jamesfrmphilly

if i can't make money off a CD that i have bought then every DJ on the planet is a criminal, and every video rental store.
if i do not own the CD that i buy then the musician is running a scam on me, as far as I'm concerned.
if you sell it to me and take my money, i OWN it.
if you don't want me to share it, put copy protection on the file and TELL me in advance.
that way i can decide if i want to buy it on those terms.
where i come from if you pay your money for an item, it's yours.

__________________
1946 Martin Committee, Bach 5V

Ash

What if you designed a product, one of a kind. Wal Mart starts selling it for 29.50, because they have to pay you and such. I buy your product, and start making a cheap copy of your product. I am such a nice guy, I decide to spread the love and give one to everyone I know. Heck, I even mail copies out to anyone who requests one. What could have been thousands of dollars in profits for you is now nothing. How do you feel now that I've cheated you out of your money?

__________________
1974 Raw Brass 37
1933 King Cornet

jamesfrmphilly

you mean if you sell me an apple you can tell that i must eat it and i can't plant that sucker in the ground and grow my own tree?

when you SELL me something, you give up control of that item.

__________________
1946 Martin Committee, Bach 5V

Tootsall

Now you're getting the idea, James. The way I've heard it explained, when you buy sheet music .... you aren't buying the music! You are only buying the paper that the music is printed on. The copyright holder continues to "own" the "intellectual content" which is the music as defined by the markings on that paper. You have to obtain permission from the owner...who is under NO legal obligation whatsoever to grant that permission.... to transfer that "intellectual content" onto another sheet of paper or even any form of digital or electronic media.

When you buy a CD you aren't buying the "complex source of the various frequencies & whatnot that make the ultimate sound".... you are only buying the plastic CD (or LP, or tape) that acts as a carrier for that sound.

Taking your analogy of the apple ... you got it. You are buying the taste of the apple and perhaps the calories contained in it (calories are generic and can't be copyright... flavor is different). The concept of "apple" is still owned by someone else! (please, no theological "sidebars"). You would have to obtain from that owner the right to plant (reproduce) that apple.

Now here's a very real case: I purchase a book of music that contains songs written for a trio of Bb instruments. Some of these songs are spread across as many as 6 pages and with no regards whatsoever for giving rests for "page turns". Now... how useful is this book according to the strict letter of the law? Even if each of three people in a trio bought their own copy...how are they supposed to perform or even practice the music when they can't turn the pages!?? So what to do? Obviously... photocopy the pages and tape them into the book so that they can spread open and allow for organizing the page turns (if still required). But wait.... that's ILLEGAL!! So what use is the book? Do we believe that the publisher REALLY INTENDED for this situation? If not, why is there the usual printed notice at the bottom of each page "absolutely no reproduction by any means whatsoever without express, written permission...."? So what's the point in even printing and distributing the book in the first place?

Another case: a band director goes out and buys music for his school band. Four years later, by some miracle, that sheet music is still in his library. But, Good Grief, Charle Brown.... he finds himself with twice as many clarinets as he had 4 years ago and not enough music to go around. Now what should he do? Petition for more funds to buy another complete set? Try to pick up the extra parts he needs from the publisher? What if the music is now out of print? Does he have to just "shelve the score" until his clarinet section is smaller? Cross his fingers and photocopy? Assign one of his senior students to listen to the band and do a manual transposition?

Harley Davidson copyrights the SOUND that their motorcycle engine makes, preventing any other manufacturer from creating an engine that has the same SOUND!? It's a MOTOR for heaven sakes! It's whole purpose is to take the energy from a fuel and produce horsepower!

McDonalds sues a man who comes from a long line of MacDonalds who have owned a restaurant named "MacDonald's" because it's "Their" name. The family can't even use their own NAME after 300 years!????... Just because Ray Krok copyright "McDonalds" as the trade name for his restaurant chain?

Someone once suggested that "it's legal unless you get charged and even then a "reasonable person" would probably take your point of view". But who wants to go to court to find out? Now you see why I raised this whole topic... it might "seem simple" to someone who decides that "black is black and white is white", but when you start digging into it and thinking about it, it's a right royal pain to sort out. Now, pile on top of that the whole issue of midi files, software that can convert wav files to mp3 files, to "print music", permit rearranging for different instrumentation, file swapping, digital media, the internet..... sheesh... the list is endless.

As Noel pointed out quite rightly... there is a chance (and a hope) that whatever ultimately transpires will actually benefit musicians, composers, arrangers. It certainly is about time this issue was worked through. (especially in light of the Sony/Bono extension on copyright music). The whole concept of copyright needs to be addressed and rationalized. However I'm not about to hold my breath; the issue is too complex and there are too many "suits" involved.

rdt1959

Funny you mentioned this. You have a hidden camera in the music store I do business in or something? I just purchased a book with JUST this situation in it.

I can copy it and technically break the law, or I can memorize the whole piece (which is what I intended in the first place, but that is beside the point!)

__________________
Dick Taylor
Georgia
Comeback Player
Benge 65B

rdt1959

I agree that the copy right laws DO need to be streamlined and simplified. Actually, this problem has been around for decades. As far as I know, it has always been technically illegal to record music from a store purchased version.

Example: I remember in high school, when our jazz band was attempting to play Maynard's "Chameleon", we borrowed the band directors cassette tape (yes, that is right...CASSETTE! Shows my age doesn't it? ) and we all made copies on our stero. When the band director started hearing Chameleon where ever he went in town, he was a little upset. We didn't understand what we were in trouble for until the principal sat us down and tried to explain the copy right laws. Apparently, because this was a school sponsor program, the school could have gotten nailed for encouraging us for making illegal copies, even though we did it without permission. That was in 1977.

The only thing different today is the scale of the problem. We had copies of that song floating all around our town of 3600 in Nebraska. Today, we could do the same thing and share the song (via computer files) with an UNLIMITED number of people. I doubt that Maynard felt much financial burden over the 12 or so boot-leg tapes we made. But today, I could make and distribute THOUSANDS of copies. Even if I made not on cent off the deal, it would still be possible for me.....one person....to impact the industry through such actions, ESPECIALLY if I was actually trying to.

The point is that the copy right laws do need to be streamlined and simplified, and do need to show some consistancy over international borders.

__________________
Dick Taylor
Georgia
Comeback Player
Benge 65B

rdt1959

Here my very uninformed understanding of the copy right laws.

For example, lets say that I purchase an arrangement of a piece for our church band (which I did). We rehearse, practice and perform the piece at a church function. ( We did not....the other band members thought it was to "hip-hop" for our church...no appreciation of the finer aspects of jazz trumpet solos!...but I digress).

My understanding is that the above situation is NOT in violation of any copy right laws, since we did not make any profit...or in fact, any money...at the performance. (However, one person in our group disagrees with this, and thinks we need to get permission from the publisher to even perform the arrangement....frankly, I do not know for sure)

That is the easy part.

Now, let's say we take that same piece of music and perform it at a special event. Admission is $1 per person, with all proceeds going to a church sponsored charity. Have we violated copy right laws? I have absolutely NO clue (and neither does the Music Minister, who has been around for 30+years).

If we play that music in a concert, and the group makes a profit and the musicians get paid, I think......and I very well could be wrong...that we have violated copy right laws because we have not received a permit or permission from the company that sold the sheet music, the person(s) that did the arrangment, and the original composer (who may or may not be living).

And Heaven help us if we cut a CD at that performace!

This makes sense to me. As soon as we start making a profit, we should be go through the legal hoops. (The charity event is a real gray area). I also agree with the concept that I don't own the music on the CD.

Point is that I agree in principal with the copy right laws, but they do seem to be overly cumbersome, especially for the amateur and semi-pro musians that do occassionally get the opportunity for recordings. These type of musicians should not have to hire a complete legal staff just to play music!

__________________
Dick Taylor
Georgia
Comeback Player
Benge 65B

Tootsall

rdt1959 posted "And Heaven help us if we cut a CD at that performace! "

Right you are, Dick. Or (even worse) made SOUND CLIPS AVAILABLE FOR OTHERS TO LISTEN TO OVER THE INTERNET! Let's say we want to compare three different trumpets and record the same piece using each horn. We have absolutely no intention of making money, we are simply demonstrating the tonal characteristics of these three horns. Let's say we pick something nice and "trumpety" to perform for this purpose... how about "Trumpeter's Lullaby".

Next thing we know... *knock knock* on the front door..."registered letter for so-and-so...sign here please". Or the webmaster is forced to close his site down because an "unauthorized recording" was made available... or.....

Hey..I have an idea... how about copyrighting SCALES in all the different key signatures!??? Wow... the mind boggles... the heart begins to pulsate.... copyright lawyers begin to drool.

OK, that's maybe a silly, slightly exagerated position to take. What the recording, music composition, publishing, and performing industries are trying to find is a mechanism for protection of their right to make money of off investments they have made. Fair enough. For how long? perpetuity? Once created, SHOULD they have the right to say "OK, we're taking this off the market, nobody can ever play or perform it again?"

I've found the following website which is a "primer" on copyright law. One of these days I'll manage to read through the whole thing! I will note that it applies to US copyright only and that there are international variations and differences.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

This second site deals with patents, a different situation. Patents are now good for 20 years. In other words, once 20 years has expired, anyone can use the "invention" without paying a single cent to the inventor, or to anyone to whom he may have "sold" his invention. By contrast, copyrights are now being extended for the life of the "creator" PLUS 70 years!
http://www.patents.com/patents.htm

(Then there are drug patents...another can of worms with the huge profits being made by the big drug companies...mostly European...while they battle with the generic makers or negotiate different national patent durations on their products).

Believe me, once you've read through that mess, you'll be shaking your head. And I didn't even touch "performance rights" and how they are distinctly separate from copyrights! Now you are starting to understand that the problem is not the concept of copyrights nor performance rights... the problem has more to do with the enormous "system" that is fed by this maze of legaleze.... a "system" of complex laws that was created by the very legal system that feeds off of it!

Back to Noel's post... he closes by indicating that he hopes the current efforts to solve the issue of internet file swapping/copying/whatever-you-want-to-call-it results with improvements that will help the musicians and composers "have a viable place" within our commercial society. I hope so too....it's hard to imagine it creating even more confusion (but I fear that will be exactly the end result!).

jamesfrmphilly

"Maynard's "Chameleon"?

__________________
1946 Martin Committee, Bach 5V

lonelyangel

Hi James. No I don't think Maynard ever had a pet lizard.

'Chameleon' is a seminal work in the jazz-fusion style composed by Mr Herbie Hancock and is one of the tracks featured on the unspeakably funky album Watermelon Man - which has been a major influence on the course of popular music in the last 30 years. It was covered by Mr Maynard Ferguson in what has become a classic arrangement for bigband with some very exciting extended variations on the theme voiced out in close harmony for the ensemble. I'm sure you can buy a copy of this arrangement to play with your local bigband.

I don't want to bang on about this stuff as if I am on some kind of mission and I do hate it when debates on TM become polarised, but I feel rthat I do need to take issue with a couple of the points you made earlier.

Firstly, I think there probably are a great many DJs out there whose taste in music might be refered to as criminal but - provided they are not broadcasting on an illegal, 'pirate' radio station then they are not breaking the law by playing tracks from CDs over the airwaves.

All licensed radio stations pay fees to ASCAP in the USA and PRS in the UK (there are doubtless othere bodies representing the rights of artists in other countries worldwide). The radio stations are responsible for logging every tittle each time it is played on air and then have to pay royalties to these collection agencies who distribute the funds to the performers and composers on a quarterly basis. The money they owe to the artisists is usually raised from advertising revenue.

Secondly the same thing applies to video and CD rental outlets. All of these, if they are operating within the law, are licensed buisinesses. They also pay fees to the collection agencies and whenever you pay to hire a video or CD a proportion of the price you pay is passed on in the form of royalties to the composers, writers and performers on the screen and on the music sound track. The rental companies will also pay a premium price when they purchase videos and CDs for hire and cannot lend out illegal pirated copies. In Japan the CD rental market is enourmous - partly because people live in such small apartments that they don't have the space for big collections. I am registered with the Japanese collection agencies who collect royalty payments due to performers from CD rental. They know every Japanese album that I have played on and distribute my share of the royalties due from Cd rentals. Each year I receive a small cheque from them - the last one was around $80.

I might add that if you walk into a night club or disco, a pub, bar or restaraunt or a shopping mall or hotel and hear music being played over a speaker system then those places have also paid their license fee to have the right to public performance of that music. Again royalties are collected and forwarded to the artists concerened.

If you however decide to charge people to listen to your CD collection in your house, or let people hire out your CDs or videos for a charge, or set up a radio station and keep the revenue from your advertisers to yourself - thereby depriving the artisists of their income - then you are breaking the law and could legitimately be refered to as a criminal.
The same is true if you burn copies of a CD or DVD for a few friends.

As I said before there is no question that you own the CD itself, the piece of plastic and the case and the card with the track details on it (although not the lyrics, text or images printed on the card) and you are free to do whatever you want with the CD. For example if you want to glue felt backings on to your CDs and sell them as coasters or mats to put under drinks glasses - or if you want to cut the CDs up and glue the fragments onto a sheet of paper to make a collage and sell them as works of art - or you could join several dozen CDs together to make a mobile or a really funky curtain or blind -- that is all within your rights. You could decide to pulp all the card inserts and use them to make papiermache puppets or have them shredded and sell them as bedding for pet rodents - that is fine too.

However, you do not own the music encoded on the CD and when you buy the CD you enter into a contract (based on trust I guess) which allows you certain rights. Basically put you have purchased the right to listen at your leisure to the music on the CD an infinite number of times - the more you listen to it the cheaper it gets.

I'll take a wild guess and suggest that if you pay $10 for a CD then, after the costs of recording, manufacturing, distribution, marketing, retailers cut, record companies profit etc....if we are lucky then about $2 of that price may be made up of royalties to be shared between the composers and performers of the music. Of course on any given CD there maybe up to 20 or so composers and several hundered performers. If you buy a copy of the album 'Peace' by the Eurhythmics on which I play trumpet on 2 tracks then about $0.00000001 will eventually be paid to me - as long as the collection agencies are doing their jobs. Performers on CDs get a much smaller slice of the cake than the composers by the way and these days it is much more commomn for us to sign away our rights in return for a slightly enhanced session fee (or buy out) up front. We still do recieve royalties from broadcast of our performance as a rule but there is increasing pressure from the music industry for us to sign these rights away too. That is due in no small part to the errosion of the bottom line profits which has been caused by home taping, copying and pirating which has become so widespread these days. The overall size of the cake has shrunk by many hundereds of times and the industry want to cut the musicians out of the picture alltogether.

I went to my CD shelves and pulled out an album at random - The Return of The Brecker Brothers FWIW. Printed around the edge of the disc is the following:-

"All rights of the producer (that is the record company acting on behalf of the performers) and the owner (that is the publishing company acting on behalf of the composers) repoduced reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance and broadcasting prohibited."

- which seems pretty clear to me.

Would you say that if you buy a book that you own the words contained in the book - that you would have the right to take the story, turn it into a movie and keep all the profits to yourself without a thought for the author? Or that it would be OK to photocopy that book - bind the copies and sell them as your own work ie keeping all the money for yourself? No - you own the paper the book is printed on but not the words themselves.
It would be like saying that if you buy a new car - sure that car belongs to you but ownership of a product does not entittle you to do with it whatever you want. You are obviously free to choose to drive the car uninsured or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Or to ignore the speed limit, drive the wrong way up one way streets, park it wherever you feel like etc... but should you choose to use your car illegally you will answer to the law.

To try and end on a more positive note. What I am trying to do here is draw attention to the fact that seemingly innocent actions like copying a CD for someone may not appear to harm anybody in particular. However the cumulative effect of millions of people copying and downloading music for free is destroying the music industry - it really is the same as stealing and just because you are less likely to be caught or punished for copying music than you are for running a red light does not make it OK.

I can honestly say that I have NEVER made a copy of one of the CDs in my collection to give to somebody else - and if people offer to give me copies of stuff they have, I always decline. I'm OK if they want to buy a copy and give it to me as a present but I believe in supporting my fellow musicians by buying my own. This is especially true these days when so many of my fellow musicians have to resort to issuing their music independantly of the major record companies - I would never expect a colleague to give me a copy of their album for free. Some of them are begining to make their music available for a very small fee over the net - using the technology rather than fighting it. It really is beholden to us to respect that trust and not to make illegal copies of that music once we have paid for our own download. As I said it is a matter of trust and if I can't get my point across to what is probably the most sympathetic audience imaginable - the users of TM - then the game is really over.

Apologies for the massive earbending session.
All the best. Noel.

PS Japle, I have also played on many rock, rap and country music CDs. Music is music is music...:)

__________________
Noel Langley - Eclipse Artist noel@eclipsetrumpets.com

Eclipse Medium Yellow, scratch gold
Eclipse Medium Heavy Red, custom 'Diamond Back' in 24ct gold
Eclipse Red Brass Flugel
Custom Scherzer piccolo with copper Wedgewood bell, finished in scratch gold
Giardinelli 6S, 6M, 6FL Bach 3CW