The Realbook Volumes 1,2,3, and 4 PDF FORMAT
John Smith
Da Parrot-chick
"John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_gE4a.4763$DV.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
These books are filled with mistakes in melodies and chords; you'd have to
relearn the songs later. Plus, they violate copyright laws and pay no
royalties to the composers.
This is spam by an uncaring opportunist out for a buck. If you want the
real deal, get a real Fake Book that has the correct charts and gives proper
monetary credit to the artists who wrote the songs.
Martin
"John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> schreef in bericht
news:_gE4a.4763$DV.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> http://www.rustybrooks.org/music/realbook/
>
>
>
>
>
Gary Rimar
1) Is the person who is providing these as download charging money? If
not, how is HE making any money?
2) To know that the books aren't any good, you must have downloaded them.
If this is copyright infringement (and I would say that it is), why did
you download them in the first place?
In article <ioG4a.10250$YU4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
ju...@sk.me says...
Da Parrot-chick
"Gary Rimar" <pian...@garyrimar.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18bd4d45e...@news.mi.comcast.giganews.com...
> Your post leaves me with a couple of questions.
>
> 1) Is the person who is providing these as download charging money? If
> not, how is HE making any money?
Whoever is charging for the use of these is making money. It's an enormous
file; any book is. Someone has to pay for that bandwidth.
> 2) To know that the books aren't any good, you must have downloaded them.
> If this is copyright infringement (and I would say that it is), why did
> you download them in the first place?
I didn't download them but I know about them from a friend who has. It's
the same books I saw in college 25 years ago; they are still circulating.
Now they're in .pdf format is the only difference.
We're violating several Usenet rules by the enormous amount of crossposting
going on. I'm responding only to answer your question, but I can't reply to
this thread anymore. I just wanted to pass along what I consider important
info to anybody considering throwing away their money while screwing the
composers out of their royalties.
mark
you really should investigate for yourself. Also, since the Real Books are
considered such vital learning tools for aspiring jazz players, the
"mistakes" (which you have admittedly no true knowledge of aside from your
"friend" telling you about them) have for many tunes become the accepted
standards in lieu of the original scores.
Parrot, quit squawking. And stop playing net-cop. It doesn't suit you.
"Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
news:QFO4a.9923$_c6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
mark
"John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:_gE4a.4763$DV.2...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> http://www.rustybrooks.org/music/realbook/
>
>
>
>
>
Max Leggett
wrote:
>First off, he's not charging for them. Before you spout off about something,
>you really should investigate for yourself. Also, since the Real Books are
>considered such vital learning tools for aspiring jazz players, the
>"mistakes" (which you have admittedly no true knowledge of aside from your
>"friend" telling you about them) have for many tunes become the accepted
>standards in lieu of the original scores.
>
>Parrot, quit squawking. And stop playing net-cop. It doesn't suit you.
>
Stop cross posting.
Ron
http://www.rustybrooks.org/music/realbook/
>These books are filled with mistakes in melodies and chords; you'd have to
>relearn the songs later. Plus, they violate copyright laws and pay no
>royalties to the composers.
>This is spam by an uncaring opportunist out for a buck. If you want the
>real deal, get a real Fake Book that has the correct charts and gives
proper
>monetary credit to the artists who wrote the songs.
Sure I understand the royalty argument on it's legal basis, but let me say
this: Since I bought my first copy of the "illegal" Real Book back in the
stone ages (or at least vinyl ages), most of the music (sheet, CD, album,
book, whatever) has been of songs included in the Real Book. Also, since
I've been playing music out several nights weekly for years now, I have
promoted (you might tell me expoited) these songs, always crediting the
writer as I do so, and hopefully bringing some of these songs to the
listening publics attention. The Real Book has been a good thing for the
songs (and writers) that are included in it. If Joe Henderson's "Black
Narcissus" weren't included in the book, how often would it get a call? I'll
bet never. We've all grown up playing the wrong changes on "Four", and
better ones IMHO.
Have no fear. Warner, and Sony, and Brittney, and Jacko, bless thier hearts
will still be making bank next year no matter how many aspiring jazz players
download .pdf files of the Real Book.
Ron
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.455 / Virus Database: 255 - Release Date: 2/13/2003
Campbell Murray
Campbell
PT
Performers are happy to download or buy illegal copies and play them, it
costs them nothing instead of paying the royalties due to the composers.
Although I never used an illegal real book (mostly because I preferred to
play tunes that were not on everyone else's repertoire), when I used to do
loads of gigs I did not think that other players who did use one were
committing a crime (except when I heard Blue Bossa for the four hundredth
time).
However I now make my living as a composer and I understand the other side
of the argument. A "credit" does not supply meat and and vegetables for your
family. Let alone a roquet salad with Parmesan.
What do you think a judge would say if your plea was " Yes, I stole the
Panasonic video, but it was not a real crime because Panasonic are
benefiting as I gave them a credit"?
This is not to do with Brittney and Jacko, but possibly composers such as
myself who rely on the royalty income to stay afloat.
Maybe you would be happy if someone tapes your gig then releases a CD and
does not pay you anything (more or less the same thing as selling sheet
music without paying royalties) , but I doubt it if you rely on music as
your only source of income.
Just my 2p
--
best regards
Pete Thomas
"United we stand, together we fall" - Gordon
"Ron" <see_it@hear_it.org> wrote in message
news:jkQ4a.122066$ce4.31...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Charles P. Burton
Royalties for live performances are paid via ASCAP and BMI
licensing. Should the perfomer really be expected to pay further
royalties for source materials in preparation for a performance
that is already licensed at significant expense? Especially when
the source materials are as sketchy as fakebook contents I
doubt there is much basis in tradition and practice for this,
the legal situation notwithstanding.
If a performer made up his own sheet music for, say, the intro
to Joel's Piano Man, and then learned to play from it, would that
be a copyright violation? How is that different from using a
fakebook?
"PT" <pt_no...@petethomas.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b30ptg$mb9$1...@aspen.sucs.soton.ac.uk...
Ron
committing a crime (except when I heard Blue Bossa for the four hundredth
time).
OK Pete, I see your point. But, a quick check with www.allmusic.com showed
122 recordings of Kenny Dorhams' "Blue Bossa". Kenny must have received his
7.5 US cents @ recording sold or whatever for those. I don't know when he
published the tune, but it would be fun to see what other of his
compositions went onto that original vinyl recording. Then see if any others
went into the Real Book. This could be our litmus test, albeit not
scientific.
Ron
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003
Ron
Central Scrutinizer
traffic. He says they're floating around file sharing programs now,
though. I say its about time we were able to illegally obtain
illegally distributed material without illegally paying someone to
illegally sell it to us!
The Real Book - I love this little seedy corner of our jazz universe.
"Martin" <mar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<b2vg17$mn1$1...@rl0001.unimaas.nl>...
John Smith
Whether they are filled with mistakes or not. is irrelevant.
These are the books most people at jam sessions use.
If you don't like them, don't use them.
"Da Parrot-chick" <ju...@sk.me> wrote in message
news:ioG4a.10250$YU4.9...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Smith
"John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:C9V4a.10388$le5.3...@twister.austin.rr.com...
PT
may not have been made if the performer was not originally exposed to a tune
though an illegal edition. Who knows?
My point is that it should be the composer who decides what is right and
wrong regarding their intellectual property. The composer owns the tune. I
do not think its fair for someone to steal it, then say "I did it for your
own good".
If a composer approves of giving out free copies then that's fine.
I just believe that the composer is the only person who can approve of theft
of their property, not the thief.
--
best regards
Pete Thomas
"United we stand, together we fall" - Gordon
"Ron" <see_it@hear_it.org> wrote in message
news:KlT4a.123795$ce4.31...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Central Scrutinizer
> Stop cross posting.
What is cross posting? Jeez, man, I didn't even know there WERE
"rules" in use groups aside from a mutually user maintained ettiquite
of sorts. Hell, you can find out where to find hookers and drugs on
these boards. These aint exactly letters to the editor in The New York
Times, you know.
The Real Book should be free. Jazzers should know it. Copy it,
distribute it, download it, play from it, use it as a tray to cut up
your pot on if you want, but own one.
Mike O'Malley
composers are dead. It bothers me some that an active, living artist
is cheated, though you could argue that my use increases the value of
their work. I don't like ti that there are, say , Chick Corea tunes in
the "real Book."
But it doesn't bother me at all to play a Richard Rogers tune without
paying. Who am I paying? Only the corporation which had the money to
buy the legal rights to Roger's work. I really don't care a fig about
those rights--they are purely rooted I the advantages of posessing
large amounts of capital and have no good moral justification. It
doesn't bother me much if Michael Jackson loses a royalty fee when i
play a hank willliams song, either. Jackson was rich enough to buy
Acuff-Rose publishing, so he owns the right to collect on Hank's
legacy. As far as i'm concerned, that work belongs to posterity. Who
owns Cole Porter's music? Sony? Some guy who never worte a tune in his
life, who can't carry a tune, and who doesn't give a rats ass about
the music--it's simply product which he has aquired a legal monopoly
over. I'm not supporting that legal structure at all
Similarly, I cheerfully download music by dead artists, but don't
download stuff by livng artists
Campbell Murray
Would appreciate a copy if possible please.
I have the other 3 if you wish to swap ?
Thanks.
Campbell
"mark" <mark...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b30eq1$1gfvkt$1...@ID-130190.news.dfncis.de...
Tim Berens
>My justification for using these illegal books is this: Most of the
>composers are dead.
>
>But it doesn't bother me at all to play a Richard Rogers tune without
>paying. Who am I paying? Only the corporation which had the money to
>buy the legal rights to Roger's work.
>
>Similarly, I cheerfully download music by dead artists, but don't
>download stuff by livng artists
This is a fascinating concept -- I only need to obey the laws that I
agree with.
Tim
http://timberens.com
A Website for Guitarists
Learn something...Have some fun
PT
royalties on a tune he wrote that got quite high in the charts back in about
1957 and has since been used in films and TV. He never got the royalties he
was due. He passed on a few years ago and although I am not currently able
to actively pursue this at the moment, I do intend to as soon as I get time.
The reason I still want to do this is because he has a widow who nursed him
through lung cancer for over a year. I think she deserves to have what he
would have left her, if he had not been shafted by publishers and record
companies.
Do you think that because he is dead she has no right to any royalties. The
law says she does for another 75 years.
Anyone who thinks that distributing illegal sheet musicis OK just because
they assume they are in aposition to make a moral judgement is as guilty as
any corporation.
If you want to steal music it's not a big crime, but it is still a crime so
just do it but please admit you are a thief, don't try and justify it on
"moral" grounds. As I said before, only the owner of a composition can
decide whether it should be paid for or used without payment.
Oh yes, the name of the artist? Lee Allen. Some of you on this newsgroup may
be familiar with the name as he played solos on countless rock and roll
classic hits. He died in a hospital with bad food so his wife cooked and
brought his meals in every day. One day I would like to see her get some of
the money she is due, or will everyone say "he's dead, so we don't need to
pay royalties on his music"
--
best regards
Pete Thomas
"United we stand, together we fall" - Gordon
"Mike O'Malley" <moma...@gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:87d03efb.03022...@posting.google.com...
Marc Sabatella
> 1) Is the person who is providing these as download charging money?
If
> not, how is HE making any money?
He may or may not be. But note that making this material available for
free is in many ways *more* harmful than charging for it. If they
charged for it, there would at least be some incentive to buy legitimate
books.
> 2) To know that the books aren't any good, you must have downloaded
them.
Anyone with even a passing familiarity with playing jazz knows all about
the Real Books. You don't have to have downloaded these particular PDF
files to know what they contain.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> you really should investigate for yourself. Also, since the Real Books
are
> considered such vital learning tools for aspiring jazz players
By whom? I certainly don't consider them vital, nor does any respected
educator I know. They are in common use - everyone acknowledges this -
but most people consider this a Bad Thing, both because of the legal
issues as well as because of the poor quality of many of the charts.
> the
> "mistakes" (which you have admittedly no true knowledge of aside from
your
> "friend" telling you about them) have for many tunes become the
accepted
> standards in lieu of the original scores.
This is a good example of what I mean by the prevalence of the Real Book
being a Bad Thing. Fortunately, in the last decade or so, a number of
viable replacements have become available.
f_unde...@hotmail.com
> The sites down now anyways.
>
You can find it on Kazaa, just search for REALBK1, REALBK2, REALBK3
and JAZZLTD. There are only very few copies floating around, so you
have to be patience to get the whole 50Mb.
Mike O'Malley
it's a legal state of affairs contrived to favor one group over
another. I have no obligation to follow laws which are clearly
immoral--for example, laws legalizing segregation. Copyright has been
extended not to protect widows, but to allow Sony copr to continue to
extract profit from louis armstrong, or to allow Disney to protect the
mouse. Do you think--do you really think--that congress extends
copyright becasue it cares about the widows of musicians?
The widow is poor because the status quo--that is, the current
legal/economic system--makes it extremely difficult for musicians,
except for a very tiny few, to make a good living. You are seriously
arguing that we should further support that status quo? You deserve
the poverty that argument will consign you to
Max Leggett
want, but don't try to justify it with your solipsist drivel.
Gene Lancette
> You all write as if the state of things was ordaned by god--it wasn't.
> it's a legal state of affairs contrived to favor one group over
> another. I have no obligation to follow laws which are clearly
> immoral--for example, laws legalizing segregation. Copyright has been
> extended not to protect widows, but to allow Sony copr to continue to
> extract profit from louis armstrong, or to allow Disney to protect the
> mouse. Do you think--do you really think--that congress extends
> copyright becasue it cares about the widows of musicians?
This must be written by someone without the intellect to CREATE intellectual
property themselves. If you had the mental capacity to be able to create
your own music or whatever, then you would be in a better position to
appreciate copyright protection laws.
Next time you shop for groceries, try not paying for them because
corporations make mos the money...
Jurupari
>want, but don't try to justify it with your solipsist drivel.
>
He probably lives here, you don't. We sort of have a history of dissent, even
organized dissent when it comes to laws that are in some way publicly
intolerable. This isn't something that most people view as bad, at least
idealistically - guilty parties included folks like Ben Franklin or Rosa
Parks.
That can be a matter of basic humanity like taxation without representation,
or disobeying Jim Crow laws, or on a much lighter scale more of a personal
preference like attending a speakeasy or burning a bone in the garage.
This probably isn't as polarizing as the others yet, but I'd be willing to bet
it will be before long. The whole napster thing kind of suggests it, as do
these posts!
Clif Kuplen
Marc Sabatella
> Royalties for live performances are paid via ASCAP and BMI
> licensing. Should the perfomer really be expected to pay further
> royalties for source materials in preparation for a performance
> that is already licensed at significant expense?
Yes, why not? Obtaining sheet music and public performance are two
different activities that are not necessarily connected - much sheet
music is purchased and never performed, and much music is performed for
which sheet music was never purchased. Saying that royalties for one
should count for the other is like saying that since I pain for a meal
in one restaurant one day, I sdhould be allowed to eat for free in
another restaurant the next.
> If a performer made up his own sheet music for, say, the intro
> to Joel's Piano Man, and then learned to play from it, would that
> be a copyright violation? How is that different from using a
> fakebook?
Because one gives one person access to the song, the other gives a
potentially unlimited number of people access. Which do you think has a
greater effect on the market for legitimate copies of this music?
Marc Sabatella
> These are the books most people at jam sessions use.
> If you don't like them, don't use them.
And propagate the mistakes further, and deprive the copyright holders of
the income they deserve? This is not good advice. Much better to spend
a little money on a legitimate fakebook, reward the composers, and end
up playing better music. Unless you revel in musical mediocrity and
ripoing of other musicians.
Marc Sabatella
> Since I bought my first copy of the "illegal" Real Book back in the
> stone ages (or at least vinyl ages), most of the music (sheet, CD,
album,
> book, whatever) has been of songs included in the Real Book. Also,
since
> I've been playing music out several nights weekly for years now, I
have
> promoted (you might tell me expoited) these songs, always crediting
the
> writer as I do so, and hopefully bringing some of these songs to the
> listening publics attention. The Real Book has been a good thing for
the
> songs (and writers) that are included in it.
It has indirectly generated some income for them, yes. But it would
have generated a hell of a lot more had royalties been paid on sales on
the RB. And composers wouldn't be hearing their tunes played
incorrectly on recording after recording.
Marc Sabatella
> But it doesn't bother me at all to play a Richard Rogers tune without
> paying. Who am I paying? Only the corporation which had the money to
> buy the legal rights to Roger's work.
And they don't deserve to collect the dividends on this investment?
> I really don't care a fig about
> those rights
I assume, then, you don't mind if I help myself to any capital gains on
stocks you purchase. And, of course, I assume you have no intention of
passing on any of your belongings of value to any descendents - they
should become public domain when you die.
Marc Sabatella
> Wow, man. That guy couldn't keep the books up because too much
> traffic. He says they're floating around file sharing programs now,
> though. I say its about time we were able to illegally obtain
> illegally distributed material without illegally paying someone to
> illegally sell it to us!
Uh, yeah. How about, legally obtaining legally distributed material by
legally paying someone to legally sell it to you. Believe it or not,
this *is* an option. The mere fact that it is *possible* to get
something for free does not justify actually doing so.
Top Spin
wrote:
>This argumanet is utterly fatuous. Go ahead and steal anything you
>want, but don't try to justify it with your solipsist drivel.
Wow. Solipsism. You go. It's been a long time since I saw that word
used. But it's too good a word for these folks. Infantile narcissism
is closer, in my opinion.
And arguing with these people is also futile. They simply want
everything to be free and they will justify it any way they can. Most
of them have never produced anything of value or they wouldn't want to
steal from those who do.
--
Spam sink email address, sorry
Top Spin
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> I really don't care a fig about
>> those rights
>
>I assume, then, you don't mind if I help myself to any capital gains on
>stocks you purchase. And, of course, I assume you have no intention of
>passing on any of your belongings of value to any descendents - they
>should become public domain when you die.
Actually, Marc, most of these "everything should be free" children
would NOT mind because they have nothing of value.
jrw
"Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote in message
news:5nw5a.71$A97....@news.uswest.net...
> "Mike O'Malley" <moma...@gmu.edu> wrote:
>
> > But it doesn't bother me at all to play a Richard Rogers tune without
> > paying. Who am I paying? Only the corporation which had the money to
> > buy the legal rights to Roger's work.
>
> And they don't deserve to collect the dividends on this investment?
You know, I bought all the Sher Real Books because I liked having the
accurate, composer approved transcriptions. But I have found them to be
useless on the gig (unless I make copies of the tunes that I want to play
for everyone), because nobody else has the books. So I bought the Real Books
at the local music store because that's what everyone else has. I play
mostly pickup gigs and can call tunes by volume and page, which works
nicely. Are these Realbooks illegal, but are sold everywhere anyway?
John Smith
cops,
contention is that "but the songs are", thus they shouldn't be in there.
This is why the hoopla.
Personally I don't think the composers care. I don't see Chick making
an issue.
You won't see the Sher books for download, because they are Copyrighted with
the symbol, registered etc.
I take that back they were on the net, but they are gone now.
.
As soon as you put something in a tangible form it's copyrighted. So the
Realbooks sort of are. I guess the composer get money when people at the gig
hear the music, and go buy the record. Or download it. <teh heheh> This gets
crazy.
You are right that most people don't play out of the Sher books at gigs.
They use the Realbooks.
This debate has gone on for years.I don't care anymore. If everyone switched
to Sher Books, it would be the same thing. They'd be on the net, and people
would be copying them too. Then people would be arguing still. But the fact
is that not many people use them at gigs and I don't think it's gonna
change. The Sher books are nice, and legible, etc. Not to take from them. If
you like buy them, just learn to play everything, in every key. Unless
you're a vocalist, then you'd have your own charts to pass around anyway. I
wonder if you'd be in violation if you made a chart, and passed them around
like that. You know, in *your* key? Or would you have to get Sher Books
for every key you need? Just a thought.
However:
The Realbooks,
legal or not, accurate or not, sold on the internet at
http://www.juniorsmusic.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=JMI
&Category_Code=Fake+Books or not, or downloaded for free, or not, or bought
at your local store, or not,
have become the defacto standard.
If I'm not mistaken, there's a little known thing with copyright, if
something gets to be so prolific, or common, it's like public domain or
becomes so. I could be off, but I heard something like that. I'd have to
find my source.
But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though. Instant
Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and networking has
come on the scene.
http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
This is what, I think, some people don't understand. I don't not do I care
anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated, and slanted,
but nevertheless, I'm not using this as an excuse Marc, so don't start any,
and there won't be none. ;)
"jrw" <j...@asis.com> wrote in message news:Dw-dnQsM_Mi...@got.net...
John Smith
to music.
Anything you write or come up with, I can easily or not so easily sit at my
piano and reproduce it.
*SO* does that mean I'm in violation?
THIS is just getting to be crazy. Pretty soon, I can't sing or play your
song , in anyway, unless I PAY YOU!! Then I'd say, you keep your song, all
to yourself.
This is just plain STUPID!
That's why I LOVE Jazz. EVERYTHING becomes a derivative work!
Ha hahahaha!!!
"Brian" <bshe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bsheller-3D53A4...@nnrp06.earthlink.net...
>
> One cannot own an idea. It's not property. There is a construct in the
> law that grants exclusive use of creative works, but it is not in any
> way property. Calling a dog a piano doesn't make it one, and calling a
> composition property doesn't make it so.
>
> B
>
> --
> Brian Heller
>
> It is easier to tame wild beasts
> than to conquer the human mind.
JuiceNewton
like Marc Sabatella
>>ripoing of other musicians.
like Marc Sabatella
Max Leggett
>In article <5nw5a.71$A97....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume, then, you don't mind if I help myself to any capital gains on
>> stocks you purchase. And, of course, I assume you have no intention of
>> passing on any of your belongings of value to any descendents - they
>> should become public domain when you die.
>>
>>
>
>Completely false analogy.
>
Not false at all. Right on the money. So to speak.
bob nerkul
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 00:36:20 GMT, Brian <bshe...@comcast.net> wrote:
I don't know how that fallacious comparison continues to propagate,
and I'm sure I've corrected Marc Sabatella about it at least once
before. You can't confuse value with price, otherwise limited assets
(or notionally limited ones such as the mentioned stocks), whose value
and price are usually commensurate, aren't distinguised from unlimited
informational assets, whose value and price are inverse or wildly
different (the more people who have the real book or mathematical
knowledge or whatever, the better it is, on average, for everyone,
while the price remains fixed).
The analogy asks that an ethical question not be raised over the
artificial limiting of a valuable commodity in order to inflate its
price, for the reason that one couldn't artificially limit supply of a
house. Yeah, it's completely bogus.
nerkul
--
Edinburgh shops of music, pictured and reviewed
<http://www.pigstick.freeserve.co.uk/edshops.html>
Tim Berens
>In article <5nw5a.71$A97....@news.uswest.net>,
> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume, then, you don't mind if I help myself to any capital gains on
>> stocks you purchase. And, of course, I assume you have no intention of
>> passing on any of your belongings of value to any descendents - they
>> should become public domain when you die.
>>
>>
>
>Completely false analogy.
>
>B
Here's an analogy that is fitting.
I would like to have nude pictures of you, your mother, your father,
your sister, and your wife or husband. I'm not going to sell them, I
just want them for my own personal gratification. It won't cost you
anything to give me these nude pictures. I'll just drop by one day
while you are in your bathroom and snap them while you aren't looking.
What difference does it make to you if I have these pictures? I
wouldn't have paid you for them, even though some other people might
have. I won't distribute them, except to a couple of friends who
might like copies for their personal use. So, you shouldn't object,
right?
But maybe you do object because you feel it is your right to control
access to that which is yours? How about that.
Rick Stone
whole lot of hostility towards anyone actually being able to derive income from
pursuing musical composition as a serious craft! Sounds like a whole bunch of
people with no talent trying to justify stealing from those who've worked hard
to produce something of lasting value.
Mike O'Malley
for the value they produce. It's not a solopsistic argument--it's
about rewarding peope for what they produce. Remind me what Sony has
produced, will you? Oh yeah--they produced a large amont of cash, then
lobbied congress to extend the length of copyright, so with one
congressional vote they could extend the value of their monopoly, and
their right to profit each time I play "all the things you are."
That's legal, that's just business, but think about it--who is this
system working for? Ordinary musicians? No. Their heirs? No. Here we
are in a music scene controlled by fewer and fewer large companies,
catering to a more and more disposable taste--the entire system is set
up to primarily reward the guys who package and market Brittany
Spears. Listened to commercial radio lately? Clinging to the edges of
this system and insisting on its righteousness-that's just blind. How
many people on this list make a living from music? Why do you think
that is? Why are you clinging to a system of marketing and
distribution that makes you more and more marginal?
Open your eyes--there's a chance at this moment to revise the whole
music distribution system, break the monopoly hold of the music
cartel, and make it possible for musicians to sell their art at a
price they could live on. Imagine a music world where recordings could
be produced cheaply and distributed using digital technology--maybe
dome form of preference tracking like amazon uses. You buy the cd,
most of the profit goes to the artist, instead of middle management
and the guy who bribes clear channel to play the over produced hit.
You don't get to a better system of music distribution by blindly
defending pharaoh
MM
> If I'm not mistaken, there's a little known thing with copyright, if
> something gets to be so prolific, or common, it's like public domain or
> becomes so. I could be off, but I heard something like that. I'd have to
> find my source.
You are mistaken. Very mistaken. Your source is mistaken.
> But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though. Instant
> Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and networking has
> come on the scene.
> http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
> http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
>
> This is what, I think, some people don't understand.
You do not understand.
> I don't not do I care anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated,
Once again, the same old tired and morally bankrupt argument.
cotton
>news:fTz5a.86$O41....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, there's a little known thing with copyright, if
>> something gets to be so prolific, or common, it's like public domain or
>> becomes so. I could be off, but I heard something like that. I'd have to
>> find my source.
>
>
>> But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though. Instant
>> Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and networking has
>> come on the scene.
>> http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
>> http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
>
>
>> I don't not do I care anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated,
Totally agree. Free for all...all for free...
John Smith
hostility.
Mainly the greedy.
Things I've and others have said , were at big corporations, and the
Recording industry. Not Individuals.
So you may wan't to some research, and get the facts.
"Rick Stone" <jaz...@inch.com> wrote in message
news:3E578493...@inch.com...
John Smith
"MM" <n...@email.spam> wrote in message
news:v5f4ja9...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:fTz5a.86$O41....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> > If I'm not mistaken, there's a little known thing with copyright, if
> > something gets to be so prolific, or common, it's like public domain or
> > becomes so. I could be off, but I heard something like that. I'd have to
> > find my source.
>
> You are mistaken. Very mistaken. Your source is mistaken.
Then what's the "truth"?
>
>
> > But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though. Instant
> > Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and networking
has
> > come on the scene.
> > http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
> > http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
> >
> > This is what, I think, some people don't understand.
>
> You do not understand.
I never claimed to, I said I didn't care anymore. *YOU* don't understand,
because *LOTS* of people don't understand the copyright laws. Even musician
don't.
So try to be objective, and see what I'm saying.
>
> > I don't not do I care anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated,
>
> Once again, the same old tired and morally bankrupt argument.
With the new technology, you don't agree that our laws need to be modified
to accomodate new technology?
Once again, a copyright advocate, unwilling to see the big picture, and both
sides, and seeing pots of gold, for his "intellectual property".
>
>
John Smith
"Mike O'Malley" <moma...@gmu.edu> wrote in message
news:87d03efb.0302...@posting.google.com...
MM
>
> "MM" <n...@email.spam> wrote in message
> news:v5f4ja9...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "John Smith" <john...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:fTz5a.86$O41....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > > If I'm not mistaken, there's a little known thing with copyright, if
> > > something gets to be so prolific, or common, it's like public domain
or
> > > becomes so. I could be off, but I heard something like that. I'd have
to
> > > find my source.
> >
> > You are mistaken. Very mistaken. Your source is mistaken.
>
> Then what's the "truth"?
For one thing, the truth is that laws exist, and you
advocate breaking those laws, which is illegal. The
"little known thing" has no basis in law. It's based
on uninformed and self-serving selfishness and refusal
to obey the law.
> >
> > > But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though.
Instant
> > > Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and networking
> has
> > > come on the scene.
> > > http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
> > > http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
> > >
> > > This is what, I think, some people don't understand.
> >
> > You do not understand.
>
> I never claimed to, I said I didn't care anymore. *YOU* don't understand,
> because *LOTS* of people don't understand the copyright laws. Even
musician
> don't.
> So try to be objective, and see what I'm saying.
I understand copyright law quite well. It's not as complicated
or hard to understand as you imply. Since you admit that you
don't know what you are talking about, and pretend that you
don't care, why are you spreading your uninformed BS? It's
clear that YOU don't understand the issues, either because
you don't have the brainpower or the willpower to understand.
> >
> > > I don't not do I care anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated,
> >
> > Once again, the same old tired and morally bankrupt argument.
>
> With the new technology, you don't agree that our laws need to be modified
> to accomodate new technology?
It seems reasonable to me that copyright law be updated to reflect
modern technology. That does not mean that you can steal copyrighted
material simply because you do not like laws that you don't even
bother to understand.
>
> Once again, a copyright advocate, unwilling to see the big picture, and
both
> sides, and seeing pots of gold, for his "intellectual property".
Once again, a theft advocate, refusing to even try to see the big
picture, seeing stuff that he can steal because he is too cheap
and dishonest to buy it. How would you feel if your employer refused
to pay you at the end of the week? After all, the work is already
done, and some dude once told him that he thought it was legal
because paychecks are outdated. Yo mean you only work for the money?
Seeing only pots of gold? It might help your case a little if you
didn't proudly proclaim your voluntary ignorance of the law while
advocating breaking it by theft.
Gene Lancette
>
> "MM" <n...@email.spam> wrote in message
> news:v5f4ja9...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> > But this site sort of talks about it. It's not my source though.
>> > Instant Public Domain is what we're dealing since the internet and
>> > networking
> has
>> > come on the scene.
>> > http://www.mybandrocks.com/instantpublic.html
>> > http://www.cni.org/Hforums/ninch-announce/2002/0029.html
>> >
>> > This is what, I think, some people don't understand.
>>
>> You do not understand.
>
> I never claimed to, I said I didn't care anymore. *YOU* don't understand,
> because *LOTS* of people don't understand the copyright laws. Even
> musician don't.
> So try to be objective, and see what I'm saying.
>
>>
>> > I don't not do I care anymore. The old copyright laws are outdated,
>>
>> Once again, the same old tired and morally bankrupt argument.
>
> With the new technology, you don't agree that our laws need to be modified
> to accomodate new technology?
Let's carry this all the way then. You should no longer be able to own
anything because we have new technology. It's time to turn in your
instruments and home. We have new technology. Everybody should know
that new technology replaces all old laws.
> Once again, a copyright advocate, unwilling to see the big picture, and
> both sides, and seeing pots of gold, for his "intellectual property".
The big picture is the law as it stands. Don't like it??? Lobby your repre-
sentative. Give away all your property. We're in a "new" world. Who needs
a home when you can have a "virtual" one on the internet...
bebopper
Coca-Cola must zealously keep after restaurants for serving Pepsi or
RC cola to customers who order a "Coke". If the term becomes GENERIC,
the corporation could lose legal rights to the name. The same danger
exists for Band-Aid, Kleenex, Xerox and other commonly used items.
Copyright, if I am not mistaken currenty lasts for 20 years
from the death of the author, after which it can be renewed by the
estate. If that doesn not happen, I belive the rights are up for
grabs, and investors can purchase the rights to tunes as the copyright
expires by paying the renewal fees.
http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm
This URL leads to a chart showing when works fall into the Public
Domain.
On the topic of technology (particularly digital reporduction
and the Internet) enhancing the publics ability to flaunt copyright
laws, there is no question that every advancement since the mimeograph
machine has paved the way for theft of intellectual property.
I absolutely feel that living artists need protection and
compensation for their work, but after they go, I think their works
should immediately fall into the Public Domain. Likewise I feel
George W. Bush repealing inheritance taxes encourages a potential gene
pool derived from creative individuals to degenerate from lack of
aspiration.
The Real Book is probably comprised about 50-50 of works of
living and dead composers. I have a few versions as well as a few Sher
Books. I figure paying for the Sher books gives me the right to use
the originals on gigs no matter how bad the changes.
- bebopper
Tim Berens
>Open your eyes--there's a chance at this moment to revise the whole
>music distribution system, break the monopoly hold of the music
>cartel, and make it possible for musicians to sell their art at a
>price they could live on. Imagine a music world where recordings could
>be produced cheaply and distributed using digital technology--maybe
>dome form of preference tracking like amazon uses. You buy the cd,
>most of the profit goes to the artist, instead of middle management
>and the guy who bribes clear channel to play the over produced hit.
>
>You don't get to a better system of music distribution by blindly
>defending pharaoh
You paint a happy scene of utopia...a scene that is very far removed
from the origins of this thread, distribution over the net of the
illegal Real Books.
In all honesty, I couldn't care less if Sony is cheated out of its 8
cent per copy royalty on your recording of "All the Things You Are."
But, if you are a music professinal, you should care about people's
desire to simply ignore copyright laws they don't agree with, because
if you create music, your turn to get ripped off is coming up.
There is an attitude prevalent among netheads that goes like this: if
it can be encoded digitally, I DESERVE a free copy, no matter who
created it. You don't really imagine that the average person
illegally downloading free music stops to distinguish whether they are
ripping off Sony or Joe Composer with a wife and kids to feed, do you?
No, they just click.
And that is why we, music professionals in particular, have to follow
the copyright laws that exist. We have to set an example. If the
laws are not right -- work to change the laws. But don't break the
law when convenient, then offer up a justification in the form of a
diatribe about megacorporations destroying music, because the kid who
thinks he deserves a free copy of your music will happily do the same
thing.
By the way, if anyone is interested in an overview of how copyrights
work for musicians, read this article:
http://timberens.com/essays/copyrightessay.htm
Alan Young
<bebo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I figure paying for the Sher books gives me the right to use
> the originals on gigs no matter how bad the changes.
That's the first sensible thing I've seen on this thread.
>
--
alan
+++++++++
"I wish I could play like Tatum's right hand!"
-- Charlie Parker
Paul Craven
"The safest way to proceed as a performer is to not place performances of
any copyrighted music on the net, unless you own the recording's copyright
in all aspects. In other words, if you wrote the music, paid to record the
music, performed on the recording, and thus own all the copyrights
associated with the music, you can post as much as you want."
Just so I am clear about this, if it is music I wrote, performed by me,
who/why would I have to pay to record it?
"Tim Berens" <ti...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3e57c588...@news.core.com...
Tim Berens
wrote:
>Tim, in the essay on your website, you write:
>
>"The safest way to proceed as a performer is to not place performances of
>any copyrighted music on the net, unless you own the recording's copyright
>in all aspects. In other words, if you wrote the music, paid to record the
>music, performed on the recording, and thus own all the copyrights
>associated with the music, you can post as much as you want."
>
>Just so I am clear about this, if it is music I wrote, performed by me,
>who/why would I have to pay to record it?
>
You would have to pay the recording studio or engineer and possibly
the other musicians. But, you don't owe any money to any sort of
outside body like ASCAP or Harry Fox if you wrote the music.
Oftentimes, though, a musician records his own music but then does not
own the copyright to the recording because somebody else paid for the
recording to be created. If you don't own the recording, you can't
just put it up on a website.
For example, you might have written some music, then recorded it for a
record label. If the record label paid for the recording, the label
probably owns the right to the recording, depending on the contract
you signed, which means you would need their permission to put it on a
website.
But, if it is a recording of your own music that you are creating
yourself with your own money, you can do whatever you want with it,
and you don't owe money to anyone to put it on a website.
Ron
> The Real Book is probably comprised about 50-50 of works of
>living and dead composers. I have a few versions as well as a few Sher
>Books. I figure paying for the Sher books gives me the right to use
>the originals on gigs no matter how bad the changes.
Right on. There's another pet peeve I have with the "legal" stuff. I
remember growing up, we had music books that the chord changes of the
standards were so horrible, they were unusable to me. My old man, who didn't
read music would say "hey, here's a great old tune, play this one!". Hmm, "I
Could Write A Book". alright, the melody goes like this....... and the
changes for the first two measures are:" C, Bbm6, EMaj7, F#m7, G#dim(2
beats here, all right!), A7b5, C6. "Dad, this tune sucks!" It wasn't until I
bought the Real Book (of course I can hear it now) that I found the changes
were 1,6,2,5,1. Yes I know the Real Book has mistakes (Now, where does this
repeat sign go to in Desafinado?), but it was (is) an intelligent approach
to presenting music with playable changes (excepting "Tame Thy Pen", of
course). Yep, it's a terrible thing that the Real Book is not legal,
however, like most of the readers here, (I would assume), I also have
probably a twenty foot tall stack of legal printed music. Now if you don't
mind I've got to go tape a CD I just bought so I can listen to it in my car.
Duhooooh, just kidding....
Ron
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.456 / Virus Database: 256 - Release Date: 2/18/2003
Paul Craven
"Tim Berens" <ti...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3e57df69...@news.core.com...
Ron
to the music, I know, I own several of the newer generation books.
John Smith
You're an idiot., and haven't stated anything worth quoating. Just rehashed
crap.
"MM" <n...@email.spam> wrote in message
news:v5fa8ed...@corp.supernews.com...
> <useless dribble snipped>
John Smith
"bebopper" <bebo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:19gf5v0po751ff87s...@4ax.com...
joshua bayer
> >> reward the composers,
> like Marc Sabatella
Marc has no tunes in these books.
> >>ripoing of other musicians.
> like Marc Sabatella
Yes. Like Marc, and me, and anybody else.
joshua bayer
> One cannot own an idea. It's not property. There is a construct in the
> law that grants exclusive use of creative works, but it is not in any
> way property. Calling a dog a piano doesn't make it one, and calling a
> composition property doesn't make it so.
Ridiculous analogy.
The first half of this analogy suggests that all composers do is call an
existing tune something else and try to claim credit. A composition is
crafted out of musical tools much the way a sculpture is crafted out of
clay. Once the sculpture is finished, can you say "oh, that's still just
clay. You are calling it Art. I think I will sell it and make all the
money.".. NO you can't. It is property. A composition is property. When
someone writes a composition, they are not merely claiming that they own
re-arranged notes and chords. They are claiming that they own a crafted
work.
So, if you sell my tunes as your own I can sue the crap out of you.
joshua bayer
> Totally agree. Free for all...all for free...
THis is totally offensive. I should bust my ass in the music biz for years,
accept abuse, get cheated out of money, bear ridicule from jealous
'colleagues',etc so YOU can profit off my labor?
Idiot.
joshua bayer
> > I assume, then, you don't mind if I help myself to any capital gains on
> > stocks you purchase. And, of course, I assume you have no intention of
> > passing on any of your belongings of value to any descendents - they
> > should become public domain when you die.
> >
> >
>
> Completely false analogy.
A false analogy? Why is it false? Explain.
joshua bayer
> I don't know how that fallacious comparison continues to propagate,
> and I'm sure I've corrected Marc Sabatella about it at least once
> before. You can't confuse value with price, otherwise limited assets
> (or notionally limited ones such as the mentioned stocks), whose value
> and price are usually commensurate, aren't distinguised from unlimited
> informational assets, whose value and price are inverse or wildly
> different (the more people who have the real book or mathematical
> knowledge or whatever, the better it is, on average, for everyone,
> while the price remains fixed).
>
> The analogy asks that an ethical question not be raised over the
> artificial limiting of a valuable commodity in order to inflate its
> price, for the reason that one couldn't artificially limit supply of a
> house. Yeah, it's completely bogus.
Me no get.
Al McClure
"joshua bayer" <jo...@joshuabayer.com> wrote in message
news:b39gt7$iqe$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Tim Berens
wrote:
> I absolutely feel that living artists need protection and
>compensation for their work, but after they go, I think their works
>should immediately fall into the Public Domain. Likewise I feel
>George W. Bush repealing inheritance taxes encourages a potential gene
>pool derived from creative individuals to degenerate from lack of
>aspiration.
>
So, if I am Joe Musician, and I spent 20 years creating a body of
work, then at age 45, I am hit by a car and killed, leaving my wife
and 4 young children behind, you feel that my wife and kids have no
rights to benefit from all the work I did?
Bruce
property, same as writing a book. Only a communist would be offended by
someone making money of of their own creation. The only way to protect
intellectual property is through copyright law.
"joshua bayer" <jo...@joshuabayer.com> wrote in message
news:b39h0u$j63$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Rick Stone
> If you 've been on this group any length of time you'd know who has the
> hostility.
> Mainly the greedy.
> Things I've and others have said , were at big corporations, and the
> Recording industry. Not Individuals.
> So you may wan't to some research, and get the facts.
John,
I've been off the group for a while and admittedly came in late on this thread
(my newsreader only shows the posts going back to Wednesday). But I take
exception to what sounds like some people on this thread seeming to think that a
musician/composer has no right to expect royalties when his/her work is
reproduced in physical form (mechanical royalties and in sheet music or
recordings) or performed in public (as in radio and concerts). Or the idea that
some have expressed, that maybe the copyright shouldn't extend past the
creator's lifetime. Hey, maybe I can't afford to send my kids to college on a
musician's income, but at least I can leave them a catalog of material and
hopefully they'll be smart enough to figure out how to make some money from it.
_______________________________________
\__ Rick Stone _____________________________
\__ guitarist/composer/teacher _________________
\__ email: jaz...@inch.com _________ ______________
\__ Check out the Rick Stone Quartet "Far East" _______
\__ with Kenny Barron at: http://www.rickstonemusic.com ___
Henk Coetzee
Al McClure <mrmc...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:m6Y5a.307049$sV3.9...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Yeah! So tell me--how many standards did you write?
My feeling as well. Copyright law has been taken beyond all rationality, as
has the concept of intellectual property. Try the crap that IP lawyers now
dish out as standard fare. I think that we should look at the context of a
lot of the current debate.
Most of what is going on in copyright law comes from Micro$oft and RIAA.
M$'s standpoint is largely aimed at protecting a de facto monopoly from
anyone who tries to challenge this monopoly by legitimate means. Open Source
software, which I use quite a lot (not using it at this specific moment for
perfectly valid reasons) provides a good, in some cases better, alternative
to some commercial products. The reaction is not to look inwardly at the
product or service, but to use underhand means to protect the monopoly, such
as heavy handed treatment of hardware vendors, legally doubtful licensing
and license protection methods and invasion of their clients' privacy. It is
instructive to read up on this.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
It is also instructive that expertise in Open Source software is now an
extremely valuable skill, and commands a premium price.
Likewise, RIAA's approach to music copyright is to attack the medium by
which they believe they are being ripped off. The internet provides an
excellent medium for file sharing, and digitally recorded music lends itself
to it. The record industry's approach is not to promote obedience to
copyright laws, but rather to attack the medium used to distribute music,
both legally and illegally. The other approach is to attack people who want
to use another model to distribute their music, only benefitting the
lawyers.
While on the subject of lawyers, remember the case of the Girl from Ipanema:
http://www.wbez.org/schedule/jazz/girlfromip_info.htm
For me, there is also a huge difference between "Here is the score of my new
symphony, please buy it and perform it so that I can continue to write
symphonies" and here is 12 bars of something that someone transcribed once,
do what you like with it. Has there ever been a legal challenge to the
realbook on the grounds of copyright infringement?
I suppose that what I am getting at is that there are powerful forces at
play in the debate around copyright at the moment. These are the same forces
trying to dictate what we listen to and what software we use.
Henk
bob nerkul
>On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:42:09 -0500, bebopper <bebo...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I absolutely feel that living artists need protection and
>>compensation for their work, but after they go, I think their works
>>should immediately fall into the Public Domain. Likewise I feel
>>George W. Bush repealing inheritance taxes encourages a potential gene
>>pool derived from creative individuals to degenerate from lack of
>>aspiration.
>>
>
>So, if I am Joe Musician, and I spent 20 years creating a body of
>work, then at age 45, I am hit by a car and killed, leaving my wife
>and 4 young children behind, you feel that my wife and kids have no
>rights to benefit from all the work I did?
If it was good work then they benefitted while you were alive, as much
as any family benefits from one of them working.
Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool. This is not
news. As for the frequent suggestion that musicians need to sell
their wares to survive, this is melodramatic claptrap. To actually
die from lack of money takes a particular psychological perversity,
while subsistence living can easily be provided by the state in all
but the most uncivilised lands.
nerkul
--
Edinburgh shops of music, pictured and reviewed
<http://www.pigstick.freeserve.co.uk/edshops.html>
bob nerkul
It's basically saying that you can't honestly compare unlimited and
limited resources, or confuse price and value, if you're talking about
economics, because then anything could follow.
It's hard to find a genuine analogy. Maybe mathematical ideas is the
best one. They can be bought and made secret by companies or spread
through the population, with different economic and moral consequences
for the individual creator and for society. In these groups you're
probably best sticking to music.
C. Bond
> In law, music written by someone is their property. It's itellectual
> property, same as writing a book. Only a communist would be offended by
> someone making money of of their own creation. The only way to protect
> intellectual property is through copyright law.
Without commenting on the 'real' issues behing this thread, I'd like to point
out that there *are* other ways to protect intellectual property. In industry
they use 'trade secrets' as a classof proprietary material which is protected
by non-disclosure agreements and enforced by contract law. But if the context
is restricted to artistic works, and your claim is true, why is there so much
interest in copy protecting CDs?
--
There are two things you must never attempt to prove: the unprovable -- and
the obvious.
http://www.crbond.com
Henk Coetzee
bob nerkul <q5890...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3e58d606...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Why Thank You!
I can't think of a single African country where the State provides
subsistence to the poor.
Henk
bob nerkul
They would fall under 'uncivilised lands' then, eh. Britain is hardly
a socialist paradise and I've never had to work, so it isn't asking
much.
Dr. Trumpet
q5890...@hotmail.com (bob nerkul) wrote:
> Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
> music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool.
Thanks. Add one more uninformed jackass to the killfile.
> This is not
> news.
For the untalented like you, sure.
> As for the frequent suggestion that musicians need to sell
> their wares to survive, this is melodramatic claptrap. To actually
> die from lack of money takes a particular psychological perversity,
> while subsistence living can easily be provided by the state in all
> but the most uncivilised lands.
What do you do for a living? Do you draw a check? If you do, try and
image (scratch that, you have no brain....)
Nevermind. You're too damn stupid to waste my time on....
Bruce
Copyright doesn't make a monopoly. Ownership of a product doesn't guarantee
its success. It is because some companies like Microsoft are successful
enough that the State stepped in to limit their entry into the market, which
I don't agree with. In case you hadn't noticed, computer product prices have
been dropping dramatically, largely due to Microsoft and others. The
question to be decided is: Who should determine the size of the enterprises,
the consumers by their striving to buy what suits them best or the
politicians who know only how to tax away and to spend? The answer is
consumers. By ignoring copyright you are taking away a music creator's
ability to compete in the market and make a living because his product, and
that is what it is, becomes worthless.
It's the government that is the real monopolist, not Microsoft. So you are
in good company. The State takes more taxes than they should and you take
the intellectual property of starving artists.
"Henk Coetzee" <he...@no-spam-please.softhome.net> wrote in message
news:3e58a2a7$0$2...@hades.is.co.za...
Al Stevens
"C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3E58DEDD...@ix.netcom.com...
> ... why is there so much
> interest in copy protecting CDs?
Here we go again. :-) Probably because advances in technology--specifically
compressed digital formats, fast connections, high capacity storage media,
and an anonymous Internet--have outpaced intellectual property law, enabling
convenient, undetected, unauthorized copying, which the recording industry
perceives with some justification as a threat to their income potential.
Eventually the industry and the law will adapt; until then the debate will
rage on.
Bruce
burdened with the cost of production, while the services of the product they
have created can be gratuitously enjoyed by everybody. It is unlikely that
people would undertake the laborious task of writing such publications if
everyone were free to reproduce them. The current system in the U.S. limits
this ownership to a certain number of years. This implies that the State is
the true owner of the property and has granted its creator use of it for
only a limited time.
Having said this I don't deny that the recording industry is more interested
in control than in protecting artist compensation.This can be seen in its
steadfast refusal to compromise in a settlement with Napster. If th
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) really cares about
copyrights and protecting artist royalties, it should direct its wrath
toward the federal government instead of embracing it. The federal
government, through legislation (allowing "sharing" in the 1992 Audio Home
Recording Act) and antitrust (demanding Microsoft Windows become open
source) has done more to undermine copyrights than Napster, its clones and
users ever dreamed.
"C. Bond" <cb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3E58DEDD...@ix.netcom.com...
C. Bond
The debate rages here at least partially because you only quoted the tail of my
response to the poster. The complete sentence was:
"But if the context is restricted to artistic works, *and your claim is true*,
why is there so much interest in copy protecting CDs?" (emphasis added.)
The poster had claimed, and I quote:
"The *only* way to protect intellectual property is through copyright law."
(emphasis added.)
With all due respect, I think my my question was legitimate, and the proper
response should have been that 1) yes, the claim is true and there is no other
way to protect intellectual property; therefore copy protection is futile, or
2) no, the claim is false and there are other ways of protecting intellectual
property, including the copy protection of CD's.
Tim Berens
wrote:
>
>Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
>music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool. This is not
>news. As for the frequent suggestion that musicians need to sell
>their wares to survive, this is melodramatic claptrap. To actually
>die from lack of money takes a particular psychological perversity,
>while subsistence living can easily be provided by the state in all
>but the most uncivilised lands.
You be Frank. I'll be Tim. And Tim is a fool according to Frank,
because Tim makes a living from music, as do thousands of other
professional musicians in the world. In fact, the list of fools
includes almost every great player that any of us has ever heard play.
Fools every one of them -- except Frank. He's no fool because he sits
home making music for pleasure and collecting welfare checks, while
the rest of us fools go out into the world and earn money and pay the
taxes that allow him to sit home making music for pleasure.
Steve
there is nothing wrong with it legally, probably also have illegal cable
boxes, copies of video movies, etc.. and think it's OK.
You say that just because it is out there, it is public domain, or
everybody else does it so you can do it to.
If it was your creative work being passed around, you'd all be the on
the other side of the fence, and if you say otherwise, you are are just
kidding yourself.
If you steal, then steal, do it in private, but to come here and throw
it in the faces of people who write, compose, and record for a living
makes you a real piece of shit. You are telling people who really work
in this business that you deserve to take their work for nothing.
If you were in my company right now, I'd punch you in your fuckin' face.
Bobby Knight
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 05:11:54 GMT, ti...@erinet.com (Tim Berens) wrote:
>Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
>music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool.
Only for those of you who can't make it in the music business. Worked
out for me.
bk
bob nerkul
Is that why you do it or is that a happy accident? Pay attention.
joshua bayer
> Yeah! So tell me--how many standards did you write?
None. But you miss the point. I have however written music that has been
used by others - and I was paid for it.. BMI actually caught someone using
some of my tunes, and charged them accordingly. By asking me 'how many
standards did I write' completely disregards the point. If not for BMI, I
would have been robbed.
So, how much stuff have you written and sold to make your rent money?
joshua bayer
> If it was good work then they benefitted while you were alive, as much
> as any family benefits from one of them working.
Good has nothing to do with it. It's the fact that you bust you ass and hit
the streets to make a buck.
> Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
> music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool.
Maybe if you were 'in the business for profit' you might understand that
perhaps an artist does what he or she must. You don't get it. Does a
person enter the Priesthood to make money? We are not talking about PROFIT
here. We are talking about making a buck.
> As for the frequent suggestion that musicians need to sell
> their wares to survive, this is melodramatic claptrap.
And this statement is insulting. A plumber has to sell his/her wares to
survive. I am not allowed to choose my profession and make a buck for it?
> To actually die from lack of money takes a particular psychological
perversity,
> while subsistence living can easily be provided by the state in all
> but the most uncivilised lands.
Good god - are you talking about welfare? What universe do you exist in?
joshua bayer
> They would fall under 'uncivilised lands' then, eh. Britain is hardly
> a socialist paradise and I've never had to work, so it isn't asking
> much.
You have never had to work? I am not going to pass judgement on your
situation. I hope your not working is not a result of a negative situation.
But, if you have never had to work, I don't see your place in this
discussion.
Top Spin
>All you people who think it's OK to take it because it is out there, and
>there is nothing wrong with it legally, probably also have illegal cable
>boxes, copies of video movies, etc.. and think it's OK.
It's OK to steal from the cable company.
(just kidding)
--
Spam sink email address, sorry
John Smith
I never said that composer/musicians shouldn't be compensated.
You are putting words in my mouth.
go to google.com,a nd type in the name of the thread, and get caught up.
Again re-read what you quoated of me.
"Rick Stone" <jaz...@inch.com> wrote in message
news:3E587742...@inch.com...
®sam®
paying gig more than once. I've also seen Joe Lovano use it with
students, George Garzone, many many "professional" musicians all over
the country.
Give..me...a ..BREAK!
The gall most of you have in preaching about composers rights and
ripping off artists is really embarrassing. Like it (d'uh) really
matters! Most people will pay for stuff if they can. The rest won't.
Look, quit trying to argue your opinion with all the background you
know. I can't believe most of you hypocrites preach the way you do ad
infinitum and yet act like you're all above it. What bullshit you're
slinging. Such angels! Oh...and then the one poster says to the other
"...if you were here right now I punch you in the face!"
Nice! There's a guy ya wanna hear play music ;^0
If you don't (ahem) *believe* in anything copyright-controversial,
don't indulge then, but more demonstrably, don't pretend you don't use
the materials. Because most of you, if not all either HAVE or DO.
silly boys. Tuck yer shirts in at the gigs, shut up and play (And for
god's sakes take a bath!) Your poor wives/girlfriends. What a bunch
of control freaks guys)
You're not going to change the way things are. The rest of you... if
you want free stuff....go ahead and find it and enjoy yourselves.
Share. Be happy. Your numbers are too small to matter in the long run
(ohoh..here go the hypocrites back to their history books and web
sites of just what happened when the Germans allowed the rise of
Hitler).
whatever...time for Frasier. His neurosis is actually funny. The guys
on this thread are pathetic.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:26:30 -0700, "Marc Sabatella"
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> Whether they are filled with mistakes or not. is irrelevant.
>> These are the books most people at jam sessions use.
>> If you don't like them, don't use them.
>
>And propagate the mistakes further, and deprive the copyright holders of
>the income they deserve? This is not good advice. Much better to spend
>a little money on a legitimate fakebook, reward the composers, and end
>up playing better music. Unless you revel in musical mediocrity and
>ripoing of other musicians.
>
>--------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
>
>Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
>Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
>http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
Tim Berens
wrote:
>They would fall under 'uncivilised lands' then, eh. Britain is hardly
>a socialist paradise and I've never had to work, so it isn't asking
>much.
>
>nerkul
This explains everything...you are just one more leech. Get a job.
Max Leggett
>On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:51:50 GMT, q5890...@hotmail.com (bob nerkul)
>wrote:
>
>>They would fall under 'uncivilised lands' then, eh. Britain is hardly
>>a socialist paradise and I've never had to work, so it isn't asking
>>much.
>>
>>nerkul
>
>This explains everything...you are just one more leech. Get a job.
>
Really. Socialism used to mean, among other things, that everyone
contributed to the society. A socialist paradise isn't a place where
you laze around. Just ask Joseph Vissarionovich Djugashvili. He'd have
sorted you out, and he'd have protected the rights of musicians, too.
Henk Coetzee
> Ownership of intellectual property and monopoly are two alien concepts.
> Copyright doesn't make a monopoly.
This is not what I said. Ownership of intellectual property can be used
to protect a monopoly, and I don't have a problem with that. I have a
problem with monopolies, that protect themselves by closing down the
space that allows competition to flourish.
> Who should determine the size of the enterprises,
> the consumers by their striving to buy what suits them best or the
> politicians who know only how to tax away and to spend?
Hell, once we're in a slanging match, how about the politicians who know
how to tax, spend and make war!
> The answer is
> consumers. By ignoring copyright you are taking away a music creator's
> ability to compete in the market and make a living because his product, and
> that is what it is, becomes worthless.
At no point should this thread have gone this far. It is not about
copyright on new and original music, or for that matter about somebody's
printing and packaging. It is about the Realbook. As I understand it,
the Realbook is a compilation of jazz standards. They are pretty basic
leadsheets, with some errors, which have become part of the jazz
language. The areas where copyright is important is the compilation and
printing, not the music contained therein. I'm pretty sure if someone
were to complain about their music being in there, it could be excluded.
My standard use of the realbook generally involves playing something,
deciding that I like a piece of music and would like to hear the
original and similar and BUYING the original on CD. I find that this
pretty much exhausts my CD buying budget. For all those people here who
are whining about copyright, and have never written anything successful
enough to make the Realbook, this may be why I tend not to buy your CDs.
>
> It's the government that is the real monopolist, not Microsoft. So you are
> in good company. The State takes more taxes than they should and you take
> the intellectual property of starving artists.
The logic here defeats me. I do my best to support starving artists.
Where I live, the State uses some of my taxes (way too little) to do the
same. I just get a bit hot under the collar when the people who define
what we should listen to try to stop people playing and hearing music
that they ripped off from starving musicians and feed us crap.
Cheers
Henk
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Coetzee | i never ran across any of this
| ectoplasm that sir arthur
| conan doyle tells of but it
| sounds as if it might be
| wonderful stuff to mend broken
| furniture with
| archy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henk Coetzee
> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 14:21:21 GMT, q5890...@hotmail.com (bob nerkul)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Let's be frank: anyone who gets into music for profit, or keeps making
>>music for anything but personal pleasure, is a fool. This is not
>>news. As for the frequent suggestion that musicians need to sell
>>their wares to survive, this is melodramatic claptrap. To actually
>>die from lack of money takes a particular psychological perversity,
>>while subsistence living can easily be provided by the state in all
>>but the most uncivilised lands.
>
>
> home making music for pleasure and collecting welfare checks, while
> the rest of us fools go out into the world and earn money and pay the
> taxes that allow him to sit home making music for pleasure.
Well at least I don't do that. My taxes don't go into anybody's
unemployment grants. But since I, by implication of where I live, am
uncivilised, I suppose that my opinion isn't of much value in this debate.
Bob/Frank. With all the time you have while sitting on your arse
collecting welfare money and playing for pleasure, have any of your
compositions made it into the Realbook?
joshua bayer
> Sabatella should preach. I've seen him use the RealBook onstage at a
> paying gig more than once. I've also seen Joe Lovano use it with
> students, George Garzone, many many "professional" musicians all over
> the country.
I'm sure these books were paid for with money made from their art. Do you
play?
> Give..me...a ..BREAK!
Ok.
> The gall most of you have in preaching about composers rights and
> ripping off artists is really embarrassing. Like it (d'uh) really
> matters! Most people will pay for stuff if they can. The rest won't.
Now who has the gall to preach. We are just sharing opinions. Some get a
little out of hand. The rest don't.
> Look, quit trying to argue your opinion with all the background you
> know.
What shall we argue with? The background we don't know?
> I can't believe most of you hypocrites preach the way you do ad
> infinitum and yet act like you're all above it.
What are the rest of the hypocrites doing? How do you know that some of us
are hypocrites? Are you on our gigs? Ok, you've seen some people. Have
you asked them whether or not they purchased their fakebooks? Have you
asked them whether or not they are hypocrites? That's a lot of research.
> What bullshit you're
> slinging. Such angels! Oh...and then the one poster says to the other
> "...if you were here right now I punch you in the face!"
Have to agree with you here. Violence is never ok. We should just sling
swear words at them.
> If you don't (ahem) *believe* in anything copyright-controversial,
> don't indulge then, but more demonstrably, don't pretend you don't use
> the materials. Because most of you, if not all either HAVE or DO.
To be honest, My first book was a Sher book I bought. I am sure that is the
case with a lot of people.
> silly boys. Tuck yer shirts in at the gigs, shut up and play (And for
> god's sakes take a bath!) Your poor wives/girlfriends. What a bunch
> of control freaks guys)
If the style is appropriate, I will indeed tuck. I will not commit a
fashion faux-pas however just because you told me to. And, I shower
regularly. Why are you smelling musicians up close? What body part are you
actually smelling? If musicians had control, god knows what they would have
you sniff.
By the way, the attacks you post here on our character/lives/concepts are
the same as the guy who wants to 'punch someone in the face'. It is an
attack.
> You're not going to change the way things are.
Except for the better. Practice.
> The rest of you... if
> you want free stuff....go ahead and find it and enjoy yourselves.
I don't know what this means. Are you saying enjoy theft?
> Share. Be happy. Your numbers are too small to matter in the long run
Put us down. Now I know you are not a musician.
> (ohoh..here go the hypocrites back to their history books and web
> sites of just what happened when the Germans allowed the rise of
> Hitler).
I lost a good deal of my family to the Nazis. Just a little
self-righteousness.
> whatever...time for Frasier. His neurosis is actually funny. The guys
> on this thread are pathetic.
Ah - -ha!!!! You are a professional TV watcher whose life is defined by the
network schedule. How did you find time to post? Didn't you miss
Entertainment Tonite? Or did you tivo?
I am taping Get Smart to watch later after I get my work done. This is
work.
Skiskibowski
realbooks:
https://www.tu-chemnitz.de/~adams/realbook/
On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, John Smith wrote:
Rick Stone
> Rick,
> I never said that composer/musicians shouldn't be compensated.
> You are putting words in my mouth.
> go to google.com,a nd type in the name of the thread, and get caught up.
> Again re-read what you quoated of me.
John,
Like I said, I think that as I came in kind of late in the thread, I was
reacting to a general tone and direction of the discussion, and I'll quote those
posts in order here:
PT wrote:
>
> My point is that it should be the composer who decides what is right and
> wrong regarding their intellectual property. The composer owns the tune. I
> do not think its fair for someone to steal it, then say "I did it for your
> own good".
>
to which Brian responded
>
> One cannot own an idea. It's not property. There is a construct in the
> law that grants exclusive use of creative works, but it is not in any
> way property. Calling a dog a piano doesn't make it one, and calling a
> composition property doesn't make it so.
>
to which you added:
>
> And you know what gets me, is how some people are confusing corporate law,
> to music. Anything you write or come up with, I can easily or not so easily
sit at my
> piano and reproduce it.
>
> *SO* does that mean I'm in violation?
> THIS is just getting to be crazy. Pretty soon, I can't sing or play your
> song , in anyway, unless I PAY YOU!! Then I'd say, you keep your song, all
> to yourself.
>
> This is just plain STUPID!
>
> That's why I LOVE Jazz. EVERYTHING becomes a derivative work!
>
> Ha hahahaha!!!
To anyone who is a composer, this whole line of reasoning is just a slap in the
face. It's like saying that I shouldn't have to actually buy or borrow a
legitimate copy of a book because after all, my computer keyboard contains all
the same letters as the authors and I could just as easily have written it
myself (now I'm kind of anxious to read your version of "War and Peace").
Now as far as paying someone EVERY time you play their song, that's not really
how it works. It sounds like you need to read up on copyright law a little
more. The income streams that come back to a musician for publishing take a few
very specific forms: Mechanical royalties; the money a composer and his/her
publisher receives for actual physical reproductions of his/her work (CDs, sheet
music, etc.), and Performance royalties; the money they receive for public
performance of those works on radio, concert halls, night-clubs etc.
The performance royalties area is where it gets funny for jazz musicians,
because all of these venues are required to pay licensing to ASCAP and BMI,
which is then distributed to those organizations member publishers and composers
via a sampling system (so out of the thousands of radio stations around the
country, if say 1% are being tracked at a given time, then that airplay is being
multiplied by 100 and the royalties distributed to the publishers and composers
of the material that showed up in the sampling group.
Now the net effect of this is that the system works pretty equitably for the
composers in the most popular areas. Their music is played often enough on a
large enough number of radio stations that the statistics gathered pretty much
reflect reality. Unfortunately for jazz musicians, we are playing a form that
is so marginal to begin with, that whether airplay of our songs will show up in
a given sample is kind of like playing lotto. I've only ever received
performance royalties twice from BMI, once I got a check for about $7 as a
publisher and another $7 as a composer for US radio airplay, and when I went to
South America I got another couple checks for about $1.50 each for public
performance (surprisingly they have a pretty accurate accounting system in
Uruguay and they arts organization who hired me paid royalties for all the tunes
I played on my concert). I've talked to other VERY WELL KNOWN jazz musicians
who tell me they receive amounts in the $500-900 range annually for performance
royalties.
Now the main area where the actual royalty paid tends to reflect the reality for
less popular forms of music (ie. "jazz") is in the mechanical royalties area.
Musicians and publishers DO receive royalties in pretty much a one-to-one ratio
for actual reproductions of their work that's distributed (ie. sheet music and
recordings). In talking with a lot of jazz musicians, this is probably the main
area they receive royaties from.
Another even larger income generator is if you can get something on a TV show or
movie because that is ALWAYS tracked and pays at a much higher rate. But again,
consider how much (or how little) jazz is used in this context and again, it's
like playing lotto.