http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/18690145

Is it just me, or is this a big "well, duh?!?!" The number of times I hear someone on 6 Music saying "here's the new song from <band> which will be out in 6 weeks time" - great, but after 6 weeks of solid airplay we'll probably be sick of it. And if someone can make money off a cover during that time, then I'm afraid that's just capitalism for you.

The worrying thing though is PRS's attitude. Apparently this is a "tricky" area of licensing, according to PRS. Except it isn't, because there's no requirement for a songwriter to have performed and recorded the song themselves. The songwriter gets their share, the performer gets their share, and PRS takes from both. So this is a bit of a smear on the cover artists. And the Flo Rida quote "getting compensated for something that's not theirs" is bull - their performance and recording of his song is theirs, so he rightly should *not* get money for that.

And even more worryingly, this is PRS explicitly favouring one set of members over another set of members. Both are paying their money to PRS (or another collection society who'll route songwriting royalties to PRS if relevant), so why should it be any of PRS's business? PRS say they're "concerned" about it. Why's that then, if PRS are still getting paid the same?

The music business used to revolve around artists doing cover versions of songs. In some case several versions of one song would chart at the same time.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

I'm at a loss to even understand this story!

The songwriters are getting paid. By PRS. End of.
What's the problem?

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

It's one thing someone covering your song, but is it not different when someone puts out a cover mimicking your performance in every way, style, tone etc?

If someone is selling a version that is practically identical to yours, then it's not a cover, so making money off copying someone, and therefore presenting that work as your own should be illegal, as it would be in any other industry.

I thought that you needed permission to release a cover version?

The On Air, On Sale campaign seems like a correct response - don't give people time to copy it. And don't let Spotify or any other service get their mits on it until after release.

We live. We learn. It's what we do.

--------------------
Veni, Vidi, Aesculi
(I came, I saw, I conkered)

Quote DonBelfastDJs:

---

It's one thing someone covering your song, but is it not different when someone puts out a cover mimicking your performance in every way, style, tone etc?

If someone is selling a version that is practically identical to yours, then it's not a cover, so making money off copying someone, and therefore presenting that work as your own should be illegal, as it would be in any other industry.

---

It can't be "passing off" unless they deliberately use a confusing artist name, designed to trick the buyer. (e.g. if I recorded a cover of a hütter/schneider composition under the artist name "kraftverk").....
...even so, hütter/schneider would still get their songwriter money.

The songwriter is a different legal entity from the recording rights holders and performers.

--------------------
~~~ A weasel hath not such a deal of spleen as you are tossed with! www.feline1.co.uk ~~~

Quote DonBelfastDJs:

---

It's one thing someone covering your song, but is it not different when someone puts out a cover mimicking your performance in every way, style, tone etc?

---

Actually - a cover version does have to mimic the "style" to a certain degree. As most published songs these days are production pieces you can't really deviate from the norm. For example - doing Jazz versions of contemporary songs usually requires publisher clearance and is not covered under compulsory license - been there many times!!

Thanks for the info/clarifications - interesting stuff

Quote DonBelfastDJs:

---

If someone is selling a version that is practically identical to yours

---

Except that of course it has their name on it.

Quote DonBelfastDJs:

---

then it's not a cover

---

Except it is. So long as they've done all the playing and haven't sampled my original, then by definition it's a cover because it's people playing a song they didn't write themselves.

Quote DonBelfastDJs:

---

so making money off copying someone, and therefore presenting that work as your own should be illegal, as it would be in any other industry.

---

Except that they're not presenting the songwriting as their own. They're presenting the recording as their own, sure, and it is.

And except that it isn't illegal in any other industry to look at how someone's done something and copy it, either. 1073 preamps...?

Fair enough

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel

There really isn't a law to protect the way you've carried something out, but if you've heard Tiesto's version of Adagio for strings, you'd probably agree there should be

This isn't a new phenomenon at all. Does nobody remember the old Top of the Pops albums?

In both cases, it's something that arises to amend a market failure. The Top of the Pops albums satisfied the demand for a cheap compilation of the hits and were killed off by "Now That's What I Call Music!" and their ilk, when the labels realised that such compilations didn't actually harm album sales, so they might as well get in on the game.

These iTunes soundalikes will disappear when the labels get their act together regarding release schedules and regional exclusivity. If they choose to delay releases, or not release a record at all in some territories, then they've no-one to blame but themselves if that decision costs them sales. It's just as blatantly anti-listener as the knock-off soundalikes.

I was thinking about those Top of the Pops albums the other day as there is an advert with a terrible version of the Monkees "Believer" on it and it sounded like it probably came from one of those LPs.

Some of those LPs had saucy covers which was about the only reason they were worth owning.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale

Quote Richie Royale:

---

I was thinking about those Top of the Pops albums the other day as there is an advert with a terrible version of the Monkees "Believer" on it and it sounded like it probably came from one of those LPs.

Some of those LPs had saucy covers which was about the only reason they were worth owning.

---

On the other hand Robert Wyatt's version of the same song is a thing of beauty and a joy forever. That's assuming you're talking about "I'm a Believer"*. I wonder what would happen if that songs composer, Neil Diamond, decided to make his own version?

(* they also did a song called "Daydream Believer", but I don't think Robert Wyatt covered that one)

--------------------
Gear List: reverse only.

Yes it is "I am a believer". Can't think what advert it is; something I do not need or care for.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/richie-royale
http://www.mixcrate.com/richieroyale