Copyright Enforcement Coming to a bar near you

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by martind gibsona

It doesn't make me mad -- it's no skin off my nose at all; I'm just telling you what's what. Your statement "I don't really do it myself, except for the occasional CD copy for a friend" is akin to saying, "I don't really cheat on my spouse except for the occasional one-night stand."Not my job.Nope ... and don't claim to be. We all make honest mistakes. But if you acknowledge that some deliberate action you're taking is wrong yet you continue to take it, well ... I'm sure you can find some way to rationalize it.I believe your opening clause was, "I'm kinda trolling here", which means you invited people to respond to your post. Your questions were quite relevant, and you'll notice that I answered them a fair number of them, at least from my perspective ... but once you've posed them, you don't get to dictate the answers. If you've got some pre-conceived notion of how people are supposed to respond, and only those responses are acceptable to you, then don't ask.

Don Smith

Copying a CD is not like cheating on your wife, any more than going 5 mph over the speed limit is akin to murder. That's just ridiculous.

I did throw out some ideas. I don't expect any particular responses, but I do expect debate. Your response was to lecture me, implicitly suggesting that you somehow hold a higher moral ground.

You did make some valid points, and I agree with some of your arguments. It is wrong to copy a CD and give it to someone else. But lighten up on the preaching, eh?

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by JohnZ

Secondly, I think there should be exceptions for public non profits and schools.

There aren't? One of the reasons I won't even take gas money as some remuneration when I go to play at a nursing homes is because I feel that ...

1) I'm not that all good. ( but despite that there is alot of singing and clapping and tapping and smiling at these things)
2) If there is no money involved then I thought there would be no issues with copyrights, especially considering the venue.

If there is not an exemption for such a volunteer situation, perhaps there should be.
In the meantime, if I am in violation of some law, without an easy way to give the appropriate artist compensation, I think that continuing to bring encouragement into these care facilities is a "lesser evil". If I stopped doing this because I couldn't find a way to obey the letter of some copyright provision I would be commiting a greater crime.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Copying a CD is not like cheating on your wife, any more than going 5 mph over the speed limit is akin to murder. That's just ridiculous.

I did throw out some ideas. I don't expect any particular responses, but I do expect debate. Your response was to lecture me, implicitly suggesting that you somehow hold a higher moral ground.

Perhaps you should read the law. Legally, copyright infringment is a very serious matter, both civilly and criminally. Objectively, there is simly no comparison (legally) between the potential consequences for a speeding ticket (for 5 mph over the limit) and wilful copyright infringement. Cheating on your spouse is not illegal, per se. That's a moral issue. Your comparison is out of place. Copyright infringement is a legal matter, not a matter of morals, unless you consider violating the law a moral matter.

[Eracer]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

Perhaps you should read the law. Legally, copyright infringment is a very serious matter, both civilly and criminally. Objectively, there is simly no comparison (legally) between the potential consequences for a speeding ticket (for 5 mph over the limit) and wilful copyright infringement. Cheating on your spouse is not illegal, per se. That's a moral issue. Your comparison is out of place. Copyright infringement is a legal matter, not a matter of morals, unless you consider violating the law a moral matter.

Whether it's illegal or immoral, punishable by death or simply frowned upon, is a semantic argument and is totally beside the point.

The point is: You can't stop casual copyright infringement. Not today, and not tomorrow.

The facts that matter (for the purposes of this discussion) are:

The advent of digital media has made the traditional model of highly controlled vertical distribution of music obsolete.

People who hold on to the archaic notion that more laws and more enforcement will solve any vexing legal problem are naive. The "drug war", abstinence-only sex education policies, censorship, and the war on casual copyright infringement are all doomed to failure for one very easily understood reason. The vast majority of people in the world engage in behavior that is called illegal or immoral by someone.

You can't sue everyone. You can't put everyone in jail. You can't make me (and millions of other generally responsible citizens) feel guilty (or be guilty) for spending $30,000 for CD's and copying a dozen of them for friends. Get over it.

Get creative and lobby the music industry instead to come up with reasonable policies and rules. Acknowledge the reality of the situation and stop gnashing your teeth and ranting about how ordinary citizens are thieves because they don't count every one of your ducats. Most people (myself included) would gladly participate in any distribution system that will provide easy access to high quality music for a reasonable fee. I never minded paying ridiculously high prices for good CD's. Why should I mind paying a subscription fee (or a reasonable download fee) for high-quality media that can be easily played on any of my entertainment electronics?

The industry should relax a little and recognize the inevitable truth:

It is obsolete, in its current form.

Like Bob said - "The times they are a'changin'"

[JohnZ]

This thread began as a discussion about performance royalties not mechanical royalties, and weather ASCAP and BMI should go after the little guy for playing cover songs that are registered with those agencys. I think they should...but only if the material is logged so that the right people get paid.

Personally, I think DJ's should be paying a large percentage of thier income in royalties and be forced to play original versions, not copies, and get permission for any remixes performed publically. Then again, I don't think much of DJ's.

Another area on the mechanical side of things I have issue with is the performer who sells his/her versions of cover songs on gigs, thinking it's ok not to pay Harry Fox cause they are only selling a few hundred units.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by Eracer

Whether it's illegal or immoral, punishable by death or simply frowned upon, is a semantic argument and is totally beside the point.

The point is: You can't stop casual copyright infringement. Not today, and not tomorrow.

The facts that matter (for the purposes of this discussion) are:

The advent of digital media has made the traditional model of highly controlled vertical distribution of music obsolete.

People who hold on to the archaic notion that more laws and more enforcement will solve any vexing legal problem are naive. The "drug war", abstinence-only sex education policies, censorship, and the war on casual copyright infringement are all doomed to failure for one very easily understood reason. The vast majority of people in the world engage in behavior that is called illegal or immoral by someone.

You can't sue everyone. You can't put everyone in jail. You can't make me (and millions of other generally responsible citizens) feel guilty (or be guilty) for spending $30,000 for CD's and copying a dozen of them for friends. Get over it.

Get creative and lobby the music industry instead to come up with reasonable policies and rules. Acknowledge the reality of the situation and stop gnashing your teeth and ranting about how ordinary citizens are thieves because they don't count every one of your ducats. Most people (myself included) would gladly participate in any distribution system that will provide easy access to high quality music for a reasonable fee. I never minded paying ridiculously high prices for good CD's. Why should I mind paying a subscription fee (or a reasonable download fee) for high-quality media that can be easily played on any of my entertainment electronics?

The industry should relax a little and recognize the inevitable truth:

It is obsolete, in its current form.

Like Bob said - "The times they are a'changin'"

Relax, pal. Your logic escapes me, but I'm not always the brightest bulb in the light fixture. You asked for debate. My position is simple. Copyright infringement is wrong, civilly, criminally and morally. Anyone who downloads copywrited music without legal exception (e.g., author's permission, legitimate purchase for $$) is as thief, plain and simple. You think the law should be changed. Fine. Change it. I'm perfectly content the way it is. I pay for copies of music I wish to own, whether it is printed publications or recordings. Works for me.

[martind gibsona]

Eracer,

Copying a CD is not like cheating on your wife ...

I wasn't trying to compare copying a CD to infidelity. The point I was trying to make was that it's contradictory to say, "I never do X except every now and then." If you do it every now and then, you still do it.

I don't expect any particular responses, but I do expect debate.

What debate do you expect, Eracer ... whether it's OK to copy CDs and give them away? It's against the law; what's to debate about it?

Your response was to lecture me, implicitly suggesting that you somehow hold a higher moral ground.

I claim no higher moral ground whatsoever; I'm simply telling you what the law says.

You did make some valid points, and I agree with some of your arguments.

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not, because your opinion doesn't change the law.

It is wrong to copy a CD and give it to someone else.

It's not a matter of right or wrong; it's a matter of legal or illegal.

But lighten up on the preaching, eh?

Preaching is about morals. I'm not talking about moral behavior ... I'm talking about an illegal activity.

You can't stop casual copyright infringement.

Agree.

The advent of digital media has made the traditional model of highly controlled vertical distribution of music obsolete.

Agree.

People who hold on to the archaic notion that more laws and more enforcement will solve any vexing legal problem are naive ...

Agree.

You can't sue everyone.

Agree.

You can't put everyone in jail.

Agree.

You can't make me (and millions of other generally responsible citizens) feel guilty (or be guilty) for spending $30,000 for CD's and copying a dozen of them for friends.

Partially agree. You can tell someone that what they're doing violates the law. You can't make them feel guilty, but they are guilty whether they feel it or not.

Most people (myself included) would gladly participate in any distribution system that will provide easy access to high quality music for a reasonable fee.

The system is in place. It's called iTunes or eMusic or the Real Player Music Store or Napster or ... even Walmart has gotten into the act at $.88 per song. People used to like to argue, "Why should I pay $17 for a CD when I only want 2-3 songs off of it?" So they'd get their friends to copy the CD for them, or they'd set up swaps where several of them would buy one CD and everyone would get a copy of it. Now, at no more than $.99 per download, it is possible to get the music you want --LEGALLY -- by the track. Real Player, in most cases, even lists the entire CD for $9.99 no matter how many songs are on it. So the industry has provided exactly what you asked for ... a "distribution system that will provide easy access to high quality music for a reasonable fee." Now what's the excuse?

Having said all that, let me note that this thread has drifted far from where it started -- although JohnZ brought it back -- which is ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and the music venue.This is the way the system works, and on the face of it, I've got no problem. Someone writes a song, and they expect to -- and should -- be paid for the use of it, whether it's on a CD or in a live performance. After all, whenever that song is played, it's generating income for SOMEone, and it's only fair that the writer get his share. MY problem with the system is that, as has already been noted, it doesn't really get the money into the hands of the people who should get it. If I play a Norman Blake tune in a club that has paid the licensing fees, I guarantee you that Norman won't see a penny of the fee. However, the guy who wrote some schlock for the "BackSync Boys" will collect something simply because his stuff gets airplay and Norman's doesn't. THAT'S where the system is broken.

Don Smith

[guitaniac]

Since we're making the leap from the live performance royalty thing to the mechanical royalty/electronic transfer royalty things, this commentary from Joel Mabus may be pertinent. He sees some parallels.
http://www.joelmabus.com/napster_v_folkster.htm

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by martind gibsona

. After all, whenever that song is played, it's generating income for SOMEone, and it's only fair that the writer get his share.

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)

[martind gibsona]

Not necessarily in the instance that I mentioned in my earlier post. ( Leading sing alongs for free at nursing homes)

A reasonable question to which I'll offer a reasonable rebuttal. If you're getting paid, then you're making $ and the nursing home will have to charge all the residents another $1/month next year to cover it. If you're not getting paid, then it's $ in the pockets of the nursing home's shareholders. Extreme? Maybe ... but nothing is truly free.

By the way, I play two retirement/assisted living centers with a friend each month, and we've had this discussion ourselves.

Don Smith

[JohnZ]

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)

It may be free music to you but it's money in the bank to the nursing home. If they aren't paying a royaly then simply play songs in the public domain....there are hundreds of good sing alongs.

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by JohnZ

It may be free music to you but it's money in the bank to the nursing home. If they aren't paying a royaly then simply play songs in the public domain....there are hundreds of good sing alongs.

Perhaps there are not as many songs for grown ups that are sing along friendly and are in the public domain as what you might think ( or perhaps there are more than what I realize, but I've done a bit of homework on the matter ).

Once again, if someone gives me an easy and relatively inexpensive way to render service in this manner and comply with all the rules great, otherwise the greater crime would be to stop.

And I believe the places where I play are non-profits.

Where does it stop?Can I lead a sing along at a camp out for the Boy Scouts without breaking the law? Can I sing Christmas songs at a home for the developmentally disabled without breaking the law? ( And without limiting myself to songs that are more than 100 years old ) Can I lead singing at a home Bible study without breaking the law?

[sdelsolray]

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? Can I sing Christmas songs at a home for the developmentally disabled without breaking the law? ( And without limiting myself to songs that are more than 100 years old ) Can I lead singing at a home Bible study without breaking the law?

As a performer, just keep in mind that you are not violating the law by performing covers at a venue. It is the venue's responsibility to comply, not your responsibility.

As a practical matter, no one has ever been sued or charged for copyright infringement when the venue was a Boy Scout camp, a home for the disabled or a home study for religion. And they never will be.

[astrummer]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

As a practical matter, no one has ever been sued or charged for copyright infringement when the venue was a Boy Scout camp, a home for the disabled or a home study for religion. And they never will be.

I would like to think you are right. But there is no telling how far some ( not all ) lawyers will go, sometimes to make a buck, sometimes just to prove a point.

[JohnZ]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

As a performer, just keep in mind that you are not violating the law by performing covers at a venue. It is the venue's responsibility to comply, not your responsibility.

As a practical matter, no one has ever been sued or charged for copyright infringement when the venue was a Boy Scout camp, a home for the disabled or a home study for religion. And they never will be.

Not true, either use public domain songs or get permission from the copyright holder or you are legally liable for infringement......scouts included.

My wife works full time for GSUSA (Girl Scouts) and we've run across this many times.

From the GSUSA website:

Q: Is there a Web site with Girl Scout songs that I can use without permission?

A: No. Before using any Girl Scout songs, you should check to determine their copyright status. If a song is copyrighted, you cannot use it without permission.

Q: Can I request a listing of songs, such as graces or camp or action songs?

A: No, such a listing is not available. If you want to use songs in a certain category, then you must be specific about the title of each one.

Q: Am I allowed to use only the words (not the music) of copyrighted songs without permission?

A: No, copyright laws cover both the words and music of a song. Permission must be granted.