Not Happy -TuneSat

Home Forums General Questions Not Happy -TuneSat

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 76 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8860 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    I think Blind has got it right. The PROs will phase in the new system, the old will age out and we will be uploading our song files to the PROs.

    +1

    So to bring the conversation full circle…what happens to tunesat when the PRO’s have their own fingerprint systems. It remains an expensive way of checking up on the PRO’s?

     

    #8861 Reply
    More Advice
    Participant

    “Under the 35-year reversion terms of the 1976 Act, copyrights made after Jan. 1, 1978 are eligible to once again become the creator’s property.”

    Source:

    http://futureofmusic.org/blog/2010/04/21/terminator-rights-reversion-and-musicians

    It would be quite easy to revise and amend this Act, or make a new Act, to say this:

    “Under the immediate reversion terms of the 2013 Act, all music copyrights ever made   for “non exclusive” publishing must become the creator’s property.”

     

     

    #8864 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    “Under the immediate reversion terms of the 2013 Act, all music copyrights ever made   for “non exclusive” publishing must become the creator’s property.”

    If you’re in a non-exclusive library the copyright never transferred, it never stopped being your property. The library owns nothing, except a non-exclusive right to represent your music for licensing opportunities. Unless, of course, you agreed to transfer your rights, then go the the back of the class!

    I knew somebody would eventually get me to say something “legal” today. 😉

     

     

    #8866 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster

    So to bring the conversation full circle…what happens to tunesat when the PRO’s have their own fingerprint systems. It remains an expensive way of checking up on the PRO’s?

    Tunesat gets bought out by (or partners with) a PRO.

    #8868 Reply
    BIGG ROME
    Guest

    Interesting….

    #8869 Reply
    Kenny
    Participant

    Personally I`m going to solve the fingerprinting by adding an extra cowbell for all of my different versions of a track. Re-titiling adapts into Re-cowbelling and I can still go non-exclusive with all the libraries I want 😉

    #8873 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    @Kenny…make sure you use two different cowbells, large and small.

    #8877 Reply
    Kenny
    Participant

    Oh thanks MichaelL. I never would have thought of that.
    Much appreciated!! 🙂

    #8878 Reply
    More Advice
    Participant

    If you’re in a non-exclusive library the copyright never transferred, it never stopped being your property.

    Michael L – I think any judge will always side with the “original creator” no matter what the circumstances are: exclusive, semi-exclusive, non-exclusive….

    #8879 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    @David, I am aware of, but have not read the rights revision clause of the copyright act. I am, in fact going to try to get back some cues that I wrote around then, which I know the library did not move into the digital age.

    As far as judges go, my experience is that they uphold the terms of a contract first, provided that there are no defenses to enforcement, like incapacity, over-reaching, or the failure of one party to perform.

    _MichaelL

    PS. Judges don’t “side”…they preside (unless you’ve reached the Supreme Court). A jury would hear the case (unless a bench trial is stipulated).

    #8880 Reply
    More Advice
    Participant

    I’m looking at this from the perspective of a complete and total “reset, or overhaul” of an entire industry. I would think that the judge(s) would have no choice but to decide in favor of all “original creators” (getting their music back to, once again, become the sole owners of the intellectual property)….we’ll see…

    #8881 Reply
    MichaelL
    Participant

    I’m looking at this from the perspective of a complete and total “reset, or overhaul” of an entire industry. I would think that the judge(s) would have no choice but to decide in favor of all “original creators” (getting their music back to, once again, become the sole owners of the intellectual property)….we’ll see…

    Without getting into discussions of choice of law (each library might have it’s own provision), jurisdiction (each judge’s rulings only have precedent in their jurisdiction) and the process of going through the federal court system and actually getting the Supreme Court to hear the case (they turn down a lot) maybe…but if anything moves more slowly than technological shift at the PRO’s it is the wheels of justice.

    My guess is that the change over to fingerprint technology and the “age-out” process will occur before the Court could hear the case, which would render it moot, in which case the Court would decline to hear the case.

    The law is a beautiful thing. 😉

    #9576 Reply
    Desire_Inspires
    Participant

    I found out about how Tunesat helped a music library to get a 1000% return on investment. Apparently the German PRO (GEMA) used data from Tunesat to help make a big payout to a library/publisher.

     

    Here is the link: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100608924

    #9577 Reply
    Art Munson
    Keymaster
    #9580 Reply
    Wildman
    Guest

    I will tell you guys if the backend payout is “really happening” by July 2013 or if the articles were nothing more than just nice promotion ! Until “now” there`s “no” payout yet to all the affected composers I know.

Viewing 15 posts - 61 through 75 (of 76 total)
Reply To: Not Happy -TuneSat
Your information:





X

Forgot Password?

Join Us