Letter from Tresona

[mingusmonk]

I'd be very curious to know whether composers really are making more money in the age of Tresona, and if so, how many are benefiting.

Me too. There does seem to be an obvious uptick in the searching and serving of copyright take-downs. So there appears to be an increase in protection. Weather or not more dollars are resulting to writers/arrangers remains to be seen.

[perc2100]

Remember that Tresona has customer's on both ends. They are serving performing units AND arrangers. While it may appear Zero value to you from the performance unit's side, there is still another percentage of value that Tresona is considering.

to be fair, those types of companies (Tresona, CopyCat, etc) are a GREAT one-stop shop type of service for rights clearances. Instead of tracking down rights holders all day (in some pieces there could be several), a simple e-mail out to Tresona while they do the legwork can be very helpful and convenient. Some holders are very easy to track down, some are pretty difficult.

[perc2100]

I'd be very curious to know whether composers really are making more money in the age of Tresona, and if so, how many are benefiting.

Well, remember that composers DO sell the writes to their work in the first place. Sometimes those deals are advantageous, sometimes not-so-much (like when Michael Jackson outbid Paul McCartney on owning the company that owned the Beatles rights, so Jackson would make 50%ish percent of the rights fee while McCartney/Lennon would make the other 50%ish - eventually I think McCartney did buy the company/rights back, so that he does make 100% of the rights fees).

[Pete Freedman]

If the rights' holders set the price (which they do) then that is out of all of our hands: including Tresona. It sounds as if Tresona is merely a go-between/middle-man and potentially all of this rage is seemingly directed towards the wrong individuals/company

You should read the rest of this thread. Also read Tresona's letter carefully. Tresona is acting as the other side's lawyer, asking you not to get a lawyer, instead appealing to your concern for their downtrodden victim clients rather than appealing to, you know, the law. They are actually admitting that if you hire a lawyer, you can beat them. In other words, the law isn't really on their side (them meaning the copyright holders in general)

Apparently they tell teachers they owe arrangement fees, but drop cases whenever they are defended. That's a tell that they know they are in the wrong. Nobody on here has been able to identify a single case of a teacher losing an arrangement violation case. (But maybe there are some - I don't know).

The copyright law is full of exceptions. Education is just one of them. Veterans for example. A work can be performed at a veterans event with reduced or eliminated copyright obligation. Just because, you know, they're veterans.

Intellectual property isn't a natural right, like physical property. It exists largely to promote innovation and creativity. But it can do the opposite. Educational use of music intended for the entertainment market doesn't impinge significantly on the artist's profit or market share in the entertainment market. As people on here say all the time, it only promotes the entertainment market for the work.

Title 17, section 110, etc. seems to say that the normal music education functions do not infringe copyright, with exceptions. Ticket money must go back to support the non-profit education mission, for example. Sheet music has it's own copyright. But nowhere does it say (that I can tell) that arrangements aren't covered. It seems like it would, right in 110 part 4 if congress intended it. And nobody on here has pointed out a court case where a teacher lost, let alone set a precedent for the copyright holders.

I think teachers get their legal advice from opposing counsel (that's what Tresona is - lawyers representing the copyright holders, not teachers).

Further, there are 98,000 public schools in the U.S. A couple of concerts a year, ten songs per concert (various bands including marching bands). I'd say a minimum of 20 songs per year - that's maybe two million tunes at $200 per tune (again, low) and we've come to 400 million dollars a year, assuming low-ball estimates at every step. Roughly half a billion of school tax money, plus fees of intermediaries (Tresona), plus the huge time constraints on teachers to get the "licenses" and associated burden on education. All this from teachers, a market unrepresented by attorneys, divided and conquered. That's what Tresona's letter means to me: "Please don't hire a lawyer. Thank you, your opposing counsel."

[Lead]

Further, there are 98,000 public schools in the U.S. A couple of concerts a year, ten songs per concert (various bands including marching bands). I'd say a minimum of 20 songs per year - that's maybe two million tunes at $200 per tune (again, low) and we've come to 400 million dollars a year...

Ownership of an original composition, arrangement, or transcription as published also constitutes any future rights to perform, just FYI.

However, it does NOT constitute rights to record, make a video, sell the video to mummies and daddies, post it on YouTube, and give a copy to the Seniors. :D

[Pete Freedman]

Now this is interesting ...

The law (110 part 4) also says that if the concert has an admission charge, the copyright holder can object to the performance by serving notice no later than seven days before. That's a strange clause so I looked it up in the House committee's notes. It's to protect copyright owners from having their works support a cause they may not believe in. Ok, fine.

But wait; if teachers must get arrangement rights, then this wouldn't be necessary because an arrangement fee was already agreed and paid. This clause implies that the committee never meant for arrangements to be licensed for educational use in the first place. At least, not as general practice.

Again, though, there could be a case that says so. I just wanna know what that case is.

[perc2100]

You should read the rest of this thread. Also read Tresona's letter carefully. Tresona is acting as the other side's lawyer, asking you not to get a lawyer, instead appealing to your concern for their downtrodden victim clients rather than appealing to, you know, the law. They are actually admitting that if you hire a lawyer, you can beat them. In other words, the law isn't really on their side (them meaning the copyright holders in general)

Apparently they tell teachers they owe arrangement fees, but drop cases whenever they are defended. That's a tell that they know they are in the wrong. Nobody on here has been able to identify a single case of a teacher losing an arrangement violation case. (But maybe there are some - I don't know).

The copyright law is full of exceptions. Education is just one of them. Veterans for example. A work can be performed at a veterans event with reduced or eliminated copyright obligation. Just because, you know, they're veterans.

Intellectual property isn't a natural right, like physical property. It exists largely to promote innovation and creativity. But it can do the opposite. Educational use of music intended for the entertainment market doesn't impinge significantly on the artist's profit or market share in the entertainment market. As people on here say all the time, it only promotes the entertainment market for the work.

Title 17, section 110, etc. seems to say that the normal music education functions do not infringe copyright, with exceptions. Ticket money must go back to support the non-profit education mission, for example. Sheet music has it's own copyright. But nowhere does it say (that I can tell) that arrangements aren't covered. It seems like it would, right in 110 part 4 if congress intended it. And nobody on here has pointed out a court case where a teacher lost, let alone set a precedent for the copyright holders.

I think teachers get their legal advice from opposing counsel (that's what Tresona is - lawyers representing the copyright holders, not teachers).

Further, there are 98,000 public schools in the U.S. A couple of concerts a year, ten songs per concert (various bands including marching bands). I'd say a minimum of 20 songs per year - that's maybe two million tunes at $200 per tune (again, low) and we've come to 400 million dollars a year, assuming low-ball estimates at every step. Roughly half a billion of school tax money, plus fees of intermediaries (Tresona), plus the huge time constraints on teachers to get the "licenses" and associated burden on education. All this from teachers, a market unrepresented by attorneys, divided and conquered. That's what Tresona's letter means to me: "Please don't hire a lawyer. Thank you, your opposing counsel."

A couple of things:

1. I didn't read Tresona's letter as "admitting that hiring a lawyer = defeating them." I read that as "non-profits feel more inclined to pay money on attorney than paying fees that benefit artists." I'm unaware of any non-profit winning any cases against copyright.

2. You make some interesting interpretations of copyright that are, frankly, not in agreement with other organizations, school administrations & lawyers, or entertainment lawyers I've talked to. While I haven't had time to scour around for specific case law, I think that your fairly bold interpretations are a risky roll of the dice, no? If the courts go with the copyright holders (and they often do, as seen in digital rights cases from the last 15 or so years where it is common for a college kid getting caught illegally downloading or uploading mp3s of songs can garner tens of thousands in fines) there would be a HUGE detriment to the activity in general. If you say things are fairly vague in the actual laws, that works both ways: a win for education would be HUGE, but a loss would be just as huge.

3. There isn't a school Admin or Superintendent (or law team) that would advocate for such rolling of the dice: the fees are nominal compared to potential fines and bad publicity. I suspect the same goes for most non-profits, though obviously there are a few that are OK ignoring the fees and hoping to go either unnoticed or flat-out win (though I suspect it if would go to court they would settle).

4. The inplication is pretty awful if you're on the side of "screw the fees: we should do what we want for free!", no? I mean, you're essentially saying "screw the artists and their work and their ability to make a living I'm not saying you personally, and the argument is obviously deeper than artist rights vs education rights: but that's what the perception would likely be. Rights holders set the fees (according to Tresona, CopyCat, and rights holders I've specifically talked to), and while those fees may be determined in collusion with a law firm, so what: the fees are still dictated by the artists initially (at worst, that means the artist sold the rights to a corporation and the corporation does whatever to maximize profits). This is unfortunate if the rights are unattainable for non-profits, but it is what it is because that's what the artist initially wanted to do (I know that's an oblique conclusion but still...). If an artist wanted to put their music in the public domain they would give their music away and not sell the rights to a publishing company.

5. I loathe current US copyright law as much as most: it DOES strive to seemingly let huge corporations take advantage in order to maximize corporate profit, NOT protect artists (coughDisneycough). But the system is what it is minus any significant legal changes. There are many modern composers who thrive under the current copyright laws & publishing environment, and many are exist happily. Scoffing at the system entirely and refusing to pay fees does little more than potentially insult the worth of artists while opening oneself (or organization/educational institution) up for lawsuits.

[perc2100]

Somebody asked what happened at the MidWest Clinic a few years back to seemingly cause this current uproar. Here are the handouts from the conference, from the session given by Music for All (IIRC): https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiGsLfTnJvMAhXDKGMKHfUbASEQFghSMAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.midwestclinic.org%2Fdownloads.aspx%3Ftype%3Dclinic%26src%3D5219bb33-2343-4de6-97c1-e008908ca5f9.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGuJKyu0V_zDiNpEkFRPg8HKUqA3w&sig2=AV0dNN1I9OvVGq_JBOrFyw

[C.Holland]

You should read the rest of this thread. Also read Tresona's letter carefully. Tresona is acting as the other side's lawyer, asking you not to get a lawyer, instead appealing to your concern for their downtrodden victim clients rather than appealing to, you know, the law. They are actually admitting that if you hire a lawyer, you can beat them. In other words, the law isn't really on their side (them meaning the copyright holders in general)

Apparently they tell teachers they owe arrangement fees, but drop cases whenever they are defended. That's a tell that they know they are in the wrong. Nobody on here has been able to identify a single case of a teacher losing an arrangement violation case. (But maybe there are some - I don't know).

The copyright law is full of exceptions. Education is just one of them. Veterans for example. A work can be performed at a veterans event with reduced or eliminated copyright obligation. Just because, you know, they're veterans.

Intellectual property isn't a natural right, like physical property. It exists largely to promote innovation and creativity. But it can do the opposite. Educational use of music intended for the entertainment market doesn't impinge significantly on the artist's profit or market share in the entertainment market. As people on here say all the time, it only promotes the entertainment market for the work.

Title 17, section 110, etc. seems to say that the normal music education functions do not infringe copyright, with exceptions. Ticket money must go back to support the non-profit education mission, for example. Sheet music has it's own copyright. But nowhere does it say (that I can tell) that arrangements aren't covered. It seems like it would, right in 110 part 4 if congress intended it. And nobody on here has pointed out a court case where a teacher lost, let alone set a precedent for the copyright holders.

I think teachers get their legal advice from opposing counsel (that's what Tresona is - lawyers representing the copyright holders, not teachers).

Further, there are 98,000 public schools in the U.S. A couple of concerts a year, ten songs per concert (various bands including marching bands). I'd say a minimum of 20 songs per year - that's maybe two million tunes at $200 per tune (again, low) and we've come to 400 million dollars a year, assuming low-ball estimates at every step. Roughly half a billion of school tax money, plus fees of intermediaries (Tresona), plus the huge time constraints on teachers to get the "licenses" and associated burden on education. All this from teachers, a market unrepresented by attorneys, divided and conquered. That's what Tresona's letter means to me: "Please don't hire a lawyer. Thank you, your opposing counsel."

seriously? you're stating to just go ahead and do?! you don't care that the composer gets their fees? you don't care that a school being caught doing this gets banned from their circuit? or worse case scenario, that their music programs get shut down due to a lawsuit?

[Kamarag]

seriously? you're stating to just go ahead and do?! you don't care that the composer gets their fees? you don't care that a school being caught doing this gets banned from their circuit? or worse case scenario, that their music programs get shut down due to a lawsuit?

Yea, he's completely lost his mind.