The 5 Legal Cases That Defined The Year in Music

It's important for you to know what laws are affecting your music career. Almost a decade after the major labels launched their legal assault on Napster, courts are still writing the rules of the road for the music business's digital future. Companies can't set out to build a business based on their users' infringement of copyright, courts had already ruled. But the precise meaning of that dictate remains in doubt. What steps must sites take to combat infringement? What are the proper penalties for those who infringe? This year, courts inched toward resolution of these questions, giving label, publishers, and artists a bit more certainty as they decide whom to work with and whom to sue.

2009's top five cases that will shape the future of the music business.

1. UMG Recordings V. Veoh Netoworks

2. Capitol records V. Thomas-Rasset

3. Sony BMG Music Entertainment V. Tenenbaum

4. Bridgeport Music V. UMG Recordings

5. Arista Records V. Usenet.com

What's your take... leave your comments below.

Remaking A Hit....Legal or Illegal?

We all have songs that we would love to remake. If the opportunity was there how would you go about it. We all understand once a song is released commercially it is for public use. Anyone can record it. As long as it follows the compulsory license.

A compulsory license is a license that a songwriter - once certain conditions are met - must grant to anyone who wishes to use their song For instance, if you want to record a version of “Boom Boom Pow” on your own record, you don’t have to get anyone’s permission to do so. Because of the compulsory license law, you can record anyone’s song that has been commercially released and put it on your record, and the writer (or publisher) of that song must grant you the license to do so.

Before you go running to the studio, compulsory license law also establishes certain guidelines to ensure that songwriters are compensated in a fair and timely manner when their songs are used on other performers’ recordings.

Rules of Compulsory Licenses:

Here’s how it works. You may record someone else’s song on your own record if:

1. It has already been commercially released on a record.

2. You pay the song’s copyright holder (the writer and/or publisher) a fee - a mechanical royalty based on the “statutory rate.” That rate is currently 9.1¢, for songs under five minutes long. It increases periodically.

3. You pay this fee for every recording you manufacture on a fixed medium such as CD, download/mp3, cassette, or vinyl, whether you sell the recordings or give them away for promotion, etc.

4. You pay 9.1¢ per song. So if you use four songs by the same writer, you must pay 36.4¢ per CD made.

5. You pay the copyright holder of this song every month.

If these rules sound a bit harsh, put the shoe on the other foot. When someone uses one of your songs on their album, think of how it benefits you to have them held to the above standards.
The only way around these compulsory license laws is to negotiate a rate with the copyright holder to change some of the above terms. Should the copyright holder not want to negotiate with you, you must adhere to the rules.

So, while no one can stop you from recording their song once the song has been commercially released, it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay the piper...so to speak.

One note, you can NOT substantially change the song you are recording - neither the lyrics nor the melody. Doing so creates what is called a "derivative work," and only the copyright holder can do this. Similarly, you can not record a snippet of someone else's song (sort of like recording a sample.)


Come out and experience "I do Music" for yourself on the 1ST THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH @ Apache Cafe!




If You Enjoyed This Article Click Here to Subscribe


I dO Music!
"Empowering Musicians Worldwide"

Music Publishers Demand more Money, Could be end for iTunes

Rolling Stone has reported that the National Music Publishers' Association (NMPA) is seeking a 66 percent increase on royalty rates for digital music sales on iTunes.

The royalty rate increase would raise royalty's from nine cents per track to 15cents per track.

If NMPA's request is granted, iTunes would have no choice but to raise their 99 cents a song pricing.

Instead of increasing pricing, iTunes has made threats to shutdown their services if NMPA's request is approved.

"If the [iTunes music store] was forced to absorb any increase in the...royalty rate, the result would be to significantly increase the likelihood of the store operating at a financial loss - which is no alternative at all,"
iTunes Vice President Eddy Cue said in a statement. "Apple has repeatedly made it clear that it is in this business to make money, and most likely would not continue to operate [the iTunes music store] if it were no longer possible to do so profitably."

Although a mass shutdown of iTunes seems quite unlikely, the increase on royalty's would mostly likely take a toll on product sales for Apple products and sales on iTunes.

---

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.7818/title.music-publishers-demand-more-itunes-risks-closing

Is Sampling Illegal?

Yes, contrary to popular belief and practice, sampling of an original copyrighted song without permission of the copyright’s owner is illegal copyright infringement.

Unauthorized sampling actually violates two potential legal rights. First, the instant you sample a portion of someone’s song (no matter how small), it constitutes a violation of the copyright in song itself - the © symbol - which is owned by the song writer or the music publisher. Second, sampling violates the sound recording copyright - the symbol - which is usually owned by the record company or recording artist. Thus, sampling without prior permission subjects the illegal copier to a copyright infringement in federal court by the original author (or publisher) and by the record company.

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/music_law/legality_sampling.htm