What I got out of that article was that big corporations might sue each other over something that thousands or millions of people are doing. One important difference between the YouTube battle and our pleasant, even-tempered, well-mannered completely polite and respectful discussions is that YouTube makes money (through advertising) off of the copyrighted material, where the taper/trader is performing his “service” free of charge or more likely, at a loss.

Here are a couple of thoughts:

1. Have artists that support taping/trading, when negotiating licenses for recording/performing works written by a third party, include language that allows for the legal dissemination of those copyrighted works. If, as the pro-taper movement believes, artists derive a benefit from allowing trading of their live shows, then they ought to have little problem with increasing compensation to the songwriters when paying for performance and mechanical licenses. I’m sure something fair and equitable could be reached. But the current model of 9.1 cents a track per unit (plus other fees) is not realistic as these recordings are not being sold, and no one is making money off of them. Perhaps if an artist allows taping, they pay a fee (based on attendance?) for each performance that allows recording (this fee could be recouped from slightly higher ticket prices, or selling “taper-only” tickets at an increased rate if the artists doesn’t want to pay for it out of pocket). That fee then goes to a fund from which songwriters can be compensated.

2. Expecting tapers/traders to a) fully understand copyright law and/or b) jump through the hoops necessary to comply with the law is folly. Yes, someone could start a campaign to educate and cajole tapers into following the strict letter of the law, but I don’t believe it would be terribly effective. If trading shows is outlawed, then only outlaws will trade shows.

3. While I agree that tapers that disseminate unauthorized recordings of copyrighted material are probably breaking the law, most do so unaware of their transgression, and I believe it is a victimless crime because the recordings are not sold, and no one is profiting from their distribution (with the possible exception of the artist who gets free marketing). What I haven’t heard is that the artists permitting taping are breaking the law as well, or are at least responsible for tapers breaking the law, as they are giving permission for the tapers to tape. I would think that any substantive movement to limit taping has to focus on Tim O’Brien, Del McCoury, Yonder Mountain, and the dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of other acts that permit or encourage taping and trading of their shows, and not on the tapers. The vast majority of tapers/traders are ethical upstanding people who genuinely love the music and are some of these acts’ biggest supporters. To target them for prosecution or civil liability will benefit nobody.

4. All record company executives should have their salaries slashed by 20% and the resulting funds should go the artists, performers, and songwriters that they have stolen from over the years. OK that’s a pipe dream….

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061116_439093.htm?campaign_id=bier_tcv.g3a.rss1116g

dig into the article and see what other areas of the entertainment industry are doing about copyright violation.

kip

“you go your way….and I’ll go mine”
is from a Bob Dylan tune of the same name.

It’s actually illegal to post lyrics publicly without prior consent or the proper licenses from his publisher. Bob Dylan doesn’t allow taping or trading, so you might want to ask the moderators to erase that post too before Bob Dylan decides to file a lawsuit.

I’m just kidding!

I have never sent you an email and never will so please stop sending them to me. I have nothing more to add to this thread.
You go your way and I’ll go mine.

I really liked Ian’s joke about the email copyright violation.
Should we contact the RIAA?

Seriously Dennis, I understand the anger but I think it’s horribly misdirected. I am passionately defending legal taping/trading and feel very strongly that it should be allowed, encouraged, and enjoyed. There are millions of fans, artists, and songwriters that also feel the same way. Of course, I don’t expect everyone to agree with me and there are good people on both sides of this issue who feel just as passionate about their opinion. In that sense, it’s just like politics or religion. Once you express that opinion, there are plenty of folks out there that will find something to disagree with you about, or resent you for even expressing it. It just comes with the territory, especially on the internet. I’m sure someone will take offense to this post too.

It’s not disagreement, but the tone of the conversation that throws these type of debates off the tracks every time. When you have judgemental name calling, hostile attitudes, repeated characterizations, and nasty personal attacks, it makes it very difficult to have any sort of reasonable or civil conversation about anything.

I would prefer to actually discuss the issues surrounding taping/trading instead of having to clarify or correct the repeated mischaracterizations and misrepresentations that the die-hard opponents have been throwing around against tapers/traders for the last few months surrounding this debate. I will always defend tapers/traders against this type of uneducated and dishonest posturing. Like I said, when you start delving into these type of 3rd rail topics, the temperature gets awful hot.

For me, the whole point of this debate is to educate those who don’t understand what taping/trading is really about and how/why it can be incredibly beneficial. That’s what the article is all about. It’s agreed that finding a solution to the songwriter issue is critical, but it’s impossible to convince anyone to buy into the unrealistic royalty model as it applies to fan-based live recordings. At no point in the past have these unofficial live recordings ever been held to the same standards as commercial releases.
It’s misleading to call them illegal, when it hasn’t been proven so in any sort of court ruling nor has ever been prosecuted. You have 50+ years of accepted history and precedent supporting the practice of live taping/trading. You have dozens of conflicts and contradictions to the laws and practices themselves. You have serious and unresolved conflicts of interest between the songwriters, record labels, artists, and venues when you start talking about fans independently licensing unofficial live recordings. Don’t forget that these recordings aren’t being sold and no money is ever changing hands, so it’s literally blood from a stone. You can’t feasibly or logically collect money from recordings that are given away for free.

You can label tapers and traders as immoral, illegal, unethical, thieves, burglars, or any other horrible name, but none of that will do any good or fix anything. It only alienates and inflames.

If what the taping/trading opponents really want is to solve the problem and create a system in which the songwriter can actually receive compensation from these free recordings, then they have a long way to go to bring these fans back into the fold and convince them of their argument. There is no way to effectively enforce any sort of copyright infringement on free live recordings that fans can download from thousands of different websites, without the fans and artists being directly involved in the process.

The thing I find most frustrating is that the opponents to taping/trading have this intense anger completely misdirected. They should be taking up this issue with the venues, artists, and publishing houses. It’s foolish to blame music fans for wanting to listen to free music, especially when it’s music that can’t be found anywhere else and the artists are encouraging them to do so. It isn’t the fans responsibility to acquire extremely expensive songwriter licenses for FREE recordings that were approved, encouraged, and supported by the very artists, record labels, festivals, and venues they have already paid their hard earned money to support. If the songwriters want to collect these unpaid royalties, they only have three choices: work out some sort of sensible dialog and friendly arrangement with the fans themselves or follow the RIAA model and just file lawsuits against all of the fans. The 3rd option is to put the pressure on the artists, venues, and publishing houses to change the current model, and establish a new and reasonable system that everyone will gladly accept. Otherwise, nothing will change except that taping/trading will become even more prevalent and widely accepted, and the songwriters will still be angry.

I truly hope the two sides can come together at some point in the future, cooperation is in everyone’s best interest.

I doubt Dennis will read this, since he has deserted the B, but I think it is an interesting illustration of how silly copyright laws can get and how easy it is to violate the letter of that law without any intended malice.

Like a lot of the other posters, I think the usefullness of the debate on this comment thread has reached its end. Any real progress on this issue will come from bands and fans who believe in creating a viable and legal taping/trading scene finding ways to make this work.

_Ian G_

I have sent him an email and I never responded to this one.

This line should read: I have NEVER sent him an email and I never responded to this one.

So how do we fix this problem? My suggestions are in an earlier post. I think the best idea is to try to get the ball rolling by trying to get taper/trader friendly bands like Yonder Mountain, String Cheese Incident, Dave Matthews, Tim O’Brien, etc. make an explicit statement about whether or not they are OK with people taping/trading not only their live shows but any live shows where songs they have written are performed.

There are other possible solutions. Jon, Dennis or Zach – do you have any opinions on these ideas? Any other ideas on how we can create a win-win instead of a lose-lose situation?

_Ian G_

I think you are exactly right in saying the issue should be brought to the bands by anyone and everyone who wants to do the right thing. They are able to speak to thier audiences and let folks know there is a problem. I think that there are a lot of people who simply are not aware that what they are doing is illegal or that songwriters are getting short changed. Also, let me say clearly again that not all tape trading is “illegal”. If the band owns the copyrights to the songs they are performing then they have every right to allow recording and distribution of those performances by thier fans. The whole key to the correcting the situation is getting the word out. There will always be those who will continue to take what does not belong to them, but I believe that most folks simply do not know it’s wrong…once they do know they will stop distributing tapes that they know are illegal.

I think Jon has done a terrific job here of explaining the issue. Anyone who is “really” interested in understanding the issue can read his post and get a very clear picture of the issue. If they continue to trade “illegal” tapes after reading his post they really have no excuse.

I think I’ve said everything I want to say on this matter with the exception of one thing that needs to be clarified for all.

NASHPHIL said:

I guess Dennis doesn’t understand that it’s considered poor taste to post private email conversations to any sort of public forum, especially when you take, edit, and post them completely out of context of the two-way conversation.

Let me say what Dennis does understand very clearly.

He understands that Phil is a pathalogical LIAR! Nothing in Phil’s statement quoted above is true. Not one word.
There was no “two-way” conversation. He went to my website and got my email address. He sent me the email I posted above exactly “as is”. He called me a liar and says that I made statments I did not make, then has the gall post here and tell me I have poor taste! His email was cut and pasted “as is” with the exception of the profanity which I partially edited because I don’t use that word. That one edit was duly noted in my post. Nothing was taken out of context. I have sent him an email and I never responded to this one.

I posted it so everyone here could see what kind of person he really is.

I have the email. I have a record of his visit to my site. I have his I.P. number to prove it.

I apologize for the tone of this post to all those who have tried to speak to the issue at hand and I wish I had your patience but I can’t not respond to such blantant lies stated towards me personally. Since the moderators have chosen not to censor personal attacks I can do nothing but respond in this way.
All a person has to do is read this this entire thread and the other thread on “illegal” tape trading and it becomes very clear Phil has tried to intimidate and bully everyone who has disagreed with him with lies and personal attacks on thier character. With that said I’m removing my name from the “B” as I do not wish to be a part of anything that has to do with people like “phil”.

I personally think it’s great the video clip is up there promoting your band and giving folks a chance to check out your sound. I wouldn’t have heard it otherwise.

However, given the current conversation happening here and your feelings towards the issue, I thought you might not know it was online.

Cheers, Phil

The way I see it, these are the facts. Tape trading, though widely accepted for many years when artist approved, does not take into account the songwriter. Now that this has been brought to light, live taping/trading without songwriter consent must stop. The songwriters possess intellectual property, and have every right to refuse the permission to distribute that property without compensation.

While some might believe it would be in their best interest, songwriters do not HAVE to work together with the taping community towards a “sensible” solution that would benefit both sides. We can sit here and throw out idea after idea of how compensation could be acquired by the songwriter, but it will make no difference unless the songwriter, or those who represent them (PRO’s? Publishing Companies?), want to change or create a new system that would exist solely for the live unreleased recording revenue. As of now, songwriters have every right to refuse their songs’ distribution unless a mechanical license is purchased through Harry Fox. It could be that they would not want their songs on any unreleased recordings ever, and that is within their right if no mechanical license is purchased. It might mean the end of artist approved unreleased taping/trading, but we as a bluegrass community must respect the rights (especially when they are legal rights) of everyone involved, including the songwriter.

If a new system is desired on both sides, I think talks with more than the people on this board are necessary. Perhaps the publishing companies, PRO’s, and songwriter organizations. A larger more organized statement might be able to get the voice of the taping/trading community heard by the industry which might give them a chance to present their ideas. However, the industry could choose to stand with the songwriters against taping/trading, and it would be well within their legal right to do so.

I believe that it would be up to the taping/trading community to convince everyone involved on the industry side of the benefits of unreleased live recording distribution. The benefits to the songwriter and publishing companies must outweigh the hard work it would take to build a separate system from the current to work with only live recording mechanical licenses. That is a tough task, I believe. On the flip side, if a songwriter believes it to be a great advantage for their songs to be distributed on live recordings at lower than the statutory rate (9.1 cents/copy), they could lobby to have a system put in place that would facilitate that. Then again, they could be fine with leaving things as they are and have every right to stand beside the current system. It’s hard to change something that’s been in place for as long as the current system of songwriter royalties has been.

Either way it goes, the songwriters’ intellectual property rights must be respected.

1) We acknowledge that songwriters have the legal right to control/benefit from their copyrights.

2) This is not a commercial enterprise. This means that the only revenue stream associated with it is the money being used to by blank CDRs. Any model that tries to get money out of this except from something like a CDR tax or by using this as a marketing tool to increase sales of existing product is probably not viable.

3) You can’t put the Genie back in the bottle. This is what the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do with very little success. The problem is that it is you versus thousands of tech-savvy and innovating teenagers/young adults located all over the world. They will find a way around any barriers you put in place whether they are legal or technical.
4) The issue of songwriters rights in the taping/trading issue is a new one. As far as I know, no one had thought of this issue in this context until Megan Lynch brought it up a few months ago. For example, the Grateful Dead have been doing supporting taping/trading for years even though they perform cover songs. Everyone thought they were doing the right thing and that it was legal. To criticize them for ignoring songwriter rights is simply ignoring historical context.

Given #1, songwriters have the right to say “no taping/trading of any of my songs unless I get paid up front”. But given #2 and #3, the result will be ethical taper/traders leaving the market and being replaced by un-ethical tapers/traders. Anyone who thinks this couldn’t happen, please look into the current situation in software or movie piracy.

So how do we fix this problem? My suggestions are in an earlier post. I think the best idea is to try to get the ball rolling by trying to get taper/trader friendly bands like Yonder Mountain, String Cheese Incident, Dave Matthews, Tim O’Brien, etc. make an explicit statement about whether or not they are OK with people taping/trading not only their live shows but any live shows where songs they have written are performed.

There are other possible solutions. Jon, Dennis or Zach – do you have any opinions on these ideas? Any other ideas on how we can create a win-win instead of a lose-lose situation?

_Ian G_

Ah, whatever though….. I feel honored that Dennis felt so passionate about something that he felt the need to lash out and attack me. I must have hit a nerve.

Dennis Duff probably should take his own advice and take a deep breath before posting more angry comments aimed towards me, Zach, Ian, or anyone else.

Dennis is a songwriter, so he obviously has a big dog in this fight. Although, he seems to also be mysteriously upset with the bluegrassblog for allowing this conversation to take place. That I don’t understand.

I really do hope this conversation will not only change the debate and get it heading in a more positive solution-oriented direction, but also to eventually convince passionate opponents like Dennis and Jon that tapers/traders aren’t thieves, but are actually hardworking, honest, and loyal music fans.

Depending on your perspective, these music fans could be a tremendous asset or liability. I hope this colossal and virtually untapped fanbase is eventually viewed as an asset and part of the many tools at your disposal within the music industry.

You and I both know fully well that you didn’t read the article
before making that first post. If you had, it would have had a much
different tone. You just lashed out and repeated the same old crap,
trading is illegal so traders can f*** off. You should read the
article, you might actually learn something that you can use to
promote your own music.

You have got yourself an obvious anger problem Dennis Duff, so maybe
take a minute or two to breathe before making any more angry and
embarrassing posts.

Above is a copy of an email I received this morning Phil Harris . I did edit one four letter word.

This is aboslutely ridiculous. I post that I have read something and recieve and email calling a liar.

I’m posting this for all so everyone can see that Phil has some serious personal issue’s and should be encourged to seek professional help.
I also must say to the moderators that you have a problem. It is this kind of thing that will drag the B down and make it fail. Others with much to offer have obviously already decided not to participate here any longer knowing they will be barraged with personal attacks. I love reading the Bluegrass Blog but trying to have reasonable disscussions on the B has become impossible and is a total waste of time.

I know it makes it difficult to carry on a conversation. I’m checking them all before deleting the spam, but at times I may be asleep, or in a recording session and so it might take me a couple hours to get to them.

Please be patient. The spam filter is learning and is getting better.

Maybe after ya’ll solve this taping/trading issue you can get a posse together and go after the spammers?

20 songs x $10 = $200
20 songs x $.091 = $1.82

That’s $201.82 for the first copy and $1.82 per copy made thereafter. For 100 copies it would be $382.00
If you wanted 500 copies, the total would be $1110.00

This still wouldn’t account for any other issues that would arise with the artists, record labels, and venues since this is now an officially licensed recording. What other legal issues will arise if people decide to license, release, trade, and then sell these officially licensed recordings.

If you unreasonably apply the very same rules and laws that govern official/studio/commercial releases to unofficial fan-based live recordings, they would lose their distinction and all become official releases. This would allow any person to register the songs and then commercially market the recordings. This is one of the reasons those laws cannot ultimately apply to unofficial live recordings. The artists and their record labels would lose control and would never approve of such a thing. Artists would not accept that the songwriters are the only ones entitled to compensation for the Artist’s own live performances. Labels wouldn’t allow the Artists or Fans to market and sell their own live recordings without the labels also being compensated. The venues wouldn’t allow the Artists, Labels, or Fans to market and sell live recordings made at their venue without them receiving compensation as well. The Artists and Record labels don’t want things to change because as long as they are allowed to approve live recording/trading of their own performances without any sort of regulation, they remain in complete control.

It’s an incestuous conflict of interest.
It’s unfortunately not as simple and straightforward as just registering the songs and then distributing freely, as some have claimed.

An example of this in action is a company like digitalsoundboard.net or livedownloads.com which offers artist/venue approved live recordings professionally mixed and officially licensed.

In addition to the individual song licenses, they need to have contracts and negotiations to determine what percentage is given to the artist, venue, musicians, record labels, etc..
They can’t just register the songs and start allowing downloads.

I’m sure it’s different for each company or recording contract, but in the case of a recent company offering official live festival downloads, the reported split was 20% share for the artist, 20% share for the venue, 20% share for the outsourced hosting company providing the downloads, and the remaining 40% share going to the company, minus the song licenses and per copy charge as assessed by Harry Fox. That’s after they had to negotiate all of these details and contracts with the artists, venues, and record labels. The hour long recordings were selling for around $20 each. That’s clearly not a feasible or viable alternative.

Here’s a possible solution if anyone is listening:

By using the existing enthusiasm that tapers/traders have towards collecting new and unheard live music, why not find a way to assess some sort of usage fee per concert that is a reasonable amount for a limited use license.
Such as $3 per master recording. Copyright holders could effectively collect $3 on every master recording made, at the time it was made, and if that money was pooled into a special fund and then distributed fairly among copyright holders, that would be a substantial source of legitimate income. It would certainly amount to significantly more income than is currently coming their way from unofficial live recordings.

One way to assess the fee could be in the form of a special ticket for tapers that has the $3 fee already included. Another way would be to charge a $1 fee per concert downloaded. A solution such as this would legitimize the entire practice of live taping/trading and move it’s valuable and extremely loyal fans comfortably into the mainstream.

A Bluegrass Artist plays a 25 song concert.
Of those 25 songs, only 5 were written exclusively by him, the other 20 songs were either co-writes or covers. Now, let’s say he approved live recording and a fan wants to make copies for his friends. The fan goes online to Harry Fox to register those songs, what would be the total cost he would incur to make 500 copies?

The $300 per concert example used in my previous post was based on this sort of example. 20 songs x $10 plus the usage and copy fees equals a minimum of $300. It would actually be more based on the above example or for any other average concert performance. That doesn’t even address the additional issues that arise with artists, venues, labels, and other aspects of the royalty and permission issue.

The point the article makes and that I have also asserted repeatedly is that it’s not that tapers/traders don’t want to compensate copyright holders, the reality is that it’s unrealistic and virtually impossible with the cuurent model.

Those wanting that practice to change should consider implementing the steps the article suggests to create a different sort of environment of cooperation and understanding between all of the interested parties and bring everyone to the table to find a reasonable solution.

Jon’s personal attacks, misrepresentations, and manufactured quotes still don’t address any of the conflicts of interests, contradictions, obstacles, or obvious flaws within the system he swears to be defending. The article does actually addresses all of those points in addition to offering a solution.

Nowhere has Jon offered any such solution. Just blame.