I take Myself dead seriously. by LyinDan on The Pipeline at IndieMusicPeople

I take Myself dead seriously.
After all, what would be the point otherwise?

I insist on delivering dead serious opinions on everything which is exposed to Me. Because, after all, that which is exposed to Me needs to be examined by Me in every detail, and will wilt to exhaustion if I don't give My opinion on it, whether it's asked or not, because I can contribute, and being Me, I MUST contribute, My opinion on that which is presented before Me every time, because I consider it inexcusabe for Me to not voice My opinion, since without My opinion, everyone will lack My opinion, and that should, after all, be illegal.

My opinion is of the finest quality. It is nurtured by My attention to Myself. If I cannot spread Myself to cover others, I feel really bad, because then, they would be deprived of Me. I hear things others do not, and therefore, I must inform others of this. Because if I do not, others will be deprived of Me, and I cannot stand that. It is only for their sake, that I must spread Me all over whomever I come in even peripheral contact with. I would be derelict in My duty not to tell you what I think, because, I am worth so much. So much. My opinion is, I mean, not of course my humble self, because I am so humble, I just want to help everyone, with no credit to Me for pointing you in the right, I mean, My direction, which after all, is the right one, for Me and for you.

I only want the best for you. So please forgive me if I offend. I would never willingly offend anyone with My opinions, even though they of course are perfectly correct because I hear everything properly and it is sooo unlikely that My auditory cells could be wrong that I just throw out that thought immediately, since I hear properly.

Best! To you, from Me! I only want what is proper and best for you, because I am unerringly correct and cannot be contradicted, since I hear perfectly and you are wrong if you think not.

Wishing you more and more success after listening to Me,

Me

Add Comment

6/21/2016 9:38:08 AM ---- Updated 6/21/2016 9:40:57 AM

You are the sharpest crayon in the box. Wry purple. Heh.
I think I'm your biggest fan.

Okay.
I think I'm your second biggest fan.

Maybe third... you do have a wife.
She could be sick of it however. Well if she is remotely like mine,
mine got sick of it fast, it's just not funny.

So, how did you hack my brain's server
and manage to print all this text? That's quite some snazzy tech get up you got.
I am impressed. Wholesale.

; )

~L

I absolutely loved your take on
the whole sneaky pete rights infringement of 'second life'.
That was effing spot on. Scary terribly accurate bastard.

I love the good. I embrace the accurate. heh.

Add Comment

Father Time

6/21/2016 12:05:03 PM

No he was totally irrelevant on that. i know numerous people who between them played hundreds of shows on Second Life and never heard of one single problem, you're just missing out cause if you did it you would love it, guaranteed.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/22/2016 1:41:47 PM

Hey Dan here is a thought you don't like certain opinions go crawl back in your bottle of jack pour some honey on yourself and see if you can get some fire ants to come bit you.

Cheerio old boy,
Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/22/2016 2:11:23 PM

Thanks, I think I'll try that out! You're the best, Ken!

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/23/2016 10:14:11 AM

Father Time,
Please tell me where in copyright law does it support your claims that I am wrong
about performing in SL without a mechanical license? Sorry your "opinion" won't hold much value in a court of law.

In my post about performing in SL I clearly stated that I never heard of anyone having problems or getting sued while performing on SL what I said was if the artist choose to take action they could in ways such as cease and desist or file for damages lost. Just because this unlikely does not mean its not a violation of copyright.

Many people don't understand the law and think if they stream only they are safe that is untrue and they are mistaken. Hence the information I provided in the Jay Dayall thread some time ago now.

Here are the facts:
If you perform a PRIVATE performance of a cover copyright law does not apply. SL is not a private server it is a public server. I suppose a case could be made that since its only available to it's members that this is private but I would not want to face that battle.

If you perform a public performance via web stream including pre-recorded or live performance of a cover copyright law does apply.

When you play in a bar you are allowed to do so because the BAR pays the fee to BMI.

A performance in second life if it is live or pre-recorded is still considered a web stream in the case of any web stream that is available over the internet unless the second life server pays the fee to BMI allow the broadcast you as the artist are responsible for the mechanical license of the web stream.

Please provide any and all evidence including citations from copyright law and the definition of mechanical license that prove your opinion.

I believe you are incorrect but if you can state your case with actual proof then I'll be happy to learn how the law does not apply in this case.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Father Time

6/23/2016 12:48:07 PM

Why would you think I was talking about you, you weren't even in the thread at the time. I was talking about Lyin Dan. I wasn't talking about cover songs either.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/23/2016 9:06:52 PM

Let not play coy we all know Dan's thread here was aimed ay me because he thinks I am high and mighty for stating my opinion in a confident way

I was the one who brought up that performing in SL without a mechanical license is a copyright infringement and after that the thread disappeared.

You said that"
"No he was totally irrelevant on that. I know numerous people who between them played hundreds of shows on Second Life and never heard of one single problem"

So I thought that comment was made on my statements on preforming in SL with out a mechanical license.

If I misunderstood your comment I apologize.
Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Larree

6/23/2016 9:27:45 PM ---- Updated 6/23/2016 9:51:45 PM

Ken, you are fucking wrong. When you 'perform' live in sl no one is hosting or sharing files. It is no different than playing in a fucking club. It is a damned cool thing to do. It is a very intimate setting, usually a small number of people, maybe 10-20, sometimes a few more than that. You gotta just chill already and try it out.

Add Comment

Father Time

6/24/2016 2:08:34 AM

Was Lyin Dan addressing this to you, Ken, I don't know. But I do know that ALJ was speaking to Dan when he said he was right about SL so I said Dan wasn't right about it, or that really, what happens with the images has nothing to do with live performances there.

Add Comment

Larree

6/24/2016 8:27:10 AM

The SL music scene is the best thing to happen to music this century.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/24/2016 2:04:18 PM ---- Updated 6/24/2016 2:15:06 PM

Laree
The law states that if you are web streaming a cover publicly to the internet you must hold the mechanical licenses to do so. Maybe you should try reading about it. As I said to FT your opinion of such will not hold any water in a court of law.

This is not anything to do with sharing files.

Because the live performance is being presented as a web stream it fall under the same guidelines as if you record it and streamed it as a cover.

When you play in a club you don't need the license because the club is paying the license fee to BMI which I already explained.

If the SL server pays to BMI for live performance of covers that you are correct nothing is needed.

If the SL server does not pay to BMI then you as the artist must hold the rights to distribute it as a web stream.

I've made it my business to understand legal language and litigations since I have no intention of being sued.

Two Silo Complex
Ken

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/24/2016 2:14:34 PM

Father Time,

Dan talked about Terms of service not copyright infringement. Dan said that according to signing the terms of service then you give over your rights to the company that owns SL.

Here it is in black and white from the terms of service:
7.2 You grant certain Content licenses to Linden Lab by submitting your Content to the Service.

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to or through the Servers, Websites, or other areas of the Service, you hereby automatically grant Linden Lab a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free, sublicenseable, and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service.

You understand that this license enables Linden Lab to display, distribute, promote, and improve the Service. You agree that the license includes the right to copy, analyze and use any of your Content as Linden Lab may deem necessary or desirable for purposes of debugging, testing, or providing support or development services in connection with the Service and future improvements to the Service. The license granted in this Section 7.2 is referred to as the "Service Content License."

You agree that by uploading, publishing, or submitting any Content to any publicly accessible areas of the Service, you hereby grant each user of Second Life a non-exclusive license to access the User Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content In-World or otherwise on the Service solely as permitted by you through your interactions with the Service under these Terms of Service.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/24/2016 2:24:46 PM

So as for what Dan said about the terms of service he is partly correct.
When you signed a non exclusive agreement which states that you give permission to allow your content on the SL server.

When you give your permission to allow it on the server you also give permission that if they so choose they may use any and all of that content without your permission because you gave them the right to use it but putting on the server.

"license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content solely for the purposes of providing and promoting the Service."

Its possible I don't remember it all correctly but it seemed that Dan hinted that you gave your complete rights but maybe what he meant was that by posting it you do give them rights to basically use your material without your consent if they so choose to do so. Because you gave consent by posting to the server in the first place. However since the agreement is NON-Exclusive that means you also retain your rights of ownership.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Larree

6/24/2016 3:37:33 PM

Playing music in second life is like playing music on the street. And you do not need a license to crank some music on the street. Find me ONE case where someone got sued by a PRO for playing music on second life. I have searched and found none. Second Life is celebrating their 13th birthday this week. Find us a case, Ken, or just admit that you could actually be wrong on this one.

Add Comment

Father Time

6/24/2016 4:28:01 PM

Ken you just don't know anything about this. Nobody at SL will steal your music. If they did what would they even do with it? :D

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 4:33:44 PM

See this

This does not appear to exempt non-commercial performances of music. But whether performing music on Second Life is a commercial or non-commercial act (after all, LL is a commercial site even if you the performer are not being compensated, and a commercial place like a bar in which your perform for free needs a license) is debatable. The boy scouts were sued for performing songs at gatherings, did you know that?

I've got some other stuff I can link :)

Linden Labs apparently considers itself a conduit, not an originator of music streamed by artists. The actual stream is not done by LL but by your linked 365Live or whatever server. They consider this a loophole and hold themselves not responsible for performance licensing fees. They hold YOU responsible for all licensing. BMI, ASCAP, etc. may disagree. On their pages, they hold the "originating website" responsible.

Somewhere in all this is an opportunity for hungry lawyers.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 4:38:01 PM

I have found NOTHING official from LL that says you don't and they don't have to pay performance licensing, and I have looked a lot. Only a disclaimer that THEY are not responsible.

So, I would not say that Ken is wrong on this. Other than you may need "performing license" rather than "mechanical license".

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 4:42:48 PM

Other links of interest

ss own forum

SS own Wiki

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 4:54:33 PM

On the original subject, here is the LL TOS

Second Life Terms of Service in Full

Read it thoroughly. Some questionable stuff there.

Remember, it's not a question of whether someone WILL or DOES do something with the legal permissions you give them. It's a question of whether they CAN. And the longer a company CAN, the greater the chance that they WILL.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 5:04:20 PM

Here is ASCAP's definition of a "public performance" (which is subject to licensing):

A public performance is one that occurs either in a public place or any place where people gather (other than a small circle of a family or its social acquaintances). A public performance is also one that is transmitted to the public; for example, radio or television broadcasts, music-on-hold, cable television, and by the internet. Generally, those who publicly perform music obtain permission from the owner of the music or his representative. However, there are a few limited exceptions, (called "exemptions") to this rule. Permission is not required for music played or sung as part of a worship service unless that service is transmitted beyond where it takes place (for example, a radio or television broadcast). Performances as part of face to face teaching activity at a non-profit educational institutions are also exempt. We recommend that you contact your local ASCAP representative who can discuss your needs and how ASCAP can help you.

Add Comment

Larree

6/24/2016 5:30:02 PM ---- Updated 6/24/2016 5:30:42 PM

There are two types of licenses. Mechanical licenses and synchronization licenses. A mechanical license is for physical recordings and a synchronization license is for music synchronized to film or television. I do not believe there is a 'performance license' required for live musicians.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 10:31:41 PM

Didn't read the links did you?

A performance license is what ASCAP, BMI, and others grant businesses to allow them to play (playing a CD is a 'performance' under copyright, as is a live performance) or cause to be played, copyrighted music. No, you the performer of live music do not need one. Unless, you are the business entity playing or causing to be played, other peoples' copyrighted music. In other words, if you're playing someone else's music in a commercial setting, the setting in which the music is performed needs a license. A bar needs a license, for instance, even if no charge is made to listen to it. A store needs a license to play copyrighted music.

If you're performing music for free on a street corner, my guess is you don't need a license, but I could be wrong on that if the hat is full. There is the matter of no one will actually bother you for that of course.

Second Life is not a street corner, though. It's a commercial business. SL tries to avoid licensing anything flowing through their system but acknowledges that someone may need to pay up, read the links I gave above.
I think the way they succeed in avoiding it is that the actual streaming site is supposed to pay the fees. Someone is, though, for sure.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 10:37:44 PM

From the Second Life Wiki

**********************************
Streaming your own music into Second Life

It is possible to stream your own music from your computer into SL. Unless you have a large amount of bandwidth available, using your own machine as a streaming server is not really an option. With around 5 users connected you would using most of the bandwidth of a standard DSL line.

Therefore to stream your own music you would require a streaming relay provider. You would send a single stream of music (around 6-8k/s) to the streaming relay provider. The relay would then stream multiple copies of the music into SL.

The two most common streaming server systems at the moment are a Shoutcast and Icecast. You can either set up the server software on one of your own servers or pay someone to host it. Due to the amount of bandwidth required for multiple streams, the price of streaming can vary. Try searching Google for a list of other available hosting solutions.

Remember that streaming copyrighted music across the internet requires a license from your relevant national licensing authority.

You can also consider creating your own radio station using published music (licensing covered) by going to radionomy.com/create. You can upload your own tracks or use the 150K tracks already on the Radionomy platform. You can create a 24/7 stream with unlimited listeners at no cost here [radionomy.com/create] Create Your Own Radio Stream You can also upload your own personal messages to play in stream, too. This is personal radio to share. Once you have created your station the Music URL port is available and the direct stream is listen.radionomy.com/stationname
*************************************************
Note this right in the middle of that:

"Remember that streaming copyrighted music across the internet requires a license from your relevant national licensing authority."

Add Comment

Father Time

6/24/2016 11:29:34 PM

Well all it would take any of you is to play one show on SL and see for yourself, If everyone pledged to, we could have our IMPstock.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 11:30:28 PM

Oh, yeah, and if you're streaming from your own computer, not through Shoutcast or something, YOU would seem to be the originating website. Actually, I think it would be debatable whether it's you or Second Life, but SOMEONE's gonna be.

Here are ASCAP's performing licenses:

ASCAP licenses

Note down at the bottom, "live streaming"

All in all this subject is really fucked up. It doesn't really seem to be settled who should be paying what to who when it comes to live performing in SL. The fact is, the Performing Rights organizations don't seem to actually be bothering anyone. If you read the laws, though, SOMEONE should be paying performance license fees for performing other people's copyrighted songs. That someone SHOULD be LL, because the laws and PR orgs say that the "venue" is responsible. Just what the "venue" is appears to not be settled.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 11:34:26 PM

Yeah, I'm sure it's fun to live play covers on SL, never said it wouldn't be. Just sayin, it seems to not be actually legal. Whether there's any practical consequence is another subject.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/24/2016 11:36:13 PM

Not even talking about playing your OWN songs, obviously, you license yourself to do that.

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 1:45:29 AM

I have not heard of one person, or second life itself for that matter, ever being sued by a PRO for copyright infringement. This is getting fucking stupid as shit because all I have been trying to do is set up a fucking party where we could all have a great time as IMPers sharing our music. Fuck it.

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 8:06:51 AM

This is from the BMI website:

BMI Meets Up for Second Life
Posted in News on August 14, 2007

BMI, along with Baldwin Piano, sponsored the first Second Life and Virtual World Meet Up on August 9 at T-Bar in London. The event was simulcast online at Virtual World and BMI’s Brandon Bakshi was on hand to lend his expertise to the group in the world of this online gaming extravaganza.

The Meet Up group consists of Second Life and Virtual World enthusiasts who want to meet with those who share the same interests, exchanging tips and tricks, discussing new ideas and projects, finding new business partners and having a good time. The group will meet once a month to converse and, at times, take in presentations from outside companies.

http://www.bmi.com/news/entry/bmi_meets_up_for_second_life

Now, SHUT UP AND STOP BITCHING!

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 9:08:53 AM

So OBVIOUSLY BMI knows all about SL and I don't see any lawsuits against SL over music copyrights so why the fuck do you keep fighting a guy who just wants to throw a fucking party? Fuck. I was ready to help all of you sign up and get started, and fix you up with instruments and a place to play. Fuck it. Offer is officially off the fucking table. Maybe I'll lay it down again in the future when I am not thoroughly fucking disgusted.

Add Comment

6/25/2016 9:11:23 AM

Oh make no mistake, Larree who also takes himself very seriously,
(but we love you just the same, don't we)

I'm not bitching about it. Do it all you want.
I think it's clunky and wonky, if not all the way outright wanky till you need a hanky.

Putting all the legal mumbo jumbo aside,

I think the animation blows turtle toes as my late brilliant wife Vanessa used to say.
She also said,
"never underestimate the power of Vanessa".
I still don't.

I'd like it a whole lot more,
if the animation were not so painfully awfully half-assedly blah.

You wouldn't watch a cartoon drawn so poorly. I wouldn't anyway.

Incredible some of the cartoons that'll get watched these days....

But I grew up with Loonie Tunes,
which is a whole other universe.... arguably a better one....

That's basically the biggest reason I don't wanna bother with it.
It is NOT like playing on the street. I've actually done that.
I did not turn into a poorly drawn cartoon. I checked.
I stopped people on their way home from work and asked them.
"Pardon me... am I appearing to be a poorly drawn animation that you can tell?"

"get away from me you crazy person" they said. I assumed they thought it stupid.

Really,

if the animation were really super easy to set up,
AND incredibly rockin',
then, it could become the 'best thing to happen to music'
as Larree just called it...

(and I still disagree, you watch,
the best thing to happen to music, if it happens, will be music)

but if the animation for SL really rocked,

I might try it.

It might have its applications for all the stuff I can do.
It might indeed.

Well for BEATLESEX, think of it,
I could make a John a Paul a George a Ringo and a Lesley, and there we are.

For ALJ, versatility abounding there as well....

For the guy songs, I could look more butch than k.d. lang
who spells her name with small letters I have no idea why.

For the girl songs, I could go with a total morph.
IF the animation didn't suck,
and I morphed into a seriously rockin' chick in control.

You see, my requirements, for such a thing as SL boasts to be,
are rather unique and specific,

and they would have to be good.

Or I just would not represent myself that way.

"here he or she is, poorly drawn, Lesley!!"

Nope. Won't do it.

And I very much appreciates the bojangles,
indeed I do,

the incredible outspokeness of chutzpah,

of Lyin' Dan when that boy gets the scent of something.

He locks onto it. I find that impressive.
Sooner get a doberman off your leg.

SL as a conceptual, I see the appeal......

believe me, me of all people,

who is in fact an entity bigger and way beyond my physical confinement,
I mean, obviously, I can't morph into a girl into a guy into whatever,

physically, but I can sing like that. Who is he? Who is she?
What the heck is going on here?

And Dan pointed out all the ways the Kool-Aid may cause gastro integestion
or whatever it is...

Doing a bunch of covers, especially if, basically by and large you
can get away with it, and not think twice about stuff like licensing,
well that sounds fun enough,

and again,
Larree, talk to me if they make their animation better.

'Cause right now, it does not impress me.

And for me to do anything with it, it'll fix that shortcoming.

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 9:40:29 AM

The animations are just fine. You sound like some guy in the 1930's saying, "I'll buy a car someday when they invent air conditioning." You use the technology you have. And when new technology comes out, you move forward. Or not.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 10:45:59 AM

I'm not harping on it. Ken chose to shake that stick again, yall told him he was wrong, but he's close to right. All I did was try to sort out what the legalities actually are. Read it or don't. Fact is, playing live in SL is NOT like playing on a street corner, and certainly not if you're playing someone else's songs. Sure, you can get away with it no problem, and no one's gonna bother you about it, because there's not enough money in pursuing you, and you may not even be responsible, really LL is or should be. I'm not saying don't do it, have at it and have fun. As for playing your own songs on SL, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Go for it. An IMP festival of people playing their own songs sounds like a good idea.

My original ragging on SL-LL was for misappropriating graphic art, and that was a very real controversy Here's what they did

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 10:58:49 AM

Have at it as long as you know the facts.

Add Comment

Lars Mars

6/25/2016 11:46:52 AM

It has nothing at all to do with the topic or the thread, but the topic line reminds me of the time my wife and I went to the mall.

There was a woman who greeted us at a store entrance holding a bottle of cologne and asked "Sir, would you like to try our 'Xerius' cologne?

To which I replied "No thanks, I can't take myself to Xeriusly."

Judy chimed in with "Get Xerius, lady."

Glenn

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/25/2016 4:34:27 PM

Larree again you should check what a mechanical license can do. Have you ever bought one?

Mechanical license is not for physical product only you are mistaken.

When I did my cover of "sound of silence" I purchased a mechanical license for 600 web streams.

Why don't you go to harry fox or actually look up what a mechanical license can do instead of spouting your opinion on something you clearly don't understand.

Also did you actually read what I said the first time did you fall asleep? or just fail reading comprehension?

I said the very first time I talked about this that I clearly said that I never heard of anyone getting sued. What I said was that despite that it does not make it right to do so and also it could be possible if the artist choose to do so they could issue a cease and desist or sue for last "damages" if they choose to do so.

I also said If SL pay BMI then its covered. So that covers the whole BMI knows about SL thing that was brought up.

Dan
performing in SL is not exactly the same as performing on the street. When you play on the street it is not broadcast to the internet was a web stream.

When you play in SL the audio is converted to a web stream and as such it is no longer a public performance rights but now falls under the regulations of web streaming.

Dan if either you or laree can provide any kind of proof that the broadcast is not a web stream I would love to see it because I can't imagine what other form it would take other than a web stream.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 4:49:46 PM

Well, hell, does anyone read big blocks of text or much less, links?

I explicitly told larree performing in SL was not like performing on the street. Are you slow? I was basically telling them you were right.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/25/2016 4:51:46 PM

Father Time,
As far as people stealing original music I really don't have much comments on it.
Dan was the one who was talking about Linden labs EULA giving them the right so distribute which it appears the terms of service might do that. As for why they might do that who knows but the point is they have the right to if they want to.

All I ever said was that unless SL pays BMI that if you do a cover then you must hold the license to do so.

Performing in SL is not the same as playing live in a bar because it is being broadcast to the internet.

The bar pays BMI for you to play live so you are not responsible for anything.

If you stream content as a web stream I don't think there is any difference in a live web stream vs a pre-recorded web stream.

On that one point I could be wrong I am not familiar with the legalities of live web stream.

If there is a different regulations between a live web stream vs a pre-record web stream then its possible I might be wrong but only if they are distinguished separately under the law and only if live stream does not require a artist to hold the license.

Once again if SL pays BMI then all this goes away because the license fee is paid.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 4:54:40 PM

Well, half right.

If you'd actually read my walls of text, you'd know that SL itself does not broadcast a webstream. You link to a streamer, either your own computer, or a website. This is the loophole that SL claims, that the stream does not pass through them.

How about reading the whole discussion and the links before commenting, dullard?

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 4:56:49 PM

Neither does SL-LL pay BMI or anyone else.

Read, read it all before spouting.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/25/2016 4:57:11 PM

Dan I may have missed that point.

I also think that I agreed with you not that you much care if I do or not that the terms of service and EULA do contain some questionable language and artist should be cautious about performing original materials in SL in my opinion.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 5:06:59 PM

Here's the deal. When you pay performance license, you are paying the songwriter.

When you pay mechanicals, you are paying the owner of the copyright to the recorded music.

Two separate things. Pay the guy who wrote the song, pay the guys who recorded it.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 5:09:00 PM ---- Updated 6/25/2016 5:10:08 PM

If you're the artist performing a song by someone else, you (or someone) need only pay the songwriter (performance license).

If you are streaming a recording by someone else, you need to pay the copyright owner of the recording.

Add Comment

Steve White

6/25/2016 5:10:00 PM

Wow!

You guys need to listen to my new song I think. LOL!

Get your mind off things maybe.
It's not a cover too!

Steve

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 5:22:09 PM

I don't know how to make it any simpler.

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 7:51:58 PM ---- Updated 6/25/2016 8:49:04 PM

I don't give a fuck! All I was trying to do was create some fun for you assholes! Just a fun fucking time for us to hang out together in a virtual environment and share our music. Fuck it! Don't fucking talk to me about SL again!

***********************************************************************************

Performing copyrighted songs implicates the copyright owner's exclusive right to publicly perform a work and to authorize others to publicly perform it. Public performances of copyrighted music at live music venues, with limited exceptions, require payment. However, it is generally the responsibility of the venue owner (i.e., the presenter of the public performance), not the performer, to obtain a public performance license and pay any required licensing fees.

As a practical matter, venue owners obtain blanket licenses from the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC, in the U.S.) to have the right to present musical performances at their venues. That's because it's not feasible for venue owners to research the ownership of each song and negotiate individual public performance licenses. (Imagine the venue owner requiring you to give them your set list weeks in advance and making you promise not to deviate from the list!)

*************************************************************************************

I have a list of about 500+ cover songs that I play, and the list grows every year. And since I am not recording or releasing them I do not need to buy a license to simply 'play' them live in any venue, real or virtual.

Once again... "...it is generally the responsibility of the venue owner (i.e., the presenter of the public performance), not the performer, to obtain a public performance license and pay any required licensing fees."

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/25/2016 9:39:44 PM

You didn't read any of it. I'm done.

Add Comment

Larree

6/25/2016 9:44:42 PM

"When I did my cover of "sound of silence" I purchased a mechanical license for 600 web streams."

Right. That is the equivalent of a physical product. 600 units. As I said. Maybe you should study harder, Ken.

Add Comment

Richard Scotti

6/25/2016 9:46:09 PM

Do you need permission to put a cover song on You Tube? Or create a video for the actual recording of a published song? I get the impression it's like the Wild West there. I've seen so many of those two examples on You Tube. It's hard to believe they ALL obtained licenses from Harry Fox. I assume you only get into trouble if someone complains and the legal remedy is to just take the song down. (correct me if I'm wrong)

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 6:33:26 AM

I am not sure of the details of the current youtube agreements. I know they have changed a lot but there are still issues. Here is some current news.

http://www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2016/06/24/49964/influential-musicians-band-together-against-youtub/

Add Comment

6/26/2016 7:50:16 AM

Okay,

so, to Lyin' Dan,
who has a bead on everything like nothing I've ever seen,

can one do that,
what I'm imagining,
which is, conceptually, a virtual beatle concert,
which if Larree could explain to me how I would go about
creating a cartoon John, Paul, George and Ringo, (and sometimes
the fifth one, Lesley, who can morph into either a man or woman, talented one)

like, and, let's just say,
the last thing on earth I'm going to do,
is bother with licensing,

just basically present it as a thing I did, we did, whatever,

virtually performing, as cartoon beatles named BEATLESEX
for argument's sake, a bunch of BEATLE songs,
entirely re-recorded by BEATLESEX of course....

So Dan is that do-able,

And Larree, walk me through how I'd do that.

Yes here, now, sell me on the idea,
because I'm beginning to become very intrigued.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 8:22:07 AM

Dan, I looked over those ascap license agreements. It looks to me like the website owner is the one who pays for a streaming license. Not the performer.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 9:17:06 AM

ALJ, you just gotta set up a free account and start experimenting. You can be a male or female avatar, you can 'morph' from one to another or at least change from one to another easy enough. Although I would not swap avatars out during a song. There is plenty of Beatle art and props available in SL. I have even seen sims set up as tributes to the Beatles, and other bands as well. As far as recordings go - it would behoove you to be able to at least sing the lead vocal live, or better yet, play guitar and sing the lead live, along with a backing track. SL music fans appreciate musicians who sing and play. If your just playing recordings you're just a DJ.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 10:30:02 AM

Richard

Youtube DOES pay a performance license to performing rights orgs (ASCAP, BMI, et al). So, you have the right to perform other people's songs on Youtube. Youtube does the right thing (sorta, it's a negociated license and the amount paid to songwriters is pitifully low) as a venue for streaming copyrighted works.

Here's more info:

YouTube videos make people money, but songwriters rarely see any of it

5-things-you-had-wrong-about-youtube-royalties

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 10:36:33 AM

Richard

For the second part (putting an actual recording in your video), I don't think so. They get a bazillion DMCA's based on background copyrighted music. And you get a demerit if they take down your video by DMCA. I'm not actually up on the current intricacies of just what they've negociated with music companies.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 10:42:47 AM

Lesley

I think that's not on firm legal ground for a number of reasons, including trademark violations as well as the other stuff I've talked about here, but hey! Since it's rampant on SL, no one seems to care. I dunno, your call.

Add Comment

6/26/2016 10:56:09 AM

Now here's a part I really don't understand,
I can kind of see the merit in doing this,
creating a multi-media presentation out of a sonic performance....
.... but playing live? Now how is an animation gonna know what I'm GONNA
do if I were doing it live? Did I miss something here?

And as my recordings, are, of my singing it, live as you please,
the neighbors make me shut up after nine pm,

well, I'm not a DJ. I'm an LJ, there's a difference.

The idea, to me,
would be to create a performance, sonic blended with animation,
and make it really work, really fire on all cylinders...

but again, I'm seeing this as a thing, which you hone to a fine tune,
and then you display it...

I just don't fathom how an animation, can ditto me if I'm performing live,
because again, how is an animation, going to anticipate, what I do?

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 11:07:16 AM

Dan, you are definitely right about syncing copyrighted music to a video. That requires a synchronization license.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 11:08:24 AM

ALJ, the only way you will really know is to log in and experience it. See it in action.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 11:11:51 AM

larree

If you'd read all that tower of text up there, you'd know you're retreading what I already covered, but

ASCAP Licensing FAQS

"Some people mistakenly assume that musicians and entertainers must obtain licenses to perform copyrighted music or that businesses where music is performed can shift their responsibility to musicians or entertainers. The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible. Since it is the business owner who obtains the ultimate benefit from the performance, it is the business owner who obtains the license. Music license fees are one of the many costs of doing business."

Like I said, Linden Labs should be paying performance license fees. They appear to be the "venue". They don't. They won't. The above quote from ASCAP's page also says, "The law says all who participate in, or are responsible for, performances of music are legally responsible." What do you think that means? Somebody, somewhere is supposed to pay the songwriter for the use of his song. That would include paying you, larree, if someone were to cover your song. As I've covered up yonder already, LL says they are not the "originating website" that the actual music stream is coming from, they pass on responsibility to Shoutcast, or whatever website is doing the actual streaming. If you're streaming from your own computer, and not Shoutcast or some other streamer, the originating website is YOU. Regardless of who is doing the streaming, SL is a commercial setting, and payment of performance license by SOMEONE is legally required. Whether that's being enforced, obviously not.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 11:19:39 AM

Hey, Lesley, the way it works is that you push keys on the keyboard or otherwise start an animation sequence for your character. It's not paying attention to you at all except for the press of a button. So if you scratch yer ass in the middle of performance, no one will know. Unless you start an ass-scratching animation by hitting a button.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 11:41:41 AM

larree

*************
Quote -I have a list of about 500+ cover songs that I play, and the list grows every year. And since I am not recording or releasing them I do not need to buy a license to simply 'play' them live in any venue, real or virtual.

Once again... "...it is generally the responsibility of the venue owner (i.e., the presenter of the public performance), not the performer, to obtain a public performance license and pay any required licensing fees." -endQuote
*************
Notice the "generally" in that quote? Why do you think that's there?

Yeah, you're certainly covered, as long as the venue owner pays the license. And even if he doesn't, cause the PRO's will go after him, not you.

The rub would be, let's say LL gets sued, and wins on the technicality that there are not the "originating Website". If you're streaming from your computer, that's you. Will they come after you? Nah, it's peanuts. You could still be legally liable, though, whether anything is done about it or not. (Which it won't be. Unless that ruling prompts a change in the law, similar to statutory damages for other movie/music copyright violations)

Consider, though, it's only right for a songwriter to get paid for use of his song. That's my main peeve against SL, they're not doing the right thing. Perhaps when and if they get as big as Youtube, they'll get called on it.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 11:49:59 AM ---- Updated 6/26/2016 12:00:33 PM

I totally get that, Dan. And I do agree that LL, as the venue owner, should be paying those annual blanket license fees. And perhaps they will be in the future. I blame the copyright law itself for not keeping up with technology. No musician walks into a bar and asks the owner if they are all paid up on their music licenses. And it is exactly the same in SL.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 2:06:45 PM

Larree,

Please explain your logic as to how a web stream constitutes a physical product?

This is a web streaming only not a download that could be deemed as a physical product.

The only thing about it that makes similar to a physical product is that is has a limited number of streams per the amount in the agreement at time of purchase.

If you make a physical CD you also purchase the amount of license per the amount of CD you intend to press.

It appears the point is mute as Dan has provided actual factual proof that this falls under the jurisdiction of live performance rights vs that of a recorded web stream.

http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Getting_Started_As_A_Second_Life_Performer

A few important things to remember:
Legal Issues: If you choose to stream your own music into SL directly or using a streaming relay host, the content and any copyright/royalty fees and any other possible issues are your responsibility.

http://suebasko.blogspot.com/2010/12/cover-songs-performing-and-recording_19.html

PERFORMING A COVER SONG LIVE: The rock band or solo performer does not need a license to perform a cover song live. It is the club, restaurant, or concert venue that is supposed to obtain a license or licenses for generally hosting music performances, which includes the live music as well as the recorded music they play over the sound system. These are licenses from PROs, or performing rights organizations, namely ASCAP, BMI, SESAC. These organizations sell licenses on their websites. They also send agents to clubs and restaurants to try to get them to buy a license.

Sometimes a venue or store will tell you that you cannot play any cover songs. This means they have opted not to buy any music performance licenses from the PROs. If you are told this, you must be very careful not to play those songs.

To perform a cover song, just be sure the venue has the PRO licensing (or perform the song and assume they are covered).

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/youtube/on-posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-music-licensing-law-explained/
Publication under the Copyright Act is defined as:

” …the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.”

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 2:08:53 PM

Richard,
Please read the below information I found regarding you tube.

http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/youtube/on-posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-music-licensing-law-explained/
When you attempt to “synch” a sound recording of a song with any audio/visual element, you also need to obtain a synchronization (“synch”) license. This is a separate, negotiable license that allows you to use a particular piece of music in “synch” with other visual elements, such as in your music video. This would also be the case if you were filming a live performance of your band performing the cover song (and you’ll need a public performance license for that too, unless the venue has the necessary blanket licenses in order).

YouTube is required by law to have a number of broadcast licenses, and some people assume that, as YouTube users, they are covered by these broadcast licenses. They are not. The licenses cover the broadcasting of each video; they do not, however, cover the uploader’s responsibility to secure all of the necessary licenses and clearances required before publishing their video. You are warranting that you have cleared all necessary rights to the video when you upload or publish it to YouTube. Under YouTube’s Help section, it explains its policy on copyright infringement: “YouTube respects the rights of copyright holders and publishers and requires all users to confirm they own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to upload content. We comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and other applicable copyright laws and promptly remove content when properly notified. Repeat infringers’ videos are removed and their accounts are terminated and permanently blocked from using YouTube

Not from above source from my personal experience:
To post a recorded cover to youtube you require a synchronization license they are not cheap and average 250-500 dollars or more.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 2:18:42 PM

One final comment
I found Dan's explanations and information to be very helpful and informational.
Dan provided actual factual proof unlike some others who did not provide proof to back the statements they made (father time).

The only reason anything I said here was incorrect is the difference between recording a cover and performing a cover live.

If the conversation was different and instead of performing the cover live you recorded it first and then stream your recorded version of the cover what I said about mechanical license is true.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Richard Scotti

6/26/2016 2:24:11 PM

Thanks for the info, Ken

Add Comment

Bob Elliott

6/26/2016 2:28:37 PM

I really don't want to play second life, but Two Silo makes me really want to play a bunch of covers on there and also on YouTube and not license them.

What would that case be about in the courts, maybe a ten thousandth of a penny? High stakes stuff.

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 2:30:03 PM

Yeah, you're right. The part I bumfuzzled is that a Youtube video is a recording. Recording and distributing somebody else's song is copyright violation unless you have a mechanical license. So, although Youtube pays performance rights, as a venue, you still have to have mechanical rights.

Simply performing a song and not making a recording of it is covered by performance rights. That should be the situation in SL. Or is it? It's still streaming it.

If you're confused now, you're within your rights.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 2:43:08 PM ---- Updated 6/26/2016 2:45:13 PM

Sure, Ken. It's like this. A disposable lighter or pen is a unit of product. So is a stream. It is a disposable unit of product. Your mechanical license is for 600 units of product.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 2:45:06 PM

Bob Elliott,
Will you be fined probably not but if does not make it right to steal other artist music and not pay them. If you don't want to pay royalties to other artist for performing the song they made that is you not me.

Also after a few reports of violation your youtube account can be banned.

So go for it man post as many covers don't license a damn thing. Will anything happen? Maybe not. Is it right to do it? Certainly not. That is my entire point.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 2:56:04 PM

Laree you make a good point. It appears that you are also correct that mechanical license does pertain to physical product. Mechanical license only applies in recordings not live performances.

The mistake I made was that I thought that the live performance constituted a web stream and as a web stream it fell under mechanical license. As I stated above the point is mute as Dan proved that this falls under live performance not a recorded web stream which changes the context.

I can and will freely admit when I am wrong but I do require actual proof just saying that is not the way it is does not cut it.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 3:17:18 PM

larree is also correct in that using copyrighted music on Youtube is supposed to require having a sync license, cause it's a video.

But. Youtube has made deals with the major rights holders. There is a system in Youtube that allows a non-sync-licensed video to be allowed by rights holders to not be taken down, but instead to have ads attached to it, the revenue from which is given to the music rights holders rather than to the video uploader. It is common for this to occur. But. It is purely at the disgression of the rights holder. Some will DMCA you instead, and you'll get a strike. So, it's your risk.

Add Comment

Larree

6/26/2016 5:00:20 PM

It is definitely good for all of us to stay on top of this stuff. Great discussion.

Add Comment

Two Silo Complex

6/26/2016 6:19:52 PM

Good points about youtube Dan and Larree.

The information I gave above for Richard talks about synch license and youtube.

as you said in some cases if you don't have a synch license you get a strike

in some case you tube works out a deal for add money

All this aside a synch license in not cheap per easysonglicensing.com the average fee can range from 250-500. With another agency I asked about one particular song that artist wanted 1000.

the problem with synch license is that there is no standard royalty like there is with mechanical license its a flat rate per minute.

Unfortunately sych license does not follow suite and is widely ranged in price.

Besides the name calling which is childish and uncalled for it was a good discussion that I found educational and interesting.

Two Silo Complex,
Ken

Add Comment

LyinDan

6/26/2016 7:43:54 PM

So did I, Bozo. :)

Add Comment

6/27/2016 7:49:18 AM

I now take myself so furiously,
that just this morning,

I refused myself an autograph.
I was coming out of the bathroom at the time.

Who do these people think they are?

Add Comment

6/30/2016 7:14:05 AM

Actually the real irony here,

is that I used to take myself dead seriously.
You'll never guess what changed that.
It was, literally, being dead.

Then they brought me back.
I remember my initial thought,
"Oh you gotta be f***in' kidding me!"

But there is something, about surviving death,
dying, then coming back,

that kind of makes you take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

Oh I still know, the things that I know.

I just stopped expecting any of you to know it any longer.
The world's turned stoopid. This is better than reality television.

Ruh-Roh.

Add Comment