RSS
Twitter
Norwegian Band Told It Can't Post Its Own Music To The Pirate Bay, Even Though It Wants To
from the how-nice dept
Having recently returned from Norway, where I was impressed at the optimism and the willingness to embrace new technologies and services, it's disappointing to read the following story (found via brokep) of a Norwegian band who recently released an album on their own label and decided to put it up on The Pirate Bay themselves, as more and more indie labels are doing. Except... the band members are a part of the Norwegian music collection society TONO, who is among those fighting to have The Pirate Bay blocked in Norway. Since the band has allowed TONO to enforce its copyrights in performance situations, TONO is claiming that it can forbid members from putting their music on sites like The Pirate Bay (translation from the original Norwegian):
The management contract in TONO means that we can not allow the TONO-members post things on your own at some commercial sites.Once again, examples of these performance rights groups working against the wishes of artists, rather than helping them out.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
this doesn't makes sense
It doesn't makes sense. If the band wants their album on TPB, what's the 'legal' problem? They gave their performance rights to TONO, not their publishing rights. Or is this one of those frivolous threat?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Read those contracts very, very carefully, kids.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
In a few more years, thanks to stories like this one, there will be fewer artists joining collection societies.
It must be strange to not know that you're digging your own grave. I mean, they're holding a shovel in the middle of a graveyard but it's too dark to read their tombstone.
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Contract Exclusivity
They probably signed an "Exclusive" Contract that means the band will only work with X on distribution and/or sales.
Don't sign an exclusive contract. It has a slightly different meaning than what it means in marketing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Once again, examples of these performance rights groups working against the wishes of artists, rather than helping them out.
More like a band wanting the protection and income of being "in the game" and still want to suck up to their fans. Sorry guys, it's either in the pool or out of the pool.
Sounds more like a band trying to take advantage of the system.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
(Hello Coward! Welcome to the internet.)
Taking advantage of the system is what humans do in order to get ahead. Are you not human? If so, are you a sentient machine or some other life form claiming intelligence?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Sorry guys, it's either in the pool or out of the pool.
Except... the pool's closed due to AIDS.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Is your real name Paul, and can I give you a Sparkly?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
haha. Nice non-answer.
Basically, they want all the benefits of being in the copyright system (like getting paid) and then they also want to thumb their noses at the same system.
That isn't "getting ahead", that's giving people the finger as you try to step over them. In my part of the world, that gets you plenty of grief.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: this doesn't makes sense
This is why collection agencies are increasingly starting to look like a rip-off.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
More like a band wanting the protection and income of being "in the game" and still want to suck up to their fans. Sorry guys, it's either in the pool or out of the pool.
Uh, no, not quite. These collection societies tend to cover performance rights, and so they want to collect on that. It should have no impact on distribution rights. Details are important.
There are multiple "pools" here, and the band worked with TONO in one, but it's trying to control the other.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is great news. More and more bands associated with collection agencies should be forbidden by such agencies to do the stuff that they want. This can only result in huge success.
This is not sarcasm.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
I pity them. I really do. Oh, and copyright will be rendered obsolete within the coming decade. No worries.
That's optimistic, but aren't you afraid of another unwinnable war (for copyright)? Perhaps not unlike the war on drugs. There can be casualties along the way towards progress if we let unrealistic laws to be passed, like the 754,224 people arrested last year for marijuana possession.
Now's not the time to sit by idly and say "They're unrealistic, there's no way they can stop it, so let them puff up and talk their talk and pass their laws, it won't matter". They may not be able to stop it, but they can sure as hell hurt a lot of people along the way.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Why join a PRO?
There's no requirement that a band join a Performing Rights Organization. A PRO's assumed role is enforcement of copyright, and they are just doing their job here. But You still own the copyright to original works without joining a PRO and bands can enforce their own copyrights through the legal system if necessary.
Many people who advise bands using conventional wisdom from the more traditional music industry will tell you to join a PRO right away (and the PROs themselves advocate this for obvious reasons), but if you are trying to do something more like CwF+RtB or something otherwise different than the big label industry, then that is actually not relevant advice.
My experience working with indie bands suggests you shouldn't join a PRO until you have something worth protecting. And then read the agreement carefully, shop around, and find a PRO that meets your specific needs because there are several of them to choose from, and they are not all the same.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Totally optimistic. The only difference between the copyright war and the drug war is not everyone breaks the drug laws.
While everyone breaks the intellectual property laws. Or they are so horribly confused by them that they might as well have.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
Tend to cover performance rights?
The google translation also says "This means that they have transferred their copyright to TONO to manage"
Sounds like their doing what they were contracted to do, manage/protect their members copyright.
How about some clarification. Have the copyrights been transferred to TONO? It seems the band wouldn't have any distribution rights left if that were the case.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Reminds me...
Saw an episode of Metalopalypse on Adult Swim last night that goes right to this issue. They were studying the blues and they went to a crossroads demon to sell there souls for the blues. Only when the demon pulls out the contract the band starts saying our lawyer isn't here but they go on and on and on about what there rights were and ended up handing back a contract that had a gift certificate to kinkos back to the demon.
Point to make here is its a small wonder why more and more bands are going indie if they want to do anything with there music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
I think you need better translation software Mike, or perhaps you need to stop getting stories from brokep (considering he has a pretty large axe to grind).
It isn't clear that the band didn't assign all collection rights to TONO - after all, online use is either "pay" or "take it down", no?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
May you live in interesting times..
This is a wonderful example of ...
1) load gun
2) aim at foot
3) pull trigger
4) loose profit
It works from both sides
TONO sits back and says you can't post your own music online because you signed the contract. We also have contracts with the music industry. Making the band not want to work with TONO and others see TONO for what they are.
The Band sits back and says hey we need to protect our music. We also need to promote ourselves lets distribute through piratebay. When told they cant the band whines and complains.
I hope eventually bands see that they can protect themselves through non align neutral parties.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: May you live in interesting times..
It's sort of simple:
You can't both have protection and totally give your stuff away. They want the income and protection that comes from TONO, but they don't want to play the game.
I would say that the band certainly did:
1) load gun
2) aim at foot
3) pull trigger
4) loose profit
...and with brokep reporting, you gotta know there is another TPB twist hiding in the story. I feel like you guys gets lead around by the nose by TPB people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: May you live in interesting times..
"You can't both have protection and totally give your stuff away. They want the income and protection that comes from TONO, but they don't want to play the game."
If the Norweigian situation is anything like what it is in their neighbour country and my home country Sweden then it's not possible to specify the protection per song. Rather you have the choice between transferring the economical rights to all yours songs to the collecting society or get nothing at all for any song.
Maybe it's time for TONO and other collecting societies to become more flexible, wouldn't you say?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: May you live in interesting times..
How do you propose flexibility?
Should they only look at certain types of sources of revenue? Who would collect for online use? Would we have TONO2 and TONO3 and TONO4?
When you start to create a system where everything is custom, the chances for both error (which would be ridiculed here) and over official paperwork requirements (ditto) would kill it.
So please, how would you propose this works?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
intellectual integrity
intellectual integrity
repeat after me "YOU Must have intellectual integrity"
NOT intellectual property
they are two very differant things.
One promotes the use of the mind and all its culture and for the uses by the world.
The other controls , incorporates and steals money form the world. - intellectual property does just this.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
And then the band walks into NONO HQ with the contract and rips it up in the ceo/president/board's face.
At least that is what i would do.
Nobody other than the musicians should make any decisions about said musicians' music.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment