Blurring out logos is not about political correctness, its all about business. A channel or show may have advertisers that don't take kindly to the display of competitors logos. Or, a company might not like the content of a show or video and don't want the presence of their logo to imply tacit approval.
If you save 2 mins a day over 200 days in a year that you drive, over some 50 years that you drive, you just saved two full weeks of your live by passing 'that guy.'
Where can I cash in the 2 weeks I saved up? Do I get a coupon to hand to the grim reaper so he will leave me and come back in 2 weeks?
I did read it before posting and it does support what I said. Singing from the hymnals does not require royalty payments, reprinting the lyrics (of non-public domain songs) does.
I agree that the ascap system has its problems, and needs an overhaul to help these musiciens get their fair share, but its not accurate to lump them in with the RIAA who is from a different part of the industry and also does not handle the processing of royalty payments.
It's not suddenly, do your research. There are many jazz standards that are in the public domain and many that are not. The composer's of the songs that aren't in the public domain are entitled to royalties. Is that unfair?
However, any non-profit school is exempt from performance license fees if the performances are part of an in-person educational activity. So all of the music you play in all of your school bands and lessons is exempt.
As a working musician, you should be ashamed to not know that the licensing of music for performance predates the DRM conflict by over a hundred years.
They are fools or someone is lying. They don't need to pay anything. Worship services have performance exemptions. It's only photocopied or projected lyrics that are subject to licensing. Here it is straight from the mouth of the ASCAP VP:
"Let us make sure the point is clear; when we sing songs in a worship service, there is no fee or charge to do that. But when we reprint the lyric, whether it's an overhead projection, computer projection or photocopied lyrics in the bulletin, it is expected that we will compensate the owners of the lyrics for that usage."
Sorry, you are the one who is confused. A composer of a copyrighted song is legally entitled to a royalty payment if his/her song is performed (with certain exeptions) in a public place. A performance can either be a live one (like a cover band) or the playback of a recorded version of the song. Separate licenses (and separate agencies) govern the "performance" of recorded music. This is not a new thing, though not as old as patronage, it is certainly as old as #2 and older than #1.
The two biggest licesors are non-profit organizations so they are nothing like the record companies that exploit the artists. Their budget has 80% of intake going to the composers. So, while that could be increased with some bueracratic efficiencies, it's about 1000% times the rates the record companies pay their artists.
I disagree that profit from someone elses work is a questionable litmus test. Its a pretty simple calculation for a buisiness. Turn the music off and see how much business drops. If that amount is more than the music costs, then it's profitable.
"Harm" is actually the RIAA-approved justification for the rash of lawsuits against children or 80 year old ladies with no internet. The only "harm" they can prove that some talentless record-executive probably had to be fired (with a huge severance package) so that his bolivian drug runner might have to wait a few weeks to get a new ferarri.
You are mistaken. These organizations (the real ones, not the scammers) have been collecting and paying royalties for performances since before there WAS a recording industry. They have their problems, but at least they attempt to pay the composers for their work, unlike the RIAA who only servers the BUSINESSES that are making their bucks on the backs of the recording artists. The RIAA is partially responsible for giving ASCAP/BMI/SESAC a bad rep.
Mod parent up! THIS is the issue people should be complaining about as its the most broken part of ASCAP. It's way to heavily biased towards what is played on commercial radio so the more obscure song is never going to see any of that blanket royalty money. Sure there are other parts of it that aren't fair, and the monday night football example is just stupid: they really need to do better employee training. But the 80% of the royalty money that goes to the artist is a hell of a lot more than the pittance the record companies usually give. At least ascap doesn't make you sign a contract that has them grabbing every recoupable dollar they can against your royalties. They just need to get much better IT and automate a lot of this stuff, then they can work on the unfair distribution.
Al gets permission to do the parodies because he a a nice guy and wants to be known as a friend to other musicians. He DOESN'T have to get permission and the amazing plethora of non-artist-approved parody songs available is proof of that.
You forgot to mention the most insidious example, the Rolling Stones. This band made their career by blatantly ripping off artists such as Robert Johnson, then dispatched a fleet of lawyers when a string arrangement from one of their songs was sampled by The Verve, for the song "Bittersweet Symphony".
I do agree that the Bittersweet Symphony situation was a sad example of bitter jealosy and greed by the stones. I remember hearing an interview with Richards where he said "what? are we supposed to be flattered?" I'm yelling at the TV, "Yah, you idiot! You SHOULD be because the song is brilliant!"
HOWEVER, this was not a case of music composition royalties, which The Verve actually paid for the track. The problem was that the orchestral riff was also a sample from a record that the stones' previous manager (to whom the stones gave way too many rights away early in their career) had produced. When he saw how successful the record was, he said that he didn't agree to the sampling so he demanded 100% of the royalties. Neither band makes royalties when Bittersweet Symphony is played, not even on the Nike commercials. The former manager does.
But they didn't get a check for this work. Unless it was comissioned work the composer doesn't usually get paid UNTIL someone plays it. They are not talking about recording/performing artists only here.
Truth is that the people who criticise them simply don't want to pay for the stuff they get. In other words they are thieves. Not following your logic here. How is someone wanting to remove personally identifying information from a a file THEY PURCHASED a theif?
"We do so primarily because we believe students should have the opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose. Not forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in their being served with a lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand."
Took me a second, but I just realized that this is bullshit. The settlement option is ALWAYS on the table because that is the most effiecient for the RIAA to extort the $3000-$5000 they want from you. They don't want to go to trial, and have avoided it as much as possible.
Off the top of my head, so that you can see a zip file and the resulting unzipped folder next to each other. Why should folders be separate when ordering alphabetically?
Can't think of 5 that don't include services already mentioned, but one addition service I use is free411, an alternative to the $2-per-call carier 411 services.
Slashdot Mirror
Blurring out logos is not about political correctness, its all about business. A channel or show may have advertisers that don't take kindly to the display of competitors logos. Or, a company might not like the content of a show or video and don't want the presence of their logo to imply tacit approval.
I remember seeing the bleeped version...2 years ago. I actually looked up at the "Posed by" line just to see if I wasn't looking at an old post.
If you save 2 mins a day over 200 days in a year that you drive, over some 50 years that you drive, you just saved two full weeks of your live by passing 'that guy.'
Where can I cash in the 2 weeks I saved up? Do I get a coupon to hand to the grim reaper so he will leave me and come back in 2 weeks?
I did read it before posting and it does support what I said. Singing from the hymnals does not require royalty payments, reprinting the lyrics (of non-public domain songs) does.
I agree that the ascap system has its problems, and needs an overhaul to help these musiciens get their fair share, but its not accurate to lump them in with the RIAA who is from a different part of the industry and also does not handle the processing of royalty payments.
It's not suddenly, do your research. There are many jazz standards that are in the public domain and many that are not. The composer's of the songs that aren't in the public domain are entitled to royalties. Is that unfair?
However, any non-profit school is exempt from performance license fees if the performances are part of an in-person educational activity. So all of the music you play in all of your school bands and lessons is exempt.
As a working musician, you should be ashamed to not know that the licensing of music for performance predates the DRM conflict by over a hundred years.
She is getting scammed, Muzak pays the licensing fees for you. Report them to the BBB or the police because they don't represent ASCAP, BMI or SESAC.
They are fools or someone is lying. They don't need to pay anything. Worship services have performance exemptions. It's only photocopied or projected lyrics that are subject to licensing. Here it is straight from the mouth of the ASCAP VP:
"Let us make sure the point is clear; when we sing songs in a worship service, there is no fee or charge to do that. But when we reprint the lyric, whether it's an overhead projection, computer projection or photocopied lyrics in the bulletin, it is expected that we will compensate the owners of the lyrics for that usage."
Sorry, you are the one who is confused. A composer of a copyrighted song is legally entitled to a royalty payment if his/her song is performed (with certain exeptions) in a public place. A performance can either be a live one (like a cover band) or the playback of a recorded version of the song. Separate licenses (and separate agencies) govern the "performance" of recorded music. This is not a new thing, though not as old as patronage, it is certainly as old as #2 and older than #1.
The two biggest licesors are non-profit organizations so they are nothing like the record companies that exploit the artists. Their budget has 80% of intake going to the composers. So, while that could be increased with some bueracratic efficiencies, it's about 1000% times the rates the record companies pay their artists.
I disagree that profit from someone elses work is a questionable litmus test. Its a pretty simple calculation for a buisiness. Turn the music off and see how much business drops. If that amount is more than the music costs, then it's profitable.
"Harm" is actually the RIAA-approved justification for the rash of lawsuits against children or 80 year old ladies with no internet. The only "harm" they can prove that some talentless record-executive probably had to be fired (with a huge severance package) so that his bolivian drug runner might have to wait a few weeks to get a new ferarri.
You are mistaken. These organizations (the real ones, not the scammers) have been collecting and paying royalties for performances since before there WAS a recording industry. They have their problems, but at least they attempt to pay the composers for their work, unlike the RIAA who only servers the BUSINESSES that are making their bucks on the backs of the recording artists. The RIAA is partially responsible for giving ASCAP/BMI/SESAC a bad rep.
Mod parent up! THIS is the issue people should be complaining about as its the most broken part of ASCAP. It's way to heavily biased towards what is played on commercial radio so the more obscure song is never going to see any of that blanket royalty money. Sure there are other parts of it that aren't fair, and the monday night football example is just stupid: they really need to do better employee training. But the 80% of the royalty money that goes to the artist is a hell of a lot more than the pittance the record companies usually give. At least ascap doesn't make you sign a contract that has them grabbing every recoupable dollar they can against your royalties. They just need to get much better IT and automate a lot of this stuff, then they can work on the unfair distribution.
Al gets permission to do the parodies because he a a nice guy and wants to be known as a friend to other musicians. He DOESN'T have to get permission and the amazing plethora of non-artist-approved parody songs available is proof of that.
You forgot to mention the most insidious example, the Rolling Stones. This band made their career by blatantly ripping off artists such as Robert Johnson, then dispatched a fleet of lawyers when a string arrangement from one of their songs was sampled by The Verve, for the song "Bittersweet Symphony".
I do agree that the Bittersweet Symphony situation was a sad example of bitter jealosy and greed by the stones. I remember hearing an interview with Richards where he said "what? are we supposed to be flattered?" I'm yelling at the TV, "Yah, you idiot! You SHOULD be because the song is brilliant!"
HOWEVER, this was not a case of music composition royalties, which The Verve actually paid for the track. The problem was that the orchestral riff was also a sample from a record that the stones' previous manager (to whom the stones gave way too many rights away early in their career) had produced. When he saw how successful the record was, he said that he didn't agree to the sampling so he demanded 100% of the royalties. Neither band makes royalties when Bittersweet Symphony is played, not even on the Nike commercials. The former manager does.
But they didn't get a check for this work. Unless it was comissioned work the composer doesn't usually get paid UNTIL someone plays it. They are not talking about recording/performing artists only here.
Truth is that the people who criticise them simply don't want to pay for the stuff they get. In other words they are thieves.
Not following your logic here. How is someone wanting to remove personally identifying information from a a file THEY PURCHASED a theif?
But we're supposed to be GRATEFUL that CD's aren't priced according to inflation, which would make them somthing like $36.
"We do so primarily because we believe students should have the
opportunity to avail themselves of the settlement option if they so choose. Not
forwarding the RIAA letter to students could result in their being served with a
lawsuit, with no chance to settle it beforehand."
Took me a second, but I just realized that this is bullshit. The settlement option is ALWAYS on the table because that is the most effiecient for the RIAA to extort the $3000-$5000 they want from you. They don't want to go to trial, and have avoided it as much as possible.
Like this one, most of these load up xml files to populate the listings. That's probably easier to deal with than a screen-scraper.
That is the first time I've ever seen "PIP" used as a verb. Nicely done.
My replaytv does this. Although they took it out of later versions.
Off the top of my head, so that you can see a zip file and the resulting unzipped folder next to each other. Why should folders be separate when ordering alphabetically?
My wife's subara unlocks all the doors if you hold the button (on the first press) for a little longer, around 3/4 second.
Can't think of 5 that don't include services already mentioned, but one addition service I use is free411, an alternative to the $2-per-call carier 411 services.