I guess the problem with music copyright can be compared to magic tricks ;) (honestly, just watch me go)
What are most peoples first reactions to a cool magic trick?
</font>

• Cool [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]</font>
• Can you show me how to do that?</font>
• I gotta show this to (insert name of a friend)!</font>

Now magicians keep their tricks secret, so they will tell you that NO, they CANNOT show you how to do this, and NO you CANNOT show it to a friend. And because magic is complicated you are outta luck.
But with music (be it sheet music or recorded) it is a lot easier, so you just have to watch the artist during a gig and you can learn how to play a certain song, and even show it to a friend (by the way, would that be illegal? [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img] ). You could even learn how to play the song and play it for yourself (and you friends) the whole time without buying a sheet or the record (copyright infringement?), and you could record yourself playing that song (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT!) and listen to it with your friends.
It's only a small step from here to copying the whole song from the CD, and many people do it because they conceive music as something abstract, a feeling, something you don't have to subscribe to.
Another example:
I read a joke in a newspaper and god am I LMAO right now :D
Later on I tell it to a friend who breaks down in laughter too.
Now answer me, is it copyright infringement IF
</font>

• he remembers the joke and thinks of it every other day, because it's so funny ?</font>
• he writes down the joke, so he doesn't forget this masterpiece ?</font>
• I write down the joke for him ?</font>
• I simply xerox the newspaper page for him ?</font>

It's the small line we cross between things we remember - which is undoubtedly free - and things we keep stored mechanically that is the trouble with the whole copyright issue.

The problem is, that due to the copyright laws the music industry has evolved to a point where it can only survive if these laws are upheld, so if they fall a lot of heads will roll at first, but I rest asssured that music and artists will emerge a lot stronger and a lot more respected from this turmoil when it's over.

[ 02-05-2004, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

Willow, filesharing is theft and MORE! It is theft if you take the file without paying the asking price or receiving permission from the owner, and it's even worse to then pass it on to someone else.
What else do you calling robbing someone?

Theft theft theft.

Filesharers are thieves pure and simple. No it is not propoganda. It's a logical assesment. I own my songs. If you buy a CD or I give you a CD you own the one physical copy. Read my first post again. It is very clear you NEVER own the song when you buy the CD.

You cannot as I said, do anything with it other than personal entertainment. You cannot advertise or increase you business with it without asking or paying for the right to use that. This is very clear Willow. I've written very lengthy posts detailing this and provided legal links. You can't just plop into the thread with a "Is not, it's like this" with nothing more than your words in a few sentences and expect to be taken seriously.

If you don't believe it is theft, show me why. Show how it doesn't break the law, how the artist, recording owner and all involved in the song are seeing a return on their work when you steal it.

Until then, I'm sorry but you are unequivically wrong. Filesharing is theft. If you steal files and pass them on you are a thief.

When I taught at tertiary institutions, I would get the students to buy the textbooks rather than photocopy anothers words. for recordings we used students own songs, or purchased charts.

That only becomes copyright infringement if you sell the recording. If you make money off the song. However, the law requires you to pay a compulsory license out of sales.

There is nothing that suggests you cannot sing or record a song for your own personal enjoyment. You just don't own the song, so can't advertise with it, sell it etc

[ 02-05-2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

I would imagine that in the US all those photocopies would have fallen under Section 107 of the US copyright code "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

You are so wrong and so simple in your position here. File sharing in of itself is NOT theft. I understand that this topic is near and dear to you. Maybe it's abit too near, for you are missing the forrest for the trees. File sharing is much bigger and more complex than a means of pirating Intellectual Property.

I highly suggest you read up on the Open Source Software movement. As software is very similar to music. You can find plenty of information at

www.eff.org
www.stallman.org -- This is Richard Stallman's personal site. He is the one that started the free software movement (which is different than Open Source). I perosnally think some of his ideas are abit too far out there, but they do show a model (Open Source more particularly) for the Music and Movie industries to profit on free ideas.

But <font color=deepskyblue>The highlighted sentence is actually a direct contradiction to everything you have been saying since your opening post, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. You have said from Post One that individuals are NOT ALLOWED to make a copy of a song for ANY reason...not even their own personal enjoyment.

I've also noted that you have consistently told people their opinions aren't valid if they aren't a musician and "living the life". To my knowledge, that would mean the ONLY IW member whose opinion IS valid here would then be yours. I don't know of any other members that are trying to make thier living as a musician.

I also noted that when examples WERE given of other musicians that disagreed with your viewpoint, you basically said their opinions weren't valid either. The Grateful Dead, Journey, and Van Halen were called dinosaurs (of course, they all still get a bucket-load of play time on the radio). And Madonna is a good businesswoman, but nobody considers her a great vocalist...well, nobody except the fans that have purchased about a gazillion of her albums.

I'm sorry, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>, but all I really see here is "If you don't agree with me, then your opinion doesn't count". You just told <font color=palegreen>Willow</font> that she can't just pop in and offer an opinion that differs with yours and the law you've quoted. Yet, when others have provided links to other sites and laws that contradict the copywrite law, they are dismissed out of hand.

I actually agree with you to a certain point. Certainly songs cannot be used in movies, commercials, or to promote a store without paying the original artist a royalty fee. The same goes for artists doing covers of other artist songs. The BIG difference between THOSE users and the individual consumers is that the individual consumer is NOT trying to "make money" off the copies they make or the files they share or download. For the most part, they are doing it for personal entertainment, something you just agreed they are allowed to do. They don't own the song. They can't sell it or advertise with it. But - as you just said - there is nothing to suggest they can't sing or record a song for their own personal enjoyment.</font>

I am a major believer in the 'fair use' doctrine as it is currently provided for in British laws. (I'm less familiar with US rules, but according to your descriptions they don't look much different) - I would hate to see Aussie rules (as described by Yorik) applied in the EU\US.

Under the fair use principle, creative works continue to be owned and controlled by the originator. The artist/author will continue to be paid and will have full powers to exercise control over the public distribution and permformance of his work and will have the rights to claim royalities.

At the same time, the users are not hamstrung by restrictive rules which may prevent their ENJOYMENT of that work and thus deter them from purchasing or EXPOSING that work to their friends.
For example, if I throw a private party to a 100 friends, I wouldn't play music at that party if I had to pay royalties for every song I played. This would deny the artist vital exposure.

Copyright is a tricky area of law and society has to strike a balance between protecting the work to encourage continuing creativity - but not be so heavy handed as to stifle inovation and prevent the work from gaining exposure. What would be the state of music today if the person that invented the electric guitar exercised control over all persons who wished to use one?...
What if the Wright Brothers had patented both the bi-plane and single wing plane design?

I believe (as you do) that we have struck a good balance in both the US/EU - I very much hope that Austrailia follows suit so that the number of its home grown successful artists can increase to that of the UK. The world would be a richer place for it.

[ 02-06-2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

Seraph, the language of the law you cite is exactly what I was citing. Ten cuidado (be careful), however, because the true bounds of the "fair use doctrine" is defined by caselaw. There's a lot of research involved. Suffice to say, education institutions have largely been given a "by" (pass) on the issue. If my memory form law school (5 years ago) serves correctly, under technical interpretations photocopies handed out to a class may infringe on copyright. However, professors have been given a pass so long as they cite the original work. In effect, it's like university plaigarism policies (based on the "gold standard" UVM policy) have been integrated into the judicial view of copyright law. However, dissenting cases can be found.

Yorick, as NightStalker pointed out, you confuse the pracitce of "filesharing" with the reproduction of copyrighted materials. Filesharing has more uses, and is not per se illegal in and of itself. However, the current famous use of filesharing has involved copyright infringement, so the issue gets confused. File sharing is a tool that can be exploited, just like burning CDs. In each case, there are instances where the TOOL of file sharing can be used perfectly legally. No slam on protecting copyright is intended here, I'm just pointing out that people should be able to use file sharing to share files legally.

I point this out in part because I know NightStalker has been working on ways to prevent the illegal transfer of copyrighted files while preserving the practice of legal file sharing.

You wouldn't have to pay royalties for playing songs at a party. However, if you were paying a DJ, and he was spinning music made by others, one would hope he was paying some sort of license, as he is making money from others music. Some DJs make thousands of dollars from others music.

<font color=white>The issue is income. Depriving artists of income on one hand, and using the artists work to make money on the other hand.</font>

Playing songs at a party is not depriving anyone of income and not making you money. If you CHARGE entry for your party - built on a reputation of playing certain songs - then you are using those songs to generate income, and should by rights hand some of that back to the creators.

As I said, in Australia venues pay a license that covers any songs played in their venue. These fees are not exorbitant by any means, and the royalties per song are very very small. Think cents.

The issue is, that if someone makes a hugely successful product, and people make money off it, the originator is not left starving.

As a society we still have a way to go. Visual artists will starve while their art is sold for millions, Aboriginal Australian artists in particular are exploited in this manner.

I advocate a licensing system for visual art in the same manner as intellectual property. When you purchase a painting, you don't own it, you own the license to possess it for life, but if you resell it, the originator sees a royalty from it. Say 5% or 10% for example.

In this way, the struggling artist, who sells their ORIGINAL work for $500 to pay for food, doesn't lose out if their work one day sells for $100,000.

[ 02-06-2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Fair enough. Good points.

Quote:

I point this out in part because I know NightStalker has been working on ways to prevent the illegal transfer of copyrighted files while preserving the practice of legal file sharing.

That's awesome News. Good one Nightstalker. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Fair call. My apologies.

<font color=deepskyblue>The highlighted sentence is actually a direct contradiction to everything you have been saying since your opening post, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>. You have said from Post One that individuals are NOT ALLOWED to make a copy of a song for ANY reason...not even their own personal enjoyment. </font>[/QUOTE]You are again, yet again, confusing the song with the physical copy of the recording. I was speaking about singing and recording the SONG, not making a physical COPY of the recording.

If I get a tape recorder and sing a song onto a blank tape, I have not infringed copyright. If I sell it - without paying the writer a share - I have infringed copyright.

If I take a recording and make a copy of it, under Australian copyright laws, I have infringed copyright.

I am not suggesting people don't make backup CDs of their CDs. Just be aware that doing so infringes copyright (in Australia at least). That knowledge creates an understanding of the distinction between intellectual property and physical property, and possibly could have prevented the widespread music theft, had that awareness been higher.

If you know it's illegal to copy just one CD it makes you think twice before handing out 10 copies to all your friends.


That would be correct. Opinions on this issue are irrelevent. It is not a matter of opinion, but knowledge of facts. Either something is illegal or it isn't.

"To my knowledge" should be used in such a discussion of facts, not "in my opinion." You can have an opinion on whether something is MORAL, but need knowledge as to whether it's LEGAL.

As such, only a few Ironworkers have posted FACTS. Timber is a lawyer for example. He is more familiar with US law than I am. I have however, accumulated enough legal knowledge over the years, to negotiate my own contracts - both here and in Australia, and teach Australian music business at tertiary level.

I am not presenting my opinion, but facts. Hence the appearance to you, that I am only counting my opinon as valid.


Madonna is not regarded as a great vocalist. By any stretch. Fans are not an accurate judge of talent, peers are. Nonmusical fans simply don't have the listening skills to accurately determine vocal skill.

Now, before you carry on about me unfairly judging nonmusicians, let me assure you, listening IS A SKILL that gets better. People in the musical field literally hear things the average human does not. I have personally experienced this. My listening is far, far better than at age 18, when I was not a musician. This is despite my HEARING suffering some damage. Listening is the mental ability to assess soundwaves. It occurs in the brain, after the ears have sent all the signals there.

I can assess within a few words whether someone has a good voice or not. Because I have taught and produced numerous vocalists, and possess the ability to change tone quite substancially over various musical styles, I know what I am listening for. While the average fan hears the RESULT of the process when they hear Madonnas records, I and my peers can hear the PROCESS.

Can you hear autotune for example? Can you hear the tonal difference it's application makes? Autotune, when applied in the extreme is the sound that was on Chers voice in "Life After Love". It corrects pitch. Used sensatively it can be practically unheard. However, even though you cannot hear the application of it, a good listener will be able to hear the TONAL change it leaves. Occaisionally, an engineer will make a judgement error, and you may even hear it working on a great singer. The band Train have a particular song on their first record, in which you can hear the autotune correction.

Now, this is just one example of engineering technique. Vocal technique is altogether different. Singers hear all the good and bad stuff. We can hear nodes on a throat, whether someone sings from their throat, or uses their diaphragm.

Just yesterday, I was recording a lead vocal in front of a room full of world class professional singers, and actually got nervous. I knew they could hear every inflection, every tonal choice, every piece of uncertainty, every deviation from intent. It meant my focus was so fine. I in turn became conscious of the smallest details.

Regarding Maddonnas singing, I hear limited tonal choices, limited range, control limitations, emotional performance limitations. She does well with what she's been given, but she does the job. She doesn't excel as purely a vocalist.

As an <font color=yellow>ARTIST</font> however, she is brilliant. Her record sales are testimony to the emotional connection she has with her audience. She picks good producers and co-writers, changes her style regularly, and delivers consistently sucessful work. "RAY OF LIGHT" was an incredible work that resonated with my own taste.

All this makes the point that the average fan does not have the skill sets to accurately assess the merits of an instrumentalist. One must know and understand an instrument, or craft, to accurately assess it. Just as the academy votes in their respective field for the Oscars, so too a piano player can tell a great pianist, better than a drummer will. Although, by virtue of working with pianists, a drummer will understand the instrument better than one who doesn't work with them.

I stand by my declaration that Journey, Van Halen, and Grateful Dead, all getting "bucketloads of radioplay" and the $$$$$ that come from that airplay, are not reliant on a record company as a newly signed act without an audience, income source or means of promoting themselves are.

It is easy for those "dinosaurs" to do away with record sales, because they have established careers. As I said, airplay alone, plus concerts would make dollars. Not to mention, their albums all recouped long ago.

Recouped, meaning paid back their advances to the record company, and so now see profit.

[ 02-06-2004, 03:10 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Let's imagine a world where copyright is SERIOUSLY respected.

Take music, for example.
All genres spring from one or two artists adapted and embellished freely (over time) by other artists.

Now, imagine anyone aspiring to be a rap artist has to pay money to the copyright owner who originally came up with that concept if they want to record a record or perform. Now if everyone had to pay money to Cab Calloway's heirs (arguably it's instigator - but for argument's sake, let's say that he owned the copyright), how many rap bands would there be today?

Musicians themselves are probably the MOST guilty of 'theft'. Most of them talk about their 'influences' (meaning that they are incoroporating other people's ideas into their music without permission) and adapting (same thing) that work into their own.

This sort of intellectual 'theft' has been going on for so long that many musicians believe that its ok to <s>steal</s> share other's ideas as long as no-one does it to them. Madonna is a good case in point. She has lashed out viciously at file-downloaders in the past but had little to say when others complain about her activities (The <s>theft</s> incorporation of Bourdin's visual copyright in her music video being a case in point).

Face it - if copyright was STRINGENTLY adhered to by musicians themselves, there wouldn't be a music industry because struggling artists would never be able to pay all the royalties due to those that came before them.

[ 02-06-2004, 03:56 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

The whole principle of creating is that you are taking that which you experience and merging it into a relatively unique hybrid of those experiences.

As such, yes, all musicians have influences, and their creations are the sum of their influences yes.

That is not an issue, nor a problem. If you substancially alter a piece it is recognised as being an original. That is some ways is good - you avoid copyright infringement - and in other may be bad - you may alter a cover to the point it needs a new negotiated release from the originator.

<font color=white>What we are looking at with mp3 theft is illegally reproducing the entire work unaltered. Song, recording and performances all.</font>

Also, the contexts of influences alters from genre to genre. In Jazz music, the practice of "quoting" is used. Where horn players for example, take recognised melodies and play them over substancially different chordal arrangements. Different songs. But it's a nod to the originator.

As for Rap as a genre, you can't copyright production techniques. You can't actually copyright chords either. Technically a song is the lyric (50%) and the melody (25%) and the IMPLIED chords (25%) as opposed to the VOICED chords. An a cappella song has implied chords, even though none may be played/heard (voiced).

The principle is in the amount of work copied. this is why sampling became such a hot issue. Before sampling, you could take a drummers beat, and have a drummer copy it, note for note. No problem. However, taking the original recorded beat is a problem.

Why? It is not the IDEA (intellectual property) that is the problem, but the performance (physical property). You can't copyright beats, but neither can you use someone elses performance.

As I've said there is a copyright owner of a <font color=lime>SONG</font>, and then an owner of a <font color=lime>RECORDING</font>. Within that recording there are various <font color=lime>PERFORMANCES</font>, and various SONGS.

Performers sign RELEASE AGREEMENTS with the owner of the recording that allow them to use their PERFORMANCE. Every single advertising session I do, I sign a release. I have not written anything, but I have performed. I give a license for the recording owner to use my performance for a determined period, and for a determined amount.

I hope this clarifies. These posts do take time, and are essentially giving the reader for free, what I've been paid for in the past. Knowledge costs money.

However, I care that knowledge is spread though, and do enjoy chatting with you guys.

Yes it seems complicated, but is actually understandable.

<font color=yellow>the song is intellectual property
the sound recording is physical property

When you buy a CD, you do not purchase either the song, or the recording, but the single copy of the CD.

The song owner gives the sound recording owner license to use their intellectual property. The performer gives the recording owner license to use their performance. The recording owner then sells you a copy of their product.

When you steal a recording, you deny the writer, the performer and the recording owner their due compensation. The three can be seperate people, or groups of people, or can be all the one person.</font>

[ 02-06-2004, 04:30 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

<font color=deepskyblue> While I will in no way going to defend copyright infringement now that I am able to pay for things. And after reading not just Yoricks posts but stories from other people in the industry I feel much sympathetic anger. I would like to point out my experience on the subject.

My family and my upbringing was totally none musical, apart from a few albums lying around the house (sound of music / glen miller ect). I suddenly discovered the record lending part of my local library where for no fee I could borrow 2 albums a week. All of a sudden 12 year old me was open to the wonderful world of music. Being free I was able to indulge into a totally eclectic mix. Dylan, Sabbath, Tony Bennet, Seekers, Deep Purple. taping the ones I liked and even the ones I didn’t I always listened to the full album twice.. Theft? Maybe, but you could look upon it as an investment by the record industry, because over the years I have paid back tenfold what I took, not just in replacing many of those crummy tape recordings with my own but also hundreds of new records and concerts along the years. Would my love and investment in the music have been the same without me making those tapes, I think not.

Of course these days I never buy those dodgy CD from local markets and petrol stations that the record companies down here are very lazy in chasing, but I’m not convinced that teenagers swapping music is the end of the world either Yorick. Take my local Woolworths petrol station. Why is it selling CD for $5? Are they real? I don’t know but who is there to check it out?

The industry is changing for good or bad and you are no doubt hurting Yorick and for that I am sorry. However some of the facts are that a CD costs nearly $30 now down here and the liner notes are usually piss poor compared to those available in Europe and USA. (Yet you the artist still get paid … the rubbish sum of 30 cents!!!) How can kids afford this? How can they have the same access to the wondrous world of music that is out there that teenagers once enjoyed? It may be safe investment for a teenager to buy the latest Powderfinger album but can he afford to buy something more obscure and risk wasting his money? All the teenager hears from many artists is how the record company rips them off; they don’t see all the good hard working people behind the scenes. They, the teenagers, just see that there favourite artist is making just cents out of a $30 CD. It not a great incentive for them to buy is it? Hence the rip from the net. Maybe the industry (music mags) should show more of what goes on behind the scenes than just the total focus on the artist? To many teenagers it would be like giving to Thailand children’s charities buy buying Nike footwear, the same ratio ends up in the artists pocket.

Yorick theft is wrong, the fees artists’ get is wrong, what is the answer? I do not know, but change has to come. Big change, but the young music fan is not the enemy they are the future. They have to be embraced not demonized. They (teenagers) want to try/or get MP3 music from the net so the industry has to change and change bloody quick to service that need at the right price.

Oh for the Answer *sigh*
</font>

edit because I spent to much time listening to records rather than my spelling homework :D

[ 02-06-2004, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]

Don't make the mistake of thinking because some artist/musicians don't mind you taking their work it's ok for you to take the work of others.

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] :D

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time.

Great post Wellard. You're a champion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

A couple of things.

1. Bargain bins, and libraries are usually filled with older records (that have recouped and handed back money to all concerned) or old records that didn't sell, and so wouldn't likely be making money for anyone. An old album that remains unrecouped sends no money to the artist at all. The company chooses to "bargain bin" it to see SOME return, however small.

Liken it to video rentals. The film hits the cinema, then DVD, then pay per view, then video rental, then Broadcast television.

By the time it's lifespan is finished, everyone has had a bite of the cherry. People involved saw a return.

With mp3 stealing, it's NEW music that gets swiped before anyone can make money. Anastasias career was ruined because her SINGLE was so downloaded, she was unable to sell albums.

Record companies routinely stop production of a single, so the public HAS to buy an album to get the song.

This is standard and fair. The single subsidises the rest of the tracks. More is spent on the single - video etc - than the rest of the album. The single release is an advertisement for the album.

A child taping an old record from a library is not damaging to the industry, and even though it infringes copyright, no-one would pursue such an infringement. As you pointed out, it can lead to a cultural enhancement, as the music gets spread.

MP3 theft is totally different as I've pointed out.


2. 30c per CD. Keep in mind I was the singer, so I was getting one fifth of the artists share - the rest divided between the rest of the band and manager. I am not including songwriting points in that either. I wasn't a writer in that band but, did have one song on there.

The 30c was the ARTISTS share.

Were I the sole artist and writer, I would likely have seen $3 - $4 dollars per CD depending on negotiations.

The amounts are traded off against things like advances. Advance payments on royalties. If you ask for a large advance - more risk to the record company - you should expect a smaller royalty. Obviously the scale goes down to doing it yourself, where you take zero advance, and earn all the profits.

Bear in mind also, this was a CHOICE on my part. I had just done a solo record I paid for myself, that I owned, that I had trouble selling.

Treehouse. A CD some of the guys here have. I simply couldn't get it into stores, onto radio, anywhere. It's a tough industry. The music didn't fit trends at the time... numerous reasons abounded. (In my opinion I make much better music now in any case)

So I went from that into being asked to sing for a band with what seemed to be great management, with writers who had hits in the US, who made great music. As the singer without songs I knew I wouldn't see as much as them, but if it all worked that was still going to be a heck of a lot more than I would see if I didn't take it.

CHOICE.

<font color=yellow>Artists choose to accept low royalties in exchange for the services a record company offers. </font>

An mp3 thief has decided to completely override the artists choice in the matter. Deciding for us what is right and fair for us and ruining our careers in the process.

How is that fair?

P.S. on the bargain bins, some artists negotiate in their contracts, an assurance that their product will remain at market value and never be "bargain binned".

This usually means their record is "deleted" though. Copies destroyed so the ones that exist maintain value, as per supply and demand practice.

I would prefer to be bargain binned than deleted. ;)

Exactly. Well said. CHOICE is the issue.

I choose to give away songs of mine at the moment.

But how dare anyone remove my right to make that choice. I am not signed to a record company. If someone steals my songs they take 100% away from me.

I choose generosity at the moment. Don't take away my ability to be generous by overriding my choices about my property.

referring to my examples above I'd like to know some things.

Yorick, you stated that copying a song for personal enjoyment is okay as long as no technical copy-equipment is used, i.e. if I listen to the song and play it on my own piano/guitar/...
even recording it after that would be okay

But there's only a thin line from here to there

Projected on copyright for literature this would mean
a. It's okay to copy the thing manually (handwrite, typewriter, word processor)
b. It's not okay to xerox it or copy a computer-file with the information

This is indeed a very thin line [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

In recording a song yourself you are not infringing the song owners copyright. You would if you release it, sell it, use it for advertising or to increase revenue etc.

As I've mentioned, the music on a CD is the property of the owner of the sound recording - which has licensed the song and performances involved.

In playing the song yourself, you aren't using the sound recording, nor the performances on it, nor the licensed version of the song. You are making your own version, which until you release it, is for your own use.


It's not hard once you grasp the difference between SONG, RECORDING and PERFORMANCE.


Regarding literature, the words are the property of the originator. As with music, it is the ASSEMBLY of those words. A certain amount of changes makes the work "original" and not plagiarism.

Therefore, if you handwrote a guys book out, and sold it, it would be infringing HIS copyright.

As I said, it's technically illegal to listen to a tune and make a chart of it, and then put the name of the song up top.

HOWEVER, it is precisely because of these technicalitys and thin lines that the music industry doesn't sue the little guy for minor infringements. Copyright infringements happen ALL the time. The laws exist so that there is a line drawn, that if serious exploitation does occur, we are protected and can act. We have a CHOICE as to whether pursue copyright infringement or let it go. Most of the time, it's let go.

However, as I stated, mp3 theft has become the most serious crisis to hit the recording industry. It IS a huge deal. The problem as I see it, is that people were not made aware early on, that they were breaking the law.

Thereafter all the justifications followed and the "everyone else is doing it".

It's like looting. Everyone else is running out of the store with TVs why shouldn't I? Domino effect.

[ 02-06-2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] :D

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US...

[ 02-06-2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] :D

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US... </font>[/QUOTE]LOL! :D As you know, I did move to the US, but not because of the copyright laws!!

As I said, there is a difference between something being illegal, and it being pursued and punished.

Many a blind eye has been turned. Just because it's illegal doesn't stop it happening, but does create a hard line that can be referenced when a serious breech of copyright occurs.

Like saying stealing is illegal, but turning a blind eye to people taking a small cake of soap from a hotel. If you take the TV though, we have a clear policy of not taking property to reference. No confusion.

I AM a Christian and have a very merciful and gracious attitude to things like this, which extends from my thankfulness at Christs grace. I have let slide countless copyright infringements, and ripoffs. It's simply not worth the heartache and causes more damage than gain to get hung up about stuff. I've had ideas stolen, money stolen, credits not given, (most notably on the Savage Garden record) royalties unpaid, session payments unpaid. To be a musician is to be ripped off. But lets face it. I view every cent I make from my craft as a privilege, not a right. I am thankful for every dollar made from music.

If I went around making everyone play hardball.... sheesh.

So don't confuse my attempts at clarity as being a hardarse. I'm simply explaining how it is. Why do you not have the right to make even one copy of your CD? Because you do not own the sound recording, the song or the performances on that CD, you simply own the one copy.

Frankly I don't care if people copy their CD. Just know what you're doing. Understand you're breaking the law. It's not a big deal. It's not depriving anyone of money. I have no MORAL problem with it. The knowledge of the illegality may TEMPER what you do in bigger cases.

There was a time when I was younger that I used cracked music software programs. It nagged at me. Grated at me. Everytime the "crack" screen came up in the presence of some person hiring me to make a track for them I felt ashamed. I KNEW I was doing the wrong thing by the owners of the product.

Since then, I have remained loyal to that company and purchased modern copies of their software. I also, used their software exclusively in colleges to teach people sequencing and computer recording. Meaning increased sales, as people tend to stick to the music program they initially learnt on.

I now.. do not have any cracked music software. It's all legit thank goodness.

What would anger me in discussions about mp3 theft were the <font color=white>justifications</font>. People saying "the music sux so it's cool to steal it" and other such rot. It's extremely insulting.

If you a copy a CD do it. Just know you are not supposed to. Be mindful then, in handing out copies of someones CD. Say you love a CD. LEND it to your friend. Don't copy it and give it to them.

Anyhow, back to the Aussie laws. They certainly are not Draconian. I find US laws more draconian. Personal marijuana possession, nudity laws, harsher requirements for divorce... these are "draconian." ;)

Just one question. If you want to sell a house, you invite people to have a look. A sample. You don't give them the house. How is giving people the product they are being asked to buy, any sort of exposure?

Here, try this food.... aha! Did you like it? Could you please pay now!?

Hardly.

mp3s ARE the product. Radio play and TV play were the sample, but online, people own the product. The whole thing is pointless, as it leads to DECREASED sales, rather than increased sales.

Live shows for sucessful bands, are to promote the CD.

Do you know how much it costs me to put on a show in NYC?

$1000 at least. Costs me even after entry dollars added in. I do it to generate exposure to sell records later. I don't make records to generate exposure for live shows.

THAT is draconian. The "record is exposure for your live show" principle was in effect when records first started. Artists got NO royalites whatsoever for their work. We have PROGRESSED since then. You are wanting to turn the clock BACK???

<font color="#C4C1CA">
The point I am making Yorick is that in this scenario, you are not allowed to advertise the house in the paper, nor stick a 'for-sale', nor employ an estate agent to sell the property. Furthermore, potential buyers are not allowed to take photographs of the property, nor take a tape-recorder with them or make any notes of any form whilst there.

Under those circumstances, with little exposure and the inability of the potential buyer to take meausures to help them to decide on whether to buy, your house is unlikely to achieve the sale price that it might have done in a more liberal world.
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Actually, that's quite common. Have you never had a free sample product and never bought the product as a result? I have (as many others have done) and the sampling system works or producers would have given it up years ago.
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
While it is true that there is a hardcore of music lovers who willing to pay to hear unknown band, or to spend an evening listening to a band of unknown quality (where the venue has a reputation of billing decent artists), the vast majority of people will not. Most people hear of good bands by word of mouth and by hearing their music, either by the radio or when their friends play it to them.
</font>

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Your missing my point. No-one says that the artist shouldn't be paid for CD sales - only that the laws should be relaxed enough so that exposure and innovation is not unduly hindered.
I am sure that you would agree with me that Austriaila is BRIMMING OVER with musical talent. Yet if you compare the number of successful artists (especially those independant of the big labels), the number of them is MUCH lower than that of Britain or the US (taking into account the population levels of course). The reason for that is because they are stifled - they are not getting the exposure that they might otherwise have had under a 'fair use' doctrine.

In my car I have a few compiled CD's made from music that I have PURCHASED. If I were to take the originals out with me, that would mean that not only would I have on average around $1000 worth in my car. That's rather a lot of cash to leave lying around - so frankly, I wouldn't have them in the car. That also means that my passengers would never again say:
"Hey, that's cool, who is that band?,"
That has happened quite a few times as I'm more interested in indie music which rarely gets airplay or exposure on MTV etc - but if would never happen again if Ausrailian law ruled the day (because I AM a law-abiding citizen and I would obey the law even if I didn't agree with it).

THAT would be a step backwards - and we would end up living in a world where only artists like 'the spice girls', 'Back Street Boys', ' Take that' etc. (created and funded by the big labels who would be the only ones to have the finanical muscle to market them). ***shudder***
</font>

[ 02-07-2004, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

That would depend on the definition of "is" now, wouldn't it? [img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] :D

Yorick, I don't have the time to look at it now, maybe this weekend, but I still get the sense you may be mistaken on Aussie copyright law. I am very dubious that Aussie law prohibits making backup copies or making "mix tapes." I'll try to investigate when I get time. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm afraid that Yorik is quite right in his assertions.
See this quick information guide from the Austrailian Copyright Council:
http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G070.pdf

The laws appear to treat musicians as if they don't need exposure - and music lovers as if they are immoral. Draconian to the extreme. If I was an Austrailian musician of any talent, I think I'd move to the US... </font>[/QUOTE]Wow, I'm speechless. I don't think the point-of-view to worry about is that of the artist but rather the buyer. If I were a purchaser of music in Australia, I'd just skip it altogether and turn on the frikkin radio. (If the law were enforced, which Yorick says it isn't).

Seeing as there's a new Anastacia single out now with a new album following in March, I wonder how you're defining "ruined". As her annoying songs have been tormenting Dutch radio stations for ages, plus her albums have all sold very decently over here - don't care enough about Anastacia to look up the exact number of records sold, but she's picked up quite a few gold and platinum records all over the world, as far as I know.
So are you referring to a certain news item or incident that led you to the conclusion that her career was somehow "ruined"? :confused:
Just curious. [img]smile.gif[/img] And yes, I'll omit the childish "Ah, so those evil downloaders did something right!" kind of remarks; to each his/her own. ;)

[ 02-07-2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Just a small side note here:
In several countries the copywright laws differ. In Sweden it is still legal to make copies of a CD for personal use or to give away to your closest circle of friends, IE family to be sure. That rule is about to change into something horrible misguided and stupid thanks to EU politicians that have no clue about anything. Do not read, filesharing should be oki.

This is the same concerning written material. You are not allowed to copy complete works from a book though, but you can copy the cpmplete book for your own use in a none professional way. Also, a customar who bought a record, a book a videogame etc are entitled to make safety backup's of that material if the media it came with should break.

I guess that that will change as well with the new laws.

As I said, a small side note [img]smile.gif[/img]

Cheers.

Oh and about thoose laws of copywright in the Australia, they look somewhat like what we in the EU will have soon.

Scrap the digital industry completely, don't sell many MP3 players, the KISS recorders with harddrives to tape TV shows will be illegal as well ;)

And not to mention that it doens't struck out against the filesharers but the ones that are paying for the material, as usual with all these new laws.
They hit the ones that are still legally abiding.
Problematic as the increase of illegal filesharing increases when the price goes up on the material you buy.

Yorick, a small question; how much do you pay for a CD in Australia? And how much of that goes to the artist? I am a bit intrigues since following the numbers crunched down here in Sweden, the biggest thief of the artis's profit is the company that releases their album here...

Alot of artists have moved to sell their music online instead or via for instance Apple's music store instead and cut the middle man out.

<font color="#C4C1CA">
Actually, that's quite common. Have you never had a free sample product and never bought the product as a result? I have (as many others have done) and the sampling system works or producers would have given it up years ago.
</font></font>[/QUOTE]You completely missed my point.

The mp3 is not a SAMPLE, it is the ACTUAL PRODUCT. I am well aware of sampling products. I simply said, who offers something and then asks you to pay for it?

How ludicrous would it be to ask Chewbacca to pay for the mp3 he downloaded now that he's heard it? It defys reason.

Again, an mp3 is not a sample, it is the actual product. A sample would be one listen. Radio play for example is a sample. You don't own a copy of the product you can listen to at any time. When you purchase music, that is what you own. The ability to listen to it whenever you like.

How was this point missed?


You again completely missed the point that live shows promote albums. Completely ignored it. Singles on radio give an act expose. More singles = more albums. When you go to see a big band, they play the whole album. Songs from old albums. Album sales are built on album tours. It's a plain truth. No secret.

Look, I am getting sick of this discussion. Either do your research on the way the industry has worked until now or stop posting on this subject. I am not here to educate you on how the industry has worked.

The argument that mp3 sharing leads to increased live work is irrelevent. The overwhelming majority of albums are NOT released to generate live work. Live work is done to promote albums. That is the way it has been for decades. Since artists were given royalties.

Mp3 sharing is taking the PRODUCT. There is no point in me doing a tour of Ecuador to promote something anyone who has heard of me already owns. Ludicrous.

Think about it. International tours are few and far between in Australia because there are not enough record sales in Australia for a touring act to justify touring there. Common knowledge Skunk. Tours cost. Playing live costs. Travel, personelle. Touring costs more than albums do.

Please, do you research.

This is quite plainly unbelievable. I cannot believe you would attempt to correct me about my own vocation in my own country, contradicting my personal experiences.

I am in two minds about whether to even write a reply. I will be brief.

The Australian artist competes - in their own country - against product from America and England, that has vast amounts of money behind it. When I brought out my first record, it was taken to radio. At the same time, the same record company were taking U2s Actung Baby to radio, and Brian Adams "Waking up the Neighbours". Other companies and other artists were releasing product at the same time.

In all 50 singles a week were being sent to a handful of radio stations that added ONE SONG a week.

No prizes guessing what happened.

Yet, the same albums that I was competing against were what subsidised my album. Without the company that released the records into a very small market, the album would not exist.

We (the Australian music industry) faced off a law that attempted to completely erode copyright. It would have allowed parallell imports - bringing down CD sales, but more importantly removing the incentive for major record companies to invest in Australian music altogether.

Australian music simply doesn't have the market, hence the dollars, to generate anything near the publicity a record made offshore does.

There is the argument, that our comparitivly small population has a sucessful artistic export culture because of that competition. It means to simply get to level 1 we must have skills and product that compete with guys on level 58. At age 19, I was not competing with U2s first record, but U2s 7th.

It's a simple reality.

The situation would have been worse, far worse, had Mp3 theft been around then. The album would not have been made at all. I would not have learned what I did during that time. None of the music I have made since would exist.


Yeah it is. That's reality.

Is a DJ able to make safety copies of his records? What happens if his record collection is stolen. Yes it's a big deal.

I have had my car broken into. I have had CDs stolen. CDs are valuable yes.

The answer?
1. Don't keep your collection in your car.
2. Keep a small amount of CDs you are listening to in your car.
3. Get the collection insured.

Nothing gives you the right to violate copyright. Being able to listen to an artists work is a privilege, not a right. If you can;t take care of your collection, that's not the artists fault. The copyright law which protects him/her shouldn't be revoked just because you're worried about losing $1000. They can have millions taken from them in your world.

In any case, in your world the CDs have no value anyway. No music has value in your world. It can be attained by anyone who demands it, for no cost.

That is why this whole thing disgusts and angers me. You take what I bleed for, what takes so much personally to create, and reduce the whole thing to zero value.


Who cares? How many records does that sell? In the scheme of things I would prefer you never recommend my music to anyone of your friends, because you have no regard for it and would have no hesitation in stealing me blind. And yes I am independent now, no I have no record company at the moment, yes I need exposure, no I do not want nor care for your car-ride recommendation, if it's the result of you thumbing your nose at my copyright.

Do you know how many sales me giving away music online has resulted in?
None.
Do you know how much money I've made from peoples online recommendations? None. How much do I hope or expect to see from that? Nothing.
Am I bitter?
No.
There is no point. You've completely misjudged the plight of the modern musician.


Created by music "fans" that bought their records Skunk. All music companies do is present product to the public. The record buying public decides who makes it and who doesn't.

In any case, as I said. TASTE in no excuse for theft. You don't have the righ to refuse to pay for a meal you just ate, simply because you decided you didn't like it.

[ 02-09-2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

CDs are $20 - $30 AUD and an artist may see $3. The writers share is around $3 or so as well.

The biggest thief is the mp3 filesharer who doesn;t give ANYTHING to the artist. At least the record company give 8 - 15% to the artist AND pay for the record, AND give them money to live on while they are making the record (advances)

Loans require interest do they not? Who gives money upfront at huge risk, and doesn't require profits to cover that risk?

Records are huge risks.

Artists also have the CHOICE not to sign record deals. We do sign them KNOWING how much we are getting, and offset royalties against the size of the advance. The bigger the advance the lower the royalty. For artsist that are a "sure thing" they obviously have bigger negotiating power.

CHOICE. Mp3 thieves remove our choice and decide for us that we can't enter into a legal agreement with someone who bankrolls our records.

As having it take four years to get a second album out.

<font color=deepskyblue> I just thought that this little bit of news may be relevant. It seems like Chewys sad expierance is not isolated. </font>

BBC news

US retailer Tower Records has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after illegal music downloading and heavy competition hit revenues.
The bankruptcy filings for Tower and its privately held parent MTS Inc comes after loss-making Tower was unable to find a suitable buyer.

Tower, which has 93 stores, has been unable to cope with competition from digital downloading and file copying.

MTS listed more than $100m of assets and $100m of debts.

The company closed its UK stores last year, but still has international outlets in Asia, Latin America and Israel.

<font color=deepskyblue> As mentioned before, Things have to change in the industry quicksmart... Give the record buying public what they want. That may well be letting them download MP3 for a small fee and giving permission to make one (1) only copy for there car or stereo. Whatever the rights or wrongs are, staying still aint an option. [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] </font>

You're a good man Wellard.

As having it take four years to get a second album out. </font>[/QUOTE]Erm... Actually, this is her third album in four years' time. Not to mention the fact that she had to deal with a form of cancer along the way as well, so I'm not even surprised by the hiatus she took between the release of her second and third album. A hiatus in no way longer than what most Top 40 artists take nowadays, in fact.
But what I'm referring to, are there any documents or announcements in which Anastacia or her management made any of the claims you're referring to, that they'd concluded that her career was somehow "ruined"? Or are you simply taking conclusions yourself now, based on personal observations or insiders' information we're not familiar with? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 02-10-2004, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Thanks for the reply Yorick, now I have to check how much the Aussie dollar i worth [img]smile.gif[/img]
Oki, 1 Aussie dollar equals 5.58 SKr. That means a CD is hmm... 116 - 167 SKR.

Here the prices range from 139 - 200 SKr roughly. (Depending alot upon the company releasing it and also where you buy it.)

And well of course, the biggest thief is the one that doesn't pay at all Yorick, my poor wording.
I didn't write out all of my train of thought.

Personally I download alot of music, the music I like I buy, cause I guess I am just one of thoose who wants to have the CD in my hand, and I hate irregular ripped MP3's anyway. I want to make my own MP3 rips to listen to on my computer.

During X-mus there was a huge sale on CD's, the CD orices were lowered to 99 Skr for one, 179 for 2 and so on. The increase in sales were drastic ;)
Now this is one thing I like and it showed clearly that the price on the CD's are directly connected to the sales. (Easy marketing really). Also the latest Metallica album had a special little code where you could log ono a website for alot of goodies, came with a DVD and you could download the MP3's from their site and download images and more. Increasing what you got for your money ALOT.

Both are good initiatives and that I think is the best way to battle piracy. Messing with paying customars by introducing and develope CD protections that last for about two days are not the way.

Ok Grolj. My apologies. I have my facts wrong.
They were based on information I read a couple of years ago, that detailed the HUGE amounts of downloads of her single "I'm Outta Love" and how that translated into vastly reduced album sales.

They were also based on discussions with a friend and cowriter of mine - LaMenga Kafi - who co-wrote "Paid My Dues" which I believe was a hit in Europe.

As I hadn't heard her second album appear in popular US culture, (and simply got confused as to which album "Paid my dues" was on) I made the (incorrect) assumption that her career had gone down the toilet.

I am glad that I am wrong and that a woman in possession of such an astounding voice is still making music. Of course wiping egg off my face is never enjoyable, so for that I'm not so pleased. ;)

Yeah, well I still love ya! :D ;)