Filesharing (theft) Some facts about music and copyright:

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: 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.

Fair enough. Good points.

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]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: 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.

Fair call. My apologies.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: But quote: Originally posted by Yorick: 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

The highlighted sentence is actually a direct contradiction to everything you have been saying since your opening post, Yorick. 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. [/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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ARTIST 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 ]

[Skunk]

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 steal 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 theft 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 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: 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, 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 steal 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).

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.

What we are looking at with mp3 theft is illegally reproducing the entire work unaltered. Song, recording and performances all.

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 SONG, and then an owner of a RECORDING. Within that recording there are various PERFORMANCES, 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.

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.

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

[wellard]

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*


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

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

[John D Harris]

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.

[Timber Loftis]

Either something is illegal or it isn't.

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

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by wellard: 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* edit because I spent to much time listening to records rather than my spelling homework

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.

Artists choose to accept low royalties in exchange for the services a record company offers.

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?

[Yorick]

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.