View Full Version : should we trade bluegrass concerts for free?
eastcarterman
Aug-10-2006, 9:16pm
so lately there has been an uproar about the ability to trade live bluegrass concerts on the internet for free.
a post by a fiddler from Ohio is what started this and i am interested in what my fellow mandolin community thinks.
the original post (http://thebluegrassblog.com/index.php/archive/trading-live-shows-good-for-our-music/)
the rebuttal, which has prompted more interesting comments (http://thebluegrassblog.com/index.php/archive/trading-live-shows-good-for-our-music-2/)
so is it good for the bluegrass community and artists to be able to freely trade?
JEStanek
Aug-10-2006, 9:54pm
I would say no. As the wishes of artist who did not wish to be taped and shared wouldn't be respected. #If the artist (and the venue) allow taping and sharing that's fine. #If not your ticket to the concert is like riding the Mixer at the state fair, good for one ride and you can tell your friends all about it.
Between websites like this (see the genre sections with CD reviews and notes about up-and-coming artists) artists websites with sound clips (or soundclips on their retailers site) you can get a flavor for a band. #I don't think you need to view a live show to make up your mind. #There are also sites like the Woodsongs show or the Kenedy Center where you can watch shows where the artists knew what the deal was.
File sharing doesn't save our music, tradition, and culture espescially when done against the wishes of the artists.
This is just my opinion and I know taping of shows will stop as soon as "no flash photography during the show" will (a much bigger peeve of mine). #I would like to see how this debate unfolds here.
Jamie
SternART
Aug-10-2006, 10:03pm
It didn't hurt the Grateful Dead.....the same folks that collect live shows are the fans......or fanatics.....music collectors who usually buy the records too & are the folks in the audience. Building a fan base is important, I can certainly see the other side too......but I think getting the music out there is important.
Peakbagr
Aug-10-2006, 10:31pm
Agree completely regarding that it be with the approval of the artist.
So long as you don't set up tripods and block the view or interfere with the enjoyment of others, what does it matter what the venue thinks? If an artist or band allows recording, why should anyone care what the venue feels if you're recording with a small recorder in your lap? Not looking to make an issue, but don't understand. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
MartinD_GibsonA
Aug-10-2006, 10:34pm
I think getting the music out there is important
You're right, it is ... but it's not NEARLY as important as respecting the wishes of the artist(s) or -- more to the point -- the festival promoter. #They OWN the rights to the performances, and unless they give their permission, sharing concert performances is just stealing. #What is that people don't get about this?
Don Smith
mandroid
Aug-11-2006, 12:35am
Seems like doing #public domain material is a grey area,
the songs are kind of fair game to share with posterity,
thats how we get to learn them.
adgefan
Aug-11-2006, 4:34am
Living in the UK it is rare for me to ever see a US bluegrass band live or hear them on the radio. The internet is the only way for me to discover new bands in this genre. As long as the recordings are made and shared with the appropriate permission there is surely no problem.
Whilst the initial post makes some good points, the argument is ruined by naming bluegrassbox.com as a problem site. As far as I am aware, bluegrassbox always made sure they had permission to host shows and immediately withdrew those that were in any way questionable.
It's a great site that has introduced me to all sorts of artists which has led me to buy their commercial recordings and/or go to their concerts. I also view it as a sort of museum - an archive of historically important performances that would otherwise be lost.
Now the site seems to be dead. I sincerely hope this is just a temporary technical glitch and not related to this debate.
GeoMandoAlex
Aug-11-2006, 5:47am
Taping a show if the artist and the venue have no objection is very acceptable. The Grateful Dead had reserved a section in front of their soundboard that was the only place you could record a show. This section was considered the "Tapers section" and you needed a ticket to get you into that section. I know Bela Fleck does not mind and leaves it up to the venue to decide. He only asks that you not block the view of people behind you trying to watch and listen to his show. He also does not mind dancing (just go to the back or to the sides to not block the view. AKUS does not allow taping of their shows, but from what I understand, it's the record label that does not permit recording.
It was Jerry Garcia's bluegrass influence that allowed the recording of Gratedful Dead shows.
arbarnhart
Aug-11-2006, 6:56am
I really don't understand the debate. We are not talking about piracy; that's clearly wrong. We're talking about trading recordings made legally for no profit. Is the issue whether sites should facilitate it because it can be used for piracy? Trucks can be used to transport contrband and stolen goods; should we end truckig? Or do you think artists shouldn't be allowed to let people tape and trade freely because others are trying to make a living by selling their music? I listen to a lot of freely available stuff and do tend to purchase theings I have become familiar with.
eastcarterman
Aug-11-2006, 7:12am
Megan Lynch's position is that if we are able to trade live concerts for free, we wont buy any merchandise(cd's concert tickets), and that the musicians will suffer monetarily.
she also mentions that the songwriters are losing money because the songs the write are being traded around without them getting compensation other than the initial roaylty paid by the band.
i, for one, have heard a new song through a downloaded concert, wondered who the songwriter is, then purchased MORE music written by that songwriter because i like his/her songs!
Sounds to me like this Meagan person just doesn't like her job.
Don.
Greyfox does the FM broadcast so everybody at their campsites can still isten to the festival. For bluegrass musicians, it can only help. This kinda falls in the same category as duping a CD for somebody which can be a good thing for artist in this small knit bluegrass community. I gave a duped CD of XXXXX to a friend who never heard of them. Now they own all their CDs and go the their shows when they are in the area.
jim_n_virginia
Aug-11-2006, 9:12am
The technology now exists that any concert can be taped easily by any 13 year old kid with a video phone or mini-DV the size of a deck of cards. There is no way to stop this and there is no way people will stop trading.
I remember the same uproar when people only had records and no way to copy them and then cassttes came out and all of a sudden everyone is copying and trading music. The music industry tried to stop that too but it could not.
Soon there will be no more CD's and only the digital imprint that will probably be beamed to us who knows?
The smart bands embrace the technology and release their music or at least some of it on their websites.
It really doesn't matter if it is legal or not or ethical because it can't be stopped. The technology exists therefore people are going to use it.
For the record I do believe in the promoters and performers rights and I try to buy the CD's I want so the performers can get theirs.
And also I have noticed that those of us that are so adamant about not file sharing are usually around my age (40-50) and like it or not this is not the age group that drives the music industries of today and the urgency for the technology.
Also as for the argument that file sharing takes from performers pockets I don't believe that. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a song online and I liked it and went to the music store and bought the performer or band's CD, sometimes ALL of their CD's if I like them enough.
jus my .02
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mandosmiley.gif
August Watters
Aug-11-2006, 9:38am
Also as for the argument that file sharing takes from performers pockets I don't believe that. I can't tell you how many times I have heard a song online and I liked it and went to the music store and bought the performer or band's CD, sometimes ALL of their CD's if I like them enough.
If everyone did that there wouldn't be a big problem -- but CD stores are suffering, with sales down dramatically from years ago. I recently read a NYT article on how CD stores are catering to a middle-aged crowd because the young people don't go there anymore. They're getting all their music online, and often for free.
If musicians can't control their product because of the technology, how will they make a living? There seems to be a new idea emerging that musicians shouldn't expect to make a living by their recordings; they should make it from live performances. Personally it offends me that so many people seem to think it's their right to take something just because the technology makes it easy. On the other hand, it makes sense to take a practicable approach and look for new ways to make money with music rather than defending obsolete ones. Perhaps the point is moot anyway, since such a small share of recording industry profits ever actually went to the musicians.
This topic makes me sick. #Without BluegrassBox.com and similar sites I would not have ever heard ANY bluegrass at all. #I would not own several mandolins, just a guitar.
I understand that the performers life is tough, and that making money in the music industry is difficult. #Many people are willing to sacrifice almost anything just to make a living playing music. #Not everyone is successful, and to blame people who trade live music (legally with artist approval, illegal trading is another matter) for undercutting potential money to songwriters/performers is not going to change that situation. #Whatever happened to "any advertising is good advertising"?
Warning: analogy coming...
The thing about grass is that there has to be a balance of biomass in the leaf tissue and the root tissue. #When you cut a blade of grass, some roots die out to maintain this ratio. #Many homeowners know that it is not good to cut too much off of the grass at one point in time, or it will be unhealthy to the plant. #I am using a grass analogy because many refer to bluegrass as a "grassroots" movement. #The current flourishing of bluegrass is in large part due to the music getting out to the masses in the form of live recordings. #
The dissapearence of bluegrassbox.com from the internet (I haven't seen it on line in the last 2 days) is in effect cutting the plant off at the root, and while it may take a few days for the roots to die, the effect will be noticed.
I am also disgusted that Megan B. Lynch and some of her defenders on thebluegrassblog.com have obviously participated and benefited from this longstanding practice, and now that they are the performers are raising a stink about it. #Their hypocricy should not go unnoticed.
I do not think that it is fair to all the performers/songwriters that there is no compensation for this trading. #I do not have a solution for how to compensate them, but not having live shows to trade is only going to encourage piracy of studio CD's. #Since that is where the artist clearly gains financial compensation wouldn't dissallowing the trading of live shows and the resultant increase in studio CD piracy undercut the limited income these artists are allready facing?
adgefan
Aug-11-2006, 9:54am
If everyone did that there wouldn't be a big problem -- but CD stores are suffering, with sales down dramatically from years ago. I recently read a NYT article on how CD stores are catering to a middle-aged crowd because the young people don't go there anymore. They're getting all their music online, and often for free.
But this debate is about the trading of live bluegrass recordings not music piracy in general.
I suspect the majority of people who use bluegrassbox are those, like me, that need a constant fix of new music and use it to discover bands, singers or songs, or use it to find new versions of songs they already own commercial recordings of. For example, over the past few months I've been scouring the archives at bluegrassbox looking for every version of Reel d'Issoudun by John Hartford I can lay my hands on. Got 6 or 7 now, and I'm still disappointed he never got round to recording it in the studio because I'd love to hear that version too. That's a bit different from someone who hears a pop song on the radio and then downloads a poor quality version illegally because they're too cheap to spend a couple of quid on the single...
picksnbits
Aug-11-2006, 10:08am
I don't know whether bluegrassbox was unintentionally supporting something that was technically illegal or not. I'm confident that they were trying to do the right thing and my gut tells me they were providing a valuable service that benefitted fans and artists alike.
I guess the real sad part of this situation is that the more obviously wrong pirating of commercial CD's will not be stopped by cutting out services such as bluegrassbox.com. In fact taking them off line is more likely to increase true piracy.
Fred G
Aug-11-2006, 10:52am
Does anybody know what happened to bluegrassbox? I was in the middle of downloading stringdusters when the server went away.
They do not have a studio release yet (which I will buy when it comes out) so this was all I could find. As an old dead fan who has bought all their studion releases including most of the dicks picks, I know downloading and listening to live shows has no effect on buying the studio albums.
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 11:13am
If bluegrassbox goes away because of this.... person, that will be a real shame. I have plenty to say about this topic but not much of it would fall within Cafe rules http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Sounds to me like this Meagan person just doesn't like her job.
I am also disgusted that Megan B. Lynch and some of her defenders on thebluegrassblog.com have obviously participated and benefited from this longstanding practice, and now that they are the performers are raising a stink about it. #Their hypocricy should not go unnoticed.
If bluegrassbox goes away because of this.... person, that will be a real shame. #I have plenty to say about this topic but not much of it would fall within Cafe rules #
So, let me get this straight... The solution to the problem is to demonize the people who are hurt by the situation. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I am also appalled by the attitude obviously held by many (not just in this thread but others that touch on the music business) that "life is tough" and the problems are just a part of playing music for a living. The attitude is that if a musician complains than they just "don't like their job" and should just suck it up because and enjoy playing music no matter how hard OTHER PEOPLE make it to earn your living this way.
I think "this Meagan person" probably loves her work but is just sick of having it made that much harder.
There is hypocrisy here, for sure, but the accusations are misplaced.
arbarnhart
Aug-11-2006, 11:34am
More about the fallout from this... (http://www.archive.org/iathreads/post-view.php?id=66661)
In that discussion there is reference to this one (http://www.timobrien.net/bb_thread.cfm?threadid=2143&messages=10), which says there wasn't a specific cause/effect, but that it it played into the thinking of the site operator.
Much of the same content is still available through etree, which I prefer to get at through The Internet Archive (http://www.archive.org/index.php).
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 11:43am
It's only speculation that she's hurt by the situation. She obviously knows nothing about the subject. Nobody has any evidence or proof that they have lost money because of shows being taped. Bluegrassbox.com is (was) very very careful about making sure taping was ok with the artists before posting shows. SELLING CDs AS A PRIMARY WAY FOR ARTISTS TO MAKE MONEY WILL SOON BE A THING OF THE PAST. Artists that embrace that will do great. Ones that don't, well we'll see.
It's only speculation that she's hurt by the situation. She obviously knows nothing about the subject. Nobody has any evidence or proof that they have lost money because of shows being taped.
and you have no evidence that she hasn't been hurt by it.
Selling CDs was never a primary way for artists to earn income but a secondary way. It was (and should still be) a supplementary income.
I had a student for a while who was adamant about his "right" to freely download music" regardless of copyright law and/or moral imperatives. He said,"it's free music, I am not going to pay for it" Mind you this was a guy in his early 50s with absolutely no money problems and one whom I considedred fairly socially conscious (in every other way, at least). These are some of the same attitudes I am hearing here.
eastcarterman
Aug-11-2006, 12:00pm
Jim, i think you are mis-interpreting some of the replys here... people are saying that they should trade music freely if it is ok with said band. if trading is not ok with the band, people should not trade live tapes(and most tape trading sites dont allow it.) everyone here is in agreement with not trading if it isnt approved by the band. and most kids/people who would normally steal music, arent into bluegrass, folk, or americana.
"It was (and should still be) a supplementary income."
this is exactly what people here are saying, testing out a live tape almost always leads to people buying concert tickets.
people like your former student disgust me. being cheap is a plague of the heart. being thrifty should be peoples goal.
glauber
Aug-11-2006, 12:03pm
Wow, bluegrassbox gone. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
jmcgann
Aug-11-2006, 12:10pm
When no money is changing hands, the music is being circulated by and to people who enjoy it, for the love of the music.
Live recordings are unsually not of optimal sound quality.
When I love a band/performer enough to seek out live recordings, chances are I am going to buy many if not all of their offical product.
As a performer, I am happy when someone likes my stuff enough to spread it around.
This is different than someone recording a copyrighted composition and not paying mechanical royalities. As a composer, I make very little money, and I do want compensation if someone records one of my tunes. Even if it's just lunch money.
All this IMHO VMMY etc.
I am also appalled by the attitude obviously held by many (not just in this thread but others that touch on the music business) that "life is tough" and the problems are just a part of playing music for a living. The attitude is that if a musician complains than they just "don't like their job" and should just suck it up because and enjoy playing music no matter how hard OTHER PEOPLE make it to earn your living this way.
The reality is that there are others who are willing to live out of their cars and eat out of dumpsters to play music for a living. #If you can't make those sacrifices, you had better have something pretty special to bring to the table to justify why you don't have it as hard. #I don't see any OTHER PEOPLE out there making it hard to make a living this way. #It was hard to begin with. #
There is hypocrisy here, for sure, but the accusations are misplaced.
JimD-please explain my hypocrisy
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 12:11pm
eastcarterman is right, in no way is this the same thing as Napster or Kazaa or any of those other sites that allow (or used to allow, like Napster) illegal trading of music. #There are artists that I listen to that choose to not let their music be traded, and I respect that and still listen to them. #She acted like she was the voice of the poor masses of artists that were unknowingly being robbed by the trading of live shows. #This is so far off base it's not even funny.
Well, obviously many of you have your minds made up already. Why bother having a discussion?
Sure it's fine when all the creative parties in question are on board and give their permission.but it never stops there.
And it sends the wrong message. People generally don't value what they can get for free and it ultimately leads to a degradation of the ability of folks to support themselves this way.
JimD-
If the artist/venue does not object to the free recording and distribution, I'm all for it. Otherwise I agree with you that there are issues...
about "degradation of the ability of folks to support themselves this way"--
I think the issue here is that, there really is little demand for any particular live show (except perhaps a NYE show or some special event) unless you actually attended it. I don't think many people would pay for these shows anyway, or so few would that it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Distribution of live shows is about CREATING demand. The demand for that artist is how they will make their money in the long run, the exact opposite of "degradation of the ability of folks to support themselves this way."
August Watters
Aug-11-2006, 1:05pm
everyone here is in agreement with not trading if it isnt approved by the band. #
I'm not sure that's the case, but let's assume it is: if we can all agree that it should be OK to trade legally-recorded concerts, then we should be able to understand that those concerts may contain material that does not belong to the artists -- in other words, it's not theirs to give.
I know quite a few musicians who make a significant part of their income through performance royalty checks. It's the money they get from the public performance of their work. Over a long career of getting original works published, the little bits of income that come from these performances can add up to a significant income at retirement.
If "legally-recorded" tapes contain copyrighted material not owned by the performers, the owners of those copyrights are not getting paid for the use of their work once the tape is traded. Technically those copyrights may not be being violated if the transaction is done for free -- but still we have the problem that the performers who agreed to the taping didn't have the right to give away the rights to use copyrighted material if they didn't own those copyrights.
As an artist I would personally choose to put my own works up for trade among fans, hoping that would bring more purchases at a future date -- but let's not gloss over the rights of musicians to control their own work.
August W
http://www.augustwatters.com
August-you bring up a great point about the writers of the songs. Little enough credit is EVER given to the composer (if I hear "Long Time Gone" called a Dixie Chicks song one more time....).
This in and of itself is another issue that even Megan Lynch sidestepped by saying "(I do still have some concern for the songwriters involved - but one issue at a time.)"
adgefan
Aug-11-2006, 1:14pm
Again, this isn't about music piracy.
Many bluegrass/related genres bands have taping policies that not only allow shows to be shared, but in some cases actively encourage it. Tim O'Brien even asks for a copy of all such recordings be sent to him! And these are the bands that bluegrassbox was there for. The site made a very big effort to ensure shows by other bands were not hosted.
The only thing wrong with the article on bluegrassblog is that as a user of bluegrassbox, I have been lumped into the same crowd as those who actively steal music through illegal downloads or copying of commercially available material. I find that attitude rather insulting.
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 1:34pm
Interesting argument about the writers of the songs, that's a part of it I hadn't thought about. But like someone else said, if nothing is being sold...
mrbook
Aug-11-2006, 2:40pm
I love live music,and if I can't see and hear it live I would take a live band recording over a studio one any and every day. When I ran folk and bluegrass concerts in college I often asked permission of the performers to record the shows, and now treasure those 30-year recordings for sentimental as well as musical reasons. I've got boxes of tapes and minidiscs of hundreds of shows my own band has played over the last 13 years. I've given a few copies of the recordings to friends I hoped would appreciate them, and traded one or two to people I met who showed interest. I also enjoy visiting the websites of performers who put a show or two up for listening on their site.
On the whole, however, I agree with Megan Lynch. Whether a show is recorded with permission or in secret, I'm not sure what gives the owner of the recording the right to then put it on the internet for the rest of the world - I doubt that was implied in the performer's permission to record, and the songwriters don't have a say as many have mentioned. The person doing the recording may even consider it "personal use," but it seems pretty public to everyone else. The fancy recording setups people use let them play at being recording engineers, and they use the excuse of trading rather than selling to justify their actions.
I started out at a time when you could barely find bluegrass records in local stores, but that is hardly the case today. You can get anything in the world by mail, and most stores selling CDs now have more bluegrass than I can afford to buy or have time to listen to. Yeah, you don't know what some of them sound like, so you don't know if it is worth spending your money. Ah, spending money - better to get it for free first than take a chance. Then again, the price of a CD is probably the same as lunch (maybe even for two people), so skip a meal and get the music.
Admit it or not, most people I've talked to just don't want to pay, even though (or maybe because) they have to pay money for everything else. It's like asking a band to play for free, telling them it's good exposure or will lead to other jobs. I've only found that it leads to more requests to play for free (and I am happy to do that for a good cause). It's no help if you are trying to make all or part of your living making music. A non-playing friend once said to me, "But you care more about the music than money," to which I replied, "Yes, but the world cares more about money, and people seem to like and respect us more when we get paid." No one wants to be a struggling artist; it just usually turns out that way.
I might also suggest that some of the big-time traders care more about their recording equipment and about amassing the greatest number of recordings than about the music itself. It's a way for those who can't play to think they are part of the music scene.
I think I've got enough off my chest for this year.
Interesting argument about the writers of the songs, that's a part of it I hadn't thought about. #But like someone else said, if nothing is being sold...
Somehow I think you're still missing the point. Even if no money is changing hands, someone is giving away something that doesn't belong to them.
Here is a scenario: One person steals something and then sells it. Another person steals something and gives it away. Aren't they both guilty of stealing?
In the same way, if a group gives permission to have their show recorded but includes songs written by others (without their permission), they are giving away something that isn't theirs.
mandroid
Aug-11-2006, 3:47pm
Copyright keeps being renewed for 'Happy Birthday', so all those partys ... perhaps,
should just stick to blowing out the candles and smiling at each other .
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Copyright keeps being renewed for 'Happy Birthday', so all those partys ... perhaps,
should just stick to blowing out the candles and smiling at each other .
Hilarious.
So, this makes it ok to steal other people's work?
thistle3585
Aug-11-2006, 3:57pm
In my opinion, permission to tape shows isn't necessarily permission to distribute those shows. Its unfortunate that artists need to make that distinction, but apparently its come to that. I think the "spirit" behind allowing taping has gone by the wayside.
I once let my neighbor park on my side of our adjoining driveway when he had a party and limited parking space. Now he parks there all the time, and then gets ###### when I ask him to move his car. I view this topic in much the same way.
August Watters
Aug-11-2006, 4:43pm
Any attorneys here who could explain the concept of personal use? When you buy a CD, doesn't that entitle you to use it yourself, and even copy it if you need another copy -- but no more? Surely owning a copy of a copywritten work doesn't enable you to give away millions of free copies.
Picture this: suppose you buy a book, scan the text, and put it on the internet. Does owning a copy of the book entitle you to give it away free?
August Watters
Aug-11-2006, 4:46pm
Again, this isn't about music piracy.
So if you're giving away someone else's property for free, that's not piracy? #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
farmerjones
Aug-11-2006, 4:49pm
"trade for free" = very gray. Nothing is free. "Not for profit" is very tough to adhere to. Even though we play in a restraunt for free, we still stick to public domain or original tunes because the restraunt is profitting from our being there.
Jerry Garcia could do what he wanted. But don't tape me if i don't want you to. And that doesn't mean do it in secret/behind my back. And that doesn't mean rationalize it and then do it anyway. Walk a mile in the other guys shoes.
You should be picking or learning instead of taping anyway. No batteries needed. That's my positive solution to this. Have great weekend.
fishdawg40
Aug-11-2006, 7:59pm
I don't get it. There should be no argument here.
The band (and venue) allows the taping and the mass distrubution of it over the internet. Case closed. It should be allowed.
As per the technology to send this mass information. Hello boys your using a tool that does just that. If I were to attempt to stop technology that I thought was evil or wrong I'd be working for nuclear disarmamant. But perhaps I'm wrong and sharing live legal music is more catastrophic. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif This type of file sharing will not destroy the music it will only make its roots with the people stronger. Which equates to more shows attended and more CD sales and more happy faces http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
I have downloaded plenty of shows and have purchased many of the artists I heard. As John McGann stated it is cool to own live shows but the sound quality is always subpar. It just wets my appetite to buy a studio or official live release.
I think some are arguing for a proposition that was never proposed (the notion of bands allowing taping but not the mass distribution of it). Every band on bluegrassbox allows mass distribution. No one is saying on "our" side is saying that is right.
If Lynch lynched bluegrassbox because of this that is very petty. Go take a look at bluegrassbox anyway. Most of those bands are renouned national acts. Not too many relatively unknown acts like her 3 Fox Drive. Why single them out?
Respectfully,
Joe
I don't get it. #There should be no argument here.
The band (and venue) allows the taping and the mass distrubution of it over the internet. #Case closed. #It should be allowed. #
Actually, you don't get it. If you.ve been reading these carefully you might note that you've left the composer of the music out of the picture. Without the composer's permission, neither the band nor the venue have the right to decide that taping and especially mass distribution over the internet should be allowed.
Are you ignoring this fact just to make your point?
Seth Austen
Aug-11-2006, 8:51pm
People have occasionally asked me if it was OK to tape my shows. I've always said that it's OK, and requested that they send me a copy, as it would be nice to have recording of the show for my own archives. No one who has taped a show has ever sent me a copy...
I've never assumed that by answering in the affirmative, I was somehow granting permission for someone to distribute that show on the internet. As far as I'm concerned, my performance is an aspect of my artistic expression, and if someone wants to distribute it, even for free, they need to specify their intent when they ask if it's ok to tape the show.
I'm not against taping shows, or passing them around, as long as tapers have permission of the performer and venue, as well as composers or songwriters whose work is being performed.
Seth
Steve Cantrell
Aug-11-2006, 8:56pm
A brief personal case study in live show downloading from BB...
A few years ago, back in the infancy if my interest in acoustic music, I logged onto BB and downloaded a Norman and Nancy. I freaking loved it. Over the course of the next few months---based solely on that download alone--I purchased every available CD that Norman has out. EVERY..SINGLE...ONE. Had I not downloaded that show, it simply never would have happened. Let me stress that again. Never would have happened. If you believe these often nebulous arguments that I was doing the Blakes or their interests some harm by what I did, then consider the sequence of events that I've offered. My situation is a singluar one, certainly, but I have a difficult time believing that the downloading is somehow putting the artist at a disadvantage. If anything, the CDs I subsequently purchased and my attendance at concert events made that one download the easiest sell Norman ever had. Considering I've never even heard of her band, perhaps this blogger would be better served to post one of her own shows. Surely there are others who could offer similar example. My two cents.
Seth Austen
Aug-11-2006, 9:05pm
One more thing. Last night I read the comments from the links at the beginning of this thread, and am amazed at the venom that some people seem to have for Megan Lynch for expressing her opinions. Yes, one does make a choice to be a musician, and that choice has a price. I love playing music, and I feel fortunate to make my living doing something that I love. But not every aspect of the musicians' life is fun, and I sometimes kvetch about those things.
I teach students from all walks of life. Many of them also love their jobs, and also complain of certain aspects of their professions that are difficult.
Seth
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 9:22pm
Somehow I think you're still missing the point. Even if no money is changing hands, someone is giving away something that doesn't belong to them.
Here is a scenario: One person steals something and then sells it. Another person steals something and gives it away. Aren't they both guilty of stealing?
In the same way, if a group gives permission to have their show recorded but includes songs written by others (without their permission), they are giving away something that isn't theirs.
So based on this argument, if I sing someone else's songs, then I'm giving something of theirs away to my audience without their permission. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Performing, taping with permission... nevermind. I'm done with this.
fishdawg40
Aug-11-2006, 9:27pm
Are you ignoring this fact just to make your point?
You got me. I didn't leave that out to make my point. I must have grazed over it.
Do bands have to pay royalties to the composer for doing tunes at a show?
Joe
So based on this argument, if I sing someone else's songs, then I'm giving something of theirs away to my audience without their permission. Performing, taping with permission... nevermind. I'm done with this.
No that isn't what I mean at all.
Songs sung in performance are licensed through ASCAP or BMI (at least in theory) -- so the composer SHOULD get paid that way. Songs that are sung in non-performance situations don't need to be licensed.
Where would performers or listeners be without composers? Simply put. there would be no music to perform. Yet, composers are the least likely in the musical continuum to get properly compensated for their work and, evidently, the least likely to get respect at all.
Do bands have to pay royalties to the composer for doing tunes at a show?
Joe -- In theory, the composer should be paid by ASCAP or BMI. A licensing fee is usually paid by venues (and sometimes by performers). The ASCAP or BMI websites could probably clear this up. In actual practice many composers whose works are performed in licensed venues never see a cent from this source -- but that is another issue entirely and one that I really don't want to get into at this time.
Darren Kern
Aug-11-2006, 10:31pm
I know I said I was "done with this", but I would like to make one more comment- I would like to commend the folks here for disagreeing with each other without making it personal. On other boards there might have been mudslinging and name calling. I'm glad to be part of a place that is above all that.
eastcarterman
Aug-11-2006, 11:15pm
i want to thank everyone for their input.
i encourage more conversation here, especially if we can keep it as cordial as we have.
i AM concerned about small time composers getting fair compensation, but still think that the trading of tapes/files of live bluegrass concerts is good for the genre and the performers(& composers) 'on the whole'
From the ASCAP website:
What Does the ASCAP License Do?
ASCAP gives you a license to entertain your customers, guests and employees with the world's largest musical repertory. One of the greatest advantages of the ASCAP license is that it give you the right to perform ANY or ALL of the millions of the musical works in our repertory. Whether your music is live, broadcast, transmitted or played via CD's or videos, your ASCAP license covers your performances. And with one license fee, ASCAP saves you the time, expense, and burden of contacting thousands of copyright owners.
also
Whenever music is performed publicly the songwriter and music publisher, who created and own that music, have the right to grant or deny permission to use their property and to receive compensation for that use.
JimD - So once the performance liscence is obtained, and paid for, what is the issue of free redistribution of that specific performance with the concent of the artist? #The composer HAS been paid (though like you mentioned, they probably recieved no money for it). #
I guess the question is, "Is public availibility (ie ability to download from a site) the same as a public performance?"
also from the ascap site:
ASCAP does not license the right to record music on a CD or tape or as part of a multi-media or an audio-visual work such as a motion picture, video or television program. Those rights, known in the music industry as mechanical and synchronization(or "synch") rights, are licensed by writers or publishers.
To further ask questions..."Do you need a mechanical liscence for free limited distribution of copyrighted material?" #
I guess we should all collect money together and pay J. Mark Lane a consultant fee to explain it for us #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
edit: I deleted one sentence from ascap that I quoted out of context (only notice after posting). It seems clear from this that if the performer is performing only original compositions or public domain songs, it is their right to decide if you can tape and disrtibute the songs freely.
If everyone did that there wouldn't be a big problem -- but CD stores are suffering, with sales down dramatically from years ago. I recently read a NYT article on how CD stores are catering to a middle-aged crowd because the young people don't go there anymore. They're getting all their music online, and often for free.
If musicians can't control their product because of the technology, how will they make a living? There seems to be a new idea emerging that musicians shouldn't expect to make a living by their recordings; they should make it from live performances. Personally it offends me that so many people seem to think it's their right to take something just because the technology makes it easy. On the other hand, it makes sense to take a practicable approach and look for new ways to make money with music rather than defending obsolete ones. Perhaps the point is moot anyway, since such a small share of recording industry profits ever actually went to the musicians.
Hi August ... where commercially produced CD's are in question I totally and completely agree with you. Those are "products" that help support the artist and should be paid for. I also agree that if an artist doesn't want you taping / distributing their performance you shouldn't do it ... plain and simple.
That said, the original post at the top of this thread concerned a very specific site, BluegrassBox that allowed folks to trade live recordings of shows with the artists permission. Apparently a mis-informed, mis-guided member of the "3 Fox Drive" band decided to get out her "Bluegrass Police" badge and helped to nail the door shut on that site.
In this particular circumstance, I (and apparently many others) take strong exception to her rationale that the artist was being hurt. In fact, BluegrassBox in my experience was amazing careful in making sure that nothing was made available that didn't have the artists permission.
The irony is that none of "3 Fox Drive's" material was ever posted there so I'm at a loss to explain why she felt the need to attack them in the first place.
I do know that on my shelves at home, I have MANY CD's that were purchased as a direct result of being able to get a (low quality) taste of new material that my favorite artists allowed on the BluegrassBox site.
That the BluegrassBox is now lost to us is really sad. It hurt no one ... at least not in anyway that I'm able to discern.
Anyway, I felt strongly enough about it to let Ms. Lynch know how I felt by e-mailing her through her band's website http://www.3foxdrive.com/contact.html Others here who feel the same loss might want to do the same.
JEStanek
Aug-12-2006, 5:21pm
I'm curious, how could Ms. Lynch get Bluegrassbox shut down? If her material wasn't being distributed she and her lawyers wouldn't have a case to even threaten, right?
Before we heap all of the blame on one opinion on a blog for terminating a file sharing service we might want to have all the facts. People who have said or posted nasty/wrong/over the lines stuff here have only killed a thread not the Mandolin Cafe'. What's really going on overthere?
Curiously,
Jamie
arbarnhart
Aug-12-2006, 8:13pm
The thread at Tim OBrien's site forum seems to have inside knowledge and said it was not an absolute cause and effect, but that the site was already costing too much money to run (it was a not profit and costing the guys running it about $500 per month) and they were already considering shutting down. This was the last straw that broke their will to continue with it.
mrbook
Aug-12-2006, 9:59pm
People need someone to blame, and Ms. Lynch seems to be the target here for expressing her opinion (until a recent post I didn't know she brought lawyers into this, and I would like to hear more about that). I would have liked to have had a show I was in on bluegrassbox or a similar service, but other musicians and songwriters may feel differently for reasons that are entirely their own, and that is no reason to question their bluegrass credentials or their musicianship.
This whole matter is bigger than one person's opinion, and has probably been coming for some time. Over on banjohangout there is a lot of discussion about tab sites closing down, as music publishers challenge them for being in violation of copyright laws. For each person who wants everything to be free on the Internet, there are are probably five people who want to make money off the same thing. I'm getting too cynical in my old age, but I can't believe that the money won't win in the end. I sure like free stuff and hope it continues, but perhaps there are reasons these things should change. Common sense indicates to me that a downloaded song or concert probably is a public performance; rather than gathering people together for an event, one musical event can be watched or heard by many people whenever they want. Even if money doesn't change hands, that doesn't mean that some person (perhaps the songwriter) is being denied money they rightfully deserve (and might even need).
jmcgann
Aug-12-2006, 10:46pm
Has any composer here ever gotten a dime from ASCAP, SESAC or BMI for their compositions used in a live performance by other performers?
I've gotten TV and radio breakdowns, but bothing for having tunes covered live (and there have been several...) but zippo accounting of live performances of compositions or arrangements....
Seth Austen
Aug-12-2006, 11:20pm
I've never received a penny for live performance from my PRO, however I've gotten paid a bit now and then over the years for radio airplay and also once for TV when a documentary was aired for which I'd composed the soundtrack.
Seth
arbarnhart
Aug-13-2006, 7:18am
I edited my earlier post (about 4 posts up) because it may have been misinterpreted before. It could have given the incorrect impression that BGB was trying to make money but they were not; it was always non profit.
fishdawg40
Aug-13-2006, 8:40am
I'd also like to mention that I'm pleased about the non-divisive debate we're having here...
Thanks Jim D for the explanation.
This topic is very sticky. However, composers are usually ticked off about money not being payed when someone else covers their tune. But if the artist covering the tune is not receiving money for the live recording of that song I don't see the problem. It's all about the money.
Even though I disagree with Lynch's approach, perhaps somehow she has been hurt by this and I feel for her (I'd like to know how). I don't know why she would raise such a stink if she wasn't being hurt by this (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt becasue of the lack of information we have).
Are artists upset about their compositions being played live/recorded or did this idea come out of our debate here? I don't think Megan Lynch discussed this?
Seth Austen
Aug-13-2006, 10:22am
Megan did mention songwriters but didn't go into detail, saying that was another issue for later discussion... other respondents on that thread also brought up that songwriters weren't being asked permisson.
Seth
JEStanek
Aug-13-2006, 11:36am
Just to be clear, I have no knowledge of any legal action taken or not taken by Megan Lynch. I was speculating. Don't let my post lead you to believe I know she brought in a legal team.
I guess one lesson to be had here is to donate to the mandolin cafe from time to time to help pay for the costs.
With respect to composers I have a question (please let it not be a Pandora's box) for John McGann... If I download the tab to Dawg Funk off Co-Mando, learn to play it but add my own little flourishes, but it's still essentially Dawg Funk, record an MP3 and upload it or record it on a CD should I give David Grisman some money?
Jamie
jmcgann
Aug-13-2006, 2:16pm
If I download the tab to Dawg Funk off Co-Mando, learn to play it but add my own little flourishes, but it's still essentially Dawg Funk, record an MP3 and upload it or record it on a CD should I give David Grisman some money?
I'm no legal expert, but if you record ANYONE's copyrighted composition for purposes of sales (whether you learned it by ear, tab, notation, or in a lesson with Dawg himself), you are supposed to pay the mechanical license fee to the publisher of the tune (often artists retain their own publishing;very advisable when possible)- it is 9.1 cents per tune (for a composition under 5 minutes). So if you make 1000 CDs you should send Dawg #some $, yes. If you sell downloadable mp3's, yes. If you choose to give them away? I think it is illegal to make multiple copies of a copyrighted composition without a license, period.
Those mechanical royalties are supposed to be paid upfront, when you press the CDs- so if you make 100, it's a fat $9.10 check to Dawg. Record labels are supposed to do this, too, which means if they press 5000 CDs the composer(s) get a bit of lunch money before the 1st CD is sold. In theory http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
If you are selling CDs but not cutting the composers in for a share based on their compositions, you are stealing, as Jim D. maintains. If someone is recording your tunes and pressing them onto CDs and selling them (or selling mp3s) without paying you mechanicals, you are being ripped off, according to the law.
If you record yourself playing "Dawg Funk" onto a CD to play in your car,or for your friends, and don't sell copies, I think you can keep your money http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
The grey area is what happens when you swap live recordings and no $ changes hands. Bootleggers who sell live CDs are ripping off everyone. Artists who say it's OK to trade live shows #(like those on the late lamented bluegrassbox) #generally do it to spread the music around, with hopes that it will lead people who enjoy the music to buy the official product. That's how I see it...
The hippie ideal (corrupted into the same frame of mind that makes it OK to steal softeware) of "music belongs to everybody, man" is a partial truth in some ways, and a complete falsehood in other ways. You can strum to the bongo beat all you want; once a tune has been copyrighted,and the duplicating machines start pressing mass quantities, it is intellectual property, dude!
The mechanical license fee doesn't depend on income. If he recorded such a painfully bad version of "Dawg Funk" that he had to promise to put $20.00 into your PayPal account before you would download and listen to it, he would still owe the license fee.
There is a lawsuit right now over how the performer should get compensated. Cheap Trick Lawsuit (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/blog/monthlist_html?year=2006&month=5) provides a good overview.
jmcgann
Aug-13-2006, 2:55pm
The mechanical license fee doesn't depend on income.
I know- as I said, the royalties are paid at PRESSING* before dollar one rolls in.
*showing my age- it's vinyl albums that are pressed; CDs are burned, I guess http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif
If I download the tab to Dawg Funk off Co-Mando, learn to play it but add my own little flourishes, but it's still essentially Dawg Funk, record an MP3 and upload it or record it on a CD should I give David Grisman some money?
Actually there is another issue inherent in Jamie's question. (This may not be what you really meant, Jamie, but I have often been asked about this.) The issue is the production of what are called "derivative works".
I have heard people say that they were told that you only have to change a few notes and the piece becomes yours. Definately not true. The Copyright code makes it clear that only the holder of the copyright can create or license derivative works.
Another common misconception is that the work must actually be registered (sent to the coptright office with a form and a fee) -- also not true. Copyright is in effect automatically as soon as the work is fixed in complete form. Registration is an additional form of protection.
So, despite the usual lack of enfoecement, the law is actually on the side of the creator of the work.
For more information the U.S. Copyright Office has a very informative website here. (http://www.copyright.gov/)
JEStanek
Aug-14-2006, 7:32am
Thanks guys. Have no fear... Should I attempt Dawg Funk at the moment noone would recognize it as such. This is an intersting discussion. Makes me glad that I play music just for my kids and me and not for a living!
Jamie
thistle3585
Aug-14-2006, 8:03am
I'm confused. Who pays the songwriter? The artist that originally recorded the song, the record label, BMI/ASCAP or the person doing the remake? Seems like there are too many out stretched hands in this business.
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 8:17am
Seems like there are too many out stretched hands in this business.
The "record label" or person who issues the CD is responsible for paying the composer's outstretched hand.
ASCAP/BMI etc. are not involved with "mechanical royalties"; they are performing rights organizations who collect fees for registered compositions from jukeboxes, live performances (supposedly) etc. and see that , from example, when Russian TV uses one of my tunes that I get the $50 check that I'd otherwise have no idea existed.
So it's not all nefarious-though it seems like most practices in the music business are!
For those interested in a great, not good but GREAT explanation of music publishing basics, I give an enthusiastic two thumbs up recommendation for "Music Publishing 101" by Berklee Press.
It is about a ten minute read but explains the basics of copyrights, royalties, licenses etc in such a clear and concise way that even my age-addled brain can comprehend it all.
At the whopping price of $9.95, it should be required reading for anyone who writes or records music. No financial interest ... you can find it here...
http://www.amazon.com/gp....ie=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0876390629/sr=8-1/qid=1155565834/ref=sr_1_1/104-9176354-5083904?ie=UTF8)
glauber
Aug-14-2006, 10:09am
Has any composer here ever gotten a dime from ASCAP, SESAC or BMI for their compositions used in a live performance by other performers?
I've gotten TV and radio breakdowns, but bothing for having tunes covered live (and there have been several...) but zippo accounting of live performances of compositions or arrangements....
The way i understand the system, they sample radio and satellite radio airplay, and distribute what's left after they take their cut percentually according to what got played during the times they sampled. So, unless i misunderstand, if you aren't one of the big guys (i'm not even sure who is big these post-Britney days...) in terms of airplay, you won't see a dime. The reasoning is that music gets played live in the same proportion that it's played in the radio... yeah, sure.
If i didn't know how honest and caring the music business really is, i would think BMI, ASCAP, etc are rackets.
glauber
Aug-14-2006, 10:39am
Some reading on BMI/ASCAP:
Protectors or thieves? (http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/royalty-politics.html)
CD Baby forum thread (http://cdbaby.org/stories/02/08/14/8748796.html)
How one independent musician defeated BMI (http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/phillips.html)
The way i understand the system, they sample radio and satellite radio airplay, and distribute what's left after they take their cut percentually according to what got played during the times they sampled. So, unless i misunderstand, if you aren't one of the big guys (i'm not even sure who is big these post-Britney days...) in terms of airplay, you won't see a dime. The reasoning is that music gets played live in the same proportion that it's played in the radio... yeah, sure.
It doesn't adequately account for radio play either.
My wife worked in radio for a while (both public radio and a commercial station). She tells me that the sampling was done once a month. This sampling was supposed to represent what was played on that station for the whole month. Needless to say, that really doesn't adequately account for anything. Not to turn this into a forum on the performing rights organizations but one would think that in this age of digital information gathering, they should be able to account for everything played in the course of a month.
Seems like there are too many out stretched hands in this business
I get the uncomfortable feeling that the person that wrote the song that everyone else on your list is playing, recording, broadcasting, distributing, making money from (or sometimes not) and listening to/enjoying is supposed to withdraw his or her hand because there are so many hands out. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
picksnbits
Aug-14-2006, 11:21am
Seems like there are too many out stretched hands in this business
I get the uncomfortable feeling that the person that wrote the song that everyone else on your list is playing, recording, broadcasting, distributing, making money from (or sometimes not) and listening to/enjoying is supposed to withdraw his or her hand because there are so many hands out. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Another way of interpreting that original statement would be that if only so many people weren't handling the money, maybe the composers could actually see some of it.
I don't think anyone here is proposing that songwriters shouldn't make money off of their work. Some are saying that freely distributing live recordings increases ticket and CD sales, both of which benefit songwriters. We really don't have any way of proving or disproving that theory.
Some are saying that freely distributing live recordings increases ticket and CD sales, both of which benefit songwriters. We really don't have any way of proving or disproving that theory.
No, increasing ticket sales usually does absolutely nothing for the songwriters (read the stuff referenced a few posts back about ASCAP and BMI) --and it certainly doesn't make it right to mass distribute the song in any way without the composer's permission. Why is this so difficult to understand?
JimD- What I don't understand is why you are so adamant about supporting a system that you admit doesn't pay the composers anyway. The composer isn't going to see the money one way or another under the current system, regardless of trading bluegrass free on the internet. So, if the performer agrees, and the composer is getting the short end either way, who is it that is going to benefit from this music being removed from free circulation?
thistle3585
Aug-14-2006, 1:32pm
When I made the outstretched hands comment, I meant that there sure seems to be a lot of people involved that it makes it difficult for everyone to get their share and recognition. As an outsider, it seems like the only people not getting their fair share are the ones that created the music/songs. In distributing their material for free, without their consent, then we're just kicking them while their down. Get knocked around long enough and I guess you'd write editorials like Megan too.
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 1:45pm
Regarding ASCAP, I do get accountings of specifically where what composition of mine was played- sometimes zero, sometimes obscure stuff like Russian TV...
What I don't understand is why you are so adamant about supporting a system that you admit doesn't pay the composers anyway. #The composer isn't going to see the money one way or another under the current system, regardless of trading bluegrass free on the internet. #So, if the performer agrees, and the composer is getting the short end either way, who is it that is going to benefit from this music being removed from free circulation?
So, what you're saying is that it is ok to steal a composer's work because everyone else is doing it too?
The reason that I am arguing against mass distribution of a composer's work is so that we can attempt to remedy the situation. If we just assume the composer is getting screwed anyway, that isn't going to fix anything.
And, no, I don't think it is right to do this just so folks can continue to enjoy, for free, things that shouldn't be free in the first place.
On a different note: John -- the things that are accounted to you are only those that turn up in the samples or are voluntarily reported. correct?
JimD- I guess what I am trying to say is that I would be happy to give the money to the composers of the music, but for the bluegrass music that we are talking about, there is no accounting of what songs were played in these concerts. ASCAP and BMI aren't making sure that the right people get money. No one is going to suddenly start distributing the money in proportion to what the actually was played.
I would welcome change in a system where this was not the case, but that is not reality.
picksnbits
Aug-14-2006, 2:51pm
Is there a SongWritersCafe.com? I'd be curious to know how the average song writer feels about this topic. I would suspect that the ones who are already getting more than their fair share would be opposed and the others would figure that any exposure is good exposure.
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 3:04pm
On a different note: John -- the things that are accounted to you are only those that turn up in the samples or are voluntarily reported. correct?
I suspect you are right there, Jim! Random access to one's rightful $ http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Is there a SongWritersCafe.com? I'd be curious to know how the average song writer feels about this topic. I would suspect that the ones who are already getting more than their fair share would be opposed and the others would figure that any exposure is good exposure.
Show me a songwriter who is getting more than their fair share. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Even if some or most somgwriters would agree, it isn't right to usurp the property of those who don't. But I assume that I am just being to idealistic for a world in which people just expect to get everything for free.
Even if some or most somgwriters would agree, it isn't right to usurp the property of those who don't. But I assume that I am just being to idealistic for a world in which people just expect to get everything for free.
Isn't improperly representing the number of times a song is played the same as stealing money from a composer? I assume that I am just being too idealistic for a world in which people just expect the system to adequately represent them. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Isn't improperly representing the number of times a song is played the same as stealing money from a composer? I assume that I am just being too idealistic for a world in which people just expect the system to adequately represent them.
http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
True -- when people don't report performances properly they are stealing from the composer.
Is it now a crime to want appropriate compensation for one's work?
farmerjones
Aug-14-2006, 3:42pm
Is there a SongWritersCafe.com? #I'd be curious to know how the average song writer feels about this topic. #
You might check out Tunesmith.com songwriters forum.
What sticks in my mind is they they refer to songs by their rightful authors. For example, it's bad form to call it a Kenny Chesney song. It's a Skooter Caruso song recorded by Kenny Chesney. And rightfully so. Know the difference between an artist and a writer. And know that artist work with producers and writer work with publishers. It may seem like nothing to the newbie but it's like calling a mandolin a little guitar or uke.
FJ
picksnbits
Aug-14-2006, 4:05pm
Is there a SongWritersCafe.com? I'd be curious to know how the average song writer feels about this topic. I would suspect that the ones who are already getting more than their fair share would be opposed and the others would figure that any exposure is good exposure.
Show me a songwriter who is getting more than their fair share. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Even if some or most somgwriters would agree, it isn't right to usurp the property of those who don't. But I assume that I am just being to idealistic for a world in which people just expect to get everything for free.
I haven't stated that it is "right to usurp the property" of anyone. I thought most here had agreed that the current system doesn't do an adequate job of distributing royalties based on the actual number of performances. That would mean some are getting more than their fair share and some are getting less. Or maybe it should be stated that some are getting more of their fair share and others are getting less.
At any rate, the task of identifying which artists and composers were okay with freely distributing live recordings and which songs were written by whom and which songs were public domain would be so daunting as to make the whole situation impossible, so we're stuck with guessing as to whether the net result is positive or negative for the artists and writers.
So it looks likely that free distribution of live recordings is coming to an end. Now I have to wonder if it will be possible to come up with a business model for this situation that will satisfy all concerned parties and be supported by the available market? Maybe that's a topic for another thread.
Or maybe it should be stated that some are getting more of their fair share and others are getting less.
I am afraid that this is closer to the truth. Very few (if any) are getting their full compensation.
True -- when people don't report performances properly they are stealing from the composer.
Is it now a crime to want appropriate compensation for one's work?
When you recognize that the system is not properly working, why on earth would you want some companies and a few overly popular performers to get financial compensation at the cost of free music for the whole community?
If the creators of the music are not represented and financially compensated in the first place, and these shows pop back up with some "mechanical liscencing fee" involved, these small time bluegrass artists are not going to get a penny more. Why advocate that?
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 4:27pm
So it looks likely that free distribution of live recordings is coming to an end. #
I very much doubt that. Bands who endorse taping may not go through the trouble of posting shows, but I think fans enjoy trading and collecting (sometimes I wonder if listening is also involved!) shows, and will continue to do so. I think it is a positive step that the old industry of bootlegging (i.e. selling expensive LPs/CDs of studio outtakes and live performances, where only the bootlegger makes money) has been severely curtailed by free swapping.
I still believe that people who love the live version of a composition are going to seek out the studio (i.e. paid for) versions. I also believe the ethic of "support the artist" is part of this whole trading culture...maybe I'm naive....
I happen to think MANY more composers have been ripped off for MUCH more money LEGALLY by record companies for decades (since before the days of Irving Mills 'composing' with Duke Ellington, a famous scam to get a slice of the publishing), due to nefarious accounting procedures, than any loss of potential income from trading live recordings. YMMV etc. just an opinion...
It IS wrong that composers don't get paid for their work when money changes hands.
When you recognize that the system is not properly working, why on earth would you want some companies and a few overly popular performers to get financial compensation at the cost of free music for the whole community? #
So, here it is isn a nutshell. We can't deprive the whole community of free music just to try to get the creators of that music adequate compensation.
I am wasting my time here. It's obvious that I am talking to myself and the few who care about fairness. Go ahead --console yourselves by saying it isn't wrong if some people get cheated either way.
I've wasted enough time here.
I also believe the ethic of "support the artist" is part of this whole trading culture..
I used to think so too. After reading what I' have seen here, I am not so sure.
So, here it is isn a nutshell. We can't deprive the whole community of free music just to try to get the creators of that music adequate compensation.
Who is trying? Is there some reform on the distribution of collected royalties? Is there a plan to monitor what is really being played out there?
Go ahead --console yourselves by saying it isn't wrong if some people get cheated either way.
No one is saying that, rather that if someone is being cheated, the rich and popular don't deserve their money.
WE ALL AGREE THAT COMPOSERS SHOULD GET PAID FOR THEIR WORK. THE REALITY WE ARE LEFT TO DEAL WITH IS WHAT SYSTEM IS BEST WHEN THIS IS NOT HAPPENING. (please excuse the caps)
WE ALL AGREE THAT COMPOSERS SHOULD GET PAID FOR THEIR WORK
Just as long as there is still free access to music, right?
I know I said I've wasted enough time here -- I will stop now.
Just as long as there is still free access to music, right?
No, only as long as the distribution of the money actually reflects what is getting played/downloaded. #I completely agree that if the system were fair, the only free music should be what the performer(s) and composer(s) decide should be free.
And JimD, please do not feel like you have wasted your time just because I don't agree with you. I have looked up many things and thought about many things I would not have considered before hearing your opinions in this discussion! This is why I frequent this board!
The major point, dang, is that you don't get to go "well, the system is unfair so I will decide for myself what I will take for free." I still have problems with the plight of the migrant farm worker, and believe that they don't get a big enough share of the profits from fruit and vegetable sales. Doesn't entitle me to free grapes.
you don't get to go "well, the system is unfair so I will decide for myself what I will take for free."
I wish I could just take what I will for free, but that is not what was offered. What was on bluegrassbox.com (still temporarily unavailible) was a group of recordings from bands who have a taping policy and a long history of circulating this music for free.
DryBones
Aug-14-2006, 5:17pm
don't most songwriters sell their songs to a publisher or artist for recording? Do they keep any further rights to the song once its been sold or do they just get a credit on the cd label?
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 6:08pm
don't most songwriters sell their songs to a publisher or artist for recording?
Totally depends on the situation. If you want to sell a song to a big name artist, they may buy it outright, or take a cut of various sizes of the publishing money. I wouldn't say "most songwriters" by a long shot; it has always been in the writer's best interest to keep publishing rights...but then again, who has the writer's best interest in mind, other than the writer? http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
jefflester
Aug-14-2006, 6:46pm
I know- as I said, the royalties are paid at PRESSING* before dollar one rolls in.
*showing my age- it's vinyl albums that are pressed; CDs are burned, I guess #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/coffee.gif
Actually, regular CDs (as opposed to CD-Rs) that the record companies put out are pressed much the same way vinyl is. A "stamper" is manufactured with the pits and that is used to press the pattern into the CD.
jmcgann
Aug-14-2006, 9:22pm
Thanks Jeff, I feel younger now http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
adgefan
Aug-15-2006, 5:59am
I wish I could just take what I will for free, but that is not what was offered. What was on bluegrassbox.com (still temporarily unavailible) was a group of recordings from bands who have a taping policy and a long history of circulating this music for free.
And what's more, I didn't use bluegrassbox just because it was free - that was an added bonus. The site was a veritable treasure trove of rare, classic bluegrass recordings and I'd be quite willing to pay a fair price for downloads if it goes the same way as iTunes/Napster etc.
Whilst on the subject of royalties/licences/whatever I see that if I want to buy Aereo-plain from Amazon (secondhand) it will cost me approximately $175 (yes, $175). What is the likelihood of the Hartford estate seeing any of that? Am I right to think, none at all?
jmcgann
Aug-15-2006, 6:55am
none at all. That CD could change hands 100 times for $175 and the money all goes to the current owner of the CD.
JEStanek
Aug-15-2006, 7:16am
That Aereo-plane cd has been trasnformed from a musical work into a vintage collectors item. If I buy a used Bretnrupp (I wish!) neither the seller or I are going to send Johann any money.
Kinda apples and oranges but the used CD (and used bookstore) are totally different from this issue. I'm not making a copy of a book and selling it or distributing it.
Jamie
glauber
Aug-15-2006, 9:47am
When you make a CD, you prepay the royalties in advance. This is called mechanical royalties. For example, if you plan to make 1,000 CDs, you pay 1,000 times the mechanical royalty for each song in it that you don't own the copyright for. This is usually the second most expensive thing you have to pay for when you make a CD (the first being the printing). It can be a medium-sized pain to figure out who manages the license for a song, sometimes.
So the composer gets paid when the CD gets made, not when it's sold. I have about 300 CDs in my basement that haven't sold yet, but i've paid royalties for all of them.
mandroid
Aug-15-2006, 10:29am
so, those folks on a wee budget, would be coming up with the mechanical fees, for the CD-R as theyre burned, since the file containing the recording is pre publication?
(and all the audition CDs that have to be made to get the gig in the first place)
[i guess its drifting OT from sharing whole stage shows]
glauber
Aug-15-2006, 11:23am
Yes, but it's a pain. Some of the publishers may refuse to sell you less than 1000 or 500 at a time. They still live in the old world, before CD-R was invented.
I think (IANAL) that this only applies to commercially available CDs. If you're burning a CD for your own enjoyment or to give away, you don't pay mechanicals. Did i mention IANAL?
The mechanicals were a big reason why my latest CD is all original material. My previous CDs was all medleys (ouch!). I think that's why you don't see too many people recording medleys of non-original stuff.