 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-11-10 19:45
Every Top-40 and wedding band in the known universe performs 'covers' of copyrighted songs without ever paying a pfennig in royalties. We should all be arrested.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-10 20:51
David Spiegelthal wrote:
> Every Top-40 and wedding band in the known universe performs
> 'covers' of copyrighted songs without ever paying a pfennig in
> royalties.
The venues where those songs are performed (hotels, halls, etc.) pay a standard royalty.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-10 21:06
> The venues where those songs are performed (hotels, halls, etc.)
> pay a standard royalty.
But a bar usually pays these royalties too, when it plays background music off CDs or radio (I've never been in a "silent" bar). So why would a life performance be illegal?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-10 21:14
tictactux wrote:
> > The venues where those songs are performed (hotels, halls,
> etc.)
> > pay a standard royalty.
>
> But a bar usually pays these royalties too, when it plays
> background music off CDs or radio (I've never been in a
> "silent" bar). So why would a life performance be illegal?
"at the bar he operated" ... he owned the bar and didn't pay the royalties most bars pay, I gather ... and he was warned 5 years ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-10 21:44
I just read the applicable paragraphs for my country. Quite a tricky and touchy business, for performers as well as hosts.
I didn't know that churches pay per song but the congregation as the performers don't get anything, or that elevator and "on hold" music was taxed as well or that a band needs the blessings of the composer when they want to translate a song from Elbonian to English. One's never finished learning...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2006-11-10 22:02
Paul's wife really needs the money.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-11-11 01:01
Neat system, though. Sort of invisible (unless you know to ask).
I have seen (three times) window decals stating that a given venue (one was an ice rink, of all things) was a participant with ASCAP. Since working with my own group, I now routinely look for this, and two of the three notices have come since that time.
It is the user's obligation to pay the tax, or at least as I have been told. That is, the one who is purchasing the performance, rather than the venue or the musician. Put it in the contract, just in case...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2006-11-11 02:32
I'm curious about where the royalty money goes; i.e., how much of what is collected actually ends up being given to the creator/copyright holder.
Similarly, Canada charges a tax on sales of blank CDs that is supposed to be used to compensate the music industry for unauthorized copying. I've never seen any report accounting for the money. If any of it reaches the performers I would be surprised.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-11 02:45
hans wrote:
> I'm curious about where the royalty money goes; i.e., how much
> of what is collected actually ends up being given to the
> creator/copyright holder.
It gets put into a fund and gets apportioned out based on a formula that samples how much play the song gets. Top 40 get significantly more than most; christmas songs also a good deal of royalty (heavy rotation during holidays, shopping mall music, etc.).
I played studio gigs for a bit (25 yeasr ago ...) and still collect royalties on the work I did on a few tunes that actually get into rotation. The group we were backing couldn't afford scale, so we negotiated lower wages + royalties. They became popular, asked for a few of us for a second album, and we gladly did the same thing
The money still keeps coming,.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2006-11-11 04:01
OK, so say I buy copyrighted arrangements of some tunes -- "The Big Book of Everybody's Favorite Hits of All Time", complete with vocal line, piano, and guitar tab.
What does that purchase entitle me to do with it (yeah, I know what I can do with it . . . but I mean, from a performance standpoint)?
Am I limited to playing it by myself in my living room or studio? What if I invite a few friends over? What if my neighbors overhear? What if I play a carefully chosen selection in church, where I am employed as a pastoral musician? Or on the courthouse square, where my group with city funding is playing? At the Elks Club, where they offer me and my group free drinks?
And if the Tuesday Afternoon Ladies VFW Auxiliary invites me to play for their holiday luncheon and offers me $25 and all the cookies I can eat, am I in big trouble?
Or maybe Mr. Toyota's problem was that he was playing by ear?
Is there not any such thing as "fair use" anymore?
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-11 08:22
I can't say about the U.S., but I expect it to be roughly similar everywhere:
If you buy a tune book, you can play the pieces
- at home
- at a party for the close family
- in an environment (Elk's Bar) that pays standard royalties anyway, so that might apply to the church as well.
- that's it.
For everything else, there's <advertisement withheld>...
And unless the book contains separate parts (or the copyright notice explicitly allows that), each player must buy his/her own copy.
"Playing by ear" doesn't seem to be different than playing a CD or off a book. And whistling "Strangers in the Night" while waiting for the late bus could do you in.
"Fair use" is an ancient term. It stipulates "common sense". It has been replaced by "business sense".
Your best bet is to bring your lawyer with you each time. Side benefit is that this will increase your audience. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
(I am not denying the authors' and performers' rights to earn a buck with their works, don't get me wrong. I just have the gut feeling that the overhead is increasing and the actual payout is decreasing)
--
Ben
Post Edited (2006-11-11 09:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-11-11 10:17
Before we had all these laws, we had Bach and Beethoven.
Now we have laws to protect musicians from exploitation, we have Bilk and the Beastie Boys.
Go figure.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
Post Edited (2006-11-11 10:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-11 12:11
David Peacham wrote:
> Before we had all these laws, we had Bach and Beethoven.
And the rights given by the state or church to the composers ... churches going after each other were especially brutal.
Originally the printers held the rights to the copies and the composers got shafted. The whole idea of composers having rights started in 1709 with the Statute of Queen Anne.
It's not a modern idea; the printers got paid for Bach's works and highly contested anyone who printed them without permission - or got the church to go after the offender.
Time to learn some copyright history ... for those who are interested in the history of music publishing and printing, may I recommend the tome I own:
"The Norton/Grove Handbooks in Music - 'Music Printing and Publishing'", editied by D.W Krummel and Stanly Sadie. ISBN 0-393-02809-7
Added note: The U.S. Fifth Amendment (Due Process) and the Miranda decision flow directly from John Lilburne's causing the Star Chamber to be dissolved in 1641 - the direct cause being Lilburne's punishment for defying tight state control of publishing. Fascinating history, worth of a treatment by Burke for "Connections".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-11 12:18
tictactux wrote:
> I can't say about the U.S., but I expect it to be roughly
> similar everywhere:
>
> If you buy a tune book, you can play the pieces
> - at home
> - at a party for the close family
> - in an environment (Elk's Bar) that pays standard royalties
> anyway, so that might apply to the church as well.
> - that's it.
Essentially the same to any signatory to WIPO and or/Berne conventions. The church pays royalties just like anyone else ...
Playing a performance in public involves payment somewhere. The doctrine of fair use does not exist in every country; in the US it tends to be limited to some small area that obviously can't stand alone, however the "obviously" is subject to interpretation by the courts. Steal the "hook" from a pop song and use it as your own will most probably result in a visit to a lawyer if your tune becomes popular, too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2006-11-11 13:52
As I recall, Beethoven was quite litigious about his intellectual property - he took out a notice in the Wiener Zeitung (7/1/1814) threatening legal action against arrangers and publishers who might make unauthorized harmonie arrangements of Fidelio.
Mozart also famously worried about other harmonie arrangers profitting from his Abduction from the Seraglio.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-11-11 15:47
I was quite aware that copyright law has long prohibited the unauthorised printing of editions of music - or editions of anything else for that matter.
But I would be interested to know whether performance rights have a similarly long history. If Beethoven played a Mozart sonata in public, did he have to send Mozart (or Mozart's widow) a cheque? I rather think not, but I'm open to correction.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2006-11-11 16:02
David Peacham wrote:
> If Beethoven played a Mozart
> sonata in public, did he have to send Mozart (or Mozart's
> widow) a cheque?
Knowing how Mozart was cavalier with all matters concerning money, he probably would have accepted an IOU ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2006-11-11 19:26
Interesting thing about ASCAP is their long memory . . . a local friend, Tyran Corbett, was a drummer for various bands playing country, rock, and trucker music in the 1970s-1980s. Recently he discovered an "unclaimed royalties" site while surfing on his computer and looked up his name. Lo and behold, he had a bunch of unclaimed royalties that have accumulated over the past 20 years or so. It wasn't tons of money (he wasn't Ringo Starr or Buddy Rich), but he filed a claim for it and got a nice check. Now his current address is in the system and he gets a little bit every so often like Mark does. Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2006-11-11 19:35
when i studied with Dave Etheridge at OU i went into a CD shop and found a CD i had played on some years earlier that was now being released in USA by a major label- i had done the gig for cash in hand, and never heard mention of royalties or mention of contract.... i'm not so silly these days!
curiously, this event happened on the day of the OK City bombing- i had time free because none of my students turned up. Not having TV, i had no idea why the university was deserted (everyone was at home glued to the "bomb channel")
donald
Post Edited (2006-11-12 08:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SFroehlich
Date: 2006-11-11 21:23
My job these days is as a market analyst covering the digital TV industry. We got a kick out of this press release from the MPAA:
WORLD FIRST AS DOGS TRAINED TO DETECT DVDS
http://www.mpaa.org/press_releases/2006_05_09.pdf
Yes, copyright protection does get ridiculous at times - but the alternative is far less desirable. Charles Wesley was another of the early advocates for composers & songwriters being properly compensated for their efforts.
Churches generally pay a flat fee these days as well - just to a different organization than ASCAP. Not so long ago it was a mess, though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2006-11-12 03:19
It seems that much of the religious music is either BMI or SESAC, so I suppose that's where the churches pay their fees. Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-12 06:34
Okay, so here's a question not about the legality but the possibility of copying.....
Say you need to make a copy of a page of music from your score to eliminate a rather trying and nasty page turn. Most copy stores these days are pretty sensitive to people using their copiers for copying copyrighted material (fairly so) and generally won't argue the law with you as they are not lawyers (again, fairly so) and will just not permit you to copy the music. From what I understand from a few years back, this copy of part of the music for a page turn would be considered fair use as long as you destroy it after the performance and you have the original on hand.
How do you copy the page?
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-11-12 08:20
Randy - it is very cheap to buy a ink-jet printer that can also scan, and can work as a photocopier without even needing a computer attached to it.
The UK music publishing industry regards this practice as acceptable: http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/Publications/The_Code_of_Fair_Practice_in_Full.html
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2006-11-12 08:31
boy, i'm glad i don't live in a country where the copy shop is scared of being sued!
At any rate, every single place i work (or have ever worked) as either a teacher, administrator or as a performer has at least one photocopying machine that i am able to use myself with no supervision now that i'm grown up, although i also own a printer that is also a scanner and photocopying machine (as David suggests).
donald
Post Edited (2006-11-12 08:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2006-11-12 14:12
I've never experienced a copy shop that cared about what you copied.
In fact, my local library has two copy machines in the music department, and I've copied tons of music there (for page turning purposes only, of course).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-12 14:47
larryb wrote:
> In fact, my local library has two copy machines in the music
> department, and I've copied tons of music there (for page
> turning purposes only, of course).
Yup, and the day they get sued and you wonder why they can't buy books anymore, just look in the mirror.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-12 14:49
donald wrote:
> boy, i'm glad i don't live in a country where the copy shop is
> scared of being sued!
If you're not breaking the law then they're not worried. If you're breaking the law, they're probably just ignorant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-11-12 15:25
I ran into the other side of this problem some time back when I went to a local copy shop to reproduce copies of an article that I had written for publication back in the 1980's (an industrial safety-related item). The chain (then known as Kinkos) would not allow me to reproduce my own words, citing a lack of time to prove that I was who I was. (Making this more incredible was that a photo of my mug accompanied the article...)
In the end, I ended up paying the magazine for the right to 100 copies of an article that I had authored. Easier than arguing with copy machine clerks...
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-12 15:49
Terry Stibal wrote:
> I ran into the other side of this problem some time back when I
> went to a local copy shop to reproduce copies of an article
> that I had written for publication back in the 1980's (an
> industrial safety-related item).
I wrote an article for Unix Review a long time back. I signed the copyright over to the magazine so the magazine owns the copyright, not me. So no, I don't have the rights to the words I wrote. The situation would be different in France.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2006-11-13 02:51
Mark,
gee, I hope the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts, which is right across the street from the ASCAP office in New York, is aware of what you're suggesting. You could do the library a great service by letting it know that it should unplug all it's photocopiers.
If you don't, then you will only have yourself to look in the mirror at when that great institution is no longer able to purchase books.
Then again, the price per page that they charge for photocopies probably pays for a lot of books and intelligent lawyers (or at least real lawyers).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-13 02:55
larryb wrote:
> gee, I hope the Lincoln Center Library for the Performing Arts,
> which is right across the street from the ASCAP office in New
> York, is aware of what you're suggesting. You could do the
> library a great service by letting it know that it should
> unplug all it's photocopiers.
And they're allowing you to copy copyrighted music? I think not. They know what they're doing.
Perhaps you're exaggerating just a bit.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2006-11-13 03:01
Next time you're in town, pay a visit to the library and see it for yourself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-13 03:03
larryb wrote:
> Next time you're in town, pay a visit to the library and see it
> for yourself.
Will do. I'll have them copy some copyrighted material for a performance.
Then I'll walk over to ASCAP and see what they say.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-13 07:40
> Will do. I'll have them copy some copyrighted material for a performance.
Photocopying of excerpts for strictly private use is allowed here. This simply because the state or rights holder has no means of controlling whether you're borrowing a book and copy it at home or whether you're copying it right in the library. (But the library pays royalties for each copy made on their copiers).
Of course, "private use" does definitely not include "for a performance". I fail to see where larryb suggested that use, except that "page turning" means: "for a performance", but I s'pose he has a legit copy where he's playing from. If the "page turning purpose" is illegal, then the trombone friend who's allowing you to peep into his copy is acting illegally too.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-11-13 16:10
For those who want an excellent (and readable) rehash of all this, visit The Straight Dope at http://straightdope.com/ . They are in the midst of a four-part series of essays (with footnotes) that cover the topic in a pretty comprehensive fashion.
One thing that continues to puzzle me is the "tax" placed on CD-R (music) media and mini-disks. It is mentioned en passant in the The Straight Dope articles, but never in any detail. The impression that I received back when it was being hashed over in the media at the time the procedure was formulated was that the extra amount of price built into the CD-R (M) media was there to cover the "seat tax" portion for music copied over onto same.
Since that time, all that I've seen touching on this was the occasional mention such as that referred to above. I'd sure like to see a detailed discussion of exactly what the fees paid for CD (R) (and mini-disks, if I recall correctly) allows one to do.
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brent
Date: 2006-11-13 16:45
Terry,
I have a CD recorder as a part of my home sound system. This machine only uses the music CDRs and will not record on a data CD. It does not matter whether i am recording from a CD (which i generally have no need to do) or from an LP or audio tape.
Apparently any consumer CD recorder has this limitation built in. Studio devices may not.
Brent
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-13 16:59
Terry Stibal wrote:
> One thing that continues to puzzle me is the "tax" placed on
> CD-R (music) media and mini-disks.
There was (is) a distinction between Audio CD-Rs and Data CD-Rs. When you buy an Audio CD-R there's a fee that goes to the music producers. Data CD-Rs have no such tax. It was originally put there when the music producers were trying to create CDs that would be uncopyable to Data CD-Rs, and they thought the audio-only recorders would catch on. There's been some success (and some failures) at producing uncopyable Audio CDs - and I hear the copy-protected CDs won't copy on the audio-only recorders, anyway.
Audio-only CDs are an essentially dead format now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-13 17:46
With today's good sound equipment on computers, the copy-protected CDs are a bit obsolete as it is comparably easy (and of "good enough" quality) to rip the music directly from the computer's line-in port into - unprotected - mp3. All you need is a cheap portable CD player, a cable...and a lot of time.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bawa
Date: 2006-11-14 08:42
Well,
Here is the situation in Spain. ALL blank CDs and DVds have a "canon" on them, which goes to the Association of authors etc etc... who then supposedly redistribute it among the members. It is the only tax going directly to a private organisation and whose accounts are not easy to get hold of.
However, in a recent case, a judge has passed a sentence in favour of an architect, who purchased some DVDs. As the person in question was able to prove that he had used them for his office data, the judge sentenced the shop to pay him back the tax. This has raised prospects of an interesting nature. I am just thinking for example how much any office, university, educational institutions (e.g. my kids school which sends out English HW for over a 1000 students every holiday on individual CDs, material written by teachers)....we ourselves have hundreds of CDs with data and back up of work on them.
Although the Copyright Law is fair in itself, I think advantage is being taken rof the media hype regarding piracy of music and videos, and making pots of money that doesn't belong to them.
Two wrongs don't make a right and this business of guilty unless proven otherwise cannot be right.
On the other hand, my daughter wanted to take two pages of an expensive encyclopedia like book to use in a school group project...and I thought..as it was heavy and with delicate pages and illustrations, to take a photocopy of the two pages in question. Photocopy shop refused to let me copy the 2 out of a 700 page book. I think we have gone from one extreme to the other.
Mark: There's no difference here between data and audio CDs. Mine mostly go to store data, but some I use to transfer music from old magnetic tapes that I bought (and paid copyright for in its time) and that are no longer available because they are getting spoilt, etc.
Post Edited (2006-11-14 12:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-14 16:31
I did read an article that talked about the difference between between audio and data CD-R's
1. They say, "music" on them
2. They have the royalty surcharge
3. They are more expensive
Recently they have been marketing them as "better quality for music", probably to lure those of us who remember buying the "metal" audio tapes for superior recording. Incidentally, I always remember reel-to-reel as being the best medium for recording clarinet.
The thing I don't understand (and I know I'm beating a dead contrabass) is that if you can make one copy of a piece of music for personal (archival) use (in the US), why do we have to pay a royalty. Does the royalty paid allow us to make more than one copy?
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-11-14 17:14
M Charette wrote...
"It gets put into a fund and gets apportioned out based on a formula that samples how much play the song gets. Top 40 get significantly more than most; christmas songs also a good deal of royalty (heavy rotation during holidays, shopping mall music, etc.)."
What is the name of the fund?
David Dow
Post Edited (2006-11-14 17:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2006-11-14 17:26
D Dow wrote:
> M Charette wrote...
> What is the name of the fund?
Don't know. For the US ask ASCAP.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-11-14 17:31
Thanks for the reply Mark...in Canada here we have the MPTF.... which is called the Music Performance Trust Fund...sadly though it seems to be less and less a source of performance income in this area.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lee
Date: 2006-11-14 22:16
"It seems that much of the religious music is either BMI or SESAC, so I suppose that's where the churches pay their fees. Eu"
Many churches purchase a license through: CCLI (Christian Copyright Licensing International) http://www.ccli.com/
Lee
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2006-11-15 15:47
ASCAP and BMI are the two "main line" sampling firms, and they furnish data to the AFM for the apportionment of the moneys paid into the compensation fund. Then, the AFM sends out the payments based upon the sampling formulas.
My big moment in the sun here was with a radio jingle that I did back when I was just out of high school. The jingle was in regular radio rotation for many years (the nice thing about recordings is that they never go away), and like clockwork would come the payments from the fund. Not very much, mind you, but then again I had to do precisely zero extra work to earn it.
I knew a guy from my high school days who makes out very well with his payments from the fund. He did studio work for Muzak, and their systems are both well documented for sampling purposes and widespread as far as their use is concerned. Every time that the version of "Love Is Going Around", a little throwaway piece of transition music from Forum that he played for the recording of same for Muzak, that's one more notch in his income belt. To date, I've heard it played twice through Muzak systems (once in a department store, once (as God is my witness) in an elevator), and it's kinda neat to know that someone you know is making his living off of something so background in normal life that most folks never even are aware that it is there.
One of the great things about "that useless union" is that, long time passing, they went to bat to negotiate this system. Something that many don't think about when considering the union system, in my opinion.
leader of Houston's Sounds Of The South Dance Orchestra
info@sotsdo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
