
Is the End Near for Unlicensed Remixes and Cover Songs? - 6stringmerc
https://medium.com/@6StringMerc/is-the-end-near-for-unlicensed-remixes-and-song-covers-6b08a71afb34#.98cikitet
======
whiddershins
To my knowledge cover songs have a statutory right, while remixes do not. This
article is failing to highlight how important a distinction this is.

You have the legal right to record a cover song, and the royalty is set by
law. The artist can only block it later by arguing some change you inflicted
in the composition and recording resulted in a derivative work ... which I
would imagine is how the Cars example came to be.

Remixes you must secure permission, as there is zero statutory right to use
even a millisecond of someone else's recording for any purpose whatsoever.

~~~
jbrantly
> as there is zero statutory right to use even a millisecond of someone else's
> recording for any purpose whatsoever.

Just to be clear, by "any purpose whatsoever" you mean for a remix, right? In
other words, fair use still applies to songs.

~~~
extra88
Fair use basically doesn't apply to recordings of songs. The practitioners and
those in the business of different categories of creative works can establish
different standards for qualifies as fair use. In the early Nineties, the
music industry basically decided that there was more money to be made from
licensing samples than from fostering the creation of works that use samples.

To be more precise, a fair use defense on a sample not being a substantial or
essential part of the original work (if the source can be recognized, the
sample is substantial) or it not causing financial harm (because paid sample
licensing exists) is dead. Defense based on your work being commentary or
parody of the original work is still available. Theoretically, a defense based
on transforming the sample is still available but in practice if the source
can be recognized, the use wasn't sufficiently transformative.

------
kruhft
Part of Nine Inch Nails success as an artist has been from the great diversity
and support of remixers both on his released albums and through fan sites[1].
He was a pioneer in the remix world as one of the first to release full,
multi-track sources for a lot of his tracks and just let it go...to much
success.

This sounds like another example of the music industry shooting itself in the
foot thanks to the suits. Imitation (and covers) are the sincerest form of
flattery in art.

[1] [http://ninremixes.com](http://ninremixes.com)

------
beat
This is fascinating. The old way of handling rights and royalties is so
hopelessly outdated, and the RIAA's approach to it has been so reactionary -
as a songwriter and cover musician myself, I want to make sure musicians (and
licensing agencies) get any financial rewards distributed fairly, while also
taking advantage of the opportunities this new world affords us.

~~~
6stringmerc
Absolutely! There's been a real effort to advance useful Copyright Reform -
often kicking and screaming - in ways that should hopefully bring back more
progress to the arts. I think most musicians learn about respect for others'
work at various stages in their careers, and eventually, come to realize that
paying tribute and being a part of the conversation has been fenced off by
"rights holders" of various sorts.

Honestly I'm glad that there's this new kind of "grey area" where legalized
methods are popping up. They're not perfect. Is this trend better than
nothing? I think so - I think this is what tech and artistic progress working
alongside each other somewhat resembles.

~~~
tigeba
I think this article is unreasonably lumping together the concept of covers
and remixes. Cover songs are covered by compulsory licenses in the U.S.A.
These are very 'mechanical' and you can in fact obtain them for virtually any
recorded song at a fixed rate. It is possible that companies like Soundcloud
may be streamlining the process or helping the publishing rights holders but
there is not much preventing covers from being created.

The situation for remixes is much different. Remixes inherently involve the
use of a PERFORMANCE, not a composition. Licensing is as you mention in the
article very difficult and is up the discretion of the rights holder. If there
are platforms that want to reduce friction here I think that is great, but the
artist should still have discretion in how their performances are used.

~~~
beat
Remixes are related to samples, another grey area.

~~~
tigeba
This is not really a grey area, remixes are samples, and samples are using a
previous performance.

------
splawn
Some of my favorite art, music or otherwise, is (pseudo)anonymous and
illegal....and I am not alone. So, no... the end isn't near, but I am fine if
most people think so. :D

------
gumby
I thought the was about something even more pernicious: The recent ability for
a song author to block someone from recording an interpretation the original
author doesn't like:
[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160523/08060434523/copyr...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160523/08060434523/copyright-
as-censorship-questionable-copyright-claim-forces-indie-musician-to-destroy-
all-physical-copies-new-album.shtml)

tl;dr: a member of "the cars" got some puny indie to destroy all the physical
albums that had been made (before shipping) and change a song, because of his
claimed "rights"

~~~
tigeba
This is not recent, part of the compulsory licensing for covers is that the
cover does not substantially alter the original song. This boils down to
substantial alterations of the melody or (possibly) lyrics.

~~~
lambertsimnel
Don't the rights of the writer depend on the similarity of the cover to the
original? If the the alterations are sufficiently substantial, the author of
the previous version shouldn't have rights over the new version.

~~~
rvlouie
If the alterations are substantial, then it's a derivative work. If it's in
any way derivative, the author has complete authority over the new work. It is
outside the domain of compulsory licenses at this point.

~~~
gumby
Well, parody, while derivative, certainly is not subject to the control of the
original author (remember the Luke Skyywalker case).

I think the courts should have a very liberal definition of what is
transformative -- the permissions culture has gone way way too far (this
infects both civil and criminal law in the USA and Europe).

------
nix0n
No, the end is not near for unlicensed remixes or any other sort of copyright
infringement.

~~~
6stringmerc
What is being negotiated is a revision of the concept of copyright
infringement. A sanctioned, rights-holder compensating negotiated transaction
is distinctly different from infringement as a commercial notion. Or even
based on credit where due in the case of original authors.

