Technically if someone records a cover song and then uses it to make money they should be paying royalties to the original song writer or the holder of the publishing for that song. Somehow I doubt all of those using covers to build an audience are doing so. This means that these people are also fucking over the artists. The record company fucks the artist (no argument on that) and so do all these people who record their songs, get tons of views on YouTube and sell downloads/CDs without paying royalties.

And whatever happened to writing your own songs and building up an audience with your own talent and your own words? I guess it is easier these days just to piggy back and make money off of other people's work.

re read the copyright act moron
the copyright holders monopoly only extends to direct revenue not indirect revenue.

if you record a cover and SELL that cover you need to pay royalties,

but the courts have recognized that indirect revenues (like selling a vcr for 1k) is not covered by the monopoly of the copyright holder

doing your own version of someone elses song, and selling your original songs to people who think your cover version is better is exactly the free speech that fair use was designed to protect.

commentary like listen to my version of "gimie more" is valid free speech.


and this is exactly the situation i was talking about

if you need to get permission to do covers, record companies could force you to sign away all your IP just to get the right

the sign with us or fail senerio is all you would have.

the artist/record companies lose nothing from cover songs being given away on youtube, becaue the only people who would not buy the original would be the people who PREFER the unique cover version

The record companies are not entitled to that money.


when you write a completely original story that doesn't borrow any elements from any previous work in existance then you can talk

free speech has a right to be derivative

hell commentary is ALWAYS derivative since you must comment on something.

This is mostly what I meant. There are a lot of people out there that record cover versions of songs, put them up on places like YouTube and then sell their version of that song on iTunes, Amazon etc. I would love to see how many of those people are actually paying the original writer/publisher royalties. I would guess it is very few.



If they force sites like isohunt to filter keywords could a person not just record a cover then contact isohunt (or whatever site they want to put their song on) and tell them that this is a cover song, not the original and all would be good? I have never seen nor heard of the labels trying to force people to get permission in order to do a cover.




There is a big difference between writing something that might have a few derivative elements and copying something word for word.

well the answer is zero
if you have ever tried to get your content up on itunes you know the hoops you have to jump thru to get yourself listed.

the crediting for song writers is a pain in the but, if you sell your cover on itunes then yes the song writer get their cut

itunes make sure of that.



1. read the ruling what you are talking about is in fact automatically prevented by the court order

2. happens all the time, hell it happens for parodies

http://torrentfreak.com/copyright-th...hdrawn-091021/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/s...al/8317952.stm

http://alyankovic.wordpress.com/the-gaga-saga/


and that doesn't include the 100s of videos that have the audio scrubbed automatically by youtube because it includes "their" music.



not when your talking about free speech

weather you change one word or 100 the right to be able to make that free expression is still the prevailing principle.

arguing you have a right to take away that free expression based on a word count is censorship plain and simple.

That is good to hear. I am sure people could still sell CDs without paying royalties, but I think most of the people who put cover songs up and try to sell them do so digitally.







I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Are you now saying that if you copy someone's work word for word and post it online that is covered by free speech?

I can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word and post in online with the simple tagline of " this is my favorite stephen king book I hope you like it" and call that free speech because I added commentary.

stop trying to create insane stretches to justify your bullshit position

your copying word for word example was covering a song

turning a stripper pole music song into a acoustic ballad

or turning a dance song into a love song

completely changing the context of the music so that it does not represent a DIRECT loss of sale of the original work

fair use already balances the situation your talking about

while still protecting the derivative works i am talking about.

Dude, calm down. I'm not trying to justify anything. I simply said you can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word onto a website and then add the commentary "This is my favorite Stephen King book" and then say it falls under fair use.

I understand the difference between an original song and a cover song and so long as the original writer/publishing owner of the song gets paid if you try to sell your cover version of the song I don't have any problem with people doing cover songs. It is a time honored thing in music. Back before the internet bands would often play covers at live shows while they wrote their own music and use them as a filler for the show to help draw listeners. Today they just do it on YouTube.

this was your original statement


you accused artist doing covers of ripping off the song writers




now you say it a time honored thing in music.



the fact is ruling like the one against isohunt are basically designed to prevent this process to leverage the new medium/technology.

To protect the abusive system of the record companies and to reduce the choice of musicians

to either sign with the record companies

or fail.

Your primary problem is that you have a basic lack of being able to follow a conversation. If you put basic logic to use you will see how my statement evolved. I will break it down to you in a line by line format so you can follow it.

1. I said that people who are recording cover songs, posting them on YouTube then selling those songs are ripping off artists if they are not paying royalties for the songs they sell.

2. After some clarification you say that selling songs on iTunes and Amazon is a bitch and that the original artist must be credited and that the original writers do get their cut.

3. Having read that, I then said that I don't really have a problem with it so long as the the original writers are getting their fair royalties.

4. That is it. I made a statement, you clarified how the system works, I modified my statement and changed my opinion.

Yes, doing covers of songs is a time honored thing. Of course the main difference is that when band were covering songs as they start out they were playing for 20 people, not 500,000. Those views do make YouTube money, but I guess if you look at it right it is no different than the bar or club owner who hired a band to play profiting from that band playing cover songs.

It doesnt.
It never will till artists cut the middlemen.

Artists that have grabbed hold of there work are making shit tons.
Prince is a primary example.

It seems to me that a keyword based filter doesn't kill cover songs. Why can't I put a song up and called it "Umbrella cover by Kane" That clearly states that it is a cover song by me, not the original by Rihanna and therefor non-infringing.

There are enough wealthy, well connected artists out there that if they truly hated the system they could form record company that basically does exactly what Prince has done. The artists cold create a record label, choose their executives to run it and make it very artist friendly. They could pay the artists the lions share of the profits and keep some for the company to help develop new talent and support existing acts.

The problem is most artists don't really mind the system until they have blown through all their money, no longer sell many records and have to stay on the road a10 months out of the year to make a living.Then they look back and see what could have been. By then it is too late.

there is not a band that has existed since rock and roll that doesnt do cover songs. Elvis did it, and soooo many before him. Many just do them live so they dont have to pay royalties, including Metallica doing Misfits songs

LOL Led Zeppelin covered Willie Dixon on Zeppelin 1 !!! (two songs off the album were dixons)

sure thing. A lot of bands just starting out also do it so that they can have a full set and can book live gigs. I don't have a problem with that. I do get annoyed when I see people recording covers and then using YouTube exposer to sell those covers without paying royalties to the original artists. It seems like it isn't easy to sell digital songs without the royalties being paid, but I would venture to guess there are people selling CDs that aren't. However, I'm sure that has gone on forever with bands recording their own CDs and selling them at gigs.

If you did deep you will find out most of the the first Led Zeppelin record was all songs they either covered or stole from other people. When it was recently reissued they had to add a bunch of credits to it and pay a bunch of royalties.

read the ruling it keyword filtering based on the title

umbrella would be the keyword
it would catch both riahanna version

and umbrella cover by kane

because you had the gaul to use the title of the song you were covering in the title of your torrent.

so gasp (the horror) people looking for that song would find your cover.