"First off, artists have an obligation to support the rest of the artistic community by licensing their works. Music services have not been able to get licenses from superstar artists like the Beatles. When an artist refuses to license their work, I think that is a vote in favor of piracy instead of the legitimate marketplace."

So speaks Cary Sherman of the RIAA in a conversation with PCWorld.

What I find incredibly interesting about this quote is that he didn't pick Janis Ian, Courtney Love, Todd Rundgren or any of the artists who have made public statements. They're a small group, and McCartney has been noticeably absent from the discourse.

So why did Sherman use the Beatles as an example? Because they won't license their music to the "legitimate" sites. This means they support piracy, in Sherman's eyes (with apologies to CodeWarrior for using the term).

Without even being argumentative, I can think of several other legitimate reasons for McCartney and Apple Corps. to keep their music off the "pay-per-play" sites.

1) The per-song price is too low.
2) The per-song price is too high.

Yeah, I know, numbers 1 and 2 contradict. But either could be considered a reason, depending on your point of view, although I couldn't see Sherman getting too annoyed over someone trying to raise the price, so that pretty much cancels out number 1 as a logical reason.

3) McCartney is holding out to see how this all turns out.

Once again, hardly something that the RIAA would criticize someone for, since the RIAA is built upon the idea of resisting change by simply ignoring it until it becomes a crisis.

4) McCartney has a better idea.

Okay, here's something we can get behind. Obviously, the RIAA has no clue how to approach today's digital reality. Maybe McCartney has a solid idea. Anything that does not fall in strict accordance with "Sue them all" is currently viewed as enabling piracy.
And then, I found the source of Sherman's irritation in the Hollywood Reporter. It's a short story, only one paragraph that's more of a press release than anything else.

"Infinity Broadcasting has teamed with Apple Corps to present a premiere airing of Let It Be ... Naked, the new version of the Beatles' swan song. The album will be aired in its entirety Thursday, Nov. 13, at 10 p.m. ET on Infinity stations in 35 major U.S. markets. TV journalist Pat O'Brien will host the broadcast, which will be followed by a live roundtable discussion with musicians and other guests discussing the album and the Beatles' legacy. "It is great that once again America can hear a Beatles album cover to cover back on radio -- and now, for the first time, Let It Be as it was meant to be, 'Naked,' " said Neil Aspinall, head of Apple Corps Ltd. Infinity programming prior to the U.S. premiere will include 10 days of Let It Be vignettes to be broadcast throughout the day beginning on Monday, Nov. 3. These short-form moments feature excerpts from tapes of the original recording sessions, which have been widely bootlegged but never released."

As we can see, this is clearly a tool for piracy.

Not only has McCartney given us two weeks notice to get our recording gear together, but we get the album in its entirety prior to actual release. The radio broadcast is on the 13th, so we can expect that it will be all over the net by Nov. 14.

Call me crazy, but I think this is exactly what McCartney wants to happen. Every one of those bootlegs will be inferior quality by adding a generation of noise to them, mainly the radio itself.

After the album gets actually released, other people will make better quality mp3s right off the CD, but by then the crappy copies will be so prevalent that it'll just be easier to buy the CD than try to find a clean copy on P2P.

Now this is all conjecture, of course. But with the little evidence available, it simply hard to figure out what Sherman's gripe with the Beatles would be otherwise.

Unless there is some battle brewing under the radar that the world doesn't know about yet, wherein McCartney has taken a position that has not yet been made public. While an interesting scenario, that's stretching conjecture a little further than I'm willing to go.

But now I'm interested in what McCartney's doing, whatever it is. If it annoys the RIAA, I'm all for it.

Pal is Cooler than I ever gave him credit for. I've always felt he was a top notch musician and artist with a creative mind that surpasses 99.99% of most others. but I like the behind the scenes senerio. I'm willing to bet you're not far off base with that one George. Look how quick The MPAA backed down on the screener ban. The RIAA has no where near the loyalty of it's artists so I'm convinced there's something serious going on behind the scenes

Paul is cooler. another typo

You forgot possible reason 5. Paul has too much respect for the memory of John Lennon, whom he knows would not only have been dead set against the RIAA's perseution of The People, but would have surely been the most outspoken activist of the anti-RIAA movement. Thus how could paul, in good conscience sell John's music for a use he wouldn't have approved of?

Sadly though, it seems The Beatles' rights have been pulled out from under them on this. I read recently that EMI has made The Beatles' music available to one of the pay services.

Well if that conjecture is correct it would be a great example of how established artist can use the internet, the underground internet no less, to turn a profit. Not only that it would be mutually beneficial. The fans get their tunes the way they want em at the time they want it and mccartney get his money. Probably more money than would have been made by simply releasing another beatles album.....

Wow thats just awesome. Now they are going to start using copyright infringement as an excuse to supercede the rights of the artist. Publically I mean.

I believe that now is the time to demand that the RIAA disband in its entirety.

They only "give a shit about themselves" and "to hell with everybody else".

They don't want to move anything but the money in their general direction.

"McCartney is holding out to see how this all turns out."

It is not just McCartney's decision. It is the decision of the Apple board, which includes Ringo, Yoko, George's estate, etc.

It does say "McCartney and Apple Corps"

Sorry, you are correct.

Sounds like the RIAA just defined itself as a monopoly. Monopoly's are bad...WHY THE HELL IS THIS STILL GOING ON?

doesnt michael jackson own the copyrights to their songs?

Michael owns 50% of the publishing rights. You can read an explanation here:

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/jackson.htm

ain't no piracy without murder and robbery on the high seas (title 18, Chapter 81, Section 1652 "Citizens as Pirates")

The Beatles used to be a symbol in this country of rebellion against convervatism, and "the Man".
The RIAA has become "the Man" and an icon of conservatism in some ways , as lackeys of big business.

I agree that if it upsets the RIAA, it can't be all bad .

Amen Code

The logic is not entirly flawed. If someone cant get it the "legal" way then they will get it some other way. But so what? Last time I checked this was supposed to be the land of the free where people could do as they please. I don't think musicans should feel "obligated" to fall in line. Thats just screwed up. I think this issue will only be problem for the old artist. New ones will be forced by contract to put there music up for download.

Hello Code Warrior,

This might drift a bit from the topic, it just struck me: how strange it is that over time things like big business and free, unregulated trade practices has become associated with conservative support when it was originally something to associate with liberalism!

The only other thought I have is Mr. Cary Sue-man, on the RIAA's behalf, is doing a worse job at disguising the organization's weird intentions and sentiments, and he makes me laugh.

lol..agreed. I was thinking the exact same thing when I wrote that!
~Code

Something that irks me a little even on this site are the statements about "artists". I too am guilty of this and wish to straighten it out, I feel that the loose term artist is applied to those who are signed with the RIAA and not independants who are just as good or even better than signed artists. So I feel if we try and seperate the two and from this point out refer to Independant Artists as "Artists" and the Artists signed with a major label as "Contract Artists" or just simply use a short version and call them "Conned-Artists".

hmmm

just a thought.
James

"First off, artists have an obligation to support the rest of the artistic community by licensing their works. Music services have not been able to get licenses from superstar artists like the Beatles. When an artist refuses to license their work, I think that is a vote in favor of piracy instead of the legitimate marketplace."

Screw the RIAA goons. Artists have the responsibility to create art - not worry about idiot RIAA labels financially sucking the life out of them. Good for McCartney for steering clear from those 'legitimate' bums. It warms my heart to know that the RIAA labels (hopefully) won't make a damn dime from this album.

"Conned-artists" has a nice ring to it....

I second the motion for "Conned-Artists" as the new way of referring to all RIAA signed artists.

I naturally agree that refusing to work out a way to license music for distribution online is only a vote in favor of "piracy." However, what makes anyone think that "The Beatles" have anything to say about what happens here? Perhaps McCartney is remaining silent because he has no control over the sound recordings that _EMI_ and Apple Corps. control.

Personally, I think Paul's name is gettin' thrown around a bit too freely here. Not only isn't he in control of EMI's marketing department, let's remember, the _whole_ Beatles catalog is restricted from online distribution. And two weeks is hardly an open window when we're talkin' about 40 years of bestselling music.

Of course, we all seem to agree that the RIAA is clueless when it comes to today's digital availability, but I doubt highly that McCartney (or Starr, or Yoko, or Olivia) has ulterior motives as to how to teach them a lesson.

P.S. Jacko owns the songwriting copyrights. The sound recordings are owned by EMI and Apple.

I know Paul thinks the internet is cool and offers many new possibilities. Remember a couple of years ago when he streamed his concert from the Caverm?

He probably has other things to do than care about what the RIAA wants -- he just had a baby.

milladrive, you're right about Pauls name being thrown around a lot but he does have a say and is a figurehead. however I don't agree with you that it's a vote for "piracy" if they don't want to cooperate with the RIAA. Where does it say you have to play ball with the RIAA with your copyrights in order to be legitimate? If I owned the rights to something I will do what I want with it and not what some corporate entity tells me I should.

Yoko is an artist. She has to be because what she does sure isn't music. But it is Art, and art is made for art, not for money.

So she is on our side, so that is one vote for us.

Ringo can't care. He makes the least publishing anyway.

So that leaves Paul. (who cares about George's estate), he is the swing vote on this one.

Hell, Cary-Sue even spelled it out:

"I think that is a vote in favor of piracy instead of the legitimate marketplace"

Piracy is us. I'm a f--king pirate!

The "Legitimate" marketplace is the RIAA. Remember how Cary-Sue is always saying that the RIAA is 90% of the "Legitimate" music.

Paul, at least according to Cary-Sue, is voting for us and against them.

Hot Damn!

South Park and the Beatles!

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

vs.


LL Cool J and Lars Ulrich.

I like my company better.

John siad it best:

"No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one. "

Well that may be why the greedy hideous enormous monstrosity aka riaa can't get their hands on the music.

O.K. I got a question about all this copywrite stuff??? Are song titles ok to use in an orginal new song like what "ANNIHILATED" did in their song CHECKMATE RIAA???? anyone care to comment???? How about you CODE LEFLAW?????

"Thus how could paul, in good conscience sell John's music for a use he wouldn't have approved of?"

This is hilarious.

Does anyone remember how long it took to get The Beatles on cd?

This article is from October 14th:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/music/3190052.stm

"As far as I am concerned we are doing very well as it is " Geoff Baker, Beatles spokesman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/music/3190052.stm

Okay, from the bottom up...

I do, mroop. It was 1987, and long overdue. And I agree that it's funny to think that Paul has anything to do with the sale of John's music. Hell, he doesn't even have much to say over the sale of his own. heh

Song titles are not copyrightable, stilltrying.

RIAAposterchild, the lyric is, "No need for greed or hunger.. OR brotherhood of man."

raoulduke1, I'm not sure I should even address your posts with any seriousness. First off, music is art. Art may not always be music, but music is always art. ...Ringo can indeed care, and Olivia (George's estate) now has as much pull as George ever did.

compmore, imo, yours is the most worthy post for me to address after mine. Paul may be a figurehead, but it doesn't necessarily mean he has anything to say about EMI's tactics. It's the same reason Bob Dylan or Billy Joel has little say over Columbia's (erm, sorry, CBS's.. erm, sorry, Sony's). ...Moreover, I didn't make the statement that the industry's cluelessness is a vote for "piracy"; I merely agreed with it, because I believe it. It's not so much compliance, but more what I see as common sense. Yes, I agree with you that owning the copyright to something should give you the say-so over what is done with that work, but how many major-label artists do you think own the copyrights to either their compositions or their recordings? ..The point I think bein' made by the statement is that when the RIAA works against the public demand, they're just cutting off their nose to spite their wallets and dopey stances. jmo.

MILLADRIVE are you sure!!! I hope their not because I have some serious RIAA ass whipping to do with a new song I wrote involing BEATLE song titles!!! What is your info based on?????

Song titles are not copyrightable. I base my info on copyright law. It's the primary reason there can be so many songs titled "I Love You," "Sweet Surrender," "One In A Million," "Money," or any countless number of different songs with the same title.

However (and this is a huge however), if a particular title has become so connected with one particular song (such as "Tie A Yellow Ribbon Round The Ole Oak Tree"), anyone else attempting to use it for their song would likely be in violation of property rights in the title which belong to the copyright owner of the first song because of its notoriety. It'd be quite important for the writer of that subsequent song to go nowhere near the melody, lyrics, or chord progression.

No Milladrive, the lyrics have always been "A brotherhood of man" and it makes alot less sense saying "or". Are you older than 25?

I'm... older than 25, and, aside from the fact that age has very little to do with it, I know the lyrics of that song as second nature. Lennon wasn't exactly the person who made "sense" to everyone, but his point here was that there would be no need for either end of the spectrum. Give it look-see if you doubt.

...and just because it may be all over the web incorrectly doesn't mean it's correct that way. I'm familiar with the original lyric sheet and the numerous books written on the topic. ...Just listen to the song.

MILLADRIVE what if you did this in a verse of an orginal song like " Idon't think you would sue a music fan for getting a free download of sgt. peppers lonely hearts club band???? or "The Riaa has taken this way to far they want to put us back in the USSR".!!!!

And it is OR OR OR Brotherhood of man I thought everyone knew that!!!!

That'd be just fine, stilltrying. Been done plenty of times without incident. One case in point, Johnny Rivers' "Summer Rain."

Milladrive I know of johnny "s song what if I have this as line in the verse :you see now it's a technical revolution but the problem still remains with the institution!!! or how about this " can't you see they want our Band width on the run maybe it's true that happiness is a warm gun?????

milladrive
"Raoulduke1, I'm not sure I should even address your posts with any seriousness. First off, music is art. Art may not always be music, but music is always art. ...Ringo can indeed care, and Olivia (George's estate) now has as much pull as George ever did."

Millia, First off, you act as though my comments could possibly be construed as to suggest that music is somehow not art. What did you read?

I said, "Yoko is an artist. She has to be because what she does sure isn't music. But it is Art, and art is made for art, not for money." my comment was clearly intended to poke fun at the fact that Yoko is clearly tone deaf. However, i did so in a way as to give her a backhanded compliment. She is in fact a decent artist, while not being a very good musician. They are too seprate skills. Many good musicians are not very good artists.

As far as Ringo goes, he has always struck me as being somewhat of relaxed kind of guy who doesn't let things bother him all that much. At least I thought so when we had dinner together. Additionally, it is a fact that his portion of the royalties is significantly smaller than Paul's or Yoko's.

As far as George's estate goes, it doesn't necessarily factor into the equation, as Apple Corp. makes its decisions based upon a majority vote. Thus, three votes equals action. George's vote is not needed. In contrast to the doors contract which required a unanimous vote.

However, George was very much the socialist so he would be on our side too. So it sounds like the vote should be 4 to 0. Unless of course thay are sellouts to the man. Then F them anyway.

Titles are not copyrightable!

I still don't see a problem, stilltrying. I'd go for it.

Raoulduke1, I hear ya talkin', and I know your intentions are good, and I even agree with some of what you've elaborated on here. The way it was originally worded, it came across to me in a way you didn't intend.

Be that as it may, yes Yoko is an artist, and she may even be tone deaf. But, as I've noted, music is always art, so when Yoko creates music, she is an artist creating music. The music is her art at those times. ...Not to mention, there have been _tons_ of tone deaf artists thruout history. Fabian, Ray Davies, Lena Lovich, Biz Markie... Since music is always art, I'd say that if someone is a good musician, it, by definition, makes them a good artist. ..or are we talkin' artiste here?

Ringo is indeed laid back. As for how small his percentage is, it depends on the royalty in question. If we're talkin' songwriting royalties, then you're correct (but then, Paul gets nothing of those these days either). ...However, if we're talkin' record sales and sound recording royalties, then, guess what, Ringo gets 25% of the royalties split amongst the Fab Four (which, these days consists of Yoko, Paul, Olivia, and Ringo).

As for majority vote in The Beatles' case (as opposed to The Doors), what if Paul and Ringo want one thing, while Yoko and Olivia want another? Who says Olivia's vote isn't needed? And we both know how "agreeable" Yoko can be when it comes to business matters.

Be all this as it may, it doesn't negate the fact that EMI and Apple control the sound recording rights, and if EMI doesn't agree with what Apple wants, then who do we think will be considered the umpire? Sadly, EMI hasn't yet been sold on what you've called socialism. (In fact, I'm not sure George was either, but that's another issue.)

O.K. I will but rest assure I do not use anything of a melody,lycris ,or cord progression in this song that's even close to what their song was although I do try to do a LENNON style type of music to pull this off !!! One last line "Imagine what the music world could be and there's SOMETHING you can do to set it free It's time to COME TOGETHER with the power of our shout 60 million say no to DMCA and throw the lawsuits out!!!!

Milla is correct regarding EMI/Apple controlling the copyrights of the sound recordings, and Wacko Jacko/Sony controlling the copyrights of the songs. As for all this nonsense about how things revolve in the Paul/Ringo/Yoko/Olivia axis, the simple truth is, none of us are in the boardroom, so any comments are conjecture, pure and simple. So we can speak of the four of them as simply "Apple Corp.".

And Apple Corp., as you all may remember, is locked in an ongoing legal dispute with Apple Computers regarding the very issue of music licencing for the web. Is it any wonder that at this time, the Beatles music is being withheld? If Apple Corp. does have an alternate plan (or not), the smart money would be to wait until the lawsuit is settled first.

As for the Beatles' collective stance on the RIAA and similar matters, it might behoove most of you who don't seem to have a clue to go back and do some research into the Beatles contract deals with EMI, both in 1962 and in 1969. A better case of "Screw the Artist" would be hard to find. For that matter, I refer you to George Martin's autobiography "All You Need Is Ears" to read up on how even HE was screwed by EMI in 1964-5. The man had the #1 single in the UK charts 32 weeks out of 52 in 1964, and didn't even get a Christmas bonus! It boggles the mind.

I take great umbrage to the suggestion that Yoko is "tone deaf" and what she makes isn't music. That's just the kind of stereotypical unintelligent drool that people have bandied about for years without bothering to take the time to listen. There's a LOT of music both on this site and being listened to in the mass market that I would have no problem erasing if the button was in my hand. It's the height of hubris to decide that because YOU don't like something, it's bad for the rest of us. So if we destroy the grip the RIAA has on musicians, people like YOU will then decide what WE listen to? I think not. I'll go on record as saying Yoko Ono Lennon is firstly a classically trained pianist, a highly-regarded artist in Japan and in early alternative circles (check out her work with FLUXUS, including Ornette Coleman), and an artist with many great songs to her credit. It's amazing how people who claim to be such big Lennon fans have no problem dissing his choice of a partner. As John himself said, "Screw you, brother".

And stilltrying, just go away. Nobody is interested. If you can't think of something original, no one's going to listen anyway. Sheesh.

Not all music is art. Some music happens to be a purely technical act without any artistic expression at all. Some very good music has very little to do with art. Just as some very bad music is great art. Some of Yoko's music fits into the latter catagory.

Mcarp555?

Please explain how my OPINION that Yoko's music is quite terrible is unitelligent. In my humble opinion she sucks ass. Further, how do you know how much of her music I have listened to or not.

And further more, where do you come off suggesting I want to have anything to do with deciding what music is bad for the rest of you and deciding what others should listen to. You need to develop better reading comprehension skills before you start analyzing others comments.

You are the on that has achieved the height of hubris yourself by telling Stilltrying to go away. You're the censor.

"I would have no problem erasing if the button was in my hand" Well loook who's talking.

"Not all music is art."

raoulduke1, that's really your opinion, but i'd hardly say it's fact. It probably depends on what our own personal definitions of art are. I happen to think _all_ music is art, no matter how "bad" or "good" (both terms of opinion) or technical or whatever it is. To me, art can be many things, and sometimes art is music. But I happen to think music -- which is always a creation in the form of personal expression -- is always art, whether I happen to like it or not.

song titles are not copyrightable.
~Code

Wait a minute....Did anybody copy the Cary Sherman article? I just went back to grab the url of the the PCWorld article (dated October 30) and the reference to the Beatles has totally diappeared? Unless I have this date wrong... Help anybody? Anybody got a link?

Whoops, now its back --- hmmm. I even searched the page using the "find text" feature before and couldn't find the Beatles paragraph... I must have been mistaken or thos internet "ghosts" are back at work...

I wonder why Paul McCartney hasn't spoken of this himself?? Even if he is on top of the Riaa label crappile, seems to me that he could say something on his behalf without being pounced on like so many cloned-suits pouncing on Neo.. or maybe not.. what a sad culture we live in when free speech is killed in a web spun by corporate lawyers. STILL... seems to me he has enough money to say what he wants.. dang the cost.. NOOO (in a Gullum whine.. ) He would still have to answer tommorrow to his buddies, who undoubtedly are ALL in the business of looking after "his best interests.."

Milla, your are correct, in that everything is art. Life is art. As with most arguments we are arguing symantics and probably agree but misunderstand each others ppoint of view.

In any event, I just played a little diddy on my guitar and I can state with an appreciable amount of conviction that the performance was devoid of any artistic expression. If I play a chord progression like a robot their is no art to my performance. Just like there is very little art to the listing of names in my phone book, despite the fact that language is used. It would be difficult to compare it to poetry.

Would be art to have my computer play notes randomly. Maybe, maybe not, it would depend on the context, it could be used as a counterpoint in a larger composition or performance and that would be art.

But is there art to the random sounds of a city without inserting them into a larger expressive piece. Maybe, but then we get into God's art and nature. Art as related to our discussion I think has something to do with human expression.

However, I just want to be clear, that while elitism may have its place, I believe that it has little place in music. My poking fun at Yoko notwithstanding.

(quote from raoulduke1): "Yoko is an artist. She has to be because what she does sure isn't music." - Sure sounds like stereotypical unintelligent drool to me. What I deduce from a statement like that is 1) You have listened to little if any of her music; 2) You follow mass opinion rather than sit down and listen with you own "non-elitist" ears; 3) While you have every right to hold whatever opinion you want, that's no guarantee your opinion is correct.

While I may not LIKE some music, I can recognize that other people do, and hopefully I can base my opinion of the musical ability of the Artist on what I hear, not what I'm told. While I don't like eggplant, I don't go around saying eggplant tastes like shit. Obviously someone likes it. If you listen to Yoko's music and don't like it, fine, no problem. If you DON'T listen to it, and say it's not music, then that says more about you than the musician you're putting down. Sounds pretty elitist to me. Maybe you should re-examine your own attitude before you condemn mine.

While you're at it, why don't you give us a list of exactly what music of Yoko's you've listened to? I'm willing to bet it won't be nearly as long as MY list.

This is only an opinion but It seems tha artist like The Beatles and their solo careers,David Bowie,Prince and the others that are mentioned here are now aware of whats going on and are taking a wait and see or are with us all the way. Prince said so as much in an interview with Yahoo Magazine a year or so ago when they were going after Napster. David Bowie doesn't even need the RIAA even if he is a member or not. He can finance his own projects and do far more on his own then anyone with his cash even becoming a Bank unto himself.

MCRAP555 I don't have to go away !!!! I already have an orginal anti RIAA song on the web Called "GENERATION D" if you want to hear it check it out on Dmusic http://thewebejaminband.dmusic.com/ but I thought it would be interesting to do a Anti RIAA song in which one could use Beatle song titles to encourage people to boycott RIAA music after all they(RIAA) have made a bundle of $ off of it ,to use them now as a way to get people to Stay Away and Boycott the RIAA would be COOL and add an interesting twist to a protest song???? Anyone care to add a coment????

I posted this topic at the forums at www.paulmccartney.com and this is what one knowledgeable person wrote in response to Cary Sherman's statement -

"First off, artists have an obligation to support the rest of the artistic community by licensing their works. Music services have not been able to get licenses from superstar artists like the Beatles. When an artist refuses to license their work, I think that is a vote in favor of piracy instead of the legitimate marketplace."

Response:
Posted by jen at: 11-03-2003 11:29 AM

"But how does this equate to supporting piracy? I think it's silly to say that any artist who doesn't allow their music to be downloaded via the internet supports people stealing it. Just because you can't get something via the pay download sites doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.

Paul did sue MP3.com a few years ago for copyright infringement, he invested in the company Magex which uses the DRM technology, and he supported the British Music Rights 'Respect the Value of Music' campaign. I highly doubt he supports piracy."

"Not all music is art."

If I may quickly add - see any modern art? People just throw globs of paint at a canvas... spread it out. They call that art.

ANYTHING can be called art. If it sucks, it's sucky art. But it's still art.