Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Dec 2010 22:45 UTC
Multimedia, AV "A tightening of copyright rules means kindergartens now have to pay fees to Germany's music licensing agency, GEMA, to use songs that they reproduce and perform. The organization has begun notifying creches and other daycare facilities that if they reproduce music to be sung or performed, they must pay for a license. 'If a preschool wants to make its own copy of certain music - if the words of a song or the musical score is copied - then they need to buy a license,' GEMA spokesperson Peter Hempel told Deutsche Welle." Honestly. I wonder how those pro-RIAA/MPAA folk we have on OSNews feel about this. This is EXACTLY why I try to do my part (a small part, but still) in fighting big content. I wonder how much has to happen for our politicians to open their eyes, and see current copyright law for what it really is: pure venom. Poison of the most dangerous kind, which is destroying our very culture, which is stifling art and science. News like this SICKENS me. How anyone can defend something like this is beyond me.
Thread beginning with comment 455087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Open Songs
by mikemikemike on Wed 29th Dec 2010 23:30 UTC
mikemikemike
Member since:
2008-11-14

I've been thinking about the conflict between corporate control of media and historical culture. Part of the economy of my town, Los Angeles, is based on selling copyrighted media to the world. But since copyrights expire, there is a recurring need to continually ridicule old, free culture and replace it with new, copyrighted culture.

It is interesting how it plays out. In school we learn a corpus of literature that has a progression: ancient (Homer) to English (Beowulf, Shakespeare, Austen) to American (Twain, Hemmingway). We're taught to see it in a context.

But in music or dance, in the public school system, there is no default instruction, no corpus, and no context. Unless your parents pay for private tuition, you just gather what you will from your parents, friends, internet, radio, and TV.

California does have an extinct historical culture of sorts: native American songs and dances, the songs and dances of pre-1850 Spanish California, the folk music and traditions that all the immigrants brought with them. And none of this music or dance gets played on the commercial, English language radio or TV. What miniscule historical music available lives in state-funded radio of classical music.

I realize that folklore culture may not be too relevant or interesting to modern Californians. I can see why it would have a limited presence. But the fact that it has *no* presence indicates (to me) that it is supressed.

It's funny. Literature publicly builds on older literature and acknowledges older literature. But the pop culture industry is always telling us that its current product something completely new and that the older product is obsolete.

Sorry this is a bit rambling. I'm still trying to form an understanding of the issue.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Open Songs
by Idiot on Thu 30th Dec 2010 00:05 in reply to "Open Songs"
Idiot Member since:
2010-12-29

I think you're actually talking about Franchising... though you do not know it yet.

While cultural songs are free, they don't have much meaning in modern society... and while various media outlets could emphasize them, that also causes dilution in their effectiveness.

"Franchised Songs", however, have a tangible hold in modern society. These are songs that people recognize and have a "mood" associated with them... eventually people will start to say "they always play so in so" and that dilutes the effectiveness of the song, thus leading to a search for a new song to inspire the same feelings.


You see... it's not that corporations ridicule the "free culture"... it's society itself. Teenagers insist on listening to the "new stuff" and claim their parents listen to "lame oldies."

What does this have to do with franchises? Using the teen example, Teens like some pop-star, they'd be more likely to enjoy something if that pop-star's song played in it, so companies pay to have that pop-stars music in their media.

Eventually that pop-star will lose fame and stuff that keeps using their songs will become "lame".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Open Songs
by mikemikemike on Thu 30th Dec 2010 02:00 in reply to "RE: Open Songs"
mikemikemike Member since:
2008-11-14

I think you're actually talking about Franchising... though you do not know it yet. While cultural songs are free, they don't have much meaning in modern society... and while various media outlets could emphasize them, that also causes dilution in their effectiveness. "Franchised Songs", however, have a tangible hold in modern society. These are songs that people recognize and have a "mood" associated with them... eventually people will start to say "they always play so in so" and that dilutes the effectiveness of the song, thus leading to a search for a new song to inspire the same feelings.


Interesting. I'll have to give that some thought.

One question, then, is how a song comes to be recognizable. Even with free outlets like You Tube, or the many music blogs, media is still largely controlled by business. A song gets advanced to recognizability because for-profit corporations still control the distribution systems that matter.

I do know a guy who was a footsoldier for a big music company in LA. His job was to seek out those bands that have already reached some level of indie credibility but who have a commercial sound and get them into the big-music system. People like him are the gatekeepers of fame in a real sense.

And that's fine. I like some bands, and I'm happy to buy their music to keep them in business. And people like my friend did the hard work of going to thousands of small shows here in LA, looking for music that doesn't suck, so he deserves to get paid.

I just get concerned about how all the world's top 40 charts are identical.

But, going back to the incident that upset the OP, Thom, if the kindergarten doesn't want to pay fees, they shouldn't sing copyrighted songs. They should sing traditional ones. That would actually more stabilizing for the culture anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Open Songs
by Raffaele on Fri 31st Dec 2010 02:06 in reply to "Open Songs"
Raffaele Member since:
2005-11-12

I've been thinking about the conflict between corporate control of media and historical culture. Part of the economy of my town, Los Angeles, is based on selling copyrighted media to the world. But since copyrights expire, there is a recurring need to continually ridicule old, free culture and replace it with new, copyrighted culture. It is interesting how it plays out. In school we learn a corpus of literature that has a progression: ancient (Homer) to English (Beowulf, Shakespeare, Austen) to American (Twain, Hemmingway). We're taught to see it in a context. But in music or dance, in the public school system, there is no default instruction, no corpus, and no context. Unless your parents pay for private tuition, you just gather what you will from your parents, friends, internet, radio, and TV.


Do you know that Homer, Shakespeare and native american folk songs are free of copyright but it could be charged of copyright any public play made of it by
modern actors, and singers?

Any performance of an actor playing Shakespeare belongs to that actor...

Any music compact disk collecting ancient native american songs belongs to the singers and the musicians who recorded their own performance of that songs...

Shakespeare and native american songs are free of copyright but actors and musicians have the right to eat and earn money, and they got their renevue from their performances.

And speaking in terms of performances made by persons who spread to the public their own interpretation of ancient culture songs and comedies it is the "performance" that is copyrighted, not the free old song or the free old literature books.

Reply Parent Score: 2