Song sites face legal crackdown

[DareDevil]

Music file sharing to be offered legally

Owen Gibson, media correspondent
Monday August 22, 2005
The Guardian


Online music fans will for the first time be able to legally share tracks by big names such as Oasis, Beyonce, David Bowie and Elvis Presley after the artists' record label signed a ground-breaking deal with a new internet service provider.

In what some see as signalling a dramatic shift in the way consumers buy music, the provider, Playlouder, has licensed acts from SonyBMG, the world's second largest record label, and is confident that the other two big record labels, Universal and EMI, will follow suit.

Illegal file sharing, which allows users of software such as Kazaa, Grokster and eDonkey to swap pirated tracks over the internet, has been blamed by the record industry for largely contributing to a 25% slump in global sales since 1999, worth around £1.3bn a year.

The record industry has pursued a "carrot and stick" approach, taking legal action against the worst offenders while encouraging the use of legal download sites such as Napster and iTunes.

In June, Sylvia Price, 53, of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, was forced to pay £2,500 compensation for around 1,400 songs downloaded by her daughter, Emily, 14, on the family's home computer; and in March, 23 file sharers agreed to pay £2,200 each in compensation for uploading their music libraries on to the internet for others to copy.

Playlouder is offering the first legal alternative with a comparable experience to the "peer to peer" file sharing sites often used to swap pirated tracks.

Subscribers will be charged £26 a month for a high speed broadband internet connection, similar to the price charged by BT, with the added attraction of being able to share as much music as they want with other subscribers at no extra cost.

Because there will be no restrictions on the format in which the traded music is encoded, users will be free to transfer songs to any type of digital music player, including the market leading Apple iPod, or burn them to CD.

However, not only will consumers have to pay for music which they currently acquire free, albeit illegally, but they will also have to change their internet provider.

After signing the UK licensing deal with SonyBMG, whose acts also include George Michael, Bruce Springsteen and Dido, Playlouder's chief executive, Paul Hitchman, is confident that its big rivals will follow suit.

It has already signed deals with dozens of independent labels affiliated to the Association of Independent Music, representing artists such as the White Stripes, Franz Ferdinand and Dizzee Rascal. AIM's chief executive, Alison Wenham, said the idea was a "simple but radically different solution to the means of accessing music on the internet".

Because all Playlouder subscribers will share tracks over its own network Mr Hitchman said that the company could track the files and, through digital fingerprinting technology, make sure that record companies were remunerated accordingly from money set aside from Playlouder's revenues each month.

He said he believed that the service, to be launched next month, "could well be the most important development in digital distribution since the invention of the MP3 format".

Some record company executives have been wary of such deals because they fear it could reduce their ability to market big selling acts on a global basis. But conversely, it could also increase their revenues from back catalogue tracks.

Playlouder claims that if all ISPs adopted its model, the record industry would make an additional £300m a year in the UK alone.

Other companies, including one set up by the former Grokster president Wayne Rosso, have been working on legal versions of peer to peer file sharing. But Mr Hitchens claimed that while they would allow sharing, if customers wanted a high quality version, they would have to pay extra.

The British Phonographic Industry, which has imposed fines of up to £6,500 each on 60 file sharers found to be making thousands of pirated tracks available to others and is taking five more to court, welcomed the development.

"Ensuring record companies are adequately and reliably compensated for the use of their copyrights on the internet is the number one issue for our business," said the BPI's chairman, Peter Jamieson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/netmusic/st...1553962,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/netmusic/story/0,13368,1553962,00.html)


I just hope that other ISPs all over the world will join this deal and that the other big record companies will also see the light! :D

[DareDevil]

he music industry is to extend its copyright war by taking legal action against websites offering unlicensed song scores and lyrics.

The US Music Publishers' Association (MPA), which represents sheet music companies, will launch its first campaign against such sites in 2006.

MPA president Lauren Keiser said he wanted site owners to be jailed.

He said unlicensed guitar tabs and song scores were widely available on the internet but were "completely illegal".

Mr Keiser said he did not just want to shut websites and impose fines, saying if authorities can "throw in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective".

Bitter battles

The move comes after several years of bitter legal battles against unauthorised services allowing users to download recordings for free.

Publishing companies have taken action against websites in the past, but this will be the first co-ordinated legal campaign by the MPA.

The MPA would target "very big sites that people would think are legitimate and very, very popular", Mr Keiser said.

"The Xerox machine was the big usurper of our potential income," he said. "But now the internet is taking more of a bite out of sheet music and printed music sales so we're taking a more proactive stance."

David Israelite, president of the National Music Publishers' Association, added his concerns.

"Unauthorised use of lyrics and tablature deprives the songwriter of the ability to make a living, and is no different than stealing," he said.

"Music publishers and songwriters will consider all tools under the law to stop this illegal behaviour."

Sandro del Greco, who runs Tabhall.co.uk, said the issue was not serious enough to warrant jail time and sites like his were not necessarily depriving publishers of income.

Learn

"I play the drums mainly but I play the guitar as well. I run the website and I still buy the [tab] books," he said.

"The tabs online aren't deadly accurate so if someone really wants to know it they'll buy the book.

"But most of the bands I listen to don't have tab books to buy so if you get them online, that's the only way you can really learn it unless you work it out yourself."

The campaign comes after lyric-finding software PearLyrics was forced off the internet by a leading music publishing company, Warner Chappell.

'No alternative'

PearLyrics worked with Apple's iTunes, searching the internet to find lyrics for songs in a user's collection.

"I just don't see why PearLyrics should infringe the copyright of Warner Chappell because all I'm doing is searching publicly-available websites," PearLyrics developer Walter Ritter said.

"It would be different if they had an alternative service that also provided lyrics online and also integrated [with iTunes] like PearLyrics did. But they don't offer anything like that at all."

A Warner Chappell statement said the company wanted to ensure songwriters were "fairly compensated for their works and that legitimate sites with accurate lyrics are not undermined by unlicensed sites".

"We have requested that PearWorks provide us with information regarding the sources of their lyrics, and have further asked that they discontinue the service if these sources are operating without a licence."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm
I'm not a guitarist but I would hate it if my fav lyric sites were taken down.
:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Jaymze13]

What a bunch of crybabies.

I bet if they could find a way to do it, they'd made you pay an extra royalty fee to them if you bought a used CD or tape at a garage sale.

Now some of them want people thrown in jail because they dare to put thier interpetation of a piece of music on the internet. And the Xerox commment? I don't seem to recall hearing the music industry going all up in arms when Xerox first started out.

This world has way too many sue-happy people and even more lawyers who are willing to follow up on it so they can make a few $$ in the process.

[ibanez_player]

This is just stupid! OK, I can understand cracking down on illegal music downloads, but guitar tabs and song lyrics??!?!?!?! come on you guys! guitars tabs are (the vast majority of the time) peoples own interpretations of the song that THEY, not the songbooks, the band, etc, tabbed out on their own. and lyrics?!?! why do they even care? if someone wanted the lyrics to a song, they would either type them out, ask a friend who knew them to type them out, or look on the cd liner. no one, and i repeat, NO ONE, is going to go out to a store or something and spend money a book with the lyrics in them. i mean, come on! and jail time?!?!?!?!? i really don't get that one :confused:

[Jaymze13]

.......why do they even care? .........i really don't get that one :confused:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I'm sure it all goes back to what started all this mess. Artist putting out one or two good songs on an entire CD and 8-10 songs of filler. People got mad and downloaded the song they wanted and the artist had to face the fact that he/she didn't put out a good enough album that somebody wanted to buy and listen to the whole thing.

So, instead of putting out an album with more than 2 radio hits on it, they took legal action instead and went crying to the RIAA or something. Now we're killing them if we only download thier 2 good songs and don't buy the whole recording including the 8 crappy ones.

The same principal probably applies to tabs and lyrics. I have many, many guitar books, but very few (if any) of one recording. I can't think of many recordings out there that I would go "hey, I want the entire album and I'll pay for it in a tab book". I'd rather just have a couple of songs here and there.

The solution? Go to Harmony Central or alike and find the song you want. And guess what, it's free? You're subject to the persons interpitation of the song, but it can be a starting point.

So once again we're putting some little crybaby artist in the poorhouse because we don't want the tab or lyrics to all his/her songs. Shame on us. :rolleyes: Such nasty, unforgiving, picky consumers we are.

I don't even buy Christian songbooks. One, I've hardly seen a Christian guitar tab book I would want. About the closest I could come might be Steven Curtis Chapman and I've yet to find a guitar folio book that has the one or two songs of his I would be willing to buy a whole book for.

Most, if not all, of my guitar books are instructional. I've got a Hank Williams tab book and a CCR tab book that wouldn't be classified as total instructional I guess.

I like to play Christmas music on guitar. Nearly every Christmas book I have came with a CD that plays all the songs. I guess since somebody could put any of these CD's in a player and just play them to listen to (I have many times), I guess that would be the closet I would come to having a recording to listen to and have the tab to go along with it.

[SmileyFreak1981]

I don't think it's the artists/songwriters howling and whining as much as the record execs who want to make sure they can buy their new Bentley every year...

I would be willing to bet that a majority of artists don't give a flip if people post lyrics or tabs for their stuff, so long as the people don't publicly perform their songs or record them without asking permission.

Besides, if you post lyrics, and credit them to the author, isn't that fair use? I think it is.

And I'm not seeing how the record industry is losing any money from people posting tabs/chords and lyrics online. That one doesn't compute...

This is just another example of the music industry alienating their customers.

[RevZeek]

In my experience, when I have bought tab books etc...nine times out of ten they have been horrible. Not even close to what the artist actually played.

I agree totally about bands who write two or so good songs on an album and put filler songs in for the rest....that pretty much sums up what Metallica has been whining about.

I understand the point is to make money...here's a hint...make music that isn't filler and people will buy your records!

Don't even get me started on CCLI....! :rolleyes:

[Jaymze13]

........so long as the people don't publicly perform their songs or record them without asking permission.

I've always been confused by that. Are "cover bands" violating the law? To me, that's about the most extreme thing in this whole mess. Recording and making money, yes, that's pretty plain and easy to see. Publicly performing? I'm confused on that one.

We've been wanting to make our own CD at church and we're trying to find a nice list of public domain songs and hopefully mix in our own. But if we "cover" a SCC song or such on Sunday morning and somebody picks up a copy of that service to listen to it, are we in violation of the law?

[larryl]

I've always been confused by that. Are "cover bands" violating the law? To me, that's about the most extreme thing in this whole mess. Recording and making money, yes, that's pretty plain and easy to see. Publicly performing? I'm confused on that one.

We've been wanting to make our own CD at church and we're trying to find a nice list of public domain songs and hopefully mix in our own. But if we "cover" a SCC song or such on Sunday morning and somebody picks up a copy of that service to listen to it, are we in violation of the law?


most of the places where "cover bands" play, have a liscense from ascap, BMI, etc, so that covers can be played there. that's why some bars/clubs have "no cover" rules for performing artists....they have no liscense.

just FYI.....getting a band's "permission" means nothing. royalties must still be paid. you can record the song without their permission, and they can't do anything about it, as long as you pay the royalties.

[SmileyFreak1981]

Also, if you play songs at a church and they have a CCLI license, then you should be ok in most instances...

[Gandalf]

most of the places where "cover bands" play, have a liscense from ascap, BMI, etc, so that covers can be played there. that's why some bars/clubs have "no cover" rules for performing artists....they have no liscense.

just FYI.....getting a band's "permission" means nothing. royalties must still be paid. you can record the song without their permission, and they can't do anything about it, as long as you pay the royalties.
That depends on who holds the copyright. If the band holds the copyright, they do not have to allow you to do anything... If they sell CDs, the royalties paid through that purchase do allow certain rights (fair use) to the consumer, etc. But, they could copyright a song, and not distribute it or give anyone permission to use it in any way. If record companies hold the copyrights, then there are generally standing policies and agreements regarding royalties and copyright permissions. But, it can vary - the law just prohibits nonpayment of royalties & copyright infringement, and allows fair use if royalties are paid when they're required.

But, the copyright holder can decide whether to accept royalty payments for various uses, how much to charge, etc. They're under no obligation to allow the use of copyrighted material, and are entitled to allow its use freely if they so desire. The copyright holder can give permission for use without requiring payment, or can refrain from giving permission and not accept payment. It's only if a protected right is infringed upon without permission, or if royalty payments are accepted, but the copyright holder attempts to then restrict fair use that the legal system comes into play.

In many cases, your assertation that the band's permission means nothing is true, because they do not hold the relevant copyrights. But if they are the copyright holders, then their permission is entirely sufficient.

[larryl]

true, except that all use ascap or bmi, which are performance rights organizations, and control all performances of the music, regardless of who holds the copyright. they then pay out the correct anounts to those involved.

this is part of why you see such odd bands covering tunes.....if it always required permission from the band, many covers would never happen.

[Jaymze13]

Something about this whole thing isn't jiving with me. You mean to tell me that in a supposed free country, I can't play a song, 99.99999% of the time a known song, just for fun in public without premission?

If people were playing my music and they knew it was my music, I might be glad. One, it gets my song out and two, it might make the fan go "I bet the original version is better than this one" and they might go **shudder** purchase it and make me a little more money.

I wonder how many church's are in violation of some regulation or rule because they have to copy a song and chord chart for members of the praise band and can't afford to buy upwards to 8 or so copies of the book it came out of?

[WeaselInYerFoot]

Does that mean that I can't play "Smells like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana on my guitar anymore? How else will I show off my coolness?? :( :(

Ah... I miss the 90's :p

[Jaymze13]

Does that mean that I can't play "Smells like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana on my guitar anymore? How else will I show off my coolness?? :( :(

By learning songs by a real guitarist! LOL! whoops!! ;)

i know, i know, some people think cobain did nothing wrong

[Gandalf]

true, except that all use ascap or bmi, which are performance rights organizations, and control all performances of the music, regardless of who holds the copyright. they then pay out the correct anounts to those involved.
Very true, for any band with a recording contract. Just not for copyrights in general. All the record companies participate in ASCAP or BMI (and CCLI for the worship labels).
Something about this whole thing isn't jiving with me. You mean to tell me that in a supposed free country, I can't play a song, 99.99999% of the time a known song, just for fun in public without premission?
Well... most known songs are either public domain (old hymns, classical stuff, etc), or the copyright is owned by a record label that participates in one of the above organizations.

Generally, from the Copyright Office's site:
WHAT IS COPYRIGHT?

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
To display the copyrighted work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
In the case of sound recordings, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

A copyright holder can authorize others to do any of the above, or not, and can charge royalties for doing so, if desired. When a record company holds the copyright, there's an existing set of rules in place for how they handle royalties for various different situations above. Groups like ASCAP are in place to collect general royalties from clubs that want to have cover bands, etc. and distribute the royalties to the record companies.
If people were playing my music and they knew it was my music, I might be glad. One, it gets my song out and two, it might make the fan go "I bet the original version is better than this one" and they might go **shudder** purchase it and make me a little more money.
And, generally, copyright holders allow public performances by others, if royalties are paid. They just aren't obligated to authorize such performances if they don't wish to do so.
I wonder how many church's are in violation of some regulation or rule because they have to copy a song and chord chart for members of the praise band and can't afford to buy upwards to 8 or so copies of the book it came out of?
Few... most churches are members of CCLI. They report copies made of songs, and songs displayed to the congregation, etc. and pay an annual fee, which is distributed by CCLI to the associated record companies, etc. as required. Churches that aren't members of CCLI would have to keep track of this information and deal directly with each individual copyright holder, but almost any church of a large enough size to be making a significant number of copies or displaying lyrics is a CCLI member.