There are some royalty rights issues

[journeytoarcana]

There are some royalty rights issues by playing material that solely doesn't have Jim's name penned to it

I forget who brought this one up. I remember a story about Vic and Steve suing the band for something along these lines, but then again, when the remasters were done, there were Vic and Steve, smiling with the old lineup like it was 1985 again.

Also, "Prelude to Ruin" and "At Fates Hands" were included on Still Life, so if royalty issues were truly a problem, they would have been omitted from the setlist since John, Joe, and Frank have writing credits on those songs. I also remember Jim saying that "Shades of Heavenly Death" was played somewhere in Europe on the Inside Out tour, and THAT song has everybody contributing to the writing except Ray.

So, in essence, it is one thing to play some obscure track once in the South of France somewhere, and a completely different one to include songs not published by Jim on a live album that received worldwide distribution. I would think that "royalty rights" would be an issue on Still Life if this was really a concern of the band.

All in all, I would like to see some balance. We're not asking for domination, just a fair compromise. Yes, perhaps Ray cannot hit "Valley of the Dolls", but he would do well with either "Guardian" or "Epitaph".

We shall see, I soppose, when concert reviews start coming in a few weeks from now.

That is all

jta

[Samsara]

Actually, while I know this post is seven months old, I have to put in a couple of comments.

First, FYI, my background is as a journalist and an attorney. however, copyright, and IP law in general (intellectual property) were my focus points in law school, as I was most interested in those issues.

Any band, can play ANY song, ANY time they want. They can also record that material live and release it.

What the band can't do, without giving royalties, is re-release the studio track written and recorded by an artist without giving him or her royalties. They also can't take live footage with that ex-member playing live, without giving him/her royalties.

There are a lot of gray areas, and other quirks, but in a nutshell, at least in the United States, that's the law.

Hope that helps.

[ShadesofGray]

Good points... wouldn't the live playing fall into Mechanical Licensing territory? If that's the case, and the original members of the original recording were not involved in playing the live versions... would they still be entitle to a cut of any Mechanical License Royalties?

Am I making any sense?

[Samsara]

You are making sense. But unless there were any developments after 2003 that I'm not aware of, Copyright Law and caselaw on the subject of performing music live all says (I am really paraphrasing here and leaving out the nuts and bolts) that since when a performance of a song constitutes a new "version" of it, the copyright in that particular performance is of the individuals that performed.

Mechanical licenses refer to re-recording the actual song again for release, or releasing it on a compilation album.

I may be a bit hazy on my mechanical license stuff, but I THINK I have it right. I'd have to look it up again to be sure.

I did a quick google and pulled this up from a legal website:

"A mechanical license, is a "negotiated license" between the publisher of a song and the record company for the first time use or release of the composition. Mechanical licenses are completely negotiable. The owner of a composition may indeed refuse to allow a composition to be recorded at all. However this is only applicable on the first recording.

A "Compulsory" license is a mandatory mechanical license that is issued on behalf of the copyright owners after the public release of the first recording of that musical composition. Once a song has been recorded and released to the public with the consent of the copyright owners, any other party may "cover" or re-record the same musical composition by obtaining a compulsory mechanical license."

>>>>>Colleen - these do indeed refer to studio versions, not live performance. I'm pretty positive on the live performance stuff...

[ShadesofGray]

Awesome! Thanks for clarifying that. I do a couple of cover tunes some times, and have recorded my own take of Dust In The Wind... have always been confused by the jargon and sheer volume of information that can be found on the ML issue. It seems every time I search on that, someone has a different take on it than the last bit of info I read. Makes my brain hurt, so I just don't do covers often

[BenMech]

and that version of Dust in the Wind gives me chills every time I hear it. Actually, it's time poke the wind for Wednesday night's Seismic show (unless you'drather play it Monday night at Todd's show)