Jump to content
Kirk Lorange

The Copyright quagmire ... update

Recommended Posts

Ok, here's what you can do Kirk:

Create an anonymous user account on youtube using a proxy server so there's no way to trace the IP back to you.

Create the lessons wearing a mask and disguising your voice.

Title the lessons some very generic like "guitar lesson 1". (don't use the name of the artist or song so it'll be nearly impossible to find for any outsider).

Log on here with a new user name and post a link to the lessons.

If anyone asks, play ignorant to the whole thing!

PS. This message will self destruct after Kirk reads it. :D

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.........This is............

A Non-protected Diddy

..............................

A lesson gave

a lesson learned

if no-one tells

you can't get burned

Now that sounds good

but will not work

copywrite police

we know they lurk

They all want

up front cash

for us to learn

"gives" me a rash

"Protected song"

the greedy chime

we say "he's teaching"

thats not a crime

Don't pay those fees

to the "man"

we'll stick by you

we are your clan

You played their game

tried to be fair

laughed at their offer

now whats their share

Don't need those songs

to learn from you

those greedy slobs

don't have a clue

Just teach us stuff

to make us grow

your so much more

than a "cover" show

I don't care

what song you play

just glad your teaching

me "here" today

One more thing

before I go

its my thank-you

I'm letting you know

To help this site

for all you do

another donation

is on its way to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, here's what you can do Kirk:

Create an anonymous user account on youtube using a proxy server so there's no way to trace the IP back to you.

Create the lessons wearing a mask and disguising your voice.

Title the lessons some very generic like "guitar lesson 1". (don't use the name of the artist or song so it'll be nearly impossible to find for any outsider).

Log on here with a new user name and post a link to the lessons.

If anyone asks, play ignorant to the whole thing!

PS. This message will self destruct after Kirk reads it. :D

-tkr

hmmm, good idea ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK Steve, so what does it take to pull one off ?

THAT's a loaded question, Eddie! It takes time, planning, patience to do it the right way, and ahh..oh a bucket or two of money wouldn't hurt. But oh, yeah, it can be done. It's definitely a great idea, but if we want to talk seriously about it we should pm to get the ideas on the table, then open it up in a different thread.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:laughingg: :laughingg: :laughingg: :laughingg:

All of us laughing at that quote are showing our age.......and everyone under 30 yrs. old is going.......huh....I don't get it! :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of us laughing at that quote are showing our age.......and everyone under 30 yrs. old is going.......huh....I don't get it! :yes:

dunh dunh.....dunh dunh... dunh dunh... dunh dunh

da da da

da da da

:mrgreen: Illya Kuryakin was much cooler though .... LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEY! I just thought of something...

Gershwin died in 1937. Under US copyright law (Mickey Mouse edition), music enters the public domain on the January 1st that follows the 70th anniversary of the composer's death. So, unless I am mistaken, Summertime will be a free song in less than 4 months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HEY! I just thought of something...

Gershwin died in 1937. Under US copyright law (Mickey Mouse edition), music enters the public domain on the January 1st that follows the 70th anniversary of the composer's death. So, unless I am mistaken, Summertime will be a free song in less than 4 months.

Unfortunately, the law is that the song enters the PD after the 95 year term after longest surviving author's death. The song was composed by George Gershwin and the lyrics were written by Ira Gershwin and DuBose Heyward. DuBose died in 1940, and Ira died in 1983.

Here's an excerpt from PDinfo.com:

United States Copyright Law

US copyright law is found in Title 17 of the United States Code and is administered by the US Copyright Office. " Terms for Copyright Protection", a U.S. Government publication, summarizes the current duration of copyright protection for published works as follows:

Works created
after 1/1/1978
- life of the longest surviving author plus 70 years - earliest possible PD date is 1/1/2048

Works registered
before 1/1/1978
- 95 years from the date copyright was secured.

Works registered
before 1/1/1923
- Copyright protection for 75years has expired and these works are in the public domain.

The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was signed into law on October 27, 1998. Prior to the Sonny Bono 20 year copyright term extension, copyright protection for works registered before 1/1/1978 was 75 years; therefore, compositions registered in 1922 or earlier entered the public domain on 1/1/1998. The 1998 copyright extension did not extend copyright protection from 75 to 95 years for songs already in the public domain so . . .

The Good News - works published in the United States in 1922 or earlier are in the public domain even if they are not yet 95 years old.

The Bad News - no new works will enter the public domain until January 1, 2019.

The PD date for Summertime is 2078!

****

Oops. My bad. The rule should be that Summertime will be PD in 2028 (created in 1933).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aargh... forgot about the coauthors, as well as the "70 years if it's still new, but 95 if it's anywhere close to expiring" clause.

I guess the only viable option, then, would be to sell the lessons, but to make the music sample downloadable free, "for educational purposes," and keep samples to around 17 seconds each (10% of the length of the old 78 rpm versions of the song, like Billie Holiday's). Feasible, but a pain in the rear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=

The PD date for Summertime is 2078!

****

Oops. My bad. The rule should be that Summertime will be PD in 2028 (created in 1933).

That's a relief I'll be dead by 2078 but I'll be retired in 2028 so I'll have plenty of time to play it (I should have sussed out Barre chords by then as well):yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THAT's a loaded question, Eddie! It takes time, planning, patience to do it the right way, and ahh..oh a bucket or two of money wouldn't hurt. But oh, yeah, it can be done. It's definitely a great idea, but if we want to talk seriously about it we should pm to get the ideas on the table, then open it up in a different thread.

Sounds like a great idea. I'd like to help with this as well. :thumbup1:

-tkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HB - it does.....and it doesn't. Since there's no concrete definition of exactly what constitutes "fair use", it's a somewhat abstract concept. The doctrine is also inherently weighted in favor of the holder of the rights because the burden of proof for "fair use" rests upon the defendant (i.e., the person being sued). The decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and the bottom line is that if you're sued for a copyright violation, it's going to take a lot of time and a lot of money to fight the lawsuit in court.

Record companies and other such entities are multi-billion dollar juggernauts with plenty of money to spend and high-dollar attorneys on staff who are well-versed in the laws relating to copyright issues. When these attorneys are in court handling these lawsuits, they're getting paid (and quite handsomely!). If someone like Kirk and Clancy were to be sued for such a violation, they would have to go to court on their own time (away from their jobs, which are their source of income) and spend their own money to find and hire attorneys to defend them. As you can imagine, the outcome is pretty predictable - even if you win the lawsuit, chances are that you've lost your job and driven yourself into the poorhouse in the process. Record companies know this, and they know that the vast majority of people will surrender to their threats rather than aggressively pursue contesting the issue....and that's one reason that there isn't a lot of legal precedent to clarify the issues.

Basically, it's a lose/lose proposition. Maybe what somebody is doing constitutes "fair use", maybe not. Until there's firm legal precedent defining exactly what constitutes "fair use" (i.e. a 30-second clip, four bars of the song excluding the chorus, etc.), it will remain a nebulous concept......and the record companies will do their best to keep it as vague as possible (as witnessed by their dealings with Kirk). It's much better for them if nobody knows exactly what "fair use" is - because it's hard to defend what you can't define.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Basically, it's a lose/lose proposition. Maybe what somebody is doing constitutes "fair use", maybe not. Until there's firm legal precedent defining exactly what constitutes "fair use" (i.e. a 30-second clip, four bars of the song excluding the chorus, etc.), it will remain a nebulous concept......and the record companies will do their best to keep it as vague as possible (as witnessed by their dealings with Kirk). It's much better for them if nobody knows exactly what "fair use" is - because it's hard to defend what you can't define.

Hi Strat--

You probably already saw me post this quote, but here it is again for reference:

The MPA, Music Publisher's Association, has a guideline when posting items for instructional purposes:

For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section, movement, or aria but in no case more than 10% of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.

You're right...they keep the meaning of 'fair use' slippery and those with the big bucks and lawyers can twist this to their advantage everytime.

Which also is saying that unless you have enough money for them to try and grab that they would most likely not waste their time.

Even though it's always true that those with the money will lobby congress to get the laws so they are worded to their advantage it's also true that the rights of individuals are written into laws as well, and I believe this one is no exception.

I know, I know, we can put on our gravestone that we had the right of way and it doesn't matter, we're still dead even though we're in the right. The point is when we follow the letter of the law it's up to a judge to determine our intent as far as observing the spirit of the law.

The biggies also know this. The letter of the law is nebulous, but there is a guideline. If a person is strictly observing the guideline and demonstrably shunning true copyright infringement when instructing others and this is documented, there will be no one knocking on their door. If a company is doing the same, it would also depend on the types of documented controls to prevent copyright infringement that they have put in place.

Regardless of our good intent to follow the laws, the ones with the big piles of money are going to try and make the rules as to how we act. Life is definitely not fair, for sure.

The deal is though, if their lawyers see:

  • Documented intent to instruct without infringement
  • Adherence to the laws and the guidelines
  • No true copyright infringement taking place

Then they're going to weigh the cost of prosecuting vs. the possible revenue realized. They're not going to if the p's and q's are in place and the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.

Chances are very, very good that they couldn't even make a case.

Also, even if they did have intent to sue, or even if they're only bluffing, they have to first issue a cease and decist order (which gives you time to respond).

As far as GfB&B is concerned, the issue is further complicated by the fact that it has international members. One could say that since the servers reside in the US, that US copyright laws should be observed. But in the end that might not be good enough. It's probably wise to find an international baseline where what is done is agreeable to all countries of the world as far as copyright infringement is concerned. The use of the internet for 'fair use' has issues of its own and it pays to stay in tune with the laws and the precendences that come forth by reading such music news sites as the Future of Music Coalition.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing by the rules is all fine and dandy... for those with the big piles of money. They will continue to edit the rules in their favor as long as the big piles of money replenish themselves. First and foremost we need to reward them properly for their careful mismanagement of the rights over that music by not giving them another single penny or Idea (song) to copyright.

Music is inherently free, a gift between artist and audience. At one time musicians were supported by the wealthy members of society (Patrons of the Arts) and free to create music and happy to release it into the world for everyone to share.

But now we have so many lawyers and "producers" and "owners" that music is becoming stifled. There is no room left to just enjoy music now-a-days... you have to purchase a song in multiple formats, make sure you don't "accidently" distribute it... or pick up a copy along your travels without properly rewarding the corporation that owns it.

Its a perversion of music I say... a despicable disgrace to the sum of humanity that music is to be kept on a short leash and spoon fed to you after placing the correct change through the coin slot.

To those who are caught up in the current system, I long for you to seek a better way. I know several who are invested and clutching at the laws to "protect them" when in truth they have all bought Betamax, and its going obsolete.

As to what needs to be done for the purpose of lessons, Kirk simply needs to write his "own" material to demonstrate the technique used in another song. Maybe do it in another key, with breaks and a chord re-arrangement.

And as for "financing" an album... I say lets pick songs from the forum members original submissions for Kirk and pals to track out and put on CD Baby. I'd buy a copy of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically she is saying even if you buy something it still doesn't belong to you, somewhat convoluted.

The same goes for Windows OS, you own a copy, it belongs to you, but you don't own it.:brickwall:

For some light reading before bed, read the EULA.

What I don't get is, with fair use, who is writing the rules, the government or the companies who are affected by the rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so lets all get back to what this is all about. Forget this copywrite fandango.

We are here to learn how to play the guitar well enough to entertain our firends, family, and ourselves. We all strive to come up with some sort of original we can call our own. Amen !

Now we also have another situation, our friends, and others want to hear something they can relate to in a song too.

"A comparable" These we know as requests by others.

Now only a couple of hands full folks here may want to go professional, like play at gatherings for the public. They are the one's that have to deal with the real issues.

Now I realize, that posting anyting in the realm of a cover tune or sections, lyrics, etc. does apply to us all.

What I am talking about is private lessons thru email at fair value for my consumption and improvment of skills by seasoned professionals no different than work shops created by Tommy, Gerhard, the Rolling Stones, or who ever.

That special tune you want to play in its entirely correct with all the bells and whistles that come from seasoned players who are capable of showing you how.

From these lessons, we aquire the knowledge to become better players ourselves.

Imagine for a moment sitting right there with Kirk and saying, man that was cool how'd you do that lick? So did the players steal from each other? Or perhaps both learned something cool.

I am still for private lessons, of course that might keep some folks pretty busy.

If am am doing some cover tunes, its for the practice of accuracy,

timing, quality, and skill.

I will move on to more originals as my confidence grows, and I believe thats true for all of us.

Just my thoughts...............But it is why we are here now isin't it.

Oh! Even the big shots do versions of other peoples stuff. Of course they have to pay for the rights to do so. But their in it for the money, I'm not.

You might say, I will enterain my friends with some good original stuff, but throw in a few damn good cover tunes done well, gets their attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×