Is there a nasty war about to explode between GEMA (the german collecting societies for music rights, also known as Gesellschaft für musikalische Aufführungs und mechanische Vervielfältigungsrechte, working hard to satisfy its 65.000 members) and german clubs ? Seems like it. Let see what the factions are...

Basically you have clubs who were paying up to now a steady rate at GEMA which is in charge for collecting the money and redistribute it to the rights owners. Starting from january 1st 2013, new rates will be applied and while it won't have much terrible effects on the smaller clubs or events, it could be rather devastating to the big clubs: the rates will integrate what kind of events it is, the surface of the place, how long will the event be for and the price for the tickets...When you know that some clubs have two floors, some of them are huge places, that the tickets are 10€ and the night is in fact 48 hours long, you can imagine what it does to an accountant...

For a small free happening, the GEMA fee could be around 80€ for a 200 square meter place which is not bad when you consider that right owners do need to get paid. But for big clubs, the...

Jazz is, probably most than any other music genre, a constant rework of classics. Bands take themes and improvise on them, re-approach them with their own ideas and influences.

Miles Davis, a giant among men and musicians, did release a song called "Solar" for the 1954 album Walkin'. The song was put down for copyright a few years later, in 1963. The song, and the album, was a success.
Problem is, you see, that Larry Applebaum, from the US library of Congress has dig an old record called Sonny, recorded by Chuck Wayne in 1946. The song can be heard on http://blogs.loc.gov/music/2012/07/chuck-wayne-sonny-solar/ and it clearly sounds chromatically too close to be "just a mistake"or two composers finding the same scale of chords randomly. The ressemblance is uncanny, isn't it ?

The "similarities" were known by some but never have we been able to actually hear Chuck's version and, well, it does add to the claim some people have about Miles Davis propension to get ownership of songs rather hastily, but that doesn't make him less of a Giant.

And everyone in the music business has...

Well not quite, but seems like Yoko Ono and Paul Mc Cartney are putting water in their wine concerning the use of The Beatles' songs in movies and TV's. Well, and money in their bank, sure.

"Mad Men", the TV show winning Emmy's after Emmy's, has been given the Go Ahead to use the Beatles recording of "Tomorrow Never Knows" for one of his highly regarded episodes. The price is rumoured to be about 250.000 US $ which doesn't seem to be such a big sum but it's the very rare acceptance of Paul, Ringo, Yoko and Olivia Harrisson which makes the headline here. The Beatles have always be extremely choosy about their work and who can use it, and kudos to them for that: artists too often give away all rights and controls of their work to record labels, managers or publishing companies. Of course, artists need to be open minded and work hand in hand with the industry but giving away ALL rights is bound to be painful later.

Usually, The Beatles say No NO NO to the use of their master recordings but sometimes there's the off one-million coup like last year when Sony paid that sum for the use of "Baby I'm A Rich Man" in The Social Network. The trick is then to cover the song...

Thanx to Guillaume Deziel (https://www.facebook.com/guillaume.deziel) manager from the Quebec band Mister Valaire, I have been happily exposed to a very entertaining and informative movie called "RIP: A Remix Manifesto".

Starting with a very simple demonstration and exemple of a musical mash-up, the excellent documentary from Brett Gaylor takes us down the dark alleyways of copyrights, or how it started back in 1710 (actually, on the very same day of my birthday - lol - ) with a 14 years long period during which a work from a printer was protected against other people reproducing it...And now it has escalade in something that clearly needs to be refined and adapted to the times because technology has more than ever its saying here. And we have moved from a civilisation of passive people to one of zillions of possible collaborators: very economical, if not open sources, tools are there for everyone to pick up and mash things up to create the culture of tomorrow's world which, for the first time ever, starts today...

This documentary begins with some Fight Club like laws:

1/ Cultures always build on the...

It's uncanny how as soon as the immediate menace of Sopa and PIpa seems to fade away a new agreement, rather secretly discussed between all countries in the world since 2008, is about to emerge and oh my, doesn't that one have an ugly head: ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) wants to establish new international standards on intellectual property rights enforcement.

While ACTA sounds fine for counterfeit goods (come on, no one serious about what she/he wears would want to be taken alive with a fake Vuitton bag) and all generic medecines (we don't mean the illegal sugar pill one buys on the internet on the promess it's the best weight control pill ever) , ACTA comes with a new array of measures about copyright infringement on the Internet that actually will be very counter-productive and rather against the tide. Not mentionning being organically prepared as a weapon against freedom and self expression on the net.

Copyright infringments need to be tackled down for sure. And there are ways to do it, and there are ways to just blast in the store with an armoured vehicle. Studies have shown that consumers are willing to buy content they would otherwise...

Very interesting article by Bob Stanley (part of the legendary and groovy Saint Etienne band) about the EC extension of copyrights laws from 50 to 70 years. While it does sound good for artists and labels indeed, it also extends the ownership of the masters to whom has now the right to use them and that comes with unexpected results. At the end of the day, it really is important to know how to use this extention of copyright so all can benefit from it.

It could mean that some companies not eager to invest money in forgotten artists will be able to keep their hands on the masters while it would have been possible for these artists to re-release themselves, or reshop for a new label, their own tracks: it's not sure all the labels will jump on this copyright occasion and rework their back catalogue for the pure sake of Art.

It also means that many small labels used to dig up reliques and treasures from the vaults of public domain works will no longer been able to do so.
What matters more: having a record out with a song of yours and eventually being called up and play live gigs, generating some radio money, or just NOT having your work out there?

We...