Revision 2013
category: parties [glöplog]
And since I am drunk.. and even larger +1 to what GARGAJ said! :)
Quote:
As far as I understand, part of the issue here is that Musician A enters into an agreement with their own royalty collection agency in Country A, but runs into a problem when trying to perform activity in Country B, where a different agency has a different set of rules.
Unless the international agreements for co-operations between the agencies are kept secret, you have the option of checking that out if you suspect you will be publishing stuff in another country. Before you enter the agreement.
If such co-operation is established after you registered, you can leave if you disagree (Punqtured's story is obviously relevant, but that is just back to a lot of the agencies being dicks).
lug00ber: I think you're not getting Gargaj's point. The agreements between associationd and artists are changed over time, international agreements are changed, laws are changed and practices are changed. When I signed with Teosto in 2003, this GEMA name-checking problem didn't exist in practice. But there was another set of problems, related to online publishing, and believe it or not, those problems have largely been solved and changed. The "evil" association changed their rules and practices for the better! Practice is always different from theory, and what happens in practice has always been an approximation of what the agreements actually seem to say in theory. The associations admit it, and their clients know it. It has always been like that, and still is today, and will continue to be. Changes are very slow, and they require the co-operation and active lobbying between many parties over a long period of time. The problem is, common sense only seems to be applied as far as big money is concerned, not for underground hobbyists' benefit. Copyright laws seem to assume that the only reason anyone can possibly want to create music is to make money. That's the root cause for a lot of stupidity.
You may be able to point at someone and yell BUT IT WAS YOUR OWN FAULT, but that doesn't really help.
So, how much money do you make when you register to GEMA, or Teosto or one of these other crook organizations? As far as I can see it only causes headaches for 10 bucks a year, lol.
Everybody should just unsubscribe from all these organizations, fuck them! Sell your own music on CD-rs, tapes and Bandcamp and let everybody play your shit for free!
Everybody should just unsubscribe from all these organizations, fuck them! Sell your own music on CD-rs, tapes and Bandcamp and let everybody play your shit for free!
So if I get you riht lugo, one shouldn't enter an agreement with their own countrys sane and fair (well, to a certain point I guess) royaltycollecting society because the german counterpart are run by Martin Bormann?
Okkie: just because GEMA are cunts doesn't mean these organisations have no purpose. About 30% of my income is from royalties that SACEM collects from radios, television and streaming all over the world. And just because music isnt your livelihood doesnt mean you should impose your "music is a hobby and should be free" mentality on everyone else.
Every countrys GEMA equivalent is more of an image of that countrys leaders. The very efficiant and nazi-GEMA. The very lazy and corrupt SACEM. The very idealistic and obnoxious STIM, etc.
Okkie: just because GEMA are cunts doesn't mean these organisations have no purpose. About 30% of my income is from royalties that SACEM collects from radios, television and streaming all over the world. And just because music isnt your livelihood doesnt mean you should impose your "music is a hobby and should be free" mentality on everyone else.
Every countrys GEMA equivalent is more of an image of that countrys leaders. The very efficiant and nazi-GEMA. The very lazy and corrupt SACEM. The very idealistic and obnoxious STIM, etc.
Quote:
Everybody should just unsubscribe from all these organizations, fuck them! Sell your own music on CD-rs, tapes and Bandcamp and let everybody play your shit for free!
I totally agree with you, the worst thing a musician can do is prostitute himself to such a stupid organization and lose the ability to do whatever you please with your own music (like entering it in a music competition w/o asking for permission first).
You pay money (yes, every time you play your own music somewhere!) because you want to make money?? .. that's the wrong approach!!
Dubmood: fairynuff, that's why I asked, because I literally have no idea how it gains money against the 'hassle' (then again, how serious is 'entering a compo at some demoparty' compared to 30% of your income)
Sunspire: eh, I get where Dubmood is coming from, but the whole system is indeed flawed as fuck imo.
Sunspire: eh, I get where Dubmood is coming from, but the whole system is indeed flawed as fuck imo.
For the truly serious musicians who are getting real airplay (on radio), getting their songs played on TV, covered by other artists etc, there really is no plausible alternative to a membership in such an organization. I know a few people like that and what they get from Teosto is a significant part of their livelihood. The copyright associations offer bargaining power unlike anything else, even if they are a hassle in many other ways (and GEMA seems to be filled with assholes).
Of course, few demoscene musicians belong to that category. The "one size fits all"-solution that the organizations offer is a shame.
Of course, few demoscene musicians belong to that category. The "one size fits all"-solution that the organizations offer is a shame.
It seems to me we could make an analogy between GEMA, SACM, SACD, Teosto to feudal lords or mafia organizations. They behave like "protectors" for the artists who gave away their rights to them for royalty in exchange.
Normally artists are invited to participate into the definition of policies of such organisations through voting. That makes artist entirely responsible for their protector's behaviors.
Normally artists are invited to participate into the definition of policies of such organisations through voting. That makes artist entirely responsible for their protector's behaviors.
Still you miss the point over and over. This is not a problem with Royalty organisations in genral. This is a problem with GEMA. I am a member of STIM, SACEM and BMI. Neither one of them prevents me to release work under CC or any other license outsie their rule. Even though all said organisations have flaws and are having problem keeping up with the evolution of things, they are not that bad. To blame them in this is wrong. So don't blame us as members of such societys for the actions of GEMA. And dont say that it is our fault that we wanted to me members of the likes of SACEM and hence cannot compete on breakpoint when we can compete in any other demoparty outside of germany.
I dont give away my rights to all my music. I license the right to collect royalties for selected works from airplay and such so that I don't have to enter an agreement with 345672387238 venus, radio and tv stations over the world. And to do that they take a certain %.
If it wasn't for them, by demoscene values, DJs would be rippers. If you are payed to DJ other peoples music and they don't get payed, wouldn't that be pretty laxical? (cough cough, see what I did there?)
I dont give away my rights to all my music. I license the right to collect royalties for selected works from airplay and such so that I don't have to enter an agreement with 345672387238 venus, radio and tv stations over the world. And to do that they take a certain %.
If it wasn't for them, by demoscene values, DJs would be rippers. If you are payed to DJ other peoples music and they don't get payed, wouldn't that be pretty laxical? (cough cough, see what I did there?)
what preacher said, but maybe the overlap between demoscene and "serious" musicians isnt as small as you make out. im not going to make a correlation between quality and being a member of one of those agencies, but the reality is: many musicians (even those who'd consider themselves hobbyists) who have at some point taken their shit seriously have managed to get to a place where they wanted to join a copyright agency - including some of the more experienced or well known musicians involved in the demoscene: the musicians behind some great soundtracks in some very well known demos.
by my count virtually every musician we've worked with on a pc demo in the last 5 years is a member of an agency - and so are most of the musicians we wanted to work with for current or future projects. this makes sourcing a "party-legal" demo soundtrack a problem, particularly if you want something in a certain style or, yes, of a certain quality level.
(and im not really down with the idea of faking credits to get around it. a demo lives on long after the party, and the musician deserves proper credit for their part in it.)
none of this is revision's fault and i dont blame the organisers for it - it's just a victim of the situation. but it could well mean that we are unable to release any more demos at german parties, or in other nations where they take the same aggressive approach to collecting royalties. now that, for me, is a shame.
by my count virtually every musician we've worked with on a pc demo in the last 5 years is a member of an agency - and so are most of the musicians we wanted to work with for current or future projects. this makes sourcing a "party-legal" demo soundtrack a problem, particularly if you want something in a certain style or, yes, of a certain quality level.
(and im not really down with the idea of faking credits to get around it. a demo lives on long after the party, and the musician deserves proper credit for their part in it.)
none of this is revision's fault and i dont blame the organisers for it - it's just a victim of the situation. but it could well mean that we are unable to release any more demos at german parties, or in other nations where they take the same aggressive approach to collecting royalties. now that, for me, is a shame.
Quote:
The agreements between associationd and artists are changed over time, international agreements are changed, laws are changed and practices are changed.
Meaning you will need to have to pay attention and revise your membership over time.
Quote:
The problem is, common sense only seems to be applied as far as big money is concerned, not for underground hobbyists' benefit.
Collection of mechanical rights is about money. What else should it be about?
Quote:
Copyright laws seem to assume that the only reason anyone can possibly want to create music is to make money
On what basis do you claim this?
Copyright laws exist as an incentive to create something, securing ownership for you of something you've made. It enables you to give away or sell the music you make as you seem fit, because it's yours. It is what gives you the right to say "no, you can't use my tunes as soundtrack in a video promoting child molestation", or say "sure, I'd love for you to make my track in a demo".
Don't mistake copyright laws for the practices of rights collection societies. Copyright laws are necessary for being able to collect any rights at all, but it's not the cause of kids being sued for ridiculous amounts of money or GEMA making life hard for the Revision organizers.
Quote:
Everybody should just unsubscribe from all these organizations, fuck them! Sell your own music on CD-rs, tapes and Bandcamp and let everybody play your shit for free!
What dubmood said. Also, don't tell me what to do with what I make. It's mine, I'll decide what's best for me.
Quote:
So if I get you riht lugo, one shouldn't enter an agreement with their own countrys sane and fair (well, to a certain point I guess) royaltycollecting society because the german counterpart are run by Martin Bormann?
I have no interest in telling you what to do (nor think that you would listen if I tried ;). My point is that when anyone enters an agreement they need to understand the agreement they're entering, and accept the fact that you may need to concede something in order to get benefits.
In your case (which is a great example) you'll have to weigh 30% of your income against being able to participate in Revision compos.
Quote:
I totally agree with you, the worst thing a musician can do is prostitute himself to such a stupid organization and lose the ability to do whatever you please with your own music (like entering it in a music competition w/o asking for permission first).
You got it twisted. When you allow an agency to collect rights on your behalf, you *are* using your ability to do whatever you please with your own music. It's your choice, and if the system doesn't work for you you can choose to stay out of it.
Quote:
If it wasn't for them, by demoscene values, DJs would be rippers. If you are payed to DJ other peoples music and they don't get payed, wouldn't that be pretty laxical? (cough cough, see what I did there?)
Ahahaha, that's brilliant :D
Wish I'd thought of making that connection.
lets turn this around. "all democoders who also are programmers in their dayjob are no longer allowed to compete at Revision (because of some random worker syndicate rules in germany or whatever), it was your choice to get a work as a coder now suffer the consequences, you should just have coded for free as a hobby, too bad for you"
Point is, none of us wants to pay >100eu for a Revision ticket just to pay GEMA a fuckton of money, for doing nothing but standing in the way.
lug00ber:
well it is up to an artist then to decide what is more important to him, to be able to release his tracks anytime, anywhere (at parties etc.) or play the slave of some self-proclaimed royalty collector agency, basically trading off his freedom for money.
If profit means that much to someone (that's fine!) that he is willing to license all his tracks to a dodgy organization with dodgy methods, he needs to also deal with the consequences, good and bad (bad as in being unable to participate in demoparties)
I for myself would never entrust my music to GEMA or the likes, and if that means I can't ever make serious money with my tunes then fuck it, at least I'm a free and independent person. The world is full of new opportunities every day, why miss out on them because your society's contract puts you in chains?
GEMA doesn't pay for your music or your performances (you do!) they only pay by taking money from supposedly law-breakers. Blood money, so to speak.
well it is up to an artist then to decide what is more important to him, to be able to release his tracks anytime, anywhere (at parties etc.) or play the slave of some self-proclaimed royalty collector agency, basically trading off his freedom for money.
If profit means that much to someone (that's fine!) that he is willing to license all his tracks to a dodgy organization with dodgy methods, he needs to also deal with the consequences, good and bad (bad as in being unable to participate in demoparties)
I for myself would never entrust my music to GEMA or the likes, and if that means I can't ever make serious money with my tunes then fuck it, at least I'm a free and independent person. The world is full of new opportunities every day, why miss out on them because your society's contract puts you in chains?
GEMA doesn't pay for your music or your performances (you do!) they only pay by taking money from supposedly law-breakers. Blood money, so to speak.
SunSpire: read up, not all organisations work as GEMA, for most of them, you license selected work and not all. And with many, you can still choose to re-release the already registered work under CC by just filling in a web-form (like SACEM). I am not going to answer to the rest of the self righteous moralist content of your post because you obviously don't know much about royalties, copyright and how different organisations work and what they do.
Quote:
lets turn this around. "all democoders who also are programmers in their dayjob are no longer allowed to compete at Revision (because of some random worker syndicate rules in germany or whatever), it was your choice to get a work as a coder now suffer the consequences, you should just have coded for free as a hobby, too bad for you"
Doesn't work as an analogy, rights collection agencies are not your employer.
My employer does not licence my code from me, he pays me to write code that becomes his ownership. If I had worked as a composer for a production company I'd be paid to do music that they assumed copyright over to use in whatever they are making. It's not mine, it's the property of whoever is paying my salary.
If they licensed my music as an independent artist, I'd get licensing fees. If I joined a rights collection society the production company could license my music from them. Then I would have had extra income from music I made already, sitting on my ass doing nothing.
Look, don't get me wrong here. I don't like the way that the collection agencies are going on about their business. After all, I've chosen not to join one.
I don't like the system, and I don't like their politics. I could never stand watching "my representative" on the news talking about how we need stricter laws and more surveillance to combat piracy.
I think your, xerxes' and smash's situations suck, and it sucks that I won't be seeing new shit from you at Revision.
But at the same time, I'm annoyed that people are so ignorant of the fact that benefits comes with trade offs (not directed at you), and that people enter agreements they don't understand or even bother to understand. That is not anyone's fault but the person who entered the agreement.
I think the Revision organizers do a great job of informing the public here, and hopefully this might make more people conscious of either their choice to join a rights society or start working to change how their society manages their rights.
Quote:
well it is up to an artist then to decide what is more important to him, to be able to release his tracks anytime, anywhere (at parties etc.) or play the slave of some self-proclaimed royalty collector agency, basically trading off his freedom for money.
How can you be a slave if you choose to join a rights society?
Also, what dubmood said. Again.
JuvenileShithead: Acknowledged, I am purely focussing on GEMA here, I'm aware there are other organizations out there with far less strict methods, I'm sure. That's cool!
As for royalties and copyright, I've read at least enough material about it over the years to form my own opinion. And while I'm all for protecting artists' works from inappropriate use (see stolen scene music topic, for instance), the actions that GEMA is taking in recent days are beyond ridiculous and make them look extremely unprofessional, like the wannabe-ruler over all music content, whether you're a member or not. Makes me angry.
There are countless examples of why GEMA sucks, I won't be going into details here, the internet is full of them.
lug00ber: Then one can "choose" to be a slave, I guess ^^ Honestly, if someone can somehow benefit from being a member of said society then more power to them, but there are many articles on the web about people who are desperate to get out again, especially from a certain german society.
As for royalties and copyright, I've read at least enough material about it over the years to form my own opinion. And while I'm all for protecting artists' works from inappropriate use (see stolen scene music topic, for instance), the actions that GEMA is taking in recent days are beyond ridiculous and make them look extremely unprofessional, like the wannabe-ruler over all music content, whether you're a member or not. Makes me angry.
There are countless examples of why GEMA sucks, I won't be going into details here, the internet is full of them.
lug00ber: Then one can "choose" to be a slave, I guess ^^ Honestly, if someone can somehow benefit from being a member of said society then more power to them, but there are many articles on the web about people who are desperate to get out again, especially from a certain german society.
Smash: if your musician is member of a society which allows releasing songs as CC - please get in contact with them and try to get a permit to release under GEMA rules in germany. As far as I know, that was done at Evoke a couple of years ago and the organizer team didn't have to pay for it.
It will mean more work for us - but it might be a good way for you to keep releasing stuff in countries with harsher restrictions.
But please check it yourself - we don't have the resources or connections to do it for you.
It will mean more work for us - but it might be a good way for you to keep releasing stuff in countries with harsher restrictions.
But please check it yourself - we don't have the resources or connections to do it for you.
I agree with JuvenileShithead. This particular problem is not about copyright organizations in general, it's about one of them, GEMA. The organizations are different. Depending on country, it may or may not be possible to release CC licensed stuff, while having other works governed by some central organization.
If you represent Big Money, then the system works just perfectly. The less you're about money, the less the model suitsyou. But that's just with the current setup, and things can change. Why should it have to be only about collecting money? The current organizations' responsibilities and the model should be changed so that the system also supports hobbyists and creating things. The name of the Finnish ognization, Teosto, literally translated means "works repository". Teosto should take more the role of a teosto, less like a big money collecting behemoth.
If you represent Big Money, then the system works just perfectly. The less you're about money, the less the model suitsyou. But that's just with the current setup, and things can change. Why should it have to be only about collecting money? The current organizations' responsibilities and the model should be changed so that the system also supports hobbyists and creating things. The name of the Finnish ognization, Teosto, literally translated means "works repository". Teosto should take more the role of a teosto, less like a big money collecting behemoth.
In other words, Teosto and GEMA should support CC licensing, and even allow using them as a central register of works (="teosto" in Finnish), to keep track of which piece is under which license. That would benefit a very large group of people.
so if i get this right:
releasing under cc or similiar license (if your local organization allows it) make it ok to be played in germany as well, but since GEMA automatically assumes all tracks which are made by artists found in their giant database are represented by them it is your own responsibility to have some sort of proof ready that the work indeed isnt covered by your local copyright association (and as this represented by GEMA)?
releasing under cc or similiar license (if your local organization allows it) make it ok to be played in germany as well, but since GEMA automatically assumes all tracks which are made by artists found in their giant database are represented by them it is your own responsibility to have some sort of proof ready that the work indeed isnt covered by your local copyright association (and as this represented by GEMA)?
