As a kid in the early 70's, trying to keep up with learning new songs, I couldn't afford buying new albums with 9 crappy songs on them just to learn one. 8 track tapes were popular then and really sucked. When a bought a great album I would do a lousy recording onto a cassette tape and play that in my car (who else remembers FM and cassette converters). Then the music companies wanted to outlaw cassette recorders because it was a way people could share, though I heard no beef about reel-to-reel recordings. That was far too expensive for the average teenage musician.

Our church music director would come in on Thursday night and give us cassettes with the songs we would learn and play on Sunday. When the illegal flap came up he did some research and announced to us that it was ok to record music for research/study purposes for a legal limit of 3 days. Don't know if this was accurate but we willingly bought into it. The only people I ever shared music with were fellow band members, to me that was ok.

There were similar flaps when book publishing began, people thought this would bring about the end of storytelling. Then book companies objected to magazines because the full stories wouldn't be there. To me the internet has killed libraries, I mean who needs to research in a library anymore? And YES, I have been in libraries.






Haha, matto, how would you feel if they started charging you royalties for that crappy song stuck in your head. Just being funny, Matt is a favorite of mine.

Of course it could also be argued that armed robbery isn't cheap, cause you need a fast getaway car, a reliable driver who won't turn on you, guns, ammo, ski masks...and planning a successful robbery is clever stuff too...right?
I'm pretty sure that the owner of the local liquor store that's being robbed wouldn't see it that way.

There was always a provision in copyright for educational and research uses and besides, your church music director wasn't selling those rehearsal tapes by the thousands once you guys got done learning the songs!

This is about a people who profit from the works of others without obtaining permission. And before we go off on the subject of cover bands, church bands, etc., realize that it's legal to perform previously published music and its the venue that is supposed to obtain a blanket license from the PROs so that your band can perform that music and your colleagues that wrote it get compensated for their work (and hopefully you do too!). I would imagine this also includes churches but I'm not sure.

Maybe taking up armed robbery is a better business model!!

It behooves us to study and understand the ins and outs of copyright law and intellectual property as best as we can, since we are engaged in the business of trying to peddle our copyrighted intellectual property and make a few bucks from it. It's easy enough to rail against the "man", whether it's Google or the US Government, "Occupy ASCAP" or whatever, but it's worth it to look at it more fully first.

Mazz

Personally, I don't have any fear of people stealing my music (as excellent as it is). Commercial success is not winking at me with a beckoning eye. What I find most perplexing about some of the posts on this topic is the willigness of some artists/writers to give their work away for free. In fact, invite it. And then, since they think they have such a moral clarity about it, they think that everyone else's music should also be given away for free. What, these people don't have to eat? They have no family to feed and shelter? If you are an amateur looking to get exposure, by all means, shovel out your "free' with your own music (excellent as it is, I'm sure). But don't assume that the professionals trying to make a livlihood from their artistic efforts should join your "free, just for the exposure" crusade. It's like Marie Antoinette saying "the musicians don't have royalties? Let them eat music." Same logic. Ott

Hey Ott, I think it relates to the fact that oncve we put our music up anyways its 'Free;, i see you have myspace, youtube etc. putting your music on these sites is allowing it to be sent to a persons PC for free. And so the 'free' is just kind of the way it already is ?

LOL Matt! point taken

I totally understand why many folks think an MP3 should be free; the quality is no better than 'taped off the radio' in many cases, and in fact, I've never charged anyone money for an MP3 of my music. The rub is that bigger bandwidths and better compression schemes are in the pipeline; what happens when full length 3D movies can be uploaded to YouTube in full 1080p, 120Hz in a matter of seconds? Music artists' entire catalogs at full 24 bit resolution in the same amount of time? The probable answer is blanket licensing by ISPs. (who really just don't want to pay and are dragging their feet; they know this is coming, but they accuse the major labels of overcharging and obstructionism; sound familiar?) The debate isn't really over whether music should be free, as Google, Yahoo and their multifarious minions have couched it; it's really over how to divvy up the profits.

I have to do covers to get people to listen to my music, and it galls me that there's no painless, frictionless way to sell the cover music I pretty much have to make; I give it away and the writers suffer; it's simply not fair to them, though it's a brand-builder for the artists I cover, adding to their prestige, at least a little. I held off for as long as I could, but it's far easier to get somebody to listen to some unknown artist do a Beatles cover than some unknown artist doing an unknown song. And yes, I know about Harry Fox and Limelight, but if I go that route, I HAVE to charge for it, and nobody gets a free option. It's a quandary, and no easy answers on offer.

Well, Mojo, if ACTA goes through (and that's likely as it is supported by the big umbrellas), you probably will have to pull the covers from your site.

ACTA Survival Guide for Website Owners
http://www.edri.org/ACTAhowto

I would say the article you linked to is more fear-based than fact-based, Magne. All of the negative consequences mentioned in it have occurred under existing laws, which pretty much points up the need for consensus and reform. Yes, ACTA is a proposed treaty, rather than a bill before our congress, but the approval process is similar; it has to be ratified before both houses before the president can sign off. For the record, I'm okay with pulling or paying; either way, I don't expect a free ride.

Sedge: You sorta make my point. I'm a songwriter. The tunes I've posted on MySpace & YouTube are professional demos. I wouldn't post an MP3 of me singing anywhere on this planet. Those sites are there for marketing purposes. When I hit on an artist, or producer, I provide a link to one of my sites, and invite them to take a listen. The more potential clients that download it for free, the happier I am. So far, it's like throwing a bottle with the lyrics inside into the ocean, and hoping one of the top artists or producers on the charts happens to be wandering along the beach when the bottle comes back to shore. But, what if that actually happened , and Ms. Famous charted my tune? She might be getting 360 deals, concert proceeds, etc. But what would I get, as a songwriter, if everyone downloaded the tune for free? NADA!
Mojo: Can't remember the last time someone called one of my lines "brilliant" (though I'm sure it's happened countless times). Thanks!
Ott