Slashdot Mirror

The post is great, but please give a source for your figure on the royalty rates for artists.

Unfortunately, a quick search found me this: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/ind ustry_sectors/media/article573960.ece

which says that artists get 4.5p for every 79p track sold on itunes, which is about 6%. Multiply that by twenty and you get 120% which I don't think is too likely.
I also found this site, which details US royalties:

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/articles/dl_newmedi a.htm

which apart from suffering from some verizon style math problems($0.095cents is how much exactly???), says that artist royalty is 12% (after some deductions)... which would leave the Russian artists with an excellent royalty rate of 240%

It's a shame that your post contains these errors, because it was a very enjoyable read, but the lack of credibility detracts from your points.

From TFA:

iTunes Store does not offer DRM-free music despite the fact that many artists have requested it

iTunes does carry indie music, so Apple does have lots of people they can negotiate with without the major labels getting in the way. For instance, all of CDBaby's catalog is available on iTunes. [1] [2]

Song titles are copyrighted. Duh

Eight Mile Style filed the copyright infringement suit ... At issue is an ad for Apple's iTunes pay-per-download music software, in which a 10-year-old sings Eminem's "Lose Yourself."

I agree. If a 10-year-old is singing the song, then it is a new performance (unless Eminem has a time machine.) To use Eminem's song for a new performance requires "mechanical rights", which are automatically granted for a set fee. Mechanical rights are applied for selling something that includes the copyright (but not perfomances) of an artist. I believe that should apply to advertising that does not include the artist's performance, but IANAL.

Most songs are handled by the The Harry Fox Agency (HFA). Eminem has 50 songs listed at Songfile.com, which is HFA's online license application for low volume use. The list does not include "Lose Yourself". If the song is not handled by HFA, then you must contact the publisher directly.

There is a lawsuit, so somebody believes they had the right to tell Apple they could not use lyrics in a commercial. But it is not about a "sample", because Apple did not use a "sample" of Eminem's performance.

Weird Al does attempt to contact the artists he is parodying, but parody is acceptable under copyright law.

Coolio included a sample as well as a rewrite, so he must have gotten permission.

Reference website.
Cover songs are covered under a mechanical license. The artist cannot stop you from covering their song.

Samples require the permission of the publisher and the owner of the master. They set the terms, so they can easily charge enough to make it infeasible.

From the copyright office:
There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances.

I know that chord progressions cannot be copyrighted, or all combinations of I-IV-V would have been eliminated long ago. But I would not use Star Wars' Imperial March without disguising it. The similarity argument rests on
amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The only case I remember was Bon Jovi suing and winning for one line of "Living on a Prayer", but I cannot find a reference. They won because the line was the same words and melody in the chorus. (I think it was "We're halfway there".)

If "On Top of Old Smokey" was not public domain, we would not have "Chariots of Fire". Restaurants write their own (awful) birthday songs to avoid paying for "Happy Birthday" written in 1893.

I wonder that melody is considered so important, since every singer applies very different melodies to my songs. I usually write 2 melodies for each song for my own singing so I can change depending if my voice has warmed up. Live versions usually have different melodies than the studio versions. I saw Britney Spears do "Baby One More Time" in a medley on TV once, and the melody was very different than the radio version. (I think it was because the TV version was live and only had one note.)

Today it is up to the artist to notice that someone released a very similar song. "Melancholy Elephants" refers to a world where the copyrights are checked against existing music before being issued. Given the patent office's reluctance to do anything resembling work, we should not have to worry about automatic copyright validation, but it would be much easier to validate music with computers than patents.

Seriously, though, his main point is he's giving up on CDs for other forms of entertainment and that's a shame.

There is another way. Go out there and start checking out the stealth galaxy of independent music. And when you find something that you really like, send 'em an email and let them know that you want them to stay independent and free from DRM and RIAA rotten tactics.

Start with CD Baby

http://www.cdbaby.com/

Or just start browsing. A random selection of links from searching independent musicians and independent music.

http://www.indiemusic.com/

http://www.musicbizacademy.com/directory/indiemusi c.htm

http://www.secondfret.com/

http://www.hotbands.com/

http://www.sonicawareness.com/ http://www.narcopop.com/musicians/

http://www.rainmusic.com/

http://www.musicianmp3.com/

http://www.indie-music.com/

http://www.galaris.com/

http://www.internetdj.com/

The only thing that you could even try and argue is under copyright is the songs name, which would/should get laughed out of any court.

If you want to fight effectively for free digital information, bone up on copyright law. Song titles are not copyrightable. For example, see this discussion about copyright and songwriting basics.

The ring tones don't use any samples from the music and the music composition is totally different, both through different timing of the notes and through playing only one (or a couple) of notes at a time. Therefore the person who makes the phone ring tone is making a completely new piece of work and shouldn't need to give any cash for the permission to distribute it.

It is possible to hold copyright for a recording or for a musical composition (or both!), but these are not the same thing. So even if a ring tone producer is not sampling a recorded work, if their ring tones use melodies from copyrighted works, they may have to pay a royalty.

These ring tones may not use the same instrumental arrangements are the original recordings, but they do use the same melody notes (and "timing of the notes") -- otherwise they would not be identifiable as popular tunes!