I agree with you for once….Lets put the smile back on the groove..music has to be live!
I am trying my best to keeping it real,keeping it live ,music lives in the moment.
Other wise the vibe is subdued the magic is diluted
the foot print of the computer has stamped it out.

I haven’t seen the article but I do remember the interview. The gist of the conversation was that I was in complete support for the extension of
song samples to 90 seconds (from 30). I believe that will help consumers make better choices in their music purchases and that will be a boon
to professional songwriters.

Currently songwriters receive compensation on the performance of their songs in the 30 second samples (consumers don’t pay this, the online
music distributor does). The 90 second sample is not a Billboard, as you suggest, but is a piece of the product instead.
As in most businesses the retailer and the producer negotiate who bears the costs to give away some part of the product to entice consumers
to purchase the product. (think of the free samples you get in the grocery store,and buy one get one coupons, etc.)

It is the long standing principle of the SGA that whenever songwriter’s songs are used in whole or in part the songwriters should receive compensation. The amount is negotiated based on
the determination of the values of the use. In this case ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC negotiate with the online distributor to determine a fair value for the music. BMI has already made
a deal for the 90 second samples. I am not sure where the negotiations are with ASCAP and SESAC.

We understand the need to use portions of the song for advertising, but we also understand, from 80 years of experience, that if no compensation is involved there is too much
latitude for the retailers. We don’t want retailers competing to see who can give away the most ‘free goods’ to attract buyers.

I hope this explanation allays some of your concerns.

Thanks for reading.
Rick

The position you seem to be taking suggests that people are sitting at iTunes listening to samples like a radio station. They are not. They are trying to make a buying decision. The sample is like a billboard for that song or artist. Do you want a big billboard that showcases your product well, or would you prefer a hand painted sign on someone’s front yard?

I hope you are in the minority in your thinking on this. I think a lot more music will be bought if people can really get a feeling for the music they are considering.

Theft: “Unlawful acquisition of property with intent to convert to taker’s use and appropriation by taker.”

Infringement: “A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right. Used especially of the invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.”

Personal property: “Personal property is divisible into (1) corporeal personal property, which includes movable and tangible things, such as animals, ships, furniture, merchandise, etc.; and (2) incorporeal personal property, which consists of such rights as personal annuities, stocks, shares, patents, and copyrights.”

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, copyright 1957 West Publishing Co.

As you can clearly see from the above, copyright infringement is in fact legally defined as theft.
The term infringement is simply a descriptive. I used quotations from a 1957 edition of Black’s to illustrate that this is not a new idea in response to the current mass infringement but has existed as a legal concept for quite some time.

If the aforementioned isn’t enough to convince you that copyright infringement is indeed theft then the following should suffice to illustrate that intangible goods are legally considered objects and are therefore subject to the same legal rulings as tangible objects.

Copyright: “The right of literary property as recognised and sanctioned by positive law. An intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby he is invested, for a limited period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them.”

Theft: “Unlawful acquisition of property with intent to convert to taker’s use and appropriation by taker.”

Appropriate: “To make a thing one’s own; to make a thing the subject of property; to exercise dominion over an object to the extent, and for the purpose, of making it subserve one’s own proper use or pleasure.”

Things: “The objects of dominion or property as contradistinguished from “persons.” The object of a right; i.e., whatever is treated by the law as the object over which one person exercises a right, and with reference to which another person lies under a duty.”

Infringement: “A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right. Used especially of the invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.”

Infringement of copyright: “A copy, more or less servile, of a copyrighted work. Mere likeness is insufficient, and an original treatment of a subject, open alike to treatment by the copyright holder and others does not constitute infringement. There must be appropriation of substantial portions of the copyright matter, but intention to infringe is not essential.”

Object: “End aimed at, the thing sought to be accomplished, the aim or purpose, the thing sought to be obtained. Anything which comes within the cognisance or scrutiny of the senses, especially anything tangible or visible. That which is perceived, known, thought of, or signified; that toward which a cognitive act is directed. Whatever may be presented to the mind as well as to the senses; whatever, also, is acted upon or operated upon affirmatively, or intentionally influenced by anything done, moved, or applied thereto. It may be used as having the sense of effect.”

Property: That which is peculiar or proper to any person; that which belongs exclusively to one; in the strict legal sense, an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the government extending to every species of valuable right and interest. More specifically, ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. That dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects. The exclusive right of possessing, enjoying, and disposing of a thing. Everything which is the subject of ownership, corporeal or incorporeal, tangible or intangible, visible or invisible, real or personal; everything that has an exchangable value or which goes to make up wealth or estate. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, and includes real and personal property, easements, franchises, and incorporeal hereditaments. The right of property is that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe. It consists of the free use, enjoyment and disposal of all a person’s acquisitions, without any control or diminution save only by the laws of the land.

Personal property: Personal property is divisible into (1) corporeal personal property, which includes movable and tangible things, such as animals, ships, furniture, merchandise, etc.; and (2) incorporeal personal property, which consists of such rights as personal annuities, stocks, shares, patents, and copyrights.

Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, copyright 1957 West Publishing Co.

In light of what you’ve just read, I appeal to you to retire the use of the nonsensical argument that infringement is not theft.

Patrick Landreville
Bald Ego Music

As a supporter of copyright and IP rights, I thought you would enjoy my article on Creative Commons, EFF, Lawrence Lessig, etc. Here is the link:

http://musicindustrynewswire.com/2010/08/10/min3213_183633.php

Best,
Scott G

BUT – I know that you’re not the record labels and not representing them. The idea that we should allow rampant theft of music just because it is already being done is idiotic. When the printing press was new, no one got paid for their work until the laws caught up and corrected the theft. Do I think that it is “cool” or “correct” that great artists through history have died penniless? Hell no!

There was a time when the only way we could have great composers is if they could scrape a living from benefactors (like royals, the wealthy and churches). But then there was a time when great bands like the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc… became powerful enough to support other artists (giving us movies like “Holy Grail” and “Life of Brian” for instance). And writers that wrote big hits could start businesses that helped other writers. I think we all should want THAT time back! Visualize things getting better instead of wallowing in the idea that there is no point in fighting the good fight and stopping theft! Even if that is only part of the battle!

Who says the internet is full of garbage?? Great post, I was searching for hernando newspaper and came across it. Glad I did….