Pretty soon they’ll make it illegal to know these songs, let alone play them in public.
I know it can be frustrating, but as a songwriter myself, I want songwriters to get paid. I’m not upset with paying the royalties by any means, but I am upset with how difficult it can be.
I think it would be great if you could teach a lesson on one of your originals, like the one played at 0:08 in this video.
This is what’s wrong with the world today (at least here in th U.S. anyway)… Crooked laywers that “legally” work… No, twist the system to hurt people trying to make an honest living!!! They’re literally watching and waiting for good people to make any tiny slip up or mistake, then they attack! All this, while thieves, rapists and murderers and getting set free (or not arrested at all) because of some technicality!! So what?!.. Somebody taught a song to someone without a copyright?! Did anyone get hurt from this? Did anyone really lose anything or die because an innocent person learned a song from someone that was trying to be nice and teach it to someone else?!
I guess I just don’t understand. But I do know this: Our government and many lawyers, not all (there are good lawyers too) can write laws and create rules and regulations to purposely hurt people and make it ridiculously hard to be in a small business. I say, get back to common sense! Look at what is really right and wrong, you know like what our parents taught us, or better yet, what’s in God’s Word and get rid of all the petty so called crimes that most people don’t even realize they’re comitting and get a life!
One more thing: If I wrote a song that someone wanted to teach to someone else that wanted to learn, instead of calling my lawyer, I think I would be honored. Wouldn’t this actually benefit me more? Yeah, so a guy taught a song I wrote and made a few dollars. Doesn’t that bring me more recognition which in turn would lead to more money for me? Good grief… Do these people have to have it all? Are they that greedy or do they just not want anyone else to benefit from something they did? The song is already written, sold, put on a CD and listened to. I don’t see how an outside person teaching this song is taking away anyting at all from the writer or performer.
So, I suppose it’s pretty much like two small kids with one toy: "That’s my toy! Give it back, it’s mine! You can’t have it!
Sorry, just had to let off a little steam! I drive a truck and believe me, I’ve seen more than my share of petty, meaningless laws that are simply established to create more money and I see this as something similar.
That is, in fact, the most common reason for regulations. People think it’s to protect consumers. It’s way more often to protect big business interests.
I feel like the public is starting to wake up to that fact, though.
Thanks for your passion! The lawyers do get paid well, but it’s the publishers who call the lawyers and pay them to work.
The composers and songwriters get the smallest slice of the cake.
That’s the sad part. @BanjoBen is welcome to teach my songs, as they aren’t officially copyrighted. I should probably get them copyrighted though. This world is so complicated.
Check out the lesson on Hannah’s song, it’s a Ben original
Anyway,how long is a tune protected by copyrights in the US ?
“Anyway,how long is a tune protected by copyrights in the US ?”
@Mark_Rocka would be the best source for that info.
I wish it were an easy answer, but we all know that’s not how lawyers work. Hopefully this will explain it.
Opps that page is not available
Thanks Ben and y’all for the detailed insight into why it is so troublesome to deliver music that is copyrighted and i can agree why that maybe being a songwriter myself. It is a minefield and yes… you should take precautions to protect yourself especially from jealous competitors and the like.
You are the best for sure at what you do and i bet its really frustrating navigating this issue
It is not just today, that is how it is all along… The bible says so!
Maybe the warning is to establish motive, that you knowingly do it, without which there might not be much chance for winning in a federal court. Also I do not see the punishment fit the crime. For example, how one is supposed to know Scruggs stuff is copyrighted. One might get it from an audio or video, now do they explicitly say they are copyrighted? Or is there a e-verification or such things for copyright? If not, it is unreasonable to punish someone without proper and prior warning. In such cases, imo, it is against natural law, and hence a possible constitutional violation, therefore must be defend-able if there will be any honest lawyers.
Well, the ones that do, are risking lawsuits. I can say that Bill Nesbitt’s version is different than the actual Scruggs version; I’m not sure if that has any impact on the situation.
It comes down to the question, does an artist have the rights to his own work and is he entitled to keep earning an income on his own creations? I think yes. Even though Earl has passed, his body of work is still owned by his estate, his family. Are they entitled to protect that property? Sure, why not?
To clarify though, I think I’m correct in saying that @BanjoBen’s limitation is in “teaching” the song. There are plenty of tabs available from various sources and you certainly could ask Ben if he has a particular tab and if he could send it to you. Someone correct me if I’m wrong.
The question is, did Earl protect his works by copyright when he was alive? If not, it is no longer private property, it is public property, and no further work upon involving this his works should be allowed to be protected by copyright, imo. Is that not fair expectation??
Oh he did, yes. But, if he hadn’t, you probably have a point.
Earl’s Book containing the TABs (Which it is my understanding Earl didn’t actually create himself) was Published by Hal Leonard as I mentioned earlier I do believe Hal Leonard is one publisher that’s seeks to recover royalties due on any of their published materials.
And as @MissMaggie rightly points out Earl’s work, money and property passed to the benefactors contained in his will.
Archie/Maggie/Anyone, a question if you think you can answer it.
So Earl copyrights his work, leaves it to his family, and the family sells it to a publisher, and the publisher uses it “as is” or builds upon it for their business revenue. Now the publisher, the one who holds the copyright, uses a computer/software for their publishing work. Now can the rights be allowed to be automatically transferred to or taken up by the computer/software firm for no charge from an simple acceptance to computer/software use agreement??