I notice a lot of people concerned about copyrights

[FASyndrome]

*THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE* *I AM BY NO MEANS A LEGAL AUTHORITY* *KNEEL BEFORE ZOD*

I've been a fan of Negativland for years and they have excellent resources on copyright information. I think it's worth it to look at the following link. These guys have dealt with Intellectual Property issues through their entire career.

Intellectual Property Issues (http://www.negativland.com/intprop.html#copyright)

This is geared more toward those who want to be a bit more rebellious.

I think our most powerful weapon is the Fair Use doctrine.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Also, check out creative commons, another important tool

Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/)

[satannica]

I have looked a lot at negativland myself. It seems they believe in the whole "art should be free" notion and as such plagiarise other people's work. OK so I'm no big fan of U2, I think Bono is an asshole quite frankly, but I still don't believe anyone has license to downright copy another work and then claim its a creative common, or fair use of pre-existing public domain works.

Whatever landmark cases Negativland has won, it doesn't change the fact that they are no better than the guy selling copied CD-Rs in a car boot sale!

[satannica]

Also, fair use is not a tool, or an excuse to happily rip off samples or musical score! It specifically states that use of a copyrighted work for purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is Fair Use (as per your own link). The fact that U2 dropped the case against Negativland as it was obvious they weren't going to take "Stop doing that" as an answer is not a ground for ratification of plagiarism!

Now if you were to tell me that "Fair Use" should apply in the case of freely available tablature, then I could agree with you, but Negativland are not the "against the man" warriors they profess to be!

[Bobsax]

Look
The copyright law (thanks to Sunny Bono) is a bad law that should be overturned. I'm talking all the tunes that should be public domain.
Just google happy birthday copyright

Making billions on Happy Birthday is just plain wrong

[BlueStrat]

Look
The copyright law (thanks to Sunny Bono) is a bad law that should be overturned. I'm talking all the tunes that should be public domain.
Just google happy birthday copyright

Making billions on Happy Birthday is just plain wrong

:facepalm:

[danosongs]

All my music is under creative commons as free MP3 downloads off my own website. You still own the music that way. Putting it in public domain means there is NO copyright holder. Very different.

The idea is give away music until you have a big enough fan base to sell a 2, 3rd (or 10th record) to. Otherwise, no one cares about an unkown band.

Even at gigs I "giveaway" the CD for any size tip someone feels like giving. Sometimes its $2, but sometimes $20. Works for me.

[Bobsax]

All my music is under creative commons as free MP3 downloads off my own website. You still own the music that way. Putting it in public domain means there is NO copyright holder. Very different.

The idea is give away music until you have a big enough fan base to sell a 2, 3rd (or 10th record) to. Otherwise, no one cares about an unkown band.

Even at gigs I "giveaway" the CD for any size tip someone feels like giving. Sometimes its $2, but sometimes $20. Works for me.
Hi Danosongs
Wow I've never heard the term creative commons or putting your music in the public domain.

I was taught that you create it it's yours unless you give it up, I assumed in writing? I thought getting your works copywriten just gave you legal juice.

What exactly do you mean by putting your music in the public domain.?
thanks
bob

[gon11]

It specifically states that use of a copyrighted work for purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is Fair Use (as per your own link). The fact that U2 dropped the case against Negativland as it was obvious they weren't going

[Bobsax]

It specifically states that use of a copyrighted work for purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is Fair Use (as per your own link). The fact that U2 dropped the case against Negativland as it was obvious they weren't going

:poke: When I get all riled I sometimes make no sense also :poke:

The skinny;
By their own reckoning, members of the Bay Area recording and performance group Negativland got themselves into trouble by having too much fun. Their prank began with a pirated audiotape of Casey Kasem, the normally boosterish-sounding disk jockey and radio personality, as he cursed a blue streak while trying to record a spot about the band U2. Sensing opportunity at hand, Negativland enthusiastically mixed these mutterings with samples from a U2 song, then put out a 1991 single on the SST label with a picture of the U-2 spy plane on its cover.



I thought this interview explains the U2 Negativeland issue pretty well.
http://l2g.to/negativland/u2/the-edge-interview.html
then there's this
http://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=19

[SatchMan14]

All my music is under creative commons as free MP3 downloads off my own website. You still own the music that way. Putting it in public domain means there is NO copyright holder. Very different.

The idea is give away music until you have a big enough fan base to sell a 2, 3rd (or 10th record) to. Otherwise, no one cares about an unkown band.

Even at gigs I "giveaway" the CD for any size tip someone feels like giving. Sometimes its $2, but sometimes $20. Works for me.

creative commons sounds like an interesting opportunity.

so let me see if I understand this correctly. under CC you can distribute you music freely if you wish, but you can also charge people for the same music in the CC too???and can people freely share your music amongst themselves without it being considered illegal???

[Bobsax]

Creative Commons
http://creativecommons.org/
Convention starts in a few hours
http://programforthefuture.org/program
If someone wants to explain it in a "nutshell" , please be my guest:D

[slight-return]

What exactly do you mean by [I][B]putting your music in the public domain.

bob
putting something in the public domain is (as Don was saying) basically waiving your copyright..it enters into the domain of public use/property -- anyone can use for whatever they want

the Creative Commons project is a project to streamline and standardize a type of license that allows the licensee to do some things, but reserves other control for the licensor.
CC has an explanatory slogan "some rights reserved"

It's not actually new legal mechanism (you can do that stuff by drafting whatever type of license agreement you want - the good ole GNU GPL is an example), but it helps unmuddy the waters by offering standardized licenses with identifiable designators (so people know, oh it's under this type of license).


Now one complicating factor is that there are various "components" to a CC license these days
Nice in that you can "customize" the license to reserve some rights, but waive others in a' la carte fashion
One potential downside of that is that having different species of the licenses could confuse some folks (put I don't know that we'll ever get away from that)

So you could, for instance, say "OK, you can copy this, BUT you must list me as author (attribution) and it can only be used for non-commercial purposes"

Or you can say "OK, you can copy and distribute it, but don't make derivative works (fanfic, covers, etc)"

Or, to take a page from the GNU GPL playbook, you can say "OK, you can make derivative works, BUT if you do you must publish the work under this same license"
[NOTE : this is a cool use of copyright that actually KEEPS a creative path open.]

[nwtsnma]

copyright is unenforcable

[slight-return]

how you figure?

[Cygnus64]

copyright is unenforcable

I take it you don't read the newspaper.:facepalm:

[Bensbeenjamin]

Yeah seems like they're a pretty good source for copyright info. Thanks! But seeing as how Obama wants to increase our government you can rest assured that there will be even more red tape, especially if the "BIG" bands are friends with him.

[Bobsax]

copyright is unenforcable
I think he's saying you need to have deep pockets if you want to take anybody to court.
Say you wrote something that sounds like Cold Play's "Viva La Vida" and you weren't Joe Satriani but you did copyright your song.
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/12/coldplay-suit-r.html
Do you think you'd have a chance to recover anything ?
Should a few melodic phrases trump a complete production, mix and arrangement not to mention lyrics?

He may be also be referring to the AmieStreet garage band cover recordings.
Who's going to go after somebody that probably won't even recover there recording and upload (Tunecore) expenses?

[Roby Lee]

I have looked a lot at negativland myself. It seems they believe in the whole "art should be free" notion and as such plagiarise other people's work. OK so I'm no big fan of U2, I think Bono is an asshole quite frankly, but I still don't believe anyone has license to downright copy another work and then claim its a creative common, or fair use of pre-existing public domain works.

Whatever landmark cases Negativland has won, it doesn't change the fact that they are no better than the guy selling copied CD-Rs in a car boot sale!

ah you know Bono personally,and have talked with him,so cool,:p

[Roby Lee]

Also, fair use is not a tool, or an excuse to happily rip off samples or musical score! It specifically states that use of a copyrighted work for purposes of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" is Fair Use (as per your own link). The fact that U2 dropped the case against Negativland as it was obvious they weren't going to take "Stop doing that" as an answer is not a ground for ratification of plagiarism!

Now if you were to tell me that "Fair Use" should apply in the case of freely available tablature, then I could agree with you, but Negativland are not the "against the man" warriors they profess to be!

sorta like all those rap stars do?
how many of them take samples and remix them?
sony even has a place online that encourages this with their acid pro programs http://www.acidplanet.com/:evil:

[live-I-evil]

sorta like all those rap stars do?
how many of them take samples and remix them?
sony even has a place online that encourages this with their acid pro programs http://www.acidplanet.com/:evil:

I do believe said rappers have to gain permission for, give proper credit, and in some cases secure use of the song financially through the original author in order to commercially distribute those works. I could very well be wrong, but that's how I remember it working.

-Brett

[slight-return]

I think he's saying you need to have deep pockets if you want to take anybody to court.

Say you wrote something that sounds like Cold Play's "Viva La Vida" and you weren't Joe Satriani but you did copyright your song.
http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2008/12/coldplay-suit-r.html
Do you think you'd have a chance to recover anything ?
Should a few melodic phrases trump a complete production, mix and arrangement not to mention lyrics?

He may be also be referring to the AmieStreet garage band cover recordings.
Who's going to go after somebody that probably won't even recover there recording and upload (Tunecore) expenses?

I think one thing is that (outside of the legal profession) we get real used to seeing only high-profile and very contentious cases where there is a legal question (a lot of the cases are more clear cut, may never even get filed, but get handled out-of-court)

Besides damages, there is also injunctive relief and injunction can have a wider-reaching effect than just for the primary litigants (so there often isn't a need to litigate)
Napster and Cleanflicks (notice they don't edit movies anymore) are examples

[nwtsnma]

Making billions on Happy Birthday is just plain wrong
that guy is like their guitar hero in the music biz forum.

[Roby Lee]

I think if we were famous we wouldn't be concerned with things that we as non famous are concerned with,we would be to busy spending money and traveling and touring ect.
I could be wrong,we might still be doing what we do now,