Warhead
Jai guru deva om
This place is the craziest recording BBS on the web.
Gotta love it I guess!
War
Gotta love it I guess!
War
Purge
Traitorous Usurper
Look on the bright side. Now we've actually got a reason to read the Tascam forum. 
O
ozraves
New member
It's not HR without the heat.
T
tdukex
Man of the Muse
c7sus said:
Where's S8N when you need him?
T
tdukex
Man of the Muse
I think we should have a Banned forum where all of the banned folks could hang out together. It would be the only forum they could access. The rest of us could enter and leave at our leisure.
noisedude
New member
That is a brilliant idea. I would already have a couple of usernames I could use in there anyway, and all the old 'favourites' could hang out with everyone who's ever signed up to leave an advert for a free iPod on the forum.tdukex said:
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
tdukex said:
Inspired idea, I love it!
FALKEN
*************************
SonicAlbert said:
most likely ASCAP will send him a letter of cease and desist, and that is what he'll do.
...
I guess michael jackson really needs the money eh?
someone HAD to say it!!!!!
H
heroics321
New member
FALKEN said:
for serious, i'm surprised it took so long. :: two pats on the back ::
CoolCat
Well-known member
internet and cover versions
this thread is the heat...
i think REEL's been a great help to me several times
was very surprised to see the Acorn threads...on Copyright inf. and dislike for the REEL? agree with Dragon for banning stalking and trolls, make a point but don't fhkng go on and on and on and stalking..and bitching and complaining and accusation
REELS always been a great thread man? he loves his analog and debates it..so what, he has testdrove digital sht too...he likes knobs.
always helpful in finding specs,info not easily available and crap too.
And his threads are 99% about "gear and music".
but the NWR copyright stuff is interesting?
no one seems to "truly" know the legalitys? only opinions.
very anxious to learn the rules on the modern day internet Copyright debate.
i always thought if you don't SELL the "cover" version for big$$, no harm done? need to call FOX Agency..
Actually, i always thought cover versions were like..
Free promotion for the band/songwriter...
a form of compliment or tribute, kinda thing???? theres no big cash involved?
damn!
there's a lot of garage bands playing cover versions and not paying royalties and fees??? are they "all EVIL" too...as George Jr. Bush would say about everyone that disagrees with his policy?
anyway, so my understanding is:
Micheal is going to start suing REEL & NWR & Garage Bands & KAROAKE DJ'S for using Beatle covers.
This is to pay for his lawsuit and his relocation to a country that allows kids to sleep in his bed with him, without being bothered by the police and lawyers.
Its all in vein as SONY is larger than the Globe and will eventually own everything of the jacksons..even Michael's uni-glove? Rumor is they are building a DeathStar and have hired BobbaFet.
anyway thank goodness, I NEVER PLAYED ANY BEATLE SONGS EVER LIVE ON STAGE OR AT MY HOME OR AT ANYONES HOME EVER..NO TAPE RECORDINGS WERE EVER MADE OF ANY COVER VERSIONS EVER IN MY LIFE.
I LOVE ASCAP,BMI, SONY AND MICHAEL JACKSON BEATLES AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!!! AND I HAVE NO MONEY!!!
and I think the Dragon or whoever the fhk we are, was correct in allowing the Trolling for a few times...then it's "penalty box time".
Copyright infringement via Cover Versions on the internet?
I'll bet $5 NWR may ban the covers if Acorn makes a big stink,
but the legal costs, ROI, of suing unknown artists playing BEAT IT with one glove on... will be worth about $5. thus not much interest and the lawyers will slither back into their holes.
this thread is the heat...
i think REEL's been a great help to me several times
was very surprised to see the Acorn threads...on Copyright inf. and dislike for the REEL? agree with Dragon for banning stalking and trolls, make a point but don't fhkng go on and on and on and stalking..and bitching and complaining and accusation
REELS always been a great thread man? he loves his analog and debates it..so what, he has testdrove digital sht too...he likes knobs.
always helpful in finding specs,info not easily available and crap too.
And his threads are 99% about "gear and music".
but the NWR copyright stuff is interesting?
no one seems to "truly" know the legalitys? only opinions.
very anxious to learn the rules on the modern day internet Copyright debate.
i always thought if you don't SELL the "cover" version for big$$, no harm done? need to call FOX Agency..
Actually, i always thought cover versions were like..
Free promotion for the band/songwriter...
a form of compliment or tribute, kinda thing???? theres no big cash involved?
damn!
there's a lot of garage bands playing cover versions and not paying royalties and fees??? are they "all EVIL" too...as George Jr. Bush would say about everyone that disagrees with his policy?
anyway, so my understanding is:
Micheal is going to start suing REEL & NWR & Garage Bands & KAROAKE DJ'S for using Beatle covers.
This is to pay for his lawsuit and his relocation to a country that allows kids to sleep in his bed with him, without being bothered by the police and lawyers.
Its all in vein as SONY is larger than the Globe and will eventually own everything of the jacksons..even Michael's uni-glove? Rumor is they are building a DeathStar and have hired BobbaFet.
anyway thank goodness, I NEVER PLAYED ANY BEATLE SONGS EVER LIVE ON STAGE OR AT MY HOME OR AT ANYONES HOME EVER..NO TAPE RECORDINGS WERE EVER MADE OF ANY COVER VERSIONS EVER IN MY LIFE.
I LOVE ASCAP,BMI, SONY AND MICHAEL JACKSON BEATLES AND THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS!!! AND I HAVE NO MONEY!!!
and I think the Dragon or whoever the fhk we are, was correct in allowing the Trolling for a few times...then it's "penalty box time".
Copyright infringement via Cover Versions on the internet?
I'll bet $5 NWR may ban the covers if Acorn makes a big stink,
but the legal costs, ROI, of suing unknown artists playing BEAT IT with one glove on... will be worth about $5. thus not much interest and the lawyers will slither back into their holes.
Blue Bear Sound
New member
People pay for those CDs???????????Micsales said:
A Reel Person
It's Too Funky in Here!!!
No.
That I am charging money or selling discs is a fabricated lie.
Those are the words of an insatiable troll, who was banned for harassment.
That I am charging money or selling discs is a fabricated lie.
Those are the words of an insatiable troll, who was banned for harassment.
FALKEN
*************************
COOLCAT said:
if you charge money for the stuff then the copyright owner is entitled to a portion of the profits. if there is no profit made, there are still mechanical rights, which usually go for about 7 cents a song or something like that. that is why there are so many "mix cds" for sale in best buy or wherever. the problem is you need written permission and if the owner can prove that your free version took sales away they might sue you for that lost revenue too. in most copyright cases, the first communication is a letter demanding that you cease and desist. the amount of revenue the owners stand to gain in this case is probably less than it would cost to pay a lawyer to write that letter. but you never know.
anywayz you'd have to be a real douchebag to go and alert ascap IMO. obviously the guy is just jealous. Reel has always been extremely helpful to me and he is one of the cornerstones of the analog forum. its too bad that won't help him out in court. the reason it is all opinion is just that. it is in the opinion of the owner, the lawyers, and the judge. that is why decisions are often called "opinions".
FALKEN
*************************
a little more background...
those legal fees are one of the largest inperfections in the 'invisible hand' of the capitalist market. there was actually a 4 year period (Ibelieve) where all of the musicians in the US went on strike and would not record. this created the birth of the doo-wap acapella vocal groups. all of these laws and fees came from a huge legal case where ascap sued all of the restaraunts, bars, for playing the music and not paying for it. obviously the counter-argument is "we're not making money off of the music, we're making money from the food and drinks". well, now they pay for it. I dont know if it was settled or decided but it was probably settled. most of the laws and fees are a comprimise between the industry and the users. this is all big bucks here and any artist signing with a label or distributor should have a lawyer explain the portions of their contract that deal with these rights because they are extremely valuable. just remember though, that more income for artists means more artists. the beatles and metallica are entitled, just as joe shmo home recording enthusiast is entitled to his profit. i dont want to piss anybody off for that last statement as it relates to mp3s...that is a whole 'nother thread.
...you know what song paul mccartney owns?? the notre dame fight song. every time it gets played on tv he makes money. sir paul and mj see these rights as investments...that is why mj owns the songs in the first place. so you'd better believe that he will do what he can to protect that investment. can't blame them for that..unless you want to get into capitalism and income distribution, which is again a whole 'nother thread. best of luck to dave.
those legal fees are one of the largest inperfections in the 'invisible hand' of the capitalist market. there was actually a 4 year period (Ibelieve) where all of the musicians in the US went on strike and would not record. this created the birth of the doo-wap acapella vocal groups. all of these laws and fees came from a huge legal case where ascap sued all of the restaraunts, bars, for playing the music and not paying for it. obviously the counter-argument is "we're not making money off of the music, we're making money from the food and drinks". well, now they pay for it. I dont know if it was settled or decided but it was probably settled. most of the laws and fees are a comprimise between the industry and the users. this is all big bucks here and any artist signing with a label or distributor should have a lawyer explain the portions of their contract that deal with these rights because they are extremely valuable. just remember though, that more income for artists means more artists. the beatles and metallica are entitled, just as joe shmo home recording enthusiast is entitled to his profit. i dont want to piss anybody off for that last statement as it relates to mp3s...that is a whole 'nother thread.
...you know what song paul mccartney owns?? the notre dame fight song. every time it gets played on tv he makes money. sir paul and mj see these rights as investments...that is why mj owns the songs in the first place. so you'd better believe that he will do what he can to protect that investment. can't blame them for that..unless you want to get into capitalism and income distribution, which is again a whole 'nother thread. best of luck to dave.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
FALKEN said:
Generally correct except the part about needing permission in writing. Advance permission in writing is not necessary assuming the work has been recorded before, and the mechanical royalties are properly paid to the copyright holder. This is what I've been told by an attorney working with rights clearance for a very large entertainment company here in LA.
This situation came up for me late last year when a fairly well known artist recorded one of my works on his latest album. He didn't ask my permission, just sent me a notice that my work would be on his album. I made some calls and found out to my surprise that everything was normal, he didn't need written permission in advance. Getting the recording properly registered at Sony/BMG has turned out to be a bit of nightmare though, and that has fallen upon me to get it done. There's no question I am owed the royalties, but actually getting it set up has been a long process.
So it does fall upon the copyright holder to follow up on these things, for better or worse. As far as acorec going to ASCAP, I have to be honest about how I feel about that: if acorec knew of somebody that was recording and selling/giving away versions of my music without my knowledge I sure as *hell* would want him to tell me or BMI about it.
The hard part is keeping track of what's out there, it is almost impossible to do it with 100% coverage. Even music that you know is being used can become very hard to control. I have a composer friend here in LA that licensed some tracks to a music library that in turn licenses the tracks out to film/TV projects. The way that works is the library company changes the name of the tune and uses the new name on the cue sheets that are sent to BMI or ASCAP, so that they can collect the publishing without interfering with the composer collecting the publishing on other uses of the songs under their original names.
What happened in this case was the library house in turn sub-licensed her tracks to a second library company, which changed the name of the tunes again, but without notifying my friend (the copyright holder) and without properly registering the composer on the cue sheets. So now the tunes are being used but under a new unknown name, and the composer is collecting nothing. My friend was hearing her songs on TV shows which she knew hadn't licensed the music from her or the company she had originally licensed the songs to.
As a result of her experiences I pulled some songs I had licensed with a similar library house. It seems too easy to lose control, especially given how that system works. I think you'd need a written agreement that no sub-licensing can happen.
But again, once it is out there, it can be really hard to keep track of stuff. So what acorec did regarding ASCAP does not bother me personally in the slightest. Which is not say anything negative about A Reel Person's involvement in this message board, because he has been a positive contributor. It's just that I know from personal experience how tough it can be to keep track of one's work out there in the big world.
Last edited:
mshilarious
Banned
You can record a previously released work with no advance notice to the composer, but usually you'll get advance permission from Harry Fox Agency. Otherwise you have to comply with the statutory reporting requirements, which I hear are a pain.
ASCAP/BMI deals with licensing for recordings (performance rights), not compositions (mechanical rights). ASCAP may pass the info along to the composer or Harry Fox, I don't know.
ASCAP/BMI deals with licensing for recordings (performance rights), not compositions (mechanical rights). ASCAP may pass the info along to the composer or Harry Fox, I don't know.
SonicAlbert
Super-Sonic "Herb" Albert
mshilarious said:
Yes, you are correct, thank you for the clarification. ASCAP or BMI would probably refer anybody with a complaint along to Harry Fox.
Q
Quantagee
Banned
I am a new contributor here, and know nothing about what is/was happening, but I was reading on a thread about cracked software. A poster said he was using it and a host of people literally fried this guy no end.
I also see a guy recording some songs and putting them out on a cd, not paying royalties or even getting licensing (maybe he has?)
Anyway, some of the same people stand up for stealing songs but are downright rude and insulting about cracked software.
Which is right? You can't be on both sides of the railroad track.
That is all I know.
I also see a guy recording some songs and putting them out on a cd, not paying royalties or even getting licensing (maybe he has?)
Anyway, some of the same people stand up for stealing songs but are downright rude and insulting about cracked software.
Which is right? You can't be on both sides of the railroad track.
That is all I know.
snow lizard
Dedicated Slacker
mshilarious
Banned
Quantagee said:
Well I don't think I was condoning anything, but in this case the cover songs were not being commercially distributed, and were free. Whether or not that constitutes fair use, I do not know.
Selling CDs with cover tunes is a different situation, it is clearly illegal and deprives artists of royalties. Similar to using pirated software, which deprives software companies of revenue.
I don't use pirated software, and if I had a cover tune to distribute, I'd pay the royalties. It's only $.085/song/CD.
