T M Krishna and Vijay Siva Speak Against Concert Recording

[vgovindan]

Nick,
Thanks for explaining the difference with example.
Taking the example cited by you, is a CM concert an original work? Is each concert an original work?
When the Swaras are finite, when the rAgas are finite, when the contours of rAga are finite,when the lyrics are finite and belong to someone else - all that can be called original is the manodharma aspect of concert only. Therefore, how it is claimed that the whole performance belongs to the performer? What is the role of accompanists?
Unless there are clear rules formulated in this regard, it is futile to counter the claims of recording companies. I am fully aware that the recording companies can insist on not copying the material like the art galleries not allowing photography of their collection. But there is a crucial difference - a music record is not art piece in the gallery meant only for display - it is for sale and that too duly replicated.
The statement that musicians have given their life blood is true only to a limited extent. That argument is applicable to any profession.

[Nick H]

is a CM concert an original work?

It is a unique performance and there are performing rights. The rules are actually clear, but the music world itself, with all the Youtube stuff as per other threads, is not helping to make, or keep it clear.

As I have mentioned in other threads, I know a little bit about copyright, albeit a little outdated, from a previous job: I know almost nothing about performing rights, other than existence, and the principle of the difference. I can compare it by analogy to my former work like this: The Mona Lisa is absolutely not still in copyright, but the prints published by my former employer most certainly are. Nothing to stop another publisher making their reproduction from the original, but everything to stop them making one from our print.

[VK RAMAN]

One's voice can be a copyright if one can prove that it is his/her voice. Everything else unless ones own lyrics/composition, IMHO is not copy-right able.

[vgovindan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Related_rights#Performers

"Related rights are independent of any authors' rights, as is made clear in the various treaties (Art. 1 Rome; Art. 7.1 Geneva; Art. 1.2 WPPT). Hence a CD recording of a song is concurrently protected by four copyright-type rights:
Authors' rights of the composer of the music
Authors' rights of the lyricist
Performers' rights of the singer and musicians
Producers' rights of the person or corporation that made the recording"

What about Authors' rights which precede that of performers?

[askn]

IMHO the simple solution is for the artist to record the concert and make it available. Can be made available for streaming and / or download
They can do it on their own website , YouTube or across the various streaming platforms or produce a CD for sale.
This should go in some way to address everyone's concerns / needs.
The rasikas get to listen to the concert again at any time , it becomes available to listen to rasikas who we unable to attend the concert .
The artist can earn royalties etc from YouTube or the streaming services or from sale of the download / CD.
This meets everyone main requirements , compliant with copyright laws , available for posterity and less angst

[pattamaa]

very good idea... love it..

[vasanthakokilam]

askn, even that requires a deal to be worked out between the sabha and the artists, I think. But yes, they can do that and that is what Sanjay does.

[Nick H]

askn, what you suggest is happening --- and you can see on this forum that, even when no copyright law is broken, the record companies and youtube/google are still causing a great deal of trouble and pain.

There is nothing wrong with the principles of copy- and performance rights, but it seems that the system, not the principle, is completely broken.

In the context of this particular thread, you also have to add to all that, "but what if they don't want to?"

[askn]

But yes, they can do that and that is what Sanjay does.

Sanjay is really ahead in making his music available. More artists should take a cue from him.

he record companies and youtube/google are still causing a great deal of trouble and pain.

recognize this , and understand the background. There are other platforms other than YouTube available for this.

but it seems that the system, not the principle, is completely broken.

True , but this is a very fixable , need the ecosystem participants to be a more open minded and trustful

In the context of this particular thread, you also have to add to all that, "but what if they don't want to?"

This quaetion , is an extremely important one. Hope that so artists on this forum would step forward to answer that.
In any case , Make it available is a better option than ranting against your listerners / fans ?

[Nick H]

Maybe, but the background context of this thread, which dates back four years, is that certain artists do not want recordings made of their performances, and go so far as to stipulate that. I see TMK only once in a blue moon, or even decade, but I see Vijay Siva regularly: as far as I know, he still requires that recordings should not be made.

Any music that is then released by those artists is within their own power and choice, whether they do it by CD, free or paid internet, or not at all. That is fine by me, and I think we should respect the artists' decision.

It is four years back, but, if I remember right, my argument was not with that decision or principle, but with using spurious, wrong legal arguments and threats. But that might have been another story...

recognize this , and understand the background. There are other platforms other than YouTube available for this.

Don't forget the record companies: they will poke their fingers anywhere there see a threat to their income. Even that is not wrong, just the currently used mechanism is broken.

[vasanthakokilam]

The record companies miscalculated that they can double dip, sell music and also make money on streaming through ads or subscriptions. But they are wrong. A lot of people are comfortable with legal streaming like Beats and Spotify ( and not owning ) and so there is a danger of implosion of music sales.

Artists putting their stuff on YT and getting paid by ad revenues or subscriptions will become the mainstream way for that whole business. In that sense, Parivadini is ahead of the times, acting as a platform provider and aggregator for such things. SanskritiSeries is taking a hybrid model, they sell music and dance recordings and stream on YT.

The biggest advantage of YT is the network effect and lock-in. The consumers are there and hence that is where the suppliers go and hence the consumers go there and stay there. It is like our age old 'sundai'(சந்தை). But we know from experience that for niche genres the network effect and the lock in is less of an issue. It is conceivable that platforms like Vimeo and Dailymotion can offer attractive terms and agree to take an aggressive stance against record companies instead of kowtowing to them like YT does.

Also, let us not give any prominence to the record companies/YT issue and act as a deterrant. There are some bad apples, but there was a lot of misunderstanding about the root cause of it (it is the google algorithm was the biggest culprit and that seems to be improving)

[Nick H]

You might to need to correct me on the history, but I thought YT/Google only did this stuff under threat from the music industry, which is not so much kowtowing as giving in. If Youtube itself could be held liable for each and every copyright infringement it probably wouldn't last long. I don't know if it can, in law.

But, at the same time, whenever I think of some piece of rock music from 1960- or 1970-something that I want to hear... it's there. On Youtube. Often multiple copies, infringing many rights, and, out of my my marked 'favourites,' only a very, very few vanish from time to time. I'm sure that some of that music is worth vastly more to Sony, or whoever, than a Carnatic kriti.

Which leaves me just scratching my head...

[vasanthakokilam]

The minimum Google has to do is to remove the copy righted material once a complaint is lodged. There is a whole work flow and document flow for that. It is highly biassed in favor of the record companies. That is not surprising. Fine.

Google went beyond that and came up with a way to detect copy right infringement automatically. As with any such algorithm, there are false positives ( i.e. it identifies a few as copy-righted when it is not). That is what we talked about last year. This got conflated with another piece of info that the CM recording companies claim copy right on Thyagaraja's compositions and not just the recording. That infuriated all of us. I am sure there is a case or two of some bone headed recording companies actually claiming that but a vast majority of them are false alarms including our own VKR's recordings. There were all due to the algorithm. As it happened in VKR's case, the label released all those false positives identified by the algorithm

That is the history. YT is so big that as long as they keep the recording companies happy ( and even generate revenue through advertisements ), they are happy. All their actions and procedures are like this. If there is a complaint either through their algorithm or manual, follow the established process and if that is not resolved, YT will ask the parties to take their dispute off of their system and until the issue is resolved, the account will be suspended. In this process, they do not have the bandwidth or practical means to challenge the complainant. That is what was in my mind for using the 'kowtow' word. But another platform like Vimeo or Dailymotion, as a matter of competitive advantage, can setup a business plan that is less of a hassle for legitimate content producers. That is an advantage smaller players have and they can peel off niche producers and consumers from YT very effectively.

[askn]

Which leaves me just scratching my head...

When you are registers as a Content partner with YT ( like the labels have ) and the music is on the Content ID platform , when a video is flagged , the content owner is provided with a cupole of options, a. do nothing b. issue a takedown c. let the video remain up , but re-direct the advertising revenue that is generated to the content owner d. share a % with the uploader , where the uploader has added value / used part of the song etc like in a remix / or has sampled music as part of a somg.

So in most of the these video on YT the label leaves the video up and takes all the ad revenue that is generated

[askn]

T. But another platform like Vimeo or Dailymotion, as a matter of competitive advantage, can setup a business plan that is less of a hassle for legitimate content producers. That is an advantage smaller players have and they can peel off niche producers and consumers from YT very effectively.

Vimeo now has its version of Content ID running , it not a s sophisticated as Google's yet. Vimeo is growing as platform for short film , documentary and indie film and event broadcasts.
Soundcloud also has implemented a version of this as they are transitioning their business model to a more mainstream listening service and licencing content from the major labels.

This is a ineviatable trend for platform that is based on user / 3rd party uploaded content

These platforms have immense value for contnet distribution , but people will have to understand and manage the constraints as well

[vasanthakokilam]

askn, Yes, understood.

These other platforms can institute a different procedure for dealing with complaints and infringement detection by Content ID. A system that is more balanced unlike how the very existence of parivadini on YT was threatened last year and the various hassles our own VKR had.

Many producers will switch from YT if they are treated better and a fairer process is assured for them.

[Nick H]

Thank you both for the recap and further explanations, with good points.