Tag: copyrights

bookmark_borderMusic Modernization Act

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse

For years, the music moguls, executives, record companies and other middlemen in music have been trying to pass this law – MMA

The new law creates a “modern” music management company [Collective Management Organization (CMO)] staffed mainly by existing music management.

All artists must pay the new entity.

The new law also creates royalties for producers… even if you don’t currently pay a producer, you do now. Even if you are a musician that produces your own music, you will pay these other producers.

There is no increase in gross income. There is no increase in revenue.

All existing artists that get a share of the money will now have to give royalties to music companies that weren’t getting paid for music recorded before 1972. Though they will be paid by you, you will not be allowed to cover their material without paying them again.

In conclusion:
Out of all artists/musicians share of the existing gross income,
artists will pay these other people… BY LAW.

(As a result, all independent artists will see a decrease in their net income/share.)

Meet your new boss. Same as the old boss… unless you are… I mean were an independent artist. In that case, meet your boss. You are no longer independent.

ONGOING COSTS TO MUSICIANS, ARTISTS and MUSIC
Ever since the 1920’s when the mafia would shakedown speakeasies for royalties, the music industry has attempted to control the distribution of music. In the 70’s, they tried to control the “taping” of music. In the 2000’s, they tried to control music downloads with lawsuits against NAPSTER and little old ladies.

“On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against the people that should be the recording industry’s best customers: music fans. Five years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened legal actions against at least 30,000 individuals. These individuals have included children, grandparents, unemployed single mothers, college professors….” (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

Now, they are trying to control “streaming” music. What does this mean? Radio stations that stream their programming? Musicians that stream their music to videos?
 
The ongoing problems and lawsuits of trying to define what they control will likely be detrimental to musicians and music for decades to come.

Question: Seems like if you produce your own stuff and register it all correctly, you get more for your work than current standards. Thoughts?

Answer: I wish. No… or at least unlikely… if you already do those things, you are already getting 100% of your royalties. The streaming companies already have all their deals with the record labels, such as, Sony and Warner. This new law was started years ago before those deals were cut. So now the money companies like spotify and apple pay out, will stay the same; however, part of your 100% money will be shifted to the labels (to pay their producers, engineers, pre-1972 publishing, etc. and this new management company.) It’s hard to say exactly how much you will lose… probably 25% or so. For most people it won’t matter. If you have been getting $7.43/year… you might only get 5/year now. The larger problem will be in their lawsuits against people like facebook. If they sue facebook over streaming music, you may lose your ability to stream for free… or youtube… or anybody that streams music. Not just live streams, but all digital music that streams. In theory, they could try to shut them down like NAPSTER.

Also see: S.2823 – Music Modernization Act
and
H.R. 1551: An Act to modernize copyright law, and for other purposes.

bookmark_borderTrans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse

The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) is a free trade agreement being negotiated by twelve countries:
Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, United States, Vietnam, Chile, Brunei, Singapore, and New Zealand. The TPP will eliminate over 18,000 taxes, tariffs and other trade barriers.

One of the largest benefits of the TPP will be protecting the environment. Participating countries will need to adopt tougher pollution standards similar to the USA. “TPP includes the most robust enforceable environment commitments of any trade agreement in history,” according the United States. “TPP requires countries to play by fair environmental rules if they want to send their goods to the United States, and upgrades NAFTA by putting fully enforceable environment obligations at the core of the agreement.” In addition, TPP helps improve conditions on the ground in TPP countries by requiring them to:
* Fulfill their obligations under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to protect and conserve iconic species, such as rhinos and elephants.
* For the first time in any trade agreement, prohibit harmful fisheries subsidies, including those that contribute to overfishing, and work to restrain new subsidy programs or enhancements to existing subsidy programs.
* Combat illegal fishing, promote sustainable fisheries management practices, and protect wetlands and important natural areas.
* Promote the long-term conservation of whales, dolphins, sharks, sea turtles, and other marine species at risk.
* Combat wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing through enhanced national and regional actions.
* Protect the marine environment from ship pollution, including by implementing their obligations under MARPOL (an international agreement to prevent marine pollution).

Another benefit of the TPP will be the recognition of Intellectual Property (IP) Rights. Countries would be required to adopt standards inline with the USA. TPP copyrights are proposed to be “for the author’s life plus 70 years.”

The Agreement covers more than 40 percent of global GDP. Of the international economists questioned, the only complaint about TPP is — it doesn’t include the entire world.

Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Map
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) Map

Also see: GMO Rice Wins Humanitarian Award

bookmark_borderHappy Birthday Public!

Posted on by admin

US federal judge, George King, ruled that the original copyright was only granted for specific arrangements of the music, not the song itself.

The original copyright was filed in 1935 under the name Good Morning To All by Mildred and Patty Hill. Warner/Chappell acquired the copyright in 1988; however, the Judge said, “The Hill sisters gave Summy Co the rights to the melody, and the rights to piano arrangements based on the melody, but never any rights to the lyrics.”

Happy Birthday
Happy Birthday

bookmark_borderCopyrights And Patents

Posted on by admin

by Daniel Brouse

Though copyrights and patents are generally thought to protect the creator from the public, sometimes they may be thought to protect the public from the creator.

A copyright offers protection to literary and musical works. In the United States a copyright’s duration is usually for the life of the author plus 70 years. The laws vary from country to country. Mein Kampf is a book written by Adolf Hitler while he was in prison. When Hitler died, the rights passed to the Bavarian authorities. Some people consider Mein Kampf to be the most dangerous book ever written. The expiration of the copyright is in December 2015. “The Bavarians have used copyright to control republication of Mein Kampf but that control is coming to an end – what happens next? This is still a dangerous book – there are issues with neo-Nazis, and a danger of people misinterpreting it if it’s not put into context,” says John Murphy, whose grandfather translated the first unabridged English language version in 1936.

In the United States, a utility patents’ term is 20 years. Monsanto says, “The first-generation Roundup Ready® soybean trait – the world’s most widely adopted biotech trait, planted by farmers on billions of acres since 1996 — comes off patent in 2015.”