There have been several threads recently on copyright and I can rarely withold myself from rising to the bait. It is a critical issue in my view as the growth in obsession with copyright threatens the very basis of the music we enjoy playing.
The way I look at it.... this is a website for Irish Traditional Music. There are 1000's of tunes in the ITM idiom, some old and some more recent that are just that .. 'traditional'. I believe that this is one of it's great attractions - it is a music of the people, the ordinary people who toil and labour in this world and enjoy playing a few tunes for relaxation and fun. You and me. Me and you.
That is the way it has always largely been, that is where this folk music came from. That is why it exists. And that's the way I personally believe it should be kept!
I have no problem with a composer wishing to be acknowledged as many are in the titles of tunes etc., credited on recordings etc., if that is what they want. But why would you want this? If you write a tune in this tradition, why would you not just be happy to hear it spread if it's a good tune. Spread like the runners of a raspberry cane out into the next parish, next county, next country. Is that not enough? It has been good enough for the thousands of ordinary musicians over the last few centuries that have carried the music along. Why should it not be good enough for us?
The only valid answer I can see to that is that people wish to use this music as a vehicle to make money. They could make money by just playing the music in concerts, by teaching etc., but they also have a eye to this modern disease of intellectual property rights. Just because Warner Bros. etc. copyright the name Harry Potter, copyright every little silly ditty they use, then people think if it's OK for them that's what we should do too.
Well, I don't agree and even though I'm just an ordinary Sean citizen .. I think it's important to say so. Hands off the People's Music.
However, as Liz Carrol once said, there is no problem people playing her tunes and even recording them within this idium. She won't go chasing up some teenage wannabes who make a CD and manage to sell a couple of thousand copies while on a gruiling tour. But if WarnerBrothers decided to use a tune in a blockbuster film, that's a different kettle of fish.
Hmm! I could see an argument that says .. let Warner Bros. take the tune and use it, with a credit. The result being thousands if not millions of people being exposed to this type of music. If that's what we wanted.
I'm always amused when a certain periodical that is published in the USA arrives in our house. The mag. promotes breastfeeding, a very laudable and important tradition too. However the articles and pics. are covered with copyright and trademark symbols. Now one would think the objective of this largely voluntary organistion is to promote breastfeeding and that therefore they would be delighted to have other periodicals use their material freely, thus spreading the word. But no, the American obsession with copyright takes over.. I've even seen this sort of thing creeping into parish newsletters and the like here.
Just because a picture carries a copyright does not mean that the publishers paid for it. It could well be that the owners of the pic supplied it free to the mag, but the symbol is important to stop someone else lifting it and using it commercially.
It's basic capitalist economics. Either that or "property is theft". you choose
Liz told me the same when we recorded one of her tunes, and I would feel the same if someone recorded one of mine. The only time I'd be concerned is if someone was somehow pulling down the big bucks using a tune I wrote. Otherwise it's just flattering that anyone would even want to play it at all.
I'd like to know what the Site's / Jeremy's position is on submitting tunes with known living composers, or tune parts written / re-composed by same. (I have few albums now so can't see if some tunes I'm thinking of were copyrighted on some '70's - 80's albums or not.)
It must be a hassle for bands / recording artists to have to track down some music company (that might have folded anyway) in order to pay the going rate for, say, a reel composed in the '70's, chargeable I suppose on the manufacture or sale of albums that feature it. Tedious and fiddly and one would like to live without it. But one could say the same about Income Tax, and simultaneously admit that its existence, at any rate, is fair.
I'd be interested to read the views and experiences of any composers out there who've copyrighted their tunes, especially regarding how important copyright from tunes has been to them financially .
This is an area I've also always felt uncomfortable with - unlike commercial music such as rock and pop, trad is a music of the people and it would be incongruous if everytime we played a tune we have to worry that someone might be chasing us up for payment because it was recently composed. If a composer adopts this attitude then I don't really believe his/her music has a place in the traditional idiom and I for one would prefer not to play it. My own view is that Irish music is more than just notes and embodies the generosity and camaraderie of those who down the years contributed so unselfishly to this wonderful traditional treasure chest that we can all dip into, share and enjoy.
However, I also agree very strongly that those using the tradition for commercial purposes and making "big bucks" out of it (film companies, TV, etc) are a different kettle of fish and should pay for the privilege.
Traditional music (at least the bits I know, in the UK , Ireland and the USA) is peoples music, in that amateurs of whatever level can and do particpate and get a lot out of it - and give a lot back. However it also supports full-time professional musicians who are trying to make a living. Part of this is getting royalties for their tunes. You wouldn't expect to go into the local greengrocer and take a pound of carrots without paying for them on the grounds that you grow vegetables too! A lot of professionalsdo take the attitude that anyone can play the tunes, but if someone is going to make money out of their work, they should be paid something too. If the various traditional music scenes want professional players, they have to make it possible for people to be professional players, which includes paying royalties for using the music when it is making money, and not making bootleg copies of people's cd's for all your friends!
c.g. (not a professional at all though I once got a fiver for playing in a session)
Yep! I'm all for buying CD's, tickets for concerts etc., no problem whatsoever. But I personally draw the line when same professionals or wannabe professionals write a 'new' tune by modifying a few phrases of an existing 16 bar jig or reel or whatever and then claim ownership of their 'new' creation.
By all means let anyone be credited with coming up with this new arrangement but legally copyrighting and claiming intellectual ownership is completely against the spirit of the body from whence they came.
I'm sure most people don't think like that - they just do it because everyone says it's a good idea and you should protect yourself against getting ripped off blah blah!
Just doing something because everyone else does it, is the 'flock' mentality. I'm simply saying that it would be better in my very humble opinion if people opened their eyes instead of their wallets and consciously chose not to claim copyright in the case of folk music and this music in particular.
After all, same professionals draw very heavily on the existing stock of ITM which is described as 'Traditional' and understood to be in the public domain.
Sounds like most people want to allow music to be freely shared as long as nobody makes too much money from it (other than the composer). But where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"?
One thing you could do is license the music under a creative commons type license (http://creativecommons.org/), restricting commercial use but encouraging non-commercial sharing.
I think that really the problem lies with copyright expiry (please forgive me if I am preaching to the choir). The idea was originally that the originator of a work held all the rights to that work for a while, and then the rights went into the public domain. This is why we can perform classical, trad, etc, music without paying royalties.
The problem is that every now and then copyright terms get extended (largely, so the theory goes, so that the early Disney films never become PD -- ironic seeing as Disney made so much money out of interpreting recently PD'ed works), so that now the copyright on a literary work, or written music, lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator in the UK and elsewhere (http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/how_long.htm).
If this term was shorter, then a tune I wrote would eventually enter the public domain, and thus be free for use, but I could profit from it during my life. As it stands, however, with the term being regularly extended, my tune might always be owned by someone who could claim royalties. And so the tradition stagnates until someone changes the rules.
Sorry to go on a bit, but this is a bit of a personal bugbear/hobby horse.
This summer Tony Blair went to stay at Cliff Richard's fancy holiday home for free. Then, low and behold, the labour government anounce they want to extend recording copyright.
But I agree, the problem is: where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"? I think that's just up to the individual. A freind of mine and excellent tune writer had a tune sampled by a pop star and released. Was he right to take it to court? I'd say yes.
As a professional artist and performer, I feel pretty stongly about this subject. On one hand, regarding tunes, I can understand the thought process behind the wounded hussar's point. Tunes, by their nature and history, are meant to be shared. I am sure that you would have no argument that if one person writes an actual song, with lyrics and music, that they deserve to claim their copyright protection, correct? It is essentially a difference of classification, and unfortunately, it fails on too many levels.
A tune is no different than a song when it comes to claiming intellectual property rights, just like a poem is no different than a novel. If I want to record a version of someone else's work, be it a snippet of a tune, or a cover of a song, I am required, by law, to pay the royalties to the appropriate agent. If anyone is going to use my own compositions in a commercial work, then I would expect the same from them. The clubs I perform in, even the bars and pubs that host traditional sessions, all pay royalty fees to allow the performance of copyrighted materials, at least in the States.
This is not about money grubbing (last I checked, royalties cost $0.08 per copy of a copyrighted song, and not much of that actually goes to the artist), but those of us who are professional are in this business to be paid. I support my family with my music, and I feel lucky to be able to do so. That said, the composer of any work is free to do as they wish. I have written some tunes, and I plan to share them, only because I do not make my living playing tunes. If I did, it might be a different story.
'Modifying a few bars' of an existing tune and then claiming copyright is not the same as writing a new tune in the appropriate traditional style. There are indeed people who have got copyright on tunes they have no right to. However, if an artist has written an original tune, and someone is making money out of it, then the artist who created the original is entitled to a royalty. If people don't want to pay royalties, then there is plenty of out-of-copyright music they can record. Everyone needs to be paid for their work, it's how they earn the money to live.
I'm sorry - there's some precedent in the almighty 'tradition' for being compensated for compositions. Didn't Turlough O'Carolan compose tunes in return for room and board from his patrons/patronesses?
Checking my history it seems to be me that the benevolent practice of releasing fresh compositions into the world for the sole purpose of sharing the joy is actually a recent development.
Now, I understand that we yanks have a long-standing history of being money-grubbing evil imperalist pigs, relentlessly trying to force our evil pig practices on the rest of the world. But as much as I'm sure that we would like to copyright/patent the art of copyrighting and patenting (and by inference, charge a handsome sum for the right to practice the practice of such), copyright law was not invented/conjured in the US, and predates the earliest colonial settlement by a few hundred years. I'm ignorant (of course by definition as a US citizen) of whether there were such practices existed in ancient mid-East and Asian civilizations, but I am aware that this was common practice in 14th/15th century Europe.
I would like to request that the implication of modern US global economic policy in the piggifying of traditional irish music be stricken from this discussion.
The last sentence isn't quite right, c.g. Everyone has the right to be paid for their work if they so choose; it may be how they earn the money to live. They also have the right to do volunteer work. The point is that none of us can tell the copyright holder what they must do. They hold the legal right to control distribution of copies of their work.
Back in the "good old days" of the pre-copyright baroque era the likes of Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and so on happily "borrowed" each other's music (not just the odd bar or two, but whole movements), and would write their own versions or arrangements and get paid for it.
In those days, and up to today of course, the only way musicians could earn a full-time living doing music was by some combination of performing, teaching, and composing to order. If you were lucky and a good musician, you could get a job for life working for some duke or church dignitary, as Haydn did.
Now we have music copyright (70 years post mortem at the last count, and 90 is probably not far away), so if you're lucky and get a couple of standard albums up and going, or the theme music for a long-running TV soap, then you could be set up for life, and your immediate descendants for the next generation or so. I feel there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
Good on ya wounded hussar! I also hold the unpopular opinion that copyrighting traditional tunes is antithetical to the tradition.
Because music is ephemeral by nature, as an art form it vanishes the second you stop playing or the recording stops, people had to find a way to continue to charge for it; to freeze the music in time. Hence ownership of the abstract "right" to reproduce music. When does it stop? when you need a copyright to speak certain words?
People should be paid for performance. People should be paid for recordings of themselves. Paid for someone performing their tunes? They should be acknowledged and honored.
Unpopular, I know.
It occurs to me that the one tune that is most played throughout the world is "Happy Birthday" - scarcely a week goes by without someone in the pub celebrating their birthday, and so the session immediately plays it (in G). I believe it is still in copyright, and that attempts are made on occasion to enforce the copyright.
It would be nice if justice always prevailed in our world, but....
Put it this way: Let's say I have a company that publishes music CDs for profit. Hmmm... now, what should I put on those CDs? Hey, here's a song/tune that sounds pretty good, let's put that on a CD and make some money.
If you wrote that song or tune, or it's your unique interpretation and performance that makes an existing tune sound good enough to sell, wouldn't you want a fair share of that money? Without your creativity (the result of years of hard work, most likely) the CD company wouldn't have that song/tune to put on one of their CDs.
If, on the other hand, that song/tune was released on several small-time recordings without crediting you as the writer (or arranger), you might have to hire an expensive lawyer and fight for the money from that big CD company.
It's true that only a few songs/tunes ever get that popular, but no one can predict which ones--so to be fair, you have to treat them all the same way, just in case. Credit the writer/arranger/performer, even if it costs you a few pennies per copy.
"But where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"?"
'Too much money' is if your product or tune falls into some financial arrangement where thousands and thousands start flowing in. This wouldn't happen in the usual course of things for most trad artists, but might if the thing is used in a major film, advertising campaign or some such thing. Very few trad artists land lucrative recording deals with major labels, and the odds that something you did winds up on a major TV ad are pretty slim. You'll know if that happens and then it would be worth your while to pursue getting compensated. Otherwise... there's no bother and you should just be happy your music is being shared and appreciated.
Just to clarify a point: if you take a well known tune and change a bit of it, you can't claim copyright, because it would be a work based largely on something else. If the original is recognisable in your supposedly new version ("recognisable" is open to interpretation, I know) then it's a derivative work.
This was tested in court where a photographer took a photo that was similar to a published photo and the copyright owner of that original work sued - successfully. Be warned!!
I can see where most of ye are coming from and I see that there is a valid reason from many peoples perspective that the artist/ musician should be able to get some return from their creation.
At the risk of repeating myself, I thinks its grand that people can make a living from this music by playing gigs, selling CD's, doing lectures, teaching, selling tee shirts .. whatever. But I also perceive that an important part of the tradition is as many have said above .. is the camardie of playing tunes, sharing tunes, modifying tunes but keeping the music in the public domain.
It's not that I think that performers/ composers are minting it at present. Far from it, I would have thought. But it is a big change and a rapidly encroaching change. These things have a habit of becoming de facto before anyone realises it. And can be used by ruthless people against the common good. So, the way is see it is to argue that it should be headed off insofar as possible .. that the music should be kept public domain.
Sure, Carolan by all accounts had patrons and wrote pieces of music in their honour. But he was and is somewhat untypical of ITM in general, I would have thought. The style of jigs and reels etc. that we play now were the music of the ordinary folk, anonymous people who played and passed it on.
Well, that is a dilemma. I just listened to a 2 min sample of a tune by a well-known fiddler posted by the author on CDBaby. So I never bought the CD, but just listened to the free sample. After playing it over many times I got the tune in my head and wrote out a transcription (not too hard to do, anyone else with any ability could do the same). On another web site (similar to this) someone else asked for the tune, so I posted the abc file.
So maybe that violates copyright. On the other hand, transcribing it for my own use is perfectly legal under copyright law, as would be sharing it with a student or two. I certainly am not making any money off of this. If, however, someone sees this and uses it to produce thousands of CDs or publish a tune book for profit, then it is their obligation under copyright law to pay royalties. So what is legal and what is ethical? There's certainly a grey area here.
On the other hand, I produced a CD last year (500 copies) which had several copyrighted songs on it. I contacted each copyright holder and got permission from all but one to use their song for free. And I paid a copyright fee of $42.50 (500 x $0.085) for one. I had no problem with that since he was a professional musician and probably needed the money. I'm certainly not making any money on this CD - if I break even, that's all I desire.
Although I tend to agree with the wounded hussar's sentiments on this, I'm not so sure that it really is a looming problem. Yes, some people associated with the tradition are laying claim to their tunes, and some bands (notably Altan) have been coaxed by their labels to copyright arrangements of public domain tunes. The latter is particularly regrettable, but predictable, once corporate attorneys enter the fray.
Still, I suspect that the great majority of people playing this music, for love or money or both, are actively sharing tunes, their own and others', willy nilly. Many new tunes are entering the trad repertoire without legal papers attached. Yes, we tend to acknowledge the composers by name, but I'll bet the same was true for contemporaneous tunes back in the day. Eventually the composer's name (and often the tune name itself) gets rubbed off by the folk process, so in 50 years people will be playing 100s of annonymously written "traditional" tunes that we think of as "new" and "original compositions" credited to specific people.
Case in point, a strathspey I penned that later showed up in the tunes here as a gan ainm, in a different key (check out the comments for the story: http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/2042). It turned up on the other side of the Atlantic. I've heard that Hammy Hamilton has been tickled more than once to walk into a session and hear the Kerfunteun Jig, often in a different key than he originally intended. I've run into many players who don't have a name for that tune, or any idea who composed it.
In short, as long as "the people" continue to make and play tunes, there will be an unfettered source of "the people's music." I'd wager that more people set their tunes free than not, and that this trend will outlast the copyright fad.
Stewart, I reckon that so long as you credit the composer of the tune you notated, and that's in the records of where you posted it, then no-one can say they don't know where it comes from, and if they decide to record it themselves then they can also give credit where credit is due ( as the saying goes ).
Just as a reminder, folks, if you are ever given a form to fill in after a gig, re the material you have played, don't forget to fill it in correctly, the more livivng composers in the tradition are credited the larger the share they'll get out of the big pot of performing rights revenues. Otherwise it goes to people like Paul McCartney, George Michael, Michael Jackson, and Elton John. True !
The problem with the line of reasoning which claims that the music is of the people and ought to remain free is that the world has changed dramatically in the last 100 --- or even 50 --- years. Back in the day, there were very few effective means for a piece of music to be widely distributed and become well-known. But now several such means exist and are commonly available in every household: radio, TV, internet, recordings.
Along with that change came the spread in the music world of the sort of piracy and abuse with which authors have so long been plagued. If you wonder why Americans are so edgy about copyrights, look into the history of popular recorded music in America prior to modern copyright law --- especially the history of jazz, rhythm & blues, Motown, and other "race music" (as it used to be called, when the composer and/or performers were black). Lots of songwriters and performers got screwed, blued, and tattooed when it came to being paid for their work. The record companies, on the other hand, made a mint. Remember all the passionate anger directed toward Green Linnet on this board when they refused to pay royalties on their unauthorized reuses of recordings by their artists? Well, that was a parallel situation; but in the GL case basic copyright law helped give those artists some recourse.
With some exceptions, it's not Joe or Josephine Composer who is behaving abusively with his or her copyrights. It's the big corporations. Yes, abuse does occur, some of it quite gratuitous; Trevor gave a good example with the rescension of public domain. (Although that was primarily driven by corporations too.) But in a world where corporations can and will patent or copyright anything they think they can make a dime by controlling, then creative artists need to have means to protect ourselves against abuse and predation. Because it will happen; it does happen.
Most individual composers seem to agree with the idea that if someone likes their music enough to record or perform it, then wonderful --- go for it. It's not individual greed here. It's the mindset that caused one corporation to arrange to analyze and patent the DNA sequences of hospital patients in California, without their knowledge or permission. And that sort of cr*p only the law can prevent.
Good points, but there's a growing clump of folks (shareware communal-property types) who would argue that abolishing intellectual property rights is the best or perhaps only way to block corporate ownership of anything (including DNA) that can or can't be nailed to the floor. They believe that knowledge would advance more effectively and efficiently if ideas could not be owned and we all had free access to ideas and knowledge without fear of trespassing.
Seems like wishful thinking to me, but I'd hate to see a small thing like feasibility get in the way of a better way of life....
As far as the issue at hand goes I’m with Gary in so far as each creator should be allowed to do with their creation as they see fit. Any decision reached in this regard in my mind is valid.
I have composed a few tunes and have simply put them out there. To my way of thinking the inspiration for these tunes was given to me. It was not something I had control over or even a say in, therefore I could never claim ownership. I also do not expect that any of the tunes I have composed will gain broad popularity so I suppose I am safe in feeling the way I do. But truth be told if any of them were to I would still feel the same even if that popularity put monies in greedy corporate pockets. I do have available on the Internet a song I wrote and I claim copyrights to that song. The only reason I’ve done this is because the song is about a specific person and of the kind that could very well be taken up by a foundation, not that it will be or even that this possibility had anything to do with my reasons for it’s writing
By claiming copyrights I feel I have some control over its use but frankly I do not have sufficient assets to defend or even assert my rights in court if need be. This is where I find the rub in the whole copyright debate. If you are not prepared to defend your copyright (reads have sufficient assets and prepared to tender them in the defense) a copyright may turn out to be nothing more that your own perception of ownership. At least over here in the States the courts seem not to decide upon any commonly held ethic but more so on the interpretation of the words used in the statute.
When faced with the decision to seek trade mark protection for another business I was professionally informed that unless I was prepared to defend my trade mark vigorously in all cases of infringement, perceived or otherwise, it may be a waste of time and money. Reason being is that if the entity being pursued for the infringement can demonstrate that infringement pursuit is not evenly applied any pursuit may be rendered ineffective. In other words if one does not pursue any and all infringements one may actually give up the protection offered by the trade mark statutes. It seems to me that this somewhat perverted philosophy may also be applied to copyrights.
That’s my two cents, that I'm told actually cost U.S. taxpayers five cents to produce. I guess that’s the adage “I lose a little on each piece but I make it up on volume” taken to the extreme.
You are quite possibly correct, Whoosis, when you say there is no immediate threat. But these things do have a habit of creeping in and before you know the scenery has changed. As long as ITM remains a fairly obscure minority interest, it's probably safe enough but you never know - sometimes minorities slip below the radar and sometimes they get a rough deal.
Thinking about the session I play in and yous might be more knowledgeable on tune sources than I but I would guesstimate that between 1/4 and 1/3 of the tunes played might be attributable to a given person. Casting my mind back a few days we certainly played tunes by Junior Crehan, Paddy O'Brien and others closely associated with people - Cooley, Tonra , Tom Ward etc. Of course copyright is not an issue with these but fast forward a few years to a new generation tunes and it is not unlikely that tunes with rights attached are being played. What happens when IMRO or whoever goes up to the owners of the establishment where you play and demands fees for the playing of this material?
Is there a shortage of public domain tunes? If the wounded hussar's scenario were to develop, what's to stop those who dislike it from writing new tunes and choosing NOT to register them with IMRO or similar organizations?
I can't imagine the copywrite police being able to monitor what copy-written tunes are played in any given session unless the session is either televised or released on a recording. The only time any concern over copy-written tunes comes up is when they’re recorded or otherwise published. Even then it’s up to each composer as to whether they feel that any compensation is in order. 99% of the time the person that records the tune is barely breaking even or struggling to support their own musical effort, and few, (if any,) tune composers are ever worried.
Here in the States, it's not the copyright police--it's spies for ASCAP, etc. They go to the establishment that is hosting your session and "encourage" them to buy a license to provide music for their customers. I know of one session leader who tried to limit their playlist to public-domain tunes only, to spare the session's hosts the expense. I don't know how that worked out. Another place with the same problem found a loophole for "private functions"--if it's just invited guests, not for the general public, apparently that's different.
But the usual "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer applies to all of the above info.
I seriously doubt there are ASCAP spies that would have the slightest clue about ITM tunes and composers at all let alone enough to recognize and document when they're being played at any given session.
The ASCAP spies don't need to know anything about ITM. For them, any music in a retail business equals a revenue opportunity. I know of two businesses in my area--a family restaurant and a small coffee shop--that had to deal with it because they hosted an informal session.
Live music, or more than one speaker audible to the customers--or something like that, like I said I don't know the details--and their reps start harrassing the owner. This is one reason that many places use recorded music from a service like Muzak--to avoid the hassle.
I've encountered that argument, and I think that it does have some merit in terms of intellectual advances. The problem is that it all too often gets taken to its farthest logical extreme, which denies to such an "intellectual" creation the same degree of merit and validity that is applied to arts like painting, sculpture, or jewelry-making. The next step of the argument is to state that someone who brings into existence a poem, song, tune, essay, book, or other "non-concrete" "intellectual" work should not have the RIGHT to receive any form of money for it. This claim is then applied as a bludgeon to anyone who believes that the time and effort expended by the creator deserves recompense.
Incidentally, I'm putting the word intellectual in quotes simply because it tends to be the term around which the debate hinges, at least in the circles where I've encountered it. The argument is that any creation based on ideas --- this claim is chiefly applied to music and writing, but sometimes also to photography --- isn't "real" the way a painting or stained glass window are "real" and that therefore they should not have any monetary price attached. The biases inherent in this stance go straight to the root of the modern attitude that the work of the mind is unimportant and involves nothing of tangible value.
I like the idea advanced above by Ed that it should be up to the creator of something to decide what he or she is going to do with it. It really isn't anyone else's business. But then I also believe that copyright should be a sole prerogative of the individual creator, and that only specific rights of performance or publication should be salable or otherwise assignable to a commercial entity --- which would allow individuals to both protect themselves from abuse and be generous with their creations.
And, to be fair to the other side of the question, if I ruled the world any copyrighted item would enter public domain not more than 75 years after its creation regardless of the desires of the creators' heirs to keep it under their control. Because I do think that the public has some rights too. As an example, I believe the current holders of the copyright of "Happy Birthday" are wrong to demand money for every public performance of it. It was written many years ago, and its writer is long dead. Let the people have it, for pete's sake.
Happy birthday to Pete. Happy birthday to Pete. Happy birthday, dear Petey, happy birthday to you....
Yeah, I'm a bit on the fence with copyright and intellectual property and serving the public good by easing access to ideas and information. As an author, I appreciate the royalty checks I get each month. As a channel for the occasional tune, I'm more than happy to cast them off and see where they sail. But to each their own--I'm glad some people share their work freely, and I don't begrudge anyone for copyrighting their work.
I played a monthly gig in a cafe where the owner refused to pay the ASCAP fee. Our agreement was that all of our tunes were public domain. The ASCAP rep came to the next gig we did and went away satisfied. Little did he know that half the tunes we played were by living composers. He had no way of distinguishing between them, and no way of learning how to. The only way it would be possible is if ASCAP hired someone like Dow or Ceolachan to do the spying.
well, none of us are trying to tell copyright holders what they might do. we are just expressing our opinions on the issue, and we have every right to do so.
somewhere i read an interview with martin hayes saying that it is ridiculous to fight over ownership of this music, that it is a human treasure that belongs to everyone and has no ownership. and i agree with him (though, if the big-movie scenario were to arise, i would of course favor the composer getting the dough-re-mi).
but having said that, i believe the itm wrangling over copyright (and there is unbelievable ugliness over it, even, or maybe especially, in the old-line "pure drop" community) may be a product of what i think of as "fighting over crumbs" syndrome. i have worked some in the past on behalf of people in ethnic or cultural groups that have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. sometimes these folks are tragically prone to self-destructive, wasteful infighting over grant windfalls, scarce revenues, court judgment awards, as well as over any scant glory to be had for their cultural product. it is the "universe of scarcity" versus "universe of abundance" problem. people were starving in ireland a very short time ago, and that was worst out in the rural strongholds of the music. and as we in america ought to know from our own experience with rags-to-riches syndrome, have-nots do not always handle the transition to "have" status gracefully or prettily. throw in the fact that there are indeed instances where geniuses of folk art have been blatantly ripped off, or have starved while appropriators have profited on their creativity (i'm thinking of the rural blues innovators in particular), and you have an issue of many facets.....
And so it may or may not come to pass. These days all your need is your ASCAP or IMRO rep., to sit in on your session for a hour or so with one of these little small mp3 recorders. Bring it back to the office and employ someone who knows their stuff to have a listen.
Someone mentioned Liz Carroll above - not sure if she has claimed copyright on her tunes but assuming she does, not much point in getting out your mobile or cell phone in your session, phoning her up and saying "Hi Liz, there's some bod here says we shouldn't be playing your music without paying" Doesn't work like that, I don't think. These agencies are there to collect the dues from the owner of the establishment and it doesn't matter a hoot what Liz says, once she's signed up.
Of course, this is all kinda ridiculous ... but the principle isn't. Traditional music should be left copyright free.
Now there's a can of worms! Who gets to define "traditional"? Does the composer have any say in the matter? Suppose Disney were to make a movie and wanted some music for it that sounded like Irish traditional music, but rather than license a track from someone in that community, hired some professional composer of movie music to write something in that idiom. The composer, let's say, never for a moment thought of him/herself as writing Irish traditional music. But the movie comes out, traditional musicians see it, love the tune, and start playing it in sessions. Should the composer lose all rights to the composition because a certain group of people liked it? What if lots of rock musicians see it, love the tune, start playing it in huge concerts, and recording it on big-selling albums? Is that different because they don't call themselves "traditional" musicians? Or, worse, that WE don't call them "traditional" musicians?
Actually, in regards to ASCAP and BMI, a few years ago they were harassing small venues (I think the fuss has died down in the past three or four years, or at least become more isolated). One "solution" that venues were using, I think with the approval of those organizations, was to keep logs of what got played and ask performers to sign a document saying that what they played was either: public domain, music for which they owned the copyright, or music where they had the permission of the copyright holder to perform it royalty-free. I think this means (and you'd have to check it) that when a composer registers a composition with a PRO (ASCAP, BMI, IMRO, etc), they retain the right to exempt performers or venues from having to pay royalties on an individual basis.
You're dead right Gary. I give up! - what a hopeless argument, I advance. Might as well swim with the tide - who cares if it all gets washed away as long as business prospers. Let's just go on playing a few tunes and to hell with it. Kinda sounds like The Titanic!!
The Music of the People
The Music of the People
There have been several threads recently on copyright and I can rarely withold myself from rising to the bait. It is a critical issue in my view as the growth in obsession with copyright threatens the very basis of the music we enjoy playing.
The way I look at it.... this is a website for Irish Traditional Music. There are 1000's of tunes in the ITM idiom, some old and some more recent that are just that .. 'traditional'. I believe that this is one of it's great attractions - it is a music of the people, the ordinary people who toil and labour in this world and enjoy playing a few tunes for relaxation and fun. You and me. Me and you.
That is the way it has always largely been, that is where this folk music came from. That is why it exists. And that's the way I personally believe it should be kept!
I have no problem with a composer wishing to be acknowledged as many are in the titles of tunes etc., credited on recordings etc., if that is what they want. But why would you want this? If you write a tune in this tradition, why would you not just be happy to hear it spread if it's a good tune. Spread like the runners of a raspberry cane out into the next parish, next county, next country. Is that not enough? It has been good enough for the thousands of ordinary musicians over the last few centuries that have carried the music along. Why should it not be good enough for us?
The only valid answer I can see to that is that people wish to use this music as a vehicle to make money. They could make money by just playing the music in concerts, by teaching etc., but they also have a eye to this modern disease of intellectual property rights. Just because Warner Bros. etc. copyright the name Harry Potter, copyright every little silly ditty they use, then people think if it's OK for them that's what we should do too.
Well, I don't agree and even though I'm just an ordinary Sean citizen .. I think it's important to say so. Hands off the People's Music.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
I agree entirely
However, as Liz Carrol once said, there is no problem people playing her tunes and even recording them within this idium. She won't go chasing up some teenage wannabes who make a CD and manage to sell a couple of thousand copies while on a gruiling tour. But if WarnerBrothers decided to use a tune in a blockbuster film, that's a different kettle of fish.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by ...
Re: The Music of the People
Hmm! I could see an argument that says .. let Warner Bros. take the tune and use it, with a credit. The result being thousands if not millions of people being exposed to this type of music. If that's what we wanted.
I'm always amused when a certain periodical that is published in the USA arrives in our house. The mag. promotes breastfeeding, a very laudable and important tradition too. However the articles and pics. are covered with copyright and trademark symbols. Now one would think the objective of this largely voluntary organistion is to promote breastfeeding and that therefore they would be delighted to have other periodicals use their material freely, thus spreading the word. But no, the American obsession with copyright takes over.. I've even seen this sort of thing creeping into parish newsletters and the like here.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
Just because a picture carries a copyright does not mean that the publishers paid for it. It could well be that the owners of the pic supplied it free to the mag, but the symbol is important to stop someone else lifting it and using it commercially.
It's basic capitalist economics. Either that or "property is theft". you choose
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by ...
Re: The Music of the People
"However, as Liz Carrol once said..."
Liz told me the same when we recorded one of her tunes, and I would feel the same if someone recorded one of mine. The only time I'd be concerned is if someone was somehow pulling down the big bucks using a tune I wrote. Otherwise it's just flattering that anyone would even want to play it at all.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: The Music of the People
I'd like to know what the Site's / Jeremy's position is on submitting tunes with known living composers, or tune parts written / re-composed by same. (I have few albums now so can't see if some tunes I'm thinking of were copyrighted on some '70's - 80's albums or not.)
It must be a hassle for bands / recording artists to have to track down some music company (that might have folded anyway) in order to pay the going rate for, say, a reel composed in the '70's, chargeable I suppose on the manufacture or sale of albums that feature it. Tedious and fiddly and one would like to live without it. But one could say the same about Income Tax, and simultaneously admit that its existence, at any rate, is fair.
I'd be interested to read the views and experiences of any composers out there who've copyrighted their tunes, especially regarding how important copyright from tunes has been to them financially .
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by nicholas
Re: The Music of the People
This is an area I've also always felt uncomfortable with - unlike commercial music such as rock and pop, trad is a music of the people and it would be incongruous if everytime we played a tune we have to worry that someone might be chasing us up for payment because it was recently composed. If a composer adopts this attitude then I don't really believe his/her music has a place in the traditional idiom and I for one would prefer not to play it. My own view is that Irish music is more than just notes and embodies the generosity and camaraderie of those who down the years contributed so unselfishly to this wonderful traditional treasure chest that we can all dip into, share and enjoy.
However, I also agree very strongly that those using the tradition for commercial purposes and making "big bucks" out of it (film companies, TV, etc) are a different kettle of fish and should pay for the privilege.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Bannerman
Re: The Music of the People
Traditional music (at least the bits I know, in the UK , Ireland and the USA) is peoples music, in that amateurs of whatever level can and do particpate and get a lot out of it - and give a lot back. However it also supports full-time professional musicians who are trying to make a living. Part of this is getting royalties for their tunes. You wouldn't expect to go into the local greengrocer and take a pound of carrots without paying for them on the grounds that you grow vegetables too! A lot of professionalsdo take the attitude that anyone can play the tunes, but if someone is going to make money out of their work, they should be paid something too. If the various traditional music scenes want professional players, they have to make it possible for people to be professional players, which includes paying royalties for using the music when it is making money, and not making bootleg copies of people's cd's for all your friends!
c.g. (not a professional at all though I once got a fiver for playing in a session)
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by c.g.
Re: The Music of the People
Yep! I'm all for buying CD's, tickets for concerts etc., no problem whatsoever. But I personally draw the line when same professionals or wannabe professionals write a 'new' tune by modifying a few phrases of an existing 16 bar jig or reel or whatever and then claim ownership of their 'new' creation.
By all means let anyone be credited with coming up with this new arrangement but legally copyrighting and claiming intellectual ownership is completely against the spirit of the body from whence they came.
I'm sure most people don't think like that - they just do it because everyone says it's a good idea and you should protect yourself against getting ripped off blah blah!
Just doing something because everyone else does it, is the 'flock' mentality. I'm simply saying that it would be better in my very humble opinion if people opened their eyes instead of their wallets and consciously chose not to claim copyright in the case of folk music and this music in particular.
After all, same professionals draw very heavily on the existing stock of ITM which is described as 'Traditional' and understood to be in the public domain.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
Sounds like most people want to allow music to be freely shared as long as nobody makes too much money from it (other than the composer). But where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"?
One thing you could do is license the music under a creative commons type license (http://creativecommons.org/), restricting commercial use but encouraging non-commercial sharing.
I think that really the problem lies with copyright expiry (please forgive me if I am preaching to the choir). The idea was originally that the originator of a work held all the rights to that work for a while, and then the rights went into the public domain. This is why we can perform classical, trad, etc, music without paying royalties.
The problem is that every now and then copyright terms get extended (largely, so the theory goes, so that the early Disney films never become PD -- ironic seeing as Disney made so much money out of interpreting recently PD'ed works), so that now the copyright on a literary work, or written music, lasts for 70 years after the death of the creator in the UK and elsewhere (http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/faq/copyright/how_long.htm).
If this term was shorter, then a tune I wrote would eventually enter the public domain, and thus be free for use, but I could profit from it during my life. As it stands, however, with the term being regularly extended, my tune might always be owned by someone who could claim royalties. And so the tradition stagnates until someone changes the rules.
Sorry to go on a bit, but this is a bit of a personal bugbear/hobby horse.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by robharper
Re: The Music of the People
This summer Tony Blair went to stay at Cliff Richard's fancy holiday home for free. Then, low and behold, the labour government anounce they want to extend recording copyright.
But I agree, the problem is: where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"? I think that's just up to the individual. A freind of mine and excellent tune writer had a tune sampled by a pop star and released. Was he right to take it to court? I'd say yes.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by ...
Re: The Music of the People
As a professional artist and performer, I feel pretty stongly about this subject. On one hand, regarding tunes, I can understand the thought process behind the wounded hussar's point. Tunes, by their nature and history, are meant to be shared. I am sure that you would have no argument that if one person writes an actual song, with lyrics and music, that they deserve to claim their copyright protection, correct? It is essentially a difference of classification, and unfortunately, it fails on too many levels.
A tune is no different than a song when it comes to claiming intellectual property rights, just like a poem is no different than a novel. If I want to record a version of someone else's work, be it a snippet of a tune, or a cover of a song, I am required, by law, to pay the royalties to the appropriate agent. If anyone is going to use my own compositions in a commercial work, then I would expect the same from them. The clubs I perform in, even the bars and pubs that host traditional sessions, all pay royalty fees to allow the performance of copyrighted materials, at least in the States.
This is not about money grubbing (last I checked, royalties cost $0.08 per copy of a copyrighted song, and not much of that actually goes to the artist), but those of us who are professional are in this business to be paid. I support my family with my music, and I feel lucky to be able to do so. That said, the composer of any work is free to do as they wish. I have written some tunes, and I plan to share them, only because I do not make my living playing tunes. If I did, it might be a different story.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by IrishJim
Re: The Music of the People
'Modifying a few bars' of an existing tune and then claiming copyright is not the same as writing a new tune in the appropriate traditional style. There are indeed people who have got copyright on tunes they have no right to. However, if an artist has written an original tune, and someone is making money out of it, then the artist who created the original is entitled to a royalty. If people don't want to pay royalties, then there is plenty of out-of-copyright music they can record. Everyone needs to be paid for their work, it's how they earn the money to live.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by c.g.
Re: The Music of the People
I'm sorry - there's some precedent in the almighty 'tradition' for being compensated for compositions. Didn't Turlough O'Carolan compose tunes in return for room and board from his patrons/patronesses?
Checking my history it seems to be me that the benevolent practice of releasing fresh compositions into the world for the sole purpose of sharing the joy is actually a recent development.
Now, I understand that we yanks have a long-standing history of being money-grubbing evil imperalist pigs, relentlessly trying to force our evil pig practices on the rest of the world. But as much as I'm sure that we would like to copyright/patent the art of copyrighting and patenting (and by inference, charge a handsome sum for the right to practice the practice of such), copyright law was not invented/conjured in the US, and predates the earliest colonial settlement by a few hundred years. I'm ignorant (of course by definition as a US citizen) of whether there were such practices existed in ancient mid-East and Asian civilizations, but I am aware that this was common practice in 14th/15th century Europe.
I would like to request that the implication of modern US global economic policy in the piggifying of traditional irish music be stricken from this discussion.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by _Steph_
Re: The Music of the People
The last sentence isn't quite right, c.g. Everyone has the right to be paid for their work if they so choose; it may be how they earn the money to live. They also have the right to do volunteer work. The point is that none of us can tell the copyright holder what they must do. They hold the legal right to control distribution of copies of their work.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: The Music of the People
Back in the "good old days" of the pre-copyright baroque era the likes of Bach, Handel, Vivaldi and so on happily "borrowed" each other's music (not just the odd bar or two, but whole movements), and would write their own versions or arrangements and get paid for it.
In those days, and up to today of course, the only way musicians could earn a full-time living doing music was by some combination of performing, teaching, and composing to order. If you were lucky and a good musician, you could get a job for life working for some duke or church dignitary, as Haydn did.
Now we have music copyright (70 years post mortem at the last count, and 90 is probably not far away), so if you're lucky and get a couple of standard albums up and going, or the theme music for a long-running TV soap, then you could be set up for life, and your immediate descendants for the next generation or so. I feel there's something fundamentally wrong somewhere, and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: The Music of the People
Good on ya wounded hussar! I also hold the unpopular opinion that copyrighting traditional tunes is antithetical to the tradition.
Because music is ephemeral by nature, as an art form it vanishes the second you stop playing or the recording stops, people had to find a way to continue to charge for it; to freeze the music in time. Hence ownership of the abstract "right" to reproduce music. When does it stop? when you need a copyright to speak certain words?
People should be paid for performance. People should be paid for recordings of themselves. Paid for someone performing their tunes? They should be acknowledged and honored.
Unpopular, I know.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by ottoschmelk
Re: The Music of the People
It occurs to me that the one tune that is most played throughout the world is "Happy Birthday" - scarcely a week goes by without someone in the pub celebrating their birthday, and so the session immediately plays it (in G). I believe it is still in copyright, and that attempts are made on occasion to enforce the copyright.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Trevor Jennings
Re: The Music of the People
It would be nice if justice always prevailed in our world, but....
Put it this way: Let's say I have a company that publishes music CDs for profit. Hmmm... now, what should I put on those CDs? Hey, here's a song/tune that sounds pretty good, let's put that on a CD and make some money.
If you wrote that song or tune, or it's your unique interpretation and performance that makes an existing tune sound good enough to sell, wouldn't you want a fair share of that money? Without your creativity (the result of years of hard work, most likely) the CD company wouldn't have that song/tune to put on one of their CDs.
If, on the other hand, that song/tune was released on several small-time recordings without crediting you as the writer (or arranger), you might have to hire an expensive lawyer and fight for the money from that big CD company.
It's true that only a few songs/tunes ever get that popular, but no one can predict which ones--so to be fair, you have to treat them all the same way, just in case. Credit the writer/arranger/performer, even if it costs you a few pennies per copy.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by John Galt
Re: The Music of the People
"But where do we draw the line? What is "too much money"?"
'Too much money' is if your product or tune falls into some financial arrangement where thousands and thousands start flowing in. This wouldn't happen in the usual course of things for most trad artists, but might if the thing is used in a major film, advertising campaign or some such thing. Very few trad artists land lucrative recording deals with major labels, and the odds that something you did winds up on a major TV ad are pretty slim. You'll know if that happens and then it would be worth your while to pursue getting compensated. Otherwise... there's no bother and you should just be happy your music is being shared and appreciated.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: The Music of the People
Just to clarify a point: if you take a well known tune and change a bit of it, you can't claim copyright, because it would be a work based largely on something else. If the original is recognisable in your supposedly new version ("recognisable" is open to interpretation, I know) then it's a derivative work.
This was tested in court where a photographer took a photo that was similar to a published photo and the copyright owner of that original work sued - successfully. Be warned!!
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Mark Harmer
Re: The Music of the People
I can see where most of ye are coming from and I see that there is a valid reason from many peoples perspective that the artist/ musician should be able to get some return from their creation.
At the risk of repeating myself, I thinks its grand that people can make a living from this music by playing gigs, selling CD's, doing lectures, teaching, selling tee shirts .. whatever. But I also perceive that an important part of the tradition is as many have said above .. is the camardie of playing tunes, sharing tunes, modifying tunes but keeping the music in the public domain.
It's not that I think that performers/ composers are minting it at present. Far from it, I would have thought. But it is a big change and a rapidly encroaching change. These things have a habit of becoming de facto before anyone realises it. And can be used by ruthless people against the common good. So, the way is see it is to argue that it should be headed off insofar as possible .. that the music should be kept public domain.
Sure, Carolan by all accounts had patrons and wrote pieces of music in their honour. But he was and is somewhat untypical of ITM in general, I would have thought. The style of jigs and reels etc. that we play now were the music of the ordinary folk, anonymous people who played and passed it on.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
Well, that is a dilemma. I just listened to a 2 min sample of a tune by a well-known fiddler posted by the author on CDBaby. So I never bought the CD, but just listened to the free sample. After playing it over many times I got the tune in my head and wrote out a transcription (not too hard to do, anyone else with any ability could do the same). On another web site (similar to this) someone else asked for the tune, so I posted the abc file.
So maybe that violates copyright. On the other hand, transcribing it for my own use is perfectly legal under copyright law, as would be sharing it with a student or two. I certainly am not making any money off of this. If, however, someone sees this and uses it to produce thousands of CDs or publish a tune book for profit, then it is their obligation under copyright law to pay royalties. So what is legal and what is ethical? There's certainly a grey area here.
On the other hand, I produced a CD last year (500 copies) which had several copyrighted songs on it. I contacted each copyright holder and got permission from all but one to use their song for free. And I paid a copyright fee of $42.50 (500 x $0.085) for one. I had no problem with that since he was a professional musician and probably needed the money. I'm certainly not making any money on this CD - if I break even, that's all I desire.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Stewart
Re: The Music of the People
Although I tend to agree with the wounded hussar's sentiments on this, I'm not so sure that it really is a looming problem. Yes, some people associated with the tradition are laying claim to their tunes, and some bands (notably Altan) have been coaxed by their labels to copyright arrangements of public domain tunes. The latter is particularly regrettable, but predictable, once corporate attorneys enter the fray.
Still, I suspect that the great majority of people playing this music, for love or money or both, are actively sharing tunes, their own and others', willy nilly. Many new tunes are entering the trad repertoire without legal papers attached. Yes, we tend to acknowledge the composers by name, but I'll bet the same was true for contemporaneous tunes back in the day. Eventually the composer's name (and often the tune name itself) gets rubbed off by the folk process, so in 50 years people will be playing 100s of annonymously written "traditional" tunes that we think of as "new" and "original compositions" credited to specific people.
Case in point, a strathspey I penned that later showed up in the tunes here as a gan ainm, in a different key (check out the comments for the story: http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/2042). It turned up on the other side of the Atlantic. I've heard that Hammy Hamilton has been tickled more than once to walk into a session and hear the Kerfunteun Jig, often in a different key than he originally intended. I've run into many players who don't have a name for that tune, or any idea who composed it.
In short, as long as "the people" continue to make and play tunes, there will be an unfettered source of "the people's music." I'd wager that more people set their tunes free than not, and that this trend will outlast the copyright fad.
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: The Music of the People
Stewart, I reckon that so long as you credit the composer of the tune you notated, and that's in the records of where you posted it, then no-one can say they don't know where it comes from, and if they decide to record it themselves then they can also give credit where credit is due ( as the saying goes ).
Just as a reminder, folks, if you are ever given a form to fill in after a gig, re the material you have played, don't forget to fill it in correctly, the more livivng composers in the tradition are credited the larger the share they'll get out of the big pot of performing rights revenues. Otherwise it goes to people like Paul McCartney, George Michael, Michael Jackson, and Elton John. True !
# Posted on September 15th 2006 by Guernsey Pete
Re: The Music of the People
The problem with the line of reasoning which claims that the music is of the people and ought to remain free is that the world has changed dramatically in the last 100 --- or even 50 --- years. Back in the day, there were very few effective means for a piece of music to be widely distributed and become well-known. But now several such means exist and are commonly available in every household: radio, TV, internet, recordings.
Along with that change came the spread in the music world of the sort of piracy and abuse with which authors have so long been plagued. If you wonder why Americans are so edgy about copyrights, look into the history of popular recorded music in America prior to modern copyright law --- especially the history of jazz, rhythm & blues, Motown, and other "race music" (as it used to be called, when the composer and/or performers were black). Lots of songwriters and performers got screwed, blued, and tattooed when it came to being paid for their work. The record companies, on the other hand, made a mint. Remember all the passionate anger directed toward Green Linnet on this board when they refused to pay royalties on their unauthorized reuses of recordings by their artists? Well, that was a parallel situation; but in the GL case basic copyright law helped give those artists some recourse.
With some exceptions, it's not Joe or Josephine Composer who is behaving abusively with his or her copyrights. It's the big corporations. Yes, abuse does occur, some of it quite gratuitous; Trevor gave a good example with the rescension of public domain. (Although that was primarily driven by corporations too.) But in a world where corporations can and will patent or copyright anything they think they can make a dime by controlling, then creative artists need to have means to protect ourselves against abuse and predation. Because it will happen; it does happen.
Most individual composers seem to agree with the idea that if someone likes their music enough to record or perform it, then wonderful --- go for it. It's not individual greed here. It's the mindset that caused one corporation to arrange to analyze and patent the DNA sequences of hospital patients in California, without their knowledge or permission. And that sort of cr*p only the law can prevent.
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by sara g
Re: The Music of the People
Hi Sara!
Good points, but there's a growing clump of folks (shareware communal-property types) who would argue that abolishing intellectual property rights is the best or perhaps only way to block corporate ownership of anything (including DNA) that can or can't be nailed to the floor. They believe that knowledge would advance more effectively and efficiently if ideas could not be owned and we all had free access to ideas and knowledge without fear of trespassing.
Seems like wishful thinking to me, but I'd hate to see a small thing like feasibility get in the way of a better way of life....
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: The Music of the People
As far as the issue at hand goes I’m with Gary in so far as each creator should be allowed to do with their creation as they see fit. Any decision reached in this regard in my mind is valid.
I have composed a few tunes and have simply put them out there. To my way of thinking the inspiration for these tunes was given to me. It was not something I had control over or even a say in, therefore I could never claim ownership. I also do not expect that any of the tunes I have composed will gain broad popularity so I suppose I am safe in feeling the way I do. But truth be told if any of them were to I would still feel the same even if that popularity put monies in greedy corporate pockets. I do have available on the Internet a song I wrote and I claim copyrights to that song. The only reason I’ve done this is because the song is about a specific person and of the kind that could very well be taken up by a foundation, not that it will be or even that this possibility had anything to do with my reasons for it’s writing
By claiming copyrights I feel I have some control over its use but frankly I do not have sufficient assets to defend or even assert my rights in court if need be. This is where I find the rub in the whole copyright debate. If you are not prepared to defend your copyright (reads have sufficient assets and prepared to tender them in the defense) a copyright may turn out to be nothing more that your own perception of ownership. At least over here in the States the courts seem not to decide upon any commonly held ethic but more so on the interpretation of the words used in the statute.
When faced with the decision to seek trade mark protection for another business I was professionally informed that unless I was prepared to defend my trade mark vigorously in all cases of infringement, perceived or otherwise, it may be a waste of time and money. Reason being is that if the entity being pursued for the infringement can demonstrate that infringement pursuit is not evenly applied any pursuit may be rendered ineffective. In other words if one does not pursue any and all infringements one may actually give up the protection offered by the trade mark statutes. It seems to me that this somewhat perverted philosophy may also be applied to copyrights.
That’s my two cents, that I'm told actually cost U.S. taxpayers five cents to produce. I guess that’s the adage “I lose a little on each piece but I make it up on volume” taken to the extreme.
Peace,
Ed
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by ejsant
Re: The Music of the People
You are quite possibly correct, Whoosis, when you say there is no immediate threat. But these things do have a habit of creeping in and before you know the scenery has changed. As long as ITM remains a fairly obscure minority interest, it's probably safe enough but you never know - sometimes minorities slip below the radar and sometimes they get a rough deal.
Thinking about the session I play in and yous might be more knowledgeable on tune sources than I but I would guesstimate that between 1/4 and 1/3 of the tunes played might be attributable to a given person. Casting my mind back a few days we certainly played tunes by Junior Crehan, Paddy O'Brien and others closely associated with people - Cooley, Tonra , Tom Ward etc. Of course copyright is not an issue with these but fast forward a few years to a new generation tunes and it is not unlikely that tunes with rights attached are being played. What happens when IMRO or whoever goes up to the owners of the establishment where you play and demands fees for the playing of this material?
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
Is there a shortage of public domain tunes? If the wounded hussar's scenario were to develop, what's to stop those who dislike it from writing new tunes and choosing NOT to register them with IMRO or similar organizations?
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: The Music of the People
I can't imagine the copywrite police being able to monitor what copy-written tunes are played in any given session unless the session is either televised or released on a recording. The only time any concern over copy-written tunes comes up is when they’re recorded or otherwise published. Even then it’s up to each composer as to whether they feel that any compensation is in order. 99% of the time the person that records the tune is barely breaking even or struggling to support their own musical effort, and few, (if any,) tune composers are ever worried.
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: The Music of the People
Here in the States, it's not the copyright police--it's spies for ASCAP, etc. They go to the establishment that is hosting your session and "encourage" them to buy a license to provide music for their customers. I know of one session leader who tried to limit their playlist to public-domain tunes only, to spare the session's hosts the expense. I don't know how that worked out. Another place with the same problem found a loophole for "private functions"--if it's just invited guests, not for the general public, apparently that's different.
But the usual "I'm not a lawyer" disclaimer applies to all of the above info.
# Posted on September 16th 2006 by John Galt
Re: The Music of the People
I seriously doubt there are ASCAP spies that would have the slightest clue about ITM tunes and composers at all let alone enough to recognize and document when they're being played at any given session.
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: The Music of the People
The ASCAP spies don't need to know anything about ITM. For them, any music in a retail business equals a revenue opportunity. I know of two businesses in my area--a family restaurant and a small coffee shop--that had to deal with it because they hosted an informal session.
Live music, or more than one speaker audible to the customers--or something like that, like I said I don't know the details--and their reps start harrassing the owner. This is one reason that many places use recorded music from a service like Muzak--to avoid the hassle.
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by John Galt
Re: The Music of the People
Heya, Will. Niceta seeya.
any copyrighted item would enter public domain not more than 75 years after its creation regardless of the desires of the creators' heirs to keep it under their control. Because I do think that the public has some rights too. As an example, I believe the current holders of the copyright of "Happy Birthday" are wrong to demand money for every public performance of it. It was written many years ago, and its writer is long dead. Let the people have it, for pete's sake.
I've encountered that argument, and I think that it does have some merit in terms of intellectual advances. The problem is that it all too often gets taken to its farthest logical extreme, which denies to such an "intellectual" creation the same degree of merit and validity that is applied to arts like painting, sculpture, or jewelry-making. The next step of the argument is to state that someone who brings into existence a poem, song, tune, essay, book, or other "non-concrete" "intellectual" work should not have the RIGHT to receive any form of money for it. This claim is then applied as a bludgeon to anyone who believes that the time and effort expended by the creator deserves recompense.
Incidentally, I'm putting the word intellectual in quotes simply because it tends to be the term around which the debate hinges, at least in the circles where I've encountered it. The argument is that any creation based on ideas --- this claim is chiefly applied to music and writing, but sometimes also to photography --- isn't "real" the way a painting or stained glass window are "real" and that therefore they should not have any monetary price attached. The biases inherent in this stance go straight to the root of the modern attitude that the work of the mind is unimportant and involves nothing of tangible value.
I like the idea advanced above by Ed that it should be up to the creator of something to decide what he or she is going to do with it. It really isn't anyone else's business. But then I also believe that copyright should be a sole prerogative of the individual creator, and that only specific rights of performance or publication should be salable or otherwise assignable to a commercial entity --- which would allow individuals to both protect themselves from abuse and be generous with their creations.
And, to be fair to the other side of the question, if I ruled the world
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by sara g
Re: The Music of the People
Happy birthday to Pete. Happy birthday to Pete. Happy birthday, dear Petey, happy birthday to you....
Yeah, I'm a bit on the fence with copyright and intellectual property and serving the public good by easing access to ideas and information. As an author, I appreciate the royalty checks I get each month. As a channel for the occasional tune, I'm more than happy to cast them off and see where they sail. But to each their own--I'm glad some people share their work freely, and I don't begrudge anyone for copyrighting their work.
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by Will Harmon
Re: The Music of the People
I played a monthly gig in a cafe where the owner refused to pay the ASCAP fee. Our agreement was that all of our tunes were public domain. The ASCAP rep came to the next gig we did and went away satisfied. Little did he know that half the tunes we played were by living composers. He had no way of distinguishing between them, and no way of learning how to. The only way it would be possible is if ASCAP hired someone like Dow or Ceolachan to do the spying.
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by Phantom Button
Re: The Music of the People
well, none of us are trying to tell copyright holders what they might do. we are just expressing our opinions on the issue, and we have every right to do so.
somewhere i read an interview with martin hayes saying that it is ridiculous to fight over ownership of this music, that it is a human treasure that belongs to everyone and has no ownership. and i agree with him (though, if the big-movie scenario were to arise, i would of course favor the composer getting the dough-re-mi).
but having said that, i believe the itm wrangling over copyright (and there is unbelievable ugliness over it, even, or maybe especially, in the old-line "pure drop" community) may be a product of what i think of as "fighting over crumbs" syndrome. i have worked some in the past on behalf of people in ethnic or cultural groups that have historically been oppressed and disenfranchised. sometimes these folks are tragically prone to self-destructive, wasteful infighting over grant windfalls, scarce revenues, court judgment awards, as well as over any scant glory to be had for their cultural product. it is the "universe of scarcity" versus "universe of abundance" problem. people were starving in ireland a very short time ago, and that was worst out in the rural strongholds of the music. and as we in america ought to know from our own experience with rags-to-riches syndrome, have-nots do not always handle the transition to "have" status gracefully or prettily. throw in the fact that there are indeed instances where geniuses of folk art have been blatantly ripped off, or have starved while appropriators have profited on their creativity (i'm thinking of the rural blues innovators in particular), and you have an issue of many facets.....
# Posted on September 17th 2006 by ceemonster
Re: The Music of the People
And so it may or may not come to pass. These days all your need is your ASCAP or IMRO rep., to sit in on your session for a hour or so with one of these little small mp3 recorders. Bring it back to the office and employ someone who knows their stuff to have a listen.
Someone mentioned Liz Carroll above - not sure if she has claimed copyright on her tunes but assuming she does, not much point in getting out your mobile or cell phone in your session, phoning her up and saying "Hi Liz, there's some bod here says we shouldn't be playing your music without paying" Doesn't work like that, I don't think. These agencies are there to collect the dues from the owner of the establishment and it doesn't matter a hoot what Liz says, once she's signed up.
Of course, this is all kinda ridiculous ... but the principle isn't. Traditional music should be left copyright free.
# Posted on September 18th 2006 by the wounded hussar
Re: The Music of the People
Now there's a can of worms! Who gets to define "traditional"? Does the composer have any say in the matter? Suppose Disney were to make a movie and wanted some music for it that sounded like Irish traditional music, but rather than license a track from someone in that community, hired some professional composer of movie music to write something in that idiom. The composer, let's say, never for a moment thought of him/herself as writing Irish traditional music. But the movie comes out, traditional musicians see it, love the tune, and start playing it in sessions. Should the composer lose all rights to the composition because a certain group of people liked it? What if lots of rock musicians see it, love the tune, start playing it in huge concerts, and recording it on big-selling albums? Is that different because they don't call themselves "traditional" musicians? Or, worse, that WE don't call them "traditional" musicians?
Actually, in regards to ASCAP and BMI, a few years ago they were harassing small venues (I think the fuss has died down in the past three or four years, or at least become more isolated). One "solution" that venues were using, I think with the approval of those organizations, was to keep logs of what got played and ask performers to sign a document saying that what they played was either: public domain, music for which they owned the copyright, or music where they had the permission of the copyright holder to perform it royalty-free. I think this means (and you'd have to check it) that when a composer registers a composition with a PRO (ASCAP, BMI, IMRO, etc), they retain the right to exempt performers or venues from having to pay royalties on an individual basis.
# Posted on September 18th 2006 by GaryAMartin
Re: The Music of the People
You're dead right Gary. I give up! - what a hopeless argument, I advance. Might as well swim with the tide - who cares if it all gets washed away as long as business prospers. Let's just go on playing a few tunes and to hell with it. Kinda sounds like The Titanic!!
# Posted on September 18th 2006 by the wounded hussar