[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]

[scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>]

Michael

Yes it appears my info about cover versions is out of date. It used to be
the system that only the first public release was subject to a strict
prior approval. But what usually goes on here, is that if your record
company is a member of the relevant collection agency, eg AMCOS for me, I
think ASCAP or BMI in the USA, it will be done as a fairly automatic
process by their registering the mechanical rights present in the
recording before release. I don't know if in this system the publisher or
songwriter gets a right-of-refusal before it's actually approved or if it
just goes down the pipeline fairly automatically as in the end its about
payment of royalties. 

When you write a song, there are three rights you generally worry about;
performance, mechanicals, and synchronisation. Performance is about
performing the song in or to the public (on stage, over the radio or
internet); mechanicals is about releasing recordings and is related to
record sales, synchronisation right is about the right to control when
where or if your music is 'synchronised' to images. There are agencies for
collecting performance and mechnical royalties (they send me royalty
cheques each quarter) but none typically for synchronisation rights.

As no-one is suggesting that the composer actually published a Cage-owned
*performance* of 4'33" then there is no suggestion he is breaching master
tape copyrights (which anyway are usually owned by your record company;
that's what a recording contract is), so it has to be a dispute over the
mechanicals; these are typically resolved through a fairly automatic
system run via the mechanical collection agencies. 

So unless his record company wasn't ASCAP registered or didn't follow the
correct procedure or never paid the mechanicals, I can't see it would be a
big deal. Either that or its a matter of control over the alteration of
the work (remember it's co-credited).

Synchronisation rights are completely different to the mechanicals and not
usually handled by universal collection society procedures.

Samplists (and mp3 swappers) breach the master tape rights as well as
sometimes the mechanical and performance rights. Master tape rights are
usually controlled by the record company which is why there's always
such a big fuss over them.

regs
scot.


On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:03:29PM +0200, Michael Benson wrote:
> Scott, much of what you wrote in your posting just doesn't compute. Or if it
> does, I've been living in a parallel universe. And maybe both statements are
> true. Where did you get your information? Cover versions can't be released
> (certainly in the film world -- and it must be so in recordings-land as
> well) without clearance from the holder of the rights to the song. Not
> necessarily the song-writer. I'm currently petitioning an outfit called Rolf
> Budde Musikverlage for the right to do a very "off" cover version of a
> vintage Allman Brothers song for a film I'm making. I'm asking for the
> so-called synchronization rights -- not the master use rights, which have to
> do with using the actual original recording concerned. The former cost less
> than the latter, but they cost. (For me, both are way too expensive, but
> that's another story.)
> 
> > Strictly speaking though, if a work has previously been released as a
> > recording, then the composer can't control who else can record and release
> > the composition.
> 
> The holder of the rights to the tune can. Certainly when it comes to use in
> a film. Would releasing a CD be any different?
> 
> > If you wanted to perform or record a Beatles cover, or a John Cage
> > composition, they can't stop you.
> 
> Again, where did you get this info? Technically, the above may be right: you
> can sing it from the stage, and you can record it -- but you can't release
> it without approval. Why do you think the Cage estate would be wasting its
> time if that was true?
> 
> > Seems to me people often confuse compositional rights with the rights on
> > the master tape (i.e. a specific performance of a composition). You can't
> > use a sample of the Beatles, but you can re-record their songs without
> > asking.
> 
> Under US law, and again my information has to do with film, the only time
> this is true is if it is a satirical version of the song. Satire is
> protected under the first amendment. But satire is narrowly defined in the
> law.
> 
> Which raises the interesting question of if this shorter dub version of
> Cage's silence, complete with a total absence of any sound at all from the
> beginning to end, a complete absence of sound, but less of it, can qualify
> as satire... Satire of the silent kind.
> 
> Best, MB
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
                                                  F
   [[ From: scot@autonomous.org ]]                |
+--[[ NERVE AGENT AUDIO SYSTEMS ]]--+--(CH3)2CH-O-P=O--+
   [[ http://mp3.com/nerveagent ]]                |
                                                  CH3

_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold