That dude can belt it out!
Printable View
That dude can belt it out!
Schon did what he was permitted to do (since he owns the rights) which I would support. Journey is, effectively, his band, his property to do with what he wants. I'd support that.
I know several folks here love tribute bands, I'm not particularly a fan, but there is room for everyone....
Journey has become an oldies band and with the addition of the copycat guy, they are unique because they have effectively become their own copy band...
It will be interesting to see if the new guy can come up with a "Faithfully"... I'm betting against it... but, you never know.
Like most people, I enjoy a rags to riches story, but again, the story is often used to cloud the issue. To me, the rightful owner gets to decide how he/she wants to use his/her property... in this case Schon saw value for his brand and his product, but he could have decided differently and been just as justified.
The new singer provides a solution to a problem of viability for his band... now they can tour the oldies circuit, county fairs etc and continue to entertain fans... it seems like a win for all involved in this instance.
you work with language. you understand the limits of language and the subjectivity of it. dictionaries are written by a group of people who make subjective, qualitative judgements and decide what words mean, but the larger culture also drives how those judgements are made.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
In the case of the Eagles writing, recording and producing the song "Hotel California" a reasonable person can quickly and easily come to the conclusion that that effort required skill, talent, and creativity to a very high degree. Folks who would debate whether or not that piece of work was the work of gifted folks would be dismissed as people who are just refusing to see the obvious.
In the case of making a tribute video collage by collecting pictures of a famous person and then pairing them with a song that has no connection to the famous person (either historically or known to be an important song to the historical person) and wear the 'author' is just taking a pre recorded song and pictures found through googling the internet and then tossing them together... I think that a reasonable person if asked to compare the two creative efforts could reasonably question the second one as derivative and, while for the fans of the song or the famous person, they might find it mildly entertaining... I'm not sure most would call it art. Are video montages on ESPN art? For the purposes of rhetoric, some folks would try to make the argument, but it is pretty specious if we are just trying to be honest.
So, if it is primarily for entertainment... then what is the purpose of this entertainment? If the 'work' was found to be counter to the purposes of the musical artist and/or the famous person being 'tributed' then who benefits? And if the orginal artists object to the use of their work and their image... what difference does it make... doesn't it just make the 'artist' another Devore?
Marilyn Monroe is nearly as iconic as a visual figure as George Washington. Joe Paterno, while legendary is not. Those judgements are, to a degree, subjective, but a reasonable person would conclude the same thing.
While I think it is terrific to be a fan and to want to make tributes to our heroes and celebrate them, if the orginal artists or the figures to whom I make my tribute or their paid agents ask me to knock it off.... it might hurt my feelings a bit, but I think compliance is the respectable thing to do.
It still doesn't seem fair to those who take the time to create the video in tribute to said person.
Yeah - the issues of copyright and the internet are complicated for sure. I can definitely see both sides here, and it is understandable that it is such an emotional issue. While I believe strongly that an artist has a right to protect their intellectual property against misuse on one hand, there does seem to be an absurdity when Cass County Music removes a video from YouTube of a youngster singing Hotel California in their own living room. I have faith that the legal system will be able to sort it all out in time, and come up with a common middle ground. Sometimes it's hard to remember that in the grand scheme of things, the internet is still in its infancy and there is still a lot of uncharted territory that is just beginning to surface. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in the years to come.
Well, it is awkward and it can absolutely hurt the feelings of the giver, but, it isn't as though the 'gift' was requested or asked for...Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleLady
I think the producers of such things just need to accept that their 'work' may or may not be acceptable to the owner... if it isn't, it just seems right to accept their authority and move on.
I have a bunch of big festivals we're playing this summer in a couple of bands I play in. We're doing 3 cds to sell at gigs (for fun and profit) 2 of them have original songs and one has covers of songs we do... I've had to contact the Harry Fox agency and get the proper information so that folks can get paid etc... not that we'd 'get caught' but because we are benefitting from using the songs and while it won't amount to much money, I just don't like the idea of not doing the right thing by the original authors....
Now, if I record Hotel California in my living room, I can license it, pay the fees and leave my youtube up and I won't be hassled. The fees aren't a huge amount of money but show the legal respect required to avoid getting flagged.
Everyone acts like there is a huge expense to all this, and there isn't. It is a small bureaucratic process and not expensive... it just isn't 'free' and it involves actual 'work'....
So, can you record "Hotel California" in your living room and post it to youtube and not get it flagged for violation? Yep. You sure can. You just have to follow the requirements...
I agree - and if I had to look into a crystal ball, I'd predict that one of those 'requirements' will be that sites like YouTube will have to begin charging a fee to upload certain material. It will be up to the general public to decide if they are willing to pay. I'm betting they will - iTunes seems to be doing just fine even though downloads aren't free any more. After all, in our capitalist society, it's all about supply and demand, and the bottom line.Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
check it out. simple. legal. just requires an informed, responsible, non lazy person.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ive always been a dreamer
We're just going around in circles with regard to the art aspect. Perhaps some people are just a little more open-minded with regard to that kind of thing.
Here's something interesting I came across that really highlights the absurdity of some of the enforcement going on here:
Artist Finds His Own Material Removed from YouTube
I agree about the round and round thing.
I'd disagree with the term open mindedness though.
There are simple, legal ways to post your 'works' on the internet.
There are instances of folks reporting users that are not in violation... But, the ratio of the two are in no fashion commensurate. Most of us know that anecdote + anecdote ≠ data, but about the same number know that there are enough people who don't know that which allows them an avenue for using anecdotal evidence which gives the appearance of an actual argument.
I'll leave you with this: If a student were to take part of a work by one researcher, and parts from 3 or 4 other researchers, sew it together in a 'new media' format, like, say, a podcast and call it "Michael talks about new energy" and says nothing else, no express credit given to the authors who did the actual work, just him speaking... would that be okay? If he typed it up and turned it in to his 201 writing course, would that be okay?
If this person became a guru and an expert in energy policy from his viral podcast, would we be in the best of hands?
For folks who make their living from their creativity and intellectual work... when people appropriate it for their own purposes without credit or context and without the appropriate credit given and fees paid... it is a threat to them that will fight for.
There is always a price to pay for anything. When something appears to be 'free' there is ALWAYS a catch. This isn't about open mindedness, this is about a new economic model... in most cases, most of us are simply consumers. When work is posted on youtube, a poster's role may be changing from consumer to producer depending on the makeup of the video. When we become producers our roles, responsibilities and rights change dramatically.
My last example: if you ever watch those shows like overhaulin, trucks, muscle car etc where a project vehicle is modified radically for a lucky person.... Those cars usually don't return to the customer for months and months and months after the show because of all the tests and procedures that have to be done to make sure that it is safe for the person to drive.
likewise, I can weld and wrench on my project truck or write custom applications or fab stuff for myself and a few friends and have a blast... but, if I try to provide it to the public... I have a whole new host of tests and vetting to do before I can do that.
If the 'thing' is important enough and the creator of the thing believes in it enough... they'll go through the procedures (in this 15.00 worth of registration) to get it right and get it out legally.
If a producer keeps it to his friends and on a local basis, no trouble. If a producer takes it to a potentially wider market, you are a vendor and play by those rules.
People who don't want to do those things will call them names and say the world has changed. Essentially, they are saying 'I want to have consumer rules for my production' and that may come to pass, I'm certainly open to that! I'd like to play by the same rules! Currently, it is a very weak claim that does not stand in a court of law... Soda, I think you should sue and create the precedence that 'brings the man down'! You go girl!
You seem to think someone posting a harmless video on Youtube is committing a crime. It's not a crime to want to pay tribute to said Artist with a video!
The law is such a mutable thing and the current "rules" so ill-defined that anyone attempting to take a rigid, black-and-white stance on the issue at this point will probably find himself with an ulcer before it's all said and done.
The internet and the technology of digital media have changed the world. You can scream for it to stop and waste your time grabbing at the shirts of the people running past you, or you can accept the new reality and figure out a way to make it work for you. It's your choice.
Folks have often confused mob rule with democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
Question: After removing and having your accounts deleted, you eventually moved on to other things, right? Are you still posting your Joe Paterno videos? Did you finally 'give up'?
Eaglelady, I don't believe I've used the word crime or criminal in any of my posts. A person who gets a speeding ticket isn't a criminal, it is just a violation of existing law and not a big deal so long as the guilty party takes care of his/her responsibilities and either pays the fine (admitting responsibility for violating the law) or goes to court and is found not guilty.
Determining harm is part of community standards and deciding who is harmed is something that a court can determine, but that a reasonable person can also 'make sense of'.
Earlier, I gave an example of a person owning land and folks wanting to hunt on it. Because there are folks who would be ignorant as to asking to hunt prior to actually hunting, it is a requirement in most states that a land owner MUST POST no hunting signs, failing to do so can be interpreted as tacit permission. To a reasonable person, this seems pretty silly and stupid, most of us have enough respect for other people's property that we wouldn't just assume we could trespass without asking permission. But, there are those who say, "nobody said I couldn't, so I can."
When folks make tribute video with video or pictures shot by people who make their living taking pictures and who get paid from selling their pictures and video and when people take songs that they love but do not belong to them to re-use or re-sell... they may do it as an act of love. But, if the 'tribute' is allowed without permission, when the artist decides to try to defend their ownership against someone who is using it for purposes other than a 'tribute' the rights to the owner are diminished because they have not been valuing their ownership and have not enforced their rights. Not enforcing your rights is demonstration enough of the court to rule in favor of the person using the work without rights.
So, the intention can be good, but the effect on the artist can be really bad.
Take Henley's case against Devore. If Henley had not been vigorous in his defense of misuse of his property, when Devore used Henley's work essentially against him, Devore's defense could have simply been the precedent that Henley had been allowing it to happen and it had the appearance of being okay. (in other words, not posted "no hunting" therefore, okay to hunt.)
Again, the argument that 'everyone is doing it' is a logical fallacy, I know there are several teachers and parents here... it is effectively "but, mom!, all the other kids get to do it."
You can claim the law is mutable and as they say in poker, I 'call'.
If you think so, why not adjudicate your Paterno/Stevie Nicks video. If you are in the right, you'll prevail, right? To date, it appears that you folded when called by the authorities... why not test it?
There is irony in making a tribute that actually harms the artists in enforcing their rights to their work. Assuming that it is harmless, why would artists be so desperate to defend their rights? Why would we, the fans, be hassling the very artists who we love and respect? They have brought so much good to us for such a small price (cd's, records etc) and yet, when they want to protect their way of earning a living, we support the convenience of trampling their work for our harmless tributes... and our defense ends up being 'it is the new world artists, get used to it.' or, 'everyone else is doing it, why not us?'
I think we stake out the ground we each feel comfortable standing upon. We each make our own choices.
This has been an interesting discussion and, it only underscores that this is a very complex problem that none of us here are capable of solving. As I said before, I can see very valid arguments on both sides of this issue. Soda, I agree with what you say about artist needing to figure out how to make technology work for them, but bender also makes a very valid point about non-enforcement being viewed as permission. I don’t think there is any question that some of these issues are going to have to be litigated, and the full impact of the internet on copyright laws may not be truly realized for years to come. But, to me, it is important that we go through the process. In the meantime, those on opposite sides of the issue can, hopefully, all stay open-minded and just agree to disagree.
True, dreamer. And I think sometimes it's hard for folks to see things from another's perspective.
But the law IS mutable. Ask the justices on the Supreme Court, who change the law on a regular basis. The problem is that most of us regular folks can't go into court to prove our points. That's why threatening people with lawsuits is so effective. Even if we win, we might go broke in the process. It's unfortunate that the courts have become a weapon of the wealthy and powerful used to intimidate the little guy, but it's a sad reality nonetheless.
The irony here is that you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
By turns, I am effectively saying that while it may be mutable, at this point, The Eagles and their agents are acting within existing law.
The obvious fact (which you state very effectively) is that millions of people ignore the law (in essence following the old MLK line of "there are two kinds of laws: just laws and unjust laws and unjust laws are no kind of law at all.")
When folks go to court (thus far) the existing copyright and ownership laws appear to be holding. But, your point that many people don't like the existing laws is well made....
Statistically, we are mostly consumptive in this world. Very few people make things or create things. Most of us buy things that are from other people's imaginations and creativity. There are more people who WOULD BE against any law stopping them from creating 'hybrids' (hybrids = taking other people's work, remixing, mashing, organizing) and calling them creations.
There are parts of rap music (specifically 'sampling') that have gotten lots of criticism for taking key elements of existing songs and then 'rapping' over them. Those cases were had and the rappers were compelled to pay the original artists. In the beginning of that fight, the rappers were appalled that the original artists would demand what they saw as their due. "It is a tribute" "We love those guys!" "How could they not want to be sampled?" "This is just the music companies wanting to get richer"
The same arguments we see here.
For my livelihood, I work in the technology industry. I have had and have friends who have had people rip me off. Industrial espionage and outright theft have visited me and in some cases, I've won and in some I have lost.
I actually have an intellectual property attorney, this is stuff that I know first hand. There are things that I have worked on that most of you have used. In my family, I've watched as several inventions that my dad came up with got 'knocked off' and taken from him from people who were just harvesting other people's ideas and I've seen things my brother has created in the sporting goods industry get completely ripped off. I've seen my mom be a nice old lady and allow the neighbors to use part of her property to load and unload equipment to harvest fruit in their orchards and later to see her sued because she'd allowed an apparent easement... and lose AND have to pay to pave the road!
There is a final philosophical question of which is worse: the harm that people do willingly or the harm they do through ignorance and not knowing and assuming their level of knowledge is adequate for the position they hold?
Lots of people think that they know what the actual issues are and the ramifications of their actions, when, in fact, they haven't spent thousands of dollars either defending their property or fighting to keep something they created instead of letting virtual carpetbaggers come in and steal it from them.
Like so many other things of late, the very people who should be supporting one side, are attracted to another.
Huh? The law is mutable because it can be changed. Whether or not it can be changed by the "little guy" is irrelevant with regard to mutability. With regard to fairness... well, that's another matter.Quote:
you are effectively arguing that the law is immutable since you don't think that the 'little guy' has real access to the mechanism.
This debate is not "the creative people vs. the people who aren't creative." Heck, I'm a creative person myself, so it's not as if I don't understand that aspect.... but there's a bigger picture here, gray areas that need to be recognized.
There is a reason why the actions of Cass County Music and the big record companies are garnering such ill will among so many people. You can say it's because everyone is vain, ignorant, lazy, etc., but that dismisses hundreds of millions of people - not only the uploaders but the people who watch the uploads and thus perpetuate them. Something more is going on here - and until that reality is confronted, these problems will not go away.
if it is only mutable by only a few and not by you... it isn't mutable for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
it is absolutely the rights of the creative who make things that people want vs. the consumer who sees it as an entitlement to take a product they obtained as a consumer and use it in ways that the original terms did not provide for. That is precisely the issue.
that is the reality that should be confronted. A couple of years ago, I read a huge debate between some musician/songwriter friends and a young man who told all of them they were dinosaurs and stupid for being against piracy. That young man ended up coming to the united states and getting a job in Nashville and he released a series of guitar lessons...
They were pirated. He went crazy. He was so angry that someone would steal his work and GIVE IT AWAY and he was furious to find out that some guys were selling it!
People will spin this issue in a ton of different ways... if you don't think this is the consumer vs. the artist, you've got it wrong. It is difficult because both sides need each other... but stealing is stealing is stealing. You can call it what you want, but if it isn't yours to use, it is stealing and it isn't right.
Every single one of my friends who actually makes something of value does not dig the fans stealing their work. If you think that I'm dismissing millions of people, if they are stealing, they need to not sugar coat it and pretend it is anything other than what it is.
People who steal from other people may do it out of malice, but it is more likely they do it because they don't know the law (ignorance,) don't care (lazy) and somehow want a piece of the spotlight created by the original artist and feel entitled to it because they are a fan (vain.)
I sense that you are a creative person, that is why it is so curious that your position would appear to be so counter and so at odds with the things you care about... If I am adamant about my position, it is because it is real to me. I am someone who has been ripped off, and I have lots of friends who rely on their work for their living...
To me and the artists I know... the debate is very much "Why are people stealing from me who say they love my work? Why aren't they willing to follow the agreement we had as creative selling to consumer?
Cass County is the agent of the artists who want some protection... they are easy to vilify, but the artist needs someone to protect their interest, because if they don't protect themselves, their interest will be lost.
If you think the Eagles wouldn't agree with me, you should ask them.
Analogy is a slippery weapon Bernie.
We've covered this before, but I have a hard time parallelling "hunting on private property" which is destructive and provided tangible benefit (food) for he who was doing the hunting, and someone humming, singing or maybe playing a song created by someone else when that person had no intent of profiting by that action.
Nor do I see anything but benefit to the artist who created that music unless the person benefits tangibly from the performance and I agree that if there is profit, then the original artist should receive his due in the form of royalties or some fee permitting the plagerizer to profit from it.
It seems that the entire point being debated here is THEFT. I fully endorse the creative persons right to profit from his or her creativity by packaging and selling his or her product and not have it stolen by some other less creative person who does not have the integrity to leave it alone and come up with their own product to be packaged and sold.
If I buy a book at a book store, read it, enjoy it so much that I let my good friend borrow it and read it, is that the same issue? Should each friend or relative who read that book that I bought be held accountable because they didn't go to the book store and purchase that book?
Probably. I suppose that if the law is that black and white, then we can say that the only correct way to behave is to buy that book, read it, put it into a fireproof safe and allow no one to even look at the cover. Heck, you shouldn't even be telling anyone about the book because to do so would be revealing Intellectual Secrets of the author even though telling someone about that book might encourage them to go out and buy it themselves.
Now, exactly how does the above example differ in any way from someone who bought that book, read it, enjoyed it so much that they sat down at a word processor and typed the entire book into softcopy and uploaded it to the Internet for anyone to download for free? In that case, the person who initially bought the book wasn't "SELLING" it, yet making it available to the masses without charge WAS depriving the author of profit because the masses who downloaded and read that book for free instead of paying for it at the bookstore, probably are not going to go to the store and buy it.
(Well, I do if I get hold of the book from someone and read it and like it, I will most likely go on a mission to find and buy everything that author has written....examples of that are the complete works of Marion Zimmer Bradley, Azimov, Heinlein, Piers Anthony, and L'Amour. Each one of those collections started out by me reading a book belonging to someone else but resulted in me buying the complete collection simply because I liked one book someone loaned me. But that's just ME. Most people are not that obsessive.)
I doubt seriously that any court in the land would entertain the thought of prosecutting that person who loaned a book to a friend to read (or that they would prosecute the person who borrowed the book and read it). Yet technically, there is no difference between the two instances is there?
What it boils down to is a matter of DEGREE. With music, I see it in a similar vein. It doesn't "stand on all fours" but is very similar to the example with the books. I can't see any difference in someone buying an Album and playing it for friends at home and someone buying a book and letting someone else read it.
Technically, I suppose that the person owning the Album should have insured that there was no chance of anyone else ever hearing the music recorded on THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the album. They should have locked it in that fireproof safe and never allowed anyone who had not purchased that album listen to it.
Yet, it would seem that letting friends listen to that music at home is okay.
However, playing that Album or Cuts from that Album on radio or in a Disco (perish the though of DISCO! That should be illegal whether fees are paid or not! <LOL>) without paying fees for doing so IS illegal. I don't think there is any argument on that point. The difference of course, is in the "profit" motive. I do not think that any rational person would disagree about the illegality of making copies of that Album and giving them to friends or relatives. God forbid that they make copies and SELL them!
Now all of the above (though pretty silly) still doesn't pertain to the issue I thought this topic started out as being. That point, I thought, was that of someone hearing a song, learning it and playing it and recording their version of it and allowing others to hear it too.
Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect.
If that artist is so VAIN that he or she doesn't want anyone to perform that song regardless of the motive, then that is an artist I want nothing to do with and that INCLUDES EAGLES! Good grief, prohibiting me or anyone else from playing "Hotel California" is no different in principle than denying ANYONE the right to hum or sing that song while washing dishes! And singing it while washing dishes is really no different that someone making a video of their performance and posting it on YouTube other than that of the number of people who might witness the performance. More people are going to see it on YouTube than are going to be seeing you or hearing you perform it while washing dishes (at least I would hope so)!
So it boils down to the fact that the objection must be one of Degree. If so, that makes it a non-black-and-white issue. If profit is not the motive of the performer, then to be a black and white issue, one would have to define the number of people who are allowed to witness the performance before it is deemed a violation of the artist's rights.
Wow! If I could go back and relive my life, I think I'd study to be a Lawyer! Nah.....I pretty much like what I've done.
Man, I shouldn't get on the Internet to distract myself at 4:30 in the morning because I couldn't sleep!
I had 4 or 5 pages of this thread to get caught up on and as I read, I just got a little angrier with each page. I agree about the whole profit thing, I really do. But I just want to be able to pull up a video (which usually isn't that great of quality on YouTube anyways, let's face it!) and watch it. I really don't understand how that harms anyone.
And again, I'm with whoever wondered what gives CCM the right to take down all Eagles solo works.
I don't say things as eloquently as some of you here, I just get angry and ramble on, making little sense. Mike had I wanted to put my thoughts into words, I wish I could say it like you just did! Spot on my friend!!!! :thumbsup:
I think some artist and their representatives (all hundreds of them) need to Get Over It and themselves, and let the "little people" enjoy their music and show their appreciation. I do believe it works both ways and when you act like a "brute", it can backfire on you also! Food for thought!
Mike,
if you buy a book and lend it to a friend... no problem. If you buy a book and reprint it for 1 million people and become an 'important person' with 3 million hits and there is advertising on every single page for which someone gets paid, it is a problem.
The math is the thing. lending to a friend, no problem. Sharing to anyone else in the world, problem. Make sense?
Playing hotel california in your living room for friends... no problem. humming it in the kitchen, no problem. Playing it in a bar for money, bar pays the fee.
reproducing it and putting it on the internet for millions of people to enjoy and benefit from without paying 15.00 fee, problem. 15 bucks to entertain the world legally seems like a small price, right?
Is 15.00 too much to be in accord with the laws and with your favorite songwriters and bands?
btw, CCM has the right like any citizen or group to report when folks are breaking the law... they do it for a fee which is paid by artists to protect the rights of the artist.
Mike said: "Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect."
Mike,
When you post songs here and receive praise, does it benefit you? I think it does. It feels good, right? If you chose a public domain song, would it get the same response? Is the 'good feeling' you get from hearing from forum members telling you 'good job' worth anything to you? What is it worth in dollars?
Talent is talent. whether that is hitting a baseball, doing accounting, coding software, playing guitar, acting in a scene, performing heart surgery... the folks with the most talent, who can do things few others can, generally can command a higher price for their talent than can folks who have talent in lesser measure. So, someone who writes songs is comparable to a computer programmer in the marketplace.
If someone pirates a copy of Adobe Photoshop and puts it up on the internet for anyone to download and provides the unlock code... most of us would see that as theft. It is the intellectual property and the reflection of talent of that group of coders who made that. The people who steal it say "it costs too much" "I don't use it that often" "information wants to be free" and other things like that. Does it sound familiar? Sure it does. Psychologists call it rationalization.
People rationalize all the time to explain away things that they don't want to admit about their actions. The net result is: You like the fun and good feeling of not only recording songs, but songs from your heroes and the added bonus is sharing them to a largely unknown audience (the world) and getting some kudos which make you feel good. But, you are unwilling to pay the fee for the good feeling which amounts to 15.00.
I think I am understanding your position.
Comparing watching a video on Youtube to breaking the law is ludicrous and it seems Don wants to alienate more fans.
not watching a video, posting a video.Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleLady
posting things that aren't ours to post is against the law.
You must be from the time one didn't need Youtube, but You and Don are making it seem like Youtube is the enemy and it's not. And you take joy away from something one puts extremely hard work in.
So it's OK to watch a "stolen" video on YouTube, take pleasure from it, then condemn the person who posted it?Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
Sounds like rationalization to me.... or at the very least, hypocrisy.
The RIAA has prosecuted people who downloaded commercially available music for free, even though they didn't upload it. Streaming is temporary downloading.
I personally don't think it's wrong to watch YouTube videos (obviously) but if one takes the position that it's illegal to upload certain videos, it leads naturally to the position that it's illegal to download (ie., view) them.
I don't think anyone NEEDS youtube. Most of us like it a lot, but it is like television, we don't need it, we just like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleLady
Youtube is a company that is working to make a profit. It is a business.
I enjoy youtube as much as anyone, but I also recognize that what I post needs to be my work, my resources or I need to license it. Licensing material is inexpensive and easy.
Let's say you really like your local market. No, you love your local market. You've been a fan of the store since you were a little kid. To pay tribute, you go in to the store and steal some eggs, cake mix and frosting, go home, spend hours and hours and hours making a beautiful cake which, dutifully, you take to the store owner and beam at him while you present the cake to him.
He is in a tough spot.
On one hand, he appreciates that you love his store and took the time to make a cake for him. On the other, you stole from him actually whittling away at his earnings. The real problem he sees is that if he doesn't make sure that you know that you stole, you and others may continue to do so which eventually will make it very hard for him to stay in business at all.
I think what the store owner is asking is: if you would just pay for the mix, eggs and frosting, we could all have a healthy, happy relationship without the complications. But, if the 'happy customer' gets mad when the store owner points out that they took something without paying, puts hands on hips and says, "I have loved this store and made this cake as a tribute and all you do is call me thief" in a petulant rage... I think the problems run much deeper.
If I truly thought that people strumming covers in their bedroom and uploading it to YouTube was stealing from the original artist, I would be in your camp... but I don't believe that. I argue passionately about it because I feel that CCM and the record companies are hurting the little guy and it upsets me. I'm a "little guy" too.Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
With regard to your example above, why is it OK to eat a piece of that cake and then condemn the person who cooked it? That's what you do when you enjoy those videos on YouTube. (I should note that I do not concede that the videos are stealing, but I am working within the boundaries of your analogy even though I disagree with its basic premise.)
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. Once folks see and admit what they are doing, then it is up to them. I think most people just don't understand that they are violating existing law. If, once they understand what they are doing and continue to do it, I am done trying to explain or get them to see... then, it is their personal sense of right and wrong that govern them, not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
The law is clear on these issues. You limited your example to someone strumming their guitar, but we all know it goes much farther than that, but even at your example, if the 'little guy' could license the song for 15.00 and be legal.... why wouldn't he/she?
As for the 'guilty eating the cake', I think you are assuming too much at least about me and I think you'd be incorrect. First, if I know something is pirated and stolen, I would not participate. Sometimes it is hard to know which things have been licensed and which haven't. Then, it is the responsibility of the producer and youtube to police it... at this point, there are a lot of pirates and a lot of confusion about what is legal. But, that will sort.
The things I most enjoy on youtube are home made things made by regular people but completely their work.
But, even if I were the worst youtube pirate, posting stolen things all day and watching stolen work all day... that wouldn't change what any other individual does. If I were the worst hypocrite and stealer of music, my theft doesn't change what you or anyone else might do in one bit. In the end, (and I know our moms told us this) two wrongs don't make it right, and just because the other kids are doing it, doesn't make it legal or right.
I have made copies of out of print records for people before. Other than trying to track down a copy at a used record store or on ebay, or when I have found the rare record, I HAVE copied it for someone who I knew would love it. But, I also found a cd by that same artist that was still for sale and bought that in its stead (even when I already owned a copy) just so that I could make it right in my own mind. It was still not exactly right, but it was a 'best effort'... which is the standard I hold myself to.
So, if folks are cognizant of the law and that they are violating it as it is currently written and still choose to do what they do, I have no comment. My only concern is that folks understand that they are doing something that is not permitted by current law. No moral judgement, no beliefs, none of that... the morality trip is our own to take... the legal trip is just part of the social contract we agree to as citizens.
B.B.:
I think the only disagreement I have with your position (and I really don't argue that you are wrong....it is the whole premise I totally disagree with). is that matter of degree.
I can't see any legal difference in playing a song that everyone knows for one friend and posting it on YouTube to be heard by millions. The magnitude of the audience is all that defines the two scenarios.
Understand me, I am NOT talking about copying a Cut from an album and distributing it.
But maybe you are right. Maybe a group or a songwriter should hope never to become so popular that folks would want to play or sing their songs just for the heck of it.
I think that maybe it is that attitude of trying to insure that no one ever sings their songs by policing the practice so severely that brought about a lot of activity back in Kansas during the Prohibition. It didn't stop people from drinking, it just made a lot of people rich by forcing them to meet the demands of the public ILLEGALLY. I think that's happening now.
Okay, you want to cover the song...pay them $15 and sell the hell out of it if you can...that's okay, as long as the songwriter gets his portion of that $15. If he doesn't get it, he'll starve. I can understand that. I can understand that that $15 is just extracting every penny that they can out of what they do....any real money is going to be made if that version of the song becomes commercially successful to the playgerizer and the original artist collects royalties from it.
And by the way, I'm not too concerned about anything I post here in the form of a recording bring down any legal action....the artist would have a heck of a time proving that anything I did resembled enough anything THEY did to stand up as plagerism <LOL>.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernie's bender
But under your rigid definition... this is illegal.Quote:
I have made copies of out of print records for people before.
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.
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.
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
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....Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
not my definition. the definition of the law as it stands. it is clear if you read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
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.
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?
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
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.
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.
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 rumble®" 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.
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.