DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**exchpaypaleg** · 05-15-2006, 11:54 AM

So unless I have permission from the owner of a copyrighted song, I do not have the right to "perform the copyrighted work publicly."
So this means I cannot play a party, a park, or anywhere where there are people.
That guy at the guitar store who picks up a guitar he's thinking about buying and busts out a riff from (insert your favorite metal band here) is technically breaking the law, because he's doing it in public.

Go back and read the sections of the law I provided. Is that what it says? No it doesn't say that.

And as stated explicitly, I cannot have a recording of me performing a copyrighted "work" up, even if noone makes any money from it. I simply never thought about the arrangements or transciptions being copyrighted as well. I guess I'll be pulling down the two songs I had put up - I am not sure who transcribed or arranged the versions I played, but since I heard them from professional recordings, I'd guess they're probably copyrighted. I'm not even sure how to check, since I'm only aware of the performer and composer credits for either.

I really don't think you have to worry about that. The "rich fatcat music business guys" aren't going to send the music police after you (however, the fashion police are planning on hitting hard "Alright pal, who dressed you today?"
Don't overcomplicate or overintellectualize things.

They do, however getting published sheet music for many non top-40 bands is very hard. That's where I think the ban is wrong, if you have a published thing then sure, getting it for free can hurt the label (not so much the artist), but if there is no published one getting it for free is proably not harmful.

First off, there is no ban. Had the original poster taken the time to look into the 5 month old story he posted he would have found out that the issue is simply unlicensed sites, i.e. sites that are providing copyrighted material (and like it or not the lyrics to the songs are copyrighted as is the tune) without paying a fee to the rights holders.
In the olden days if you wrote a song and it became popular you (and your publisher) made money by selling the sheet music so people could sit in their parlors and play the song for themselves, family and friends. Later, when the phonograph came into play, the profit was focused more on the sale of the records, split between the writer, performer and publisher. ASCAP (and BMI) then came into play collecting royalties from radio stations, bars, cabarets etc. for the right to perform the songs. Again, this money was split between artist, writer and publisher. A really popular song would net more money on performance rights than on record sales.
Now we have a situation where people are offering the functional equivalent of the sheet music on internet sites and making money on advertising. If they are simply giving it away they are diluting the market and taking away from those sites that do pay the fee and therefore taking money from the artist, writer and publisher.
The music business is a business of pennys and nickels. For instance, if I write a song that is recorded by an artist (and most do not write their own songs) and that album sells a million copies the writer and his publisher might get .05 for each album sold ($50,000) and they split it however they decide, Then if that particular song is the big hit song on the album and is played by lots of radio stations then ASCAP will collect the fee from them (NY stations pay much more that East Pudunck because it is based upon how many are in the audience) If the song becomes a "classic" the money keeps on coming for years on end.

05-15-2006, 11:54 AM	#28
exchpaypaleg Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 435 Senior Member	So unless I have permission from the owner of a copyrighted song, I do not have the right to "perform the copyrighted work publicly." So this means I cannot play a party, a park, or anywhere where there are people. That guy at the guitar store who picks up a guitar he's thinking about buying and busts out a riff from (insert your favorite metal band here) is technically breaking the law, because he's doing it in public. Go back and read the sections of the law I provided. Is that what it says? No it doesn't say that. And as stated explicitly, I cannot have a recording of me performing a copyrighted "work" up, even if noone makes any money from it. I simply never thought about the arrangements or transciptions being copyrighted as well. I guess I'll be pulling down the two songs I had put up - I am not sure who transcribed or arranged the versions I played, but since I heard them from professional recordings, I'd guess they're probably copyrighted. I'm not even sure how to check, since I'm only aware of the performer and composer credits for either. I really don't think you have to worry about that. The "rich fatcat music business guys" aren't going to send the music police after you (however, the fashion police are planning on hitting hard "Alright pal, who dressed you today?" Don't overcomplicate or overintellectualize things. They do, however getting published sheet music for many non top-40 bands is very hard. That's where I think the ban is wrong, if you have a published thing then sure, getting it for free can hurt the label (not so much the artist), but if there is no published one getting it for free is proably not harmful. First off, there is no ban. Had the original poster taken the time to look into the 5 month old story he posted he would have found out that the issue is simply unlicensed sites, i.e. sites that are providing copyrighted material (and like it or not the lyrics to the songs are copyrighted as is the tune) without paying a fee to the rights holders. In the olden days if you wrote a song and it became popular you (and your publisher) made money by selling the sheet music so people could sit in their parlors and play the song for themselves, family and friends. Later, when the phonograph came into play, the profit was focused more on the sale of the records, split between the writer, performer and publisher. ASCAP (and BMI) then came into play collecting royalties from radio stations, bars, cabarets etc. for the right to perform the songs. Again, this money was split between artist, writer and publisher. A really popular song would net more money on performance rights than on record sales. Now we have a situation where people are offering the functional equivalent of the sheet music on internet sites and making money on advertising. If they are simply giving it away they are diluting the market and taking away from those sites that do pay the fee and therefore taking money from the artist, writer and publisher. The music business is a business of pennys and nickels. For instance, if I write a song that is recorded by an artist (and most do not write their own songs) and that album sells a million copies the writer and his publisher might get .05 for each album sold ($50,000) and they split it however they decide, Then if that particular song is the big hit song on the album and is played by lots of radio stations then ASCAP will collect the fee from them (NY stations pay much more that East Pudunck because it is based upon how many are in the audience) If the song becomes a "classic" the money keeps on coming for years on end.
	Quote