copyrights

[ttf_Joe Jackson]

I hereby copyright breathing.

Cease and desist, scum.

[ttf_Piano man]

Quote from: Todd Jonz on Feb 03, 2007, 04:24PMFound this C|Net article kinda interesting:  'Electric Slide' on slippery DMCA slope.  Nutshell: a guy creates a dance move in the '70s called the Electric Slide (?) and it passes into pop culture; he registers a copyright on his "choreography" in 2004, feuds with The Ellen DeGeneres Show over an episode in which some celebrities perform the move, and sends a DMCA takedown notice to YouTube for all videos depicting the move.


So my idea to copyright 'bad wedding reception dancing' isn't as stupid is Mrs. PM thinks.

[ttf_anonymous]

Quote from: Piano man on Feb 04, 2007, 06:22AMSo my idea to copyright 'bad wedding reception dancing' isn't as stupid is Mrs. PM thinks.
Could you copyright the choreography to The Chicken Dance?

[ttf_marty nichols]

I briefly entertained the idea of buying iPod Shuffles,
or another quality player, loading selected music from my
library on them and selling on line.

From what I am learning, it's a "no-no"?

 

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: marty nichols on Feb 06, 2007, 04:51AMI briefly entertained the idea of buying iPod Shuffles,
or another quality player, loading selected music from my
library on them and selling on line.

From what I am learning, it's a "no-no"?

 

If you wrote the song, or if the song is old enough to be "public domain", you should be OK.

If the songs are copyright protected, you really shouldn't be selling them without permission from the copyright owner.

[ttf_anonymous]

Got this really nifty flowchart off a tubenet post:

http://www.bromsun.com/practices/copyright-portfolio-development/flowchart.htm

answers a lot of copyright questions.

[ttf_anonymous]

Hello,

Some very useful info here.

I'm in the process of making a limited run--under 2500 copies--solo CD.

I scanned the Harry Fox site, and found some popular, often performed works, for instance the Casterede and Creston, are there, but many lesser perfomed works, the bulk of my recording, are not.  I'm unclear, and I can't make sense of it from the Harry Fox site, if a work is not in their database, will they seek it out and make it part of their database if I make it known I wish to pay for its mechanical rights?

Or, does this mean I have to contact the publisher, or even the composer to obtain the mecahnical rights to the works?  Several of my choices are LeDuc publications--what are the odds of my hearing back from them if I submit a request? 

This seems like quite a labyrinth to roam through!


Any help would be appreciated...

Roger Verdi

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

Roger writes:

> Harry Fox...if a work is not in their database, will they seek
> it out and make it part of their database if I make it known I
> wish to pay for its mechanical rights?

Probably not.  As best I can tell, the Harry Fox Agency is merely a paper pusher and collection agent for the publishers with which it has contracts.  If HFA represents the publisher of a work in which you're interested, I would expect it to be in the Songfile database.

> Several of my choices are LeDuc publications

Can you find any other LeDuc titles in Songfile?  If so, then an inquiry to HFA would probably be in order.  Otherwise you'll probably have to deal with LeDuc directly.

> what are the odds of my hearing back from
> them if I submit a request?

Great question.  Let us know the answer if you get this far. 

> This seems like quite a labyrinth to roam through!

It's nuts, isn't it?  Wouldn't the world be a much simpler place if there were a formal registry like there used to be?

A friend's Dixieland band pressed 5,000 CDs to sell at gigs.  It took them almost six months (which they hadn't planned on) to clear the rights to a lot of musty old standards from the '20s and '30s.  That must have been a lot of fun.


 

[ttf_RMVerdi]

Thanks for the reply,

I looked through the HF site again, and they do have several LeDuc works in their database, just not the ones I want to record!  The composers and publishers of my other choices are there too....so, I have an email in the them, HF, regarding my options with them.

Thanks again,

Roger

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

> I have an email in [to] them, HF, regarding my options with them.

I hope you'll let us know what you hear back from them, Roger.  I've always wondered about this myself, and I'm sure others have as well.

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

The Bush administration is shopping a bill around Congress called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 which, according to a C-Net article, would:

• [li] Criminalize "attempts" to infringe copyright (whatever that might mean);[/li][li] Permit life imprisonment for using pirated software;[/li][li] Permit wiretaps on anyone "attempting" to infringe copyrights;[/li][li] Allow a computer to be seized if it is "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime;[/li][li] Impose penalties for actions that were "intended to consist of" unautorized distribution of copyrighted materials.[/li]

Intentions?  Sounds a lot like Minority Report to me.

[ttf_BGuttman]

Seems a bit drastic to me.  You can get life imprisonment if you use a copy of some software for personal (or perhaps training) use once?

You can get life in prison because you took that copy of Windows 2000 from the old computer and put it on the new one?

Have the "copyright police" scanning all computers for pirate software and impounding them?  Got a big storage area?

Wiretaps to check for copyright infringements?  I think you will be wiretapping the entire country!

Gonna put every kid who rips a track from YouTube in the slammer?

Hope he has money to build a lot of prisons; he's going to have half the country locked up!

[ttf_Joe Jackson]

It would be great if this got passed. 

I mean, if a future president ever commits us to unwinnable wars with no compelling national security interest, bankrupts the country, rolls over at every opportunity for big business and throws the Constitution under the bus, he'll get thrown in jail for illegally using copyrighted material belonging to George W. Bush.

Sorry, off topic, inappropriate. 

*moderates self*

[ttf_Labdiscoduck]

Quote from: Todd Jonz on May 15, 2007, 10:24AMThe Bush administration is shopping a bill around Congress called the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 which, according to a C-Net article, would:

• [li] Criminalize "attempts" to infringe copyright (whatever that might mean);[/li][li] Permit life imprisonment for using pirated software;[/li][li] Permit wiretaps on anyone "attempting" to infringe copyrights;[/li][li] Allow a computer to be seized if it is "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime;[/li][li] Impose penalties for actions that were "intended to consist of" unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials.[/li]

Intentions?  Sounds a lot like Minority Report to me.


Just read the article.  Pretty scary stuff.  It's like 1984- twenty three years too late.  Doesn't the government have enough to worry about without trying to enforce this proposed law?  Life imprisonment for pirated software?  Holy Crap.     

[ttf_anonymous]

Crap.  I just listened to "JJ's Broadway" and was thinking some of those would be a cool arrangement.  Since I did some roadmaps in my head, is that an attempt at copyright infringement?
Crap. 
I would use my computer to genetrate the parts.  Gone.
I listened to it in my truck.  Gone.
My daughter was in the car.  Did I endanger her by exposing her to my dark criminal activity?
Sheeesh.  Minority Report is right.

[ttf_anonymous]

I've had an interesting question come up elsewhere.

Is an unauthorized derivative work covered by copyright?

For example, suppose somebody makes a really hot, but unauthorized, arrangement of a song, and puts it up on a website. The owner of the copyright finds it, decides it's actually pretty good, and publishes it. Could the person whose (unauthorized) arrangement was effectively stolen after they stole the song in the first place sue? As I understand things, the arrangement is a separate issue that could be copyrighted just as the original composition was, which would mean it's covered by copyright as soon as it's created and fixed and all that. If the arrangement was unauthorized, then complaining that somebody stole it would be tantamount to a (potentially very expensive) admission of guilt. But would the fact that it was unauthorized do anything to change legal standing? Is this addressed anywhere?

I've found a few cases of fan fiction where a fic writer threatened to sue an original creator, usually for cribbing a plot that the fic author came up with using the creator's characters, but I haven't managed to find anything that actually went to court. As far as I know, this is essentially an academic question that might not have an answer. I just know there are some folks on here who have dug more deeply than I have.

[ttf_BGuttman]

The way I understand it, Bick:

1.  The original copyright applies to the original work.  Any derivative offered for sale must be approved by the copyright owner.

2.  Any derivative work will retain any rights not reserved for the original copyright holder.  i.e. if an unauthorized arrangement of a tune is created, the arranger may not sell it because he does not have permission from the original copyright owner, but the original owner cannot steal it either because the existence of the derivative work is because of efforts of the copyright violator.

In cases like this there can be cross-licensing agreements to allow the arrangement to be sold with royalties going to both the originator of the work and the creator of the derivative work.

Of course if one side decides to be intransigent...

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

Great hypothetical, bick.

> As I understand things, the arrangement is a separate issue
> that could be copyrighted just as the original composition
> was...would the fact that it was unauthorized do anything
> to change legal standing?  Is this addressed anywhere?

Here are the pertinent sections of U.S. copyright law that I think would apply to this situation:

§101 Definitions

...A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a...musical arrangement...

§106 Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
 
The owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights...to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work...

Since it makes the language of what I'm about to write a lot simpler, let's assume for the moment that it's the composer who holds the copyright on the original work.

As I read the two sections above, the arranger holds no legal rights to his unauthorized arrangement, having violated the exclusive right of the composer to create derivative works.  It doesn't sound to me as if the arranger would have any legal recourse if the composer were to usurp the unauthorized arrangement and do with it as he pleases -- or, at least, the arranger could not look to copyright law for protection.

[ttf_oldskoolmark]

Seems like these would be in violation every time they did a song without explicit permission from the owner, which is 99.9999% of the time. No?

[ttf_BGuttman]

There are two issues with copyright infringement.

Sure, every time I play a song without paying a performance royalty I am breaking the law.

The royalty is usually under a dollar for each performance.  Is it worth it to hire a lawyer at $500 an hour (20 hour minimum) to try to get the 80 cents in royalty?  No.  But if I cut a record and start selling ten thousand copies it now becomes more reasonable to try to recoup the payments.

If I put the recording on YouTube and allow everybody and his dog to download it, the copyright owner is now losing big $$$.

Get the picture?

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

Another good question, Mark.

My comments on bick's hypothetical were about the arrangement with regard to publication rights.  In this case I think the composer holds all the cards.  Performance is another matter.  The venue is responsible for paying royalties, not the band, so a cover band is protected.  The same would apply to a recording, in which case the record company would be responsible.

Now, is it kosher for a cover band to perform or record and unauthorized arrangement?  Beats me!  I've asked this before but nobody has ever offered an answer.  I would guess that as long as the composer is getting his royalties he'd be happy.

Dose of reality:  Are unauthorized arrangements performed frequently?  Sure they are.  Are they legal?  Perhaps not.  Is my local band liable to get sued?  Highly unlikely.  While we've spent a lot of time in this thread discussing ethics and legality, it would appear that, in practice, they often have very little to do with reality.

(UPDATE:  You beat me to the <Enter> key, Bruce!)

[ttf_Piano man]

My best guess is that performing an unauthorized arrangement in an ASCAP and BMI licensed venue is completely legal. If not, where would you draw the line?

1) A written out arrangement for 18-piece band?
2) A reharmonization of a standard, scribbled down on a cocktail napkin?
3) Redoing a rock song as reggae, with no written arrangement?
4) Playing a song much faster or slower than the original?

At some point, a really bad copy band could be sued for unintentionally playing an unauthorized arrangement.

I think you can play a song any old way you want in a license-paying establishment, whether the arrangement is written down, partly written down, or unwritten.

Selling the arrangement would be another story.

[ttf_dwdraw]

Having recently done a lot of reading on copyright law, here is what I understand about performing arrangements:

* Unauthorized performances and arrangements are unauthorized, and need authorization to become legal.
* Legal arrangements are arrangements with permission from the copyright holder.
* Performances of unauthorized arrangements are legal 1) when in an educational setting (such as a school band, but not a pro group who travels to a school for pay), 2) when the performance of the original is authorized, and 3) when the arrangement a) keeps the character of the piece the same, b) changes no melodic material, and c) changes are only to fit the piece to the ensemble (such as substituting an instrument or having more players on a part than originally intended).

Piano man,

According to law, all 4 are illegal. (No. 4 falls under "substantially changes" the character of the work, and no. 2 is an arrangement only legal if the original is out of copyright.)
Performed arrangements are not legal by law, but may be permitted by the terms of your specific licensing agreement. For example,
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/about.html
Of course, it says "ASCAP does not license the right to print copies of musical works, nor does it license rights to make adaptations or arrangements." But, that is unclear whether it talks about printing, or printing and performing.

Hopefully someone will know more about the specifics of the ASCAP and BMI licensing terms. (A quick search didn't turn up any legalese contracts, but gave many general FAQs and brochures.) They would have to grant additional rights to allow for performing arrangements.

http://www.menc.org/information/copyright/copyr.html
http://publishing.wsu.edu/copyright/music_copyright/
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

[ttf_Piano man]

Thanks for the info.

I assume that when I pay BMI and ASCAP fees for my clubs, I'm covering in advance the rights of my paid performers to play songs licensed under those organizations. Otherwise, what would I be paying for? And it's not cheap.

I think arranging a song for an eighteen-piece band would be legal, because it fits all the criteria. There's no substantive difference between writing out the parts and singing them to each player and learning them by ear.

It looks like you can copyright a song and benefit from its licensed performance, then retain the right to prosecute those whose versions you don't care for.

Presumably, if I throw a couple bars from "If I Only Had a Brain" as a quote into an improvised solo during "Autumn Leaves" in a licensed club, I'd be violating two copyrights at once.

For that matter, a strict reading of the law as quoted would seem to make improvising over a copyrighted standard a violation in and of itself.

I won't argue with your interpretation of the law--you've done more homework on this than I have--but it looks like this one is so poorly written that it would be difficult to work without unintentionally violating it.

[ttf_dwdraw]

I haven't looked into how copyright affects jazz and other works containing improvisation. I found something quickly that is limited in its exploration, so, if you find anything else, I'd love to read more.

Here's something I found about improv:
http://www.iaje.org/article.asp?ArticleID=145

This shows how extreme the law can get when leaning more on the theory of law than what's done in practice:
QuoteThis is complicated further in the U.S. by the doctrine of derivative works, in which a section of the American copyright law (unlike Canada's) reserves to the owner of copyright in a musical work the sole and exclusive right to make new works based on that work. This right does not exist in Canada, but it clearly does exist in the U.S. So technically, it is an infringement of United States law for any musician to improvise a solo over a protected musical work other than with the permission of the composer or the publisher. In Canada, however, even if the result is an infringing solo on the musical work on which it is based, it creates a situation of "blocking copyrights." The soloist isn't authorized to play the original solo, but the composer also isn't authorized to play the original solo (because the composer didn't compose it).

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

Dwdraw writes:

> This shows how extreme the law can get when leaning more
> on the theory of law than what's done in practice...

And that's the real lesson to be learned from all of the posts in this thread.  Copyright law serves as a general guideline for those willing to make an effort to do the right thing, and to provide a framework within which a decision will be made in a court of law when two parties are unable to resolve their differences between themselves.

It's like highway speed limits.  Most of us agree that they're a good idea, but how many of us don't knowingly violate them from time to time?  Who hasn't performed an unauthorized arrangement in public, or made photocopies of charts to pass out to the band after putting the originals in the files for safe keeping?  My personal jihad is against permanently out-of-print works, which I freely copy and share without any reservation whatsoever despite the fact that it's a clear violation of copyright law.

If we can't improvise a solo, keep important works alive when they go out of print, or sing "Happy Birthday" in a restaurant that has no ASCAP/BMI license, then I assert that it is copyright law that needs to change, not the behavior a well-intentioned citizenry.

[ttf_MoominDave]

Quote from: Todd Jonz on Feb 19, 2006, 02:54PM If so, I'd like to update my personal copy of the FAQ posted above (for which I still hope to find a properly supported home on some site or other.)

Todd,

There is a primarily UK-based brass band forum at www.themouthpiece.com. They maintain a factsheet on UK copyright law (a collaborative effort, authored by Philip Sparke, among others). I think that your text on US law would be a valuable related addition to their "articles" section, possibly subject to some further collaborative effort over there. There would be no problems in adding it, as there seem to be here (unless it's gone up somewhere where I haven't been looking in the meantime).

The tMP UK copyright factsheet: http://www.themouthpiece.com/vb/showthread.php?t=19730
tMP forum owner: John Burns - [url=mailto:[email protected]][email protected][/url]

If you're still looking for somewhere to host, I'd suggest that you contact John, saying that I suggested that you do so. For reference, my username is the same there as here.

[I'll send you a PM saying this too]

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

Thinking about building a reproduction of the Egyptian pyramids?  Then don't be surprised if you get a bill for royalties from the Egyptian government, which is on the verge of enacting legislation that puts them under copyright protection.

When I read the headline "Egypt to copyright pyramids" I had to check my calendar to make sure it wasn't April Fools Day.  I've read about a lot of copyright abuse, but this one really takes the cake!

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

I found a handy little Flash application on the net, a sort of Copyright Slide Rule, that can be quite helpful in determining if a work first published in the U.S. is still protected under U.S. copyright law based on its date of publication.

It won't give you a definitive answer in most cases, but it provides some useful guidelines (it also serves to illustrate just how convoluted U.S. copyright law has become.)  It does, however, define three categories of public domain works for which the conditions are relatively easy to verify:

(1) the work was published before 1923;

(2) the work was published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright (©) notice;

(3) the creator of the work died more than 70 years ago.

The only definitive guideline of which I was previously aware was the first one; the last two are new to me (you learn something every day!)  I found the second one particularly interesting; it would appear to suggest that it's cool to digitize and share old recordings that don't display a copyright notice.  Start checking those old 78s!

[ttf_Todd Jonz]

I have just discovered a wonderful web site called Public Domain Sherpa that was created by an honest-to-gosh attorney, not another well-intentioned armchair lawyer (like most of us who have debated these issues here in the Forum) or an RIAA flack who wants to spin reality to the advantage of the Entertainment Cartel.  I found several essays on this site that I thought would be of general interest to Forum members:

• [li]Making sure it’s public domain sheet music[/li][li]Avoiding problems with public domain music[/li][li]False copyright claims are more common than you think.[/li][li]Finding and using free sheet music[/li]

Reading these essays has caused me to question some of the information I included in the Copyright FAQ I wrote a few years ago in an attempt to compile the collective "wisdom" found in previous Forum posts.  For example:

• In the US, reprint editions of public domain music, no matter how beautifully typeset (and no matter how much effort went into the edition), are simply not copyrightable.

This negates the assertion in sections 8 and 13 of the FAQ that the engraving of Drei Equale that I created using Sibelius is protected by copyright law.  Changes to a work in the public domain must be "creative" in order to be protected by copyright, and regardless of how artistic I might think my new engraving is, from the perspective of copyright law my changes are "mechanical" and my engraving is a "reprint" that isn't protected.

By extension, I would guess that even my Sibelius file probably isn't protected either since it, too, is just another "mechanical" reproduction of Ludwig's notes.  But what about a MIDI file I generate using Sibelius?  Is it also mechanical reproduction or is it a "phonorecording", which is protected?

The more I read about copyright, the more confused I become.

[ttf_BGuttman]

Quote from: Todd Jonz on Sep 06, 2008, 07:07PM...

The more I read about copyright, the more confused I become.


This is what keeps Intellectual Property Lawyers in business.

[ttf_sly fox]

have fun reading

or you could pay an attorney specializing in copyright law, I guess.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-would-help-combat-copyright-offenders-on-the-internet/2011/08/23/gIQA3SYdbJ_story.html

QuoteEditorial Board Opinion

Bill would help combat copyright offenders on the Internet

The Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act, introduced by Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and a bipartisan group of lawmakers, would give the government and copyright- and trademark-holders a means to combat this problem. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) is expected to introduce a House version once Congress returns next month.

The proposal would allow the Justice Department or a private rights holder to move against a rogue foreign Web site by convincing a federal judge that the site is “dedicated to” and has “no significant use” other than copyright or trademark infringement. Defendant Web sites would have the right to contest the allegation. An otherwise legitimate site that may have sold a product that turned out to be a fake or unknowingly linked to or posted an item to which it did not have the rights would be spared legal action. . . .

Some U.S. Internet businesses and open Internet advocates worry that the Protect IP Act could choke off legitimate speech by authorizing the demise of entire Web sites, rather than specific content. They point to the effectiveness of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which requires Web site owners to take down individual pieces of pirated content after a copyright holder complains. But what if the Web site is a consistent scofflaw? . . .
here is the text of the proposed bill:

http://leahy.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/BillText-PROTECTIPAct.pdf


 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/hr2281.pdf

[ttf_sly fox]

update on efforts to redo the proposed law

looks like a start over

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/us/white-house-says-it-opposes-parts-of-2-antipiracy-bills.html?ref=us

QuoteThe Obama administration said Saturday that it strongly opposed central elements of two Congressional efforts to enforce copyrights on the Internet, all but killing the current versions of legislation that has divided both political parties and pitted Hollywood against Silicon Valley. 

The comments by the administration’s chief technology officials, posted on a White House blog Saturday,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy

QuoteThe White House has responded to two petitions about legislative approaches to combat online piracy. In their response, Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget, Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer, and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff stress that the important task of protecting intellectual property online must not threaten an open and innovative internet. . . .
more from the NY Times:

Quotecame as growing opposition to the legislation had already led sponsors of the bills to reconsider a measure that would force Internet service providers to block access to Web sites that offer or link to copyrighted material.

“Let us be clear,” the White House statement said, “online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs.”

However, it added, “We will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.”

The bills currently under consideration in Congress were intended to combat the theft of copyrighted materials by preventing American search engines like Google and Yahoo from directing users to sites that allow for the distribution of stolen materials. They would cut off payment processors like PayPal that handle transactions.

The bills would also allow private citizens and companies to sue to stop what they believed to be theft of protected content. Those and other provisions set off fierce opposition among Internet companies, technology investors and free speech advocates, who said the bills would stifle online innovation, violate the First Amendment and even compromise national security by undermining the integrity of the Internet’s naming system.

Though the Obama administration called for legislation this year that would give prosecutors and owners of intellectual property new abilities to deter overseas piracy, it also embraced the idea of “voluntary measures and best practices” to reduce piracy. . . .

[ttf_BGuttman]

The problem with online copyrights is that we have a problem and the folks trying to "fix" the problem are going after the wrong people.  It sorta reminds me of the approach to election fraud: we have problems with election fraud so we attack one small (possibly insignificant) part of it: certifying voters.

The 600 pound gorilla in the room are the counterfeiters.  These guys have no compunction of making thousands of copies of digital media and selling it at a lower price; the profits go entirely to the counterfeiters, most of whom are not in the US and hence out of reach of law enforcement.

There is a 400 pound gorilla as well.  It is the file share sites.  These are now also not in the US and hence beyond the reach of the law.

So now we have the people who are being aggrieved going after the one thing they can.  We have some copyrighted material being put on YouTube, Wikipedia, and other such sites.  And these people are not happy to just have the material removed; they want to take down the sites entirely.  This is misguided.  YouTube has removed copyrighted material when requested.  This should be sufficient.  Same goes for other ethical sites.  This is what upsets the "Free Internet" folks.

I don't know the solution to the counterfeits.  We have a similar problem in Electronics, but with more serious consequences: many counterfeit parts don't work as well as the real ones (if they work at all) and this can be a serious problem with things like medical equipment and armaments.  As long as there are amoral people there will be counterfeits.  There probably should be an international agreement that is enforced (the Chinese have anti-counterfeit laws but the stuff coming out of there indicates that they don't enforce them).

[ttf_sly fox]

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/17/technology/sopa_explained/index.htm?iid=Lead


QuoteSOPA explained: What it is and why it matters

 . . . What is SOPA? SOPA is an acronym for the Stop Online Piracy Act. It's a proposed bill that aims to crack down on copyright infringement by restricting access to sites that host pirated content.

SOPA's main targets are "rogue" overseas sites like torrent hub The Pirate Bay, which are a trove for illegal downloads of movies and other digital content.

Content creators have battled against piracy for years -- remember Napster? -- but it's hard for U.S. companies to take action against foreign sites. So SOPA's goal is to cut off pirate sites' oxygen by requiring U.S. search engines, advertising networks and other providers to withhold their services.

That means sites like Google wouldn't show flagged sites in their search results, and payment processors like eBay's (EBAY, Fortune 500) PayPal couldn't transmit funds to them.

Both sides say they agree that protecting content is a worthy goal. But opponents say that the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.

Silicon Valley woke up and took notice of the implications when SOPA was introduced in the House of Representatives in October. But its very similar counterpart, PIPA, flew under the radar and was approved by a Senate committee in May. PIPA is now pending before the full Senate and scheduled for a vote on January 24, though some senators are pushing for a delay.

Isn't copyright infringement already illegal? Yes. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act lays out enforcement measures. . . .

[ttf_BGuttman]

This seems to be getting more and more like the "fight" against pornography or the "war" on drugs.

These things would dry up and blow away in the wind if the demand was not there.

Why do people want to use these sites?  Because they perceive that the prices for the legitimate items are excessive.  If the legitimate cost for something was perceived to be correct most people would gladly pay the tariff and be done with it.

It might be that some products don't properly explain why their prices are what they are.

But when we have folks like Bill Gates amassing huge fortunes because the OS or the Office apps go for between $200 and $500 a copy, the perception is that we are paying for a lot more than his real costs.  Hence people go to pirate sites to avoid what they perceive as excessive profit taking.

There aren't too many people in this thing whose hands are really clean.

[ttf_HouBassTrombone]

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
Wow....

[ttf_BGuttman]

Nothing new here.  There is an International Copyright that is much more comprehensive than the US copyright and the Supremes are simply saying that we should adhere to the foreign model.

We had another time just before Congress passed the first Disney Relief Act (copyright extension) where a number of works from the 1920s and 1930s suddenly had passed their 56 year limit and reverted to Public Domain.  Then they reverted to copyright because of the first extension.  We have a couple of works in our library that we got during that "magic" period that if we lost we could never recover (they will probably remain under copyright as long as Walt Disney Enterprises remains in business).

[ttf_sly fox]

Quote from: HouBassTrombone on Jan 18, 2012, 08:01PMhttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/01/scotus-re-copyright-decision/
Wow....

here is the link to the text of most recent USSC decision on copyright issues which is referred to by HBT:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-545.pdf

Golan v. Holder

Quote . . . Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works §514 removed from the public domain. They maintain that Congress, in passing §514,exceeded its authority under the Copyright Clause and transgressed First Amendment limitations.

The District Court granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment. Affirming in part, theTenth Circuit agreed that Congress had not offended the Copyright Clause, but concluded that §514 required further First Amendmentinspection in light of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186.

On remand, the District Court granted summary judgment to petitioners on the First Amendment claim, holding that §514’s constriction of the publicd omain was not justified by any of the asserted federal interests.

The Tenth Circuit reversed, ruling that §514 was narrowly tailored to fitthe important government aim of protecting U. S. copyright holders’ interests abroad.

Held:

1. Section 514 does not exceed Congress’ authority under the Copyright Clause. Pp. 13–23.
(a) The text of the Copyright Clause does not exclude applicationof copyright protection to works in the public domain. Eldred is largely dispositive of petitioners’ claim that the Clause’s confinementof a copyright’s lifespan to a “limited Tim[e]” prevents the removal ofworks from the public domain. In Eldred, the Court upheld the Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA), which extended, by 20 years, the terms of existing copyrights. The text of the Copyright Clause, theCourt observed, contains no “command that a time prescription, onceset, becomes forever ‘fixed’ or ‘inalterable,’ ” and the Court declined to infer any such command. 537 U. S., at 199. The construction petitioners tender here is similarly infirm. The terms afforded works restored by §514 are no less “limited” than those the CTEA lengthened. Nor had the “limited Tim[e]” already passed for the works at issuehere—many of them works formerly denied any U. S. copyright protection—for a period of exclusivity must begin before it may end. Petitioners also urge that the Government’s position would allow Congress to legislate perpetual copyright terms by instituting successive“limited” terms as prior terms expire. But as in Eldred, such hypothetical misbehavior is far afield from this case. In aligning theUnited States with other nations bound by Berne, Congress can hardly be charged with a design to move stealthily toward a perpetual copyright regime. Pp. 13–15.

(b)
Historical practice corroborates the Court’s reading of the Copyright Clause to permit the protection of previously unprotectedworks. In the Copyright Act of 1790, the First Congress protectedworks that had been freely reproducible under State copyright laws.Subsequent actions confirm that Congress has not understood the Copyright Clause to preclude protection for existing works. Several private bills restored the copyrights and patents of works and inventions previously in the public domain. Congress has also passed generally applicable legislation granting copyrights and patents to works and inventions that had lost protection. Pp. 15–19.
(c)
Petitioners also argue that §514 fails to “promote the Progress of Science” as contemplated by the initial words of the Copyright Clause. Specifically, they claim that because §514 affects only works already created, it cannot meet the Clause’s objective. The creation of new works, however, is not the sole way Congress may promote“Science,” i.e., knowledge and learning. In Eldred, this Court rejecteda nearly identical argument, concluding that the Clause does not demand that each copyright provision, examined discretely, operate toinduce new works. Rather the Clause “empowers Congress to determine the intellectual property regimes that, overall, in that body’s judgment, will serve the ends of the Clause.” 537 U. S., at 222. Nothing in the text or history of the Copyright Clause, moreover, confines the “Progress of Science” exclusively to “incentives for creation.” Historical evidence, congressional practice, and this Court’s decisions, in fact, suggest that inducing the dissemination of existingworks is an appropriate means to promote science. Pp. 20–22.
(d)
Considered against this backdrop, §514 falls comfortably within Congress’ Copyright Clause authority. Congress had reason to believe that a well-functioning international copyright system would encourage the dissemination of existing and future works. And testimony informed Congress that full compliance with Berne would expand the foreign markets available to U. S. authors and invigorate protection against piracy of U. S. works abroad, thus benefitting copyright-intensive industries stateside and inducing greater investment in the creative process. This Court has no warrant to reject Congress’ rational judgment that exemplary adherence to Berne would serve the objectives of the Copyright Clause. Pp. 22–23.
2. The First Amendment does not inhibit the restoration author
(a)
The pathmarking Eldred decision is again instructive. There, the Court held that the CTEA’s enlargement of a copyright’s duration did not offend the First Amendment’s freedom of expression guarantee. Recognizing that some restriction on expression is the inherent and intended effect of every grant of copyright, the Court observed that the Framers regarded copyright protection not simply as a limiton the manner in which expressive works may be used, but also as an“engine of free expression.” 537 U. S., at 219. The “traditional contours” of copyright protection, i.e., the “idea/expression dichotomy” and the “fair use” defense, moreover, serve as “built-in First Amendment accommodations.” Ibid. Given the speech-protective purposes and safeguards embraced by copyright law, there was no call for theheightened review sought in Eldred. The Court reaches the same conclusion here. Section 514 leaves undisturbed the idea/expressiondistinction and the fair use defense. Moreover, Congress adoptedmeasures to ease the transition from a national scheme to an international copyright regime. Pp. 23–26.
(b)
Petitioners claim that First Amendment interests of a higherorder are at stake because they—unlike their Eldred counterparts—enjoyed “vested rights” in works that had already entered the publicdomain. Their contentions depend on an argument already considered and rejected, namely, that the Constitution renders the public domain largely untouchable by Congress. Nothing in the historicalrecord, subsequent congressional practice, or this Court’s jurisprudence warrants exceptional First Amendment solicitude for copyrighted works that were once in the public domain. Congress has several times adjusted copyright law to protect new categories ofworks as well as works previously in the public domain. Section 514, moreover, does not impose a blanket prohibition on public access.The question is whether would-be users of certain foreign works mustpay for their desired use of the author’s expression, or else limit their exploitation to “fair use” of those works. By fully implementingBerne, Congress ensured that these works, like domestic and mostother foreign works, would be governed by the same legal regime. Section 514 simply placed foreign works in the position they would have occupied if the current copyright regime had been in effect whenthose works were created and first published. Pp. 26–30.
609 F. 3d 1076, affirmed. . . .

[ttf_anonymous]

I am an adjunct professor of music at Fairfield University...I am happy to answer any questions regarding Copyright at any time.  I have over ten (10) years of experience in music publishing and licensing.

Happy to help!

[ttf_Geezerhorn]

Quote from: Stu914Music on May 13, 2015, 06:50AMI am an adjunct professor of music at Fairfield University...I am happy to answer any questions regarding Copyright at any time.  I have over ten (10) years of experience in music publishing and licensing.

Happy to help!

If I purchase a play-along song book from MMO or any other source and record myself with their cd accompaniment, can I publish it on YouTube and perform it in public - giving the source due credit - and do so with impunity if I do not take any money for said performance?

...Geezer

[ttf_Stu914Music]

Quote from: Geezerhorn on May 13, 2015, 06:57AMIf I purchase a play-along song book from MMO or any other source and record myself with their cd accompaniment, can I publish it on YouTube and perform it in public - giving the source due credit - and do so with impunity if I do not take any money for said performance?

...Geezer

In a word, No.  By purchasing the product you have satisfied your legal obligation, through the parent company, to own a copy of the folio/ sheet music in exchange for paying a license fee (the cost of the book).  In order to take someone else's sound recording, the cd, and use that in a video that you produced embedding that sound into your video is only permitted and accomplished by executing a synchronization license with the publisher and master use license with the owner of the soundrecording simultaneously. If you were to re record the accompanying music in your own way and use that, then you would in fact be the owner of that specific sound recording, however, you would still have to execute a mechanical license to re record the original accompaniment you were recording...in any sense, you have to license the right to use other people's copyright in your own endeavors. This doesn't always mean you have to pay because sometimes writers and publishers give gratis licenses (dependent on several factors), however, the licensing process always has to occur, even in the minimal sense of the process.

[ttf_robcat2075]

Question: what was the basis for "Peter and the Wolf" being considered PD at all?




Quote from: Geezerhorn on May 13, 2015, 06:57AMIf I purchase a play-along song book from MMO or any other source and record myself with their cd accompaniment, can I publish it on YouTube and perform it in public - giving the source due credit - and do so with impunity if I do not take any money for said performance?

I expect the answer to that would be "no". MMO owns the copyright to that recording and hasn't given permission for you to make copies of it, overdubbed or not. Credit-giving and/or finances don't alter that test.

[ttf_Stu914Music]

Was that a question for me? I am sorry I am new here- just trying to get a feel for the forum/ posting etiquette lol.

Copyright varies in country to country...here in the US we have renewal options that extend the life of copyright sometimes exceptionally longer than in other countries...Canada gives copyright less of a timeline...Asian countries also have a 'writer's life + 50 years' policy in place.

If a song is written after 1922, especially here in the US, there is a very good chance that the composition is still protected under the copyright act of 1976 and not public domain.  The best pursuit whenever looking to cover a song is to look up the writer/ publisher information on ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC here in the US and figure out if performance royalties are actively being collected on the performance of the piece.  With the exception of new and 'approved' arrangements of PD compositions collecting reduced royalties, most of the songs indexed are actively protected copyrights.

[ttf_Geezerhorn]

Quote from: Stu914Music on May 13, 2015, 09:27AMIn a word, No.  By purchasing the product you have satisfied your legal obligation, through the parent company, to own a copy of the folio/ sheet music in exchange for paying a license fee (the cost of the book).  In order to take someone else's sound recording, the cd, and use that in a video that you produced embedding that sound into your video is only permitted and accomplished by executing a synchronization license with the publisher and master use license with the owner of the soundrecording simultaneously. If you were to re record the accompanying music in your own way and use that, then you would in fact be the owner of that specific sound recording, however, you would still have to execute a mechanical license to re record the original accompaniment you were recording...in any sense, you have to license the right to use other people's copyright in your own endeavors. This doesn't always mean you have to pay because sometimes writers and publishers give gratis licenses (dependent on several factors), however, the licensing process always has to occur, even in the minimal sense of the process.

I understand and I thank you. Your answer makes sense to me and connects with other information on a similar matter from another source.

However, YouTube being what it is, I suspect that unless it gets "Napstered", it wouldn't be worth any corporation's effort to come after ME for a few recordings I have done that violate copyright laws; especially since there is no money gained by me. If, however, my simple recordings go viral and produce a handsome revenue stream from advertising, then bar the door! A more likely scenario is that they would go after YouTube and YouTube might, in turn be legally required to go after me and others like me - which would probably only amount to either a warning or a banishment. In that Napster debacle, we all heard the horror stories of a few select individuals getting rocked for the music they had downloaded. But those individuals reportedly had hundreds of thousands of downloads and may have been distributing them. I had about 10,000 downloads and never lost one minute of sleep worrying about the copyright cops coming after me. Small potatoes.

That said, perhaps YouTube WILL be the next "Napster" case. There certainly is no shortage of violations on that site! Further, since it's easy to grab an mp3 file from a YouTube vid, I have to wonder what is keeping the music industry at bay. Virtually any new artist currently hot is on YouTube, whether they want to be or not. So why bother to buy the tune on Amazon or Itunes or wherever, when it's a simple matter to grab an mp3 from off YouTube!

The whole thing seems to me to be a mess and I think it was Napster that stood the music industry on it's head. Also seems to me that there has been a beneficial outcome to the consumer. Music is now more accessible than ever and at a dollar a tune, affordable by nearly everyone AND the artist is getting a piece of it, which they should.

I don't blame anyone for wishing to take the high ground and I'll think twice about putting what I mentioned on YouTube just for the principle of it, if nothing else. STILL... It is also my understanding that copyright laws permit latitude when music is used as an educational resource. When I post a recording I have done from a source such as say, MMO - it is for educational purposes only. No one in their right mind would point to my ridiculous effort and state that it is commercial-grade quality. Lol.

Thanks again,

...Geezer

[ttf_robcat2075]

Quote from: Stu914Music on May 13, 2015, 09:52AMWas that a question for me? I am sorry I am new here- just trying to get a feel for the forum/ posting etiquette lol.
You can pretty much offer any answer to any question here. 

QuoteCopyright varies in country to country...here in the US we have renewal options that extend the life of copyright sometimes exceptionally longer than in other countries...Canada gives copyright less of a timeline...Asian countries also have a 'writer's life + 50 years' policy in place....

Peter and the Wolf interested me because it was mentioned in the Supreme court case cited above.


Here's the problem, as I see it, with "Peter and the Wolf," (composed in 1936 by Prokofiev(1891-1953), first published in 1937 in the USSR) as an example of copyright restoration.

Given the relevant dates about it, if this was ever regarded as PD in the US it would be because its original foreign (Soviet) publication did not conform to US copyright law at the time. Such works were regarded as instantly PD, right?

Current US copyright law restored copyright to such "non-conforming" works *IF* they were not already in the PD in their home country on Jan 1, 1996.

However, Soviet copyright law during Prokofiev's time gave a copyright term of only "life plus 15".  That would put PATW in the PD by 1968 even in its home country.

In 1974 the Soviet Union joined the Universal Copyright Convention and extended copyright to "life plus 25" but only for works not already PD, so that would not have affected PATW.

Since this work was already PD in its home country before Jan 1, 1996... I'm wondering how it qualifies to have its copyright restored today.  It should not be eligible for that.

[ttf_Stu914Music]

Hmm- well first off thanks for the great response- it is very interesting to read all of the material you supplied.

When I look at PATW I look at the first date of publication that it is acknowledged by the US...which I believe falls into line here:

1923 through 1963
Published with notice and the copyright was renewed
95 years after publication date

That would be the best possible explanation for why this composition would still be viable as not PD.  The song is actually PD in Canada...I would assume that is isn't PD here in the US and that is because it has been placed in the above category.  In the US, you are able to renew copyrights within a certain window of time following 'x' years following the author's death, in fact, you can even renew the copyrights in the name of that author's heirs and not specifically in their name.

You find this process prevalent in American jazz catalogs.

Our copyright law here in the US gives certain opportunities to the life and welfare of compositions that are not recognized in other countries...like renewable registrations referenced above are only recognized here...if that same song was licensed in the UK then only the original copyright holder would be entitled to collect income from that exploit leaving the new registrant partners solely collecting income domestically here in the US in exploits that take place, in part or in whole, here.

In the grand scheme of things...I don't believe that Russian's stance on the composition means as much as one would assume here in the US because we follow the US copyright law.

[ttf_BGuttman]

The US copyright law changed (I think it was 1978) and a number of works went Public Domain for a short period of time and then reverted to Public Domain.  I know a couple of Gershwin pieces went this way (we were able to buy them) and a LOT of Soviet music including a number of Shostakovich symphonies, and Prokofiev pieces (including Peter and the Wolf).  When the new law kicked in, these pieces went back under copyright.

While I have to pay royalties on performing these works, I don't think I have to return the sheet music back to the publisher who has revoked sale.

[ttf_Stu914Music]

I have never heard of a publisher revoking sale of folio....that's more than half of their business.

In the United States a publisher cannot stop you from licensing their compositions to perform or record.
#statutorylicense

[ttf_BGuttman]

That I understand.  And my orchestra maintains a membership in ASCAP to pay the royalties for any copyrighted work we perform.  Fortunately their fees aren't as ridiculous as the ones we have to pay for rentals...