Slacker G wrote:
How many of you do "Cover songs" and do not pay the rights to perform them in clubs? Most bands make their living doing other peoples stuff for money. So why should anyone get self righteous about a couple of songs no one else wants to perform?
ASCAP and BMI go after clubs all the time, if they hire bands performing covers, and the club is not paying licensing fees to them, for the artists. These are a blanket fee the club pays, not royalties per song, and the fees are reasonable, and assessed by seating capacity (something like that). The unions take polling data and make a determination of how often songs are played, whether on radio or in clubs. To use the songs in commercials or in a movie, is a different matter, because the songs are not always being used in complete form, and it is a single use, which aligns the song with a certain idea or project. For example, a Christian artist may not want his song about "loving a child" to be used in a movie about a pedophile, where the songs is meant as sarcasm. This could tarnish the image of the song, in the same way that NO ONE today, for the most part, uses the term "gay" to mean "happy" any longer. That word has a stigma of being applied to homosexuality, and it is so strong that a straight person would not use it any longer, because they wouldn't want a misunderstanding to exist.
This same thing applies to songs.
What if no one wanted to use your song anymore?
A piece of art, is potentially a commodity, that can have a small value, or perhaps a HUGE value. A song written to express a certain emotion, and is powerful and connects with people worldwide, can suddenly be shunned (like the word "gay") if a DIFFERENT meaning comes to be attached to that song. And then, instead of the song being one of the classics, that stands the test of time, and brings royalties to the artists for GENERATIONS, it could end up being black-balled by people, who got disturbed when the song became associated with something distasteful, and now, whenever they hear it, they think of the negative connotation instead of how it was originally written, and what the words actually say.
Why do you think artists, and the labels that represent them, are so particular, about how their material is used? Why do you think the artist is allowed FULL CONTROL over those rights? This is a person's career and livelihood we are talking about here.
Recording someone else's material and selling it, is FAR DIFFERENT than playing it as a "cover song" live. Playing it LIVE, allows for no hard copy of it. If someone likes the song, they still have to go to the original artist to purchase it (ideally, anyway) and it does not represent a loss to the artist.
But what you guys are not considering, and this is perhaps EVEN MORE IMPORTANT, is losing "CONTROL" of your own song. Some unknown cover band, doing "Freebird" represents a very low threat to the value of that song. But someone recording it, and selling it, or worse... giving it away, DOES. And even worse, is a song that is still relatively unknown. Someone records that, then distributes it free across the Internet, and it spreads like wildfire, and that is a potentially HUGE risk. No one knows who wrote the song, bands start covering it, and selling it on their own albums and keep the profits, and it can become a HUGE mess.
The name "Aspirin" was actually a proper name for a product. But because it was not PROTECTED, it became generic for that product and slipped into common usage. Now it CANNOT be claimed by the original author of the brand name, and it is wide open and even LEGAL now, for ANYONE to use the term.
Someone lost their BRAND NAME, and now it is in the public domain.
This is a VERY serious issue, and affects the potential VALUE of an original work, in major, and even terminal ways, sometimes.
It is better to do the right thing FIRST, than possibly ending up spending more on legal fees in the FUTURE. Whether to try and defend yourself, or else protect your own product.
And if YOU are the author, this is even scarier, because if someone else makes YOUR SONG a hit, or tries to sell it to someone else who does, well, then they have the power of the best entertainment lawyers behind them now, and possibly a good deal of money themselves, to keep YOUR SONGS under their control. After all, you get something like 45,000 dollars from a Gold Record just from having ONE SONG on that album. Many stars, like Madonna or others, end up having albums that go double platinum, which then means $180,000 just for having ONE SONG on their album.
Think someone can fight you for YOUR RIGHTS, when they have $45,000 to $180,000 behind them to do it with?
Get your stuff copyrighted, and don't STEAL other's copyrights.
You may regret it one day.
And as to the "blood from a turnip" argument.... That turnip bleeds here and there, no matter how poor it is, People have property that cam sometimes be assessed and recovered in lieu of money, to satisfy a judgement. It may be that income tax each year, could be affixed. You stick money in a bank account, it can be frozen and then claimed. Having a huge judgement against you, could ruin your credit, or much chance of securing credit. Someone dies and you get $20,000 in insurance money, and guess what? A court may order you to turn it over.
Why would ANYONE want that nightmare lurking over their shoulders? Affecting many of the financial decisions they will make.... robbing them of their future successes?
It's not worth it.
Get permission, or write new songs.
