posted
I for one would really like to see an acapella singing thread because once I get home and have recording equipment, such that it is, I would love to actually have the incentive to practice and "perform" stuff for Jatraqueros.
I'd also love to hear other Jatraqueros! Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only are there copyright issues, there are two very big, very mean organizations who spend their time looking for people to make examples of on this.
And they make the RIAA look like forgiving folk.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Plus, I can only think of one song out of hundreds that I would sing as an a cappella solo that's under copyright.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. But if we do it by e-mail, there's nothing wrong, right? Surely this is the same as me, for instance, getting up and performing for a bunch of people in a recital, or you playing in the hotel lobby.
We're not trying to sell it or theoretically even allow random people to hear us, we're performing for free in an unprofesional way to our friends.
quote:getting up and performing for a bunch of people in a recital, or you playing in the hotel lobby.
Both are likely public performances, and both would be illegal for copyrighted works unless fair use came into play.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But if people are posting on a public message board that they have stuff available for sharing, and others are posting requesting it be sent to them, that significantly ups the chances of being caught. Plus puts our hosts at some risk.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most a capella songs I'd sing are in public domain, as well. Plus, if we emailed them, I'm not sure if it would be any different than a local garage band performing a cover of a Clapton song. Technically it may not be legal (I'm not sure as to the rules regarding cover songs) but at any rate it isn't enforced.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Both are likely public performances, and both would be illegal for copyrighted works unless fair use came into play.
But I've done that tens of times as a student and as a performer. As long as I've owned the music, at least "theoretically", copyright has never even been mentioned.
What sort of crazy world is this that a bunch of people can't sing songs for each other without fear of being sued?
posted
My understanding is that performance of music for which you own the sheet music falls under "fair use" although I recall having choral music which was photocopied to avoid page turns during performance and being instructed to show people only the "purchased" copy and making sure each member of the choir had a legal copy. The world of copyright is such a weird and unfriendly place. Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Canadian copyright law is different, it allows for much more fair use.
Your school has definitely purchased (for a large sum of money) what's called a site license for performance, meaning you're allowed to give those non-commercial performances.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miriya: no, but typically the purchase of certain arrangements of music includes a performance license for that arrangement. Its why sheet music can get so expensive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
This is from U.S. copyright law. (I'm assuming I can reproduce copyright law without violating copyright? that would be so modernly ironic.) think we fall under all four of those, expect perhaps number 2, although it of course varies on what song.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Miriya: no, but typically the purchase of certain arrangements of music includes a performance license for that arrangement. Its why sheet music can get so expensive.
Hmmm I've never come across that before but then maybe this is where those more reasonable Canadian "fair use" laws come in
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Porter and I play and sing bluegrass together. Most of it is in the public domain, but every now and then we like to do something that isn't. Is that illegal? Is someone gonna sue our butts off if we perform an Allison Krauss song? If so, why do they sell books of their music for people to learn and play?
If we were doing it for money, I can understand there being issues. But I'm not sure we will ever be that good.
Edit: Thanks for explaining "fair use", fugu. I was wondering about that. Now I know.
posted
Those are just factors to be considered, not categories where its okay to infringe copyright. You can't give out unlicensed copies of a U2 song to see what reactions people have to it, no matter how academic that pursuit is.
Talk to your school's copyright office sometime.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is from U.S. copyright law. (I'm assuming I can reproduce copyright law without violating copyright? that would be so modernly ironic.) think we fall under all four of those, expect perhaps number 2, although it of course varies on what song.
Those are factors. The caselaw to actually apply those factors is voluminous and complex.
Educational use will always be more favored than non-educational use. Commentary/critique and parody will be more favored than mere satire. Reverse engineering is fair use, but reverse engineering can violate DMCA which is not subject to fair use - although there is a circuit split on whether fair use would negate damages.
In short, it's terribly complex. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter and I play and sing bluegrass together. Most of it is in the public domain, but every now and then we like to do something that isn't. Is that illegal? Is someone gonna sue our butts off if we perform an Allison Krauss song? If so, why do they sell books of their music for people to learn and play?
Private performances are allowed. You don't even need to touch fair use for a private performance to be OK. An audience consisting only of a family that lives in the same house is pretty much always a private performance. A gathering of friends can be - factors include size, how often the circle of acquaintences gets together, etc.
Playing a movie in a common room in a dorm is often considered a public performance.
posted
That still seems wrong. The only people in a res (at least at my university) were those who LIVE there or those invited by the former. There were locked doors even. That doesn't sound like a public place to me.
posted
Public doesn't mean anyone can come by, it means people other than the ones who own the physical copy and the private performance license included with it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you support this law, fugu? Do you think that our little performances are going to affect the singers/songwriters in any way other than in a positive way?
As a singer, I must violate these laws on a regular basis, and yet I've never profitted from it. I doubt the songwriter is going to begrudge me singing their songs for my pleasure and the pleasure of people around me. If they do, I don't want to perform their songs anyway.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yet the copywright laws are there to solely to protect the originators (and distributors ) of creative works, including our host here. So they can't be ALL bad. I tend to think of it as being like the terribly complex rules that have to be followed in performance unions like Actors Equity--a pain in the butt, but better than not having the rules at all.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There were locked doors even. That doesn't sound like a public place to me.
The right to control access to the place where it's being performed can help make it private. Most universities have policies that are over-exclusive - i.e., they ban more than they have to under the law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also sometimes violate copywright rules as a singer. But in order to keep this above board, why don't we make twinky's not-yet-existant thread into a thread in which we only sing public domain works. There is, I assure you, plenty of wonderful things to sing that were written before 1923. You can find them in numerous books. I especially like folk songs (think Stephen Foster,) hymns, spirituals and Italian and French Art songs. Any of these are fair game, and since the purpose is to share recordings of our singing with online friends, not the songs, I think our goal is met.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We can also, of course, sing our own songs. And there are many poems we can put to music and sing.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So does that make it illegal to have a bunch of friends over to watch a movie?
A few friends whom you see socially on a regular basis is probably not a problem.
quote:or to loan my books/ movies to others?
The doctrine of first sale says that you can give or lend a book or (original) recording to someone. They have the same public performance restrictions as you did, but if they watch it privately no laws are broken.
Software doesn't alway work like that because of EULAs. To date, music recordings, books, and DVDs don't have EULAs (unless the CD or DVD has software).
posted
Oh, to answer the question: I think if you want to perform the piece in public, there should be a license. However, I'm for a fairly flexible definition of public that largely excludes groups numbering, say, 25 and under that are non-commercial.
There's no particular reason I should be able to, say, perform any song I want at an open mic night (absent a license by myself or the establishment for said performance).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
) of creative works, including our host here. So they can't be ALL bad. I tend to think of it as being like the terribly complex rules that have to be followed in performance unions like Actors Equity--a pain in the butt, but better than not having the rules at all.
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
