OT: MP3 hosting for covers?

[adouglas]

Okay, so I'm in a cover band. Very small scale, very casual, focused on fun and self-gratification.

I'd love to share some of our stuff, but it seems that it's a no-no. I created a page at garageband.com and uploaded a file, but got a stern warning that covers would be deleted forthwith. Copyright, it seems, despite it being just for kicks and not for sale or anything like that. Nobody is making money, there's no way that it could be mistaken for anything but an amateur cover...so where's the justification?

WTF? There are covers all over YouTube, aren't there?

This seems booooooooooooooogus.

I mean, hell, I posted pics of my band on Photobucket. You can clearly see a Bongo, a Taylor guitar, and three Bose systems, not to mention a pair of Eastern Mountain Sports pants and some New Balance sneakers, among other things. Does that mean I have to pay royalties to all those companies for using images of their products?

Can anyone help?

 

[Aussie Mark]

Does your ISP deal come with a small amount of free webhosting space? A lot of ISPs provide 10 or 20mb for users to create their own home page or small website. If so, that's a free option. Plan B is to buy a domain name (maybe for your band) and sign up for a web hosting plan for a few bucks per month.

 

[Randracula]

I know a few cover bands that post their stuff on MySpace but mabye they just haven't been caught yet.....

 

[maddog]

try posting some Brahms or Beethoven covers. I think you'll be OK with those.

 

[jeffrey]

How much bandwidth are you talking about here?

I can probably host it for you.

 

[adouglas]

Very little, actually. All I wanted to do was place an OT post here about how well the Zoom H4 recorder I just bought works, with a link to the first results...we just took the thing, put it in front of one of our Bose systems and pressed "record".

It's just a one-take, rough, unedited version of The Beatles "Don't Bother Me", warts and all, complete with the sound of the other band members' six-year-old daugher in the background asking for attention.

It was going to go away shortly anyway.

 

[jeffrey]

Go ahead and Gmail me the MP3's, I'll host'em for you.

scrubby at gmail dot com

 

[Alvabass]

Hey Andrew, have you tried here?

(I originally posted this one, but they seem to have changed their policies)

 

[Big Poppa]

We cant really host songs either it is a publishing issue not a trademark issue

 

[midopa]

hmmm I think WonderDog talked about something like this in the Forum CD thread:

I don't think it is quite that simple. The issue is copyright infringement. Under the fair use doctrine you can copy other's works in some cases (which is what you are talking about). Whether it is a fair however use leads to a mult-factor test, such as how much of the work is copied, is it for educational purposes, is there a fee charged, does the copy dilute the value of the original copyright holder's work, etc.

Because there is a multi factor test, it cannot be said for certain in a case like this that there is no infringment. We are talking about charging for the CD, so even if there is no profit, it is not a free distribution. Also it is a copying of the full work, not just a part. And it is not for educational purposes, but for the same purpose as the original, entertainment. Also People may choose to buy the cheaper cover over the more expensive original. (theoretically).

...

I guess that's why?

 

[adouglas]

I guess that's why?

Probably. What a pain.

Thousands of bands are out there playing live covers and it's legal, right? But if you record that same peformance and give the recording to a friend, it's not? Or are we breaking the flippin' law every time we pick up our instruments and play anything that we did not write ourselves?

There's also the question of what a "copy" is. To me a copy would be taking the original recording and distributing it. That's not what we do...we're performing the song...interpreting it...and recording THAT. A copy? Doesn't seem like it to me.

Sheesh. Let's not start down that discussion path. It makes my fingernails hurt.

It's really the collision of the spirit of the law and the letter of the law, I guess. The spririt of the law says that you shouldn't rip off the copyright holder. Somehow it just doesn't make sense to me that we're doing that in any way whatsoever.

I'll compromise. I'll either use PutStuff or mail the file to Jeffrey (thanks, man!), I'll post a link to it so people can EDUCATE themselves about how well this recorder works and then I'll delete the thread in a week.

 

[Big Poppa]

Put yourself in the artist shoes. Im sure they give a rats ass about one post but saying that if you interpet a song differently then the copyright is no longer valid is poppycock.

The early days of rap and sampling were the most extreme examplesa but I agree with the decisions made. The original artist should be paid . Luke had it happen to him several times and finally got paid.

 

[adouglas]

Oh, I didn't say the copyright was invalid. Of course it's still valid...

My point is that doing something like this may violate the letter of the law, but not its spirit. I'm talking about where you draw the line...to me, a real violation would be trying to ride the coat tails of the artist, steal their actual recordings or make a buck off of them without compensation. If I were to burn a disc of our stuff and hawk it on CDBaby, well, I think that's going over the line.

Somehow I don't think that my crew of hack amateurs falls into that category when we play a Beatles song in the living room, record it and share it with friends. A lawyer might argue it differently.

The concept of a band like ours paying royalties is just ridiculous. But that's the law, right?

It's as silly an idea as expecting royalties to be paid for the home videos shot at the EBMM open house. Or were royalties actually paid? Am I that far off base?

 

[adouglas]

Follow me here....

http://ernieball.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19878