Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bernie's bender
It isn't an issue of faith. It is a legal issue. So long as folks are willing to admit that they are in violation of existing law and that they understand that they are stealing under the current law... I stop there.
Quote:
I have made copies of out of print records for people before.
But under your rigid definition... this is illegal.
Like Mike said, it is a matter of degree. I don't think anyone contests that songwriters should receive their share of profits of people who benefit from their music financially. However, when it goes beyond that to "you should not only pay me when you buy the recorded music, pay me for the sheet music, pay me when you play the song professionally (all legitimate), you should pay me $15 more for each video you upload that contains a portion of one of my songs despite the fact that your only 'profit' is a good feeling." It feels like unreasonable, insatiable greed, and I think it's going beyond the boundaries of what is protected by law. Like "Hmm, maybe we can get some money out of 'em for that too...let's go for it, they'll probably fold when we throw our lawyers at 'em..." That's why we have "fair use" laws - to prevent that kind of thing.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Mike,
Just to be clear, there is no 'heat' to my explanations of why folks take the stance they do. The concept of an 'implied easement' is the easiest way to understand why so many use the heavy hand. It is the idea that if you let one person use it for free and without express permission, it is then presumed free.
That slippery slope is one that owners of real property (land) have had to fight for centuries. The songwriters, record companies etc have found that if they aren't super vigilant they lose their rights.
One thing that is interesting to me is that youtube does take down videos and songs... and people like the Eagles do tell people to pull things down. Why would they do that? I've heard some of those guys speak, they seem like thoughtful, intelligent people. Henley can be brusque, but he doesn't strike me as some evil corporate cartoon figure.... why would they be so adamant? It may be that they know their business and what is at stake for them and their families.
For me, I work in a corporate environment, but before I started work I had my lawyers meet with the companies lawyers to stake out what was mine and what was theirs. It had to be written up and, frankly, it had to be explained to me very slowly and carefully so that I would know.
When we contracted musicians for a product we worked on, we did specific legal things with the musicians and creators so that they would get paid, but that consumers of the product could use the musical output in commercial and non commercial settings and be legal without licensing because the license for the music they would produce was embedded in the product...
I'd love for you or me to write a song that people would hum. All the hassles that would come with it would be worth it. A friend of mine (now deceased) wrote "Daydream Believer". It was a hit several times and then lately, it became a 'hit' again for having ebay use it in their commercials... it really helped his wife and family through some challenging economic times... if he hadn't protected his rights... that money would not have gone to the person who spent those 10K plus hours playing guitar and singing.... it would have gone elsewhere.
With Tax time looming, I feel the burden of doing work. I have to pay taxes quarterly, but, I don't complain. When I was a teacher in eastern Kentucky, I don't think I ever had to pay taxes. I didn't make much money at all... today, I have the good fortune to have to pay a bunch to the tax man... and I don't mind. I do have opinions about how I'd like it spent, but I get to vote and I do my best with what I can when I pull the handle.
I have yet to meet a songwriter who has had his work recorded who did not want his due on his work. When Richard Penniman wrote Whomp Bomp a Lou Bomp and barely got paid when Pat Boone covered it and sold millions... and Pat got to be on the shows when Richard brought the song authenticity and life... it nearly killed Richard. He fought for his place (and had to) and for his money... and we could easily hate on the evil record executives who ripped him off... but, now the taking is in piracy and the irony and pain of it is for the artist, that it is frequently the ardent fan doing the most harm.
Folks have gotten pretty hardened views about this type of issue... what is strange is that most of the time, they haven't actually experienced it (being ripped off) or refuse to make the connection.
I have a friend who is a pretty famous songwriter (he has written songs that most people would know for artists like Bonnie Raitt and Leroy Parnell) and I asked him a question about a song of his and he told me a story about how his 'biggest' fan posted the song on you tube and in a forum and that his sales month over month decreased until he complained about it to the fan. The fan got mad and said he was ungrateful and a dick.
This guy is not rich by any means... he lives in a 3 bedroom 2 bath tract house in Nashville...
When it is real for people they will see it. A big artist like the Eagles and Don Henley can afford to be 'arrow catchers' for the smaller artists... they can afford to fight and are willing to lose a few fans in the interest of making things fair for the artist.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sodascouts
you should pay me $15 more for each video you upload that contains a portion of one of my songs despite the fact that your only 'profit' is a good feeling."
This reminds me of the story that is posted somewhere on here about the 14 year old girl that sang an Eagles song and they took her video down and threatened her with cancellation of her account. She was devastated! Seriously---I think they should feel flattered instead of vindictive! What harm was she doing? But I just know they or whoever needs that $15!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
It feels like unreasonable, insatiable greed, and I think it's going beyond the boundaries of what is protected by law. That's why we have "fair use" laws.
And I believe that is the bottom line!! The Eagles and company are sooooo very hard at work at doing this and other artist just let it slide. Why is that? I think we all really know. I, for one, have a lot of respect for those artist that let it slide and truly believe they know a true fan. I fear that the Eagles are alienating many a fan doing this to this degree. I know I get more disillusioned by this as I see more and more stories regarding it. They've made it perfectly clear what the most important thing is and I don't believe it's their fans unless they are shelling out mega amounts of money for concert tickets (even then they dictate whether I should stand or sit during the concert), memoribilia, videos, etc....
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sodascouts
But under your rigid definition... this is illegal.
not my definition. the definition of the law as it stands. it is clear if you read it.
yes. I stated that in my post. my remediation is a 'best effort' which is to buy an existing copy of an in print cd and not use it.
This does not make it legal, but for me, it is a step in the right direction.
Again, if the purpose of this is to imply that I am judging morality, it would be mistaken. My purpose is to make clear that you see what the law says and how it is enforced. If you can accept what the law says and understand it (even if you completely disagree with it) I have no quibble. Your choices after that are your own to determine the morality, not mine.
So, if the goal is to question my personal actions, have at it. I think I have a clear history of following the law. In the instances (like when I made a copy of a long lost jack tempchin record that is almost impossible to find for you) I bought a copy of one of Jack's cd's that I already owned and 86'd it.
The advantage to Jack is that had I bought a used record (or you had) Jack gets nothing (completely legal)... this way, my used record store got paid and Jack got paid, I have the record, you have the mp3's... no one left in the lurch. Is it completely legal? No it is not. Would I have done it legally if it were doable at the time? You bet.
There are a ton of ways to do things legally, why not do them?
If I get stuck in a situation (like the Jack Tempchin record) I try to see all sides and how I can make it fair and even.
Again, I have little interest in participating in ad hominem stuff... perfect people are really hard to find and I'd certainly not describe myself in that fashion.... the law isn't as grey as folks would have you think. writing a song is creating a piece of property. there is no debate about that. taking someone's property without permission or using the property in a manner that was not agreed upon is not legal.
this is why youtube pulls down videos and because folks have chosen to ignore the laws as written, folks like cass creek have a business to track it down and police it. they wouldn't do it if they couldn't.
it may be that the world will say to the artists "we do not think your music has value, it is free, and we can do what we want with it." when that day comes, it may be that artists will need to pursue other lines of work to feed families and support themselves as being an artist will no longer be a vocation. I will be sorry when that day comes... and I will not choose to participate in bringing it to the fore.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Fair Use.
When you read about it and learn about it... you realize that the word "fair" is not as subjective as we might think....
As for the 15.00 being about insatiable greed (hyperbole much?)...
it is about respect for the author.
Are there other issues that need addressing? (ticket prices, cd prices, the music business in general... etc) Yes, I think they all need changes and improvements. But things like the Clear Channel monopoly need their own adjudication. Lumping all of it into one vat of discontent does not make it better. If we want changes to fair use, then we should ask for the change.
I've noted several anecdotal incidents where 'performers' had to pull videos down and almost had their 'free' accounts terminated. Wow! that is really nothing, right? They still have their personal copy of their performance, right? They weren't harmed physically or financially... they just had their video returned to the place where it was 'fair use'....
How does that make them wrong or bad?
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
I think in the end this is all about money, isn't it? That saddens me.
$15 for one song, paid again and again and again each time you put up a new video... yeah, it adds up and it does seem greedy since they've already been paid and the person isn't using their music for profit, when it's somebody like Mike playing a cover at home, for instance. It seems like a money grab.
Bender, I'm not trying to make it "personal." It's true that I do feel some of what you are saying is hypocritical and some of your arguments are flawed - and early on you were making moral judgments, and some of your language still does, which hurt my feelings - but I have nothing against you personally. You are well-spoken and intelligent, and I realize you have good intentions and are simply trying to look out for your best interests and the best interests of those like you.
I just believe you aren't seeing some important sides of the issue and that it's not as black-and-white as you think.
However, perhaps I should just accept that we will disagree on this rather than going on and on about it, eh?
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sodascouts
I think in the end this is all about money, isn't it? That saddens me.
$15 for one song, paid again and again and again each time you put up a new video... yeah, it adds up and it does seem greedy since they've already been paid and the person isn't using their music for profit, when it's somebody like Mike playing a cover at home, for instance. It seems like a money grab. You're affluent so it doesn't seem like so much to you, I guess.
Bender, I'm not trying to make it "personal." It's true that I do feel some of what you are saying is hypocritical and some of your arguments are flawed - and early on you were making moral judgments, and some of your language still does, which hurt my feelings - but I have nothing against you personally. You are well-spoken and intelligent, and I realize you have good intentions and are simply trying to look out for your bests interests and the best interests of those like you.
I just believe you aren't seeing some important sides of the issue and that it's not as black-and-white as you think.
However, perhaps I should just accept that we will disagree on this rather than going on and on about it, eh?
I don't think it is solely about money at all. I think it is about value and respect. When people cannot or will not see the black and white parts of an issue, a point is reached where they are either being dishonest or they are fooling themselves. I have too much respect for people to not make clear what I see and at least give them an opportunity to explain/see.
My position about this stuff is considered and I don't actually see myself as hypocritical at all. I pay fees all the time for use. I posted some board recordings of songs that were not mine here and paid the money. To me, it is a gesture of respect.
I've spent enough time with attorneys for work stuff and creative stuff that the topic itself has complexity, but the fundamentals are simple enough that the waters of fair use can be navigated by a regular person.
Some youtube videos get 5 views and some get 500K. There is really no way to know any more than two guys open hot dog stands, one gets tons of business, the other goes home.... the best effort is to be covered.
I choose not to be cynical and see everything as acquisitive and insatiable greed. If my daughter records a song and I'm gonna play proud papa and we post it on the internet... the 15.00 will be a no brainer and I'll be entitled to rights to the song.
You may have more experience with copyright and fair use. I've only been involved with it at work, on products from my own company and with the corporation I currently work for and as a songwriter/performer and in developing a portal for an educational company. There were definitely some complications in gaining rights to pictures, videos, text etc.. but the principles were almost always the 4 basic components.
In every single case, the crux was in the scope.
My intention was never to hurt your feelings, you are an influential person here and I think many take their cues from you as you are a savvy, intelligent person. The confidence you seem to have in holding your position has the responsibility of being right. I don't know how correct you really think your position is, but, because of that, I think it only fair to make sure both sides are heard... and as I said, folks are free agents to go and do whatever they please, I just want them to go and do knowing the realities of their choices.
If youtube could tell the record companies to 'ram it', I think they would. Their ad sales would spiral if they could put whatever they wanted on without recourse. But, they are aware of the law and realize that if they want to keep their store open... they need to participate in the democracy by abiding by its laws.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
I guess BB that you and come from such different positions on the issue. You are coming at it from a professional's position and deal with covering other people's work with the intent of selling your musical worth as your Profession demands. I would feel the same way were I coming from that platform.
Believe me. I do understand your position. If I were a Professional and encountered situations in which in order to satisfy an audience whose cover charges paid my salary, I needed to cover a Top-40 hit written and performed by someone else, I would knock the doors down to insure that I did the "right thing"..."the legal thing" by paying the $15 fee. And if by some miracle, that song ended up being recorded by me and making me millions, I'd want to be sure that the creator of that material got every penny in royalties that my recording generated. That original artist very rightfully desrves it.
And honestly, I don't have any compulsion at all right now to share with the original artist any profits from anything I might play. 10% OF NOTHING is still nothing so I offer up 50% and pay it willingly.
You will not find me posting any of my "performances" on YouTube. You might find examples of it posted for a friend or friends to listen to if they wish. But I would never dream of trying to make a commercial venture of it. For me, it is a hobby...a challenge.
Your thoughts have cast enough doubt on the legality of even THINKING about a song created by a musician that I get the feelling there is NO legal use anyone can put to something they have purchased other than by crawling under a blanket and listening to it privately.
Seriously, where are these rights of the owners of a piece of recorded material spelled out? I'm talking about the "owner" who purchased a CD or DVD. Where does it say that you can listen to this music and can share it (without copying it) with up to but not in excess of 5 people at a time as long as you do not take any profit from that? How can you not take profit in the pleasure you receive in knowing that most of the listners are enjoying it and are grateful to you for playing it? Where does it say you cannot play that music unless you contact some .com and pay them $15? I'm not saying it isn't there...but I've never seen it. If it doesn't say that, what DOES it say about playing a particular piece of music that clearly belongs to someone else? When can you play it (if you can play it at all legally) and when can't you?
I have seen clear notices that unauthorized reproductions that are subject to legal action. Maybe playing the song and singing it is an unauthorized reproduction...but as far as I know, that's NOT what was intended by that copyright notification. That was meant to warn people not to make copies of CDs or magnetic tape recordings of vinyl....or whatever. At least that was my understanding. And if you do validate playing or singing that song under any circumstances, then the dishwasher who sings it while he works is just as guilty as the person who plays it, makes a video of it and places it on YouTube.
If it is wrong, then it must be "objectively" wrong.
I really do not look for praise in music I play. It is not my profession no matter how much I do wish I had the creativity make a profession of it. Or maybe I should say a successful Profession.
If anything, recording what I do is nothing more than gratification to me for the money I've already injected into the business's economy. It lets me listen to it and bask a bit in the knowledge that I gained some skill with an instrument I paid a small fortune for! I am quite sure that the guitar shops and music software industry would not put a disclaimer on all of their merchandise indicating that these instruments and programs are illegal to use unless performing and recording ONLY material that you alone possess the intellectual rights to. And that music industry that now possesses expenditures of mine INCLUDES thousands upon thousands of dollars in purchased vinyl and CD offerings of artists that I sometimes try to emulate in my humble way.
Now, If you want take up programming software for Financial Institutions, I'll help you in any way I can...sharring logic diagrams and working on logical methodology with you until you have a good grasp of it. I'll even go so far as to grant you permission to use anything I am able to teach you about that kind of programming. I cannot give you actual code that I've written because it belongs to me no more than it belongs to you...it belongs to my employer. But I can grant to you the knowledge to use the methodology if you have the tenacity to learn it.
I can do nothing less...you have done virtually the same for me in assisting me with the guitar and I do NOT forget that! I really do appreciate the hints you've given me including the one concerning "Life Of Illusion" and how to play it in the same key but in a different position.
It is pretty clear to me that your experience in the industry has given you a clear cut defiinition of what it legal and what is not. It just isn't quite that clear to me yet. I thank the gods that even if I am wrong my "wrongness" is not going to do any damage to the artists on the receiving end of my error.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
that is a great post Mike.
First, I'm not a lawyer by any stretch, but I've worked with several and some of them were really cool, really nice people...
Most of the fair use stuff is actually common sense. The part that is hard for people is ideas and things that are not 'physical' (like songs or movies)
Having played in bands and recorded and played for people in studios and a little television, live radio etc... and in my youth as a teacher who produced plays... none of this copyright stuff is new, it is just new to millions of people who are suddenly producers of a sort. They usually had no idea what happened in the background, how people got paid, it was all magic to them (or never even considered.)
I have a relative who suffered for years to get into the 'voice over' business. He got a call one day to do a 'one off' ad for a bleach company.... That was in 1979.... The ad still runs today. He gets a residual (payment) each time it plays! It has helped him through some tough times in his career as an actor, voice over guy etc... Webb Wilder had to sue Yahoo to get paid for his signature 'Yahoooooo' on the Yahoo ads.
This is people's business. The extreme stories: Michael Buffer's "lets get ready to rumbleŽ" nets him a million dollars when it is used." Some of us are horrified by that and say 'no way'... but, that line has power in the culture.
At home, you can play your records, cds, dvds, all you want. You can make a copy of them, you can make mixtapes for friends (this was thought to be outside fair use, but was adjudicated differently in the last couple of years.)
For my main band, the band bought an ipod for each member, I am allowed by the itunes license to put purchased songs on as many handhelds as I like... so, I image the ipods for the fellas and away we go.
Recently, we had a member who needed cd's (we're old guys and this guy was a total luddite) so, even though I could just burn him a set of cd's and be within the license.... I decided that the band would rebuy his set (not cheap as we do 174 songs! at a buck a piece)
If you play in bars or at a festivals it is the venue's responsibility to cover the cost of playing other people's material. The Harry Fox folks are everywhere, they don't bug musicians, they bug bar owners...
If you are jamming with friends, no problema. If you make chord sheets for the band, or download them from the internet... here is what we do---> we bought a copy of the 700 song country and 500 song rock fakebooks for each member. It isn't perfect, but it is a pretty good effort.
If a new song comes out and the music isn't available yet (we're doing the Jeff Bridges Fallin' and Flyin') we worked up a chord sheet, and we bought the cd... when the music or songbook comes out, we'll buy a copy... with most of those songs, it is overkill as we use the nashville system and don't even bother with a lead sheet... it is a matter of the singer learning the lyrics.
If I like how a song comes out, I license it. it is 15.00 one time... not bad. If I press up a bunch of cds to sell at gigs, it is a different rate... but easy to follow and you can have the duplicator handle it for you...
it is kind of like the DMV. The law is there to make it fair. Sure, there are cheats on both sides and nobody will be perfect all the time... but, with a clear head and the right intentions, things can be what my grandfather called "even steven."
I was at one of my nephew's gigs awhile back (he's in a band called the Higher... they are on epitaph records) and they are still small, they play all over (europe, US, aus, japan, warped tour etc) but they still man the merch booth and have to help out etc (not millionaires by a long stretch)
Anyway, I was at a pretty big show and while the merch booth was cookin' I saw a guy snag a tshirt and cd off the table and walk off... Hey, I'm a large enough man (6'3" 220) and this is money from my nephew who sleeps in a van about half the time they are on the road... so, I stopped the guy kind of casually and said, "hey, did you forget something?" and he looked very angry and insolent and said, "Hey man, I paid 35.00 to come to this show, the least they can do is give up some merch."
He felt genuinely entitled to the goods! He thought the band OWED HIM!
A couple of weeks ago, I was able (through work) to set up some kids from a local school with the opportunity to be on the John Lennon bus in San Jose. The cool part was that we put the bus at a show the Black eyed peas were doing and as part of some stuff we did with the peas, they agreed to work with the kids...
I actually got a quasi complaint today that the kids felt a little rushed when the Peas came through to help... they only spent 20 or 30 minutes with them.... the kids got to go to the show, tour the sound, recording, live stuff etc... I just apologized...
What all of this has to do with fair use and youtube is this. A person can work his whole life to create one single song that matters. That one song may be the thing that allows that artist to be able to keep creating.
John Stewart is best known for Daydream Believer and Gold. But, if you ask Lindsey Buckingham how he became Lindsey the guitar player... he'll tell you.... John Stewart playing banjo for the Kingston Trio is the genesis of that style. I have some pretty funny Lindsey stories and Stevie stories that could illustrate how important it is to foster artists and support them....
Henley has used his stature and money for lots of causes. He has never been afraid to be counted and he has accepted the criticism that comes with standing for what he believes in. He isn't protecting himself, he's protecting Richard Bowden, Boomer Castleman, JD, Jack Tempchin, Davey Blue the guys who are a little bit in the background but who make so much of the music we love....
Don't be afraid to make music and don't be afraid to share it... just find out what it takes to make sure that folks are supported. Folks are right, 15.00 may not matter to Henley, but it adds up for the songwriters and the smaller artists... and it is money to feed them and their families.
Re: Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...
Off topic: RIP John Stewart. Once I got the opportunity to talk to him about his work. I told him that I wished he would provide lyric sheets for his music because I felt like what he had to say was important. He told me he was honored to have a fan like me who cared so much about his music. A great guy.
