Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/07/09
There are actually 2 rights associated with a recorded song:
1. Master Right, or Phonoright (p) - this is the physical recording of the song. Typically owned by the record label (EMI, in this case).
2. Copyright (c) - this is the music and lyrics . Typically owned by the publisher/song writer (mostly Sony, in this case).
EMI generally doesn't license the Beatles' Master Rights. But...
...this is where it gets tricky.
US law allows for a compulsory mechanical license to be granted without the publisher's explicit consent, provided the royalties are properly paid and accounted for.
In other words, anyone can go out and cover any song that has been released to the public, provided they get a license from the US Copyright Office. The publisher doesn't get to say "no" - it is compulsory on the part of the publisher (they HAVE to grant it) and the rate is statutory (set by Congress - currently $0.091/use).
As an example, look at how many thousands of covers there are of "Come Together". Neither EMI nor Sony nor The Beatles "approved" many of those covers - but they are legal.
An .mp3 is generally considered eligible for a compulsory mechanical license, even though there is no physical media involved. This is where it gets dicey, because there are very specific things you can and can not do with an .mp3 when you license it in this matter. For example, it can't be streamed, it can't be synchronized with moving images, it can't be used for karaoke, etc. In any case...
IF the recordings were truly created by him (i.e., he did not sample the Master Recording but rather used his computer to recreate the recording) then he didn't need a Master Use license from EMI and...
IF all he did with these new recordings were sell them via a physical media or via a non-interactive download and...
IF he paid Sony/ATV (the publisher) the statutory compulsory license rate (currently $0.091 per use)...
THEN he has a case. His defense would argue that is no different than doing a cover, and they would have precedent on their side.
Granted, it's not a case I would want to argue, but it's not like he doesn't have a defense.
OK, that's probably way more than anyone wants to know about US Copyright Law and music licensing. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
Wait, is this the internet I'm used to? Get out of here! :)
Seriously though, thanks for that explanation, that is interesting. Nice to have it laid out in plain english, too. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
I think Hank will lose, as Bertone77 below states, because what he created was a derivative work. There's not even a creativity aspect to what he did - he started with the originals, processed them and developed something new. Classic derivative work.
11/07/09
11/07/09
This caveat is also why you may see a song is a registered to the record company or publisher instead of the artist themselves. #riaa
11/07/09
There are 2 rights associated with a song that has been recorded:
1. The copyright is designated as (c) and belongs to the author, which is typically the songwriter(s).
The songwriter(s) assigns a portion of this copyright to a music publisher in return for the publisher exploiting (in a good way) the copyright.
There is always only one (c) per song. Period. But the (c) only covers the words and music, not the Sound Recording (SR) or "Master" recording or phonoright (p).
2. The (p) covers the actual recorded interpretation of the song. It belongs typically to the record label, although artists who are powerful enough can negotiate to own the (p) in their recording contracts. There can be multiple (p) but only one per recording.
I know that sounds confusing, but here is an example:
"Come Together"
writers: John Lennon/Paul McCartney
(c) breakdown:
25% John Lenon (writer)
25% Paul McCartney (writer)
25% EMI Blackwood (*publisher)
25% Sony/ATV Tree (*publisher)
*Don't confuse these parties with EMI Records or Sony Records - for the purposes of this discussion they are different parties. If it helps you to keep it straight, substitute Blackwood Publishing" for EMI Blackwood" and "ATV/Tree" for Sony/ATV Tree.
Every time a copy of that song is sold in a mechanical form (CD, .mp3) $0.091 is split among those 4 parties equally or about $0.023 cents each.
So when The Beatles recorded "Come Together" on the Abbey Road, every time that album sold/sells the 4 parties listed above get about $0.023. But George Harrison gets nothing, nor does Ringo Starr, nor does the record label (EMI Records).
So how do those other parties, who clearly had a hand in making the Sound Recording getting paid?
OK, so hang with me...
Remember the other right associated with the song - (p)?
EMI Records owns the (p). They agree to share the income earned from the (p) with The Beatles.via a record contract.
I won't get into the breakdown, but when a record sells EMI Music is going to packet about $0.60 on the dollar, the distributor is going to pocket about $0.30 on the dollar and The Beatles are going to pocket about the remaining $0.10.
To recap, when Abbey Road sells, the income earned only from the song "Come Together" is:
John Lenon - $0.023 (c) + $0.025 (p) = $0.048
Paul McCartney - $0.023 (c) +$0.025 (p) = $0.048
Blackwood publishing - $0.023 (c) *only
ATV/Tree publishing - $0.023 (c) *only*
EMI Records - $0.025 (p) *only*
George Harrison - $0.025 (p) *only*
Ringo Starr - $0.025 (p) *only*
Multiple these monies out for multiple songs/record.
But what happens when another band, such as Big Mountain does a reggae cover of Come Together?
Well, there is a new (p) involved because Big Mountain re-recorded the song - they didn't use the same tracks as The Beatles for their reggae version - they made new tracks and thus a new (p)... which Big Mountain's record label likely owns.
What does that breakdown look like?
John Lenon - $0.023 (c) *only*
Paul McCartney - $0.023 (c) *only*
Blackwood publishing - $0.023 (c) *only
ATV/Tree publishing - $0.023 (c) *only*
These parties still get paid, because it is still their (c) - it is just a recorded different interpretation of John Lennon & Paul McCartney's words & music. I.e., it's the same song with a different track. Continuing:
Big Mountain's record label (whomever they may be) - $0.025 (p) *only*
Big Mountain - - $0.10 (p) *only*
Clearer?
Honestly, I come across people every day in the music industry who should know better, but still don't understand the difference between (c) and (p). Look on the back of any CD or at the liner notes and you will see both symbols.
It's why artists lose their shirts signing away publishing and or masters ownership. Because record companies *do* get this and use that knowledge to their advantage.
****** The More You Know ****** #riaa
11/07/09
Technically, however, all rights including the sound recording and composition can be covered under SR.
This is where copyright law gets a bit murky there (it took me a long while to fully understand the limitations and paperwork involved with obtaining a compulsory license). #riaa
11/07/09
Without getting into all the nuances, filing doesn't "give" you copyright it only provides you with prima fascia evidence in a dispute.
Regardless, (c) & (p) are treated differently when it comes to licensing them.
As you can deduce from my explanation above, if you owned both rights (you are both the author of the words & music *and* the author of the master recording) you could license (c) and chose not to license (p).
For example, as the licensor you might choose to do this in authorizing a cover recording. A new (p) is created which you don't own but you do get paid when the licensee uses your (c).
But the inverse wouldn't be true if the licensee were attempting to duplicate the actual Master recording in some manner . As the owner of both (c) & (p) you would have to grant the licensee (c) if you were licensing the (p).
For example, if a TV show wanted to use the actual Beatles Master recording of "Come Together" as background music in a scene, the TV show (licensee) would have to obtain both a Master Use (p) license and a Synchronization (c) license from the licensor... as well as performance license from a PRO, but we won't get into that here.
Don't feel too badly about not understanding all the limitations of music licensing. I have worked for major record labels, music publishers, and songwriters for over 15 years and currently do music industry education for a living and even I have a hard time keeping up.
IMO, the root of the problem centers on the fact that we are operating on a copyright law that hasn't been significantly updated since 1976. And who knew about the internet in '76 (besides Al Gore)?
Congress has been applying poor bandaids to the law since then (AHRA, DPRSRA, DMCA) when the whole law needs rewritten. Nobody has the stones to take it on, though, and the RIAA & MPAA are concerned with maintaining the status quo. #riaa
11/08/09
11/08/09
Thanks for all the info in advance; it'll help me out a lot. The music part of copyright is terribly difficult to comprehend (other parts of copyright law are no issue for me but music = O___o) #riaa
11/07/09
What Hank created is clearly a "derivative work" as defined by US copyright law. [en.wikipedia.org]
He did not create anythingnew, instead he stood on the shoulders of giants and "altered" it enough so that he could justify it in his mind that it was "original".
Hope he has a good lawyer to at least try to soften the blow of the book that is going to be thrown at him. #riaa
11/07/09
11/07/09
07/27/09
It has absolutelty nothing to do with the tablet. The tablet is mentioned off hand as another apple rumor. The article is about apple's plans to push whole albums instead of songs.
Actually the article doesn't make any sense at all. Its all about the CD project then they just kinda throw some of the same specs they've been rumoring since the beginning.
Guess it worked for them. They discovered the perfect way to write any apple article...
Something something something... new hardware.
Something something something...soon
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
Well you go boy! Show that defiance and keep that kindle of yours. *snickers*
07/27/09
e-ink screens tend to be easier on the eyes.
Myself? I don't use e-ink. Then again, my e-book reader of choice is a Motion Computing J3400.
07/27/09
Hope it works out favorably for the Mac folks.
New toys are always fun...usually.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
you know that mockup is sexy but it would never work, because in order to type you have to lay it down or you can hold it with one hand and type with the other, either way it's just not gonna work. the only other obvious option is doing it like Microsofts Origami concept where they have a thumb friendly keyboard on the side of the screen
like so:
07/27/09
For it to be that large and usable as a device to type on they've got to give us something different. I've always been partial to the keyboard on the back concept.
I had started throwing away the whole concept of an apple tablet. Then I started thinking of like the touchscreen iPod. Back in the day of the early rumors of a touchscreen iPod it was always with the same old iPod interface and even a virtual click wheel. What we actually got was different then anyone could of imagined. I think the tablet is going to be the same way.
07/27/09
07/27/09
The "iTablet" really hasn't made sense until now. It's a market that Apple hasn't yet gone into, just like the iPhone. And to be honest, I can't fucking wait for it.
My guess is it will be pretty much what the rumors are saying it will be. A touch screen 10-12" tablet that runs OSX. The only part I don't think will be completely true is the Verizon/ At&t subsidizing, and by completely true I mean it will be available to the tablet but not a marketing strategy and a main marketing ploy. Here's why: People don't want any more monthly fees right now and by making this a monthly fee, like a cell phone plan, the public will view it as an advanced iPhone, which I think is a direction where Apple is not going.
I think I will be slightly pricier that most netbooks, around the $700 range, and will aim at the same market as the iPhone did.
But most importantly is that I think Steve himself will introduce this tablet. I though he would be back for the 3GS but now I can see him introducing this tablet just as he did the iPhone. And I can't fucking wait.
07/27/09
07/27/09
07/27/09
Plus I am going to put one in my car dashboard for itunes/gps nav/email/skype im and voip/siriusxm/.
My main hope is that it allows simultaneous background applications, and uses the Iphone OS and not full leopard. I love the simplicity and consistency of the Iphone application controls.