Boycott Sony / BMG Resources: summary  |  Jaguar  |  interviews  |  affiliates  action  |  contact  |  media  |  mailing list |  links Official Correspondence & Press Releases: Mad Mike  |  Sony  |  UR  |  BMG  |  Backstage  |  430 West Other Correspondence & Opinion: TP  |  Agent Drew  |  Simon  |  Bliss Jaguar Headlines UR Has Been Ripped Off - 12-08-99 Sony Informs UR of Their Intentions - 12-10-99 UR Contacts the Underground - 12-11-99 Terrence Parker's Two Cents - 12-11-99 Sony Recalls the Fake Jaguar - 12-17-99 UR Expresses Their Disgust With Sony - 12-18-99 Sony's Deception - 12-20-99 The Thieves Have Moved to BMG - 01-10-00 BMG Releases Fake Jaguar - 01-15-00 Agent Drew on BMG and the BPI - 01-16-00 BMG Response: "You Don't Understand!" - 01-20-00 DJ Bliss Demands a BMG Recall - 01-21-00 UR's Official Response to BMG - 01-23-00 430 West Records Press Release - 01-24-00 BMG Expresses No Concern for Consumers - 01-25-00 BMG's Zelnick Responds to DJ Bliss - 01-26-00 BMG Maps Out a Response - 01-26-00 Wirestation Reporter Discovers BMG Coverup - 01-27-00 Harris Contacted by BMG's Clive Rich - 01-27-00 Harris & BMG's Clemon Williams Converse - 01-30-00 BackPage Revels in Fake Jaguar - 02-07-00 DJ Bliss Responds to BMG - 02-07-00   SONY vs UR (TP's 2 cents) December 11, 1999 Well . . . I wasn't going to respond to any of the many postings on this subject because I know both Mad Mike (who is a good friend of mine) and the UR camp, as well as many cats at Sony (in Germany as well as throughout the world). Besides, I've never heard this new version, and so I really can't form an opinion on it. However, for two days now I've been sitting here reading all the many responses on this subject. I've watch the tone go from total support of Rolando, Mike, and UR in general, to cats on this list insulting each other because they disagree. I've seen one or two postings which "almost" bring home the true legal aspect of this subject of "cover recordings". Unfortunately, no one has hit the "nail on the head" yet. And it seems to me that because there is still a measure of uncertainty regarding the actual "point of law" on this matter, it's caused many of you cats to turn your frustrations on each other. That's not cool, and certainly serves no purpose in supporting the true idea of "underground music". So allow me to break it down for you cats as best as I can in PLAIN ENGLISH so that you might have a better understanding of the LEGAL aspect of this issue. [I should like to point out that although I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be such, I have been in this business for almost 18 years now, and have a VERY GOOD understanding of the law - as can be verified by several "BIG BALLERS" (translation: High Powered Cats) I know in this industry.] EXPLANATION: Once a song has been recorded and distributed, it is true that ANYONE has the right to record that song and make their own arrangement (cover version) of it, PROVIDED that they obtain a COMPULSORY (Mechanical) LICENSE from the writer's PUBLISHING COMPANY. Unfortunately, It's not a simple as has been suggested by some on this list, as giving song writer and publishing credits on the recording's record sleeve, cd cover, etc.. This should answer some of your questions as to why there have been cases where certain artists have been unable to release "cover versions" of another artist's song. The compulsory license states that they (in this case SONY) will pay the statutory rate (or the fee negotiated) to UR's Publishing Company for the use of the song, based on records actually sold, and that they (SONY) will make regular accountings of ALL records sold and returned. This is usually no less that $.05 (five cents) for each record made or $.95 (ninety-five cents) per minute (length of) the actual recording. The key here though is that although obtaining a COMPULSORY LICENCE would allow anyone to make a "cover version" of a particular song and conform it to a particular style (example: a hip hop version of "Jingle Bells") one must not change the fundamental character (basic melody) of the original song. If this happens, it becomes a derivative of the original song (and it's copyright), and then must be cleared with the copyright owner (the use of "samples" is the best example of this). In other words, if SONY's "Jaguar" song contains elements of Rolando's original work (even thought it was not resulting from a "sample" but instead "TONE by TONE" as stated in the presumed letter from Sony's A&R person in Frankfurt, then based strictly on US FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAW (which is recognized and accepted as standard international copyright law in at least 50 countries throughout the world - including GERMANY) SONY and their new "Jaguar" song would not be legally eligible to obtain a compulsory license, but instead must clear (get permmission to use) this work in the exact same manner as one would normally use to clear a "sample". To further my point, I know some of you cats have suggested that because this happened in Germany, that German law might allow a "loop hole" for SONY to get around having to properly gain permission from UR. Well check this out . . . . In America, the law is simple and plain: If a foreign company has an office on American soil, then AMERICAN LAWS are applicable towards that company. So then, even if Sony in Gemany claims to follow German law which might allow their actions to be deemed "proper", UR still have a STRONG CLAIM because SONY MUSIC CORPORATION HAS SEVERAL OFFICES OF OPERATION HERE IN OUR COUNTRY (INCLUDING RIGHT HERE IN THE DETROIT SUBURB OF TROY)!!!!!! And just for your information, one exception (in the US) of having to first obtain a compulsory license is in "PARODY RECORDINGS". These recording are protected under US Federal Copyright Law and fall under a seperate set of guidelines. For example if Weird Al Yankovic (I'm sure I spelled his name wrong) decided to make a parody of UR's classic release of Galaxy 2 Galaxy ~ "High Tech Jazz" (my personal all time favorite UR recording), then Weird Al would not need to FIRST obtain a compulsory license from UR, but would still be obligated to pay proper mechanical royalties, etc., etc.. So for those of you who missed it, my point is simple: In either case, Sony still has to FIRST get permission in the form of a COMPULSORY LICENSE or SAMPLE CLEARANCE (depending upon the content of this new version which I still have yet to hear) from UR (MIKE & ROLANDO) before they can LAWFULLY exploit their version of "JAGUAR". All of this depends on what Mike and Rolando feel about the content of this "new version". I spoke to Mike personally about this yesterday, and I can assure you cats that he is on top of this situation. In closing, I'd just like to say that I don't think it's doing anyone on this list any good to argue back and forth with each other. And before you cats start trippin' on me, (`cause I aint the one) I am not taking sides in this issue. I simply wanted to break down the legal thang for y'all. happy holidays! TP   Related Articles and Correspondence: Sony Recalls Fake Jaguar  |  Terrence Parker's Biography  |  UR Contacts the Underground   Please feel free to email Sony & BMG to voice your opinion.   Sign the petition at http://mycal.net/ifj/.

 

Boycott Sony/BMG top