R
Richard Monroe
Well-known member
Yes Kubeek, it is different, legally. You can't publish it, or perform it for money without paying mechanical royalties. Don't misunderstand me, because I am not making an argument for an absolute strict enforcement of copyright law here. Not only is it impossible, but it would be stupid even if it could be done. In the real world, the larger clubs pay flat royalty fees so that cover bands can perform at the club without the club being harassed by ASCAP and BMI. Those fees pay the processing fees for my royalty checks, and the dickheads who sign them. Smaller clubs are ignored, because there isn't enough money changing hands to justify paying lawyers to bother them about it. Copyright infringement is also difficult to prove, because as stated above, almost all of popular music is derived from progressions that have been in the public domain for a long time. It's pretty hard to prove that a I-IV-V progression is derivative, unless you want the ancient Greeks to testify.
It gets more complicated, also. If I record "Beat it", and copy it note for note, to the best of my abilities, I don't need Michael Jackson's permission. I just need to pay the Harry Fox agency 9 cents for every album I sell, with a minimum of 500 copies. $45. BFD. But- if Weird Al Yankovic records "Eat it", he is not recording Michael Jackson's song. He's recording a song which is "derivative" of the original song, in other words, an adaptation. That is not covered by mechanical royalties, and he needs Jacko's express written permission, or the representatives of whoever holds the copyright. And- the suits can charge whatever userous fee they want to for that permission, or just refuse flat out to give permission. The fine for ignoring the nice lawyers is a flat $100,000 for each release (not each copy), so they could whack him for another $100,000 if the song appeared on say, "The Best of Weird Al Yankovic". See the problem? If I change one word, or one chord, is it the real thing, or is it derivative? A jury of chumps who don't know the difference between Mozart and Snoop Dog could end up making the call. As pointed out multiple times above, tab is almost never perfect, so it could be argued that it is all derivative. Original copyright law is based on the idea that all music is written, and what is written is what is protected. That has very little to do with how popular music is created or distributed today.
Pete Seeger told me something when I was 16 years old which I will never forget. He said, "Son- if you steal a song, they'll call you a plagiarist. If you steal a thousand songs, they'll call you a great American folk singer." It's all about the money. If you are making peanuts distributing or performing my music, or Elton John's, for that matter, there is zero chance that my lawyer, or Elton's, is goiing after you. So go ahead, be happy, play my song. If you are making enough money from my song to pay the lawyers to go after you, I suggest you pay the mechanical royalties, or ask me for my written permission to do it. I'll probably just give it to you, because I'm not generally a prick. My lawyer is a prick. It's what I pay him for. You can be sure of this- It is not about the little guy who wants to learn to play "Stairway to Heaven". If the lawyers are going after tab websites, it's because somebody is making money, or somebody is losing money. Yes, I do own my copyrighted written words. What part of "intellectual property" didn't you get?-Richie
It gets more complicated, also. If I record "Beat it", and copy it note for note, to the best of my abilities, I don't need Michael Jackson's permission. I just need to pay the Harry Fox agency 9 cents for every album I sell, with a minimum of 500 copies. $45. BFD. But- if Weird Al Yankovic records "Eat it", he is not recording Michael Jackson's song. He's recording a song which is "derivative" of the original song, in other words, an adaptation. That is not covered by mechanical royalties, and he needs Jacko's express written permission, or the representatives of whoever holds the copyright. And- the suits can charge whatever userous fee they want to for that permission, or just refuse flat out to give permission. The fine for ignoring the nice lawyers is a flat $100,000 for each release (not each copy), so they could whack him for another $100,000 if the song appeared on say, "The Best of Weird Al Yankovic". See the problem? If I change one word, or one chord, is it the real thing, or is it derivative? A jury of chumps who don't know the difference between Mozart and Snoop Dog could end up making the call. As pointed out multiple times above, tab is almost never perfect, so it could be argued that it is all derivative. Original copyright law is based on the idea that all music is written, and what is written is what is protected. That has very little to do with how popular music is created or distributed today.
Pete Seeger told me something when I was 16 years old which I will never forget. He said, "Son- if you steal a song, they'll call you a plagiarist. If you steal a thousand songs, they'll call you a great American folk singer." It's all about the money. If you are making peanuts distributing or performing my music, or Elton John's, for that matter, there is zero chance that my lawyer, or Elton's, is goiing after you. So go ahead, be happy, play my song. If you are making enough money from my song to pay the lawyers to go after you, I suggest you pay the mechanical royalties, or ask me for my written permission to do it. I'll probably just give it to you, because I'm not generally a prick. My lawyer is a prick. It's what I pay him for. You can be sure of this- It is not about the little guy who wants to learn to play "Stairway to Heaven". If the lawyers are going after tab websites, it's because somebody is making money, or somebody is losing money. Yes, I do own my copyrighted written words. What part of "intellectual property" didn't you get?-Richie
