Topic: Copyright question

[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/