milod Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Dave.... As far as the music business is concerned, I think you nailed it. It's marketing and live performance as the new paradigm to make a living at music, not per se selling physical recordings or hoping for paid downloads of electronic files. But BMI/ASCAP remain dinosaurs biting and scratching to stay alive and they have the cash, the court precedents and the fear factor to damage everybody else as their old ways die. That's my real fear over the music biz. The problem from my own perspective is that music is far from being the only "creative" endeavor covered under copyright law. The whole thing needs, IMHO, a complete reconsideration. Period. And that ain't gonna be easy. Even if everyone wants it to happen, we'll have a period of "fun" as case law comes to be made under a new paradigm. And it won't happen, even if everyone in the world agrees, for probably two decades because of the way such stuff takes time to be hashed over. EDIT: Stiffhand - I think you nailed the problem from the "artist" standpoint. Who gets the cash and how... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There is another source of free music that flyes under the radar, Libraries. The Nashville Library has a very respectable sized CD and DVD collection, I have access to their on line catalog and all I have to do is search and request items, if they are checked out I get on queu and get an e-mail when ready. These CDs can be copied at full fidelity or simply downloaded into your computer easily. So far I have downloaded about 20 albums that I had only on vinyl, I figure I already paid for the music albeit on a different format. On the other hand the ability to listen to a borrowed CD and get into it has led me to buy CDs. Still, too easy to get a copy...I wanted to check out a couple of Black Keys albums, they have them but there were like 20 people in queu... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riverside Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Late to the party, as usual... Back in the '70s, I taped. Sometimes because I was too cheap to buy, but usually because what I wanted wasn't readily available for purchase. At that, it still cost money in equipment and materials. I recently finished reading the autobiographies of Eric Clapton and Keith Richards. They did the same thing, but didn't own up to the cheap thing. The era of the computer makes copying the intellectual property of others more affordable (read: free) - and while I have no data to support this, I believe that the amount of illegal downloading far exceeds anything any of us ever stole using a tape recorder. I understand how stealing is wrong, etc. I'm not for it. But I'd have to think that most illegal downloads would not happen at all if the offender had to spend the time and money it used to involve in watching the needles and paying for good equipment and good tape. And then, it was (arguably) a poor copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Yea, you were also limited by the number of people you knew and that were willing to lend you their LP or CD top tape. With a computer that you would own regardless and the access to millions of sources and being able to maintain the squality of the source...well you do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 There always have been some questions about use of various media. For example, when I bought the vinyl, it was generally accepted that it was okay to make a cassette tape to use in the car. When I bought a computer program, it was generally accepted I'd have the original media, the program on a computer, and that I would have made a backup for the media. The "book" analogy of one person using one copy at a time doesn't work for music, although it probably does for software. That's 'cuz if I play "Rumble" on any sort of player, multiple people can hear it and that's how ASCAP/BMI went after even small businesses for a radio in the office - even if it were a one person office 99 percent of the time. Even the "book" analogy is obsolete thanks to current media. It all returns to my belief that we've gotta start from scratch on the whole concept of copyright law. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Owl Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Actually Dave, in one of the past threads discussing this subject somebody posted a link to an article that indicates record companies are having record profits after they embarced the downloading technology. The article however did not adress how th artists are benefitting. It looks like people are paying for songs and it is so easy and covenient that a lot of people that used to not buy music at all buy it now. The excuse of "I am not buying a whole album for a single song" is gone. You can buy a single song. I've heard that Journey's "Don't Stop Believeing" is the most legally downloaded song ever. Close, it rhymes with that. The most downloaded song (total earnings) is Black Eyed Peas "I've got a Feeling" See? Don't stop believing, I've got a feeling? Pretty close (in name only, not in talent, music skill enjoyablitiy and such we all know Journey rocks and Black Eyed Peas, is well, yeah.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I may have missed the word "Rock" rather than any song. Also, I Googled it and it it looks like you are going by iTunes the major player, but not the only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artie Owl Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 I may have missed the word "Rock" rather than any song. Also, I Googled it and it it looks like you are going by iTunes the major player, but not the only one. Now that I think about it you are right, it was an apple article I was reading. I shall investigate more later, also. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Actually I found the most recent list and Don't Stop Believeing is #21. The first 20 songs are mainly R&B or Pop. Not bad at all for Journey considering the song is like 30-something years old or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 fuzzy, it looks like you have caused quite a stir. opinions are strong and seem to be all over the board, if at the same time leaning toward a concenses there is a problem we need that report. opinions are good, but better when we are better informed. we need the facts. i'm hoping you share your findings here. i look forward to knowing more about this. the work you are doing certainly means something, and would be valuable here to us as well as to your school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BT Bob Posted February 24, 2011 Share Posted February 24, 2011 Interesting topic, I've been discussing with a few friends recently. A few thoughts (and questions): Like many of you, back in the day, copying albums (and/or singles) to cassettes was commonplace - either to carry your own albums in the car (later Walkman), or because you'd borrowed an album off a mate. As far as I understand it, the latter situation would be considered illegal. The former is, at best, unclear. The quality question is a very real one in this case - even with, say, a Linn turntable & Nakamichi deck & high-quality tape, the quality of the copy would always be inferior to the original. Dragging ourselves into the 21st century and we all traded our albums for CDs, it was commonplace to copy CDs to play in the car (better to get the copy stolen/lost/damaged than the original). Again, I think we're in an unclear legal situation here. The main difference, of course, is that we've now created a "clone" of the original - so no loss of quality. Then the advent of CD players that play .mp3 discs means you can take your entire Beatles/Stones/Zeppelin, etc, etc collections on one disc. Legal situation? still dodgey, I reckon, and we're back to the loss of quality we had before. Of course, in most cars the ambient noise levels mean the drop in quality is probably negligible - as was the case with cassettes, and also applies to iPods, etc that use compressed formats. Presumably, the abundance of iPods/mp3 players mean the legal question is more straightforward if you rip your own (original) CDs. Of course, borrowing CDs off a mate and ripping them is likely still illegal. As a slight aside, I've been wondering what the situation is if you've ripped a number of your own original CDs and then sell them. Surely you've now stepped from a clear-cut legal situation to a very grey area - probably illegal. So, this brings us to downloading (bit-torrent, peer-to-peer applications, etc) or something like playing a tune in, say, Spotify and recording the streaming audio. My gambit would be these are also illegal. But what happens if you subscribe to Spotify Premium? Is it still illegal to record streaming audio if you've paid to listen to it? Then, there's the added illegality that comes from downloading a bootleg!! Obviously the original bootlegger has broken the law, but if he/she then makes that available for free and you download it, are you more or less guilty of breaking the law? The whole legal situation is a mess - certainly in the UK. Sorry this is long ramble..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lespaulj45 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 When I was a young man the local FM radio station in my town used to have "New Release Night" every tuesday evening-with no commercials or interruptions,they would play both sides of the vinyl records and all us R&R'ers would have our cassette decks locked and loaded in anticipation for this.This went on for 2 or 3 yrs and then it stopped-suddenly, I was surprised it went on as long as it did. I still have about 70 or 80 classic albums done this way,I guess they just didnt worry about illegal downloading and recording in those days (early 1970's)ah,the good old days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 It was pretty well accepted as legal in the US in, let's say 1975, to copy a commercial vinyl or tape onto a "car tape." Don't forget, too, that functionally "digital tape" functionally was killed by recording companies because, it was said, of fears of easy illegal copying. I think in retrospect they saw the coming tide of the Internet and what really happened. As to ripping your own originals and selling them? If you mean I write songs, I sing and play them, and I make CDs to sell, that's perfectly legal in the US. I'd recommend that after a point you officially copyright them with the Library of Congress, etc., etc., but it's perfectly legal. If you mean take an "official" commercial copy of the Rolling Stones and rip it to a CD and sell it, yes, that would be quite illegal. No gray area here on that, although I suppose if you sold it at the cost of the disk... you might make a case... m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavsrock08 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 I have always viewed it as stealing. I dont steal, so I dont illegally download. I do, however, have a friend who will illegally download something and within a week or two, buy the product, even if he didnt like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Cav... Here's the problem of law and, perhaps, ethics not catching up to technology. Ever read a newspaper or magazine article on a web page and copied it to send to a friend? Or a friend emailed such to you and you forwarded it to another friend? If I've an article on such a web page, by your criterion, haven't you functionally stolen from me as much as if you downloaded my personal vid on Youtube of a song I write, performed and recorded? Do you return to a web site to re-listen to a tune or to re-read an article? Do you have a Tivo or other vid recording device to delay play of a TV show? There's no functional difference between my access of a tune held at an internet site and my having downloading it to my own computer's memory. Ever have friends over to watch a recorded movie you bought or rented? Technically that's illegal. In fact, one might make a case that it's illegal to have your radio playing music in your office if someone else walks in the door. This year newspapers were informed that it would be illegal to run a restaurant or bar's advertisement that they would have a "Super Bowl" special. They legally could play the game on big screen TV, but couldn't use the term. Why? Cuz the newspapers might get sued if they let it run in an ad. Sheesh. My point is that "what's illegal" may or may not be given current technology that is so far different from the basis of copyright law that we retain from an era of mechanical reproduction. We gotta start from scratch and taking the very proper perspective of what's legal, illegal, moral or immoral, on the subject in a 1918 perspective ain't necessarily so in 2011. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duende Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 re music essays on this and similar things... For anyone who doesn't know a great search engine is google scholar. It has a wealth of academic material and brilliant for any musicology research http://scholar.google.co.uk/ Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Notes_Norton Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 While I agree with Milod that the entire copyright law needs to be scrapped and built again from scratch, in the current political oligarchy (a handful of huge corporations ruling the country) I would hate to see it happen, as the new copyright laws would be more draconian than the present ones. After all, the recent changes were the result of bribery lobbying by the media corporations. On the other hand, I don't know what I would change. Personally I would like to see all public performances by live musicians of a copyrighted work legal (perhaps because I make my living by playing music). I also think 75 years after the death of the author is quite excessive for the length of the copyright term. And once the song achieves "gold record" status or number one with a bullet, doesn't at least a part of that belong to the public? You have always been able to make personal copies for yourself (tapes or duplicate CDs of anything you purchased for your car, transfer to mp3 player, etc.) under the "Fair Use". On the other hand, if I sell a recording of a song written by Lady Gaga but performed by me, isn't she entitled to a share of the profits? And regarding taping, when I was a hippie and everyone had cassette machines, a Fort Lauderdale radio station used to play LPs in their entirety each day at 11:00 PM. The records would play with only one commercial interruption, a radio station ID as they flipped the record over. I heard that station ID in many a friend's car or home as they played their cassette. So wasn't the radio station profiting by that illegal pirating? I have a number of copyrighted aftermarket User Style Disks for Band-in-a-Box. I've seen them posted on the web and always sent out a courteous request for them to stop. Does this illegal downloading hurt me? Most definitely. I make my living doing music and nothing but music. I have a modest mortgage, drive a 2002 vehicle (which I bought new but will drive 'till it dies), and live fairly close to the bone. There have been years when I couldn't have afforded to take a vacation, I'd like to do some remodeling but that's out of the question right now, and until I turn 65 I won't have health insurance. Should others freely trade my styles without compensating me? Since I believe in The Law of Reciprocity (do unto others), I don't participate in the illegal pirating of copyrighted works. But I wonder if I'd feel the same way if I didn't have a copyright myself. If any of you wrote a song, and some major artist picked it up and made a zillion dollars from it without compensating you, how would you feel? If you wrote a song that you sell on CD Baby or other indie site, and it brought in some money but not nearly enough to make a living with and you found that there was a million illegal copies out there, how would you feel? Sure these are extreme examples, but I feel they make a point. On the other hand, some of the world's greatest music was written before copyright law was applied to music. In Dvorak's ninth symphony you can hear a direct quote from Beethoven's ninth. That would be illegal today, and Dvorak's ninth would be less of a symphony without it. And as far as I'm concerned, George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" didn't really plagiarize "He's So Fine" - granted it was close, but if I were in the jury, I would have voted "innocent". As you can see I'm really perplexed about the entire issue. I don't have the answers. I don't want the multi-national corporations to rewrite the laws, but I agree they need a complete overhaul. All I know is that I have to follow my own conscience and "do unto others". Notes ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlie brown Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 The Key word here, is "illegal!" If you do something, illegally, expect to be punished, in some way. Cross borders, download music, whatever. There are already plenty of laws, what is needed is some real enforcement, that is non-biased, and non-corrupt. Good Luck, with THAT! ;>( Several other things going on, but 2 of the major ones, involved, are plain old Greed, and the somewhat newer "Entitlement!" CB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Bob... I make my living creating copyrighted material too. My major concern with current law is that it does not address the artist hardly at all - instead, as you stated, it's the big corporations and folks such as ASCAP/BMI who offer benefits to major recording/publishing companies and darned little to the majority of musicians other than to close places where they might make a buck or even just a "name." When it comes to music, there's a legal howl over "illegal downloading," but... just how illegal is it regardless of civil lawsuits? It's not "criminal" behavior. It's "civil" law. For example, a competing medium "steals" my photo of Devils Tower for an ad promoting their own photography, the best "I" can do is go to court to get them to stop; depending on what I've done in terms of copyright, I might get a few bucks that wouldn't cover the cost of my attorney. You're in roughly the same situation. So... What's important in today's world of instant access to lots of stuff? I'd say that if Bob Norton is not well known for marvelous backing tracks for small pro combos, it's probably not too bad if some are "stolen" and other musicians ask, "gee that's nice, where'd you get it?" It's marketing. "Custom" backing tracks by a talented pro at the art will bring cash. At least, that's certainly the hope. The problem as I see it now is that the big money outfits are more in control than any musician or live music venue. They're shutting down (as ASCAP and BMI) live music venues. Their mode of sampling benefits only the biggies. In fact, back in the '40s there was a "ASCAP strike" where even the radio stations pretty much stopped playing ASCAP music and BMI was invented largely by radio stations as an anti-ASCAP deal that then also introduced country and combo type music that helped to change music into the post-war pop scene that brought us "rock." ASCAP was basically the arm of the big publishing houses of the time. The bottom line is that in music, we're still living in a 1940s world using to a large extent pre-radio and radio-only era law and legal precedent. It's a different world. As musicians and songwriters, we can adjust or suffer while current law, ASCAP and BMI seem to want us to return to a pre-television, pre-Internet, pre-home recording era that ain't gonna happen. Frankly this is one place where I wish there were a real "musicians union" that could recognize the real world and advocate for the players and creators. In ways politically and socially I'm awfully "libertarian," but I think that right now there's no place but venues like this where such stuff is even being discussed outside corporate boardrooms. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 i might hold a different view on intellectual property, and i been pondering it for a while now. the way the currents music industry seems to be set up is the songwriter is the first to have the rights of getting paid. i am questioning if that makes sense and is fair. say i write, like, 5 songs. it takes roughly, 40 hours. but i don't play in a band. the band that plays them does so at least with as much effort as i do. the band, being working musicians, has to put a lot of work into performing them time and time again to get them famous. so the songs get on the radio and the musicians who did the work and the performance have little claim compared to mine. i get rich for sitting on my bum. when someone buys a record or goes to see someone play, what do they want to see and hear? are they interested in the performance or the song? how much of either? here is the meat of my point: i think we need to consider a work ethic. there are many cases where a musician can spend countless hours on his craft and be working at it more than full time, and in contrast many in demand musicians who make a lot of money and do nothing for long periods of time. if a musician has talent, he has an obligation to give that talent to the world by playing if poeple want to hear and see, and if they don't want to work, maybe they should not get paid. could easily say it another way, that if you want to get paid, get your axe and perform. get to work. now, i realize part of being a musician in the first place is practice and preparation. we aren't worth much if we aren't any good at it, and to be worth something that someone might actually want to hear and see takes great effort. i would not ever say that songwriting is not a part of that, but i am trying to contrast that a person who simply writes a song and puts little effort into it should not be expecting a right to make a great living while those putting the real efforts struggle for smaller portions and yet have no retirement from it. considering that the laws and the intent of the laws is out of date with the current technology, i suggest that perhaps the system was broken before this came about. the idea of royalties for the songwriter was created because record companies were invented and created a way to exploit working musicians. perhaps society caught up and learned that musicians could then be exploited by the very idea of a "songwriter". and yet again, the system made it hard for talented, hard working musicians to be able to enter the club, so to speak. i'm not saying i am right in this, but i think we could all agree that the system was already unfair to the point that making a decent living as a musician was a long shot at best, meaning the poor house for nearly all while a fraction made a great deal of wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Stein... Actually when some of the law first was done with ASCAP pushing it, it was largely for sheet music publishing houses - with both songwriters and artists almost as an afterthought. Recorded music was starting to be sold as much as sheet music, so... boom, let's protect the publishing houses and... oh, yeah, the record producers. Then radio came in and the electronic revolution began. Don't forget that it was in ways as rapid a revolution as anything we've seen with computers and the Internet. Functionally zero commercial radio stations in 1920 and even in the mid 1920s tube electronic amplification was still seen as something only for the professionals. They brought one from Washington DC in that time period to the local rodeo when the President of the U.S. was a guest. Not only the equipment, but also the "technicians." But by 1930, we were watching sound movies - known as "talkies" - and even what amount to "music videos" at the theater that usually also was built for stage productions. By 1940 almost everybody who had electricity - lots of farms and ranches did not - had a nicely amplified radio to play music but ... that's also when the ASCAP-BMI games began to affect the consumer as well as the artist. ASCAP, the older, definitely was an arm basically of the "publishing houses" as it had been for over 20 years since its birth. BMI emphasized at first the "broadcast" element. But don't forget that BMI also was not founded for the artist or songwriter, but radio companies who didn't want to pay what ASCAP wanted for on-air play. Both functionally remain in the first half of the 20th century, IMHO. Again, note that neither was formed with either the writer or performer in mind. BTW, yeah, some folks may have written a song on a napkin in 20 minutes, but... I think the creators, writers or performers, had best start hanging together more. The corporate types would love, I'm sure, to see a battle while they sit on the sidelines and maintain as much revenue as they can from the creative folks. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Like I've posted the last few times this topic comes up. You don't get nailed for downloading, you get nailed for making files available for downloading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S t e v e Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 i used to download tunes from limewire for my mp3 player, 80% of the tunes i bought the album first and just wanted it portable...the other 20% i stole, there i said it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 Steve... You didn't "steal" in the sense of criminal activity. This is not criminal law. It's civil law. Business law if you will. Selling what you have downloaded, may come under criminal law or not. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BT Bob Posted February 25, 2011 Share Posted February 25, 2011 i used to download tunes from limewire for my mp3 player, 80% of the tunes i bought the album first and just wanted it portable...the other 20% i stole, there i said it Sorry, but I don't understand why you'd download a track (probably at a poor quality, and risking a virus) you already "own" on a CD, when you could rip it straight from the CD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.