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?

This news is getting old, 'everyone' wants to make a livable income.
 
Times are tough and the big guns are getting nastier.... This is a business model. 'Plagiarism' for even the most faint of unintended use is becoming more commonplace.  And taking ideas from other artist right down to sounding like someone else - even to faintly infringe on worldwide established (renown) 'signature sound' i.e. Marvin Gaye's case.
 
Also just recently in Australia, thousands of click-happy downloaders (Aussies) will be getting letters/notices in regards to copyright violations - ISP must forward all details. There is now talk about introducing a '3-Strikes' rule (warning) before prosecution. Data retention for all online activities has been approved (Australia)!
 
PROs are now shaking in their boots due to impending reforms, (1) Publishers threaten to withdraw works from the PROs, and (2) Merger - Form one centralized data base for 'ALL' content creators/performers and for licensing (both a creators and users database), and make all business processes transparent. 'Transparency' is the key word!
 
Nowadays its safer to obtain licenses to do cover songs, rather than release originals that were initially thought to be ones own original works (unintentional use is not an excuse). IMHO I think they need to introduce another tier of copyright (Attributes), bypassing the current expensive and painstaking long process (court) --  Therefore, negotiations are settled out of court based on minimal to maximum percentage of royalties i.e. 25 to 50%, and also  amending, introducing new an additional notice for a song i.e. 'Attributes' (Copyrights, to include all contributors and partners)!
 
Anyway, I've always seen how the music business and the Internet is the 'canary', an alert, awakening to how and why the world is totally messed up.  --- That line should leave a lot of people jumping to their own conclusions... (Sorry, can't explain any further without digging into politics)!
 
 

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?

When it goes to court, make sure the entire FSF is entered into evidence.

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.
 
 

drewfx1

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

When it goes to court, make sure the entire FSF is entered into evidence.

Good defense! That'll tie up the courts for years!

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.

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.

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. 

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

I think you can, when there is no money involved and it is a "hobby". As long as you do not have it on sale, I don't think the law can take it away from you.
 
The ISP information that is turning in those folks, is a valid reason, with one big mistake ... what they are downloading is the stuff that is the most famous and used the most money to get made, and as such, all of those entities are on the lookout for that extra dollar that they are not making. In the end, these "spies" pulling their Marvin Gay, or this or that out of the hat to take somebody off the streets will eventually mean that those services are burning money in the wrong folks, that will eventually also scrooge them just like they scrooged others!
 
IF, a bar, as the lady said, was harassed by BMI, she needs to get a hold of an entertainment lawyer and quickly and badly ... but my guess is that she can barely afford it, in which case, I would put it on paper, get it notarized, and file it with the City Hall, and find a lawyer to also have a copy of it. By the time ten of these "events" happen, the City and a bunch of folks WILL HAVE something to say, not to mention that this "BMI" is trying to hurt their business ... which I guarantee you that no city wants to lose ... it's their livelihood in many neighborhoods!
 
I also think that a lot of "famous" artists are also at fault, because of their contracts and amounts of money, and they are not doing anything to help the locals ... and seeing Tom Petty and before that, the Marvin Gay thing, is pathetically sick.
 
Mannnnn , if Beethoven was alive, or Mozart, they would be the richest fudgers in the world! But that intimidation needs to be put down!