GrindEFX

GrindEFX is back, w00t! Over at Techdirt, Michael Masnick highlights an interesting development in machine-generated music: a company claims to have created software that can recreate musical performances by famous musicians, living or dead.

As described on the blog, “Zenph Studio’s approach is to work out how the musician and the instrument acts and responds, then get a computer to play that track again as a real-time, real-life performance, which in turn can be recorded using modern techniques.”

It’s essentially MIDI on steroids. Zenph claims that through its software process, it can capture the nuances of any performer’s style and translate that into an algorithm to generate new recordings of old songs – or make entirely new songs that sound like they were performed by a famous musician.

Leaving aside whether this is a good idea in the first place – how long before we have Kurt Cobain hawking deodorant? - Masnick concludes with what I can only describe as an excellent law school final exam question -

So, now, take this software that supposedly can perfectly mimic a certain musician’s playing, and have it record a song. Say it’s a new song. Who owns the copyright? What if it’s adding John Lennon to a Rolling Stone’s song? Who owns the copyright? What if it’s an old song, updated in some slight way? Who owns the copyright? What if it’s just the same song but “remastered”? Who owns the copyright? The legal questions raised by this kind of software are going to keep copyright lawyers busy for a long, long time.

Being the slightly sadomasochistic law student I am, I couldn’t resist analyzing the issues raised in this situation. I am not a lawyer, and this article is only for general informational purposes; nothing here constitutes legal advice.

Read more…

The National Music Publishers’ Association filed complaints on Monday, August 24th against two companies alleging copyright infringement for their unauthorized use of song lyrics.

The companies – Motive Force and LiveUniverse – both operate web sites which allow users to read and search for song lyrics from thousands of songs. Both companies also use many “web 2.0″ features to allow users to access the lyric database in Facebook, iTunes, and other third-party applications.

A look at one of the complaints reveals that the Publishers’ Association is alleging, among other things, copyright infringement on the basis of unauthorized public display – one of the few times this particular exclusive right is relevant to musicians. The Association also alleges this infringement is not innocent: both companies, they claim, earn significant revenue from advertising, soliciting donations, and driving traffic to their other ventures.

Billboard reports that NMPA President David Israelite has been leading the NMPA in an effort over the last three years to protect songwriters’ lyrics by contacting hundreds of unauthorized lyric sites providing them opportunities to properly license their content or risk a lawsuit. Says Israelite, “Music fans are the biggest losers when licensed businesses, like LyricFind, Gracenote and TuneWiki can’t survive and prosper because unlicensed, illegal businesses are allowed to thumb their noses at the law.”

Bob Dylan isn’t one to bite his tongue and in the past he has shared his antipathy for digital music. His latest outburst is directed at online streaming sites and last week he ordered sites such as Spotify and we7 to remove his music from their catalogues.

Dylan apparently has issues with the way in which music is consumed and shared in this new digital era. The sites were contacted by representatives for the singer/songwriter’s record company, Sony, and were asked to prove they have the rights to stream his music. Consequently; Dylan’s 30+ album catalogue has been removed from streaming services until an agreement is reached.

Clive Gardiner, we7’s digital music SVP, said: “We took it off the site a few days ago. Spotify would have had the same instruction.  But it may be a short listing and it may come back again.

“There are some artists that will take umbrage at this from time to time. We expect this sort of thing, especially with streaming, and it not being fully understood where it sits yet. “

Publishing.

This one word has caused more musicians to pull their hair out than any other word in the music business. It’s a tricky and confusing subject – confusion that’s aided by the unintuitive nature of copyright law, the use of archaic terms left over from the history of music publishing, and the general craziness of the music business.

But music publishing is one of the most important aspects of the music business. Every musician wishing to earn money from their music needs to have at least a general understanding of publishing.

If you’ve been following the Music Business 101 series here on GrindEFX, you should have a leg up on copyright and licensing, which form the basis for music publishing. If you haven’t read them yet and are unfamiliar with those concepts, why not check them now – I’ll wait! Read more…

We discussed previously the exclusive rights a copyright owner gets in connection with her copyrighted work. To recap, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to:

• Make copies of the work
• Make derivative works based on the work (translations, remixes, etc)
• Distribute the work to the public
• Publicly perform the work (a big one for musicians)
• Publicly display the work (more for painters and sculptors)

Anyone can exercise these rights by himself, but it’s a lot of work – never mind getting your own CD’s printed up and selling them yourselves, could you imagine having to own your own radio station in order to promote your songs? Most musicians want to reap financial benefits from their work, and most are also happy to let someone else handle that part of the business. But aside from selling the copyright itself, how does one accomplish this?

The answer is licensing.

Read more…

In the last article I discussed the basics of copyright – what it covers, how to get a copyright, what you can do once you have a copyright, etc. If you recall, in nearly every country, copyright protection manifests automatically as soon as an original work is in fixed form.

But you’re also probably aware that you can register a copyright in the United States. I’ve seen a lot of confusion about this, so I’m going to try to lay it out in more detail.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Anything in this post is for informational purposes only – if you have specific questions, seek out the counsel of a practicing attorney.

Copyright vs. Copyright Registration

Getting a copyright and registering your copyright are two entirely separate things. Getting a copyright is automatic. In the US, and nearly every country in the world, once you put your music, writing, artwork, or whatever into a tangible, fixed form (like a computer file), you have a copyright.

That’s a very big point so read that last paragraph again because I see most of the confusion about copyrights and registration coming from not understanding that point.

Registering your copyright, as I said, is an entirely different matter. Outside of the US, most countries don’t even have an official government registration of copyrights. But the United States still holds on to having a registration process that authors and musicians can take advantage of. Read more…

On Friday, a jury handed Joel Tenenbaum a verdict of $675,000 for illegally downloading 30 songs. This marks the second time in as many months that a jury has ruled in favor of the RIAA.

The verdict – $22,500 per song – is neither surprising nor as large as the one in last month’s trial against Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Ben Sheffner of Copyrights and Campaigns has a detailed post-verdict writeup. Among the highlights:

· Tenenbaum is planning an appeal of the verdict, and possibly declaring bankruptcy if he loses that appeal.

· While the RIAA has stopped filing lawsuits against new filesharers, it is continuing to move forward on currently filed lawsuits. In all, there are over 100 pending lawsuits, with about a dozen actively in litigation.

It remains to be seen how many of those pending lawsuits actually make it to trial. Of the 18 – 35 thousand downloaders the RIAA has sued, this is only the second case to reach a verdict. It also remains to be seen whether the RIAA’s strategy as a whole has resulted in a reducing the growth of P2P filesharing, or deterring internet users from engaging in the same behavior as Tenenbaum.

Read more…

Welcome to the first installment of GrindEFX’s introduction to some of the most important, and most confusing, concepts in the music business. These are concepts that serve as required knowledge for anyone wishing to take their music beyond the hobby level. They are also concepts that serve as a constant source of frustration and consternation to those same musicians.

Most, if not all, of this information can already be found on the internet. However, a lot of it is not targeted to musicians – it may be good information, but too complex or irrelevant to musician’s concerns. A lot of it might also provide a good explanation of the concepts but not explain the practical application of the concepts to the music business. And finally, there is plenty of bad or outdated information out there; a new musician may not be able to tell the difference between the good and the bad.

So we at GrindEFX are bringing you, the independent musician, this series that lays out the concepts in an easy to understand and relevant fashion. Standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nothing in these posts should be constituted as legal advice. It is only provided for informational purposes. If you have questions about a specific situation you are in, you should contact an entertainment lawyer.

Let’s begin.

Read more…

A second major filesharing trial is getting underway in Boston, MA.

Little over one month has passed since a jury handed Jammie Thomas-Rasset a $2 million verdict. Today, 25-year old grad student Joel Tenenbaum finds himself in court to defend allegations that he used Kazaa to download and distribute 30 songs without permission.

The trial begins at 9AM and is expected to last until 4-5PM EST. The judge hopes to wrap up by July 31st.

For those wishing to stay updated, several commentators and bloggers will be onhand, twittering throughout the proceedings. These include Ben Sheffner, Marc Bourgeois, and the Joel Tenenbaum defense team.

It should prove to be an interesting trial. Both sides have been arguing more substantial points about filesharing in general then what was seen in the Thomas-Rasset trial. And when Harvard law professor Charles Nesson joined the defense team, the pretrial proceedings took on an almost circus-esque tone.

Read more…

Get ready to dig a little deeper into your pockets.

Fees to register United States copyrights are set to rise on August 1, 2009.

The U.S. Copyright Office lists what fees will be going up. Registering online through the new eCo system will remain at $35 (currently lower than registering by mail). The cost of registering with form CO (a new, universal form unveiled last year to cover most works of authorship) will increase from $45 to $50. If you can still get a hold of the old forms – SR, PA, TX, V, etc – you will be paying $65, up from $45.

This move by the Copyright Office reflects the growing costs of processing copyright registrations. The electronic registration process was implemented in order to reduce the costs involved, and that cost reduction is reflected by the lower fees.

The electronic process is not perfect – early reviews detailed some of the problems with it, and the Washington Times noted that it suffers from delays. However, paper forms suffer from even longer delays, and after August 1 will cost artists and musicians even more. Read more…