<nettime> ++ resounds of silence digest [Benson, porculus, scottart]

["nettime's_satire_dig" <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>]

Table of Contents:

   Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]                     
     "Michael Benson" <michael.benson@pristop.si>                                    

   Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]                     
     "porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>                                                

   Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]                     
     scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>                                          

   Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]                     
     scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>                                          



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 17:03:29 +0200
From: "Michael Benson" <michael.benson@pristop.si>
Subject: Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]

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






------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 18:03:12 +0200
From: "porculus" <porculus@wanadoo.fr>
Subject: Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]



> The album was finally released with
> an opening track of several minutes of silence instead, entitled "The
> Sound of Free Speech". I wonder which of the two came first, Cage or
> Crass, and who should now sue whom.

give it up it's wellknown it's this aphone wittgenstein who win the kitty
noisy habitus &corpus were killed in the back by polar tractatus, it'z an
old sergio's
beside give it all, as the silence is in gold, one kill for less
zilenzio iz long time ago copyrighted by god
impossible to be more zilenz
except the death
'hear even a small fart in zome zilenz and suddenly the hope increase' it's
a famous holderlins' one




------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:02:10 +1000
From: scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]

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

<snip/nettime>


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


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 10:08:23 +1000
From: scotartt <scot@systemx.autonomous.org>
Subject: Re: <nettime> resounds of silence digest [pieter, scotartt]

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

<snip/nettime>



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


------------------------------

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net