it was up for about 3-5 days and someone called the web sheriff contacted youtube and me to remove the video. It was about 45 seconds of audio from the middle of one of his songs but that didn't matter.

I hope the do-gooders leave LMA and the entire archive alone or it will be censored much worse than youtube.

Yes, Web Sheriff, that was the person.  I was just thankful he let me keep it up because it's a fun cover.  That reminds me.  I never did upload the audio of that show to the archive.  But it's from 2001 so at this point I don't even know where I put it.

[stevetoney]

a) I respect that someone wants to protect their financial interests and copyright.

b) I do not respect losing perspective to the point of dumb blindness.

As an artist, Van Morrison and people like him that are blinded to the point of near insanity, need to understand that it's not all about him.  Fine, he deserves to earn a living doing what he does, but it's also about those that came before him paving the way for him to earn his living doing what he loves and him doing the same for those that come after him.

I wonder if Van Morrison religiously pays copyright fees for EVERY performance of EVERY cover he's ever sang?!?  I think I know the answer to that rhetorical question.  Whatcha suppose Van Morrison sang before he became famous?!?

I've read before about Van Morrison's policy about protecting copyright at-all-costs even in situations where money isn't involved and I've chosen to boycott buying anything of his ever again for that reason, although I know I'm not missing anything.   

[bgreen]

Just got off the phone with Harry Fox about a totally separate issue dealing with a mechanical licenses from them. Just out of curiosity, I pitched a made up scenario about me hosting this CD on a site that was non profit (totally made up, I don't have any plans too ;-)  ) and basically, he broke this down into 2 seperate scenarios

1. If I made this site an interactive streaming site, meaning you could come and select the show and song you wanted to hear, the rate, even if I was a registered non profit site with no advertising income or donations is a penny a stream per cover song

2. If I made it a Radio channel where you listened to what I programmed and could not pick the show or song, there are no royalties due for streams of cover songs

Very interesting the way they break this out, not very logical, but interesting. I mean, I could basically advertise and make money while band X is playing band Z's song and not owe any royalties as long as I don't let you pick what you hear but if I allow someone to pick a specific instance of band X playing band Z's song on a non profit site, I would have to pay. Maybe I'm missing something there, seems very backwards. This chap at HFA did say that this whole streaming thing, even though it's been around for quiet some time is just now being looked at and he expects changes to the policy as it grows. Same goes for torrenting. Hope the music industry pulls it's head out of it's ars long enough to realize that all this really the evolution of the industry that the music giants have fought every step of the way. Maybe they can see that them fighting it really is the demise of the label and the reason why indie and unsigned bands now aren't looking to be signed with major labels. All very interesting, surprising, but interesting.


With all this being said, it seems the burden for enforcing copyrights is still on the copyright holder and I really wonder how many bands cruise the sites we enjoy looking for another band covering their tunes. Then you also have to wonder how many of them really care that it's there.

[hoppedup]

So, would it be best not to label covers as such in setlists and text files on uploads?

And is this a good reason to leave the taper's name off the recording as well?

[bgreen]

I really don't think it's anything more then bureaucratic red tape. HFA can't go to archive and say hey, you can't do this, it would have to be the artist or company that owned the copyright. The burden lies on them. From there, my guess would be a Cease and desist order, just like they have been doing on trackers when there are issues with labels ect. I mean, for a penny a play per cover, think how many it would have to have to even be worth the $ to get a lawyer to srite up a document to get it into court :p . Hardly anything thats going to make someone rich.  I don't think it's reason to go changing the way we all do things, it's just an FYI and something I had to satisfy from my own curiosity. I can't imagine anything ever coming from it other than a c & d order.This guy said that all this is just being looked at now since streaming is a new frontier thats picking up speed. I would imagine it will change 50 times in the next year :p Still a huge grey are that I don't see being cleared up or enforced until it is, but you can certainly see the old mentality taking hold. Some of these folks just can't see the forest through the trees. I seriously see the whole music industry right at the point of having the reset button hit just because the business model established in the 50's and the folks that made it work refuse to try to grasp the times and the technology that comes with it and try to work with it rather than fight it every step of the way. 

[stevetoney]

So, would it be best not to label covers as such in setlists and text files on uploads?

And is this a good reason to leave the taper's name off the recording as well?

Well, not labeling the cover songs in setlists as such doesn't change the fact that a song is a cover, but I suppose it might help with the camouflage...since nobody knows all titles of all songs.  I never bothered with labeling covers as such, but I know alot of people do.

Regarding your second questions, personally, in the context of the taping and torrenting realm, my opinion is that I wouldn't worry about it.  I think it's much ado about nothing because in the end, I just don't think anybody's gonna go after a taper for spreading a recording of a live show that has covers.  The very worst that will happen, I think, is that there would be a request to stop torrenting a show that someone makes an issue over. 

[rastasean]

wow, excellent information bgreen!

Maybe the reason its a penny per cover song is because the user may not select every cover cover song. what if there's 5 covers and 5 no covers. he may only choose to listen to 2 covers and 5 no covers meaning only 2 cents would go to the band/artist who originally made the song.

situation 2 is quite odd and doesn't make much sense because the streamer could theoretically make money by prompting the cover band.

I don't understand who would be responsible for collecting all these pennies. is it the record label, is it the producer, is it the artist/band, is it some agency like Harry Fox? Just think of all the Jerry Garcia/GD streams on LMA that we listen to and how theoretically someone is owed a lot of pennies.

The music industry is self destructing by not adopting but they think we're the enemies. This is no longer about the music or the message of the lyrics but how quick can you make a hit and get super rich.

So, would it be best not to label covers as such in setlists and text files on uploads?

And is this a good reason to leave the taper's name off the recording as well?

oh who cares? everything is illegal. might as well enjoy some songs!

[stevetoney]

I seriously see the whole music industry right at the point of having the reset button hit just because the business model established in the 50's and the folks that made it work refuse to try to grasp the times and the technology that comes with it and try to work with it rather than fight it every step of the way.

I'd actually propose that we're beyond that point.  Record companies literally have lost the battle and RIAA really has no clout anymore.  Whatever lawsuits exist because of RIAA crybaby tactics  are remnants of leftover litigation from the past business practices you mention David.  I just feel bad for the scapegoated people that may end up having to pay because of RIAA and others' lunacy.

Regarding how the landscape will look ten years from now, it's hard to say, but the business models of the future clearly will be embracing downloading and technology as a reality that's here to stay...and torrenting is also a viable means of distribution that many legitimate businesses are utilizing, so I wouldn't exclude that from being an integral part of that landscape...or some derivation of it. 

I think this cover song issue is a bit of a different beast though.  I mean, covers have been sung and performed since the beginning of time and regardless of how the letter of the law reads, enforcement in the clubs and from the stage has never been done, nor can it...nor should it.  The bigger picture is the the performance of music is practicing the artform of music and there are some places, such as during the live performance, when it's just OK for music simply to exist as art without there needing to be a business aspect to it. 

Obviously, committing the live performance to tape and then selling or distributing it is another story, but when there's no money involved, such as what we do here, I hardly thing there's cause for concern that any copyrights are being harmed in any way.

[crossthreaded]

when asked that question I tell them they can have a copy and I'll do whatever they want to with it.  I give them my card tell them to email me an address and I will mail them a copy and then I never hear from them again.

[setboy]

when asked that question I tell them they can have a copy and I'll do whatever they want to with it. 

^ Yeah, that's what i do as well.

[achalsey]

Instead of start a new thread I'll ask here first:

So I taped a bunch of my cousin's bands shows and put them up on Archive (only the "community audio" though) and it turns out none of their songs are copyrighted yet.  So now they've been freaking out the past week trying to get me to take them down (which I'm happy to do, but originally thought they meant just the take the links off of facebook).  They're all worried about people stealing them since they are not copyrighted yet, I guess.

Is this a reasonable fear?  I think they're just trying to have all their bases covered, but they're a really small band so far, and besides a few links I posted in the Church Audio team board, it was only "fans" and family on facebook who saw it.  Are they overreacting or is this a legitimate concern?

Edit for OP: they do play a fair amount of covers if doing a few sets but are just worried about their not yet copyrighted original material.

[rastasean]

Yeah, I heard them and I really like the recordings and their playing. I noticed the recordings had less than a dozen downloads...not many at all.

my step-father wrote a song and we worked on recording it using the zoom r16. before I could put it up on the net, he wanted to pay $35 to the copyright office so I did as he wished and waited until he submitted it to be copyright. thats $35 for ONE SONG. maybe there is an album cost that's slightly cheaper--I don't know.

PERSONALLY FOR ME, if I were to write a song, I would release it under creative commons. I wrote about them earlier in this post. I have time-lapses released that way on the archive and all my photos are. I don't care about copyright so I don't even bother with it. are your cousins going to actually pay the copyright office money?

they should also keep in mind music is about sharing their message and exposing it to as many people as they can...not always about looking to sign with a record label.

tell them to keep playing and you'll keep doing your thang.

[achalsey]

I agree, but unfortunately besides my cousin and perhaps one of the guitarists, they're young (and in some cases very "hip") LA guys definitely trying to make it at least somewhere.  They're all good guys, but none of them know about the taping community and while they love music definitely see the whole "scene" a little differently.

Oh well, hopefully the next tour they'll be less anxious about sharing their music.

[goodcooker]

When I managed a restaurant/bar/music venue we received a questionnaire every year from ASCAP. It calculated the fee we payed every year to be able to play music in the establishment.
We had to pay fees to
*play the radio
*have bands
*have bands that played covers
*play cds, tapes, records
each line item added to the yearly fee which was, I think, a grand in 1990. At one point an "enforcement agent" of ASCAP actually came by the joint to check things out. He asked for me, showed me his credentials and pulled a copy of our current agreement/fee schedule out of his briefcase. Took a look around then split.

When I lived in Omaha I worked for a band for a while as their FOH. We played at a club where the owner was adamant about not playing any covers. He would pull the plug on you if you tried to sneak one in. He was some kind of fanatic about not paying that ASCAP fee. I applaud him for saving money on the front end and only charging a few bucks at the door but I think it may have been more simple for him in the long run to cough up the dough.

The most ridiculous thing about managing that club was that a state liquor license for a bar that had live music was 50% more than  one that did not. The owners when they first started out naively admitted to the liquor board in the application for their first license that they planned to allow dancing. This forced them to get a "cabaret" liquor license which was 3 times the cost of a regular one. They quickly figured that one out.

to achalsey- if your friends are all freaked out about the copyright have one of them copyright it under "the collected works of " whoever is chosen. Every person can copyright a "collected works" in it's entirety for the cost of one song. You can only do this once ( I think)

[rastasean]

goodcooker--in my opinion, that is a terrible, terrible experience that you had to go through in order to own a bar but this isn't the political forum so I'll leave it at that.

achalsey--let them know by you not being able to have the recordings online it will be one less band I listen to and less exposure they get.

good luck

[it-goes-to-eleven]

they should also keep in mind music is about sharing their message and exposing it to as many people as they can...not always about looking to sign with a record label.

Tell that to the people who will rip them off without credit and use their stuff as their own material or on a TV ad.

[rastasean]

they should also keep in mind music is about sharing their message and exposing it to as many people as they can...not always about looking to sign with a record label.

Tell that to the people who will rip them off without credit and use their stuff as their own material or on a TV ad.

that already occurs and I don't support that

[admkrk]

they should also keep in mind music is about sharing their message and exposing it to as many people as they can...not always about looking to sign with a record label.

Tell that to the people who will rip them off without credit and use their stuff as their own material or on a TV ad.

i used to tape a local bar band that played primarily covers. they were older people with no intentions of "making it big". they were very leery of what i would do with any recording of the occasional original that they played for just that reason since they weren't copyrighted.

[Tim]

they should also keep in mind music is about sharing their message and exposing it to as many people as they can...not always about looking to sign with a record label.

Tell that to the people who will rip them off without credit and use their stuff as their own material or on a TV ad.

that already occurs and I don't support that

and how exactly do you propose preventing theft of intellectual property without, you know, copyright laws and enforcement of copyrights?

I'm all for the artists protecting their intellectual property and being able to make a living. We seem to be conflating a few different issues here - artists enforcing their IP themselves, ASCAP and BMI enforcing IP rights on behalf of the artists, and RIAA representing the record labels themselves. The first two are fine by me.

[tay666]

Instead of start a new thread I'll ask here first:

So I taped a bunch of my cousin's bands shows and put them up on Archive (only the "community audio" though) and it turns out none of their songs are copyrighted yet.  So now they've been freaking out the past week trying to get me to take them down (which I'm happy to do, but originally thought they meant just the take the links off of facebook).  They're all worried about people stealing them since they are not copyrighted yet, I guess.

Is this a reasonable fear?  I think they're just trying to have all their bases covered, but they're a really small band so far, and besides a few links I posted in the Church Audio team board, it was only "fans" and family on facebook who saw it.  Are they overreacting or is this a legitimate concern?

Edit for OP: they do play a fair amount of covers if doing a few sets but are just worried about their not yet copyrighted original material.

I think they are worrying for no reason.
Their work is already copyrighted. Might not be registered with the copyright office yet, but as soon as they created the songs, they owned them.
At least that is my understanding of how copyrights work.
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
Your recordings would actually help them. As they are added proof that the songs exist, when they existed, and that thier band performed them.

[Seth01]

<snip>...and then I never hear from them again.

Much more often than not this is exactly what happens.

[dorrcoq]

Maybe it's different in the US than in Canada but to my knowledge there are no royalties to be paid when an artist performs a cover in concert; only if they sell the recording of that performance. And if an artist wants to put a cover version on their CD they do not need the permission of the original artist - they just have to complete the correct paperwork, and fork over the corresponding share of the profits.

But that notwithstanding, the suggestion from tonedeaf is the route I take.

In Canada 3% of the ticket revenue is supposed to go to SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada) and is then distributed to the owners of the music.  Usually the venues themselves have the license and hold back the percentage.  Techincally if you have music on hold on your business telephone system, you need to buy a SOCAN license.

[Tim]

NY Times Magazine article on copyright enforcers,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/magazine/08music-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

[willndmb]

i always thought playing covers was "fine"
that bars/clubs paid ascap/bmi/sesec (the 3 major ones that cover 99% of all artists)

if a solo guy/new band was to pay them it would almost make it not worth playing for in the end

i can also tell you 100% that ascap/bmi/sesec take it pretty serious and will come after owners
i can also tell you that anyone and everyone who plays music, even a cd while you are on hold is suppose to pay ascap/bmi/sesec

if ascap/bmi/sesec were to come after you its not like they are going to rack you over the coals until you don't pay then its game over
somewhere there is an article where a bunch of clubs didn't pay and after a number of times being warned got fined pretty good - one was in rochester ny
here it is - http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2007/07/ascap-cracks-do/