Now, imagine this under the oak of SOPA and PIPA.

Of course piracy needs to be policed, but setting off a nuke in a china store is overkill.

Ya know.... people loved this at the time (including the people he's trying to protect), but changing copyright law in the first place to beyond it's initial limited several decade run started this whole thing. If it was left at what it initially was (20 years?) and not changed at the request of copyright holders decades ago we might not be having this fight now.

This is s-t-u-p-i-d. Once a work goes into the Public Domain, that should be it--end of story. That's like trying to reinstate virginity once it's lost.

"For example, Golan says before the 1994 law, he could purchase the music to "Peter and the Wolf" for $75 and use it until the paper disintegrated. Now, because it was pulled out of public domain, he must pay an average of $800 every time his symphony performs the classic Russian tale."I still have a hard time understanding all of this, but does that statement mean that every Wedding Band that sings "Single Ladies" or "The Chicken Dance" is going to have to pay big bucks or go to jail?

...Jerry

Ediit: OMG, I just realized I did a cut-and-paste from a copyrighted story. I'll send everyone a postcard from the slammer.

The thing that all music writers know (but no lawyers seemed to have figured out) is that there are only twelve notes, three basic levels of dissonance, and that no particular organization of these notes and dissonances is anywhere near as unique as the lawyers think it is.

"I still have a hard time understanding all of this, but does that statement mean that every Wedding Band that sings "Single Ladies" or "The Chicken Dance" is going to have to pay big bucks or go to jail?"

Jerry,
I too would like to know the answer to his as well.
I have aways believed that everyone had the right to perform a copyright work in public and there was no fee payable. There's a whole raft of other things that you cannot do but anyone can get up on a stage and sing or perform any work without paying a dime to anyone.

The only exception is regarding sheet music, oftenly someone owns the copyright to that or in some cases a NPO has placed the original composers score into libraries and now onto the web so anyone can make their own arrangements etc.

Maybe Musicvid can clue us in?

Bob.

Bob,

In the US, in order for music to be played live or recorded in public, someone has to pay a fee. Usually the venue pays it. This is an ASCAP/BMI fee. Even if you play the radio or recorded music, a fee has to be paid. Is it bascially a license that covers all music played, copyrighted or not. Usually the bands do not have to worry about this. At least that is the way it has always been.

Occasionally you hear a story of a small bar or restaurant with music getting caught by ASCAP for not paying the fee and getting a large fine.

Dave T2

Yep, the little local dance school i've done a lot of tech work for got approached by the ASCAP heavies once. Literally three huge guys with no necks in suits rang the doorbell and stood there until "arrangements" had been made. The agreed upon fine was about 10 times more than the ticket sales for the annual recital.

Funny thing is, only about 1/3 of the music used was covered by ASCAP. A lot of the rest was BMI and various other license holders. Still, the ASCAP fine was assessed on the entire play list.

Now the school has a yearly contract with both ASCAP and BMI. It's quite a burden for a small school, but it's a lot less than the fines were.

Dave is correct. I have been playing in a cover/wedding band for over 20 years. About 15 years ago either this came into existence or they started cracking down on it because some clubs starting charging bands for this fee. Eventually the clubs just paid the fee and is simply reduced the pay for the band but in a more invisible manner. As far as wedding bands go I don't know. I guess I'll start paying it when wedding DJ's start paying it.

> "That's like trying to reinstate virginity once it's lost."

Well put, Jay.

The way things are heading, the world will increasingly be run by w*nkers, but for my own purposes I shall continue, in a local non-money making situation to perform works created by myself, which others are welcome to use, and sometimes by others, knowing that they have already been well rewarded for their time ..... including Peter and the Wolf!

It seems an outright attack on freedom of expression is what is at stake here. Not only in the United States but Canada and Europe in back door behind the scenes regulatory negotiations. They can't suppress the internet so the old guard with their antiquated business model is still trying to hold all of us back with their old world idea of greed and control.

Their model is broken no matter how much they try to hang on and a new age is forming, especially in the younger generation where openness and sharing of knowledge is a right. I'm just an old fart but glad to be alive in these interesting times we are living in.

A band, even if you're just weekend warriors, can have no greater insurance than memberships in ASCAP and BMI. This covers your butt even if you're performing in a non-BMI facility, such as many reception rooms. And package memberships can be quite reasonable when purchased as part of a professional membership in some other organizations.

But keep in mind those cover blanket performance agreements, not sync or recording.

The topic of this thread is something quite different than doing the chicken dance at a wedding reception or singing "happy birthday" at a restaurant -- it is something quite a bit more insidious.
If someone had a great uncle with the same last name as a composer, they could conceivably claim reinstatement of copyright for purely mercenary reasons, even though they couldn't even recognize the tune.

I think in the long run, public domain will hurt the new artist -- the new creator. The more creative work that falls into the public domain, the less demand for new content. Why pay someone to write a script for a movie if you can use a story by Hemingway or Dickens?

It's funny. You can own a piece of land (which you didn't make) forever. Your family can then inherit it and so on ... forever (what ever that means) -- but not a book that took years to write. You can't pass that on as a legacy forever. Our laws protect the one as a rock bottom concept of our whole civilization, ownership of property -- but the other, is not treated the same. Our laws say that a creative work should be shared after a time -- right? It belongs to all of us -- in common -- in commune -- dare I say communist? But not land. Or furniture. Or even a pencil. I already own my house -- and some land -- and some other valuable things. I have no profitable copyrights -- I like getting things for free (like movies and music) so it all makes sense to me ! ..

"I think in the long run, public domain will hurt the new artist -- the new creator. The more creative work that falls into the public domain, the less demand for new content. Why pay someone to write a script for a movie if you can use a story by Hemingway or Dickens?

Disney?

Much of what Disney produced in the past 25 years could be suspect. The "Lion King" is Hamlet. "Beauty and the Beast", "The Hunchback of Notre Dame" and just about everything that Disney makes (what they call the "Classic collection") is based on public domain works.

>It seems an outright attack on freedom of expression is what is at stake here...

Yes, we're moving from "Freedom of expression" to "FEE-dom of expression!"

"In the US, in order for music to be played live or recorded in public, someone has to pay a fee"

I'm well aware of ASCAP in the USA and APRA in Australia.
That's a blanket licence to perform / play music in a commercial envirnment.
So long as the venue holds a licence anyone can get up on the stage and perform anything.
This seems related to specific works and the licencing for performance of specific pieces e.g. Peter And The Wolf, hence my question.

Bob.

Even a "blanket license" probably isn't really so. The dance school has to file a list of exactly what songs were used in what performances on which days, and how large the audience was each time. It's similar for most venues which also have to (or are supposed to, anyway) file such logs. Although it's called a blanket license the effect is still to license each use of each song individually.

What about the DJ's that play music at weddings? And local dance recitals that play music? I don't think they even know what copyright means.
JJK