Who's Online Now
7 members (VNORTH2, couchgrouch, Fdemetrio, Gary E. Andrews, Perry Neal Crawford, Sunset Poet, Guy E. Trepanier), 4,121 guests, and 268 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Register Today!
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.

By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
What's Going On
Does Billy Joel belong in top 10?
by Fdemetrio - 03/28/24 11:10 PM
It Is Done
by Sunset Poet - 03/28/24 07:44 PM
Music Industry Summit, Athens Ohio
by Gary E. Andrews - 03/28/24 06:14 PM
Can you save me from me
by VNORTH2 - 03/28/24 03:11 PM
As human as yo
by ckiphen - 03/28/24 09:55 AM
Fox News Reports Stunning Archeological Discovery.
by couchgrouch - 03/27/24 08:02 PM
Wasting My Time
by David Gill - 03/27/24 07:42 AM
Song available
by JAPOV - 03/26/24 03:38 PM
YELLIN AT CLOUDS
by David Gill - 03/26/24 03:20 PM
"Reliving" the great Lou Rawls!
by Brian Austin Whitney - 03/26/24 01:49 PM
::: The Best In My Life :::
by Bill Draper - 03/26/24 01:32 PM
The show must go on
by ckiphen - 03/26/24 09:06 AM
NYC Motel 1972
by rpirone - 03/26/24 12:43 AM
usic Industry Summitt
by Gary E. Andrews - 03/25/24 11:32 PM
The Rant Arena
by JAPOV - 03/25/24 07:39 PM
Song available
by Raymond Byabazaire - 03/25/24 11:55 AM
Song available
by Raymond Byabazaire - 03/25/24 11:55 AM
Lancaster Festival, Lancaster, Ohio
by Gary E. Andrews - 03/25/24 10:51 AM
Wasting my time
by Rob B. - 03/25/24 03:45 AM
Tom Waits.. What's he building
by Fdemetrio - 03/25/24 12:09 AM
Rick Beato, bad lyrics
by Fdemetrio - 03/24/24 11:23 PM
Inspirational Videos Post Them Here
by Sunset Poet - 03/24/24 11:27 AM
Used to take a Genius to Mix
by Fdemetrio - 03/23/24 11:00 AM
She’s missing but she ain’t missing him
by ckiphen - 03/23/24 08:44 AM
"Broken Places"
by Gary E. Andrews - 03/22/24 07:45 PM
All You Are Is A Lie
by Sunset Poet - 03/22/24 06:55 PM
Pour Choices
by Gavin Sinclair - 03/22/24 05:29 PM
Billy's 30 year overdue song.
by Fdemetrio - 03/22/24 01:30 PM
Make my dreams come true
by ckiphen - 03/22/24 10:51 AM
Top Posters
Calvin 19,857
Travis david 12,264
Kevin Emmrich 10,941
Jean Bullock 10,330
Kaley Willow 10,240
Two Singers 9,649
Joice Marie 9,186
Mackie H. 9,003
glynda 8,683
Mike Dunbar 8,574
Tricia Baker 8,318
couchgrouch 8,160
Colin Ward 7,911
Corey 7,357
Vicarn 6,916
Mark Kaufman 6,589
ben willis 6,114
Lynn Orloff 5,788
Louis 5,725
Linda Sings 5,608
KimberlyinNC 5,210
Fdemetrio 4,990
Neil Cotton 4,909
Derek Hines 4,893
DonnaMarilyn 4,670
Blake Hill 4,528
Bob Cushing 4,389
Roy Cooper 4,271
Bill Osofsky 4,199
Tom Shea 4,195
Cindy Miller 4,178
TamsNumber4 4,171
MFB III 4,143
Sunset Poet 4,126
nightengale 4,096
E Swartz 3,985
JAPOV 3,973
beechnut79 3,878
Caroline 3,865
Kolstad 3,845
Dan Sullivan 3,710
Dottie 3,427
joewatt 3,411
Bill Cooper 3,279
John Hoffman 3,199
Skip Johnson 3,027
Pam Hurley 3,007
Terry G 3,005
Nigel Quin 2,891
PopTodd 2,890
Harriet Ames 2,870
MidniteBob 2,761
Nelson 2,616
Tom Tracy 2,558
Jerry Jakala 2,524
Al Alvarez 2,499
Eric Thome 2,448
Hummingbird 2,401
Stan Loh 2,263
Sam Wilson 2,246
Wendy D 2,235
Judy Hollier 2,232
Erica Ellis 2,202
maccharles 2,134
TrumanCoyote 2,096
Marty Helly 2,041
DukeWill 2,002
floyd jane 1,985
Clint Anglin 1,904
cindyrella 1,888
David Wright 1,866
Clairejeanne 1,851
Cindy LaRosa 1,824
Ronald Boyt 1,675
Iggy 1,652
Noel Downs 1,633
Rick Heenan 1,608
Cal 1,574
GocartMoz 1,559
Jack Swain 1,554
Pete Larsen 1,537
Ann Tygart 1,529
Tom Breshers 1,487
RogerS 1,481
Tom Franz 1,473
Chuck Crowe 1,441
Ralph Blight 1,440
Rick Norton 1,429
Kenneth Cade 1,429
bholt 1,411
Letha Allen 1,409
in2piano 1,404
Stan Simons 1,402
Deej56 1,385
mattbanx 1,384
Jen Shaner 1,373
Charlie Wong 1,347
KevinP 1,324
Vondelle 1,316
Tom W. 1,313
Jan Petter 1,301
scottandrew 1,294
lane1777 1,280
Gerry 1,280
DakLander 1,265
IronKnee 1,262
PeteG 1,242
Ian Ferrin 1,235
Glen King 1,214
VNORTH2 1,212
IdeaGuy 1,209
AaronAuthier 1,177
summeoyo 1,174
Diane Ewing 1,162
ckiphen 1,120
joro 1,082
BobbyJoe 1,075
S.DEE 1,040
yann 1,037
9ne 1,035
David Gill 1,032
Tony A 1,016
argo 986
peaden 984
90 dB 964
Wolvman 960
Jak Kelly 912
krtinberg 890
Drifter 886
Petra 883
RJC 845
Brenda152 840
Nadia 829
ant 798
Juan 797
TKO 784
Dayson 781
frahmes 781
bennash 763
teletwang 762
Andy K 750
Andy Kemp 749
tbryson 737
Jackie444 731
Irwin 720
3daveyO3 704
Dixie 701
Joy Boy 695
Pat Hardy 692
Knute 686
Lee Arten 678
Moosesong 668
Katziis 652
R.T.MOORE 638
quality 637
CG King 622
douglas 621
R&M 614
Mel 614
NaomiSue 601
Shandy 590
Ria 587
TAMERA64 583
qbaum 570
nitepiano 566
pRISCILLA 556
Tink2 553
musica 539
deanbell 528
RobertK 527
BonzaiWag 523
Roderic 522
BB Wilbur 513
goodfolks 499
Zeek 487
Stu 486
Steve P. 481
KathyW 462
allenb 459
MaxG 458
Philjo 454
fanito 448
trush48 448
dmk 442
Rob L 439
arealrush 437
DGR 436
avweek 435
Stephen D 433
Emmy 431
marquez 422
kit 419
Softkrome 417
kyrksongs 415
RRon 408
Laura G. 407
VNORTH 407
Debra 407
eb 406
cuebald 399
EdPerrone 399
Dannyk1 395
Hobart 395
Davyboy49 393
Smile 389
GJShades 387
Alek 386
Ezt 384
tone 380
Marla 380
Ann_F 379
iggyiggy 378
coalminer 377
java 374
ddreuter 371
spidey 371
sweetsong 370
danny 367
Rob B. 364
Jim Ryan 360
papaG 353
Z - man 350
JamesDF5 348
John K 348
Jaden 344
TheBaz 340
Steggy 339
leif 339
tonedeaf 336
rickwork 334
Eddie Ray 332
Johnboy 328
Bob Lever 328
Helicon1 327
lucian 326
Muskie 321
kc 319
Z. Mulls 318
ptondreau 313
ONOFFON 312
Chris B. 310
trush 304
ed323 297
Ellen M 294
markus-ky 293
lizzorn 291
nicnac49 290
Char 286
ktunes 285
Top Likes Received
JAPOV 86
VNORTH2 45
bennash 38
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
It looks like music is going up the download path.

I read that 2 or 3 billion (what's a bil among friends?) was made on internet music last year.

At concerts, though, it sure is nice to sell something tangible that has your music on it. You get to autograph it. People hold it and look at your picture. It's a way to take advantage of "impulse" buying while people are jazzed up from your performance (how many of those folks will go home and download?)

So, maybe the future will have download "stations" at concerts where people can bring their ipods and get your music?

What think you?

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
AWWWW... come on Mike.... I FINALLY got my CD's... I don't want to THINK about this question.... [Linked Image]
I hate to say it...I have a hard time understanding the new stuff... ugh... I feel like my mother when she was asked to give up her typewriter for Word Perfect... she couldn't do it! [Linked Image]
Long Live Compact Disc Recordings [Linked Image]
Joanne

------------------

[*]The Best is Yet to Be,Joanne Lurgio-singer/songwriter www.joannelurgio.com


[*] Joanne's Gig Calendar - http://www.musi-cal.com/search?key=performers&value=Lurgio

[*] http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=100751

[*] www.cdbaby.com/cd/lurgio

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 570
Q
Serious Contributor
Offline
Serious Contributor
Q
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 570
Yeah, and it took me FOREVER to decide to move from cassette tape to CD... [Linked Image] ha...

I think the future is moving way too fast at times..or should I say the "present?"

~~~shelia

www.sheliaquattlebaum.com



[This message has been edited by qbaum (edited 01-21-2006).]

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403
Top 40 Poster
Offline
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,403
I will sell me. It's what I was doing anyway.

I have been interested primarily in marketing my skills as a writer. I only got into performing because The Rules as I understood them said I had to prove I had a "following" that was interested in my stuff, and nobody was going to perform it but me. Yes, performing is fun (even though audiences scare me), and it's a good skill to have and to hone.

I have determined (I think) that my material is primarily marketable to people who still go to live performances by live people, which is a market The Biz appears to be rather determinedly ignoring. Therefore, I'll continue to perform to showcase my stuff, and if I have to sell Performing Joe along with it, well, c'est la vie.

I never considered the CDs anything but a Jimmy Buffet Item, that'd folks would buy as a memento of a gig, or as gifts for family and friends; the people I appeal to mostly don't buy records, and never have. If CDs become obsolete, well, they make good Christmas tree ornaments (and would be good advertising to boot).

Whatever the New Order that replaces CDs is, I'll try to play along with it. If it's a download station where somebody can plug in an iPod and downsquirt an *.mp3 for a fee, then I'll get me a laptop and try to have one at gigs. I want to accomodate the audience to the maximum extent possible.

*But* until live performances by live people become obsolete--like, when my audience finally die off--I expect performing is going to be the bread and butter for me in music (if there ever is any, y'understand--it's not like I'm making a living doing this). And that's not going to change with whatever medium people are buying recordings on.

Joe
www.soundclick.com/bands/7/joewrabek_music.htm

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,389
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,389
Count me in with Joanne and Shiela {hangin' with the HOT chicks again!} I'm trying desperately to keep up, but technology keeps staying one step ahead. {Of course I wrote a song about it {"When Did The World Pass Me By"} Thank god for CDBABY's digital distribution {you OWE me for this Derek!} I already make more money there ,than with CD sales {an ominous sign.}

------------------
bc


bc
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Yup, you sell the downloads at the show.

I've already seen bands offering USB keychain drives pre-loaded with MP3s at shows. People buy 'em and just plug 'em into their iPods. They're not cheap to make, though.

You can also sell CDs that contain only digital files. One of my own CDs has both audio and digital files. I'm thinking about offering mini-CDs full of MP3s in addition to audio CDs.

I think audio CDs will be around for a little while longer, but they'll be devalued as an item. I'm fairly certain that soon the only reason to buy a CD will be to rip it to MP3.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
Offline
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Though I agree that CD's will beging to wane as an "item" to sell, I also think that marketing people will figure out a replacement "item" to sell you that is tangible. Whether it's a USB key as some have said or some other type of gadget or delivery device, I think someone will figure out something tangible. The first likely shift will be to DVD (or a DVD like item) which includes video as well as audio, a computer desktop interface/presentation, digitial wall paper, and other promo items. It might even contain a special interface for an artist website that allows the visitor to take advantage of a lot of extras.

Another possible "thing" to market is to sign people up to a fan club type of thing so that when they get home they can access your fan site and all the music and goodies. OR.. you might have already SOLD them a membership to the fan site which already included free tickets to any show you do that they want to attend. That's another transition I can see happening. As we discussed a few months ago, if you can create a base of fans in the 1,000's, you can actually make a full time living from them by getting them to pay you 20 bucks a year for full access to everything you do.. including concerts, new music, photos, blogs, multimedia, chats etc. It's another approach that can be used with both worlds, an all internet/no CD/DVD world where fans get everything free and full access, while still allowing you to sell a CD or a ticket to a new fan or someone who isn't as vested in your career. It might be a good transitional method to survive.

Brian


Brian Austin Whitney
Founder
Just Plain Folks
jpfolkspro@gmail.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney
Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney

"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney

"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,297
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,297
Brian,
Some excellent ideas and prognostications! [Linked Image]
The USB keys, DVDs and "all you can eat"
monthly or annual fan club membership tickets to concerts and online stuff makes good sense and will probably lead the way. I understand that Prince is doing something similar now with his own fan club memberships. He used to be major label, but now he's completely indie and does lots of promoting through his own web site with the help of his management team.

Personally, I think another area that could grow is to offer seperate music tracks, for example: performance (backing) tracks for other artists (singers, instrumentalists, teachers and/or students) to license. Also, take the idea one step further and you have a whole new "culture" of remix artists, or just good artists that want to collaborate, mix new derivative works and then add some of their own original creations, such as other parts, instruments or voices, etc.

This is part of the reason I'm so interested in what Magnatune is doing. They are teaming up with CCMixter.org and Creative Commons to provide these "remixing" projects and even contests. Some of the winners have already been "signed" by Magnatune and the various artists involved will get paid on all sales.

I believe that the trend of the Creative Commons copyright "license" will open new doors for the whole artists community, whether they be poets, lyric writers, melody writers, sample producers, authors, composers, visual artists, (film or photography) or a mix of all of those.

I'm sure it will open the "doors" for some interesting collaborations and perhaps discovering new ways of sharing art and subsequently, taking care of the "business" side of it as well.

For example, let's say someone has a fantastic animated "short topic" video. They could collaborate with a fantastic music composer and then license the audio/visual mix an advertising agency that would add a voice over or logo graphics to help sell a product. These kind of audio/visual projects will always need new creative talent, and such creative talent will always be attracted to such opportunities.

I'm sure the possibilities will "explode" as we have more tools to get our work done in the digital age we live in. I mean "basket weaving" will probably never go away, but maybe just get up or downloaded, or something! [Linked Image]

Cheers! [Linked Image]
Michael


------------------
The OUTLOOK may often appear bleak, but the UPLOOK is always bright!
Michael Borges On Violin
Michael Borges
Praiseworthy Productions


[This message has been edited by Michael Borges (edited 01-21-2006).]


There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach

MichaelBorges.com
LicenseQuote.com
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
Offline
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
The major weakness with Creative Commons licensing (beyond giving away your music for non commercial use for eternity and essentially forcing yourself to compete with your future commercial efforts with free copies of your work) is that it focuses on uses by other artists. So does the remixing. The market is not to other artists if you want mainstream success. It's to fans who want to listen to cool music. They aren't likely to be caught up in remixing unless that's what they do. And there's little promotional value because even if someone creates a hot remix of your music, it's free to copy and pass along without ever paying you another dime so why would anyone pay you going forward?

CC has artistic benefits. If you're in it purely for the art and not to ever make a living, then it might be a great artistic choice for you. If you have commercial goals, it's less attractice and beneficial.

Brian


Brian Austin Whitney
Founder
Just Plain Folks
jpfolkspro@gmail.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney
Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney

"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney

"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412
R
Top 30 Poster
Offline
Top 30 Poster
R
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 7,412
Hi All,
Personally I want a Commerical CD with the Art Work etc. If that cannot be obtained by downloading and burning a song I will pass. I don't think CD's or some replacement for the CD will ever go away. There were articles about improving the CD a few years ago in one of the Music Publications but the quality of the current CD is about as good as you can get, of which is excellent or as good as what is being copyed to it.

I have no doubt that downloading and burning song files is exciting for the younger set. Probably that is more important than the music they are downloading. Somewhere not too long ago someone published an article of where someone just dumped a ton of stuff they had downloaded and never went any further with the files. I think it is a case of the "eyes bigger than the stomach" as it were.


Ray E. Strode
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian Austin Whitney:
CC has artistic benefits. If you're in it purely for the art and not to ever make a living, then it might be a great artistic choice for you. If you have commercial goals, it's less attractice and beneficial.</font>


I think what you're overlooking is that allowing remixes builds community, and community builds the fanbase, which leads you closer to that magic 5000 number.

My friend Brad allows people to create remixes of his songs and submit them back to him, where he posts them on his site. He now offers a free album of the best remixes along with his commercial CD. This doesn't strike me as a purely artistic choice, but also a way to build the fanbase -- a smart commercial move.

Bottom line IMO: if you put making money above winning fans, you'll get neither.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-22-2006).]

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,297
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,297
Scott,
Good points... so the "vote" is still out on the jury!

I think the ultimate benefit of "CC" (Common Creative) license is that it's so flexible, it's not an "all or nothing" proposition, but something that can be carefully controlled from song to song and project to project. SoundClick started offering this to their whole artist community about a year ago. In time more folks will understand it's power and flexibility.

Bottom line, no one can make commercial use of your "CC" copyrighted songs without your permission. That's a good thing. Also, it could be a great learning tool for music minded "students" and enthusiasts of all ages. When you can take songs apart, rearrange them and remix them, it's a very interactive process. It's a great way to get close to the art, skill and composer. I think it offers a much more valuable experience that just sitting around and having the radio "blare" at you all day. After a while, all the songs start sounding the same and become meaningless. There's little or no level of emotional appeal left, senses overloaded, the music become dispensable [that way] and cheapened.

I think that' the future of CC music, it can open doors for more participation, involvement, doing something constructive to learn, play along or re-arrange, etc. It gets more people "doing" music insteand of just letting it stream through there head, in one ear, and out the other.

I'm very blessed that I love music enough to try to do something with it. I can get so busy working on a great new song [concept] or recording, that I don't have buy tons of music to entertain or "baby sit" myself.

There's plenty of "room" for spectator sports, like baseball, football, surfing, golfing and music, but you don't get better or more involved with any of those by only watching... people need to be invited to "sing along" or do something. Maybe that's why the karaoke business as gotten so popular in the last 15 - 20 years! [Linked Image]

What will the next "karaoke" be?
Let's invent it and make it available for the masses to have fun with! For example, Midi sequencers have revoluntionized the process of learning to compose music and having fun with it! [Linked Image]

Michael
P.S. Passionate about music and this topic!

------------------
The OUTLOOK may often appear bleak, but the UPLOOK is always bright!
Michael Borges On Violin
Michael Borges
Praiseworthy Productions


There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. -- Johann Sebastian Bach

MichaelBorges.com
LicenseQuote.com
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
I think the future of karaoke is with the auto-tuner. People can just speak the words, but the auto tune will be set to the melody of the song. Then, their voices will be heard as singing an in tune melody.

Beyond that, I can imagine a "karaoke" where people wear sensors on their body and stand in front of a blue screen like Andy Serkis did for Gollum and King Kong. Then they can insert themselves in scenes from their favorite movies.

Any entrepeneurs reading this who start a karaoke like that and don't buy me a steak dinner, shame on you.

Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
Offline
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Giving stuff away on a case by case basis can be a smart marketing plan. Giving it away randomly and forever with no future control over it via a CC license is a completely different animal. You have no control. You can't do follow up. You can't connect with fans directly that you gave it to. It's a useless way to build a community of fans once it's 1 generation away from you. Sure.. word MIGHT get out and it MIGHT come back to you in the same way that leaving a stack of your CD's at a bus stop might. Both seem like a long shot for most people. Better to hand them the CD directly or give the track away directly to an individual than to randomly throw it out there for anyone to do anything with with no means to connect to those who get it later.

CC is a great creative tool. It's a lousy marketing tool.

Brian


Brian Austin Whitney
Founder
Just Plain Folks
jpfolkspro@gmail.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney
Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney

"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney

"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Brian Austin Whitney:
CC is a great creative tool. It's a lousy marketing tool.</font>


See here , here and here for evidence to the contrary. All use CC licenses to actively promote artists.

See also The Lonely Island , a group of comedians who use CC licenses to allow their work to spread virally. BTW, several of them just got signed to Saturday Night Live.

See also the Yahoo CC Search , the only (AFAIK) search engine that indexes CC-licensed content.

Plus, if you want your music to be podcast, good luck. A lot of podcasters won't touch your music unless it's got a CC license.

CC useless? Only if you're obsessed with squeezing out every possible penny, IMO.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-23-2006).]

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
"CC useless? Only if you're obsessed with squeezing out every possible penny"

Just as I thought, it's useless [Linked Image]

Mike



------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
This is like the Flintstones meet the Jetsons. Unfortunately, I am in the former and feel tech-handicapped when I read this stuff. Hey Barney, want to go get a bronto-burger?


Herbie
JPF Chicago Chapter Coordinator
http://www.herbietunes.com

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Sorry to say... I'm with ya Herbie [Linked Image]
I fear I may be doomed.
Joanne

------------------
[*]The Best is Yet to Be,Joanne Lurgio-singer/songwriter www.joannelurgio.com

[*] Joanne's Gig Calendar - http://www.musi-cal.com/search?key=performers&value=Lurgio

[*] http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=100751
[*] www.cdbaby.com/cd/lurgio

[This message has been edited by Joanne (edited 01-23-2006).]

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mike Dunbar:
"CC useless? Only if you're obsessed with squeezing out every possible penny"

Just as I thought, it's useless [Linked Image]
</font>


Heh [Linked Image] Well, it's about as useless as copyright then, since people will absolutely rip our CDs anyway, whether we like it or not, RIAA lawsuits be damned. P2P usage is still going up, not down, despite legal download services also going up. And P2P is spreading to IM, email, newsgroups, cellphones etc.

I'm not just saying that because I'm all pro-filesharing and stuff. It's simply the hard truth. I think it's going to get really, really tough for musicians who only sell physical CDs to make money in just a few short years. And the amount of money you'll be able to make from straight-up CD sales is going to shrink drastically. It's coming and it can't be stopped, and musicians who want to make a living are gonna have to get really, really creative in their efforts to make money because the tried-and-true methods aren't gonna work for much longer.

If the knee-jerk response to new ideas is cynicism and ridicule, so be it. Famous last words: "that'll never catch on..."

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
Wilma-- is that you Wilma?

[This message has been edited by Herbie Gaines (edited 01-23-2006).]


Herbie
JPF Chicago Chapter Coordinator
http://www.herbietunes.com

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
Top 10 Poster
Offline
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 19,579
Likes: 13
It's not a knee jerk reaction to anything. You've pointed out a small number of well publicized success stories. I liken it to when a digital music site points out a small collection of well publicized success stories and then wants you to think that will be the same result or even likely result that everyone else will have. Or a weight loss plan that trots out skinny people who used to be fat but went on their brand of diet. It's anecdotal evidence.

Here's a simple question that I don't know the answer to, but I imagine you do. Once you give away your music with a CC license, can you retract that and stop people from giving it away ad naseum? Is there any way to get out of that agreement after it's signed away?

If not, why would anyone ever suggest someone give away their creative work for life for any reason? It's not simply giving someone a copy of a song for free. It's a living breathing license that says your song is free to use or give away forever. It's essentially entering it into the public domain instantly, without the right of retraction (unless, the aggreement can be cancelled).

If there's really a big benefit of entering things into the public domain, I'd think a lot of artists would be doing it that are cutting edge.. like Prince for example. But I doubt he'll be using CC licenses.. even though he's as artistic and cutting edge as they come.

There's a difference between squeezing every penny out of something and giving every potential penny (and life time control) away. Anedotal success stories mean nothing. You can find people who have used Pyramid Schemes to make a lot of money. Should we all jump into that? You can find people who have gone to total scam artists and wasted their money but will swear to their grave it was a great deal. Should we all write them checks too?

You also have to assume that the success stories you pointed out would not have happened for those artists without a CC license. I suggest they were talented enough to find success either way. Many people long felt Communism was a good way to go and many smart and successful people supported it. Long term, however, the program collapsed under it's own weight in nearly every country and where it still lives is only in the most repressive societies in the world. A CC license is a great artistic tool. In a utopian society, it would be even better. In the real world, it's a lousy marketing tool. It's a lousy commercial success model except for anecdotal exceptions. I stand by my statement until direct cause and effect proof exists. So far I don't think there is any. And if there WERE any direct cause and effect on a wide scale (as opposed to a few select situations), everyone would already use it. There's no shortage of people desperate for a short cut to success.

Brian


Brian Austin Whitney
Founder
Just Plain Folks
jpfolkspro@gmail.com
Skype: Brian Austin Whitney
Facebook: www.facebook.com/justplainfolks

"Don't sit around and wait for success to come to you... it doesn't know the way." -Brian Austin Whitney

"It's easier to be the bigger man when you actually are..." -Brian Austin Whitney

"Sometimes all you have to do to inspire humans to greatness is to give them a reason and opportunity to do something great." -Brian Austin Whitney
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Okay, one more go-round and then I'm going to drop it [Linked Image]

No, you can't revoke a CC license once someone has downloaded a song under the license terms. You can change the license or remove it completely from the work, but it would only affect new copies. Once it's out there, it's out there, just like software licenses.

Let's be clear, here:

- You stated you believe CC licenses are lousy marketing tools.

- I gave some examples where CC licenses are/were instrumental in getting artists' works noticed (i.e., "marketing.")

I did NOT say CC licenses are some magic pill that creates riches, or that it's a pivotal ingredient to success. You're demanding proof of something I never said.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether an artist chooses to use a CC license or not, because people are going to rip his CD illegally anyway.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
"Ultimately, it doesn't matter."

Is that anything like "useless?"

Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
To add to what Brian said a few posts ago, there appear to be two other major concerns with the CC licenses. The first is that the CC license is too new - so nobody knows the pitfalls or how Courts will interpret the rights. The second, and more dangerous from my perspective, is that the license contains warranties for which the licensor receives no compensation. As far as I know, the warranty language (which people probably don't bother to read, or don't understand) currently says the following:
-----------------------------------------
"Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer

By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;
The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party....
6. Limitation on Liability. EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW, AND EXCEPT FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM LIABILITY TO A THIRD PARTY RESULTING FROM BREACH OF THE WARRANTIES IN SECTION 5, IN NO EVENT WILL LICENSOR BE LIABLE TO YOU ON ANY LEGAL THEORY FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE OR THE USE OF THE WORK, EVEN IF LICENSOR HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
----------------------------------------
Why would you give such a warranty, opening yourself up for strict liability to someone else who is being sued in an infringement action (meaning, you have to reimburse their legal fees as well as pay the damages) when you're not getting ANYTHING in return? It would be much better if the CC license did not contain warranty provisions, and instead was entered into with a hold harmless to the licensor instead of giving warranty guarantees to the licensee.
Maybe in a few years, when all of the issues are ironed out, a CC license would be a better risk - if, as Brian points out, there is really any advantage at all to begin with.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stu:
The first is that the CC license is too new - so nobody knows the pitfalls or how Courts will interpret the rights.</font>


This is true. To my knowledge, CC licenses haven't been tested in the courts yet.

And of course, I'm not a lawyer and what follows is my own opinion of the license terms:

Aren't the warrantees neccessary to protect licensees in the event that the licensor slaps a CC license on a work they have no legal rights to? A hold harmless clause would allow anyone to slap a CC license on anything, no?

Section 5 states that the licensor must have obtained whatever rights and permissions necessary in order to legally license the work under a CC license.

Section 6 states that the licensor can be held liable if Section 5 is breached.

If I grab someone else's song and make it available under a CC license without first obtaining permission to do so, I'm violating the warranties in Section 5, therefore opening myself up to liability in Section 6.

Likewise, if I compose a song with samples from other people's work (like hip-hop track) and CC-license it without clearing the samples, I'm again violating Section 5.

Seems pretty clear to me, and necessary. It seems to me the risk is minimal so long as the licensor has obtained the needed rights to license the work under CC. Do you still disagree, Stu?

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-24-2006).]

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Get real - the problem with the warranties isn't going to arise if someone has a valid copyright. Where this will become a problem is when you have one of the so-called "innocent infringement" cases in which the person who gave the CC license actually thought they had a valid copyright at the time, but found out later that there is a suit for infringement. You think it's equitable that they now have to pick up everybody's legal expenses even though they got nothing in return for the license? That's a little nuts from a business standpoint.
The idea you pose, thatpeople would start slapping a CC license on anything they don't own where there is a hold-harmless is a little simplistic. Frankly, anyone can pretend to "give a license" for anything they don't own now, and hope to get away with it (it's a little like selling the Brooklyn Bridge).
I think if you're giving someone something for nothing, they should take it "as is," and not expect you to pay their lawyer (and the lawyer for everyone else in the chain) if it turns out that somebody claims you innocently (non-intentionally) infringed another's copyright.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Stu: I follow your logic but I'm having a hard time envisioning such a scenario. Can you give a real-world example?

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Scott -
The so-called "innocent infringement" cases are legion. See, for example, the 1991 case of Branch v. Ogilvy 772 F. Supp 1359. The jury determined that there was innocent (unintentional) infringement of a copyright, and only awarded the plaintiff one dollar for the infringement. The Court then awarded the plaintiff an additional $116,729 against the defendant for legal fees. Do you seriously doubt that someone hit with those kinds of fees, even though they are an innocent infringer, would hesitate to pass the liability along to whomever gave a "warranty" that they could use a copyrighted work - even though the person giving the warranty was an innocent infringer themselves? Can you imagine a whole chain of innocent infringers passing the buck back to where they got the license?

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
I've done some research on your concerns, Stu, and it looks like the warranty concerns were hammered out in 2003. See here and here .

More recent versions of the CC licenses now no longer provide warranty . That said, simply using an upgraded license does not apply to works already distributed under the previous license.

So I agree that there's some potentially serious risk to using an earlier CC license, if someone in the chain is served with an "innocent infringement" suit as you described.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-25-2006).]

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Sorry Scott - but nothing in the material you referenced gives me any comfort whatsoever regarding the warranty issue. In fact, just the opposite, as it is clear the CC folks INTENDED and support the premise (as outlined in the literature to which you refer) that they are placing a warranty burden on the person granting the license.
When they say things like "the burden of checking for rights was placed on the author so it only had to be done once in advance," do they really think that the average author/artist is going to take the time to do the research necessary to assure in advance that there was no innocent infringement? I'm not a bettin' man, but I'd wager odds that less than one tenth of one percent of artist/authors would actually take the time to do the extensive research before they give the whole world a warranty for which they receive no compensation.
The tome to which you directed my attention even acknowledges that people who get involved with CC licenses don't realize what they're doing. It states in part:
---------------------------------
"In some discussions with Dave Winer and Diane Cabell, who is an officer with the Creative Commons project, it's come to my attention that many people may not be aware of some aspects of popular Creative Commons licenses. In particular, there are "representations and warranties" that you make. For example, in the popular "Attribution 1.0" license, it says (emphasis added):...
a. By offering the Work for public release under this License, Licensor represents and warrants that, to the best of Licensor's knowledge after reasonable inquiry:
i. Licensor has secured all rights in the Work necessary to grant the license rights hereunder and to permit the lawful exercise of the rights granted hereunder without You having any obligation to pay any royalties, compulsory license fees, residuals or any other payments;

ii. The Work does not infringe the copyright, trademark, publicity rights, common law rights or any other right of any third party or constitute defamation, invasion of privacy or other tortious injury to any third party.

...
-----------------------------------------
They go on to say:
-----------------------------------------
"When you "warrant" something you are (from a lay person's viewpoint) guaranteeing the person using your work that you'll indemnify them against loss if you were wrong; i.e., you'll reimburse them for what they end up paying if they are sued. In this license, you are saying you have made "reasonable inquiry" to make sure that you have sufficient rights to what you are licensing to let others use it without paying royalties. If you put that license on your weblog, you are saying you've checked about everything..."
------------------------------------------
This is ridiculous!
Do they really think the average person who gets involved with granting one of these licenses is going to "check about everything?"
Furthermore, this actually compounds the problem, because now you're not only facilitating the infringement if it turns out you're wrong, but you are definitively making a representation to the world at large that you did some checking (which you probably didn't do) and you're saying that if you turn out to be wrong, you're going to pay everybody's legal fees.
What a dream case for a Plaintiff's Attorney. All he has to prove for the infringement is similarity between the two works, and opportunity to obtain it via public distribution, and then no matter what, even if its an "innocent" infringement,you're going to pay all the legal fees.
Scott, this isn't good business and it isn't a good idea, no matter how much you may want it to be the wave of the future. At least for now, I would stay away from it, and I certainly would not go out on a limb, (like you seem to be doing) advising people that its OK.



[This message has been edited by Stu (edited 01-25-2006).]

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
worse than useless?


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Sure looks they way, Mike [Linked Image]
Joanne

------------------

[*]The Best is Yet to Be,Joanne Lurgio-singer/songwriter www.joannelurgio.com


[*] Joanne's Gig Calendar - http://www.musi-cal.com/search?key=performers&value=Lurgio

[*] http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=100751

[*] www.cdbaby.com/cd/lurgio

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
Hm, I don't think I ever said CC licenses were the wave of the future, or that I wanted them to be. (I reserve that distinction for wireless digital delivery.) I think artists are using CC licenses in interesting ways. I never said it was a panacea. I certainly don't recommend that people apply them carelessly, or without review.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-25-2006).]

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Top 500 Poster
Offline
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Wow...OK...now this has me freaking out about another license...first though...I'm not defending CC, but as Scott said they did change the language in the more recent licenses (one is here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/legalcode ). I'll leave it to Stu to comment as to whether the new language is more acceptable as far as the warranty issue. I personally would be OK with the new language, it seems to settle the issue, but to be honest, it would have been intuitive to me to say "yes I warrant I have the copyright", but I'm glad I read this post. I don't want to be warranting anything...

But now...the heart of the matter for me...and this is based on something Stu said...Doesn't posting or making available ANYTHING on the internet pose a risk of innocent infringement, or make it easier for someone to claim infringement because it satisfies the requirement that an infringer had to have access to the infringed work? Once you post something on the internet, everybody in the world has access...

And then that brings me to - and I am not picking on them - they just happen to be the premier choice for digital distribution and I signed this agreement and I love CDBABY - doesn't the CD BABY DD license do exactly the same thing as far as warranty as the old CC warranty license language that we have been talking about in this thread? Please read parts 9 and 10 here: http://www.cdbaby.net/dd?f=6

To me, that sets up the exact same scenerio as Stu pointed out about the old CC warranty language. You warrant that you have the rights, and if someone hears your song on ITUNES and it sounds like the one they wrote and posted on SONGRAMP, well, guess who can get sued and pay for everybody's legal fees. Even if the both of you independently created the works, because the SONGRAMP person put it on the internet, you then had access, and because of your warranty to CDBABY, you then pay all the legal fees - for ITUNES, CDBABY, and anybody else...and because everybody is posting their lyrics and songs on the internet, it makes it more likely than ever you could be in legal hot water because of innocent or misunderstandings of infringement.

So to me, the CDBABY DD warranty puts you in exactly the same legal boat as the old CC warranty. Except you are getting money in exchange for the warranty with CDBABY. Is that a correct assessment?



[This message has been edited by Liszt Laughing (edited 01-26-2006).]


Boo...my name is Doug
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
S
Top 200 Poster
Offline
Top 200 Poster
S
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,294
I also provided Stu with links to ALL the CC 2.0+ versions of the license (see my posts above). He didn't comment. I think Stu's larger point is: warranties are bad, because you just never know.

But...

I'm also wondering how many businesses would actually enter into a licensing agreement with a content provider without some sort of guarantee that said provider performed due diligence on the rights end of things. Would they really let you get away with a hold harmless clause when you might be peddling infringing material? That seems to me a bigger risk than an "innocent infringement" situation.

Maybe Stu can shed some light on how it's done.

------------------
Scott Andrew
Lo-fi acoustic pop superhero!
http://www.scottandrew.com/music

[This message has been edited by scottandrew (edited 01-25-2006).]

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Top 500 Poster
Offline
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Well, I mean, I have to agree with him, to me it would be stupid to sign a never-ending agreement that puts so much legal liability on the licensor (with the old language). With a CC, you are basically business partners with the whole world, and you would hold all the liability.

This part of what he said gets me too:

"What a dream case for a Plaintiff's Attorney. All he has to prove for the infringement is similarity between the two works, and opportunity to obtain it via public distribution, and then no matter what, even if its an "innocent" infringement,you're going to pay all the legal fees."

I just see the possiblity of that happening more and more, because everybody's stuff is public now.


Boo...my name is Doug
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Doug-
No reason to freak out.

Comparing the warranty provisions in the CD Baby agreement and the intentions of the CC license is like comparing apples and oranges. With CD Baby, you actually get something (money) for entering into the agreement. Their warranty language is devoid of a guarantee that you did research before you agreed, and CD Baby specifically exempts consequential damages, further stating that there is no express indemnity obligation. In addition, their warranty only says you will defend them (CD Baby) and not that you pick up the defense of everybody in the chain of distribution of a public offering.

As to the new language in the CC license, I admit I did not see this in the links Scott previously provided, and it seems like a step in the right direction - EXCEPT, you will notice the language that states "some jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion of implied warranties" (they don't say which ones). With regard to limitations on liability they say "except to the extent required by applicable law" (they don't say what that law is). After gleaning the intentions behind how this all came about, in my opinion it would be better if they included a hold-harmless from the user in favor of the author. It's axiomatic that the one who gets the benefit (free use) should bear the burden (do the research before using it).

As to your other questions:
--------------------------------------
[DOUG] the heart of the matter for me...and this is based on something Stu said...Doesn't posting or making available ANYTHING on the internet pose a risk of innocent infringement, or make it easier for someone to claim infringement because it satisfies the requirement that an infringer had to have access to the infringed work Once you post something on the internet, everybody in the world has access...
---------------------------------------

[STU] The "access" we're talking about is whatever possible access the infringer had. When proving copyright infringement it is rare (I've only had one case) to catch the infringer red handed doing the copying. So, the way the courts deal with this issue is to allow the case to be proven by proof of the similarities between the works and proof the infringer had access - meaning proof that the work was widely distributed (unless you're lucky enough that you can show that a copy was specifically provided by someone to the infringer). Once you prove these two things, the burden then shifts to the alleged infringer to prove how the work was independently created.
Certainly, it can be argued that posting the work on the net (which would satisfy the requirement of wide distribution) will be used by authors as a way to show that infringers had access. Whether it will increase the number of lawsuits (arguably because it makes it easier than it used to be to prove access) remains to be seen.
-----------------------------------------
[DOUG] Stu pointed out about the old CC warranty language. You warrant that you have the rights, and if someone hears your song on ITUNES and it sounds like the one they wrote and posted on SONGRAMP, well, guess who can get sued and pay for everybody's legal fees. Even if the both of you independently created the works, because the SONGRAMP person put it on the internet, you then had access, and because of your warranty to CDBABY, you then pay all the legal fees -
---------------------------------------
[Stu] Nope - not necessarily, you're making a bit of a jump here. As I understand it, all you agreed to do was to defend CD Baby, not "everybody's legal fees" and not consequential damages (unless there's a separate ITUNES agreement you didn't mention)

-----------------------------------------
[DOUG] ...and because everybody is posting their lyrics and songs on the internet, it makes it more likely than ever you could be in legal hot water because of innocent or misunderstandings of infringement.
-----------------------------------------
[Stu] I would agree that it does seem to increase the likelihood that "access" via wide distribution would be easier to prove than in the past
--------------------------
[Doug} So to me, the CDBABY DD warranty puts you in exactly the same legal boat as the old CC warranty. Except you are getting money in exchange for the warranty with CDBABY. Is that a correct assessment?
----------------------------
[Stu] Not at all - see above

THE BOTTOM LINE - When you buy a license, if you're smart, you hire an attorney and do the investigation to be sure you're getting what you pay for, or at least that the person you're buying it from has assets you can go after if it turns out they mislead you about their ability to grant the license - and you put the agreement together in a way that you are protected [depending, of course, on who you're buying it from]. So, wouldn't it also make sense to hire an attorney before you start signing on to agreements to grant licenses and make warranties so you can be sure that you're not doing something that will get you in "legal hot water" in the future?
Problems arises when you try to put together one license agreement that will satisfy all situations and issues, leaving it open to the Court to try to figure out what you thought you were doing when something eventually goes wrong.

Hope this helps

[This message has been edited by Stu (edited 01-26-2006).]

Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
__________________________________________
"What a dream case for a Plaintiff's Attorney. All he has to prove for the infringement is similarity between the two works, and opportunity to obtain it via public distribution, and then no matter what, even if its an "innocent" infringement,you're going to pay all the legal fees."
---------------------------------------------
Surely NO attorney would sue you in a frivolous way JUST to extract their fees from you- a completely innocent person-----c'mon---no way


Herbie
JPF Chicago Chapter Coordinator
http://www.herbietunes.com

Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Top 500 Poster
Offline
Top 500 Poster
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 983
Stu - yes that did help. Thanks.


Boo...my name is Doug
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
Top 40 Poster
Offline
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
This is scarey.Lots of songs are similiar to other songs as to melody, chord progression and content,but that doesn't mean that someone else infringed on someones song.With millions of songs being written,you are bound to hit close to someones song without ever having seen or heard that song.

Everett


The more you taste the bitterness of defeat, the sweeter final victory will be

May the flowers of love forever bloom in your garden of life

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashsounds

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashgospel

www.cdbaby.com/all/eca333

www.showcaseyourmusic.com/newsflashsounds
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Everett - Copyright law would actually permit two identical works to hold copyrights if they were totally independently produced. Theoretically, if you can prove that you came up with your song independently, it does not infringe another's copyright - because you DIDN'T COPY. The problem is the cost of the litigation and the proof problems to arrive at this result. [and the rest of you guys, stop the attorney bashing - I actually know one attorney that I like].

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
Stu,

I like attorneys. They are like banjo players, everyone's glad when they close their case.

Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
Top 40 Poster
Offline
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
Quote
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Stu:
Everett - Copyright law would actually permit two identical works to hold copyrights if they were totally independently produced. Theoretically, if you can prove that you came up with your song independently, it does not infringe another's copyright - because you DIDN'T COPY. The problem is the cost of the litigation and the proof problems to arrive at this result. [and the rest of you guys, stop the attorney bashing - I actually know one attorney that I like].</font>


Thank you Stu.Other than the date on you copyright registeration,how would you prove you wrote it yourself?The other song may have been registered before yours.I have songs that I had previously written many years before I finally got around to getting them registered.I usually only register when I start pitching said song.(I like you Stu,not many lawyers would give free advice like you are)

Everett


The more you taste the bitterness of defeat, the sweeter final victory will be

May the flowers of love forever bloom in your garden of life

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashsounds

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashgospel

www.cdbaby.com/all/eca333

www.showcaseyourmusic.com/newsflashsounds
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,814
I agree with Everett- thanks very much for your reasonable advice Stu---even if it freaked us out a little-- this was a very interesting thread--alot of good input--you really hung in there Scott in a tough crowd--good job

Herbie


Herbie
JPF Chicago Chapter Coordinator
http://www.herbietunes.com

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
S
Stu Offline
JPF Mentor
Offline
JPF Mentor
S
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 486
Everett- there isn't enough room here to go into a complete lecture on the ins and outs of copyright law, but I will attempt to respond to your concerns by giving some short insight into how this works.
As far as the date of the registration, this isn't the same as it used to be. It used to be that you didn't have a copyright until you registered, but since the USA signed on to the international conventions, you actually own the copyright from the moment that the song is fixed in a tangible medium (recorded or written down). The copyright registration date only becomes important because you can't sue for infringement until you have registered - and it also effects the type of damages you can get depending on when the infringement took place in relation to when you registered.
In bringing a copyright infringement case, the plaintiff's Certificate of Registration is proof of ownership of a valid copyright. Once that's introduced into evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove that the copyright wasn't valid (fraudulent registration, incomplete information in the application, failure to send in the complete sample, etc.).
As to the proof of the infringement, the plaintiff need only prove the similarity of the works (this is usually done via hiring an expert to testify) and prove that the defendant had access (a copy was specifically sent to the defendant, or the work was widely distributed, etc.). In some cases, if the works are identical enough, the Court will presume that there has been access even if you can't readily prove it. Once that has been proven, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove one or more of the many defenses to infringement (such as "fair use," independent creation, innocent infringement- which really is not a defense but helps to minimize the damages you have to pay, estoppel - which means the plaintiff did something to lead the defendant to believe that the defendant had the right to use the song, etc. etc.).
Since the copyright date effects the ability to enforce your rights, I would suggest that you might want to change the habit you describe, and start registering your songs earlier (rather than waiting until you start to market them). It isn't that expensive to register songs.(Hint - if cost is a factor, you can register a number of songs at one time. Just record them all on the same CD, give the CD a title - like THE SONGS OF EVERETT VOLUME ONE - and copyright the CD. That will provide you with protection for everything that's on the CD).
Hope this responds to your concerns.

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
Top 40 Poster
Offline
Top 40 Poster
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,044
Likes: 16
Thank you Stu,I sure do appreciate you taking time to explain these things and ease my fears.But it seems even if you are innocent,you might end up paying a fortune just to prove it,so it could bankrupt you either way.

I do register 10 or more song with the copyright office under a collection as you said,but I usually get them demoed first, which could take me a year to save up and pay for ten demos.So they are now already a year old before they are registered.I have some good songs that I wrote maybe 40 years ago that I have never demoed or registered.I just write too many to do justice to them in getting them out there.Can't afford it either LOL.

Thanks again Stu.If I ever need a lawyer,I'll call on you.

Everett


The more you taste the bitterness of defeat, the sweeter final victory will be

May the flowers of love forever bloom in your garden of life

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashsounds

http://www.soundclick.com/newsflashgospel

www.cdbaby.com/all/eca333

www.showcaseyourmusic.com/newsflashsounds
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 328
J
Serious Contributor
Offline
Serious Contributor
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 328
Hi Mike!

Did you ever consider that many of us may be dead by the time CDs are obsolete?

I agree, 2 to 3 billion is alot of money on downloaded music.

So.... How many CDs were sold last year, and how far off are those sales from where they were a two years ago?

If you can answer those questions, then to me, your question may have more relevance.

We all know what happened to 8 tracks and 33s and 45s. But that means were kinda older..

Also, in a paralell universe, digital television has not made the big splash that was predicted, even though the Feds are directly involved in forcing this technology on everyone.

Could it be the $1500 digital TV set? Has anyone seen the alleged $50 converter so we can keep our old sets? By the way, if you are poor, the FCC is going to force stations to stop broadcasting VHF signals, and you will get no television unless you can afford a converter.... I love those guys in Washington!

Similiarly, many people cannot afford a computer, let alone a digital TV. Household computer penetration is certainly not 99%. I know that about 5 years ago it was hovering around 60%.

So are we seeing a lot of new music buyers downloading music? I have to stop soon because I could go on forever with questions based on how little I really know.

You could be right about CDs!

The net has turned things around, but at the same time, people are slow to embrace change that rerquires them to think of the things they spent a fortune on, namely their CD collections, as expired technology.

I would bet that many people do not think that their CDs are close to being obsolete.

The public has not embraced 5.1 surround sound DVD for music only, which is really a CD. Acura has included those players on two of its models, but no one else yet.

Any thoughts?


Blessings,


Johnboy

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
JPF Mentor
OP Offline
JPF Mentor
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 8,574
Great Points, Johnboy. Thanks for the reply.

Well to start with I question your question about my question. I write as an interested party who has read articles and posts about the possibility of the demise of cds. It made me wonder and question.

I hope you are right, I have cd burners that haven't fully depreciated yet. I do recall, however, how quickly 78's, 8-tracks, vinyl records, and cassettes dissappeared, all of which were rather expensive when they first came out. I also remember the slide rule, dial phones, mechanical watches, and leaded gas, but those are other stories.

I imagine the gov wants to force tv to digital so it can free up bandwidth. This could improve general communications which I'm all for. Do they have ulterior motives? Well let's see, we're talking about Congress...yep they do.

As to more research on this subject...that's why I asked the question. Being a full-time musician who moderates this board for free, I try to delegate the more irrelevant and unusual aspects of the internet, such as research, facts or truth, to our members. So I hope y'all have at it.

So again, I wish cds are around a long time. I know my son's PSP plays movies on little cd thingys which Sony is having a hard time selling. People, apparently, are getting a little tired of planned obsolescence and the "format wars." But my Mom used to say, "Pray for the best, but prepare for the worst." Mama knew her stuff.

All the Best,
Mike

------------------
You have to practice improvisation. -Art Tatum

Mike Dunbar Music


You've got to know your limitations. I don't know what your limitations are. I found out what mine were when I was twelve. I found out that there weren't too many limitations, if I did it my way. -Johnny Cash

It's only music.
-niteshift

Mike Dunbar Music

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 328
J
Serious Contributor
Offline
Serious Contributor
J
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 328
Hi Mike!

Very wise and humorous response! I laughed outloud at my computer when I read your line about questioning!!!!!I get your position. You certainly know more than me, and I love it when you ask this stuff. I guess I just had to say something rather than having something to say!

It always feels a little weird when no one is around to hear you laugh, but it still makes you feel better! Thanks!!!


Blessings,


Johnboy

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
Top 100 Poster
Offline
Top 100 Poster
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,037
Likes: 1
hey Johnboy!!!
Believe it or not.... I think I could hear you laughing! [Linked Image] Yes... I did!
Joanne

------------------

[*]The Best is Yet to Be,Joanne Lurgio-singer/songwriter www.joannelurgio.com


[*] Joanne's Gig Calendar - http://www.musi-cal.com/search?key=performers&value=Lurgio

[*] http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=100751

[*] www.cdbaby.com/cd/lurgio

[*] MySpace - www.myspace.com/joannelurgio

[*]www.cdbaby.com/group/justplainfolks

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Support Just Plain Folks

We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.


Newest Members
chriscastle, yasir252, cathennashira, Samwise, HappySousa
21,470 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums117
Topics125,717
Posts1,160,950
Members21,470
Most Online37,523
Jan 25th, 2020
Just Plain Quotes
"If one man can do it, any man can do it. It is true. But the real question is, if one man did it, are you willing to do what it takes to do it as well?" –Brian Austin Whitney
Today's Birthdays
warriorgirl (2024)
Popular Topics(Views)
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5