Publishing Pitfalls

Pandora Radio

Pandora Radio

After browsing articles discussing the infringement of musical works, I chose to write and address this article titled “Capitol Records, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc.: Future of Digital Music May Depend on State Copyright Protection of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings” published on Law.com on August 29, 2014. The article discusses how Pandora was sued for copyright infringement, misappropriation, and unfair competition exploiting the sound recordings of pre- 1972 artists.

Pandora infringed over 1,400 pre- 1972 sound recordings by copying the recordings to their servers to then stream the works via Pandora’s platform without a Public Performance License or any payment of royalties for using the works. Pandora understands that sound recordings that were fixed prior to February 15, 1972 are not protected under Federal Law and they are benefiting from this law loop. What took Pandora by surprise was the New York’s Common Law Copyright Protection of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings, which by the way Pandora doesn’t comply with.

The impact of infringement of publishing revenue can be toxic towards an artist, like the harm incurred by this infringement resulting in monetary loss to the copyright owners. Pandora’s business model is a great example of how to be disrespectful towards the industry and society as well. The copyright owners where the parties that were harmed once the infringement was justified where Capitol Records, Sony Music Entertainment, UMB Recordings, Warner Music Group and ABKC Music & Records. The motivation of Pandora for their acts was simply focused on the opportunity to capitalize from the lack of true protection of copyright law, and they did. They’re not trying to learn from their mistakes, instead, they are trying to justify their actions by stating that their servers are located outside of New York. While the current license structure used by publishing companies are ok, it’s the license management and enforcement departments that need focus. This will definitively contribute towards reducing the likelihood of this type of situation from being effective but ultimately the education and understanding of copyright is the essential startup point. In my opinion it makes no sense that a corporation can own copyrights to works they are incapable of creating, only humans should be entitled to copyrights, thanks for reading!

Respectfully,

Laurentino Nieves Cruz

lnievescruz@fullsail.edu

References

Grimm, N., & Palma, A. (2014, August 29). Capitol Records, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc.: Future of Digital Music May Depend on State Copyright Protection of Pre-1972 Sound Recordings. Law.com. Retrieved September 24, 2014, from http://www.law.com/sites/jdsupra/2014/08/29/capitol-records-llc-v-pandora-media-inc-future-of-digital-music-may-depend-on-state-copyright-protection-of-pre-1972-sound-recordings/?slreturn=20140824233652

Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 committee print of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives on H.R. 1105 / Public Law 111-8: legislative text and explanatory statement. (2009). Washington: U.S. G.P.O.

RIP! A Remix Manifesto

I really enjoyed watching the video and learning about how the law that was once designed to protect intellectual property, is now being utilized to control intellectual property instead. The movie has many great storylines lines, however, the storyline in the movie that I believe was the best and most compelling illustration of copyright law was Brazil’s story. I really like the story of Brazil because it inspires me creatively. Is awesome to see how we can come together and collaborate into making the world a better place.

The current copyright laws could hinder creativity by limiting access to copyrighted works. If copyright law was created to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries, why corporations own must licenses today instead of the creators of the works? I think that the current law is working against our intellectual property and moral rights.

Mashups should be legal, free of copyright infringement and considered fair use. Perhaps mashups are the evolution of music technology and a new way to express art. It’s very easy to appreciate how mashups are assisting music in evolving. Today’s music industry is moved by the new generation of DJs remixing the great work that has been created throughout centuries. I think that copyright law should be focus on the intent of a possible copyright infringement. Most music and today entertainment industry is not 100% original; most of it is derivative work or sample-based ideas. We can use Kanye West as an example; he’s a well-known producer that does not make beats without samples, therefore, Kanye West breaks the law every time he makes a beat unless he has prior permission from the copyright owner which usually is not the case.

My opinion is that the copyright law has been wrong since it’s creation. First of all, how can someone offer me exclusive right to what I have created? The copyright law is wrong because it goes against our moral rights, it fails to protect our intellectual property and it provides a monopoly for corporations. The first thing I would change in copyright law will be that copyright will only be entitled to the creator of the work meaning a human entity not a corporation. Copyright will not be transferable by contract and only transferable by blood, meaning that if I create something my son will inherit the rights to my works and it will be passed down generations. Once the original copyright owner has ceased to exist the work will be available for others to build upon with no initial payment for using the work but 50% of any profit made from derivative works. This will provide an option for society to utilize the works already created to be used as building blocks. Their won’t be any fair or unfair use, instead the work would be either used or not. This way will be able to utilize all works created that are being hold hostage by corporations and society will be able to building upon them, thanks!

References

Grobelny, J. (2008). Mashups, Sampling, and Authorship: A Mashupsampliography.

Music Reference Services Quarterly, 11(3/4), 229-239.

doi:10.1080/10588160802570375

Bermingham, L. B. (2009). CULTURE JAMMING or a culture jammed? RiP!: A Remix

Manifesto. Screen Education, (54), 44-47.

POTTER, W. (2012). MUSIC MASH-UPS: THE CURRENT AUSTRALIAN

COPYRIGHT IMPLICATIONS, MORAL RIGHTS AND FAIR DEALING IN

THE REMIX ERA. Deakin Law Review, 17(2), 349-384.

The Performance Rights Act

Performance Rights Act

Performance Rights Act

I went browsing over the Internet looking for a good article addressing the “Performance Rights Act“. I ended up in futureofmusic.org reading a blog post by Olivia Brown titled “Guess Who’s behind the Local Freedom Act“? This article is mainly on the “Local Radio Freedom Act” which is a bill that opposes the “Performance Rights Act”.

The author’s position on the “ Performance Rights Act ” is definitively on a defensive side of the bill. The article discusses how the “Local Radio Freedom Act” was created to counter the “ Performance Rights Act “. The author explains how the “Local Radio Freedom Act” is designed to oppose a performance right for US Terrestrial, AM/FM radio. The goal is for broadcasters to remain exempted from paying recording artists and labels when their work is used over the air as opposed to just paying songwriters and publishers.

The goal of the Performance Rights Act is to expand the protection for public performances of copyrighted sound recordings. This bill has the potential of fixing the gap in copyright law when it comes to performance rights. Radio stations claim this bill will harm their business but the reality is that is time to pay artists for their work. Radio stations have benefited from sound recording for a long time and got away with not paying artists. It’s a fact that because USA Radio Stations don’t pay artists for using their work, not even international artists, us artist get penalized overseas. As a result  of USA not paying international artists, USA artists don’t get paid overseas. Its time to set the score straight and make radio stations play fair and pay up, thanks for reading!

Respectfully,

Laurentino Nieves Cruz

lnievescruz@fullsail.edu

References

Brown, O. (n.d.). Future of Music Coalition. Guess Who’s Behind the “Local Radio Freedom Act”?. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2013/04/12/guess-whos-behind-local-radio-freedom-act

H.R.4789 – Performance Rights Act, a bill on OpenCongress. (n.d.). OpenCongress. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr4789-110/show

It’s Time To Pay Artists And Labels at FM Radio – American Songwriter. (n.d.). American Songwriter. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.americansongwriter.com/2013/10/songwriter-u-time-pay-artists-labels-fm-radio/

S.379 – Performance Rights Act, a bill on OpenCongress. (n.d.). OpenCongress. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/s379-111/show

S.Con.Res.6 – A concurrent resolution supporting the Local Radio Freedom Act., a bill on OpenCongress. (n.d.). OpenCongress. Retrieved September 10, 2014, from http://www.opencongress.org/bill/sconres6-113/show

The Value of Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property

While searching the Internet for news articles that discuss work that was protected by any form of intellectual property I decided to discuss an article from The Washington Post. The article is titled “15 years ago Congress kept Mickey Mouse out the public domain. Will they do it again?” What a title right!

After reading the article I have determined that the intellectual property at issue is copyright. Copyrighted work is very valuable to his owner because it rewards its author with a set of exclusive rights. Copyright law grants its author exclusive right to make and sell copies of the work, the right to create derivative works and also the right to perform or display the work publicly. This law protects the copyright works until seventy years after the authors decease.

In this case I think that the reason that the copyright owner as protectant to work is not valid. In this case the owner of the copyrights are corporations not the actual artist that created the work. I think that there should be specific statue to cover the remakes of public domain works. Protecting the integrity of the author’s vision in their work is relevant, because that is the essence of the work itself. This protection is essential and necessary in order to secure the artist vision.

The reasons that the author wants to prevent others from using the cover right at work are not valid for me. I believe this because the work that was actually created by someone else to begin with is being used for commercial interest not artistic therefore it should be part of the public domain and the 1998 Copyright Term Extension Act (CTEA) should be annulled.

The possible consequences of work not being protected by intellectual property would be that the artist would not benefit from his or her creation. The artist will not be able to license the work and the work will pass into the public domain for others to use and benefit from without a license agreement. Thanks for reading!

Respectfully,

Laurentino Nieves Cruz

lnievescruz@fullsail.edu

References

15 years ago, Congress kept Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. Will they do it again?. (n.d.).Washington Post. Retrieved September 2, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25/15-years-ago-congress-kept-mickey-mouse-out-of-the-public-domain-will-they-do-it-again/

Sobel, R., & Weissman, D. (2008). 11 New media, technology, and copyright. Music publishing: the roadmap to royalties (p. 132). New York: Routledge.

Fantasy Band Project

2PAC ft Bob Marley and Richard "Pistol" Allen

2PAC ft Bob Marley and Richard “Pistol” Allen

For my Fantasy Band Project I have chosen drummer Richard “Pistol” Allen from The Funk Brothers for my rhythm section. I have chosen 2pac as the main performer and Bob Marley to inspire the rhythm section and main performer. With this unique combination of talents we probably would create a smooth religious gospel rap. They would create a remix to Bob Marley’s “Three Little Birds” where 2Pac raps the verses and sings the Chorus with Bob Marley.

For the remix we will keep the same focus of the original track. We want to provide the listener with the feeling of security, no worries. 2Pac verses will share a street story that will uplift the listeners. My attention to details and up to date education are some of my unique producer talents that will help them in making a piece of art that is worthy of their talents. Having the ability to assist in any and every step of the project is really what gives me the ability to contribute towards this project. I would name the band Rasta Thugs to help people relate to the story of this project. The song will be marketed via the Internet and terrestrial radio to reach the intended audience.

One modern marketing tool to consider for this project is YouTube. With YouTube we will be able to reach our target market. Another modern marketing tools that we could benefit from are mobile apps. With the inclusion of a mobile app we will expand our reach faster by facilitating fans music directly from their mobile devices. They would be better on an indie label than major label because digital technology allows music sales on demand. A video will boost the project because of the already established fan base of both artists. Besides without a music video it’s nearly impossible to market music in today’s entertainment industry! Thanks for reading!

Works Cited
“2Pac | Biography | AllMusic.” AllMusic. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014. .
“Bob Marley | Biography | AllMusic.” AllMusic. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014. .
“Richard “Pistol” Allen | Biography | AllMusic.” AllMusic. N.p., n.d. Web. 31 Aug. 2014. .

Independent Research – Motown

Motown

Motown

Motown stands for far more than history music. The label and its remarkable legacy is a reflection of the hard work of dedicated individuals overcoming incredible obstacles to achieve great success. It all started back in 1959 when Jacky Wilson was having hit after hit and Berry Gordy became known as his writer. Since Gordy wasn’t making money he went to venture into business by borrowing money from his sister Esther Gordy Edwards. Berry ask for one thousand dollars but he only got eight hundred to start his record company. Berry Gordy founded Motown on January 12, 1959, in Detroit Michigan, as Tamla Record. It was later incorporated as “Motown Record Corporation” on April 14, 1960.

He purchased a small Detroit photo studio that he named “Hitsville USA.” Berry’s goal was to produce only hits “Singles.” He turned the garage into a studio and called it Studio A. He attempted to incorporate an assembly line approach to make hits only. He had created separated departments for songwriters, musicians, artists, a finish school for its performers and an in-house test-marketing team called “Quality Control.” His sister created the artist development department. Motown played an important role in the racial integration of popular music as an African American-owned record label, which achieved significant crossover success. Motown was more than a label; it was a family of artists.

Motown and its subsidiary labels became to be known as the Motown Sound, style of soul music with distinct pop influence. As a listener I’m very impressed how Motown dominated the airwaves and charts but I’m more impressed with the launch of the careers of Marvin Gaye, Diana Ross, Michael Jackson and Boys to Men among other super stars. As a professional, Motown has provided me the blue print to a successful recording label. I will apply all the knowledge learned from Motown successful business practices to set myself apart from any competition and advance my career goals within the next five years. If it worked for Motown it should work for me! Thanks for reading!

Works Cited

Howard, David N.. “THE SKY’S THE LIMIT: R&B GOES FUNKY: WILLIE MITCHELL AND NORMAN WHITFIELD.” Sonic alchemy: visionary music producers and their maverick recordings. Milwaukee, WI: Hal Leonard Corp., 2004. 156-67, 171-75. Print.

“Motown Music – The Sound that Changed America.” Motown Museum. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Aug. 2014. <http://www.motownmuseum.org/story/motown/&gt;.