The Song Fight Bulletin Board

15-16 puzzle wrote:
You're making money. Why not pay for the things that are allowing you to make that money?

Yes - and while you're at it, buy all the CD's you want yourself, go to as many live gigs as possible, buy recording equipment etc. - because these would all be valid tax-deductions, since as you are working in the music industry, you need to keep yourself up-to-date with the latest trends, etc. Sounds like a pretty good lurk to me.

While I agree with 15-16, it begs the question: So how about someone playing cover tunes and making money off those? Should I be sending checks to CCR and the Beatles each time I play their tune?

....not that I'm going to mind you! But, they wrote the song, they own it... I dunno... interesting topic of thought though...

Leaf wrote:

....not that I'm going to mind you! But, they wrote the song, they own it... I dunno... interesting topic of thought though...

this is not true. the publisher "owns" it once the artist signs it away. ask paul mccartney. i'll bet he doesn't like the fact that wacko jacko owns many of his tunes.

jack shite wrote:

Leaf wrote:

....not that I'm going to mind you! But, they wrote the song, they own it... I dunno... interesting topic of thought though...

this is not true. the publisher "owns" it once the artist signs it away. ask paul mccartney. i'll bet he doesn't like the fact that wacko jacko owns many of his tunes.

Right, sorry. Still the same issue... should cover artists pay a royalty for a tune? I don't think so, simply cause I don't . However, if you ask yourself how would you feel if someone played your tunes and made money off of it? I'd have two conflicting thoughts....the altruistic cool, my music is being shared... the gift of music and ideas versus my job sucks, and why does that bastard get to make money off of my ideas and efforts while I get nothing?

That's how I see it.

It is up to the place where you perform to pay for the covers you do. It's part of their overhead, basically.

Ack... god I hate the idea of paying for doing a cover. Of course, if I ever covered something I guarantee it would be unrecognizable.

deshead: Seems I've met my match when it comes to Canadian Intellectual Property rights. Last I checked song sharing is technically illegal in Canada for more reasons than just because we haven't ratified WIPO. Section 80 of the CCA legalizes personal copying in exchange for a levee on digital media, but the act of distributing copies is still illegal with a capital ILL. That's why the Canadian Recording Industry Association wasn't laughed out of court when they sued those 26 people for Kazaa downloads.

On the OTHER hand (we're up to like 3 hands now) file sharers are off the hook because it is illegal accoring to PIPEDA and PIPA (the Canuck version of Safe-Harbor) for the CRIA to acquire the information necessary to convict Kazaa users.

So, in summary, this is the reason I have a (full ) 400 gig hard drive. Also, shame on whoever started this thread. You're getting paid, right? Take a damn dollar and buy whatever song you downloaded on iTunes. Blech.

*sigh*
it's so stupid when people say they have a moral dilemma and ask for advice.
the fact that you say you have a moral dilemma clearly means that there is a right thing to do and a wrong thing, and you know what the right thing is, but you don't want to do it. and by asking for advice you are hoping people will tell you the wrong thing isn't really that wrong.

Leaf wrote:should cover artists pay a royalty for a tune?

Like bzl said, for live performances, it's the venue's responsibility. But if you want to record a cover version and sell it (or even give it away), you need a license yourself.

Leaf wrote:the gift of music and ideas versus my job sucks, and why does that bastard get to make money off of my ideas and efforts while I get nothing?

Ya, I agree. I think most musicians like the idea of free exchange, in principle. "My music belongs to the ages" type of thing. But in practice, if I heard some hack butchering one of my tunes, and getting paid for it, I'd come down on the other side of the issue.

Puce wrote:Section 80 of the CCA legalizes personal copying in exchange for a levee on digital media, but the act of distributing copies is still illegal with a capital ILL.

And the murky part of the law is that word "distributing". As it stands, uploading files is the only part of file-sharing that's demonstrably illegal. Downloading, storing, and even 'making available' (as long as no one actually acquires) are all fine. Hence, headlines like Judge: File sharing legal in Canada. (Lots of folk say "you're safe if you disable uploads in Kazaa".. And they're right, though it reads better as "why are you still using Kazaa?")

Here's a remarkably unbiased overview of the copyright issues, if anyone wants more: http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/file-sharing/

Puce wrote:god I hate the idea of paying for doing a cover. Of course, if I ever covered something I guarantee it would be unrecognizable.

Ironically, that might preclude you from doing the cover! My old band wanted to record Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald, but we couldn't get permission because it would be unrecognizable. (Specifically, we dropped two verses, added drums, distorted guitars, and me screaming.)

I bargained on the phone with Gordon Lightfoot's publicist (though I'm convinced he was in the room next to her. She answered each of my questions with 5 seconds of muffled conversation, then: "no, Mr. Lightfoot doesn't feel that's appropriate") She told me he gets dozens of requests every year to license a remake of the song, most with lyrics altered to suit a recent disaster. (The sickening "Wreck of the Space Shuttle Challenger" stood out.) With sensitivity for the families of the Edmund Fitzgerald's victims, Mr. Lightfoot categorically refuses any request that changes the words.

In fact the only sanctioned cover of the song I've heard, the Rheostatics version, markedly resembles Lightfoot's original. It's creepier, if that's possible, but otherwise identical.

Notwithstanding my respect for Mr. Lightfoot, we recorded it anyway.

</derail>

fuck morals, do it.

deshead wrote:Mr. Lightfoot categorically refuses any request that changes the words.

luckily, if you change the words enough, it becomes a "parody" which falls under a totally different set of rules.
a local radio station's morning show periodically has skits called "mullet talk", a mock-talkshow for issues relevant to the short-hair-on-top-and-long-in-back lifestyle. anyway, one time they did a parody of that song mourning general motors' decision to stop producing firebirds and camaros.

deshead wrote:"you're safe if you disable uploads in Kazaa".. And they're right, though it reads better as "why are you still using Kazaa?"

I think section 80 should be amended: "Copyright Infringement is illegal... <i>if</i> your using Kazaa. Please, do the Canadian thing: use bittorrent or IRC."