PG Music Home Forums PG Music Product Forums Band-in-a-Box for Windows Song Sharing

Quote:

---

Money changing hands has absolutely nothing to do with it.quote If you sing "Happy Birthday" to your loved one in the privacy of your own USA home without paying a fee to Warner Chappell you are breaking the copyright laws and could technically be put in jail for 5 years and/or pay a quarter of a million dollar fine ($250,000.00) plus Warner Chappell's attorney fees. Not that anybody is going to do that - it would be bad publicity for Warner. (If a business does it the jail term and penalties can be doubled.)

Giving away a song with a melody or signature lick is against the law - period. It doesn't matter if money is changing hands or not.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

[<...>Personally I can’t see why it’s illegal for someone to do a copy then email it to a friend. No money is changing hands.<...>

---

Money changing hands has absolutely nothing to do with it. If you sing "Happy Birthday" to your loved one in the privacy of your own USA home without paying a fee to Warner Chappell you are breaking the copyright laws and could technically be put in jail for 5 years and/or pay a quarter of a million dollar fine ($250,000.00) plus Warner Chappell's attorney fees. Not that anybody is going to do that - it would be bad publicity for Warner. (If a business does it the jail term and penalties can be doubled.)

Giving away a song with a melody or signature lick is against the law - period. It doesn't matter if money is changing hands or not.

So before sharing songs you must consider:

• The likelihood of being caught (the risk)- admittedly very small unless ASCAP, BMI or one of the others decide to make an example out of you
  
• The possible penalties if you are caught
  
• Your own moral ethics - do unto others as you would have them do to you?
  
• Your personal reputation with others
  

I don't agree with all the provisions of the copyright laws, -- but the corporate entities that spend millions of dollars on Super PACs want to get something back from their investment (tacit bribe), and so we are saddled with very strict laws and regulations that favor the corporation, not the constituent.

If I were benevolent dictator, things would be much different (no I'm not running for the job and will not accept it even if nominated). If I were benevolent dictator, the greedy robber barons who are now running this country would probably assassinate me.

And I am not about to tell you what you should or should not do, except, please don't share my style files as I don't make that much money and live paycheck to paycheck like everybody else.

Funny thing about to me is this:

• If I were to invent something that would cure cancer, I'd get 17 years of patent protection before it fell in the public domain.
  
• If I write a simply one-chord song with a 6 word lyric, I am guaranteed protection for the rest of my life and my heirs (or Warner Chappell if they bought it from my heirs) would get 75 years of protection after I die.

To me this says that a one-chord song is more important under the law than a cure for cancer.

How about you?

---

Quote:

---

And a company such as PGMusic is not gong to be inclined to get into the middle of such a situation, whether behind the doors of emails or not, simply because I'm fairly sure that any competent attorney would advise them against such action. The finger would naturally be pointed towards those who have the most money available for settlement, duh. [quote/]

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (an amendment to Title 17, U.S. Code...commonly known as "The Copyright Act"...and the Napster and Grokster cases there just ISN'T any exposure to web domain owners...like PG...or ISPs/OSPs...like AOL/YAHOO0 ect. whose services are not PRIMARILY INTENDED to facilite the copying and distribution of copyrighted works due to "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA.

If the owner of a DOMAIN like PG could get busted for e-mails sent by the registered members of their forums then there would be no more domains and therefore, no more internet.

All they have to do is NOT permit the posting of or links to copyrighted material on their own sites.

In fact, the DMCA safe harbors are so broad that such links can be posted so long as A) the domain's PRIMARY PURPOSE is NOT to facilitate infringement and B) they block the link or take it down AFTER being notified to do so.

www.copyright.gov/legislation,dmca.pdf

I'm not suggesting it would be a good idea for PG to openly encourage the copying/distribution of copyrighted material...but when is it EVER a good idea to encourage the violation of the law?

But PG has ZERO legal risk* if one of its software licensees without any knowledge by PG...sends an e-mail to someone with a BIAB file containing the melody line of a copyrighted song. Zero as in none...nada...zip...zilch. (-:

And it appears that PG isn't all that worried about this matter because if they were, there would be no User Showcase. How does PG KNOW that those works don't rip off copyrighted material?
Answer...they don't.



*Of course any fool can sue anybody for anything. I'm talking about suits with at least a shred of merit.

And for those worried about the copyright in Happy Birthday to You...not to worry. The copyright expires in 18 years! (-:

As for the difference on protection of patents vs. copyrights...roughly 20 years for the former and 70+++ years for the latter...that has been a controversial subject for many years.

But the main issue is that patents...and especially drug-related patents can SAVE LIVES and also can cost thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars annually per individual user.

And people HAVE TO buy air bags...because the law requires the car companies to supply them and many people HAVE TO buy drugs...or die in many cases. Conversely, not one HAS to buy music/books/art etc. covered by copyrights.

AND...the royalty on a given recorded song is a stinking 9.1 CENTS per copy so publishing isn't any path to massive wealth except for the VERY VERY few who have huge hit singles!!

I think...just my 2 cents...that BOTTOM LINE the legislators feel that it is WAY in the "public good" to limit patent protections in order to walk the fine line between adequately compensating the companies who profit from them (no compensation...no inventions/drugs) and getting them into unprotected production so as to bring the prices down substantially.

FINALLY for those who think that the drug companies are "Robber Barons", Merk...is a typical example and its Return on Assets is around 10% so because of the MASSIVE expenses of bringing new drugs to market, that business is hardly "wildly profitable."

Conversely, Apple's ROA is around 27% and people camp out days in advance to VOLUNTARILY buy its new products...so, who's zoomin' who???



(-:

Best,

Jim

Quote:

---

I have a problem with this notion that one cannot sing a song in the privacy of their own home.

Um, that just isn't so.

Not yet, anyway...<...>

---

Hey Mac! I hope you are correct.

Back when I started my Band-in-a-Box aftermarket style business back in the early 1990s, I con$ulted an entertainment lawyer who $aid exactly what I posted. I'll paraphrase; If you sing "Happy Birthday" in the privacy of your own home, you are technically violating the copyright laws - but there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that you will get prosecuted.

Of course, each lawyer interprets the law in their own way, and laws are made by lawyers who get elected to office and it seems they write them in ambiguous language to insure that they will have job security when they are not re-elected.

On the other hand, he might have just been over-protective of me since I paid for his advice and depended on his information. My website has since been audited twice by BMI and I got tacit approval for what I'm doing, (by following his advice to the letter).

And the copyright laws have been revised since then, but from what I hear they have been strengthened, not weakened.

He added, videotaping a TV show and sharing it with your mother is a violation. Same for a CD or recording the music from the radio.

He said if I were to bring an acoustic guitar to a public park, and play/sing a copyrighted song, I could be in trouble unless the park had a license from ASCAP. Either I would be responsible for paying the royalties on each song that I played, or I could be sued for damages.

Before I went on a low glycemic diet and lost 50 pounds, I used to eat in an Italian restaurant once or twice per week. The restaurant played the radio on an easy listening station in the dining room. Then one day the ASCAP man came in and threatened to close the restaurant down if the owner did not physically remove the radio and speakers or pay the reoccurring license fee. The owner refused, replaced the radio with a cassette machine and started only playing classical music and Italian folk songs that were in the public domain. I have read that since that day, somebody else won a lawsuit and it was determined that you can play a radio in a restaurant now.

The fact remains that if you trade a copyrighted song in any way, shape or form, you are violating the copyright laws, whether or not you are making any money or not. Whether either you or I agree that the law is right or not, doesn't have anything to do with it.

Brand new 2012.5 updates from Norton Music:

• 2 new style disks for Band-in-a-Box
  
• 2 new free (with a purchase) fancy intro/ending disks for Real Band and other DAW's
  
• The Ultimate Gospel Fake Disk
  
• The Real Rock Fake Disk (plenty of classic rock in this one)
  
• The Beatles Fake Disk
  
• And an updated Christmas Fake Disk

Hundreds of Free .sgu and .mp3 demos for the above at: http://www.nortonmusic.com

Quote:

---

The owner refused, replaced the radio with a cassette machine and started only playing classical music and Italian folk songs that were in the public domain.

---

Quote:

---

My wife lost a long-time gig when BMI strong armed an inexperienced owner. And my wife is a BMI artist! She has even been to BMI headquarters in Nashville to see their palacial building.

I'm BMI too but sometimes wonder why.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wonder if/how my local record store is licensed. Since they play fairly eclectic stuff, I can guarantee the fees collected aren't going to the artists who's music is being played. Same for the book store around the corner that has a large collection of LPs they play from.

---

I'm not sure if record stores have to have blanket license fees...I kinda doubt it since, after all, they are trying to SELL MUSIC upon which royalties are paid.

But if they DO pay blanket license fees...yes, any artist that is a member of the Society that issued the license DOES get paid...often pennies admittedly...since those royalties either get distributed among the member/writers and publishers or are used to defray Society operating costs. If costs were higher, then royalty payments would be lower so IN EFFECT, all members get paid...directly or indirectly.

But again...it often amounts literally to pennies since there are SO many members.

Regards,
Jim

Quote:

---

Most songs are co-written at least 2 ways and often 3 and the royalties for record sales are a stinking 9.1 cents per copy. So, on a 2 way write the writers get only about $24,500.00 each for a song on a PLATINUM ALBUM! That doesn't buy a mansion for any of them!!

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Most songs are co-written at least 2 ways and often 3 and the royalties for record sales are a stinking 9.1 cents per copy. So, on a 2 way write the writers get only about $24,500.00 each for a song on a PLATINUM ALBUM! That doesn't buy a mansion for any of them!!

---

which prompts me to wonder who gets the rest, since a platinum album generates FAR more revenue than $24k per song

This is why I like the internet. To at least SOME extent, it has enabled talented people to sell their original songs without forcing them into a really bad deal with music sharks who get more from the artist's work than the artist does.

As far as I can tell, its the sharks who are doing most of the squealing about lost revenue. The artists, especially once they've made a name for themselves, can sell their stuff online and get 100% of the profits for themselves

As an added benefit, they aren't pushed to meet corporate deadlines for the next CD... they can take as long as they want to get the songs the way they want, retaining all the creative control of the product.

As time goes on, we've seen (and will continue to see) success stories of talented people who do their own legwork to stir interest in their songs online. Marketing and distribution is the main service provided by the sharks, but IMHO, to keep 9 cents for yourself and pay 91 cents for marketing would be totally unacceptable in any other business. Yet musicians stand in line to sign these recording contracts.

Go figure.

---

Quote:

---

But for small "public" venues like restaurants, bars etc. the "blanket license fees" don't amount to more than chump change.

---

Quote:

---

which prompts me to wonder who gets the rest, since a platinum album generates FAR more revenue than $24k per song

This is why I like the internet. To at least SOME extent, it has enabled talented people to sell their original songs without forcing them into a really bad deal with music sharks who get more from the artist's work than the artist does.

As far as I can tell, its the sharks who are doing most of the squealing about lost revenue. The artists, especially once they've made a name for themselves, can sell their stuff online and get 100% of the profits for themselves

As an added benefit, they aren't pushed to meet corporate deadlines for the next CD... they can take as long as they want to get the songs the way they want, retaining all the creative control of the product.

As time goes on, we've seen (and will continue to see) success stories of talented people who do their own legwork to stir interest in their songs online. Marketing and distribution is the main service provided by the sharks, but IMHO, to keep 9 cents for yourself and pay 91 cents for marketing would be totally unacceptable in any other business. Yet musicians stand in line to sign these recording contracts.

Go figure.

---

It is pretty incredible to witness the changes going on in the music industry. While I agree the old system was far from fair to the artists, I have my doubts about a new internet-based system as well.

At least in the old days, if you landed a record contract you had a shot at something pretty cool. Nowadays you can sell your CD on CD Baby and sell your songs through iTunes but now those organizations become the sharks and, with all of the competition (since everybody has a "record contract" now) your chance of selling enough to provide more than pocket change is pretty slim! How many musicians do you know of who are making anything even close to a living on internet sales?

I have friends in the music business who swear the only way to make money currently is to tour. Ya need to tour to promote your music and sell your swag and CDs. And they claim touring is the only way you keep the lion's share of the take.

I am fortunate in that I have a decent "real" job and I plan to keep it while I enjoy music on the side. If something were to come of the music that would just be gravy!