Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RedHotJazz] The End Of The Red Hot Jazz Archive?... O NO!!!!

Expand Messages
  • Midgie
    By no stretch of the imagination can RedHot be considered a radio broadcasting station!! It is in fact an historical archive - and as great a work of art as
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 9 6:45 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      By no stretch of the imagination can RedHot be considered a radio
      broadcasting station!!

      It is in fact an historical archive - and as great a work of art as that of
      any of the greats featured there!!!
      It would be more than tragic to lose or even alter such an important asset
      to so many of us!
      Your love and dedication of the subject has created a great educational
      tool, which has enlightened and altered the perception of many and will
      continue to do so. It is one thing to discuss these artists and quite
      another to actually hear their performances in light of those discussions.

      All your work and efforts have been greatly appreciated Scott!

      Geneva Pepper


      On 6/26/07, Scott Alexander <scott@... > wrote:
      >
      > I decided not to take part in the 'Day of Silence' for US web radio but
      > I have serious concerns about continuing with hosting the Red Hot Jazz
      > Archive after July 15th of this year.
      >
      > What's your opinion folks? Any lawyers out there? Does anyone outside of
      > the USA want to take over the hosting of the site?


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • revry
      While I have never posted to this group before, I have been a member for a while and read the digest almost every day. There has been a lot of confusion
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 10 6:48 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        While I have never posted to this group before, I have been a member for a while and read
        the digest almost every day.

        There has been a lot of confusion regarding copyright law in the US involving music, and
        there are no single correct answers.

        Leaving aside the question of copyrights on compositions, yes, it is true that there was no
        national copyright on recorded musical performances ("phonorecordings") in the US until
        1977.

        However, there were individual state copyright laws for these things, especially in New
        York and California, where so many record companies existed. In 1977, all state
        copyrights converted to federal, with an interminable extension, which will probably be
        extended again and again, as long as companies like Disney have money to openly throw
        around Congress.

        Interestingly enough, Federal law states that individual artists (or their heirs) who sold
        their rights to companies (NOT "work for hire") have the right to claim the work as their
        own again within two years of the 56th year since the work's original creation, without
        going to court!

        Now anything older is trickier, since so much recorded music was never copyrighted even
        in states, and the performing artists never knew that their work MIGHT be copyrightable
        into the next century and left to their heirs.

        So as an example, let's say a company that currently claims to own the rights to a catalog
        of recorded music from the late 1920s, wants to claim royalties from a web site or internet
        radio station playing these tunes.

        If it came down to it, the law would protect the rights of each and every artist performing
        on the records, unless documentation could be found showing that, say, the band
        members all signed agreements handing over the rights of recorded musical performances
        (that they didn't know would be granted to them over fifty years later) to their label, or
        band leader, or whatever.

        So if it came to court, one could mess up the claims by bringing in descendants
        (grandchildren? great-grandchildren?) of the performers, claiming that they were entitled
        to their share, and did not give the record label the right to sue on their behalf!

        What a kettle of worms this could open up!

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


        There are many other issues involved. So-called "legal" web sites that claim that there is
        no public domain recorded music are full of baloney. At the very least, ALL Edison
        recordings were handed to the public domain in Thomas Edison's will (assuming he had
        the right to do so under current confusing law). The national Park Service actually hosts a
        wonderful site with freely downloadable Edison label recordings. The claims of near
        perpetual copyright on other pre-1977 music is dubious at best, with plenty of loopholes
        and contradictions in the laws.

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


        The United States recognizes "fair use" for copyrighted material, especially for academic
        use. A academically-oriented web site such as Redhotjazz.com is doing a public service,
        and may very well fall under the legal definition of a research library, which has certain
        latitudes built in to the law.

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

        The fair thing for redhotjazz.com to do would be to make it known that any company that
        currently has the rights to and is selling their recordings to the public, wants a song or
        song to be removed on those grounds, that the site will cooperate. Sleaze artists who
        have no rights and are trying to claim them by issuing quickie home-burned CDs, can
        safely be ignored...

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

        This only scratches the surface of the issues involved, but generally speaking,
        redhotjazz.com ought to be pretty safe continuing with its existence. I am not a lawyer,
        thogh, but there are plenty who will argue both sides of that.

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


        For those who are interested, my daily podcast, "Mister Ron's Basement"
        (http://slapcast.com/users/revry) features readings of public domain humorous stories,
        plus short snippets of old-time recordings (very short -- fair use!) as intros. Some of the
        recordings have come from redhotjazz.com, some from other sites such as jazz-on-
        line.com, and dozens of other sites, and others digitized from my own collection of 78s.

        Best,

        -=-Ron Evry-=-
      • Dan Van Landingham
        I ve never really understood just how copyright law where record companies work.I,too,hate the thought that RHJ will be going off the net.I ll ask my friend Al
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 10 2:34 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          I've never really understood just how copyright law where record companies work.I,too,hate the thought that RHJ will be going off the net.I'll ask my friend Al Hendrickson,who was con-
          stantly doing record dates in the '30s through 1980 when he and his late wife moved to North Bend,Oregon which is my home town.As I have stated before,the only thing I knew about laws and the record companies was where band singers were not a part of the union but they were automatically under contract to the label their boss-bandleader had signed with.I know of a couples:Ella Fitzgerald was Chick Webb's singer while Webb was under contract to Decca.When Ella cut three sides for Victor with Benny Goodman's band,Decca somehow got wind of the record date and threatened to sue Victor if the records weren't recalled.Not all of them were recalled;I have the entire session in my collection.Goodman should have known better:in order for Teddy Wilson,tied to Brunswick,could do sides with Victor,Benny had to cut some sides,at scale,for Brunswick which he did and the idea that he was paid no different than the other musicians on the date.He was not amused.Such is my knowledge of
          recording contract laws.I know of a couple more examples but that would take up too much space in an email or a blog.All in all,I hate to see the site close down.All of this reminds me of the "war" that ASCAP had with the radio stations.Ceasar Petrillo instigated it and after it was over,BMI was organised.Take it for what it's worth.

          revry <revry@...> wrote:
          While I have never posted to this group before, I have been a member for a while and read
          the digest almost every day.

          There has been a lot of confusion regarding copyright law in the US involving music, and
          there are no single correct answers.

          Leaving aside the question of copyrights on compositions, yes, it is true that there was no
          national copyright on recorded musical performances ("phonorecordings") in the US until
          1977.

          However, there were individual state copyright laws for these things, especially in New
          York and California, where so many record companies existed. In 1977, all state
          copyrights converted to federal, with an interminable extension, which will probably be
          extended again and again, as long as companies like Disney have money to openly throw
          around Congress.

          Interestingly enough, Federal law states that individual artists (or their heirs) who sold
          their rights to companies (NOT "work for hire") have the right to claim the work as their
          own again within two years of the 56th year since the work's original creation, without
          going to court!

          Now anything older is trickier, since so much recorded music was never copyrighted even
          in states, and the performing artists never knew that their work MIGHT be copyrightable
          into the next century and left to their heirs.

          So as an example, let's say a company that currently claims to own the rights to a catalog
          of recorded music from the late 1920s, wants to claim royalties from a web site or internet
          radio station playing these tunes.

          If it came down to it, the law would protect the rights of each and every artist performing
          on the records, unless documentation could be found showing that, say, the band
          members all signed agreements handing over the rights of recorded musical performances
          (that they didn't know would be granted to them over fifty years later) to their label, or
          band leader, or whatever.

          So if it came to court, one could mess up the claims by bringing in descendants
          (grandchildren? great-grandchildren?) of the performers, claiming that they were entitled
          to their share, and did not give the record label the right to sue on their behalf!

          What a kettle of worms this could open up!

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

          There are many other issues involved. So-called "legal" web sites that claim that there is
          no public domain recorded music are full of baloney. At the very least, ALL Edison
          recordings were handed to the public domain in Thomas Edison's will (assuming he had
          the right to do so under current confusing law). The national Park Service actually hosts a
          wonderful site with freely downloadable Edison label recordings. The claims of near
          perpetual copyright on other pre-1977 music is dubious at best, with plenty of loopholes
          and contradictions in the laws.

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

          The United States recognizes "fair use" for copyrighted material, especially for academic
          use. A academically-oriented web site such as Redhotjazz.com is doing a public service,
          and may very well fall under the legal definition of a research library, which has certain
          latitudes built in to the law.

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

          The fair thing for redhotjazz.com to do would be to make it known that any company that
          currently has the rights to and is selling their recordings to the public, wants a song or
          song to be removed on those grounds, that the site will cooperate. Sleaze artists who
          have no rights and are trying to claim them by issuing quickie home-burned CDs, can
          safely be ignored...

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

          This only scratches the surface of the issues involved, but generally speaking,
          redhotjazz.com ought to be pretty safe continuing with its existence. I am not a lawyer,
          thogh, but there are plenty who will argue both sides of that.

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

          For those who are interested, my daily podcast, "Mister Ron's Basement"
          (http://slapcast.com/users/revry) features readings of public domain humorous stories,
          plus short snippets of old-time recordings (very short -- fair use!) as intros. Some of the
          recordings have come from redhotjazz.com, some from other sites such as jazz-on-
          line.com, and dozens of other sites, and others digitized from my own collection of 78s.

          Best,

          -=-Ron Evry-=-






          ---------------------------------
          Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • AJ Azure
          It gets even more complicated when you realize you re dealing with two different income streams of music copyright. Mechanicals AND performance rights. That s
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 10 3:26 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            It gets even more complicated when you realize you're dealing with two
            different income streams of music copyright. Mechanicals AND performance
            rights. That's why net audio is so complicated. Is it one or the other or
            both or something brand new?

            You're potentially dealing with songwriters/composers, arrangers, producers,
            publishing companies, record companies, etc. all wanting their palm's share
            of the money, Even on old music.

            _Adriel
          • David Richoux
            Don t forget the recording musicians in your list of outstretched palms! The AFM is in total support of anything that will get their folks a few more pennies
            Message 5 of 5 , Jul 10 8:37 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Don't forget the recording musicians in your list of outstretched
              palms! The AFM is in total support of anything that will get their
              folks a few more pennies per play. Under some versions of these laws
              we have seen, radio stations (broadcast AND Internet) will have to
              provide (for every song played) album and song title, recording date,
              the names of the lead artists, sidemen, producers, engineers, the
              coffee Gofer and the janitors that cleaned up the studio... well,
              maybe not the last two.

              Just imagine how hard that is for a station like KFJC - we get
              recordings from all over the world, independently produced with liner
              notes (if they even exist) in a multitude of languages (including
              symbols, puns, illegible scribbles and finger prints - I am not
              making this up!) We have a staff of about 60 student/volunteers - the
              task of providing all of that data to the government approved
              mobsters would overwhelm a station like KFJC. We have over 600,000
              LPs and other vinyl records in our library that were made before CDs
              and the "Digital Revolution" and even newer releases do not have all
              the info. Many groups have declared, in writing, that they do not
              want to be represented by this system - they probably would never
              have seen a penny of it anyway...

              David RIchoux
              (23+ year vol DJ at KFJC FM)


              On Jul 10, 2007, at 3:26 PM, AJ Azure wrote:

              > It gets even more complicated when you realize you're dealing with two
              > different income streams of music copyright. Mechanicals AND
              > performance
              > rights. That's why net audio is so complicated. Is it one or the
              > other or
              > both or something brand new?
              >
              > You're potentially dealing with songwriters/composers, arrangers,
              > producers,
              > publishing companies, record companies, etc. all wanting their
              > palm's share
              > of the money, Even on old music.independently
              >
              > _Adriel
              >
              >
              >
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.