Jimmy "Buffet" mention in copyright article...

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » July 9, 2007 1:36 pm

Gotta love Fark for finding this stuff...

Music licensing companies come calling for royalties

Local venues, artists miffed

Read the full article
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 80343/1006

Excerpt...

It comes on the heels of a massive music industry crackdown during the past several years on illegal downloads from the Internet. Whether it's a professional recording taken from a Web site or an accordion player singing a Jimmy Buffet tune in a small venue, the industry is working to collect royalties for whoever wrote the songs.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » July 9, 2007 1:41 pm

Do any Buffett tunes sound good with an accordion?

Desdamona · Post by **Desdamona** » July 9, 2007 2:04 pm

SharkOnLand wrote:Do any Buffett tunes sound good with an accordion?

Nautical Wheelers comes to mind...

And how can "they" possibly collect royalties for all live performances?
Big Brother is going to have to be a heck of a lot bigger...

MrTwain · Post by **MrTwain** » July 9, 2007 2:53 pm

About 8 years ago I worked for a nationwide pageant, the Miss American Teen Pageant... and BMG came calling, wanting us to pay royalties for the music that we played at the girls' workshops, and background music for talent shows, parties, etc. We just gave them the finger and eventually they went away. But in the beginning, they came on really strong, acting as though they were going to play hardball, threatening, breathing fire, etc.

citcat · Post by **citcat** » July 9, 2007 3:10 pm

I can see artists wanting royalties for tunes downloaded, that takes money out of their pocket.
But LIVE PERFORMANCES ? So next thing is when I have a pool party and I'm playing music, should I expect extra guests (with attitudes)???

HEY ! We're having a big pool party Aug. 18 !!! BRING IT ON !!!!!!!!!!!!
you're all invited, by the way

surfpirate · Post by **surfpirate** » July 9, 2007 3:35 pm

...... said a friend of his who owned a restaurant that did not feature music was contacted by a company looking to charge him because it owned the rights to a Hank Williams Jr. song, "Are You Ready for Some Football?" The song preceded every "Monday Night Football" telecast, which the restaurant carried on its televisions.

He said his friend simply chose to turn the volume down when the song came on.

Sheeesh. This is getting just plain ridiculous.

pair8head · Post by **pair8head** » July 9, 2007 3:53 pm

They used to try this crapola at the local bars around here. Live music = Pay us. The bars took to posting a sign in the window that all bands that play here play their own music. It's freaking amazing how many bands wrote Stairway to Heaven.

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » July 9, 2007 3:54 pm

This is bad why? Seems that the writers of the music are being protected.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » July 9, 2007 3:57 pm

Skibo wrote:This is bad why? Seems that the writers of the music are being protected.

It's bad because somebody thought it would be a good idea to sing Buffett while playing the accordion. Next thing you know, it will be a guy with bagpipes.

MrTwain · Post by **MrTwain** » July 9, 2007 4:14 pm

Skibo wrote:This is bad why? Seems that the writers of the music are being protected.

This isn't about somebody protecting the writers. This is about new technology making it possible for big companies to swoop in and try to take control of a situation where it wouldn't have been possible in recent years.

Are they going to expect every piano man in every piano bar to pay money every time they want to play a song? Isn't it enough for piano players to buy the sheet music? What about junior high school choirs having to pay up everytime they sing "I'd Like To Teach The World To Sing"? Again, they're already buying the sheet music.

Music that's recorded and disseminated... they should pay.

gatorparrot · Post by **gatorparrot** » July 9, 2007 4:58 pm

Too funny! This is my local newspaper and I definitely noticed the type-O when I read the article the first time. I thought about posting it on here, and also emailing the author about it, but that newspaper has enough editing problems as it is so I figured I'd let it slide this once...

Funny how no one (it seems) other than Parrotheads seems to pick up on this grammatical error!

Little Miss Magic's Mama · July 9, 2007 5:44 pm

SharkOnLand wrote:
Skibo wrote:This is bad why? Seems that the writers of the music are being protected.
It's bad because somebody thought it would be a good idea to sing Buffett while playing the accordion. Next thing you know, it will be a guy with bagpipes.

palmettopirate · Post by **palmettopirate** » July 10, 2007 7:02 am

"Excerpt...

It comes on the heels of a massive music industry crackdown during the past several years on illegal downloads from the Internet. Whether it's a professional recording taken from a Web site or an accordion player singing a Jimmy Buffet tune in a small venue, the industry is working to collect royalties for whoever wrote the songs."

Would someone please explain to me the difference in downloads and using your old boom box to tape music to the old cassettes from the radio?

And does Jimmy pay to sing other folks music at his concerts?

This is over the top. Nothing but corporate greed.

big john · Post by **big john** » July 10, 2007 9:12 am

SharkOnLand wrote:Do any Buffett tunes sound good with an accordion?

Gypsies in the Palace

Skibo · Post by **Skibo** » July 10, 2007 2:22 pm

palmettopirate wrote:Would someone please explain to me the difference in downloads and using your old boom box to tape music to the old cassettes from the radio?

No difference, only better sound quality with downloads. Both considered copywrite infringement if you do not have permission or pay for the rights.

palmettopirate wrote:And does Jimmy pay to sing other folks music at his concerts?

Most likely.

palmettopirate wrote:This is over the top. Nothing but corporate greed.

Not really corporate greed only the artist receiving proper compensation for his work.

If you posted some vacation photos here and someone downloaded them and used them on a calendar that they sold for a profit would you mind? Surely you wouldn't be greedy and expect to be paid for your efforts, would you?

trojan_sixtyone · Post by **trojan_sixtyone** » July 11, 2007 1:18 pm

Skibo wrote:
palmettopirate wrote:Would someone please explain to me the difference in downloads and using your old boom box to tape music to the old cassettes from the radio?
No difference, only better sound quality with downloads. Both considered copywrite infringement if you do not have permission or pay for the rights.

palmettopirate wrote:And does Jimmy pay to sing other folks music at his concerts?

Most likely.

palmettopirate wrote:This is over the top. Nothing but corporate greed.
Not really corporate greed only the artist receiving proper compensation for his work.

If you posted some vacation photos here and someone downloaded them and used them on a calendar that they sold for a profit would you mind? Surely you wouldn't be greedy and expect to be paid for your efforts, would you?

I really hope you're joking about Jimmy paying to play songs live. Professional courtesy among the performers to ask before covering, sure, but no royalties are being paid. If they were, Jimmy probably wouldn't pay them. He'd have no reason to. He has enough great songs of his own (that we're always begging him to play) that he doesn't NEED other people's songs.

Also, you can't compare vacation photos to music. First of all, there's no real demand for pictures like that and secondly they aren't being created for the purpose of making money--they are being created and displayed to document occasions and memories. Music is created, when it comes right down to, for profit (you know it's true). There's always been an underground music market--part of it's on display on boards in BN right now, with the FTP sites to live concerts (and some album/demo cuts as well). It's been tolerated by most artists because they realize that this format can bring them new audience members--people that would never pay for an album may download it for free, decide they like it, and start buying the albums. Regardless of what the industry will have you believe, they are not losing much more money in illegal downloads than they will gain by them--they only measure one side of the equation, but don't evaluate its long-term effects. If you'll notice, most of the people wanting royalties are the record companies, not the artists themselves.

Also, these "illegal downloads" aren't illegal if you own a legal copy. For example, let's say you bought "Fruitcakes" (album) but for some reason you can't get the CD to upload to your computer. If you were to use an online client (including an FTP site like BNers use) to download this album, you've note done anything that's prosecutable because you own a physical copy of the album and therefore own limited rights to control those songs for your own PERSONAL use (in short, that's how the law breaks down). It's the same with online video game emulators--you can download "illegal" copies of ported video games as long as you own a physical, legal copy of the game.

That being said, I should add that I do not download illegally (I do get copies of live Buffett shows I go to, but we all know JB doesn't have a problem with that--it helps keep his legend alive, which is good business). I get all my music from iTunes or actual legal CDs. My point here is that the problem of illegal downloads is being trumped up by record companies so that they can stick their hands deeper into the cookie jar.