Raw Multi-Track -- What Style Of Music? [Archive]

Einstein

March 6th 04, 04:29 AM

I would strongly suggest doing oricinal material. Using copyrighted
material at this point with the RIAA in an uproar could lead to all kinds of
headaches, including injunctions and lawsuits. Believe me, getting license
to use copyrighted material requires quite a bit of hassle and expense and I
just don't think it would be worth it.
Another very good reason for using original material is that the mixer
would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious preconceived
notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.
As to genre, straight ahead rock and roll might not present enough of a
challenge, since mixing it is pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to
offend anyone, but I think the music should be a little more open to
different interpretations, perhaps a pop tune with a bit of convolution, to
both present a challenge to the mixer and to give the mixer a chance at
being a producer as well. Even including a few extra alternate tracks
wouldn't be out of line, as it would give the mixer an opportunity to do
some cutting, pasting aznd splicing. If this is to be for educational
purposes, something like this would give even the more advanced person a
chance to stretch out a bit.
The basic tracks would give the novice mixer a chance to learn basic
mixing and the extra alternate tracks would give the more advanced person a
shot at doing some advanced production. I would suggest a 16 to 20 track
"basic" mix with about four alternate tracks, which could be anything from
alternate bass lines tt alternate vocal tracks, to lead instruments to
alternate drums. Using cut, paste and splice techniques the mixer would have
literally hundreds of variations on the original song.
It would take some time, but I think a really well recorded multitrack
song that had appeal and originality with some good alternate tracks that
would give the chance for a lot of variation in the final mix, would be
easily worth $50 or more for the multitrack, and since this would involve a
lot of time and effort, I see no reason why the person doing it shouldn't
make a bit of profit from it
If this group is going to be the evaluators and critics of the mixes, I
would suggest that members who contribute their advice and constructive
criticism be given the opportunity to purchace the multitrack at a healthy
discount.
I still think a more simple multitrack posted free for folks to download
and play with would be worthwhile though.
"eric" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
> a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
> to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
> doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
> will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
> "cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.
>
> The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
> interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
> scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
> preferences?
>
> eric
>

mlf

March 6th 04, 04:31 AM

In article >, erick21
@merr.com says...
> OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger ...
> The main question I have now: What style of music ...

gospel might be an avenue that would circumvent any legal issues.

Eric

March 6th 04, 04:32 AM

tferrell wrote:
> eric wrote:
>
>
>>The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
>>interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
>>scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
>>preferences?
>
>
> Pick a band with some versatilty and record a variety of genres,
> instrumentation and styles -- ballads to rockers. Not only will this be the
> most useful, it has the broadest potential appeal.
>
> Tim
>

Remember, this first release is going to be a CD, with one full song on
it. It will only be possible to put one song's worth of multi-track
material on a single CD.

I may consider a DVD release with more material in the future.

eric

Einstein

March 6th 04, 04:38 AM

The problem is that you can only get one multitrack song per CD, and the
recording time involved if you're going to do it right would make it
prohibitive to do a bunch of material unless the market was there to make it
at least pay for itself.
See my previous post in this thread, if a multitrack done as I suggested
sold well, then folks might want to put forth the effort to make a little
money.
If there is someone or some group who has the time and wants to post
basic multitrack recordings for free download, I'm all for it. The songs
need not be very complicated as long as the recordings are well done, with
low noise and no clipping. The songs could represent whatever genre you're
interested in. I might even be tempted to post one or two myself, when I get
time.

"tferrell" > wrote in message
...
> eric wrote:
>
> > The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
> > interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
> > scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
> > preferences?
>
> Pick a band with some versatilty and record a variety of genres,
> instrumentation and styles -- ballads to rockers. Not only will this be
the
> most useful, it has the broadest potential appeal.
>
> Tim
>

Jim Carr

March 6th 04, 05:18 AM

"Eric" > wrote in message
...

> > You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for profit
or
> > performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.
> >
>
> I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So, I am
> pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort for this.
> Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would be fairly
> minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through to get this project
> rolling.

Oops.

I think you can get a compulsory mechanical license for about $42.50 (8.5
cents per song with a 500 copy minimum) so long as you don't do a wacky
cover. In other words if the song sounds substantially the same, you're
fine. If you decide to do a Reggae version of "Angel in the Morning" like
Shaggy did, you would probably have to negotiate the rate for such a
derivative work.

You can do it online at
http://www.musicbootcamp.com/cover_tunes_harry_fox.shtml. It shouldn't be
much effort since it's pretty routine.

Einstein

March 6th 04, 06:04 AM

Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks do
with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
liability. Stick with original material and copyright it yourself to keep
someone else from trying to say you stole it from them, and to prevent
someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
without you getting your share.
Since it's in digital format, I'd suggest using a sealed package with a
software-style "open this package and you're bound by this license" type
license. Courts have consistently upheld this as a valid type of license
agreement with software, and I see no reason it wouldn't work for sigital
audio as well. I really see nothing wrong with someone doing a commrcial
release as long as they're bound to get your advance permission and give you
your share of the proceeds. The license agreement should include this as
well as covering any other rights which you wish to retain.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:G9d2c.9029$506.2468@fed1read05...
> "Eric" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > You'd probably have no problems with using a cover. It's not for
profit
> or
> > > performance and is clearly for teaching. However, I'm not a lawyer.
> > >
> >
> > I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So, I am
> > pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort for this.
> > Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would be fairly
> > minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through to get this project
> > rolling.
>
> Oops.
>
> I think you can get a compulsory mechanical license for about $42.50 (8.5
> cents per song with a 500 copy minimum) so long as you don't do a wacky
> cover. In other words if the song sounds substantially the same, you're
> fine. If you decide to do a Reggae version of "Angel in the Morning" like
> Shaggy did, you would probably have to negotiate the rate for such a
> derivative work.
>
> You can do it online at
> http://www.musicbootcamp.com/cover_tunes_harry_fox.shtml. It shouldn't be
> much effort since it's pretty routine.
>
>

Bob Cain

March 6th 04, 06:31 AM

Einstein wrote:
> Another very good reason for using original material is that the mixer
> would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious preconceived
> notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.

Very good idea.

> As to genre, straight ahead rock and roll might not present enough of a
> challenge, since mixing it is pretty straightforward. I'm not trying to
> offend anyone, but I think the music should be a little more open to
> different interpretations, perhaps a pop tune with a bit of convolution, to
> both present a challenge to the mixer and to give the mixer a chance at
> being a producer as well. Even including a few extra alternate tracks
> wouldn't be out of line, as it would give the mixer an opportunity to do
> some cutting, pasting aznd splicing. If this is to be for educational
> purposes, something like this would give even the more advanced person a
> chance to stretch out a bit.

Another good one, as are the rest except for the free posted
one. I'd like to provide someone, Eric in particular, with
a profit motive to help ensure it is tracked right (and
also, I'm on dialup.) :-)

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Jim Carr

March 6th 04, 07:17 AM

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Einstein wrote:
> > Another very good reason for using original material is that the
mixer
> > would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious
preconceived
> > notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.
>
> Very good idea.

Or not. It depends on where you are. Speaking for myself, I'm still trying
to learn how to get to a sound I want. When learning guitar, most of us
start out with straight-up, note-for-note imitation. After you learn that,
you start going for your own sound. Granted, some just have the gift, but
some of us have to work really hard to be average. :-) I'd rather know the
picture for the puzzle before I start assembling the pieces.

I'm thinking (off the top of my head) something like Pure Prairie League's
"Amie" which has some acoustic and electric and lots of vocals. If I could
learn to achieve *that* sound, I'd probably learn a lot. Once I get it, I
can mess around with it. Having some extra tracks with variations would be a
big plus. I'm not pitching that song as much as the idea.

Jim Carr

March 6th 04, 07:31 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
.. .
> Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks
do
> with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
> Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
> liability.

How so? How is it much different than buying a regular CD? The only
difference is you have two tracks on your typical CD instead of multiple
tracks. You have no liability over what someone does with it after that. The
rights to a cover are pretty standard. You get permission and pay the
royalties. You release it. People buy it. If they choose to remix it on
their own for their own use, that's perfectly legal. Changing the EQ and
using the DSP settings on your stereo are fundamentally no different than
using DirectX plugins in your mixing software.

In order to release a mix, we would need the permission of the copyright
holder for the original song *plus* permission to use the actual recorded
material. You are granted an immediate copyright the minute you record it.
Your rights are already in place. There are some formalities before you can
bring a lawsuit if it ever comes to that.

I don't see any liability for what someone does with his perfectly legal
release.

> someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
> without you getting your share.

You have that issue whether it's original or a cover. You're already
protected. You have *much* more risk with an original. The artist has the
right to grant or *not* grant a mechanical license for the *first* release
of a song. As soon as its released, then you fall into the area of
compulsory mechanical licenses. Anybody could then cover it and pay the 8.5
cents per song.

In other words, if he releases an original, he just exercised is right of
first publication. After that he *loses* some control. I could conceivably
do my *own* version (but not with his recordings) and release it. If it
became a hit, he would only get limited royalties.

Ian Bell

March 6th 04, 08:06 AM

Einstein wrote:

> The problem is that you can only get one multitrack song per CD,

I think you might be able to get two. 24 tracks is 12 stereo wavs, say 3
minutes per song is 36 minutes worth of a CD. Should be able to get two of
those on a standard CD.

Ian

Romeo Rondeau

March 6th 04, 08:11 AM

"mlf" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, erick21
> @merr.com says...
> > OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger ...
> > The main question I have now: What style of music ...
>
>
> gospel might be an avenue that would circumvent any legal issues.

....and also put everyone to sleep, :-) then there is the religion issue. I
think it should be kept secular.

Peter Larsen

March 6th 04, 11:00 AM

eric wrote:

> OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
> a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
> to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
> doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
> will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
> "cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

It was because of the licensing concerns involved that I expressed the
willingness to part with a few extra USD's compared to the price range
suggested by other people, and even then if a "cover" is used, then it
may require rights donation from whomever owns them to be usable.

> The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
> interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
> scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
> preferences?

Rock, Country, Funk OK, concert grand - or petite - assumed included,
but to be representative please add violin, viola and cello (x), modify
genre to suit. Big Band and Jazz will imo be atypical as will classical,
but something Sir Martin'esque will make sense as being representative
of a studio venture. Just my DKK 0.25 ...

(x) nearby music school may be ok for hunting grounds, they may want the
learning experience of it, but pros may be cheaper in terms of studio
time consumed.

> eric

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Peter Larsen

March 6th 04, 11:05 AM

Eric wrote:

> I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So,
> I am pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort
> for this.

There are droit morale concerns, a specific license to do it is in my
unskilled far-away assesment required.

> Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would
> be fairly minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through
> to get this project rolling.

Given the educational scope it is fully possible that a free, or
rebate-prices, license to use copyrighted material may be obtainable,
but better safe than sorry.

> eric

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Bill

March 6th 04, 02:07 PM

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 22:29:28 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

> I would strongly suggest doing oricinal material. Using copyrighted
>material at this point with the RIAA in an uproar could lead to all kinds of
>headaches, including injunctions and lawsuits.

The RIAA wouldn't be a problem since this would be an original
recording.

>Believe me, getting license
>to use copyrighted material requires quite a bit of hassle and expense and I
>just don't think it would be worth it.

Getting a license to use somebody else's recorded performance of a
work can be a big hassle, but that's not what's being suggested here.

Having said that, my suggestion would be to use an original
composition. The trick there would be getting something that's both
good enough that people will want it, and affordable enough to be
practical. If the person(s) creating the recording can compose
something suitable, that's simple enough, and everything stays
in-house, so to speak. If a third party writes the song, then you've
got to negotiate how they'll be paid, i.e. do they receive royalties,
is it a work-for-hire, etc.

tferrell

March 6th 04, 02:49 PM

Eric wrote:

> Remember, this first release is going to be a CD, with one full song on
> it. It will only be possible to put one song's worth of multi-track
> material on a single CD.
>
> I may consider a DVD release with more material in the future.

My bad. My vote then would be original material. straight ahead rock and roll,
drums, elec. guitar, bass, keys, lead vox, and background vox. And something
fairly straight ahead on the lead vox...not something extremely affected.

I think the real potential here is in setting up an environment to give good
feedback/criticism of the final mixes. That's what I most need and what I would
find most appealing.

Tim

Mike Rivers

March 6th 04, 06:44 PM

In article > writes:

> Having said that, my suggestion would be to use an original
> composition. The trick there would be getting something that's both
> good enough that people will want it, and affordable enough to be
> practical. If the person(s) creating the recording can compose
> something suitable, that's simple enough, and everything stays
> in-house, so to speak.

That's the way to do it. Let the band who's playing consider it to be
a demo. Record them for free, give them the demo, offer them a couple
of bucks for each (unmixed) CD you sell, and have them release you
from any royalty payments. Be sure that they file the copyright
registration of the (original) song and publish it (just make up the
name of a publishing company if they don't alread have one) so if
anyone likes it enough to record it himself, they can collect
royalties.

Make it like a real world recording, not a world class recording.
After all, it's for learning how to mix and solve the problems that
can be encountered in mixing. You might even want to plan it so that
you don't use all 24 tracks for music, and fill some of them with
alternate mics on particular instruments such as acoustic guitars, or
kick drum, or have an electric bass with a direct and amp+mic track.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

killermike

March 6th 04, 09:18 PM

In article >, erick21
@merr.com says...
> OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
> a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
> to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
> doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
> will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
> "cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.

Couldn't you use a public domain tune as your source material? I think
that a tune like Amazing Grace (for example) could be adapted to nearly
any style.

Here is a site with information on public domain tunes.
http://www.pdinfo.com/

--
***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
http://www.unmusic.co.uk
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio

Einstein

March 7th 04, 01:32 PM

Well, in the first place you are selling the multitrack copy for the
express purpose of allowing other people to remix it in any way they choose,
and therefore you have no control over what they do with the song. I believe
this is not covered under the standard license you would normally purchase
to do a cover because the standard license only covers selling a finished
product for the sole purpose of the buyer listening enjoyment, it would
require a special license which would be a major pain and simply not worth
the effort to get. Uploading a mix to somewhere the members of the group
could listen to it for evaluation purposes would be considered as publishing
the song under the DMCA and would be a violation of a standard license
agreement, so providing a multitrack copy for that purpose would also be a
violation of the DMCA. Believe me it would be MUCH simpler to use original
material, and original material would be better for this purpose anyway,
since there would be no preconceived notions as to how the final mix should
sound.
I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I asked
him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to bite
you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:G5f2c.9051$506.2352@fed1read05...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks
> do
> > with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
> > Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
> > liability.
>
> How so? How is it much different than buying a regular CD? The only
> difference is you have two tracks on your typical CD instead of multiple
> tracks. You have no liability over what someone does with it after that.
The
> rights to a cover are pretty standard. You get permission and pay the
> royalties. You release it. People buy it. If they choose to remix it on
> their own for their own use, that's perfectly legal. Changing the EQ and
> using the DSP settings on your stereo are fundamentally no different than
> using DirectX plugins in your mixing software.
>
> In order to release a mix, we would need the permission of the copyright
> holder for the original song *plus* permission to use the actual recorded
> material. You are granted an immediate copyright the minute you record it.
> Your rights are already in place. There are some formalities before you
can
> bring a lawsuit if it ever comes to that.
>
> I don't see any liability for what someone does with his perfectly legal
> release.
>
> > someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
> > without you getting your share.
>
> You have that issue whether it's original or a cover. You're already
> protected. You have *much* more risk with an original. The artist has the
> right to grant or *not* grant a mechanical license for the *first* release
> of a song. As soon as its released, then you fall into the area of
> compulsory mechanical licenses. Anybody could then cover it and pay the
8.5
> cents per song.
>
> In other words, if he releases an original, he just exercised is right of
> first publication. After that he *loses* some control. I could conceivably
> do my *own* version (but not with his recordings) and release it. If it
> became a hit, he would only get limited royalties.
>
>
>

Einstein

March 7th 04, 01:40 PM

Eliminate all license concerns and go with original material. For the
life of me, I cannot see why anyone would want to work with cover songs
anyway. It seems to me that using covers would defeat about 90% of the
purpose of such an exersize anyway, since anyone doing a mix would already
have heard the original release and thus would be subconciously predjudiced.
The whole idea of providing a multitrack is so that the person can start
fresh and do a fully original mix. In fact, when the mixes are uploaded so
that members of this group can evaluate them, I would recommend that anyone
who is planning on doing a mix should not listen to what others have done
until he has finished his own mix.

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Eric wrote:
>
> > I am no lawyer either, but I will be selling these discs. So,
> > I am pretty certain I would have to pay a royalty of some sort
> > for this.
>
> There are droit morale concerns, a specific license to do it is in my
> unskilled far-away assesment required.
>
> > Given the limited run and distribution, I am sure it would
> > be fairly minimal. But, it would be more hoops to jump through
> > to get this project rolling.
>
> Given the educational scope it is fully possible that a free, or
> rebate-prices, license to use copyrighted material may be obtainable,
> but better safe than sorry.
>
> > eric
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************

Einstein

March 7th 04, 02:57 PM

You have a mistaken notion about mixing, it is not like learning to play
guitar, and there are no "note for note licks in mixing". In any event, even
with guitar, playing the riff note for note won't make you sound like the
record unless you're using the same effects, tone settings, etc. as the
original guitarist was using on the recording. If you want to copy a certain
sound, like Pure Prairie League's "Amie", then you have to learn to listen
to each individual instrument and each vocal part, figure out exactly what
EQ settings were used and exactly what effects were used, and then apply
that knowledge to your own original material. It won't help you one bit to
have a multitrack of "Amie" as you really won't learn a darn thing about
applying what you've learned to your own material, and it will actually hurt
you because you'll just be copying, you won't be creating. You have to learn
to focus on each component of a mix, isolate it in your mind and figure out
exactly what the engineer did to get that particular sound, then you have a
basis for doing a mix like that yourself. As an example, you'd need to be
able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric lead
and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the studio
when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic parts,
and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis of
the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at 300Hz
and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and that
the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound hole
with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at around
3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get all
this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example, I'm
not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that it
was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know that
the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that Vince
owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that the
amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince uses a
Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin. As for the mic technique
and EQ, that comes from experience in the studio and knowing what technique
and EQ gets that sound. You need to practice listening and tuning in to each
instrument and vocal part until you can isolate it and figure out what is
being done in the mix to make it sound that way, and do research on the web,
there is a lot of stuff about studio technique and even about particular
songs and the way they were recorded if you look for it. Check this one out,
it's about how the Rolling Stones' "Brown Sugar" was recorded at Muscle
Shoals Sound Studio:
http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/bruce_borgeson/shoals3/sugar.shtml
I do agree that something like "Amie" with a mix of acoustic and electric
guitars and lots of vocals and harmony might be a very good multitrack to
work with, because a song like that would contain elements of country, pop,
rock and bluegrass all in one song. But, and this is a very big but, it
should be totally original, the only resemblence should be that it contain
acoustic and electric guitars and have elements of rock, pop country and
bluegrass in it. In other words it should sound like something that Pure
Prairie League might have done if someone had given them the original song
to work with, is should NOT sound like something that Pure Prairie League
did do! A song like that would be a challenge to mix well.
Mixing is an art unto itself and I know some very good mixers who can not
play a note on any instrument nor can they sing a note on key. What they do
know how to do is listen and translate what they hear into what they want to
hear.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:DUe2c.9048$506.2110@fed1read05...
> "Bob Cain" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Einstein wrote:
> > > Another very good reason for using original material is that the
> mixer
> > > would not have heard it before and would have no subconcious
> preconceived
> > > notion of how it should sound, which would be a good thing.
> >
> > Very good idea.
>
> Or not. It depends on where you are. Speaking for myself, I'm still trying
> to learn how to get to a sound I want. When learning guitar, most of us
> start out with straight-up, note-for-note imitation. After you learn that,
> you start going for your own sound. Granted, some just have the gift, but
> some of us have to work really hard to be average. :-) I'd rather know the
> picture for the puzzle before I start assembling the pieces.
>
> I'm thinking (off the top of my head) something like Pure Prairie League's
> "Amie" which has some acoustic and electric and lots of vocals. If I could
> learn to achieve *that* sound, I'd probably learn a lot. Once I get it, I
> can mess around with it. Having some extra tracks with variations would be
a
> big plus. I'm not pitching that song as much as the idea.
>
>

Einstein

March 7th 04, 03:01 PM

Public domain songs have the same problem as cover songs, if you've ever
heard the song than you have preconceived notions as to its sound and
therefore an unconscious predjudice regarding your treatment of it. If you
really want to learn as much as possible form the experience, it should be a
song you've never heard in final mix before, period!

"killermike" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, erick21
> @merr.com says...
> > OK, I am getting closer to pull the trigger on my plan for distributing
> > a CD with individual tracks for mixing practice. I have pretty much come
> > to the conclusion that it will be easier to do this with an unknown band
> > doing their own original material. I think copyright, licensing issues
> > will be easier to deal with. I would look into having a band doing a
> > "cover" version of a known tune, if there is a greater interest in that.
>
> Couldn't you use a public domain tune as your source material? I think
> that a tune like Amazing Grace (for example) could be adapted to nearly
> any style.
>
> Here is a site with information on public domain tunes.
> http://www.pdinfo.com/
>
> --
> ***My real address is m/ike at u/nmusic d/ot co dot u/k (removing /s)
> http://www.unmusic.co.uk
> http://www.unmusic.co.uk/Top_50_Films.html - favorite films
> http://www.unmusic.co.uk/amh-s.html - alt.music.home-studio

Hal Laurent

March 7th 04, 06:34 PM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
.. .
> As an example, you'd need to be
> able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric lead
> and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the studio
> when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic parts,
> and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
> diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis
of
> the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at
300Hz
> and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and that
> the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound hole
> with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
> rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at
around
> 3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get all
> this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example,
I'm
> not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that
it
> was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know
that
> the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
> electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that Vince
> owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that
the
> amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince uses
a
> Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin.

Actually, Vince Gill didn't play at all on Amie. He wasn't in the band
until way
near their end.

Hal Laurent
Baltimore

Jim Carr

March 7th 04, 07:22 PM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..
> I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I
asked
> him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to
bite
> you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.

Releasing it on CD is publishing it. Once you publish it, you risk losing
the control over cover versions. Present this to your lawyer friend and see
what he has to say:

http://www.wonderdisc.net/resources/business/mechanical_license.html

When do I need a mechanical license?
If you plan to include on your CD any compositions (songs) that were not
written by you, then you will need to obtain a mechanical license from that
song's copyright holder. This copyright holder may be a publishing company,
or an individual.

What is a mechanical license?
A mechanical license is an agreement between the owner of a song copyright
and a party distributing sound recordings of that song. The license spells
out how much the company distributing the sound recordings will pay to the
copyright holder for each copy sold, how often these payments will be made,
and other details.

What is a compulsory mechanical license?
After a song has been recorded and distributed the first time (with proper
permission from the copyright holder), that song is then available to be
recorded by anyone else who would like to record it. The owner of the song
copyright cannot prevent other recordings from being made as long as the new
user follows the laws governing the compulsory mechanical license.
Compulsory mechanical license terms are set by the copyright act and dictate
royalty rates, payment schedule, and more.

[This is my big concern about using original material. If you think you
might have a hit (remember, "mmm bop" made it big and it sucks), you *lose*
control over any of us recording our own versions.]

What a mechanical license is not.
A mechanical license is not permission to use someone's sound recording of a
composition. Use of sound recordings either partially (like sampling) or in
their entirety (for instance, in a compilation), requires a different kind
of license (usually called a Master Use license). Often the party holding
the copyright to a sound recording (a record label for instance) is not the
same party holding the copyright to the underlying composition (usually a
publishing company). If you need help licensing a sound recording, please
contact us and we will do our best to assist you.
For more info, download our complimentary Guide to Mechanical Licensing.

Jim Carr

March 7th 04, 07:29 PM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..
> Public domain songs have the same problem as cover songs, if you've ever
> heard the song than you have preconceived notions as to its sound and
> therefore an unconscious predjudice regarding your treatment of it. If you
> really want to learn as much as possible form the experience, it should be
a
> song you've never heard in final mix before, period!

Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge in
being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

For me personally, I am still struggling trying to get a decent mix
together. Having a target sound in my head gives me someplace to go. My
metaphor about guitar playing still stands: For most of us we learn to
imitate before we learn to create. The techniques we learn during imitiation
are later applied towards our creative side.

Laurence Payne

March 7th 04, 08:49 PM

On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr" >
wrote:

>Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
>arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge in
>being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
>sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.

Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Jim Carr

March 7th 04, 10:37 PM

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr" >
> wrote:
>
> >Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
> >arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate challenge
in
> >being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
> >sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.
>
> Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
> to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.

Agreed. For me personally, I don't think I will be able to achieve "my
sound" until I figure out the techniques I need to use in order to create
someone else's sound. I don't even know what "my sound" is yet. Right now
I'm still trying to put together that sounds decent on my reference monitors
and *still* sounds decent on other systems. I would like to be able to
remove the recording quality from the equation, which is why I will gladly
pay $30 for a CD with a bunch of tracks I can play with.

Einstein

March 8th 04, 04:35 AM

I don't have to ask my lawyer friend about a mechanical license because
that was exactly what we were talking about. A mechanical license does give
you the right to record, perform and distribute a finished song for the for
the buyers to listen to. It does not give you the right to record and
distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to modify
and redistribute it. There are special licenses that do allow for the
distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke license is
an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With" series,
but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of the
song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks on
the song. Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over the
Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure if
any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type or
if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind people
that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of the
mixes they distributed over the Net.
Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably already
heard and have preconceived notions about. You simply lose to much of the
potential for learning by doing this. If you want to go through the hassle
of getting a special license and recording and distributing a multitrack,
then by all means go ahead and try, but don't think a standard mechanical
license gives you the right to do this, because you will in all probability
wind up facing a lawsuit.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:RCK2c.10141$506.8501@fed1read05...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I have a good friend who is an attorney and also a musician, and I
> asked
> > him about it, he said go original because it will probably come back to
> bite
> > you on the butt if you don't, and I'll take his word for it.
>
> Releasing it on CD is publishing it. Once you publish it, you risk losing
> the control over cover versions. Present this to your lawyer friend and
see
> what he has to say:
>
> http://www.wonderdisc.net/resources/business/mechanical_license.html
>
> When do I need a mechanical license?
> If you plan to include on your CD any compositions (songs) that were not
> written by you, then you will need to obtain a mechanical license from
that
> song's copyright holder. This copyright holder may be a publishing
company,
> or an individual.
>
> What is a mechanical license?
> A mechanical license is an agreement between the owner of a song copyright
> and a party distributing sound recordings of that song. The license spells
> out how much the company distributing the sound recordings will pay to the
> copyright holder for each copy sold, how often these payments will be
made,
> and other details.
>
> What is a compulsory mechanical license?
> After a song has been recorded and distributed the first time (with proper
> permission from the copyright holder), that song is then available to be
> recorded by anyone else who would like to record it. The owner of the song
> copyright cannot prevent other recordings from being made as long as the
new
> user follows the laws governing the compulsory mechanical license.
> Compulsory mechanical license terms are set by the copyright act and
dictate
> royalty rates, payment schedule, and more.
>
> [This is my big concern about using original material. If you think you
> might have a hit (remember, "mmm bop" made it big and it sucks), you
*lose*
> control over any of us recording our own versions.]
>
> What a mechanical license is not.
> A mechanical license is not permission to use someone's sound recording of
a
> composition. Use of sound recordings either partially (like sampling) or
in
> their entirety (for instance, in a compilation), requires a different kind
> of license (usually called a Master Use license). Often the party holding
> the copyright to a sound recording (a record label for instance) is not
the
> same party holding the copyright to the underlying composition (usually a
> publishing company). If you need help licensing a sound recording, please
> contact us and we will do our best to assist you.
> For more info, download our complimentary Guide to Mechanical Licensing.
>
>
>
>

Einstein

March 8th 04, 04:45 AM

Ooops, I blew that one! I don't know what I was thinking, as I knew that
Vince wasn't the band when Aimee was recorded. Must have had an Alsheimer
moment :-) However I stand by my statements that the accoustic guitar was
probably a Martin, the electric guitar was a Tele played through a Fender
Super Reverb or Twin Reverb, and everything I said about mic technique and
EQ still stands as well.

"Hal Laurent" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > As an example, you'd need to be
> > able to figure out that Vince Gill used a Telecaster for the electric
lead
> > and rythmn, that he played through a Fender Super Reverb amp in the
studio
> > when recording it, and that he used a Martin D-28 for the acoustic
parts,
> > and that the strummed acoustic guitar was probably mic'ed with a large
> > diaphram condenser mic (probably a Neuman) at about a foot away off axis
> of
> > the sound hole and behind and a bit below the bridge, with EQ boost at
> 300Hz
> > and at 8KHz and the mids cut back and quite a bit of compression, and
that
> > the acoustic lead was mic'ed at about a foot directly over the sound
hole
> > with a bit less treble boost, less mid cut and less compression than the
> > rythmn. The vocals used moderate compression and a very mild boost at
> around
> > 3KHz for presence and had a very light neutral reverb added. Did I get
all
> > this from listening to the song? mostly, but not entirely. For example,
> I'm
> > not certain that the acoustic guitar was a Martin D-28, but I'd bet that
> it
> > was a Martin, and I know that he owned a D-28 at that time. I also know
> that
> > the electric guitar was definitely a Tele, because there aren't many
> > electrics that are capable of that particular sound and I know that
Vince
> > owns and plays a Tele most of the time, I also know from listening that
> the
> > amp was either a Twin Reverb or a Super Reverb and I know that Vince
uses
> a
> > Super Reverb and prefers it's sound over the Twin.
>
> Actually, Vince Gill didn't play at all on Amie. He wasn't in the band
> until way
> near their end.
>
> Hal Laurent
> Baltimore
>
>

Einstein

March 8th 04, 04:59 AM

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I didn't just form an
opinion, what I'm saying comes from many years experience at both live and
recording mixing, and from teaching others to do it as well. I've found that
when doing studio mixes, using material that the student was familiar with
simply didn't serve very well, the student learned more and faster when
working with unfamiliar material. Trying to copy a reference mix is an
absolutely meaningless concept unless and until the student has the
experience to listen and know exactly what EQ, effects, etc, is being used
in during the reference mix. It is useless for beginners, and has very
douibtful use as a training tool for the advanced student. The only place it
is useful is as a test that the teacher can use to see how good the
student's listening and analytical skills are. Since the people who would be
interested in buying a multitrack have varying experience, at this point we
want to provide a learning tool, not a test.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:p9O2c.10504$506.9795@fed1read05...
> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 12:29:48 -0700, "Jim Carr" >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Your confidence in your position does not make it right. In fact your
> > >arguments actually favor my position in some ways. The ultimate
challenge
> in
> > >being creative is to take something that was done one way and mix it to
> > >sound totally different. You can still do that with a cover.
> >
> > Another useful challenge would be to take the raw tracks and mix them
> > to sound as close as possible to a reference mix.
>
> Agreed. For me personally, I don't think I will be able to achieve "my
> sound" until I figure out the techniques I need to use in order to create
> someone else's sound. I don't even know what "my sound" is yet. Right now
> I'm still trying to put together that sounds decent on my reference
monitors
> and *still* sounds decent on other systems. I would like to be able to
> remove the recording quality from the equation, which is why I will gladly
> pay $30 for a CD with a bunch of tracks I can play with.
>
>

Jim Carr

March 8th 04, 06:51 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..
>It does not give you the right to record and
> distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to modify
> and redistribute it.

I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing software
or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course he
can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
the same issue whether it's a cover or original.

> There are special licenses that do allow for the
> distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
> allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke license
is
> an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
series,
> but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
the
> song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks on
> the song.

Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and treble
controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.

> Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
> and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over the
> Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
if
> any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type

What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
okay according to you? I see no difference.

Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that Karaoke
includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint license
for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's doing
would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.

If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have obviously
altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it, though,
because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
under Karaoke.

Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would be
required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
with a link, I'd appreciate it.

> if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind people
> that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of the
> mixes they distributed over the Net.

Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because of
what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do with
their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.

> Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
> gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
already
> heard and have preconceived notions about.

You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song and
that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been published.
At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a record
contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song has
already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already published,
the original band could prevent the record company from having another band
release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an original,
he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.

Einstein

March 8th 04, 07:33 AM

If you share the mix with this group or any other for evaluation
purposes, that is distribution, under the DMCA. If you just send a copy to a
friend, that is redistribution under the DMCA.
Since the whole point of doing this is making the mixes available to others
for evaluation, distribution is an implied purpose, and is therefore
illegal, under the DMCA as wall as normal copyright law. I've already
talked to an attorney who is familiar with music law, I'd suggest you do the
same.
Since I feel that doing covers is a waste of time, I'm not going to
persue this any further. I've made myself clear as to what I think, I've
gotten advice from a legal expert and I've provided that information here,
and see no need to discuss it any further. If you want to distribute a cover
multitrack, go get the necessary license and permissions and do so, but
don't advise someone else to do it just because you want a particular sound,
because you may be putting them in legal jeopardy if they take your advice.
No one is going to run into leagal problems or licensing expenses doing
original material.
I'll be glad to discuss any technical issues that pertain to recording or
mixing with you, but I'll make no more comments on the legal aspects. You're
not seeing the legal ramifications of this particular application, you don't
have the experience or legal training to advise anyone. I have dealt with
similar issues before, I'm familiar with the DMCA and while I don't have the
qualifications to give legal advice either I did go to an expert who did for
his opinion. In point of fact, by advising someone to use original material,
I'm not giving legal advice, by advising someone to use copyrighted material
and telling him that a standard mechanical license is sufficient, you are.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:BIU2c.11629$506.4435@fed1read05...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >It does not give you the right to record and
> > distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to
modify
> > and redistribute it.
>
> I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
> simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing
software
> or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
> If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course
he
> can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
> recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
> the same issue whether it's a cover or original.
>
> > There are special licenses that do allow for the
> > distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
> > allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke
license
> is
> > an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
> series,
> > but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
> the
> > song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks
on
> > the song.
>
> Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
> Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
> have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
> certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
> with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and
treble
> controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.
>
>
> > Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
> > and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over
the
> > Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
> if
> > any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type
>
> What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
> can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
> Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
> your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
> okay according to you? I see no difference.
>
> Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that
Karaoke
> includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
> right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint
license
> for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
> graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
> automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's
doing
> would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.
>
> If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have
obviously
> altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
> automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
> argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it,
though,
> because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
> mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
> under Karaoke.
>
> Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would
be
> required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
> with a link, I'd appreciate it.
>
> > if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind
people
> > that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of
the
> > mixes they distributed over the Net.
>
> Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
> already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because
of
> what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
> license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do
with
> their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.
>
> > Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
> > gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
> already
> > heard and have preconceived notions about.
>
> You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song
and
> that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been
published.
> At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
> fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
> hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a
record
> contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song
has
> already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
> and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already
published,
> the original band could prevent the record company from having another
band
> release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.
>
> That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an
original,
> he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.
>
>

RD Jones

March 8th 04, 11:23 AM

eric > wrote in message >...
>
> The main question I have now: What style of music would draw the most
> interest. I was thinking of a straight ahead rock and roll band
> scenario. But I would like some feedback. Country, Big Band, Funk? Any
> preferences?
>
> eric

The style of music may be secondary here - but pop/country/rock could
include enough elements of diversity to be usefull. I'm thinking it should
comprise both vocals and instrumentals, with some acoustic tracks.

My suggestions:
1. Vocal - 3 part, male/female, lead and harmonies (3 tracks)
2. Rhythm section - not as critical for this purpose. maybe just a lined
bass and minimal drum such as stereo OH and combo snare/kick. (4 tracks)
3. Guitars - lead, rhythm, and acoustic. (3 tracks)
4. Keys - more variety again maybe stereo piano, organ, and synth. (4 tracks)
5. Other - Sax and harmonica ? (2 tracks)

This would give 16 tracks for those with somewhat limited resources, and
additional tracks up to 24 might add to drum miking and solo instruments as
horns, etc.

Just my $0.02

'RedDog' Steve Pompora
<current project: Betty Jean and the Free Radicals>

Eric

March 8th 04, 01:46 PM

Einstein wrote:

snip
> Since I feel that doing covers is a waste of time, I'm not going to
> persue this any further. I've made myself clear as to what I think, I've
> gotten advice from a legal expert and I've provided that information here,
> and see no need to discuss it any further. If you want to distribute a cover
> multitrack, go get the necessary license and permissions and do so, but
> don't advise someone else to do it just because you want a particular sound,
> because you may be putting them in legal jeopardy if they take your advice.
> No one is going to run into leagal problems or licensing expenses doing
> original material.

snip

I want to thank both Jim and Einstein for their input on the legal
aspects of this project. I appreciate your input and ideas. I just hope
you guys can still be friends after this.

I do want to say that I not planning on doing a cover version of any
song at this point. Partially due to the legal preparations and
ramifications, but mainly, I feel that a song that has never been heard
would be more useful at this point. I am not saying that I won't do one
in the future.

Jim Carr wrote:

> You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song and
> that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been published.
> At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
> fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
> hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a record
> contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song has
> already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
> and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already published,
> the original band could prevent the record company from having another band
> release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.

This is a logical argument. However, bands make this mistake all the
time. Almost every local band that I know of has a CD that they
distribute at shows. These CD's represent the first release. You could
use the same argument against the bands for distributing their own CD's.
Is that going to stop them? Absolutely not, they need to get their music
out into the public's hands.

Furthermore, if another band were to make a "hit" out of one of the
original band's songs, Fantastic. The one who holds the publishing
rights still wins. They will get their 8.5 cents (or whatever it is now)
per copy sold. As well as royalties for airplay. I am not going going to
be taking ownership of the band's song, they will retain that.

Thanks again for everyone's input on the legal aspects of this project.

eric

Eric

March 8th 04, 01:55 PM

OK, so far it looks like I am going ahead with this. I have secured a
domain name and am setting up a forum. I have put out a call to the
local talent pool and have already gotten a few bites. The band and song
selection is going to be the big hurdle at this point.

The web site is where you will be able to purchase the CD. It will have
a forum for discussion, and i will also provide facilities to upload
your mix for evaluation and discussion.

At this point, I am considering only making the forum available to only
those who purchase the CD. This will hopefully help to minimize any
pirating of my efforts.

I will post the URL when the site get developed. Until then, please feel
free to post any thoughts, recommendations, etc. both in the groups, and
to me off the group.

eric

Einstein

March 9th 04, 04:05 AM

You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
owner's permission. period!!!
'Nuff said!

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:BIU2c.11629$506.4435@fed1read05...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >It does not give you the right to record and
> > distribute unfinished song for the purpose of allowing the buyer to
modify
> > and redistribute it.
>
> I never said it did. Who said anything about redistribution? The guy is
> simply planning to sell a song playable through multi-track mixing
software
> or require the listener to combine the WAVs into a single file to play it.
> If the purchaser chooses to mess with the mix himself, he can. Of course
he
> can't redistribute it. That's already covered by copyright law. The
> recording is covered and the original author of the song is covered. It's
> the same issue whether it's a cover or original.
>
> > There are special licenses that do allow for the
> > distribution of an unfinished song with missing tracks for purpose of
> > allowing the buyer to do the missing tracks themselves. A karaoke
license
> is
> > an example. as are the old "Play Guitar With" and "Play Along With"
> series,
> > but none of these licenses allow one to record and distribute copies of
> the
> > song in any form, nor do they allow for modification of existing tracks
on
> > the song.
>
> Your second statement is simply wrong. If I pull up "She Loves You" by the
> Beatles in my mixing software and start tweaking EQ, reverb, etcetera, I
> have not violated *any* laws. I cannot distribute my efforts, but I can
> certainly tweak it all I want in my basement. Explain to me how what I do
> with his multiple tracks is any different than adjusting the bass and
treble
> controls on my car stereo. It's all a matter of degree.
>
>
> > Distribution is the publishing of the song in any public medium,
> > and distribution, even distribution to a limited group of people over
the
> > Internet is a violation of the license and of the law. I'm not even sure
> if
> > any copyright holder would be willing to provide a license of this type
>
> What type? Instead of two-track stereo it is distributed on many tracks. I
> can bring up a two-track in my mixing software just as easy as a 24 track.
> Suppose it was just a Dylan song with a guitar and vocals. You could mix
> your own version splitting the two sounds to the two tracks. Would that be
> okay according to you? I see no difference.
>
> Karaoke has a different license, that's for sure. One reason is that
Karaoke
> includes lyrics. By definition a mechanical license does *not* include the
> right to publish the lyrics or musical notation. You need a reprint
license
> for that and a synchronization license if you intend distribute it with
> graphics (how the lyrics are displayed). Karaoke licenses are not
> automatically granted. Someone *might* be able to argue that what he's
doing
> would require a multimedia (karaoke) license, but I disagree.
>
> If you cover a song but omit the vocals or guitar parts, you have
obviously
> altered the song to a large degree. Mechanical licenses are not
> automatically extended when you significantly change the song. One could
> argue that a vocal-less song becomes a derivative work. I doubt it,
though,
> because an instrumental version is not much different. You can get a
> mechanical license for that. That said, I don't see his proposal falling
> under Karaoke.
>
> Nowhere can I find any information stating that a different license would
be
> required for a "play along with" release of a song. If you can educate me
> with a link, I'd appreciate it.
>
> > if a legal contract could be drawn up because it would have to bind
people
> > that weren't parties to the contract to pay royalty fees for copies of
the
> > mixes they distributed over the Net.
>
> Huh? If I distribute copies of Cocker's cover of "Feeling Alright" I'm
> already in trouble. Cocker's publishing company isn't in trouble because
of
> what I did with Dave Mason's song. If I cover the song myself and pay the
> license fees, I have no control or obligation to control what others do
with
> their copy. That's already handled by copyright law.
>
> > Once again, to me this is a moot point as I don't see what would be
> > gained by having a multitrack copy os a song everyone would probably
> already
> > heard and have preconceived notions about.
>
> You keep skipping the MOST important point. If he uses an original song
and
> that song has not been distributed before, it will now have been
published.
> At that point anybody else can cover it and only pay mechanical license
> fees. It would really suck if some other band covered that song and had a
> hit on their hands. It might also pose a problem if the band lands a
record
> contract because of that song and the record company finds out the song
has
> already been published. They could give the song to another band to record
> and distribute that version instead. If the song were not already
published,
> the original band could prevent the record company from having another
band
> release the song. Since it's already out, tough noogies.
>
> That, my friend, would cause me worry. Besides, *even* if it is an
original,
> he still needs to take care of the licensing as described above.
>
>

Laurence Payne

March 9th 04, 04:25 AM

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:05:06 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

>You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
>owner's permission. period!!!
> 'Nuff said!

This probably should be true. But it isn't. See:
http://www.harryfox.com/mechanical.html

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 9th 04, 06:48 AM

That sucks! Here is a better place to look at the law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/empower . Do a search for "mechanical
license" and you'll get all relevent portions of the law. There are
limitations involved, such as they have to notify the copyright owner, and
the owner has some veto power. I haven't taken a look at the law in a few
years, so this comes as a shock to me. However, it all depends on the legal
definition of "nondramatic", if one can label the work "dramatic" the
mechanical license statute doesn't apply. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a
legal definition of "nondramatic" by just skimming over the statutes and I
don't have the time at the moment to do a thorough search.

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 22:05:06 -0600, "Einstein" >
> wrote:
>
> >You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
> >owner's permission. period!!!
> > 'Nuff said!
>
> This probably should be true. But it isn't. See:
> http://www.harryfox.com/mechanical.html
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Peter Larsen

March 9th 04, 11:13 AM

Einstein wrote:

> You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license
> without the copyright owner's permission. period!!!

What is relevant in this context is that the initial recording terms
allow for the usage envisioned in the long term perspective. Money may
be the lesser issue, there are also the Droit Morale aspects ... what
one can legally do to/with a work of art.

> 'Nuff said!

This is another fine example of a thread mangled up by your topposting.
Specific local laws that apply _generally_ will allow agreeings that
cover aspects that are not covered by- or are not well regulated by -
applicable local law. Example: sound effects libraries would not be
possible without such agreements.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Laurence Payne

March 9th 04, 03:58 PM

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:48:28 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

>That sucks! Here is a better place to look at the law:
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/empower . Do a search for "mechanical
>license" and you'll get all relevent portions of the law. There are
>limitations involved, such as they have to notify the copyright owner, and
>the owner has some veto power. I haven't taken a look at the law in a few
>years, so this comes as a shock to me. However, it all depends on the legal
>definition of "nondramatic", if one can label the work "dramatic" the
>mechanical license statute doesn't apply. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a
>legal definition of "nondramatic" by just skimming over the statutes and I
>don't have the time at the moment to do a thorough search.

It's not a new system. I have a vague recollection that it was
brought in to break the mob's monopoly of the jukebox market way back
in the 1930s.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Jim Carr

March 9th 04, 05:04 PM

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...

> It's not a new system. I have a vague recollection that it was
> brought in to break the mob's monopoly of the jukebox market way back
> in the 1930s.

The term "mechanical" comes from the old piano rolls. The rates for a
mechanical license have been set since 1900. See
http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html for a history of the rates.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf "Section 115 of the law provides
that, once phonorecords of a musical work have been publicly distributed in
the United States with the copyright owner's consent, anyone else may, under
certain circumstances and subject to limited conditions, obtain a
"compulsory license" to make and distribute phonorecords of the work without
express permission from the copyright owner."

Jim Carr

March 9th 04, 05:05 PM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
...
> You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
> owner's permission. period!!!
> 'Nuff said!

Maybe you should talk to your lawyer friend again. Compulsory mechanical
licenses are handled as a matter of routine. Seee
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf which reads in part, "Section 115
of the law provides that, once phonorecords of a musical work have been
publicly distributed in the United States with the copyright owner's
consent, anyone else may, under certain circumstances and subject to limited
conditions, obtain a "compulsory license" to make and distribute
phonorecords of the work without express permission from the copyright
owner."

BTW, the term non-dramatic as referenced by you in a another post is
referring to music things like soundtracks and music in plays.

John Cafarella

March 10th 04, 01:55 AM

Eric > wrote in message >...
> OK, so far it looks like I am going ahead with this. I have secured a
> domain name and am setting up a forum. I have put out a call to the
> local talent pool and have already gotten a few bites. The band and song
> selection is going to be the big hurdle at this point.
>
> The web site is where you will be able to purchase the CD. It will have
> a forum for discussion, and i will also provide facilities to upload
> your mix for evaluation and discussion.
>
> At this point, I am considering only making the forum available to only
> those who purchase the CD. This will hopefully help to minimize any
> pirating of my efforts.
>
> I will post the URL when the site get developed. Until then, please feel
> free to post any thoughts, recommendations, etc. both in the groups, and
> to me off the group.
>
> eric

I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet. I'm posting via google,
so it's possible that this will be hopelessly out of date when you
read it but...

I'm kinda in favour of using a cover song, faithfully done to the
original arrangement. Here's why:

(1) The Song is King.
One of the most important things the mix must do, is to connect the
listener with the song emotionally. You neeed a really GOOD song to
get a really good mix.

(2) The Arrangement is Nearly King :-)
Ever had songs that practically mix themselves? Ever had ones that
you just battle, and battle and battle with, and still never sound
really good because the arrangement is bad?

John
EOR Studio
Melbourne Australia

Jim Carr

March 10th 04, 02:07 AM

"John Cafarella" > wrote in message
om...

> I'm kinda in favour of using a cover song, faithfully done to the
> original arrangement. Here's why:
>
> (1) The Song is King.
> One of the most important things the mix must do, is to connect the
> listener with the song emotionally. You neeed a really GOOD song to
> get a really good mix.
>
> (2) The Arrangement is Nearly King :-)
> Ever had songs that practically mix themselves? Ever had ones that
> you just battle, and battle and battle with, and still never sound
> really good because the arrangement is bad?

Good points. What do you think of the idea of presenting a reference mix as
well? You don't have to listen to it if you don't want to. For me I would at
least lose the excuse of "nobody could make this sound good!!" :-)

Einstein

March 10th 04, 06:31 AM

I was familiar with the old definition of a mechanical license, it was
indeed for mechanical devices such as player pianos, midi licenses for
public performance come under this heading, as do live performances of
copyrighted works. Nightclubs and jukebox owners pay mechanical license fees
to BMI and ASCAP. It's the definition of mechanical license that has been
changed, and as I understand it, it was only recently expanded to allow
people to put out covers, I think in '96 or '97. Before that, you had to get
written permission from the copyright holder. It really looks to me like a
way for big record companies to legally steal and publish songs from
independent songwriters/artists.

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 00:48:28 -0600, "Einstein" >
> wrote:
>
> >That sucks! Here is a better place to look at the law:
> >http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/empower . Do a search for
"mechanical
> >license" and you'll get all relevent portions of the law. There are
> >limitations involved, such as they have to notify the copyright owner,
and
> >the owner has some veto power. I haven't taken a look at the law in a few
> >years, so this comes as a shock to me. However, it all depends on the
legal
> >definition of "nondramatic", if one can label the work "dramatic" the
> >mechanical license statute doesn't apply. Unfortunately, I couldn't find
a
> >legal definition of "nondramatic" by just skimming over the statutes and
I
> >don't have the time at the moment to do a thorough search.
>
>
> It's not a new system. I have a vague recollection that it was
> brought in to break the mob's monopoly of the jukebox market way back
> in the 1930s.
>
>
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 10th 04, 06:33 AM

It's the "certain terms and limited conditions" that are the key. I haven't
yet had time to research it, though

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:8Nm3c.14869$506.11944@fed1read05...
> "Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > It's not a new system. I have a vague recollection that it was
> > brought in to break the mob's monopoly of the jukebox market way back
> > in the 1930s.
>
> The term "mechanical" comes from the old piano rolls. The rates for a
> mechanical license have been set since 1900. See
> http://www.copyright.gov/carp/m200a.html for a history of the rates.
>
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf "Section 115 of the law provides
> that, once phonorecords of a musical work have been publicly distributed
in
> the United States with the copyright owner's consent, anyone else may,
under
> certain circumstances and subject to limited conditions, obtain a
> "compulsory license" to make and distribute phonorecords of the work
without
> express permission from the copyright owner."
>
>
>
>

Einstein

March 10th 04, 06:37 AM

I top post in every news group, and indeed, in most groups now that is the
preferred way to post. It looks like I was mistaken, about the mechanical
licensing, but I don't feel that is the issue anyway. I think that much more
will be gained with original multitrack material for reasons i've covered
several times.

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Einstein wrote:
>
> > You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license
> > without the copyright owner's permission. period!!!
>
> What is relevant in this context is that the initial recording terms
> allow for the usage envisioned in the long term perspective. Money may
> be the lesser issue, there are also the Droit Morale aspects ... what
> one can legally do to/with a work of art.
>
> > 'Nuff said!
>
> This is another fine example of a thread mangled up by your topposting.
> Specific local laws that apply _generally_ will allow agreeings that
> cover aspects that are not covered by- or are not well regulated by -
> applicable local law. Example: sound effects libraries would not be
> possible without such agreements.
>
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
> --
> *******************************************
> * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
> *******************************************

Einstein

March 10th 04, 06:42 AM

I've already covered that in a prevoius post, but as my original argument
was for original material because it will provide more of a mearning
opportunity, The legalities don't matter as far as i'm concerned. I read the
relevent code and will freely adsmit that I was mistaken. The old definition
of a mechanical license was changed in '96 or '97.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:oOm3c.14875$506.7215@fed1read05...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You CANNOT get a mechanical (or any other) license without the copyright
> > owner's permission. period!!!
> > 'Nuff said!
>
> Maybe you should talk to your lawyer friend again. Compulsory mechanical
> licenses are handled as a matter of routine. Seee
> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf which reads in part, "Section
115
> of the law provides that, once phonorecords of a musical work have been
> publicly distributed in the United States with the copyright owner's
> consent, anyone else may, under certain circumstances and subject to
limited
> conditions, obtain a "compulsory license" to make and distribute
> phonorecords of the work without express permission from the copyright
> owner."
>
> BTW, the term non-dramatic as referenced by you in a another post is
> referring to music things like soundtracks and music in plays.
>
>

Einstein

March 10th 04, 07:04 AM

You guys can do whatever you want, but I am telling you from long
experience, copying a mix is the absolute worst way to learn to mix, period.
The only right way to learn to mix is to learn on unfamiliar material,
otherwise you just became a copy jockey. Mixing is as much art as science
and it requires creativity and originality to become a really good mixer.
You cannot learn that trying to copy mixes. It's been my experience that you
have to learn the creativity and originality first, because it's very hard,
if not impossible to learn it after habits have set in.
The first thing you have to do to become a good recording engineer is to
learn to listen. If you don't know how to listen, you'll never be more than
a hack mixer. The first thing I do when someone wants me to teach them how
to record and mix is give them ten songs from various genres and when they
can come back and tell me what effects were used on each vocal and each
instrument, and have a general idea of EQ, etc. then we start working in the
studio on mic technique, record levels, compression techniques and levels
where required for recording etc. When they're able to get parts recorded on
tracks properly, then we start working on mixing technique. They don't work
on something they're familiar with until they have a really good
understanding of basic recording and mixing technique. If the student has
some talent and the desire to learn, he or she often is an accomplished
recording and mixing engineer in a matter of months.

"John Cafarella" > wrote in message
om...
> Eric > wrote in message
>...
> > OK, so far it looks like I am going ahead with this. I have secured a
> > domain name and am setting up a forum. I have put out a call to the
> > local talent pool and have already gotten a few bites. The band and song
> > selection is going to be the big hurdle at this point.
> >
> > The web site is where you will be able to purchase the CD. It will have
> > a forum for discussion, and i will also provide facilities to upload
> > your mix for evaluation and discussion.
> >
> > At this point, I am considering only making the forum available to only
> > those who purchase the CD. This will hopefully help to minimize any
> > pirating of my efforts.
> >
> > I will post the URL when the site get developed. Until then, please feel
> > free to post any thoughts, recommendations, etc. both in the groups, and
> > to me off the group.
> >
> > eric
>
> I'm surprised nobody has brought this up yet. I'm posting via google,
> so it's possible that this will be hopelessly out of date when you
> read it but...
>
> I'm kinda in favour of using a cover song, faithfully done to the
> original arrangement. Here's why:
>
> (1) The Song is King.
> One of the most important things the mix must do, is to connect the
> listener with the song emotionally. You neeed a really GOOD song to
> get a really good mix.
>
> (2) The Arrangement is Nearly King :-)
> Ever had songs that practically mix themselves? Ever had ones that
> you just battle, and battle and battle with, and still never sound
> really good because the arrangement is bad?
>
> John
> EOR Studio
> Melbourne Australia

Jim Carr

March 10th 04, 09:05 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..
> I was familiar with the old definition of a mechanical license, it was
> indeed for mechanical devices such as player pianos, midi licenses for
> public performance come under this heading, as do live performances of
> copyrighted works. Nightclubs and jukebox owners pay mechanical license
fees
> to BMI and ASCAP. It's the definition of mechanical license that has been
> changed, and as I understand it, it was only recently expanded to allow
> people to put out covers, I think in '96 or '97. Before that, you had to
get
> written permission from the copyright holder. It really looks to me like a
> way for big record companies to legally steal and publish songs from
> independent songwriters/artists.

From what I can read it's always been like this. I found this on
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061302.html

"There was only one compulsory license in the 1909 Copyright Act. What is
generally referred to as the "mechanical license" which allowed a person to
make a sound recording of a song that had been recorded and copies of that
recording had been distributed to the public in the United States, so long
as that person paid the owner of the musical composition 2 cents per copy.
The royalty rate was set by statute and was not subject to change. The 2
cents rate lasted from 1909 to 1978."

Recording a piano roll of a recording is no different than covering a song.

I also found that Title 17, Section 115 was enacted in 1947. See
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html. That section describes how
you can get the compulsory license so long as the original was done lawfully
and the copyright holder has already authorized recordings to be released.

What you are referring to is most likely the Fairness in Musical Licensing
act, in 1997 which does not address compulsory mechanical licenses. It
extends the period of time for copyrights and grants exemptions for playing
music at some non-profit venues such as agricultural fairs (go figure). It
sets out how the musical societies must make license information available,
but does not touch the definition of a compulsory license. You can read
about it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.789:

Around that same time period they also addressed royalty rates and
arbitration. You can read about it here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_115.html

If you can find something that says this is relatively new, please post it.
I'm not in the music industry, but I've always understood covers to work
this way.

I disagree that it's a way for record companies to legally steal. The
copyright to the sheet music and lyrics are controlled 100% by the artist
and cannot be published without his permission. The artist is guaranteed
royalties for a cover. He makes money for doing no additional work. That's a
pretty good gig.

If you didn't grant compulsory licenses, then what would happen with a
cover? Suppose you do a cover. You would argue that it's *not* a note for
note duplication of his song. You'd argue that you used an electric guitar,
synthesizer and added some harmonies, so it's really your own work. After
all, the sheet music doesn't look the same. Don't get me wrong, you *know*
it's a cover because it *is* a cover. But what does the artist have to do
now? He has to sue. Then the courts would then have to decide whether you
plagiarized the song or not. The cases take years to determine.

The artist will most likely win, but at what cost? The royalty rate is 8.5
cents per songs under three (or five?) minutes. Say the lawyer charges
$250/hour. That's about 400 copies sold per lawyer hour. Another way to look
at it is if the song sells 100,000 copies, the artist gets $8,500. That's 34
lawyer hours. That statutory remedy is between $500 and $20,000. If artist
gets the lawyer to take the case on a contingency, maybe he gets a bit more
money. If the artist goes for damages based on the success of the song, he
can get some serious damages based on the money they made assuming they made
a buttload. All in all its a lot of hassle.

The better alternative is that you simply get a compulsory license. Your
album cover indicates that Joe Blow is the copyright holder. Joe gets a
slice of every record you sell. Your version becomes popular, it's now
covered by the Muzak folks, so the Joe gets even more money. It gets picked
up for a movie, so the artist gets to negotiate a synchronization license.
If a karaoke company wants to do it, he gets to negotiate another license.

The songwriter has the ultimate protection in that he absolutely controls
the *first* release of the song. Period. He can shop that puppy around and
get as big of a slice as he can negotiate with the band and/or record label.
If he doesn't authorize a release, nobody can touch it.

If every cover had to be negotiated individually, you'd probably have very
few covers. It's a lot of work for both parties. I think this method works
quite well. All in all I think it's a fine system.

Things are much different when it comes to music as opposed to lyrics. I
could write a program that would effectively create every 12 bar melody
under every chord progression. Suppose we figure a melody to have a 16th
note as the shortest note. A single four note measure within an octave can
have 16*16*12 (3,072) combinations. Applying some basic music theory rules I
could greatly reduce that number. Put some chords over it and BAM! I've
copyrighted a gajillion songs.

Einstein

March 10th 04, 10:54 AM

The 1909 mechanical license covered only mechanical reproduction of a song,
such as player pianos and other musical automatons, that was why it did not
cover actual sound recordings. It was later expanded to cover live
performances so that the copyright holder would get royalties for them too,
and after the invention of midi, the mechanical license was expanded to
include midi as well. the idea being that midi was the digital equivalent of
the player piano. I was invloved in the nightclub business for a while and
while the mechanical license purchased from BMI and ASCAP (that's what the
fee charged by them for all clubs that made use of live bands or DJ's. It's
based on seating and number of nights open and if you play music videos
and/or do karaoke there are separate fees for that. The document stated that
this was a mechanical license except for karaoke which was covered under
another license) allowed the live performance, they specifically forbid
recording performances and selling or otherwise distributing them in any
way, shape, form or fashion without "the express written concent of the
copyrightholder(s)". If the mechanical license covered that at that time.
this would not have been the case. After going back and looking at the code
and related artiles, it seems that the revisions occurred in or after 1995,
and it also seems that the "compulsory" in compulsory license means that it
is compulsory that anyone wishing to perform, record, distribute, etc aquire
a license before doing so, and not that is is compulsory that the copyright
owner grant such a license. In other words, if someone notifies you and the
copyright office of intent to reproduce and distribute your song(s), in the
absense of notification from you that you don't want to allow it, the
copyright office will assume that you do allow it because you already
allowed distribution (the "as soon as you allow it to be distributed" part
of the code), and will grant them license to do so. This makes sense since
you're entitled to the same royalties reqardless of who distributes the
song(s), so the more people distributing it, the more money you make.
However, if for some reason you don't wish to grant any particular person a
license, you can notify the copyright office including your reason and if
the reason is valid, the license will not be granted. For example, you
recorded your copyrighted song and thus were the artist as well as the
author, allowing someone else to record and distribute the song would
infringe on your right as the artist to profit from your work, and
therefore, during what ever reasonable time is assumed to be the popular
life of a recorded performance, no license would be granted. This period of
time might vary from a couple of months to a year or so. There are other
reasons as well, such as a lousy recording that would hurt the reputation
of the song or copyright owner, unsuitable arrangments of the song, etc. The
code gives some leeway in arrangement to suit the enviornment in which it is
performed, which would include a country version of a rock song, etc.
Quite a bit of the copyright law, especially concerning music, is still
subject to debate and may be intrepeted in several different ways. There
have been several revisions since 1995, and there is still debate as to
wording and meaning of certain passages, so there are likely to be more in
the near future. In general though, where the code is not completely clear,
courts have tended to take the side of the copyright owner.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:gSA3c.20582$506.748@fed1read05...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I was familiar with the old definition of a mechanical license, it
was
> > indeed for mechanical devices such as player pianos, midi licenses for
> > public performance come under this heading, as do live performances of
> > copyrighted works. Nightclubs and jukebox owners pay mechanical license
> fees
> > to BMI and ASCAP. It's the definition of mechanical license that has
been
> > changed, and as I understand it, it was only recently expanded to allow
> > people to put out covers, I think in '96 or '97. Before that, you had to
> get
> > written permission from the copyright holder. It really looks to me like
a
> > way for big record companies to legally steal and publish songs from
> > independent songwriters/artists.
>
> From what I can read it's always been like this. I found this on
> http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat061302.html
>
> "There was only one compulsory license in the 1909 Copyright Act. What is
> generally referred to as the "mechanical license" which allowed a person
to
> make a sound recording of a song that had been recorded and copies of that
> recording had been distributed to the public in the United States, so long
> as that person paid the owner of the musical composition 2 cents per copy.
> The royalty rate was set by statute and was not subject to change. The 2
> cents rate lasted from 1909 to 1978."
>
> Recording a piano roll of a recording is no different than covering a
song.
>
> I also found that Title 17, Section 115 was enacted in 1947. See
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html. That section describes how
> you can get the compulsory license so long as the original was done
lawfully
> and the copyright holder has already authorized recordings to be released.
>
> What you are referring to is most likely the Fairness in Musical Licensing
> act, in 1997 which does not address compulsory mechanical licenses. It
> extends the period of time for copyrights and grants exemptions for
playing
> music at some non-profit venues such as agricultural fairs (go figure). It
> sets out how the musical societies must make license information
available,
> but does not touch the definition of a compulsory license. You can read
> about it here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.789:
>
> Around that same time period they also addressed royalty rates and
> arbitration. You can read about it here:
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/1/sections/section_115.html
>
> If you can find something that says this is relatively new, please post
it.
> I'm not in the music industry, but I've always understood covers to work
> this way.
>
> I disagree that it's a way for record companies to legally steal. The
> copyright to the sheet music and lyrics are controlled 100% by the artist
> and cannot be published without his permission. The artist is guaranteed
> royalties for a cover. He makes money for doing no additional work. That's
a
> pretty good gig.
>
> If you didn't grant compulsory licenses, then what would happen with a
> cover? Suppose you do a cover. You would argue that it's *not* a note for
> note duplication of his song. You'd argue that you used an electric
guitar,
> synthesizer and added some harmonies, so it's really your own work. After
> all, the sheet music doesn't look the same. Don't get me wrong, you *know*
> it's a cover because it *is* a cover. But what does the artist have to do
> now? He has to sue. Then the courts would then have to decide whether you
> plagiarized the song or not. The cases take years to determine.
>
> The artist will most likely win, but at what cost? The royalty rate is 8.5
> cents per songs under three (or five?) minutes. Say the lawyer charges
> $250/hour. That's about 400 copies sold per lawyer hour. Another way to
look
> at it is if the song sells 100,000 copies, the artist gets $8,500. That's
34
> lawyer hours. That statutory remedy is between $500 and $20,000. If artist
> gets the lawyer to take the case on a contingency, maybe he gets a bit
more
> money. If the artist goes for damages based on the success of the song, he
> can get some serious damages based on the money they made assuming they
made
> a buttload. All in all its a lot of hassle.
>
> The better alternative is that you simply get a compulsory license. Your
> album cover indicates that Joe Blow is the copyright holder. Joe gets a
> slice of every record you sell. Your version becomes popular, it's now
> covered by the Muzak folks, so the Joe gets even more money. It gets
picked
> up for a movie, so the artist gets to negotiate a synchronization license.
> If a karaoke company wants to do it, he gets to negotiate another license.
>
> The songwriter has the ultimate protection in that he absolutely controls
> the *first* release of the song. Period. He can shop that puppy around and
> get as big of a slice as he can negotiate with the band and/or record
label.
> If he doesn't authorize a release, nobody can touch it.
>
> If every cover had to be negotiated individually, you'd probably have very
> few covers. It's a lot of work for both parties. I think this method works
> quite well. All in all I think it's a fine system.
>
>
>
> Things are much different when it comes to music as opposed to lyrics. I
> could write a program that would effectively create every 12 bar melody
> under every chord progression. Suppose we figure a melody to have a 16th
> note as the shortest note. A single four note measure within an octave can
> have 16*16*12 (3,072) combinations. Applying some basic music theory rules
I
> could greatly reduce that number. Put some chords over it and BAM! I've
> copyrighted a gajillion songs.
>
>

Eric

March 10th 04, 01:20 PM

John Cafarella wrote:

snip

>
> I'm kinda in favour of using a cover song, faithfully done to the
> original arrangement. Here's why:
>
> (1) The Song is King.
> One of the most important things the mix must do, is to connect the
> listener with the song emotionally. You neeed a really GOOD song to
> get a really good mix.
>
> (2) The Arrangement is Nearly King :-)
> Ever had songs that practically mix themselves? Ever had ones that
> you just battle, and battle and battle with, and still never sound
> really good because the arrangement is bad?
>
> John

You are absolutely correct on both points. However, I don't think those
constitute a reason for using a cover song. I plan on wading through
some ****, to find: 1) A "really good song" that will connect with the
listener/mixer, 2) A song that has a basis for a good arrangement. I
plan to work with the band and produce the track.

I am searching locally for a band that I think will suit this project.
It is not going to be my band (I don't even have one), or my friends
band (I do have those). I am actually putting forth some effort to find
a band with songs that will suit this project. Once I find this band (I
think I may have already), I will do some pre-production work with them.
We will sift through their songs, pick a few, and work them up.

At this point, I am definitely planning on using original songs.

eric

Eric

March 10th 04, 01:25 PM

Jim Carr wrote:

snip

> Good points. What do you think of the idea of presenting a reference mix as
> well? You don't have to listen to it if you don't want to. For me I would at
> least lose the excuse of "nobody could make this sound good!!" :-)
>

I do plan on including a reference mix on the CD. I also will have it
available for download from the web site. You can then audition the
track before you buy it. It will show that it is possible to have a good
mix. I think that can be a hurdle for inexperienced mixers, it is easy
to say "Well, the tracks are the problem. That's why I am not getting a
good mix"

eric

Mike Rivers

March 10th 04, 01:41 PM

In article > writes:

> You guys can do whatever you want, but I am telling you from long
> experience, copying a mix is the absolute worst way to learn to mix, period.
> The only right way to learn to mix is to learn on unfamiliar material,
> otherwise you just became a copy jockey.

It depends on where you're starting from. If you've never mixed
anything before, having a goal to aim for can help you to learn what
the tools do. If you never get beyond that, then you haven't really
learned how to mix creatively.

Learning mixing is like learning to play guitar. If you've never heard
someone play in a way that's been accepted as being right, you'll miss
out on valuable listening skills, and you won't learn certain elements
that are key to approaching a mix. You'll just stumble around. Sure,
you might stumble into something brilliant, but only a true genius,
like Dr. Einstein, can make a career out of stumbling successfully.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Bob Cain

March 10th 04, 05:48 PM

Einstein wrote:

> I top post in every news group, and indeed, in most groups now that is the
> preferred way to post. It looks like I was mistaken, about the mechanical
> licensing,

As well as about there being a common preference for top (or
bottom) posting. It is merely lazy. Consideration for a
reader would result in trimming what one is responding to
down to the salient points and insterspersing the response
after them. But that takes a bit of work for the responder
and it's much easier to leave it all the the readers.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Scott Dorsey

March 10th 04, 06:39 PM

Bob Cain > wrote:
>Einstein wrote:
>
>> I top post in every news group, and indeed, in most groups now that is the
>> preferred way to post. It looks like I was mistaken, about the mechanical
>> licensing,
>
>As well as about there being a common preference for top (or
>bottom) posting. It is merely lazy. Consideration for a
>reader would result in trimming what one is responding to
>down to the salient points and insterspersing the response
>after them. But that takes a bit of work for the responder
>and it's much easier to leave it all the the readers.

Top posting is a goofy AOL thing that started appearing in Usenet in the
mid-1990s when AOL first started getting Usenet connections. It looks pretty
silly on most typical newsreaders, but I can understand how it might seem
more reasonable if you're used to something like AOL or the Google newsreader
where it's very cumbersome to negotiate around in messages.

The problem is when people use top posting as a subsitute for properly
trimming message bodies... they reply to a 50-line message with one line
of text on top. That's just plain rude.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Rivers

March 10th 04, 11:02 PM

In article > writes:

> Top posting is a goofy AOL thing that started appearing in Usenet in the
> mid-1990s when AOL first started getting Usenet connections.

I use AOL (not here) and I don't have any problem editing posts. There
are two options, "AOL Quoting" (which looks a little silly) and
"Usenet sytle quoting" which looks like this. Admittedly, the majority
of AOL users don't know what either really means and probably don't
even realize they're sending the whole message back to the newsgroup.

Will someone please tell Einstein to remove rec.audio.pro from his
cross-postings? Whenever I try, my host kicks the message out,
probalby because one of the cross-posted newsgroups isn't on my host
system.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Eric

March 11th 04, 12:54 AM

Mike Rivers wrote:

snip

> Will someone please tell Einstein to remove rec.audio.pro from his
> cross-postings? Whenever I try, my host kicks the message out,
> probalby because one of the cross-posted newsgroups isn't on my host
> system.
>

Mike,

Sorry, I am the one who cross-posted the original post. The group that
is probably causing you trouble is alt.music.home-studio. It is fairly
new, and not on all servers. I had no idea this would pose any problems.

eric

Jim Carr

March 11th 04, 03:12 AM

"Eric" > wrote in message
...

> I do plan on including a reference mix on the CD. I also will have it
> available for download from the web site. You can then audition the
> track before you buy it. It will show that it is possible to have a good
> mix. I think that can be a hurdle for inexperienced mixers, it is easy
> to say "Well, the tracks are the problem. That's why I am not getting a
> good mix"

Regardless of your choice, I'm sure I will buy it. Thanks for the effort and
listening to the various points.

Jim Carr

March 11th 04, 04:08 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
...

> and/or do karaoke there are separate fees for that. The document stated
that
> this was a mechanical license except for karaoke which was covered under
> another license) allowed the live performance, they specifically forbid
> recording performances and selling or otherwise distributing them in any
> way, shape, form or fashion without "the express written concent of the
> copyrightholder(s)".
< If the mechanical license covered that at that time.
> this would not have been the case.

Well, it couldn't read what you wrote, since consent is spelled with an S.
But seriously, you can enter into *any* agreement you want so long as it is
not illegal. They could have written into the agreement that you had to wear
pink socks on Tuesdays. If you signed it, so be it. Depending on the law and
the courts, a contract cannot remove a right granted by statute. My guess is
that were trying to make it clear to you that just because you paid for the
right of a performance doesn't mean you can the resell it. You *still* need
a separate mechanical license in order to distribute such recording. How the
contract was worded I don't know, but I do know that your mechanical license
did not cover selling such a recording, only the performance in your club.

>After going back and looking at the code
> and related artiles, it seems that the revisions occurred in or after
1995,
> and it also seems that the "compulsory" in compulsory license means that
it
> is compulsory that anyone wishing to perform, record, distribute, etc
aquire
> a license before doing so, and not that is is compulsory that the
copyright
> owner grant such a license. In other words, if someone notifies you and
the
> copyright office of intent to reproduce and distribute your song(s), in
the
> absense of notification from you that you don't want to allow it, the
> copyright office will assume that you do allow it because you already
> allowed distribution (the "as soon as you allow it to be distributed"
part
> of the code), and will grant them license to do so.

You are simply wrong. Period. 'nuff said. If you want to keep arguing this
point, please post some relevant links to the actual laws or summaries
presented by reputable organizations. Here is the actual text of the law.
Your interpretation is wrong and not supported by the text of the law or
other sites that specialize in that field as I will show.

From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html [my comments in brackets]

In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by
clauses (1) and (3) of section 106, to make and to distribute phonorecords
of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions
specified by this section.

A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary purpose
in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private use,
including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.
[Did you notice that no mention is made of the copyright holder having any
right to deny the license?]

A compulsory license under this section includes the right of the compulsory
licensee to distribute or authorize the distribution of a phonorecord of a
nondramatic musical work by means of a digital transmission which
constitutes a digital phonorecord delivery, regardless of whether the
digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording
under section 106(6) of this title or of any nondramatic musical work
embodied therein under section 106(4) of this title.

Failure to serve or file the notice required by clause (1) forecloses the
possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated
license, renders the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as
acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies
provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.

A person may not obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the
making of phonorecords duplicating a sound recording fixed by another,
unless: (i) such sound recording was fixed lawfully; and (ii) the making of
the phonorecords was authorized by the owner of copyright in the sound
recording..."

[They only define when you may NOT get a license. The exception proves the
rule. If it says, "No parking on Sundays" it means you can park there every
other day of the week. The law outlines when you cannot get a license. If
those two conditions are met, you can get the license. Nowhere in the law
does it say anything about requiring the copyright holder's permission. You
just have to notify him of the intention. The only provision for the
copyright holder to retain exlclusive rights is to not release the song
himsel as indicated abovef.]

License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between one or more
copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and one or more persons
entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) shall be
given effect in lieu of any determination by the Librarian of Congress
[Notice the word "entitled" here? You can negotiate your own license, but no
mention is made of a copyright holder rejecting a license.]
[i]
> However, if for some reason you don't wish to grant any particular person
a[i]
> license, you can notify the copyright office including your reason and if
> the reason is valid, the license will not be granted.

Prove it. Show me the law. Show me a court case.

I am growing tired of the argument, especially since your replies tend to
have LONG paragraphs, no citations, and come at the top post instead of in
response to my points and citations.

Do you have a song that you've released? If so, I'll be happy to cover it
and send you the $42.50 minimum royalty you are due. Then you can try to sue
me. Maybe that will settle it.

You've heard of the Harry Fox Agency haven't you? Here's what it says on
their site. If you want to continue the argument, argue with them. I'm done
with this unless you can come up with a citation that proves me wrong. I
really don't care what you think or believe.

http://www.harryfox.com/mechanical.html
Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted,
non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution to
the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner.
However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and
distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so, a
compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to
record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license fees
at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act.

Einstein

March 11th 04, 07:36 AM

Forget it, you admitted that you aren't in the music industry, and as far
as I'm concerned it's a moot point anyway, since I'm totally opposed to
doing a cover for the multitrack thing.
Do whatever you want, think whatever you want, I don't care.
As I said, if you want technical advice, just ask, if you want legal
advice, see your attorney.

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:rBR3c.24632$506.7225@fed1read05...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > and/or do karaoke there are separate fees for that. The document stated
> that
> > this was a mechanical license except for karaoke which was covered under
> > another license) allowed the live performance, they specifically forbid
> > recording performances and selling or otherwise distributing them in any
> > way, shape, form or fashion without "the express written concent of the
> > copyrightholder(s)".
> < If the mechanical license covered that at that time.
> > this would not have been the case.
>
> Well, it couldn't read what you wrote, since consent is spelled with an S.
> But seriously, you can enter into *any* agreement you want so long as it
is
> not illegal. They could have written into the agreement that you had to
wear
> pink socks on Tuesdays. If you signed it, so be it. Depending on the law
and
> the courts, a contract cannot remove a right granted by statute. My guess
is
> that were trying to make it clear to you that just because you paid for
the
> right of a performance doesn't mean you can the resell it. You *still*
need
> a separate mechanical license in order to distribute such recording. How
the
> contract was worded I don't know, but I do know that your mechanical
license
> did not cover selling such a recording, only the performance in your club.
>
> >After going back and looking at the code
> > and related artiles, it seems that the revisions occurred in or after
> 1995,
> > and it also seems that the "compulsory" in compulsory license means that
> it
> > is compulsory that anyone wishing to perform, record, distribute, etc
> aquire
> > a license before doing so, and not that is is compulsory that the
> copyright
> > owner grant such a license. In other words, if someone notifies you and
> the
> > copyright office of intent to reproduce and distribute your song(s), in
> the
> > absense of notification from you that you don't want to allow it, the
> > copyright office will assume that you do allow it because you already
> > allowed distribution (the "as soon as you allow it to be distributed"
> part
> > of the code), and will grant them license to do so.
>
> You are simply wrong. Period. 'nuff said. If you want to keep arguing this
> point, please post some relevant links to the actual laws or summaries
> presented by reputable organizations. Here is the actual text of the law.
> Your interpretation is wrong and not supported by the text of the law or
> other sites that specialize in that field as I will show.
>
> From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html [my comments in
brackets]
>
> In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by
> clauses (1) and (3) of section 106, to make and to distribute phonorecords
> of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions
> specified by this section.
>
>
> A person may obtain a compulsory license only if his or her primary
purpose
> in making phonorecords is to distribute them to the public for private
use,
> including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.
> [Did you notice that no mention is made of the copyright holder having any
> right to deny the license?]
>
> A compulsory license under this section includes the right of the
compulsory
> licensee to distribute or authorize the distribution of a phonorecord of a
> nondramatic musical work by means of a digital transmission which
> constitutes a digital phonorecord delivery, regardless of whether the
> digital transmission is also a public performance of the sound recording
> under section 106(6) of this title or of any nondramatic musical work
> embodied therein under section 106(4) of this title.
>
> Failure to serve or file the notice required by clause (1) forecloses the
> possibility of a compulsory license and, in the absence of a negotiated
> license, renders the making and distribution of phonorecords actionable as
> acts of infringement under section 501 and fully subject to the remedies
> provided by sections 502 through 506 and 509.
>
>
>
> A person may not obtain a compulsory license for use of the work in the
> making of phonorecords duplicating a sound recording fixed by another,
> unless: (i) such sound recording was fixed lawfully; and (ii) the making
of
> the phonorecords was authorized by the owner of copyright in the sound
> recording..."
>
> [They only define when you may NOT get a license. The exception proves the
> rule. If it says, "No parking on Sundays" it means you can park there
every
> other day of the week. The law outlines when you cannot get a license. If
> those two conditions are met, you can get the license. Nowhere in the law
> does it say anything about requiring the copyright holder's permission.
You
> just have to notify him of the intention. The only provision for the
> copyright holder to retain exlclusive rights is to not release the song
> himsel as indicated abovef.]
>
> License agreements voluntarily negotiated at any time between one or more
> copyright owners of nondramatic musical works and one or more persons
> entitled to obtain a compulsory license under subsection (a)(1) shall be
> given effect in lieu of any determination by the Librarian of Congress
> [Notice the word "entitled" here? You can negotiate your own license, but
no
> mention is made of a copyright holder rejecting a license.]
>[i]
> > However, if for some reason you don't wish to grant any particular
person
> a[i]
> > license, you can notify the copyright office including your reason and
if
> > the reason is valid, the license will not be granted.
>
> Prove it. Show me the law. Show me a court case.
>
> I am growing tired of the argument, especially since your replies tend to
> have LONG paragraphs, no citations, and come at the top post instead of in
> response to my points and citations.
>
> Do you have a song that you've released? If so, I'll be happy to cover it
> and send you the $42.50 minimum royalty you are due. Then you can try to
sue
> me. Maybe that will settle it.
>
> You've heard of the Harry Fox Agency haven't you? Here's what it says on
> their site. If you want to continue the argument, argue with them. I'm
done
> with this unless you can come up with a citation that proves me wrong. I
> really don't care what you think or believe.
>
> http://www.harryfox.com/mechanical.html
> Under the United States Copyright Act, the right to use copyrighted,
> non-dramatic musical works in the making of phonorecords for distribution
to
> the public for private use is the exclusive right of the copyright owner.
> However, the Act provides that once a copyright owner has recorded and
> distributed such a work to the U.S. public or permitted another to do so,
a
> compulsory mechanical license is available to anyone else who wants to
> record and distribute the work in the U.S. upon the payment of license
fees
> at the statutory "compulsory" rate as set forth in Section 115 of the Act.
>
>
>

Einstein

March 11th 04, 07:38 AM

If the topic is multi-pointed, I will often post a "see in your text" at
the top and comment on the salient points in the poster's text.

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Einstein wrote:
>
> > I top post in every news group, and indeed, in most groups now that is
the
> > preferred way to post. It looks like I was mistaken, about the
mechanical
> > licensing,
>
> As well as about there being a common preference for top (or
> bottom) posting. It is merely lazy. Consideration for a
> reader would result in trimming what one is responding to
> down to the salient points and insterspersing the response
> after them. But that takes a bit of work for the responder
> and it's much easier to leave it all the the readers.
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Einstein

March 11th 04, 07:43 AM

Actually, top posting has many advantages over bottom posting, not the
least of which is that one has to scroll down to find the latest post, and
if one is familiar with the thread it's a toatl waste of time. If one has to
wade through several hundred posts this way, the time wasted is measured in
hours. That's the reason that top posting has become so popular. With top
posting, one only has to scroll down if he or she isn't familiar with the
thread. There are several other reasons, for top posting, but they have been
covered ad nauseum in other groups, because there is always someone who
wants to stick to the old ways.

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Cain > wrote:
> >Einstein wrote:
> >
> >> I top post in every news group, and indeed, in most groups now that is
the
> >> preferred way to post. It looks like I was mistaken, about the
mechanical
> >> licensing,
> >
> >As well as about there being a common preference for top (or
> >bottom) posting. It is merely lazy. Consideration for a
> >reader would result in trimming what one is responding to
> >down to the salient points and insterspersing the response
> >after them. But that takes a bit of work for the responder
> >and it's much easier to leave it all the the readers.
>
> Top posting is a goofy AOL thing that started appearing in Usenet in the
> mid-1990s when AOL first started getting Usenet connections. It looks
pretty
> silly on most typical newsreaders, but I can understand how it might seem
> more reasonable if you're used to something like AOL or the Google
newsreader
> where it's very cumbersome to negotiate around in messages.
>
> The problem is when people use top posting as a subsitute for properly
> trimming message bodies... they reply to a 50-line message with one line
> of text on top. That's just plain rude.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Einstein

March 11th 04, 08:01 AM

Eric, I would suggest that you not include a reference mix on the CD, as,
human nature being what it is, folks will invariably listen to it and will
then be subconciously predjudiced. I don't suggest posting a reference mix
on your site for the same reason. You may not realize it, but a reference
mix will destroy at least 80% of the usefulness on the multitrack as a
learning/teaching tool. Since you will do the reference mix to your taste
and to your expectations of what the song should sound like, there will be
subconcious prejudice in your mix. Since mixing is art as well as science,
there are many wrong ways to mix, but there isn't one single "right" mix.
Even of you're the best mixing engineer in the world, why prejudice newbies
who may have have original and unique talents for mixing with your idea of
what the mix should sound like.
I would suggest as an alternative that you wait until folks post their
mixes where the members of this group can evaluate it, and after the mixes
have been posted for evaluation and everyone has had a chance to listen and
evaluate all the mixes, then you can post a link your reference mix and
everyone can vote on their favorite mix. After all, someone may come up with
an angle on the mix that never occurred to you, and you might even like one
of the other mixes better than your own mix.
Is summary, I've learned from experience that the rules of
recordings/mixing are not set in stone, they are merely guidelines to get
one started in the right direction, and since any so-called "reference" mix
is only the mixer's idea of how the mix should be done, a reference mix
tebds to narrow the students creative view.

"Eric" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Carr wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > Good points. What do you think of the idea of presenting a reference mix
as
> > well? You don't have to listen to it if you don't want to. For me I
would at
> > least lose the excuse of "nobody could make this sound good!!" :-)
> >
>
> I do plan on including a reference mix on the CD. I also will have it
> available for download from the web site. You can then audition the
> track before you buy it. It will show that it is possible to have a good
> mix. I think that can be a hurdle for inexperienced mixers, it is easy
> to say "Well, the tracks are the problem. That's why I am not getting a
> good mix"
>
> eric
>
>

Einstein

March 11th 04, 08:02 AM

You made the right decision! :-)

"Eric" > wrote in message
...
>
> At this point, I am definitely planning on using original songs.
>
> eric
>

Paul Stamler

March 11th 04, 08:19 AM

Mike Rivers > wrote in message
news:znr1078951888k@trad...
>
> In article > writes:
>
> > Top posting is a goofy AOL thing that started appearing in Usenet in the
> > mid-1990s when AOL first started getting Usenet connections.
>
> I use AOL (not here) and I don't have any problem editing posts. There
> are two options, "AOL Quoting" (which looks a little silly) and
> "Usenet sytle quoting" which looks like this.

Yes, but AOL Quoting has the advantage that if somebody wants to forward
something that's already a forward, and their mailreader breaks the lines
differently, there won't be a bunch of >'s in the middle of the text, just
line breaks and brackets at front and back. Nicer for those of us anal
enough to want to clean it up before further forwarding.

Why am I not in bed?

Peace,
Paul

Scott Dorsey

March 11th 04, 02:23 PM

Einstein > wrote:
> Actually, top posting has many advantages over bottom posting, not the
>least of which is that one has to scroll down to find the latest post, and
>if one is familiar with the thread it's a toatl waste of time. If one has to
>wade through several hundred posts this way, the time wasted is measured in
>hours. That's the reason that top posting has become so popular.

Honestly, you might want to stop using Outlook and try using a real
newsreader. You'll find it much more pleasant.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

hank alrich

March 11th 04, 08:27 PM

Einstein > wrote:

> Actually, top posting has many advantages over bottom posting, not the
> least of which is that one has to scroll down to find the latest post

Dream on; edit the **** so what's up is what's been replied to. Top
posting is a lazy-ass approach, scorned in rec.audio.pro.

--
ha

Mike

March 11th 04, 09:38 PM

In article >,
Einstein > wrote:
> Actually, top posting has many advantages over bottom posting, not the
>least of which is that one has to scroll down to find the latest post

You only have to scroll down to find the "latest post" because someone has
failed, through laziness, to snip irrelevant text. Top posting become more
prevalent when people became too lazy to delete that which they did not
need to quote.

By "latest post" you really meant "added text".

<snip>

--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

Jim Carr

March 12th 04, 02:26 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
...
> Forget it, you admitted that you aren't in the music industry, and as
far
> as I'm concerned it's a moot point anyway, since I'm totally opposed to
> doing a cover for the multitrack thing.

I wonder if I irritate you as much as your ignorance and refusal to admit
you're wrong irritate me...I don't need to be in the music industry to
understand copyright law. I am in the software industry and have released
over 25 applications to the public over the years in addition to doing
contract work and regular work. I have also have published articles and
newsletters. Copyrights and trademarks are a necessary area of interest for
me. Despite that, I can do research, a skill which you seem to lack. Not
being a record producer does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

The point is *not* moot if he uses an original work. If he uses an original,
the copyright holder will LOSE the right to prevent someone else from doing
a cover. So, if the band has aspirations of getting a record deal, they are
better off *not* releasing the song for the *first* time for this project.
If they have already printed a CD and sold it, there's no additonal risk to
the band.

I know you don't believe me. Apparently you don't believe my sources either.
Here are two more for you. This one
(http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf) from the government itself reads
in part, "The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords
of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright
owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to
negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person
intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions of
the copyright law."

You don't get much clearer than that nor can you find a better source on
copyright information than the copyright office itself.

Here's the second link
(http://biz.findlaw.com/intellectual_property/nolo/auntie/04760AAB-A6E6-41E2
-BEB93E82B5891B47.html), which reads in part:
Question
My husband's band is recording a CD of all cover tunes. We know we have to
list all of the writers and owners of the songs, but where do we go or who
do we register with before the release of the CD?
Answer
To record a song for release to the public, a performer must obtain
permission from the music publisher of the song and pay a fee, called a
mechanical royalty. A mechanical royalty must be paid when songs are
reproduced on cassettes, compact discs and records.
There are two ways to get permission and pay the mechanical royalty:
1) a compulsory license may be used and the preset statutory mechanical
royalty rate paid directly to the music publisher -- the easiest, least
stressful method, or
2) permission and mechanical royalty may be negotiated directly with the
music publisher or Harry Fox Agency (http://www.nmpa.org/hfa.html).
Under the compulsory license procedures, you need not ask the music
publisher's permission to make the recording or negotiate a license fee.
Instead, you merely inform the publisher of the recording and pay a license
fee set by law.

So, in addition to showing you the actual law, I have shown the copyright
office's interpretation of the law and a lawyer's direct response to the
discussion at hand. Perhaps you should write them letters and explain to
them how they are wrong.

Einstein

March 12th 04, 06:20 AM

See in your text:"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:xb94c.26036$506.5563@fed1read05...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Forget it, you admitted that you aren't in the music industry, and as
> far
> > as I'm concerned it's a moot point anyway, since I'm totally opposed to
> > doing a cover for the multitrack thing.
>
> I wonder if I irritate you as much as your ignorance and refusal to admit
> you're wrong irritate me...I don't need to be in the music industry to
> understand copyright law. I am in the software industry and have released
> over 25 applications to the public over the years in addition to doing
> contract work and regular work. I have also have published articles and
> newsletters. Copyrights and trademarks are a necessary area of interest
for
> me. Despite that, I can do research, a skill which you seem to lack. Not
> being a record producer does not mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

I already admitted that I was mistaken about certain portions of the code,
but, and you need to know this, music copyrights are NOT like software
copyrights. I did go back and do some research at the horses mouth, so to
speak, directly from the relevent US Code. I also did some research at the
legal departments of a couple of major law schools, which is where I found
out that much of the code concerning music copyrights and licenses is still
under debate among lecislatires and in courts concerning the exact
interpretation.

> The point is *not* moot if he uses an original work. If he uses an
original,
> the copyright holder will LOSE the right to prevent someone else from
doing
> a cover. So, if the band has aspirations of getting a record deal, they
are
> better off *not* releasing the song for the *first* time for this project.
> If they have already printed a CD and sold it, there's no additonal risk
to
> the band.

The point is moot as far as I'm concerned because I'm opposed to doing a
cover multitrack. I know from experience that a cover will not be mearly as
useful in teaching mixing as original material will be.

> I know you don't believe me. Apparently you don't believe my sources
either.

Apparently you don't get the meaning of the word "moot". It means that it
doesn't matter to me, period! This whole thing came up as an offshoot of the
"cover vs original" debate. The legalities aren't important to me in the
first place, what is important to me is the teaching potential of the
multitrack. I haven't dealt directly with music copyright law in a long
time, but regardless of how the code reads, experts on music copyright law
say the licensing issues are still open to debate, and there is ongoing
debate among lawmakers as to how to revise certain licensing provisions.
That's all I need to know about it.

> Here are two more for you. This one
> (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf) from the government itself
reads
> in part, "The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords
> of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright
> owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to
> negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person
> intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions
of
> the copyright law."

The copyright owner can present his reasons for not granting license and if
the copyright office considers them to be valid, the license will not be
granted. That's where the "under certain circumstances and limited
conditions" quote from your source comes into play, and those circumstances
and conditions are part of what is still under debate, since they aren't
fully clarified in the code.

> You don't get much clearer than that nor can you find a better source on
> copyright information than the copyright office itself.

Since when has the law ever been "clear"? The copyright office has nothing
to do with making copyright law, nor do they interpret it, that is the job
of the courts. They just grant copyrights and issue licenses. The licenses
they issue are sometimes modified or even revoked by the courts.

> Here's the second link
>
(http://biz.findlaw.com/intellectual_property/nolo/auntie/04760AAB-A6E6-41E2
> -BEB93E82B5891B47.html), which reads in part:
> Question
> My husband's band is recording a CD of all cover tunes. We know we have to
> list all of the writers and owners of the songs, but where do we go or who
> do we register with before the release of the CD?
> Answer
> To record a song for release to the public, a performer must obtain
> permission from the music publisher of the song and pay a fee, called a
> mechanical royalty. A mechanical royalty must be paid when songs are
> reproduced on cassettes, compact discs and records.
> There are two ways to get permission and pay the mechanical royalty:
> 1) a compulsory license may be used and the preset statutory mechanical
> royalty rate paid directly to the music publisher -- the easiest, least
> stressful method, or
> 2) permission and mechanical royalty may be negotiated directly with the
> music publisher or Harry Fox Agency (http://www.nmpa.org/hfa.html).
> Under the compulsory license procedures, you need not ask the music
> publisher's permission to make the recording or negotiate a license fee.
> Instead, you merely inform the publisher of the recording and pay a
license
> fee set by law.

Your link is no good, a link cannot be broken into two lines, but I don't
need it anyway. the whole thing still hinges on the "under certain
circumstances and limited conditions" part of the code. If lawmakers and the
courts are still debating portions of the code, how do you expect to settle
anything here. I really don't care anyway, as I neither perform my own
material in public nor do I personally distribute it, and when a song of
mine gets published, I don't care who does it as long as I get my royalty
checks.

> So, in addition to showing you the actual law, I have shown the copyright
> office's interpretation of the law and a lawyer's direct response to the
> discussion at hand. Perhaps you should write them letters and explain to
> them how they are wrong.

Again, the copyright office does NOT interpret the law, that is the
provision of the courts. They merely issue copyrights and grant licenses.
Their clarification or "interpretation" has no legal standing unless and
until it's backed up by a court opinion. Again, the "under certain
circumstances and limited conditions" is the crux of the matter, and they
neither interpret, nor clarify, nor explain that part of it, they just quote
it.

That is my final word on the legal matter. I could care less about it, I
don't care who is right and who is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with the
subject of this group and I'm through with it. Think whatever you want, do
whatever you want, I don't care! I already did research and admitted that I
was wrong about parts of the code, my research showed that some
interpretation was still under debate. You might wish to take a look at:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.notes.html
But don't bother me anymore about it, as I DON"T CARE!!!

Einstein

March 12th 04, 06:23 AM

Why? Outhouse Express does everything I need it to. I have half a dozen
other news readers if I need them, but I rarely ever need them.

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Einstein > wrote:
> > Actually, top posting has many advantages over bottom posting, not the
> >least of which is that one has to scroll down to find the latest post,
and
> >if one is familiar with the thread it's a toatl waste of time. If one has
to
> >wade through several hundred posts this way, the time wasted is measured
in
> >hours. That's the reason that top posting has become so popular.
>
> Honestly, you might want to stop using Outlook and try using a real
> newsreader. You'll find it much more pleasant.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Jim Carr

March 12th 04, 07:37 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..

> > Here are two more for you. This one
> > (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ73.pdf) from the government itself
> reads
> > in part, "The person wishing to make and distribute phonorecords
> > of a nondramatic musical work may negotiate directly with the copyright
> > owner or his or her agent. But, if the copyright owner is unwilling to
> > negotiate or if the copyright owner cannot be contacted, the person
> > intending to record the work may use the compulsory licensing provisions
> of
> > the copyright law."
>
> The copyright owner can present his reasons for not granting license and
if
> the copyright office considers them to be valid, the license will not be
> granted.
> That's where the "under certain circumstances and limited
> conditions" quote from your source comes into play, and those
circumstances
> and conditions are part of what is still under debate, since they aren't
> fully clarified in the code.

Prove it, Einstein. Just prove it. You're making this **** up based on your
belief. Show me a case where a compulsory license was denied because the
copyright owner didn't want it to be done. If the licensee didn't follow the
rules or the original work was in dispute (was it really released?), then
those points can be argued. But that's fully outlined in the law. Did you
not read what the copyright office distributes? "If the copyright owner is
unwilling to negotiate...the person intending to record the work may use the
compulsory license..." Don't you think they would mention that the copyright
owner may refuse for certain reasons? Of course they would. Why in the world
would they tell you could just use the compulsory license if the owner is
unwlling to negotiate? If you've got case law that shows otherwise, prove
it. Otherwise, quit spouting off your personal beliefs.

> Since when has the law ever been "clear"? The copyright office has nothing
> to do with making copyright law, nor do they interpret it, that is the job
> of the courts. They just grant copyrights and issue licenses. The licenses
> they issue are sometimes modified or even revoked by the courts.

You are so full of **** it's not even funny. I guess those circulars they
distribute are for giggles. Yeh. You're right and the copyright office is
wrong.

> Your link is no good, a link cannot be broken into two lines,
I guess you don't know how to copy/paste a long link? You don't need the
link unless you think I was lying about it. Go to http://www.findlaw.com and
search for compulsory mechanical license. The first hit will be what I
quoted.

>but I don't
> need it anyway. the whole thing still hinges on the "under certain
> circumstances and limited conditions" part of the code.

There is no "under certain circumstances and limited conditions" in the
code, Einstein. You are referring to a summary of the law. To try to prove
your point that a copyright holder has any say in the compulsory license
process, I did a search for the phrases "deny a compulsory mechanical
license" and "refuse a compulsory mechanical license." Did you know that
according to Google, neither of those phrases occurs in the billion or so
web pages they have indexed? Just searching for those words coming together
on the same page I found, "The law states that a copyright holder cannot
refuse a request to use the material, as long as a certain rate is paid. A
copyright holder cannot even refuse a request to re-record his song, even if
the request to use the song runs contrary to its original intent. Eric
Clapton recorded an incredibly moving tune called "Tears from Heaven" as a
tribute to his young son killed in an accident. If a request was made, for
instance, to re-record the tune as a techno/rave/dance mix, Clapton cannot
refuse the request under the law, as long as he is paid for each copy sold
or printed. The only way that Clapton could have ensured that the song's
meaning was never corrupted was to never have released it to the public."

http://www.alexandermagazine.com/recordingeq/weeklytip/04tip01-5c.htm

On this link you find, "The owner of a composition may indeed refuse to
allow a composition to be recorded at all. However this is only applicable
on the first recording."
http://www.thefirm.com/articles/mechroyl.html

If the work meets certain very simple conditions and the licensee follows
the rules, the copyright owner has no say in the matter. Period. Since you
claim to receive royalties on songs, tell me one of them. I will cover it.
You try to stop me from releasing it.

> That is my final word on the legal matter. I could care less about it, I
> don't care who is right and who is wrong, it has NOTHING to do with the
> subject of this group and I'm through with it. Think whatever you want, do
> whatever you want, I don't care! I already did research and admitted that
I
> was wrong about parts of the code, my research showed that some
> interpretation was still under debate. You might wish to take a look at:
> http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.notes.html

I'm the one who gave you that link in the first place. They reinforce my
positon. They do not weaken it. Hell, the first paragraph reads, "a musical
composition that has been reproduced in phonorecords with the permission of
the copyright owner may generally be reproduced in phonorecords by another
person, if that person notifies the copyright owner and pays a specified
royalty." Later, they discuss the limited privilege of rearranging the work
so long as it is not "perverted, distorted, or travestied." Essentially, the
way the law is written, you can always get a compulsory license if the
original was fixed properly and distributed. That license is limited in the
sense that you can rearrange it, but not destroy it. Likewise, the license
does not grant you the right to create a derivative work. They also clarify
that the law says that you can't bootleg records. I never said they could.

> But don't bother me anymore about it, as I DON"T CARE!!!

Kill-file me then or don't reply with incorrect information.

Paul Rubin

March 12th 04, 08:00 AM

"Jim Carr" > writes:
> "A copyright holder cannot even refuse a request to re-record his
> song, even if the request to use the song runs contrary to its
> original intent. Eric Clapton recorded an incredibly moving tune
> called "Tears from Heaven" as a tribute to his young son killed in
> an accident. If a request was made, for instance, to re-record the
> tune as a techno/rave/dance mix, Clapton cannot refuse the request
> under the law, as long as he is paid for each copy sold or printed.

That seems in conflict with

> Later, they discuss the limited privilege of rearranging the work
> so long as it is not "perverted, distorted, or travestied."

What's the deal?

Richard Crowley

March 12th 04, 08:33 AM

"Einstein" wrote ...
> Apparently you don't get the meaning of the word "moot".
> It means that it doesn't matter to me, period!

"moot" has a rather precise meaning in legal circles.

Have you read Charles Luttwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carrol)
lately?...

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you
don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down
argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'"
Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-
neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words
mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be
master-that's all."

Laurence Payne

March 12th 04, 12:05 PM

On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:36:41 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

> Forget it, you admitted that you aren't in the music industry, and as far
>as I'm concerned it's a moot point anyway, since I'm totally opposed to
>doing a cover for the multitrack thing.

Do you know what "moot" means?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 13th 04, 05:03 AM

Unfortunately theere are folks like you in practically every newsgroup
who think they know everything and who post this, that, or the other link
and then take whatever they think supports their position out of context. In
the first place, I admitted that I was mistaken about certain parts of the
code because it's been a long time since I had to deal with it, since this
isn't acceptable for you, you just wanted to argue.
I guess you think you know more about copyright code than do the experts
at Cornell University. Excuse me for taking their word over yours.

See further comments in your text:

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:DLd4c.32832$506.3612@fed1read05...
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
> Prove it, Einstein. Just prove it. You're making this **** up based on
your
> belief. Show me a case where a compulsory license was denied because the
> copyright owner didn't want it to be done. If the licensee didn't follow
the
> rules or the original work was in dispute (was it really released?), then
> those points can be argued. But that's fully outlined in the law. Did you
> not read what the copyright office distributes? "If the copyright owner
is
> unwilling to negotiate...the person intending to record the work may use
the
> compulsory license..." Don't you think they would mention that the
copyright
> owner may refuse for certain reasons? Of course they would. Why in the
world
> would they tell you could just use the compulsory license if the owner is
> unwlling to negotiate? If you've got case law that shows otherwise, prove
> it. Otherwise, quit spouting off your personal beliefs.

I already proved it, if you can follow links and read English. I'm not
spouting off anything. I personally know of cases where the copyright holder
has notified the copyright office of disapproval and the license has been
refused. One was due to the inferior quality of the recording to be
distributed, and another was due to previous record of non-payment of
royalties by the person attempting to get a license, and I'm know of others.
You're the one doing the spouting, and what you're spouting would be better
suited to be coming out your other end.

> You are so full of **** it's not even funny. I guess those circulars they
> distribute are for giggles. Yeh. You're right and the copyright office is
> wrong.

Just check out the US constitution, they make it very clear who is
responsible for interpreting the law, and it ain't the copyright office.
What they publish are guidelines, not interpretations of the law.

> > Your link is no good, a link cannot be broken into two lines,
> I guess you don't know how to copy/paste a long link? You don't need the
> link unless you think I was lying about it. Go to http://www.findlaw.com
and
> search for compulsory mechanical license. The first hit will be what I
> quoted.

Since I'm not a Findlaw subscriber, I can't access that link. However, I
consider the experts in Cornell's to be at lease the equivalent.
However, if you read section H of US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117,
you'll find it reads:
"(i)

A digital phonorecord delivery of a sound recording is actionable as an act
of infringement under section 501, and is fully subject to the remedies
provided by sections 502 through 506 and section 509, unless -

(I)

the digital phonorecord delivery has been authorized by the copyright owner
of the sound recording; and

(II)

the owner of the copyright in the sound recording or the entity making the
digital phonorecord delivery has obtained a compulsory license under this
section or has otherwise been authorized by the copyright owner of the
musical work to distribute or authorize the distribution, by means of a
digital phonorecord delivery, of each musical work embodied in the sound
recording.

(ii)

Any cause of action under this subparagraph shall be in addition to those
available to the owner of the copyright in the nondramatic musical work
under subsection (c)(6) and section 106(4) and the owner of the copyright in
the sound recording under section 106(6).

(I)

The liability of the copyright owner of a sound recording for infringement
of the copyright in a nondramatic musical work embodied in the sound
recording shall be determined in accordance with applicable law, except that
the owner of a copyright in a sound recording shall not be liable for a
digital phonorecord delivery by a third party if the owner of the copyright
in the sound recording does not license the distribution of a phonorecord of
the nondramatic musical work."

The key word is the "and" between sections (i) and (j) which says that you
must have the authorization of the copyright owner AND a compulsory license.
The authorization is assumed by the copyright office unless the owner
objects with valid reason, but even within the code certain conditions are
clearly stated and any violation of any of those conditions is a valid
reason.

> There is no "under certain circumstances and limited conditions" in the
> code, Einstein. You are referring to a summary of the law. To try to prove
> your point that a copyright holder has any say in the compulsory license
> process, I did a search for the phrases "deny a compulsory mechanical
> license" and "refuse a compulsory mechanical license." Did you know that
> according to Google, neither of those phrases occurs in the billion or so
> web pages they have indexed? Just searching for those words coming
together
> on the same page I found, "The law states that a copyright holder cannot
> refuse a request to use the material, as long as a certain rate is paid. A
> copyright holder cannot even refuse a request to re-record his song, even
if
> the request to use the song runs contrary to its original intent. Eric
> Clapton recorded an incredibly moving tune called "Tears from Heaven" as a
> tribute to his young son killed in an accident. If a request was made, for
> instance, to re-record the tune as a techno/rave/dance mix, Clapton cannot
> refuse the request under the law, as long as he is paid for each copy sold
> or printed. The only way that Clapton could have ensured that the song's
> meaning was never corrupted was to never have released it to the public."
>

Clapton can and already has stopped the licensing of "Tears in Heaven",
because he felt the particular version in question changed the fundamental
character of the song and was outside the limitations prescribed under
section 115, which states: "A compulsory license includes the privilege of
making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform
it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but
the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character
of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work
under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner."
Clapton felt, and the authorities agreed that the version in question
changed the fundamental character of the song, so the license was refused.
It's interesting to note that he didn't object to the licensing of a
country version of the song.

> http://www.alexandermagazine.com/recordingeq/weeklytip/04tip01-5c.htm
> On this link you find, "The owner of a composition may indeed refuse to
> allow a composition to be recorded at all. However this is only applicable
> on the first recording."

Then it has nothing to do with this discussion.

> http://www.thefirm.com/articles/mechroyl.html
> If the work meets certain very simple conditions and the licensee follows
> the rules, the copyright owner has no say in the matter. Period. Since you
> claim to receive royalties on songs, tell me one of them. I will cover it.
> You try to stop me from releasing it.

I could care less if you cover my music or not as long as I get my royalty
checks. Nothing I've had published is in the "Tears in Heaven" category, so
it would be difficult to change the fundamental character in a manner I'd
object to.

> > http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.notes.html
>
> I'm the one who gave you that link in the first place.

Wrong! You gave me http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html which you
obviously didn't read completely in the first place.

>They reinforce my positon. They do not weaken it. Hell, the first paragraph
reads, "a musical
> composition that has been reproduced in phonorecords with the permission
of
> the copyright owner may generally be reproduced in phonorecords by another
> person, if that person notifies the copyright owner and pays a specified
> royalty." Later, they discuss the limited privilege of rearranging the
work
> so long as it is not "perverted, distorted, or travestied." Essentially,
the
> way the law is written, you can always get a compulsory license if the
> original was fixed properly and distributed. That license is limited in
the
> sense that you can rearrange it, but not destroy it. Likewise, the license
> does not grant you the right to create a derivative work. They also
clarify
> that the law says that you can't bootleg records. I never said they could.

Read the whole thing! In any event, "perversion, distortion and travesty"
are all valid reasons that the copyright owner can present to the copyright
office that will cause them to disallow the issuance of a compulsory
license. So your own quotation proves exactly what I said, to wit: "If the
copyright owner presents valid reasons to the copyright office, they will
not issue a license."
I would not have responded to you if you hadn't insulted me. I consider
you to be a self-important jerk, but since my participation in this group is
intended to be constructive, I have no desire to start a flame war. I
admitted that I was wrong about certain parts of the code, but not about
others, and your last quotation proves that. If you want to prove you're not
a self-important jerk, admit that you were also wrong about parts of the
code (i.e.your statement above: " "The law states that a copyright holder
cannot refuse a request to use the material, as long as a certain rate is
paid. A copyright holder cannot even refuse a request to re-record his song,
even if the request to use the song runs contrary to its original intent.")
Changing the "fundamental character of the work", which is expressly
forbidden in the code, certainly would apply to any change which "runs
contrary to its original intent". If you're man enough to admit that you're
wrong too, then we can forget it and get on with the business of the group.

Einstein

March 13th 04, 05:08 AM

The dictionary defines "moot" as:
1.. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2..
1.. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously
decided or settled.
2.. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
The meaning applicable to my use of the term would be "b". :-)

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
...
> "Einstein" wrote ...
> > Apparently you don't get the meaning of the word "moot".
> > It means that it doesn't matter to me, period!
>
> "moot" has a rather precise meaning in legal circles.
>
> Have you read Charles Luttwidge Dodgson (Lewis Carrol)
> lately?...
>
> "I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
> Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you
> don't-till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down
> argument for you!'"
> "But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'"
> Alice objected.
> "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a
> scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-
> neither more nor less."
> "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words
> mean so many different things."
> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be
> master-that's all."
>
>

Laurence Payne

March 13th 04, 01:27 PM

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:08:54 -0600, "Einstein" >
wrote:

> 1.. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
> 2..
> 1.. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously
>decided or settled.
> 2.. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
>The meaning applicable to my use of the term would be "b". :-)

As the common meaning and the legal meaning are almost opposite, it's
a dangerous word to use :-)

The phrase "a moot point" suggests the common meaning to me, rather
than the legal one. Would you agree?

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 13th 04, 07:47 PM

Actually it depends on the context. In common usage, a moot question is
agruable, a moot point is irrelevant, and as the mechanical license part of
the copyright is of no practical importance and totally irrevlevant to me,
"2b" fits perfectly. To those who wish to carry on this meaningless
argument, definition one "1" might be more apt. However, I made my use of
the term perfectly clear to all.

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 23:08:54 -0600, "Einstein" >
> wrote:
>
> > 1.. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
> > 2..
> > 1.. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously
> >decided or settled.
> > 2.. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.
> >The meaning applicable to my use of the term would be "b". :-)
>
>
> As the common meaning and the legal meaning are almost opposite, it's
> a dangerous word to use :-)
>
> The phrase "a moot point" suggests the common meaning to me, rather
> than the legal one. Would you agree?
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 13th 04, 07:57 PM

No, I meant exactly what I said. As I said, top posting is universally
accepted except for a few stubborn souls who refuse to accept the
inevitable. Posting in-text for multiple points works quite well when it's
necessary. You don't see me harrassing bottom posters, even though it wastes
my valuable time scrolling down to the most recent post. I will continue to
top post, and if the administrator of this group objects, he can boot me
from the group. I not here to debate newsgroup etiquette, nor am I here to
argue nuances of copyright code. I'm here because I have a lot of
experiences with studios, professional as well as home, and I feel I might
be able to constructively contribute to the group.

"Mike" > wrote in message
...
>
> By "latest post" you really meant "added text".
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
-
> Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

Mike

March 13th 04, 11:13 PM

In article >,
Einstein > wrote:
>No, I meant exactly what I said.

In which case I can't think what broken piece of software you've been using
that makes you scroll down past quoted text to see the latest *post*. You'd
have to scroll past quoted text to see the response within a post, maybe.
I'm guessing you didn't on this one, because I left exactly one line that I
was responding to.

>and if the administrator of this group objects,

There isn't one, as such. You did know that, didn't you?

>he can boot me
>from the group.

No he can't, but people are free to ignore you, that's the nearest
equivalent ...
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

Les Cargill

March 14th 04, 09:18 AM

Einstein wrote:
>
> No, I meant exactly what I said. As I said, top posting is universally
> accepted except for a few stubborn souls who refuse to accept the
> inevitable.

Okay.

Cheese and frigging rice, junior. It is very, very simple.

The stuff that went before goes atop the page. The stuff that
comes after goes at the bottom of the page. This is in accordance
with every narrative style of any form of text ever conceived by
human beings. Calling Usenet narrative is like painting bathroom
graffiti on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but I *beg* the indulgence
of the court.

Just because some pile of crap "softwares" you downloaded
on the Innernet starts y' cursor off at the top of
the page does not change the fundamentals of how written
communications has worked since the first idjut who decided
to do so, did so.

There is no doubt in my mind that people, at leas humans,
noticed "things go down" ( unless the things are birds,
then "Birds go up". As a bird owner, I can testify to this).

There's an apt, I tell you, apt quote from Mr. Robert Henlen -
"Deal with authority. Deal with law of gravity, too".

If you have a personal problem with the curvature of space,
then ...

--
Les Cargill

Laurence Payne

March 14th 04, 03:36 PM

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:18:06 GMT, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>
>Cheese and frigging rice, junior. It is very, very simple.
>
>The stuff that went before goes atop the page. The stuff that
>comes after goes at the bottom of the page. This is in accordance
>with every narrative style of any form of text ever conceived by
>human beings. Calling Usenet narrative is like painting bathroom
>graffiti on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but I *beg* the indulgence
>of the court.

This would be an excellent argument if any of us actually followed a
thread by only reading the last-posted message. But, of course, we
don't. We all use threaded newsreaders and skim down the message
list looking for each poster's new contribution. It is not
ridiculous to suggest that the top is a logical place for this to go.

The traditional dogma only considers the logic of reading an
individual message. Look at the whole reading system, another
viewpoint becomes perfectly valid.

Long-time computer users, of all people, I would expect to understand
the need to consider a complete system, not obsess on one component
:-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Scott Dorsey

March 14th 04, 10:01 PM

In article >, Mike > wrote:
>In article >,
>Einstein > wrote:
>>No, I meant exactly what I said.
>
>In which case I can't think what broken piece of software you've been using
>that makes you scroll down past quoted text to see the latest *post*. You'd
>have to scroll past quoted text to see the response within a post, maybe.
>I'm guessing you didn't on this one, because I left exactly one line that I
>was responding to.

He is almost certainly using Outlook. Outlook's newsreader is so phenomenally
broken it's amazing. Like a lot of Microsoft networking products, it was
written by people who didn't really understand that there were existing
standards and why they existed. As a result of their inability to design
decent software, the rest of us have to deal with this sort of idiocy.

>>and if the administrator of this group objects,
>
>There isn't one, as such. You did know that, didn't you?

Well, considering this thread is crossposted to half a dozen groups,
I don't know. One of them might be moderated. For sure, rec.audio.pro,
where I am reading this, is not.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Les Cargill

March 14th 04, 10:33 PM

Laurence Payne wrote:
>
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:18:06 GMT, Les Cargill
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >Cheese and frigging rice, junior. It is very, very simple.
> >
> >The stuff that went before goes atop the page. The stuff that
> >comes after goes at the bottom of the page. This is in accordance
> >with every narrative style of any form of text ever conceived by
> >human beings. Calling Usenet narrative is like painting bathroom
> >graffiti on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but I *beg* the indulgence
> >of the court.
>
> This would be an excellent argument if any of us actually followed a
> thread by only reading the last-posted message. But, of course, we
> don't. We all use threaded newsreaders and skim down the message
> list looking for each poster's new contribution. It is not
> ridiculous to suggest that the top is a logical place for this to go.
>
> The traditional dogma only considers the logic of reading an
> individual message. Look at the whole reading system, another
> viewpoint becomes perfectly valid.
>

No, it's simply a matter of the ordering of text within the message
being the same as the ordering of the thread. Of course it's possible
to gather what's going on, but it's simply *impolite* to
top post.

The thing looks like "answers first, questions later".

> Long-time computer users, of all people, I would expect to understand
> the need to consider a complete system, not obsess on one component
> :-)

It is not a subject of considerable importance. When people start
crabwalking trying to justify this behavior is when the eyebrows
go up.

>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

--
Les Cargill

CWCunningham

March 15th 04, 12:15 AM

<---Snip--->
Please children please.
When a bottom poster bottom posts, they see exactly what a top poster sees
when they top post. They are the same thing. Look at either and see the
other. If it escapes you, use a mirror.

What's important is that we care enough to talk to each other. I don't care
if you post in the opposite manner that I do, I'm just interested in what
you have to say. It rarely takes me a zillisecond to adjust to your style,
but I like your style, and I'm looking forward to more from each of you.

Some groups want to set a standard of (top|bottom) posting. Let's move
beyond that to a standard of just posting... in the manner which is
comfortable for YOU, after all, you're the one who has to type it, the rest
of us are so damned smart, we'll figure it out at the speed of light.

--
CWC
============================
It's not that nice guys finish last,
They have a whole different notion
where the finish line is.
============================

Scott Sellers

March 15th 04, 12:40 AM

Les Cargill >:

>Laurence Payne wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:18:06 GMT, Les Cargill
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Cheese and frigging rice, junior. It is very, very simple.
>> >
>> >The stuff that went before goes atop the page. The stuff that
>> >comes after goes at the bottom of the page. This is in accordance
>> >with every narrative style of any form of text ever conceived by
>> >human beings. Calling Usenet narrative is like painting bathroom
>> >graffiti on the Sistine Chapel ceiling, but I *beg* the indulgence
>> >of the court.
>>
>> This would be an excellent argument if any of us actually followed a
>> thread by only reading the last-posted message. But, of course, we
>> don't. We all use threaded newsreaders and skim down the message
>> list looking for each poster's new contribution. It is not
>> ridiculous to suggest that the top is a logical place for this to go.
>>
>> The traditional dogma only considers the logic of reading an
>> individual message. Look at the whole reading system, another
>> viewpoint becomes perfectly valid.
>>

>No, it's simply a matter of the ordering of text within the message
>being the same as the ordering of the thread. Of course it's possible
>to gather what's going on, but it's simply *impolite* to
>top post.

>The thing looks like "answers first, questions later".

>> Long-time computer users, of all people, I would expect to understand
>> the need to consider a complete system, not obsess on one component
>> :-)

>It is not a subject of considerable importance. When people start
>crabwalking trying to justify this behavior is when the eyebrows
>go up.

I think it is quite important, actually. Responding directly to
quoted text, point-by-point, makes for much clearer
communication. Ever notice how top posts end up sounding
breathless and confused when more than one idea is being
considered? We get these tangled monologues, where no one knows
what the hell the poster is refering to. That's because top
posting is an inherently crippled form. Of course, the ruling
class prefers an incoherent populace. Well done, Micro$oft.

--
Scott Sellers |
|

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 12:44 AM

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 22:33:51 GMT, Les Cargill
> wrote:

>> The traditional dogma only considers the logic of reading an
>> individual message. Look at the whole reading system, another
>> viewpoint becomes perfectly valid.
>>
>
>No, it's simply a matter of the ordering of text within the message
>being the same as the ordering of the thread. Of course it's possible
>to gather what's going on, but it's simply *impolite* to
>top post.
>
>The thing looks like "answers first, questions later".

Yeah, but you aren't following the thread by examining full messages,
more by skimming the new material from each message. But minds are
so often closed on this topic..........:-)

>
>> Long-time computer users, of all people, I would expect to understand
>> the need to consider a complete system, not obsess on one component
>> :-)
>
>It is not a subject of considerable importance. When people start
>crabwalking trying to justify this behavior is when the eyebrows
>go up.

Yeah :-) Equally when people insist on focusing on a detail of the
system.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Einstein

March 15th 04, 05:15 AM

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, it's simply a matter of the ordering of text within the message
> being the same as the ordering of the thread. Of course it's possible
> to gather what's going on, but it's simply *impolite* to
> top post.

It has not been impolite for several years now, it's the accepted method
among the majority.

> The thing looks like "answers first, questions later".

No, just look at guestbooks, blogs and sitenews pages, it's most recent
first, as it should be. The fact that the messages are posted in
chronological order makes top post in the replies the most efficient method.
If you are reading the entire thread, you read each message in order and you
have no need to re-read the message in the reply before getting to the reply
itself. If you are familiar with the thread, then you certainly don't need
to re-re-read the message before getting to the reply.

> It is not a subject of considerable importance. When people start
> crabwalking trying to justify this behavior is when the eyebrows
> go up.

Einstein

March 15th 04, 05:20 AM

"Scott Sellers" > wrote in message
link.net...
> I think it is quite important, actually. Responding directly to
> quoted text, point-by-point, makes for much clearer
> communication. Ever notice how top posts end up sounding
> breathless and confused when more than one idea is being
> considered? We get these tangled monologues, where no one knows
> what the hell the poster is refering to. That's because top
> posting is an inherently crippled form. Of course, the ruling
> class prefers an incoherent populace. Well done, Micro$oft.

Scott, I agree that when there are multiple points to address, it makes more
sense to post inside the original text at the appropriate place. However
when asking or answering a question, making a comment, or dealing with just
a point or two, top posting is by far the most efficient way of doing it.
Bottom posting is the least efficient method.

Bob Cain

March 15th 04, 05:33 AM

Mike wrote:

>
> No he can't, but people are free to ignore you, that's the nearest
> equivalent ...

It's real easy too. If the first sentence or two of a top
post doesn't establish the context for the rest, there is a
button at the top called "Next" that I click on.

There are some people that I rarely read because of that
but, oh well. I've also found an odd, but not too
surprising, correlation between arrogance and insistant top
posting too. so I really don't feel much of a loss from
those I skip.

Bob

--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Einstein

March 15th 04, 05:57 AM

Your prerogative. I do try to establish the context in the first sentence or
two, and if there are multiple points to address, I post in-text. Lets get
back on topic!

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>
>
> >
> > No he can't, but people are free to ignore you, that's the nearest
> > equivalent ...
>
> It's real easy too. If the first sentence or two of a top
> post doesn't establish the context for the rest, there is a
> button at the top called "Next" that I click on.
>
> There are some people that I rarely read because of that
> but, oh well. I've also found an odd, but not too
> surprising, correlation between arrogance and insistant top
> posting too. so I really don't feel much of a loss from
> those I skip.
>
>
> Bob
>
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Kendall

March 15th 04, 06:34 AM

"Einstein" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Scott Sellers" > wrote in message
> link.net...
> > I think it is quite important, actually. Responding directly to
> > quoted text, point-by-point, makes for much clearer
> > communication. Ever notice how top posts end up sounding
> > breathless and confused when more than one idea is being
> > considered? We get these tangled monologues, where no one knows
> > what the hell the poster is refering to. That's because top
> > posting is an inherently crippled form. Of course, the ruling
> > class prefers an incoherent populace. Well done, Micro$oft.
>
> Scott, I agree that when there are multiple points to address, it makes
more
> sense to post inside the original text at the appropriate place. However
> when asking or answering a question, making a comment, or dealing with
just
> a point or two, top posting is by far the most efficient way of doing it.
> Bottom posting is the least efficient method.

I strongly disagree. If you are answering a question, it makes perfect
sense to place the answer AFTER the question, so the reader can figure out
what you are answering without having to read the answer, then scroll down
to find out the question to put it into context. Same with a comment. If
you are commenting about a point in someone else's post, simply delete any
unneeded text, and place your answer after it. This isn't Jeopardy, you
know. It isn't that hard to do, and makes you look more intelligent and
courteous. I don't give a **** if it is "less efficient". Sounds like a
euphemism for someone wanting to be lazy, and not caring about their reader.

Respectfully,

Kendall

>
>

Peter Larsen

March 15th 04, 08:06 AM

Einstein wrote:

> I top post in every news group, and indeed,
> in most groups now that is the preferred way to post.

Nonsense, based on the fact that lots of people have spoken out against
top-posting and none have been in favour of it.

/Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 08:59 AM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:40:27 GMT, Scott Sellers
> wrote:

>
>I think it is quite important, actually. Responding directly to
>quoted text, point-by-point, makes for much clearer
>communication. Ever notice how top posts end up sounding
>breathless and confused when more than one idea is being
>considered? We get these tangled monologues, where no one knows
>what the hell the poster is refering to. That's because top
>posting is an inherently crippled form. Of course, the ruling
>class prefers an incoherent populace. Well done, Micro$oft.

An excellent argument for mid-posting, where appropriate. I don't
think anyone disagrees ;-)

But if top-posting in this case is "breathless and confused", so is
bottom-posting.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 09:08 AM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:34:50 GMT, "Kendall"
> wrote:

>I strongly disagree. If you are answering a question, it makes perfect
>sense to place the answer AFTER the question, so the reader can figure out
>what you are answering without having to read the answer, then scroll down
>to find out the question to put it into context. Same with a comment. If
>you are commenting about a point in someone else's post, simply delete any
>unneeded text, and place your answer after it. This isn't Jeopardy, you
>know. It isn't that hard to do, and makes you look more intelligent and
>courteous. I don't give a **** if it is "less efficient". Sounds like a
>euphemism for someone wanting to be lazy, and not caring about their reader.

But if you look at the reply material in the context of the whole.
thread, rather than merely the context of quoted material in that one
post...?

I think traditionalists miss one point. We're dealing with a
conversational medium here, not a carefully documented audit trail

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 09:10 AM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:06:59 +0100, Peter Larsen
> wrote:

>> I top post in every news group, and indeed,
>> in most groups now that is the preferred way to post.
>
>Nonsense, based on the fact that lots of people have spoken out against
>top-posting and none have been in favour of it.

I'm in favour of seeing new material without having to scroll down.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Arny Krueger

March 15th 04, 11:56 AM

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in
message

> I'm in favour of seeing new material without having to scroll down.

Agreed.

IME & IMO the best way to do that is to edit the text so the first response
shows up in the first screen of the new post that is displayed when people
pull it up.

To clarify, the first piece of new text would be below explanatory text
from the post being responded to.

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 03:14 PM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:56:35 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I'm in favour of seeing new material without having to scroll down.
>
>Agreed.
>
>IME & IMO the best way to do that is to edit the text so the first response
>shows up in the first screen of the new post that is displayed when people
>pull it up.
>
> To clarify, the first piece of new text would be below explanatory text
>from the post being responded to.

Agreed.

And, IMO, failing that, the next best way is to top-post. :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Bob Cain

March 15th 04, 04:43 PM

Laurence Payne wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 06:34:50 GMT, "Kendall"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>I strongly disagree. If you are answering a question, it makes perfect
>>sense to place the answer AFTER the question, so the reader can figure out
>>what you are answering without having to read the answer, then scroll down
>>to find out the question to put it into context. Same with a comment. If
>>you are commenting about a point in someone else's post, simply delete any
>>unneeded text, and place your answer after it. This isn't Jeopardy, you
>>know. It isn't that hard to do, and makes you look more intelligent and
>>courteous. I don't give a **** if it is "less efficient". Sounds like a
>>euphemism for someone wanting to be lazy, and not caring about their reader.
>
>
> But if you look at the reply material in the context of the whole.
> thread, rather than merely the context of quoted material in that one
> post...?

Who does that? I see one line for each new entry in a
thread. When I open it and it starts discoursing with the
expectation that I just read the post above it or that I
will scroll down to figure out what ramble is about, I skip it.

Similarly, if I find too much quoted and unedited stuff
before a bottom post I never get to the bottom.

What you should do depends on whether you want people to
read what you have to say or are just pumping thought into
the void. It's the reader's time you are bidding on and if
the bid is too low, you lose.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Laurence Payne

March 15th 04, 07:27 PM

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 08:43:18 -0800, Bob Cain
> wrote:

>> But if you look at the reply material in the context of the whole.
>> thread, rather than merely the context of quoted material in that one
>> post...?
>
>Who does that? I see one line for each new entry in a
>thread. When I open it and it starts discoursing with the
>expectation that I just read the post above it or that I
>will scroll down to figure out what ramble is about, I skip it.
>
>Similarly, if I find too much quoted and unedited stuff
>before a bottom post I never get to the bottom.
>
>What you should do depends on whether you want people to
>read what you have to say or are just pumping thought into
>the void. It's the reader's time you are bidding on and if
>the bid is too low, you lose.

So, if a useful nugget is concealed by bad presentation, you're happy
to miss it? That's your loss.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Ed K

March 15th 04, 09:21 PM

What an arrogant thing to say.

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Mike wrote:
>
>
> >
> > No he can't, but people are free to ignore you, that's the nearest
> > equivalent ...
>
> It's real easy too. If the first sentence or two of a top
> post doesn't establish the context for the rest, there is a
> button at the top called "Next" that I click on.
>
> There are some people that I rarely read because of that
> but, oh well. I've also found an odd, but not too
> surprising, correlation between arrogance and insistant top
> posting too. so I really don't feel much of a loss from
> those I skip.
>
>
> Bob
>
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Mike

March 15th 04, 11:25 PM

In article >,
Ed K > wrote:
>What an arrogant thing to say.

Yeah, but so true :)

The same goes for correlation between HTML posting and useful content.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/

Scott Sellers

March 16th 04, 02:17 AM

Laurence Payne >:

>On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 00:40:27 GMT, Scott Sellers
> wrote:

>>
>>I think it is quite important, actually. Responding directly
>>to quoted text, point-by-point, makes for much clearer
>>communication. Ever notice how top posts end up sounding
>>breathless and confused when more than one idea is being
>>considered? We get these tangled monologues, where no one
>>knows what the hell the poster is refering to. That's because
>>top posting is an inherently crippled form. Of course, the
>>ruling class prefers an incoherent populace. Well done,
>>Micro$oft.

>An excellent argument for mid-posting, where appropriate. I
>don't think anyone disagrees ;-)

I find the above top-posting scenario all the time, and find that
top posters, as a rule, avoid context like the devil himself.
That's a shame, because it makes the task of clear communication
much more difficult. Granted, this is largely Micro$oft's
design. Outlook is simply crippled that way. We're left with a
crippled medium.

>But if top-posting in this case is "breathless and confused", so
>is bottom-posting.

I don't see the equivalence. There is neither bottom-posting
rationale nor practise that sacrifices context and clarity for
"efficiency".

--
Scott Sellers |
|

Einstein

March 16th 04, 03:47 AM

Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for the
improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this ridiculous
agrument over where to post? Talk about wasted bandwidth!
Post wherever the heck you want to, and if you don't like where others
post, ignore them, but
drop the subject and get back to the group's advertised topic!
This is my final post on the subject, so don't bother to reply to me in
this thread. On to the real business...

hank alrich

March 16th 04, 05:40 AM

Scott Sellers wrote:

> Granted, this is largely Micro$oft's
> design. Outlook is simply crippled that way. We're left with a
> crippled medium.

Surely it's not the world's only newsreader. <g>

--
ha

hank alrich

March 16th 04, 05:40 AM

Ein idiot wrote:

> Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for the
> improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this ridiculous
> agrument over where to post?

Again, you arrogant, indolent ignoranti, do you realize I am reading
this in rec.audio.pro, and not in your precious homestudioness?
Apparently your moniker makes a mockery of a great man's name, because
you appear to be running in front for the Stupidity Olympdicks. So far,
your whole career here has been a waste of time. Go home and study
crossposting.

--
hank alrich * secret__mountain
audio recording * music production * sound reinforcement
"If laughter is the best medicine let's take a double dose"

Laurence Payne

March 16th 04, 11:30 AM

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:17:58 GMT, Scott Sellers
> wrote:

>I don't see the equivalence. There is neither bottom-posting
>rationale nor practise that sacrifices context and clarity for
>"efficiency".
>

You argued for mid-posting, point by point. Fair enough, where
appropriate. If "top posts end up sounding
breathless and confused when more than one idea is being considered"
why wouldn't bottom-posts?

You're still looking at the message in isolation, not as part of its
thread. Is this so difficult a concept? All the traditionalists seem
determined to ignore it ;-)

I sense closed minds on this issue. Sad and disappointing.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Brian Baird

March 16th 04, 03:50 PM

In article >,
says...
> Talk about wasted bandwidth!

I don't think 1-2K usenet messages are the bandwidth wasters you make
them out to be. Unless you're still on a 300 baud external modem. Are
you on a 300 baud external modem?
--
Ball cancer is no laughing matter:
http://www.tc-cancer.com/

Arny Krueger

March 16th 04, 04:05 PM

"Einstein" > wrote in message

> Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for
> the improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this
> ridiculous agrument over where to post? Talk about wasted bandwidth!

You started the argument, right?

> Post wherever the heck you want to, and if you don't like where
> others post, ignore them, but drop the subject and get back to the
group's advertised topic!

I take it that you now know that you are going against long-accepted
practice around here but somehow think that sweeping the topic of top
posting under the carpet will save your face?

> This is my final post on the subject, so don't bother to reply to
> me in this thread. On to the real business...

Indeed.

Ian Bell

March 16th 04, 04:52 PM

Einstein wrote:

> Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for the
> improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this ridiculous
> agrument over where to post? Talk about wasted bandwidth!

And if you had an ounce of respect for anyone else you would follow
netiquette and bottom post. Now shut up and stop wasting even more
bandwidth.

Ian

Ben Bradley

March 16th 04, 05:16 PM

In alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro,alt.music.4-track "Einstein"
> wrote:

> Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for the
>improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this ridiculous
>agrument over where to post? Talk about wasted bandwidth!

In alt.music.home-studio, "Einstein" > wrote:

> Kurt, as I pointed out, bottom posting is no longer concisdered to be
>proper Netiquette. In fact, I contribute to quite a few groups and this is

What was that song on one of the RAP CD sets, I think it was the
Bohemian set, about some WebTV guy? I remeber over-the-top reverb...

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley

Bob Cain

March 16th 04, 07:10 PM

Laurence Payne wrote:

>
> You're still looking at the message in isolation, not as part of its
> thread. Is this so difficult a concept? All the traditionalists seem
> determined to ignore it ;-)
>

That's because it appears to most readers in isolation. The
thread window shows a list of entries in a thread with one
line per post showing who it's from and some indication of
whether you've read it not. When you open it, you see only
the isolated message. There, consider your concept
unignored. :-)

If anyone is using a reader which really does list all the
thread entries in full form, like so many stupid BBS's still
do, I really do feel your pain and I can offer suggestions
on how to alleviate it.

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Laurence Payne

March 16th 04, 10:31 PM

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:10:46 -0800, Bob Cain
> wrote:

>
>That's because it appears to most readers in isolation. The
>thread window shows a list of entries in a thread with one
>line per post showing who it's from and some indication of
>whether you've read it not. When you open it, you see only
>the isolated message. There, consider your concept
>unignored. :-)
>
>If anyone is using a reader which really does list all the
>thread entries in full form, like so many stupid BBS's still
>do, I really do feel your pain and I can offer suggestions
>on how to alleviate it.

Using Agent here. The headers are shown in one window, grouped by
thread. Body shown in another window. Down-arrow takes you to the
next message(if any) in the thread. If the new material is shown in
the first screen-full, that's convenient. No great sweat to scroll
down, but sweat nonetheless ;-)

I like bottom-posting with enough snipping to get the new material on
the first screen. I like centre-posting when it's applicable. I
don't mind top-posting. I HATE bottom-posting without snipping.

For me, I'm happy with anything a logical snipper does. Non-snippers
should be encouraged to top-post. So make top-posting the rule, as
always, to be broken where there's good reason.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Bob Cain

March 16th 04, 11:40 PM

Ed K wrote:

> What an arrogant thing to say.

To what are you refering? :-)

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Ed K

March 17th 04, 02:06 AM

There are some people that I rarely read because of that
> but, oh well. I've also found an odd, but not too
> surprising, correlation between arrogance and insistant top
> posting too. so I really don't feel much of a loss from
> those I skip.

"Bob Cain" > wrote in message
...
> Ed K wrote:
>
> > What an arrogant thing to say.
>
> To what are you refering? :-)
>
>
> Bob
> --
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
> simpler."
>
> A. Einstein

Bob Cain

March 17th 04, 04:04 AM

Ed K wrote:

> There are some people that I rarely read because of that
>
>>but, oh well. I've also found an odd, but not too
>>surprising, correlation between arrogance and insistant top
>>posting too. so I really don't feel much of a loss from
>>those I skip.
>
>
> "Bob Cain" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Ed K wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What an arrogant thing to say.
>>
>>To what are you refering? :-)
>>
>>
>>Bob

What a deligtful inversion. :-)

Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

Bill

March 17th 04, 02:22 PM

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:31:15 +0000, Laurence Payne
> wrote:

>For me, I'm happy with anything a logical snipper does. Non-snippers
>should be encouraged to top-post. So make top-posting the rule, as
>always, to be broken where there's good reason.

The trouble is, when you mix top-posting and bottom-posting in the
same thread, it becomes completely impossible to follow who said what.
My advice to those who simply must top-post is to sniip ALL of the
message you're replying to.

Scott Sellers

March 18th 04, 01:46 AM

Laurence Payne >:

>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:17:58 GMT, Scott Sellers
> wrote:

>>I don't see the equivalence. There is neither bottom-posting
>>rationale nor practise that sacrifices context and clarity for
>>"efficiency".
>>

>You argued for mid-posting, point by point. Fair enough,
>where appropriate. If "top posts end up sounding breathless
>and confused when more than one idea is being considered" why
>wouldn't bottom-posts?

Because there is no such thing as bottom-posting. There is no
bottom-posting movement. As I stated above, there is no
bottom-posting rationale that values supposed "efficiency" over
context, as top-posting does. There simply is no bottom-posting
tradition to match that of top-posting. You're focusing on a
non-existent category.

If there are posts which only respond at the bottom, they are a
subset of the same category you're calling "mid-posting". Call
that "context posting", and you'll understand the difference.
Writing in context, addressing issues directly, point-by-point,
does not foster the sort of breathless and confused posts that
top posting does. Please note that context posting includes
removing quoted text and signatures which are not relevant to the
point being discussed, while at the same time leaving clear
attribution as to who wrote what, all automatically generated by
functional newsreaders. Of course, this is all but impossible in
Micro$oft Outlook. Again, we're left with a crippled medium.
Thanks, Bill Gates. A true f-ing visionary.

>You're still looking at the message in isolation, not as part of
>its thread. Is this so difficult a concept? All the
>traditionalists seem determined to ignore it ;-)

1) You can't expect a thread to arrive in context. That's not
the nature of usenet. 2) More important, it's foolish to expect
the reader to carry more than one concept in his head from post
to post. 3) Even more important, it's even more foolish to
expect the writer to address more than 1-2 issues out of context.
It's simply much harder to do. The result? With top-posting as
the norm, we get dumbed-down, crippled communication. Well done,
M$ suckwads.

>I sense closed minds on this issue. Sad and disappointing.

Well, I mean well. ;) Since my s/n ratio is way out of whack
here, this will be my last post on the topic.

--
Scott Sellers |
|

Laurence Payne

March 18th 04, 07:54 PM

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:22:29 GMT, Bill >
wrote:

>The trouble is, when you mix top-posting and bottom-posting in the
>same thread, it becomes completely impossible to follow who said what.
>My advice to those who simply must top-post is to sniip ALL of the
>message you're replying to.

In my news reader, the old stuff is blue, and has > indent marks.
The new stuff is black and doesn't. I can easily see which is the
new stuff, if it's on the screen in front of me. If I have to
scroll to find it, that's an irritation.

Don't all news readers, even OE, do something like this? Hardly
"completely impossible" to read.

If, perchance, you've chosen a newsreader that can't display old and
new material clearly, choose a better newsreader.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Scott Dorsey

March 18th 04, 10:00 PM

Laurence Payne > wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:22:29 GMT, Bill >
>wrote:
>
>>The trouble is, when you mix top-posting and bottom-posting in the
>>same thread, it becomes completely impossible to follow who said what.
>>My advice to those who simply must top-post is to sniip ALL of the
>>message you're replying to.
>
>In my news reader, the old stuff is blue, and has > indent marks.
>The new stuff is black and doesn't. I can easily see which is the
>new stuff, if it's on the screen in front of me. If I have to
>scroll to find it, that's an irritation.
>
>Don't all news readers, even OE, do something like this? Hardly
>"completely impossible" to read.

The original poster puts the > in.

Your newsreader displays it in color if it has a > in the first column.

>If, perchance, you've chosen a newsreader that can't display old and
>new material clearly, choose a better newsreader.

If the original poster does not indicate the material correctly, the
newsread can't figure out what it is. The > convention dates back from
long before most computers had color displays.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Laurence Payne

March 18th 04, 10:22 PM

On 18 Mar 2004 17:00:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>>Don't all news readers, even OE, do something like this? Hardly
>>"completely impossible" to read.
>
>The original poster puts the > in.
>
>Your newsreader displays it in color if it has a > in the first column.
>
>>If, perchance, you've chosen a newsreader that can't display old and
>>new material clearly, choose a better newsreader.
>
>If the original poster does not indicate the material correctly, the
>newsread can't figure out what it is. The > convention dates back from
>long before most computers had color displays.

True. I wasn't clearly describing which was egg, and which chicken.
Thanks for the clarification.

Either way, skimming through this thread, the system seems to
consistently work. Whether top, middle or bottom posted, from
whatever program.

In another place, someone demonstrated side posting. That DID confuse
the system, Pity, I rather liked it :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood

March 19th 04, 02:02 AM

Since even Outhouse Express puts the new stuff in bold text, any newsreader
that doesn't have some way of marking unread posts is really crippled! :-)

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On 18 Mar 2004 17:00:16 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >>Don't all news readers, even OE, do something like this? Hardly
> >>"completely impossible" to read.
> >
> >The original poster puts the > in.
> >
> >Your newsreader displays it in color if it has a > in the first column.
> >
> >>If, perchance, you've chosen a newsreader that can't display old and
> >>new material clearly, choose a better newsreader.
> >
> >If the original poster does not indicate the material correctly, the
> >newsread can't figure out what it is. The > convention dates back from
> >long before most computers had color displays.
>
> True. I wasn't clearly describing which was egg, and which chicken.
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Either way, skimming through this thread, the system seems to
> consistently work. Whether top, middle or bottom posted, from
> whatever program.
>
> In another place, someone demonstrated side posting. That DID confuse
> the system, Pity, I rather liked it :-)
>
>
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Laurence Payne

March 19th 04, 02:28 AM

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:02:55 -0600, "Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood"
> wrote:

>Since even Outhouse Express puts the new stuff in bold text, any newsreader
>that doesn't have some way of marking unread posts is really crippled! :-)

We're talking about marking the new material WITHIN a message.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood

March 19th 04, 09:11 AM

If you either post at the top. or post in-text the >'s let you know which
"generation" the text is. I don't have any problems using crippled old
Outhouse Express. Maybe some of these new fangled news readers ain't all
they're cracked up to be. :-)

"Laurence Payne" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 20:02:55 -0600, "Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood"
> > wrote:
>
> >Since even Outhouse Express puts the new stuff in bold text, any
newsreader
> >that doesn't have some way of marking unread posts is really crippled!
:-)
>
> We're talking about marking the new material WITHIN a message.
>
> CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
> "Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Peter Larsen

March 19th 04, 12:02 PM

Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood wrote:

> Since even Outhouse Express puts the new stuff in bold text,

Outlook Express is crippled until you install OE quotefix.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

Laurence Payne

March 19th 04, 01:42 PM

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:11:41 -0600, "Hawkins Johnson Beckett Hood"
> wrote:

>If you either post at the top. or post in-text the >'s let you know which
>"generation" the text is. I don't have any problems using crippled old
>Outhouse Express. Maybe some of these new fangled news readers ain't all
>they're cracked up to be. :-)

Yes, we know. Are you READING this thread, or just bouncing in with
smart-alec comments?

There's been some truth in some of the things you've been saying, and
I've been supporting it. But then you come up with some bit of
absolute crap, and destroy your credibility all over again :-)

Why not invent yet another name, and come back with better thought-out
opinions? I'm afraid both "Einstein" and "Hawkins" have run out of
credibility now.

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Gary

March 19th 04, 06:33 PM

I suggest a 12-bar blues.

Write some original words based on this exact topic.

Or perhaps "I woke up this morning and decided to add an 37-msec
predelay to the horns", badoop badoop etc.

Geoff Wood

March 20th 04, 06:56 AM

Ian Bell wrote:
> Einstein wrote:
>
>> Do you people realize how much time that could have been used for
>> the improvement of folks' home studios has been wasted in this
>> ridiculous agrument over where to post? Talk about wasted bandwidth!
>
> And if you had an ounce of respect for anyone else you would follow
> netiquette and bottom post. Now shut up and stop wasting even more
> bandwidth.

But also ensure good netiquette and rigorously prune back irrelevant 'top'
quoted material, so everybody doesn'thave to scroll down several pages. I
prefer top-posting to that...

geoff

Peter Larsen

March 21st 04, 11:05 PM

Einstein wrote:

> and if the administrator of this group objects, he can boot me
> from the group.

Oh yes, you are - as you told us - the guy with this very great usenet
experience that knows all about how things are done on the usenet?

NB! - alt.music.4-track removed from the crosspost header.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

porky

March 29th 04, 06:00 AM

"Jim Carr" > wrote in message
news:G5f2c.9051$506.2352@fed1read05...
>
> "Einstein" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Since you're producing a multrack and have no control over what folks
> do
>> with it, or to it, I absolutely would NOT recommend using a cover song.
>> Remember, if you provide the source material you have a definite legal
>> liability.
>
> How so? How is it much different than buying a regular CD? The only
> difference is you have two tracks on your typical CD instead of multiple
> tracks. You have no liability over what someone does with it after that.
> The
> rights to a cover are pretty standard. You get permission and pay the
> royalties. You release it. People buy it. If they choose to remix it on
> their own for their own use, that's perfectly legal. Changing the EQ and
> using the DSP settings on your stereo are fundamentally no different than
> using DirectX plugins in your mixing software.
>
> In order to release a mix, we would need the permission of the copyright
> holder for the original song *plus* permission to use the actual recorded
> material. You are granted an immediate copyright the minute you record it.
> Your rights are already in place. There are some formalities before you
> can
> bring a lawsuit if it ever comes to that.
>
> I don't see any liability for what someone does with his perfectly legal
> release.
>
>> someone else from doing a commercial release of their mix of your song
>> without you getting your share.
>
> You have that issue whether it's original or a cover. You're already
> protected. You have *much* more risk with an original. The artist has the
> right to grant or *not* grant a mechanical license for the *first* release
> of a song. As soon as its released, then you fall into the area of
> compulsory mechanical licenses. Anybody could then cover it and pay the
> 8.5
> cents per song.
>
> In other words, if he releases an original, he just exercised is right of
> first publication. After that he *loses* some control. I could conceivably
> do my *own* version (but not with his recordings) and release it. If it
> became a hit, he would only get limited royalties.
>
If it got released, I would get full writer's royalties, you would get
artist's royalties and the publisher/record company would get the rest.