Discover?

[avasopht]

Yes and if you did that you would be breaking copyright, but if a service provided a way for you to automatically load it into a DAW then they would also be breaking the copyright firstly for hosting the copyrighted material and secondly (and more importantly) for allowing users to upload the copyrighted material directly into a music creation suite.
I dont really get how people cant see the difference?

It's not that people can't "see" the difference, it's that they just don't agree with your idea.

It would be asking Propellerhead too much to take full legal responsibility for everything every user did with their service and their hosting beyond what they currently do. When suing lawyers will go for where the money is and where the law sides with them.

I'd just say that the law makes room for common sense practicality. For example, when browsing the Internet your computer makes copies of copyrighted material every time you view an image.

It's only when your service demonstrates negligence to a high degree, such as not bothering to take down infringing works when given fair notice by the copyright owner, that they are likely to be held liable.

It's why Youtube was able to happily host infringing works for eons without any consequence. It's just unrealistic to put that much of a burden on every service.

[jfrichards]

...if a service provided a way for you to automatically load it into a DAW then they would also be breaking the copyright firstly for hosting the copyrighted material and secondly (and more importantly) for allowing users to upload the copyrighted material directly into a music creation suite...

Then every DAW or device that "allows" loading any sound into samplers and audio tracks, including the use of microphones, is guilty of what you're saying.  The laws on this are well-defined already.  There were many suits against MPC musicians and turntablists when it first evolved.  Courts have found consistently that if a musician uses samples even of well-known, still-profitable music, but adds any significant original musical ideas, they are credited with at least co-authorship rights, and when there is a grey area, percentages are decided by courts and judges.  Samplers are not the culprit.  Unscrupulous people will steal stuff, but they get caught and prosecuted.  When some people said Public Enemy stole everything, they were just trashing a group of serious artists who were part of inventing a new music.

[Jagwah]

Then every DAW or device that "allows" loading any sound into samplers and audio tracks, including the use of microphones, is guilty of what you're saying.

Propellerhead are giving you access to these sounds on their website - to use, edit, remix. It's not like you went and ripped it off youtube, Propellerhead gave it to you directly. I see a problem here too.

[Yorick]

But Zee, right now I can take any CD, copy in into my iMac and drag it into Reason.  Does that make Apple and Propellerheads and the factory that makes CD's liable for allowing and encouraging my actions?  I can stream any digital music from my iMac through my TCE interface and back into Reason.  Is TC Electronic liable for my actions?  If you stab someone with a Sears kitchen knife, is Sears liable?

When you do these things, the owner of the copyright hasn't granted you a license to do copy their music, so they have the right to sue you for any profits you make from the subsequent creation.

[Yorick]

Then every DAW or device that "allows" loading any sound into samplers and audio tracks, including the use of microphones, is guilty of what you're saying.  The laws on this are well-defined already.  There were many suits against MPC musicians and turntablists when it first evolved.  Courts have found consistently that if a musician uses samples even of well-known, still-profitable music, but adds any significant original musical ideas, they are credited with at least co-authorship rights, and when there is a grey area, percentages are decided by courts and judges.  Samplers are not the culprit.  Unscrupulous people will steal stuff, but they get caught and prosecuted.  When some people said Public Enemy stole everything, they were just trashing a group of serious artists who were part of inventing a new music.

Bro you're really wrong on this, if you have a song with uncleared samples in it, and you sell the track to McDonalds in a commercial, the sampled artist can sue both you and McDonalds for using their music in the track. The recording artist and the songwriters retain ownership of their performances and compositions. You can't just go sampling artists and sell the derivative work without clearing those samples, and paying whatever license fee is asked for.

The court cases you mention, actually have slammed people who've used material without permission.
The Verve for example, lost 100% of the composition rights to "Bittersweet symphony" for the use of a Rolling Stones strings hook, even though they rerecorded it!
All they were left with were the lyrics, which, meant they lost 50% of the publishing of the song.

You need to tread very very carefully if you sample another artist, especially if you want to be able to license the song for any commercials or film/tv licensing. You will get taken to the cleaners.

[Yorick]

But you seem to be another missing the argument.
Yes, recording, ripping, copying of audio has been going on since tape recorders were invented.
What is different here is that props are providing a service NOT just for listening (youtube, lastFM etc etc) we know people upload music illegally all over the net but they are providing a service directly linked to a DAW thats main if not only purpose is to take audio (no matter how badly recorded) to be edited and included in another production.
That is a legal minefield as I said, if someone takes that recording of one direction, uploads it DIRECTLY into R8 and creates a hit with it who do you think the lawyers for 1D are going to pursue? The 22 year old bedroom producer who will say, "well it was on Discovery so I assumed it was fine to remix it" or the 12 year old girl who is utterly clueless or the company that made the software that facilitated this copyright infringement?

The difference here is Propellerhead have created a perpetual irrevocable license. When you use a DAW, you're not signing away anything you've recorded. But if you upload to discover, you've signed away any control over your work. It means anyone with more experience and more connections and more money than you, can take your precious lyric about the girl you love, make a hook out of it, sell it to McDonalds and make a lot of money from it, while you see nothing.

I think that's crass exploitation. That's terrible. I'm in a position to do exactly that, to go sourcing tracks or vocals or whatever by people, adding one kick drum or something, and then submitting it for a commercial. I'd then see all the money. I'm appalled at it, and so have delisted everything I put up to discover.

[jfrichards]

Then every DAW or device that "allows" loading any sound into samplers and audio tracks, including the use of microphones, is guilty of what you're saying.  The laws on this are well-defined already.  There were many suits against MPC musicians and turntablists when it first evolved.  Courts have found consistently that if a musician uses samples even of well-known, still-profitable music, but adds any significant original musical ideas, they are credited with at least co-authorship rights, and when there is a grey area, percentages are decided by courts and judges.  Samplers are not the culprit.  Unscrupulous people will steal stuff, but they get caught and prosecuted.  When some people said Public Enemy stole everything, they were just trashing a group of serious artists who were part of inventing a new music.

Bro you're really wrong on this, if you have a song with uncleared samples in it, and you sell the track to McDonalds in a commercial, the sampled artist can sue both you and McDonalds for using their music in the track. The recording artist and the songwriters retain ownership of their performances and compositions. You can't just go sampling artists and sell the derivative work without clearing those samples, and paying whatever license fee is asked for.

The court cases you mention, actually have slammed people who've used material without permission.
The Verve for example, lost 100% of the composition rights to "Bittersweet symphony" for the use of a Rolling Stones strings hook, even though they rerecorded it!
All they were left with were the lyrics, which, meant they lost 50% of the publishing of the song.

You need to tread very very carefully if you sample another artist, especially if you want to be able to license the song for any commercials or film/tv licensing. You will get taken to the cleaners.

Yorick, you're just repeating what I'm saying, that you can do it, and if you infringe on someone else, they can sue you.  All the law is clear.  Those laws have not changed with Discover in the slightest.  You still own what you create and are entitled to compensation or revenue, and a court has precedence cases to help determine the value.

[Yorick]

Yorick, you're just repeating what I'm saying, that you can do it, and if you infringe on someone else, they can sue you.  All the law is clear.  Those laws have not changed with Discover in the slightest.  You still own what you create and are entitled to compensation or revenue, and a court has precedence cases to help determine the value.

No you're not bro, because you have signed away a license for it to be used by anyone using discover, for free.
I can grab your Reason file, sing something over it, and sell it without needing to pay you a cent, because you've assigned me an irrevocable license to do so, by uploading it onto Discover.

[Yorick]

Then every DAW or device that "allows" loading any sound into samplers and audio tracks, including the use of microphones, is guilty of what you're saying.  The laws on this are well-defined already.  There were many suits against MPC musicians and turntablists when it first evolved.  Courts have found consistently that if a musician uses samples even of well-known, still-profitable music, but adds any significant original musical ideas, they are credited with at least co-authorship rights, and when there is a grey area, percentages are decided by courts and judges.  Samplers are not the culprit.  Unscrupulous people will steal stuff, but they get caught and prosecuted.  When some people said Public Enemy stole everything, they were just trashing a group of serious artists who were part of inventing a new music.

Bro you're really wrong on this, if you have a song with uncleared samples in it, and you sell the track to McDonalds in a commercial, the sampled artist can sue both you and McDonalds for using their music in the track. The recording artist and the songwriters retain ownership of their performances and compositions. You can't just go sampling artists and sell the derivative work without clearing those samples, and paying whatever license fee is asked for.

The court cases you mention, actually have slammed people who've used material without permission.
The Verve for example, lost 100% of the composition rights to "Bittersweet symphony" for the use of a Rolling Stones strings hook, even though they rerecorded it!
All they were left with were the lyrics, which, meant they lost 50% of the publishing of the song.

You need to tread very very carefully if you sample another artist, especially if you want to be able to license the song for any commercials or film/tv licensing. You will get taken to the cleaners.

Yorick, you're just repeating what I'm saying, that you can do it, and if you infringe on someone else, they can sue you.  All the law is clear.  Those laws have not changed with Discover in the slightest.  You still own what you create and are entitled to compensation or revenue, and a court has precedence cases to help determine the value.

Here is the agreement you have agreed to for music of yours you shared to Discover:

3. SHARING SERVICES – LICENSE
If you don’t use the sharing service, then you don’t need to read this section as it only applies to its use.

THIS SECTION ONLY APPLIES WHEN USING THE SPECIFIC SHARING SERVICE PLATFORMS PROVIDED BY PROPELLERHEAD. IT WILL ONLY APPLY IN RELATION TO MUSIC AND CONTENT THAT YOU ACTIVELY SHARE THROUGH PROPELLERHEAD’S SERVICES AND DETERMINES WHICH USE OF YOUR MUSIC AND OTHER CONTENT THAT YOU ARE ALLOWING OTHERS. BASICALLY, YOU ARE GIVING AND GETTING AN EXTENSIVE LICENSE FOR USE AND ADAPTION OF MUSIC THAT IS UPLOADED TO THE SHARING SERVICES.
3.1 You retain all of your ownership rights in the Content that you create or upload to the Sharing Services. However, by uploading Content you grant every user and Propellerhead a non-exclusive right to use your music (with the right to sublicense). The license includes a right to copy, reproduce, communicate to the public, distribute, prepare derivative works of, modify and adapt your Content – even for commercial purposes – in any and all media and distribution methods and to the extent permitted by the Terms of Service. The license applies worldwide and is royalty-free and irrevocable.
Because we offer an open music sharing service, we ask for broad rights, so we can publish files on the Internet, and so others can freely use the stuff that is posted. In kind, you’ll to be able to use everything you find on the service.
Know that even though you are granting broad rights to all, you always maintain ownership of your stuff.
We don’t intend to sell your content. Other people on the service might end up doing something successful with content they find and even make money from it (and so could you for that matter).

3.2 You understand that the Content uploaded by you may be used freely by other users, as well as included in the music, songs and Content of other users – even for commercial releases. You also understand that your uploaded music may be modified by other users of the Sharing Services without your prior approval.
3.3 The license to Propellerhead includes a right to use the Content to perform the Sharing Services and in marketing of the Sharing Services or Propellerhead. Propellerhead has the right to assign and sublicense the license.
We want to be able to highlight cool stuff we find.
Note: there’s a way for you to set your content to “unlisted” (in the Music section of your account). Your unlisted content won’t be discoverable by others, and we won’t highlight it. Unlisted files have secret links on the Internet and theoretically could be viewed if someone happens to get the secret URL.
You can always delete files, but know that someone could have already downloaded them before you deleted them.

3.4 You agree to and warrant that the Content is created, owned or duly licensed by you and that Propellerhead does not need the permission or license from any third party to use the described rights. You may not upload Content that contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party proprietary rights, unless you have the permission from the rightful owner of the material.
3.5 By uploading Content you further – to the extent permitted by law – waive any moral rights that may be vested in you as creator.
3.6 Content that you have uploaded may be removed from the Sharing Services on your request. Please note that such removal has no retroactive effect and that your license still applies to use of Content started before such removal.
3.7 As a user of the Sharing Services, you are granted a license in accordance with section 3.1 from each other user who uploads Content. You understand that Propellerhead is thus not the licensor and does not warrant or is liable in connection with your use of the Content. The terms in these Terms of Service limiting Propellerhead’s liability also apply to your use of the Content.
 

[jfrichards]

Propellerhead can pretend to have established new laws that supersede the governing laws, but any judge would laugh at that.  I can say that I have a new law in my house that governs whether or not I can hit you for saying anything I don't like, and I can have a sign at the door saying if you enter, you agree to this rule.  But see if that holds up in court.  They have that caveat in there about "to the extent permitted by law" because they know they cannot supersede laws.  They are so aware of the law that they explicitly say you cannot up load copyrighted material.  They know it always belongs to you and you can sue for compensation if anyone makes money from it.  But if you're worried, then don't use it.  Serious musicians are going to use dropbox or whatever to collaborate on studio level productions anyway.

[kloeckno]

If people are worried about money and all that, then obviously just don't put up anything of substance. Just take and don't give...

[raymondh]

My music is sacred to me and I don't waste my time on a song I'm not gonna finish so the idea of popping out a riff or hook and giving away my baby for the world to have their way with it makes me feel violated just thinking about it LOL. But that's just me personally and I'm not against whoever wants to have at it. I write alone and I write with the band I'm in. I did a song for someone recently which is currently in the music forum. That's pretty much it.

That's pretty much how I feel.  I co-write most of my songs now with Raymond but he totally gets my musical style and thought processes so it works great.  Having random people grab a phrase or beat or whatever.  Who's work is that now?  Yours?  Theirs?  My music is precious to me to, and I derive a lot of personal satisfaction from it.  I'm not sure I would feel deeply connected to a piece that rapstarr32 and miz_marple added drums and pads and vocals too.

If I were not really into songwriting it could be fun for a while until I got bored and went back to watching TV.  I guess that's the real target audience.

Well said Carl! It's exactly the same for me.
I think it is an excellent point. Collaboration is a social process, you become a team and together you're trying to create a unified piece of art. 

Discover seems to be a lot like a bunch of 6 year olds on a football field. Yeah they'll all have a go at kicking the ball, but is it a real game?

One potential upside though might be Discover could be a good chance for people to meet each other, and then they can use a more intimate setting later (email, messaging, dropbox, sharing source projects) to actually work together and properly collaborate. 

[raymondh]

You guys know that you can limit who has access to your discover songs right?

No I didn't - that's good. 

I think the best use for the platform though is as Enochlight uses it, a vehicle for transporting your own ideas between your Propellerhead products. That's a great idea.

[paulred67]

Let's put aside copyright issues for a while. Another unprofessional scenario is:

I am a keyboard player who can't play guitar but I use sampled guitar in my compositions. If I find a guitar player with Reason 8.1 who is willing to overdub guitar parts and to send them back to me (privately) as dry mono stems for further mixing/FX processing, he's not able to do it. Reason simply uploads only master stereo track to Discover AFAIK.

[Jagwah]

Let's put aside copyright issues for a while. Another unprofessional scenario is:

I am a keyboard player who can't play guitar but I use sampled guitar in my compositions. If I find a guitar player with Reason 8.1 who is willing to overdub guitar parts and to send them back to me (privately) as dry mono stems for further mixing/FX processing, he's not able to do it. Reason simply uploads only master stereo track to Discover AFAIK.

Multitracks would be far better imo, but in your proposed situation you could simply bypass Discover?

[paulred67]

Multitracks would be fine. Yes, I could bypass Discover, but then it becomes useless for collaboration of this kind.

[ebop]

If people were motivated enough and had 10 minutes to spare in their busy lives then they could Drop each lane of a track separately to get multi-tracks and then send the multiple links in a single email to one person and they'd be the only ones having access. It's not efficient but it's possible. I hope they implement multitrack Drop though as doing it this way would be a pain.

I reckon PH sold Discover short by only focussing on the 'let's share our music to the world' free for all shits and giggles that the Tokyo vid implys when in actual fact it can be used in other ways and ways that many don't seem to realise as they're stubbornly clinging to the R7 dream and haven't even tried it.

[paulred67]

Some valid points. But then again, even those separate tracks send via multiple links would be stereo. And in some cases mono tracks are preferable. I tried to upload one of my rough recordings to Discover just to see how it works and then deleted it. I'm not saying that Discover is a bad idea, actually I like the idea itself. It just needs a lot of improvements.

[beatmincer]

I do agree that the ambition with Discover misses the target. Figure and Take are easy-to-use, casual "color-by-numbers" sketchpad tools that can be handled by any vaguely talented person, while transitioning a sketchpad idea into a professionally produced song in Reason is a completely different thing. It means that someone takes ownership of the creative process which in a way contradicts the thought of casual and care-free collaboration.

A much more useful function IMHO would be to post semi-finished songs that need external input to reach completion. As a contributor, one could then be credited for one's contribution and feel proud as a co-composer/producer or whatever without having to go the full nine yards. As the originator, you get helped by someone pulling you out of your creative rut, or otherwise spending time that you might not have yourself. 

[Yorick]

Propellerhead can pretend to have established new laws that supersede the governing laws, but any judge would laugh at that.

They're not making new laws, the licensing agreement works within existing laws. Copyright owners assign licenses all the time. There's just often some sort of financial exchange, a signature or a royalty split or something. It's unusual that simply uploading a file accords a license, via an EULA. But are you going to be the one to test it in court?

The way I read it it's pretty clear. So I'm not uploading anything else until it's changed; and unless you're happy with someone like myself taking your song, adding something to it, and selling it to a Car company to put on it's YouTube videos, I'd advise you doing the same thing.

[jfrichards]

Propellerhead can pretend to have established new laws that supersede the governing laws, but any judge would laugh at that.

They're not making new laws, the licensing agreement works within existing laws. Copyright owners assign licenses all the time. There's just often some sort of financial exchange, a signature or a royalty split or something. It's unusual that simply uploading a file accords a license, via an EULA. But are you going to be the one to test it in court?

The way I read it it's pretty clear. So I'm not uploading anything else until it's changed; and unless you're happy with someone like myself taking your song, adding something to it, and selling it to a Car company to put on it's YouTube videos, I'd advise you doing the same thing.

I agree that businessmen can steal and exploit your stuff much easier with Discover, even with laws that would probably get you compensation.  Better to post any good music somewhere else.

[jfrichards]

What would happen if you wrote 10 jingle-worthy clips and first posted them on a site that grants full copyright to you exclusively, like Soundcloud, then you post them on Discover?  Have you then established your copyright which obliges Discover downloaders to get your permission before making money from them?

[eusti]

What would happen if you wrote 10 jingle-worthy clips and first posted them on a site that grants full copyright to you exclusively, like Soundcloud, then you post them on Discover?  Have you then established your copyright which obliges Discover downloaders to get your permission before making money from them?

Not having followed this too closely and not being a lawyer, I'd say no.
You uploaded to Discover and agreed to the terms... Doesn't matter what you did before...

D.

[avasopht]

What would happen if you wrote 10 jingle-worthy clips and first posted them on a site that grants full copyright to you exclusively, like Soundcloud, then you post them on Discover?  Have you then established your copyright which obliges Discover downloaders to get your permission before making money from them?

Discover doesn't require you to hand over copyright, so you always have it. What that means is that you are still free to make any future licensing arrangements you want, so in that case releasing your jingle on Discover gives everyone royalty-free access to your jingle. This is nothing new, that type of agreement would still be valid outside of discover.

The big difference however is that some users may simply be unaware of the agreement because it's not explicitly (or overtly) presented to the user. That to me is a communicative flaw.

Legally the agreement is sound and like any other contractual agreement. The problem is more with the execution. So someone could win a case against use of their works if they were completely unaware of it. They may lose the case, but they may win.

[Some Desperate Glory]

Discover doesn't require you to hand over copyright, so you always have it.

What's the difference between having copyright but everyone on Earth has a royalty-free unrestricted license and not having copyright at all?  Is this any different from putting your work in the public domain?  I asked this before but didn't get a good answer.

What that means is that you are still free to make any future licensing arrangements you want, so in that case releasing your jingle on Discover gives everyone royalty-free access to your jingle. This is nothing new, that type of agreement would still be valid outside of discover.

Why in the world would someone license something from you that they could legally acquire free on Discover?  Is the hope that the licensee wouldn't be aware they can easily get a royalty-free license at no cost already because you uploaded it to Discover?