Ed changing the lyrics, A place to argue Options

[Bremang]

He can cover whatever song he wants in a performance setting and not pay a dime.

Also, I was really offended by his change in Operation Spirit. It was the song that really made me start paying attention to his lyrics and it's such a change from one to the other "means nothing at all to me today," to "means everything to me today." I almost left the show right there. This was not the song I wanted to hear. If he doesn't agree with the lyrics anymore, then don't play the song. It would be like John Lennon showing up to sing Imagine but changing the lyrics so he was asking us to imagine that all the world was Christian or something... ridiculous.

haha thats a good example of how lyrics could completely change the song meaning. That would suck, unless if you're someone who enjoys the new lyric. Even though Eds lyric is a complete 180 of the original, I don't know if that would make his song a complete turn, or as much of a turn as the example you give about imagine. It seems like you might have to change way more than one lyric to change the meaning of imagine to be all about a Christian world. It also just depends on what you believe Operation Spirit is about.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Aug 7 2010, 4:10 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

It seems like you might have to change way more than one lyric to change the meaning of imagine to be all about a Christian world. It also just depends on what you believe Operation Spirit is about.

This, this, this!



I may not be able to give you an 100 percent definite idea of what STD and O:S are about, but I do know that you would need to change WAY more than that one line to make it fit a Christian worldview. WAY more.

[Hoodstock]

Royalties always play a role for each individual song that gets played at a concert. When they cover a song, they pay whomever owns the rights. This includes when artists don't own their own songs. For example, Radiohead has to pay out the ass if they play Creep in concert, because they don't own that track.

That's bullshit. You don't have to pay royalties to play other music in concert. You have to pay roylaties to record and sell the music.

How the hell would a bar band be able to afford that?

[Bremang]

Do you have any evidence of this? As far as I'm aware, royalties aren't paid on tracks performed during live performances. Who exactly is supposed to keep track of the thousands of concerts that happen every day and the exact setlist.

I have friends in bands. For most of the show they play their original material, but always throw in a few covers. They have never paid royalties to anybody. Should I contact the RIAA and report them?

Federal Copyright law says that a copyright owner can prevent any other person from publicly performing their work. Check out 17 U.S.C. Section 106 (4).

I recall hearing that Radiohead pays whenever they perform the song "Creep" in concert. I am aware of the performing right societies, but I am not sure if the venue would be entirely burdened by the cost in this case, or when huge bands cover a famous copyrighted song that they don't own. It seems if Radiohead did not own Creep, this law could allow the owner to prevent Radiohead from playing it, and maybe Radiohead could then make a deal with the owner to be able to perform it.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106

This post has been edited by Bremang: Feb 21 2011, 7:01 am

[dangum]

Nobody has been able to show me anything that says an artist must pay royalties for performing a track in concert. The reason is that is doesn't exist.

The 'Creep' track is a special case. Thom Yorke based the song on a track called "The Air That I Breathe" that was written by another band in 1972. After the song was released, Radiohead were forced to share royalties with the original band. These royalties came from radio broadcasts as well as an album cut and a single cut. Radiohead don't pay anything for performing the track in concert. There is a similar situation with The Verve and their track "Bittersweet Symphony". The main string riff was taken from a Rolling Stones track released in 1965. Because they failed to get permission from the Rolling Stones before they released the track, The Verve were required to pay a large chunk of their royalties to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Ironically, The Rolling Stones 'borrowed' their track from somebody else...

[Bremang]

Nobody has been able to show me anything that says an artist must pay royalties for performing a track in concert. The reason is that is doesn't exist.

The 'Creep' track is a special case. Thom Yorke based the song on a track called "The Air That I Breathe" that was written by another band in 1972. After the song was released, Radiohead were forced to share royalties with the original band. These royalties came from radio broadcasts as well as an album cut and a single cut. Radiohead don't pay anything for performing the track in concert. There is a similar situation with The Verve and their track "Bittersweet Symphony". The main string riff was taken from a Rolling Stones track released in 1965. Because they failed to get permission from the Rolling Stones before they released the track, The Verve were required to pay a large chunk of their royalties to Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. Ironically, The Rolling Stones 'borrowed' their track from somebody else...

That is interesting, I mean, I really am not sure on what authority the person relied on when they said Radiohead had to pay to play creep in concert. I'm also not sure if I was using the term "royalties" incorrectly. You still need to get permission to play copyrighted work that does not belong to you according to the ascap website. I can see a payment being made for Radiohead to obtain permission to play the song. But I'd need to know more about it before I can say one way or the other.

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html

Public Performance or Performance Rights
A public performance is one that occurs "in a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered." A public performance also occurs when the performance is transmitted by means of any device or process (for example, via broadcast, telephone wire, or other means) to the public. In order to perform a copyrighted work publicly, the user must obtain performance rights from the copyright owner or his representative.

This post has been edited by Bremang: Feb 21 2011, 7:31 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

Venues pay a fee to ASCAP (or a similar organization) every month so that bands who play there can play cover songs.

So, technically, you are right that someone has to pay for the right to play cover songs, but it isn't the band and it doesn't go directly to any artist.

[Bremang]

ascap's saying that a performer needs to obtain performance rights from the owner, and 17 USC section 106 says that the owner can prevent performance of their work. Could a monetary imposition be made by an owner to the performer while ascap still is in play?

This post has been edited by Bremang: Feb 21 2011, 8:05 am

[thefunkyredcaboose]

They "could," but out in the real world it simply doesn't work that way. Think of how many millions of cover bands play for 50 drunk people each Friday and Saturday night. It just isn't realistic. I have no clue how ASCAP handles their business, I just know that's how the venue handles their side of things.

Also, you can put a cover song on youtube without any kind of problem since the copyright law hasn't caught up with it yet. However, distribute it in any other form and you are asking for trouble.