Music file sharing

[RedBottom]

Pete Thomas wrote:

RedBottom wrote: ... But if he records it, then I can sample or copy that recording or whatever when he's eighty, and there's not a thing he can do about it?

No because you'd be sampling the composition as well as the recording. You would need permission to sample the copyright in the compostion until its public domain.

So why have the 50 year thing? Or does that work in the case of recordings of stuff by long-dead classical composers (eg)?

Ken wrote:However, I think common sense or "mama should'a told ya" is enough for anyone to realise that file sharing is legally and morally wrong. I have on occasion not been snow white on this,...

Me too, but since I've met and known more recording artists, I'm becoming whiter.

Go to some of the American-based forums and discuss this, and you'll find contributors paranoid about it. I guess because the law there is much more stringent in these matters - they WILL prosecute, never mind 'might'.

Even more off the track, what about the counterfeiting of many other products. People rarely seem concerned about where there Ray Ban sunglasses or Calvin Klein underwear originates, but all of this is the same morality question and few appear to care.

The place I live is known as the counterfeit capital of the UK, so it's big news here every so often. Doesn't help that the city used to make stuff for some of the finest brand names in the world until the big stores began to source out to the third world for cheap labour. I won't buy stuff if I know it's counterfeit (and it's amazing how easy it is to tell), but plenty do with no compunction.

I know that here in Spain the equivalent of the Performing Rights Assoc., take an annual fee from clubs/bars where music is played. Is this the same elsewhere, if so, or if not, does anyone (venue owners mostly) make an effort to pay PR

Similar in UK. Any venue wishing to host live music (not sure whether it includes recorded music used as ambience music) has to apply for a performing licence. The cost and type of licence depends on the venue size and frequency of performance.

Performers are expected to tell PRS what they perform where, and when. At the two festivals I work for, bands are given a form to fill in and leave with us, usually leaving a set list with it. Even if it's an artiste's own song being performed, they're supposed to list it. The whole lot is then sent to PRS and writers' royalties calculated. I think they're paid out of the revenues that venues pay for licences.

 

[Pete Thomas]

RedBottom wrote:

Pete Thomas wrote:

RedBottom wrote: ... But if he records it, then I can sample or copy that recording or whatever when he's eighty, and there's not a thing he can do about it?

No because you'd be sampling the composition as well as the recording. You would need permission to sample the copyright in the compostion until its public domain.

So why have the 50 year thing? Or does that work in the case of recordings of stuff by long-dead classical composers (eg)?

It just means you can sample or use the recordings as a reissue. If the composer is long dead you pay nothing to licenece the songs, if still in copyright you pay a licence to use the songs.

Currently record companies are of course lobbying to expend the copyright period of course. Some bands and artists are agreeing as they of course lose their percentage (if they didn't just get paid a one-off session fee) once the recording is up for grabs.

Extending the copyright in recordings would also be good for the successful artists with ongoing careers (e.g. Sir Cliff who is arguing in favour) but not for the less successful ones who could otherwise release their old recordings from the 60s themselves and get a few bob in their twilight years.

 

[peter_fitton]

Ken wrote:

Pete Thomas wrote: .....(e.g. Sir Cliff who is arguing in favour).....

He's gonna need to argue in favour if his estranged missus gets her way.

Sir Cliff has an estranged missus???

 

[Bobby G]

Peter Fitton wrote:

Ken wrote:

Pete Thomas wrote: .....(e.g. Sir Cliff who is arguing in favour).....

He's gonna need to argue in favour if his estranged missus gets her way.

Sir Cliff has an estranged missus???

Are you sure you don't mean Sir Paul? 😉 I can see where you might get confused - one of them's been around a long time, did his best work with his group, and went on to do the odd good tune and many dull ones as a solo artist, whereas the other one has been around a lo.... oh yeah, it is an easy mistake to make.

Cheers, Bob

p.s. back on the subject, are there any legal or moral issues with some of the stuff on Youtube, for instance things that are quite clearly lifted from TV programmes?

 

[Bobby G]

Nothing is ever cut-and-dried, so it seems. New technology and globalisation have certainly muddied the waters even more, especially since so much would have to be subject to internationally agreed laws in order to be policed effectively. No wonder our politicians so often seem to be in headless-chicken mode.

By the way, Ken, do you have a ballad version of your avatar? 🙂

Cheers, Bob

 

[Pete Thomas]

p.s. back on the subject, are there any legal or moral issues with some of the stuff on Youtube, for instance things that are quite clearly lifted from TV programmes?

I think it would be illegal to upload onto Youtube without permission of the copyright owner.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Ken wrote:
As to the subject and with reference to your comment about tapes Bob, what with tapes, VHS, CD & DVD, what do these product makers think their products are used for... perhaps there should be a percentage put on the price of those which goes to artists etc???... don't know, there's probably a flaw in that thought too somewhere.

Not sure if its still the case, but in the UK there used to be a "levy" on blank cassettes. Not sure who got the money though as there would be no way to distribute it to the bands who were victims of piracy and counterfeiting.

 

[RedBottom]

Ken wrote:I was just watching Question of Sport hosted by Sue Barker and the wrong image flashed in my brain.

I don't think I even dare ask about the logic behind that link.

Please! I've led a very sheltered life, you know. :erm: