quote: A capella singing doesn't really belong in this thread, does it? I guess I should start a separate one..
We are waiting. We're going to keep this up until you do it, and give us a song.
Right, guys?
[ May 02, 2005, 09:35 PM: Message edited by: ketchupqueen ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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! Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
As I posted to the reading aloud thread, there are copyright issues.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Not if we keep it to e-mail.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Plus, I can only think of one song out of hundreds that I would sing as an a cappella solo that's under copyright.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ummm . . . everything you want to sing a-cappella is from before 1923?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, sharing over email's likely still illegal. Likely won't get caught, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
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.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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?
[ May 02, 2005, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
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. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yeah, except for two big things:
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.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
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
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I agree, it seems amazingly harsh.
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.
[ May 02, 2005, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It's stupid. We're clearly not doing it for profit. It's private.
EDIT: Anyway, most of the songs I planned to sing were written before 1923 anyway. I'm largely a classical singer.
[ May 02, 2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some of it yes, other parts no.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Dagonee
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote:Playing a movie in a common room in a dorm is often considered a public performance.
That's outrageous... so people living in res can't watch movies? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, so the school needs to own a site license for movie performances.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
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.
Maybe I just really dislike copyright laws.
[ May 02, 2005, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Miriya ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
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.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: Ummm . . . everything you want to sing a-cappella is from before 1923?
Pretty much, yes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
So does that make it illegal to have a bunch of friends over to watch a movie? or to loan my books/ movies to others?
I know I'm nitpicking here... sorry. Copyright laws make me cranky. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
But anything I perform that is written before 1923 is alright?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
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.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Teshi, we can start a "public domain" singing thread...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We can also, of course, sing our own songs. And there are many poems we can put to music and sing.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
See . . . problem solved. So go ahead, twinky, start that thread!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yes, we can, kq. And we will sing songs right up to 1923.
Now I'm all worked up and my roomate is having to put up with my ranting again. Poor her.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The Cyber Hymnal: public domain hymns The Mudcat Cafe: dedicated to folk music, has a ton of public domain and folk lyrics
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Public Domain Music has a public domain song list
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
So, twinky, where's the thread?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Don't bother Twinky, kq, I'll start the thread...
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, I'll harass you, then. *likes to internet-harass people*
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We wants the thread, precious. We neeeeedsss it...
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
But it's so much more fun harassing twinky . . . Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If Twinky wanted to do it, he would have already done it, I'm sure .
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Well, darn it, that was quick.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
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).
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
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).
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Wow, I have DEFINATELY violated copyright.
*ducks and runs*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Quite likely, though you might also be surprised at times you've been covered.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Fugu, you are covered performing songs in your home or a friend's home non-commercially. But performing at an open mic in a public or commercial venue is a violation unless the venue has a license.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Which I most likely have done.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There's no universal coverage on performance in homes, though its unlikely anyone would pursue such a violation.
Holding a small movie showing (say, 20 people, almost all friends) on a projection screen in your backyard would be a violation, though.
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
What would make that a violation? The lack of roof?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Hmm, maybe it was a state law. But I know that I was told that singing songs at home with or without friends was not a violation.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: Holding a small movie showing (say, 20 people, almost all friends) on a projection screen in your backyard would be a violation, though.
It might be, but I would like everyone to note that this was suggested as a fun party idea in two different parenting magazines last year.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nothing to do with a lack of roof, same screening inside would be problematic.
There are no hard and fast rules, but usually once you get beyond what would typically be considered "a few people sitting around" watching tv or whatever, when it becomes a "showing", is when it starts becoming problematic.
And that a magazine recommends it means very little, most people, magazine writers and editors included, know very little about copyright Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, singing songs at homes by yourself or with a few friends is fine. They key word is few. When it starts to be a dedicated activity of some sort, such as when you start pulling a larger group together for "performances" or the like, even if its still just for fun, a license is (technically) needed.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I wasn't saying that it meant anything. Just that they were encouraging lawbreaking. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hell, they installed a home movie theatre for a family, so they could have extended movie nights in their back yard, on Extreme Home Makeover, not that long ago.... Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hmm, maybe it was a state law. But I know that I was told that singing songs at home with or without friends was not a violation.
State law can't really effect this - fair use and copyright are federally defined, and any state intrusion on either would be reducing someone's federally granted right.
A "few" friends is not a problem. Here's the statutory language:
quote:To perform or display a work "publicly" means-- (1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or (2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. But that's why 1923 is about the only definite milestone we have. I'm sure some works were created by someone who died before 1930, but it's hard to figure that out. So 1923 is the safe point.
![[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)