Avid Pro Audio Community

Avid Pro Audio Community (http://duc.avid.com/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://duc.avid.com/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Perhaps this time.... (http://duc.avid.com/showthread.php?t=315998)

Terry Wetzel 01-22-2012 06:00 AM

Perhaps this time....
 
I'll get an answer. I've asked the question numerous times to no avail. Even organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and the Harry Fox agency when asked, will direct you to page after page of legal mumbo jumbo that only serves to further confuse! With all the hoopla over SOPA and PIPA I thought that perhaps, if I asked my question again, here on the DUC I just might get an answer. The question. Is it illegal by current law, to record or perform a song that was previously composed, copyrighted and/or recorded by someone other than oneself if the person covering said piece has no intent to distribute or sell it for financial gain? Plain and simple. Yes or no! Please no opinions. Thanks.

Dism 01-22-2012 07:30 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Terry Wetzel (Post 1892779)
I'll get an answer. I've asked the question numerous times to no avail. Even organizations such as ASCAP, BMI and the Harry Fox agency when asked, will direct you to page after page of legal mumbo jumbo that only serves to further confuse! With all the hoopla over SOPA and PIPA I thought that perhaps, if I asked my question again, here on the DUC I just might get an answer. The question. Is it illegal by current law, to record or perform a song that was previously composed, copyrighted and/or recorded by someone other than oneself if the person covering said piece has no intent to distribute or sell it for financial gain? Plain and simple. Yes or no! Please no opinions. Thanks.

It's not a plain and simple, yes or no question.

There's no reason why you couldn't record a cover of someone else's song for personal purposes, and listen to it on your ipod with your friends and family. It comes down to performance rights and public use. Different songs also have different copyrights for their use. At the end of the day, it's really up to the original artist.

If you're playing in a bar, or your recording it to give to your firends... you're probably ok. If you're performing in front of thousands of people, or plan on distributing your recording, (aka, getting paid) that's a different story.

Emcha_audio 01-22-2012 12:20 PM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
There are licenses (per song) that are available for you if you are doing "covers" CMRAA (it's canaidan though) cover those, which include the remixing and re-recording of the song. I'm sure there's an equivalence in the US.

Now as Dism said, there's nothing in the copyrights that disallow some one to privately record, remix or redo a recording, as long as you don't make it available to other people, including youtube and such. If it's just for your personal listening use, or mixing practice, there's nothing in the law to prevent that. IF on the other hand you want to sale it, then get the license that covers the "covers"

Terry Wetzel 01-23-2012 06:33 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
Thanks to all who returned info but, are you telling me that all the ametuer videos posted on say, You tube are covered by first aquiring permission through the music publisher who currently owns said copyrights ? Yesterday I was viewing You tube videos of James Burton, my favorite guitarist and I clicked on one that was listed as "James Burton cover". It turned out to be a kid trying to copy Burton's guitar style. Although I credit him for his efforts and hope someday he achieves stardom, I can't believe he obtained permission before posting. This is just one of many such videos, usually performed by wantabees in their bedroom. Why is it not the responsibility of You tube and other such sites to police such entries before they are posted?

guitardom 01-23-2012 08:14 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
You just stated he was attempting to cover Burton's "style" of playing, not a Burton song......so you think a "style" can be copyrighted???

On top of that, every bar in the country is filled w bands doing ac/dc cover songs long before any Internet and getting paid for it. Should the bar be held responsible??? They are making money,the kid on the Internet is not.

Then ask yourself "how is YouTube supposed to do this?" the answer in reality is "no it cannot" it would be up to the publisher or other such entities to have it report and have it removed.

The other problem w your statement is that as yourself a musician, would you care if a kid is doing this???? it's not hurting your name, this kid obviously respects and looks up to you and is not making money off of you. Who is he taking money from period?? Is anyone losing money because of him??? Things like this are not about the artist or their art. Its about publishers and labels. I seriously think your argument in this situation is silly.

This is a far cry from posting songs straight from the album or movies and such.

Emcha_audio 01-23-2012 08:58 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by guitardom (Post 1893142)
You just stated he was attempting to cover Burton's "style" of playing, not a Burton song......so you think a "style" can be copyrighted???

On top of that, every bar in the country is filled w bands doing ac/dc cover songs long before any Internet and getting paid for it. Should the bar be held responsible??? They are making money,the kid on the Internet is not.

Then ask yourself "how is YouTube supposed to do this?" the answer in reality is "no it cannot" it would be up to the publisher or other such entities to have it report and have it removed.

The other problem w your statement is that as yourself a musician, would you care if a kid is doing this???? it's not hurting your name, this kid obviously respects and looks up to you and is not making money off of you. Who is he taking money from period?? Is anyone losing money because of him??? Things like this are not about the artist or their art. Its about publishers and labels. I seriously think your argument in this situation is silly.

This is a far cry from posting songs straight from the album or movies and such.

Actually yes the bar is held responsible for it as they actually pay a licensing fee that (here in canada) is 4.40 * the maximum number of people that can fit the bar * the numbers of days the bar is open. So any band that performs covers are actually included in that licensing fee.

As for youtube, any publishing company or music group, can and do emit a dmca against videos that they see that uses their songs, wither or not the person actually have the right to use it see the fair use clauses. Then youtube puts the burden of proof on the user to prove that he wasn't against the law. If you redo a song (ie play a piece of guitar) part of it becomes your own interpretation (your copyright for the interpretation) but.. before that to be perfectly legal you would have had to receive the right or pay the license for the cover if you want to make it public. Free or not.

Yes, when someone does a cover for a remixing, a re-recording, or on a show (that is not in a of a bar since the bar already pays licensing for all the music that is played in the bar) that person needs to pay the rights.

If you're doing it only for you, and you do not place it anywhere public _free or not_ you have to cover the rights.

guitardom 01-23-2012 10:08 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Emcha_audio (Post 1893160)
Actually yes the bar is held responsible for it as they actually pay a licensing fee that (here in canada) is 4.40 * the maximum number of people that can fit the bar * the numbers of days the bar is open. So any band that performs covers are actually included in that licensing fee.

As for youtube, any publishing company or music group, can and do emit a dmca against videos that they see that uses their songs, wither or not the person actually have the right to use it see the fair use clauses. Then youtube puts the burden of proof on the user to prove that he wasn't against the law. If you redo a song (ie play a piece of guitar) part of it becomes your own interpretation (your copyright for the interpretation) but.. before that to be perfectly legal you would have had to receive the right or pay the license for the cover if you want to make it public. Free or not.

Yes, when someone does a cover for a remixing, a re-recording, or on a show (that is not in a of a bar since the bar already pays licensing for all the music that is played in the bar) that person needs to pay the rights.

If you're doing it only for you, and you do not place it anywhere public _free or not_ you have to cover the rights.

do bars in canada actually do that?? or are they "supposed" to do that as here?? i would get laughed out of the room if i brought this up to any bar i have been in. but i guess its much in the same way some restaurants will sing happy birthday and others have their own variation of it. its the purpose of the PA form regardless of how ridiculous it gets.

ondruspat 01-23-2012 10:23 AM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
I'm not sure of the current regulations, but before 1998 all bars, clubs, etc., were required to pay ASCAP/BMI fees if they hosted entertainment or even had a jukebox playing. This extended to the "muzak" that you heard in grocery stores and doctors offices. I know the '98 Sensenbrenner Amendment to the copyright law exempted most of the businesses from paying these fees (mostly because of pressure from the medical lobbyists) but I think that most entertainment venues (bar and clubs) still have it as a licensing requirement.

I used to up on all these regulations. Before '98 I ran a company that provided background music for business customers, part of our service was covering royalty fees. The change in '98 destroyed that company, and ruined the income flow for many writers and artists.

John_Toolbox 01-23-2012 12:07 PM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ondruspat (Post 1893211)
I'm not sure of the current regulations, but before 1998 all bars, clubs, etc., were required to pay ASCAP/BMI fees if they hosted entertainment or even had a jukebox playing. This extended to the "muzak" that you heard in grocery stores and doctors offices. I know the '98 Sensenbrenner Amendment to the copyright law exempted most of the businesses from paying these fees (mostly because of pressure from the medical lobbyists) but I think that most entertainment venues (bar and clubs) still have it as a licensing requirement.

I used to up on all these regulations. Before '98 I ran a company that provided background music for business customers, part of our service was covering royalty fees. The change in '98 destroyed that company, and ruined the income flow for many writers and artists.

Interesting. I have heard of club owners getting in trouble for not paying up on royalties from cover tunes played by bands, but was curious about how stores and other businesses are regulated. Especially since I've been in stores where the music playing was clearly an internet radio station.

nerd513 01-23-2012 12:36 PM

Re: Perhaps this time....
 
most stores play "elevator" music from a station they pay to broadcast in the store...


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:46 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited. Forum Hosted By: URLJet.com