Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Peavy and Behringer are at it:
http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On 5/4/2011 9:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote:
Peavy and Behringer are at it: So Behringer is suing Peavey, and Peavey is suing Behringer? Or was one of those articles reversed? It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI. What's new? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John Watkinson http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com - useful and interesting audio stuff |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Mike Rivers writes: It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI. What's new? That somebody was the FCC iirc. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
On 5/4/2011 9:04 AM, Arny Krueger wrote: Peavy and Behringer are at it: So Behringer is suing Peavey, and Peavey is suing Behringer? So it seems. It wasn't too long ago that Behringer was sued by somebody regarding selling gear that was improperly tested for EMI. And this time Behringer tries to blow the whistle on Peavy for a similar thing. What's new? Exactly |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Sean Conolly wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
"Bill Graham" wrote in message
Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro',
in article Sue you, sue me blues, "Bill Graham" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click -- Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.] Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ [also covers AVCHD (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX]. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Frank wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro', in article Sue you, sue me blues, "Bill Graham" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: Frank wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro', in article Sue you, sue me blues, "Bill Graham" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents a company has, the greater chance of finding another company infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and somewhat controversial patents. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable chance of getting and enforcing it. A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli. I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted, and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that. But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Frank wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro', in article Sue you, sue me blues, "Bill Graham" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents a company has, the greater chance of finding another company infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and somewhat controversial patents. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable chance of getting and enforcing it. A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli. I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted, and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that. But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Frank wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 15:04:45 -0700, in 'rec.audio.pro', in article Sue you, sue me blues, "Bill Graham" wrote: Arny Krueger wrote: "Bill Graham" wrote in message Sean Conolly wrote: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... Peavy and Behringer are at it: http://www.audioprointernational.com...rs-MUSIC-group http://www.harmonycentral.com/blogs/...inst-behringer Eh, just another day in the life of a large corporation. Thanks to the way the way the US Patent office will allow patents on broad technical concepts, it's pretty hard to develop anything without infringing on someone's patents. As a result, patent suits are more of a poker game with two sides presenting their vioalted patents on the other guy, and the result is usually an award for the guy holding the most patents and a cross licensing agreement. I saw that about 15 years ago when I was involved in getting a couple of patents as an employee of a large company. The more patents a company has, the greater chance of finding another company infringing on one when the other company sues the first company for infringement, then they can sign a cross-license agreement and everyone's happy. Apparently the most embarrassing thing that could happen is a company having to pay a license fee to a competitor. Some years back I worked for a company that had purchased a patent for (wait for it ) - selecting mutiple items on a website and paying for them electronically (aka the ubiquitous 'shopping cart'). The patent was granted to cover anything which allowed a terminal on the customer end to purchase more multiple items through a terminal on the vendor end, if it was completed with an electronic payment of any kind. When I left the company they were busily pursuing lawsuits against pretty much every e-retail company on the planet. Sean That's like suing Safeway for providing their customers with a shopping cart and suggesting to them that they browse the store and put whatever they want into the cart for future checkout.... Ridiculous! Providing a recepticle of some sort for customers to use to collect their purchases before paying is an idea, which is neither patentable nor copyrghtable. It may be patented under a "business method" or whatever it's called, but those are recent (in the last 20 years or so) and somewhat controversial patents. A particular implementation of that concept may be both patentable and/or copyrightable. Every time the context changes (as in brick and mortar store to web store) the same basic idea may need to be re-implemented and the new implementation might again be patentable. But your, "basket" on a web page purchase is a virtual one. Can that be patented? It is actually just a part of your order, and the word basket is just a convenient way to refer to it. Patenting it is like patenting the english language. If you patent the words "buy, checkout add, order, quantity, send and carrier, you will be guranteeing that nobody can buy anything on the web without paying you a comission. Yeah, that looks like a patent a company would love to have, and spend lots of attorney money if they though they had a reasonable chance of getting and enforcing it. A lot of "unreasonable" patents have been passed. Look up broccoli patent to find one - it took a bunch of broccoli-growing companies pooling their money together to challenge the one patent one company had which covered the basics of how to grows broccoli. I read a lot about the need to clean up the US Patent Office (it was a year or two between applying for a patent and it being granted, and a huge number of patents like the broccoli thing were granted) in recent decades, but I don't know if anything became of that. But let's not forget Amazon's (in)famous 1-Click patent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-Click It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: .... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. Real life is just irritating sometimes. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShai...withDougHarman |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Ben Bradley wrote:
On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them? A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill Graham wrote:
Ben Bradley wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them? He who has the gold makes the rules. A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me. -- Les Cargill |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Les Cargill wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them? He who has the gold makes the rules. A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me. If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar, so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial business". But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then, at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting? Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be changed. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 15, 3:37*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them? He who has the gold makes the rules. A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me. If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar, so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial business". But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then, at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting? Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be changed. The law is there to collect monies for published songs played in commercial establishments, not to punish the artist playing. BMI is just saying that if you are using that music to enhance the experience in your establishment you should pay a nominal fee for it. Paying $15 buys you the license to play the music for your own enjoyment, it doesn't give the buyer the right to use it in any other way, as stated on the label. It was so for LPs and cassettes as well. This is why even department stores have to pay for the Muzak piped in because they do it to make shopping more enjoyable and sell more wares. It's a good law. It's not to line BMI/ASCAP's pockets, it's part of what the songwriters/publishers get back for writing commercial music that can't be classified as sales. It's different from paintings because paintings are sold with the express notion that you can hang them wherever you want for whatever purpose you want. Commercially released music has never been sold with this agreement, that you can use the $15 thing you bought to keep customers from getting bored and stop buying drinks spending money, and this is has always been clearly expressed on the LP/CD. It's not a perfect system, but the establishment paying for the right to use the music isn't the problem. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 15, 3:37 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: Les Cargill wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Mon, 9 May 2011 17:43:36 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Ben Bradley wrote: On Fri, 6 May 2011 23:02:41 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: ... It seems to me that the extra convenience of doing it with one click would be the reward in itself. IOW, the extra business they would get from folks like me who don't mind paying a few bucks more to escape the hasstle of doing all the peperwork should be reward enough without getting a patent on the system, but, what do I know? The idea is to stop OTHER online services from doing the same thing (or at worst force them to pay Amazon some amount every time a competitor's customer buys something with it), insuring that those who like shopping that way can only do it with Amazon. Sounds like something that might be judged, "In restraint of trade" to me. Ordinarily, perhaos so, but it's my understanding that's what a patent is, a LEGAL way for a company to restrain what other companies do. If it's considered overbroad, other companies can go to court to challenge the patent. Not to change the subject, but I'd sure like to free up some of the music written before 1950. After all, its over 60 years ole by now, and the original composers are mostly dead and gone, so who is profiting from selling this stuff? Someone who'se only claim to fame is they have a faster lawyer. I used to go down to our local pizza place once a month and listen to a 5 piece dixieland band while I ate my pizza. Then BMI sued the pizza place and now the guys can't play there without the owner paying BMI $1000 every year for songs that were written before Louis Armstrong was born. Sorry. Armstrong was born in 1901. So the songs were written before he was 30. But that's still bad enough when you consider that the songwriters were about as old as Louis was, if not older..... So these are songs in the 1925-1930 era? Apparently this is within the "Mickey Mouse" era (where copyright was extended back to the creation of that character), and that's enough for a performing rights organization to demand performance royalties. I know. They bought the rights of every popular song written after 1927. And so all that music can't be leagally performed in coffee houses, bars and pizza joints and the like anywhere in the US. (and perhaps anywhere in the world) This is a crock! The original composers of these songs are long dead and gone. why should Walt Disney and BMI get any money from them? He who has the gold makes the rules. A much more reasonable way to do it would be to make any composition the sole property of the composer for some reasonable period, like say 60 yeaqrs. So he/she could reap the profits for essentially the rest of their life. After that, the music should revert to the public domain. Th3e idea that some third party can buy it and keep the public from enjoying it for the rest of time is disgusting to me. If you paint a painting, and then make prints of that painting and sell the prints, I can buy one of your prints. then I can hang that pring in my bar, so my patrons can look at it. You don't have the right to come into my bar and say, "you are selling more drinks because of my painting, so you have to pay me more money because you are hanging it on the wall in your commercial business". But you can write a song, and sell me a CD with your song on it. And then, at some later time, BMI can come into my bar and sue me for playing that song for my customers, even though I have had the CD (or record) of the song for many years. Why is this? Why is the song different from the painting? Why should some third party have the right to dictate when and where I play my recording any more than they should have the right to say where I hang my painting? This is a logical error in the law. The copyright laws should be changed. The law is there to collect monies for published songs played in commercial establishments, not to punish the artist playing. BMI is just saying that if you are using that music to enhance the experience in your establishment you should pay a nominal fee for it. Paying $15 buys you the license to play the music for your own enjoyment, it doesn't give the buyer the right to use it in any other way, as stated on the label. It was so for LPs and cassettes as well. This is why even department stores have to pay for the Muzak piped in because they do it to make shopping more enjoyable and sell more wares. It's a good law. It's not to line BMI/ASCAP's pockets, it's part of what the songwriters/publishers get back for writing commercial music that can't be classified as sales. It's different from paintings because paintings are sold with the express notion that you can hang them wherever you want for whatever purpose you want. Commercially released music has never been sold with this agreement, that you can use the $15 thing you bought to keep customers from getting bored and stop buying drinks spending money, and this is has always been clearly expressed on the LP/CD. It's not a perfect system, but the establishment paying for the right to use the music isn't the problem.I t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no longer play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI didn't want any $5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's owner, and he couldn't afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the road. How much of that $1000 would get into the hands of anyone who ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll answer you that.....ZERO! Thats how much. |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill Graham wrote:
t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no longer play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI didn't want any $5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's owner, and he couldn't afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the road. How much of that $1000 would get into the hands of anyone who ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll answer you that.....ZERO! Thats how much. Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland. BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: t was the problem for my friend Blake, whose dixieland band can no longer play their Monday Night gig at the local Pizza house. BMI didn't want any $5. they wanted $1000 a year from the pizza house's owner, and he couldn't afford to pay that. So, Blakes group hit the road. How much of that $1000 would get into the hands of anyone who ever wrote a dixieland song? I'll answer you that.....ZERO! Thats how much. Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland. BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians. --scott BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter 50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago...... |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 18, 12:03*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. *All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. *Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland. BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians. --scott BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter 50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago...... This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain in 2020. Yeesh. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 12:03 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland. BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians. --scott BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter 50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago...... This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain in 2020. Yeesh. So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock.... |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 12:03 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: Scott Dorsey wrote: Bill Graham wrote: Maybe Blake should have talked to the BMI rep and explained the situation. All of these things are negotiated and nobody pays the first fee they are offered. Especially when most of the music (though not all) is PD. Another alternative is for Blake to decide to play only PD music and arrangements (or his own arrangements), which is a fairly easy thing to do for Dixieland. BMI is there to make sure everybody plays fairly and everybody gets paid for their work, they are not some evil organization out to "get" musicians. --scott BMI is there to make sure BMI gets paid. Period. No composer of anything written before around 1950 is still alive. This music should be in the Public Domain. Fifty years is a pretty good number. Anything written more than 50 years ago should be in the public domain. That gives any songwriter 50 years to sell and reap the profits from his work. That would sure be long enough for me. 1927 was 84 years ago...... This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain in 2020. Yeesh. Mr. Graham rants about this stuff because he doesn't write songs. I sure hope he isn't collecting any retirement money. After all, he's not working anymore. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On 5/18/2011 12:13 AM, vdubreeze wrote:
This is getting far afield of the original post, but I would definitely not want the music I wrote in 1970 to become public domain in 2020. Yeesh. Still waiting to strike it rich, eh? -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 18, 12:34*am, "Bill Graham" wrote:
So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock.... ??? Methinks you don't have any idea of what BMI is. |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 18, 8:04*am, Mike Rivers wrote:
Still waiting to strike it rich, eh? I hope you're just making a playing poke at the general scene today, Mike. : ) Otherwise I will wait 50 years and publish all of your fine "Useful Audio Stuff" since it should be in the public domain then. You have no reason to need it, right? : ) |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the
past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 18, 5:35*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership, copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're talking about. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership, copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're talking about. I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by, "members". All songs. And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that? |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill,
Start a new thread if you want to rant more about BMI. This is way OT. But just to clear up some of your misstatements: I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about". ??? You're leaving out the entire issue. If an establishment pays a set nominal fee they can play anything they want. If they insist they deserve the world for nothing (and maybe they're paying you nothing when you should be getting $300) they should try that with the AC installer. I guess you're saying that music, including your own, isn't worth paying for, but I've never been in that camp, as a player or as a business owner. I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not what's going on. ??? You don't pay any dues as a writer to be a BMI member, Bill. In fact, I don't think they have ANY dues except if you set up a publishing company for them to deal with, and that is the grand sum of a $150 one time fee. I'm a BMI member and I've never paid anything besides that fee 25 years ago. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that? Ay yi yi. Let's take this elsewhere, Bill. But, and pardon the all caps, BMI DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING!!! EVER!!! THEY DON'T OWN MUSIC BEFORE, AFTER OR DURING 1927!!!!!! The song owners own them!! The writers!! The publishers!!! The songwriters who self publish!!! That's not even close enough to be an Urban Myth! : ) You're on Bizarro world with this one : ) But please start a new thread for further fun misfacts. v |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
On May 18, 6:46*pm, "Bill Graham" wrote:
vdubreeze wrote: On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. *Their sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape or form of performance. *They have zero to do with ownership, copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. *There is no law that says one must join them. * You simply don't know what you're talking about. I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by, "members". All songs. *And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that? The problem is that "all [you] know" is all you want to know, and it doesn't matter to you whether you have your facts straight. You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to read and understand, even when you've been given good pracitical suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care, because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza pub. Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in, you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own fault. No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with that? |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
vdubreeze wrote:
On May 18, 12:34 am, "Bill Graham" wrote: So you'd prefer 60 years? Or 70?. but, in fact, even 84 isn't enough for BMI. They will keep the copyrights to that music forever, as near as I can figure out. This is the music written in the 30's, 40's and 50's... The music of my generation. Maybe that doesn't mean anything to you, but to me and my friends, it means a lot. We can't perform our own music. The music we were raised with and learned to love, anywhere without the BMI police cutting us off at the pass. This is a crock.... ??? Methinks you don't have any idea of what BMI is. Perhaps Bowel Movement Initiator would help. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill Graham wrote:
ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? See? Now he thinks BMI is Walt Disney. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
timewarp2008 wrote:
On May 18, 6:46 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: vdubreeze wrote: On May 18, 5:35 pm, "Bill Graham" wrote: ll I know is what I need to know. They bought off our congressmen in the past to make laws in restraint of trade, and my friends and I are suffering for it. What else should I know besides that? But if you think that's OK, (to give them money for playing music whose rightful owners are long dead and gone) then please tell me why. You know, if we were printing and selling their music, or reaping some profit on a large scale, perhaps I would see your point. But these ass holes are going around to little one horse bars and dance halls that are barely scraping by in this failing economy and hasstling people over the few bucks they can squeek out by playing some music to draw in a few more pitiful customers. And, if they were getting the money to the composers and/or their wives.... But, in fact, they don't give qa dime to any of those people. They are just padding their own pockets with it. First, they bought off our government to make3 laws in restraing of trade, and now they are going to hasstle the little people for the rest of time. How the hell can you justify that? BMI, ASCAP and SESAC are U.S. performing rights organizations. Their sole job, and the reason people join them voluntarily, is to collect royalties when a song owner's music is used in TV, radio, or any shape or form of performance. They have zero to do with ownership, copyrights or publishing of music, nor sales of music. There is no law that says one must join them. You simply don't know what you're talking about. I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. This is what I am "talking about". Not just the songs written by, "members". All songs. And even the ones written before 1927, (if you can't show the original sheet music with the pre 1927 date printed on it.) Now, if I write a song, and want that song to be protected. So I join BMI and pay them dues to protect it for me, then I would agree with you. but that's not what's going on. They bought the right to hasstle people over all songs written after 1927. And, the burden of proof is on you, and not BMI to prove that the song was written before then. IOW, all music written after 1927 is the property of BMI and they can hassle people who perform it anywhere that money changes hands for any reason. And you are happy with that? The problem is that "all [you] know" is all you want to know, and it doesn't matter to you whether you have your facts straight. You're deep into voluntary bull-headed ignorance. The actual facts have been explained to you, repeatedly, often by people who deal with these issues on a regular basis. But you don't care, you don't want to be educated. You haven't bothered to read and understand, even when you've been given good pracitical suggestions for how you can legally play dixieland music in your pizza pub, affordably or even free. But you don't care, because your goal is not to play dixieland music in the pizza pub. Your goal is to rant and whine, and prove to people who already know it, that you've decided to be an ignorant troll, and you won't bother to use any fragments of brain that may still remain in that block of concrete above your shoulders. Rather than understanding and trying to resolve your complaints with prefer perfectly reasonable explanations and work-arounds in, you obviously prefer whining about problems that are your own fault. No, I won't get off your lawn, Numpty. Are you happy with that? It's not his lawn anyway. It's BMI's lawn. He should know that already. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Bill Graham wrote:
I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney did, and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did. They lost a Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss might be better than you'd otherwise expect. vdubreeze is correct in asserting that in this case you are without cognizance of that whereof you nonetheless speak. The P.R.O.'s are not your culprit, Mr. Friday. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
hank alrich wrote:
Bill Graham wrote: I know that any song written after 1927 (84 years ago) can't be played by anybody in any establishment that makes any money selling anything to any customers. So take it up with your elected representatives, just like Disney did, and get the law changed in your favor, just like Disney did. They lost a Senator from Disney in a skiing accident so your odss might be better than you'd otherwise expect. I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from a venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue owner almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he is dealing with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough motivation for him to actually do a bit of research and figure out what really went on. But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving problems. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Sue you, sue me blues
Scott Dorsey writes:
I gather that Mr. Graham is all het up over some stuff he heard from a venue owner who heard something from a BMI rep. Since the venue owner almost certainly misunderstood the situation, the fact that he is dealing with unreliable secondhand information would seem enough motivation for him to actually do a bit of research and figure out what really went on. One would think so. That would be a reasonable course of action, especially for one with the background he asserts he has. But maybe he just likes being angry more than he likes solving problems. HE likes the sound of his own voice. Regards, Richard .... Remote audio in the southland: See www.gatasound.com -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
NY CD Blues | Pro Audio | |||
NY CD Blues | Tech | |||
HHB CD-R blues | Pro Audio | |||
Next-day blues | Pro Audio | |||
BLUES ON PBS | High End Audio |