Copyright Enforcement Coming to a bar near you

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by astrummer

Not necessarily in the instance that I mentioned in my earlier post. ( Leading sing alongs for free at nursing homes)
( Okay --tell me where to send 20% of the money I get from these----20% of zero is zero)

The problem with THAT is that copyright fees aren't a percentage of revenue (or profit). They're a set amount per performance.

And, for what it's worth, technically speaking, I'd say you are breaking copyright laws when you lead sing alongs for free at a nursing home. Not that I have a problem with anybody doing that. But I don't think that the laws are set up to exclude this from royalty collection.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by astrummer

Where does it stop?Can I lead a sing along at a camp out for the Boy Scouts without breaking the law?

Nope. There's already been a lawsuit over this, actually. Though I believe it was finally settled.

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

John,

I said "As a practical matter.... I'm am unaware of the Boy Scouts (or Girl Scouts) ever being sued. Perhaps you could provide a citation or link to where they have been.

How about this one....

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/200...t-kids-in.html

Awhile back, ASCAP was embarrassed by efforts to require Girl Scouts singing songs around the campfire to pay up. This led to many stories and even videos of young girls doing the Maracrena in silence. Here is an excerpt from a Wall Street Journal article from those days:

By Lisa Bannon, The Wall Street Journal
Something is missing at Diablo Day Camp in Lafayette, Calif., this year.
At the 3 p.m. sing-along in a wooded canyon near Oakland, 214 Girl Scouts are learning the summer dance craze, the Macarena. Keeping time by slapping their hands across their arms and hips, they jiggle, hop and stomp. They spin, wiggle and shake. They bounce for two minutes.
In silence.
"Yesterday, I told them we could be sued if we played the music," explains Teesie King, camp co-director and a volunteer mom. "So they decided they'd learn it without the music."

Watching the campers' mute contortions, Mrs. King shakes her head. "It seems so different," she allows, "when you do the Macarena in silence."
Starting this summer, the American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers has informed camps nationwide that they must pay license fees to use any of the four million copyrighted songs written or published by Ascap's 68,000 members. Those who sing or play but don't pay, Ascap warns, may be violating the law.
Like restaurants, hotels, bars, stores and clubs, which already pay fees to use copyrighted music, camps -- including non-profit ones such as those run by the Girl Scouts -- are being told to ante up. The demand covers not only recorded music but also songs around the campfire.
"They buy paper, twine and glue for their crafts -- they can pay for the music, too," says John Lo Frumento, Ascap's chief operating officer. If offenders keep singing without paying, he says, "we will sue them if necessary."
No more "Edelweiss" free of charge. No more "This Land Is Your Land." An Ascap spokesman says "Kumbaya" isn't on its list, but "God Bless America" is.
Diablo, an all-volunteer day camp that charges girls $44 a week to cover expenses, would owe Ascap $591 this year, based on the camp's size and how long it runs. Another composer group, Sesac Inc., which owns copyrights to such popular tunes as Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in the Wind," says it plans to ask camps for another set of royalties this fall.

The MPAA, much more media savvy, has figured out a way to deal with the problem. Teaming up with the Boy Scouts in Los Angeles, the MPAA has designed a merit badge for respecting copyrights (see picture of the badge here).

Scouts lusting after the badge participate in curriculum the MPAA has produced, which includes creating a video public service announcement, and visiting a video-sharing website to identify copyrighted material.

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by JohnZ

You Can:......

Sing songs for fun around a campfire or in meetings without special permission.
.......
.

It would seem under the requirements that the article I just found implies that even this activity could be considered as having dubious legality.


P.S. I started a thread along time ago asking the question "will the sing along die soon?" given what I'm getting from this thread the answer is yes. Why? Just so that middlemen can get a few dollars out of which only a few artists ever actually see pennies.

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by astrummer

Would one however be a subset of the other? Wouldn't a registered song with BMI or ASCAP necessarily be copyrighted?

Typically, but I just took a look at BMI's form and though I'll always put a PA number next to the title, the copyright registration number doesn't seem to be a part of the process.

Here's a pdf:
http://www.bmi.com/pdfs/work-reg-e.pdf

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by astrummer

How about this one....

http://williampatry.blogspot.com/200...t-kids-in.html
[/I]

Again, if you think there's a chance you're at risk, sing songs in the public domain or make them up.
BTW royalties from 'God Bless America' are donated to Boy and Girl Scouts.

[lotech]

If I understand it correctly, copyright ownership is similar to real estate ownership in that, if you allow someone else to use your property without your permission, but also without protesting and attempting to prevent such use, you eventually end up having to give some sort of right-of-way, or even losing the entire property. If this is the case, in order to ever be able to demand payment from anyone, songwriters must demand payment from everyone.
The key, I think, is permission. Couldn't a mechanism be set up, within existing law, by which artists could , without tremendous expense and hassle, grant permission to certain classes of venues to have their songs performed royalty-free, the consideration if legally required, being exposure? Perhaps under the condition that the performer, or the venue actually possess a copyright-paid, hard-copy of the printed work?

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by Alpione

I guess it depends if you consider a 128k AAC that can only be played on a finite number of devices "easy access to high quality music."

Me? I have an iPOD filled with live recordings by bands that allow taping. I've ripped many of my own (purchased) CDs and get iTunes gift cards from friends and relatives, but wouldn't buy them myself because the sound quality is so lousy. Many people complain about the DRM. It's annoying, but to me far less of an issue than the (very)lossy format at most music stores. If I could buy full quality tracks in FLAC/SHN, I'd be much more apt to go nuts on iTunes or a similar system.

Adam

My iPod is flled wth a veritable smorgasbord of legally obtained songs--some AAC's from iTunes; others--all eventually converted to .mp3 via iTunes software--ripped to my hard drive from CDs/LPs/tapes I bought and samplers I was given by the artist, downloaded from sites where I either bought them or they were offered for free, recorded on minidisc from our own or friends' (with their permisssion) live performances. I haven't experienced much "lossiness" except when ripping analog (e.g., cassette or LP tracks) stuff and then converting it. Of course, I no longer have the "golden ears" I did back in my 30s when I made life miserable for car stereo installers until they tweaked my systems to my satisfaction; and you will NEVER get really "true" fidelity any more outside a good studio or a multi-thousand-dollar home system anyway.

Speaking of golden ears, I remember back in the late '80s, the magazine "Digital Audio" (edited by maverick--some say egotistical wacko--Wayne Green, who used to refer to a certain British analog-purist audio mag as "Stereo Pile") ran a speaker-cable shootout--and on the cover was the audio accessory considered the most important for true auditory discernment: a Q-Tip (yeah, I know you're not supposed to stick 'em in your ear canal, but get real). The result of the shootout? The thickest-gauge zip-cord lamp wire was judged the equal of Monster Cable. As long as the signal and power path was clean--and most importantly, the SOURCE was good, "all else," as Hillel said of Torah, "is commentary."

I suspect the truth lies between the extremes, but if you are doing most of your listening via computer or pocket player, I believe that some lossiness is inevitable; and if the sound quality is audibly awful (as opposed to just on an oscilloscope), the fault lies in the original signal and the way that signal was first recorded, one's hearing or both. As an aside, when I was having my strange hearing disturbances back in the fall of '04 (diplacusis, phase-shifting, distortion, tinnitus--doctors still are undecided whether it was due to infection, Meniere's, patulous eustachian tube, "overly picky pitch standards," or any or all of it) I found that many lower-bit recordings sounded much more distorted but now that my hearing is once again fine (according to the latest audiologist I visited) I notice much less difference between formats.

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by JohnZ

Again, if you think there's a chance you're at risk, sing songs in the public domain or make them up.
BTW royalties from 'God Bless America' are donated to Boy and Girl Scouts.

There was mention further along in the blog to which I linked as to how ASCAP had come to the conclusion that these events fell under the 110(4) exemptions. Upon some further reading this seems reasonable, and would also seem to apply to my volunteering as a song leader in nursing homes (but I'm not a lawyer and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night ).....

From the following website.....

http://www.utsystem.edu/OGC/INTELLEC...ERTY/mono3.htm

Is There An Applicable Exemption?
Even if a proposed performance might be considered a public performance, there may not be an infringement because the copyright law places further limits upon the performance right of copyright owners in Sections 110(1), (2) and (4).4 Section 110(1) says that performances that take place in the face-to-face teaching activities of a nonprofit educational institution are not an infringement of the copyright owner's right. Section 110(2) exempts certain nonprofit educational transmissions (broadcasts) of performances of non-dramatic literary and musical works. Section 110(4) exempts other nonprofit performances of non-dramatic literary or musical works under certain rather strict conditions. Movies and videotapes of movies do not fit into the category of non-dramatic works; they are dramatic audiovisual works and may not be publicly performed under either of the last two exemptions.5

Following are the elements of each exemption that must be satisfied in order for an otherwise public performance to be exempt:

1. Section 110(1) (Teaching Activities of a Nonprofit Educational Institution):
a. The performance must be performed by the instructor or pupil(s) (not by a performance artist);

b. The instructor and pupil(s) must be in the same place (transmissions by television, etc., do not qualify here although they may qualify under 110(2) below);

c. The activity must be a teaching activity and not recreation or entertainment;

d. The activity must be put on by a nonprofit educational institution;

e. The activity must take place in a classroom or other area used as a classroom for systematic instructional activity; and

f. In the case of performance of a videotape or movie, the copy of the work performed must have been lawfully made. For example, one cannot show an archival copy of a videotape since it would not have been made in accordance with the provisions of the copyright law (see Questions and Answers, below).

2. Section 110(2) (Nonprofit Educational Broadcasts of Non-dramatic Literary or Musical Works):
a. The broadcast must be a regular part of the systematic instructional activities of a governmental body or a nonprofit educational institution;

b. The performance must be directly related and of material assistance to the subject matter being taught in the broadcast; and

c. The broadcast must be made primarily for reception in the school or governmental classroom or by persons who because of special circumstances are not able to get to a classroom.

3. Section 110(4) (Nonprofit Public Performances of Non-dramatic Literary or Musical Works):
a. The performance must not be a transmission to the public (a television or radio broadcast);

b. The performance must be without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage (no profit-making purpose);

c. The performance must be without any payment of a fee or compensation to performers, promoters, or organizers for the performance; and

d. There must be no direct or indirect admission charge, or if there is one, the "proceeds, after deducting the reasonable costs of producing the performance, are used exclusively for educational, religious, or charitable purposes and not for private financial gain. . . ."

(Emphasis mine)

[random]

Originally Posted by lotech

If I understand it correctly, copyright ownership is similar to real estate ownership in that, if you allow someone else to use your property without your permission, but also without protesting and attempting to prevent such use, you eventually end up having to give some sort of right-of-way, or even losing the entire property.

Sounds like you're referring to (in real property) adverse possession/easement. There's a sort of parallel in intellectual property, but what comes to mind immediately is the trademark, since it's predicated on use in the first place. Copyright, by contrast, is not; but I'm no expert on intellectual property law--nor was I, apparently, in moot court a lifetime ago.

[Alpione]

on the cover was the audio accessory considered the most important for true auditory discernment: a Q-Tip

I certainly don't consider myself an "audiophile."

However, I would say that if one can't tell the difference between the original CD version of a tune and a 128k lossy compressed format, one really needs to dig around with that Q-tip. :-)

For me the sweet spot is 192k MP3 or AAC. Small size and acceptable sound. One you get much past 256k it's tough for me to describe the differences - the original sounds more "alive" and "crisp," but I can't point to any audible distortion. With 128k, though, it's easy to hear.

Adam

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by lotech

Couldn't a mechanism be set up, within existing law, by which artists could , without tremendous expense and hassle, grant permission to certain classes of venues to have their songs performed royalty-free, the consideration if legally required, being exposure? Perhaps under the condition that the performer, or the venue actually possess a copyright-paid, hard-copy of the printed work?

A great idea. Except that (as noted earlier by somebody else), the typical writer has given up his rights to BMI/ASCAP. It would be up to THEM, not the writer.

Not that this couldn't be worked around, of course. But it would require the involvement of BMI/ASCAP.

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by astrummer

c. The activity must be a teaching activity and not recreation or entertainment;

I think that *this* would keep your example (leading singalongs at the nursing home) from getting the exclusion. Thus, it wouldn't be legal.

b. The performance must be without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage (no profit-making purpose);

A clever lawyer might argue (as somebody did above) that the singalong (done for free, by you) might be considered an indirect commercial advantage to the nursing home involved. And, some judge would probably be inclined to agree.

Of course, I'd wish a special place in Hell for anybody involved in making such a ruling.

[Chicago Sandy]

Originally Posted by Alpione

I certainly don't consider myself an "audiophile."

However, I would say that if one can't tell the difference between the original CD version of a tune and a 128k lossy compressed format, one really needs to dig around with that Q-tip. :-)

For me the sweet spot is 192k MP3 or AAC. Small size and acceptable sound. One you get much past 256k it's tough for me to describe the differences - the original sounds more "alive" and "crisp," but I can't point to any audible distortion. With 128k, though, it's easy to hear.

Adam

A lot of that depends, too, on the speakers or phones. And much of the 128K stuff I have was originally recorded to the download source with inferior equipment--or was generated as a lousy signal (by today's standards) to begin with. My singing partner, lacking the ability on her ancient PC to rip tunes to the hard drive and convert them to PC, had me rip a couple of her tunes (recorded and released in the early '90s) to my Mac and then send them to the Chicago Songwriters' Collective's webmaster as the samples for her own CSC webpage--and then claimed both they and my clips on my MySpace page "sounded awful" and had to have been the Mac's, MySpace's, the webmasters, my own, or the perceived PC/Mac incompatiblilty's fault. It was only when she listened over a new PC and my Mac that she realized that the fault lay in the cheapo primitive soundcards and speakers in her home and office PCs (face it--law offices don't equip their systems as audio playback powerhouses).

[SongwriterFan]

Originally Posted by Alpione

I certainly don't consider myself an "audiophile."

However, I would say that if one can't tell the difference between the original CD version of a tune and a 128k lossy compressed format, one really needs to dig around with that Q-tip. :-)

I would say it depends on the listening environment. Given where most people end up using ipods and similar devices, I doubt most could hear the difference.

Granted, I wouldn't want to live with 128kbps as the "standard" if I were having to pay for the song. As a matter of fact, I'd prefer to get a NON-lossy codec for something I paid for. With the rights to convert it to a more lossy mp3 for my use (at my discretion).