Copyright
“It’s totally cool if I only use 00:30 seconds- that’s not infringement”
Aug 26th
This is a phrase I hear all too often. For some reason, this has been ingrained into our heads throughout the years… The idea that doing something wrong is fine if you do less of something that is wrong is preposterous to me. That is like thinking that speeding in your car is OK if you only go 10 miles over the limit rather than 15… speeding is speeding and copyright infringement is copyright infringement.
The proper legal term for this is “de minimis” use. Or in the long form latin, “de minimis non curat lex” -meaning the law does not care about trivial things. This is in fact a common defense to a law suit (much like it’s more overused big brother Fair Use). This is not a RIGHT… but a DEFENSE. There is a big difference in these two words.
De Minimis VS Infringement
photocopying a cartoon and putting it on the fridge = de minimis
photocopying a cartoon and placing it in an advertisement or displaying it publicly even in a very trivial way= infringement
So how does this apply to musical recordings…? The fact is, the de minimis rule does NOT apply to sound recordings. As decided by the Sixth Circuit court of appeals in Bridgeport Music Inc. VS Dimension Films. The use of any part of a sound recording in sampling or otherwise is infringement. Whether you agree or not, this is in fact the law now.
For more information on this and other topics in copyright infringement check out this page
Bottom line is- if you are going to use music in any length, way , or form- Pay the owner of the intellectual property.
Piracy as it affects “serious” songwriters and composers
Jul 1st
Recently after reading the blog of my friend, John Mackey (one of the most talented young composers for band I have ever known) I learned of the plight that so many composers and songwriters go through facing internet piracy. So often, because of the size and bulldog tactics of the R.I.A.A. we think of piracy only in terms of lost CD sales and missing download revenue. There is an entirely different side of the coin. The writers and composers of the music contained therein are also missing their monies derived from these sales… this is a quite unfortunate by-product of the loss of recorded music sales. Even more disturbing though is the growth of sheet music “sharing” sites that facilitate the piracy of their actual written work. Not being a composer or publisher myself, this is an area of the business I hadn’t thought of in terms of piracy, but it deserves equal ground with the chest pounding and lawsuit wielding recorded music battle for legal downloads and sales.
John mentioned a composer he likes named Jason Robert Brown. I personally had not heard of him, but that rarely means much in the musical world. After going to Jason’s blog, I find a most fascinating account of his back and forth with an infringer! Imagine that, rather than suing her… he spoke to her… tried to educate her… (some people are beyond education). This was a really unique approach to dealing with piracy. tackling it one person at a time. Imagine if Metallica had called on a few pirates back in 2002… WOW what a news story that would have been… anyways I digress. I continued reading the rest of this back and forth and becomes quickly apparent that she might be beyond education… the point though is he reached out to her and a number of other infringers and simply explained that he makes a living off of his music and politely asked them to stop sharing… and many of them did!!!! Reading his story also led me to his wife’s blog. She is fighting the same fight as a composer and from what I can tell has been a bit more outspoken on the subject. I think this is GREAT. More composers need to get involved in “the good fight”. I have said for years but educating the general public is the key to thwarting this habit of stealing our intellectual property.
To do my part, I have done some searching and below is a list of LEGAL / PAID download sites to acquire sheet music. Do your part.
What is Sound Exchange?
Dec 1st
Very good question. Most of us know Sound Exchange is the digital PRO created to deal with royalties generated over the internet and through digital music devices, however it is still quite vague to a vast majority of the musicians and writers what EXACTLY Sound Exchange does.
Thanks to Youtube, these questions can now be answered in 2:26 .
Enjoy
Digital Music News’ Paul Resnikoff on new advances in music composition and the challanges they pose to traditional copyright interpretation
Oct 1st
As I was reading my daily dose of Digital Music News I stumbled upon this provocative adage to copyright and one challenge that we face moving ahead thanks to the advances of a California professor’s new composition software. This is but one point of the idiosyncrasy of composing a law in real time to keep up with our technological advances AND protect intellectual property owners… This is an uphill climb and is all but impossible to keep up with despite the CRB and copyright office’s best attempts. Now without further ado … Paul Resnikoff…
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What ‘Sounds Like’ Even More Disruption Ahead…
Despite the complicated debates, copyright infringement is essentially simple concept. A piece of intellectual property is owned by one party, and its unauthorized use by a third party is subject to penalty. That is, in theory – ‘casual’ piracy happens billions of times monthly, and plenty of debates arise over ownership (orphan works, splits, other disputes), or intent (Satriani v. Coldplay, for example).
That just scratches the surface, and volumes of literature are dedicated to the subject. Moreover, the body of law is being interpreted and created in real time. But outside of those mainline discussions, plenty of smart workarounds exist for those unable or disinterested in direct, expensive licensing processes. And it’s not infringement, as long as proper statutory publishing rates are paid.
Jump into a karaoke bar, and sing-a-longs frequently feature generic video scenes, lyrics and underlying (ie, publishing) tracks – not the recordings themselves. Or, hop onto the iTunes Store, and ‘sounds like’ versions of songs employ similar statutory workarounds. In fact, when Kid Rock withheld his content from iTunes, entrepreneurial studios quickly created sounds-like versions to capture sales from confused fans.
But what happens when a derivative work is created, one that resembles the original but is different? In pop music, copycat artists and songs happen all of the time, and they are perfectly legal. But as technology becomes more powerful, unique identifiers employed by successful composers can more easily be isolated and replicated.
Just recently, ArsTechnica author Jacqui Cheng profiled a computer-based composition technology called ‘EMI,’ or ‘Emmy,’ a software package created by University of California Santa Cruz professor David Cope. Emily essentially identifies and replicates a number of signatures unique to a particular composer, then creates a derivative work – sounds like Mozart, Beethoven, Cream, whatever. The package has since been succeeded by a more original computer composer called ‘Emily Howell,’ which attempts to move beyond derivative to truly self-generated works.
That seriously challenges the concept that ‘real’ music can only be created by real brains, not computers. But machine-based dissection and creation technology may also become part of the disruptive digital music fabric, and further upend traditional copyright concepts in the process.
American Idol + Ellen Degeneres = FAIL
Sep 11th
Well everyone,
It was announced this week that Ellen would be the new American Idol judge replacing Paula Abdul. No matter how you feel about Paula, it is hard to even infer that Ellen has 1/10th the musical prowess of her predecessor. This coupled with the news I just received of Ellen’s utter disrespect for music and the makers of music through her show’s refusal to pay royalties on the music “featured” on her show tells me that she no more belongs on AI than I do as the King of England.
According to Digital Music News, All four majors have now filed suit demanding that royalties be paid. The show’s producers have denied royalties to the copyright owners because they “did not roll that way.” This pathetic disregard for music, music makers, and copyright law proves to me that she has no place anywhere near this industry.
Her appointment as a judge on American Idol proves to me that the show’s producers are catering to the lowest common denominator, looking for the popular vote and continuing to dumb down this show until it falls into the oblivion. Let’s face it, it has been going down ever since season 1 and with this move it will continue to do so. No offense is meant to Ellen, as I do find her funny enough however she would be better suited alongside “The Hoff” on America’s got talent… save the music judging for musicians.
Okay I’m Done. Happy Weekend Everyone.
PS: Sorry about my laziness in posting lately… my cup overfloweth.
Copyright Law told through a Disney Parody
Jun 24th
Brilliant. Bloody Brilliant.
I know this is quite old, but nonetheless thought I would resserect it. I am finding myself a big fan of the many Copyright VS Fair Use videos out in the interwebs. I may just have to make this a weekly post…
Evan Roth’s “Intellectual Property A$$hole Competition”
May 26th
This is AWESOME!
I just happened across this site and quite obviously, the title sucked me in. Evan Roth, self-proclaimed Bad Ass Mother Fucker is an American artist based out of Hong Kong. His bio states that he has interests in technology, tools of empowerment, open source and popular culture (definately someone I would like to have a beer with). Coolest of all, he is the number one result from a “bad ass mother fucker” google search. Impressive as I would have surely thought it would have been Samuel Jackson or this
So onto the competition. Evan has staged a competition to see who will deliver a cease and desist quicker… an artist who uses pop culture to become abundantly wealthy, or the Associated Press- who claims to own the copyright on the photo (of our president). To fuel the fire, Evan has painted canvas versions of BOTH the inFamous “Hope” poster and the actual picture and is now selling them on his site. I cannot wait to see what the outcome of this is…
Below is a link to the blog as well as the text from the “contest.”
http://evan-roth.com/
Who is the bigger intellectual property asshole? Is it the artist who has amassed a small fortune based on "appropriation" yet still sends cease and desist letters to other artists for appropriating his work? Or is it the largest (and only) US based nationally-oriented news service which fails to recognize "fair use" even when it literally stares them in the face? I have created hand painted canvases of Shepard Fairy's Obama Hope poster, and Mannie Garcia's Associated Press photograph and put them for sale on my website here and here. ..... stay tuned for updates on the winner.
(For those unfamiliar with the Shepard Fairy / Associated Press intellectual property battle over the Obama Hope poster, here is a good place to start.) (via evan-roth.com)
Intellectual Property Asshole Competition: OBEY vs AP
Thanks go to Evan for stirring it up!! At the very least, one could say he is “ballsy.”
Remix: the Movie…
Apr 29th
Nashville Film Festival brought some very interesting films to the Music City… Opening night brought about appearances from the likes of William Shatner, Vincent D’On0frio, Sheryl Crow,William Lee Golden from the Oakridge boys, Mayor Karl Dean, and many others. Although many great films were involved, I must say that one film had a real impact on me.
RiP: a Remix Manifesto is the story of Girl Talk, Lawrence Lessig and the changing culture of shared music, copyright law, fair use and usage of music that benefits artists… In short the gray copyright law is taken to task with this great cinematic piece… best of all IT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE FOR FREE VIEWING, REMIXING, ETC!
I urge anyone interested in this subjectmatter to take a look at this film… it is both entertaining and informative… I am so glad it is available for online viewing…
Viva la Girl Talk
Yo Ho, Yo Ho a Pirate’s Life for me (not really)
Apr 20th
AAARGH!
So just in case you have been under a rock for the last 5 days, the ruling is in… the founders of Pirate Bay have been found guilty in a Swedish court of law. They have all been sentenced to one year in prison and will have to pay approximately $3 Million in damages (after the appeals process- if the ruling stands).
So what now?
The facilitators have been stopped, but what does that mean for all of the users (Pirates) populating Pirate Bay? What does this mean for the bay? Will it suddenly dry up? No. In a word… No. This really means nothing. The Swedish courts have placed their finger in the dyke… they have stopped the spillage for a moment, but the flood waters will remain. The Pirate Bay remains active… servers housed safely outside of Sweden… and the pirates sail on.
There is a lot of debate going on over whether the founders of TPB were injustly convicted… whether the ISPs should be held responsible as well. I think there are a lot of people at fault here including all named previously and in some way, I would love to see them held responsible. However, I am a realist. I understand that the times are changing and our industry needs to find better ways of making a living (outside of suing). Ultimately, the results of the pending appeals will leave a legacy of rulings that will affect the way our courts view file sharing for years to come. The next few years will no doubt be an interesting lot… time will tell.
As a sideline to this story, there has been a recent study stating that “pirates” are 10 times more likely to buy online music than law-abiding non-pirates. The number of participants in the study was rather small (less than2000), but I find it quite interesting and wonder if this is in fact the way it is… according to the comments below the story- the pirates doubt it as well.
stealing intellectual property has never been so easy
Apr 7th
Music Pirate
Last week i was introduced to a couple of websites that are disturbingly good at what they do. Someone innocently emailed them to an industry email list i am on asking for people’s thoughts on their legality. I commented first and was the recipient of a hellstorm of comments from people defending these website’s existence.
The websites: TuneNabber.com and ClipNabber.com are just what they sound like. Tune Nabber allows a user to enter the URL of any streaming audio/video content and “nabbs” it by making a MP3 copy of the audio and making it available for download on your computer. Clip Nabber does the same thing except it actually copies the entire video clip and makes it availablefor download to your computer.
All of my conventional wisdom tells me that both of these are taking content placed in a fixed broadcast format and changing the formatof that content, thus violating the rights of the content owner. Well, my esteemed brethren simply blew up on me when I made the statement “To me, they are clearly facilitating copyright infringement.” Stating that these sites were no different from Tivo, tabbed browsing or even a browser’s “save image as” function in that they simply “time-shifted” the video and/or audio making it possible for a user to watch it at a later date.
I would be fascinated to hear what anyone else has to say on this subject. To me, although it seems like a black and white matter- I do realize that all of copyright land tends to stay in the gray.