Home DigiTech Forum GNX Forum Achive GENERAL General Discussion and Chatter

MIDI copyright restrictions

As pretty much still an analog guy, do you have the legal OK to perform and record with all your present MIDI, software, warps, etc.? If I can't use a piece of music gear/DAW free of restrictions - I DON\"T WANT IT :!:

Your comments please. http://www.midiloops.com/copyrit1.htm

Comments

  • This subject is touchy just like the article links you posted.. it's touchy because the posters and file sharers have gotten away with it for so long. Remember, it's not only the artist that maintains copyrights.. it's the entities that declare such ownership if the have the rights to do so.

    This was brought forth in the same frame as Karaoke discs. Seem harmless, but for the ones that wrote the songs, maintained their copyrights.. why should they not be entitled to those rights? If users do not have permissions, it's not legal to distribute by any means.. free or paid.

    Three main types of copyrights in music:

    PA- performance arts
    LA- Literary arts
    SR- Studio Recording

    today most musicians apply for all 3.. if not, you the artist open up a can of worms for yourself.

    Just remember, as you have read elsewhere.. just because it's freely available now does not mean it was EVER legal to post it.

    One of the many reasons so many new artists get way with samples and such is that they choose a song NOT protected or copyright maintained. If the artist/entity maintained it, it was NEVER legal to post, distribute, edit, sample, use, on their recordings. simple...

    I'm not a lawyer, but this is what many of our client musicians ask about all the time. Local guys here get myspaced by people without permissions. Those starving artists cannot afford legal teams to manage misuse.. so it's not just the RIAA and other entities concerned.. it's most aspiring musicians that ask/demand to be protected since they HAVE that RIGHT.
    If it's not enforced, why should any artist PAY for legal services to be protected?? it makes perfect sense.. but unlawful decisions from internet distribution has made it a case for all..

    Bottom line.. it was NEVER legal to post them.. ie backing tracks, midi, mp3's etc.. the artist /entity is the sole owner of that composition provided all protections have been taken as such.
  • Agreed with you and the law on this. My concern is reproducing a \"TONE\" via these copyrighted tools. Must I tweak something at least a little to prevent said \"TONE\" during live or recording or is it unique to my rig? Must acknowledgement be made to XYZ software tools used or worse -permission prior to turning on the amp for a live audience? How far reaching is the coyright control of recording \"TONE\" and MIDI technique?

    Thanks again for any and all guidance.
  • Tone, is not copyrighted. Only the methods of producing such things can be patented. Ie a Circuit, or component like a speaker. That's different altogether.

    People use Boss, rockmans, Marshalls, and other tone creation machines all the time on recordings. No that is not an issue.. Compositions, names and references are. Music works by an artist via whatever media are often protected. Whether they used a Hughes Kettner or Digitech with a Gibson Les paul is NOT. Those are mere endorsements and as such, the artist often lists those means on the completed works. ie Special Thanks to\" Digitech\" etc

    If you use a Digitech with a Les paul and a Kurzweil keyboard, and Boss Dr880 you are fine.. as long as you don't re-mix Perfect Strangers by Deep Purple..

    Now you can play with it, learn from it, etc.. the law is simply about file sharing of completed protected works.. ie MIDI full sequences, and in some cases.. riffs. Not many of those though there are a few \"eruption\" might ring a bell.

    As far as MIDI's, you can use a TONE from a sequence any way you like. The copyright is again only with completed work. Not the items used to create a tone
  • I do remember that Harley Davidson filed a lawsuit to try to trademark its engine tone. As I recall, it was unsucessful, but I'd have to research that. Trademark is significantly different from copyright, in that a trademark does not expire.

    On this topic though, playing cover songs in public is not a copyright problem, as long as the venue you are playing at is licensed by the rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC). But, in those cases, it is the venue that must have the license, not the perfomer. Producing a recording of copyrighted material for distribution is another issue, and it does require licensing by the proper entities.

    Playing live with midi, loops, something else produced by someone else - that is an area in which I don't have any ability to provide guidance
  • Again, playing live with loops in a club that is licensed for covers is fair game.. It's a cover song. As you stated, the licensing is up to the club.

    many owners have issue with that but it's no different than DJ's and their tera bytes of MP3's. Now, Dj's in some states are having to file usage rights to do so. Those DJ's remember used to come with 10 boxes of CD's, and Albums.. obviously paid for. With the new system, there's no means of knowing how they got 50,000 songs. So like here in Ohio, they pay a USF.. \"usage subsidy fee\" regardless of karaoke, or actual music compositions of orig artists.

    Now, if you myspace \"perfect strangers\" you could be in violation.

    Rules do vary.. here a cover band can post up to 1 min videos or 30 sec audio samples of their Covers without fault. Check your state codes to be sure. IOW, here, you can myspace a Cover up to 30 sec. Anything after is a violation. This is the same law provided to Amazon, CDNOW, CD UNIV etc that post artist samples.
Sign In or Register to comment.