At the risk of getting cut off at the tail of this thread, here is a thought.
I can't compose music for nuts (some may say I cant edit vids either, lol) but I sometime spend a lot of time devising electromechanical devices for industry.
If I did one that was really good and then spent a lot of money and time to get patent rights, what do you think would happen? In the western world at least there are extensive "legitimate " businesses devoted to spending even more money and time to "break" my patent with minor changes etc.
My chances of getting any return for my efforts are very slim.
Artists, ie Muso's, Writers,Painters etc on the other hand seem to get a better deal with copyright protection. Do I have a point?, Brian.

You got a good point. Reverse engineering is petty common in industry. Maybe you can come up with a sequel to Happy Birthday.

Here's an idea...

Happy April Fool's day to you,
Happy April Fool's day to you,
Happy April Fool's, day dear Billy,
Happy April Fool's day to you.

Under current copywirte law, put it to music, who knows. It kind of brings another stupid copywrite thread full circle.

Now who wants to practice medicine without a license?

<wink>

I don't think any sane person could for a minute dispute the rights of ownership of anything anyone creates. Any notions otherwise would simply mean the end of all human effort, and that goes for both socialist and capitalist systems, the only real difference here being that in a truly socialist system all creative works are effectiveky 'works for hire' but even then if your work is valued more than others you get pushed up in the pecking order and hence get an extra loaf of bread per day.
The real issue is that the greatest work of all time will earn it's creator nothing unless others hear / see / read it. Now we all get free music, legally by way of radio broadcasts, we get free bits of movies via trailers, critics get free entrance to plays and quote excerpts etc. The artists who own those works or their agents do this in the hope that we'll part with our money to read / see / hear the entire work or be able to play it at our liesure.
OK this is all bleeding obvious stuff and the only reason I mention it is today flying back to Oz I read an article in a English language Asian newspaper that made a very interesting point.

At the height of Napster the record labels were doing very nicely thank you, they figured kill off Napster and they'd do even better but the reverse has been the case. All those millions of pirated songs were actually providing publicity for the labels, people got something for free, liked what they heard and bought a real copy.
This form of 'piracy' is nothing new, many years ago all of my mates were into it, all you needed was a cassette deck and an FM tuner and a bit of patience. We still went out and bought the real thing on vinyl if we really liked it, not just because we got better sound but also for the jacket and the pride of ownership, never much pride to be had from anything stolen!

As to the Happy Birthday thing, isn't the real issue here 'dilution'?
I'm pretty certain Warner would be more than happy to avoid all the negative publicity by turning a blind eye to the minor infrinegments of its rights if there was some magic line in the sand that meant it could still defend its rights even after it had let minor infringements slip past.

And just one final point. What we should all be concerned about isn't the peer to peer or whatever piracy, heck this thing is a drop in the ocean. What really bugs me having been in two of the worlds most populous countries is the endemic commercial piracy. You go into any record shop there to buy a copy of something local that you like and I suspect it's very unlikely that the artists get to see a penny out of the money you part with.

Spot Talk about taking things out of context you take the Biscuit

You quoted me


SPOTS POST

<<<You say why should Artists give any rights its their work Take it and its theft.

I say You want to sell it we will buy it on certain conditions if you dont like OUR Conditions then keep your Music and dont Inflict it on the Public.>>>

ME

Imagine Buying anything where the Maker keeps certain rights In this Situation your not buying The Music at all. And what most of the Public percieve as fair use is actually considered as theft By yOU. A new label should be put on the Packaging warning you that this is not your Music Only the Physical CD. mY COMMENTS are a referral to the fact that Without the public Who will only tolerate so much restriction they decide to vote with there feet and abstain from buying altogether. The word Inflict was perhaps a bit harsh but meaning hey if your not really gonna sell this item because you tied it up with so many rules that dont even bother showing me whats on offer.

SPOTS POST

This is where silliness is creeping into the marketplace. Think about what you just said.....So, if I don't want to give away my music, then YOU say that I can't sell it, either. Hmmm....THAT would kill free enterprise quickly.

I Never said this Why are you putting words into my Mouth ?


SPOTS POST

If you don't want to buy a chair that's on the floor of the store, do you then tell the shopkeeper that he shouldn't inflict the chair on your eyes?


ME


If you tell me that I can buy that chair BUT Only "IM" allowed to sit on it and I am not allowed to change it share it or anything other than the use you allow then Dont let me look at your precious chair because Im not interested in Buying..


SPOTS POST

OK, here's my argument to that sort of silliness. Fat, slobby people offend my eyes. They should all be taken off the streets and forced to live with Richard Simmons til they slim down. Smelly foods in the supermarket offend the hell out of my nose. Remove those damned things, immediately. The Superbowl at all times, offends my sense of propriety. Remove it from the airwaves. Put what you just said into other terms, it becomes pretty goofy.

ME

What ?

SPOTS POST

When music is 'inflicted' upon the public, it usually takes place in the form of radio. SOMEONE ALREADY PAID THE MUSICIAN/RADIO STATION/PUBLSHER for the right to 'inflict' that music on the public. It's called "advertising" If you don't want to hear the song, turn the radio to another station. If you don't want to see the chair in the store window, avert your eyes. If you don't want to smell the garlic in the store, then don't walk in that part of the store.

ME

Your OFF again doing my talking for me. Hey I dont need to speak Spot can do it SEE Higher up for My real Opinion.


SPOTS POST

It's called "Freedom" and if you don't like that, I'm afraid this whole discussion is for naught.

ME

So what freedom would that be then freedom of speech. freedom of choice. freedom to have an opinion or freedom to own purchased music.

SPOTS POST

Advocating a position that if the artist doesn't sell on your terms that they aren't permitted to put product out their goes beyond ludicrous.


ME

The Public have a right to buy what they choose consumer demand will determine the rules It is a fact no Artist will sell what the public wont buy. I took this to be accepted fact.


SPOTS POST

Passing *a 'law' that would support that sort of absurdity would be a communist act.
It works like this in a capitalistic society: (America)

ME

Now your really trying to belittle me Because I dont 100% Agree I am now a Communist. This is an attempt at insulting me using the term communist as an old way of describing cold War russia as a description for my way of thinking.


SPOTS POST

Artist creates/inventor invents/producer produces and marketing "inflicts" it on the public on the artist/inventor/producer's terms. Either the public buys it on those terms or they don't. If they don't, then either the artist/inventor/producer (marketing dept) has to change their terms, or go away. There are always choices. And whether or not the public is "aware" that duplicating CDs, ripping DVDs, or making digital prints of a copyrighted photograph is illegal or not,

ME

This is the first sign that you have understood what Im saying and actually mirroring my views.


SPOTS POST

the bar doesn't recognize ignorance as an excuse. Try telling an officer *that you didn't see the speed limit sign when you are pulled over for *speeding. See how far that lack of awareness gets you.

ME

AH Well back to The condascending. Moralising. Beliittling.

Vegas has the "extract audio from cd" tool...OOoops better not say that too loud....

Great debate (when things don't get down to a personal level...)

Cheers,

Paul.

Update: Donald Trump can't copyright the phrase "your fired" because a Chicago store owner already has the copyright on it for her store.
In the paper this morning.

JJK

Spot I know your only fighting the good Fight for Copywrite protection. You have probably been involved waist high in the struggle. You have to be defensive any weakness and thats it. But you have to be able to change speed remember that I am looking at this from A point of what do I think is right.

My Opinion is I would Like you In my team (If I had one) Your a very fine asset to any company.

Im quite Happy with our discussion you have Taught me Some stuff !

there is a dickhead post. u said what u said. Now you copy the post above ur's cuz SPOT walked away. pefect arguement for how people kipe from others. easy to copy aint it??? so clever. or is Mark2929 nym for Skevos? copycat coward. like a little kid following a dude and screamin' YEA after the dude pushes another dude. no class man, no class

jazzvalve said:

(SNIP)
* or is Mark2929 nym for Skevos?
(SNIP)

Erm, no - Skevos is my real name - I don't post here under any other names.

And I really do agree with just about everything Spot says on every issue but copyright, and his original reply to me made me realise that we actually agree even on copyright a lot more than I thought.

I regret the fact that Spot sees my second reply as me calling him an idiot - this was not my intention. Perhaps it was because I was rushed and didn't proof-read - maybe I should have put the nice stuff first, the mild criticisms in the middle, followed by more nice stuff (what I like to call a "bad news sandwich"). And I guess my reply should have been shorter too, that way Spot would have made it to the parts where I was more positive.

No harm meant. All the best,

Skevos Mavros
http://www.mavart.com

I dont like all this Taking quotes and using them out of context which was why I quoted the whole of the text.. Spot said a lot of things and I answered them One By One. Im Pushing spot ? I just got through saying what a great Guy I thought he was. Everything else was Just DEFENDING MYSELF.

Anyway I would Like to move on to something more constructive this is going nowhere.

Amen to that, Mark2929. Let's leave it. I'm resolving myself to try and not discuss this issue here anymore, it's of no benefit. People are gonna do what they're gonna do regardless.

Jazzvalve, thanks for the defense but man, you gotta get a grip! In another post, you accuse Billyboy of being Zippy and DVDude of being John Cline. Now you say that Mark2929 is Skevos? Is everyone here posting under someone else' name in your mind?

Copyrights are one of the most misunderstood aspects of this business. That's a certainty. Clearly, most don't care about dealing with it one way or another. As they say in Schoolhouse Rock, "It's empowering to bitch at The Man." The Man is copyrights, right or wrong in their inception. Initially, I got into the copyright morass a few years back when I had to sue a former labelmate at Windham Hill. Now it's evolved into two facets;
1. Educating videographers, students, and others of copyright laws so they can avoid being sued. (but that seems to often backfire because many don't like being told they can be sued for their activities anymore than I like being attacked for informing them of the laws)
2. Lobbying for certain accesses for multimedia creators. I sit as a local representative on the NARAS board, 15 year member of ASCAP, on the RIAA artists board, and am a subscribing member of the DGA. (maybe someday I'll get to meet S. Speilberg, J. Cameron once came to a streaming class) In these organizations, I talk quite a bit to people about finding a means of providing additional revenue to qualified access of media. Which doesn't mean I want to help someone be able to use Celine Dion's music for 10.00 in a wedding video. I DO want to see a licensing structure. What I've thrown out previously here has been shot down, but the concept is fairly accepted. An existing agency collects a flat fee similar to ASCAP that would be in the low 4 figures, providing access to certain media for up to XXX licenses (duplicates)without requiring further clearance. This isn't going to help the guy doing a couple 500.00 videos a year, but the wedding guy doing lots of weddings at 2K or so would significantly benefit. Sync and performance licenses are part of that purchased package, similar to what Australia is doing.

I agree in principle with what Copyright Commons are attempting to do. I disagree in practice what they are trying to do. Artists by and large are not management-oriented people. They are more on the creative side as opposed to the organized side. A similar structure failed in England in the 1700's, it will fail again here. Simply because the onus is now on the artist. And in part, even with CC, most users of copyrighted works will not be willing to pony up the cash for use of a piece of work, and will use it anyway with their fingers crossed. With a needledrop of a formerly well known song costing in the lower 4 figures, not many weddings are gonna enjoy "Unchained Melody" in their soundtrack. That's the reality, harsh or not.
Anyway, it's a healthy debate until mud starts getting thrown, and it's one debate I genuinely enjoy having until stupid examples of extremity are thrown in the mix. If somewhere in this discussion I've overreacted, I apologize. When it's people threatening your livelihood, it gets a little personal. Consider how violent union members get... :-) Thank heaven we're just slinging words rather than bricks. But sometimes they hurt just as much.
BTW, whomever commented that Donald Trump couldn't copyright the phrase "You're Fired" is not accurate in that Trump wants to trademark it, not copyright it. Very different concepts, very different laws, very different burdens of proof. He'll probably get it, not because of his money, but because it's a different business, different region, and different turn of phrase. Copyrights are easy to obtain (he could never copyright the phrase thought) and trademarks are much harder to obtain.
Anyway, for my part of allowing this discussion to devolve, my apologies.
BTW, Skevos, if you wish to chat about this AFTER NAB, when our workload is much lighter, I'd enjoy hearing more from you, outside the forums.

You certainly went up In my Estimation there Spot :) Nice ONE !

Took me less time to read "Roots" than this thread... but a lot to chew on and digest.. thanks for the input guys!

Mike

"In another post, you accuse Billyboy of being Zippy and DVDude of being John Cline".

I'm honored! :-)

Spot said:

* BTW, Skevos, if you wish to chat
* about this AFTER NAB, when our
* workload is much lighter, I'd enjoy
* hearing more from you, outside the forums.

Happy to discuss things either here or elsewhere, though as I said in my longer reply - it looks like we mostly agree on principle and only disagree on matters of degree or strategy - and on ways of stating one's principle. All told, these are pretty minor diagreements.

And lucky you, at least you get to go to NAB! I expect to hear all the gossip on Vegas5 (and ACID5 and whatever else) as soon as you're able to post about it!


Skev

--"In another post, you accuse Billyboy of being Zippy and DVDude of being John Cline"--

Okay, I have a confession to make. All these people (including me, riredale) are, in fact:

SonyEPM!


There. I feel much better.

>>> I've always wondered why... Vegas has the "extract audio from cd" tool."<<<

Probably the same reason VCR's have record buttons and burner software has "burn" buttons.

"Warner Bros' bought and paid for the copyrights to "Happy Birthday" so that they could own the connection of words when coupled with a specific melody."

Spot: Just curious. Who sold Happy Birthday to Warner Bros? Did that entity own the rights to the song?

What do folks who use the song do with it? Publish it for individual enrichment, record it as a possible top ten single? Just curious.

Also,

"Happy Birthday" is a song that became popular. I suppose that popular songs shouldn't enjoy copyright protection?"

We are talking about that little I,IV,V,I ditty that we sing to each other once a year, yes? I admit, the song is so ingrained with the other minutiae that's always been there in my life, I've never thought to even check out its origin. It became popular? So did "Ring Around the Rosie". Did WB snap that one up, also? Should they be able to purchase it? Shall the notion copyrights become similar to domain names - anything up for grabs, whether you created it or not - finders keepers - first come first served?

I'm not against copyrights, but they definitely need to be granted with reason. I could see trademarking the words "just do it" but I could never agree with copyrighting them. Protect Nike from other shoe manufacturer's by trademarking those words (protecting them from use by competitors), but copyrighting them (is this really true?) makes violators of us all and is way beyond the intent of the spirit of copyright.

"My opinion is that those who don't have any copyrighted media have no grounds whatsoever having a say in the rights of copyright holders."

I write music - the media in my case, depending on how you look at it, is paper until such time as the composition gets recorded. What does media have to do with it? Or, are you stating that my creativity is up for grabs by the first person bold enough to steal it from me and clever enough to get it transformed/preserved on some audio/visual media?

To own the copyright for a piece of music, I need only document that the music is my own original creation and include on the manuscript a properly stated copyright notice. I could right a timeless symphony or a junky jingle (not saying that all jingles are junk, btw), my method of copyright protection follows the same simple procedure.

Documentation need not include audio or video recording. In this free country of ours, copyrights are still free - don't cost the creator a thing - and they are intended to protect the creator so that his/her work cannot be copied and claimed by someone else. Copyright protection is valid whether or not encroachment involves monetary loss.

So, having copyrighted media, contrary to your opinion, is not a prerequisite for my comment (or anyone else's) concerning the concept. It's as fundamental as freedom of speech in the USA, and like freedom of speech, is available whenever (if ever) we choose to use it.

Caruso

"Here is an explanation of the "Happy Birthday" story (along with another one about the Beatles' music). It's a perfect example of what's wrong with copyright laws today."

So, there you have it. Thanks for the link.

Caruso

Entrapment I call it......:-)