Hello, everyone -

For quite sometime, I have read people's concerns and comments on the forum regarding copyrighted styles and copyrighted music, in general. There is an expensive book I own entitled, "This Business of Music" by M. William Krasilovsky and Sidney Shemel that discusses, not only all laws of recording music, but musical arrangements and that they generally do not fall under copyright law as does musical compositions. Arrangements used on popular records rarely qualify for copyrighting and generally are permitted ONLY if made by the copyright owner of the original work or with the owner's consent. The copyright owner, whether publisher or writer, ordinarily does not prepare the record arrangement and makes no claim for copyright in the arrangement. Nor is the consent of the music publisher obtained for the arrangement to be copyrighted by another person. The copyright owner issues a more or less standard mechanical license to record, which in practice is deemed to indicate that no objection will be made to the arrangements required for purposes of recording. The license in this instance amounts to an agreement not to object rather than a consent or grants of rights. However, arrangements of works in the public domain may qualify for copyrighting without the consent of the former copyright owner.

With the above, what does this say about copyrighting styles, which in essence, is an arrangement? Are there new laws protecting people who create styles? A good question. Generally, these styles (presets from keyboards) aren't more than 4 measures long. With copyrighted material, (songs) you don't have to pay royalties if you don't sing or play in public more than 8 measures of a copyrighted song. Questions, questions!!! Personally, I don't think keyboard companies can do anything about using their styles. It boils down to the fact that they put all this technology into their keyboards to copy styles from one another - let them live with it.

Hi

Just a thought on how crazy this copyright business is. A young chap called Gareth Gates,here in the UK has just released a record of the standard "Unchained Melody"
It has gone to no.1 in the UK charts and he is set to make a million pounds but the ex beatle, multi millionaire Paul MaCartney is expected to make over 1.5 million pounds ,and he did'nt even write the song
I hope gives it to some deserving charity, but I won't hold my breath

Regards

Brian

Usually it is not the writer or composer that own the copywrite it is the publisher.
The copywrite to Unchained Melody is owned by Frank Music Corporation, USA.

Just as "Michaela" Jackson now owns the copyrights to a lot of The Beatles' material because he/she bought it some time ago... if I don't remember it totally wrong?
GJ

I read in the paper that MacArtney owned it and would make the most money, he owns a lot more he bought a few years ago. Maybe he owns Frank Music Corporation, How old was the music you read it on, if it was from music. Walter.

You will know that it has recently been re-released in the UK and made number one by pop idol Gareth Gates following that, new sheet music with his picture on has been distributed by Music Sales but they do not own the copywrite ( although they do own copywrite to a vast amount of SMF)

The copywrite is 1954 renewed 1982 & is internationaly secured

He who pays the piper calls the tune
Johnnie

COULD IT BE THAT EVERYBODY IS RIGHT??
Look at. http://www.nme.com/news/101194.htm

WALTER.

Well, I have to agree with NSR. When a keyboard is manufactured with the sole purpose of being sold to musicians or the musically inclined public, how could they possibly expect to withhold permission to use the rhythm backgrounds, fills or intro/endings? It was all created to intice the buyers to spend their money on the lavish, sometimes overpriced product, instead of something like a tuba, so the implied consent is secured along with the sales receipt. Who in their right mind would buy an instrument knowing they could never use it for entertaining others, either through live playing or by recording?!! Maybe that's why the manufacturering reps haven't said a word yet. You'd think one of them would reply and settle the question, especially if they could steer business their way. There are probably volumes of law books with case records concerning implied consent. It's probably a legal quagmire.

Some thoughts about copyright of styles.

For example Technote sells disk with style and additionel sounds.
They call them a.o. 8 beat or hip hop or modern Ballad.
They are very angry (in the past at their on website) that some people copied the disk.
I can imagazine they are angry for putting in so many time for making the disk and they are a company that have to make money.

But in my opion an 8 beat or a hip hop is a music style not created by, for example, Technote or other style disk sellers.
The same is for the sound registrations. Everybody can make them a their one keyboard.
All the things you need for that are free to use and in the keyboard. There is no protection. Sit behind your keyboard and try.

So pay nothing for the efforts companies like technote made???.
I think see it as it is common in the computerworld. So called SHAREWARE, where people make programms which look like for instance "Norton Commander" but call it "Winston Commander". The programm works exactly and looks almost exact as the original and there is no law who can forbidden that. Because they make use of all the computer technology which is free to use for everyone if you understand how to programm it. And they ask if you like it a small contribution

And in my opion that is the same with the keyboard. All the sounds and rhytms are in it. Also the equipment to change that for making new sounds and rythms (programming). But a copyright for a quickstep or a house style don't excist.

So you can say the price you pay for a disk is a kind of contribution for the efforts the person (company) made (SHAREWARE principe).
But if you don't pay there is no law who can su? you for it.

Band in a box for instance began as a shareware. The programmer, a Italian guy, looked for something which wasn't present at that moment. A lot of people liked the programm and came with new ideas so at the end it became a brand and is sold as a programm now by PG music company.
Others started to make tools and styles for it. see www.nortonmusic.com
There is also an interesting line about copyright in their section "copyright information" about the free use of chord progression.

rgds.
Wim


[This message has been edited by waterschip (edited 04-23-2002).]

[This message has been edited by waterschip (edited 04-23-2002).]

When you bought the keyboard some of the manufacturer's cost could be licensing fees to embed the style in the ROM of the keyboard. It would have to be arranged by the manufacturer as an implicit right to use because the keyboard and the built in styles are not separable. I know music played commercially is pay per use but that would be not practical.

It does not matter how much we disagree with the rights or wrongs of copywrite the facts are that whoever owns the copywrite on a particular item & that in it's self is a preverbal nightmare because in music it covers just about everything (remember Napster) then they own the legal right to decide who can use it. I suppose that you could say that copywrite law is much the same as patent law in that in its very basic form it is a protection of ideas.

For the same reason that Technote made such drastic changes to that forum was because possibly someone was freely giving away openly on their forum Technotes own xmas disk & probably other files, so they obviously decided rather than send the man round they would change the forum in such a way so that such things could not continue I.E. no email addresses in the posts. So we effectively lost a very good forum although it is still there things are not quite the same. At the time I felt very aggrieved & had my say.
I would hate to see this forum go down that same road purely because people feel the need to openly on the internet give away copywrite material & they do.
Regards
Johnnie.

Napstar is a wrong example because who ones the copywright is obvious. The artist paid a fee for the songs or wrote the songs themselves.
The Xmas disk from Technote also. If they paid royalties to the owners of the rights of the Xmas songs for using them, then there is a copyright.

But when they or sombody else even one of the members of this site make a e.g. a sounddisk only by changing some parameters of the keyboard than there is no copywright. Only you could pay a kind of fee for there efforts to do this. Because all the things to get to that sound are free accessable for everyone who have that kind of keyboard.
Even by making a style. As said before. A foxtrot is a foxtrot. And look at the naming of some styles in the KN6000. "Ribon"
"Carpenter" which have some massures and the feeling of that particular song or group.

rgds
Wim

[QUOTE]Originally posted by waterschip:
[B]Some thoughts about copyright of styles.
in my opion an 8 beat or a hip hop is a music style not created by, for example, Technote or other style disk sellers.

READ CAREFULLY
What is Copyright?
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U.S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship" including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, architectural and certain other intellectual works.
This protection is available to both published and unpublished works.
Material in the "public domain" is intellectual property that does not come under copyright laws.
Nearly all work before the 20th C. is not copyrighted.

What is Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is the act of stealing and passing off the ideas, words, or other intellectual property produced by another as one's own. For example, using someone else's words in a research paper without citing the source, is an act of plagiarism.