Copyright enforcement from Ole?

[ytserush]

Some people have an amazing sense of entitlement to stuff they have no right to feel entitled to. Any idea how much time and prep work goes into a rush tour, not including the years spent figuring out how to play an instrument with any passable level of skill (or several instruments), how to perform well, how to compose original music, etc, etc? I guess all that should be rewarded with everyone posting every show from umpteen different angles in HD so they have no need to spend any money on a DVD or concert ticket.

 

Late to this but for me this is too simplistic and I'm sure that the rights owners and artists know this. Part of the issue is that if you turn a blind eye to minor copyright infringements (minor loss of earnings, artistic control etc) then you are in effect saying it is ok to infringe copyright sometimes in certain cases that would be difficult to legally define.

However, much of the YouTube stuff is pure fandom only intended to share something they have experienced for the enjoyment of others and of course to say, "I was there". It's free but uncontrolled advertising for the band. The real stickler is that YouTube (Google) is making revenue out of these innocent videos - making revenue with little or no recompense to the original artists - and building influence over those same artists by positioning their platform at the forefront of publicity for the them in a way that bands would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they brought about its demise.

I suspect that for many artists YouTube is seen as an essential part of their publicity machine and the balance has to be between what they choose to officially release and crowdsourcing, which is in effect what ad hoc fan videos become. I'm pretty sure that for major artists whilst the loss of earnings through copyright infringement is vast it pales into significance when compared to their overall income.

The issue is when you move down the ladder of relative success those loss of earnings are crippling. Through my involvement with Progarchives I've been in contact with many bands and artists who are relatively successful for the Prog Scene but aren't making good money compared to how much of their product is consumed. If you give away 2/3rds of a cupcake then you've not much cake left and it wasn't worth the effort (to you) in making the cupcake even if it was a rather nice cupcake that the recipients enjoyed.

 

It seems the only ones making money are the tech companies. They are always first on the list to get paid.

[Tony R]

Some people have an amazing sense of entitlement to stuff they have no right to feel entitled to. Any idea how much time and prep work goes into a rush tour, not including the years spent figuring out how to play an instrument with any passable level of skill (or several instruments), how to perform well, how to compose original music, etc, etc? I guess all that should be rewarded with everyone posting every show from umpteen different angles in HD so they have no need to spend any money on a DVD or concert ticket.

 

Late to this but for me this is too simplistic and I'm sure that the rights owners and artists know this. Part of the issue is that if you turn a blind eye to minor copyright infringements (minor loss of earnings, artistic control etc) then you are in effect saying it is ok to infringe copyright sometimes in certain cases that would be difficult to legally define.

However, much of the YouTube stuff is pure fandom only intended to share something they have experienced for the enjoyment of others and of course to say, "I was there". It's free but uncontrolled advertising for the band. The real stickler is that YouTube (Google) is making revenue out of these innocent videos - making revenue with little or no recompense to the original artists - and building influence over those same artists by positioning their platform at the forefront of publicity for the them in a way that bands would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they brought about its demise.

I suspect that for many artists YouTube is seen as an essential part of their publicity machine and the balance has to be between what they choose to officially release and crowdsourcing, which is in effect what ad hoc fan videos become. I'm pretty sure that for major artists whilst the loss of earnings through copyright infringement is vast it pales into significance when compared to their overall income.

The issue is when you move down the ladder of relative success those loss of earnings are crippling. Through my involvement with Progarchives I've been in contact with many bands and artists who are relatively successful for the Prog Scene but aren't making good money compared to how much of their product is consumed. If you give away 2/3rds of a cupcake then you've not much cake left and it wasn't worth the effort (to you) in making the cupcake even if it was a rather nice cupcake that the recipients enjoyed.

 

It seems the only ones making money are the tech companies. They are always first on the list to get paid.

I don't know how this is ever going to be solved. Bands below superstar level need to follow the Marillion model and control the whole process and of course use crowdsourcing if it's appropriate..

That said look at Rush, they actually stated that they would rather release product as part of a record label so even at their level striking out on your own is daunting.

 

[HalfwayToGone]

Actually the most sure fire way for an up and coming band to be able to consistently make a living while building a following and getting better at everything related to making a living as a band is to tour as much as possible. It used to help to have a cd or vinyl to sell at the merch table, but tshirts and other merch are still the best way for a band to be able to make extra money on top of whatever they get for performing, which is highly variable from venue to venue, and it's not uncommon for a promoter or club to try to stiff the band after they've played. But make no mistake. While the Internet provides a lot of opportunity to get instant and widespread distribution, and it's easy for people to pirate audio recordings, there are gigantic sums of money made from digital downloads from places like iTunes, Amazon, etc, who sell music, and there are insiders who knew about it ahead of time and exploited the crap out of artists who had no clue everything would be moving in that direction. I met a guy a year ago at a wedding who bragged to me about the billions he made by grabbing up artists who were famous but sliding down the ladder, and then demanding that they give him 100% of all their digital rights in return for......jack crap. None of them knew about iTunes, but this guy had inside info, and screwed a lot of musicians and songwriters out of tons of money. This is how musicians have always been treated by those who either put the product "out there" or own the buildings where bands perform for people. Albums get manufactured in massive numbers, then they punch a tiny hole in one corner of the cd insert on many thousands of copies and sell them as discount items, while not counting them in their official sales numbers, because they claim they were given away as promos or thrown out as damaged merchandise. That's just one example of how that shit has been done since music became a product that could be sold. Another is licensing by labels, who sometimes get paid a lot of money to allow music to be used in ways that pay zero to the band, like the various video games my band is on--getting a few songs on NHL2K5 sounds like it would surely make a band some money, and that game probably sold a ton of copies on PS2 and Xbox. Grand total I got? Zilch. Same with every video game we got our songs into. Movie soundtracks? A couple of pennies whenever they are broadcast on a tv network. Nothing for on demand, DVD sales, theatrical box office sales, etc. nada. The movie Waitress has one of our songs in it. It's a Broadway musical now. You'd think that means we must've done well, with movie royalties, right? Wrong. I think all together we each got a couple hundred in the entire time since the movie was first released. Yeah it was a little indie film when it was made, but I'm sure someone is making money from it from the moment it started winning awards at festivals. Even the woman who wrote, directed and co-starred in it didn't see anything from it, because she was unfortunately murdered before it was released, but I'm sure the studio and producers got everything anyway. Bottom line is that the best way to get your due is to be touring constantly and own all merch you sell, and have as much of it as you can afford to make. It helps to have someone who can pick up a club promoter by the throat when they claim all the people cheering for you were brought by "the first band" (uh, yeah, we were the first band, asshole), and then tries telling you "oh you should just be honored to play at such a famous club." (Yes, this has actually happened to my band--the headlining band took pity on us and gave us a little out of their own pockets). The only other satisfaction we got was that our bassist (huge guy) got in the promoters face and hocked a lunger on his shoe. We were not one bit unhappy to be banned from playing there. On a more comical note, Johnny Thunders had a similar run in with the same guy at the same club years earlier and rumor has it he took a huge bag of frozen chicken wings, and made a hole it in and walked all over the club leaving a trail of thawing, raw chicken wings wherever he went. Good stuff. Chinese rocks, indeed! Anyway, I got off on a long tangent, but hopefully someone here finds it entertaining and informative.

[Tony R]

Actually the most sure fire way for an up and coming band to be able to consistently make a living while building a following and getting better at everything related to making a living as a band is to tour as much as possible. It used to help to have a cd or vinyl to sell at the merch table, but tshirts and other merch are still the best way for a band to be able to make extra money on top of whatever they get for performing, which is highly variable from venue to venue, and it's not uncommon for a promoter or club to try to stiff the band after they've played. But make no mistake. While the Internet provides a lot of opportunity to get instant and widespread distribution, and it's easy for people to pirate audio recordings, there are gigantic sums of money made from digital downloads from places like iTunes, Amazon, etc, who sell music, and there are insiders who knew about it ahead of time and exploited the crap out of artists who had no clue everything would be moving in that direction. I met a guy a year ago at a wedding who bragged to me about the billions he made by grabbing up artists who were famous but sliding down the ladder, and then demanding that they give him 100% of all their digital rights in return for......jack crap. None of them knew about iTunes, but this guy had inside info, and screwed a lot of musicians and songwriters out of tons of money. This is how musicians have always been treated by those who either put the product "out there" or own the buildings where bands perform for people. Albums get manufactured in massive numbers, then they punch a tiny hole in one corner of the cd insert on many thousands of copies and sell them as discount items, while not counting them in their official sales numbers, because they claim they were given away as promos or thrown out as damaged merchandise. That's just one example of how that shit has been done since music became a product that could be sold. Another is licensing by labels, who sometimes get paid a lot of money to allow music to be used in ways that pay zero to the band, like the various video games my band is on--getting a few songs on NHL2K5 sounds like it would surely make a band some money, and that game probably sold a ton of copies on PS2 and Xbox. Grand total I got? Zilch. Same with every video game we got our songs into. Movie soundtracks? A couple of pennies whenever they are broadcast on a tv network. Nothing for on demand, DVD sales, theatrical box office sales, etc. nada. The movie Waitress has one of our songs in it. It's a Broadway musical now. You'd think that means we must've done well, with movie royalties, right? Wrong. I think all together we each got a couple hundred in the entire time since the movie was first released. Yeah it was a little indie film when it was made, but I'm sure someone is making money from it from the moment it started winning awards at festivals. Even the woman who wrote, directed and co-starred in it didn't see anything from it, because she was unfortunately murdered before it was released, but I'm sure the studio and producers got everything anyway. Bottom line is that the best way to get your due is to be touring constantly and own all merch you sell, and have as much of it as you can afford to make. It helps to have someone who can pick up a club promoter by the throat when they claim all the people cheering for you were brought by "the first band" (uh, yeah, we were the first band, asshole), and then tries telling you "oh you should just be honored to play at such a famous club." (Yes, this has actually happened to my band--the headlining band took pity on us and gave us a little out of their own pockets). The only other satisfaction we got was that our bassist (huge guy) got in the promoters face and hocked a lunger on his shoe. We were not one bit unhappy to be banned from playing there. On a more comical note, Johnny Thunders had a similar run in with the same guy at the same club years earlier and rumor has it he took a huge bag of frozen chicken wings, and made a hole it in and walked all over the club leaving a trail of thawing, raw chicken wings wherever he went. Good stuff. Chinese rocks, indeed! Anyway, I got off on a long tangent, but hopefully someone here finds it entertaining and informative.

 

Black Coffy? Nice psychedelic blues vibe!

 

 

[HalfwayToGone]

Yes, that's my band. Off the one album I'm not on, but I'm credited in the movie anyway. Just to get slightly back on topic, that's from the album that got us the C & D from Jack Daniels. I think our tiny one-man label had no copies left, and there were maybe a dozen still floating around in the retail marketplace, so huge win for JD. Such a super-iconic album cover too. I think Geddy Lee has a signed lithograph of it on his wall. Poor Mike (Saputo) had to go in and totally re-do the whisky bottle label, and I don't even think it ever got changed in the end, because they never did another pressing of the physical CD as far as I know. Somehow, none of the digital outlets changed it either. Funny how that whole thing worked. I was getting forwarded the whole email exchange between the JD lawyer and the label's guy, and it was quite a song and dance over a couple of small pressings worth of CDs on an indie label, and a digital image. Lawyers gotta eat too I guess. Edited August 13, 2016 by HalfwayToGone

[Tony R]

Yes, that's my band. Off the one album I'm not on, but I'm credited in the movie anyway. Just to get slightly back on topic, that's from the album that got us the C & D from Jack Daniels. I think our tiny one-man label had no copies left, and there were maybe a dozen still floating around in the retail marketplace, so huge win for JD. Such a super-iconic album cover too. I think Geddy Lee has a signed lithograph of it on his wall. Poor Mike (Saputo) had to go in and totally re-do the whisky bottle label, and I don't even think it ever got changed in the end, because they never did another pressing of the physical CD as far as I know. Somehow, none of the digital outlets changed it either. Funny how that whole thing worked. I was getting forwarded the whole email exchange between the JD lawyer and the label's guy, and it was quite a song and dance over a couple of small pressings worth of CDs on an indie label, and a digital image. Lawyers gotta eat too I guess.

 

So basically the bands are bullied at every turn. Disgusting.

[ytserush]

Yes, that's my band. Off the one album I'm not on, but I'm credited in the movie anyway. Just to get slightly back on topic, that's from the album that got us the C & D from Jack Daniels. I think our tiny one-man label had no copies left, and there were maybe a dozen still floating around in the retail marketplace, so huge win for JD. Such a super-iconic album cover too. I think Geddy Lee has a signed lithograph of it on his wall. Poor Mike (Saputo) had to go in and totally re-do the whisky bottle label, and I don't even think it ever got changed in the end, because they never did another pressing of the physical CD as far as I know. Somehow, none of the digital outlets changed it either. Funny how that whole thing worked. I was getting forwarded the whole email exchange between the JD lawyer and the label's guy, and it was quite a song and dance over a couple of small pressings worth of CDs on an indie label, and a digital image. Lawyers gotta eat too I guess.

 

So basically the bands are bullied at every turn. Disgusting.

 

Generally speaking I think they are. I don't think it's limited to just musicians unfortunately.

[HalfwayToGone]

Correct.

[RushFanForever]

From this 2013 Rolling Stone interview with Geddy Lee.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/q-a-rushs-geddy-lee-on-finally-taking-a-break-from-the-road-20130923

 

I know lots of artists complain that too many people are using cameraphones at concert. Does it annoy you?

 

It doesn't really bother me. Sometimes there will be a guy who is holding a camera phone and recording the entire song (laughs) and you just want to look at him and go, "Really?" But for the most part, that's their own personal thing that they show their friends. I don't have a problem with that.

 

Even tattoos are considered copyright infringement now.

 

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/who-owns-your-ink-tattoos-are-at-the-heart-of-lawsuits-involving-celebs-artists-and-even-coffee-shops

[ytserush]

 

 

Even tattoos are considered copyright infringement now.

 

http://news.national...en-coffee-shops

 

I kind of get that it would be infringement if there is money being made from the image or maybe promotion or exposure that results in money being made.

 

It's a little less clear though if it's just being copied.