Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Snider and Palmer

It was Al Pitrelli, his Widowmaker guitarist that pointed out to him (in the early 90s) that every time he heard “We’re Not Gonna Take It” back in the 80’s, it reminded him of the Christmas song “O Come All Ye Faithful”.

Then of course, Twisted Sister did a Christmas album In the two thousands and they re-did the “We’re Not Gonna Take It” music with the words of “O Come All Ye Faithful”.

So fast forward a decade and bit later from that Christmas album and you have one of the most hated business people in Australia, deciding that his “Australia’s Not Gonna Cop It” is based on the Christmas Carol.

Umm no.

It’s based on “We’re Not Gonna Take It”.

But like other business people in the world, he lies. Clive Palmer just continues to lie. Nothing is his fault, he can’t admit any wrong doing nor does he know how to apologise. But to lie and not pay his workers, god damn it, Palmer is good at it. Very good at it.

And I hate Copyright lawsuits, but I’m all in with the Snider camp on this one, because Palmer’s camp asked to use the song from Twisted Sister but they didn’t want to pay the license fee for it. So it all comes down to Palmer not paying for something, again. Sort of like how he didn’t pay his workers.

It’s a showdown in August.

Standard
Music, My Stories, Stupidity

The Trolley Dilemma

This whole mask argument reminds me of the trolley dilemma.

There is a runaway train, coming down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming and if they do spot it, it will be too late to save themselves. But as disaster is coming close, you realise that you can choose to divert the train from the main track by pulling the lever. You will save five people on the track, but you will also kill the lone worker on the other track.

Killing one to save five.

An alternative variation, is that two people are standing on a bridge above the train tracks. And you see the large man standing next to you. You are thinking that his size would be able to stop the runaway train. So would you push him off the bridge, killing one to save the five further down the track.

In the alternate version you are actually responsible for the death by pushing the person and in the original dilemma, you are responsible for diverting the train towards that person.

So Dee Snider is asking one of his detractors, a person called “HairMetalGuru”, who has an issue wearing a mask because it encroaches on his freedom, which the dude doesn’t really know, is already restricted.

The Government has laws to spy on you and gather data on you. The banks are allowed to get a credit history on you, and decide to give you credit. And if you don’t repay it, well, they have the right to close in on you and bankrupt you or foreclose on you.

Then there laws that further restrict your freedom from the utility companies, which they use to suspend your services if you don’t pay on time. Plus all of the laws around how fast you can drive, how much you can drink before you can drive, how old you can be to actually drink and how old you can be to actually drive. I guess living in a free country means giving up freedoms to be secure.

Anyway this is Dee’s post;

On the outside chance that by you wearing a mask might prevent another human being from getting sick or dying, you can’t find it in your heart to compromise your freedom and put one on. Personally I can’t deal with that thought. Just askin’.

To me it feels like the trolley dilemma. Wear a mask so you don’t infect people but you might infect yourself if you don’t handle it properly.

What’s your view?

And the same arguments on masks are held everywhere. It’s like a worldwide echo chamber.

The main one against wearing masks which gets traction is that you can get sick by bringing the virus home with you on the mask if you don’t dispose of it.

So that means single use masks should be used.

But most of the masks that people are wearing are reusable masks, which means, people are wearing them, then putting them in their pocket or their bag and then wearing them again and then putting them in their pocket or their bag and then washing them.

The arguments of people that they will not wear a mask because it restricts their freedom is BS. In order to be secure, we all give up freedoms.

If you don’t believe me, don’t go home tonight to your fixed address. Use your imaginative freedom, to go and make your bed where you want tonight. A U.S citizen did that in a parking lot of a fast food joint and got shot by police because of it.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Influenced, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Little Wing and Catch A Rainbow

Progress Is Derivative.

I always say it. Especially when it comes to music. It’s always a new take on an old sound with some small changes to the progression.

I knew when I heard “Catch A Rainbow” from Rainbow that I had heard the song before. And I was thinking of Skid Row when I heard it, because their take on a Jimi Hendrix song was fresh in my mind at the time.

The origins of “Little Wing” go back even further to a 1966 recording of “(My Girl) She’s a Fox”, an R&B song which features Hendrix playing a Curtis Mayfield-influenced guitar accompaniment.

It’s all derivative and cyclical. Hendrix toured with Mayfield and learnt from him and then used some of the techniques that Mayfield used, like the rhythmic fills on the chords to orchestrate songs like “Little Wing” and “The Wind Cries Mary”.

To call Blackmore a copyist is wrong.

To call Dio a copyist is wrong.

To call Hendrix a copyist is also wrong.

And to see em all as super original and free from influences is also wrong.

To see Mayfield as super original is also wrong.

Everyone learns from someone or from some song. It’s why we start off playing covers. We are all influenced.

However people would like you to believe that they are original and free from influences when they bring up suits to the courts.

Did Tom Petty deserve a lyrical credit to a Sam Smith song?

Did Iron Maiden need to settle with a person who didn’t create anything and just managed an artist?

Standard
My Stories, Stupidity

What’s The Purpose Of Police In Today’s Society?

The police are meant to enforce the law to ensure the safety of the citizens and to prevent crime and civil disorder. But the Police act as a revenue force first.

Issuing speeding or traffic violations at will. The wealthy and the connected get away with it, while the middle class and the ones doing it tough, trying to get from A to B to pay the bills are left to foot the bill.

And just say a car slows down to 5km at a stop sign and doesn’t actually stop, but treats it like a give way. They put no one in harm as they go through the stop sign. Technically they broke the law. So they must be punished.

And that law breaking is treated the same as a person going through a stop sign at 80km an hour and putting people at risk. It’s the same law being broken.

So why have police patrolling at all. Just set up cameras everywhere. I’m sure all the soldiers who went to two World Wars and Vietnam, will appreciate living in a surveillance state.

Then you have the AFP (Australian Federal Police) investigating journalists, becoming a political police force. All because a journalist actually did their job and leaked information of Australian soldiers torturing Afghanistan people, which is very different to the 90% of journalist who just push the stories their supreme overlords demand.

In relation to preventing crime, unless they have some pre-cognition “Thought Crime” task force, they have failed in that regard.

The war on drugs is into its 50th year and there are more drugs on the streets than ever before. Billions spent for failure.

In relation to stabbings, shootings and general violence, these crimes happen. A police force doesn’t prevent them. Of course these crimes will be investigated later on by detectives, so there is a need for that kind of force.

Cyber Theft and Cyber Crime is through the roof. Speak to any victim of it and they will tell you how alone they feel when it happens because no one cares to investigate. It’s all up to them to fight for their rights. But a crime has been committed. And the police don’t care.

And the police force in Australia is ripe with systemic abuse because the law allows it.

Fully able bodied Police Officers go out on luxurious Invalidity Hurt On Duty pensions and then keep working. Double dipping into the public and private purses.

People have no faith in the government, it’s police force or the media. And let’s not even talk about people’s view on science or facts.

And basically, if you’re not rich, you’re living under a different legal system, that works against you with the Police as puppets to powerful individuals.

Standard
Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Copyright Fund

“I don’t really know what it means to choose a hit. I just like writing songs”
Ed Sheeran

And he keeps getting sued for it, because the greedy heirs and greedy lawyers are always looking at sneaky ways to get their slice of the hit machine pie.

“People prefer paintings that they’ve seen before. Audiences like art that gives them the jolt of meaning that often comes from an inkling of recognition.”
From the book, “Hit Makers” by Derek Thomspon

Everything that we listen to or watch or read has come before. Its similar with small changes here and there.

That’s how it works.

It’s unsettling how the heirs, along with their lawyers, spin the story that the works of the dead creators is super original and free from influence.

Which is a load of BS.

Because;

“In 2012, Spanish researchers released a study that looked at 464,411 popular recordings around the world between 1955 and 2010 and found the difference between new hits and old hits wasn’t more complicated chord structures. Instead, it was new instrumentation bringing a fresh sound to “common harmonic progressions.”
From the book, “Hit Makers” by Derek Thomspon

A new take on an old sound.

Copyright needs to expire on death.

Once the creator is dead, the copyright ends. Copyright wasn’t created to benefit the heirs of the creator or a manager or a corporation or anyone else except the creator so they could create even more while holding an interim monopoly.

That’s it, problem solved.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Music, My Stories, Stupidity, Treating Fans Like Shit

Hallowed Copyright

Remember that whole “Hallowed Be Thy Name” and “The Nomad” suit filed by retired band manager Barry McKay against Iron Maiden and Steve Harris.

Remember how McKay stated it is all about intellectual property rights and how these IP rights need to be protected from blatant copying while the other side stated that music is all about inspiration and influences and that McKay never actually wrote anything and is a serial litigant.

Well, these IP rights that McKay was championing for protection, all revolve around a fee to be paid. If you haven’t read the stories, you can read em at Loudwire or Blabbermouth.

Remember when any rights to intellectual property ceased when the creator died (provided they still had a right at the time of death). Well, the corporations who held the copyrights to a lot of these works pushed really hard to get laws changed in the 70’s to last the life of the artist plus another 70 years, so what we have now is people who really contribute nothing to culture, locking up culture for a generation and getting paid in the process.

But there was a side in the Government who actually cared about culture, the public domain and were against Government granted monopolies, so they put in a clause that allowed the actual creators to get their rights back after 35 years. But, the labels and the publishing companies who control the rights don’t want to let go of the works as it diminishes their power.

Remember John Waite, from The Babys, Bad English and his work as a solo artist. Well, he wanted his songs back, Universal Music Group said “No”, your works are created under a “works for hire agreement”, John Waite said, “no chance in hell are the songs created under a works for hire agreement” and off to court they went.

So how did it all come to this?

You need to remember that any aspiring artist, had/have/has no bargaining power when for negotiating and signing contracts. If they wanted to get their music out there (pre internet), they more or less had to give away their copyright in their works as part of the contract to get their music out there and monetised.

Then, when an artistic work turns out to be a “hit,” the majority of the royalties goes to the organisation who holds the rights to the works rather than to the artist who created them.

But this “ownership of copyright” by the organisation was meant to be limited. And if the artists wished, they could reclaim their rights. Some artists used the threat of “termination rights” as a tool to negotiate higher royalty rates and advance payments.

But as artists grew popular and they realised they could make some money, they created loan out companies, which is basically a business entity used by the entertainment and sports industries in the US, in which the creator is the ’employee’ whose services are loaned out by the corporate body. The corporation is used as a means to reduce their personal liability, protect their assets and exploit taxation advantages.

And the courts have determined that any rights granted to the labels from the loan out company cannot be terminated, only the rights granted by the actual creator themselves.

For example, John Waite created a loan out company called Heavy Waite Inc. So if he signed a contract to give his copyrights to a label via the loan out company, these rights cannot be terminated. Only the rights that John Waite himself gave up.

It’s pretty fucking stupid if you ask me, but nothing surprises me when lawyers get involved and try to get these termination suits booted on technicalities.

And check out this article for some insight on copyrights from the one and only Desmond Child. Here is the snippet in case you don’t click on the link;

Have you retained your copyrights?

Well, tragically, I fell into some lean times in the late ’90s. I had moved to Miami – we’d fled LA after the [1992] earthquake and we were picking up the pieces.

At that time I got an offer for my catalogue, and I sold my song writing and publishing share to Polygram [now Universal Music Group] – and it was a mistake. I retained my song writing performance rights, and that’s how I know how big a mistake it was, and how much I sold myself short. They made their money back x 20.

I was pressured by people around me to sell. Especially my father, who had grown up in the depression. When I told him the amount, he said, ‘Grab the money, you’ll write other songs, grab the money.’

Also, my lawyers told me, ‘Don’t worry, you get your songs back after 35 years,’ but that’s not true. You don’t get them back for the whole world, you get them back for the US only. And you don’t get your songs back for the versions that made them hits, you only get them back for the new versions – versions made after you sold.

When I found out those two things, it was like two buckets of ice water being poured over me.

The people doing the deal for me were so keen to get their percentages that they didn’t explain these things to me. Had I known, I wouldn’t have signed the deal and I would have been in a much better financial position.

And that my friends is how far Copyright has evolved, where people who create nothing of value get paid and everyone is trying their best to lead the artists astray so they can get paid.

It has nothing to do with intellectual property rights or an incentive to create.

Standard
Copyright, Music, My Stories, Piracy, Stupidity

Silliness

I pay for Prime Video, but I had to download Bosch S6 from other sources to watch it, as it’s not available in Australia at the moment, even though it was released in the U.S on April 17, 2020.

What the.

I paid for a PS4 game disc (the NBA one) and then the kids had to spend three hours downloading something from the PS4 web store before they could even play it. It sure takes the joy out of it. There is no way that you can just buy a game and play it straight away.

The game makers are using a legally purchased disc as a piracy protection measure. No wonder people download games illegally on jailbroken consoles as well. Look at the work they do to get around these measures.

Remember DRM (Digital Rights Management) platform Denuvo. They got a lot of game makers to sign on and pay huge amounts for its unbreakable anti-piracy software.

The game makers put this DRM on their games and then they released the games. The unbreakable DRM was cracked on the day the games were released. But some game makers got even more creative by putting on another layer of DRM to some of their games, which basically made the legally purchased game unplayable for the consumer.

What a great way to treat a law abiding customer?

But piracy is still an issue.

Yeah right. More like dumb organisations are an issue.

The major labels tried this exercise back in 2003 to 2005. They even went further. Those legally purchased discs had malware on them and if you put the disc into your computer it would install malware on your hard drive, which led to a class action lawsuit against Sony and the other labels.

I was catching up on some movies I purchased a while back. So I put on a legally purchased DVD or Blu-ray (in this case it was the movie “Children Of Men”) and I am confronted by those stealing movie ads. Remember those.

They would say, you wouldn’t steal a car so don’t steal movies because piracy is a crime. So the movie studios are creatively trying to link the downloading of copies to actually stealing a physical product.

And I can’t skip it. I need to watch it.

So this is the punishment that people get for doing the right thing?

No wonder people go and download illegally as the ads are removed and as soon as you press play, you get to watch. No advertisements and no copyright rules on a black screen.

Standard
Copyright, Derivative Works, Influenced, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Blues For Copyright

Here is a great post about the blues and how the genre was appropriated by others and on many occasions the original creator is not even credited.

The 60s blues explosion from the UK happened because the artists took the blues standards from the 30s and made em their own (either by building on an existing work or by just saying that they wrote the song without any credit to the creator).

Remember that histories are written by the winners.

I watched a documentary on “The Australian Sound” and there is no mention of the black blues musicians who influenced the white musicians. It just goes back to the white blues musicians from the 60s and it moves forward from there.

Music is all about influence and experience. What you hear, what you read, see, smell, taste and live, all end up in the song.

Similar sounding songs is big business for lawyers. When you have an artist covering another artists songs and claiming that songs as their own, well, that’s morally wrong and also big business for lawyers.

It’s all because Copyright lasts 70 years after the death of the creator. Remember that Copyright was designed to give the creator a brief monopoly on their works so they could make money and as a by product, an incentive to create more works.

These terms originally were 14 years to 28 years. And if the creator passed while they still had a copyright it expired on death and it all went to the public domain for it to be built on and reused.

So what incentive is there if the creator is dead.

Standard
Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Copyright Sweet Copyright

Don Henley wants to censor the internet in the name of Copyright.

Who knew that by writing a few songs which ended up being popular gave him (the creator) so much power to get legislation changed. As Peter Parker’s grandfather said, “with great power comes great responsibility”.

It feels like this whole industry of “intellectual property” is becoming more a police state than anything that’s meant to foster creativity.

And while Henley is testifying, there is one crucial segment which is not represented for these Copyright discussions.

From a U.S point of view, that is 229 million American adults who use the Internet to pay bills, to learn, to work, to socialize, to watch content they pay for and to create.

And the public is not part of the conversation and it’s the public who have their rights taken away to please the corporations who hold the rights to content.

These corporations, like the Majors (Sony, Universal And Warner) won a suit against telecommunications company Cox for $1 billion.

They convinced a judge and jury that the ISP is responsible for policing what its users do with their internet access.

If only we can hold the gun makers and knife makers accountable for what their users do with their devices.

Imagine that.

And instead of the labels doing something worthwhile to compete in a vast changing marketplace for the creators they claim to represent, they want the ISPs to play the Copyright Cop for them.

The majority of income the labels get, comes from streaming services and mp3 downloads. And none of these services were created by the labels.

But they still want stronger Copyright restrictions because apparently piracy still exists.

Come on. Really.

Warner Music was valued at $2 billion in 2004 and today its valued at $15 billion.

And 10% of the population will never pay for content. Michael Eisner from Disney said that once upon a time. So why bother with them.

How crazy will Copyright get?

A lot more crazier than right now because the public is never in the discussion.

Standard
Copyright, Music, My Stories, Stupidity

Vinegar Syndrome

As a person who loves history and culture, it pains me to read articles like this of culture disappearing.

This is what happens when organisations lock up content and then don’t store it properly. Remember the warehouse fire in the U.S, which destroyed a lot of masters from the catalogue of movies and music that Universal held. And for some insane reason the back-ups to those masters were held in the same vault.

Madness.

And negligence.

All because the organisation failed to spend some of the billions they earn from these copyrights to properly store the masters in one location and their back-ups in a different location.

And in proper temperatures.

In the article, the tapes of the films are developing a “vinegar syndrome”, which happens because acetate films are stored in a warm, humid room.

It’s pretty obvious these organisations don’t know how to store cultural history. And they have no interest to preserve or to spend the money to digitize it. So why can’t they release the tapes to organisations like the Internet Archive or even the Public Domain to digitize the films for preservation.

Because they are scared that others will do something great and make money from content they produced once upon a time.

Standard