Slashdot Mirror
Domain: mpa.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to mpa.org.
Comments · 13
-
Re:How it's used?
I worked in the very fscked up industry?
Nope, the label owns only the musicians contract and terms and the recording itself (NOT the music) - they license the lyrics from a publisher. See ASCAP below.
You own the CD and can listen to it in private. If you broadcast or perform it publicly it in ANY way, you owe the lyricist money as per the licensing rules. This battle has been fought and lost multiple times in court (e.g. webcasting). Note that only the lyric writer is owed money - the musicians don't get a dime (that includes me for my recordings, thus my bitterness). Read up on the Harry Fox agency:
http://www.harryfox.com/index.jsp
The musicians contract with the record company for their services on the recording - that is independent of the lyrics. See the links below.
see Record Label here:
http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html
the MPA covers sheet music and compositions (NOT live performances)
http://mpa.org/copyright_resource_center/copying
Artists with songs that are deemed too similar can attempt to sue the infringing artist, but this is difficult to prove. There are some high profile wins, like Huey Lewis vs Ghostbusters and Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie/Queen (settled out of court), but it's very difficult to copyright a riff because of the limited "vocabulary" in music - How many variations of 12 notes and 4 beats per bar are there (the most common structure)? Even combined into chords you get a lot of repeats due to the structure of western music (based on thirds). Think of a note like a letter and the song as words (and rhythm the cadence of the speaker) - at some point you can claim yours is original enough to be (say) poetry, but a short phrase (riff) that would be analogous to 2-3 words is VERY hard to prove. Only very memorable lines even stand a chance of winning (e.g. the 7 bar bass line to Pink Floyd's Money might qualify, for instance, or the multi-line guitar riff from Metallica's One, but Bob Dylan's Knockin' on Heaven's Door? Never gonna happen). -
Re:All over the place.
Bush Camp
Let's put this one to the test.
Here a news article link the the JibJab affair: http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/26/commentary/wastler /wastler/
Here is some more information on The Richmond Organization: http://www.mpa.org/directories/music_publishers/sh ow/370
Address:
The JibJab piece used a Woodie Guthrie song to poke fun at both Bush and Kerry, in a fairly even-handed way, as I recall.
TRO Inc. (The Richmond Organization)
266 West 37th Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Maybe you could follow-up with a little more detail as to how you identify TRO, Inc. with the "Bush Camp", sir. -
Google rushes in...
Just when we're hearing that the Music Publishers' Association is demanding jail time for folks who put up lyric sites, we get Google blithely putting up...a lyric site index. I know they're claiming that their partner sites are providing these, but my first hit was on lyricsfreak.com, which I suspect is hardly legal. It's like Google is daring folks to sue them. Awesome.
-
MPA's view on churches and "stolen property"
"WHAT ABOUT EXISTING PHOTOCOPIES OR TAPES IN OUR CHURCH MUSIC LIBRARY? To protect yourself and your organization you should destroy all unauthorized photocopies, tapes, etc., and replace them with legal editions. Possession of illegal copies puts you in a position of harboring stolen goods."
quoted from: http://www.mpa.org/copyright/church.html -
Point out the lost sales to the MPAMany have noted how being able to look up lyrics *increases* sales by identifying the correct song to purchase. Perhaps it should be pointed out to the MPA how this maneuver will impact their sales. Full contact information listed below.
Gentlemen, start your text editors....
From their site:
The MPA welcomes your questions and comments. The most efficient way to contact the MPA is via email. Emails from the general public are usually replied to within 2-3 business days. You can email MPA Administrator Julie Averill, at:
mpa-admin@mpa.org
Additionally, you may submit written correspondence to:
Music Publishers' Association
243 5th Avenue, Suite 236
New York, NY 10016
Contacting the MPA via phone is not recommended, unless you are a member or vendor communicating about specific MPA business:
(212) 327-4044
-
Re:The RIAA guy is an idiot...Copy the good stuff.
smyle wrote:
(Now, everyone who sang "happy birthday" as a class in school, please make your royalty check payable to...)
Summy Birchard, Inc., a subsidary of AOL/Time Warner. Here's the history of its copyright. Assuming Congress doesn't extend copyright yet again, it is due to enter the public domain in 2030.
-
Stop thinking about the ArtistsA lot of the messages here seem to relate the supposedly potential money lost through publishing the material (music, lyrics, whatever) on the internet to loss of income to the artists. I don't believe this is the case, and here's why.
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Business!!
The RIAA is the "Recording Industry Association of America" (interesting sideline: note the TLD of the RIAA is com, implying a commercial entity, rather than a non-profit organization). The important words here are "Recording Industry". The organization represents companies that make money from selling copies of recordings (tapes, CDs, DVDs, etc). So they have a vested interest in making sure that no-one who is not a member of their organization can do what they do (i.e. duplicate media) unless they get some money in the process (why should you buy a CD from Sony when you can download the contents and make your own CD for free?).
Similarly, the MPA is the "Music Publishers Association", which represents companies that make money by copying (printing) music, lyrics, song books, and so on. So they have a vested interest in making sure that no-one who is not a member of their organization can do what they do (i.e. duplicate printed music) unless they get some money in the process (why should you buy a set of printed lyrics when you can download and print them yourself for free?).
In both cases the effort they are expending on these lawsuits, C+Ds, nasty letters, etc, is to stop people doing what they do---duplicating something---because it eats into their members profits.
So stop thinking about the artists, as these organizations are only concerned with the interests of their profit-driven members.
Then again, perhaps it is time that we started thinking about the artists, and not these organisations! Ideally, if at all possible, go direct to source (the artists themselves), and circumvent these leeches:
- Go to gigs,
- buy T-shirts and CDs there,
- support the bands you like directly, cutting out the middleman.
- Or buy through independents/small labels and let the artists know you care!
The last couple of CDs I bought came from Synth Music Direct, small labels, small volume production, and better supporting the artists concerned.
Sadly, the giant dinosaurs of the recording age are thrashing around in their death-throes, and hurting a lot of innocent bystanders in the process. So stand aside, skirt round them, and enjoy real music!
Thank you for reading.
--
This message has been brought to you by the Slashdot Writers Association Guild "SWAG". Any unauthorized copying, duplication, publishing, reading, memorizing, quoting, or even discussing in hushed voices in private, in whole or in part, will be deemed a violation of our revenue stream (which funds our Hawaiian holidays, coke habits and the endless stream of blonde babes) and which we will vigorously defend (especially if you are poor and unable to afford decent legal representation), even if it is not in the best interests of the original author, whose soul we own. - Go to gigs,
-
Already done...
I'm a jazz singer and I google for lyrics all the time. The songs I'm looking for aren't exactly 'top 10 hitz', so they're not easy to find in the real world. I find most of them on people's personal websites.
Yes, I agree that song lyrics are the same as poetry, but I also feel that smart lyric writers shouldn't be too concerned. Making the lyrics more freely available just encourages the song to be performed/recorded. In a perfect world the more popular a song is, the more $$$ the lyricist makes.
I think a worse problem is the outdated method in which songwriters get paid. Performance royalties are paid to an organization which doles out the checks according to an obscure formula. In other words, no one keeps track of which songs are played in clubs. They estimate the popularity of songs and pay the songwriter accordingly. [sarcasm]Of course, they do this without any outside influence and without a taint of corruption, after all, this is the music business![/sarcasm]
Let's say, for some reason, the Gillespie/Coots songs "You Go To My Head" gets very popular in jazz clubs in 2003. Well, unless the organization figures this out, the estates of Gillespie and Coots will get no additional money for this song.
Not to worry, though, Gillespie and Coots also wrote "Santa Clause is Coming to Town". So these cats will get big checks for the next 70 years, er, 90 years, er, indefintely...
(Notice that the last link is a page at a public school. Isn't that funny in light of the MPA's "Is your school a Copy-free zone?")
But I digress... The problem with MPA, RIAA, and MPAA's drives is they go against 'common sense'. See, posting a song lyric or two on the internet doesn't feel like stealing to Joe Sixpack, therefore it shouldn't be illegal (but it is). Conversely, Unsolicited Commercial E-mail feels illegal, even though it's currently not (fraudulents spams excepted). -
Re:That's really hurting the music industry.
This article is about the mpa and not RIAA.
MPA might be an RIAA puppet of some kind, I don't know. -
I could understand
If someone was publishing sheet music. Clearly, there is a great deal of creativity involved there. But do we really need to protect gems like "Na Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na Na?"
If you really have a problem with what the MPA (not the RIAA) is doing, you can Let them know -
Re:This is new folks
Copyright infringement has never before been a crime committed by individuals procuring their own entertainment.
And yet, it has always been illegal to own song sheets that you did not legitimately buy. "But I did it for my own entertainment" was not a solid argument in the 50s and it's not a solid argument now. The only difference is one of atom-to-bit-shifting.
Now imagine owning several thousand different songs and you let anyone come by and make a copy of one. Even I (who am not the most clean of people in this example) can't imagine that when the idea of "Fair Use" was created anyone thought the everyman could make thousands and thousands of copies.
This is not a new concept, this is just a renewed concept. There is no sudden "new type of criminal", just a new type of person to be an old type of criminal.
Stealing a song is not like stealing a car. One involves the deprivation of a personal property, and the other involves breaking a social contract.
Oh, sorry, I didn't realize that laws weren't supposed to uphold the social ideals of the civilization they're meant to serve. -
Re:not neccessarily uphill...
When you are up against organised cartels like that of Disney, Sony, MGM, Paramount, Fox, Universal, Warner, not to mention the host of other MegaCorps who have interests in usurious IP legislation, individuals (ie. natural persons) will not be heard. Face it the 'citizen' and democracy are redundant, only the MegaCorp and what is being marketed as "free trade" (as if they would tolerate a market that really was free!) matter anymore. Resistance is futile!
My, I'm in a negative mood tonight
-
MPA is associated with MPAA, DUH lordsuck
Just take a look mpa.org and they are refrenced on MPAA.org. Now, Mr. Smartie-grits-in-pants, check CNN Entertainment News for even more info.