Copyright warning - bloggers!

Subject: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:17 PM

I don't know if this will affect anyone here, but I thought I'd post this anyway.

The other night I was idling around, googling my own name, (as you do) and I found a reference to my music on someone's blog. The blogger had recommended my album "A Flame in Avalon" and my early recording as Anonyma "Burnt Feathers" to his readers and had posted a link to a file sharing site on which he had kindly placed both albums for free downloads. Now, although I'm happy for people to listen to my music I rather prefer to be in charge of what's given away for free, and there's an additional concern as well, as the copyright to "Burnt Feathers" is held by Fellside and I'm not allowed myself to copy the album or make it available for downloads.
Anyway, although it wasn't clear how to contact the blogger directly we were able to contact the file sharing site and point out that this was an abuse of copyright - they acted immediately to remove the albums and must have let the blogger know why, as he then posted a comment to the effect that he realised I was angry about it all. My husband has tried leaving him a comment in turn to point out just why, and to suggest he direct his readers to legitimate download sites if he's a fan of mine - he says he won't do that as it's "too much to ask". Some fan, you might think!

So this is a heads up for others ... the site involved is on a blogging site called Lost in Tyme, and there are other bloggers on that site making free with all kinds of music. As I said, I don't know if any other Mudcatters are involved, but I did also manage to point out the problem to my former musical partner Mary McLaughlin, whose album was posted up by the same chap. So it might be worth googling your own names once in a while and checking out anything you're not sure of.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: andrewq
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:37 PM

It's also maybe worth using the "Flag Blogger" button at the top of dubious blogger sites. In theory if enough people flag a page as objectionable (because it has illegal content) then Blogger will do something about it. Not sure if Blogger (i.e. Google) really cares, but that's the theory.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 06:51 PM

I suppose some of these people think that because they post compliments, as well as your album, they are 'doing you a favor'...and you should be grateful.

Sometimes I think that they do it because the technology exists and they want to "do" something to be part of it...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:10 PM

Locate them and have a little talk. In person. Up close. (But then I ain't 'too long outta the trees' to quote Archie Bunker.)

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: artbrooks
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:12 PM

Looks like the Rapidshare people, who host the download site, have had a lot of comments (dare I hope that they were from Mudcatters?). All of the folk albums pointed to by Lost in Tyme are posted as "download forbidden-complaint received".

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Peace
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 07:27 PM

I suspect that the record companies whose material is on his site be informed.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: folk1e
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:27 PM

maybe inform PRS?
or is that just nasty?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 27 Aug 07 - 08:45 PM

slight thread creep - if you have a look at the thread on The Whale by (Terry) Fielding & (Fred) Dyer you can see zillions of folks, usually with hotmail addresses, looking for an MP3 of this great song.

Fred & Terry have both posted as Guests on this thread saying they are selling a CD containing this song, and No 1 fan (me!) & a few other fans have also posted saying buy the CD, but still they ask for a freebie.

buying a CD must also be too hard.

sandra

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:04 AM

I did have one response from a fellow UK performer who suggested I should be flattered that my music was getting out there, and that he would be delighted if his music was getting onto lots of iPods even if he wasn't receiving any money for it, because it represented a marketing opportunity. The flaws in this point of view are (a) you would have no idea if your music was on any iPods or 10,000, so it's not flattering OR informative and (b) how can you market to an audience when you don't know if they exist and if they exist, then where and who they are?

I think my "fan" did intend his efforts to be complimentary - what he didn't seem to understand was how it wasn't in the slightest way legal, ethical or helpful, when it's quite easy these days to be all three.

Anyway, here on Mudcat we're all singing in harmony, at least!

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Megan L
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:02 AM

While posting an entire album was wrong even if it was meant genuinely as a compliment I do wish more artistswould place perhaps single tracks from their albums online. The reason well where i live we dont get the chance to be exposed to many artists and i am on disability so don't have money to waste allowing a track to be heard would give people like me an idea if we would like the artist before forking out what can be quite a chunk out of our weekly budget.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:05 AM

Anne, a point in your first posting was well made - while may be some benefit in making some of your music available for free, YOU SHOULD BE IN CONTROL of that process! That's exactly what copyright is about: not that nobody's allowed to copy anything, but that the making of copies is something for which only you have the power to give permission.

Anyway, I'm glad it's been resolved - I saw your earlier posting in another forum when you hadn't yet got any recognition that there was a problem.

Somebody mentioned PRS - why should that be nasty? PRS exists to protect such rights, and PRS are involved in the production of recorded material as well as live performance, though as this is a mechanical copyright issue, the closely related MCPS is more relevant in this case.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: folk1e
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 04:21 AM

Nasty .... as in nasty to them (the freeloaders).
If they have to pay the royalties, I suspect the performers would be only too pleased for everyone to have "free coppy"

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 07:03 AM

We did a quick check this morning and yes, most folk performers on Lost in Tyme have clearly pulled their albums off Rapidshare(including Fairport)- the reason I posted this, though, was that if it can happen on one blogging site it could, presumably, happen on others too.

The trouble with notifying PRS or the MU (various helpful suggestions) is that the site is multi-national, the blogger carefully conceals his identity and how to contact him directly and this sort of thing is notoriously difficult to control.

Anyway, it's acting as a spur for me to get more copies made of the album concerned, get it to CDBaby and get it digitally distributed. And/or to put it on my own pages, independently.

Megan, if you go to most of the digital download sites you can listen before you spend very much (if anything) and then choose whether to download albums or single tracks. Also on MySpace there are generally three or four songs on artists' pages which you can certainly listen to for no charge.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:27 AM

Thankyou for alerting us.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Colin Randall
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:34 AM

I think nicking someone's music in this way - especially if it's the whole album - is beyond the pale, but copyright is a strange beast.

You get people uploading their own stuff voluntarily to YouTube or wherever, and it's there for a totally random audience to see and hear, and presumably to copy over and again

My own struggles occur mostly with still photography: each of my blogs makes plentiful use of Flickr. The need to use is usually instantaneous (or at least same day), but most Flickr members don't sit all day in front of screens waiting for requests. So I post first, ask afterwards, always promising to remove an image if its use offends.

In 98 per cent of cases, the response is positive: people like the fact their work has been shown elsewhere, with due credit given. They probably also realise I am unlikely ever to get rich, or even necessarily break even, running blogs.

But the few who DO object can be incredibly pompous about their rights, even though they have not bothered to make the easy security settings that would make it obvious their pix were not for use elsewhere. I am true to my word and remove such images asap, but am always left wondering why anyone whose pictures appear with notes saying Blog This or This Photo is Public (or similar) should then be surprised that someone takes them at face value. Yet the laws of copyright presumably protect them every much as the unfortunate victims of pirated recordings.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:55 AM

File sharing is very common obviously on the net.

The only answer I have discovered is to see "reasonable" filing sharing as a sort of advertising and to try to work out a way to capitalise on it. I think the trick is to try and use it rather than spend ALL the time fighting it. Not talking about serious abuse of your copywrite of course.

The way to get to the possible punters that may want your stuff on their ipod is to blog on the same site that the original blogger was on.

If you give away some tracks free they will soon come to you

I have had very good experience with CDBaby and their non exclusive digital distribution (Not that I sell a lot!!!! just they have been good to deal with) so that is a route that I can recommend.

Other possibility is to look at a creative commons type license that gives people to permission to copy BUT NOT TO SELL.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 08:58 AM

I am me (mattkeen)!

And the previous guest post was me to - had to reset cookie


Ta

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 09:22 AM

"If you give away some tracks free they will soon come to you"

Agreed, but that's a very different kettle of fish from having someone else give away your tracks with out asking, and in this case it was the whole album, and the person who did it had no right (i.e. copyright) to do so.

Creative commons is also fine if you that's what you want but (a) you have to release with the Creative Commons license in the first place and (b) anyone who copies your work must read, respect and pass on that license with any copies they make.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Geoff Wallis
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 01:48 PM

The same thing is happening with The Celtic Circle http://www.celticcircle.proboards55.com/ which offers numerous links to copywritten material, usually held by Rapidshare. I've alerted several musicians I know whose material is being made available, nobody's managed to stop Rapidshare hosting those files yet.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 28 Aug 07 - 03:37 PM

You might not be able to stop Rapidshare from hosting the files altogether, but they were very quick to drop the albums when I asked them to. They were also apologetic. They need to be told the URL of the blog where the link is, and probably have some assurance that the person telling them is the owner of the copyrighted material. Or working on behalf of the owner.

It's the blog site that is more of a problem than the file sharing site, as far as I can see. Google, who host many blog sites, seem to require notice in writing (so not an email) as well as a lot of substantive detail before they'll act, which is why I went directly to Rapidshare.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Genie
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:11 PM

An aside: (Pedant alert!)

For what it's worth, this discussion is about "copyright" (authorship/ownership protection), not to be confused with "copywrite" (which has to do with printing or typing verbal material).

Back to the discussion.

I agree that bloggers need to seek the permission of copyright holders before "sharing" other people's songs on the web.   And the artists themselves have a dilemma: where is the line between giving away 'samples' (as advertising and promo) and sabotaging your business by removing people's incentive to pay for your product?

I think the practice of providing short (but not too short) sound clips from songs can go a long way towards solving that problem.    If you can make available, free, a clip that's long enough to really demonstrate how good a song is, but not long enough to be a good substitute for buying the song, that would seem to serve both purposes (advertising and encouraging people to spend $ on your songs).

I kind of wonder why a blogger who claims to be someone's "fan" would not use a short clip on the site instead of "sharing" the whole song.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:18 PM

Thanks, Genie - my thoughts entirely!

And of course, those of us with MySpace pages do give people the chance to listen to some songs for free - and my own website has a few clips on it, as well.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 12:47 PM

The pefect solution to this is can be found at Woven Wheat Whispers which is a label for folk download albums where the artist has complete control over their material.

For example, I have a number of 'freebies' up there and can charge as much as I like for the other stuff. That I charge a mere £3.75 an album is becase of a) my relative obscurity & b) the somewhat esoteric nature of much of the stuff I do. Besides which, £3.75 is the price sticker that still clings to my original vinyl copy of Man's 'Back Into the Future' as it has done since it came out in 1973 - a fair price for non-corporeal copy.

There's all manner of goodies over at WWW - Jez Lowe included - so pay a visit & have a root around, and should you be curious as to what Eleanor's Visceral Tomb sounds like, then check the "Lady, Hap Yer Lingcan" EP which is entirley gratis (as seems reasonable for a 17 minute improvisation on the ballad of King Henry (Child #32) bookended by 'catering ambience' field-recorded in the Chapter House of York Minster...).

All this and John Barleycorn Reborn too - what more can you ask for?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 03:31 PM

Sedayne, there are several ways for performers who want to keep control of their material to put things out for the public. This thread, however, is about bloggers who consider that having bought a copy of an album they have the right (even duty?) to put it on a file sharing site so that everyone can have a free copy. Which means the performer has no control whatsoever of their own material. So Woven Wheat Whispers isn't a solution to this problem!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:00 PM

yes if people want to hear me ,I have selected three tracks that are available on my websitehttp://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 04:05 PM

I agree with Tabster,I do not want anyone putting my recordings,on any site, without my permission,it is galling enough to see albums of mine being advertised at extortionate prices on e bay.
This sort of chicanery should have no place in the folk world.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 29 Aug 07 - 11:57 PM

Foolish, foolish people!!!

If only you realized the exposure you are receiving for free.

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 02:00 AM

"If only you realized the exposure you are receiving for free."

... some of which those people would have PAID for if they coudl not get it ALL for free...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Genie
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:17 AM

What Captain Birdseye said.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 04:43 AM

Its actually VERY unlikely that the people who are getting tracks for free would have come and paid for them otherwise.

They just wouldn't have come across you.

I personally find clips irritating even 1 minute ones. Better to give away a track or two.

Others giving away whole albums is, of course, a serious abuse, but we have to find away to make it work to our advantage. Unfortunately you will not be able to stop it completely.

In any case we have all been doing something similar for decades - can anybody say they have not got unpaid for copies (inc old cassettes!) of their mates paid for albums. Not that this excuses it, just saying it is not entirely new phenomena. The scale has changed perhaps.

Finally, I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people out their listening to my stuff!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:30 AM

I suggested Woven Wheat Whispers because it represents the only fully-formed download based label entirely given over to folk music, thus interfacing with the on-line culture where blogging, for better or worse, is par for the course.

People have always made tapes of their favourite albums for their mates; these days they do it on their blogs for their virtual mates, where ripping and uploading an entire CD can be done in a matter of minutes. No harm in it - if people blog stuff, they do it out of a desire to convince others of the significance of the music rather than to defraud the artist (which is job far better done by the labels) - after all, it's not as if they're making any money out of it themselves.

Bootlegging has always existed in one form or another, often throwing up an entirely alternative (and infinitely preferable) perspectives on the artists than the one offered to us by their labels - assuming they bother to offer us one at all, such as in the case of the numerous Peter Bellamy albums presently languishing in the vaults of Topic (and others) to the extent that even in his lifetime Peter was forced to bootleg himself.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:16 AM

"No harm in it "

That's just your opinion - that's the whole point of the discussion...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 11:11 AM

Making a copy for your mates is one thing - putting it on a file sharing site where there are no limits to how many people get hold of it is quite another. The copy for your mates was always illegal and unethical as well, as it happens.

As to making it work to our advantage - how? If the performer has no way of finding out who has shown interest in their material or obtained a copy of this free album, just how can it be used in marketing or promo? As the site is international, there's not even the inducement of thinking perhaps the downloaders might show up at a concert some time.

And in my case, there's no "label" for me to be concerned about. The album is entirely my own copyright and entirely my own investment, which means anyone giving away copies without my knowledge and permission is ripping me off directly.

I'm not sure what moral perspective people are adopting if they're saying that (a) this has always happened and this is just the modern version and (b) I should be grateful that someone likes my music so much that they want to give it to all their friends rather than feeling they'd like to support my work by actually encouraging their friends to BUY THEIR OWN COPY. It's simply not good enough to say that record labels have ripped artists off so it's fine for fans to do the same, regardless of whether there is, actually, an exploitative record label involved. And in fact as the fan in question had obviously read my album notes there is no reason to suppose he was ignorant of the fact that I am a one person business.

As to the "clips" argument - this is a new technology thing as well, isn't it, because apart from some listening booths in some record shops in the past there was never the chance to listen before you purchase. It certainly doesn't justify downloading instead of purchasing, does it?

Finally, MattKeen ... you might or might not love it if and when it happens to you, but the problem is that you will have no idea whether it's one person or several hundred thousand listening to your product, what they think of it or how to get in touch with them. You might, on the other hand, suddenly realise that the album you spent a lot of money on making is somehow not recouping your investment (not many folkies make much of a profit on their albums) and unless you have other sources of income this might mean that's the end of your recording career. My own album sales go directly towards paying for the next recording - loss of income matters to me, mercenary that I am.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 12:26 PM

Very nice site, Captain Birdseye...and I think that 3rd CD "Around the Harbor Town" may be one I have to have...and perhaps also for my son for Xmas, as he is rapidly learning about this type of music.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:46 PM

Y'know- the interesting thing (to me) is that if CD producers were willing to settle for low (MP3) fidelity and didn't have to print booklets, tray cards and inserts, CDs could be a helluva lot cheaper. Is that whatmost people buying music really want?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Val
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 05:56 PM

A copyright notice will not stop dishonest people from ripping you off. Imbedded anti-piracy software might slow down some dishonest people for a little while, but will annoy a lot of honest ones. So basically if you have a product that CAN be easily copied, most likely someone WILL copy it.

However...
I would like to think most people who listen to music (especially folk-ish stuff) are generally honest. Do you think that if they were gently reminded that unauthorized copying is wrong and can be hurtful to the ARTIST (rather than to a faceless corporate behemoth), that they might be a little more respectful?

Creative Commons does not attribute any greater, less, or different control than does regular Copyright. However CC is trying to make a more convenient & user-friendly system by which creators can communicate how much they are willing to allow consumers to use their stuff, with what restrictions, and also how to contact the creator for permission for further use. CC has no enforcement ability - if someone wants to abuse or ignore a creator's rights, it doesn't matter whether the work is registered with the Copyright office, Creative Commons, or anyone else. You the copyright holder must use the legal system (or vigilante methods? Naw, I wouldn't suggest that) to pursue justice.

I suspect most people are honest consumers who are confused about copyright and/or feel some faceless profiteering Corporations are being overly draconian toward the mostly-innocent public rather than going to the trouble to pursue the serious criminals or those who intentionally flaut the law. Perhaps most consumers just need a gentle nudge to encourage them to do the right thing?

Printing a copyright notice on the CD jacket - even if it is in big print and in an obvious location - will not do much good if only the sound files are ripped and distributed without at least an image of the entire jacket.

Alas, I suspect to get the reminder out to those who need it and would benefit from it, you might have to record a verbal reminder at the front or back of every song on an album - something to the effect of "All rights to this recording are reserved. Unauthorized copying is naughty. If you want to make a copy, contact me at xxxxx and we'll discuss it". Of course, that would rather spoil the flow of the music, wouldn't it?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 09:36 PM

A small moutain (say an imperial ton) of 78's landed, in person, on my doorstep this week.

I also have artists acknowleging you-tube,e-mule and dozen other SHARE sites....even if a person is close friend.....I will post them....if (they received on sale from me....perhaps five others will follow.)

Sincerely,
Gargoyle

just experienced (not good/ not bad) "out of body experience - eating Skippy's Peanut Butter What a ru7sh.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Aug 07 - 10:13 PM

You make about as much sense as ever, garg.... but whoever said coherence was required to own a computer?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:26 AM

I have been following this thread with growing fascination and what has struck me most is the difference in attitude between that of most of the contributors and virtually all the traditional singers it has been my good fortune to meet and record
Wherever we went we were struck with the breathtaking generosity of people who were more than happy to pass on their songs in order to ascertain that they did not die - here, it seems, we are little short of having burglar alarms and guard dogs (not to mention copyright laws) in order to ascertain that performers are not 'ripped off'. Is the singing of folk-songs really so lucrative to require such lengths?
We decided when we started collecting back in the seventies that we would make our collection as available as possible, so we deposited it in the (then) British Institute of Recorded Sound in order to facilitate this. The only restrictions we place were those few requested by our informants (usually very personal information).
Anything we have acheived over the last thirty odd years has been entirely due to generosity (often of people living on or below the breadline).
We have tried to adopt an attitude beautifully summed up by Walter Pardon when, on hearing two folk 'superstars' squabbling over who should record one of his songs, "they're not mine, they're everybody's".
We have been involved in the production of about half-a-dozen albums of field recordings and I find myself totally in agreement with Matt Keen when he writes "Finally, I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people out their listening to my stuff!"
We are at present working to set up a local archive of field recordings and our ultimate aim is to make as much as possible available on line. Perhaps we are being a trifle hasty - please advise.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:51 AM

Jim, there is a world of difference between someone giving permission for their work to be distributed and someone else assuming that permission without asking.

Also the traditional singers you refer to mostly did not try to make a living out of their singing, and as in your Walter Pardon quote, they don't "own" the songs.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 05:22 AM

Jin Carroll said: 'We are at present working to set up a local archive of field recordings and our ultimate aim is to make as much as possible available on line. Perhaps we are being a trifle hasty - please advise.'

Please don't be put off from your plans, Jim - it sounds as if you are attempting to develop a welcome and worthwhile resource that will continue to keep these songs available - the internet as 'song carrier', if you like.

I'd strongly suggest you get in contact with the folks from Woven Wheat Whispers Contact WWW who have set up a successful legal folk download site from scratch in the past couple of years. I'm also aware they are normally more than happy to share their knowledge and skills with others in the folk community.

There is information about their rationale etc on their 'help' page, if you want to check 'em out before you contact them: What they're about! . I think they're coming from a good place. This isn't an ad for them, btw, so sorry if it comes across that way. It's just an attempt to offer positive support to Jim's project.

On a different note, Tabster wrote 'the copy for your mates was always illegal and unethical as well, as it happens.' Whilst you're right of course, are you honestly saying you've NEVER copied an album for a friend or recieved a copy? Ever? And what about this: a few years ago, a friend copied me an album by the Willard Grant Conspiracy. I liked it so much that I now own paid-for copies of every album they've ever done, including the one that was burned for me. That's money I would never have spent without participating in an 'unethical' act.

I think artists should do what's right for them when they find out about bloggers giving their stuff away without consent. Some will be outraged and act accordly, some will be pleased. I think however, the best remedy is to find as many online outlets you approve of as possible and use them to the hilt - i.e. make it easier for people to find your stuff from an authorised rather than unauthorised outlet. There are great resources already out there! In that context, I think it's a bit unfair to dismiss Sedayne's helpful suggestion about Woven Wheat Whispers - it's worked for him and many other artists in terms of both free and paid-for content.

Finally, Tabster asserts that 'in the past there was never the chance to listen before you purchase'. Not so! People have always been able to hear music before they buy to some extent. Most decent independent record stores would always play stuff for you, you could hear it at friends' houses or on the mix tapes they did for you(!)... but now that I can listen to music online and properly preview it, I certainly spend more on music than I used to. And do you know what? My collection is no longer full of crushingly awful records bought on spec.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Val
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 12:35 PM

Nigel Spencer wrote:
"...are you honestly saying you've NEVER copied an album for a friend or recieved a copy? "

I suspect most of us have been guilty of breaking the law now and again. For example, there are very few who drive cars who can swear they have NEVER exceeded the legal speed limit. On the other hand, most of us would not drive 80 MPH past a school where the speed limit is posted as 25 MPH. Those who violate the law to a great extent really ought to be prosecuted more severely than the occasional minor offender. That does not mean the minor offender is "legal", and maybe not even "right", but it's probably not worth worrying about. At some point, though, the reasons for the laws become apparent and it is important to enforce them.

To think of an issue as entirely binary, black-or-white, right-or-wrong, can lead to polarization and extremism. (You can see how well THAT works by looking at some of the politics in the world today - but that's a whole different discussion).

The Recording Industry is taking the extreme stance of "All unauthorized copying must be stopped". Some Internet users are taking the extreme stance that "All information, and especially all entertainment, should be freely available to everyone with no restrictions or cost". Somewhere in between is a reasonable, rational, and fair balance. Organizations like Creative Commons are trying to encourage development, definition, and use of that middle ground.

I am also recalling a thread from a while back on "Ethical Collecting". Most participants in that discussion seemed to agree that a song should not be collected & published without at least asking permission of the Source. If the Blogger who prompted this thread had followed similar ethics, we might not need to have this discussion.

Just my two bits' worth, as always.

Val

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 31 Aug 07 - 03:10 PM

Just a couple of points: first of all, I have very rarely (if ever) copied someone else's album for a friend myself. I can't think of an example of when I did, which is why I say "if ever". I have made compilations for my own use in the car and ensured friends heard them, or played albums for friends, but that's a little different. I may be alone in this but at least I can put my hand on my heart and say I've stood true to my ideals on this one.

Secondly, I understand Jim Carroll's point of view entirely, but there is a difference between field recordings of trad singers and recordings of my own songs, made in the studio with musicans, engineer, materials and studio time to be paid for, taken from a CD or vinyl copy which has also taken money to create. Jim and the trad singers may be in total agreement about putting their music out in the world for as many as will. In this case I wasn't asked for permission or even notified that it was happening - I discovered it by pure chance. There's also an issue with the album "Burnt Feathers", for which the copyright resides with Fellside. I have had correspondence with Fellside as to whether I can distribute cassette or CD versions of this album myself, and the answer is that I can do this only on payment of a (fairly hefty) fee and only in limited numbers. Bear in mind these are still my songs, I'm still performing them and it's still our arrangements of the material, but the recordings belong to Fellside. And yet the blogger is happily giving this away as well.

There is no need to exaggerate anything that I've said into "burglar alarms and guard dogs". However, copyright law DOES exist, internationally, even, and should be respected - unless the creator of the intellectual property gives their express permission for a waiver.

Thirdly, yes, the technology makes a difference now between whether you can hear an album via friends, via a listening post in a shop, via the radio or via a website. As I've said before, in the case of my own music there are clips and whole songs available legally on line already, so no one is expected to buy without hearing at least some of the material. I'm afraid none of these points makes it right or justifiable for someone else to take my material and effectively give it away for free.

Finally, I didn't dismiss Woven Wheat Whispers, I just said that it wasn't actually part of this discussion. If I choose to make my music available via WWW it's my choice. This thread was focussed on the experience of discovering that my music was being made available without my permission, and as a warning to others that they might make periodic checks to see if it's happening to them.

My position is very simple. The money I earn from selling my recordings (on line, at gigs or via whatever distribution I can find) goes into the pot to make the next album. The money I earn from performing goes into paying bills, buying food and all that sort of stuff. I'm a one person business with no private income. I aim to deal ethically with everyone else and expect people to deal ethically with me. None of my recordings has been "remaindered" and all continue to sell, fairly steadily. My next project, in fact, is to make further copies of the very album that was being pirated because the first thousand have almost all gone and there is still a demand for it. But if the people who are looking for it can get it for free, there goes the very income that will fund further recordings. Which is why I don't find my blogging fan very supportive!

By all means give away the material which is yours to give, if you're so minded. Some of us have very good reasons not to be so generous.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:16 AM

Anahata
Walter Pardon said, 'they're not my songs, they're everybody's' this means they are OUR songs. When I read of 'bloggers' and 'copyright' and 'Christie Moore's Well Below The Valley' or Bob Dylan stealing Martin Carthy's Scarborough Fair' (whatever happened to John Reilly and Mark Anderson's part in the songs transmission?) I realise that there is a danger of our tradition passing into the hands of individuals - I've never been a great supporter of the privatisation of public property. These songs have lasted because they have been passed on; if that passing on stops because people wish to make a living from them, they will cease to be ours and will die.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 04:47 AM

I'm with you there, Jim. I cringe when I hear somebody stand up in a folk club and announce "this is a Kate Rusby/Martin Carthy/Steeleye Span/whatever song" and then sings something traditional.

Anne, who started this thread, writes her own songs, so does have some claim to ownership, and when a song is recorded, whether traditional or not, it's not the song itself but the mechanical copyright of that particular recording that needs to be respected.

My partner Mary Humphreys puts together arrangements and reconstructions of traditional songs and performs and records them. She is only too happy to encourage others to sing them, in that form (as some people do) or further modified and re-written (as Tom Bliss has done with one, for example). Getting the songs back into circulation is the primary motivation. For example we usually put a song (words, music and background text) into each issue of a local folk magazine, give out printed copies of our tune arrangements at workshops etc. That seems to me a reversal of your "privatisation" complaint.

But having said that, after we've recorded songs on an album on the Wild Goose label (run by Doug and Sue Bailey who are now very good friends, not a faceless "music industry" corporation) we wouldn't expect or encourage copies of those recordings to be distributed freely on the web. We do publish partial tracks (downloadable or on a demo CD) and we have some whole tracks on Myspace where downloading is difficult (though I acknowledge not impossible), but that's as far as I would want to go. We don't own the copyright on those recordings so we are pushing against the "fair use" boundary, but Doug knows what we are doing and we all assume it's worth doing for the promotional value.

I'd be interested to know if you have a problem with any of this.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 05:25 AM

Jim, I hear what you are saying, and in the 'olden days' when the majority of 'folk' music was genuinely traditional, known and sung mainly by 'source' singers, and you were first collecting and promoting these works for a wider audience, your point would have been entirely valid. If you had, as some did, claimed those songs as your own property, and restricted access to them so you could gain revenue, you would indeed have been privatising public property.

But Anne's albums are NOT public property, and never were. And anyway we've moved on.

The 'folk' world is now chockablock with new material that belongs firmly to its makers - for the very good reeasons Anahata and Anne have explained. Like the rest of the music and arts industry, and indeed the business world in general, we now have an entire infrastructure of performers, record companies, magazines, venues, festivals, web sites and the rest, some of whom rely on folk music for a living, all of whom rely on folk music for survival - and need at least some money to be changing hands.

Now I think from past posts that you might be one of those who'd prefer folk music to be largely traditionally-based, and moreover largly free of the taint of the filthy lucre? I can see how nice that might be, but it's not going to happen, and as such it's not relevant to this discussion - which is about a very real and threatening problem for professionals (who exist because people want us to, ok)?

Now, as Anne knows from a previous discussion elsewhere, I'm reasonably relaxed about people pirating my stuff, and willing to let recordings fly in the wind in the hope that they will bring people to my gigs and maybe proper CD sales in future, and so compensate in the long run for the lost revenue - but if this had happened to me I'd have been in there with a lawyer as fast as a knife.

Why? Because it's a matter of principle. That blogger was effectively holding the door open to Anne's house and saying to any passing hoody - hey step inside and help yourself.

And that's just plain wrong.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:33 AM

It may be argued (and I'm one who so argues) tht the songs belong to everyone. THis is definitely NOT true of an individual's recorded performance.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 11:50 AM

"where is the line between giving away 'samples' (as advertising and promo) and sabotaging your business by removing people's incentive to pay for your product?"

Let me speak as a shopper. There are times that I have been looking at a musician's website, thinking that the songs seem interesting, but wondering if the singer's voice is enjoyable. It would be nice to have a sample of their sound. However, the sample doesn't have to be a complete song. A mere part of a song, perhaps 8 measures, is enough to tell me whether the quality and style of the piece is something I want to buy.

But if somebody downloads an entire track, you might as well throw away all rights to it.

By the way, I hate those "samples" that repeatedly play a few seconds of a piece and then hiccup. I feel that if the performers are that suspicious of me, then I don't want their CD in my house.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 01 Sep 07 - 02:12 PM

I was only just finished saying on the fRoots forum (a propos of Jon Bowden's spirited defence against a below-the-belt attack on the Bellowheads' version Flash Company) that even new songs do kind of belong to everyone as soon as they are sung out, Dick, so I'm with you there.

But it's still only 'kind of.' Good manners still apply. I'd not change any song by a living writer without permission, or use a definitive arrangement of a trad song without permission either (though that's an area generally more grey).

As you say, this is a much more clear cut case. Open and shut in fact.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:28 AM

I find myself much in agreement with much of what is being said, but not being particularly quick-witted (not this morning anyway) I would like time to give the points fuller thought.
I spent most of yesterday (until the early hours of this morning) at the funeral of collector extraordinairé Tom Munnelly who rescued in the region of twenty-two-thousand songs from extinction. In my thirty two year friendship with Tom I never once heard of him refusing a copy of one of his collected songs to anybody, and I have often witnessed his pleasure at hearing somebody sing one of them.
Similarly, twenty-odd years of my life were spent listening to and working with the bogey-man of the revival, Ewan MacColl, who adopted more-or-less the same attitude to songs he had collected or researched. Ewan and Peggy had a filing cabinet draw of (multiple) copies of songs they felt were important enough to circulate (often with Peggy's musical transcription): these were for any visiting singer who might be interested.
This generosity extended to their self-penned songs.
At one time somebody published a collection of political songs and included several of theirs, without either their knowledge or permission. I asked them if they minded. Ewan's reply was, "It would have been nice to have been asked, but in the long run, they were written to be heard, so what does it matter?"
In the meantime - A Modest Proposal.
How about a levy on every traditional song used on albums of revival singers; this money then being used to archive, index and make available all the various collections gathering dust on peoples shelves (or in some cases, in their attics), via such bodies as The National Sound Archive (London), or The Irish Traditional Music Archive (Dublin).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:05 AM

Hi Jim,

I think there is a big difference between publishing an original song without permission, and offering actual tracks for free download without permission.

In the first case you will probably only be duplicating an existing publication, so your chief duty is only, I guess, to be accurate, and to give attribution to the writer and the actual publisher. Nowadays you'll find lyrics and tunes all over the web, so I'm not sure how the publishing companies react to copycats these days - though I guess there are some protection laws around it.

However, once an original song has been published (in a recording, a broadcast, in print, or on-line), anyone may cover it without permission (though as I said above, it's polite to ask), and their duty is only to make sure they give correct attribution on their CDs and concert PRS forms, so that the royalties find their way into the right pocket.

Offering an actual recording for free without permission is a different matter altogether.

However, I think you're thinking about your own project of making your field recordings available online?

Now I'm not an actual expert, but if I understand correctly, here again the rules are quite straightforward. In the broadcast world we would have got signatures from every singer at the time of recording, stipulating what the recording could and could not be used for. But I don't think many collectors did that, or did you?

I'm asuming none of them are still with us? If they are, then their permission would be necessary, for moral even if not legal reasons.

If they are not, then technically the performance rights will have passed to their heirs (actually I'm not entirely sure about that). If any of them were members of the PRS or an equivalent organisation AND they registered an arrangement of the song as you recorded it (unlikely) then the recording will incur a copyright royalty for 70 years after the date of death, exactly as if it was an original work. But I doubt you need to worry about that.

The key issue will be the copyright of the songs themselves. If you are sure that the songs are actually in public ownership (i.e. the actual writers have been dead for 70 years), then there should be little problem putting them on-line. (But I'd try to check with any surviving relations if I could, just because).

As I understand it, the words and tunes are in public ownership. The performance and arrangement (if registered, only) belongs to the singer, but the recording is yours.

Putting your field recordings on-line would be a very generous and noble thing to do.

You'd have every right to charge for the recordings (though not for the copyright of the songs - if you see the difference, which I'm sure you do), as Peter Kennedy used to, and you could still do that with some pay-pal system on your website. If you kept the charge low, so you were just charging for the maintenance of the site and archive, rather than for any copyright royalties, I think people would support you.

That said, I would definately talk to the PRS, because there is a lot of small print and you'd not want to fall foul. I've always found them very helpful (they do work for us writers and arrangers, after all, not the government or the arts police).

As for your idea that there should be a levy on the use of traditional songs... err that's a tricky one. My instinct is to agree and disagree at the same time - and violently!

These songs do belong to everyone now (so a levy would be wrong), but we only know about the vast majority of them because of the work of unpaid collectors who are often sitting on vast archives of recordings with no time or money to develop them (so a levy would be an excellent idea and fully justified)!

What does everyone else think?

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:47 AM

Tabster Anne

I am just trying to think through a way of dealing with the reality.

Your work is your work and you are due the money that you are due.
No argument from me - I just don't see that it is a policeable situation to ban/control downloads so a way of using them has to be found.

I appreciateyour concern and don't wish to offend.


The indie crowd (Artic Monkeys etc.) are right in the middle of download land (I don't belive the numbers issue is a reality for flkies sadly) and I believe there is something we can learn from them, though not really sure what it is.

Though I do suspect that our fears about downloads and their threat are not actually the reality. If thousands of illegal downloads of ones work was happening then I think you might notice the increase in traffic to your web site etc or increase in people trying o get in contact with you.

I think it is a real problem and am trying to think through ways of incorporating it, asits not policeable to ban it IMO.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 05:58 AM

Though not a folk label the online only record label Magnatune are trying to pioneer a new approach.
www.magnatune.com

Before it gets dismissed again Magnatune use a creative commons license structure AND do it very successfully. The other thing I like about it is (in its worker coop type philosophy, and I have woked in co-ops for many years) it is in keeping with the general political tone of the folk movement in the UK

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:02 AM

But Matt it is IS banned. It's illegal in international law (apart from in a handful of countries with no copyright legislation).

It may be hard to police - everything on the net comes into that category - but it's easy to increase public awareness of this illegality, so that fewer people will be likely to do infringe copyright in ignorance, so more people will recognise when it's happening and agree that it's wrong, and more people will alert either the web master or the copyright holder when it happens.

Most of these bespoke download sites carry a stipulation that you can only upload material that you own, and warn you that if you proceed when you don't, then you are breaking the law.

Sometimes this instruction is not as obvious as it should be, and often it's ignored (myspace is riddled with fan sites who have plainly not got permission to upload tracks).

But we can be vigilent, and we can blow the whistle when we find wrongdoing. It's called society :-)

Tom

By the way, re myspace - you can choose whether to make the tracks you upload be downloadable, or just playable without download. There is a difference - and though it's always possible to record a non-downloadable track, with a mic if necessary, you can make it harder for people to copy your music if you want to. That's why people put shortened versions up. We did for the Pipers Sons, though my own myspace has full tracks which I'm happy to 'cast as bread upon the water.'

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:19 AM

Just as a by-the-by ... the Arctic Monkeys said themselves that the notion that they achieved success through free downloads is just a press myth.

It may not be police-able, and I don't think I've ever suggested policing, but the point of my original posting was to alert Mudcatters that they might like to keep an eye open for this kind of abuse of their material.

But thanks, Matt and Jim, for thinking further.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:35 AM

Hi Tom and Tabster

Of course its banned and quite rightly, and I totally agree with both of you and have huge sypathy for you as professionals -- just wanted to explore some possible ways forward so that artists can minimise damage to sales and maximise the exposure element of downloads.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 06:48 AM

Anne - totally off topic you'll be glad to know!

I was at Steafan's leaving do a few months ago as he and family were going to Canada, and and in classic style Steafan didn't make it, although Sachia was there!

Regards if you see him.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: BB
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM

"These songs do belong to everyone now (so a levy would be wrong), but we only know about the vast majority of them because of the work of unpaid collectors who are often sitting on vast archives of recordings with no time or money to develop them (so a levy would be an excellent idea and fully justified)!

What does everyone else think?"

Personally, I think it's a brilliant idea, although how it could be set up is beyond my brain at present. I could see no problem with the equivalent of the contribution made for copyright songs being suitably allocated for traditional songs. If it was possible to say that there was only one place for the contribution for all trad. songs to go, it might be possible, but presumably any that have appeared in print have copyright on them, don't they, and the publishers/editors or whatever would claim copyright. It could get very complicated! And then, assuming that this could be sorted, there's the subsequent distribution of the fees... Maybe the National Sound Archive could (but would they be prepared to?) handle it, but to whom would they distribute the money?

Aaagh! It's just too complicated for me!

Barbara

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 02 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

This is what I think.
Songwriters like Ewan Maccoll,Anne Lister ,Dick Miles,or anyone else,if they are registered with PRS and MCPS,are entitled to every penny of royalties from radio /tv and live performances.Ewan Maccoll became rich from First Time ever[no1 in american pop charts]and rightly so.
Traditional arrangements,pay out much less,but the arrangement is still someones creative work,it is only the arrangement that is copyrighted],and the amount the arranger receives is tiny compared to that which a songwriter receives ,[imo] rightly so.
Jim Carroll, all this stuff about what Walter Pardon said to you in 1974,is irrelevant.,and your comments about Ewan are even more hilarious, while he was very generous with helping people with their research,as I know from my brothers experience with him [who was full of praise for Maccoll].
He [Ewan] could afford to say, what does it matter,when he was receiving thousands from First Time Ever,that is not the same for a songwriter who has not had a number one hit.,and needs every penny of his royalties,to pay the neXt bill
Jim,If you cant pay your rent your out on the street,thats the real world its tough and its nasty,you are very knowledgeable on the subject of collecting,but your out of your depth on this one.
Both the law and courtesy need to be observed,songwriters rights need to be protected,and also arrangers rights.I dont care a toss what Walter Pardon[however good a singer he was] said, since when has he been an expert on songwriters ,songwriting or the law..

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:43 AM

Sorry folks,
That some people choose to attempt to make a living out of folk song is of very little interest to me - their choice, their responsibility to provide themselves with the raw material, not mine (particularly when I read, as I did recently in The Living Tradition magazine of "The Imagined Village" which "recasts classic folk songs, adding a dose of sitar, dub soundscapes, beats, bhangra and dhol drums" – can somebody please pass the sick-bag and direct me to the nearest exit?) What is particularly galling about the above is the fact that the ad carries an Arts Council logo, so presumably it has the benefit of that august body's blessing as well as taxpayers' money.
My concern is that the songs and music get passed on to those who will respect them and facilitate their survival, and as far as I'm concerned any hope for this lies mainly with the clubs, not with the 'professionals', (though they certainly have a part to play and bear a large part of the responsibility for same).
When professionals tell me of how much it costs to put together an album I can only say that it measures somewhat small against the financing of thirty odd years of collecting – but then again, who's complaining – that's what we have chosen to do?
The music will not survive if it is left in the hands of people who adopt the attitude (to mis-quote President Trueman) "The tradition stops here".
If a singer chooses to sing say, a Christy Moore composition, or a Ralph McTell piece, or something by any recognised songwriter, they will expect to pay royalties; my suggestion of a levy on traditional material was made as a way of maybe evening the playing field and perhaps reciprocating the generosity of our tradition bearers, thereby taking some steps to ascertain that future generations might get the same pleasure that we have from the songs and music. I believe it is feasible, but only with the good will of the people concerned.
Cap'n, - whoops, your disrespect of traditional singers (and your elitism) is showing again. If Walter's statement (I wonder where 1974 came from - he said it some time in the mid-eighties) that the songs belong to all of us is irrelevant, who do they belong to – Paul Simon, Phil Coulter, Bob Dylan, you??? In practical terms every version of a song is an 'arrangement', so presumably somebody down the line has put in some work on it (without claiming it as their property). If "the rent" has to be paid, perhaps some of that is owed to Walter, Harry Cox, Sam Larner, et al, but I can't see them calling in the bailiffs, can you?
Incidentally, MacColl's generosity with his time, knowledge and material pre-dates the commercial success of First Time Ever by at least a couple of decades. That song (which was written fifteen years before its being taken up by Presley and Flack), and several other MacColl and Seeger compositions were recorded by numerous other singers without royalties being paid or requested. They believed that the songs were made to be passed on – I'll drink to that.
I intended to cover some of the other points that were raised, but Saturday night's/Sunday morning's hangover is getting the better of me - g'night all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:36 AM

I am not disrespectful TO traditional singers.
I am talking about musical arrangements and instrumentation, the use of musical instruments to make arrangements of traditional songs,something that Walter, Harry Cox, Sam Larner, didnt do and were incapable of doing
The arrangements of traditional songs belong to the arranger,Cecil Sharps arrangements belonged to him,my arrangements of traditional songs in my concertina tutors belong to me,.
When I sell my tutor people are free to use those arrangements, because they have paid me .Obviously if they record my arrangement,or perform it for monetary gain,I would like to be credited either verbally or in print[It would be courtesy],but by selling my arrangements in book form,there is nothing I can do,other than hope to be credited.
As regards my own songs, which have been arranged in the tutor,I would expect them to be credited with prs/imro /mcps,if they are recorded for commercial gain by anyone else.Dick Miles http://www.dickmiles.com

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:43 AM

I do agree with your sentiments Dick, though I'd not put them so strongly, because I also understand where Jim's coming from too. We're all passionate about folk music, and we can all easily fall into a defensive position when we feel our favourite corner is coming under threat.

The truth is that copyright legislation, and the system for the distribution of royalties thereon, was really developed for other genres of music, and the folk catalogue, with its much higher-than-average use of publily-owned material, has wound up being a bit of a compromise as a result - but in my view it's a pretty good one.

Basically there has to be a workable system, which is fair and reasonably efficient, and you can't start exempting any genre of music. Don't forget that ALL compostions fall out of copyright 70 years after the composer's death - not just folk songs.

People approach this compromise from many directions; songwriter, arranger, collector, traditional singer, folklorist, historian, fan, singer looking for covers, consumer, licencee, (err, blogger?) etc. and to be honest few are 100% happy with what we find - specially if we're not fully conversant with the detail, which few are (including me).

I've said this before, but I was initially very unhappy with the concept of any copyright being attached to any traditional material whatsoever (as it is, by the registration of arrangements, the writing of new words to old tunes, the rewriting of tunes etc) - because it did indeed seem like a kind of theft. But that's actually not what happens.

Again - a reminder that this is only my understanding. I'm not an expert.

But I believe the way it works is that licencees pay a sum based on the amount of music played in their venue, or on their radio station, or whatever. All music, regardless of ownership, counts in this calcualation, so revenue is being generated on everything that's played. It's not practical to pre-empt the calcuation, so a blanket system is reasonable.

This money all goes into a pot, and the PRS (etc.) have the job of distributing that money to the copyright holders.

Now with original works in copyright, that's easy. They just send the fee to the writers - splitting the money between composer and author, and the arranger too if an arrangement is registered. Non-registered, unarranged out-of-copyright material is easy too. The money stays in the pot, and is used to help fund festivals and lots of other things (something people are not as aware of as they might be). So that's trad that's not entered the system yet.

The Trad Arr stuff is more complex. Take a well-known song like The Newry Highwayman - and all its many other titles. There are hundreds of registered versions of this song (including one of mine). If someone has performed this who has NOT registered an arrangement, and they have also not credited one of the registered arrangement, (by putting trad arr Tom Bliss, for example, on the sheet), then the money stays in the pot as above. If they do credit an arrangement, mine for example, then money comes to me - all of it (as much as for an original song, because that's the fee for that 'slot'), but only for that individual performance. If they credit someone else, then that person gets the money.

Obviously when it's me doing the song I credit myself, and the money rolls in (it's only pence, actually).

The reason I get all of the money is that there's no-one else with whom to split the fee. So 'Trad Arr Bliss' (as long as it's my actual arrangement being counted) is just as lucrative as 'Bliss.' (We were reminded of this re The White Hare issue last year).

Now. Where the difference comes in, as Dick has mentioned, is that when my song is covered by someone else, I get a writer's royality on their performances and recordings. But wqhen Newry Highwayman is done by someone else, (assuming they don't do my exact arrangement - and the lawyers could have a field day in this area because the rules are really trixy here) I don't.

So there IS, potentially, a huge difference in income between original works and trad ars - as long as people are covering your songs, and those covers are getting played out, and so attracting royalties. (Mine aren't, much, so I don't :-( !).

Now. Back to Jim's idea.

One way to source revenue for trad catalogues would be to ask PRS to treat Mr Trad as a living writer. Royalties would be split between Mr Trad and the arranger - or, as often happens, Mr Trad as composer, and someone else as author (lots of us borrow trad tunes for new songs).

Mr Trad's money could then go to another pot, to be used as discussed.

But it would be very difficult to police - as the tradition is an evolving thing, and I fear we'd be trying to ring-fence a natural process - and that grey area where streams leap down and lawyers feed would suddenly get LOT bigger!

It certainly needs more thought.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:45 AM

Oops, took me so long to write that that I'm out of date. The above relates to the discussion up to Captain Dick's contribution at 02 Sep 07 - 04:52 PM

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST, Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:18 AM

Lol Jim - I can't let that one by!

You're right to say that it's wrong for people to claim traditional song as their own property - but not many do (not these days, anyway). Those who do this should be exposed and rightful attribution restored.

But registering an arrangement, or an adaptation of a traditional song, is not the same as claiming the song itself.

It's crucial that people understand this, and they might easily get the opposite impression from your post.

What Simon Emmerson is doing with the VIllage project is really no different in law and in culture to what any songbearer ever did: Taking a song he likes, and making it shipshape for a new audience. Yes, the setting may be more dramatic, and the changes more radical, but the song survives. It has reached new audiences, and been given a new breath of life. Now even more people can take it on board, and, if they choose to, strip out the additions (which, thankfully, is easy to do with trad songs, because we have lots of different versions on record from which to triangulate).

It's important that we remember, as I've said elsewhere, that it is the song that endures - not the singers. Trad songs were all the creation of a writer once, and they have surived as songs because the writer had enough skill with words and tune to create a work with such integrity that all the tweking and arranging and rewriting over the years has not extinguished the essential essence of the song.

THIS is what needs to be preserved and nourished and celebrated. Not the style of any individual interpreter or goup, who's contribution has been aznd can be endlessly evolved.

Now, perhaps your passion is for the singers themselves, their sound, their style, the whole world of them and their music. Indeed, many people would be happy to hear Walter Pardon, for example, intoning the phone book on one note, and that might include me! But few other singers would be likely to register an arrangement of that!

No, it's simply not reasonable to separate one form of 'evolution' from another. Morally; you must either say 'no trad song can ever be altered in any way,' or you can allow alteration, and just accept that you won't like some of the alterations.

Legally, as I've explained above, you don't have a choice - alteration is not a crime. Copyright law exists of necessity, and it lapses of necessity too, and the result is the system we have today. It's not just folk songs, or even music in general this happens with. It's everything.

But if you do put your field recordings on line, then a lot more people will be bale to hear the charm and integirty of those singers. And they may like you fall in love with the whole thing. And perhaps they'll decided this is how they like to hear these songs sung. The may even decided to learn a song from Simon, and sing it a bit like Walter.

Now, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Again
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:27 AM

sorry Napper came to the door so I was typing fast!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM

Tom: "as the tradition is an evolving thing,"
Pretty damn fast too. Apparently someone was heard recently singing a song called "Rue" which they said was "written by Cloudstreet"

(a few people here will know what I'm talking about)

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST, TB
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 05:40 AM

LOL!!!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:52 AM

I would like to make myself clear. Sam Larner ,HarryCox, WalterPardon,are all very good singers,but they are unaccompanied singers,legally their unaccompanied versions are arrangements,it is doubtful if any decent singer is going to interpret their arrangements,exactly note for note as they sung them .
musical arrangements that involve complicated harmonies are not treated differently either ,they are still trad arranged.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 08:17 AM

I'm not quite sure why Jim makes a distinction between "tradition bearers" and "professionals". A big advantage of the PRS policy of allowing arrangement royalties for for professional performers who sing traditional songs is that such a policy offers a financial incentive to perform traditional material. To the extent that this keeps the songs alive, that can't be a bad thing, and it make the performer the song carrier. It's unfortunate that in some cases the "arrangement" may not be to some people's taste, but there's no way to stop peole from doing that anyway. At least the present scheme provides no weighting in favour of, for example, an electronica/hip hop version of one of Walter's songs; exactly the same arrangement royalty is due even if the so-called arrangement consists of singing the song unadorned and unaccompanied.

My conclusion is that I'm not in favour of allocating writer credits to a hypothetical "Mr Trad". Apart from the endless bickering over who would get the money, it would actually discourage any performer who is a PRS member from singing traditional material.

And if nobody sings the songs, they lie hidden in books gathering dust which does no good at all and makes the whole business of collecting and preserving them rather pointless.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 10:42 AM

ANAHATA ,I agree.
recently I discovered a traditonal song[in my opinion a gem]that I have not heard anyone sing in 40 years,it is a little like discovering a rare antique.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

With apologies to Anne for all this trhead creep, but it's all about coyright, ownership and money, so I think it's relvant

Yes: "a distinction between "tradition bearers" and "professionals"

There is much evidence that a lot of tradition bearers were in fact professionals or at least sem pro in times gone by. Many tune players and ballad singers were, along with the travelling actors, broadsheet writers and music hall turns (who gave a lot of trad songs a shot in the arm).

Forgive me if i cut and paste from my own post on fRoots re Flash Company:

"It's often forgotten in the 'folk' world that songs have always had one foot on the stage. Many of the old writers were semi-pros, and many of the old songs were in fact written down and sold around the country - for semi-pro performers to use. Songs were often included in plays and passtimes (many of our best came directly from or via Music Hall and theatre). And all singers only choose to learn a song, from whatever source, because they think - "Ooh; THAT's a good song - that'll get their attention!"

So while many source singers may not have thought of themselves as 'performers' per se, merely social singers, this was as much an accident of history, in terms of the niches where the songs were surviving when they were collected, than any true representation of why they were written, why they first become popular - and most important of all - why they survived.

If we really want to keep the tradition alive we have to go back to what the original writer was trying to achieve. And that's exactly what the best interpreters of traditional song have always done."

And, I should add, we mustn't mind if sometimes the results are not to our personal taste.

By the way, this is a bit of The Imagined Village

What do you think?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:29 PM

well I listened to TAM LYN, Iwould rather listen to JOHN CAGE playing silence,.Iam probaly going to agree with Jim Carroll for once.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 03:45 PM

So you don't like

Don't insult it or John Cage

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 04:17 PM

Mattkeen,how, have I insulted it,I am just saying what I would prefer to listen to.,neither am I insulting John Cage.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ritchie
Date: 03 Sep 07 - 06:00 PM

perhaps i should really read all the comments before i put my tuppeny worth in.

I have agree with one of gargoyle's earlier postings....foolish foolish people.

and let him/her cast the first stone. So you've never sung a song written by someone else, you've never taped something, you've nevr loaned someone a cd. record or book....my friends ...we'll all be a long time gone but somethings will live forever.

keep music living ;-)

love Ritchie

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:15 AM

You've missed the point, Ritchie. This blogger was putting material on his site for free downloads for anyone who wanted. This is illegal distribution, it's an abuse of copyright - buying an album does NOT give anyone the right to give out as many copies as they want. There is a vast, vast difference between lending a book or an album, singing a song written by someone else (presumably remembering to credit them and, where appropriate, dealing with royalties) or taping something for your own use - and making something that isn't yours to give available to an infinite audience.

Calling me "foolish" doesn't actually deal with the facts here - the blogger's actions were quite simply illegal. And in my view of the world, unethical. If I want to let the world know about another artist there are many ways to do that which don't involve giving away free copies of their work to all and sundry.

Anyway, the latest news is that the particular blogger who I was worried by appears to have withdrawn most of the albums he was featuring. I don't suppose this was his free choice, because it looks as if numerous artists have raised objections and made sure Rapidshare knew what was going on.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:23 AM

Well said Anne - actually I was just about to ask Ritchie if he'd 'nevr loaned his credit card to a complete stranger', but the phone rang.

Its amazing how many people can't seem to get their heads round the fact that this is our pay packet we're taking about, and that most of us operate some way below the minimum wage!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:36 AM

i ) John Cage never wrote a piece called 'Silence' - he wrote a piece called 4'.33" which is to do with concentrated listening to whatever sounds one actually hears within the time-frame of four minutes thirty-three seconds. I once read he got the idea when standing in a totally sound-proofed chamber, realising he could still hear the various sounds of his inner-body (blood, nervous system etc), so in effect there was no such thing as silence, hence 4'.33".

ii) Maybe if folk CDs were more realistically priced none of this would be an issue anyway? Go to any web-site offering full CD production then do the math.

iii) I recently forked out top dollar for a Shirley Collins CD the experience of which was marred by a consistently mis-rendered 'Staines Norris'. No doubt Norris is a relative of the 'Tim Lin' as found on a shoddily realised CD re-issue of a Fairport Convention LP (the name of which presently escapes me) which no doubt retailed for top dollar too.

iv) If there are people out there prepared to blog your work, then get down on your knees and give thanks; if they are bootlegging your concerts too then so much the better. Recently I was given the task of transfering to CD-R concert bootlegs of Peter Bellamy (Keele University 1972 and Newcastle Bridge FC 1974) which wouldn't have existed if everyone applied the same prissy holier-than-thou ethical so-called standards that have been a feature of the thread.

v) In a word of total commodification of music, where even the humblest of folkies are flogging their overpriced CD-R albums around festival singarounds, it's refreshing to know that at least the bloggers are doing it for the love of it.

vi) So blog away ye bloggers all - God knows you might be the life of this music yet.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:48 AM

I happen to like John Cages 4 33,I do not like Tam Lyn as performed on Imagined Village.
There was much criticism of Peter Kennedy on another threadfor purloining material that wasnt his,the same criticism applies to bloggers.
Song writers need time and money to sit down and be creative,all that bloggers acheive by depriving songwriters of their legal income,is the forcing of songwriters to give up ,and take a menial job that pays better, Sedayne you are misguided.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:07 AM

My original observation was on the difference of attitude of traditional and revival singers I have met over the last forty years, and the present apparent desire to hang a price-tag on songs, be they self-penned or traditional (my point remains - all versions of traditional songs are in essence 'arrangements' therefore the work of somebody).
I was always left with the impression that songwriters like MacColl, Seeger, Tawney, Rosselson et al were proud of the songs they wrote and more than happy to hear them taken up.
The times they are a-changing (the cheque's in the post My Dylan!)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:39 AM

Jim,yes proud to have them taken up.
I have had conversations with both Cyril and Rosemary Tawney on this subject,they both agreed andwere delighted for me to sing Cyrils songs BUT asked me if I performed Cyrils songs to log the prs and mcps for them .
so as regards Cyril Tawney your talking rubbish.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:39 AM

The one thing that has been well-established in this thread is that people who hear albums via blogs wouldn't have bought them anyway. So just who is losing out here?

I like the Captain's image of the leisurely songwriter moved to bare his soul by the arrival of the latest fat royalty cheque - and he has the neck call me misguided!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

Oh dear, here we go again.

Sedayne, I assume you enjoy listening to CDs? I assume you enjoy listening to gigs by professional performers? And I don't just mean folk artists.

What you have to understand is that CDs are a key element in the mix of activities that are neccessary for music to be available for you to enjoy. It's a whole complex system, which requires people having time and money to be able write, to rehearse, to practice, to travel, to record, to print and market CDs to do all the millions of things that need to happen if you are to have good music in your ears.

The price of CDs is set by the market - like houses or anything else. Yes, the actual print costs are a small percentage of the sale price, but there may be many thousands of pounds of investment to recoup, and various collaborators with whom the profit is split.

Maybe some re-releases by big record companies do take the mick, but most uk folk artists finance their own CDs - and it can be months or even years before we break even.

Moreover, we rely on income from CDs to keep our heads above water. The fee from folk clubs may put bread in the table for a few days, but it doesn't cover the fuel, publicity, strings and other sundry costs required to do the job - or build up funds for the next album. I repeat - if you take all the 'back office' work, including travel and costs, into acount, a typical folk club booking works out just below the minimum wage.

Some floor singers make CDs for fun. We don't. It's a calculated business proposition, and every pound counts. And judging by the people who come back again and again to buy subsequent CDs, most people consider them to be very good value.

Every CD that is downloaded for free is, potentially, a CD not sold. Now I'm happy to let some songs out as a PR exercise, but I can't afford to let whole CDs go. There is a download site (woven wheat) where people may purchase whole CDs of mine. If word got out that there was another site where those CDs were available for nothing, that revenue stream would dry up at once (and it would be tough on the guys who run it - who do a great job - too).

This is the real world. You wouldn't advocate people wanding into your corner shop and helping themselves to milk and cakes would you? We're small businesses too, and if you want what we're offering (and people surely do) you need to be willing to pay a fair and reasonable price. If not, then society deems you to be a criminal - and that's exactly as it should be.

And re the bootlegging of PB. It might have been a very different matter if he was still around today. He might very well have been happy for the recording to be made public, but he'd certainly want to have been asked!

And Jim. We are all proud of our songs and more than happy to have them taken up! You are confusing a desire to have songs used by others - which Anne and I share with Tawney and McColl and every other songwriter who ever lived - with a wilingness to let someone else give away our recordings of our own songs without our permission (in the case of the blogger), or keep royalties that are legally and morally ours in the case of others mentioned above.

Tawney and McColl will have got all the royalities they were due on all their compositions - count on it.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:46 AM

"The one thing that has been well-established in this thread is that people who hear albums via blogs wouldn't have bought them anyway"

On the contrary. That has been suggested, but not established - because it's simply not true.

But even if it was, the decision to take that business risk MUST lie with the owner of the material. Not some stranger.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:11 AM

Captain

No you weren't insulting me - you were unnecessarily derogatory about Imagined Village and John Cage.


I think CD prices are an issue - the only time I pay £13 to £15 for CDs now is at a folk gig. I am not saying that this is the price of ALL folk CDs its just that it is noticeably higher than most CDs that I buy.And I'm a committed purchaser of folk.

I still stand by the fact that we have to somehow find a way to use the download culture positively - I think that is likely to be by finding a combination of "give aways" and paid for, and pod casts etc.

I also think that there is a real point about the fact that nearly everybody, it seems, who has done more than 2 or 3 gigs has a CD out, and this has a fatigue effect on the audience and is really detrimental to professionals. I would be interested to hear if the professionals have noticed it becoming any harder to sell numbers of CDs at gigs because of this? Or is it impossible to tell?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:19 AM

Potential sales are not actual sales though are they? Surely this is the point here; also that blogging might actually work in favour of the artist.

I came into this thread with an advocation of Woven Wheat Whispers as the only fully integrated on-line folk label and such likely to be of interest to the blogging generation. I've been using WWW from the off, often to basically blog myself (see Shibboleth Bonny at Morn, Eleanor's Visceral Tomb Lady, Hap Yer Lingcan, Ploughmyth Orbis Mysterium etc.) featuring material gratis that otherwise wouldn't get heard at all. But then again, I'm more interested in recorded medium as a means of documenting process rather than making the commercial products that sit rather awkwardly with the ethos of a 'folk' music.

As I've already said, quite often the unofficial legacy of an artist is ultimately of greater interest (and value) than the official one; this is something no artist or record company should ever have control over, but rather the consequence of the passion people feel about the music - especially those artists who are dead and gone, which we'll all be one day.

Third Ear Band bootlegs anyone???

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:58 AM

Mattkeen. I was not unecessarily derogatory about the imagined village,I was talking about Tam lyn,and Tam Lyn only,I said I did not like it[how is that insulting]and that I would prefer to listen to John Cage playing silence[meaning his 4 33],which I happen to like.
As regards my own compositions Iam very happy for floorsingers[amateurs]to perform them,anyone doing a paid gig, should log them with prs.anyone blogging and putting up/downloading, without my permission is breaking the law
Jim Carroll is completely wrong about Cyril Tawney,when I discussed recording a song of his, he gave me permission, told me the publishers name GWYNNETH PUBLICATIONS,and asked me to make sure I did prs documentation,the year was 2002 and the place we had the discussion was Lancaster Maritime festival,where we were both booked.
however I am hardly surprised any more as there is so much mis information,Finally you can bet Ewan Maccoll never turned away a penny of his royalties for First time ever,which made him a rich man.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:05 AM

SEDAYNE ,My image was not one of a leisurely songwriter,but of someone who writes songs as their main form of income,who has no other job apart from singing those songs,and who needs every penny they can get,as the renumeration from the folk scene is about what you get or less on a minimium wage,.
I know I have done it for many years,you are misinformed .

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:42 AM

"Tawney and McColl will have got all the royalities they were due on all their compositions - count on it".
In MacColl's case, certainly not true - fact.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:52 AM

sedayne. the industry works the way it does because that's the way industry works period. you can't separate any definition of folk music away from the rest of the music industry and try to apply different rules. where would u draw the line? no, the system is this way because that's how it evolved, via practice, market forces and case law - like anything else.

yes we must embrace the web   and new forms of communication, and we do. but we can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

no, vanity cds do not affect sales. people can see the difference between a packaged CD with bar code etc and a home made CDr. you get what you pay for.

do you have permission to bootleg 3rd ear? they are still around

tom

via text

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 06:59 AM

ok jim, you knew him, and no doubt he had his reasons for not pursuing that money. but he had every right to those royalties, as any writer should. prevent that and wed have no books, now stage shows, no magazines, operas, newspapers, pop songs - need I go on?

trad song came from a unique place, but now it inhabits the same world as everything else.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:16 AM

"everybody, it seems, who has done more than 2 or 3 gigs has a CD out, and this has a fatigue effect on the audience and is really detrimental to professionals"
By the time Mary and I had done 2 or 3 gigs, people were asking if we had a CD, which was one of the motivations behind our making the first (home-made) album.

That sort of CD (home reorded, burnt to CDR in small numbers) doesn't sell for £12-15, usually more like £5-10.

The problem with pressed CD prices for folk music is one of sales volume. The cost of making an album in the studio and getting a pressing run of 500 CDs is typically £2000-3000. The cost of re-pressing the next 500 is about £500, but you're doing reasonably well if you even get that get that far. A commercial CD that sells tens of thousands is far cheaper per copy to produce, hence popular classics for a fiver in the shops.

So blog away ye bloggers all - God knows you might be the life of this music yet.
... but the death of the people who created it?
Samples and bootlegs from live concerts are all very well, but does the blogger include contact details and a link to the artist's web site, and information on where proper recordings can be bought? Clearly in the incident that started this thread the singer/songwriter was treated as a free-to-give-away commodity, not as a living person who deserved some respect.

All this talk of the generosity of source singers and the commercial benefits has nothing to do with bloggers who throw other people's property to the public. It's easy to be generous with someone else's money.

It's as if someone stole my credit card details and used it to make a donation to a (really worthy, of course) charity. What a fine and public spirited gesture...

Oh, and Jim Caroll: once again, of course singers like others to take up their songs, but we're not talking about the songs themselves here, but about recordings which are made as a purely business venture by people who happen to be singers. The baker may be happy to give away his cake recipes, but that is not the same as allowing the public to steal the produce from his shop.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:17 AM

Thanks for all your time and effort on this thread Tom.

Appreciated

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:24 AM

I'm obviously missing something here. If people spend their time trying to promote the music of others, spreading YOUR music around the world, via the internet...and if they're not making a penny out of doing that, where is the problem?

So you may lose out on one or two sales of CDs. But you may gain far, far more. You may not. But it does happen.

Why do so many of you want to keep your music hidden away and under strict, total control?

Let it OUT!!

Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it and it WORKS! Get people to share the music, let the do it. So occasionally someone may download your music for free...but they may love that music and come and buy more, or tell others about it and so it spreads.

You should surely be thankful that there are those who care enough about your music to spread the word far and wide.

The other option is that you just play it to your buddies and no-one else but you and them know about it.

Relax, the internet isn't going to bankrupt you, it's not going to lose you millions, but it could just get your name out there, your music more widely appreciated and known about.

Alternatively, just don't ever record anything, ever again. That way no-one will buy it, know about it or hear it. But at least you'll be in TOTAL control!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:42 AM

"The problem with pressed CD prices for folk music is one of sales volume. The cost of making an album in the studio and getting a pressing run of 500 CDs is typically £2000-3000. The cost of re-pressing the next 500 is about £500, but you're doing reasonably well if you even get that get that far. A commercial CD that sells tens of thousands is far cheaper per copy to produce, hence popular classics for a fiver in the shops."


At £250 per day in the studio?
£600 for 500 pressings?
Take your point about the reality of sales figures though. So its always going to be difficult.

I don't come across many of the very home made products any more - most look like decent product, thats not difficult to achieve these days.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:49 AM

guest, whats the fuss ,yes you are missing something,the problem is asking people permission,or courtesy,if that person gives permission it is all fine,but they should be contacted first.
Jim Carroll,you are wrong about Cyril Tawney, have you checked your facts about Leon Rosselson,I would be surprised if he didnt want royalties he is entitled to.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 07:56 AM

"I'm obviously missing something here"

Giving away your own stuff is fine, giving away other people's stuff isn't.
What's not to understand about that?

Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it
Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have put a WHOLE ALBUM OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MUSIC on the web to download for free and without that person's permission? Show me.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tombliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:20 AM

let It out? good grief! we spend our entire LIVES letting it out! promotion is 24/7 (why do u think I'm writing this? grin)

but there has to be some control. there is a strategy, and there are caveats (like checking the quality of the download and the veracity of the info)

we are running businesses and we care about our reputations and our customers (grin again).

we're here making a living because we pay attention to detail and keep our ships on course.

there are times i'll take a punt and times I won't.

sometimes I get it right and sometimes I don't, but its my decision ok? and that's a human right. no less.

would you let a stranger do your job?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:22 AM

At £250 per day in the studio?
£600 for 500 pressings?

What's wrong with that?
4-8 days in the studio, mixing and mastering time, glass master, graphics (somebody's got to do it, takes time and it's a skilled job to get it in the format the pressing plant wants). Maybe a well rehearsed solo artist can record an album in a day but that's exceptional.
It's in the ballpark. The figures don't matter, it's the decreasing cost with increasing sales volumes that's the point, and the reason why the music industry likes to promote a few million-selling superstars instead of thousands of lesser artists, and why folk CD's are more expensive (phew! nearly back on topic again).

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:23 AM

that is the whole point, we as performers have a right to have control over our own publicity,our own material.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:24 AM

OH YES 100,SORRY leadfingers.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

Treewind - nothing wrong with that - I just like to get you going.

Its not difficult.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:30 AM

£250 a day in the studio? yes and it takes anything up to 15 days to do an album. plus session musicians. mastering. then there's graphics (with copyright fees for pictures oh yes) MCPS, and the launch costs.

you do the math. again :-)

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 08:38 AM

Of course you are right - the old way of doing DOES NOT WORK cos the MATHS DONT ADD UP.


A new way needs to be found

that is all I have been trying to say.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:03 AM

yes. we can't do much about the costs side. I do much of the work myself, but that still costs because I have to eat and pay the bills meanwhile.

on ths sales side we need to sell more at a lower price. which means a broader marketplace. hence itunes, woven wheat, myspace etc.

but it can't happen overnight.

the sums have to add up somehow, and they won't if careless oiks who haven't stopped to think what they are actually doing blithely subvert our efforts in a mistaken belief they are doing us a favour!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:07 AM

perhaps I shoul add that cd sales and royalties add up to about 30% of my income.

so it does work, and it does matter.

without them I'd have to give up touring and get a day job

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:12 AM

"A new way needs to be found"
It certainly does, but however the music is distributed the recording process has to be paid for.

I've recently been talking to Doug Bailey at Wild Goose Records about that. He knows the industry isn't going to be CD based for ever. The problem is how to set up an economic basis for creating good quality recordings when they are sold by download. It's easy now because the majority of the sales are still CDs, even if the tracks are also available via Woven Wheat Whispers, who I agree they are doing a great job. The iTunes model seems to be working well too, but again it's mostly selling tracks that are also being produced as CDs, and I'd guess that the cost of recording is still met mostly by CD sales, not by downloads.

The music retail business is going downhill rapidly, but it's interesting to note that the biggest drop in revenue is from the high-volume (pun noted but not intended) pop music end of the market. The retailers are now far more interested than previously in the minority genres like folk music because they now account for a significant percentage of the remaining sales.

That's one reason why folk music will probably continue on CD for a while. Doug suggested other reasons too:
- buyers are more likely to want the whole album, not just one song
- buyers are often interested in the accompanying booklet notes that you don't get with a download.
- many sales are on the back of club and festival gigs, where the purchaser has enjoyed the musical experience is ready to pay to take a piece of it away right now, without waiting to buy or download something later. Hence the growth in selling real-time CDR burns of the concert as the punters leave the venue (not in the folk world, but it does happen elsewhere)

We discussed other sales mechanisms too, such as having the retailer produce CDs on demand and pay the label a license fee per copy produced, downloading anything he didn't already have in digital "stock" on his server.

One of the problems with that and with internet based retail mechanisms is that a great deal of trust is involved, and the internet is very leaky.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:40 AM

One other interesting idea from Magnatune was to allow customers to download the album immediately if they had ordered a physical CD.
This had the plus of capturing those that wanted "instant" access to the music.

This brings up another difference with folkies, and perhaps this is just my impression, but most folkies I know are UNlikely to be using ipods etc extensively and ARE more likely to be ok about waiting for the postman to arrive with their new CD!

Per track download, I agree, are likely to be unpopular for folk music.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,tom
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:41 AM

yes and the leakiness is what we're battling. its so easy to point to a download site, and as weve seen in this thread a lot of people think music should be available for free.

if there are too many outlets for free music, and too many nozzles that spread that outlet we'll soon loose a transaction which makes the rest of the industry work

quality will drop, there will be fewer pros and fewer concerts.

some will be happy about this, but I'm content doing this, and I'm not gining up without a fight! lol

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 09:45 AM

By the way - I am a musician (though now semi professional - a completely different ball game I know, I have run a professional recording studio in the past and now run a location recording set up.
So these issues affect me to.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:10 AM

"Billy Bragg does it, Show of Hands do it
Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have put a WHOLE ALBUM OF SOMEONE ELSE'S MUSIC on the web to download for free and without that person's permission? Show me."


Billy Bragg and Show of Hands both share their music with everyone. SoH stand on the stage every time they perform and ask people to share their music around if they want, to copy their CDs, to pass it on. They have no problems with it in the slightest. Yes, they give their permission, but they also realise how important it is to get your music 'out there' and that's the BEST way to do it!

Let it fly and don't worry about it because if it's good it will fly back to you in many new ways.

Billy Bragg has no problem with the same thing, so long as there's no profit involved.

Billy Bragg's OK about it


Both acts are successful, both acts have loads of fans who happily pass their music around and bring in loads of others. Apparently I'd have to ask your permission to do that, therefore I wouldn't bother to pass it on.

So tell me, who loses out?

Oh...and how many of you here have copied films from the TV then, on to video? Or recorded something off the radio? Or a friend has given you a 'copy' (shock! horror!) of a CD they have.

Come on, hands up

EXACTLY

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:52 AM

Yup, Billy Bragg and SOH are choosing to share the music of which THEY have copyright. I checked that link too, and I didn't see the bit where they said you should share OTHER artists music in the same way.

You were, as expected, unable to provide an answer to my question.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 10:56 AM

Don't share your music then, it's that simple. But don't get all unhappy when you google your name and nowt comes up either.

It's your music, you keep it to yourself. Sooooo simple.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:05 AM

P.S. I think you are encouraging other performers to follow the example of Billy Bragg and SoH. Well OK, it works for them: they are household names and they sell enough CDs and get enough highly paid gigs not to worry about the loss of a few CD sales. It's just a publicity trick capitalising on their existing popularity to get them some more goodwill.

That doesn't work for everybody.

And putting one of their albums on a blog for the rest of the world to help themselves is (a) not the same as "making a copy for your mates" and (b) quite possibly violates the "no profit" rule if the blog in question carries adverts, in which case the provision of free music is designed to increase the advertising revenue.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:13 AM

SoH have been doing that since before they were household names though. So, it's the fact they encouraged their music to be shared around openly that's helped to spread their name like wildfire, that and the fact that it's damned brilliant music of course. The money they lose in CDs that way, they get back over and over from the new people who are brought into their music.

No it won't work for everybody, because I'm afraid that not everybody makes music that others may want to hear, like it or not. However, if your music IS good then it will, I'm sure, benefit you to do that.

'The rest of the world' wouldn't tune in to someone's blog. A few people may do, and who knows, just one of those people may take that music and do something wonderful with it, contact the artist and there you go!

And if that DID happen I very much doubt that any artist would turn down the opportunity that came their way because some 'stranger' had taken the trouble to put their music on their blog for them.

Be grateful that someone considers your music worthy of putting in their blog. Count your blessings and don't look a gift horse in the mouth....and if you are so worried about your music being in the wrong place, then don't advertise any of it on the internet, anywhere, at anytime. Just sell your CD at folk clubs, in brown paper bags so that no-one can see it.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:18 AM

If I Google our names I get lots of hits, a few of which are Amazon, Tesco and similar trying to sell my CDs for less than I do. And I'm already undercutting Wild Goose.

I don't think offering them for free would benefit me much.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 11:46 AM

I'm amazed by the people on this thread who think it's fine for a complete stranger, who made no attempt whatsoever to contact me directly at any stage of this process, to put my album out for free downloads by as many people as read his blog. I'm amazed that you think I should be grateful to (a) the anonymous blogger and (b) the anonymous people who may or may not have taken up the opportunity. When all the blogger needed to do to tell the world about my music, was to either direct his readers to my My Space site, or to my website, or to CD Baby, or to iTunes or to any number of other legal download sites. I would point out that I do my best to ensure my music isn't a secret from the world, that I have never discouraged anyone from singing one of my songs AND that I have not, myself, made copies of other peoples' CDs for friends. At any time. If I want my friends to have a copy of a CD, I buy one for them. That way I support the artist who has created the music in the first place. That seems to me to be the right way to support music and musicians. If I can't afford to do that, I just let my friends hear the music and trust them to buy or not as they decide. "Holier than thou"? I don't think so - but it is the way I choose to do things.

As someone said (Tom?) earlier on, would you be grateful to an anonymous "well wisher" who liked your property so much that he left your front door open and invited the world to come and help themselves?

I have no issue at all with people singing my songs - to that extent, the music is free. If they're singing in a context in which royalties are due, then yes, I do expect the song to be credited to me so that I get my share of the royalties. If they enjoy my albums, which have taken time, money and effort to record, manufacture and distribute, that's great and they can always tell their friends about them - for free, of course. But giving away downloads of my album? Why the hell should anyone do that without my agreement?

Someone earlier made a comparison with lending a book - it's not about lending. It's about making a photocopies of the book and handing it out on street corners. Not surprisingly, there are limits to how many pages of a book you're legally allowed to photocopy. Not surprisingly, international copyright also exists on recordings. Most albums always used to carry a clear notice to this effect - and, guess what - the album in question has the words printed onto the CD itself. "Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting, hiring or rental of this recording prohibited." So my blogging fan has really no excuse.

I think what still sticks in my throat about it all is that when it was suggested in a comment to the blogger that he could direct his readership to a legal download site for this album his response was that he didn't think he "could go THAT far". How hard would it have been to have included a URL, by comparison with uploading my material illegally?

Now you can accuse me of being selfish, or sticking my head in the sand, or putting too high a price on my music, but you'd be wrong. Songwriters, whether in the folk world or out in the Big Wide World of the entertainment industry (and please note that it's an industry), have rights. They may choose to waive those rights, under certain circumstances, but it should be their choice, not the choice of some stranger hiding their own identity behind a nom de plume and a blog. If Billy Bragg and Show of Hands have given permission for free downloads of their music, that's their decision and their choice. In this situation, I was given no choice at all.

The bottom line? Even if I made a lot of money from readers of this blog rushing to buy legal copies of the illegal download (and trust me, that's not happening)it still wouldn't make this form of theft right.

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:10 PM

I agree, Tabster.
Jim Carroll,you complained about Peter Kennedy stealing your recordings,yet you dont mind bloggers stealing[or taking without their permission] other peoples,I smell NIMBYISM,talk about double standards.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,What's the fuss?
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:35 PM

"As someone said (Tom?) earlier on, would you be grateful to an anonymous "well wisher" who liked your property so much that he left your front door open and invited the world to come and help themselves?"

Then keep all your doors closed, locked, bolted and sealed.


"I don't think offering them for free would benefit me much."

Well if you're not prepared to try, you'll never know.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:53 PM

Anne, I think 'What the F?' is a troll.

He/she is deliberately missing the point everyone else is makeing - including SoH and BB: consent. (In this analogy your doors WERE locked - by the law and by your on-body message - and the blogger actually broke in).

Let's not feed him or her unless he or she is prepared to post under a real name.

I'm beginning to suspect that WTF may actually BE your blogger seeking revenge LOL!

Tomsk

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Anne Lister
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 12:59 PM

Guest ...(no name??) the point being that I choose who I invite into my house, as do you, I'm sure. Equally I choose who I give free copies of my album to.

It's not a question of ME trying out the free copies - I have, over the years, given out quite a few as promo and as gifts. This is someone else, not known to me, without my permission, who has decided to give away my album. And not even this stranger, generous as he is to the whole wide world, knows who will take up his offer, or who has taken it up, so it's a fat lot of good to me.

Try, if you can, to stick to the issue. And try very hard to understand one simple legal point here - this is illegal. The fact that it's probably impossible to police doesn't alter the illegality.

Unlike you, I will sign this message as I've signed all the others ...

Anne

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 01:36 PM

"when it was suggested in a comment to the blogger that he could direct his readership to a legal download site for this album his response was that he didn't think he "could go THAT far"

That's enough to show where he's coming from. Any high pretence of high minded well-wishing or generosity is thus demolished.

BTW I've already mentioned on this thread that I offered a whole album for free download for a while. 4 years later I've met exactly one person who actually downloaded it and burnt a CD from it, and I'm not aware of any promotional benefits from it. We have got booking as a result of short sound clips available on the site.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 02:32 PM

"Jim Carroll,you complained about Peter Kennedy stealing your recordings,yet you don't mind bloggers stealing"
Cap'n,
When did I complain about Peter Kennedy stealing my recordings? I am probably one of the few people Peter Kennedy didn't steal from.
My main complaint against St Peter was that he hung a price tag on traditional songs, copyrighting them and claiming payment for them - pretty much the same as appears to be happening now with the copyrighting of 'arrangements' of traditional songs.
Can someone explain to me what an arrangement is. If I was singing again I would look for the texts and tunes of songs to enable me to bring my own interpretation to the singing of them. I would (and do) not hesitate to pass on the words and texts to any song available to me. I would consider it extremely mean minded and petty for anybody to refuse such a request, and would never do so myself.
Jim Carroll
PS MacColl, Tawney and Rossleson were all in the position to demand royalties for their songs. I know that the former two often did not always do so; in MacColl's case he wanted his songs to be circulated; I presume Tawney thought similarly, as did, (I have been told) Rossleson. This did not mean that they refused royalties when available; that would be silly now - wouldn't it.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:14 PM

Jim are you a writer?

If not it may have passed you by that we don't ask for or get royalties when we 'give' a song to someone.

Royalties slip in by the back door much later, when the PRS eventually pick up on our performances, and finally get round to sending the money to us.

Say Maccoll decided to 'pass' on the royalties to 'Champion at Keepin' 'Em Rolling.' The only way he could do this would be never to register the song with the PRS - and make sure his publisher never did do so either (remember, publishers get a small slice of the action too). And never to tell anyone he wrote it either, (because registration that can be done retrospectively, years later - up to 70 years after the writer's death in fact - I believe).

If he did in fact register Champion , then he'd get his due royalties in the usual way, from any performance via any licenced outlet.

He could tell anyone and everyone that they could use the song for free - and they could. Not a penny changes hands between writer and performer.

The money comes from the punters, as part of the door fee (they are paying to hear those songs) via the promoter, who buys the licence, or as part of the licence fee (in the case of the BBC) or whatever - there are many models.

If MacColl or his publisher had registered 'Champion' it would bring in a steady trickle of money until 70 years after his death. As I assume it does, as I assume he published it.

Now are you sure that there is a catagogue of works written by MacColl that are not listed in the PRS archives? If so, then the man was doing as you say, and waiving royalties because he wanted his songs to be out there.

But they'd have been just as 'out there' if he HAD registered them. Just as available for people to sing (you don't need permission to sing or record a song, it's just polite to ask, specially if you plan to make some changes).

As for Kennedy, I think you'll find that all he did was register arrangements of the songs that he'd arranged. That's all he could do by law anyway. The songs were clearly in public ownership, and you can't claim a trad song of itself, and I'm pretty sure Kennedy never tried to.

You might not like his arrangements, but he was within his rights to register them.

He was also within his rights to charge for copies of his field recordings - just as you would be if you chose to. They were his property, as yours are yours. The recordings, I mean - not the songs.

Now in an ideal world, all your source singers would have been signed up to the PRS (or its equivalent) and their arrangements (yes, just the way a solo voice sings an unaccompanied song constitutes and arrangement as you say) would have been registered when they were recorded.

But that's all THEY could claim. They were not the writers, and they didn't own the songs either.

We owe them thanks and respect for their role in the preservation of the songs, as we do to you and Peter and all the other collectors. But the only person who ever owned the song was the writer, or officially, the author and composer.

So, it follows that the only way to steal a song is to credit it as your composition when it's not. And people do do that.

But equally wrong, but even more annoying in my opinion, is when people are just lazy about accreditiation.

That's how we get someone telling an audience that Cloudstreet wrote Rue or Christy Moore wrote Raglan Road.

Suddenly the path is muddied, and that can lead to all kinds of problems that I've outlined elsewhere.

But these things are usually rectifiable if we are vigilent.

So we try to be.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 03:36 PM

Just before anyone jumps in, I know all about the BBC angle re the Kennedy story, and that's a different issue altogether.

In terms of copyright the situation was and remains clear.

Those songs were and still are in public ownership.

In fact I myself have registered a number of arrangements of songs and tunes that Kennedy collected (all from the Channel Islands, like me), as anyone may.

I repeat: the arrangement royalty only goes to the arranger, for that specific and very narrowly defined arrangement (usally only for actual perfromances BY the arranger him or herself).

Anyone else can do their own versions, and they'll get all the loot for that particular version.

It's not theft. It's just what make the whole wide world go round.

Tom again

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 04:55 PM

"...the industry works the way it does because that's the way industry works period. you can't separate any definition of folk music away from the rest of the music industry and try to apply different rules. where would u draw the line? no, the system is this way because that's how it evolved, via practice, market forces and case law - like anything else..."

But surely the blogger / bootlegger is a prerequisite of such capitalist functionalism? How else might we account for the continued existence of such a creature? Or else accomodate them into our 'realistic' world view?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:27 PM

JIM CARROLL,I distinctly recall you saying on this forum,that you sent Peter Kennedy a recording ,which he never returned to you,and that he didnt return it to you when you requested it,you also said that Seamus Ennis had called him a thief,and you gave the impression in your post ,that you concurred with this.
I do not have time to waste finding this particular post,but I do remember clearly your post,check it out.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Sep 07 - 05:56 PM

Jim Carroll,I have found two of your posts,not the one I was looking for,but this will do[How were source singers influenced by the revival]
14 JULY 07 3 43
15 JULY 07 3 59.In both of these posts you criticise KENNEDY ,Accusing him of robbing travellers children of their royalties,and also saying[do you know any collectors who sell what they have collected, apart from Peter Kennedy who sold anything anybody collected]the implication here is quite clear.
So its not ok for Kennedy to rob travellers of their royalties,but its ok for bloggers to deny songwriters of their royalties.
If that is not double standards ,Idont know what is.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:29 AM

Cap'n
Perhaps if you read posting carefully it would not be necessary to go over old ground.
Kennedy was sent a tape of John Reilly by Irish collector Tom Munnelly. It was made clear that the tape was for his personal interest, not for publication, yet it was put in his catalogue and, despite decades of requests to remove it, it remained there until after his death. He did the same with tapes of the Carpenter Collection which he was sent for review.
While employed as a collector for the BBC he persuaded source singers to sign contracts passing the rights of the songs over to him (and, in some cases, any songs they might remember in the future). On numerous occasions I know of, attempts at publishing traditional songs were met with demands from him for royalties, claiming that the songs originated from 'his' versions (bearing in mind the fact that (a) these were traditional songs and (b) he was employed to collect them on behalf of the BBC and EFDSS).
I go along completely with those who question the behaviour of the bloggers; my point is that there appears to be a sea-change in the attitude of singers regarding the ownership and sharing of songs. Correct me if I'm wrong but I understand that the the bloggers are not claiming or receiving payment for what they are doing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 05:10 AM

GoodMorning Jim ,hows the weather in clare,its afine morning here.
The bloggers are not receiving payment,but they are using other peoples material without permission,they are depriving people of royalties and sales[every cd downloaded for free is a cd not sold].
the similarity between kennedy and bloggers is this they took /take other peoples material without permission.
you are surely not going to argue that its not alright to do what Kennedy did ,but it is ok to do what bloggers do,even though they are depriving people of sales and royalties.
My Point is Kennedy used material without the owners consent,and while Kennedy made money out of it ,He also deprived the owners of the music the opportunity to make money out of it.
so Bloggers and Kennedy have two things in common,the unlawful use of material,and the deprivation of the rightful owners of the music,sales and royalties[money.
you have made two statements ,I QUOTE, I find myself totally in agreement with MrKeen I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people listening to my stuff.
Second quote,These songs have lasted ,because they have been passed on,if that passing on stops because people wish to make a living out of them they will cease to be ours and they will die.
First quote,Jim ,presumably you mean once you have given permission for them to be used,Anne has not given permission,neither was Kennedy given permission.
SECOND QUOTE,Anne is talking about her own compositions not traditional music,.
however ANAHATA made a good point, the present copyright rules for trad arr can act as an incentive ,to record traditional material.
Finally,The Folk Revival,Has in fact helped to keep traditional music alive ,because there has been a financial incentive,especially those more commercial bands The Fairport,Spinners Steeleyes
Horslips etc,they may cease to be played the way you like them Jim ,but they will not die.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:38 AM

Here's a few thoughts I recently posted on the Harvest Home forum that might be of some relevance here.

i)The condition of traditional song is perilous enough without subjecting them to any further interference. Treat them as listed buildings, the interiors and exteriors of which amount to irreplaceable national treasures all too vulnerable to the ravages of time and ill-advised DIY make-overs. What else is Liege and Leif but a sequence of tasteless, bland modernisations of some nice old characterful properties; the wattle & daub of the originals ripped out and replaced with mass produced breeze block and plaster board; sash windows replaced with UPVC and the open fires with flame-effect gas fires?

ii) The problem is that there is a very definite cut off point between the cultural and social conditions in which the traditional songs arose, and that which exists now. We have lost the continuity in which these songs came into being and as such the only thing we should do with them is observe, and source, and delight in their myriad wonders.

In a nutshell, they are not ours to mess with in the first place - not in any way, shape or form - and God knows there is enough work still to be done in simply learning and singing them without resorting to such underhand methods as addition and interpretation.

We lovers of traditional song are not so much the keepers of a tradition, rather the volunteer curators of a museum, entrusted with the preservation of a few precious, priceless and irreplaceable artefacts: hand-crafted tools we no longer know the names of (let alone what they were actually used for) ; hideous masks of woven cornstalks (which are invariably asumed to be pagan) ; and hoary cases of singular taxidermy wherein beasts long extinct are depicted in a natural habitat long since vanished.

Not only is such a museum a beacon for the naturally curious, it's a treasure in and of itself, an anachronism in age of instant (and invariable soulless) gratification, and as such under constant threat by those who want to see it revamped; cleaned up with computerised displays and 'interactive' exhibits and brought into linethe with the rest of commodified cultural presently on offer.

But not only is this museum is our collective Pit-Rivers, it is a museum which, in itself, is just as much an artefact of a long-vanished era as the objects it contains. It is delicate, and crumbling, but those who truly love it wouldn't have it any other way - and quite rightly so.   

iii) The point is that the traditional songs are already dead; they're as dead as the traditional singers that sang them and the traditional cultures to which they once belonged; they're as dead as fecking dodos the lot of them - but we must never forget...

As far as their adaptation goes... of course anyone can do anything they like with them; God knows I certainly have (though a good deal less so in recent years, m'lud) but to do so in the name of 'the tradition' shows a complete lack of both respect to and understanding of their cultural provenance which is pretty much the whole of the case.

iv) One thing that's immediately apparent even in the most casual study of traditional song is the fluidity in which they once existed in their natural habitat, hence the innumerable versions and variations we know & love today. Traditional songs were shaped by the innumerable voices that sang them; passing them on via an oral tradition in which the songs evolved according to that mysterious process whereby the subjective idiosyncrasies of the individual singers interface with the objective cultural context of which they were part to create something truly wondrous.

This is primary paradise of traditional song; a veritable dream-time in which we find them scampering in the new-mown meadows of what some of us still perceive as an agrarian utopia, before the advent of chemicals and mechanisation. So along come the song collectors, recognising that these songs are part of a social context that even in the early years of the last century is beginning to look decidedly fragile, and they do their level best to 'preserve' them.

Taxidermy is, alas, an imperfect science (as the recent research into the Dodo has shown), so what comes down to us in the collections tells us as much about the collectors as it does about the people they were collective from - the stuffers rather than the stuffed, as it were; because one does get the impression that these well-healed paternalists weren't altogether too concerned with the broader cultural condition of these grubby rustics whose precious repertoires they so hungrily plundered.

One finds the same thing in folklore; the 'paganisation' we see today is the result of the self-same paternalism that was used to justify the evils of colonialism - it's there in the cultural condescension that would interpret any given folk custom as being somehow 'vestigial' of something now 'long forgotten'. For example, when the thoroughly aristocratic Lady Raglan first named her medieval ecclesiastical foliate-head a 'Green Man', she did so fully in the faith that the Jacks-in-the-Green (etc.) of British folk custom were survivals of pagan fertility rites quaintly perpetuated by an ignorant lower order of society unwittingly preserving (as mere superstition) an ancient belief system that they themselves couldn't possibly understand, either in terms of its 'true' provenance or else its 'real' meaning. That there is no 'real' meaning is perhaps the ultimate irony; the medium is the message and their experience entirely empirical.   


To take the example of the wonderful Buy Broom Buzzems as recorded by Bruce & Stokoe in The Northumbrian Minstrelsy from the singing of Blind Willie Purvis of Newcastle-upon-Tyne; here they freely admit that they chose to omit several of Mr Purvis's verses because they considered them to be somehow extraneous to the sense of the song. What we wouldn't give to hear those extraneous verses now...

A L Lloyd did some sterling work of course, but as Nigel points out much of it was decidedly suspect; I cringe every time I hear Jack Orion (which is often sung unquestioningly as a traditional ballad) and his theories on the origin of Jazz as outlined in the introduction to The Penguin Book of English Folk song beggar belief, even by the standards of the time.

****

Just thoughts as I say, albeit rather polemical I admit, mainly inspired by the pile of Topic Voice of the People CDs that came my way recently...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:00 PM

Cap'n
Please read the last paragraph of my last posting carefully (concentration seems to be a major problem with you).
Earlier I wrote:
"I personally would love it if there were hundreds of extra people listening to my stuff."
Absolutely; we certainly don't make avcailable our collection for the money!
"These songs have lasted ,because they have been passed on,if that passing on stops because people wish to make a living out of them they will cease to be ours and they will die."
Absolutely - can't see anything wrong with that one either.
Horselips! The Spinners! Fairport! - can you forward me your address - we appear to be living on a different planet!
Jim Carroll
PS The weather's lovely - thank you for asking

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 03:41 PM

Jim you were agreeing,with Matt Keen who was talking not about your collection ,but about his songs.Matt Keen said[I personally would love it if hundreds of extra people were listening to my [MATT KEENS STUFF] etc etc.
Of course you cant see anything wrong with the Last quote,because you cant see anything apart from your blinkered narrow perspective.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 04:36 PM

Cap'n,
The groups you mentioned - and others - came and went without leaving anything of lasting value to traditional song. Early in the seventies (I have the dates here somewhere, but can't immediately lay my hands on them, Bob Pegg (of Mr Fox) spoke at The National Folk Festival at Loughborough. He was asked by a member of the audience why he performed the way he did; his reply was "for the money". The end result was a pamphlet entitled "We're Only in it For The Money" by Trevor Fisher.
I admired Bob's honesty, but not his motives,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:13 PM

There is some evidence that in times long past at least some of the 'song bearers' who transmitted traditional songs down the generations might also have doing it at least partly for money. (And anyway I'd suggest that Bob was almost certainly joking - you can't be that good and not also be passionate about your work)!

While we should always admire and respect the people from whom traditional songs were collected, they were only the 'bearers' of those songs at that point in history. Their personal philosophies re the 'ownership' of songs are a snapshot, at the date of collection: A key part of the story, but only a part.

Also, one might surmise that the way source singers spoke about their material might have been influenced by the fact that they were speaking to a collector, and aware that 'their' songs and versions - at that point known only to a few - where about to become much more widely available. This might have tended to concentrate their minds on the moral aspects of 'song ownership' - something that previous generations of singers might not have thought so deeply about - specially if they were 'semi pro.'

Just a suggestion tha knows.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,guest 2
Date: 05 Sep 07 - 07:45 PM

Jim, if Bob Pegg was earning his living from his singing his answer was not only honest, it was the only answer.
What's your motive for going to work?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 02:43 AM

Tom,
I was at the talk Pegg gave - I didn't think he was joking, nor did the rest of his audience, hence Trevor Fisher's pamphlet response.
We can put all sorts of interpretations on why traditional singers answered the way they did should we choose not to take them at their word - after working for over 20 years with Walter Pardon, when he told us he believed the songs belonged to everyone I thought I knew him well enough to believe him (and agree with him). Our reason for collecting was always the 'posterity' one, not the 'I'm gonna make you famous' one. Without exception it has been my experience the the desire to possess traditional songs is a revival phenomenon rather than one encountered among source singers.
Guest (2)
If you are right we borrowers of the tradition are faced with the dilemma in persuading somebody to part with something freely in order that somebody else might make their living from it - or are you suggesting that market forces should apply to traditional song as they does to commercial music? If so, professional performers have spent a long time living off ; sweat-shop labour
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:18 AM

Ok, but the point I'm trying to discuss, Jim, is the question 'did the original writer feel that his song belonged to everyone?'

It's likely that at least some writers in the 17th 18th and 19th centuries had a partly professional motivation and felt that they owned their songs - so financial advantage can't be entirely ruled out.

It's always been the case that in time songs pass into public ownership - though that process was not formalised in law until relatively recently. So Walter's view on ownership was a simple statement of fact, and one that every source singer would share. By definition source singers were aware of the danger that 'their' songs could die with them, so obviously they'd decided to share them for posterity - and thank God they did.

But in times past some people might not have been so keen to see their work widely distributed and avialable, certainly not some writers. Reputations tend to rest on repertoire, though the simple act of singing a song - to anyone - has always let the cat out of the bag, so to speak!

The crucial change was recording. In olden times you'd need to listen carefully to a song a good few times to learn it and write it down - so the co-operation of the singer was essential if a song was to be passed on intact (which helps explain why we have so many versions of songs that might have been heard once, and then re-written from a few memorised fragments).

Once wax recordings arrived it got a lot easier - but you still needed permission and co-operation from your source. By the time everyone had musical reproduction equipment at home, and recordings were widely available, the ethical situation had changed.

Now you could own a record of a song, exactly as it came from the horses mouth (but only one horse, remember), and that record would stand for ever.

Now it was ok to take quite big liberties with songs, because people could go back to the source recording if they chose to - in fact to lots of source recordings of different versions. This changed the morality of song-bearing, and it was down to the collectors that it happened (thankyou again)!

My problem is that I still don't understand the tenet that seems to underlie many of your posts on this topic, Jim: that revival and contemporary singers somehow 'possess' traditional songs.

This is just not possible in law, and I don't think I know of any singer who even tries.

We use and develop tredational song, and we earn money on our recordings and arrangements (but only from others if our arrangements are copied very very closely), but we don't and can't posses the song itself - any more than Walter could - and we can't stop anyone else using it, and never could (and never would).

As I said above, the only way to do this is to claim you wrote a traditional song yourself. This may have happened in times gone by but it's very rare now.

Doing as Kennedy did and restricting access to a collection so that he could gain revenue from it is not at all the same thing as trying to possess or own the songs therein.

If the songs are available they are de facto published. As soon as someone buys a CD or reads the book, they can use those songs freely, (and attribute accordingly, one hopes), and they did and do. All the collector owns is the recording of that collected version of the song, not the song itself - which was, is, and always will be in public ownership.

If a collector is happy to (and can afford to) make his collection free to all then so much the better and all praise to him or her, but that won't affect the ownership of the songs either.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 05:36 AM

Tom Iagree.
Jim Carroll,you are an amateur collector[itwas not your livelihood],I dont know what your job was, but you expected to get paid for it.
Anne had her own compositions[we are not talking about traditional music ]used without her permission,they are her property,she has to give permission first,that is the law.
composed music differs from traditional music,however composed arrangements are also copyrighted[MartinCarthys guitar arrangement of Scarborough Fair],that means the song[but not his arrangement is available ,the arrangement must have his his permission,it was his creative work] that is the law.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Sep 07 - 04:53 PM

Tom,
We have no way of knowing what the original composers desired should happen to their songs; whether they should be adapted, changed, re-located; (wonder what they would have made of accompaniment - guitars, bouzoukis, keyboards!)
When we started recording here in West Clare there was still the remnants of a song-writing tradition - largely praise songs about the area, humourous ones about local events, political pieces about the struggle for independence, or laments about having to leave home to earn a living. In the main they were songs for the moment; they were sung for a short time then forgotten (except by the tape-recorder). We recorded dozens of such songs which must have been made during the singers' lifetimes, but more often than not we failed to find the name of the composer, once they had been heard a few times the composers did not seem to care what happened to them, they had done their job and that was that.
This was also the situation thirty years ago with the Travellers.
My observation remains - the tradition and the early revival appeared to be more ready to share their material than the present revival is - it seems ownership has become a major issue.
Kennedy took this to an extreme by creating a cottage industry to market pilfered material (pilfered is perhaps not strong enough a term - wholesale looting might be better). Dominic Behan adopted a similar approach to Irish song, albeit on a smaller scale.
A great deal of Pats' and my time over the last thirty odd years has been in supporting archives in order that ours and other collectors' material can be first preserved and then distributed. We have supported our work with our day jobs (electrician and office worker), quite often with some difficulty (don't get me wrong – it wasn't a crusade on our parts, our motives were purely selfish; we did it because it gave (gives) us a great deal of pleasure).
We have been involved in the production of around a dozen albums of field recordings; in each case the proceeds for these have been automatically donated to either the National Sound Archive or The Irish Traditional Music Archive (again, not altruism on our part, but a desire not to be seen by our singers making money out of their labours).
Wherever the proceeds went, our main motivation has always been the distribution of the material; if it is not bought, I'm just as happy to see it passed on in other ways.
It disturbs me nowadays when I see traditional 'arrangements' copyrighted (I never got the explanation for this term that I requested earlier in this thread). The Cap'n is of course right (had to happen sometime - joke Cap'n)); the way the law stands at present, performers can claim as their own any traditional material they wish with the help of a few minor tweaks and as far as their own compositions are concerned they don't have to pass them on if they don't wish to.
The revival I came into was based on sharing, passing on, swapping. I know, for instance, that many of the songs MacColl researched for albums, (Alan Tyne of Harrow, Furze Field, The Vintner, Sheath and Knife, Song of The Trades, for instance) were doing the rounds of the clubs long before he recorded them because he never hesitated in passing them on to other singers. I remember standing on the stairs leading up to The Singers Club one night and recording Burke and Hare from him, having just heard him sing it for the first time. (Sorry to bang on about MacColl, but he was a major influence and helped to shape much of my thinking on folksong). This was also the case with his, and many other songwriters attitudes to their own compositions; the principle attitude of performers was that songs were to be circulated rather than marketed. This seems to have largely gone.
Of course I don't agree with distributing peoples own compositions or their recordings without their permission – not because it is illegal (any law that allows the likes of Kennedy to get away with what he did can't be anything but an ass!) – but because it's simply bad manners not to ask.
This doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on those who are not prepared to pass on their material (traditional, arranged or self-penned).
Nor does it mean I'm not going to comment on what I see as a deterioration in attitude on threads like this.
In the past it has been my experience that those who cling on tightest to their songs and music are usually the ones who have the least to offer.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:29 AM

Thankyou for that thoughtful and informative post, Jim. But I'm still confused by your suggestion that singers and songwriters 'cling tightly' to their songs.

I really don't think people do - or can. Once a song is published anyone can sing it, without permission - that what publishing means. I can record a Steve Knightly song without asking him, I merely have to attribute it correctly so that he recieves the royalties he is due. (And I checked this with him when I did)!

An arrangement however just means a version. Unlike a writer's copyright, it really only applies to a singer's own performances of that registered arrangement.

Do you have evidence of artists telling others that thay cannot sing certain songs because the artist has registered an arrangement or a writer's copyright? If so then it's just sound and fury signifying nothing, in law - or so I was told by PRS when I checked with them many years ago. (Though maybe I misunderstood - in which case I'll need to do some back-tracking)!

As I said above, registering an arrangement doesn't prevent anyone else from singing the song, or registering their own arrangement (though they do have to members of PRS to do this).

Royalties are collected on, in theory, every public performance of every song. Who recieves that royalty is then down to who is credited on the sheet (assuming one is filled in, which is not always necessary, but that's a complex story in its own right).

None of this could be called a failure to pass on the material. In fact by singing a song the artists IS passing on the material with every performance.

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 07:48 AM

"Jim you were agreeing,with Matt Keen who was talking not about your collection ,but about his songs.Matt Keen said[I personally would love it if hundreds of extra people were listening to my [MATT KEENS STUFF] etc etc.
Of course you cant see anything wrong with the Last quote,because you cant see anything apart from your blinkered narrow perspective".


I don't want to be associated with Jim's straight jacketed approach.

I am all for professional earning what they can/should from their work, whether thats trad.. arrnged by.. or whatever

My original motivation for posting was a concern for how we might promote our music on the net, using the reality of downloads.


SEDAYNE - a fxxking museum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:29 AM

MY apologies Matt Keen.
Jim,you say that the early revival was more willing to share.
Martin Carthys dispute with Paul Simon over his arrangement[and it was a sophisticated guitar arrangement],occurred either early or mid sixties surely that classifies as early revival,it was over 40 years ago.
IF you are right,there may be an explanation for that perhaps there are more composers[writing in traditional style,and contemporary style] these days,and more people needing to pay their mortgages.
The early revival would have featured teenagers who perhaps were beatniks[see WizzJones youtube 1961,and Newquay]. Sadly Peoples aspirations change,when they get to be sixty,they are no longer happy living in a tent,and want to be able to pay the next electricity bill ,that means if thay are a composer songwriter ,they need every penny from royalties,because they dont earn much ,often less than the minimium wage from the folk scene,
Most professionals could earn much more in another field,but their love of the music has kept them available for the folk scene.
One of the interviewees,in the WizzJones /Newquay/ Beatnik youtube
is my cousin Susan Miles.Dick Miles

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 08:49 AM

Mattkeen: In terms of traditional song, yes, absolutely a fxxcking museum; a fxxcking museum to a decidedly extinct species. What's the problem??

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 09:28 AM

Jim Carrol:
"an opinion on those who are not prepared to pass on their material"

You agree that it is wrong to distribute copies of another person's recording, so presumably you don't object to Anne asking the blogger to remove the recording from his site?

Except for that kind of action, i.e. stopping somebody from doing wrong, I don't think there's anybody participating directly or referred to in this thread that isn't prepared to pass on their material as long as it is going to be handled with due repect.

The issue is about the recipient of that material giving credit for their source, which in some cases translates into financial benefit as well.

Dick :
I'm sure Martin Carthy didn't mind Paul Simon using his material and wasn't trying to stop him from singing or selling records, just asking to be properly credited and paid where credit and payment were due. "Unwillingess to share" doesn't fairly describe that dispute.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 07 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

Anahata,Iagree,.I have stated before I think Martin was right,to protect his arrangement.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 06:08 AM

Anahata,
"You agree that it is wrong to distribute copies of another person's recording, so presumably you don't object to Anne asking the blogger to remove the recording from his site?"
Of course not - if that is what she wants to do; that was not my point, which was about sharing the material.
Tom,
" But I'm still confused by your suggestion that singers and songwriters 'cling tightly' to their songs."
We have on our shelves 20-odd editions of The New City Songster, a publication edited by Peggy Seeger which ran from 1969 to 1985. Each volume contained at least a dozen songs donated by such songwriters as Eric Bogle, Matt Armour, John Pole, Frankie Armstrong, Pete Seeger, Miles Wooton, Ewan MacColl, Peggy Seeger, Jack Warshaw, Sandra Kerr, Don Lange..... and many more.
I am left with the impression from discussions such as this one that such a publication would no longer be possible - please tell me I'm wrong.
Can we please lay the Scarborough Fair ghost once and for all.
The version in question was collected by Ewan MacColl and Joan Littlewood from retired lead miner Mark Anderson in 1948. It was used on a BBC radio programme 'The Song Collector' in that year. Anderson's is fairly similar to the one in Kidson's Traditional Tunes, so presumably it was fairly common in Yorkshire, in other words, his or somebody's 'arrangement' of the ancient ballad 'The Elfin Knight' (Child 2), dating back (certainly in print) to at least 1673.
Martin sang Anderson's tune and text, presumably from The Singing Island, Dylan got it from him and passed it on to Paul Simon, who used it for the film 'The Graduate'.
In fairness to all concerned, to my knowledge there was never an actual dispute on the use of the song, nor could there be; I heard it only as an anecdote.
Simon's arrangement in The Graduate, as far as I remember, while using Anderson's tune and (some of) his text, bore no resemblance whatever to Carthy's; in fact, if my memory serves me right, it was orchestrated for the film, so in talking about rights of ownership we can only be referring to text and tune.
My point in raising the matter is that whenever the copyright issue is raised in relation to traditional song, the last to be considered is invariably the traditional source.
Earlier in this thread I proposed a levy on the commercial use of traditional songs to be used in the developing of a National Archive. Compared to what has happened in Ireland and Scotland, England trails sadly behind in such a facility. Past uses of traditional songs and music in films like The Graduate, Far From The Madding Crowd, Moby Dick, The Bounty, and many, many more examples, could have made a major contribution to a British Archive.
As it stands at present, the only hope for such an idea taking off is if the collectors and researchers devote their own time, energy and finances into such a project.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:16 AM

Jim,the material can be shared once the songwriter gives permission,and in the case of say a publication[Like new city songster] comes to some agreement, about waiving royalties.
I see Folk London regularly publish new compositions,they clearly do so with the songwriters permission,and have come to some kind of an agreement,so it does clearly still happen ,that people come to arrangements[perhaps waiving their royalties,or any income due].
but this is done with the songwriters permission.,probably in the case of Folk London,the songwriter has approached them.
So can we stop this harking back to the good old days of Ewan Maccoll,it is extremely tedious and backward looking[reactionary]

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 10:44 AM

"I am left with the impression from discussions such as this one that such a publication would no longer be possible - please tell me I'm wrong."

Jim - I'd wager a ton that most writers who sing self-penned 'folk' songs in clubs and festivals would bite your arm off up to the elbow if you started such a magazine today (or would it be a web site)?

A few of us may try to make a living from our songs, but we ALL need them to be out there - as widely distributed as possible. Hence why my lyrics are available on my website for example. We LOVE it when people take up our songs - including the trad arrs.

You say the writers 'donated' their songs. Did they get any money from the sale of the magazine? I assume not, but it wouldn't make any difference in the long run. If they were PRS members they'd have got their royalties in the usual way, later, when the songs were recorded and performed by people who'd perhaps seen it in the book. I may be wrong but that's how I assume it would work - and I'll ask next time I see one of them!

I fairlty sure they would not have needed to waive royalties, or to have had any agreement about royalties. Permission to print would be necessary, but the PRS fees would never have gone near the magazine, unless they were diverted there by some private arrangement - just directly to the writer in the usual way.

Am I mistaken about this?

Tom

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 01:07 PM

Writers sent in their songs.
The magazine was non-profit making and was sold to raise enough for publication costs.
The artwork was provided free by singer-songwriter Dave Scott of Belfast.
Good old days indeed Cap'n, tedious and reactionary - no; just a co-operative enterprise to get songs circulated (certainly not mercenary).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:22 PM

JIM ,I did not say that the New City songster was tedious and reactionary,and you know it,I am talking about your present attitude,the past is gone,looking back at the past through rose tinted spectacles is a mistake.
Folk London,has regularly printed songwriters compostions,including Bob Watson[a noted songwriter],get with it Jim,find out whats going on now.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 02:36 PM

Cap'n
Read my posting carefully Cap'n - concentration seems to be slipping again.
That you find the time when people co-operated and passed on their songs and sang for the love of it 'tedious and reactionary' tells me all I need to know really.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 08 Sep 07 - 04:56 PM

It is illegal and discourteous to take other peoples work and display it without their permission.
People are still cooperating and passing on their songs[Folk London is just one example]for the love of it,but they expect to be asked for their permission, first.
I am sure Ewan and NewCity Songster always asked permission first.,This thread is about bloggers who dont.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 07:10 AM

Accepting that this thread has gone seriously astray from Tapster's original gripe, here's a further digression inspired by much of the above discussion...

What's the thinking on those songs which are accepted as being traditional (and very often sung as such) but which are in fact the work of known individuals?

Perhaps the most obvious example is 'The Twa Corbies', which is invariably sung to the Breton tune of An Arlach Ar, although few singers seem to be aware of this, nor that it was Ray Fisher who first put the two together. Likewise 'Willie's Lady', as sung by Martin Carthy, which Ray first set to the Breton melody Son Ar Chistre.

On the recent compilation John Barleycorn Reborn you can hear Rachel & I singing my setting of Child#102, Willie & Earl Richard's Daughter, aka The Birth of Robin Hood, which I 'set' to the melody 'Balladelle Bergeronnette Douce Baisselete' by Northern French trouvere Adam de la Halle (1237-86) (from his Le Jeu de Robin et Marion which, whilst not concerning Robin Hood per se, nevertheless prefigures much that we have come to associate with the legend...). As with Ray's settings of Twa Corbies & Willie's Lady, here are two distinct though entirely traditional / historical elements being combined in a way that obviously works, but how much fuss do I make regarding authorship? Likewise to what extent can Rachel assert ownership of her superlative counterpoint which arose in direct & spontaneous response to the otherwise traditional / historic material?

Personally I think it's important to keep tabs on such things & to give credit where credit's due. Whenever I hear the Twa Corbies being sung in Ray's setting, I invariable ask the singer if they're aware of the provenance; needless to say few of them are.

As I've said elsewhere, lately I've been singing Kipling's Puck's Song to the tune of Idbury Hill / London Pride. This arose as a pure fluke in a serendipitous moment of mediumisic inspiration when trying to get to grips with the melody Peter Bellamy composed for this song, so can I really claim any sort of credit? For sure I would dearly love others to do likewise, although given the darkly jingoistic subtext of the poem itself I fear few ever will!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Tom Bliss
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 08:36 AM

We've been touching on this on the Raglan Road debate, Sean. It's a four-pinter in its own right. How about a unique thread?

As for copyright, I see from my MU mag that the School of Law in Liverpool JMU is conducting research into the impact of intellectual copyright on music - including issues around the copyright of arrangements of publicly-owned songs (which may be eroded by Creative Commons Licence). So this debate is topical right now.

I'd post the url - but it's 404.

Tom

Creative Commons Licence

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 01:58 PM

Adapting traditional songs is as old as the revival itself.
MacColl rebuilt ballads from fragments, Lloyd was well known for the practice (Jack Orion/ Prince Heathen and dozens of others). No problem with this except, particularly in Bert's case, when he made academic claims for his re-writes. Bert edited freely many of the songs he included in The Penguin Book.
Frank Purslow re-constructed many songs from the Hammond and Gardiner collection.
Personally, while I have always enjoyed listening to completed rewrites, (MacColl's Sheath and Knife is wonderful), and have done it myself on numerous occasions, I would find the idea of copyrighting such pieces totally abhorrent and an absolute vindication of everything I have been saying on this thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 03:35 PM

JIM you are entitled to your opinion,but can I remind you,the topic that is being discussed,Copyright warning bloggers,is about songwriters having their material taken without permission,and put into the public domain without their permission.We are NOT talking a about traditional songs being adapted ,Please stop introducing irrelevancies.
your concentration appears to be slipping.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 09 Sep 07 - 05:40 PM

Aye, aye Captain; I'll be sure to open it up as separate thread when I get a mo - and perhaps another on Bert's somewhat wayward ideas on the origins of jazz as expressed in the intro to The Penguin Book...

Sedayne the Misguided.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM

Cap'n,
Stop trying to score points - it doesn't become you - or on second thoughts......... I was responding to a previous question.
All threads creep, especially ones about acquisitive and possessive people trying to market songs that have been freely shared in the past, particularly traditional ones, (as a singer, you have been the beneficiary of having the songs passed on to you without payment, just like the rest of us).
Jim Carroll
PS you are right about one thing; I am entitled to my opinion, in spite of having been told on numerous occasions that I am not, because I no longer sing - but I think we've seen the back of that one, don't you?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:07 AM

SEDAYNE


Cos museums are where you keep dead things

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,TB
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 05:54 AM

Intellectual Property

File still 404, but I've asked for help from the MU

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 06:59 AM

Matt, the only way I could read Sedayne's long "museums" post was as heavy irony. I could see that it might be taken at face value by some, but I really couldn't countenance the possibility that it was actually meant seriously.

In the end I chose to ignore it.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 09:21 AM

Fair enough

I'm just not sophisticated enoubh to pick up on such nuances

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Dave Tyler
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 10:33 AM

Thanks for the link to Woven Wheat Whispers Sedayne. Looks an interesting place.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:17 AM

"Thanks for the link to Woven Wheat Whispers Sedayne. Looks an interesting place."

If i'm not mistaken, you're a regular contributor there, aren't you, Lizzie?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:43 AM

Woven Wheat whispers forum was closed about a year ago. Lizzie was a very occasional contributor.

The current forum is at the linked Harvest Home site. I'm not aware of any posts by Lizzie. I could be wrong. They don't usually particularly interest me.

More to the point, Ruth, and no disrespect intended, but I can't quite see what point you're making or why you're making it... Compared to Mudcat, HH is almost achingly mild-mannered and polite to the point of occasional dullness - even when we disagree with each other. I suspect it's because with a few exceptions - such as Sedayne and Mike Bosworth - none of us have been around the official folk scene very much, so maybe don't have such big, sharp, well-honed axes to grind. Some of the members aren't involved in the mainstream folk world at all, in fact. EFDSS always announces new issues of the EDS magazine there, though, which is nice.

I'm biased, but I think even if people end up not liking it, it's worth a quick furtle round Harvest Home. If nothing else, it demonstrates what some of the non-scene types (to borrow a phrase from the gay community!) who would consider themselves in some way aligned to the concept of folk music are up to.

Space.

To get briefly back on-topic in order to justify this post, whilst I might try to encourage friends to try a little taste of folk music with the odd carefully crafted compilation CDr and exhortations to spend, spend, spend, I don't like robbing bloggers either. In case it wasn't clear from my earlier post.

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 11:56 AM

Sorry, Nigel - no disrespect to WWW/Harvest Home is intended at all. I was only pointing out that this poster isn't who they say they are.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 10 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Aaah... Now I understand. Cheers, Ruth, clarification appreciated.

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 08:55 AM

Matt & Anahata - my point is that whilst traditional song is dead (along with the singers that sang it & the social context in which they lived and laboured) even the museum is in danger; a quirky place, like the Pitt-Rivers, out of step with the age, dimly lit and full of abstracted curiousities we might dimly glimpse as we negotiate the buckets on the floor to catch the rainwater dripping in through the roof... The Revival is such a museum, but as far removed from the natural habitats of traditional songs as a glass case full of shrunken heads is from the savage shores of whatever cannibal isle they originated.

I'm not confusing Folk Song & Traditional Song here by the way; two very different things - Folk Song is very much alive and kicking, and it's those Folk Singers who sing Traditional Songs that I think of as the curators; especially those curmudgeonly purists I both applaud & adore.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: mattkeen
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:02 AM

I am not sure that I understand your fine distinctions.
But, what the hell.....

To me traditional songs and tunes needs to be still performed and lived

ALSO traditional songs and tunes need to be performed and added to through the performers own experience and skill whilst staying true to the original spirit as discerned by the performer.


I see the need for both, but I don't know if this has anything to do with what you are saying.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:17 AM

Of course it does, all I'm saying is that we revival singers (of whatever generation) operate at a very significant remove from the original context in which the songs came about.

I sing them & perform them, but I don't fool myself into thinking that I am a Traditional Singer, rather a Singer of Traditional Songs, which is something very different.

As for tunes - my advice is always to proceed with caution and get as close to the source as is humanly possible. How often do we hear (say) the melody (& chorus) of Lay The Bent to the Bonny Broom (Child #1) sung to the entirely innapropriate ballad of The Cruel Sister (Child #10), just because Pentangle (for whatever reason) choose to do so?

I recently started singing The Cruel Mother to Mrs Pearl Brewer's superlative melody, as can be heard as part of the Max Hunter archive; I use a different set of words however, but I always point out my sources in performances.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Santa
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:20 AM

I was looking for a quote from Jim Carroll before, but couldn't find it, now I have. So my apologies for being late in response.

"Cap'n,
The groups you mentioned - and others - came and went without leaving anything of lasting value to traditional song."

The first point is that it is a bit difficult (read impossible) for any recent group or singer(s) to affect traditional song, which by definition predates them.

If you consider that rather a restricted definition, then my second point is, I think, better. What these people left was an audience. New singers, musicians and listeners have come to the tradition via the songs of Steelye Span, Fairport Convention, etc. You may consider the output from these groups to be "tradition-lite" at best, but without them the current folk scene would be even smaller than it is, and I don't see that as being beneficial to passing on the tradition, however defined.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 09:38 AM

Unless of course, they deliberately mess it up - as Pentangle did with The Cruel Sister (see above), but otherwise, Santa, I think that's an excellent point. Hell, I still sing 'Gallant Poacher / Poacher's Fate' much as the day I learnt it off The Battle of the Field, though I'm having a bugger of job un-learning it in the light of the Walter Pardon recording which I only recently acquired!

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Santa
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 10:07 AM

So what if they did mess it up - it still exists in unmessed form. Unless you think it might actually put people off? Generally, I think that presenting traditional songs in contemporary forms more likely to attract new (young) people than presenting them with the pure Walter Pardon. There's something to be said about being thrown in at the deep end, but personally I'd expect more survivors from a gentler approach.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Skivee
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:09 AM

Wow, talk about your thread drift!
Back to topic: I went to the (above noted) Celticcicle website and looked around. I was surprised to see my friend Jennifer's band The New St, George's album offered as MP-3 downloads. She's pretty pissed about it.
The poster never asked permission to post her work, She paid thousands to produce that CD. No contact info is given, so it's largely a free give-away of her work. It would have taken very little effort for the poster to contact her and ask permission. The posted album is still available in it's high quality original form. The CD also includes the printed material that puts the tracks in context.
Part of the reason that performers are upset about this sort of thing is that the MP-3 winds up being a crappy version on their efforts. The reason that we spend so much money working in professional studios is that we are looking for the best presentation that we can get of our performances. Not only are these posts theft of the artists efforts, they also are a crappy version of the work.
It's one thing to walk through a greenhouse and ask the gardener if you can pluck a flower. It's quite another to sneak in under cover of darkness, dig up the rosebushes, and cloak yourself in the self-serving excuse that flowers should be free.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

Re: Skivee's last sentence - nicely put.

I have been known to get someone to make a copy of a recording for me.

(a) I had previously bought the record (on vinyl) but lost it during one of several house-moves in between.
(b) it was no longer available from the original label or distributors.
(c) As it happens, the same recording was re-issued on CD recently and I paid up for another copy!

Of course the people who put these things on their websites don't contact the original artist or label. (what do you think they'd say?) They want all the so-called glory for themselves. They don't give a toss whether the original is still available or even whether the artist is alive or dead.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:44 AM

To continue with the drifted branch of the thread, I don't hold the view that the tradition is a fixed body of material that should be preserved rigidly unchanged, nor that it's dead. It does keep changing, and new songs get added to the tradition (with alarming speed sometimes) and all the way back through traceable history many of the songs we call traditional have commercial origins, whether it was publication as broadsides or writing for the stage or whatever. The superficial context of some songs is out of date (we don't have ploughboys and knights in armour any more) but the real context of human emotions and behaviour hasn't changed a lot.

Also: with traditional ballads it's impossible to get back to the original "source". It quite correct to say that you shouldn't use a particular tune just because some famous revival artist used that tune, but not because they used the wrong tune and there is a right one: the reason why is that you are free to use any tune that fits, because the traditional ballad singers of long ago didn't have set tunes (or set words for that matter). And broadsides were printed as words, with a suggestion of "to the tune of..." for convenience.

In other words the practice of mixing and matching bits of words and tunes to suit yourself is not some modern corruption of the tradition: it's what's always happened. The only difference now is that with widely available printed, recorded and electronic records available we can see it happening much more readily.

Do we need another thread about this? I've a feeling it's been done already.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 11:48 AM

Santa - I think it's misleading as to the 'true' nature of both ballads, especially as these days I hear more people singing 'The Cruel Sister' as 'Lay the Bent' than I do as (say) 'Binnorie'. And I've never heard anyone singing Lay the Bent as 'Riddles Wisely Expounded' so something's wrong somewhere.

Perhaps if people were prepared to dig a little deeper then the legacy of the folk revival will be more than people singing stuff they've got off records and actually doing the research themselves? Surely half the fun of a song is the sourcing the provenance of the thing? And once you've sickened yourself with the soda-pop superficialities of Pentangle and Steeleye Span et al, surely you begin to yearn for a drop of the hard stuff?

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Nigel Spencer (cookieless)
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:06 PM

Quote: "and I've never heard anyone singing Lay the Bent as 'Riddles Wisely Expounded' so something's wrong somewhere."

Jon Loomes 'Fearful Symmetry' (Fellside 2005) Track 11.

By some weird symmetry I've just been listening to it. Who says traditional music isn't spooky?

Cheers

Nigel

Apologies for furtherence of thread drift

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:20 PM

Spooky indeed; I'll have hear this, but, to get back on thread, I won't dare to ask for an mp3...

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Sep 07 - 12:28 PM

PS - Strictly speaking of course I meant in folk clubs / singaround context which is where I do most of my folk song listening these days, discounting my own efforts. I tried singing 'Lay the Bent / Riddles' of late but I got a bit dispirited by the last few verses which are of an obviously different order to the quite freewheeling eroticism of the rest of the song. I tried leaving them out but given the narrative intensity at the beginning it seemed a bit incomplete without them, so I sort of gave up. Maybe Pentangle had the same problem???

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 03:44 AM

The theory that groups such as Pentangle and Steeleye draw an audience for traditional song doesn't hold water; what they draw an audience for is their particular take on traditional song.
When Shirley Ellis took 'The Clapping Song' into the hit parade many centuries ago, some argued (including several folk magazines) that this was the big break through - it didn't happen. The same applies to Sinead O'Connor's 'Nua Sean Nós album, which has done nothin whatever for Irish traditional song.
Watering down malt whiskey only develops a taste for watered down malt whiskey.
My 'restricted' definition is restricted by the fact that there is a definition to be restricted by (see 'How Much Folk is There' thread) This is a definition, not a law that everybody must listen to the real thing.
Jim
Ccarroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: treewind
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:03 AM

"what they draw an audience for is their particular take on traditional song."
Then a small percentage of that audience get interested in where the band got their material from, and discover it's the traditional music itself, rather than that treatment of it, that they really like.

It will always be a very small percentage of the population that does this, but some of those people might never have discovered the music they now love otherwise.

Maybe Nigel will be back soon with his own take on this - I know that's been (some of) his experience.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: The Sandman
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 05:40 AM

Anahata I agree ,Iknow at least six people,who have been introduced to folk/traditional music,through one of the following groups,.
Horslips,Fairport Convention,Steeleye Span,TheSpinners.
They are all people who have progressed to less commercial music and are all performers of less commercial brands of Folk.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:26 AM

I haven't had time to read all the postings here.

Until I retired from Academe in 1997 I was one of the Intellectual Property lawyers in the School of Law, Liverpool John Moores University, with Professor Penelope Pearce.

Clearly I would not wish to encroach on the work being done at JMU ; but, if I am able to answer IP Law queries from fellow 'Catters, I will.

Thatsaid : the fact that I have no intention of charging a fee for any such advice means that I can accept no responsibility for errors and/or omissions.

Any such advice will be given on information furnished, and can concern the Jurisdiction of England & Wales

Bryn Pugh BA (Law) LL.M.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Bryn Pugh
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 11:27 AM

PS . . . the Jurisdiction of England & Wales only.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 13 Sep 07 - 04:35 PM

Responding to Anahata's post above:

At the risk of making Diane E physically sick, things like the Wicker Man soundtrack and then an exploration of pychedelic folk (ISB, Forest, Dr Strangely Strange, Mellow Candle, Dando Shaft etc) led me to the Fairports, early Steeleye Span, Mr Fox (still one of my favourite bands ever), Albion Band etc. It wasn't such a huge leap from the folk rock to Martin Carthy, Nic Jones, Anne Briggs, Shirley Collins etc. Once I got there I was absolutely hooked - it was like coming home. Since then, I've been hugely enjoying discovering Anahata & Mary Humphreys, Jackie Oates, John Dipper, Lisa Knapp, Jim Causley and lots of others. I've also been listening to Voice of the People, Lomax recordings etc. This isn't to say I don't listen to the other stuff any more - I do, and I still really enjoy it, but more than anything else I'm listening to more and more traditional music - both in the traditional and revival forms, each of which have their own validity. And this journey has all taken place in the last three or so years.

So my point is, even the Wicker Man soundtrack, let alone Steeleye Span, can lead some people to traditional music.

And I have to thank Mark Coyle from the Unbroken Circle for introducing me to so much of the music I've heard over the last few years. Now I'm using Diane's myspace friends list as my music guide!

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:30 AM

"things like the Wicker Man soundtrack"
Still reckon that Christopher Lee looks like Maddy Prior on Speed!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 03:56 AM

I agree with Nigel and Anahata. For me, 20 years ago, it was The Pogues.

I never got folk rock, though - Steeleye, Fairport et al...I was the wrong generation, I think.

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: Giant Folk Eyeball (inactive)
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:11 AM

The Pogues were my generation too, rather than Steeleye Span - loved Shane McGowan's way with words and a tune, but never quite learned to love his voice...

Jim - I'll never watch that film in quite the same light again!

Cheers

Nigel

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Sep 07 - 04:41 AM

Sorry 'bout that Nigel
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Copyright warning - bloggers!
From: GUEST,The Mole Catcher's Apprentice
Date: 13 Feb 08 - 11:13 AM

There are a fair number of blogs(getting back firmly on track here) that I've come across that link to various download sites, and I have fast formed the opinion that these bloggers simply don't give a tinker's damn, it's sad to say, but true, and I really don't want to hear that it's "freedom of choice", because it's not, it's theft, plain and simpleand if, as I've been reading, that is the possibility of internet priviliges being withdrawn, so be it. Popular to some schools of thought, the internet is a privilige, not a right.

Charlotte (thinking a thick ear might benefit some bloggers)