开云体育

I don`t know if it is the same in the USA but here
there are now dozens of CD compilations of 1950s
music available for pennies.

Obviously the original recordings are now in the public
domain so Time and Warners can publish these titles without
paying anything to anybody.

So the same companies who complained about Limewire and
Napster are selling music they didn`t create without giving
a penny to the artiste`s heirs.

Will

Will, unfortunately there are some mis-understandings here:

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@...> wrote:

I don`t know if it is the same in the USA but here
there are now dozens of CD compilations of 1950s
music available for pennies.

National copyright laws on licensing, transfer and assignment of copyright still vary greatly between countries and copyrighted works are licensed on territorial basis. Attempts have been made to standardized through international and regional agreements such as the Berne Convention and the European copyright directives.

Following Gowers review UK recorded music copyright remains at 50 years. The decision means that the earliest official recordings from The Beatles will be out of copyright in 2013.



In the UK there are some fabulous compilations and recordings now available for pennies - it's great that some one decided to put them together. I particularly like the independent releases by Proper Records.

Obviously the original recordings are now in the public
domain so Time and Warners can publish these titles without
paying anything to anybody.

If the recording is fully in the public domain and there are no dues to anyone at all, then there is nothing stopping ANY company releasing it. Such as Proper Records. How they price the sale of the public domain recording is their choice - it's called business. A consumer can choose to buy it or not.

Take a look at the CD and see what is written it for each title.

For an audio recording there are (in general terms):

Mechanical licenses and royalties
Performance rights and royalties
Synchronization rights and royalties

So for example while there may be no mechanical dues, there may be songwriter dues and if it is broadcast on the radio performance and synchronization dues.

So the same companies who complained about Limewire and
Napster are selling music they didn`t create without giving
a penny to the artiste`s heirs.

To re-iterate, if the recording is fully in the public domain and there are no dues to anyone at all, then there is nothing stopping ANY company releasing it.

If music which is in the public domain music is distributed through a file-sharing service such as Limewire, they are not breaking the law.

The complaint is about music which is not in the public domain and for which royalties are due and not being paid.

On 10/29/2010 5:38 AM, Will wrote:

Obviously the original recordings are now in the public
domain....

Copyrights last 100 years.

On 10/29/2010 6:59 AM, akmbirch wrote:

Will, unfortunately there are some mis-understandings here:...

And there ya go. Thanks once again to Alisdair!

Bobby

On 29 Oct 2010, at 07:03 , Bob Hansmann wrote:

On 10/29/2010 5:38 AM, Will wrote:

Obviously the original recordings are now in the public
domain....

Copyrights last 100 years.

It depends. I think this sums it up for the US:


"1. Works published from 1909 through 1921.
The initial copyrighted term of the work was 28 years from the date of publication. If the copyright was renewed during the 28th year, the copyright was extended for an additional 28-year period.

2. Works published from 1922 through 1963.
The initial copyrighted term of the work was 28 years from the date of publication. If the copyright was renewed during the 28th year, the copyright was extended for an additional 67-year period.

3. Works published from 1964 through 1978.
The initial copyrighted term of the work was 28 years from the date of publication, with an automatic renewal of an additional 67 years.

4. Works created on or after January 1, 1978.
The following rules apply to published and unpublished works:

鈥� For one author, the work is copyright-protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.
鈥� For joint authors, the work is protected for the life of the surviving author plus 70 years.
鈥� For works made for hire, the work is protected for 95 years from the first publication or 120 years from the date of its creation, whichever is less.
鈥� For anonymous and pseudonymous works, the work is protected for 95 years from the first publication or 120 years from the date of its creation, whichever is less. (However, if the author's name is disclosed to the U.S. Copyright Office, the work is protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.)

by: Richard Stim, Attorney"


Other countries vary.

Mike

� For anonymous and pseudonymous works, the work is protected for 95
years from the first publication or 120 years from the date of its creation,
whichever is less. (However, if the author's name is disclosed to the U.S.
Copyright Office, the work is protected for the life of the author plus 70
years.)

If the author is anonymous/ pseudonymous, who gets the money?? And, why is
it "protected"?
I think, not surprisingly, that it should be Public Domain.
Btw, is the letter, "E" still open for copyright?

I do understand that anybody is within their legal right to
publish anything that is in the public domain. It is the moral
issue that gets to me - a huge company suing children
and placing them in lifelong debt whilst at the same time
creaming as much as they can out of a loophole in the law.

Will

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@...> wrote:

I do understand that anybody is within their legal right to
publish anything that is in the public domain. It is the moral
issue that gets to me - a huge company suing children
and placing them in lifelong debt whilst at the same time
creaming as much as they can out of a loophole in the law.

Will, to discuss the issue we have to deal in specifics
rather than emotive generalities:

"a huge company suing children and placing them in lifelong
debt whilst at the same time creaming as much as they can out
of a loophole in the law"

versus (an equally emotive generality)

"a huge corporation using their overwhelming legal power to ensure
that there is a loophole in the law which enables them to
cream as much as they can from enabling the uncontrolled pirating off the backs of musicians and writers"

So....

Which company(s) has successfully prosecuted children and
placed them in lifelong debt?

Which company(s) is creaming as much as they can out of a
loophole in the law?

What is the loophole in the law they are using?

Last year the UK media carried news of children who
had been sued and ordered to pay the recording companies
for lost copyright revenue - I don`t remember the company.

Previously it was reported that the band Metalica had sued
an 11yr old girl.

The "Loophole" is the out-of-copyright issue which enables
companies to publish music without having to pay anybody.


Will

On 10/29/2010 05:26 PM, akmbirch wrote:

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will"<will@...> wrote:

I do understand that anybody is within their legal right to
publish anything that is in the public domain. It is the moral
issue that gets to me - a huge company suing children
and placing them in lifelong debt whilst at the same time
creaming as much as they can out of a loophole in the law.

Will, to discuss the issue we have to deal in specifics
rather than emotive generalities:

"a huge company suing children and placing them in lifelong
debt whilst at the same time creaming as much as they can out
of a loophole in the law"

versus (an equally emotive generality)

"a huge corporation using their overwhelming legal power to ensure
that there is a loophole in the law which enables them to
cream as much as they can from enabling the uncontrolled pirating off the backs of musicians and writers"

So....

Which company(s) has successfully prosecuted children and
placed them in lifelong debt?

Which company(s) is creaming as much as they can out of a
loophole in the law?

What is the loophole in the law they are using?

And don't forget the politicians they "courted" to vote for these corporate "friendly" laws. If a musician or artist happens to get any benefit, I don't believe that was ever the motivating factor behind the coming about of these laws.

These RIAA cases we've all heard about, exactly how much of that money has made its way back to the original songwriters and performing artists? I never hear mention of that.

John

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@...> wrote:

I do understand that anybody is within their legal right to
publish anything that is in the public domain. It is the moral
issue that gets to me - a huge company suing children
and placing them in lifelong debt whilst at the same time
creaming as much as they can out of a loophole in the law.

Will, to discuss the issue we have to deal in specifics
rather than emotive generalities:

"a huge company suing children and placing them in lifelong
debt whilst at the same time creaming as much as they can out
of a loophole in the law"

versus (an equally emotive generality)

"a huge corporation using their overwhelming legal power to ensure
that there is a loophole in the law which enables them to
cream as much as they can from enabling the uncontrolled pirating off the backs of musicians and writers"

So....

Which company(s) has successfully prosecuted children and
placed them in lifelong debt?

Last year the UK media carried news of children who
had been sued and ordered to pay the recording companies
for lost copyright revenue - I don`t remember the company.

Previously it was reported that the band Metalica had sued
an 11yr old girl.

Which company(s) is creaming as much as they can out of a
loophole in the law?

What is the loophole in the law they are using?

The "Loophole" is the out-of-copyright issue which enables
companies to publish music without having to pay anybody.

Will, we have to deal in specifics because the issue is complex
and so often it becomes simplified and personalized so that
a story can be produced.

Let's take as an example:

"Metallica had sued an 11yr old girl."

From Wikipedia (not necessarily the best source - but a reasonable summary of the case):

In 2000, Metallica discovered that a demo of its song "I Disappear", which was supposed to be released in combination with the Mission: Impossible II soundtrack, was receiving radio airplay. Tracing the source of the leak, the band found the file on the Napster peer-to-peer file-sharing network, and also found that the band's entire catalogue was freely available.[47] Legal action was initiated against Napster with Metallica filing a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, alleging that Napster violated three areas of the law: copyright infringement, unlawful use of digital audio interface device, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).[31][48]
Ulrich led the case against Napster

Though the lawsuit named three universities for copyright infringement, the University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University, no individuals were named. Yale and Indiana complied and blocked the service from its campuses, and Metallica withdrew the universities' inclusion in the lawsuit.[49] Southern California, however, had a meeting with students to figure out what was going to happen with Napster. School administrators wanted it banned as its usage accounted for 40% of the bandwidth not being used for educational purposes.[50]

Metallica hired online consulting firm NetPD to monitor the Napster service for a weekend. A list of 335,435 Napster users who were believed to be sharing Metallica's music was compiled, and the 60,000 page document was delivered to Napster's office as Metallica requested the users be banned from the service.[51] The users were banned, and rap artist Dr. Dre joined the lawsuit against Napster, which resulted in an additional 230,142 Napster users banned.[52]

Ulrich provided a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding copyright infringement on July 11, 2000.[47] Federal Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered the site place a filter on the program in 72 hours or be shut down.[53] A settlement was reached between Metallica and Napster when German media conglomerate Bertelsmann AG BMG showed interest to purchase the rights to Napster for $94 million. Under the terms of settlement, Napster agreed to block users who shared music by artists who do not want their music shared.[54] However, on June 3, 2002 Napster filed for Chapter 11 protection under U.S. bankruptcy laws. On September 3, 2002, an American bankruptcy judge blocked the sale to Bertelsmann and forced Napster to liquidate its assets according to Chapter 7 of the U.S. bankruptcy laws.[55]




Note that Metallica went after corporations not individual users.

In terms of publicity, the tactic by the corporations named (and successfully prosecuted ) in the lawsuit, was to pick one or two
individuals names who were entered into evidence against the
corporation, and make emotive headlines such as "Metallica sues
poor university students" etc...

Then those attention grabbing headlines get picked up by the much
of the establishment media. "Metallica sues poor university students"
or "Metallica sues an 11yr old girl" is much better then "Metallica takes file-sharing corporation to court".

---

Of course, the RIAA has undertaken prosecutions of individuals for file sharing but we have to deal in the specifics of each case.
Has the RIAA made mistakes? Of course. Was this the best course
or action? Maybe, maybe not depending on the case.

The majority of the cases the RIAA has undertaken are against
corporations who profit from providing the means to distribute
copyright material.

---

As I write this a friend of mine's son works as head of security
at a large retailing company. Daily they catch people shop-lifting
stealing anything from a 50c candy-bar upwards, including children.
They prosecute them all. Why are there next no headlines saying:
"X, retailer sues 11 year old for 3 candy bars"?

Is it OK to steal music, but not to steal a candy bar?
Is music worth less than a candy bar?

Alisdair,

Of course not but that isn`t what I was trying to say.

The recording companies who are chasing royalties with
their own emotive slogans like "You wouldn`t steal a car
Piracy is stealing" are not known for their honesty in
paying out the royalties owed to artistes or for showing the
slightest compassion to musicians with failing health.

Good reading is Noel Redding`s book - "Are You Experienced?"
which documents the long fight he had with the moguls.

Will

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@...> wrote:

The recording companies who are chasing royalties with
their own emotive slogans like "You wouldn`t steal a car
Piracy is stealing" are not known for their honesty in
paying out the royalties owed to artistes or for showing the
slightest compassion to musicians with failing health.

Some are good, some aren't good. It's human nature.

Universal Music Group Establishes The Motown/Universal Music Group Fund To Support Former Artists


Some doctors are good, some aren't. People still go to the doctor.

Some bankers are corrupt, some are not. People have a bank account.

Technology companies have an even worse track record in paying out royalties to artists than record companies.

A judge has determined that a 4 yr. old girl can be sued...
This is great news for corporations and lawyers. A whole new "market" has
opened up..
I think of those scenes where someone won't give up the info until they put
a gun to the child's head. I can see the corps and gov't using these tactics
to get at those higher in the chain...

[www_nytimes_com]

Some are good, some aren't good. It's human nature.

Universal Music Group Establishes The Motown/Universal Music Group Fund To
Support Former Artists


Some doctors are good, some aren't. People still go to the doctor.

Some bankers are corrupt, some are not. People have a bank account.

Technology companies have an even worse track record in paying out
royalties to artists than record companies.

Exactly, so with that platitude the whole discussion comes to a crashing
end. Some will pirate and some will not. It's human nature. Live with it....

I would say that you are very naive to believe any numbers coming out of the
recording industry., (or the gov't) that seek a sympathetic image in front
of a congressman or justice.
You ask for "proof" of Will's accusations while mouthing the obvious lies of
PR releases from the riaa as your proof. It is to the RIAA's benefit to
(falsely)claim that they are losing money to piracy. It would give them
leverage to bargain down the rates they pay to their clients...
I don't see musicians tracking down every CD sold and/or pirated. We have
only the word of the RIAA. That seems to be good enough for you...
Sorry to be so skeptical, but rather that than naive...

Hi Angelo,

Exactly, so with that platitude the whole discussion comes to a crashing
end. Some will pirate and some will not. It's human nature. Live with it....

I didn't read that out of it all. What I feel he is saying is that two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that many record company execs are crooks is certainly an issue which should be addressed, but it does not justify piracy.

For any out there who want some real information on that subject, there is an excellent book called "Hit Men".

best,
Bobby

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "akmbirch" <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Will, unfortunately there are some mis-understandings here:

--- In jazz_guitar@..., "Will" <will@> wrote:

I don`t know if it is the same in the USA but here
there are now dozens of CD compilations of 1950s
music available for pennies.

National copyright laws on licensing, transfer and assignment of copyright still vary greatly between countries and copyrighted works are licensed on territorial basis. Attempts have been made to standardized through international and regional agreements such as the Berne Convention and the European copyright directives.

Following Gowers review UK recorded music copyright remains at 50 years. The decision means that the earliest official recordings from The Beatles will be out of copyright in 2013.



In the UK there are some fabulous compilations and recordings now available for pennies - it's great that some one decided to put them together. I particularly like the independent releases by Proper Records.

Obviously the original recordings are now in the public
domain so Time and Warners can publish these titles without
paying anything to anybody.

If the recording is fully in the public domain and there are no dues to anyone at all, then there is nothing stopping ANY company releasing it. Such as Proper Records. How they price the sale of the public domain recording is their choice - it's called business. A consumer can choose to buy it or not.

Proper Records is not a mega corporation. They have some really
great box sets.

These are so many great box sets including Hittin On All Six: A History Of The Jazz Guitar and Les Paul & Mary Ford.

Mark

Thanks ALL for your contributions to this discussion!!
The cases cited and the book referrals.
It's all been most informative.

So, what is the bottom line?

Alisdair, or anyone else, have any idea of the figures?

Of the money recovered by the lawsuits put forth by the RIAA and others, are the figures even this good:

70% of the money stays in the hands of the record companies and / or their representatives, while
30% of the money is doled out to artists?

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to educate the public on the quality difference between MP3s, CDs, and vinyl albums. As is, Apple and the record companies are making a killing off of downloaded MP3s, and where's the expense of pressing / copying, or recording materials?

The good side is, downloaded music, movies, etc., at least are not contributing more waste product to landfills. How GREEN it is to run an electronic (electricity sucking) device vs. produce a finished store product is another argument for another day.

My unsolicited $0.02.

John

On 10/30/2010 01:12 PM, Angelo wrote:

Some are good, some aren't good. It's human nature.

Universal Music Group Establishes The Motown/Universal Music Group Fund To
Support Former Artists


Some doctors are good, some aren't. People still go to the doctor.

Some bankers are corrupt, some are not. People have a bank account.

Technology companies have an even worse track record in paying out
royalties to artists than record companies.

Exactly, so with that platitude the whole discussion comes to a crashing
end. Some will pirate and some will not. It's human nature. Live with it....

I would say that you are very naive to believe any numbers coming out of the
recording industry., (or the gov't) that seek a sympathetic image in front
of a congressman or justice.
You ask for "proof" of Will's accusations while mouthing the obvious lies of
PR releases from the riaa as your proof. It is to the RIAA's benefit to
(falsely)claim that they are losing money to piracy. It would give them
leverage to bargain down the rates they pay to their clients...
I don't see musicians tracking down every CD sold and/or pirated. We have
only the word of the RIAA. That seems to be good enough for you...
Sorry to be so skeptical, but rather that than naive...

Skeptical? Nah. Maybe more realist than skeptical, Angelo.

(Suicide)

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'

Our cities have turned into jungles
And corruption is stranglin' the land
The police force is watching the people
And the people just can't understand
We don't know how to mind our own business
'Cause the whole worlds got to be just like us
Now we are fighting a war over there
No matter who's the winner
We can't pay the cost
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watching

Copyright MCA Music (BMI)
All rights for the USA controlled and administered by
MCA Corporation of America, INC


From "Monster - Suicide - America",



(Yes, it's really "mnnster" in that link!)

On 10/31/2010 1:46 AM, BluesRenegade wrote:

70% of the money stays in the hands of the record companies and / or
their representatives, while
30% of the money is doled out to artists?

That 30% may be too high until you average in that some artists (ie The Beatles) could pretty much write their own contracts. The royalties rate of around 2 - 4% of 90% after expenses were recouped was pretty much standard for new artists.

Were there a lot of abuses? Oh, yeah! - particularly toward artists who didn't keep up with their homework, opting instead to live the "standard rock'n'roll lifestyle" than to grow as musicians and businessmen. Considering also that many of these artists only had a few good tunes in them, while a standard contract was for 2 years (with option for another 2) x 2 albums per year, and the picture becomes clearer yet. The overwhelming majority of recordings did not break even, though I can't provide stats.

What was great about that time was the possibility of independents releasing these "one-hit wonders". Even though this should be more possible in today's environment, I don't see it happening. Everyone with a computer and a Pro-Tools set-up is a "real" studio, regardless of the badly designed rooms (usually in a basement), lack of proper mics, or lack of engineering and production expertise.

You are exactly right about iTunes, MP3s, &c. being far cheaper to produce and release (and from what I've read, Apple is not paying a whole lot - when they pay at all - , so it's basically all profit for them). Beside the lack of physical mechanical equipment for records, CDs, &c, there was also that wonderful artwork which went into the covers, which were a huge part of the record-owning experience. By the time of the peak of analog recording, the average Pop album cost somewhere around $200K before Mastering, pressing, art work, and promotional costs (including payola, which we all know never happened).

While I can't offer a valuable opinion as to how "fair" that was to the artist, I will say that when all the real costs were added up, the "big bad record companies" didn't look so bad after all.

All this, btw, is off-point. The point was whether or not it should be legal, ethical, moral, or whatever to blatantly steal a properly copyrighted work and publish it over the Internet. What has been surprising to me, on this list and in the music world, is how many applaud it, as if they had a "piece of the action".

best,
Bobby