music spys

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150329_The_day_the_music_____spied.html?utm_content=buffer68d7f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
 
the death of live music?

Can I still record a re-imagined cover tune and post in the Cakewalk Forums with a link to soundclooud?

bapu
Can I still record a re-imagined cover tune and post in the Cakewalk Forums with a link to soundclooud?

General public will accept it as 'fun/hobby', 'non-profit' = Cool - But the big guns? {uh oh}! Without obtaining a users/license (permission), especially if the song goes viral would be a concern; for starters, the track will be removed and user account might also be banned (SC), especially if more than one incident occurred.
 
 

There is a certain irony in the music industry eating itself.  Many of the strongest supporters of very draconian policies regarding copyright and licensing find themselves being the true losers in these situations.  It's not enough to simnply play only originals, but to be able to prove beyond even the slightest doubt that not a single phrase is in any way similar to anything someone's sponge of a descendent can make the slightest claim on. The situation is in some ways similar to how NFL veterans lobbied so hard to reduce rookie salaries without realizing the deal they lobbied for actually screws rookies, but screws veterans even more.  The big winners were owners and franchise QBs.  I know it is not an exact analogy but in the music industry it has truly become the Beyonce's and the have nots, with the B's being the 100 million franchise QB's and everyone else offered contracts that look good until you realize they are not guaranteed and odds point to player being cut before contract is finished. The megastars will make their money but at the expense of the up and coming. 
 
What I fear is that the Idol/Voice shows that can afford to protect themselves from endless litigation and the Disney-esque  popboy-band factories that gave us the likes of Nsync, Britney Spears, etc will be the primary means of new music.  The industry realizes it has mostly lot the distribution wars and it seems like they are trying to control it by clamping down on the one source that has always been far more lucrative to artists than record sells; live music.

lawajava
It's interesting what you all say.

I've been thinking for years that a lot of pop and other music sounds the same. Even more so now that almost all the major pop hits have a sidechain pulse that makes them sound very similar.

I wonder if the first artist that came up with a sidechain beat could cash in and claim rights from all the derivative hits since then.

Unfortunately that trend has been ongoing on for decades, I know first-hand as a professional writer who sat in meetings (early 1990s). The 'hypocrisy' in regards to some of the major players -- Pathetic, now them and their affiliates circle like vultures and their prey are usually independent releases by upcoming writers/performers. The vultures are not only circling the live scene, also online sites ((legitimate music sites)).  I mean seriously, a representative from a well known entity (corp/company, or individuals of renown) serving notice is enough to scare anyone --- to remove content.
 
This is why imho there needs to be another tier of copyright, specifically 'Additional Attribution' with a min/max amount settled out of court, a simplified process that is based on various levels of unauthorized use for example, from 4 notes/melody, to a whole chorus or verse. Thereby the amount (royalty 'shares') settled is based on that process and 'additional attribute' mark notice is attached.<< this, rather than 'removal notice' and suing/court process and media circus.  Seriously, threats of huge fines and suing fellow writers is getting ridiculous. I'm concerned this is turning into a more profitable, larger business model. The nightmare is, its getting difficult to avoid infringing copyrights, we've long reached the threshold of 'already done' (not nearly or entirely original), most cases are unintentional use but unfortunately that is no excuse.
 
And then there is the licensing issues along with snaky loopholes used by corporations <<< They get the big hefty cuts (huge savings in licensing fees), whilst the small business operators (e.g. small venues, taverns, restaurants, and the kids lemonade stand) are getting hammered --- These unfair practices are killing the live scene, killing that most important foundation; that supports (livable income for bands/entertainers), and to also give upcoming talent (bands/entertainers) essentially the necessary experience to hone their live performance skills. And of course, to build up a following, promote their online sites, promote events on social sites, sell more music and other merchandise.
 
With all above said, what major labels are terrified of.... reforms to favor independent writers, bands and small businesses ... bands would not need a middleman (major label), the band be better off managing their own independent label, though nowadays its critically important for bands to know the business side of the equation including marketing strategies (online and offline) along with really good PR management / liaison. 

Really? How many different ways can you play Rock n Roll or Blues? I was at the Atlanta Steelplchase yesterday and a few tents down they had a DJ playing Country music. There was some newer song about "Singing sweet hoe Alabama all day long" or something like that. I could not hear the words from where I was but I could hear the beat and chords... I thought it was Werewolves of London, the music was REALLY close. I walked down to hear it and well... I didn't stay long. Whatever else the song is, it is way to "gimmicky". From a distance I could easily add Ahh Oooooh Werewolves of London... Ahh Oooooh.
 
Rock n Roll is pretty simple music and Blues is even more basic, I just don't see how one can copyright any of it very much, I guess a complete copy of words and music but the music is going to be copied, there is just no way around it and just because these earlier artists showed up when they were able to steal their stuff from Black American musicians who couldn't or wouldn't do anything about it, well... everyone should just back off and let people write and play and not worry about it. I like the way Ian Anderson handled The Eagles Hotel California which is a blatant copy of a song Tull was playing when they were touring together a few years earlier.
There is enough to go around.
 
spic
 

jbow
 I like the way Ian Anderson handled The Eagles Hotel California which is a blatant copy of a song Tull was playing when they were touring together a few years earlier.
 

The chords to 'Hotel California' are very similar to 'We Used To Know' by Tull, but HC was written by Don Felder, who wasn't in The Eagles at the time they toured with Tull.

slartabartfast ... Mandolinplayer has it right. The outrageous extension of copyright has much less to do with the public good, and much more to do with the profits of the immortal "persons" discovered by the courts to live among us as imaginary yet corporate entities...

 
We should not be surprised by this ... in the first page of Sociology 101, it says a couple of things ... like 3% of the population controls 97% of all the money, and then the one I like the most, is that about 90% of all the laws in America are created and passed by less than 10% of the population!
 
We, and I say this with a lot of rubber bands, have nothing to complaint about, because we have allowed Hollywood and many other humungous corporations to control our behaviour and thus ... all the laws are in their favor, not yours!
 
Does anyone here actually think that Frank Zappa was just being a serious psychopath because of the wording and his attacks on our ability to be "free"? We always got stuck on something or other!
 
It is the reason why Reagan, Ford and Bush and then Bush went out of their way to ensure that schools did not teach the arts (any form), to make sure folks did not develop an independent feeling ... that you usually get when you become an artist of any kind!
 

slartabartfast ...  And while just limiting copyright duration might have a general salutary result, it might cause some unintended consequences. If the problem to solve is that there is no new music because everything sounds enough like something that is under copyright, then putting all the old music into the public domain would make it impossible to enforce copyright on anything new. That would remove a lot of incentive for the creation and distribution of new music. ...

 
Which I think is the point of the law as it is defined right now ... make sure no one else can do anything to keep the moneys here. And in time, this will hurt serious and innovative artists. Imagine if Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky or Stravinsky had done that? Music would likely be dead today!
 
Today, however, there is the media and everyone has the ability to check everything and say something or other about it. It will always sound like this and that and cause issues. And this is where the law has to step in, and change things ... let's say the artist can have it for 20 years and the family/artist can only renew it for one more term. PERIOD. That alone would take the rights away from a lot of Hollywood companies that have stolen material from many folks for 100 years!
 
The much bigger issue on our plate, is that we do not have the motion and the desire and the intent to change things in the courts of the land ... if we did, we would have already created a local issue with all the musicians involved and removing all the Council folks that do not agree, and then proceed to remove the State Representative, and eventually move along to bigger and better fish, and get the issue involved in the awareness side of it.
 
Right now, musicians can not win. The media belongs to the same representatives that owns the studios (more or less) and they talk LOUDLY about how much money this band made and that band made and how many tickets this and that sold ... and all of it is nothing but an "advertising" that the artist is ripping off the record companies, and in the end, a lot of the "big names" and the biggest problems in this whole process and they need to be taken down a peg.
 
Honestly ... to me this is about us ... not them! Even though it is a process that will take 20 years, it will teach you/us all more about things in America, and that you can change them ... but you watch the rich artists get upset at us!
 
The only question left is, where is our will and determination ... since we know that the folks that want the money have already taken their steps 75 years ago, when they KNEW no one else knew anything! Today, with the media out there ... you can do a lot more ... but no one uses it for comprehensive and positive action!
 
I'm too busy writing. You all are too busy playing. But somewhere, in someway, we have to give a little back into it and help it get where it needs to be ... including all of us, not just a handful!