The Petra Zone

I seriously doubt that this will be a problem for webmasters of fan sites that only have lyrics for one specific band, but anyway:

Gracenote, music publishers in lyrics deal; Catalog owners mull suits against unauthorized sites

The upshot for those of us who run Petra Web sites: if you receive a cease-and-desist order, take it seriously.

Just relax man it's going to be ok

Once again copyright laws run amok...

I'm totally relaxed; you don't see me taking the lyrics off the Guide, do you? But those lyrics DO belong to the person who wrote them, and if they ask you to take 'em down and you refuse, you COULD have a lawsuit on your hands. It would be kind of stupid... sort of like suing someone for setting up a billboard for your product for free... but that doesn't mean that legal action is impossible. It's very possible.

Yeah... I call it "Shoot yourself in the foot syndrome"..

Somehow greed seems to play a big part in it.

Since when is free advertising such a problem? These days there are so many distractions and competing products vying for the consumers attention. It's easy to get lost in the shuffle.

Entering and storing copyright protected lyrics in a computer without permission of the holder is a violation of Federal Copyright Law. I don't think it is all about greed. It is about protection.

If a church displays lyrics, prints lyrics, etc, it can mean $30k per. That's the reason companies like CCLI are in business. I am sure that there will be a consumer based business that allows you to license anyone's lyrics. Maybe ASCAP or BMI will do that.

This is going to open a can of worms, but I have been talking to a few big name artists lately. They are having a hard time justifying even printing CDs, because of the cost, the returns, the freight, etc. The download sales are eclipsing the CDs. The downloads make Apple and everyone else money, but not the artist considering that all of the production expenses and associated costs of doing business must be recouperated from that generous 1 cent per download that is paid to you. How can a guy cover a $50k studio and musician bill with 1 cent singles? How can one afford the $200k a month to advertise those singles on said sites?

Now, artists are just trying to further protect what is their legal right to protect, since they have lost the battle with making money for their music. Music is darn near free to anyone with a "rip" program, etc. I predict that all music will be free in under 10 years. Make it 7!

There will soon be no reason for people to make awesome recordings. There is already no reason to keep the awesome studios around. They are going away, because the owners can make more money in realestate. Hit Factory in NY was converted this last year. One of the best of the best. We will continue to have WalMart quality stuff, because that is the kind of revenue coming in. Enjoy it.

But surely the value is in the music and not the lyrics. I really can't see somebody saying, "I'm not going to buy that CD because I can get the lyrics for free off the internet."

I don't know. Maybe it could work either way:

1. A kid gets on the internet to find out what a rapper's lyrics are, likes them and buys it.
2. A parent gets on the internet, does'nt like the lyrics and blocks a purchase.
3. Of course the kid will go buy it anyway, or worse, burn a copy on a CD-R and label it Dixie Chix, which makes the artist nothing.
4. Come to find out, the lyrics were incorrect and wouldn't have been that objectionable, but the site was erroneous.

5. Rookie song writers scan the lyrics for ideas, stealing them. If they bought a CD, atleast the label would get something for the trouble.

Re-edited to be more coherent (see below post).

But really... I never considered my communication skills to be the greatest so I doubt I do a very good job of explaining what I mean.

brent wrote:Entering and storing copyright protected lyrics in a computer without permission of the holder is a violation of Federal Copyright Law. I don't think it is all about greed. It is about protection.

If a church displays lyrics, prints lyrics, etc, it can mean $30k per. That's the reason companies like CCLI are in business. I am sure that there will be a consumer based business that allows you to license anyone's lyrics. Maybe ASCAP or BMI will do that.

It has been a while, but back in the day if you purchased a track it came with lyrics. If you had more than one person using the lyrics to a song you had to purchase a copy of sheet music for each one used. So in theory shouldn't a church be able to purchase so many "copies" of the lyrics/sheet music. Say an amount that equals the number of attendees?

brent wrote:This is going to open a can of worms, but I have been talking to a few big name artists lately. They are having a hard time justifying even printing CDs, because of the cost, the returns, the freight, etc. The download sales are eclipsing the CDs. The downloads make Apple and everyone else money, but not the artist considering that all of the production expenses and associated costs of doing business must be recouperated from that generous 1 cent per download that is paid to you. How can a guy cover a $50k studio and musician bill with 1 cent singles? How can one afford the $200k a month to advertise those singles on said sites?

Now, artists are just trying to further protect what is their legal right to protect, since they have lost the battle with making money for their music. Music is darn near free to anyone with a "rip" program, etc. I predict that all music will be free in under 10 years. Make it 7!

Anyways.. I don't buy it.

If the artists are having problems getting money because of the system, then they need to work it out thru the system. Not take it out on the consumer. If that means turning the system over on it's ear then so be it. If that means not making music and getting into real estate, then so be it. They need to rewrite their contracts if they are having trouble getting money from the studio's.

Going after the consumer is about the dumbest thing they could do. What is happening now with music and the consumer is a symptom, not the problem. The consumer has NOTHING to lose. The artists/studios/publishers need to find the true reason why the consumer is acting they way he/she is and adapt to that. Trust me on this.

One can always argue the right/wrong legal/illegal points of this, but bottom line is "The customer is always right" and there is a reason for that. Irritate your fan base = no income. Bottom line, period.

There will soon be no reason for people to make awesome recordings. There is already no reason to keep the awesome studios around. They are going away, because the owners can make more money in realestate. Hit Factory in NY was converted this last year. One of the best of the best. We will continue to have WalMart quality stuff, because that is the kind of revenue coming in. Enjoy it.

If that is what it takes for them to get their act together, then so be it. I firmly believe the problem starts from the inside and blossom's out. With the results being a reflection more of an inward problem and their inability to keep up with changes in the market, technology, etc.

Suing for minor things like posting a lyric up on a site is not the solution. If another artist is stealing your ideas, then go after him. Too much paranioa and not enough common sense I say.

But anyways... maybe someone will open their eyes and have the sense enough to figure it out. For now though I think there are too many people runnng around with blinders on and I doubt things will change much until the entire system implodes on itself...

Trust me... it all boils down to greed. I'm not saying greed on everyones part, but on a few certain hoarders who'd rather take the money for themsevles than fix the problem.

1. Yes churches should be purchasing sheet music. But, it is too hard to find publishers, etc, so most churches in the world have bought into a blanket license company, called CCLI. They take care of it. You pay them, they take care of it. Churches should discplay their license number and song info on the first slide of the tune. There are different types of licenses available.

2. It doesn't matter if you buy the free music thing, or the artists not releasing CDs. It is happening NOW. Free music is already abundant. Right now there are FREE MP3 sites. Right now, if you join Sony/BMG, you get free music online. What is happening is that people will expect more and more and more for nothing, until you can't charge for it. Industry insiders are already gearing up for it. Retailers are gearing up for it. Read Christian retail trade rags.

3. The multi-platinum artists are not so much having trouble with money because of the system. Established ones aren't. It is the ones on the way up, or the way down. You are seperating people from the problem. The problem is people, sin (theft), and the industry giving in. The industry knows that CD sales will never recover. You cannot stop bootlegging. It's impossible. So they are going to roll over.

4. Nobody is taking anything out on the consumer. I get so tired of this repressed, slavery mentality. Always ripping off the consumer. The industry is trying to punish the non-consumer, the thiefs. They are trying to regulate the use of THEIR product, that's it.

5. I KNOW why the consumer's act the way that they do. Lust, greed, spoiledness. People are hooked on music like a drug. It is 100% accessible all of the time, everywhere, wired and wireless. People do not want to pay for it. Musicians can't do it for free. Studios can't work for free. Duplication houses won't press it for free. Someone has to pay. Consumers don't want to, so bands who want to be in the business are going to continue touring, charging more for tickets, and giving it away. This is being done now. It will be more common in a few years.

6. You will see more on-the-spot concert recording, with immediate delivery. Clear Channel has already patented the concept and has been doing it for a few years.

7. The consumer is not always right, but they are the consumer. The consumer is a blind dumb dog, buying whatever carnal crap is fed to it. Look at bunnies. Look at diet programs. Look at TV. Look at materialism. Look our churches. Look at the 89% divorce rate in South Johnson County, KS where I live. Look at the child abuse. Yeah, the consumer is always right.

Well we obviously have different viewpoints on the situation and I think you were getting a little off track there towards the end.

The problem is the cost of producing, printing/pressing (the CD), distributing puts the artist in debt NOT THE CONSUMER. The artist really needs to re-negotiate their contract terms with the people they are involved with. PERIOD.

There are numerous cases (many of which you mentioned yourself) where the artist is not getting their fair share. How is this the consumer's fault? The consumer WILL pay for something if the circumstances are correct. If you target the consumer as the problem your taking the WRONG approach. The problem started LONG before it even reached the consumer. The customer is just the easiest target instead of self examination.

The consumer just happens to be adapting too technological changes. While the copyright owners sit around scratching there heads. Instead of thinking about the situation and adjusting to it the knee jerk reaction is to sue. It's the american way!

As long as people like you continue to take the stance you are things will just continue to get worse. The person providing the services needs to find the proper target and price point if they want their product to sell. If you go around suing 13 year old kids and grandmothers like some people have you are gaining No sympathy from the public.

I'm not saying this because it is right or wrong. I'm saying it because that is the way it works. There will always be people who want/take things for free. The idea is to get your money from the people that are interested in paying for it. You can post all the hullaba you want about piracy affecting sales, but sorry I just don't believe it. The costs gotta be hit where the imbalance is.

If an artist is only making 10 cents on a $16 CD sold at the store, how is that MY fault? The artists needs to take that up with the parties involved in the creation of the product. Not the one who buys it. Seriously... Get off your high horse already. You make it sound like the industry is some innocent little lamb being slayed by the evil public.

Your taking the saying "The customer is always right" too literally. The whole point of the saying is that. No customer = no money. Also I think your comments about child abuse, etc have no place here. Since when is child abuse considered a service that is paid for? Last I checked, not in my country.

The only area that I could even agree with you is that we do have a generation of people growing up expecting free music. But I can tell you by and far that it is far more deeply rooted than "people like to steal". The problem existed long before people supposedly began "stealing music".

GC,

Did you know that studio rates have never been allowed to increase since the late 60s? Yet we studios have more demand placed on us, to have the right bling and gear for artists. Recording consoles that cost $500k paid for by $50 rates? Don't think so.

Look. I am an indie artist. There is no label to negotiate with. John is thinking of going indie. He has no label. WE invest our own $50k for a record. WE distribute it. When we put it out, it is automatically bootlegged and on the internet for free. How do we recover our investment? The prices go up. Same as a Walmart with alot of theft. That store has high shrink, that stores prices go up to recover. Things cost what they cost. It isn't abuse of the consumer, it is economics.

If you could come over and learn the business from our side, you would wonder why so many people even try to make it at all. Your attitude is that it is our own fault that things are the way that they are. I am saying it is the sin nature that drives it.

The more consumers steal music, or get it for free legally, the more someone is going to have to pay at the shows, or per CD. Nobody operates a business in the whole and keeps it open. MP3s are going to be the primary source for music like they are now. CDs will go up, because the scale of demand is down. Lesss ordered means more expense to produce, which means higher cost to you. It's like gas. the less there is, the more it costs.

I am against those lawsuits. Much of the industry is. That was some bad law there. But, the principle is valid. Stealing is not right, just because it is music. Stealing is stealing. Many people don't know that they are doing it, and wouldn't steal a tank of gas. It is a matter of education. Again, if everyone had to live the life of a struggling musician for a month, they would understand.

Re: child abuse. Child abuse is sin. It is propogated by things readily available and heavily marketed in our culture. Beer, Booze, bunnies, etc. Yes it is a result of consumers buying into the wrong product/idea.

Look... I'm just a consumer. I'm not the one worried about getting my product sold, so I have NOTHING to lose. It is up to the artist to get me interested in their product and making it available. If the artist does something ridiculous like IMPLY that I the consumer am a crook and I'm some stupid impotent (and no I am NOT using the sexual definition of that word) not worthy of their time. Why would I want to purchase their product?

If I choose not to buy that product, how is it my fault? How does that make me a dirty lying thieving thief? If I do choose to purchase the product, how is it my fault that the artist gets a small share?

Let's go a legal route. Let's say that I chose to solely listen to public radio, watch VH1 or MTV, or some other public music channel (say the cable music channels). Recording said sources for my own PERSONAL listening enjoyment. Refusing to purchase any commercially available product. Am I still a lying dirty thief because of it?

Comeone give me a break I don't buy that, and it's a bunch of bull. The problem started LONG before piracy even remotely became a force. People really need to get their head out of the sand. It's sad, really sad.

I'm not complaining about the cost of the product. I'm certainly not complaining about what the artist gets. But I DO NOT consider it to be my fault that the ARTIST does not get what the are owed. That's all inherent in the system itself.

If it costs too much to make songs available for free or at 1 cents a song, then don't do it? It's not my fault. I didn't make it available. I'M A CONSUMER.

Your blaming the current crisis within the music industry on those thieving consumers who don't wanna pay anything. I think your giving too much credit to consumers in regards to stealing music. Believe me. I see it in the tech industry. I'm a big computer person and I see ALOT of cases where companies/people waaaay over charge for their services. So instead of doing the smart thing and telling them to stick it in their ear the customer/company continues to pay them these outrageous prices. Until they get sick of it and look into other alternatives like outsourcing.

Computer people have pretty much priced themselves out of their own market.

Certainly not a by product of the average guy on the street stealing groceries from the store. It's ALL internal..

Re: child abuse. Child abuse is sin. It is propogated by things readily available and heavily marketed in our culture. Beer, Booze, bunnies, etc. Yes it is a result of consumers buying into the wrong product/idea.

I'm talking about music and your going on a moral tangent about child abuse, beer, booze, and bunnies. I fail to see the correlation other than it is a sin. Those comments are way out of line and pretty much belong in a different conversation all together.

greenchili wrote:Look... I'm just a consumer. I'm not the one worried about getting my product sold, so I have NOTHING to lose. It is up to the artist to get me interested in their product and making it available. If the artist does something ridiculous like IMPLY that I the consumer am a crook and I'm some stupid impotent (and no I am NOT using the sexual definition of that word) not worthy of their time. Why would I want to purchase their product?

If I choose not to buy that product, how is it my fault? How does that make me a dirty lying thieving thief? If I do choose to purchase the product, how is it my fault that the artist gets a small share?

Let's go a legal route. Let's say that I chose to solely listen to public radio, watch VH1 or MTV, or some other public music channel (say the cable music channels). Recording said sources for my own PERSONAL listening enjoyment. Refusing to purchase any commercially available product. Am I still a lying dirty thief because of it?

Comeone give me a break I don't buy that, and it's a bunch of bull. People really need to get their head out of the sand. It's sad, really sad.

Re: child abuse. Child abuse is sin. It is propogated by things readily available and heavily marketed in our culture. Beer, Booze, bunnies, etc. Yes it is a result of consumers buying into the wrong product/idea.

I'm talking about music and your going on a moral tangent about child abuse, beer, booze, and bunnies. I fail to see the correlation other than it is a sin.

Tackle the main issue. How are you a consumer when music is free? How is an artist going to keep making music when the 98% market holder only pays the artist 1 cent per song, when people DO pay?