Sax on the Web Forum banner

No Easy Answers in the Copyright Debate

28K views 99 replies 32 participants last post by  Pete Thomas 
#1 ·
New York Times blog about copyright issues, piracy, etc.
http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/no-easy-answers-in-the-copyright-debate/

blog post by Jason Robert Brown that started it
http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php

blog by Georgia Stitt (wife of Jason Robert Brown)
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/jason-robert-brown-debates-rationalization-of-theft/

blog by George Ou in which he responds to all the pro-piracy arguments
http://www.digitalsociety.org/2010/07/jason-robert-brown-debates-rationalization-of-theft/
 
#74 ·
"the big picture has changed too much to support the old model, and technology has changed it very fast - too fast for the previous/current industry to adapt"

"downsizing and outsourcing has put many very apt people out of work. the moving of jobs/industry to other coutries to boost stock prices (show "growth" by increasing the profit margin - reducing operating costs) is a real issue that is putting non-musicians out of work/pay. so why should we expect that musicians escape the calamity?"


Yep to that.
 
#76 ·
You know this is a very interesting debate. I am a musician, teacher and composer so I get all of the arguments. I wouldn't have nearly the collection I currently have if I had to pay for everything. Having many resources has opened up my eyes as to the possibilities of the web. Music can be monitised in many ways. I am setting up an online platform for my company's students (around 700) and I know what they want. Music needs to be easy and fun. They want to play popular songs like "The Simpsons", "Crazy Frog", "I Gotta Feeling", "James Bond" etc... After researching copyright laws I got the contact details of all the major publishers of these songs (and others) and emailed them all a pretty clear picture of how I want to go about setting up tutorials up using video format. I just wanted to know what needed to happen next ie: legalities, costings etc... From the 5 companies I emailed I got one response and that was to say that the next time he's in England meeting with his superiors he will bring it up. That was over a month ago.

I want legitimacy. I see a hole and want to fill it. I want to develop relevant products for my students. They are happy to pay under my model! What a pity the publishers are making it so difficult for me when i'm trying to do the right thing. They remind me a bit of the record companies... No wonder it's crashing down! Still i'll call them tomorrow and try again. I hope they respond because I know another way that would see them get nothing... It's called Youtube!
 
#77 ·
A cheap way to protect your music is copy the sheet music tune/lyrics and mail it to yourself. Do Not open it, just merely put in a file box with a label which it is. This can protect you down the road if some one tries to steal your tunes.
Thanks Michele, it can certainly help to to protect a copyright but it's not foolproof. (BTW for this to be at all effective it must have an official stamp and date, e.g. on a registered letter)

It is proof of prior ownership and can only be used once, you would ned to open it court in front of the officials. If you forgot to put the manuscript in, or put the wrong one in, you'll have a very red face and big legal bill for nothing.
 
#79 ·
That doesn't surprise me, trying to argue that copying copyright music should be allowed as a tribute is a very unwise claim, and bound to fail IMO. For one thing it admits that the material is actually a copy, but more importantly if the judges did allow that it would set an enormous precedent for anyone to use copyright material without permission and claim it's a "tribute".

I'm still sort of on both sides of the fence in this case, but I'm sure they could have made a better case for appeal than "it was a tribute, guvnor, we didn't nick it"
 
#81 ·
I'm no lawyer, but I think playing a "lick" (however that may be defined) from an improvised solo is very different from playing a 2-bar phrase of a published or well-known melody for which somebody holds a copyright. If I played a Charlie Parker lick in the middle of a popular recording, I don't think there's a legal basis for Parker's estate to claim royalties. But if I played 2 bars of "Happy Birthday To You" in the middle of my hit song, I'm gonna hafta pay up.
 
#82 ·
I'm no lawyer, but I think playing a "lick" (however that may be defined) from an improvised solo is very different from playing a 2-bar phrase of a published or well-known melody for which somebody holds a copyright. If I played a Charlie Parker lick in the middle of a popular recording, I don't think there's a legal basis for Parker's estate to claim royalties.
The lick is unlikely to be copyright, it's just a jazz lick.

Bird did not own thye copyright in his improvisations unless they were on an original tune. So he would have owned his impro on Ornithology, but not on How High the Moon.

Strange but true.
 
#83 ·
I consider it pretty funny when our lead guitarist plays the "Jingle Bells" melody in his electric guitar solo when we cover the song "You're All I've Got Tonight" by The Cars. Makes me wonder if there should be a copyright exception for using a melody in a way that is clearly sacrilegious to its original context.
 
#87 ·
thats neither here nor there. The unfortunate part was that if the band new that riff was from from an old dittie and didnt realize they needed permission. I would say the label that produced and released that song dropped the ball and was negligent in protecting their own. Was it the sax riff that was the phrase in question? If so, I would like to say that if the band new they couldn't use that phrase, the song would be just fine without it. However, my recollection of that song was that the riff was the coolest part...
 
#88 ·
You think? Are you sure you are not thinking about another song?

The song in question has a flute riff

...Well I saw Colin hay do it live 6months ago and it didn't make a scrap of difference without it. 60% of royalties for four notes when missing make bugger all difference to a song is just lawyers using loopholes in laws designed to protect songwriters and musicians to make money. It's nothing to do with artistic IP in this case it's about money.

This song spent 30 years on high rotation before the obscure reference was used as a question on a quiz show.

It's greed. Colin hay and men at work were very successful, now some lowlife wants a slice of the fruits of their efforts.
 
#94 ·
oh yeah(just listened to it) ... their "other" hit. Imho thats a pretty distinctive flute part, unfortunately. Definitely a selling point of the song and the band sound. The acoustic version is nice, but may have never been a hit without that flute part.
I feel ya brother ... sucks to be them, but I would fault management and the label.
 
#95 ·
On this I firmly believe that a copyright holder ought to have protection from unauthorised exploitation and a share of any profits. In the particular case of "Down Under", there is no doubt in my mind that the use of the "Kookaburra" riff was a deliberate quote from a song that only Aussies would "get" - a sort of in joke. This view has been confirmed by both the original judgement and the subsequent appeal.

I don't know where the figure 60% of royalties comes from - that seems to me to be excessive considering the contribution of the riff to the song. In reports of yesterday's failed appeal by EMI to the full bench of the Australian Federal Court the figure of entitlement is 5% of royalties. This would seem to be about right to me.

One of the 14 reasons that EMI put forward in its appeal against the original judgement was that the issue would never have arisen except for a quiz question on a TV show devoted to pop music trivia. An inadmissable but more pertinent fact is that the issue would never have arisen if the Down Under had not been a hit. If you make a large amount of money from a song and it can be proven that others contributed to it then you must be prepared for the claims that will inevitably follow.

On the issue of bottom feeding corporations, my belief, based on my own personal dealings with this firm, is that Larrikin Music doesn't always act in the best interests of its artists. Some years ago I was offered a contract which was put to me in terms of publishing one of my songs but which, on closer examination, sought to assign the rights of all of my future output for several years while not binding Larrikin to do anything at all for me. I can easily imagine that their rights to "Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree" were possibly not gained at any real benefit to the composer or her heirs or the Girl Guides movement.

So, here I am upholding the principle of copyright protection and agreeing that a share of 5% of the royalties would seem fair in this case. Yet, at the same time I'm highly sceptical that Larrikin has obtained the rights to that song on any basis that is benficial to anyone other than Larrikin.
 
#100 ·
I don't know where the figure 60% of royalties comes from - that seems to me to be excessive considering the contribution of the riff to the song. In reports of yesterday's failed appeal by EMI to the full bench of the Australian Federal Court the figure of entitlement is 5% of royalties. This would seem to be about right to me.
So do we know for sure, is it 60% or 5%?
 
#96 ·
In the particular case of "Down Under", there is no doubt in my mind that the use of the "Kookaburra" riff was a deliberate quote from a song that only Aussies would "get" - a sort of in joke.
As an aside it's a tune well known here in the US as well. I remember singing "Kookaburra in the old Gum Tree" in those elementary school choir classes they made everyone take. When I first heard the song during the 80's, it was quite simple to connect the flute solo with the tune.
 
#98 ·
A cheap way to protect your music is copy the sheet music tune/lyrics and mail it to yourself. Do Not open it, just merely put in a file box with a label which it is. This can protect you down the road if some one tries to steal your tunes.

Best regards,
Michele
A while back I was reading the writings of an IP lawyer I think who stated this was *NOT* ironclad. Post marks are simple and it's quite plausible to have them faked. Best way to protect your creation is to register it for copyright officially.
 
#99 ·
regarding "Down Under", some posters here are muddling the two copyrights involved. EMI is the music publisher for "Down Under" and owns the copyright for composition and CBS (now Sony)/Columbia Records is the record company and they own the sound recording. EMI Music Publishing (and the "Down Under" songwriters) are the folks screwed by this Kookaburra decision. The record label is probably not affected at all as they have to pay the same statutory mechanical royalty per sale whether they pay EMI Music Publishing or Larrakin or both.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top