[Sunday Business Post] Irish music industry hit by downloading (1 Viewer)

[Mormon Nailer]

Sigh.That's it's not a breach of copyright to sing happy birthday or any other song unless it's for commercial distribution so the example you gave is moot.

I think I might be done with this thread now.

Not just commercial distribution public performace as well.

 

[jane]

Now, I'm not saying this proves any point at all, but we can't have any copyrighted music in our wedding. Not just recorded music, but no music written within the time span for copyright can be performed by anyone. We're using all classical and traditional stuff anyway, but the priest was really adamant about it qualifying as a 'public performance'. Even though it's not for money, and we're not doing a video recording.

He could just be over-cautious, or this could be something that churches have had to deal with. It's kind of crap if it really is that. But we didn't really look into it because none of the music we're using is a problem.

 

[jane]

I'm just going to point out, too, that I plan to dig up this thread any time I get a bollocking for writing long posts and I'm gonna tag it so I can find it again. And I'm gonna show whomever that is this very thread.

See, like, when you really care about arguing your corner, point by point, and you care passionately about something, it's hard to speak in pithy one-liners.

So there.

Just sayin'.

 

[Flux]

That priest is a cute hoor. He's probably just well sick of "Flying Without Wings".

 

[ratmonkey]

I'm gonna tag it so I can find it again.

Hang on now, tags aren't meant to have any actual use.

 

[jane]

Hang on now, tags aren't meant to have any actual use.

Sorry. I'll just go inside in the sea now, where I belong.

 

[jane]

That priest is a cute hoor. He's probably just well sick of "Flying Without Wings".

Nah, we've just been informed that we're only the 58th wedding in the church since 1900, so I don't think he does a whole lot of 'em.

I dunno if it's a common requirement or what, but in any case, we've been real stuck for a replacement hymn after we had to put the nix on "I'm not a girl but not yet a woman" as my entrance song.

 

[Squiggle]

Ah now you're being silly.
All value is assigned by the market, that's pretty
fundamental economics and not some punk/hippy claptrap

I know that, but either you respect that assigned value or you don't. I don't think anyone should be allowed to pick and chose when it suits them.

I don't think so. Mass civil disobedience has led to changes in the law in the past

Yes, but it IS illegal right now. Claiming that a change in the law in the future is going to make a law obsolete and therefore I shouldn't have to obey it now would be an interesting defence to use in court.

someone i worked with did a master in Intellectual Property law - she had some interesting view on enforceability . Something along the lines of - a law is only of use if inforceable and copyright and IP law is only enforceable in certain contexts i.e. B2B patent rights etc.

she was leading to the point about similar legal mechanisms not being applicable in music sharing but then I fell asleep.

Yes, there is a similar argument that can be applied to all "rights". A 'right' can only be a right as long as it is attainable and does not conflict with another 'right'.

But something illegal being possible and in my best interests does not justify my breaking the law.

 

[Unknown Convict]

from snopes:

Does this mean that everyone who warbles "Happy Birthday to You" to family members at birthday parties is engaging in copyright infringement if they fail to obtain permission from or pay royalties to the song's publisher? No. Royalties are due, of course, for commercial uses of the song, such as playing or singing it for profit, using it in movies, television programs, and stage shows, or incorporating it into musical products such as watches and greeting cards; as well, royalties are due for public performance, defined by copyright law as performances which occur "at a place open to the public, or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." So, crooning "Happy Birthday to You" to family members and friends at home is fine, but performing a copyrighted work in a public setting such as a restaurant or a sports arena technically requires a license from ASCAP or the Harry Fox Agency (although such infringements are rarely prosecuted).

 

[jane]

from snopes:

Hm, that makes me wonder about the church music thing. Maybe the closing medley of Destiny's Child songs is back on after all? I don't mind following rules, but I really do hate to waste money on a bespoke prosthetic posterior. But hey, it's not the first time, won't be the last.

 

[broken arm]

Now, I'm not saying this proves any point at all, but we can't have any copyrighted music in our wedding. Not just recorded music, but no music written within the time span for copyright can be performed by anyone. We're using all classical and traditional stuff anyway, but the priest was really adamant about it qualifying as a 'public performance'. Even though it's not for money, and we're not doing a video recording.

He could just be over-cautious, or this could be something that churches have had to deal with. It's kind of crap if it really is that. But we didn't really look into it because none of the music we're using is a problem.

is that not just because lots of churches are trying to keep wedding more traditional - not that you'd be playing britney and whitney like other people.

 

[theoootini]

or slayer. can't imagine that would go down too well with vicar murphy

 

[pete]

just sounds like someone hasn't paid the imro fees

 

[dudley]

Hmm...I've plugged the iriver into the amp/speaker setup I listen to cds/vinyl on and 320kb mp3s still sound inferior to the albums on cd to me.

that's cos the internal amps in the iriver are already limiting the signal you're outputting, your stereo amplifier can only reproduce the signal it's getting, not improve it.

using an audigy soundblaster card, if i render a 320kbps mp3 and compare it to the un-mp3'd wav file, it's damn near impossible to make out the difference.

and vaguely in relation to the topic at hand, the average music listener couldn't give a shite about the sound difference between even a lower quality mp3 and a proper cd. most people put on music in the background on shitty stereos.

and everyone's hearing is fucked from ipods/walkmens anyway so what does it matter

8D

 

[nlgbbbblth]

yep, you should see the stereos some people play music on.

there's still plenty people out there who are oblivious to The Loudness Wars.

i.e.
'Have you ever noticed the difference in volume between a new 2007 CD you bought a few months ago and a CD purchased in the late 1980s/early 1990s?'

'No.'

 

[Vinnie]

Whoever wrote Vinnie & Lars Up A Tree in the tags wins a prize from me.

And if that's how it's coming across then I aint making myself clear.

 

[jane]

is that not just because lots of churches are trying to keep wedding more traditional - not that you'd be playing britney and whitney like other people.

No, we told him we were using all traditional music, and he kept on about it anyway, and he knows that we just aren't 'like that'. I haven't any clue why we can't do it because I've never heard of it before. But then, I've never been to a wedding in Ireland that used anything outside of classical or traditional music, so I dunno.

But it's the 'public performance' thing. Which is weird because I wonder if it's an over-cautiousness, since it's just 'covers' of songs, and you usually credit the original artist anyway?

One of the people doing the music is a paid-up IMRO member. Wonder if that changes anything? Not that we need to since, again, we're not using anything modern...

 

[Denny Oubidoux]

if anyone wants to use any of my music at your wedding please feel free

 

[Mormon Nailer]

But it's the 'public performance' thing. Which is weird because I wonder if it's an over-cautiousness, since it's just 'covers' of songs, and you usually credit the original artist anyway?

The fact that it's covers and not a CD wouldnt matter.

You could argue about the public bit though - how public is someones wedding really?

 

[billygannon]

the fact that the copyright* on posts / contributions remains with the poster.

* and by logical extension, the blame

Does this mean that a poster can start charging people when someone else quotes them?