AJ,
There is NO where that you play comercial music that is not paying royalties for the opportunity. It is the responsibility of the venue to pay ASCAP and BMI fees, so even if you never pay it - the house HAS to because they employ YOU to help promote business.
This is a fact of life - pay as you go. Thankfully, the performer does not have to pay the fee, but trust me ..... someone is paying for the rights to all those cover songs. It's not a perfect system, but it IS a system. It's OK for us to disagree, but this is not an opinion - it's a fact. Use of copywrited material REQUIRES a liscence, and someone has to pay to use it. I can't say it any simpler, but thanx for your tact anyway!
(This one's not MY ideas - it's the law.)

What about "Happy Birthday" ? It's still copyrighted!

I was remotely aware that there was a system in place to send "fees" to BMI and the like, but I was never involved in that part of the process. How do they distribute the monies fairly or keep track of what you guys play ? ( I'm naive to this stuff, not being a wiseguy ). My experience performing in a live setting is limited mostly to playing original material. My guitarist and partner at the time, Marty, handled money and business ( as well as his Strat ), very
well, I might add, considering he got us work even though we usually insisted on playing nothing but original music.I know it's been ages since I performed live,( more like 18 or 19 years ), save for a local party or two, but I still don't recall being asked to pay any royalties for the few occasions we did play a cover tune. ( Usually via a request from a pretty lady..lol ) Maybe Marty was asked to or the house handled it ( or ignored it ) ?
I'm guilty of being wrong and very naive on the business aspect of music. This is why I always try to defend the position of those of you who do make a business and living out of it. I know that is a totally separate and sometimes taxing skill, and one that I'm frankly not very good at.

None of this changes my stance on what Yamaha is trying to do here. Instead of showing a bit of appreciation for the multitude of free advertising and promotion provided by Nigel here and by Yahoo Groups and administrators, they choose to admonish us for sharing their materials, when they themselves play the charade of renaming copywritten songs to use on their boards. Then they advertise one thing ( upgradeable OS via Flash Rom ) and fail to deliver on it when it comes down to crunch time. Worst of all is what Don M described perfectly as the deafening silence on these issues both here and in private. I have contacted them several times on these and other issues and have always been as diplomatic as possible. I have never gotten a meaningful response from them

After all of that I am still in disagreement with you on telling us that we KNOW this is wrong Dave. In fact, to be honest, I take exception to it. I am in no position to tell everyone here what they know is right or wrong. Are you ?

I need to go make music for a while and give this stuff a rest. I find that I'm feeling increasingly aggravated and for me music is supposed to be about fun, enjoyment, and creativity. I'm going to sign off for a while and focus on those things a little more. I'm always around though if I can ever be a help to explain anything I will be happy to answer any email. I am bad at the music business, but I will share what I can and know a thing or two about playing keys, and about navigating these boards, midi, and the electronics involved.

"Korg" AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 02-01-2002).]

AJ,
I'm not judging anyone here, and I too, am guilty of copying many things - including video tapes and CD's. The fact remains that I know it's wrong to willfully take something that is NOT mine. Being nieve is one thing - turning your back on the truth is another. Now that you are aware that copywrites carry some legal weight, it's no longer a case of aggree or disaggree - it's a simple case of right and wrong...... but lets let this die here. We all know how we are going to handle our own situations, so we'll just get on with it in our own way.

As far as the collection and distribution of fees - it is far from a perfect system, but it tries to compensate the artists that are most often on the charts, and based on sales of recorded media as well. Club owners pay a fee based on the ammount of seats and the time open during entertainment. A few years back, there was talk of making DJ's pay their own royalties, but nothing ever materialized. At least in the state of Pennsylvania - the publishers have an iron fist on the entertainment business, and they can close a room down for not paying the fees. Original venues don't have to pay, but even a radio or TV in a place of business requires a liscense fee to the publishers. That's why MUZAK was invented (elavator music)- it was "royalty free music" that you bought by the month as a service to enhance your business. It was cheaper than paying the full fare for having a broadcast program on. Believe me AJ, NOTHING is free. Nothing.

Uncle Dave,

I recall way back in High School(35 years ago) When putting a concert on, in the music department and using a copyrighted piece, the school had to write to the publisher and ask permission to use the music. I recall writing one such letter. Don't know if that has changed. So even non-profit orgainizations are held to honesty I guess.

-Linda

You are supposed to pay anytime you use "Happy Birthday to You" song commercially." The story of how the song "Happy Birthday to You" came to be, began as a sweet one, that later soured. Two sisters, Mildred Hill, a teacher at the Louisville, Kentucky Experimental Kindergarten, and Dr. Patty Hill, the principal of the same school, together wrote a song for the children, entitled "Good Morning to All." When Mildred combined her musical talents, as the resident expert on spiritual songs, and as the organist for her church, with her sister's expertise in the area of Kindergarten Education, "Good Morning to All" was sure to be a success.

The sisters published the song in a collection entitled "Song Stories of the Kindergarten" in 1893. Thirty-one years later, after Dr. Patty Hill became the head of the Department of Kindergarten Education at Columbia University's Teacher College, a gentleman by the name of Robert H. Coleman published the song, without the sisters' permission. To add insult to injury, he added a second verse, the familiar "Happy Birthday to You."

Mr. Coleman's addition of the second verse popularized the song and, eventually, the sisters' original first verse disappeared. "Happy Birthday to You," the one and only birthday song, had altogether replaced the sisters' original title, "Good Morning to All."

After Mildred died in 1916, Patty, together with a third sister named Jessica, sprang into action and took Mr. Coleman to court. In court, they proved that they, indeed, owned the melody. Because the family legally owns the song, it is entitled to royalties from it, whenever it is sung for commercial purposes."


Let's see the hands go up for who has paid and is in compliance with the law.

Interesting history JCS. One addendum here, and I don't know for sure that this is fact, but I read that Michael Jackson acquired the rights (ownership) of "Happy Birthday To You" a few years back and charges no royalties for its use. It just another collectible for him
Eddie

I would doubt that "Happy Birthday" has ownership options. Even at Jakko's prices, I don't think the song is available for purchace. He DOES own the Beatles library, though. Makes me sick. Talk about "collectables"!

In 1988, Warner Communications bought the rights to "Happy Birthday to You" for $25 million. The song earns about $1 million a year in royalties. The song is expected to enter the public domain when the copyright expires in 2010.

Careful restaurants eager to avoid the legal confrontation with the likes of ASCAP (the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, which polices the use of "Happy Birthday To You") have come up with alternative birthday songs.

Intellectual property law is like taxes and is dependent on voluntary compliance. We all know how forgiving the IRS is for those that don't volunteer to comply.

Well - that one is NEWS to me. I stand corrected. I had always heard that the "birthday song" (afraid to say the name, now !) was public domain. Either way - I believe that the only way to enforce a royalty should be in a profit situation. No one can tell you what to hum, or whistle or sing on your own time. It's only when profit enters the picture that requires more serious attention. This is all sounding too much like poitics to me. I stay in show biz because I can't STAND politics. I hate to think about how the "other half" lives .... I just wanna sing.