Thanks for posting that Noel. Very interesting indeed. Am I the only one here who thinks that we should just share? What nonsense is all this? Music is for everyone. I was watching The Lion Share on Netflix the other day about The Lion Sleeps Tonight. I don’t know... maybe it is just me.. but who in their right mind thinks that they can “own” music. Maybe I would have a different view if one of Katie Perry’s songs sounded like one of mine
LyricLab A.I assisted chords and lyric app. Export lyrics and import directly into Band-in-a-Box 2024. https://lyriclab.net Play-along with songs you know and love, download SGU files https://playiit.com/
Joanne, you might indeed think differently if your living depended on songwriting. I’ve been fortunate that I rarely needed to make a living by music, but in six decades of professional playing and writing I’ve always acted in a way that preserved the rights and opportunities of those who do make a living. I will not give away what others need to charge for. The exception is donating my services for a charity. But for everything else, I respect that music is a business.
In these cases of music plagiarism, I feel the decision must be made by musically-knowledgeable judges in a bench trial, never by juries of average folks.
BIAB 2024 Win Audiophile. Software: Studio One 6.5 Pro, Swam horns, Acoustica-7, Notion 6; Win 11 Home. Hardware: Intel i9, 32 Gb; Roland Integra-7, Presonus Studio 192, Presonus Faderport 8, Royer 121, Adam Sub8 & Neumann 120 monitors
................... In these cases of music plagiarism, I feel the decision must be made by musically-knowledgeable judges in a bench trial, never by juries of average folks.
I completely agree.
Me, it's not about how many times you fail, it's about how many times you get back up. Cop, that's not how field sobriety tests work.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
This is very dangerous indeed. There are no similarities between those two pieces of music other than the language of music itself. The contested form has been used for centuries and certainly is in the public domain.
It is like Hemingway's heirs suing the Ziggy cartoonist for using the some of the same words as "Old Man & The Sea".
I hope Ms. Perry appeals and wins and collects her legal fees.
Ever since the also very wrong "Blurred Lines" decision, it seems like open season for gold diggers via the legal system.
The reason for the copyright laws is so that the plagiarizer couldn't copy another authors work and thus diminish the sales of the original work. I can't see how this tune by Ms. Perry stole one penny of profit from the original.
This is not justice, it's theft via the legal system.
The "Christian" rapper called Flame is not acting very Christ-Like - Thou shalt not steal.
But then it's a lot easier to call yourself a Christian than to act Christ-like
Always striving to act Christ-Like is something the nuns in parochial school drummed into our heads on a daily basis for all the years I was in Catholic school.
Speaking as someone who makes a living writing songs, this is a horrible ruling and dangerous precedent. It opens up a Pandora's Box where copyright infringement suits can become a cottage industry (regardless of the legitimacy of the claim). The average cost to the defendant in these type of cases, just to have a frivolous suit thrown out, is $30,000. Again, that's $30k of expense to the songwriter/publisher even if the claim is completely invalid. The cost can skyrocket if it gets litigated further.
I personally believe this is one instance where a trial by jury is the wrong way to go. Copyright infringement decisions should be rendered by individuals who are qualified to make decisions based on true musical similarity (or lack of), not arbitrary folks off the street.
As to the notion that all music should be "shared" or "free", there are a myriad of reasons why that makes no sense, much less wouldn't work in the real world. By that logic, I should be able to walk into the Louvre, take the Mona Lisa off the wall, and bring it home with me. The rights of creators are protected in the U.S. by nothing less than the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 8) - "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Virtually all nations have a similar respect for intellectual property rights, and it is a huge component of international commerce - while it can be argued that it may not be a good thing, it is a fact of life, and there would be significant balance of trade issues that would erupt if IP such as music were to made free for all.
Count me on the side of protecting intellectual property. I have never made a nickel from any of my songs, but I worked hard on them. They are mine and they mean a lot to me. They all have something special that is a part of me. I will never concede that anyone has the right to use them without my permission.
I've had a copyright court cases thread running on the Keyboard Corner forum and posted this one last week. For some reason I forgot to post it here. Rick Beato has the best analysis I've seen so far. He's a solid musician and plays parts of both songs on his guitar and keyboard to illustrate his points.
Who knows why the jury did what they did. In court it's all about the quality of the evidence and witnesses. Maybe she came off snotty and arrogant. Maybe her musicologist didn't explain this as clearly as Beato did. Whatever, this verdict needs to be overturned.
As for refusing to have a jury trial, that's illegal. People have the absolute right to a jury trial and that's not changing so you have to have your act together or this happens.
I heard about this, and it's absolutely infuriating. It really makes it daunting for songwriters trying to thrive when something like this is reason enough to be sued. It's gone too far.
I understand the need to protect intellectual property. We live in a world where people will circulate your entire portfolio of songs for free as soon as you publish. This is out of control, and nobody seems to be doing much about it.
But heaven forbid your own original song includes a short fragment from somebody else's song. That breach of judgement could cost you millions.
Where do you draw the line between the elements of music and the creations we build from them? That's what needs to be defined. Until there is a clear definition of exactly what part of an idea can be owned exclusively, lawyers will continue to push the boundaries until there's no room left for anyone to dare to write a song.
We all thought we've known that for like forever. Melody and lyrics AND, song specific "licks" that can be considered part of a melody. My favorite example of that is the Stones Satisfaction. Everybody in the world who cares knows that intro lick and it runs throughout the song. Nobody with half a brain would dare to use that in some other song.
BUT, getting away from the obvious ones, where do you draw the line? Is some one bar phrase or lick something like Satisfaction or is it simply an open source part of a song construction kit? That's what this case is about and to me the jury sure got it wrong but the question is why did they get it wrong? What was presented to them? What were the jury instructions from the judge? Rules of evidence are very specific in any court.
The appeal should be very interesting. If she loses the appeal I would take it to the Supreme Court. The problem there is they only accept a very few cases. Another problem is this is rap and pop stuff. Pretty much anybody over the age of 50 or so can't stand to listen to it. I can see judges and juries simply shutting their ears to it and going yeah, whatever who cares about this crap. They don't want to hear about the creativity that went into it, they think it's a joke. Or at least most probably.
There are a lot of songwriter/publisher related disputes that are handled through arbitration. The number of infringement cases that actually go to court is small, usually either when both parties are adamant in their position beyond the point of common sense, or the more frequent frivolous cases, where you're (quite frankly) dealing with nut jobs. I had a guy try to sue me a few years back because we had written the same title. His copyright date was 2006, and I got the "you stole my song" letters. I pointed out that MY song was not only written/copyrighted in 1994, it had been on a 1999 Trace Adkins album. His reply was "well you must've known I was planning on writing it". Some people just can't be reasoned with. Conversely, I know of a LOT of legitimate infringements that were handled privately, that were never made public. The infringing writer basically had an "oh crap!" moment, approached the original creator and said "let me make this right". Most of the cases you read about are the gray area cases, or the ones such as I described earlier above.
Going to trial would be the last thing I would ever want to do, regardless of which side of the infringement I happened to be on. It's expensive, stressful, and the only ones who come out ahead are the lawyers.
I would prefer to see a mandatory arbitration process implemented - going to court would be a last resort instead of step one. Not realistic maybe, but if courts/juries continue to get it wrong, something is going to have to be adjusted.
at this rate its just a matter of time until lawsuits will arise because of sentence fragments. (My song includes the phrase "In a pair of jeans", so you can't use that phrase, I own it.)
At first look, I'd say that's the functional equivalent of what happened in the case cited above... but there are more words than notes, so the number of possible note combinations is more limited than the number of possible word combinations... which makes it even more ridiculous to claim ownership of a series of notes.
at this rate its just a matter of time until lawsuits will arise because of sentence fragments. (My song includes the phrase "In a pair of jeans", so you can't use that phrase, I own it.)
At first look, I'd say that's the functional equivalent of what happened in the case cited above... but there are more words than notes, so the number of possible note combinations is more limited than the number of possible word combinations... which makes it even more ridiculous to claim ownership of a series of notes.
FYI - I just copyrighted the notes A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. I now have the right to sue anyone who uses these notes and/or and variation of said notes such as sharps or flats.
To quote my friend "which makes it even more ridiculous to claim ownership of a series of notes." Lawyers are going to kill the music industry if this keeps up. Unfortunately with the jury selection process in this country as it is now you can bet that no one with any music knowledge will be on a jury for a trial like that.
Me, it's not about how many times you fail, it's about how many times you get back up. Cop, that's not how field sobriety tests work.
64 bit Win 10 Pro, the latest BiaB/RB, Roland Octa-Capture audio interface, a ton of software/hardware
The jury selection process is not unlimited. I've been as far as to be in the jury box three times. Jury selection can take some time like a day or two with lots of questions from both sides. In two of them one side simply dismissed me while the third one I stayed. They get six dismissals each for no reason but after that if they want to dismiss a juror they have to explain the reason to the judge so it should even out for both sides. This was state court but I think federal court is the same.
As for arbitration I've was involved in one of those as well. Arbitration is private and is set up by both parties signing a voluntary contract. In my case it was about selling a franchise business where I had been an advisor on the sale and the franchise contract contained an arbitration clause. Both sides had to sign it or no sale. I was impressed because the arbitrator was a Superior Court judge and she had to follow the rules of arbitration set by the state. It may not be full court but there are still strict rules of evidence the arbitrator must decide on.
In something like a copyright case who would be required to sign a contract with an arbitration clause in it? Certainly not the person who thinks he's been ripped off. An artist could have that in a contract with a record company but that has nothing to do with the person who decides to sue you. And, just wanting to sue you doesn't mean he gets to do it. He has to first convince a judge he has a case and that's not easy and certainly not automatic. Court dockets are full.
The jury selection process is not unlimited. ... They get six dismissals each for no reason but after that if they want to dismiss a juror they have to explain the reason to the judge so it should even out for both sides.
Jurors take an oath to decide a case solely on the basis of the evidence presented in court.
Do you have any sort of domain knowledge beyond a layman that's relevant to the evidence? That literally means you can - and should be - dismissed for cause.
Of course, the end result is that we get decisions that fly in the face of logic... because we don't see the evidence tabla rasa.
The U.S. Copyright office has oversight over copyrights ... obviously. I don't see why it would be impossible or impractical to have copyright-related matters directed to the copyright office first. There, an arbitration panel of TRUE experts would determine if there was a valid claim and/or case. The two parties could then either settle or go to trial. This, by the way, is in many ways similar to the way employment issue are handled in the state of TN (I can't speak for other states). In TN, if you have a legal claim against your employer, it goes to the state employment commission first. They investigate, and if they determine you have a valid complaint, it moves forward - or it is dismissed. You are not allowed to go straight to court, by law.
Songwriters are treated differently in the eyes of the law anyway. Songwriter royalties are the only income stream in U.S. dictated by the Federal government. We are not allowed to negotiate mechanical or performance royalties, even if our cost of business increases or if the marketplace warrants an increase. The mechanical (sales) rate is set by a panel of 3 Federal judges (the Copyright Royalty Board) who meet every 5 years to review rates. The original mechanical rate was 2 cents, set in 1909. It is currently 9.1 cents. Performance royalties, paid to writers/publishers by performing rights organizations (BMI, ASCAP, SESAC). The two largest, BMI and ASCAP, have been under consent decrees dating back to WWII requiring them to go to rate court to have their royalty rates set. Songwriters are under a compulsory license, which means even if I disagree with the amount of money I'm to be paid, I am forced to grant the license if it meets the criteria set by the Federal government. To add insult to injury, most royalty income on a given song comes in one year. Unlike other creators such as book authors, songwriters are not allowed to use income averaging to spread the tax liability over a number of years, which typically throws a songwriter into a near-50% tax bracket.
I've been involved for almost two decades in working with Congress and the Copyright office from matters ranging from capital gains taxes on song catalog sales, to the Music Modernization Act, piracy, and pretty much everything else under the sun regarding songwriting issues. I can state for a fact that vast majority of copyright infringement claims are frivolous or unwarranted. If an arbitration-like panel did nothing else but clear these out, it would be worth it to creators.
The problem with the "jury of your peers" concept as it applies to copyright infringement is this: in the event of a trial, the plaintiff has to prove two things. 1, access to their work by the defendant, and 2) musical similarity. Therein lies the rub - juries shouldn't be put in the position of determining musical similarity. The so-called musicolgists who are brought it as "expert witnesses" in infringement cases are for all intents and purposes just hired guns who testify in favor of whomever hired them.
I'm a fierce defender of intellectual property rights. I believe if your work is genuinely infringed upon, you should have recourse. I don't believe, and I would submit that current events show, the current process is either fair or unbiased, and far too often justice is not even remotely served. I'm familiar with dozens of cases that started out with the plaintiff's attorney saying, in effect, my poor struggling client was ripped off by the greedy, rich songwriter(s) who stole his song. Even if that is complete and utter BS, it's hard to get a jury to discount it, because they don't have a clue about either the music business or copyright law. I've had a U.S. senator tell me that he had read through information on advanced satellite reconnoissance technology that was easier to understand than copyright law.
I could make a pretty strong argument that tort reform is needed across the board in the justice system, but I can think of nowhere it is needed more desperately than in cases regarding infringement.
I stumbled on Adam's videos a couple of days ago before seeing this thread, we are correct to be alarmed. It will be interesting to see if cases such as these make it to the ultimate authority, SCOTUS. I imagine they ultimately will.
Janet
Last edited by jazzi; 08/07/1901:09 PM.
Janet Stevenson
BIAB 2019 Win/Finale v25/Audacity Yamaha Tyros 4/Yamaha P-115/Pianodisc Player Piano
<...snip...> Conversely, I know of a LOT of legitimate infringements that were handled privately, that were never made public. The infringing writer basically had an "oh crap!" moment, approached the original creator and said "let me make this right". <...>
About 10 years ago I was fooling around on the flute and wrote a melody. Being more of an improvisor than a song writer I never did anything with it other than messing around with it as a warm up to a practice session.
This went on for a year or so.
Then one day I bought a CD of an LP I had as a boy, "Time Further Out" by The Dave Brubeck Quartet. It's playing along, and all of a sudden, there was my song!!! Well there was what I thought I had written but merely remembered but forgot that I had heard it before. I was glad I never fleshed it out and tried to write an actual song out of that melody.
It's easy to do something like that.
If I unconsciously ripped off someone else's song, I would want to make it right without going to court.
I can't believe that I haven't heard about this yet. The guy who made the video definitely sets an interesting point right from the beginning with all the examples he provided.
Rick Beato sees this as the scam it is, JazzMammal. Now, given that all rap music sounds the same, what kinds of headaches do you suppose these guys are opening up for themselves?
About 10 years ago I was fooling around on the flute and wrote a melody. Being more of an improvisor than a song writer I never did anything with it other than messing around with it as a warm up to a practice session.
This went on for a year or so.
Then one day I bought a CD of an LP I had as a boy, "Time Further Out" by The Dave Brubeck Quartet. It's playing along, and all of a sudden, there was my song!!! Well there was what I thought I had written but merely remembered but forgot that I had heard it before. I was glad I never fleshed it out and tried to write an actual song out of that melody.
It's easy to do something like that.
Very easy to unconsciously adapt a pattern from memory.
Some time ago here on the user showcase, a Japanese song writer posted a song that sounded eerily like the melody of a well-known Christmas carol. Not being a Christian, he didn't have a conscious awareness of the song, so it didn't set off any alarms. But, given the pervasiveness of Christmas carols, he had evidently heard the carol at some point and it stuck with him. When it was pointed out to him, he changed the melody. But I have to wonder if it would even matter since the song in question was probably in the public domain.
Lady Gaga’s song “Shallow” earned the Grammy-winning singer-songwriter her first Academy Award. The song, featured in the 2018 film A Star Is Born, is now the subject of a multi-million-dollar lawsuit. Steve Rosen, an until-now-unknown songwriter claims Gaga stole a three-note progression from his 2012 song “Almost.” Through his lawyer, Mark D. Shirian, he has filed suit for copyright infringement and damages in the “millions and millions” of dollars. Lady Gaga and her lawyer have denounced the suit as a “brazen shakedown” and have indicated that they will fight it “vigorously.”
This one will hopefully get tossed. If not, it'll be open season for infringement suits. A lot of my peers (and most likely myself) will simply quit writing if this continues to escalate. The paltry amount of money to be made from writing will become simply not worth the risk of getting sued.
This one will hopefully get tossed. If not, it'll be open season for infringement suits. A lot of my peers (and most likely myself) will simply quit writing if this continues to escalate. The paltry amount of money to be made from writing will become simply not worth the risk of getting sued.
They key words here: "paltry amount of money". Lawsuits gravitate toward LARGE amounts of money. If you never make it, the lawyers can't take it.
Pat, It affects everyone who makes their living writing songs, including me. The perception of how much money songwriters make is grossly exaggerated. Often the assumption is that the artist writes their own material (very often the case these days, not so much in the past). The lawsuits can, and will, be filed regardless of the amount of actual income the song makes - because the plaintiffs typically don't have a clue how much money is actually in play.
I've been threatened with lawsuits over album cuts, and that was back in the day when you made pretty good money off of those. Fortunately I had my paperwork in order to the point where they went away, but this precedent is dangerous and makes everyone who has ever had a song recorded potentially a defendant.
I had a Patty Loveless cut a number of years ago that I wrote by myself, an album cut. I made less than $300. Why would I, or any other writer, risk getting sued for that kind of money? As I said somewhere else, the average legal expense incurred just to get a frivolous infringement claim thrown out is $30,000 - the cost skyrockets if the claim is determined to have merit. I had a co-writing appointment just this week with a hall of fame songwriter who told me he was going to retire because of the Katy Perry case. He said it's just not worth the risk of getting sued this late in life.
It's going to have a serious and dramatic effect on the profession of songwriting.
I've been involved for almost two decades in working with Congress and the Copyright office from matters ranging from capital gains taxes on song catalog sales, to the Music Modernization Act, piracy, and pretty much everything else under the sun regarding songwriting issues.
Wow, Roger very impressive. I've been reading about this sort of thing for years but you are by far the best informed of anyone I've virtually run into online. Considering how glacial getting relatively obscure new legislation passed is, what do you think the chances are of getting new laws passed on this? Take your thoughts on arbitration as one example. That by itself would require new legislation, no?
I'm also interested in your comment about income averaging regarding songwriters, authors, etc. I'm an Enrolled Agent licensed to represent people before the IRS. Is there an IRC section that talks about that because that would be an exception to the law that normally applies stating that individuals cannot income average. Or, are you simply talking about changing the law or a rule that says the payors of the monies do not have to pay it all out in the first year?
Ed, your comment about all rap sounding the same is not close to being correct. I'm assuming (could be wrong of course) it's only because you can't stand it, never listen to it and could care less about it. I don't like it either but I have listened very critically to some of it and I've watched several videos done by famous producers explaining how it's done. I do this because rap is huge, it took over the entire musical landscape for over 20 years and I wanted to have some small understanding of it. There are tons of different styles of rap and just as many subtle things going with the background music and rhythms as there is in any other style of music.
re: income averaging....songwriters were at one time allowed to do so - there are still a few entities allowed to use income averaging (farmers for example). The problem is that if you have a song recorded, the majority of the royalties are paid in a 1 year period. That means you could go from making $20,000 one year to $275k the next, and then back down to around $30k the next. Lump on self-employment tax, plus the higher tax bracket, and you can pay as much as 49% of the royalties in taxes in the big year. It was a much more fair system to allow that tax liability to be averaged and spread across a few years (I think it was five, I don't recall exactly). I was under the impression that book authors were still allowed to do so, but maybe I'm incorrect on that.
I'm of the opinion that the arbitration process I mentioned could happen if the political stars align correctly. The MMA that was passed is a hybrid of a bill we've been trying to get through for over a decade. Once all the pieces fell in place, it happened relatively quickly.
Part of the issue that the music industry has in DC is our own internal bickering and self-serving interests have made politicians leery of sticking their necks out too far on any piece of legislation that pertains to it, unless their is industry-wide consensus for it. That type of consensus is oft times impossible to get - what is good for songwriters may not be good for publishers, or what is good for songwriter/publishers may not be good for record labels, which may not be good for streaming services, etc.
The good thing, at least for the prospects of an arbitration process, is that nobody in the music industry likes litigation, especially when it's a frivolous claim. So I don't suspect there would be any industry opposition to it, which gives it a better shot than it would otherwise have.
You are absolutely correct about the glacial speed of getting legislation passed. A number of years ago we were able to get a correction made to the capital gains tax code. Songwriters were being unfairly taxed when selling their publishing shares of their works - instead of it being a property sale, taxed at the capital gains tax rate, it was treated as standard income and writers had to pay regular income tax on it. It was a pretty obvious mistake and there was no opposition in DC about changing it. It still took 7 years to get it done.
Not being a songwriter of any importance, but being a musician who plays songs in ASCAP dues paying venues, I see this lawsuit copyright development as theft. The fact that in the Katy Perry case it is a so-called Christian musician makes it even more reprehensible.
Since I was a child, I have made my living thanks to songwriters. In school it was Dvorak, Beethoven, and their peers, after that it was the Brill Building and other pop composers, then when I went to the retirement crowd it was Gershwin, Porter, Ellington, and the like, and although I'm still in the retirement end of the business, it has morphed back to Brill Building and the baby boomer pop composers.
Songwriters should be compensated for their work, if not, we won't have professional songwriters and all the wonderful songs I've played by people like Otis Blackwell, Ellie Greenwich & Jeff Barry, Gerry Goffin & Carole King, Neil Sedaka & Howard Greenfield, Cole Porter, Duke Ellington, and so many others just wouldn't be around to delight me and my audiences.
For one songwriter to steal from another with a frivolous lawsuit is just the lowest of the low.
Bob: I gave rap a listen, years back. I was initially captivated by the earthy tonality. I quit listening to it mainly due to conflicts with the content. I couldn't expect people to block out some of the things being said. Now, if you happen to be an aficionado, which I take it, you are not, you would no doubt hear many intricate voices and rhythms. To most people, though, it all sounds the same. One reason for that is, especially at first, most rap was produced by a tiny handful of producers. I've forgotten the names and numbers, though at one time I might have named them. The backing tracks were easy for performers to come by, pretty much standard loops, the richness of textures resulting in much the same way as do drum circle sounds. My guess is that if you looked into it, you'd find a dozen or so standard tracks, the excitement being produced by the mix. ----------------------------- The music business has been shaken up, caught people off guard. Many of them have become desperate. A well known modus operendi among lawyers of the shyster variety is to build portfolios of precedents with frivolous and/or outlandish claims before "sympathetic" judges. The pornographers made a science of this in the 60's. It looks like that is going on, here. It sounds like Lady Gaga's lawyer called it what it is, "a brazen shakedown." Lady Gaga has the money (and the expertise) to fight them, but that is little consolation to the smaller operations, which are and always have been the bread and butter of the rainmakers and ambulance chasers; meaning, the little guy who hasn't much choice but to settle. Remember, ASCAP was visiting open mikes in coffee shops. These suits are, of course, a corruption of the original intent of copyright, which was to discourage copycats from pillaging book runs, a scheme that threatened to shut down publishing in the 1600's, virtually since Gutenberg's invention. The lawyers suing Lady Gaga will lose, but they don't care. They have their sights on bigger, easier, prey. Very strange that the Christian artists should find themselves on the chopping block.
To most people, though, it all sounds the same. One reason for that is, especially at first, most rap was produced by a tiny handful of producers.
Yes, 25 years ago Ed. Done any critical listening lately, meaning the last 15 years? Of course it sounds the same to you in the same way the blues sounds the same, old 50's rock and roll sounds the same, classic country sounds the same. What? Whaddya you mean Bob? Johnny Cash sounds nothing like Willie Nelson, BB King sounds nothing like Albert King, Buddy Holly sounds nothing like Chuck Berry, man!!
Of course they don't because you grew up with it, knew all the players, knew all the band members, watched all the TV shows, etc. etc. You were young, all your friends were into all the same stuff, it seeped into your bones, it was part of the culture you grew up in. That's why people in their 40's now have little clue about the artists I just mentioned. They're pretty much rap/EDM fans and can list all the same things about their favorite artists. To them we're just a couple of old farts who don't have a clue.
Anyway, I agree with your point about shyster lawyers.
Add updated printing options, enhanced tracks settings, smoother use of MGU and SGU (BB files) within PowerTracks, and more with the latest PowerTracks Pro Audio 2024 update!
Download and install this to your RealBand 2024 for updated print options, streamlined loading and saving of .SGU & MGU (BB) files, and to add a number of program adjustments that address user-reported bugs and concerns.
Did you know... not only can you download your Band-in-a-Box® Pro, MegaPAK, or PlusPAK purchase - you can also choose to add a flash drive backup copy with the installation files for only $15? It even comes with a Band-in-a-Box® keychain!
For the larger Band-in-a-Box® packages (UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, Audiophile Edition), the hard drive backup copy is available for only $25. This will include a preinstalled and ready to use program, along with your installation files.
Backup copies are offered during the checkout process on our website.
Already purchased your e-delivery version, and now you wish you had a backup copy? It's not too late! If your purchase was for the current version of Band-in-a-Box®, you can still reach out to our team directly to place your backup copy order!
Note: the Band-in-a-Box® keychain is only included with flash drive backup copies, and cannot be purchased separately.
Handy flash drive tip: Always try plugging in a USB device the wrong way first? If your flash drive (or other USB plug) doesn't have a symbol to indicate which way is up, look for the side with a seam on the metal connector (it only has a line across one side) - that's the side that either faces down or to the left, depending on your port placement.
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows® Today!
Update your Band-in-a-Box® 2024 for Windows for free with build 1111!
With this update, there's more control when saving images from the Print Preview window, we've added defaults to the MultiPicker for sorting and font size, updated printing options, updated RealTracks and other content, and addressed user-reported issues with the StylePicker, MIDI Soloists, key signature changes, and more!
A few excerpts:
"The Tracks view is possibly the single most powerful addition in 2024 and opens up a new way to edit and generate accompaniments. Combined with the new MultiPicker Library Window, it makes BIAB nearly perfect as an 'intelligent' composer/arranger program."
"MIDI SuperTracks partial generation showing six variations – each time the section is generated it can be instantly auditioned, re-generated or backed out to a previous generation – and you can do this with any track type. This is MAJOR! This takes musical experimentation and honing an arrangement to a new level, and faster than ever."
"Band in a Box continues to be an expansive musical tool-set for both novice and experienced musicians to experiment, compose, arrange and mix songs, as well as an extensive educational resource. It is huge, with hundreds of functions, more than any one person is likely to ever use. Yet, so is any DAW that I have used. BIAB can do some things that no DAW does, and this year BIAB has more DAW-like functions than ever."
Convenient Ways to Listen to Band-in-a-Box® Songs Created by Program Users!
The User Showcase Forum is an excellent place to share your Band-in-a-Box® songs and listen to songs other program users are creating!
There are other places you can listen to these songs too! Visit our User Showcase page to sort by genre, artist (forum name), song title, and date - each listing will direct you to the forum post for that song.
If you'd rather listen to these songs in one place, head to our Band-in-a-Box® Radio, where you'll have the option to select the genre playlist for your listening pleasure. This page has SoundCloud built in, so it won't redirect you. We've also added the link to the Artists SoundCloud page here, and a link to their forum post.
We hope you find some inspiration from this amazing collection of User Showcase Songs!
Our User Showcase Forum receives more than 50 posts per day, with people sharing their Band-in-a-Box songs and providing feedback for other songs posted.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you over the phone. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday, and 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST Saturday. We are closed Sunday. You can also send us your questions via email.
One of our representatives will be happy to help you on our Live Chat or by email. Our hours of operation are from
6:00AM to 6:00PM PST (GMT -8) Monday thru Friday; 8:00AM to 4:00PM PST (GMT -8) Saturday; Closed Sunday.
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean