Live Soundboard Recordings

Good morning how are you doing today? I am looking for any classic old soundboard or any radio broadcast recordings from any bluegrass festivals all across the united states. Do not worry none of these recordings are for listening pleasure only and will not be given to anyone else, and i enjoy collecting them very much. Any help would be very appreciated

Have great day 😉

Allen Culver 508 East LaRue St Streator,IL 61364 allenculver528@hotmail.com

  • I know you probably believe obtaining these soundboard recordings are OK for personal use because you mentioned they weren’t for trading, but they are in fact, against the law. The fact that they exist and you are hoping to receive some imply trading or otherwise disseminating of copyrighted material withou paying into the royalty pool. Trading is wrong. Here’s why:

    We’v e had numerous discussions here and elsewhere (eg., on other lists, etc.) about this, but there is one incontrovertable fact–anytime you acquire and listen to music you did not pay for, the songwriters and/or publishers are being cheated.

    I totally understand why one would think these recordings are legal and moral, but the fact is, they arent. Bands may give permission to tape but rarely do they own all the material. I’ve heard that the money not received is inconsequential but amount has nothing to do with it. It’s simply against the law. And I’ve heard that trading and disseminating music is good for an artist, but the decision to trade and propogate a song is NOT one to be made by traders, but is WHOLLY within the province of the songwriter or publisher. The decision about trading belongs to the songwriter/publisher, only.

    Finally, I want to point out that most songwriters are only now becoming aware of the underground trading community and few, if any, find the fact that people are acquiring, trading, and listening to THEIR music, without paying for it, acceptable. If you respect the efforts and skills of Ronnie Bowman, John Pennell, Norman Wright, or Pete Goble, dont traffic in live tapes or disks. If you do, you are stealing from them. Period.

    In a business where popularity is important, and as a fomer trader, I personally hate carrying this very unpopular torch. But my conscience tells me trading is wrong and someone has to say something.

    Thanks for the bandwidth.

  • bluegras

    Hello Kip how are you doing today?I am a collector of old classic live concert recordings and i understand your feelings about what you post on the B.I just collect them and i listen to them.Nothin Else

    thanks 🙂

    Allen Culver
    Streator,IL

  • nashphil

    Give it a rest Kip!

    Lectures like the one you just doled out are unecessary and severely overblown. Not to mention extremely hypocritical.

    Let’s review:

    You made this same ridiculous argument about the wonderful people associated with the bluegrassbox, yet were actually downloading recordings from the website all along.

    I have at least ten different personal emails (or as some would say “grovels”) from YOU over the last 7 years where YOU ask me to make YOU copies of shows that YOU have been to, such as a recent Tim O’Brien concert a few months ago.

    Explain to us why it’s different for you to grovel for these “illegal and immoral” live recordings, but it’s not for anyone else??

    Explain why it’s ok for you to trade, download, and collect them via websites like the bluegrassbox, jamgrass, and datheads where I have seen you post about aquiring or downloading these recordings??

    That’s a pretty big torch you must carry around, and who exactly are you carrying it around for?

  • bluegras

    thank you phil for standing up for me are there any one on Bluegrass Today have any old live concert recordings from any bands all across the united states,

    have a great day 🙂

    Allen Culver
    Streator,Illinois

  • ozzybeef

    Allen,

    Check your email, I would be happy to help you out.

    Luke

  • nashphil said (in a feeble attempt at condescention and cynicism):

    >Lectures like the one you just doled out are
    >unecessary and severely overblown.

    i can understand that coming from a person who’s principal importance to the bluegrass community is that of a leading trader and collector. in what way is this ‘lecture’ overblown? if you traffic in live shows, you are breaking the law. period. the law makes no special allowances for less significant infractions.

    >You made this same ridiculous argument
    >about the wonderful people associated
    >with the bluegrassbox, yet were actually
    >downloading recordings from the website
    >all along.

    >Explain to us why it’s different for you to
    >grovel for these “illegal and immoral” live
    >recordings, but it’s not for anyone else??

    i havent downloaded anything from bluegrassbox, nor asked for live shows of tim in quite a while.

    had your actually read my previous posts, you would have noticed that i admit to having being part of that community–and an active one at that–but that i have recently changed my mind. having become friends with several songwriters (Pete Goble, author of over 65 Bluegrass and Country charting songs), i have had my mind changed. other circumstances in my life also have caused me to reevaluate many behaviors i have been engaged in over the years. some people change, Phil.

    >That’s a pretty big torch you must carry
    >around, and who exactly are you carrying
    >it around for?

    Ronnie Bowman, John Pennell, Kim Fox, Chris Jones, John Ims, Norman Wright, Dudley Connell, Mark Simos, and Pete Goble to name a few artists who are bootlegged and not getting money owed to them. the ‘wonderful people’ at bluegrassbox never sent them a dime.

    >ridiculous argument

    what is ridiculous about it? its breaking the law, taking money out of peoples’ pockets, and even with morality aside, its unethical in societal terms. how DO you justify it? please dont use the argument that its ‘good for bluegrass’. thats not answering the question. or that it somehow benefits the songwriter? WHY IS IT OK TO BREAK THE LAW AND TAKE MONEY OUT OF PETE GOBLE’S POCKET? answer that one question directly. and try to do it without the attitude?

    kip
    ex-tape trader

  • nashphil

    You (Kip Martin) emailed me less than two months ago asking for a copy of a Tim show you went to this year (2006).

    So, you have had a change of heart in the last month and have decided to become a tirant against taping. Brilliant!

    What do you have to say about your IP address, login info, and download history all being stored digitally by the bluegrassbox servers? Another change of heart?

    What about the 50+ posts over the last few years on websites like datheads looking for Bob Dylan shows? (who doesn’t even allow recording legally) Must be another Kip Martin.

    Vinegar vs Sugar
    You should know better than to call anyone a thief, law-breaker, immoral, or anything of the sort for trading music of artists who clearly allow recording. It’s ridiculous and simply wrong. You are part of the problem and nothing close to a solution. Your arguments don’t hold water. Berating people and calling them out publicly for wanting to listen to live music is despicable. That seems to be what you are about with your new change of heart. To me, that’s far more harmful to our community than anything a live music trader ever did. You need to come down off your high horse and realize that you have become a hypocrite since your change of heart last month. I think everyone likes the old Kip better. It was only a month or two ago, so it shouldn’t be hard to find him again. He’ll be out there on the road looking for live recordings and a bass gig, again.

  • bcrofton

    Who is PETE GOBLE anyway never heard of him
    Maybe if he allowed taping and trading he could earn a living.

  • ryanfbaker

    I know plenty of songwriters who do not mind at all having their songs spread about via taping and trading. Especially ones who are just starting up in the business. I do know that the songwriters themselves usually only own half the publishing rights… but Kip’s suggestion that very few songwriters accept the current practices is just not the case in my experience. Apparently we are hanging in different circles.

    I am friends with the Seldom Scene’s archivist and will ask him exactly what HE thinks Dudley’s opinion of the whole thing is. He is well aware that my friend tapes every show that he attends of theirs.

  • nashphil

    I don’t have a problem with some people being opposed to live recording/trading, and I certainly don’t have a problem with these same people expressing their opinions and reasoning behind those views. That is, in fact, very interesting to me.

    What I do have a problem with is anyone throwing words around like “stealing, thieves, immoral, and illegal” when talking about live music collectors, recordists, or traders.

    It’s wrong and extremely disrespectful to thousands of very nice and honest music lovers. I have a huge problem when it comes from someone like Kip Martin, who I view as a hypocrite who is purposefully inflaming and inflating the situation for his own means. Opinions are fine, but hate is not.

  • A few important points regarding this “debate”.

    Phil, be very careful who you accuse of hate speech. Many of us who have dealt with you, either in person, or through email, feel that you might not want pretend that you are the bearer of peace, love, and happiness.

    Kip is entitled to change his mind and see things in a new light, any time he wants. Even if it was yesterday.

    Phil, in links on your own website, traders are encouraged to “go stealth” when artists disallow taping. Artists should know that when they see you, or most of the people who associate with you, they will be taped, and they will be traded. Whether the artists agree to it or not. How do I know? I’ve seen it, and I’ve seen many brag about it on message boards everywhere.

    You do have a problem with people who don’t agree with taping and trading. I, and many others, have been threatened and harrassed by you regarding this issue. Please go back to the Yonder Mountain message boards and make fun of us. It’s better that way.

    Bluegrass is a fantastic music that deserves a bigger audience, whether it be through legal taping and trading (which is starting to show signs of life) or through promotion from organizations like the IBMA. Let’s not descend down another ugly road. Bluegrass rules!

    Cheers, Megan

  • nashphil

    Mehgan, you are clearly an unstable and angry person, as witnessed by your bi-polar tirade against the bluegrassbox and your nasty hate mails that you spewed out around that debate.
    It’s an area that you are clearly uneducated and severely misinformed about. You and Kip tag-teamed your posts in that thread, just as you are doing in this thread.
    The two taper tirants.

    I challenge you to show me one link or post where I said any of those things you just lied about. Show me where I said tapers should go stealth, or anything like that. You can’t because I never said anything of the sort.

    I’m not sure why you feel the need to lie. I haven’t posted anything on the yonder board in, let’s see, maybe 6 years. I think you might have me confused with Kip. That was his attitude when he was looking for Bob Dylan bootlegs.

    I find all of this very disgusting. Kip Martin and Meghan Lynch are out on a tirade to tear apart a tight-knit community for their own selfish reasons. They don’t care about these songwriters, they only care about promoting their sagging careers. You two should be ashamed of yourselves.

  • nashphil

    Well, I guess I need to be quiet now.

    Meghan Lynch just threatened to have me sued and arrested, if I didn’t stop talking about her publicly. She asked me to refer all further comments to her attorney.

    How about this one…….Meghan Lynch is a nutjob with an overactive imagination and is totally paranoid that tapers are out to get her.

  • nashphil

    After these lies spewed out by Meghan, I feel the need offer a correction for the record.

    I am a live recording expert.
    In the past year or so……I have been hired by various artists to record their performances for archival or commercial use.

    Some of the artists who have asked personally for my services are: Tim O’Brien, Hot Rize, Bryan Sutton, Aubrey Haynie, Stuart Duncan, Nashville Bluegrass Band, The Infamous Stringdusters, Old Black Kettle, Doc Watson, Tony Rice, Peter Rowan, Jim Lauderdale, Casey Driessen, Bawn In The Mash, Jamie Hartford, The IBMA, The AMA, Hardly Strictly Bluegrass, Americana Folk Festival, and The Station Inn. Just to name a few.

    I think that list should stand on it’s own in regards to what I stand for. It’s all about artist permission and artist approval.

  • Phil, best of luck to you. I do wish you all the best. I have not contacted you (except in reply to your nasty emails, but that was several months ago) or anyone regarding you. I believe that these things can be solved peacefully. Continue the debate. Take care and let’s continue to work toward the success of all musicians and writers.
    Megan

  • nashphil

    I think the last statement speaks for itself.
    Seems like someone has had a change of heart?

  • Jon Weisberger

    Argument ad hominem (that is, trying to make a case for one side of an argument by attacking the person or persons making the other side) isn’t a very strong approach. It certainly doesn’t address the key issue that Kip raises, which is that even if artists give permission for recording and distributing their performances and their songs, they can’t give permission for other songwriters. That means that unless permission’s obtained from all the songwriters and publishers, or unless an artist performs exclusively his or her own (and public domain) material, songwriters aren’t getting paid what they’re due as a matter of law. “Illegal” seems like a pretty legitimate word in those case.

    By the way, anyone who doesn’t know who Pete Goble is should start checking the songwriter credits on their bluegrass CDs; the odds are pretty good that his name is on at least a few of their favorite songs.

  • nashphil

    The issue that Kip raised has been re-raised ad-nauseum infinitum.

    To me, that wasn’t ever the issue. No one is denying that songwriters are owed royalties, that isn’t at issue. What is at issue is the hateful venom that people like Kip and Meghan spew towards things they don’t understand or don’t agree with. These sort of ignorant and vast mischaracterizations are the problem, not the kind people who just want to listen to music.

    Then you have a case like Kip, who has spent years collecting live music in a very public way, and up until a few months ago was still emailing me looking for Tim O’Brien concerts. He then has an apparent change of heart and has the nerve to viciously attack others who want to do the same thing he has done for years. That type of attitude only serves to harm to bluegrass community and does nothing to convince others of his argument nor does anything to help the songwriters he purports to be protecting. I just see it as hypocritical grandstanding and it should be called out in return. Full disclosure.

    Meghan, Kip, and Jon were the key reasons why the bluegrassbox were taken down and why Mike from BGB felt the need to speak out against the nasty turn that bluegrass community seemed to take towards the bluegrassbox and tapers. So it is about the people involved as much as it is about the songwriter issue at hand. The two are intertwined within the issue.

    This argument about songwriters actually getting paid from live recordings made by tapers is a moot point. It’s not ever going to happen.

    As it is right now under current ascap/bmi/sesac laws, songwriters don’t get paid more than a few pennies from radio airplay and even less from any other performances live (which ironicly no one is documenting unless they are recorded live). They don’t get paid by festivals for anyone playing their music, they don’t get paid by myspace or youtube, they don’t get paid by digital radio for their songs being played there. If you added it all together for an entire career, a well known songwriter like Jim Lauderdale might earn $100-150 per year for all of those services combined.

    Ask yourself why bands like the Grateful Dead, Wilco, Hot Rize, New Grass Revival, Bill Monroe, Sam Bush, Bela Fleck, David Grisman, Del McCoury, Jim Lauderdale, Tim O’Brien, Doc Watson, Tony Rice, Blue Highway, Patty Griffin, Stringdusters, Duhks, Nickel Creek, Bryan Sutton, Chris Thile, and thousands of other talented artists and songwriters all support live recording of both their songs and performances.

    It’s not an accident.

  • Jon Weisberger

    I think it *is* about the permission/royalties issue, and not about the personalities arguing either side. Like I said, argument ad hominem isn’t logical; if it’s illegal to distribute recordings without obtaining permission from the songwriters or paying them royalties, then it doesn’t matter who’s saying so. And it is illegal.

    Furthermore, I can tell you for a fact that songwriters *do* get royalties – for recordings (which is what are being distributed here), for performances (which are what are being recorded) and for airplay. At least, they do when the law is being followed (as is rarely the case with respect to tapers/traders) – and when it isn’t, songwriters are within their rights to take legal action, whether against tapers/traders or against record companies.

    Your list of artists and songwriters who purportedly support live recordings has a few problems. The first is that taping and trading are arguably qualitatively different now than they were 30 years ago; tapes degraded in quality after just a couple of generations of copying, and distribution was essentially limited to a one-on-one situation. Today, infinite reproduction without loss in quality is possible, and those infinitely reproducible recordings can be distributed to literally millions of people with ease. Anyone who professes to know what Bill Monroe would think about that is making a claim he or she can’t back up. Furthermore, most of the artists you mention regularly perform material written by others – songwriters for whom they can neither ethically nor legally speak.

    Finally, making the argument about the value to artists and/or songwriters of giving permission for their work to be recorded and circulated doesn’t address the key point, which is that it’s their permission to give or not. Legally and, in my opinion, ethically, that’s the way it is. Period.

  • nashphil

    It appears this blog is being moderated without anyone being notified of that fact, nor anyone being notified that their posts are being edited or deleted altogether. I guess if your post doesn’t follow the opinions held by the owners, then you are out of luck.

  • nashphil

    Jon Weisberger, as usual……you are always full of big words
    Your arguments just don’t hold water, let me explain why.

    Something I find interesting is that the people most associated with being vehemently anti-taping are those without much of a career to begin with. A certain guitar player that makes a living writing fluff pieces for a local rag comes to mind.

    If Bill Monroe is the only example you can reference for that long list of artists that allow taping, then your argument is much weaker than you thought. I’ll let the hundreds of hours of live recordings that were sanctioned freely by Bill Monroe for over 50 years stand on their own as proof. I challenge you to prove otherwise, especially for any of the artists listed. Prove that any one of those listed don’t allow recording by their fans. Let’s see your proof instead of your speculation.

    Here’s something I would like to see you anti-taper contingent tackle honestly………

    Allowing taping builds a very loyal and lifelong fanbase.

    Can you name a few bands/groups/artists to emerge successfully from the acoustic scene with a grass-roots fanbase that doesn’t allow recording? I can’t think of many.

    To prove my point I ‘ll use several examples.

    The biggest and most successful of the bands to emerge from that scene in the last few years are Yonder Mtn, Nickel Creek, Waybacks, Duhks, Reeltime Travelers, etc….
    All allow recording and all have huge dedicated fanbases as a result.

    The newest and hottest young pickers on the scene all allow recording. Chris Thile, Stringdusters, Biscuit Burners, Uncle Earl, etc…

    The most awarded and honored bluegrass band on the scene today got that way in large part due to their open taping policy. It’s the Del McCoury Band. They allow recording, have for years.

    Virtually every one of the artists associated with the newgrass scene of the last 40 years all allow recording.
    Luminaries such as Bela Fleck, Tim O’Brien, Sam Bush, Country Gentlemen, Seldom Scene, Peter Rowan, Tony Rice, David Grisman, Mike Marshall, Darol Anger, Newgrass Revival, Hot Rize, Johnson Mountain Boys, John Hartford, etc……

    Then you have the original bluegrassers like Bill Monroe, Stanley Brothers, Flatt & Scruggs, Jimmy Martin, Mac Wiseman, etc…. They all allowed recording too.

    I’ll let the thousands of hours of live recordings officially sanctioned by these artists stand as the rule, not the exception. In this scene, taping-friendly artists greatly outnumber those who don’t allow it.

    According to your own logic, It would appear that you are calling songwriters like Jim Lauderdale, Jeff Tweedy, Patty Griffin, and Sam Bush thieves. Illegally allowing recording, thus stealing from themselves. I’ll stand by their side of this issue every day of the week.

    This debate reminds me of an old gospel song that Hot Rize played in protest at the recent IBMA fanfest called “You go to your church and I’ll go to mine” and I think that sentiment applies here too.

  • Phil,

    You need to calm down man, I assure you that John and I neither one deleted a post of yours. I found it waiting in the moderation que this morning when I got up. It’s almost identical to the one you posted right above this comment, almost identical. The reason the system held it for moderation is because of your use of profanity. We have very few rules in place, but that’s one of them.

    You tried a second time, same views and content minus the profanity and it went right through. Don’t be so quick to accuse us of censoring posts we don’t agree with.

    And remember to keep it clean.

  • nashphil

    I used the word dam with an N on the end.
    Such a bad word. Being “chill” should have nothing to do with why or why not my posts go through. This isn’t the first time you guys have moderated messages. Several others have complained about posts that have vanished or were edited.

    This blog does moderate posts and you do censor comments, especially related to articles on the main pages. Anyone who posts a message is subject to your approval first, and the message is subject to your approval as well, which clearly means that it’s moderated. Explain how it’s different.

    If you are moderating posts to remove words like d***, then it’s bit more uptight than I thought. It’s impossible to have an open honest debate when the blog is moderating comments for some of the opinions, no matter what word is used.

    You know, the thing I’m most amused about is that Brance, you too used to email me looking for live recordings of concerts that you went to. You seem to have an opinion on just about everything but the live recording subject.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Phil, your explanation doesn’t address the point, which is this: it’s indisputable that distributing live show recordings without compensating the songwriters and publishers for material of theirs that’s performed on the shows is illegal. The only possible exception there is where shows consist exclusively of public domain material and material on which artists own both the songwriter and publisher sides, or where “outside” writers and publishers have given their permission. Period. I think it’s unethical as well as illegal, and you haven’t addressed that, either.

    Distribution of live show recordings might be the greatest promotional tool in the world for artists, and perhaps even for songwriters, but that doesn’t matter. The point is, the choice of whether or not to give permission for taping and trading belongs legally and ethically to the artists and songwriters, and I find it very hard to consider anyone a fan who doesn’t sufficiently respect those artists and songwriters to make sure he or she is doing right by them.

  • Phil,

    Yes, blog posts here in The B are moderated. Would you rather wade through the spam we’ve had to delete? The spammers actually do take the time to register and submit spam posts. It is a rare occasion when we don’t approve and publish a legitimate post.

    Originally we didn’t allow comments on most posts and we did moderate all comments on posts where they were allowed. That’s changed and now only a person’s first comment is moderated anywhere on the blog. After that your comments go through without moderation. That’s the policy. The first comment moderation is, again, intended to stop spammers.

    We do have filters in place that hold for moderation comments containing profanities or a great number of links. These measures are intended to prevent spam and to keep the site family friendly.

    If you can’t have an “open honest debate” without using profanities, then I suggest you take your arguments somewhere else. There’s just one rule here, NO CURSING. How hard is it to obey one little rule? If you make an effort, like the one above, to get around the filters by creative typing then you will be edited, possibly even deleted. It’s that simple.

    As far as me emailing you asking for shows. Phil, I’m not sure I even know who you are.

  • nashphil said:

    >You (Kip Martin) emailed me less than two
    >months ago asking for a copy of a Tim show
    >you went to this year (2006).

    thats not true. and sorry, but i didnt attend any tim o shows in 2006. nada.

    >What do you have to say about your IP address,
    >login info, and download history all being
    >stored digitally by the bluegrassbox servers?
    >Another change of heart?

    lets see them. bring them on.

    kip

  • nashphil said:

    >I think you might have me confused with Kip.
    >That was his attitude when he was looking
    >for Bob Dylan bootlegs.

    apparently you dont read my posts.

    >Kip Martin and Meghan Lynch are out on a
    >tirade to tear apart a tight-knit community
    >for their own selfish reasons. They don’t
    >care about these songwriters, they only care
    >about promoting their sagging careers.

    hahaha. good one, phil.

    your career is based solely on being a big fish in an illegal pond. you are the King Trader. if that is taken away from you, you will be just another male groupie looking for some way to cozy up to your big bluegrass star friends. im glad my self-worth isnt derived by being yet anothe leech in the bluegrass world. YOU should be ashamed of yourself for accusing Megan of being anything but the total pro, ethical woman, and hard-working musician she is. and accusing Brance of ANYTHING just shows you should lay of the coke for a while. you’re getting paranoid, my friend. id suggest you see a doctor.

    kip

  • nashphil

    Jon, that’s all b******* and you know it.

    Well, while you are out there moaning and whining at the tapers and traders of the world about why you aren’t making your $12 a year from royalties, and while you are out there accusing hard working songwriters, bands, tapers, traders, and artists of being criminals……………….we, the actual music fans……..will be out there listening to the music and having a good ol’ time. To me, that’s what music is all about.
    Who you should really be railing this argument at are the music mafias like clear channel, ascap, bmi, and sesac. They are the ones ripping off the songwriters and we all know it.

    According to your own words and seriously flawed logic, all artists who allow their fans to tape their music are illegal, unethical, and aren’t true music fans anymore. Well done Jon.
    Congratulations, you win the argument.

    You can stand with companies like ascap, and you can side with the many lawyers and accountants, and you can stand with all these “true music fans”. That’s fine with me.

    I choose to side with the artists who’s music I love.
    I agree with them. I think they have it right.
    I’ll stand beside an unethical, immoral, and illegal Sam Bush every single day of the week. Go Cards!

  • nashphil said:

    >Jon, that’s all b******* and you know it.

    >while you are out there moaning and whining
    >at the tapers and traders of the world about
    >why you aren’t making your $12 a year from
    >royalties

    personally, i receive about $150-200 a year from royalties from soundtrack work. the money is NOT inconsequential first of all, and secondly, just because you dont steal as much as your average Enron exec, it’s STILL illegal.

    you can not make an argument that shows it is not illegal. but at least you admit it IS illegal. if you want to break the law (i had 17 points on my driver record), be prepared to accept the concecuences. and isnt it funny how the hippies and stoners are the ‘new’ reactionaries.

    >According to your own words and seriously flawed logic

    there is no evidence of seriously flawed logic in jon’s posts. symbolic, Aristotlian, or mathmatic.

    >Congratulations, you win the argument.

    clearly.

    >Go Cards!

    yet MORE evidence of brain damage!

    kip

  • nashphil

    I think it’s completely clear that this argument is going nowhere. It’s impossible to have a civil conversation with angry morons. All they want to do is divide, spread hate and fear, and call out anyone who doesn’t agree. Reminds me of George Bush.

    Jon, Kip, and Meghan……you three go right ahead with your hateful campaign to label everyone who isn’t like you or doesn’t agree with you as illegal immoral thieves. That’s how you roll.

    Are you ready to start the bonfire, so we can toss all these artists, tapers, and live recordings into the raging fire for being so immoral?

    I am proud to stand up for tapers and traders everywhere. I’m proud to stand up for artists and songwriters who have the right to do what they want with their own music. I’ll stand with them anyday.

    I’ve taken some heat for it, and that’s part of the territory.
    Let’s Review……..
    Kip has called me illegal, immoral, thief, king trader?, bootlegger, male groupie, and the fascinating list goes on…… funny stuff.
    I’ve also been threatened with legal action TWICE, once by Meghan for talking about her publicly and once by Kip for listening to my own live recordings. I better notify my attorney, there’s a battle brewin’

    Like I said, I really don’t care what Kip, Meghan, or Jon have to say anymore because their words and opinions are filled with hate, disgust, and disdain for anything they don’t agree with.

    Instead of having a civil conversation about live recording, where folks could actually have their opinions and views mean something, they would prefer to immediately attack, belittle, lie, twist and turn the argument around until it has no menaing whatsoever anymore. That’s what has happened here. Congratulations, you win and everyone else loses.

  • jpschust

    please provide the citations for which laws it is against for someone to tape a show that an artist gives written permission to tape.

  • Jon Weisberger

    I don’t think I’ve attacked, belittled, lied, twisted or turned anything around, and I’ve been perfectly civil – certainly more so than you, Phil.

    Artists and songwriters have the right to do what they please with their own music, but they don’t have the right to give others permission to freely distribute music that isn’t theirs, and no one has the right to freely distribute music that isn’t theirs without either paying the appropriate royalties or obtaining permission. This seems pretty straightforward to me, and engaging in argument ad hominem or arguing that trading is really good for those whose music is being traded or that others are engaged in other illegal or unethical acts doesn’t address, much less refute, the proposition.

  • jpecorino

    my name is joe. if it weren’t for live recordings i probably would never of heard of many of the bands i now love. i think this is probably true for many folks. one of the ways i was able to get my first taste of guys like monroe, scruggs, bush, rice, rowan, fleck, etc, was through bluegrassbox. as a result i went out and bought many of their official releases. if it weren’t for the initial carrot of free music, i would never have heard of these guys. now i buy almost everything and anything they release.

    as for people who dont like taping, fine. don’t allow it. where do folks think they can dictate policy across all lines? i’m sure bill monroe is rolling in his grave when someone trades a sam bush show. lol.

    if a band does not like live tapes, dont allow them and publicize that fact. most music sites are more than willing to make sure not-allowed bands are kept off.

    has anyone actually identified the laws that are being broken, or actually cited a band that has been covered in a live setting? i doubt it. should i start listing the amazing musicans i have been turned onto through live music. todd snider, bill monroe, earl scruggs, peter rowan, daryl anger, danny barnes, merle haggard, hank williams, johnny cash, blue highway, open road, hit and run, reeltime travelers, high on the hog, etc. that is just a few. and you know what? these are all bands that we have all heard of. you know why? because they realized the importance of name recognition. name recognition is the name of the game. filing law suits and going on worthless tirades (ala 3 fox drive) leads to negative name recognition, and that will only hurt someones career.

    get a grip folks. no one is going hungry because yonder mtn allows trading.

    peace
    joe

  • phil said:

    >I’m proud to stand up for artists and songwriters
    >who have the right to do what they want with their
    >own music. I’ll stand with them anyday.

    so when del mccoury band plays a song written by mike o’reilly (a songwriter against trading who has written 2 or 3 songs performed by del and them), do you stand with him? he OWNS the song.

    >I’ve also been threatened with legal action TWICE,
    >once by Meghan for talking about her publicly and
    >once by Kip for listening to my own live recordings.

    when and where did i do this?

    >Like I said, I really don’t care what Kip,
    >Meghan, or Jon have to say anymore because
    >their words and opinions are filled with
    >hate, disgust, and disdain for anything
    >they don’t agree with.

    no, my words are vehemently in support of those who OWN the material, and thats it. if you dont care, why are you on the verge of a nervous breakdown about this? maybe you should try decaff.

    and joe said:

    >if a band does not like live tapes, dont allow
    >them and publicize that fact. most music sites
    >are more than willing to make sure not-allowed
    >bands are kept off.

    it isnt the band that is allowed to determine this. copyright law protects the songwriters and publishers. it isnt a band decision. read the previous posts. BANDS DO NOT USUALLY OWN THE MATERIAL, so it isnt their province to give something they dont own away.

    >has anyone actually identified the laws
    >that are being broken, or actually cited
    >a band that has been covered in a live
    >setting?

    sure. those laws are generally referred as ‘Copyright Law’. try this: http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp

    those laws exist–why do you think bluegrassbox closed down? because they new they were in violation of copyright law and thats that. dont kid yourself–they didnt back off for some altruistic care for the world of bluegrass, or because they were tired. they backed off because they know they were required by law to pay for the use and propagation of those shows and as such were liable in any copyright infringement action that could have been brought against them.

    i’m pained that people like phil have gotten so bent out of shape about this. if these fees for use are so miniscule, why couldnt bluegrassbox or phil pay these fees and support the writers’ efforts? i really hate being called names, and i dont like voicing an unpopular opinion. every bone in my body tells me to do turn my head and do only what people like. i am a musician and popularity has an impact on my career. but a man MUST say something when in his heart, he sees unethical practices going on around him. and when engaged (phil came out swinging), i will fight back. i responded with reason, humor, and maybe more than a bit of sarcasm. i apologize for that, but my point still stands.

    the Enron execs felt it was good for the stockholders to cover up shady dealings and they are in jail. i expected the bluegrass community to be above that kind of behavior. make no mistake, it is not hatred to call it stealing–it is theft of intellectual property, period. thats stealing.

    kip

  • here’s a quick citation re: show trading.

    The Federal Anti-Bootleg Statute {18 USC 2319A} prohibits the unauthorized recording, manufacture, distribution, or trafficking in sound recordings or videos of artists’ live musical performances. Violators can be punished with up to 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

    kip

  • jpecorino

    i love when posts are picked apart. its really pointless abnd shows a lack of intellectual creativity. the bottom line is this:

    if tis all about the dollar folks whould re-evaluate why they play music in the first place. the money is nice, but talent is what brings that in.

    if those songs are on dels albums, then yes i do support the artist. most bands realize the fact that when a band pays tribute by playing someones else song, that is what they are doing. the tribute may not come in the form of payment, at that moment, but it will if that musician is any good (perhaps the musicians should be concerned with their own talent). the bottom line is exposure sells records and help musicians make a living. if these laws were really applicable here, many bands would not be where they are today. i feel sorry for meghan and other struggling bands that are not good enough to make it on their own (the only time i have ever heard of 3 fox drive has been through these posts–not from their music), but the fact is that other bands covering them will NOT pay their bills. maybe for a beer at the bar, but thats about it.

    the fact is that leftover salmon and yonder mountain string band have kept guys like john hartfords legacy alive. if it were not for them, his legacy and amazing songs would be lost.

    countless people have bought john’s recordings to hear the original versions. i am thankful for yonder and leftover, and other bands like them who have the ability to pay tribute to someone’s amazing songs. if only we could all be so lucky. look at benny galloway for instance.

    i would hardly call any of those artists property you have mentioned “intellectual.” property yes, but if it was any good they wouldn’t have to worry about what band plays their song to 50 people on tuesday night.

  • nashphil

    It’s impossible…..You can’t talk to these people.

    It’s easy to see that venomous people like Kip are just raving lunatics at this point. Pointing fingers, calling people immoral, illegal, unethical, whatever. Insane.

    Kip started all this mess by attacking an unsuspecting fan and calling him immoral. I take exception to that.
    It reminds me of book burnings and record bonfires from the 60’s. People used the think the Beatles were immoral, remember?

    Bluegrass has enough problems with it’s image of being non-inclusive socially, religiously, and especially racially.
    People like Kip make that so much worse with their immoral holy-war.

    Excuse me, but I will decide what is moral in my life.
    “you go to your church and I’ll go to mine”

    I would love to hear Meghan, Kip, or especially Jon go up to Sam Bush and start telling him he’s a thief. Wouldn’t ever happen, they would rather do it behind the safety of their computer screens. Sam would kick some arse.

  • jpschust

    Kip, you’re gonna have to do better than that- come on now, don’t think I’m not going to read the entire section. Paste in the beginning of the section:

    Whoever, without the consent of the performer or performers involved, knowingly and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain….

    There is no commercial advantage or private financial gain, nor in many of these instances is there a non-consent.

  • jpschust

    PS- by the way Kip- the same language is in the copyright statute- you have to be benefiting from commercial advantage of monetary gain to invoke the penalties of the statute. Thus, I challenge you to identify the laws being broken.

  • direwolf840

    Kip- you’re a moron. Bands like the Grateful Dead, WP, Phish, and more recently YMSB would NEVER, EVER have made a living if it weren’t for the tapers/traders out there spreading their music. For MOST bands out there, the money is in the live gate, not the recording. Ask any artist that isn’t freaking Metallica or a boy band or Britney Spears how much they make selling records. The money is in the live gate idiot! To say that a songwriter should be paid when someone covers their song suring a live performance that gets circulated is ludicrous. Most think it’s the greatest form of flattery. I’m friends with many musicians, singers, and songwriters alike and they all want their music to heard by as many people as possible. Thank God for people like NashPhil they have helped, not hindered people like Tim O and YMSB make a living.

    DW

  • Jon Weisberger

    JPSCHUST, you’re correct with respect to the Anti-Bootleg statute, which applies only in cases where copyright is infringed on for commercial gain, but wrong about the copyright statutes; infringement occurs with unauthorized reproduction of covered work regardless of intent, meaning that whether commercial gain is sought or not is irrelevant.

    JPecorino, I think you are missing the fact that there are songwriters who aren’t (or aren’t predominantly) performers; the “tribute” of having someone perform their work means nothing to their careers if they’re not getting the compensation to which they are entitled by law and which, I think, they deserve. Furthermore, your argument, like Phil’s, has a logical weakness apart from its simple bypass of the law: if royalties are only trivial, then there’s no good reason for those who distribute live recordings not to pay them, and if they’re not trivial, then distributing live recordings without paying royalties constitutes a real harm to musicians responsible for the music you enjoy. Personally, my experience is that such royalties aren’t trivial; they’re not enough to live on, but they contribute materially to my modest income at a much greater level than the price of a beer or two at a bar. Furthermore, the ethics and legality of the issue don’t turn on the amount of the royalty; either it’s ethically and legally owed or it isn’t. Legally, it clearly is, and I have yet to see anyone make a serious argument that it isn’t on ethical grounds, too.

    And while I’m at it, though it’s admittedly a peripheral point, the notion that John Hartford’s legacy is dependent on jam band artists like leftover salmon (which, FYI, no longer exists) or Yonder Mountain String Band is simply wrong. I have no doubt that such artists help to build, or at least perpetuate, John’s musical legacy in certain circles, but those do not constitute the world. If none of them ever played a note of Hartford’s music, he would still be recognized, and his music still performed. The same is true with respect to Bill Monroe and every other writer working in the broad bluegrass world.

    Finally, Nashphil’s foolishness about calling Sam Bush or other artists who allegedly permit taping and unrestricted trading “thieves” is just that: foolishness. Artists aren’t typically obligated to pay royalties for the use of copyrighted material in performance; those are covered by venue payments. The point is that while Sam can grant permission to freely distribute his performances of his songs (and material in the public domain), he’s not legally able – whether he’s aware of it or not – to grant permission to freely distribute recordings of performances of songs by others. That’s just a fact, and it has yet to be addressed by any of the pro-taper/trader folks here.

  • direwolf840

    This doesn’t mean I think anyone should “go stealth” and tape bands live performances without permission. However, most bands that aren’t making it yet, allow taping and trading(if they’re smart). The ones who sell DL’s on their websites usually don’t and the fact that they can and want to sell their live recordings and make them available fresh after the performance is their own decision and should be respected. As stated in this thread by others, I for one have become a big fan of Tim O and have purchased most all of his published material because of the recordings made by NashPhil. I have purchased half of my studio recordings because I was introduced to obsure music by the legit taper community out there. As for Kip, he is a hypocrite, and a pontificating bag of hot air that needs to get down off his donkey!!

  • Jon Weisberger

    “Bands like the Grateful Dead, WP, Phish, and more recently YMSB would NEVER, EVER have made a living if it weren‚Äôt for the tapers/traders out there spreading their music.”

    I wonder how someone would go about actually proving a statement like that?

    “For MOST bands out there, the money is in the live gate, not the recording.”

    When it comes to bluegrass, which is what Bluegrass Today is about, that’s definitely not the case; record table sales are a *critical* part of most band’s incomes, and often spell the difference between failure and at least marginal success. And note that songwriter royalties are already paid when a record is sold at a record table.

    And while I’m at it, going back to an earlier post, Joe listed several artists:

    “todd snider, bill monroe, earl scruggs, peter rowan, daryl anger, danny barnes, merle haggard, hank williams, johnny cash, blue highway, open road, hit and run, reeltime travelers, high on the hog”

    Dunno about a few of those, but Monroe, Scruggs, Rowan, Anger (first name’s Darol, BTW), Haggard, Williams, Cash, Blue Highway, Open Road and Hit & Run all definitely perform (or performed) material written by others.

  • direwolf840

    Kip wrote:

    “It‚Äôs simply against the law. And I‚Äôve heard that trading and disseminating music is good for an artist, but the decision to trade and propogate a song is NOT one to be made by traders, but is WHOLLY within the province of the songwriter or publisher”

    “Hey Woody Guthrie, where are ya? We could sure use you once more”

    ….I’m not sure if I owe Vince Herman royalties or not for quoting his lyrics here or for playing his song at a Scottsdale restaurant outside during a Happy Hour performance that I made $50.00 at yesterday. I’ll email him and ask him if he wants $2.50 since it was one of about 20 tunes I played. Maybe I should call Robert Hunter and the estate of Jerry…oh and Mick and Keith ….. and Bob Dylan, since I played some of their material too.

  • direwolf840

    I never said I condone ripping off published material or trading it. I’m just saying many of these bluegrass artists would become known and have a chance at drawing a crowd if they allow their music to be spread. Just because you have a soundboard of a show doesn’t mean you won’t go out and buy the artists published material, quite the contrary.

    The proof is in the enormous following and live gate these artists generate. The few bluegrass acts out there that can draw are ALL artists who allow open taping. YMSB closed out Chicagofest this summer drew the largest crowd of anyone at Telluride and just had a wildly successful “Kinfolk Festival” @ the House of Blues last weekend, I was there. I’ve made it a habit of asking folks why and how they got turned on to this scene. Funny- they all say ” because I got one of their live shows off Bluegrassbox or etree” or “so and so gave me one of their shows”. Just look at who is making money and drawing crowds and selling merch. Seems to me it’s the smart bands that have open taping policies, or DID until they got big enough to sell their own shows off their websites. Prove it to yourself by looking around. I just spent $100.00 at a record store on Todd Snider CD’s- 2 for me and the rest as gifts. I was turned on to Todd because I met him at my hotel at the NWSS in Portland this summer. I was a guest of YMSB’s…. I saw my first Yonder show after DLing one of their live shows off Bluegrassbox. It’s common sense, which most people don’t seem to have.

  • nashphil

    Amen Direwolf!

    Jon, you have habit of pontificating in circles…round and round…….civil condecension. Pompous grandstanding.
    Jon is the foolish one that called taping friendly artists like Sam Bush a thief, guilty of illegally and unethicly allowing his fans to record and distrubute his live perfomances. You said it, go back and read your own words.
    It was right in the middle of that “true music fans” lecture.

    It’s clear that Jon misses the real point completely and with his great pontifications and has yet to address the key issue.
    Songwriters want their money! Rightfully so.

    The problem is these songwriters aren’t now nor have they ever gotten any money from live recordings or live performances anyway. The only way that happens is in the case of an official live record release or download. The songwriters on that will earn a decent percentage royalty from that song being included in an official release (based on sales).
    Other existing avenues for royalty income are film/tv/dvd scores, radio airplay, commercial studio or live records. No one is denying that legitimate and existing avenues produce decent royalties for the songwriters involved. Many songwriters earn HUGE livings from this sort of royalty. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

    As it stands today, songwriters aren’t earning ANY royalties from ANY live performances because the venues/festivals aren’t keeping track of what every person plays, nor are they documenting who wrote what songs were played, or who owns the publishing rights. They aren’t publishing playlists or sending those to the publishing houses so that they can properly pay royalties. It’s completely ridiculous to suggest otherwise. That is the only royalty issue at hand in regards to live performances or live recording. Jon and Kip are both trying to confuse and cloud the issue.

    For the sake of argument, let’s speculate that at best, maybe 2% of the live performances nationally are actually documented and royalties are paid in full.
    Of that 2%, there is a poll taken to determine what was a sample of songwriters that were played frequently and a small percentage of that actually goes to a even smaller group of writers that make the ascap/bmi/sesac survey. So, it’s 1% of 2% at best that earn a royalty from a live performance of their song. I think your beef is really with venues and the giant publishing houses for not properly documenting that 43 people heard Jon Weisberger actually play a Kip Martin song on October 14th, 2006 at the Tastee Freeze in East Nashville.

  • nashphil

    Jon, can I come tape your next gig?

  • direwolf840

    Oh and BTW, in order to have record table sales, you have to have people there at the table. How do you bring people to the table?…..uh, try giving people a taste of one of your live shows first.

  • nashphil

    Direwolf has it right when he says it’s about Common Sense. It’s really that simple.

    It’s ridiculous to demand that tapers, traders, artists, and venues properly document and ultimately pay royalties to the songwriters for every live song played at a gig. It’s not good business sense. It’s biting the hand that feeds you in about ten different places.

  • direwolf840

    Hey Kip and Jon try reading the whole statute;

    “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain‚Ķ.”

    I think JPSCHUST hit the nail on the head….makes your whole anti-taper argument a leaky dam and moot point.

    …..’nuff said

  • comment #1017 By direwolf840 on 10.26.06 12:36 am

    >>>>I‚Äôm not sure if I owe Vince Herman royalties or not for quoting his lyrics here or for playing his song at a Scottsdale restaurant outside during a Happy Hour performance that I made $50.00 at yesterday. I‚Äôll email him and ask him if he wants $2.50 since it was one of about 20 tunes I played. Maybe I should call Robert Hunter and the estate of Jerry‚Ķoh and Mick and Keith ‚Ķ.. and Bob Dylan, since I played some of their material too.It’s the restaurant that owes BMI/ASCAP…

  • direwolf840

    “It‚Äôs the restaurant that owes BMI/ASCAP‚Ķ”

    Perfect example of utter lunacy and mis-interpretation of copyright infringement. This was merely an acoustic performance of mostly covers played on a Martin and a squareneck dobro as background music for happy hour patrons. The venue wasn’t involved in any conspiracy to “rip off” the songwriters and neither am I. I like to think I’m paying tribute to the writer. Do you honestly believe it’s even possible to track everytime someone’s song is played as NashPhil said “at a Tastee Freeze in Nashville”. I’ll go out on a limb and say that everytime Del plays a Shawn Camp song live, the venue doesn’t pay Shawn OR the label. However, when Del’s label published Del playing songs Shawn wrote, he gets paid according to the amount of records sold, as he should. Does Pete Seeger or the estate of Woody Guthrie get paid by every venue Springsteen and the Seeger Sessions Band plays one of their songs live….. seriously doubt anyone is keeping track, or should they? However, I’m sure they DO get paid based on how many copies of Springsteen’s version of “We Shall Overcome” sells. Or should Pete be paid royalties everytime someone plays a 25-fret five string? ….after all, he did invent the long-neck banjo, it’s his “intellectual property”.

  • direwolf840

    Here’s a great example:

    My 3 year old daughter has a little keyboard that plays pre-programmed songs when you hit certain buttons. Some are popularized versions of traditional songs. Should the artist who made the song popular, though not their own, get royalties or should we try to track down the estate of the person, drifter or migrant worker who actually wrote it? Or maybe the artist who “ripped it off” and made it their own or put new lyrics to it should be sued. The estate of Woody Guthrie better get a good legal team.

  • jpschust

    Jon Weisberger you are reading the statute from the top down, and not the bottom up. You’ve got to start reading statutes from the penalty section first and then backwards to the definitions and then to the core of it. In the copyright statute technically you have a violation if you use it for any reason, but if you read the penalty section there is nothing enforcable about it unless there was some sort of material gain from it. So yes, I am wrong in the sense that it is a violation, but I’m not in the spirit of my post. The purpose of both of these laws is to protect others from the SALE or COMMERCIAL USE of their material without their consent.

    My whole point is that there is this argument flying around that it’s a legal thing when really it’s an ethical thing. If you want to argue that, then go ahead until you are blue in the face, but don’t pin it on a legal argument.

    If I had to suspect why the box got shut down I’d guess this- someone made a few legal threats that were baseless against the box and that the owners didn’t want to spend the money to defend a free site even though they were in the right. Copyright litigation is very expensive, and unfortunately those who have the deep pockets often win on false claims just because they can muscle the little guy out financially.

  • Jon Weisberger

    JPSchust, your argument reminds me of those folks who hawk books purporting to show that US citizens don’t really have to pay income taxes. Infringement of copyright is against the law regardless of whether it’s intended to produce commercial gain; you’re reading the distinction between criminal penalties, which apply where commercial gain is involved, and civil penalties, which apply regardless, as a distinction between penalty and no penalty. 17 USC 506 provides penalties for criminal offenses, where commercial gain is involved; 17 USC 502 through 505 provides remedies for civil offenses, regardless of whether commercial gain’s involved or not. Unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted work is illegal. Period.

    Direwolf, Dennis is quite right. Venues where performances are given of copyrighted work are legally obligated to pay royalties, typically through blanket license fees paid to performance rights organizations (PROs) – in this country, BMI, ASCAP and/or SESAC. If your daughter’s keyboard tunes include copyrighted material, then royalties are due on that material. If your phone has a ring tone that uses a copyrighted song, royalties are due on the ring tone (and, BTW, this is a growing area of income for songwriters). The general principle is clear and well-established; the use of copyrighted material legally requires compensation paid to the owner of the material. If you don’t like the law, there’s an equally clear and well-established process for changing it.

    Nashphil, you are both right and wrong with respect to the facts, and wrong with respect to eithics. You are right in saying that the process whereby venue license payments get distributed to songwriters is flawed, but wrong in saying that this means no songwriters earn royalties from venue license payments. Further, venue license payments are irrelevant to the question of royalties due on the distribution of recordings, including recordings of performances. And while you are right in saying that royalties have rarely, if ever been paid for unauthorized performance recordings, you are wrong in suggesting that this past illegality justifies present and future illegality, and wrong in suggesting that songwriters can or should take up the issue only with venues, publishers and/or PROs.

  • nashphil

    More hogwash and doublespeak Jon.

    I am 100% right about the venue royalty issue.
    Your beef is clearly with the venues and publishing houses for not properly paying royalties you feel you are entitled to. It’s not the artists, tapers, and traders that owe you anything. Get over it, it’s spilled milk.

    You said yourself (in your last post) that the artists aren’t responsible (even after you said they were responsible and illegal & unethical) for paying the royalties on their own concerts for playing another songwriter’s song. Again, back to the hand that feeds you and then bites you argument.

    Jon, you are clearly wrong about the statute and the law regarding fair use and monetary gain. The statute is clear.
    Your argument has no merit, nor any common sense whatsoever.

    I didn’t say that the venues don’t pay any royalties, you are purposely clouding the issue again. I said that less than 2% of all songs played natioanlly are actually documented and songwriters paid properly. Of that 2%, less than 1% of the songwriters involved actually see a few pennies from that, depending on if they make the poll. It’s a miniscule amount of money. In a good year, a well known songwriter that tours regularly like Jim Lauderdale might earn $50-100 a year from performance royalties. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Show us the money!

    In regards to the bluegrassbox, that is exactly what happened. You had several legal threats or nasty innuendo made by people like Jon, Meghan, and Kip, plus you had a company like BMI who were demanding the bluegrassbox document every single song and pay royalties to the individual songwriters for over 1200 concerts that were availble online. Of course, that’s impossible to do for many reasons. It was these threats that caused the box to be taken down, it was simply the fear of litigation. This is what is inherently wrong with the royalty issue.

    Jon, you have yet to address several other key issues which are much bigger monetary issues than any live recording ever was. What about myspace or yourtube? They aren’t paying performance royalties or any other royalties for that matter. What about the thousands of internet radio stations, digital radio stations, or the Live Music Archive? (archive.org)

    Are you going after everyone?
    They probably owe you some money too eh?

  • comment #1032 By nashphil on 10.26.06 10:07 am……What about the thousands of internet radio stations, digital radio stations?…….

    We report to and pay the fees required by BMI etc.

  • direwolf840

    Ever see the Seinfeld episode where Jerry starts receiving royalty checks for syndication in Japan? They were for .01 and .02. The whole point was that the checks, the admin fees, and the stamp all individually were worth more than the amount of the check. Trying to collect royalties everytime someone covers a song would be an effort in futility for anyone. Jon, your argument is analgous to saying you should pay the entire fine that’s applicable for speeding everytime you go 66 in a 65 or 26 in a 25. Any law or enforcement of such must first meet the reasonablity criteria. That’s why the camera’s are set to go off only if you go 10 or more mph over the limit. Every case of going 66 in a 65 would get thrown out of court and be a waste of taxpayers money. It’s minds like your’s that are ruining the world. Also, it’s minds like your’s and legal departments of orgs like ASCAP that are actually hurting and stunting the growth of artists that the world needs to hear. Thwy’re the ones taking money from the pockets of aspiring musicians. Once again it goes back to common sense. I can name a dozen bluegrass artists that I discovered and have actually traveled far to go see live and have purchased their CD’s because I got a show off of a site like the Blugrassbox. Any Judge worth anything would laugh in the face of your argument. I agree that any performing artist or songwriter should be paid if someone is profiting from their material. This is not the case in the argument of taper/trader recordings. I’ve never met anyone who tries to sell the recordings of live shows. They do it because THEY LOVE THE ARTIST AND THE MUSIC AND WANT OTHERS TO AS WELL. Ringtones and things like that are viable sources of income because companies actually sell them and can TRACK when a customer downloads them. They can in turn pay the owner of the material. Asking to get paid when someone plays your song at a piano bar or a patio acoustic performance is just plain idiotic.

  • nashphil

    Larger stations certainly do, no doubt about that Dennis.

    My point was that many more of them do not. Large companies like Sirius and XM are just now working out details to pay royalties on that, myspace has no arrangement and neither does youtube. Plenty other online companies are not paying any sort of royalty for their content.

    Technically, an internet radio station is any site streaming content. This would include things like record company websites, artists websites, fan websites, etc…

    Music archives like archive.org require legal documentation that the artists approve of their music to distributed digitally, so someone explain all of these contradictions.

    Because of all of these contradictions, this anti-taper argument as it is related to copyright infringment is just simply a moot point. Of all the supposed infractions just listed, the tapers/traders are at the very bottom of the list in terms of importance, both to the publishing houses and the amount of royalty that would actually be generated for the songwriters involved. That’s assuming there was actually something illegal with taping artist approved performances, which there clearly is not. Taping is here to stay and there is nothing Jon, Kip, Meghan, or anyone else can do to stem the tide. It’s always been allowed and it always will. It’s an intregal part of the live music landscape.

    I suggest you anti-taper folks just stop your whining and just embrace it as a tool to promote your music. You might a find a new fan or two along the way.

  • nashphil

    To follow that up, let me remind all you anti-taper folks that no one disputed that taping/trading is simply the greatest grass-roots tool for music promotion of your music.

    No one offered any other examples of artists that have made it big out of the acoustic music scene in the last ten years or so without the use of taping. There are a few, but they are the clearly the exception to the rule. Taping/trading is BY FAR the best method for low budget promotion. It’s just how it’s done in today’s internet society. It’s virtually impossible for undergound bands/artists to make a living without live performances and taping/trading of those performances is how the word gets spread and in many cases is the only marketing tool available.

    Very few artists/bands have the luxury of having a cash rich record label or huge publishing house supporting them and promoting their tours and music. It’s essential to leave the taping/trading option open for artists/bands to be able to provide their own promotion and ultimately make a living making music. I just can’t figure out how everyone doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Yes, Nashphil, the law is clear. Distributing recordings without permission from all relevant copyright owners or paying royalties to them is copyright infringement (17 USC 501). And while recording (with permission) a show you’ve attended for your own listening only might fall under the “fair use” description, distributing such recordings clearly doesn’t. Again, commercial gain or the intent of commercial gain simply isn’t relevant.

    Further, you are apparently confused about some other facts. Sirius and XM aren’t “just now working out details” of royalty payments; they’ve long sinced worked them out, and payments – including years’ worth of back royalties – have already been made. Same with digital radio, internet stations, etc. I get detail on how many plays have been logged on these various media in every one of my royalty statements. In addition, I get royalties from record companies for songs of mine that have been recorded by other artists; those royalties are based on copies distributed, *including* legal downloads (which suggests that it’s not, as Phil says, “impossible” to track downloads and compensate songwriters). And the amusing antics of Jerry, George, Elaine and the rest notwithstanding, they make an appreciable contribution to providing my food and shelter. That’s how it’s supposed to work, and the fact that some parties attempt to evade their responsibilities is a poor excuse for others attempting to evade theirs. The pursuit of infringement in other areas is utterly irrelevant to a discussion of infringement by tapers/traders in a thread on Bluegrass Today that started with a request to tapers/traders.

    What’s interesting to me is the way in which folks like Nashphil and Direwolf first dismiss the extent of trading when they argue that any lost royalties due to trading are trivial, and then turn around and claim that the extent of trading is sufficient to make big stars out of artists whose work is traded. Both statements can’t be true; if trading is an effective promotional tool because it involves thousands or millions of listeners, then the lost royalties aren’t trivial; if the royalties are trivial because only a few people are involved, then it’s not an effective promotional tool.

    Finally – and while I dislike having to repeat myself, it appears to be necessary – the effectiveness of trading as a promotional tool for artists is irrelevant to songwriters whose songs are performed by other artists. Those songwriters don’t get paid for ticket sales; they don’t get paid for merch sales; they *only* get paid royalties for distributed reproductions of their work, which is exactly what traded recordings are. And no one else can give permission for their works to be distributed without compensation.

  • We use archive.org for interviews such as Doyle Lawson,Doc Watson and there is a lot of paper work. All well worth it.

    I’m a little hesitant in weighing in on this topic. But…..I’ll say I’m not a fan of taping or trading. I do a search about every six months or so for bootlegs of my work. If authorized by the artists,then it’s fine. If it’s not, I contact the person. I have in the past seen full blown CD’s produced from FM broadcast of live shows, complete with art work borrowed from the event for sale. That’s a big problem. I find sessions for B&P’s that will be labeled as “Board” tapes knowing the only copy of that file is in my archive. So much of what is traded is of less than high quality. I have many of them passed to me by well meaning folks. I toss them to the recycle bin. The last thing I need is another bad sounding, poorly edited live show. Some artist I’m sure would not be pleased with the quality or the performance flaws that many of these shared files contain. Some don’t care.

    As a whole, I see this as a small blip on the music biz. Even smaller in the Bluegrass community. I will say that if it starts to effect BG product sales and can be proven as the cause;then we as professionals bring about change….whatever that might be.

    Isn’t it a beautiful Fall DAy…I think I’ll go leaf watching.

    Mash Hard an’ Kepp The Grass Alive!

  • direwolf840

    We ARE talking about artists who PERMIT taping of their shows not those who do not. Again, I’ll stand by all my above opinions and statements about covering others songs live.
    It was brought to my attention that you can PURCHASE a YMSB ringtone now from Cingular. It happens to be, ironically for the sake of argument, their interpretation of the Beatles’ “Think for Yourself”. Does YMSB get paid and Michael Jackson get paid also, since he owns the rights to the original? Who decides who gets what %?

    Jon wrote:
    “What‚Äôs interesting to me is the way in which folks like Nashphil and Direwolf first dismiss the extent of trading when they argue that any lost royalties due to trading are trivial, and then turn around and claim that the extent of trading is sufficient to make big stars out of artists whose work is traded”

    read my post, I clearly state that UNTIL an artist becomes successful enough to sell their own live recordings on their site they are SMART to allow taping and trading. it’s a means to an end, a successful and profitable one if the quality is there. People will like it and buy tix and merch and records from the table. What we’re saying is that it is the most valuable of all promotional tools when a artist is unknown and it doesn’t cost anything. When the royalties are no longer “trivial” the artist stops allowing SB recording and starts selling their own. WP has turned this practice into a huge revenue stream. Do you think they would be selling out every show today if their live shows weren’t taped and traded when they were coming up? I think not. Ask any successful touring Jamband, Jamgrass, Newgrass, or even the few successful bluegrass touring acts out there how instrumental the taping/trading community was to theie ultimate success. You’ll never hear them say “Man, if we only would’ve been paid for all those circulated shows when we were drawing 45 people”.
    That’s why the people against open taping are still playing in front of crowds of 50 or less. COMMON SENSE!!

  • jon said:

    >while I dislike having to repeat myself, it appears to be >necessary

    i too can only repeat myself at this point. thanks for the opportunity to speak my mind.

    “Against stupidity, even the gods struggle in vain.”
    — Schiller, ‘The Maid of Orleans’

    kip

  • Jon Weisberger

    We ARE talking about artists who PERMIT taping of their shows not those who do not. Again, I’ll stand by all my above opinions and statements about covering others songs live.

    You may stand by them, but they’re still wrong. Artists can’t give permission for recordings of songs written by others to be distributed; those who distribute such recordings are legally obligated to obtain permission or pay royalties to those writers.

    It was brought to my attention that you can PURCHASE a YMSB ringtone now from Cingular. It happens to be, ironically for the sake of argument, their interpretation of the Beatles’ “Think for Yourself”. Does YMSB get paid and Michael Jackson get paid also, since he owns the rights to the original? Who decides who gets what %?

    The holder of the copyright on the song definitely gets paid; BMI, at least, has a blanket “mobile entertainment” license that entitles the licensee to use any works from the BMI catalog, and I’m guessing the other PROs have something similar. Dunno about whether the owner of the source recording is entitled to royalties, but my guess is that the answer is “yes,” and that the fee’s negotiated between the parties.

    Do you think they would be selling out every show today if their live shows weren’t taped and traded when they were coming up? I think not.

    Again, I wonder how you would go about proving (as opposed to simply thinking) that a group’s popularity or unpopularity is directly related to their approval or disapproval of taping/trading. Given that each group and its circumstances are unique, and so there’s no opportunity to construct a control group, it seems unalterably hypothetical. What isn’t hypothetical is that “outside” songwriters are entitled to compensation for their work, and no artist has the authority to waive it on their behalf.

  • jpecorino

    you guys overlook a simple fact. in order to be successful as a musician you must have talent. while some artists might get their panties in a bunch over $5, that is not the reason they are not making a living.

    again, if that $5 is so important, than i suggest these musicans look for a different career. in fact–i think i’ll play a 3 fox drive song at my gig tonight. if meghan would like to send me a self-addressed, stamped envelope, i would be more than willing to send along the .10. sounds logical. 😉

    i wonder what guys like todd snider, shawn camp, tim o, and danny barnes think when their songs are covered by ymsb. i bet they are happy to get the exposure.

    that fact is people are looking for reasons why their music wont pay the bills, when the real reason is right in your hands.

    it sounds to me that you guys are pissed that a band like ymsb is so successful, and you’re not. get over it, or learn to pick!!!

  • jpecorino

    i am going to head over to some live music sites to check out what bands i haven’t heard of yet. who knows? maybe one of them will spark my interest and lead me to see them live or buy their album.
    i now know which ones i wont check out…

    peace yall
    joe

  • nashphil

    I would like to repeat myself, this very important point needs to be pointed out again. This is the bottom line.

    Very few artists/bands have the luxury of having a cash rich record label or huge publishing house supporting them and promoting their tours and music. It’s essential to leave the taping/trading option open for artists/bands to be able to provide their own promotion and ultimately make a living making music. I just can’t figure out how everyone doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  • jpecorino said:

    >it sounds to me that you guys are pissed that
    >a band like ymsb is so successful, and you’re
    >not. get over it, or learn to pick!!!

    hahahahaha!!!!!!!!

    what color is the sky on your planet?

    kip

  • direwolf840

    until yesterday, I’d never heard of Kip Martin, Jon Weisberger, or Megan and 3 fox drive. Asked several of my bluegrass loving friends and none of them have either. I wonder why this is. These are affluent people who choose to spend their money and vacation time traveling to see live music they love and spend far more money in record stores and on DL’s than 99% of the gemeral population. The anti-taper contigent here all sound like freaking lawyers posing as artists to me. Unfortunately, most up and coming artists make the mistake of signing on with labels, then don’t get the support they need for promotion of records and tour dates, don’t sell enough records, play to empty rooms and ultimately wind up in debt to the label because all the money that should go into promotion winds up going to a bunch of lawyers tying to collect pennies trying to track down everytime someone plays a song the label owns on a patio in Albuquerque or God knows where.

  • deleted user

    Here are a few interesting links that deal with copyrights. They deal with Section 115 Reform Act of 2006.

    We must remember the times are changing. Things are not always set in stone. Personally, I don’t want to get into this debate. However, I did find the arguments valid in both respects. I was just reading and thought I’d add a few cents (if even that).

    http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat051606.html

    http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat031104.html

    Everyone take it easy….

    Remember we all are here for the same reason: The love of music.

  • jpecorino

    nice. thats all you could come up with in reponse to my post? i have yet to hear anyone mention having to actually have talent to make a living doing this.

    lets walk through this. lets say the laws are applicable here (i’ll leave that to a judge not some dude at his computer). bands aren’t going to stop allowing trading, they are simply going to stop playing anyone elses songs. who does that help? nobody, and certainly not the musican that needs the $5. its just less ears hearing the music, and that is not how you get you. you guys can talk about ethics and morals, but we’re trying to keep it on the level you mostly seem to understand, dollars and sense.

    if you like the inbred, backwoods, racist stereotype that is associated with us, then by all means keep doing what you are doing. if you want to expand the fanbase of bluegrass music you must get the music out there.

  • Jon Weisberger

    That ain’t the bottom line for the songwriters, Phil – and that’s where this discussion started. Why do you keep trying to ignore that point? If artists want to give permission for their performances and the songs they’ve written themselves to be taped and traded, that’s their right – but they can’t give permission for someone else. So unless you’re obtaining permission from (or paying royalties to) all the songwriters whose material was performed on a show you tape and trade, you’re breaking the law and disrespecting an integral part of the music community. Period.

    As for JPecorino’s and Direwolf’s latest posts, it’s disappointing to see the reappearance of argument ad hominem. Like I said before, it’s not a very strong approach.

  • nashphil

    Jon, why don’t you just give it a rest already and go find someplace else to be a pest.
    You haven’t said anything worth reading in two days, it’s all the same old crap. You just keep repeating your pompous statements over and over, dripping with cynicism and condencension. It’s disgusting.

    Your argument has been shot down and trumped in every way and you have yet to prove any point except that you like to whine and moan because you can’t make a living playing music. You want to blame everyone but yourself. Get over it. You are wrong. Your argument is moot. Your self-rightous attitude is miserable. You and Kip are just the same.

    I’ll repeat the bottom line over and over as long as this debate is still going, It’s a mantra

    Very few artists/bands have the luxury of having a cash rich record label or huge publishing house supporting them and promoting their tours and music. It’s essential to leave the taping/trading option open for artists/bands to be able to provide their own promotion and ultimately make a living making music. I just can’t figure out how everyone doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  • Jon Weisberger

    lets walk through this. lets say the laws are applicable here (i’ll leave that to a judge not some dude at his computer). bands aren’t going to stop allowing trading, they are simply going to stop playing anyone elses songs.

    Not in bluegrass, Joe. In fact, in bluegrass there are almost certainly more bands that frown on taping than there are bands that perform exclusively their own material. If you have any commercially released bluegrass CDs, you ought to take a look at the songwriting credits sometime.

    Furthermore, there are in fact all kinds of ways that people can check out bluegrass without the songwriters getting ripped off. Radio is one – terrestrial, satellite and internet. Listening posts are another. Streaming sites are another. You can check out samples on many artist websites, on allmusic, amazon and many other online CD retailers, and you can buy entire songs from places like iTunes and emusic at less than a buck a pop. The notion that if you don’t permit taping and trading, no one’s going to hear your music is just plain wrong. It can be helpful, for sure, but it ain’t the only way to go.

  • nashphil

    Very few artists/bands have the luxury of having a cash rich record label or huge publishing house supporting them and promoting their tours and music. It’s essential to leave the taping/trading option open for artists/bands to be able to provide their own promotion and ultimately make a living making music. I just can’t figure out how everyone doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  • comment #1046 By direwolf840 on 10.26.06 5:35 pm

    until yesterday, I’d never heard of Kip Martin, Jon Weisberger, or Megan and 3 fox drive. Asked several of my bluegrass loving friends and none of them have either. I wonder why this is.

    Maybe they don’t really follow Bluegrass music. Mr. Weisberger has written liner notes for some of the greatest Bluegrass recordings ever. His position and participation in the IBMA is well documented also. As a historian an authority, he gets one of my “Bluegrass Scholar” listings….even would really be considered a Bishop in The College. Mr. Martin has played with many of the greats Bluegrass and is looked to as a historian also. Megan is with a family group that has been on the Bluegrass scene for…over 15 years(I’m I that old…)…these are not names unknown to people who are Bluegrass fans.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Uh, Phil, what makes you so sure that neither Kip nor Megan nor I makes a living playing music? If there’s anything lamer than argument ad hominem, it’s argument ad hominem based on ignorance.

    Furthermore, simply saying I’m wrong doesn’t make it so. The law is clear – when you distribute recordings of songs without obtaining permission from the copyright owners or paying them royalties, you’re breaking the law. And in my opinion, you’re also acting unethically, and you’re disrespecting a vital part of the bluegrass community you profess to admire. Pointing the finger at other parties who may also be acting illegally and/or unethically doesn’t address that, nor does dismissing the amounts of money involved as trivial. Until you deal with these issues, you’re just going to be attacking people and not their arguments, and that’s not a very wise or honorable thing to do.

  • nashphil

    Like I said Jon, you are just repeating yourself ad nauseum infintum. For those who haven’t been following Jon’s self-important language….that means over and over and over.

    You have said those very same things to no avail at least ten times in the last few days. We gotcha.

    You are clearly wrong and must be the most stubborn person in the world to not see it. Your argument has been fully disputed, countered, and trumped in every possible way until there is nothing left of it but a pompous self rightous and extremely bitter person on the other end of it. Left to repeat his same misguided argument over and over. The only one you are convincing is yourself Jon.

    I’ll say it again:

    Very few artists/bands have the luxury of having a cash rich record label or huge publishing house supporting them and promoting their tours and music. It’s essential to leave the taping/trading option open for artists/bands to be able to provide their own promotion and ultimately make a living making music. I just can’t figure out how everyone doesn’t understand that simple concept.

  • ryanfbaker

    I don’t want to get involved too much in this semi-vitriolic discussion, but I figured I would post this out of a bit of frustration.

    It would behoove some of the more opinionated people here (direwolf) to study up on your copyright law. I am seeing the same misunderstandings posted over and over in this thread regarding royalty payments (which Jon has attempted to explain). There are no .02 cent payments being mailed off to anybody. Please read up on what ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC blanket licenses are. They are in place specifically to avoid the “seinfeld” scenario. Direwolf, if you are not aware that ringtones are indeed legal, royalty-based products, you need to get a primer in today’s music business. As Jon mentioned, ringtones are an increasingly important money-maker for artists, songwriters, and publishers.

    And for the last time, it is the VENUE that pays for the blanket licenses for the musical entertainment which is performed in its establishment. I personally know a guy whose job it was to go around New England for ASCAP. He would attend venues which ASCAP knew featured live music and who had not purchased a blanket license. He would attend a concert, wait for an ASCAP song to play (catch them in the act) and advise them that they should either purchase a blanket license or call their lawyer. If you provided entertainment at a restaurant playing Dead covers, unbeknownst to you, the venue had indeed payed for the right for you to play those songs (if they were operating under the law).

    Just had to get that out there. Please take some time to learn these things, it will make for a more constructive dialogue.

  • i recently attended the ibma convention in nashville. they had a “no taping” policy. there were even staff walking around looking for people taping. sadly i seen several people taping, i even seen them pull the video camera’s back out right after they were politely ask not too.

    i’m a songwriter. folks who are trading tapes are doing nothing different than those who download illegal music. you are distrubting music that DOES NOT belong to them. they get offended when it’s called stealing but that’s exactly what it is.
    it’s also illegal which is why sites like napster and many others had to pay up in lawsuits against them. there are many people across the country who are getting letters in the mail every day for illegal downloading. the fine is up $750 per song. the industry will eventually start suing tape traders.

    jon is right when he says it’s not the amount that should be considered. a songwriter makes 9.1 cents for every cd sold. it takes a lot of pennies to make enough money to make it worth the time and effort and money invested in recording and pitching demo’s. most bluegrass bands don’t sell many cds. a few thousand if they are lucky so songwriters and publishers don’t do it for the money. they are lucky if they recoup their invenstment.
    it’s a shame so many people who claim to “love” bluegrass music do every thing they can to cheat the songwriters and publishers and sometimes artist out of what little they stand to gain. how can some one in good concience invest hundreds if not thousands of dollars in the equipment (computers and camera’s) to trade tapes and deny someone else the few pennies they worked very hard to gain. also, aritst who perform someone else’s songs have no legal right record and distrubute those songs without compensating the writer and they have no legal right to authorize anyone else to record (tape) that music. if the people that are taping really love the music, then why arent’ they willing pay a few pennies for it? i’m sure many artist are trying to build a career want to establish good relations with their audience and think it doesn’t matter, but it does matter. people “buy” a ticket into see the “artist” but the songwriters are getting nothing…”most” bluegrass songwriters like “most” bluegrass artist have day jobs and aren’t going to miss those few pennies stolen from them but that’s not the point now is it? one last comment. if someone takes a million dollars and it’s considered stealing the folks that stole the money are considered thieves…if a million people take a dollar each that doesn’t belong to them what should they be called? the amount of money taken doesn’t change the anything. so, make all the excuses you want about how it’s “good for the music” if it makes you feel better but honest people see the difference. folks with integrity would never trade music without paying for it…stealing is stealing..and a thief is a thief if he steals 2cents or two million dollars.

  • nashphil

    You know……it just isn’t worth arguing about anymore.

    I would imagine that most have tuned out already, it’s just the same half-dozen people fighting it out and saying the same things over and over, calling each other names, acting like lawyers, etc……

    None of us individually have any power to change anything that make up the rules for all of this anyway. So, fight the good fight or take a nap…..Makes no difference to me. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing and the rest of you can keep doing what your doing. Very little will change.

    The world of acoustic music and bluegrass in particular needs to be more understanding, inclusive, and open to new things, new people, new ideas, and a new approach. That is the future of bluegrass music.

  • direwolf840

    Jon, Kip, and Megan- sorry if you feel that simply stating that you sound like lawyers, not artists and that myself nor any of my friends haven’t heard of you, sounds like a personal attack. It’s not. Kip, I’m sorry I called you a moron earlier, that was. It just upsets me to see such closed-minded people when that is what the world sees the bluegrass industry as. I’ve seen good friends get insulted by journalists and critics and have the age old Bill Monroe “that ain’t no part of nothin” quote thrown in their faces. These are friends who have broken through and become successful, not just the Yonder boys, who have been dealing with that label since 1998. NashPhil is right on when he states we need new ideas, and a new approach. I loved LoS and I love YMSB. I love what Larry Keel and NB is doing right now and I think Vince Herman is “OUR WOODY GUTHRIE”. Have any of you tried putting your own stuff up on the free lists? Take the covers out or get permission if you think it’s a big deal. Maybe, if you do you’ll get the kind of exposure you’re looking for and you’ll start drawing crowds to your shows. I have no idea what you all earn in the industry, as historians or journalists or in bands that get honored by IBMA, and frankly I don’t care. Just don’t ruin it for the bands out there that take advantage of the lists and have become successful, in part because of the exposure. I’m done.

    Jon, I notice from your website that you worked with Jim Reeves. I actually own a custom resonator made by Tut’s son Mark Taylor at Crafters. It was one of 4 that were made for Big Jim Webb who played with Reeves on the Opry for years. I would love to pick it with any of you someday in the future….. only if we can let Phil tape

  • nashphil

    Amen Direwolf!

    I would be happy to record it.

  • Jon Weisberger

    It just upsets me to see such closed-minded people when that is what the world sees the bluegrass industry as. I’ve seen good friends get insulted by journalists and critics and have the age old Bill Monroe “that ain’t no part of nothin” quote thrown in their faces.

    Yeah, that’s a bummer – but it doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. Ignoring what one owes to songwriters isn’t a new idea or a new approach, it’s as old as the industry. Compensating them should be seen as one of the costs of doing business, like paying for the instrument you play on, or for the sound system you use, or for the computer on which you record a performance, or for the gas you put in your vehicle to drive to a gig that you record, or for the internet connection that you use to upload that recording. Deciding to freely distribute recordings of your performance doesn’t entitle you to default on paying for any of those things, and it shouldn’t entitle you to default on paying the songwriters, either – or obtaining permission from them.

    Jon, I notice from your website that you worked with Jim Reeves.

    Whoa, dude, I’m not *that* old!

  • nashphil

    Hey Jon…..default broken record.

  • direwolf840

    this is way off topic but much more important than – well what we’ve been talking about……

    Jon wrote:
    “or for the gas you put in your vehicle”

    whoa dude- my cars run on veggie oil… yours should too. be a true patriot, save our farms, save the planet(they don’t emit sulphur or Co2) and get us the FREAK out of the middle east cuz oil’s why we’re there(if we wanted to liberate anyone we would be in Darfur, not Iraq)- STOP BUYING GAS! buy a diesel and run it on biofuel or get an FFV (flex-fuel-vehicle that runs on ethanol). the US gov right now is paying farmers NOT TO GROW SOYBEANS on over 40 million acres- to support the commodity prices. we could completely eliminate the need for oil in this country with 100 million acres. Yeah, I sound like a hippie wacko…. I am, but these are facts-please look into it.

  • nashphil said:

    >The world of acoustic music and bluegrass in
    >particular needs to be more understanding,
    >inclusive, and open to new things, new people,
    >new ideas, and a new approach.

    i TOTALLY agree with you. but breaking the law isnt the way to do it. those methods are no different than those of dick cheney, ken lay, or rush limbaugh–the ends do not justify the means.

    direwolf said:

    >Have any of you tried putting your own stuff
    >up on the free lists?

    im on cds out there with mike auldridge, ronnie mccoury, richard bennett, jd crowe, sammy schelor, the paisleys, merlefest midnight jam, and 4 or 5 roanoke bluegrass weekend shows. i even found a copy of my audition with jimmy martin out there (sheesh!).

    and:

    >if you do you’ll get the kind of exposure
    >you’re looking for and you’ll start drawing
    >crowds to your shows.

    im happy with my music and my career is intact. i worked 135+ gigs last year and made approximately $200 in songwriting royalties for a movie soundtrack i composed over 15 years ago. thank God for sandra bullock and DVD! ive played and recorded with my heroes and have earned the respect of my peers. thats all i set out to do and my dreams have been realized.

    jp corino said:

    >get over it, or learn to pick!!!

    ask jenny keel, missy raines, tony rice, ben kauffman, or mike bub if i can pick.

    kip

  • jpecorino

    you should ask mike bub why the del mccoury band has been so successful. in fact i think there are published quotes from del himself talking about the benefits of taping/trading.

    or even ben, jenny and tony as well. one could argue that a tape of tony with jerry garcia and david grisman brought his career to a new level, before it became an offical release.

    they would probably laugh in your face if you called them immoral, unethical theives. you can call me that all you want though, i really dont mind.

    funny–i know all the musicians you listed, but not you. perhaps because those musicians wholeheartedly endorse taping/trading? its a shame you need to rely on a major movie to get your sound out. whats more unethical? that you are being supported by a major money hording corporation, or that we think spreading a bands music is a positive grassroots method of promotion.

  • You toads lose all credibility and relevance when you get political in a non-political forum.

  • jpecorino

    kip—i see you have a link to gdlive.com on your website. bit hypocritical aren’t we?

    its ok to steal from jerry because he was rich, but not ftom you. btw–i have a great jimmy martin show i can send you.

  • direwolf840

    Kip- I for one, never said you couldn’t pick. I actually just talked to a good friend of Curtis Birch’s in Tucson who said you are a mighty fine picker and good guy as well. I’m supposed to get some Dobro lessons from Curtis in December and I am excited about that. I apologized earlier for getting personal and I meant it. If you read my posts, I also haven’t said songwriters shouldn’t be paid royalties that are due. I’m merely saying that to say that if someone plays your song in a casual setting and there is “no financial gain or profit made from it or a minimal one at that” it is splitting hairs to try and claim you are owed pennies for that. I also understand the blanket agreement policies, so once again your beef is with the venues that don’t pay their licensing fees. I still stand my everything I’ve said about the benefits of the taper/trader community far outweighing any missed compensation.

    …And Brad- As far as getting political- I clearly stated that my post on not buying petro fuel was WAY off topic- and was only addressing Jon’s issue of paying for gas to get to a gig. I’ll take any opportunity to tell people to stay away from gas pumps- I feel that strongly that it’s the biggest problem we face-environmental, political, and financial. Get over it…. AND START USING RENEWABLE, NON-POLLUTING FUELS IF YOU’RE NOT!!!!!

  • If this discussion gets political, it will be shut down.

    People come here to get away from that sort of discussion, and the Internet is choked with sites where those discussions are encouraged.

    Here, we talk about bluegrass and related forms of acoustic music. Please show enough respect for the many people who read this site to stay on topic.

    Thanks.

  • nashphil

    I suggest that everyone just ignore Kip Martin’s “immoral” drivel. This dude has some serious mental issues he’s dealing with. It’s painfully clear that he’s nothing but a hypocrite looking for publicity.

    He’s been a taper/trader for years and emailed me a few months ago looking for recordings. Nothing he says is credible.
    It’s small judgemental minds like his that are the problem with this debate, and ultimately, his argument.

    Just ignore him.

  • nashphil

    (without trying to piss off Brance or John….the moderators)

    Everything is political.
    As Steve Earl frequently says “even Happy Birthday is a political song”

    I sure hate to see this form of moderation being imposed on this website. I certainly don’t want to see this thread start disentegrating into Bush or Clinton bashing either, but threatening to terminate this discussion for cursing, political statements, or topics/opinions that don’t suit the moderators, is truly unfortunate. If that’s the case, then just go ahead and delete it now, don’t wait.

    Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see anywhere within the faq or rules listed on this site that politics aren’t allowed. It’s apparently ok to call people “thieves, immoral, illegal, or Rush Limbaugh” …… but it’s not ok to talk about fossil fuels?

    I think this debate has seen it’s better days anyway, but I cringe to see anyone try and moderate the direction of the discussion.

    Cheers, Phil

  • Then don’t make a point to violate the restrictions we have asked you all to impose on yourselves.

    >>Maybe I missed it but I didn’t see anywhere within the faq or rules listed on this
    >>site that politics aren’t allowed. It’s apparently ok to call people “thieves, immoral,
    >>illegal, or Rush Limbaugh” …… but it’s not ok to talk about fossil fuels?

    How about not bringing in any of that, any of you?

    Life is hard – not changing the direction of an online discussion is easy.

  • Jon Weisberger

    you should ask mike bub why the del mccoury band has been so successful. in fact i think there are published quotes from del himself talking about the benefits of taping/trading.

    I don’t think there are, though it’s possible you might scrape up one or two. But I’ve been interviewing and conversing with Del for years – almost certainly for a lot longer than you’ve been aware of him, Joe, and certainly for a lot longer than internet-facilitated distribution of live recordings has been around – and while he’s mentioned several reasons he thinks account for the group’s popularity, he’s never mentioned taping/trading.

    Not that that really makes any difference, because the issue here isn’t whether the indiscriminate distribution of live recordings helps artists gain popularity, it’s whether it infringes on copyrights when permission isn’t obtained or compensation paid to *all* the relevant parties – not just the artists, but the songwriters, too. And since you’ve brought him up, let me point out that Del is one of those artists who doesn’t do much writing at all. The Company We Keep has more songs of his than any other album in at least the past 15 years, and even on that one he wrote or co-wrote less than half of the material. So when he does a show, there are always lots of songs that he didn’t write – and when tapes of those shows are traded, “outside” songwriters (including Del’s co-writers) aren’t getting paid. And they should either be paid or their permission for that distribution obtained in advance. Del can’t give that permission for them.

    Now, how that translates in your mind to calling him a thief, or immoral, or unethical is a mystery. It’s the *distributor* of the recordings who’s acting unethically when he or she does so without compensating or obtaining permission from the copyright holders. Tapers/traders often speak passionately about how respectful they are of artists’ wishes – that they wouldn’t dream of taping/trading artists without obtaining permission (though that permission seems often to consist of nothing more than an artist’s name appearing on a “taper-friendly” list somewhere, or even just *not* appearing on a “taper-unfriendly” list). That’s great, but if they’re only seeking permission from the artist, they’re only doing half the job. We are talking about bluegrass, and performers who perform exclusively their own or public domain material are exceedingly rare.

    one could argue that a tape of tony with jerry garcia and david grisman brought his career to a new level, before it became an offical release.

    One could, but one would almost certainly be wrong. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that an artist was unknown to everyone until the time he became known to you.

  • corino said:

    >you should ask mike bub why the del mccoury band
    >has been so successful.

    i never said taping didnt help an artist. never. thats not the argument. start reading from the beginning.

    bub is a good friend and its likely he HAS benefitted from trading. that doesnt mean trading is legal. he probably knows its against the law to trade tapes. so, even though he benefits from these live recordings THAT is not at issue.

    >i see you have a link to gdlive.com on
    >your website. bit hypocritical aren’t we?

    not at all. first of all, the grateful dead pay royalties. always have. do some research. secondly, that website hasnt been touched in MONTHS. even if i changed my mind a month ago, i have that right.

    nashphil said:

    >This dude has some serious mental issues he’s
    >dealing with.

    sheesh. im arguing with a 9 year old+.

    >He’s been a taper/trader for years and
    >emailed me a few months ago looking for
    >recordings. Nothing he says is credible.

    you are a liar. you said i asked for a tim obrien show a “few months ago”. prove it.

    >I cringe to see anyone try and moderate
    >the direction of the discussion.

    everything must go phil’s way or he has a hissy fit. again, a 9 year old.

    i appreciate direwolf’s apology (thank you) and really must agree with most of what he says. i think we actually agree but see some side issues differently.

    i lost all respect i once had for for phil. i thought he was above all that. someone buy him a kitty–he needs to lighten up.

    i will say this one last time–songwriters are legally, and in MY opinion, ethically, due recompense for their efforts.

    kip

  • nashphil

    Then don’t make a point to violate the restrictions we have asked you all to impose on yourselves.

    Where is that list of things we aren’t suppose to impose on ourselves? The only thing I’ve seen in the FAQ that references rules are where it says that ALL POSTS WILL BE MODERATED.

    Nothing about politics, cursing, or blasphemy.
    I did see the rule that you can’t call it bluegrass unless it has a 5-string banjo. 😉 Another misnomer.

    =============================

    Back to Jon Weisberger. The Default Broken Record.
    I’ve heard you throw up that same tired argument 10 or 15 times during this debate. I think you have made your point…..ad nauseum infinitum.

    I love this latest quote dripping with pompous condenscention from the bluegrass know-it-all and taper-hater, Mr. Jon Weisburger.

    But I’ve been interviewing and conversing with Del for years Рalmost certainly for a lot longer than you’ve been aware of him, Joe, and certainly for a lot longer than internet-facilitated distribution of live recordings has been around Рand while he’s mentioned several reasons he thinks account for the group’s popularity, he’s never mentioned taping/trading.

    Well, since Del didn’t mention it to Weisburger, then it must not have ever happened. Since Weisburger has known Del longer than any of us. Those two are tight. BFF.

  • corino said:

    >you should ask mike bub why the del mccoury band
    >has been so successful.

    i just talked to mike and he said, “I don’t attribute Del’s success to trading.”

    kip

  • Jon Weisberger

    I’m not a “taper-hater,” Phil; I think taping shows one attends – with permission, of course – for one’s own post-show enjoyment probably falls into the “fair use” category. It’s the indiscriminate *distribution* of those recordings without obtaining permission from or compensating copyright owners that concerns me: 1) it is clearly illegal and 2) it is, at least in my opinion, unethical, and disrespectful of an important part of the bluegrass community. Talking about how beneficial trading is for the artists whose shows are being recorded and distributed doesn’t address that issue; asserting that the amounts of money involved are trivial doesn’t address that issue; pointing out that other entities also behave illegally and unethically doesn’t address that issue; simply stating that it is too legal and ethical doesn’t address that issue, and calling people names doesn’t address it, either.

  • Lee Hiers

    Hey there Kip Martin. For someone who is so concerned and vocal about royalties being paid to the proper individuals, you sure seem to have a lot of what appear to be copyrighted works (video and photograph) on your MySpace page. Have appropriate royalties been paid on these works?

    If not, why would that be any different than not paying royalties to songwriters?

    You say you have changed your ways regarding trading live shows…have you destroyed all copies of bootleg performances that you have traded for over the years (and you were fairly active as I recall…certainly vocal on the trading forums)?

    And why not go after a more serious violation, such as the blatant dissemination online of illegal copies of commercial releases? Or the venues (specifically bluegrass festivals) that don’t pay performance royalties – they’re easy to find, just look for the flyers that state “Performers responsible for paying royalties” as an (unsuccessful) attempt to shift liability from the venue to the performer.

    I do not disagree that the majority of the trading may not be within the letter of the law, but I believe the analogy to breaking the speed limit by 1 mph is a good one. There are no real damages here. And Jon, since you seem to have an affinity for Latin: it is de minimis.

    In addition to being a part-time professional bluegrass musician, I am also a part-time professional photographer. There are many online discussions about people using photographers’ copyrighted material (for instance, on Myspace) without permission and subsequent payment for use. However in many cases, the consensus is that the bad will generated by fighting for every penny rightfully due will have negative long-term results, and that the better position is to learn how to capitalize on the situation. I think that is the approach that should be taken in the trading issue.

  • direwolf840

    ryanfbaker wrote:

    “I personally know a guy whose job it was to go around New England for ASCAP. He would attend venues which ASCAP knew featured live music and who had not purchased a blanket license. He would attend a concert, wait for an ASCAP song to play (catch them in the act) and advise them that they should either purchase a blanket license or call their lawyer”

    this from another board:

    “On a semi related note a club in Portland..The Imbibe has ended having music because they were stuck with a lawsuit from that ASCAP thing I think. From bands doing covers there! Bummer because Danny Barnes is listed there coming up but I’m hoping it’s moved and not canceled. @#$#@% laywers! I saw a lot of great music at that place.”- PeacockRadioMark

    GREAT JOB ASCAP!! this is just the beginning of this kind of thing. this is the frivilous kind of action I’m talking about. Yeah, yeah… you can say the venue “should have paid their licensing agreement”. However, this is the problem- the money my friend Danny Barnes will NOW NEVER receive because he will lose a gig, not to mention all the other lost gigs at Imbibe will far outweigh any pittance of compensetory royalties ANYONE WOULD EVER recieve form another artist COVERING their material at this venue. Not to mention the people who would have attended theis show who may never get to see this great performer or maybe never hear a song he may have covered or wrote and played that night…. yeah- this is great for musicians and songwriters.

  • direwolf840

    regarding my last post- We already don’t have enough small scale establishments that are willing to host live music…. this is just a case of, as NashPhil said “biting the hand that feeds you” or “cutting of your head to spite your face.” more and more establishments that can’t or don’t use live acts as their bread and butter will just plain stop having live music and aspiring artists will simply run out of places to play. ASCAP could be great thing in protecting copyrighted material but this is not the way to do it. The cost of this practice of having people going around and taking notes of who played who’s songs at venues like Imbibe is far more costly than any revenue that is going to EVER come from the blankets that protect a songwriter from anyone covering their material. Spend this money on stopping the illegal trading of published material (the other day someone offered me a burned copy of Mike Auldridge’s Dobro-which I’ve already purchased and paid for online- and this ticked me off! I asked them to please not burn copies of this and encourage others to buy it instead) and not grassroots efforts to spread live shows of up and comers or covers, or bands that have open taping policies …. COMMON FREAKING SENSE!!! remember what happened to Apple in the 80’s and early 90’s because they weren’t willing to share their platform- they learned a valuable lesson and recovered-look at the iPod and it’s “compatibilty” with just about everything…….keep this up and the only thing our children will listen to WILL be mainstream garbage.

  • direwolf840

    RYANFBAKER wrote:

    “Direwolf, if you are not aware that ringtones are indeed legal, royalty-based products, you need to get a primer in today‚Äôs music business”

    my post hours before:

    “Ringtones and things like that are viable sources of income because companies actually sell them and can TRACK when a customer downloads them. They can in turn pay the owner of the material.”

    RYANFBAKER wrote:

    “I don‚Äôt want to get involved too much in this semi-vitriolic discussion”

    I say…

    YOU SHOULDN’T HAVE

  • Lee Hiers

    Funny you should mention Mike Auldridge’s “Dobro”. If I recall correctly, Mike was never paid by the record company on the most recent CD release of that album. That’s old info…I also think it was for the double CD “Blues & Bluegrass / Dobro”.

    Much more egregious than the issue at hand.

  • Jon Weisberger

    I don’t see how you can claim on the one hand that indiscriminate distribution of recordings is a great promotional tool for artists because it exposes thousands, or hundreds of thousands, or millions of fans to the music, and then turn around and claim on the other that the damage to uncompensated copyright holders is trivial. They can’t both be true. And from a songwriter’s point of view, the difference between illegal distribution of commercial studio recordings and live recordings is non-existent; a recording is a recording is a recording, and one is either compensated at the statutory rate (or asked for permission) or isn’t.

    As far as venues go, y’all would understand a performer who got ticked off if he or she got stiffed by a clubowner, right? Well, why should the songwriters whose material is being performed be seen any differently? A responsible venue pays its bills, its costs of doing business, and obtaining licenses for music is one of those = and in my opinion, the license fees are hardly exorbitant. For instance, a club with a capacity of 100 occupants presenting live music 5-7 nights a week with no cover charge can obtain a BMI license for $500 – less than $2 a day. I’m hard pressed to see a situation in which that would make the difference between profit and loss for a venue owner.

    The underlying problem, it seems to me, is that this is an issue where a copyright holder’s work is kind of transparent to the consumer. You go to a performance; you see a performer; it’s not hard to understand that he or she is entitled to compensation for his or her work, or needs to give permission for a recording of that work to be distributed without compensation. The work of the songwriter isn’t apparent, though – people are frequently unaware that a song might not have been written by the performer – and so it’s easier to overlook, or ignore, or deny that that work needs to be compensated too.

  • nashphil

    this debate sure has legs…..

    Jon’s legal side of this argument has been covered 100 times already and in every wording possible. It’s obviously not as black and white as he thinks, no matter how he tries to spin it. Depsite what argument is leveled, he just keeps repeating the same misguided and shortsighted legal mantra.

    The thing that gets me the most irritated with narrow opinions like Jon’s is that the bottom line for them is them and only them. They can’t see the forest for the trees. They don’t give a rat’s arse about the artists/bands/performers out there trying to make a living and make something of themselves musically. They don’t care about the venues out there giving them a gig, and they certainly don’t care about the fans. In their world, it’s all about their bottom line, how much money can you give me for hearing my wonderful song.

    “I should get paid everytime someone hums my song” a famous songwriter was overheard saying.

    They just lash out and start threatening lawsuits, calling people immoral, unethical, illegal, thieves, stoners, cokeheads, groupies, or whatever. All used on this very thread by Kip & Jon to describe tapers/traders. This entire thread is based on that very behavior. Go back to the very first comment by Kip to see that in action. That theme is continued throughout. I wish that fury was accurately channeled towards the publishing houses like ascap/bmi.

    The reason why Jon keeps repeating himself and the reason Kip chimes in occasionly with some other bit of lunacy is clear. The anti-taper contingent has absolutely no argument that has any merit. The highly disputed legal issue of distrubution of fan-based live recordings, is just that, highly disputed and solely related to distrubution. I feel that will be rectified soon enough. Companies like youtube and myspace are testing the very waters of this debate as we speak.

    This thread isn’t going to ever agree about taping and Jon and I will not ever agree on the key issue he is proposing. Let me recap his views (since he hasn’t made them clear yet).
    He has suggested that making copies of live recordings for your friends is not only illegal, but unethical, immoral, and takes away your status as a true fan. He’s also suggested that artists don’t have the right to allow such a thing. He’s also decided that all tapers/traders should get licenses for every single one of their songs on every single one of their live recordings, all based on how many people will or have listened to that cd. Maybe it’s just me, but that sounds like the most idiotic thing I have ever heard of in my life.
    (fwi, I actually can’t recap Kip’s views, since they frankly don’t add up, even in his own head)

    I find it astounding that someone could actually be so diametricly opposed to a common sense viewpoint and what the issue is really about at it’s core. Regardless of the legal argument, there are a myriad of other issues that outweigh the highly disputed legal aspect of live recordings.

    Here’s a suggestion for all you budding songwriters out there…….if you are worried about your song being played without your permission and without you being fully compensated by the artists, venues, and corporate publishing houses……..please just don’t write the song.
    It’s a long ugly road and you are just going to wind up an old and bitter person.

    Final thought: I’m out for some camping, fall leaf watching, beer drinkin, and music listening with my honey for the weekend, so you folks have it out peacefully and by the time I get back on Monday, I expect for everyone to have reached a friendly consensus.

  • [quote]The underlying problem, it seems to me, is that this is an issue where a copyright holder‚Äôs work is kind of transparent to the consumer[/quote]

    That is a huge problem. It is not transparent at all!! Earlier I associated tape trading with the illegal downloading of music because they are basically the same thing. One has video one doesn’t but they are both recorded music.

    People have to be educated about it. When illegal downloading first hit almost no one believed there was anything wrong with it. These were typically hard working honest people and they seen no difference in illegal downloading and recording a song off the radio. Of course there are huge differences because of technology advances but it’s only clear for someone that’s been educated to those differences. I heard people justify illegal downloading a hundred different ways. Some said “oh I didn’t realize I was cheating songwriters” and I’m not going to do that anymore. Others who liked the “freebies” they were getting presented the same weak argurments made here. From “It helps unknown artist build a fan base” to “big corporate record companies are just trying to screw us again”. Neither of which have anything to do with the songwriter being paid. I also seen them try and drag politics and religion into the fray. They simply ignore the FACTS and continue to see things in their own narrow minded way. They are never going to change their mind but eventually justice will come around. They will have to pay for the songs or pay the fines placed against them in a court of law.

    It took several years of work and millions of dollars in law suits for the industry to educate the public on illegal downloading. It took a lot of publicity to let folks know it is “ILLEGAL”. New laws don’t need to be passed. They already exist. The very fact that songwriters and artist now paid for “most” downloads and ringtones proves that it is working.

    There is also a grass roots effort to educate people to the facts using threads like this one.

    The benefit of a thread like this is that those posting aren’t the only ones reading it. Many folks read that never post. They are the ones that count.

    It’s highly unlikely anyone defending tape trading here will be convinced it’s wrong. They see themselves as modern day Robin Hoods helping the poor struggling artist. It’s delusional, but it’s clear that’s how they see it; however any reasonable person with with an unbiased opinion wanting to learn the truth of the matter will clearly see that distrubting “copyrighted” music without compensating the owners of that music is nothing more than stealing. When you read the statements made by both sides above it’s clear that one side has stayed with the FACTS and done so with restraint and tolerance. The other side has ranted about everything from fossil fuel to the President and refused to stay on subject. They simply can’t argue the FACTS because the FACTS prove them wrong. So, they try to change the subject and even stoop to making bitter personal attacks on others, which by the way says much more about their own lack of character than it does about the person they are targeting.

    The truth about tape trading in this thread is black and white and I hope if the moderators do remove it they won’t remove “all” of it. Many other folks will read it in the coming months and years. Let those folks decide for themselves.

    It will take a while to educate the general public on tape trading just like it did on illegal downloading but it’s very easy for the industry to track illegal downloading and they will eventually get around to it. When folks start getting letters in the mail charging them with piracy it gets their attention. It makes the local and national news. That’s when people start to take a hard look at things.

    As long as there have been people on earth there has been theives. That will never stop, but most folks are honest and once they are educated to the FACTS and the meaning of “fair use” they will see the right and wrong of the situation and won’t mind paying for what they get. It will also take some time to establish a system where folks who want to trade tapes can do it legally. I’m all for that.

    As a songwriter I would also like to say THANKS to those who have taken the time to understand the meaning of “copyright” and “intelectual property” and for not being afraid to stand up for what is right. so THANKS!!!

  • Jon Weisberger

    Jon’s legal side of this argument has been covered 100 times already and in every wording possible. It’s obviously not as black and white as he thinks, no matter how he tries to spin it.

    Actually, Phil, it is, and according not just to me, but to you. As you said in post #985:

    No one is denying that songwriters are owed royalties, that isn’t at issue.

    You then went on to say that the personalities who were pointing that out was the issue.

    Since then, you’ve gone on to sometimes deny that songwriters are owed royalties, without citing a serious reason for doing so, and at other times to argue the value of taping/trading for artists, which denies by avoidance.

    The fact is that it no one here or elsewhere has advanced a serious argument against the proposition that, when their copyrighted works are distributed to the public, songwriters are entitled to compensation (unless they specifically waive it). Even sites like the live audio archive don’t argue that it isn’t so; rather, while focusing on and documenting *artist’s* permission to distribute recordings of their performances, they simply don’t address the point – and even a brief check shows that the archive is filled with songs copyrighted by someone other than the performer, with no permissions documented. That is clearly illegal, and it’s also either ignorant or unethical.

    Tapers/traders frequently make a big deal about how careful they are to obtain artist permissions before recording and/or trading. That’s good. I assume that tapers pay for their equipment, rather than stealing it. That’s good. I also assume that tapers pay for their tickets to shows or get put on guest lists, rather than sneaking in without payment or permission. That’s good. I also assume that they pay for the computers they use to process and trade their recordings, that they pay for (or otherwise fairly and legally obtain) the internet connections they use, the electricity that powers their computers, etc. That’s all good. So why leave out the songwriters?

    The fact is, it’s pretty simple to make things right. All you need is a mechanical license from the publisher for each song, and those are easily obtained. Even tiny record labels whose volume of sales is probably lower than what appears to be claimed as the level of circulation for some live show recordings manage to get it done more often than not. So why don’t tapers/traders like Phil, who says he’s “proud to stand up for artists and songwriters who have the right to do what they want with their own music” (post #1001), also do the right thing? Because right now, no matter how respectful of artists they might be, they’re ignoring, deliberately or not, the right of songwriters to what they want their own music.

  • Well, well, well… I just returned from a week on tour and it appears you all have been busy.

    There is no “H” in my name.

    I make a living playing bluegrass.

    So does Jon. So does Kip.

    When people fail to engage in reasonable debate, there is no way for an argument to ever move forward toward a mutually beneficial conclusion.

    I hope someday that will change.

    Please support sites that engage in proper royalty distribution. They do exist. And again, I wish you all the best and hope that we can work toward the growth and benefit of bluegrass music and bluegrass musicians everywhere. Every penny does count.
    Megan (no “H”, I swear, ask my mother)

  • nashphil

    Well, I’m not surprised that no one reached a consensus…….

    However, Jon Weisburger spent yet another weekend making friends by calling fellow music fans illegal, unethical, immoral, ignorant, and (my fav) wondering if folks like archive.org should listen to him and shut down and turn themselves into the moral police.

    He also spent the weekend misquoting me and taking my comments completely out of context to use for his useless and baseless tirade against legal taping. My personal favorite moment was when he wondered aloud if tapers sneak in to shows and steal their taping equipment too.

    It’s this sort of demonizing and condescending behavior that is disgusting to everyone and extremely harmful to those involved on both sides of the issue.

    I know it must drive Jon Weisburger crazy to think that the entire world is wrong and he is right. If that were true (and it’s not) and everyone who is taping/trading live music is “illegal, immoral, unethical and ignorant” then why hasn’t Jon Weisburger or the record labels, publishing houses, venues, festivals, artists, and songwriters shut down live taping completely and shut down sites like archive.org, or sites like etree, dimadozen, youtubes, myspace, etc…. ???

    Why hasn’t that happened?

    Why hasn’t Jon sued all of these sites himself?

    If it’s so black and white, then why are these sites still operating, why are the artists still supporting them, why are the labels allowing their songs to be taped, why are the venues allowing taping of their bands, and why do festivals like Telluride, Rockygrass, Greyfox, Bonnaroo, High Sierra, and hundreds of other festivals worldwide allow their fans to tape and why do those artists playing those festivals allow that to happen ????

    No one, including Jon has even come close to answering any of these questions. They just repeat the same old crap.
    “Illegal, immoral, unethical, ignorant, thieves…etc”

    The real reason why is clear. Jon’s argument is moot.
    This “supposed” legal argument that taping is illegal has been researched (ad-nauseum infinitum) by record labels, publishing houses, artists, venues, and songwriters and they have come to the conclusion that it’s legal and beneficial, otherwise it wouldn’t still be allowed. Why would all of these participants support and facilitate these “illegal, immoral, unethical, and ignorant” things if it weren’t fully legal and ethical.
    Jon is just plain wrong. He just hasn’t figured it out yet.

    He always has to have the last word, so I’m sure another “immoral, illegal, unethical, and ignorant” lecture from the all-knowing taper-hater is on the way. I think Jon Weisburger needs a real vacation, not just another weekend browsing the bluegrassblog looking for a fight.

  • jpecorino

    wow—so jon: because i am younger i have no say? i am nto saying anything about when “you” heard of them. i was talking about when “enough” people heard them to be able to make comfortable living. if you want to belittle my age, then by all means go for it. i’m sure it makes you feel good to come across as a crotchety old man. i never though it would of been a bad thing to be under 30. in fact i only appreciate the times i am livign in. i have access to music and musicans i have never heard of, and i can listen to a show that i was at last night right now. the quality is impeccable. i have the baility to taste a musician before i dive comepletly in, which in this day and age of “buy buy buy buy buy” is a nice thing to have. as a result i appreciate that and reward it. i am going to go now and continue doing that, obviously not ever gettign the chance to hear you or talk about you to my music loving friends.

    this is really a worthless argument. you guys don’t listen to each other. you’re more concerned about arguing details of language than the overall points being made. just plain ignorant if you ask me.

    i tried to not be offensive–but most of yall are a bunch of anal old men (meghan fits in here nicely too) with nothing more to do than complain. get over it folks. tapers are here to stay, and until to learn to embrace it and use it to your advantage, without being insulting and degrading, you will lose. learn to use the technology to your gain. dont complain about it on a trivial message board.

    i wonder what y’all thought about the internet, or cable, or even cassette tapes when they came out. just a bunch of whiners, plain and simple.

    peace and happiness yall.
    joe

  • jpecorino

    i had a friend whos name had no h, and her parents said it was because she was too stupid as a little girl to know how to spell it. why do you have no “h’ meghan?

    practice what you preach my dear!!!!!

  • jpecorino

    meghan—how does it make you feel that your band is more known because of your ingnorant posts than because of your talent?

  • lee said:

    >For someone who is so concerned and vocal
    >about royalties being paid to the proper
    >individuals, you sure seem to have a lot
    >of what appear to be copyrighted works
    >(video and photograph) on your MySpace
    >page. Have appropriate royalties been paid
    >on these works?

    these fall under the ‘Fair Use’ provision of copyright law. you might want to familiarize yourself with copyright law to get a clearer picture of how this all works.

    when appropriate, i have secured permission and/or done due diligence in ascertaining ownership and copyright information.

    >You say you have changed your ways regarding
    >trading live shows…have you destroyed all
    >copies of bootleg performances that you have
    >traded for over the years

    no. fair use again. i do NOT trade them.

    >why not go after a more serious violation,
    >such as the blatant dissemination online of
    >illegal copies of commercial releases?

    the record companies, RIAA, and PROs are doing that as we speak. i believe one person was just fined a HUGE amount of money for simply downloading commercial releases.

    >Or the venues (specifically bluegrass festivals)
    >that don’t pay performance royalties Рthey’re
    >easy to find, just look for the flyers that
    >state “Performers responsible for paying
    >royalties” as an (unsuccessful) attempt to
    >shift liability from the venue to the performer

    im not sure what you are asking? why dont i go after these folks? because im not here to enforce laws. i simply chose to address one aspect of copyright law that needed (in my opinion) to be aired again. so i think the answer is this: i picked a topic and wrote about it.

    kip

  • hey all

    im shocked. my good friend Megan was publicly disparaged in a particularly nasty and resentful way–her character, intelligence, and talent were ridiculed in a public forum.

    some particularly small men prefer to hide behind computers. i wonder if theyd say this to Megan while her BF, Mike was standing there? personally, i dont hide behind a computer–i cant. im at IBMA, SPBGMA, numerous festivals and venues (including Greyfox, the Station Inn, and Merlefest, etc) each year. im extremely visible and not afraid to speak my mind anywhere, so talk to me in person if you feel a need to ridicule my friends or opinions.

    finally, i hope Brance and John keep these posts up so that people lurking and only now viewing this thread can see how bitter, small, and petty some of these tapers are.

    kip

  • Jon Weisberger

    wow—so jon: because i am younger i have no say? i am nto saying anything about when “you” heard of them. i was talking about when “enough” people heard them to be able to make comfortable living. if you want to belittle my age, then by all means go for it.

    Age has nothing to do with it, which is why I not only didn’t belittle your age (which, in any case, I don’t know), I didn’t even mention it. I spoke of how long you’ve been aware of bluegrass, which, of course, doesn’t necessarily translate to age. And my point was that the artists you mention – Del McCoury, Tony Rice, et.al. – were being heard by enough people to make a comfortable living before jamgrass came around, and before indiscriminate distribution of digital recordings existed. It’s been 15 years since Del quit his day job, and a lot longer than that that Tony did (if, indeed, he ever had one).

    Further, as with Phil’s latest post, you’re sidestepping the point made by Kip in the very first post in this thread, which has to do not with artists and the ways in which indiscriminate distribution of digital recordings might help their careers, but with the way in which songwriters aren’t getting compensated (or asked for permission) for the use of their songs on those recordings. That’s where traders fall short.

    Finally, with respect to that particular point, a quick visit to the website of the National Music Publishers Association (http://www.nmpa.org) makes it quite clear that these matters *are* being pursued by the holders of song copyrights.

  • phil said:

    >If it’s so black and white, then why are these
    >sites still operating

    bluegrassbox.com? as i understand it, archive.org pays royalties. youtube is involved in several lawsuits. thats the tip of the iceberg. so, these sites are either paying royalties or they are breaking the law, and there arent many resources available to prosecute the law.

    >why are the labels allowing their songs to be taped

    >huh?

    >why are the venues allowing taping of their bands

    they either pay royalties or are breaking the law, and there arent many resources available to prosecute the law.

    >why do festivals like Telluride, Rockygrass,
    >Greyfox, Bonnaroo, High Sierra, and hundreds
    >of other festivals worldwide

    they either pay royalties (the big ones do) or are breaking the law, and there arent many resources available to prosecute the law.

    >why do those artists playing those festivals
    >allow that to happen ????

    because its not their responsibility.

    i know you think Jon sounds like a broken record and that you have a hard time understanding my posts, so lets make it simpler. id suggest you answer two questions you seem to studiously avoid. but you wont. anyways:

    1.) Is show trading legal or not?
    2.) Are you exempt from the law?

    kip

  • jpecorino

    kip you truly are hysterical, only i don’t think you intend to be so amusing. i was simply asking meghan some questions. i did not call her stupid, and i did not tell her her band sucks. i did say her posts were ignorant, and that i do not deny and i will stand behind. i was simply asking her feelings. kip–do you subscribe to the “you’re either with us or against us” attitude as well. get a grip brother and relax.

    as for me–i am regularly seen at tbf, rockygrass, and many other shows, picks, and jams in colorado and west of the mississipi. and no–i am not hiding by my computer. and no kip–i am not scared of your silly little threat. bluegrass goes wild, right here folks!!!

    kip—you realize that you, my friend, have been condescending from the start. anyway, i’m still here, and my friends and i will probably be at wintergrass, so if mark and kipp want to resort to violence (as kip has alluded to), then by all means i will laugh even harder…

    at any rate–i am downloading a smoking jimmy martin sbd if anyone is interested.

  • jpecorino

    “”””i had a friend whos name had no h, and her parents said it was because she was too stupid as a little girl to know how to spell it. why do you have no ‚Äúh‚Äô meghan?

    practice what you preach my dear!!!!!

    meghan‚Äîhow does it make you feel that your band is more known because of your ingnorant posts than because of your talent?””””

    this is what kip is referring to. personally i dont think any of this is really that disgracing. i was sharing a story of my friend, and asking meghan a valid question and making an observation (why else would there he no h?). i can hardly see this is a personal attack. kip–if you do see it this way i suggest that you learn to chuckle asap. i do not know meghan, but i have heard of her band more from these tirades than any music. personally i was asking her for some clarification, something kip and jon should do mroe often.

    you my friend, are the one implying that violence would be the result of mere words. what does that say about you and yours?

    “your talking alot, but your not saying anything.”

  • corina said:

    >at any rate–i am downloading a smoking jimmy
    >martin sbd if anyone is interested.

    jimmy did not support taping. just for the record. i wouldnt expect you’d respect his wishes.

    kip

  • jpecorino

    i love how you guys talk about “the industry” likes its some savign grace. musiciansm, and songwriters should be well aware that your rights are hardly at the focus of “the industry.” perhaps you should look elsewhere for your protection.

    look folks–tapers are nto trying to steal your livelihood. to think that is completly unbeneficial to anyone. instead of attacking people perhaps you could try to find a common ground. i think the reason policitcs have been brought up becasue many folks are following the same “evil is bad” current administration policy for handling disagreements. i think if we can learn anyting it is that it does not work. perhaps a solution should be found before we start calling people immoral, unethical, theives, etc. tapers belive what they are doing is helpful. to not capitalize on their efforts and comitment is completely self-destructive.

    like i said–bluegrass is on the way out folks. if we dont find new ways to promote our products and talent then it will continue to die a slow death. you decide. i am doing all i can to suuport musicians. i suggest we all think about what we are doing as well. you might not see it, and we disagree, but taers do provide a valuable service. i feel sorry for the musicians who have not found a way to utilize their talent. it can only help. enlisting the help of lawyers and record labels will only make matters worse. but it seems to me that guys like kip, jon, and meghan are more interested in their own notoriety, with little regard to their cohorts who are extremly successful.

  • jpecorino

    “jimmy did not support taping. just for the record. i wouldnt expect you‚Äôd respect his wishes.”

    actually kip, this recording is a sbd that details jimmy permitting its distribution. he allowed this one.

    kip–you over look the fact that a crispy sbd of a show like this would turn on countless new fans, who would in turn buy jimmy’s releases, just as it did for me. it has dawned on me that you really dont get it.

  • jpecorino

    actually kip–acording to you it doesn’t matter what jimmy thinks. i paid my royalties so i’m golden. you”ll get your check forwarded by the “industry” in 3-5 years.

  • corino said:

    >you over look the fact that a crispy sbd
    >of a show like this would turn on countless
    >new fans, who would in turn buy jimmy’s
    >releases, just as it did for me. it has
    >dawned on me that you really dont get it.

    no, i totally get it. i have NEVER said that soundboards are non-beneficial. nowhere have i made that assertion.

    jimmy told me numerous times he didnt like taping. he may have benefited from taping, but those who wrote songs he performed but did not write (pete goble, for one–who doesnt support taping) are NOT being recompensed.

    in other words, why do you assume i am arguing that taping isnt beneficial to the performer? I’M NOT!!!i am talking about songwriters. period. why is this not clear to you?

    ill ask it again: do you understand that trading is against the law? do you know why? you are free to break the law, but i feel compelled to point out the legal AND ethical problems surrounding the issue. again im not arguing whetehr taping is of value to the performing artist, im saying songwriters are being shortchanged.

    then you said:

    >acording to you it doesn’t matter what jimmy thinks.

    no, again, you misunderstand what im saying. jimmy told me often that he didnt support taping and that he felt he lost money to taping. i tend to believe that an artist is allowed to forbid taping of a performance, but im also stipulating that the same performer doesnt have the right to permit taping when other peoples songs are performed.

    interesting that John and i both feel you are addressing a side issue. the only issue is this: is taping of copyrighted material without permission against the law? the courts seem to think so. if you want to break the law, thats your business, but i feel compelled to weigh in on the ethical issue of stealing from the songwriter.

    is it against the law to trade tapes? yes. all issues about how it benefits the artist, the genre, or the bluegrass scene are peripheral at best and not germaine to my initial topic.

    kip

    kip

  • jpecorino

    well you’re right about what i am addressing (i actually stopped reading your posts a few days ago, its not like you’re saying anything new, and i get enough right-wing conservative bs every day in local and national politics). at this point it has become fun to watch you stand behind the law like it is a wall that has no flexibility. if only that were the case maybe you’d be much happier with yourself… you think i dont want the songwriters to benefit? do you really think that? get a grip man. you sound like you equate tape-trading with murder. truly hysterical.
    why not pony up and address my side issues? is the industry your “protective mother” that has your best interests in mind? does grassroots promotion do more good than sites like itunes, yahoomusic, or myspace, etc? does talent have more of an effect on income than tape trading? would 99% of bands that are taped(even if royalties are not paid) not say that taping helps them immensely? how much should i pay phil when he hands me a copy of a show you played on? when will you, meghan, and jon, actually call del mccoury an immoral, unethical theif, to his face (just so i can be there, if or if not meghans boyfriend is around, sicne you said he’s hurt me and all)? why do you attack tapers more vigorously than the musicians you play with who are perhaps just as much if not more liable here?

  • nashphil

    Well…..I think it’s painfully clear now why we should just ignore Kip. He’s just making this crap up as he goes along.
    I still haven’t figured out what he stands for, except that he makes a lot of silly threats. I will pay big money to see the steel cage death match between “The Rhino” Pecorino versus Kip “The Kitty Kat” Martin.

    Let’s review, just for fun.

    Kip started this thread and debate by senselessly and maliciously attacking a decent and unassuming bluegrass fan for asking others if they had any live recordings. Not only was I truly offended by his nasty attitude towards someone he didn’t know a thing about, but that he was not disclosing that he had done the very same thing dozens of times, including as recent as a few months ago he emailed me looking for a copy of a concert that he went to. There are still several posts searchable online where he is offering to trade for Bob Dylan shows (who doesn’t allow taping) among other artists. I just couldn’t let that sort of blatant hypocritical crap go uncontested.

    Here’s a few whoppers he’s told over the last week:

    Kip ridiculously claimed that he had researched, acquired permissions, and paid royalties for all the things on his myspace page and website. That’s impossible Kip.
    Myspace doesn’t offer royalties to anyone for anything. Technically, myspace owns anything you upload to them and host on their servers. It becomes their property to use (fair use)and all users must agree to that when signing up for an account. I certainly don’t agree with their policy at myspace, but that is the way it is. Kip needs to research his lies a bit better.

    Kip claimed that he hasn’t thrown away his “vast” live recording collection because they were all collected legally by the fair use policy, yet has been yelling that everyone else is immoral, illegal, thieves, and horrible people for collecting recordings in the very same way.

    Kip claimed that he supported sites like GDlive.com (which is a pure music download site for live recordings of many bands, but concentrating on the Grateful Dead) and that it’s ok to trade Grateful Dead tapes because the Dead always paid royalties on their live recordings.
    This one is a HUGE whopper.
    First of all, it would be impossible for the Grateful Dead to pay royalties for every live recordings ever made. There were as many as 100 tapers at every concert and suggesting that the Grateful Dead, or any band, would pay individual royalties to every songwriter on all 100+ of those master recordings plus the subsequent copies that would follow so that their fans can record and trade the show legally is completely preposterous. It shows how truly uneducated Kip is on the issues at hand.
    The Dead paid royalties on all of their official releases, that’s it. There isn’t a single band in the history of bands that have paid royalties so that their taper/trader fans can record the show and make copies for their friends. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

    Kip is clearly a lying hypocrite, I think even Jon Weisburger and Meghan can see that now.

  • nashphil

    Just want to remind all the readers that this blog is being moderated by the owners, and certain posts are being removed or edited after they are posted, or are delayed in posting until the moderators (John & Brance) approve the content.

    Amusingly, My joke about voting for Harold Ford Jr because Bob Corker was clearly anti-taping was mysteriously deleted. Dang!There’s apparently no room for Tennessee politics in taping humor.

  • Lee Hiers

    Kip Martin wrote:

    “these fall under the ‚ÄòFair Use‚Äô provision of copyright law. you might want to familiarize yourself with copyright law to get a clearer picture of how this all works.

    >You say you have changed your ways regarding
    >trading live shows…have you destroyed all
    >copies of bootleg performances that you have
    >traded for over the years

    no. fair use again. i do NOT trade them.”

    Kip,

    I suggest you need to further familiarize yourself with the fair use exemptions to copyright laws if you really believe the shows you’ve traded for constitute fair use.

    Just because you claim fair use does not make it so. Fair use is the “grayest” area of copyright law…it is not at all “clear”.

  • nashphil

    Here’s a bit of serendipity. Myspace must be listening to what I said about them. Their policies are being amended to pay licences for copyrighted material pertaining to the songs that it’s users upload to it’s servers. This would only cover official releases as identified by gracenote technology.
    (meaning unofficial live recordings are excluded)

    It’s astounding that a site like myspace could have 90 million subscribers who are uploading copyrighted content for several years and the publishing houses are just now catching on and making a deal for some of those royalties to be paid. I see they are clearly on the ball and working hard for the songwriters out there.

    ====================================

    Reuters 12:00 PM Oct, 30, 2006

    MySpace.com on Monday said it had licensed a new technology to stop users from posting unauthorized copyrighted music on the social networking website and oust frequent violators of its policy.

    The move comes amid pressure from major studios and record labels against popular online sites like MySpace and YouTube, which they accuse of infringing the copyrights of their artists’ music and videos.

    MySpace, one of the most popular sites on the internet, licensed technology from privately-held Gracenote allowing it to review music recordings uploaded by community members to their profiles.

    The technology compares those filed with Gracenote’s database of copyrighted material and can block uploads without proper rights. Terms of the licensing agreement were not disclosed.

    Popular sites like MySpace and YouTube are littered with copyrighted music and video posted by their legions of users, who hope to share them with friends and strangers alike. Both say they remove unauthorized copyrighted material when notified.

    But MySpace, increasingly seen as a destination to see and hear music and video, will soon begin selling songs from nearly 3 million unsigned bands. It aims to eventually offer copyright-protected songs from major record companies.

    Once Gracenote’s technology is integrated into its service, users who repeatedly try to upload unauthorized music will have their accounts deleted, MySpace said.

    YouTube, which recently agreed to be acquired by Google, has similar aspirations to cash in on web video use and protect itself from legal challenges.

    EMI, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group and Sony BMG own around 75 percent of mainstream popular music. Most of this music is only available on MySpace for live streaming as a promotional tool.

    MySpace was acquired by News Corp. for $580 million less than a year ago. It now boasts more than 90 million active users.

  • Jon Weisberger

    It’s astounding that a site like myspace could have 90 million subscribers who are uploading copyrighted content for several years and the publishing houses are just now catching on and making a deal for some of those royalties to be paid.

    Phil, you seem to be confused regarding the difference between a recording and a song. The story you quote speaks concerns “studios and recording labels,” which hold copyright on recordings; publishing houses (about which the story says nothing at all) hold copyright on songs. Two different things. If you want to know where publishing houses stand on these issues and what they’re doing about them, visit the National Music Publishers Association website at http://www.nmpa.org .

  • hi all

    note the tone of nashphil’s and pecorinos posts–clearly they are resorting to petty ad hominum attacks and nasty innuendo in arguing what are basically side issues. ive invited them to answer two questions but they insist on avoiding the central issue i raised at the top of this thread:

    1.) Is show trading legal or not?
    2.) Are you exempt from the law?

    the side issues like “Is taping good for the community?” or “What constitutes Fair Use?” deserve their own threads. The two MAIN questions, however, remain unanswered and will remain so.

    attacking and labelling me as hysterical, right wing, immoral, whatever, simply provides those posters with a means of avoidance.

    i think your posts make my points nicely on their own.

    kip

  • jpecorino

    ok kip, simple answers to the simple questions you are posing. if you ahve the ability, which is clear that you dont, perhaps we can take on the more compicated issues here. although you keep trying to make it cut and dry.

    1) show trading is legal
    2) i am as exempt from the law as any other american citizen who is against the laws.

    kip–think about what would of happened if americans circa 1776 blindly followed the law like a lost sheep.

  • David Conner

    I don’t believe the actual taping of a show would be found to infringe on copyright. I believe it would fall under the “time shifting” premise of the Sony v. Universal (SC.1984)case. There’s some interesting info on that case and also follow-on cases on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_v._Universal

    Now, taking that tape and duplicating (either by SLN files or other means) and distributing that (by various means) might possibly be found to infringe on copyright. The Sony case didn’t set a precedent that taping television shows and making copies of those tapes for distribution would be permissible. It ruled that personal “time shifting” would be “fair use”. That, in my opinion, is a narrow use ruling which would logically lead to taping a live show for later, personal, listening, would be fair use. My logic could be flawed.

    Nothing in the law is set in stone until a court makes a ruling, and even then the ground is tenuous.

  • jpecorino

    “Nothing in the law is set in stone until a court makes a ruling, and even then the ground is tenuous.”

    this is what kip doesn’t understand. its like stalin handed down the ruling and its all done, or you die.

  • nashphil

    Jon, the myspace issue is confused at this point since they have changed their policy while we were talking about their policy. From their news release, one would assume that myspace is now prepared to start paying royalties on songs hosted on their servers. One would also assume that their Gracenote software will regulate what the (90million+) users upload to prevent copyrighted material being uploaded without proper consent, licence, etc…
    According to their statement and the technology they are using, officially released content would be the only songs that their software can detect as being copyrighted in some way. Once the copyrighted content was recognized, it would be removed from the server unless the proper royalties have been paid to all interested parties. I have no idea how they intend to split that up.

    The way that myspace and youtube pertain to our live taping debate is that with the hundreds of millions of subscribers, there are plenty of live recordings and live videos on the websites that were recorded both with and without artist permission and are not sort of any official release so they would not be in the gracenote directory. It will be impossible for them to regulate the entirity of their online content with any such software or policing staff. Self-produced content will be everywhere, just as it is now.
    Prior to this announcment by myspace, they were paying ZERO royalties to anyone for songs that users upload for their personal or music pages. Legal or not legal, agree or disagree, these are just the simple facts.

    Kip, this debate is far too complex to be reduced to any two questions, apperently you can only see two colors.
    Any tone you have coming back at you from your ridiculous comments in this debate is absolutely earned, so wear it with pride or stay out of the debate.

    Yes, taping is legal. Always has been, and always will be. That’s been proven time and time again.

    No, I’m personally not exempt from the law.
    I don’t anyone who is exempt from the law.
    But, tell me again what law it is you are talking about that’s been proven to make taping illegal? There isn’t one.

    Really your two questions are just one really simple question.
    Taping is clearly legal, so there is no law to be exempt from.

  • David Conner

    Kip’s question wasn’t “Is Taping Legal?” it was

    1) Is show trading legal or not

    My opinion is that show trading violates “fair use” You can read the A&M Records v. Napster case to see what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals thought

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_%26_M_Records%2C_Inc._v._Napster%2C_Inc.

    Beyond that, bluegrassbox.com wasn’t what I would call “tape trading” in the classic sense of the term. It was a website for you to download recorded shows that had been converted to SLN format. Folks downloading the SLN files didn’t have to provide their tapes/SLN files in recompense. While it is not peer to peer (it’s client – server) it’s still wide distribution of an artists work (artist being the songwriter, no the performer) without their permission.

    The court cases, while you may not agree with their outcome, are the decided law as it stands now.

  • Jon Weisberger

    From their news release, one would assume that myspace is now prepared to start paying royalties on songs hosted on their servers.

    What the story you posted says, Phil, is that they’re going to use the Gracenote database, which is a database of commercially released recordings, to block unauthorized uploads of those recordings. It says nothing about paying royalties to music publishers and songwriters, which is the subject under discussion here.

    As for trading recordings, it has been held to be an infringement on copyright multiple times, including in cases against services like Napster and Grokster. Typically, those cases have concerned copyright on recordings, not songs. However, note that just yesterday, the National Music Publishers Association announced a proposed settlement with Kazaa:

    MUSIC PUBLISHERS REACH PROPOSED
    SETTLEMENT WITH KAZAA

    For Immediate Release (October 30, 2006) – Counsel for the music publisher plaintiffs in the ongoing litigation against the operators of the Kazaa peer-to-peer network informed the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles today that the music publishers have reached an anticipated settlement of the publishers’ class action litigation against the operators of the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.

    The settlement, reached after months of negotiations, is subject to final approval of the formal agreement by the board of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), which sponsored the litigation on the publishers’ behalf, the representative class plaintiffs and the court.

    Under the terms of the settlement, Kazaa has agreed to pay a substantial sum to compensate music publishers and songwriters for the infringement of musical works on the Kazaa network.

    “The anticipated settlement represents an important victory for songwriters, music publishers and music fans alike,” said David Israelite, NMPA President and CEO. “It will be another key milestone in the ongoing transformation of the digital music marketplace to one that will allow legal services to thrive.”

    In June 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that unauthorized peer-to-peer networks could be held liable for inducing massive copyright infringement. Earlier this year, the Kazaa defendants settled with the record labels and movie studios and agreed to introduce filtering technologies to end distribution of copyright-infringing files.

    Note the first sentence in that last paragraph; I think that addresses Kip’s question.

  • nashphil

    The napster case has absolutely no relevance to live taping.
    You shouldn’t link or confuse the two issues, they are not alike in any way. Read it again.

    It’s been said before, but no one has ever shown or no court has ever found that live taping is illegal. Not once.

    Read the many posts about why it’s legal and why it’s beneficial in earlier posts.

    The bluegrassbox was simply a music server that allowed fans to submit live recordings in SHN (shorten) and FLAC format.
    It wasn’t trading tapes in the sense that it allowed anyone to download content that was artist/venue approved directly to their computer via FTP. There was no money, trading, or physical media ever involved in any way. Anyone could freely download, stream, or whatever. The cost of the server and bandwidth was paid for exclusively out of the private pockets of it’s owners. (about $500 per month)
    It was meant as a public service for the artists and fans. It doesn’t exist anymore because of the headaches a debate like this will give you and they simply didn’t feel like arguing the point of whether it was legal to distribute recordings on their server. The bluegrassbox was an amazing resource for all who discovered it, despite what side of the taping argument you may side with.

  • nashphil

    Jon, It doesn’t say in that press release that it will start royalties on songs users upload, that’s correct and was already covered in previous post, but it has been reported by other articles that myspace is under negotiations to allow licensed copyrighted content for download, purchase, etc… a’la itunes.
    Labels, songwriters, and artists would be able to license their content for whatever reasons they are needed within myspace.

    Either way, they didn’t directly address the fact that if gracenote doesn’t pick it up, then it can be on the site. It also doesn’t address live recordings or self-produced recordings in which the user either does or doesn’t hold the copyright. That’s a whole other issue for them to work out.
    That’s what I was saying, it will be impossible for them to regulate or monitor what slips past gracenote.

    Again, the napster issue has nothing to do with live taping. It is about commercial copyrighted material being “traded” online without permission or license. I don’t think you will find anyone to back that argument, that napster was legal. It was clearly illegal to allow downloads of content available commercially. That is a completely unrelated issue from unofficial live recordings, which have been held and upheld as allowed by fair use.

  • Jon Weisberger

    That is a completely unrelated issue from unofficial live recordings, which have been held and upheld as allowed by fair use.

    Indiscriminate distribution of “unofficial live recordings” has been held as fair use of copyrighted recordings and songs? By which courts? In what case(s)? Please, be specific.

  • nashphil

    You guys can argue the symantics of what statute or ruling may thinly say that some part of reproduction is allowed for fair use or is illegal in some way. It really doesn’t matter anyway because nothing huge is going to change regarding live recording. There may be small ripples like bluegrassbox going away, but another will be right behind and the recordings go somewhere else. You can’t put the cat back in the bag. It’s been allowed and accepted in all forms of music for as long as people have been recording live music. It’s been allowed and encouraged by a list of artists, venues, songwriters, festivals, and websites too lengthy to possibly name.
    If you have heard of them, chances are good they allow live recording/trading of their music.

    This hasn’t happened by accident.

    It’s agreed that record labels, publishers, and songwriters will sue your arse at the drop of a hat for possible infringment. With that in mind, why haven’t these lawsuits been aimed at tapers, traders, artists, and websites, if what they were doing was actually illegal and there were actual legal merit to this ridiculous argument against taping/trading ??

    The simple fact is that it doesn’t matter if it is illegal or not, it’s been accepted and intergrated within the music industry. It’s not being prosecuted and is being wholly ignored by all but a few diehard opponents.

  • Jon Weisberger

    You guys can argue the symantics of what statute or ruling may thinly say that some part of reproduction is allowed for fair use or is illegal in some way.

    I’m not arguing semantics. You made a straightforward statement:

    unofficial live recordings […]have been held and upheld as allowed by fair use.

    But are unwilling or unable to offer any support for that contention. Pardon my skepticism, but given the wealth of court rulings concerning “massive copyright infringement” by peer-to-peer networks and download sites, I am unwilling to believe a bald, unsupported assertion that any court anywhere has found that indiscriminate trading of copyrighted songs falls under “fair use” where it involves “unofficial live recordings.” Why would you make such a claim if you’re unwilling or unable to back it up?

    It really doesn’t matter anyway because nothing huge is going to change regarding live recording.

    It certainly matters in discussing illegality and unethical behavior. The law says that burglarly is a crime; common morality says it’s unethical. Neither of those statements is any less true simply because burglary continues anyhow.

    It’s agreed that record labels, publishers, and songwriters will sue your arse at the drop of a hat for possible infringment.

    Agreed to by whom? Not by me. The recording industry was slow to get off the ground in going after infringers, and the music publishing industry has been even slower. Still, the recording industry *has* sued peer-to-peer networks and servers who have facilitated infringement, and they haven’t lost a case yet. Further, they’ve (properly, in my opinion) used the threat of litigation as a tool for bringing such networks and servers to the negotiating table to work out a settlement – as the myspace case you recently referred to shows.

    Trading recordings – whether commercial releases or “unofficial live recordings” – is illegal and unethical when songwriters’ copyrights aren’t respected. The law as written is clear on that, and a growing body of case law underlines the point. Traders who purport to respect the artists whose work they trade but disrespect the songwriters whose work is also traded are, whether they realize it or not, acting illegally and unethically. Fortunately, acting legally and ethically isn’t difficult. As the National Music Publishers Association says:

    The solution to the problem of keeping music websites available to enthusiasts is to make them licensed sites. That means persons responsible for the sites and the uses made on the sites must apply to the copyright owner of the music for permission to upload it onto their network by such owner prior to each upload. If permission is denied, the prospective uploader must forego the use. If conditions for the payment of royalties and other use limitations are agreed upon, the administrators must see that such licenses are enforced.

    Seeking permission to use music is not difficult, burdensome or costly. NMPA will be pleased to help internet music users to contact the copyright owners in order to establish a dialog that may lead to licensed uses. The currently infringing sites can eventually develop into sites which serve the interests of all Americans –including those who need to earn a living from their creative works now and those who hope to do so in the future– but only with the cooperation of those sites’ users.

  • nashphil

    Jon put on that broken record again, dripping with that lovely condescending tone.

    ONCE AGAIN, The napster, kazaa, myspace, and other rulings or negotiations have no relevance or legal binding to unofficial live taping/trading in any way. Still waiting for you to show us where it mentions that specifically in any one of those unrelated rulings as you have repeatedly asserted.

    There is a HUGE difference between unofficial live recordings and commercially released copyrighted records/songs. The laws and policies regarding the two are vastly different and have no bearing on each other. Jon is purposely trying to link the two and they are clearly not related. It’s apples and oranges.

    Jon and others have made a dishonest habit of trying to confuse and cloud the issue to twist the debate into areas that have no legal or ethical relevance to unofficial or artist-approved live recordings. They just gloss over the fact that virtually all of the industry has widely accepted and encourages the practice at this point. None of that matters to them as long as they can cherry pick certain parts of certain laws to try and prove their “taping is unethical, illegal, and immoral” mantra.
    The reality is that is impossible to prove, otherwise it would have already been settled. If taping/trading were actually illegal there would simply be no more taping.
    That’s the bottom line.

    The fact is that it’s here to stay and will become an even more prominent and accepted tool in the future.

    embrace it, don’t fear it

  • nashphil

    From WIRED.COM
    Tuesday, 31 October 2006
    Gracenote Helps MySpace Delete “Copyrighted” Music

    According to Digital Music News, most of the music on MySpace is “copyrighted and streamed without permission,” which is entirely contrary to my experience of the site. I could be looking at the wrong pages, but just about all of the music I have heard on MySpace has been by bands who posted it there themselves. All of that music has been copyrighted, of course, having been recorded into a fixed medium (essentially, all recorded music is copyrighted; what an artist decides to do with their copyrights is another matter entirely).

    Said MySpace co-founder and CEO Chris DeWolfe,

    “This is another important step we’re taking to ensure artists control the content they create.”

    Sure, buddy, it’s all about the artists. As you probably know, the music that most people talk about when they refer to “copyrighted music” is not owned by the artists anymore, nor is it controlled by artists, unless they’re highly established. The artists have sold all or some of their right to the song to their labels, which then do things like pressuring MySpace into hiring Gracenote to expunge those songs from its site based on acoustic fingerprinting.

    A better idea would have been to permit people to stream these identified songs under a blanket MySpace license, restricting full-on downloads. That way, people would still feel free to post whatever they wanted, and the labels would get their micropayment. This “identify and delete” strategy is another result of the record labels ignoring new opportunities in their never-ending quest to make online music conform to the standards of the past.

    As it happens, Gracenote and MySpace have more in common than just this project. Both owe their success to millions of individuals who uploaded and organized data, for free, and owe their continued success to the selling of that same data back to those same people in various forms. (Gracenote came into existence by somehow purchasing and licensing the CDDB database, which was originally created by grassroots volunteers).

    Update (based on comments): Yes, it’s true, I really haven’t personally encountered much copyright infringement on MySpace. But then again, most of my MySpace visits occur because I’m trying to find new music or someone has sent me their band’s MySpace URL. After the whole Friendster thing, I didn’t really bother going all the way with MySpace aside from the music aspect.

  • Jon Weisberger

    There is a HUGE difference between unofficial live recordings and commercially released copyrighted records/songs. The laws and policies regarding the two are vastly different and have no bearing on each other.

    This is just plain untrue. As the article you just posted plainly states,

    essentially, all recorded music is copyrighted

    And even where artists hold copyright on their recordings, and hence can give permission for them to be indiscriminately distributed, there are many cases where they don’t hold copyright on the songs recorded, and therefore they are legally unable to give permission for them to be indiscriminately distributed. And the law says that unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material infringes on copyright, and is illegal; it does not distinguish between “unofficial live recordings” and commercially released ones. Simply saying that it does, and then refusing to provide any kind of evidence in the way of statutory language, relevant court cases, etc. to back up the statement, constitutes a very weak argument.

  • Cranky

    After having spent the last hour (on the clock no less!) wading through this tit-for-tat, here’s my two cents:

    1. Despite convoluted arguments to the contrary, trading music of live shows without the songwriter’s permission (or providing compensation to the songwriter) is illegal. Due to the miniscule amounts of compensation due, it is, in my opinion, akin to doing 67 in a 65, but it is illegal.

    2. Personal attacks on Megan Lynch, Jon Weisberger, or Kip Martin – especially in regards to their musicianship or value to the bluegrass community – only serve to undermine your arguments and showcase your ignorance. Nashphil and Kip’s lovefest aside (you two should seek therapy), I am mainly speaking to JPecorino. I frequent many of the shows and festivals that you do, and while I don’t know you, I know your type. Sorry, you can’t have a beer out of my cooler, and there is no miracle ticket today.

    3. The music establishment needs to pay attention to and learn from the grass-roots model of the (ethical) taper/trader culture. Jon W. has asked for more than anecdotal proof that taping increases a bands’ audience. I have none, and none is forthcoming – no one will comission such a study. But if the labels truly thought it was detrimental to their bottom line, why would so many permit their artists to allow taping at shows? Instead of waving the big-lawsuit stick, perhaps ASCAP, BMI, and the other PRO’s should take note of the reality of the current situation and include provisions to compensate songwriters for the times and places where taping is allowed by the performer and the venue. And in turn, sites such as bluegrassbox.com should pay reasonable licensing fees (supported by advertising or nominal user fees – sorry Megan but sites charging $17.99 for show downloads are not the future) to the PRO’s. A little give and take on both sides would do everybody a whole lot of good, instead of the prevailing attitude of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    4. Go and listen to some bluegrass. If you need a suggestion, Ralph Stanley and the Clinch Mountain boys made me smile yesterday (and yes this is a legal link – scroll down to the bottom for the stream) http://www.mountainstage.org

  • nashphil

    Jon is just lamely arguing with himself at this point.
    He is obviously in denial and still hasn’t even answered his own questions, much less the 40 different questions posed to him directly which he has conveniently ignored.

    Why is taping allowed, if it’s clearly illegal Jon?
    Why do these artists, venues, festivals and songwriters allow this to happen if it’s illegal, why is that Jon?

    We are still waiting for you to show us that proof you keep eluding to, you know, the statute that you said proves taping is illegal, unethical, immoral, ignorant, and calls Sam Bush a thief.

  • jpecorino

    “I frequent many of the shows and festivals that you do, and while I don‚Äôt know you, I know your type. Sorry, you can‚Äôt have a beer out of my cooler, and there is no miracle ticket today.”

    and you know my type eh? funny, i’m a tax paying teacher. when i go to tbf i bring 5 cases of beer and 5 coolers of food to share with my friends. you can call me a wook if you’d like, its simply not true. i look forward to meeting you. i will more than gladly give you whatever you want. it is truly not in the festivarian spirit to speak the way you do, despite that fact that i agree with your other points. cranky is right.

  • nashphil

    Jon, I know you have trouble determining the difference, but that article about myspace that I posted was just an article and was an opinion held by that writer. It is not fact or law, it is simply an opinion.

    You guys can keep going round and round with these silly symantics, while Jon doesn’t answer any of the relevant questions nor provide any proof that taping is illegal.

    In case Jon forgot, it’s innocent until proven guilty in this country. The burden of proof is upon you Jon. You want to act like a lawyer and prosecuter, so prove it. Prove that taping is illegal. Don’t forget to explain away all of the contradictionsand please provide all specific examples and the corresponding law that has relevance. Until then, I have nothing more to say. Argue among yourselves.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Phil, looky here:

    “taping”
    “trading”

    Both of these words start with the same letter and end with the same three, but there are some different ones in between, indicating that they are referring to two different things. “Taping” means recording; “trading” means distributing recordings (look at how many different letters there are between “recording” and “distributing” – they don’t even start with the same one!). I have consistently spoken about trading, a/k/a distribution, not taping, a/k/a recording. I haven’t said taping is illegal (though it might sometimes be), I have said that when permission isn’t obtained from or compensation paid not just to the performing artist, but to any “outside” songwriters and publishers, too – because they hold copyright on the material being distributed – then trading (that’s the one with the “rad” in the middle, not the one with the “ap” in the middle) is illegal and unethical. Which it is.

    If you persist in confusing “taping” with “trading,” folks might eventually begin to wonder if you’re not doing so deliberately.

  • nashphil

    Taping AND TRADING ARE FULLY LEGAL.
    No one, including the all-knowing Jon Weisburger have proven otherwise. We are still waiting for Jon to answer all of those questions.

    Still no answer Jon?

    We are waiting for that proof to your allegations, still haven’t seen any of it. Only your opinions, in case you forgot, opinions aren’t facts or law Jon.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Cranky says:

    1. Despite convoluted arguments to the contrary, trading music of live shows without the songwriter’s permission (or providing compensation to the songwriter) is illegal. Due to the miniscule amounts of compensation due, it is, in my opinion, akin to doing 67 in a 65, but it is illegal.

    Once the fundamental legal question is clear, there’s room for lots of interesting discussion. Case in point: there’s an apparent contradiction here that needs resolution. If the amounts of compensation due are miniscule, that can only be because the number of copies traded is miniscule – and in which case claims that trading is a valuable (indeed, some have said indispensible) promotion tool are overstated; if, on the other hand, the claims are accurate, and significant numbers of copies are getting into new fans’ hands, then the amounts of compensation must be correspondingly significant. I don’t pretend to know which of these is true, but I don’t see how they both can be; it’s either miniscule compensation/miniscule promotional effect or significant promotional effect/significant compensation.

    3. The music establishment needs to pay attention to and learn from the grass-roots model of the (ethical) taper/trader culture.

    I agree, but I would add that the (ethical taper/trader culture needs to extend its concern for obtaining artist permission to tape and trade to encompass songwriter/publisher permission, too.

    But if the labels truly thought it was detrimental to their bottom line, why would so many permit their artists to allow taping at shows?

    They may not have a choice in the matter; it all depends on what’s in individual contracts.

    Instead of waving the big-lawsuit stick, perhaps ASCAP, BMI, and the other PRO’s should take note of the reality of the current situation and include provisions to compensate songwriters for the times and places where taping is allowed by the performer and the venue.

    The PROs are only involved in the songwriter piece with respect to the actual venue performance; they don’t really have a role to play with respect to receiving and distributing compensation related to the distribution of live recordings.

    And in turn, sites such as bluegrassbox.com should pay reasonable licensing fees (supported by advertising or nominal user fees Рsorry Megan but sites charging $17.99 for show downloads are not the future) to the PRO’s.

    See above. This is what the National Music Publishers Association, which is the most immediately relevant body, recommends.

    A little give and take on both sides would do everybody a whole lot of good, instead of the prevailing attitude of “I’m right and you’re wrong.”

    Well, sure. Note that much of the action in developing mechanisms for compensation for and control over copyrighted material takes place outside of courtrooms. But it’s at least an open question as to whether infringers are encouraged to negotiate mechanisms by litigation or the threat of litigation. And from a debating point of view, so to speak, they’re caught between a rock and a hard place; if they take legal action to protect their rights, they’re accused of being bullies, and if they don’t take legal action, then that’s held (at least by some) as evidence that they have no basis for legal action, and that infringement’s ok.

  • Cranky

    JPecorino – I apologize if I mischaracterised you, I retract my comments. Like you, I share with my friends, old and new, at festivals. (But there are people who are proud of the fact that they spent $5 for a weekend’s worth of entertainment, food and beer because they “shared” everyone else’s stuff – a pet peeve of mine). Anyway, after rereading some of your posts again, I admit I was out of line. But I do think you ought to discuss the issue, and not attack the individual. As misguided as you may think Megan’s views are, she deserves better than being called “ignorant,” or being baited by repeated and intentional misspellings of her name. I would hope that you, as a taxpaying teacher would grant her, or anyone else here, the courtesy of holding an opinion different than yours without being personally disparaged(unless you teach at CU, then I understand your failings).

    And Jon makes a good point – there is confusion between “trading” and “taping” in the back and forth here. I think its been well demonstated that “taping” can fall under fair use and is for the most part legal, and that “trading” by providing the means for thousands of people to download a show is illegal, unless you compensate or have the permission of all the parties involved (performers, publishers, and songwriters). You may disagree with the law, you may jump up and down and scream “I don’t like that law! It’s not fair! It doesn’t hurt anybody, etc.,” but it IS the law, disregard it at your peril.

  • jpecorino

    cranky you seem like a solid person, and you are right. i too despise the person that tries to get the most bang for their buck when it comes to music. i personally think that is a huuuge strain to our society, as well as people who refuse to see the benefits of a persons taping/trading.

    this is a heated discussion, and both sides have been out of line. you are right that we should focus on the argument and respect that both sides have points. i guess i interpret being called immoral and unethical just as much, if not more, of an insult as mispelling megans name, especially when i pride myself on going out of my way to buy “official releases” and also support musicans who may be struggling. some folks are so wrapped up in their own world and income that they refuse to recognize a positive when they see it.

    again—there has to be multiple, and UPHELD, rulings that will prove the solidness of these laws. and like any patriotic individual, we must interpret the laws and judge their usefulness to the offended. if we find they are not useful it is our duty as americans to change them. blindly following laws, without questioning them (and maybe even breaking them) is akin to communist russia, or china. after all, it is those ideals that founded our country.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Phil, I cited the relevant law quite some time ago: 17 USC, especially 17 USC 106, which describes the exclusive rights of copyright holders (and which makes no distinction between “unofficial live recordings” and any other kind), and 17 USC 501-505, which defines infringement and outlines the remedies for infringement (and which also makes no distinction between “unofficial live recordings” and any other kind). The notion that the copyright disappears in the case of “unofficial live recordings” is unsupported by any evidence.

  • Jon Weisberger

    I did a quick search of this page using the term “immoral” and didn’t find it in any posts by those pointing out what the law says concerning distribution of copyrighted material; rather, it appears exclusively in manufactured “quotes” in the posts of those arguing in favor of distributing copyrighted material without obtaining permission from or compensating the copyright holders. So let’s just take that one off the table, eh?

    Now, as far as describing the action of distributing copyrighted material without obtaining permission from or compensating the copyright holders as “unethical,” I don’t see how it can be called anything else. The relevant ethical principle here is fairness. It’s fair for an employer to pay an employee the wage or salary agreed to; it’s unfair – unethical – for that employer to unilaterally withhold the wage or salary agreed to, even if the employer thinks that doing so actually serves the employee’s best interest. In the case of copyright and royalties for distributed copies of a protected work, the agreement is embodied in democratically passed legislation, and it’s unfair – unethical – for a distributorto unilaterally abrogate that agreement by not paying the prescribed royalty or obtaining permission from the copyright holder. If you think it’s bad law, work to change it. In the meantime, though, the law is clear, and there are plenty of cases in which it’s been upheld; for references to a number of them, visit the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s website at http://www.eff.org; that organization *is* working to change the law (or, alternatively, to establish different licensing schemes than the traditional ones), which you might find attractive, Joe, but it’s clear on what the law is.

  • nashphil

    I thought it was already agreed and understood that taping is legal. What Jon and others seem to be resting their entire argument on is that taping is legal, but trading is not.

    It’s still highly disputed that trading is actually illegal and despite how many times Jon or anyone else repeats their opinions, they are just that, only opinions and not actual facts or law. There is NO LAW that states implicitly or specifically that it is legal or illegal.

    The trading issue is clearly not settled in law because of the many contradictions within the pertaining laws and precedents, lack of prosecutions, and the widespread acceptance both within the industry and with the fans themselves. Those glaring contradictions and conflicting opinions within the very industry in charge of policing such things would clearly offer opposing precedent to either side of any argument, existing law, ruling, or statute. All of those things must be considered.

    The trading issue has already been settled in public opinion and is already fully accepted within the industry for all the beneficial reasons that have been mentioned here many times. That’s the reason it’s allowed and encouraged by the very same industry who would be the one responsbile for making it illegal. It’s a serious conflict of interest.

    Like I said, it’s impossible to prove that taping or trading is illegal. Until someone tests the actual laws regarding these issues themselves, no one will have a definitive answer for any of this. Even then, it would still be debated and wouldn’t make a difference in the way things already are, so it’s all just pointless symantics. Arguing for arguments sake.

    As far as I’m concerned, this debate has run it’s course for me. It’s just the Jon Weisburger debate now. It’s all been said in every way possible, people just aren’t going to listen, much less agree, and no matter what anyone says….. I will not ever be convinced that there is anything illegal, unethical, immoral, or ignorant with recording and sharing live performances.

    Nothing any of you can say or do will change the minds of millions of other music fans, artists, bands, venues, festivals, songwriters, record labels, and all of the other people who appreciate the tremendous power of live recordings. Those that embrace it instead of fearing it will ultimately be the winners of this debate.

    The taping/trading issue reminds me of the old saying that if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a noise. Yes, it makes a noise and I got permission from the songwriter, artist, venue, and publisher to record and distribute the noise it made.

    The real point being that for those who believe that taping/trading is illegal, you are the tree falling in the woods and no matter how how loud of a noise you might make when you fall, you are still going to fall to the ground and there isn’t a thing you can do about it. In the end, whether or not you actually made a noise doesn’t matter. We all know the forest will keep growing and nothing will change except that we will have one less tree.

  • Jon Weisberger

    Phil:

    Like I said, it’s impossible to prove that taping or trading is illegal.

    It’s impossible only to those who resolutely refuse to confront the plain facts. The law plainly states that the distribution of unauthorized recordings infringes on copyright, and the courts have upheld this in case after case, including but not limited to the Napster and Grokster/Streamcast cases. Furthermore, sites and P2P networks which have engaged in or facilitated unauthorized distribution of recordings have in a number of cases negotiated licenses and/or made provision to block unauthorized distribution of recordings. Phil was the one who brought up youtube and myspace, and both of those services are moving in those directions, directly countering his use of them as evidence that unauthorized distribution is permissible.

    The real point being that for those who believe that taping/trading is illegal, you are the tree falling in the woods and no matter how how loud of a noise you might make when you fall, you are still going to fall to the ground and there isn’t a thing you can do about it.

    This sounds unfortunately – and, I’m sure, unintentionally – like a thief who says “I’m going to steal, and you can’t catch me.” Indiscriminate distribution of recordings, whether commercially released or “unofficial live” ones, infringes on copyright unless permission is obtained from or compensation is paid to all copyright holders, including songwriters and publishers. And the fact that some traders have been, so far, able to get away with infringing on copyright says nothing about the illegality of the act or its unethical nature. Traders who want to behave ethically and to comply with the law need to realize that it’s not enough to get artist permission to tape and trade; they need to go the extra mile and make sure that *all* of the relevant permissions are obtained.

  • nashphil

    Jon Weisburgler seems obsessed to label tapers/traders as thieves, burglars, and “immoral”.

    It’s impossible to have any sort of dialogue with someone of such ilk. Not only is it frustrating but it’s pointless. Jon isn’t listening to anyone, he is just waiting around his computer to inflame the argument. Picking out some part of someone else’s words and twisting it to fit his hateful and morally superior agenda.

    I have to point out an obvious lie in Jon’s previous post.

    Jon defiantly posted that no one (including himself) that opposes taping/trading has ever used or alluded to the word immoral in this debate and that we should take it off the table. This is clearly not true, in their own words:

    Here’s Jon using the word himself in this post

    (from Jon) Responsible tapers/traders have, morally if not legally, an affirmative obligation to secure permission *before* making recordings and/or making recordings available to all and sundry.

    notice Jon said MORALLY, if not legally.
    What exactly does that mean Jon?
    Looks to me like you think taping/trading is immoral even if it isn’t illegal. Interesting.

    Here’s another example: The very first post by Kip in this thread is where he mentions morality in taping. That’s where this debate started, Kip telling people they are immoral.

    (by Kip) I totally understand why one would think these recordings are legal and moral, but the fact is, they arent.

    or there is this post where Kip takes it even further

    (by Kip) no matter what you say, its still immoral, illegal, and trashy to steal from songwriters. period.
    kip

    I just couldn’t resist calling out Jon’s “immoral” lie. Seems strangely hypocritical to lie about something like morality, eh?

  • Jon Weisberger

    Jon defiantly posted that no one (including himself) that opposes taping/trading has ever used or alluded to the word immoral in this debate

    Um, not exactly, Phil – in fact, not even close. What I said was:

    I did a quick search of this page using the term “immoral” and didn’t find it in any posts by those pointing out what the law says concerning distribution of copyrighted material; rather, it appears exclusively in manufactured “quotes” in the posts of those arguing in favor of distributing copyrighted material without obtaining permission from or compensating the copyright holders. So let’s just take that one off the table, eh?

    How someone could read a comment about the absence of the word “immoral” on “this page” (which means, I guess I need to explain, this web page) is a mystery. I think most people would agree that citing a couple of posts which appeared on another page (which means, I guess I need to explain, another web page) doesn’t really address the point. And the post of Kip’s you quote from this page (do I need to explain that one again?) doesn’t call anyone immoral, either.

    In the meantime, despite my specific responses to your specific questions concerning laws and cases which support the view that indiscriminate distribution of copyrighted material constitutes infringement of copyright, and hence is illegal, you have yet to offer any kind of response of your own, other than to tell us that it ain’t so (sans any specifics) and tht there isn’t a thing that can be done about it. That’s pretty lame.

  • jon

    why dont you join me at a competent therapist’s office?

    we clearly embody the old chestnut that says, “‘Neurosis’ is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” thinking we can cut through the purple haze of some of our opponents’ years of marijuana use and their fuzzy, paranoid, obfuscated logic in this debate is a Sisyphusian exercise at best.

    ever read ‘No Exit’ by Albert Camus?

    kip

  • nashphil

    Like I said, these two (Jon & Kip) are just a couple of angry and morally superior hypocrites bent on some misguided tirade.

    They have been preaching their crap on this page, the other page, and the one before that. Their argument has remained the same throughout, “if you aren’t like us, then you are an immoral thief ripping me off”. It’s shameful.

    What’s truly lame is that it’s just prejudice of a different ilk. You two go right ahead and keep arguing it out with your moral tirade. Let me know when I need to attend the bonfire so I can throw all in of my Elvis, Beatles, and Bob Dylan records.

  • Cranky

    Kip – just putting you on notice that unless you have secured permission to do so, you have apparently violated copyright laws by uploading the Cheap Trick song “I Want You to Want Me” (ironically the live version) to your myspace page.

    Nashphil – I thought the debate had run its course for you about ten posts ago?

    Bluegrass Blog powers-that-be – are you in legal jeopardy for posting links to (likely illegal) YouTube videos, such as the SamEmmylou performance from Leno a few weeks back?

    Not sure how all this will shake out, but I hope there can be a fair resolution so that I can enjoy this wonderful creation (the Internet) to its fullest by fairly and affordably being able to realize the once-preposterous dream of having every song ever written at my fingertips.

    FYI, Mike Martin = Cranky

  • jpecorino

    phil

    why dont you join me at a competent therapist’s office?

    we clearly embody the old chestnut that says, “‘Neurosis’ is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” thinking we can cut through the red elephant dung of some of our opponents’ years of conseravtive brainwashing and their right wing, elitist, fuzzy logic in this debate is a Sisyphusian exercise at best.

    ever read ‘No Exit’ by Albert Camus?

    kip

  • jpecorino

    that should be signed “joe.”

    you guys are insane. kip and jon think they are lawyers. and if for some starnage reason you actually are, i fear for our legal system. your view of american laws and their enoforcement is akin to a right wing tyrannical government. you guys do not own bluegrass, and although you may think you are some superior entity in our world, you are not, you are simply two voices runnign around in circles. while you argue i am going to enjoy some live music, the way it was meant to be heard.

  • Objectivity forces me to admit that I entered this debate a few months back without thinking past stage one. While I’ve been an avid consumer of live recordings, I fully accept the reality that the law is abundantly clear, and I was breaking it.

    Despite the intensity of one’s desire for the trading practice to fall completely within the letter of the law, it doesn’t. The pro-trading arguments appear to be nothing short of toting the baggage of moral relativity into the music community.

    Do I wish the taping/trading practice were wide open and free of charge? Sure. The same way I wish that I could go to dinner tonight without charge and there were no mortgage payments. Unfortunately, that’s not reality.

    Despite this situation isn’t as glaringly obvious as dinner or a mortgage, its validity is no less. An individual doesn’t have the right to a portion of another individual’s life… regardless of how small that portion may be, how much they want it, or how good it makes them feel.

    How can anyone argue with this premise?

    With regards to Jon Weisberger’s comments on the matter, he’s dead on. Additionally, I see no expression within his opinions that can justifiably be labeled as “hateful” or any other cheap-shot, hollow adjectives. He’s also shown remarkable durability withstanding the insipid personal battering sent his way. I suspect a personal vendetta seeping through.

    He’s clear, he’s concise and he’s right. I’m really glad this music enjoys some individuals that can communicate their views objectively.

    I haven’t deleted my live recordings. I’ll gladly pay to keep most of them. They represent some of the most cherished music in my collection and undoubtedly the set I would choose from for an eternity on a deserted island. They convey the emotion and skill that I appreciate in this music. I do hope that the involved parties embrace this avenue and use it to their advantage, so that I can continue to enjoy live, raw recordings.

    If not, that’s life.

  • WOW!…I take a week away;to make recordings no one can trade/swap/or sell without my permission and/or paying me royalities…and this still is going??? There is no law on the books…except when the Artists or venue lays The Smackdown on you. I’ll say again, from the side of someone who has to guard against someone taking something from me that I didn’t give them and then trading it or selling it….it’s wrong. I wouldn’t walk to a construction site and pickup a sack of cement or a door…why would I take something someone created?

  • jpecorino

    why would I take something someone created?

    because they told me i could and that they would appreciate th word getting out.

  • Jon Weisberger

    If that “they” doesn’t include the songwriters and publishers, then you haven’t really done what you ethically and legally need to do…

  • cranky said:

    >just putting you on notice that unless you have
    >secured permission to do so, you have apparently
    >violated copyright laws by uploading the Cheap
    >Trick song “I Want You to Want Me” (ironically
    >the live version) to your myspace page.

    the song is available on Myspace legally. i did not “upload” the song. this live version is from a bona fide, non-bootlegged Cheap Trick album, “Cheap Trick at Budokan” (c)1978, 1979 CBS/Epic Records. Both Cheap Trick and CBS have deals with Myspace and Youtube.

    pecorino said:

    >your view of american laws and their enoforcement
    >is akin to a right wing tyrannical government.

    another THC drenched analysis. maybe in pecorinoland things work smoothly, but last i checked, laws are prosecuted to protect the rights of the minority, and to ensure fair play. if you dont like a law, fight it the way our founding fathers suggested–through the courts.

    and for the record, i am most assuredly NOT an apologist for the “right wing”.

    kip

  • D1A10361

    I have to admit that this discussion is giving me pause. I’m not an avid trader, but I have a few shows that I have downloaded from the box and a couple of other sites. All but one led to a studio album being purchased, but that seems to me to not be the real issue anymore. It was a nice “hide-behind” while it lasted.

    Like Brad, I’m not ready to dump my old shows, but I will be unlikely to download any others.

    I used to think that the small dollar amount was irrelevant and “those guys” have a lot more money than I do. I used to steal candy as a kid too, but I grew out of that.

    I am tired of the personal attacks and I think everyone has made their position known as it relates to the copyright law. Maybe it is time to move on. Let folks read this and form their own opinion. We’re not going to set policy here, so let’s not try. And we are certainly not in a position to set up moral limits for anyone either (ick, I sound like a liberal).

    As for things being free, I’d like to get one of those Harper resophonics for no charge! Brad?

  • Cranky

    Kip – I have to apologize. I was only looking at the terms of use and a recent article regarding myspace’s crackdown on illegal uploads. As a newcomer to myspace, I am unfamiliar with how myspace works and I was unaware of the ability to go to an artist’s page and “add” one of their songs to your own page. I thought I had come across an obvious copyright violation (and believe it or not, I came across your page coincidentally, I wasn’t looking to investigate you) and got excited to point it out in light of your position before knowing all the facts. I hope that after reading the links below you will understand why I assumed the song was there illegaly. So, again I apologize.

    ______________________________________________________________

    http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/10/30/myspace-gracenote-piracy-tech-personal-cx_lh_1030myspace.html

    http://www.myspace.com/Modules/Common/Pages/TermsConditions.aspx

    9. Copyright Policy. You may not post, modify, distribute, or reproduce in any way any copyrighted material, trademarks, or other proprietary information belonging to others without obtaining the prior written consent of the owner of such proprietary rights.

  • comment #1183 By Jon Weisberger on 11.06.06 5:07 pm
    If that “they” doesn’t include the songwriters and publishers, then you haven’t really done what you ethically and legally need to do…

    How many times and ways does this have to be said? I will say again….I’ve found and still find my work on download and trade sites that did not/do not have the rights or permission from me…the Artists…Songwriters and Publishers. It was taken, stolen. It is wrong.

  • Pingback: Bluegrass Today » Hot topics on The B: Your Essential Bluegrass Connection()