|
|
Max DeGroot's Blog
Topic: Thoughts On Copyright
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution
I don't know what copyright laws are like elsewhere, but here in the U.S. It is supposed to be a situation whereby inventors and authors can reap reasonable profit from their developed ideas before they enter the public domain where anyone can use them.
That's what it is supposed to be. However, there is a legal idea which has developed that is anathema to this: the concept of intellectual property.
I'm sorry, lawyers. You cannot own an idea. What inventors and authors are supposed to be given is a license to profit from their idea, to encourage them to come up with more ideas.
Unfortunately today, copyrights last for as long as the author is alive plus fifty years!!! Who is profiting from these ideas after the author is dead? Maybe his descendants, maybe not. The money goes to the estate and whoever is permitted to withdraw money from the estate gets it. This, it should surprise no one, is very often lawyers. The same lawyers that lobby to have the copyright laws extended further and further.
No. This must end. Most music and literature cease to be really profitable to the author after 14 years. That is where it should be. I'm even willing to extend it to 30.
But it is utterly ludicrous that anyone should have to pay someone in order to record Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer. Everyone involved in the creation and recording of that original song is dead. Only lawyers and corporations which had no hand in the creation of the song are profiting now.
This must end.
|
Member Comments:
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Yep. . .you and I definitely agree on that :)
Bob Guest:
---
Of course, right or wrong, the only reason they are coming after you is because they know they can. It isn't right, but in the end they win.
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Of course, right or wrong, the only reason they are coming after you is because they know they can. It isn't right, but in the end they win.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d That is an argument I've seen before (Satire vs Parody). . .I explained how I felt this passed that muster on my site on the page with the petition on it, I also have read that wikipedia page before. As you note--each case is on a case by case basis--and the four cornerstones all play a role, satire vs parody has come up--but more in commercial cases. . .but alas, I realize and have for some time that I don't have the financial means to do anything about it. . .for now. . .I do have cases I can point to where satire held up as parody in court based on the nature of the vocals themselves. . .but like you said it's case by case. . .making it even harder to debate because it would likely come down to a legal battle, which for what I do isn't worth it.
Bob Guest:
---
You're in the unfortunate position of being harassed by the music business because they are afraid of seeing their meal ticket eaten up by the C.C. Max is in a slightly better position where he may be able to get what he wants by simply writing a few letters to the right people.
I completely understand your points of view, but I also understand the points of view of your opposition, although I don't always agree.
ASCAP would not be able to exist without copyright law. But that is where the similarity ends. That's what ASCAP was apparently trying to tell you. Because you hosted parodies that changed only the lyrics and left the music completely unchanged (a new arrangement still counts as the original music) they still have a responsibility to the composer to collect for the use of that music.
Fair use provisions, unfortunately, don't protect you for anything. Under the U.S. copyright laws, fair use would be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore, you can only use it as a defense and not a protection against legal action.
I could continue, but most of what I could say is already on Wikipedia. Check what it says, but take a closer look at what is under the heading, "Fair use and parody". It suggests that what you're doing is satire and not necessarily parody, which might make a fair use defense more difficult.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d You're in the unfortunate position of being harassed by the music business because they are afraid of seeing their meal ticket eaten up by the C.C. Max is in a slightly better position where he may be able to get what he wants by simply writing a few letters to the right people.
I completely understand your points of view, but I also understand the points of view of your opposition, although I don't always agree.
ASCAP would not be able to exist without copyright law. But that is where the similarity ends. That's what ASCAP was apparently trying to tell you. Because you hosted parodies that changed only the lyrics and left the music completely unchanged (a new arrangement still counts as the original music) they still have a responsibility to the composer to collect for the use of that music.
Fair use provisions, unfortunately, don't protect you for anything. Under the U.S. copyright laws, fair use would be determined on a case by case basis. Therefore, you can only use it as a defense and not a protection against legal action.
I could continue, but most of what I could say is already on Wikipedia. Check what it says, but take a closer look at what is under the heading, "Fair use and parody". It suggests that what you're doing is satire and not necessarily parody, which might make a fair use defense more difficult.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Yes, they are taking on the performance rights end of things, and I had this debate with them to how copyright and performance are one in the same and the supreme court has already ruled on copyright as it applies to fair use with parodies, they said that they don't get involved in whether or not something falls under fair use, which is where I got tripped up myself, It's why eventually I agreed to disagree because I cannot afford to fight them on it. They claim they don't question the validity of parodies as an art or that people have a right to recreate parodies in general regardless of the approval of the original author. Their problem, as you ascertained, was with backing tracks. BUT in their eyes any influence of any kind from the original, whether it be lyrics, backing track, or even songs in the style of a particular backing track (Such as what the Venetian Princess does, or arguably Art Paul Schlosser, Peter Coffin or certain Jeff Reuben tracks where the backing tracks don't resemble the OS nearly as closely) are subject to performance royalties. Now I am pretty certain that in court that would be viewed differently. I've saved everything I've ever received from ASCAP (I think) and find it interesting that they don't see how they are claiming a copyright issue, because in my opinion that's what they are doing--but like I said--clearly this is not what copyright was intended to encompass, it was intended to prevent people from taking someone else's work, plagiarizing it (whether that be copying it or reproducing it), and then redistribute it without the original author's consent or compensation. . .this why the fair use clause exists. I don't really want to debate about this because we can debate for hours, days, weeks---both of our lifetimes, and ultimately I doubt you or I will change our minds on what copyright should and should not apply to, what the limitations should or should not apply to, and how far copyright should reach. As an author of original works also, I do concern myself with the protections of those works. . .but when it comes to my parodies, which are responsible for over 97% of my total traffic, and 98% of my total downloads--I see them as altered to a degree that it could not be mistaken for the original, and therefore could not serve as a commercial substitute for the original. . .one of the four cornerstones that must be considered when applying a fair use defense. Fair Use says to make consideration among all 4 of it's cornerstones, not that any one automatically qualifies a fair use instance, or that lack of any one cornerstones disqualifies a fair use instance. All 4 have to be weighed. . .My parodies, as well as the parodies in the styles Max DeGroot, Phil Alexander, Jeff Reuben, Rick Cormier and many others do fit 3 of the 4 without any question--the only one that can be questioned is the substantially of the work used. Re-creations of backing tracks are generally the only part used, and the quality of such varies from artist to artist, and method to method used in parody. Parodies have gone both ways in court depending on different circumstances, usually however non-commercial parodies have gone heavily in favor of protected fair use, and even among commercial parodies--it is usually ruled in favor of the parody so long as the difference is stark enough not to affect the market value of the original product.
I realize you have a different opinion on this, and I'd like to agree to disagree. ..like I said my opinion falls somewhere between yours and Max's on this. but when it comes to parody, I think my stance is well known--even if ASCAP's definition of what copyright, fair use, parody or cover may be unclear if not changing based on what they think will get people to pay them money. . .
Bob Guest:
---
Actually, I'm pretty sure ASCAP's function falls in the copyright category. They are acting on behalf of the copyright owners that are contracted with them. However, they are only taking part of the copyright pie, the performance rights.
belowaveragedave:
---
No Bob, as I've discussed in other threads, they did not question the parodies themselves at all. . .even the ones where the backing track wasn't very similar at all.
They claim that ASCAP licenses are required for the internet performance of any song they hold the license rights to, including songs done in parody, regardless of the content or accuracy of the parody. . .They did not have an issue with me or anyone else on my site doing parodies, they simply wanted to profit off of them. I could have used horrible midis and had William Hung sing the vocals and they still would have had the same opinion. . .I support copyright laws overall--but feel they have been allowed to get out of hand. I'm somewhere in between both of you on this debate, which is why I've stayed out of it. . .
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Actually, I'm pretty sure ASCAP's function falls in the copyright category. They are acting on behalf of the copyright owners that are contracted with them. However, they are only taking part of the copyright pie, the performance rights.
belowaveragedave:
---
No Bob, as I've discussed in other threads, they did not question the parodies themselves at all. . .even the ones where the backing track wasn't very similar at all.
They claim that ASCAP licenses are required for the internet performance of any song they hold the license rights to, including songs done in parody, regardless of the content or accuracy of the parody. . .They did not have an issue with me or anyone else on my site doing parodies, they simply wanted to profit off of them. I could have used horrible midis and had William Hung sing the vocals and they still would have had the same opinion. . .I support copyright laws overall--but feel they have been allowed to get out of hand. I'm somewhere in between both of you on this debate, which is why I've stayed out of it. . .
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d They to the best of my knowledge are, but then again. . .I thought Rudolph was too. . .either way, for what you are doing, I don't really think there would be an issue. . .The MMA pays for all the major licenses, so either way it should be covered
Max DeGroot:
---
What about The Little Drummer Boy, We Need A Little Christmas, and Nuttin' For Christmas?
I have a few other Christmas ones involving them, too, but they are either clearly in the Public Domain (A Visit From St. Nicholas) or are touching rather than funny (Toyland-Believe).
belowaveragedave:
---
Max, The Mad Music Archive pays a royalty to allow such performances to be aired. ..you are probably OK with Rudolph as long as you don't sell it. . .
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d What about The Little Drummer Boy, We Need A Little Christmas, and Nuttin' For Christmas?
I have a few other Christmas ones involving them, too, but they are either clearly in the Public Domain (A Visit From St. Nicholas) or are touching rather than funny (Toyland-Believe).
belowaveragedave:
---
Max, The Mad Music Archive pays a royalty to allow such performances to be aired. ..you are probably OK with Rudolph as long as you don't sell it. . .
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d No Bob, as I've discussed in other threads, they did not question the parodies themselves at all. . .even the ones where the backing track wasn't very similar at all.
They claim that ASCAP licenses are required for the internet performance of any song they hold the license rights to, including songs done in parody, regardless of the content or accuracy of the parody. . .They did not have an issue with me or anyone else on my site doing parodies, they simply wanted to profit off of them. I could have used horrible midis and had William Hung sing the vocals and they still would have had the same opinion. . .I support copyright laws overall--but feel they have been allowed to get out of hand. I'm somewhere in between both of you on this debate, which is why I've stayed out of it. . .
Bob Guest:
---
You music career is a business. You should be able to invest as much effort in making your copyright work for you as a business owner invests in making his patent work for him.
A copyright by itself does not make you any money. A copyright is simply a legal provision (supported by international agreements) that allows you to market and profit from your own creations. It also prevents others from making profits and not sharing them with you.
I suspect this whole exchange has come from your frustration concerning your current project. You might try contacting the copyright owners about using the song. You might be surprised at their response, if you explain fully what you intend to do... especially the financial side. (Or you could substitute a song that's in the public domain.)
A note about parodies.... Most parodies I've heard lately add new words to old songs but don't touch the music at all. Lawyers could treat the words and music as two distinct parts of the work that need to be protected individually... Especially true if the words and music were written by two different people. (Perhaps any change in the copyright laws should address that and make it clearer.) So to simply change the words might be inviting trouble, unless you get permission first. I suspect that line of thinking may be to root of the trouble B.A. Dave has found himself in lately.
Max DeGroot:
---
The difference is, you MUST invest effort to keep a business going.
You DON'T have to invest a bloody thing to keep a copyright going.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Max, The Mad Music Archive pays a royalty to allow such performances to be aired. ..you are probably OK with Rudolph as long as you don't sell it. . .
Max DeGroot:
---
Well, therein lies a good question:
What constitutes a parody? How much do I have to change the lyrics for it to be a parody?
As it turns out, there is no set standard. It is purely subjective, as those who have had to defend their parodies against the owners of the copyright can attest.
In my case, I have several Christmas Carols that are recorded as a conversation between two bears, Stargazer and Dipper. They are funny, but in most cases, the original words are used.
I will be uploading one to The FuMP in December, but since the song on that one, Jingle Bells, is in the public domain, it's not a problem.
However, others that I have done, Rudolph, Little Drummer Boy, and We Need A Little Christmas as examples, are still covered by copyright, and I change very little of them.
Dave AuJus:
---
Max why on earth do you need to record "Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer"? If you make a parody of it you shouldn't have to pay anybody.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d You music career is a business. You should be able to invest as much effort in making your copyright work for you as a business owner invests in making his patent work for him.
A copyright by itself does not make you any money. A copyright is simply a legal provision (supported by international agreements) that allows you to market and profit from your own creations. It also prevents others from making profits and not sharing them with you.
I suspect this whole exchange has come from your frustration concerning your current project. You might try contacting the copyright owners about using the song. You might be surprised at their response, if you explain fully what you intend to do... especially the financial side. (Or you could substitute a song that's in the public domain.)
A note about parodies.... Most parodies I've heard lately add new words to old songs but don't touch the music at all. Lawyers could treat the words and music as two distinct parts of the work that need to be protected individually... Especially true if the words and music were written by two different people. (Perhaps any change in the copyright laws should address that and make it clearer.) So to simply change the words might be inviting trouble, unless you get permission first. I suspect that line of thinking may be to root of the trouble B.A. Dave has found himself in lately.
Max DeGroot:
---
The difference is, you MUST invest effort to keep a business going.
You DON'T have to invest a bloody thing to keep a copyright going.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Well, therein lies a good question:
What constitutes a parody? How much do I have to change the lyrics for it to be a parody?
As it turns out, there is no set standard. It is purely subjective, as those who have had to defend their parodies against the owners of the copyright can attest.
In my case, I have several Christmas Carols that are recorded as a conversation between two bears, Stargazer and Dipper. They are funny, but in most cases, the original words are used.
I will be uploading one to The FuMP in December, but since the song on that one, Jingle Bells, is in the public domain, it's not a problem.
However, others that I have done, Rudolph, Little Drummer Boy, and We Need A Little Christmas as examples, are still covered by copyright, and I change very little of them.
Dave AuJus:
---
Max why on earth do you need to record "Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer"? If you make a parody of it you shouldn't have to pay anybody.
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d Max why on earth do you need to record "Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer"? If you make a parody of it you shouldn't have to pay anybody.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d The difference is, you MUST invest effort to keep a business going.
You DON'T have to invest a bloody thing to keep a copyright going.
Bob Guest:
---
A business often depends on patents and so called trade secrets. A good artist must still run his business..... which means booking performances, selling recordings, keeping track of money (or lack thereof)... and providing for long term circumstances.
Max DeGroot:
---
A business is an ongoing venture. It isn't someone you just set up and it runs itself. It requires effort to keep it going.
A copyright does not.
Very big difference.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d A business often depends on patents and so called trade secrets. A good artist must still run his business..... which means booking performances, selling recordings, keeping track of money (or lack thereof)... and providing for long term circumstances.
Max DeGroot:
---
A business is an ongoing venture. It isn't someone you just set up and it runs itself. It requires effort to keep it going.
A copyright does not.
Very big difference.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d A business is an ongoing venture. It isn't someone you just set up and it runs itself. It requires effort to keep it going.
A copyright does not.
Very big difference.
Bob Guest:
---
You should read the Berne Copyright Convention a little closer. They do make a distinction between an idea (which can't be copyrighted) and an artistic work (such as a song or other musical works).
To say you should only be able to leave money for your heirs must also imply that if you started a business that is doing quite well you cannot leave that to your heirs. A business, like your music, is something that would make a living for you, that you have put some effort into creating. So who gets the business??? The government??? I believe that's Communism. Is that what you're trying to promote? I'm sure that's not constitutional.
Max DeGroot:
---
That may be what you WANT, but that isn't what the Constitution says you should have. If you want to leave something for your heirs, you can leave them money.
Don't leave them something you shouldn't be able to own: an idea.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d You should read the Berne Copyright Convention a little closer. They do make a distinction between an idea (which can't be copyrighted) and an artistic work (such as a song or other musical works).
To say you should only be able to leave money for your heirs must also imply that if you started a business that is doing quite well you cannot leave that to your heirs. A business, like your music, is something that would make a living for you, that you have put some effort into creating. So who gets the business??? The government??? I believe that's Communism. Is that what you're trying to promote? I'm sure that's not constitutional.
Max DeGroot:
---
That may be what you WANT, but that isn't what the Constitution says you should have. If you want to leave something for your heirs, you can leave them money.
Don't leave them something you shouldn't be able to own: an idea.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d That may be what you WANT, but that isn't what the Constitution says you should have. If you want to leave something for your heirs, you can leave them money.
Don't leave them something you shouldn't be able to own: an idea.
Bob Guest:
---
In the unlikely event I continue to live for another fifty years, I certainly want to reap whatever rewards due on whatever material I produce. Sure material isn't really profitable after 14 years, but it is at least somewhat profitable.
After I'm gone, I'm sure to leave heirs who could also benefit from my work. I certainly don't want them left out.
As for the lawyers.... They get paid for the work they do.... but I suspect it's the music companies that reap the greatest profit. The reason for this is probably because many artists make the same mistake the Beatles did. They sell or sign away their rights to ownership.
If you want to reap the rewards.... Don't assign the rights to your work to anyone else... and keep your will up to date.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d The pirates can get their own copyright!
Dave AuJus:
---
I agree. But ...what about the pirates?
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d In the unlikely event I continue to live for another fifty years, I certainly want to reap whatever rewards due on whatever material I produce. Sure material isn't really profitable after 14 years, but it is at least somewhat profitable.
After I'm gone, I'm sure to leave heirs who could also benefit from my work. I certainly don't want them left out.
As for the lawyers.... They get paid for the work they do.... but I suspect it's the music companies that reap the greatest profit. The reason for this is probably because many artists make the same mistake the Beatles did. They sell or sign away their rights to ownership.
If you want to reap the rewards.... Don't assign the rights to your work to anyone else... and keep your will up to date.
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d I agree. But ...what about the pirates?
|
|
|
|
|