Well.... isn't THAT interesting?
Yep... as a kid I noticed that the sheet music I was buying, to play on the piano, never included the signature licks and solo's that I was hearing on the songs as they were played on the radio. I was quite disappointed as a young lad to find out that the $1.25 sheet music was essentially the melody only and that the "good parts" were not included. That's the point when I started learning how to play by ear vs reading the shaped notes from paper.
It should be interesting to see how this shakes out in a legal sense. Classic guitar solo's are not copy protected.... hummmmm, I'll bet there's a whole cadre of lawyers chomping at the bit to dig into THAT one.
Teens having too much fun has always been a problem.
Listening to some of the songs on the User Showcase the other day, I was struck with a thought -- while I have been muddling along with experimental, I can't help but notice that more and more musicians on this forum are setting out to and achieving results that rival any recording studio. The Home Recording Revolution. Yeah, that's it.
Now, the music business, (As P. J. O'Rourke put it, "Going out of business in the worst possible way...") must have noticed. Did it start with Rappers and loops?> I don't know, but what I do know is at a certain point, we are putting the creative abilities, the technology, the expertise, the workflows, of a handful of recording studios up against the same thing multiplied by hindreds of thousands. The Singer/Songwriter on steroids becomes the record producer.
The resistance is predictable -- infantile reaction.
Seriously, though, folks, and on topic, the consequence is that Ai might get on the case and conclude musicians have been borrowing from each other since time began. So, MCA, just go away, please.
What an interesting find! Music law is definitely a diverse subject. Thanks for sharing!
Who would have ever thought that such an interesting article concerning historic music would show up in a business journal?
Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal can come up with some of the most surprising articles.
Back in the day I was one of the millions of "20 feet from stardom" guys. Never made it myself but I was in a few studios, did a few keyboard tracks, was on an album that went nowhere, etc. This brings back memories I had totally forgotten about. I remember people saying around 1970 all you can copyright is a basic sheet with the melody and that's it. The key takeaway in this article was everybody needed to re-register their stuff again on the day the law took effect in 1978. Meaning IMMEDIATELY.
Seriously this just rang a bell with me, I remember one guy talking about that and it was right around 1978. If some little schlep like me knew about this, you would think all the big timers would too. If they didn't and wind up losing because of this it's on them and they should sue their lawyers for dropping the ball. When you're a superstar dealing with millions of dollars your advisers are supposed to be on top of stuff like this, laws change all the time and I remember now there was lots of talk in the musical press about how the old law needed updating.
I'm a big of a geek and I will actually read court cases sometimes and I read this one including the background on the judge. I didn't know that judges in these cases including this one has a degree in music, is a classical player himself and is a historian. So he's pretty knowledgeable in his own right. He was also smart enough to switch to law and not depend on music for his lifetime income...
Unfortunately I understand that this kind of thing happens all the time and it's called good luck suing an attorney. Most musicians who make it come from very humble roots, have no idea about big finance and just have fun with their lives without a care in the world, just like many pro athletes. They fall into the trap of bad advice, getting ripped off by cheating managers and all that. I really hope this works out for them but if this is what the law says well, that's probably it then.
Sometimes judges can change what appears clear in the text by looking at what Congress was debating at the time the law was passed and try to rule based on the INTENT of Congress rather than specifically what the statute says. This is where all the arguments come from talking about "activist judges". That can be good or bad depending on who's ox is getting gored.
Bob
Wow - this article is extremely informative and there's some good discussion going on here. I'm really intrigued to see how it'll all play out.
Look at this statement by the author, as he expresses a dissenting opinion:
**"Countless unregistered bits of song—guitar solos, bass lines, horn parts, background vocals—could be sitting out there exposed to unscrupulous financial exploitation. Ring tones, TV ads, film soundtracks—or even entire new songs—could be made and sold from these orphaned riffs."**
I have a song with a bass line that starts like this:
Cmaj ( C - E - G - E) X2
Fmaj ( F - A - C - A ) X1
Cmaj ( C - E - G - E) X1
I think I might be in violation here. Does anyone know if it is copyrighted?
If not, I think I'd like to copyright it, now.
I did a bit of digging and found out that sound recordings were added to copyright on 1/1/72 meaning all the solo's and licks should be covered from that point on assuming the artist submitted the recordings as a new copyright. If they didn't do that them maybe my earlier comment is still valid, they're SOL unless of course a court sees it differently.
Also, it seems to me that anyone from that era should be checking that out now. If they find that was not done, nothing's stopping them from submitting those recordings now. If nobody else has done that then they're covered from this point on, right? Or is it not possible to get a sound recording copyright on material that's 47 years old?
Bob