What happens if no-one pays for music?

[Pete Summers]

[QUOTE=mandowilli;1065257]

Right, I am going to make some bold statements here, beat me for it whoever feels inclined:

1 - whoever claims copyright on a recording of his should first prove that he made sure that either all the music is exclusively his own or that he has paid copyright fees to whose music he used melody snippets or chord progressions from.

Chord progressions are not copyrightable, only lyrics and melody.

I may be mistaken (as I often am), but I would think a chord progression could also be copyrighted if it was unique and part of the overall effect of the composition.

Obviously, you can't copyright a standard Blues or Country 3 chord progression, which would certainly be public domain, but how about something like "Stairway To Heaven?" I'd figure the chords were original in their sequence for that piece. I know, the lawyers would have to argue it out.

[taylor410]

This has been, and still is an interesting thread. As I've mentioned before, we host house concerts. The artists have all been paid. I would have to say that the average take for the folks that have played our series is right at $500.00 including CD sales. Some have made more, some a little less. Now, $500.00 for 2 50 minute sets doesn't sound too bad on the surface. But then you add in travel expense (gas, food on the road, wear and tear, etc), time on the road, etc. We provide meals and a room, so that part is covered once they get here. All of our performers have been greatly appreciative and all have stayed in contact and have inquired about future bookings. The house concert series seems to be the new 'thing' amongst the smaller independant artist(s). Heck, even among some of the not so small artist even. Tim O'Brian, Darrell Scott and Kevin Welch have been known to do house shows.

[taylor410]

[QUOTE=Pete Summers;1065280]

I may be mistaken (as I often am), but I would think a chord progression could also be copyrighted if it was unique and part of the overall effect of the composition.

Obviously, you can't copyright a standard Blues or Country 3 chord progression, which would certainly be public domain, but how about something like "Stairway To Heaven?" I'd figure the chords were original in their sequence for that piece. I know, the lawyers would have to argue it out.

You can copyright the whole of the song. You can't copyright the notes or the individual words.

[mandowilli]

http://www.pdinfo.com/Copyright-Law/...y-PD-Music.php

[foldedpath]

[QUOTE=Pete Summers;1065280]

I may be mistaken (as I often am), but I would think a chord progression could also be copyrighted if it was unique and part of the overall effect of the composition.

Obviously, you can't copyright a standard Blues or Country 3 chord progression, which would certainly be public domain, but how about something like "Stairway To Heaven?" I'd figure the chords were original in their sequence for that piece. I know, the lawyers would have to argue it out.

No, that's firmly established law (at least for U.S. copyright). You can't copyright a chord progression, and you won't find an IP lawyer who will take that kind of case.

If it's a song where the the melody is based on a sequence of notes from an arpeggiated chord, then that's different: it's a melody line, and not considered a "chord progression" in the law.

Edited to add: That link posted by Mandowilli above explains how chord progressions along with other elements can constitute an arrangement, and arrangements can by copyrighted. But not the bare chord progression.

[mandowilli]

Eh, I didn't post that........

[blue4]

How about jail time?

I don't see how we could house half the population with ages ranging from 10-80yrs. I understand your feeling, but this is simply not feasible.

[Bertram Henze]

I don't see how we could house half the population with ages ranging from 10-80yrs. I understand your feeling, but this is simply not feasible.

This will dissappoint those who fight illegal movie copies. This spot used to be shown in German cinemas.

(closing dialog - Child: "when will daddy come back?" Mother: "another 4 times of singing")

[blue4]

My view on this is that too much emphasis is being placed on the morals of downloaders. I don't think it necessarily represents a breakdown in the fabric of society. The trouble is that the music is available for free, to her and anyone else who wants it and it's hard to resist "free". Here's another analogy. You're walking down the street on your way to the local record shop to purchase something. Two doors down, someone is moving and has put out a box of records labeled "FREE". Right on top you see the very album you were intending to purchase. Do you take it?

This is a great question and I don't think anyone's really answered it yet. I would take it and not think anything of it. Even though it is logically no different from downloading free off a web site. One is, by law, stealing and the other is not. You can make the arguement that since that person bought the cd they are entitled to give it away. But then why complain if someone buys a song off Amazon for .99 cents and then gives the song to one of his friends via sd card? If I buy it legally off of Amazon and then put it on a file sharing site am I any different then the free cd guy? I'm still giving music away for free. One is considered a nice guy and one is a criminal. I'm not advocating either way, just pointing out where the logic starts to come apart, and emotions take over.

[bobby bill]

"fair enough, our truck will arrive at your place to haul you and everything else to our venue. Expect us on Friday night"

Funny - that's one offer I've never had.

[mandolirius]

This is a great question and I don't think anyone's really answered it yet. I would take it and not think anything of it. Even though it is logically no different from downloading free off a web site. One is, by law, stealing and the other is not. You can make the arguement that since that person bought the cd they are entitled to give it away. But then why complain if someone buys a song off Amazon for .99 cents and then gives the song to one of his friends via sd card? If I buy it legally off of Amazon and then put it on a file sharing site am I any different then the free cd guy? I'm still giving music away for free. One is considered a nice guy and one is a criminal. I'm not advocating either way, just pointing out where the logic starts to come apart, and emotions take over.

That's it exactly. This is very murky water and it pains me to see people eager to bring it down to a simple lack of morality or ethics on the part of individual. I think that's too easy an answer.

[Mike Bunting]

I saw this somewhere in an article. For about six months before a world tour, Madonna had a schedule like this. 8 a.m. her and the band and dancers etc. practised till 11 a.m. whereupon she herself went for her 2 hour dance rehearsal for the show, meal breaks and back to the studio at about 2 p.m. for more rehearsal till about 8 p.m. Then the next 6 months was airports, hotels and flights etc. for that 2 hours on stage. I'm not a fan but got a new found respect for what those performers do for their money.

[SincereCorgi]

That's it exactly. This is very murky water and it pains me to see people eager to bring it down to a simple lack of morality or ethics on the part of individual. I think that's too easy an answer.

Yeah, I agree. I am very sympathetic to the idea that artists should be compensated if people are enjoying and sharing their work, but I also think it sounds perverse to suggest hamstringing a great new technology to ensure that they are, just because one industry is built on an outmoded method of distributing its product.

(As a side note outside of the issue of compensation, I think it's an interesting and mentally healthy development that music's being separated from the fetishization of owning a little piece of plastic encased in colorful cardboard. It reminds me of a Zizek quote about an unhappy side effect of his VHS collection that went something like: "I used to watch movies, now I own them.")

[Michael H Geimer]

Pegs one hundred shoes to my one peg & awl!

[Spruce]

A lot of what is being said kind of supposes that there isn't a lot of money to be made out of music.....

[Eddie Sheehy]

To make a million dollars playing music you have to start with three million...

[OldSausage]

Spruce may be giving away his music for "free", but we're all paying some corporations an awful lot of money to be able to get access to it.

[taylor410]

This is a great question and I don't think anyone's really answered it yet. I would take it and not think anything of it. Even though it is logically no different from downloading free off a web site. One is, by law, stealing and the other is not. You can make the arguement that since that person bought the cd they are entitled to give it away. But then why complain if someone buys a song off Amazon for .99 cents and then gives the song to one of his friends via sd card? If I buy it legally off of Amazon and then put it on a file sharing site am I any different then the free cd guy? I'm still giving music away for free. One is considered a nice guy and one is a criminal. I'm not advocating either way, just pointing out where the logic starts to come apart, and emotions take over.

There is a huge difference between someone giving away a Cd or an album and buying a song off Amazon or wherever and putting it on a file sharing site. The first scenario is a 'gift'. The second is copyright infringment. Just because you bought it, doesn't give you the right to make copies and distribute. Here in lies the problem. People don't give a rats a$$ about giving away someone elses material. They don't see it as a problem. Its plain and simple. When you make a copy of a cd and give it to a friend, you are stealing from the copyright holder. Back in the days of cassette tape, it was really no big deal due to the fact that the copies were of inferior quality. (usually) But now, a copy of a cd is a clone. You can make a bizzillion copies and they all sound the same. Let's face it. Technology has been the major culprit here. MTV killed the radio star, CD's killed vinyl, digital downloads are now killing CD's and thus the musician's.

[Pete Summers]

There is a huge difference between someone giving away a Cd or an album and buying a song off Amazon or wherever and putting it on a file sharing site. The first scenario is a 'gift'. The second is copyright infringment. Just because you bought it, doesn't give you the right to make copies and distribute. Here in lies the problem. People don't give a rats a$$ about giving away someone elses material. They don't see it as a problem. Its plain and simple. When you make a copy of a cd and give it to a friend, you are stealing from the copyright holder. Back in the days of cassette tape, it was really no big deal due to the fact that the copies were of inferior quality. (usually) But now, a copy of a cd is a clone. You can make a bizzillion copies and they all sound the same. Let's face it. Technology has been the major culprit here. MTV killed the radio star, CD's killed vinyl, digital downloads are now killing CD's and thus the musician's.

This seems right to me. I think the difference is that the person setting the "free" records on the sidewalk is the owner of the records and is entitled to do with them as he pleases, including giving them away or even destroying them.

However, he/she is not entitled to to make copies of those records (if they are under copyright). That's why it's called a "copy-right." The person downloading a file from Amazon then giving it to a friend is making another copy (unless, of course, they give the original copy away and do not duplicate it, which I'm sure is rare).

As for giving jail time to people who download music without paying the copyright owner, it isn't necessary to put everyone who does it in jail, as that obviously would be impossible. But making an example of some of the more egregious offenders might make others think twice. We can't (and don't) put everyone who cheats on their taxes in jail, but prosecuting the high rollers that are doing it probably keeps a lot of us from doing it ourselves. Or so I would hope.

[Charlieshafer]

I think there's a technological step here that hasn't been taken, and no one yet knows what it'll look like, just like anticipating what itunes would mean to the music industry 15 years ago. It goes beyond the file sharing. Vince Gill made the comment that 30 years ago you could by a 45 RPm record for 99 cents. Now, with thirty years of inflation, price increases, and all that, a single sells for... 99 cents. The artist sure isn't making any more of a split, unless they're totally independent of major labels, which, outside of Grammy promotion of their top artists, seem to provide little support. Even a smaller boutique label like Compass still charges the artists for the cost of making a cd, and their distribution is as irrelevant now as any label's. I mean, how many stores are left to put their cd's into? All you hope for from a label is a little promotion in getting their cd some airplay or video play. And, as good as Compass's artists are, how many of them are rockin' the airwaves on a Saturday night?

So, we're stuck with mp3's, and the artists are largely left to themselves for publicity. This is where the smaller venues come in for the guys most of us like to hear. And, as has been mentioned before, unless you're a superstar, you're not getting rich. We end up paying out about 4k a night for our better-knownn artists, and that could be three or four guys. Sounds great, but when you try to figure the hourly rate for all those rehearsals, plus instrument expenses, plus promo expenses, plus travel expenses, plus the booking agent gets their cut, and your manager gets their cut, and after a little time spent on a calculator, it's easy to see why the lifespan of all but a precious few bands is all of about 8 years, and that's for the really good ones.

We're one great technological leap away from being able to tag or encrypt a file, so that of shared, somehow, the quality gets degraded significantly. It was tried with cd's a few years back and met with total disapproval, but someone can make a lot of dough if they're the ones to come up with the system.

[barney 59]

I came to a realization recently. My son,the pirate, pretty much steals everything. He's good with computers and tech stuff and can get anything there is. That is music as well as video. I particularly noticed what he can do with TV and movies. I have Dish TV and pretty much have 200 channels of true garbage with one or two decent channels with shows that I might actually watch. I pay for that. If I want anything more I have to pay extra and if I want Pay Per View movies I pay yet more from a very short list of movies that rarely would I want to watch even if they were free. My son on the other hand has access to EVERYTHING from any place in the world and for free. We were watching a show on Dish one night and he was complaining of the picture quality from my pay for provider so we switched over to his system and it was true,the picture quality was light years better over his for free internet set up than my satellite. As he says,maybe if someone can provide him with what he has he would be willing to pay for that. In reality nothing like that exists from the pay for providers of media. Until they catch up to what these kids are able to provide for themselves and offer a service that is state of the art and worth purchasing why would they want to pay?

[OldSausage]

I can also steal far better goods than I own from a shop, or rob a bank and get thousands of dollars. Why don't I?

[Loretta Callahan]

Actually, CD Baby was bought out about 4 years ago by Disc Makers, a rather large company. They're still a good way for independent musicians to get their music out, but I'm not thrilled that they're aren't forthcoming about this on their website.

I only found out because I used to drive there every few months to deal with their former brethren: Film Baby. The CD Baby staff didn't seem all that thrilled with the changes, but at least CD Baby still in business, has a presence in Portland, and I see many of my beloved artists listed ... so be it. They're just not the warm, fuzzy, Puddletown business they'd like you to believe they are. I really like honesty and transparency; that's just me.

I spend lots of cash at Compass Records as well as buying CDs and DVDs directly from artists. Their sales are legend!

Don't know much about the music industry, but if it's anything like the documentary film industry .... it's a jungle out there.

BTW - I love CDBaby -- they were developed with the specific intent of helping small / independent artists produce their own stuff and be in control of their own products. They are alert to the changes in technology and always seem to be about helping the small artist make use of it. Sure, they keep a little bit for every transaction. But it's small, and I feel that the service they provide us is well worth it. And profits that they make go into developing more resources for independent artists.

KE

[JonZ]

I haven't read the entire thread (can you really blame me?), but--morality aside--I was under the impression that more music was being bought now than ever before, and that illegal downloaders were also the biggest buyers. Just as bars give away salty peanuts to sell more beer, the music freebies taken by some appear to be generating more music sales. The economics have shifted away from the big music companies and their chosen artists, but the wealth is getting spread out among more musicians. It's the middle men in these transactions--Amazon and Itunes--that are making the big bucks.

Let's say I buy music for myself because it is cheap and easy. I give copies to a few friends, which might turn them on to a performer, and they end up buying more from the performer. So by me giving away one recording, which would not have been sold and cost nothing extra for the musician to produce, the musician gets additional sales.

There was an article in the New Yorker recently about how our sense of fairness will often impede our ability to make the best economic choice for ourselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm talkin' to you Mike Bunting!)

[Mike Bunting]

I haven't read the entire thread (can you really blame me?), but--morality aside--I was under the impression that more music was being bought now than ever before, and that illegal downloaders were also the biggest buyers. Just as bars give away salty peanuts to sell more beer, the music freebies taken by some appear to be generating more music sales. The economics have shifted away from the big music companies and their chosen artists, but the wealth is getting spread out among more musicians. It's the middle men in these transactions--Amazon and Itunes--that are making the big bucks.

Let's say I buy music for myself because it is cheap and easy. I give copies to a few friends, which might turn them on to a performer, and they end up buying more from the performer. So by me giving away one recording, which would not have been sold and cost nothing extra for the musician to produce, the musician gets additional sales.

There was an article in the New Yorker recently about how our sense of fairness will often impede our ability to make the best economic choice for ourselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong. (I'm talkin' to you Mike Bunting!)