Disklavier

Sorry but this really shits me. Has the world gorn crazy?

What a load of rubbish. No one will care about some guy playing a few old 
christmas songs on his piano and emailing the recording to a few people in a 
group. Just google xmas midi and see how many you find.
 
I would understand if he was SELLING the recordings and perhaps even if it was 
playing in a 'public venue'.
 
I would also understand and appriciate the law if it was a Yamaha disk, but come 
on, it's a private performance on a home piano, infact he changed the songs so 
much that it's not even close to the typical 'jingle bells' etc.
 
And particulary when people even make an issue of a Music teacher and all this 
'public performance' nonsense in her own home, come on.
 
Liten up
 
Philip
 
  

________________________________

From: George F. Litterst <PianoBench@aol.com>
To: disklavier@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, 5 December, 2010 8:55:14 AM
Subject: Re: [disklavier] copyright

Good afternoon, everyone.

I don't mean to pick on my friend, Carol, but I would like to clear up a few 
issues. In doing so, my interest is not in defending the law but merely 
describing it.

On Dec 4, 2010, at 5:25 AM, Carol Beigel wrote:

> I don't want to open a can of worms here, but I think it is okay for people to 
>record music and distribute on this website.

Of course we are all entitled to our own opinions.

> There are at lea st two copyrights for any song,

There are many intellectual property rights including:

--the right to reproduce a work
--the right to prepare derivative works
--the right to distribute copies
--the right to perform in public
--the write to display in public
--the right to perform publicly a sound recording

The law further defines the circumstances under which one may record a musical 
work. The owner of the copyright has the first opportunity to record the work or 
designate someone to record the work. After than, anyone can record the work if 
they obtain a mechanical license (named after the piano roll recordings of a 
hundred years ago).

Based on the latest change in the law (1997), the fee for recording a work is 
9.1¢ or 1.75¢ per minute of playing time or a fraction thereof, whichever is 
greater. In the case of the medley which encompasses many works, I am not sure 
how the royalty would work.

> and a myriad of licensing agreements that could be involved if you were to sell 
>the music. 
>

These rights are independent of where you are selling something.

> Not only can a song be copyrighted, but so can it's performance.

The right to perform in public is a defined right. If the medley that was passed 
around were played in a public place, a royalty would be expected. Many venues 
pay a blanket license to cover all public performances within the venue.

> Some copyrights eventually expire.

True. Unfortunately or fortunately (depending upon your perspective), almost 
every composition and arrangement composed on or after January 1, 1923 is still 
under copyright. (A few protected works fell into the public domain years ago 
because the rights owners failed to renew their copyright). Of those works still 
under copyright, none will become public domain until 2018 or 2019 (not sure of 
the exact year) due to changes of the copyright law which have extended 
copyrights. Many copyrights will not expired for many more decades.

> For Holiday music, many of the tunes are out of copyright.

True but typically not the ones of a pop nature.

> Dereck Barnes could copyright his performance but not the tune.

True. But that does not change the fact that the law requires the payment of a 
mechanical license for each copy that has been distributed.

> I think we are all safe downloading his files and thank him for sharing his 
>performance.

I think that the gentleman had nothing but the best intentions in sharing his 
performance.

We're probably "safe" in the sense that in the absence of being repeat 
offenders, the worst that we are likely to experience is a cease-and-desist 
letter from an attorney. It should be noted, however, that repeat offenders are 
regularly sued for such things as trading song files on the Internet and 
allowing public performances of copyrighted music within a public venue without 
paying a license fee.

> It's not like he is making any money on this.

That is true but that has nothing to do with liability under current copyright 
law. Imagine, for example, buying a piece of copyrighted music, photocopying it, 
and then giving away the photocopies. In this scenario, you are not making any 
money. Nonetheless, the action is considered to be illegal. To copy the music, a 
print license is required, a concept very similar to requiring a mechanical 
license for the reocording.

Regards,
PianoBench

www.georgelitterst.com
www.timewarptech.com