Homeless piano guy goes viral, gets ripped off

[Herecius]

Whether it is from another composer, whether the scenario is staged, these are 2 different questions, 2 different situations.

Right, it is totally possible that the situation is not as it seems. It could be staged, it may not be his composition in which case neither of them are in a position to readily profit from it. But if we are to take what's being presented at face value, the outcome should be obvious; the woman making money off the recording is the wrong.

[belfpala]

I'm all in favour of paying top dollar to go and *see* a musical performance. I just think artists should be giving away their music for free. Even electronically produced music can be 'performed' live, I've been to many live gigs and they were worth every penny.

And many bands favor that model.

I'm trying to move beyond music here. If I write a book, do I need a tip jar when I travel around the US for book signings?

[Wildtree]

Because the music has to be performed, and is prone to the interpretation of the performer AND THEN the listener, whereas a piece of written work is only interpreted by the reader. Unless you're talking about performed literature, in which case, where is the creativity, in the writing, or the performance? (To clarify, it is in both, but where is the weighting? Is Hamlet performed by 5th graders the same as by the RSC?)

In regards of music, you're essentially referring to cover songs.
Cover material is usually handled by the covering artist either asking for a permission, or through sharing the revenue by default, with inclusion of the royalties that apply.
Additionally the original writer has to be given proper credit at the song credentials.

The thing is, that the whole rights subject has a lot of different reasons. The regulation of commercialization is only one of them. It however also protects the works. Without that instrument in place, the lines would be blurred soon, and one day no one knows where and what the original was, and where it came from. True genius would never be discovered, could never be honored. All in all, it also protects our culture.

- - - Updated - - -

Right, it is totally possible that the situation is not as it seems. It could be staged, it may not be his composition in which case neither of them are in a position to readily profit from it. But if we are to take what's being presented at face value, the outcome should be obvious; the woman making money off the recording is the wrong.

Yup.... exactly.
Two law blocks say so..
Privacy laws, copyright laws.

[AeneasBK]

The creator of a composition or a piece of artwork is black and white. They made it. That's a fact, it's not an opinion.

I'm totally not really discussing the minutia of the example in the OP. But this "black and white" stuff you're talking about. Here is an example:

Person A writes a piece of music. Person B listens to that piece of music, likes it, and writes a piece of music that is the same except syncopated in rhythm. They are no longer the same piece of music or they are? Its black and white these should be easy.

Okay, next, Person A writes a piece of music with an awesome riff in the chorus. Person B writes a different song but with the same awesome riff in the chorus, on a different instrument. Same piece of music or different? Oh he also adds a lead-in note on the bass, but the riff is the same. The verses are totally different. He transposes it up 3 semitones. Same music still?

And what about if you genuinely feel you've come up with something original? Clearly no single person has listened to 'all' the music in the world, so is it just "whoever got to the lawyers first" that gets to own it?

I could go on for pages and pages, and you know why? Because its not black and white. We've got arbitrary laws I'm sure defining to what extent you can 'own' a melody. But its arbitrary, not "fact".

Personally, I'm of the opinion, that music is far to... abstract isn't the most accurate word, but it will do; for it to be worth the effort, collectively as a species, of trying to work out who owns which melodies. Leave the money in the non abstract performances.

Again, wouldn't work in the world as it is.

- - - Updated - - -

And many bands favor that model.

I'm trying to move beyond music here. If I write a book, do I need a tip jar when I travel around the US for book signings?

You've got people taking time out on the opportunity of meeting the author of a book they loved, and you'd want a tip jar? Wouldn't the chance to talk to your readers be worth the experience? Just curious.

[belfpala]

And what about if you genuinely feel you've come up with something original? Clearly no single person has listened to 'all' the music in the world, so is it just "whoever got to the lawyers first" that gets to own it?

There are really cases about the question, "maybe he heard that Rolling Stones song 40 years ago on the radio and it influenced him, and therefore copyright." Insert other bands and dates. The law, as it stands, doesn't care how you feel about the originality of what you're playing. Many well-known bands have experienced this and survived.

- - - Updated - - -

You've got people taking time out on the opportunity of meeting the author of a book they loved, and you'd want a tip jar? Wouldn't the chance to talk to your readers be worth the experience? Just curious.

How am I paying for the trip to meet my readers?

Edit: One of my favorite bands played a series of small venue shows a number of years back. After the first song, the singer was amazingly honest. He said, "Thanks for paying the entry fee. We're only doing this to pay for gas money on our European tour, next month."

[Herecius]

I'm totally not really discussing the minutia of the example in the OP. But this "black and white" stuff you're talking about. Here is an example:

Person A writes a piece of music. Person B listens to that piece of music, likes it, and writes a piece of music that is the same except syncopated in rhythm. They are no longer the same piece of music or they are? Its black and white these should be easy.

Okay, next, Person A writes a piece of music with an awesome riff in the chorus. Person B writes a different song but with the same awesome riff in the chorus, on a different instrument. Same piece of music or different? Oh he also adds a lead-in note on the bass, but the riff is the same. The verses are totally different. He transposes it up 3 semitones. Same music still?

And what about if you genuinely feel you've come up with something original? Clearly no single person has listened to 'all' the music in the world, so is it just "whoever got to the lawyers first" that gets to own it?

I could go on for pages and pages, and you know why? Because its not black and white. We've got arbitrary laws I'm sure defining to what extent you can 'own' a melody. But its arbitrary, not "fact".

Personally, I'm of the opinion, that music is far to... abstract isn't the most accurate word, but it will do; for it to be worth the effort, collectively as a species, of trying to work out who owns which melodies. Leave the money in the non abstract performances.

Again, wouldn't work in the world as it is.

- - - Updated - - -



You've got people taking time out on the opportunity of meeting the author of a book they loved, and you'd want a tip jar? Wouldn't the chance to talk to your readers be worth the experience? Just curious.

Again, you're making a fairly simple concept stupendously complicated. What you're describing is already done, and always has been done, and so long as it hasn't been blatant plagiarism, it has generally been just fine to do. Want proof?



Composers riff off one another all the time. It's been done for as long as music has been around. What you think is viewed by other people as black and white really isn't. The only thing that's 'black and white' is the fact that the original composer of a whole piece is the one with their name attributed to that piece.

To use your argument against you and relate it right back to what's going on here, what if you composed a full piece, and somebody else used it with no alteration whatsoever to make money that you would never receive any part of? With no accreditation? What if they claimed that they made it themselves and YOU are the one who copied it?

[AeneasBK]

In regards of music, you're essentially referring to cover songs.
Cover material is usually handled by the covering artist either asking for a permission, or through sharing the revenue by default, with inclusion of the royalties that apply.
Additionally the original writer has to be given proper credit at the song credentials.

The thing is, that the whole rights subject has a lot of different reasons. The regulation of commercialization is only one of them. It however also protects the works. Without that instrument in place, the lines would be blurred soon, and one day no one knows where and what the original was, and where it came from. True genius would never be discovered, could never be honored. All in all, it also protects our culture.

You don't have to convince me the laws are in place to protect the commercialization of music

As for the latter part, maybe true genius would never be discovered or honored, I disagree myself, in this modern age, getting your music heard is simple. IF its good, it will get heard more. IF its the best it will be heard the most. IF someone is copying you, kinda by definition, they have to wait until *after* you've published your music to copy you.

Again, I appreciate the model "in my dreams" wouldn't fit into the world as it is. There is faaar to much money wrapped up in it from back when recording music required exclusive equipment. Nowadays, it doesn't need more than a computer, which I know, check muh privilege, not everyone has a computer; but do you see where I@m coming from at all?

[Thimagryn]

You're not talking about the same point Herecius is talking about though. You're taking the entire situation on a tangent.

This isn't a case where the woman played a version of the homeless mans music for the entertainment of others, and profiting off it. This is a case of recording him play and profiting off of it, with or without his permission. If it is without permission and knowledge on the part of the homeless man, then it is wrong. We unfortunately do not have the full details on what their relationship is, but as far as the article goes, the money will not be shared directly with him. Instead it is 'going to charity for the homeless'. It indicates that he would not be directly seeing any of that youtube cash.

This case is black and white as far as what has happened, and the law/moral implications behind it. There is no ambiguity present in that aspect of the situation. What you bring forth are matters irrelevant to this specific case.

[AeneasBK]

Again, you're making a fairly simple concept stupendously complicated. What you're describing is already done, and always has been done, and so long as it hasn't been blatant plagiarism, it has generally been just fine to do.

And the wrangling is over the bolded part. Deciding what is blatent and what isn't.

[Herecius]

And the wrangling is over the bolded part. Deciding what is blatent and what isn't.

Blatant is blatant. The entire thing is copied wholesale. This is really simple, but I can tell you like making things complicated. My father had a saying for this: 'asking somebody the time and waiting for them to build you a clock.'

[AeneasBK]

This case is black and white as far as what has happened, and the law/moral implications behind it. There is no ambiguity present in that aspect of the situation. What you bring forth are matters irrelevant to this specific case.

Sure, I think I tried to point out a few posts back that I'm chatting massively off-topic, I shouldn't have made the original derailing post; I just get annoyed when people start to bicker over who owes who money for music.

But I guess as we're sticklers for 'the law' here, it was a performance in a public place, so she can spend all the money on her pet cat, and he should have found a private location for his performance if he wanted to profit from it (/sarcasm)

[Herecius]

But I guess as we're sticklers for 'the law' here, it was a performance in a public place, so she can spend all the money on her pet cat, and he should have found a private location for his performance if he wanted to profit from it (/sarcasm)

That is also not how 'the law' works. You really do just like complicating a topic, don't you?

[belfpala]

I'm still wondering how I'll pay to get from LA to Seattle to Chicago to NY to Miami to pay for my book signing tour...

[AeneasBK]

Blatant is blatant. The entire thing is copied wholesale. This is really simple, but I can tell you like making things complicated. My father had a saying for this: 'asking somebody the time and waiting for them to build you a clock.'

The legal industry and high profile cases of music plagiarism would seem to disagree with you, however. If it was SO simple, there wouldn't even need to be a lawyer, except for the formalities. Sure the majority may be settled out of court, but thats more indicative of the cost of fighting a legal issue. But anyway, I've derailed this thread enough, I shouldn't have said anything.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm still wondering how I'll pay to get from LA to Seattle to Chicago to NY to Miami to pay for my book signing tour...

If you're being invited to sign at a book store tour, can't they pay for it? I mean they are getting all the people into their bookstore before they all finally bow out to internet sales....

- - - Updated - - -

That is also not how 'the law' works. You really do just like complicating a topic, don't you?

Fair enough, I'm not sure about the USA, someone posted earlier that it was legal to record anything in a public space so I was going with that *shrug*

[belfpala]

If you're being invited to sign at a book store tour, can't they pay for it? I mean they are getting all the people into their bookstore before they all finally bow out to internet sales....

And... under your model, what's the purpose of a book store?

[Wildtree]

Fair enough, I'm not sure about the USA, someone posted earlier that it was legal to record anything in a public space so I was going with that *shrug*

That is not only the case in the US.
There's a guideline in place, a rule of thumb..
If you see it, in public space, you can record it (Pic/vid/sound).
But there are exceptions...
1. You cannot record from outside to the inside. You on the outside (public space) cannot record anything that happens on the inside (private space).
2. You further cannot make any commercial gain from your recording.

Btw... your "robin hoodish" stance on everything should be free to use, that's a very very dangerous one. It would cause more harm than good.
I have, in the fact of the matter about an album full of songs in the drawer. They are all there, waiting to be worked on more, and then arranged and recorded in a studio. Waiting on a buddy of mine to get the right set up done, since he's got connections. Anyhow... if everything was free to use, I'd not bother with anything at all.
I don't have the top connections, and with that said, the big entertainment companies could just take the material, slap it onto some of their contracted big name artists, an make a fortune with it. And I would not see a dime... Fuck that shit.
The copyright laws do in fact protect the little guy more than the big corporations. It's for the copyright laws, that an average Joe or Jane have a chance to make it in their business. And that's not limited now to music alone. Think about that for a moment

[AeneasBK]

And... under your model, what's the purpose of a book store?

Hehe, to be fair after I posted I did think about that. I guess they'd be akin to antiques dealers, or hobby/record shops that sell vintage comics/records laminated to protect them... People will still want to 'own' hard copies of books, but I guess they'd become more of an artisan thing, rather than mass-published paperbacks. You'd be paying for the object, not the content... And of course, to meet your favourite author and get him to sign your kindle

[glo]

And... under your model, what's the purpose of a book store?

Obviously to employ the writers who would otherwise be homeless, duh.

[AeneasBK]

Btw... your "robin hoodish" stance on everything should be free to use, that's a very very dangerous one. It would cause more harm than good.
I have, in the fact of the matter about an album full of songs in the drawer. They are all there, waiting to be worked on more, and then arranged and recorded in a studio. Waiting on a buddy of mine to get the right set up done, since he's got connections. Anyhow... if everything was free to use, I'd not bother with anything at all.
I don't have the top connections, and with that said, the big entertainment companies could just take the material, slap it onto some of their contracted big name artists, an make a fortune with it. And I would not see a dime... Fuck that shit.

Yes, and again, I KNOW that this model wouldn't work in the world as it currently is. I get that, I'm just saying, that in a 'better' world, that isn't the model we would be using, where the big entertainment companies have all the power. There isn't a particularly conceivable way that we could transition between the two. But any time the issue comes up, I'll probably side with the guy who says "Fuck it, if the music is so similar that people would argue its 'mine' and I'm being copied, I'll just be happy that MORE people are listening to my music again" (Yup, I said it, you should just be happy people think your stuff is good); rather than siding with the guy saying "Thats 'MY' music you're using, pay up"

The copyright laws do in fact protect the little guy more than the big corporations. It's for the copyright laws, that an average Joe or Jane have a chance to make it in their business. And that's not limited now to music alone. Think about that for a moment

[stross01]

The idea that you can own music is disgusting

Fact*, not idea.

If you find owning a composition 'disgusting', you must find the entire concept of ownership 'disgusting'.

Also, why the FUCK would you choose a word as dramatic as 'disgusting'? Do you know the definition of the word? You gonna swig some Pepto, bro?

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough, I'm not sure about the USA, someone posted earlier that it was legal to record anything in a public space so I was going with that *shrug*

"I heard something somewhere about some topic and I decided to base a multi-page idiot rant on it"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ SHRUGGLIEWUGGLIESLAWLIEGIGGLEBEANS *LOL* ¯\_(ツ)_/¯