Topic: Copyright question

[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