Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
I took you at you word, even though the word honoured was directed at David: I stole your beautiful rainbow and pasted it over my ugly house :) http://twittervlog.tv/?p=153 Rupert On 2 Jul 2007, at 19:38, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage wrote: Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They actually cost $4.30 each. Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell. On 7/2/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you say free lo-fi music by me, is that free as in I can use your music without remuneration to you? Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could find use for them in a few videos I have planned. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just want to talk a little more about copyright and the ownership of art, as I felt compelled to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being trollish ;) I don't mean to start an argument here, I just need to understand how people feel about the things they are making, and I want you all to understand how I feel. A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago called The History of What My Dog Can't Hear: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and accepting it as something that is not ownable: The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But I take no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom or a drum for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the present deception of its ownability places limits on our consciousness. My motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical manifesto-mill can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to assist an already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs commandments or a bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need to be able to hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's just the way music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon. Some astronomers can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are those astronomers. I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as pompous and irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon looks still. He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos, and at the end he says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the word music with the word images. Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor directly from him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a check is in the mail. Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not worldly sound, a person can't claim to own or control music any more than they can claim to own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake. PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and home-made electronic instrument music by the author of that essay: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html And some free lo-fi music by me: http://standards.bullemhead.com/ -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Ok, I'm not sure how this has changed since Maureen and I were playing music and recording. Anyway, we recorded one cover song on a CD we made - writer was ASCP or BMI, don't remember which - and the way it worked was that for every CD we sold we were to pay him 9 cents or something like that (this was early 90s). So, if that is the royalties you refer to, at least in our case, seemed pretty reasonable. I'm not sure how universal this was or what, but we got the info from the song writer himself and from a lot of other singer song writers we knew at the time, so that was our source for information on what to do - no one official. Now we give away the one CD we recorded for free and all the songs can be downloaded for free at blisshippy.com (not a big deal, and not trying to promote our music - there a zillions of much more talented artists on pod safe music - archive.org live archives - etc. - where you can get songs to play for free with your vlogs). But the point with the free part, is I would logically deduce that when we give a cover song away - one we perform, ourselves - we don't have to pay any royalties. So, if I want to have a certain popular song as background, and I'm a musician with the ability to play that song myself, I can use it without worrying so long as I don't make money off of the song/video. Now, if I do make money, not sure what would be equivalent to one CD sold, so, not sure how royalty would work. I would love to hear comments from someone with more expertise on the legalities of using a copy righted cover song that I perform myself in a situation where I'm not making money, and I'm distributing widely - is that legal to do without paying royalties? ... Richard On 7/4/07, Adam Jochum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a live perfomance, the venue pays for the privilege of allowing the musician to perform copyrighted material via ASCAP and BMI 'membership'. If a recording is made, the musician pays for the privilege of distributing the copyrighted material. Some friends of mine in a band who released a live recording are continuously grumbling about the royalties on the 'covers' they played in that show. Adam Jochum cafn8ed.tv --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, I was under the impression that musicians/bands covering a tune for a recording would certainly need permission on the assumption that money would be made from the sale of the album. But every band in every live concert I've ever seen has done at least one cover (always my favorite part of a show...you can't judge a book by it's cover but you CAN judge a band by it's covers) and I can't imagine they sought permission first. Oh well. There must be some sort of if you're already famous you can do a cover of my famous song clause. In the meanwhile, I'm going to brush up on my piano skills. I've always wanted to use Song for a Future Generation by the B-52s. Perhaps I'll cover that. bekah ps: David, my fiancee informs me that we no longer say bastard red-headed step children. The more accepted term is Gingers. ; ) -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: Interesting. So, all musicians or bands covering a tune must get permission first or pay fees? Does that include if they cover a song in an encore or something too? Adam's music might have to become my bastard red-haired step children then. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Beware though that the US court system do not agree with the dog essay. Adam did not write most of those songs and thus you will also need to secure permission from the composer (or pay ASCAP fees or whatever the procedure is for the kind of work you want to make). Longer reply coming in a day or two when I've had time energy to wade through the rhetoric analogies in that essay. - Andreas Den 02.07.2007 kl. 20:49 skrev David Howell taoofdavid@: Excellent. Much appreciated. I'll care for them and treat them as though they were made of the finest crystal. Maybe, on a hot summer evening, I might just call one of them Fred. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.comvideoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They actually cost $4.30 each. Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell. On 7/2/07, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote:
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Music copyright - recorded and performed - is handled in the UK by the MCPS-PRS Alliance. They are experimenting with various different discount schemes for using music in podcasts. They had a cheap license last year, I think, which they withdrew. They're now planning to re-release it, i think, with all sorts of limitations on it like not using the whole song and not using bookmarks and show notes to indicate start and end points. And a few other more restrictive ones besides. The licenses for live venues and for recorded music here have been overhauled as part of our government's attempts to legislate everything they possibly can as quickly as possible. The Musicians Union and other people made a lot of noise about how the new laws would kill live music in venues where acts performed only occasionally (license is something like £1000 per year, so a country pub's got to sell a lot of beer to recover that as a result of the occasional weekend band). But I'm not sure what the actual effect has been in the end. Rupert http://twittervlog.tv/ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
There are standard licensing agreements for this kind of stuff and no permission is needed as long as you pay. In the case of music being covered by a live band it is to the best of my knowledge the venue who is paying the licensing fees (in Denmark, don't know about the US) to the appropriate organization. - Andreas Den 03.07.2007 kl. 15:59 skrev missbhavens1969 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Well, I was under the impression that musicians/bands covering a tune for a recording would certainly need permission on the assumption that money would be made from the sale of the album. But every band in every live concert I've ever seen has done at least one cover (always my favorite part of a show...you can't judge a book by it's cover but you CAN judge a band by it's covers) and I can't imagine they sought permission first. Oh well. There must be some sort of if you're already famous you can do a cover of my famous song clause. In the meanwhile, I'm going to brush up on my piano skills. I've always wanted to use Song for a Future Generation by the B-52s. Perhaps I'll cover that. bekah ps: David, my fiancee informs me that we no longer say bastard red-headed step children. The more accepted term is Gingers. ; ) -- http://www.missbhavens.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting. So, all musicians or bands covering a tune must get permission first or pay fees? Does that include if they cover a song in an encore or something too? Adam's music might have to become my bastard red-haired step children then. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen solitude@ wrote: Beware though that the US court system do not agree with the dog essay. Adam did not write most of those songs and thus you will also need to secure permission from the composer (or pay ASCAP fees or whatever the procedure is for the kind of work you want to make). Longer reply coming in a day or two when I've had time energy to wade through the rhetoric analogies in that essay. - Andreas Den 02.07.2007 kl. 20:49 skrev David Howell taoofdavid@: Excellent. Much appreciated. I'll care for them and treat them as though they were made of the finest crystal. Maybe, on a hot summer evening, I might just call one of them Fred. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They actually cost $4.30 each. Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell. On 7/2/07, David Howell taoofdavid@ wrote: When you say free lo-fi music by me, is that free as in I can use your music without remuneration to you? Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could find use for them in a few videos I have planned. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just want to talk a little more about copyright and the ownership of art, as I felt compelled to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being trollish ;) I don't mean to start an argument here, I just need to understand how people feel about the things they are making, and I want you all to understand how I feel. A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago called The History of What My Dog Can't Hear: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and accepting it as something that is not ownable: The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But I take no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom or a drum for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the present deception of its ownability places limits on our consciousness. My motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical manifesto-mill can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to assist an already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs commandments or a bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need to be able to hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's just the way music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon. Some astronomers can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are those astronomers. I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as pompous and irrelevant. After all, when
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
In the US it is assumed the venue has paid their annual licensing fee. My understanding is even bars and cafes aren't supposed to have a radio on unless they have paid a licensing fee. It is: insane. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com vlog links are here __ On 7/3/07, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are standard licensing agreements for this kind of stuff and no permission is needed as long as you pay. In the case of music being covered by a live band it is to the best of my knowledge the venue who is paying the licensing fees (in Denmark, don't know about the US) to the appropriate organization. - Andreas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
That is true in Denmark as well. The prices are very reasonable (I just looked them up) and won't hold any establishment back. - Andreas Den 03.07.2007 kl. 17:16 skrev Brook Hinton [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In the US it is assumed the venue has paid their annual licensing fee. My understanding is even bars and cafes aren't supposed to have a radio on unless they have paid a licensing fee. It is: insane. ___ Brook Hinton film/video/audio art www.brookhinton.com vlog links are here __ On 7/3/07, Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are standard licensing agreements for this kind of stuff and no permission is needed as long as you pay. In the case of music being covered by a live band it is to the best of my knowledge the venue who is paying the licensing fees (in Denmark, don't know about the US) to the appropriate organization. - Andreas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
around the 3/7/07 Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen mentioned about Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't He that: That is true in Denmark as well. The prices are very reasonable (I just looked them up) and won't hold any establishment back. ditto in Australia. the agency responsible also redistributes this money to artists on the basis of sales of music and radio station playlists. -- cheers Adrian Miles this email is bloggable [ ] ask first [ ] private [x] vogmae.net.au [official compliance stuff:] CRICOS provider code: 00122A
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They actually cost $4.30 each. Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell. On 7/2/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you say free lo-fi music by me, is that free as in I can use your music without remuneration to you? Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could find use for them in a few videos I have planned. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just want to talk a little more about copyright and the ownership of art, as I felt compelled to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being trollish ;) I don't mean to start an argument here, I just need to understand how people feel about the things they are making, and I want you all to understand how I feel. A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago called The History of What My Dog Can't Hear: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and accepting it as something that is not ownable: The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But I take no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom or a drum for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the present deception of its ownability places limits on our consciousness. My motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical manifesto-mill can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to assist an already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs commandments or a bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need to be able to hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's just the way music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon. Some astronomers can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are those astronomers. I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as pompous and irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon looks still. He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos, and at the end he says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the word music with the word images. Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor directly from him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a check is in the mail. Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not worldly sound, a person can't claim to own or control music any more than they can claim to own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake. PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and home-made electronic instrument music by the author of that essay: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html And some free lo-fi music by me: http://standards.bullemhead.com/ -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: The History of What My Dog Can't Hear
Beware though that the US court system do not agree with the dog essay. Adam did not write most of those songs and thus you will also need to secure permission from the composer (or pay ASCAP fees or whatever the procedure is for the kind of work you want to make). Longer reply coming in a day or two when I've had time energy to wade through the rhetoric analogies in that essay. - Andreas Den 02.07.2007 kl. 20:49 skrev David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Excellent. Much appreciated. I'll care for them and treat them as though they were made of the finest crystal. Maybe, on a hot summer evening, I might just call one of them Fred. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Free as in liberty and the natural state of man, not price. They actually cost $4.30 each. Them's just jokes. Use em as you see fit. I'd be honored to hear them in your video, and those songs aren't mine to sell. On 7/2/07, David Howell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When you say free lo-fi music by me, is that free as in I can use your music without remuneration to you? Not trying to sound like a prick. I like your tunes and could find use for them in a few videos I have planned. David http://www.davidhowellstudios.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Adam Quirk, Wreck Salvage quirk@ wrote: Back in town, re-reading the Podtech v. Bui thread. I just want to talk a little more about copyright and the ownership of art, as I felt compelled to scratch Mr. Rice's mosquito bite about being trollish ;) I don't mean to start an argument here, I just need to understand how people feel about the things they are making, and I want you all to understand how I feel. A friend of mine wrote an essay on music a couple years ago called The History of What My Dog Can't Hear: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/texts/essay2.html The essay is about changing the way we perceive music, and accepting it as something that is not ownable: The ownership or authorship of anything is a deception, surely. But I take no issue with the ownership of objects in the world, like a broom or a drum for example. Music however, is a thing not in the world, and the present deception of its ownability places limits on our consciousness. My motivation here is not to sell iPods. If this near biblical manifesto-mill can be accused of having any agenda at all, it is merely to assist an already rising consciousness. Neither are these paragraphs commandments or a bugle call to what we need to realize or do. We didn't need to be able to hear tone in music or need to be aware of its color - it's just the way music is happening to us, rising on a path like the moon. Some astronomers can predict the path of the moon, and surely artists are those astronomers. I understand those who are skeptical or scoff at this as pompous and irrelevant. After all, when you look at the moon, the moon looks still. He feels the same way about music as I do about my videos, and at the end he says, EXTRA CREDIT: Re-read this entire essay but replace the word music with the word images. Re-reading it I realized that I unconsciously lifted metaphor directly from him. Blatant plagiarism! I've already informed him and a check is in the mail. Because music is a matter of shifting consciousness and not worldly sound, a person can't claim to own or control music any more than they can claim to own or control a quadrant of mist over a lake. PS. Here is a free album of amazing midi-synthesizer and home-made electronic instrument music by the author of that essay: http://www.geartekcorporation.com/slowdudes/slowdudes.html And some free lo-fi music by me: http://standards.bullemhead.com/ -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links -- Adam Quirk Wreck Salvage 551.208.4644 Brooklyn, NY http://wreckandsalvage.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- Andreas Haugstrup Pedersen URL: http://www.solitude.dk/
