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

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

Here's the information I was thinking of;

A. Compulsory Mechanical License

If you determine that the song is protected by copyright law, you will
need a mechanical license in order to cover it. This license can be a
compulsory mechanical license or a negotiated license. The compulsory
mechanical license allows you to make your own recording of a song that
has been commercially released provided that you give certain notices and
accountings, and pay the license fee set by law. The compulsory mechanical
license fee - also called the statutory rate - is currently 7.55¢ per song
per record distributed for recordings of up to five minutes. If the
recording is more than five minutes, the statutory rate is 1.45¢ per
minute per record.

A compulsory mechanical license allows you to make another musical
arrangement as necessary to conform the song to your style and
interpretation. However, you cannot change the basic melody, the lyrics or
the fundamental character of the song without permission from the songís
owner.



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