![]() I understand your point and sympathize with that point of view. The letter of the law does not seem to match up with the digital age IMO. Jamada wrote: Something about that stikes me as wrong since it is a not-for-profit performance. ![]() ![]() It's harder and harder to hear live music these days, in part because club owners have been forced by ASCAP and BMI to pay royalties when performers play copyrighted music or restrict performers to original material.įretkillr is so talented that his videos generated huge "view" numbers, which I'm sure waved red flags to those collecting royalties for rights holders. I'm guessing that a lot of Fretkillr's fans weren't familiar with a lot of the tunes he played before hearing his versions.ĪSCAP and BMI have become very aggressive over the years. I personally think that great amateur (not commercially released) cover versions help the market for the original versions, not the opposite, and that ends up being a plus for the composer/rights holder. Sully151 wrote:So does that mean 75% of the guitar stuff on YouTube should be shut down since it is mostly covers?I'd say it's more than 75%, and yes, based solely on copyright laws (not common sense), the YT posters playing cover tunes should pay royalties to the rights holders or delete the videos. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2023
Categories |