Comments on: Ringtones REDUX http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10165 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:19:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10165#comment-131746 Reader's Write Fri, 29 Dec 2006 09:15:14 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10165#comment-131746 I am a composer that knows the wothlessness of a compulsory license, here is my story: I was surprised to hear a song of mine on the radio. The law firm contacted portrayed it as an infringement that would require loads of money, the users of the music, although they knew who I was showed little due dilligance, and said " go ahead and sue us". It took years to find out that the source of publication was a project tape in a recorder stolen from a studio I was working in. Even though the song has sold well, the royalties recoverable would never cover legal costs. For years I contacted the best copyright lawyers, none had ever heard of compulsory license. Resolution has never been made, and the song is an orphan work. Eventhough the license has no provisions for juke box play it has become one of the top juke box singles because there is no straightforward source for licence info, and tavern owners assume that a hit like that should be on the juke box, even if they get a letter that states otherwise. The bottom line is that this is an obscure exception to the copyright law that enables composers to get hosed, a loophole for legal infringement. If it extended to all copyrightable works, without major overhaul ,as proposed, copyright protection will be nonexistant. I am a composer that knows the wothlessness of a compulsory license, here is my story:
I was surprised to hear a song of mine on the radio. The law firm contacted portrayed it as an infringement that would require loads of money, the users of the music, although they knew who I was showed little due dilligance, and said ” go ahead and sue us”. It took years to find out that the source of publication was a project tape in a recorder stolen from a studio I was working in. Even though the song has sold well, the royalties recoverable would never cover legal costs. For years I contacted the best copyright lawyers, none had ever heard of compulsory license. Resolution has never been made, and the song is an orphan work. Eventhough the license has no provisions for juke box play it has become one of the top juke box singles because there is no straightforward source for licence info, and tavern owners assume that a hit like that should be on the juke box, even if they get a letter that states otherwise.
The bottom line is that this is an obscure exception to the copyright law that enables composers to get hosed, a loophole for legal infringement.
If it extended to all copyrightable works, without major overhaul ,as proposed, copyright protection will be nonexistant.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10165#comment-129267 Reader's Write Sun, 22 Oct 2006 16:48:10 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/10165#comment-129267 "Not only has the USA retained its compulsory license for mechanical reproductions" Has no one noticed that the compulsory license is basically a worthless license? This is why, illustrated with a real life case. I'm an owner and administrator of the rights to over 500 songs. A record company wants to record one of our songs. I don't like the accounting reputation of the record company or the record company is not willing to submit to our accounting auditing requirements. After all, many record companies (if not all) are known to be accounting tricksters so as not to pay proper royalties to artists and songwriters. We then refuse to give the record company a license. So the record company gets a compulsory license. Ah, but the recording artists cannot sing the song publicly. And the record cannot be played on radio. This is because while we cannot stop a compulsory license we control the performance of the recorded song. If, as it turns out frequently, the songs (unlike ours) are given to a performace licensing collective for performance licensing. But that information never reaches the "licensed" radio station or the venues where the song could be performed, so the song may not be performed. This is because a list of the licensed songs (the so called repertoire) is not given to licensees by the performance collectives. Of course, a mad radio station owner that thinks he may play any song simply because the station has performace collective license for unamed songs and has a lawyer that does not have a head over his/her shoulder. Amazing that no one has noticed what I'm saying. Not even the radio stations or their lawyers have not noticed. Rafael Venegas http://www.gvenegas.com “Not only has the USA retained its compulsory license for mechanical reproductions”

Has no one noticed that the compulsory license is basically a worthless license?

This is why, illustrated with a real life case.

I’m an owner and administrator of the rights to over 500 songs.
A record company wants to record one of our songs. I don’t like the accounting reputation of the record company or the record company is not willing to submit to our accounting auditing requirements. After all, many record companies (if not all) are known to be accounting tricksters so as not to pay proper royalties to artists and songwriters. We then refuse to give the record company a license.

So the record company gets a compulsory license.

Ah, but the recording artists cannot sing the song publicly. And the record cannot be played on radio. This is because while we cannot stop a compulsory license we control the performance of the recorded song.

If, as it turns out frequently, the songs (unlike ours) are given to a performace licensing collective for performance licensing. But that information never reaches the “licensed” radio station or the venues where the song could be performed, so the song may not be performed. This is because a list of the licensed songs (the so called repertoire) is not given to licensees by the performance collectives. Of course, a mad radio station owner that thinks he may play any song simply because the station has performace collective license for unamed songs and has a lawyer that does not have a head over his/her shoulder.

Amazing that no one has noticed what I’m saying. Not even the radio stations or their lawyers have not noticed.

Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com

]]>