I tagged along to one of my son's jazz gigs on Saturday... they played at a vineyard that offers live music and wine-tasting. The venue is very small, low key and rural.

At break the owner asked the band not to play anything but original songs because ASCAP and BMI reps have visited them in the past and tried to get money from them.

I'm curious to hear everybody's thoughts on this. I know there are many opinions about the topic and also about the implications of leaning hard on the very small venues that already aren't making any money. The cover charge was $5, and attendance was insufficient to take in what they paid the band.


on a different note: true to my theory about live music demographics, EVERYONE at this gig was a baby boomer.

IMO....(even though there may be points I'm missing).

I think it's absurd (read: chicken s____) that BMI/Ascap insists on patrolling and trying to pressure monies from these small venues and their performers.

I'd wonder who actually dictates that this should occur?
Is it just BMI/Ascap or are the big money makers in music really behind it.
How pervasive is this policing in the small or even larger venues?

The way I see it if a performer is doing a copy tune of any said 'money makers' it's great FREE advertising/marketing of their song and should be thankful.
I don't have a clue...but I do think many are pretty full of themselves.
Maybe that's easy for me to say because I'm a nobody in the money making music world.

This topic could be just as stellar as that 'playing for free' thread which I chose to read only.

That's my take on it...carry on.

BMI and ASCAP license rates are based on several factors: size of the venue, how many hours/days of copywritten music is played, seating capacity, etc.

Take the small winery, for example. They book professional musicians to play copywritten music at their wine tastings. They also possibly hire a caterer to supply food, a rental company to rent a tent, etc. They reap a financial benefit from the live music.

ASCAP approaches them and demands $1000 for a one-year license to play any of the tens of thousands of song titles they represent. Pretty draconian, no?

Not really. That comes to $3.77 per day, or $26.41 per week. So, if they have a wine tasting once a month, their monthly cost for the license is approx. $105.64. Go and try to rent a tent for 200 people – tell me what that costs.

Contrary to popular belief, music is not free. BMI and ASCAP represent songwriters, and those songwriters are entitled to compensation for their work.

Who makes this happen? Copyright laws written by congress.

Yes.... music is not free. It's intellectual property and is owned by someone (unless in the public domain) and to use it requires that someone pay the cost.

I played in a house band at a club for 2.5 years. There was an ASCAP sticker on the door. I recall one time the ASCAP rep came around and did a survey of the songs on the jukebox since it was owned by the club owner and not a leased jukebox. In addition, he wanted our set lists for as far back as we had them.

As far as what Pat said in the OP.... about the club owner telling the band to play only original material..... that sounds a bit odd. Really, how many bands out there are 100% original and playing boomer clubs? I'm thinking maybe the ASCAP guy just happened to walk in the door and the club owner had told him previously that he only used original bands to avoid paying the license.

Like 90db said, they have a formula that they apply to every single place they license..... clubs of varying size and genre, restaurants, even the oil change store and the doctor's office are subject to their jurisdiction.


As songwriters, the ASCAP and BMI folks are on our side of this issue. I have no problem with them collecting the license fees. Maybe one day they will be collecting on my behalf.

Based only on Pat's comment: "venue is very small, low key and rural".
Yes...in my irrelevant opinion I see it as 'draconian'.

I could be totally off base but my perception is none of these 'very small' venues are getting rich trying to provide some entertainment in their marketing.

But....currently, we all know the stories of artists getting ripped off in one fashion or another so I guess this policing/revenue generating scheme was an idea to re-coup lost royalty revenues.

I've got no dog in this fight and have not thought about it until this thread.
This is a system of capitalism.

Carry on....

On one hand, I do support the idea that these guys are collecting money for the song writers.

But then I wonder how much of the collected money actually goes to the song writers.

I've heard stories of musicians who set up an experiment in which they played their original (C) songs regularly at clubs that were supposed to be BMI/ASCAP licensed, but they never got a check once... even though the club owner paid the dues, and the musician notified BMI/ASCAP that they had played the venue.

If the justification for the extortion is that they are collecting money for the artists.. but the artists never get any of it... then it becomes a straw man argument.

John Desjardins (Silvertones) mentioned once that at least one of the places he had been playing stopped offering live music because the enforcers showed up and demanded retroactive payments. I know of places here in Winston-Salem that also stopped offering live music for the same reason... and at least one venue that allows only originals for the same reason.

I know one local restaurant that stopped having live music after an attempt by BMI to collect more than they could afford. Most of the musicians who played there did covers. However, my wife, who plays primarily originals registered with BMI, lost a regular job in the rotation. Irony?

Yes, we each get checks from BMI but together they won't buy a sandwich. Ever been to the palace that is BMI headquarters in Nashville?

BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, et al are not a perfect system of collecting royalties. Far from it. They operate like a Mafia “protection” scam. Should they limit their collections to the larger venues? Perhaps. Are songwriters entitled to compensation for their work when it is used by businesses for profit? Definitely.


Publishers get the lion's share of these royalties, not songwriters; but that is a result of unscrupulous publishers (go figure!) and ignorant songwriters – not BMI/ASCAP. Van Morrison's “Brown-Eyed Girl”, one of the most-played songs in recording history, made next to nothing for Morrison. Why? Because he signed a contract with Bang Records without the advice of an attorney that stated all recording/promotion costs would come out of his royalties. After these were paid, Bang did a lot of “creative” accounting, and kept almost all of the royalties.


On the other hand, my next door neighbor in Socal was a guy named Rico Reyes, who had written a bunch of stuff for Carlos Santana. He was a single father, and he was raising his young daughter on the royalty checks he was receiving.

If you ever write a smash hit, you will thank God for the PROs. Providing, of course, that you consult a lawyer before you sign anything.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/is-it-really-possible-to-retire-off-royalties-from-one-hit-song/

You are not alone, we have a similar problem in here Germany that is called GEMA (an investment company for publishers and heirs).

Whenever we have a public performance we are required to send a playlist to GEMA with as much information as possible about the songs we use. Then GEMA has a chance to give money to the respective authors, arrangers and publishers.

If you spin records or their successors then GVL (similar to SoundExchange in the US) takes care of royalties for recording makers (musicians, labels). Also: As much information as possible please.

Here you have to announce a public performance before the event -- and if there is just one song played that is under their control you have to pay for the entire event. You [that is, the event organizer] even have to pay if you play your own songs only, if they are registered with a PRO.

The tariff takes into account room capacity. If there is room for 10000 you have to pay for 10000 even if there are only 154 people on the premesis...

The payment goes to the rights owners if they can be determined. If not the fees are given to the rights owners who currently sell the most music and whose music is played the most on radio and tv stations.

I have mixed feelings about that.

On one hand I see the songwriters should get paid for their work - BUT - and it's a big but - how does ASCAP/BMI know what songs are being played and who to direct the royalties to.

On the other hand, shouldn't some instances of playing songs that have become part of our common language be part of the fair use laws?

Technically, if we were to sing "Happy Birthday" to my sister in a restaurant, the restaurant is required to have an ASCAP license. And the writers of the words to "Happy Birthday" are long dead (the "Good Morning To You" song is public domain) and Warner/Chappell makes about $2Million per year on that song. Is that right?

How about a few people sitting at a piano at a retirement village clubhouse for a bunch of friends? Technically it's illegal. But why sell sheet music if you are only allowed to play it in your living room?

Of course, the copyright laws were written by legislators who received handsome campaign funds by the publishers which I'm sure influenced their voting (tacit bribery?).

Somewhere there is a better place between the two extremes, but I don't think we are going to see that happen. Plus I wouldn't consider myself the expert to draw up new guidelines if it fell in my lap.

So I guess my opinion is the copyright laws need to be re-written but not by the publishing industry.

Notes

my guess is that this is still a carryover from the old paradigm. If the old paradigm still worked, the publishers would be making big bucks from music sales, and they wouldn't have to bother the little guys.

But, we've already discussed the phenomenon of how people now see music as being free... both in terms of downloading recordings, and hearing live performances... so the river of money to the publishers has stopped.. but they still have to make payments on the palaces they live in.

It will be interesting to see how the current trend of many unpublished artists making their music available online without necessarily forming any relationship with BMI/ASCAP/SESAC plays forward.

“On the other hand, shouldn't some instances of playing songs that have become part of our common language be part of the fair use laws?”


“Gone With The Wind” is certainly a part of our 'common language', is it not? Who hasn't seen it? By your logic, a theater owner should be allowed to run GWTW to packed houses and not pay any royalties, right? And make DVD's of the film and sell them, royalty-free? After all, everyone involved in making the film is dead, right?


Why stop there? Our 'common language' includes a myriad of works; literary, musical, theatrical. Do these works lose their value once they become part of the 'common language'? Why should Yoko Ono receive royalties for Lennon's work? After all, she didn't write it, and he's been dead for 34 years.


Without the songwriter, there would be no music business, period.

Songwriters profit from the recording and performance of their work, and compared to the cut the record companies, performers, lawyers, publishers, retail outlets, et. al. make on a song, the writer makes a pittance.


“So I guess my opinion is the copyright laws need to be re-written but not by the publishing industry.”


The original copyright law was actually signed into law on May 31, 1790, when it was signed by President Washington. Granted, Edison wouldn't invent the phonograph until 1877, but even the first Congress recognized the fairness in protecting intellectual property. Musical compositions would not be protected until the Copyright Act of 1909.

Citation:
http://digital-law-online.info/patry/patry5.html

The copyright laws originally did intend to provide some income to two generations of heirs. After all, if one learns a craft, gets self-employed, hires hands to work for him/her. This achievement can be transfered to heirs, why should a song be treated differently than a, e.g. plumbing shop?

But in many instances somebody else, often a company, buys the rights to songs and makes more money than the intended circle of persons. And I have knowledge of labels who force writers of songs to transfer their rights to them or their songs will not be recorded or, if already recorded, not be published.

There is something wrong with the current system, be it in the US or in Germany.

I 100% agree with 90db. I gig for my living & the cheques I get for playing my songs live add up quite quickly & so becomes an integral part of my income (income per song per night depends on the size of the crowd & venue). It can at times be more than the actual gig fee! I of course agree that music is not free
What I do not understand is that venues only have "original" music because (in my case) even if the songs are original, but registered with bmi/ascap etc, then they have to pay for them anyway.

responding to a few points from several conversations above.

Experiment to see if one can get royalties on original songs in a night club..... yeah, that won't work for a number of reasons. I mentioned that there is a formula the PRO's use. It's heavily weighted to the songs that are on TV, radio, and being sold as CD's in stores. Songs that get good rotation in the major radio markets get the advantage through the sheer numbers of spins. Songs that are actually on the charts. Since the songs only generate a few cents per airplay, it takes massive numbers of spins to get any real money happening.

They would also need to have registered the songs with their PRO first. If the songs are not registered, the PRO doesn't know they even exist or who to pay. Second, they would need to have generated enough radio spins to get on the PRO's radar with the formula used. Since most original local bands can't get more than a few spins on a back water tiny local radio station (at best) without the backing of a big label, there's no way they even factor into the formula at any significant level. Third, the PRO isn't going to cut a check for 12cents.



Copyright laws don't care who the songwriter is. They care who owns the copyright. In the example of Lennon & Yoko, John's work is owned by a publisher. The money generated in royalties goes to the publisher and the songwriter. Generally a 50/50 split. Since John is dead, the income stream still goes to his heirs. When Yoko dies, likely Julien, their son, will inherit that royalty income stream. Intellectual property rights are passed down just like real property rights.

When I sign a song with a publisher, it's either a non-exclusive signing, meaning I'm still free to use it and sign it with other publishers and libraries for anyone to use....or..... it's an exclusive signing. Exclusive means that no one else can sign it. I am signing 100% of my rights and ownership of that song away to the publisher or the library. At that point, I don't own it and if I wish to record that song, legally, I need to get the permission in writing to do so from the publisher. People who are not familiar with publishers and libraries think this is a bad deal. "You don't own your own song anymore"!!! Exactly right. BUT.... the contract I signed is a legal document and it specifies how much compensation I get in every instance the song is used by someone else. So regardless, I get paid. Even if the publisher's catalog is sold, that original contract remains in force.

A number of the songs I wrote are placed with publishers and libraries. Depending on the contracts I have signed..... some of those songs, I no longer own. Even though I wrote the song, I don't own it, the publisher I signed it with owns it, and my rights as to recording it and what I can do with it are subject to the wording of that contract. I could be sued (or at least warned to cease & desist) if I violate that contract. With some other contracts, I still retain some rights. No matter what the contract specifies, I get credit as the writer and I get the agreed percentage (50%) of the income royalties and license fees for my lifetime and when I die, it will go to my heirs.... my daughters, and if the songs are still making money at that point in time, to their children. All of the published and signed songs are listed in my PRO account with the publisher. The PRO pays each of us from performance royalties. The publisher/library pays me direct from licensing fees. Since all my songs are TV/Film at this point, there are no mechanicals from actual sale of records and CD's.


FAIR USE? For all practical purposes, there is no such thing in copyright. That is a myth. Anyone using any portion of the work of another person must pay the copyright owner for that use. Exemptions exist in limited areas for educational purposes in mostly a classroom setting.

In fact, I fill in gig sheets for every gig & send it to my pro & am paid for every one of my songs I sing live. I live in France but am a member of BMI. I send along these sheets to BMI and wait to get paid. The french PRO (sacem) gets these sheets too & they pay my share to BMI who in turn distribute it to me. These gigs can be from a very small bar to a big concert halls, it makes no difference, I get paid for every "original" song every time I sing it in public.

I also work with production libraries but my earlier post was not about that but about getting paid royalties from gigging

To me there is a big difference between playing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant and a theater screening "Gone With The Wind".

Playing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant it more like quoting "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." from "Gone With The Wind".

I would not confuse playing a song that has become part of our common heritage with recording it or reproducing another recording of it. There is a big difference so that comparison is neither logical nor valid.

------

Don't get me wrong, I respect the right of the copyright holder to profit from his or her work. I own a few dozen copyrights myself.

The first song I wrote was when I was in 1964. So the copyright has been in effect 50 years. If I die tomorrow, the work is protected for 125 years.

That many years for that simple little juvenile song that I've forgotten by now is absurd.

If I were to find a cure for cancer, I'd have less than 20 years protection. This tells me that 12 bar blues song with juvenile lyrics is more important to protect than a cure for cancer.

Like I said, there is a place between the two extremes of the copyright law that is probably right. I don't profess to know that sweet spot, but I can discuss points and speculate. BTW, I comply with the laws as written even if I don't agree with them.

And yes, there are fair use laws that have been tried and upheld in court.

The best example is a music teacher can copy and distribute copyrighted sheet music to his or her students. The only thing that can be contested in court is whether they are really students or not, or if they just pretend to be students to get free sheet music.

Parodies are fair use, as proven by Weird Al and 2 Live Crew.

------

The most extreme case I can think of...

Here is a Public Domain song:

Good Morning to you
Good Morning to you
Good Morning Dear ____
Good Morning to you!

Replacing the words "Good Morning" with "Happy Birthday" and singing the same melody nets Warner Brothers $2 Million per year.

The last of the two sisters who substituted the words died in 1946. That means Warner or whoever they sell the copyright to will continue to make $2 million dollars per year until 2051.

Who among us thinks that this is fair?

Insights and incites by Notes

Yes... fair use is granted to educational use. The 1976 act states " for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research. Also factors to consider in this is whether the use is commercial or non-profit educational purposes, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount of the copyrighted work used, and the effect it has on the market and value of the work.

Parody of a copyrighted work requires extreme caution. Only a court can decide after the fact, whether the song is a unique song or a copyright infringement. Court cases through the years on parody songs have gone in both directions. It can often be safer to buy the license to the original song if the melody and lyrical content are going to be extremely similar as Weird Al tends to do. Often, a parody song will be registered as a derivative work of the original song. If you're planning a parody song, to be released commercially as Weird Al does, a consultation and retainer to a good music attorney would be a really good idea.

Another aspect to this is "answer songs". For example, Kenny Rogers recorded Lucille. Some time later Sherri Jericho recorded an answer to the original. The melody is exact.

Original song: Lucille

Answer song: Thanks for leaving Lucille

Again... a music attorney's advice would be the way to go

“To me there is a big difference between playing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant and a theater screening "Gone With The Wind".”


No difference at all, legally. Both works are intellectual property, protected by copyright.


“Playing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant it more like quoting "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." from "Gone With The Wind".”


Margaret Mitchell might disagree. There is quite a bit of 'difference' between singing a song in a restaurant and writing an epic novel.


“I would not confuse playing a song that has become part of our common heritage with recording it or reproducing another recording of it. There is a big difference so that comparison is neither logical nor valid.”


Granted. There is a difference between performing a song and recording it. Nonetheless, both activities are protected by copyright.


“Don't get me wrong, I respect the right of the copyright holder to profit from his or her work.”


It doesn't appear that you do.


“If I were to find a cure for cancer, I'd have less than 20 years protection. This tells me that 12 bar blues song with juvenile lyrics is more important to protect than a cure for cancer.”


There are reasons that medical patents are so limited, most having to do with saving lives. Apples and oranges.


Once again, without the songwriter, there would be no music business, and you would have nothing to sing in restaurants.

Just because I believe the copyright laws should be modified, does not mean I don't respect the right of the copyright holder to profit on his/her work.

As I also indicated:
1) I have a few dozen copyrights
2) I abide by the laws as written

But in a democratic republic such as the USA, sometimes the laws are not strong enough, sometimes they are too strong. The flexibility to change that is built into the system.

I believe the copyright laws are necessary, but I think a little revision could make them better and more fair to all.

Insights and incites by Notes

Interesting info, thanks for posting.

Later,

Actually, the evidence indicates that Happy Birthday is not under copyright.


Edit: Correction to above: I meant to write "should not be under copyright". I should not have written that I disputed that it has a copyright, but instead that copyright should never have been assigned.


The main reason that "Happy Birthday" still gets royalties is that it's cheaper to pay the royalties than contest it.

The melody is from the 1893 song "Good Morning To You" (now in public domain).

The lyric was grafted from a pre-existing version of "Happy Birthday". It appears that grafting the two may have been done by the author's students.

In fact, "Happy Birthday To You" was published (not by the authors) in 1912 with instructions to sing the song to the tune of "Good Morning To You" with these alternate lyrics.

Then in 1935, a company claimed "Happy Birthday To You" was their own work - over 20 years after it had been published in that form.

They'd been profiting from it ever since.

Here in Germany, actually in the entire European Union, in 2016 the copyright to "Happy Birthday" ends.

From what I understand.....HAPPY BIRTHDAY is still under copyright protection and will be for another 16 years or so.


What Snopes has to say about it.


Could be.... that's why the Beatles did a totally different song about birthdays?

And why most every restaurant that has the wait staff sing to the birthday person has a different birthday song.

If the staff would sing that one song and only that one song to birthday people, and if that was the only song ever sung in that restaurant, the restaurant would have to buy an ASCAP license.

It's an example of what I think is excessive about current copyright laws.

Again, I support copyright, but think some fine tuning should be applied -- and I'm not sure exactly how much tuning is needed.

Insights and incites by Notes

2030 -- that is for the U.S. and only because that song is so old that the copyright registration counts more than the passing of the authors (if I understand that correctly).

Copyright of a song passes away in Europe at the 31st of December of the year +70 after the last author passed away. Patty Hill died in 1946 + 70 = 2016. In the Europe there will be no more royalties paid for "Happy Birthday to You" effective January 1st, 2017.

Warner must find another source of income here.

I didn't mean say that the song wasn't copyrighted, I meant to say that it shouldn't be under copyright. Sorry about that!

The Snopes article (written in 2007) says:

• The sisters wrote "Good Morning To You".
• They didn't write the lyrics "Happy Birthday To You".
• The song - with the "Happy Birthday" lyrics - was published.
• After it became popular, a company claimed copyright to the song.

Even Snopes says that it is "murky", because no one knows who put the words to the Hill's song.

The Salon article (written in 2011) goes into further detail on this.

Since the melody is in public domain at this point, and the company claimed copyright on the song that there's clear published evidence that they didn't write, they never should have been granted copyright to the song. That's clear from Snopes as well.

As the Salon article points out, the only reason that the copyright continues to stand is because it's cheaper to pay the licensing than to contest it.

I have never understood this thing with songs, it is stupid in my opinion to ask money because someone sings a cover song; why the different agencies demand money for people singing in clubs and the like.
Just my opinion: unless you record it and sale it; then it should not matter if you sing it, and that goes for any song whether it is the latest hit or something from the 20's. There is a difference between a true professional who records another singer or songwriters song and makes money from it's sale (and by this I mean an artist signed to a record label) not just a bar or lounge singer who might get paid to perform. Now if the band in the bar records their show and makes a CD or dvd and sales it, or has previously made cds with cover songs to sale then yeah they need to pay. But If I sing a cover song here in Ky, It is not effecting the original performer and songwriter one bit, I have not robbed them, it has not taken any money from them. Now if I record it and start selling it, then I believe the royalties should be given them just like any professional artist would have to. Next thing they will be asking carpenters to pay royalties each time they use their name brand hammers, LOL!


Of course it is the law so we have to go by the rules no matter how ignorant they are.

You might feel differently if you were the owner of the copyright. The cover band, club owner, wait staff and everyone else making money at the venue are making money off the song.

The song that the writer has written, demoed, pitched and contracted to a publisher who has re-demoed, produced, shopped, promoted and contracted to a record company, etc.

99% of songs produced do not even recoup the expense of producing them. The 1% that are “hits” sustain the entire industry. Should they be offered for free, when everyone else down the chain profits from them?

Dang... we just sang "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant a few nights ago to my 11 year old niece for her birthday.

I bet we owe some royalties for that "public performance" of the song.....

ssssshhhhh.. don't tell anyone....OK?

"ACTION NEWS 12 BREAKING NEWS...
Music industry authorities tracked down a man who admitted in a computer forum to violating copyright law...."

given the small amounts of money the artists make on Spotify... if they catch you and you pay the penny you owe... do you get credit for the other 2,000 times the penny entitles you to sing the song?

My own thoughts:

1) Copyrights should last either until the writer dies or 20 years if he/she dies sooner than 20 years after he/she writes it

2) Public performances in a not-for profit place should be fair use

3) Playing in a profit place like a bar/lounge should only be paid if an ASCAP or BMI agent notes every song that is being played and sends the list in so the songwriter gets royalties. Right now, how do they know what songs I sang in the Embassy Suites last night? The hotel paid their license, but ASCAP/BMI has no idea what we played. So who is going to get the money? It was a 50 year high school reunion. Did Neil Sedaka, Howard Greenfield, Otis Blackwell, Ritchie Adams, Malou Rene, Mack Gordon, Harry Warren, Hank Ballard, Bunny Wailer, Smokey Robinson, Barry Mann, Phil Spector, Cynthia Weill, Bernard Edwards, Nile Rodgers, Luis Demetrio, Pablo Beltran Ruiz and all the others get paid?

90db, if I played one of your songs, would you have gotten even one penny?

I played one of mine and didn't get royalties from it.

You can't ask the band for a playlist as we have none. We watch the crowd, call the next song sometimes only a few seconds before the first one ends, and then go right into the next song so as not to lose the dance floor. There is no time to jot them down, so it should be the responsibility of an agent of the performing rights society.

4) The publisher should not be allowed to make more money on the song than the songwriter. Who's song is it anyway?

Those are a few of the things I'd bring up to the table if someone invited me to a brainstorm session on how to change the copyright laws.

Notes

“Playing in a profit place like a bar/lounge should only be paid if an ASCAP or BMI agent notes every song that is being played and sends the list in so the songwriter gets royalties. Right now, how do they know what songs I sang in the Embassy Suites last night? The hotel paid their license, but ASCAP/BMI has no idea what we played. So who is going to get the money? It was a 50 year high school reunion. Did Neil Sedaka, Howard Greenfield, Otis Blackwell, Ritchie Adams, Malou Rene, Mack Gordon, Harry Warren, Hank Ballard, Bunny Wailer, Smokey Robinson, Barry Mann, Phil Spector, Cynthia Weill, Bernard Edwards, Nile Rodgers, Luis Demetrio, Pablo Beltran Ruiz and all the others get paid?”


Yes, they would have been paid, if you had made a simple MP3 recording of the performance, noted the songs and writers, and submitted the list to ASCAP/BMI. Otherwise, the royalties are paid into the “General Licensing Allocation.” In that case, the big fish get all the royalties. Now this practice should be changed, for sure.


“90db, if I played one of your songs, would you have gotten even one penny?”

Yes, if you had reported the performance to BMI. Although a whole penny might be optimistic.


“I played one of mine and didn't get royalties from it.”

That's down to you.

All of the PROs now have programs in place where artists can report their live performances and set lists, and get paid for shows in unsurveyed venues. The programs are ASCAP OnStage, BMI Live, and SESAC’s Live Performance Notification System.  If you’re a member of one of these organizations and you aren’t using these programs yet, please check them out.  You have a limited amount of time to input your live performances and get paid for them (between 3-6 months), so the sooner you get into the habit of reporting your live shows, the better.


“The publisher should not be allowed to make more money on the song than the songwriter. Who's song is it anyway?”


The split depends entirely on the contract between the writer and the publisher. Neither party has a gun to his head. (Except, of course, in the case of Don Corleone and Johnny Fontane)

@Notes: I like the way you think! I'd vote for your revisions to copyright law in a heartbeat!

@90db: you make excellent points, and almost certainly the information noted is news to most of us. Thanks for pointing out that by notifying the agencies of actual set lists, the correct artists can get paid instead of having the proceeds go into a general fund that only benefits an elite group

Pat,

It's a bad system, to be sure. The big dogs get all the money. BMI,ASCAP. et al are a bunch of crooks. But then, so are the managers, booking agents, record companies, publishers,club owners and everyone else involved in the business.
The RIAA is the worst of the lot, but the indy world is changing all of that now. The people now have the technology, and that has the Mustache Petes running scared. There are artists making more money now marketing themselves than they ever would with a record deal.

I don't see why the copyright laws can't follow patent laws and the "editions" section of the copyright laws - you have 25 years to make a buck then it goes into making the public domain richer - this in turn makes it possible for others to build on what has been created without onerous comliance requirements.

If I understand it correctly, this is exactly how copyright was first introduced, but the Walt Disney's and Sonny Bono's (and undoubtedly Sony/BMG's etc.) of the world managed to get it changed so they could continue making money. I understand this desire but causing it to happen makes a mockery of the original intent of copyright.

Thus the world ends up intellectually poorer instead of intellectually richer...

even artists who never would have had a shot at a record deal.. and that pleases me enormously! Yeah, there are ways in whcih these are dark times in the music business... but I honestly think there is opportunity in chaos. Now is a time when clever people are having good luck making a buck without getting any middlemen at all involved.

I wish everybody would boycott BMI and ASCAP so they couldn't have the power to show up somewhere and forbid anyone to play our music without paying a fee to them... WE give them that power when we join their ranks

You might feel differently if you were the owner of the copyright.

I have told several folks here on the forum, as well as around my neck of the woods they were free to perform my songs all they want, I just ask that they not be recorded for profit. Although I have allowed a few to profit when they ask.

The cover band, club owner, wait staff and everyone else making money at the venue are making money off the song.


The staff at the club and the owner would make money anyway in most cases, music is just an added incentive to come in. Some live venues don't draw enough people to even pay the band so the club fits the bill or they pay them in food or drinks or the band plays for free. Then they are expected to turn around and shell out for royalty rights. Not cool in any form or fashion. They also have to pay to have the place cleaned up after said show and in a lot of cases expensive repairs due to damage done during said show.

The song that the writer has written, demoed, pitched and contracted to a publisher who has re-demoed, produced, shopped, promoted and contracted to a record company, etc.

99% of songs produced do not even recoup the expense of producing them. The 1% that are “hits” sustain the entire industry. Should they be offered for free, when everyone else down the chain profits from them?

Free is exactly what they are when they are performed in a club setting. No one can buy a copy of it, It will only be heard on the nights it is performed. It in no way effects the singer or songwriter's pocket at all; and may in fact help the original artist. When I was in high school Elvis Presley passed away. I use to go around singing Elvis' version of Trying to Get to You from His final concert album, yes I said album LOL. Some of my buddies said "who sings that?" and subsequently went out and bought Elvis' final Concert album because they wanted to hear his version of the song; this was before the day of the download. So I know that sometimes performing a cover song helps the artist out,(as if Elvis needed my help LOL again) and it never hurts them.

There is a difference in performing something where the same group of people will never hear it again I.E. a cover song in a club setting where most won't even remember the groups name, little on the song's sang;

and mass producing CD's for sale. In the case of the CD an artist might do a copy that would effect another artist's version and pocket, this is the reason you very seldom see 2 artist in the same genre of music cover the same song for release in the same year. Artist 1 knows if artist 2's version explodes they may lose money. You will see a rock group and a pop or country group do the same song as they know their audiences are different anyway.

But if artist 1 only sings in a club while artist 2 is on the billboard charts artist 1 has not in anyway hurt artist 2's sales; but as in the Elvis example may actually help artist 2.

How many of you have performed some where and somebody ask "who sings that song?"


The law is the law, and should be followed, but just because it is law does not mean it is makes sense or is right. It used to be against the law to spit on the sidewalk.

That was a very verbose defense of what is basically theft.


“The staff at the club and the owner would make money anyway in most cases, music is just an added incentive to come in. Some live venues don't draw enough people to even pay the band so the club fits the bill or they pay them in food or drinks or the band plays for free. Then they are expected to turn around and shell out for royalty rights. Not cool in any form or fashion. They also have to pay to have the place cleaned up after said show and in a lot of cases expensive repairs due to damage done during said show.”


Go to many clubs, Robert? Do you play in many? We're playing in a place tonight that has live music 7 nights a week. They have excellent food, but the live music is the draw. Without the live music, they wouldn't sell any food.

Before you lament the “poor” club owner's plight, you might want to learn a bit about the business. Do you know what a bottle of Jack Daniels costs? Do you know how much money that one bottle generates when sold by the shot? Here is a bit of info on bar pricing:


http://www.allaboutbarsinfo.com/how-to-price-a-drink/



“Free is exactly what they are when they are performed in a club setting.”


No, they are not 'free'. They are copyright-protected intellectual property; you know, as in “Thou Shalt Not Steal”.

90db you mentioned the big dogs get all the money and the artist gets the shaft.

It has always been this way, musicians, artists, writers, and so on do it because our passion drives us to do it -- and more often than not we have poor business skills. The publishers and the rest of the industry have excellent business skills and they take advantage of that balance to overpower the artist.

When Motown was courting us to become their first white major artist, our management and lawyers were trying to get paid. They started at 4 cents per record, then little by little the money per record wend down and down until the final amount wouldn't cover what Motown would have billed us for recording, production and promotion costs even if we sold a million copies. And that was in the days before T shirt and other merchandising add-ons.

Negotiations broke off and Berry Gordy's second choice, The Sunliners made a deal with them - I have no idea of the terms they settled with. The Sunliners changed their name to Rare Earth and cut a few for Motown. I hope they made out OK.

Authors have been exploited by the publishing companies for longer than there have been record companies. Like top 40 artists, the people who write hit book after hit book can make a great deal with the publishers, but the 'one hit wonders' of the literary world can't quit their day jobs.

I definitely feel that the songwriter deserves to get paid for his/her composition. But I think 75 years after he/she dies is extremely excessive.

I make my money performing music. I've never had a recording contract, although I did come close once. The songs I play are the tools I use to make a living, and I assume most of the venues I play in have an ASCAP license. If not I'm sure the ASCAP or BMI rep will eventually visit them.

I played that gig in the Embassy suites on Saturday. It was 2 hours away each direction. We set up before cocktail hour and didn't play until dinner. So I left the house at 2 PM after loading the gear in the van and didn't get home until 2:30 AM and then had to get the gear of of the van. There's no way I'm going to make an mp3 and send a report in.

Yesterday we did a pool party. It was close to home, but still, setting up in a tent, sweating and getting beat by the sun and the wind, worrying about the thunderstorms to the west, and tearing down after dark to the glow of golf cart headlights left us very tired. No way I'm going to make an mp3 and file the report.

A performing musician has a lot to do. In my duo: set up the gear (2 synths, 2 guitars, 3 computers, flute, sax, sound modules, PA system and dozens of cables) ... troubleshoot any problems ... do a sound check ... start playing and watching the reaction of the audience to get a good idea as to what song to call next ... and then tear down. The performing itself is both physically and mentally demanding and the setup/teardown is time consuming and physical. Reporting our playlist sounds like a great way to get the proper artists paid the proper amount of money - but I'm sorry, it's too much to ask.

There has to be a better way.

As mentioned, the industry people have the business skills, and the money to influence the lawmakers. Thus the copyright laws are definitely weighted to the advantage of the industry people and not for the artists who get crumbs off the table at best. That's why they need to be revised so that they are fair to all. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Insights and incites by Notes

"A performing musician has a lot to do. In my duo: set up the gear (2 synths, 2 guitars, 3 computers, flute, sax, sound modules, PA system and dozens of cables) ... troubleshoot any problems ... do a sound check ... start playing and watching the reaction of the audience to get a good idea as to what song to call next ... and then tear down. The performing itself is both physically and mentally demanding and the setup/teardown is time consuming and physical."




I hear ya. We just got back from setting up/sound checking for our gig tonight. 1 hour each way, then 2 hours setting up a trailer full of gear. Then tonight we drive back down to the club, play from 7-10, tear down, pack up and drive home. It's grueling, for sure. Next week we're playing for 4 hours outside in 92 degree heat.

However, for a little perspective:

My last “straight” job was at an auto plant. 10 hour days, six days a week. Very strenuous, hard work.

I'll take playing music over that any day.

That was a very verbose defense of what is basically theft.

I believe 90 db if you re-read my original post on the subject I clearly said it was my (opinion) that the copyright laws concerning paying to just sing a song are not right, I stand by that, you see it the other way and that's fine. I was not in any way saying folks should break the law as In both post I made it clear that the law is you pay; and that the law should be followed. I did however say the law should be changed; as it is not written in stone like the one about stealing you quoted from the Holy Book. It would not be the first time men had to change a law. Check out sometime all of the amendments that even one law can have. It will probably never change though due to greed.

You spoke of performing at a place with 7 day a week music and it is booming, sure there are many that are, many are rolling in the dough but look in an old phone book some time and see how many of those kinds of places who offered live music and have went under. I am not blaming it all on paying for music, that would be foolish to think; employee theft is a bigger problem to a restaurant than to the music business. but how many could have been saved without the unnecessary expense and the paperwork required to keep track. And how many have been shut down because they could not pay their dues. How many times do you hear of one of the companies collecting royalties and the artist and writer never receives any money? So where is the money really going? It is all just a bunch of unnecessary red tape; once again in my opinion. It all comes from greed, folks wanting theirs no matter who gets hurt in the process. How many have stopped using live bands because of the expense and the headache required and now offer no music at all (that is the real crime.) Thanks for sharing your views!

It's fascinating how so many people can rationalize theft with platitudes about “greed”. Those greedy songwriters just want their filthy lucre, and don't care about the poor bar owner who operates his bar out of his love for mankind. I suggest you do some research on the hospitality business. The ROI is incredible – if the operator knows what he's doing. Music licensing is just another cost of doing business, and the expense is rolled into the rest of the costs and recouped by the bar's margin.


I did quote the Bible, because I believe it is germane to this conversation. Regardless of how you feel about a law (even one that doesn't affect you in the least), it is the law, and using protected music without paying for it is theft. Stealing. (as in “Thou Shalt Not...”)

Justifying the theft by citing nebulous misinformation does not change the facts. Don't like the law? Work to get it changed; it's a free country.

Theft? Most people will not (want to) understand that. That is such a harsh word. Usually when theft occurs somebody has less than before. When I "steal" by means of performing a song, nobody has less than before. It is such an altruistic thing because many people have more, it is in the best interest of the public. (Ain't I nice?) That is what many seem to understand.

Actually it is in the same category as fare evasion, fiscal evasion -- it is fraudulent evasion, an illegal behaviour subject to prosecution.

Copyright for somebody's lifespan plus 75 years? Well, we could discuss that. Preparing for a seminar about copyright I have read somewhere -- sorry, don't recall where so I can't give a source -- that the timeframe for copyright was to cover the next two generations of the authors. (Similar to handing down a business to your children.) What was not intended is that authors lease/sell/give away their rights to a company. (I also a long time ago read somwhere that, in the U.S., transfering a copyright was legal only for some 20 years. After that the rights were transfered back to the original owner.)


Others have written about the process. So if you perform in public, create a play list of the songs you played including as much information as possible about the song and send it to the respective PRO. Then the owner of the copyright has a chance to get some money. You need to compile the data only once and then reuse them. Most of the performers will not play a hundred songs today and a different hundred tomorrow and on the next day only songs that have not been played the two days before.


Side note: I try to use the PRO work number, but sometimes this number is hard to find -- or would you have thought that Killin' Time (and all the other songs of the album with the same name) by Clint Black had been registered with the German GEMA instead of BMI where all his others songs are? A lot of songs are meanwhile given an ISWC number (http://www.iswc.org/).

I guess I'm not like most then.

We have over 500 songs in our book, and I call the songs on the fly according to what I think is best for the particular audience near the end of each previous songs.

Example, Saturday we did a High School 50'th reunion - so the room was filled with baby boomers and we played mostly that kind of music with a few newer ones sprinkled in.

Sunday we did an outdoor party for a gated community consisting of younger to middle aged professionals, many with small children. Perhaps a dozen songs were played that we did on Saturday.

Today we play at a marina where we will play a lot of Caribbean and Tropical songs mixed with a lot of listening songs, again a very different mix of songs. But that will depend on who shows up, what they are into, and what they are responding to today.

When I was in the AFofM, the union man came to check on us and collect the work dues. As far as I'm concerned, the PRO should send a rep down to do the list. I have enough on my mind, what song to play next, I also sing, play sax, guitar, flute and wind synth so often I have cue the next backing track, undo the strap so I can switch instruments quickly as I go from song to song without a beat in between.

Reading the audience, pacing the audience, and playing music to the best of my ability is my job. It requires a flip-flop between the "zone" state of making music and the active mental state of the rest of the job. It's very intensive, when the gig is over, I'm beat (mentally and physically) but it's a very good, satisfying kind of tired.

And why should two generations after the songwriter dies receive royalties on his/her creation? Do the children of John Lennon, Carole King, Doc Pomus, Barry Mann, and other famous songwriters really need the money? They've already made millions of dollars on their creations (and deserved every penny) and unless they blew the money, their descendants are set for life. And if the songwriter wasn't successful (like myself) the amount of royalties for that 75 years wouldn't amount to anything worthwhile.

Kurt Weill died in 1950, Mack The Knife (Die Moritat von Mackie Messer) was written in 1928 and you won't be able to play it in public without paying whoever owns the copyright now until 2025 making the copyright span almost a hundred years.

'nuff said about that subject.

We play that one about once every month or two - close to the Bobby Darin arrangement.

The copyright laws were written to protect the songwriter from having his/her work stolen by someone else who could then make a fortune with the song and leave the creator penniless. That's a good thing. But the copyright laws have far exceeded that function and have become a cash cow for a lot of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the song. The famous "Happy Birthday" example - WB makes 2 million a year - how much did the sisters who wrote those two words on a PD song make? Not much.

Insights and incites by Notes

"But the copyright laws have far exceeded that function and have become a cash cow for a lot of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the song."

I second that.

(That is the reason why I wrote in a previous post that PROs are just an investment company for heirs and publishers.)

Copyright laws spring from the 4th amendment to the constitution. They expand on what was said in the 4th amendment and deal with the specifics.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To be secure in our PAPERS was a very important issue to the founders. I see this when I read about the founding fathers. Revere, Adams, Hamilton, Washington, Madison, etc... The founders were men who wrote a lot of letters and books. As songwriters, we also write and create intellectual property.

The founders are stating in this 4th amendment that our papers are worthy of protection. And with intellectual property, we are accorded the same rights to not have it taken forceably or stolen from us by others or the government. Just as we can purchase a piece of property (real estate) and develop it, and then pass it down to our children and to their children, our intellectual property, in the eyes of the founders should have the same protections and property rights as our houses and lands.

As one who owns many copyrighted songs, currently under contract in libraries and with publishers, I stand on the side of supporting the rights of copyright owners for the full term codified in our current laws. That way, should a song I write become a classic, my heirs will benefit long after my passing by the royalties that the use of the song would continue to produce. Should congress decide to amend that term length, I would hope that they would look at it from the copyright writer/owner's point of view and proceed carefully to maintain those rights.

copyright and patent laws are a very interesting aspect of a society!

imagine how you would feel if there was a law that stipulated that you or your heirs would automatically lose your physical property X number of years after it was first created or acquired by you!

yet we do exactly that with music and other creative endeavors, inventions, etc. and we do that because we believe that an individual is entitled to benefit exclusively from their creations but only for a time and then society at large should benefit from them.

this is exactly the reason we have cheap generic drugs that are just as good as the brand names. it is why we have ziplock-style package sealers in lots of packaged foods. it is why we can buy cheap, off-brand transparent tape and velcro-style fasteners. and thousands of other products.

I think you can make a great case for copyright and patent laws transferring rights back to the public at large but I guess you could make a good case for allowing someone who creates something to keep it indefinitely too!

But overall, I guess I am pretty pleased with the balance we have in the US regarding copyright and patent.

100% right. Using people's work without aquiring the rights is THEFT!!!! that is it, no discussion

there are two different discussions going on here.

I don't think anyone here is against songwriters benefitting from copyright protection and future income.

But there are plenty of people here who think the current copyright law does a better job of serving the financial needs of everybody BUT the songwriter

and therein lies the rub

Exactly! (What Pat said)

Pat,

Copyright law is not aimed at 'serving' the songwriter. It protects the rights of the copyright owner, and in may cases, that is not the actual songwriter. It is quite common for publishers to receive a portion (or in some cases, all) of the proceeds from a song recording or performance.

The Lennon/McCartney catalog is an example. Sony/ATV Music Publishing had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the songs in the catalog, yet they own the rights to them.

'Copyright law' or the PRO's are not the real villains in the music business. It is the publishers and record companies who have really ripped off songwriters. Just ask John Fogerty, Tom Waits or Tommy James.


http://www.amazon.com/Me-Mob-Music-Helluva-Shondells/dp/1439172889

exactly Bob.

The astonishing thing to me is that once BMI and ASCAP get involved, a songwriter almost never ends up owning the rights to his own songs.

When the same phenomenon repeats virtually 100% of the time, it isn't an accident. Its the inevitable conclusion to a messed up system that SYSTEMatically separates the creators from their creations.

It may be backed up by laws, but that's still messed up.

I would like to see thing change such that:
a) rights cannot be assigned to anyone other than the creator of a work (except as in c) below).

b) the current practice of rights assignment be replaced with a time limited, non exclusive licence (max 25 years) and/or a time limited exclusive licence (max 5 years) - relicencing permitted, but exclusive licences cannot be relicenced to any entity or associated entity that has already had an exclusive licence.

c) copyright to expire 25 years after the creators demise PROVIDED there are no questionable circumstances surrounding their death. If there are questionable circumstances then the work is NEVER placed in the public domain and the rights be assigned to a charity of the creators preference, or where this is unknown, a charity chosen by lottery. Should said charity cease to be a charity or it become defunct then a new charity be selected by lottery.

d) copyright resides in either an individual or a group of individuals - compann's or other dorporate type entities CANNOT hold Intellectual Property of any kind. Rationale is that people create, not corporations or other "legal entities".

Lotsa people would probably hate these things, but they'd go a long way to overcome the kind of exploitation that stops the creators from getting a fair return on their work while the exploiters get obscenely rich. The creators should be the ones getting obscenely rich!

Lawrie,

Consider this scenario:

I buy some land, clear it, dig a well and build a house with my own hands. I have a deed to the land that the house sits on. If I decide I want to emigrate to beautiful NSW, do I have the right to sell the house and land? I “created” the house. Can I rent the house? Only for 5 years? If I get eaten by a great white off the Great Barrier Reef, does my deed expire in 25 years, and the house go to a “charity” chosen by lottery? Can I sell the house and land to a bank? After all, they didn't create the house. I did.

When I write a song and copyright it, I own it. With that ownership comes the right to sell, assign or designate all or part of the copyright to any party I choose. Who better to be the arbiter of my rights under US copyright law?



Regards,

Bob

That's what the licencing is for - consider that my way you CANNOT have your property stolen by unscrupulous lawyers/corporations.

Is it better to simply sell your property in California, or rent it out and get additional income from it?

Intellectual property is a whole different kettle of fish to real estate and not really comparable. IMHO

prop·er·ty noun \ˈprä-pər-tē\

: something that is owned by a person, business, etc.

: a piece of land often with buildings on it that is owned by a person, business, etc.

: a special quality or characteristic of something




http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/property

Well, that's kinda true... but... not exactly the whole truth.

Let me explain.

As a song writer, you own 100% of the writer and publisher share of the song. (under US copyright laws) That is a total of 200% with each part being 100%.

Unless you are SELF PUBLISHING the song, you are probably asking a publisher to help you plug that song to artists and opportunities. You sign a contract releasing your rights of controlling ownership to that publisher at a pre-determined split of the writer's share and the publisher's share. In most cases, that is a 50/50 split with the writer retaining 100% of the writer's share and the publisher retaining 100% of the publishers share. The publisher will generally, in that agreement secure 100% controlling ownership of the song at that time, in accordance with the contract terms. I said "generally" because in an exclusive deal you do relinquish all the ownership rights, but in a non-exclusive deal, you actually retain some (or all) of the ownership rights. That's why you need to understand what you are signing.

To this point neither ASCAP nor BMI is involved.

The new owner.... the publisher will now do 2 things and hopefully a third.
1. they will register a copyright as the owner of the song in their name referencing any existing copyright the writer may ahve obtained earlier.
2. they will now, register the song with the PRO you and they are associated with. It is possible for a writer to register the song earlier as well. However, that registration will need to be changed to indicate the publisher's ownership of the publisher's share since all registrations with a PRO must equal 200%. Unpublished songs automatically have both writer & publisher share assigned to the writer if no publisher is listed when a writer registers the song.
3. hopefully, the publisher will also get the song "published" and get you a cut.

When ASCAP, BMI, or any other PRO is brought in, their job is to collect the performance royalties and pay the 2 parties.

So... in most cases, by the time ASCAP or BMI get involved, the song ownership has already changed hands and it's on no way related to or caused by association of the song with the PRO.

I've said this before, but I will reiterate it here again. I don't copyright my songs, nor do I register them with my PRO. I'm not worried about someone stealing the music. I trust the publishers and libraries I work with to be honest. (if I don't trust them, why would I work with them?) The publishers, when they sign my songs handle the paperwork and expense of the copyright and the BMI registration. Some publishers have asked me to register the song with BMI, but not many. I've had one major film/tv library president ask me to let them handle all that paperwork.

I sent 40+ songs and cues to a major TV library for a big A&E hit show last December... The president of the library registered all of them with my PRO. I looked into my BMI account and all the cues and songs were in there with the library at 100% pub share, and me 100% writer's share. That's how it works.

Since we are on the topic here of how copyright laws need to be changed.....


How many of you are aware that BMI is actually involved in this fight right now, holding meetings and in discussions with congress to get new laws that reflect the current state of the art.

Read the story here: BMI & COPYRIGHT LAWS

Of course, since there are 2 sides to this ongoing discussion, I'm sure some will agree with the story and others won't. The point being that there are folks working to change the laws to reflect the current state of things in 2014 as opposed to the existing laws written in the 60's before internet and streaming.

Hmm, pretty sure I have a reasonable understanding of what property is... I don't actually believe I'm really stupid ya know...

I do, however, subscribe to the original intent, as I understand it, of copyright. Which was to give the originator of an idea an opportunity to capitalise on it for a reasonable period of time (25 years), and then have it enter the public domain, in a deliberate attempt to create a rich and diverse public domain that would consequently create a rich and diverse set of opportunities to build on the work of others instead of having said work tied up so tightly that no one could take it to the next level.

The result of the current system actually stifles development and diversity because it limits access to those who can most effectively, umm, "borrow"... or who have the resources of the major corporates who seem to effectively make sure the originator makes nothing anyway.

Lawrie,


It was not my intent to call you stupid. I only wanted to point out that intellectual property is still property.


BTW, here in the US, the original Copyright Act of 1790 called for a copyright period of fourteen years. Do you think that's "fair". I don't.


http://www.copyright.gov/history/1790act.pdf



I guess that one feels differently about this issue when one actually has a dog in the fight.

I stand corrected

Yup, 'course it is, but I've never seen anyone reproduce a house with a photocopier...

Ultimately IP is an intangible, that's why a licencing approach is better, just ask Bill Gates...

I hate to cite Webster's again (please don't be offended ), but I must disagree with your characterization of music as 'intangible'.


1in·tan·gi·ble
 adjective \(ˌ)in-ˈtan-jə-bəl\
: not made of physical substance : not able to be touched : not tangible


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intangible



Recorded music is tangible, and tactile – CD, etc. Broadcast music is tangible – sound waves passing through air.


I've never seen anyone 'reproduce a house with a photocopier' either, but I have seen people robbed of their rightful compensation by unscrupulous people. Just ask any of the Black blues legends who never made a dime on their songs. Or, you could just ask Jimmy Page.


http://consequenceofsound.net/2010/12/rock-history-101-the-truth-about-led-zeppelin/

The reproduction is, possibly, tangible, the IP itself is not - you cannot touch an idea, only what is generated BY the idea, sometimes...

You talk about people being robbed of their rightful compenstation - we are arguing the same side of the point - if the IP cannot be transferred, it cannot be stolen. If the exploitation is managed by licencing only AND if standardised licence agreementa are formulated that protect the originator of the IP then ALL artists might finally have a win instead of only the canny, or lucky, ones.

One point where I think we do differ is when something should enter the public domain. I happen to believe that a rich public domain is a benefit to all society, my preference is 25 years after the death of the artist, not 25 years after the first publication as it was at one point. This gives the artist an income for his/her lifetime. And when one considers how short lived most songs are this should be ample.

Another point, when does a corporation die? If a copyright holder is a notional, legal entity that cannot die then just when can anything enter the public domain - this is bad for society as a whole as it basically kills the sharing of ideas.

I agree that intellectual property is "intangible" in many aspects.

However, the purpose of the copyright laws and licensing of the music is the best attempt we have currently to make something that is, by it's very nature intangible, into something that becomes a tangible product or commodity, something that can be controlled, bought, sold, rented, leased, licensed, given away, or retained and passed down by inheritance ....

That still doesn't change the rights of the person who created it. As the creator of both tangible and intangible assets, I should have the right to keep, control and profit from the things I have thought of and through my efforts, made a reality. There should be no statute of limitations where suddenly, because of some specific time frame elapsing, I loose all control of it "for the common good".

The reproduction is, possibly, tangible, the IP itself is not - you cannot touch an idea, only what is generated BY the idea, sometimes...

I'm sorry, but a song is not an 'idea'. It is a tangible composition, just like a play or a novel.


“... if the IP cannot be transferred, it cannot be stolen...”

That just doesn't make any sense. That happens all the time.


“One point where I think we do differ is when something should enter the public domain. I happen to believe that a rich public domain is a benefit to all society, my preference is 25 years after the death of the artist, not 25 years after the first publication as it was at one point. This gives the artist an income for his/her lifetime. And when one considers how short lived most songs are this should be ample.”


Once again, you might feel differently if you had spent your entire life trying to write a successful song, or play, or novel. It requires the sacrifice of time, work, family, friends and money, all with no guarantee of success.
Frankly, I'm not ready to surrender my rights to you or anyone else to satisfy your desire for a 'rich public domain'.


“Another point, when does a corporation die? If a copyright holder is a notional, legal entity that cannot die then just when can anything enter the public domain - this is bad for society as a whole as it basically kills the sharing of ideas.”


If the song is my property, I have the right to assign it to whoever or whatever (in the case of a corporation) I choose. Songs owned by corporations are still bound by the limits of the copyright laws.


I don't write to 'benefit' all of society. No one does. Without the incentive of profit, your 'public domain' would be devoid of any decent art.

Hey 90db,
umm, what part of "after you're dead" don't you understand..? No, no, don't answer that - I can see we will not agree - either I haven't explained very well or there are simply fundamental differences that will never be overcome.

All I'm trying for is a workable system to protect YOU from thieving corporates, I'm sorry you don't want me on your side.

You 'explained' quite clearly. I do understand 'dead' as well. What I don't understand is why you feel qualified to be the arbiter of US copyright law.


I really don't need you to 'protect' me. I already have BMI and an attorney to do that.

I am on 25 patents for a corporation. The copyright rules for corporations are this; the initial copyright is for 25 years. Near the end of those 25 years the corporation has the option to renew the patent for another 25 years. This copyright extension is a one time only deal, thus the maximum amount of time for a copyright is 50 years. At least that is the way it was 12 years ago.

I do not know if this applies to the pharmaceutical companies.