binary options strategy ukulele

sports betting in south africa

The Oscars is a specials betting event looked forward to by people all over the world. Play Safe. Free bets valid for 7 days, stake not returned. Out of the 24 categoriesthere are some which receive the most attention and fanfare from both the media and the public.

Binary options strategy ukulele ajax vs cambuur betting expert predictions

Binary options strategy ukulele

The Screendance Portfolio will be accompanied by a written justification. The courses will differ thematically, dependent upon the teaching and research expertise of the instructor. Study of major dance critics from the 19th century to the present day will also provide a springboard for students to experiment with the process of writing themselves. DANCE Pedagogy Dance Technique 3 credits Exploration of theoretical concepts, principles, and methods of pedagogical trends through lectures, readings, videos, discussion and teaching practicum with the goal of developing a sound basis for continued growth and effectiveness as dance educators.

They will lead improvisational exercises and provide critical feedback sessions for students. They will be assessed through these and other assignments, including self-evaluation papers, teaching philosophy statements, and the creation of a syllabus for beginning-level dance composition students. The aim is to develop a critical awareness of the competing constructions of dance history and of the interplay between history and other disciplines within and beyond dance.

Students will interrogate different approaches to reading and writing our dancing past through the use of selected case studies, spanning textual, visual, oral and performative histories. DANCE Ballet 1 credit This advanced ballet course addresses core concepts of technique, alignment, anatomically sound movement, and artistry. Emphasis will be placed on more challenging combinations of movements so that students can explore transitions, musicality, increased mental acuity to remember new and complex sequences, and the ability to process information both in the brain and in the body.

Students are encouraged to dance in three dimensions and to develop their individual sense of artistry through the class material. They should demonstrate a more advanced mastery of these concepts than in their first year of study. DANCE Modern Dance 1 credit This course requires the advanced level student to research and integrate compositional and performance methods into a lively and productive practice of dance-making.

Through daily practice in class and in written assignments, students will acquire a sophisticated comprehension of the ways in which the creative process is embedded in technique. This course will act as an experiential laboratory for improvisation, composition and performance, anchored by sound technical practice. The study and practice of improvisation will serve as tools for both creative work in composition and performance.

Elements of personal history and philosophy will be examined and questioned as a means of distilling idiosyncratic material and formal, shapely, dynamic and coherent structures. Exploring individual movement vocabularies will serve to refine and expand our physical language as form and structure emerges. This course requires a commitment to the creative and rehearsal process in preparation for performances of new or repertory work for the annual University Productions concert.

Each cast works with a choreographer to evolve a finished production? The highest degree of professionalism is assumed and expected of second-year graduate students, who act as role models for their younger peers and may also serve as choreographic assistants.

Second-year MFA students are expected to incorporate their previous course work and focus on the preparation of their solo performance for their Thesis Project or other public performances. DANCE Ann Arbor Dance Works Repertory 1 — 2 credits In this course, students will learn modern dance repertory taught by resident faculty and guest artists, to be performed for public performance at the end of the Spring term. Dancers will assist with designing and implementing community residences, and learning how to transfer repertory from one venue to another.

Each, repertory work will have hours of rehearsal per week. DANCE Choreographic Portfolio 2 — 4 credits Assemble and analyze a collection of choreographic examples demonstrating a specific artistic perspective and versatility as a choreographer. A written justification of the portfolio will serve as the analysis of the portfolio. DANCE Performance Improvisation 2 3 credits This course is devoted to in-depth study and practice of improvisation as a performing art.

In improvisation, insight, inspiration, composition and performance occur simultaneously. The constant flux and exchange of doing and reflecting heightens awareness of compositional choices. The improvising performer works without a net, where every choice and action is visible and audible. Recognizing the three strands of improvisational practice: bodily exploration, honing and cultivating aesthetic values and observational skills, and composing dances in the moment will influence and shape the learning process.

Each student will be called upon to develop as an artist, a soloist, and as a collaborator as we build a movement and music ensemble that can co-create shapely, coherent, short and long pieces through improvisation.

The course will culminate in a performance at the close of the semester. Two reading and writing assignments per week will support and encourage thoughtful analysis and practice. The final summary paper will connect experience in class, journal entries, discussions and the reading assignments into a meaningful anthology. DANCE Special Topics: Dance History 1 — 3 credits Special Topics courses in dance education allow student the flexibility to pursue discipline-specific or interdisciplinary study in-depth, led by a specialist instructor.

DANCE Special Topics: Interdisciplinary Arts 1 — 3 credits Special Topics courses in interdisciplinary arts allow student the flexibility to pursue discipline-specific or interdisciplinary study in-depth, led by a specialist instructor. A Thesis Committee, comprising an additional Dance faculty member and a relevant expert from beyond the Department, should be determined by November 1 and a full proposal submitted to the Thesis Chair by December 1.

For MFA students, the Project must include a performative element, production work, and final written Documentation. A detailed account of course requirements, assessment criteria and submission guidelines are provided in the MFA Dance handbook. Double Bass. Early Music. EARLYMUS Basso Continuo 2 credits Develops the skills of playing basso continuo, including shaping bass lines, realizing figured and unfigured basses, improvising and good voice leading.

The class also introduces early keyboard principles and emphasizes practical ensemble-playing skills. SMTD majors only; typically offered Fall. EARLYMUS Basso Continuo II 2 credits Building on a foundation of basic continuo skills, this course explores differences of international musical styles, studies continuo treatises, discusses continuo playing in large and small ensembles, and introduces partimento realization.

SMTD majors only; typically offered Winter. EARLYMUS Harpsichord Pedagogy 2 credits Builds a foundation for strong teaching through study of early keyboard technique and touch, principles of historically informed performance, and creative and inspiring teaching skills. EARLYMUS Advanced Continuo and Partimento 2 credits Building on a strong continuo background, this class explores advanced figured bass playing, score reading and transposing and presents an introduction to partimento playing.

By audition; typically offered Fall, Winter. ENS Marching Band 1 — 2 credits Involves rehearsals and performance at major athletic events through marching and playing. Membership is highly selective. Repertoire ranges from the Renaissance to the present; includes folk music and college songs. ENS Early Music Ensemble 1 — 2 credits Specializing in music of the Medieval through Classical periods, this ensemble provides students a chance to perform on modern instruments or original ones, in chorus, mixed ensembles, and continuo classes.

The group performs publicly, including national and international tours. ENS Small Woodwind Ensemble 1 credit Weekly coaching, emphasizing intonation, blend, stylistic awareness, and ensemble precision. Repertoire, primarily for woodwind quintet, ranges from the 18th century through 20th centuries. The groups perform regularly in public. ENS Small Brass Ensemble 1 credit Purpose is to heighten awareness of intonation, balance, style, and ensemble when playing in a small group.

Brass quintet and other instrumentations will be formed, depending on enrollment. ENS Small Percussion Ensemble 1 credit Repertory surveys works of historical significance and performs works offering aesthetic and notational diversity. Usually present two concerts each term. Emphasizes intonation, blend, stylistic awareness, ensemble precision, and knowledge of repertory. By audition; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter.

ENS Orpheus Singers 1 — 2 credits Small, select choir specializing in music before and after Piano majors work with singers and instrumentalists. Entrepreneurship and Leadership. Undergraduates students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter. Graduate students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter.

French Horn. Jazz and Contemporary Improvisation. JAZZ Jazz Piano 1 credit Designed for non-pianists in the jazz program to increase their ability to build jazz chords and to be able to negotiate jazz chord progressions with good voice teaching.

Prerequisite: JAZZ Typically offered Fall, Winter, Spring, Summer. In addition, the course will address beginning jazz pedagogy and will be helpful to Music Education students. Topics covered include form, style, chord progressions, and melodic construction. JAZZ Jazz Pedagogy 1 credit This course will cover aspects of secondary school jazz pedagogy including improvisation, combo direction and large ensemble direction.

Specific technique relevant to instruments typically used in jazz groups will be addressed as well, including trumpet, trombone, saxophone, piano, bass, guitar and drum set. Prerequisite: JAZZ , , or Prerequisite: JAZZ Contemporary Improvisation 2 credits Explores contemporary improvisation techniques, drawing from the late 20th century European concert music practices, and select global influences. Includes a rigorous program of rhythmic study. JAZZ Advanced Jazz Improvisation 2 credits Covers advanced jazz practices that predominated the idiom from the midth century on, including characteristic repertory, improvisatory techniques, composition, transcription, harmonic structures, formal designs, and rhythmic strategies.

Music Education. Includes observation component. MUSED Technology for Music Educators 1 credit An overview of modern technology that can be used to enhance teaching and learning in school-based music programs. MUSED Teaching String Instruments I 1 credit Presents pedagogy and techniques for teaching string instruments in an ensemble setting for certification degree programs.

MUSED Teaching Woodwind Instruments 1 credit Presents pedagogy techniques for teaching flute, oboe, bassoon, clarinet, and saxophone in an ensemble setting for certification degree programs. MUSED Teaching Brass Instruments 1 credit Presents pedagogy techniques for teaching brass instruments in an ensemble setting for certification degree programs.

MUSED Teaching Percussion Instruments 1 credit Presents pedagogy techniques for teaching percussion instruments in an ensemble setting for certification degree programs. The course content will include vocal instruction and topics related to vocal pedagogy. The setting will be that of a class with the former taught by a vocal GSI and the latter by the music education faculty and a music education GSI. Examine music currently being used in secondary schools and criteria for selecting appropriate materials.

Observation of school choirs is included. Utilizes lectures, group discussion, peer teaching, readings, and demonstrations. Utilizes lecture-demonstrations, peer teaching, readings, group discussion, and films. MUSED Fundamentals of Teaching String Instruments 2 credits Introduces philosophies, objectives, materials, and group methods for teaching string instruments in elementary and secondary schools.

MUSED Elementary Band Methods 2 credits Assists the student in developing the necessary skills for a position as an elementary or middle school band director. Topics include: recruitment, program organization and scheduling, building musicianship, materials for instruction, national standards, and state frameworks in instrumental music and classroom management. MUSED Secondary Instrumental Methods 2 credits Study and discussion of the role of the secondary instrumental music educator and the purpose of instrumental music in schools.

Assists the student in developing the necessary skills for a position as an instrumental music teacher in the high school. Each week, students will review a given topic: counterpoint, diatonic harmony, chromatic harmony, form, and atonality. As student abilities vary, each student will have the opportunity to meet with the instructor personally in order to reach the necessary standards required by the department. Masters Music Ed students only; typically offered Summer.

MUSED Teaching of Music by Elementary School Teachers 3 credits Designed to help elementary teachers learn the fundamentals of music and to provide practical suggestions for teaching music skills to children. Student perform and learn to teach music. For general elementary teachers. Topics include: musical development, movement, rhythm and rhythmic notation, aurial skills and tonal notation, creative musicianship, musical sensitivity, preparing students for solo and ensemble, and logistics of private studio teaching.

Designed to provide practical experience and to develop teaching skills through observation and teaching in K schools under joint supervision of university and school personnel. MUSED Seminar 1 credit Weekly campus seminar, providing a setting for reflection and further engagement about the practice of teaching and learning. MUSED Educational Research in the Arts 3 credits Study of research processes in schools and communities, with an emphasis on framing problems and evaluating studies, drawing on diverse modes of inquiry.

Typically offered Fall, Summer. MUSED Psychology of Music Teaching and Learning 3 credits Study of the psychological foundations of music teaching and learning, including perception, motivation, creative and critical thinking, and musical development.

Typically offered Winter, Summer. Instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Summer. MUSED Teaching and Learning in the Arts 3 credits Draws upon related foundational disciplines to examine teaching and learning in group and individual instructional settings. This course addresses topics related to curriculum theory, instructional innovations and assessment strategies. Instructor permission required; typically offered Winter, Summer.

Instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter, Summer. MUSED Teaching Music in Higher Education 2 credits Includes an examination of theories of music teaching and learning, adult learning styles, developmental stages experienced by undergraduate students, and discussions of issues in the teaching of music in higher education.

Music Performance. Techniques are learned to aurally analyze game music. Students will create compositions using computer software as a final project. Course is designed for non-music majors; the ability to read standard music notation is not needed. Provides a balance of physical and mental conditioning the best suits the special needs for performers. Music Theory. THEORY Basic Musicianship: Aural Skills I 1 credit Sight-singing, vocal chord arpeggiation, keyboard and dictation exercises, major and minor keys including diatonic sequences, most frequent patterns of modulation, and special techniques associated with and chords.

THEORY Basic Musicianship: Aural Skills II 2 credits Sight-singing, vocal chord arpeggiation, keyboard and dictation exercises, major and minor keys including diatonic sequences, most frequent patterns of modulation, and special techniques associated with and chord. THEORY Basic Musicianship: Writing Skills I 1 credit Review of rudiments; introduction to harmony and voice-leading involving triads, seventh chords, figured bass, and procedures for four-voice writing, writing activities with diatonic harmony including cadential analyses of harmony, phrase structure, texture, elements of figuration in shorter pieces, basic conducting skills and rehearsal techniques.

THEORY Basic Musicianship: Writing Skills II 2 credits Review of rudiments; introduction to harmony and voice-leading involving triads, seventh chords, figured bass, and procedures for four-voice writing, writing activities with diatonic harmony including cadential analyses of harmony, phrase structure, texture, elements of figuration in shorter pieces, basic conducting skills and rehearsal techniques. Musical Theatre majors only; typically offered Winter.

Last half of introduces 20th century materials. THEORY Basic Musicianship: Writing Skills III 2 credits Writing activities involving melodic and rhythmic figuration, leading-tone seventh chords, diatonic modulation, and chromatic voice-leading techniques; analysis of period structure, binary form, ternary forms. Last half of introduces 20th century materials such as atonality, exotic scales, pitch-class sets, and tone serialism.

THEORY Basic Musicianship: Writing Skills IV 2 credits Writing activities involving melodic and rhythmic figuration, leading-tone seventh chords, diatonic modulation, and chromatic voice-leading techniques; analysis of period structure, binary form, ternary forms. THEORY Advanced Analysis of Tonal Music 3 credits In depth analysis emphasizing elements of structures evident in various important examples, offering a variety of analytical problems; readings on tonal forms.

SMTD students only; typically offered Winter. Varied repertoire; varied aural and analytical approaches. Topics change with each offering and the course. Activities typically involve transcription, music analysis, and readings in theories of the music under the study. SMTD students only; typically offered Fall. A diet of species counterpoint is emphasized in the first half, then varieties of contrapuntal craft of the difficulty of two and three part inventions of J.

Pedagogical treatises of that era as well as contemporary scholarship are dealt with in analytical and creative tasks. THEORY Orchestration I 3 credits Emphasis on original compositions or arrangements for various instruments in string, wind, brass, and percussion families. Also reading and listening assignments.

Final project is selecting and orchestrating a short piano composition for chamber orchestra. Reading and listening assignments as well as attendance at SMTD ensemble rehearsals. Final project involves composing or arranging an extended work for wind ensemble or orchestra. THEORY Schenkerian Theory and Analysis I 3 credits Teaches the basic techniques of Schenkerian analysis; emphasizes basic concepts of linear, contrapuntal, and harmonic structure in tonal music; analyzes excerpts and short compositions.

Students learn to express their analytical insights through the preparation of voice-leading graphs. Composition chosen reflect a variety of formal types and a variety of styles, ranging from Bach to Chopin and Brahms. Practice in applying these systems in analyses of significant repertoire.

Topics change with each offering of the course. Activities typically involve transcription, music analysis, and readings in theories of the music under study. THEORY Project in Tonal Composition 2 credits Creative work to model traditional composition forms, with careful attention to development processes attendant to the common practice period. Coverage includes fundamentals, harmony, ear training, sight-singing, keyboard harmony, counterpoint, tonal analysis, and various integrated approaches; introduction to some computer-assisted materials.

Musical Theatre. MUSTHTRE Introduction to Musical Theatre I 2 credits Overview of the field of Musical Theatre, including career opportunities, historic trends, resource books, vocabulary terms, the creative process, analysis of song form, techniques used in reading musicals, and the philosophy of the audition process. Musical Theatre students only; typically offered Fall. MUSTHTRE Introduction to Musical Theatre II 2 credits Overview of the field of Musical Theatre, including career opportunities, historic trends, resource books, vocabulary terms, the creative process, analysis of song form, techniques used in reading musicals, and the philosophy of the audition process.

Musical Theatre students only; typically offered Winter. MUSTHTRE Performance I 3 credits A course that develops techniques for preparation and performance of musical theatre material, auditioning, and the synthesis of acting and singing skills. Musical Theatre students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall.

Musical Theatre students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Winter. Musical Theatre students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter. Emphasis is on music skills, methods of preparation, phrasing, song form analysis, interpretive choices and stylistic traits.

Also includes focus on career performance work. An overview of theatrical forms, including vaudeville, revues, operettas, and book musicals, from the turn of the century to , with particular attention to the composers and lyricists of the period. Lecture and discussion. MUSTHTRE History of American Musical Theatre II 3 credits A continuation of , from to the present, with particular emphasis on theatrical criticism; analysis of book, music, and lyrics in shows of various genres; and the compilation of a bibliography.

It will study the dichotomy and merging of physical and verbal communication. A public performance may be presented as the culmination of the course. By audition; Musical Theatre students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter. Class-work involves extensive repertoire exploration, vocal and dramatic coaching in solo literature, and participation in two group musical numbers, culminating in several public presentations, including one in New York City for agents and casting directors.

The course places the musical conventions, key performers, and aesthetic shifts that mark the history of popular music in social, cultural, technological, and musical context. Designed to develop listening and analytical skills, the course aims to help students to understand, describe, interpret, and write about popular music. Although our primary focus is the music of opera, the course does not require musical literacy or the ability to read music.

Students are taught to look at a vocal score of opera without fear, but not training in music theory is presumed. Includes both vernacular and art-music traditions. We will investigate musical systems in terms of instruments, repertoire, modal and rhythmic structures and the effect of religious constraints, cultural policy and social history on musical life.

Opera will be studied critically as music, theater, spectacle, performance medium, and cultural expression. Music is to be studied critically, as music and as culture. Assignments will be primarily listening assignments, supplemented by score study, readings from materials on reserve, and some in-class performances.

Topics include blues, jazz, contemporary popular music, and art music. In-class teaching practice is included. SMTD graduate students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall. SMTD students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Winter. SMTD students only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall. A full-scale series of double-case performance.

Organ Literature. Documentary sources, concepts of organ design, and performance practices are related to each major period and are used by students in preparing works performed in class. Bach, concentrating on major works. A portion of each class is devoted to organ design and construction. Includes study of documentary sources and historic sound recordings. Attention is given to performance practices with particular emphasis on rhythm, phrasing and articulation, ornamentation, and concepts of registration.

Content varies. Consideration is given to the relationship between specific compositions and 19th-century organ design. PERCUSS Percussion Pedagogy 2 — 4 credits Qualitative critical analysis and creative thinking to create independent healthful physiological and psychological methods necessary to tutor students.

The historical time frame of works, the performance practice of the period including instrument selection, and the compositional form will be discussed in the context of comparing multiple recording of some works. Comparative study of recordings of significant works will aid in developing an aesthetic by which class members will be able to evaluate new works.

Performing Arts Technology. PAT Research and Scholarship I credits Students will learn the fundamentals of dissemination of research and scholarship through recording, editing, mastering and encoding of mixed media content such as lectures, recitals, and performances. PAT majors only; instructor permission required; typically offered Fall, Winter. PAT First Year Seminar in Media Arts 3 credits This seminar presents perspectives in the performing and media arts from the early twentieth century to the present.

Students develop critical analytical skills contextualized by the historical, cultural and technological underpinnings that have influenced the media arts. Students complete readings, writings, viewings and listening assignments as well as participate in group discussions. PAT Acoustics and Psychoacoustics 3 credits An introduction to the principles of acoustics and psychoacoustics that are relevant to the recording engineer, music technologist, and composer.

Topics include introduction to sound, human hearing, perception and measurement of sound, room acoustics, and the acoustics of musical instruments and the human voice. PAT Introduction to Electronic Music 3 credits This course is for students not majoring in Performing Arts Technology who are interested in developing a contextually-informed artistic practice in the area of electronic music composition, production, and performance. Through a series of composition exercises, students build skills in sequencing, audio and MIDI recording and editing, mixing, sound synthesis, sampling, effects processing, and live electronic music performance with real-time controllers.

Students create several original compositions for presentation and discussion. The aesthetics of electroacoustic composition are discussed through study of selected repertoire. Students use digital audio workstations, controllers, and professional music production software to create music in diverse styles and genres. Contemporary compositional issues and practices are explored through classroom discussion, critiques, reading, and listening.

Prerequisite: PAT PAT Creative Coding for Music 3 credits An introduction to principles and practices of computer programming for musical applications. Students learn visual, procedural, and object-oriented programming in general-purpose and music-specific languages. Projects address important musical programming concepts including algorithmic composition, real-time interaction, and audio buffer processing.

Emphasis is on creative and artistic uses of code. PAT Sound Reinforcement 1 credit Students will assist with live sound reinforcement and production for music, opera, and musical theatre productions. Students learn the fundamentals of microphone selection and placement, mixing, monitoring, and signal processing for particular types of performances and performance venues.

Students will learn the fundamentals of dissemination of research and scholarship through recording, editing, mastering and encoding of mixed media content such as lectures, recitals, and performances. Electing this course at the level requires more leadership and responsibility from the student.

PAT The Art of Electronic Music 3 credits This course integrates historical, technological, and musical approaches to the study of electronic music. Students learn the techniques and aesthetics underlying a spectrum of recording and production techniques in order to investigate the dialogue between technological and creative innovations in a wide variety of electronic genres. Students learn specific artistic and technological techniques which inform music concerned with representation, protest, and activism, and develop critical perspectives on this repertoire.

Topics include microphones, microphone techniques, equalization, preparing for a recording session, recording consoles, digital audio workstations, loudspeakers, and critical listening. The course includes a required lab section for hands-on experience in a recording studio. The course explores philosophies and techniques in sound recording theory and practice, including microphone techniques, dynamics processing, equalization, reverberation, mixing in stereo and surround, critical listening, and selected topics in audio electronics.

Prerequisites: PAT PAT Sound for Theatre 2 credit Students work as a member of a theatre production team with emphasis on sound effects and sound design for theatre. PAT Directed Individual Studies 1—3 credits Students receive individual instruction, consultation, and guidance from the instructor.

Course emphasis is on developing individual research skills that culminates in a final project or paper. PAT Digital Music Ensemble credits Digital Music Ensemble DME is a technology-based interdisciplinary performance troupe that collaborates in the creation and performance of new works of art or performs historically innovative works.

DME uses methods of open-ended critical inquiry to challenge meaning in the creation, realization and performance of art. PAT Electronic Chamber Music credits Small ensembles of musicians are formed to create and perform contemporary chamber music. Various approaches to composition and group collaboration are explored through the integration of various categories of instruments including acoustic, electronic, electro-acoustic hybrids, performance controllers, and computers.

PAT Advanced Psychoacoustics 3 credits This course will focus on psychoactoustics, the study of how we perceive sounds. Topics covered will include the anatomy and physiology of the ear, the perception of simple and complex sounds, ecological acoustics and auditory scene analysis.

Qualifies for Upper Level Writing Requirement for undergraduates. Prerequisite: or permission of instructor. PAT Technical Ear Training and Critical Listening 3 credits This course is an introduction to the concept of translating between timbres and frequency resonances produced by parametric equalization. Students learn to aurally identify different timbres through their corresponding spectral envelopes.

Critical listening exercises will also be explored with a focus on dynamics processing, spatial characteristics, spectral balance, and recording, mixing, and production techniques. PAT Contemporary Practices in Studio Production I 3 credits The advanced study of theory and practice of recording techniques, mixing, and production for multi-channel audio systems through guided projects. Students sharpen their creative, technical, and production skills through the realization of complex recordings.

PAT Making Music on Film 3 credits In this course, students and faculty will collaborate in the creation of a professional-quality work of musical cinema. Under the leadership of a faculty director, and with the guidance of working film professionals, students may participate as singers, dancers, actors, designers, audio engineers, or film crew.

The finished film will be screened at film festivals, distributed nationally, and will be credited to IMBD. PAT Practicum in Music and Sound for Film 3 credits Students work on original film and animation projects, in roles such as composers, sound designers, dialog editors, mix engineers, or production audio crew on advanced student productions.

Class sessions include script analysis, screenings, discussion of readings, and in-class critiques of works-in-progress. The emphasis is on developing an awareness of the multiple ways that music and sound can interact with the moving image to create meaning.

While this is an advanced course that assumes a familiarity with computers and audio production tools, it does include some direct instruction in relevant techniques such as syncing to picture, spotting music, dialog editing, and on-set recording.

Prerequisite: music composition. PAT Immersive Media 3 credits Practice-based investigation of immersive media technologies, including virtual reality platforms, spatial audio systems, and game engines. Lectures cover methods and tools employed in the design of multimodal virtual and augmented realities. During lab activities, students implement interactive systems using modern immersive media platforms.

Projects involve prototyping and realization of immersive media artworks and performances. Combining critical and historical discourse with hands-on experience, students develop comprehensive skills in the use of immersive media as performing arts tech.

PAT Interactive Media Design I 3 credits This course introduces the technological and theoretical foundations of designing physically interactive media experiences. Students develop interactive sensing systems and program embedded computing devices as well as real-time auditory, visual and tangible displays.

Through exercises that draw on theory and techniques of interaction design, students create technological sketches and prototypes for novel devices and artworks. Prerequisites: PAT , computer programming, and music composition. PAT Interactive Media Design II 3 credits The course focuses on the application of skills and techniques developed in Interactive Media Design I to design and implement physically interactive performance systems and media installations.

Incorporating advanced sensing and interaction techniques, students create fully realized works that are exhibited before a public audience. Seminal works of interactive art and interactive performance are discussed and critiqued. PAT Performance Systems 3 credits This course explores contemporary technologies that support musical performance.

Topics include the goals of technologyenhanced performance, instrument interfacing, system design, programmable systems, and sound reinforcement design for playback of electronic and acoustic ensembles. Students create original compositions using performance systems that they have designed and built and direct performances that use these systems. Prerequisites: PAT , computer programming.

PAT Digital Sound Synthesis 3 credits An introduction to digital sound synthesis and signal processing theory with an emphasis on sound design and compositional applications. Prerequisites: PAT , music composition. PAT Independent Study 1—4 credits Students receive individual instruction, consultation and guidance from the instructor. Weekly seminars promote sharing among students. Each student is required to complete a thesis that may be a research paper, recordings, website, or DVD.

Compositional issues are explored by classroom discussion, critiques, and lectures. PAT Directed Individual Study credits Students receive individual instruction, consultation and guidance from the instructor. Graduate students only; instructor permission required, typically offered Fall, Winter. PAT Media Arts: Immersion and Enculturation 3 credits The course details the theory and practice of music technology, interactive art forms that use technology, models of human computer interaction, and digital video and animation.

Students will perform analyses of contemporary works in the media arts from aesthetic, production, technological, and artistic points of view. Students will examine the roles in the collaborative process. PAT Engineering Applications of Media Technology 3 credits Algorithm design and analysis with applications in the sonic and visual arts; fundamental knowledge representation, formal reasoning, and search algorithms. An emphasis on fundamental computational problems in the media arts and a discussion of the introductory issues in encoding and processing style.

PAT Interdisciplinary Collaboration I 3 credits Students form teams to realize computer-based multimedia works that integrate technology, music, sound, art, and moving image. Students analyze the work as an individual, as well as a member of a group. The analysis details aspects of the design, role development, collaboration, aesthetic goal, artistic statement, production values, and the role of technology in the creative process.

The finished film will be screened at film festivals, distributed nationally, and will be credited on IMBD. While this is an advanced course that assumes a familiarity with computers and audio production tools, it does include some direct instruction in relevant techniques such as syncing to picture, spotting music, dialog editing, and onset recording. Topics include the goals of technology-enhanced performance, instrument interfacing, system design, programmable systems, and sound reinforcement design for playback of electronic and acoustic ensembles.

PAT Independent Study 1 — 4 credits Students receive individual instruction, consultation, and guidance from the instructor. Please Note: A placement test may be required for class piano courses. Placement tests are given twice per academic year near the beginning of the Fall and Winter terms. Test dates will be posted on the Piano Placement Exam Information page.

Sections are reserved for SMTD majors only. Prerequisite: Piano or proficiency. Piano Literature and Pedagogy. Directed study will consist of readings from technological sources, rebuilding projects, and tuning of upright and grand pianos. Each student performs at least one work and writes a term paper. Selections from appropriate treatises on performance practices are discussed. Prerequisite: junior standing or instructor permission required.

Music is analyzed and performed; students give oral presentations and submit final papers. A stylistic overview of major works of the genre, from a performer-oriented perspective. Representative works are studied in class and through outside listening. Student presentations will be expected of DMA students enrolled in the course. PIANOLP Survey of Piano Performance Traditions 2 credits A survey of important performers, traditions, and repertoire central to the history of piano performance, especially in the early 20th century.

Sacred Music. Prerequisite: Organ or instructor permission required. Prerequisite: Sacred Music ; instructor permission required. Prerequisite: Sacred Music or instructor permission required. Prerequisite: or instructor permission required. SAX Performance transfer students 2 or 4 credits Private study in saxophone. SAX Performance graduate secondary 2 or 4 credits Private study in saxophone.

SAX Performance specialist secondary 2 or 4 credits Private study in saxophone. Theatre and Drama. Grounds the student in basic acting theory. Instructor permission required; primarily for non-majors; typically offered Fall, Winter. Instructs how to analyze and approach the written text and embody character.

THTREMUS Introduction to Stage Make-up 1 credit Covers the foundations of stage make-up; basic corrective, manipulating the features with the highlight and shadows and old age make-up applications, script analysis for make-up and an introduction to prosthetics and wig care.

Exercises, improvisation, and other techniques will aid in developing awareness of the body as an expressive medium. It also presents a number of key plays from various periods, and examines them from the point of view of their dramatic qualities, theatrical strengths, social and political contexts, their performance history, and their relevance today.

This course is geared toward students who do not have extensive experience attending or participating in the theatre. Theatre and Musical Theatre majors may only elect to take this course in their first semester. Students study multi-cultural literatures and practices in the United States. Students learn about performance histories and practices of culturally diverse communities in the United States, study performance aesthetics emerging from Asian American, African American, Latin American and Native American communities, and learn how to read and analyze diverse plays by United States authors in cultural context.

Students are accepted on the basis of a portfolio. Embodied studio practice emphasizes aesthetics of diverse cultural communities. Guest artists and instructors interact with students in the instructional space. Students learn how practice emerges from culturally specific contexts, how to embody culturally specific aesthetics and practices, and they train in the vocal, physical and theatrical expression skills.

It deals both with finding and developing ideas and with finding ways to express them. It provides students with a process with which to approach to play and begin to design, as well as starting to develop a theatrical vocabulary which will serve as a foundation for future design work.

Identifying styles of theatre, stage types, floor plans. Combines classroom instruction with practicum experience. Students assistant-stage-manage a University Productions show during the semester; participate in rehearsals and performances. Lectures and lab shop assignment for a mainstage production.

Students work in stagecraft, scenic painting, lighting, props, costuming for mainstage productions. Topics include color theory, optics, electricity, distribution, and equipment. Industry standards regarding control systems, organizational standards, and collaborative techniques will also be covered.

Expression of the production concept, style and period is studied by use of the elements of design. This includes analyzing and discussing plays as the inspiration for a design, some history of design, considering the three-dimensional world of a stage, and how to make basic drawings and models for a stage design.

Introduction to basic drawing skills and other visual options in presenting design ideas. Prerequisite: Theatre and instructor permission required. Focuses on exploring the relations between text, props, human interactions and physicality. Exercises and discussions will revolve around increased subtlety, strength, flexibility, musicality, and dynamics with the goal of heightening the communicative range of the moving body.

THTREMUS Stage Combat I 2 credits Focuses on enabling the actor to extend range of truth and responsibility; imparts a philosophical and historical overview relative to three areas of concentration: unarmed combat, quarterstaff, and single rapier and rapier-and-dagger. THTREMUS History of Dress 3 credits A slide survey course, which traces the history of dress from ancient times through the present day, with an emphasis in the societies that produced particular manners and styles of dress and their relationship to one another.

Also, the analysis of characterization with a view toward definitive acting choices in order to illuminate the text, emotional content and vocal expression. Various ways and trends of analyzing scripts for stage will be studied. Students will read, discuss and write about plays and the various symbols that sustain their messages. Ambiguities and aspects of plot will be explored. There will be hands-on workshops developing and creating several styles of puppets, and students will research puppetry in world performance.

Includes poetic text, sonnets and monologues. Improvisation and Roy Hart techniques are explored. It is designed to give the actor experience behind the microphone and exposure to the tools and techniques in the highly specialized craft of voice-over work for radio, television, industrial narration, animation, web work, and audio books. Script analysis, character analysis and vocal techniques are explored for single-voiced and multiple-voiced copy.

The Publishing Rights cover the songwriting. The Master Rights cover an actual recording. A YT cover is violating the Publishing Rights incidentally the cheapest of the two if you are seeking to legitimately create a cover For example if you wanted to record a cover for a song and acquired the publishing rights, and submitted your new master to either BMI or ASCAP, you would be compensated for play on YT and any other signatory.

The Publishing rightsholder would also be compensated. We do this all the time for films, as the original masters are often too expensive, or in the interest of the story we want to do a re-imagining. In the case of the Flea contest, if Flea owns the publishing rights, he can grant every covering artist the right to do whatever they want.

If he doesn't own them, he can't. At least not legally. The wise and the calm can analyze which situation is harmful and which isn't and seek out the gray areas. In the corporate and legal worlds though, things seem a little more binary. If you want to lead the change, when you create original work, utilize the available Creative Commons license which enables a user to immediately understand which rights you are granting and which you are witholding.

The license travels with the work. This is free and standardized and you do not need lawyers to draft anything. I hope that the good energy of this forum holds and that this doesn't get mean spirited. I meant to add that one of the craziest and most legendary tunes that the legal eagles watch out for is "Happy Birthday To You".

This is also why all of the big chain restaurants have those goofy birthday songs, because otherwise they would go broke paying "Happy Birthday" royalties all day. There is a spoof website that takes the extreme angle on this and offers tools to snitch on friends and relatives for copyright infringement. I am also very much enjoying this thread. A couple of quick comments since a lot has happened since I last posted that I want to respond to.

I think bbycrts did a great job of summing up the two parallel issues that are going. I personally am much more interested in the second issue of what "should be" and think that laws can be damned if they don't represent that. To salukulady, I agree with your assessment of what will likely need to change. The big artists will need to pave the way for smaller acts to fight the record industry. Unfortunately as it is, small acts striving to be discovered don't have a bargaining chip and are forced to make a decision to become famous and not own their own material, or own their own material which no one will ever hear.

Acts like the Grateful Dead, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, and Weezer are doing the right thing in my eyes by publicly fighting this status quo and trying to find a new, better way to distribute your music apart from the industry altogether. You're probably right that people will get upset under circumstances where their work is used without being credited, payed, or for a cause they don't support.

My main contention derives from how I see society in general. Firstly, if anyone is going to be credited monetarily or just in the credits for a work of art, I think it should be the artist- no matter who a piece of paper says the material "belongs" to. The Beatles wrote their songs.

No one else should have the ability to sell them to a private owner, provide publishing rights, or to deny them. I feel the same way for Flea not being able to choose what is done with his own music. My second point is on a broader scope and is one of the reasons I am primarily against this kind of "ownership" for profit. I think the incessant need to be financially compensated for one's work wouldn't even exist in a better societal system.

In a communal type system, one's work is meant to enhance his community. If someone uses that work build on and to further enhance the society, that's a good thing-- the society gets better. Everyone wins. I mean, can you imagine the first of our species who invented the wheel going around and demanding payment for everyone who began using one?

It's ludicrous. I know we're far from a perfect system, but in a proper society where people's needs are already met, the drive for greed might not even exist-- only the need to improve. So while we aren't in a perfect system yet, I think we can strive for it by aiming for such ideals. The longer capitalism survives, the more we'll see greed as a part of human nature. To use a biblical analogy, it all depends on whose ox has been gored. If my living depended on royalties from intellectual property, and I had invested my creativity, sweat, and money to make it successful, I might not feel quite so libertarian toward the free for all web.

YouTube is great, but the web in general has created great dilemmas for music companies, newspaper publishers, and others who spend big bucks putting out a polished and refined product. Answers don't come easy. Wasn't much of an uproar.

Let's not forget that YouTube is making money off of what we post. As someone who made my living for years off of intellectual property, I'd like to be paid, thank you. They won't do it unless we start screaming. Write YouTube and insisit that they acquire a license for their users! I agree that this has been a very interesting thread. I think that it shows a great deal about the kind of people who play 'ukulele, and the people who make this forum great.

I wanted to clarify a couple of things- One- I totally agree that nobody should be able to exploit an artists work except the artist. That in fact is one of the reasons for the two divisions of rights. The first generally covers the artist who wrote and composed the work. The second covers the artists who played the work.

Either or both of those rights are sometimes sold off by the artists themselves and that is how giant corporations end up controlling the material. As far as the need to create a better system without need for constant financial compensation, it is here and available.

At least in its infancy. Methods such as that Creative Commons license allow for a simple selection of everything between free distribution through financial compensation. I too wish it wasn't all about money, but practically, while I am no professional musician, from a film-maker perspective, I can't imagine a situation where one of my directors would want to have their film remade without some kind of personal gain- be it money or something else.

I think for the most part smart labels and smart bands like the fan culture and see the value in it. The shame is that it is impossible to tell who is litigious, and who gets it. I'd like to point out a few things because there are a lot of misconceptions about how the music industry works.

A record label has absolutely no say in regard to cover tunes. They can only go after you for using their exact sound recording. Yes, I'm splitting hairs here, but it's important to note that, unlike filesharing of copyrighted sound recordings, the record labels aren't the ones going after you for covering one of their artist's songs on your uke. It's not a "fee per song".

Night clubs, concert halls, radio stations and the like pay for blanket licenses to the various performing rights organizations. Many businesses whose business isn't music e. As far as passing the cost on to consumers, it's all part of doing business, and yes, consumers ultimately pay for that. At issue is revenue lost or projected to be lost by copyright holders. Also at issue is whether or not covering someone else's material without making a profit can even legitimately be called infringement at all.

Perhaps attempting to prohibit public performance not for payment or to enforce royalty payments by non copyright holders for performing not expecting to make a profit is a free speech violation. Perhaps the copyright police should arrest drunken people for quoting "caddyshack" or "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" without paying the corporate owner for the privelege? Most people who cover other people's material with the exception of "tribute bands" or impersonators aren't even attemptiing to evoke a feeling or image of the original performer.

Blues music, as well as other types, were, and still are, passed down in the musical equivalent of an oral tradition where people take a song written by someone and make it their own. The record company and the artist depending upon who the artist is have an arrangement where each party gets money. Traditionally the whole thing is dependent upon control of technology and use of the legal system.

Vinyl, CD, DVD are media the means with which to produce used to rest in the hands of the record companies and the bar to entry was very high. That effectively protected the record companies financial interest and stake. This takes control of the business model out of the hands of the record companies. They now control access to the pop culture music market through other economic means such as equating cultural legitimacy with expensive productions and 'success'.

Sure, if you want fame and riches in the traditional sense you can certainly play that game. Two artists that spring to mind are the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa. First, The Grateful Dead were perfectly happy to allow people to record their shows and facilitated this by allowing special areas where people with equipment were allowed do it with the band and crew's blessing. The Band and it's employees got their cut of the pie from ticket sales via arrangements with venue owners, and approved merchandise sales.

Those "bootleg" dead recordings are not considered part of the pie. They raise consciousness, they are an intangible part of the whole GD phenomenon and contribute to an evolving musical journal of sorts which drew people to the shows. The GD retained rights to their trademarks. There were abuses but the band and affiliated people understood that there would be abuses but largely tolerated it because it all contributed to the viral success of the larger interest.

The GD did, however, evolve into this because they started out in the traditional way under contract. Frank Zappa, on the other hand, had a long standing dispute with Warner Bros. Frank was perfectly happy with the onerous corporate legal structure as long as it protected him. I'm aware of this because I was a huge Zappa fan.

Frank wanted to produce a 4 record set called Lather pronounced Leather , which would have fulfilled his contractual obligation to WB. It would have been expensive to produce, as generally goes with multi record sets. WB didn't want to do this. Part of the problem with some of Frank's music was what WB considered 'niche appeal' equalling limited financial return, hence their attempt to rein him in until he produced product they deemed commercially acceptable which, Frank wasn't going to do as his music was evolving away from pop appeal though he did enjoy a loyal legion of fans.

GD and FZ differ greatly as concerns opinion concerning the issue of copyright. GD understood their grassroots appeal and benefitted from behavior over which FZ would have sued till he was blue in the face. GD through their business model and FZ through his unwillingness to allow WB to prevent him from releasing his material by abusing their contractual rights.

GD is more relevant to what's going with the internet, though, and their business model attests both to how there's plenty of money in entertainment for savvy folks with a product people want and to how screwed up men in suits who think their "rights" are immune to the inexorable march of technology.

All the brouhaha aside, I wonder who made more money, the Grateful Dead or Metallica. If it was really beneficial for the artist, then what's the problem about getting permission first? At least that would be a courtesy, showing you respect the rights of the copyright holder. Your band, or the venue? I always thought the venue. When you record a cover, you pick up the fee, no? Maybe that could be a guideline for YouTube: if clubs pick up the fee, isn't YouTube one big club?

I read reports that some club owners were being asked to pay some sort of blanket licenses over a loosely defined catalogue. Whether or not that was actually true is certainly open to question as rumors and reports of all sorts abound on the internet.

The big difference between those performances and YT is that with YT you have created a recording and are in the act of distributing and marketing that recording. It is totally easy and cheap. There are no dues, etc and in the event you ever want to license a song out to someone for a film, or to re-record, they will handle the collection of all royalties and more. You can join as an artist and as a publisher. If you want to change the system, become a publisher, collect as many songs from like minded people as you can and provide a public use library to the world.

Am I the only one who finds this site I can't think of the word Anyways, they are using youtube videos that would be considered against copyrights. It's for the Grammy's. Your analogy is faulty. How so? Both relate to property that you do not own.

The visualization of how fans are using and sharing the music is a very strong statement for sure. These are also likely not the folks who are doing the takedowns. If they are, it would be fun to make 'em wiggle out of the conflict. That's a very good point. But isn't YouTube making the money here? But that is exactly what I see them trying to do. Only thing is, how do they distribute the money to the right labels? Next, they'd have to track our songs.

I don't think the issue is labels, it's publishing rights. But I may be wrong about that Pretty sure he was referring to claytons bank robbery analogy.. First of all the artist is not the person who you "get permission" from. You can send emails to Mariah Carey all you want asking for permission to cover her song, she can say yes but it doesn't mean SQUAT as she has signed away her rights through contract, and it is no longer up to her but up to "the industry" the big publishers, producers..

Second, bank robbery and shoplifting Why do I feel like you are carrying personal baggage from some zealot copyright crusade. Where is the Love? If it continues in this direction at this rate there will be no mainstream freedom of speech or self expression. I used to belong to ascap. They didn't track how many times my group performed a certain song, it was just a yearly blanket fee.

As long as the rights to the song was owned by ascap, I was allowed to use it in anyway I wanted. If it continues in this direction at this rate there will be no mainstream freedom of speech or self expression No offense intended, but this is non-sense. Playing someone else's song without permission is stealing. It's their work, their money, not yours. The artist, or other copyright holder owns the song - not you. Arguing the morality of that fact is romantic silliness.

It's neither right nor wrong, but simply necessary in a world where intellectual property has value. The shoplifting analogy is a little harsh, but it works just fine. Again, I prefer artists who allow covers, and honestly have no personal problem stealing that permission if I feel like it it's the pirate in me. But let's be honest and very specific about what we are doing here. We are taking someone else's work.

Gotta agree with the coyote. Any of us would be pissed as hell if someone took a ditty we wrote and made a cover, especially if it involved making money or gaining fame. They should be thankful that people are covering songs. By the way, my Youtube account has now definitely been suspended. I'm very sad that music industry doesn't see that.

That sucks dude :. Dude - that sucks. Youtube's enforcement on this issue is insane. There was absolutely no reason to suspend your acct. Pulling specific vids in response to complaints is one thing, but pulling an account for covers is inconsistently enforced and unfairly applied. Total crap. Drop a line to Adelle - she went through this same thing last year and had her acct. The debate about "laws" and "morals" was interesting. Unholy alliance or great opportunity?

What do you think? I think it's a sign that the music industry is finally waking up to consumer demand and embracing new business models. It may or may not be unholy, but I think that's a positive sign. Maybe they'll stop suing innocent grandmothers What Vevo really needs to do though is stop restricting other countries from viewing content - they shoot themselves in the foot and drive people towards copyright infringement. It's clear that they still haven't learnt that lesson, which is a shame.

Either way I don't think vevo is a problem, apart from vevo videos seeming to load slower than others higher qual doesn't count for much on a 10" netbook guys. Sebi, I'm very sorry to hear that your account has been suspended. I can understand why YT suspends accounts of people after a couple or three strikes - it's simply cheaper than the work involved in addressing videos one at a time.

Doesn't mean I like it. I also wonder if the copyright holders will object to her videos in the same way. Do you think she harmed sales of the original "Build Me Up, Buttercup"? Without researching it, my guess would be that downloads of the original benefited from the exposure the song got. I love Julia and her stuff: just wondering if everyone is treated the same.

Several members have posted excellent summaries of the objective legal position on recording and publishing copyright. No point in arguing any of that. It is what it is. The discussion here has been conducted superbly, with conflicting opinions challenged with a good amount of tact, courtesy and diplomacy. I don't dispute the legal rights of the copyright holders at all. I just wonder what, in pragmatic terms, they think they will gain.

Do they think the covers are hurting their revenue income? Do they think that the volume of people that post YT covers are suddenly going to come and buy licences or seek permission? Do they think that the companies who allow YT covers without issue are suffering as a result None of that makes much sense to me. My own expectations would be that: The covers stimulate interest in the artists and their songs. Most people would simply stop posting covers because they do not know, and won't bother to research, how to do it the 'correct' way.

Companies and artists who allow the posting of covers are likely to benefit from the exposure and from the approval and loyalty fostered by their attitude. Both of these artists actively encourage the not-for-profit recording and sharing of their live performances. They are well known for their tolerant attitude to issues such as the one under discussion here. I love these people almost as much for their attitudes as for the music they make.

I buy their music out of loyaty and wouldn't hesitate to buy a ticket for a show. What goes around, etc. Most of the talk here But yes, and here's how it works: the people up top do make most of the money. BTW, most people don't consider signficant goofing off for hours at work stealing, but it is. I'm not a defender of corporate greed or lame management most managers ARE lame. With that said, the entire copywriting process has become more expensive and longer delayed.

The companies DO own the song and it's that way unless you start your own publishing company. What is NOT being said in this discussion is this: the number of people who post on You Tube and then are targeted by meanspirited LOW-LEVEL rivals, enemies and somewhat deranged individuals who then dump garbage, bad reviews, profanities, perverse talk etc Sorry for the delay, went to bed. First let me state that I'm not talking about distributing other people's recorded work via peer to peer.

In my opinion that is unethical by virtue of not having obtained permission to distribute which can be shown to mis appropriate value. The law has recognized this and it is also illegal. I agree with this position. People used peer to peer to download music they didn't want to pay for. I realize the problems created for both artists and record companies by posting someone's recorded catalog online for free download.

The argument about degraded fidelity somehow making it okay doesn't hold for me. They either can't tell of will accept the degraded quality because they don't have to pop 50 bucks for 3 or 4 CDs worth of material. On the one hand: Bank robbery and shoplifting both deprive an entity of real value by direct taking of something which can't be in two places at the same time.

I take your money, ergo you don't have it. Provided that it was yours in the first place, I've taken something real from you and deprived you of realizing the benefit of its value. On the other hand: If I record or perform a version of an existing song even if rights are protected under copyright without the intention of realizing an income from it, it's legitimately debatable if a depriving has taken place due to mis appropriation of value.

I'll grant you that if you write, produce, and distribute a song or collection of songs they're yours by virtue of recognizing that you created it, expended energy, absorbed an opportunity cost and would like to realize a predictable revenue stream by way of it.

I also realize that performance rights exist as a legal manifestation to protect the interest outlined in the above paragraph and recognize the rights to a point. As far as the law applying to performance for income or profit I agree with it.

If my theatre company stages a production of Cats, and charges admission, I understand the social value of requiring permission for the purpose of ensuring that a share of the gross is allocated to the creator. You tube vids, however, are not generally created with the intention of realizing any income.

I do see the hole in the argunent. The question for me and the reason why I believe your analogy fails is where does the value in question lie. If you stake a claim to an idea does this mean that I ought to be prohibited from re-stating it?

Why should that be, unless I would somehow be depriving you of real value by restating the idea? If I perform your song without intending to realize any income from it, how am I stealing from you? What have I taken? How have I deprived you of any value? How will you go about proving that I have taken value that should belong to you? Perhaps I have enhanced your value by performing your song for free distribution over You Tube. One problem with this lies with reductio ad absurdum. If everyone who came up with an idea demanded a royalty payment we'd have the courts clogged with claims that would make Monty Python's Flying Circus seem serious by comparison.

It's just not enforcable and it's just not practical. It's like, as mentioned in a previous thread, trying to enforce trespass laws to commercial flights flying over people's property and, in that case, the airlines ARE realizing tangible income from that activity. As I stated in my previous post, the Grateful Dead understood the value created by allowing people to record, distribute, and perform their work without having to obtain special permission or pay royalty.

In my estimation, the money grubbers see their nice little market for media threatened by technology and they're fighting, not for artists' rights but for control of media for increased profit. Apologies, don't understand what you mean by that. That's certainly a problem but, unless I miss your point, I'm not sure it really falls within this specific topic - "Ukulele covers on Youtube being removed by Warner Music Group".

The focus here is more on the relationship between YT posters and copyright holders rather than the relationship between YT members. Maybe that issue is for another thread? I do think some of these posts were the stuff of tip offs aside from corporate scrutiny. Nonsongwriters: are most of the people doing these covers and commenting on them songwriters who make significant income off royalties? Where nonsongwriters think such moves are purely heavyhanded, I say this: it's easy to be generous, magnanimous with somebody else's cash.

It itsn't. That's fraud. I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's no process; U. I'd have to double check, but I believe that's a requirement of the Berne Convention, which all but a half-dozen countries have signed onto. Companies that own songs got those rights as part of a contract between themselves and an artist. If you're working under a contract that requires you assign the rights to a specific publisher, that's just part of the terms. If both parties are agreeable, there's no reason contracts can't have other arrangements, like the artist keeps the rights and the label is licensed to publish performances in perpetuity or anything else you come up with.

I think I see what you mean now. That said, I think you'll be surprised how many of your fellow UU members - responsible for many of the 'ukulele covers on YT - are also fine and experienced songwriters in their own right. Personally, I don't accept that 'ukulele covers on YT are a threat to the royalty income of artists and songwriters.

Just because a bunch of UU members who admire Jake S. If anything it is, IMHO, more likely to expand the audience for the artists to whom the covers are tribute. One thing I will say: I wish people who post covers would make sure that they are thorough in crediting the original source of the piece being covered. Many are: many are not. If it were universal practice to include a credit for the songwriter, the recording artist, the publisher and the record company where these are known or a request for that information where it is not known, then I think we would have fewer problems.

This is lame, Sebi. WMG sucks. I think I've had about 10 videos removed, but never suspended. Can't believe they suspended one of the best channels on their whole damn site. Lame, lame, lame. Oh my god. I just got home,a real busy day,and i heard about this bad news. Sebi's vids is the main reason why i create multitrack video cover.

You cannot copyright chord progressions. Use the chord progressions you like and change the melody and lyrics and you should be ok. I know for a fact that Evan Dando of The Lemonheads sifts through youtube covers of his songs and thanks most of the users for making the videos. He's even done so with one or two UU members. It's a great shame.

Sebi's is also one of my favourite YT channels. I hope he can get it sorted. Yeah, the artist I'm talking about has complete control over his music so there's no "the artist gave permission but the publisher didn't" issue. I can believe that Sebi's channel got shut down. Warner is the most aggressive pursuer of perceived infringement. I think we're going to see a lot of changes in copyright and intellectual property law in the coming years.

Youtube and Google have been game-changers, taking an "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" approach that has gotten the general public accustomed to getting everything for free. After something has been free, anything less is NOT going to make people happy. On one hand it's created an unrealistic sense of entitlement on the part of the general public.

But on the other, the general public is a freaking huge force to contend with, and you can't really unring that bell. It's going to be interesting to watch, that's for sure Sebi, I'm so sorry to hear your account is now suspended. I'm really hoping you can get it reinstated soon. Maybe you're one of the people targeted because of how many times your cover outshines the original? This is very close to what I was arguing earlier with the invention of the wheel example.

In a real community, ideas benefit everyone. Building on those ideas again benefits everyone. The private ownership of the means of production does not. It only benefits the person who owns them, and detracts from the community. In our present culture, many of us have accepted this injustice as something moral, but in some remaining fringe issues like this, it's much easier to see the inherent nonsense of the matter.

Claiming you privately "own" an idea is debatable at best and I think it's perfectly legitimate to question the system that is in place regarding such laws. Arguing the morality of that fact is romantic silliness I respectfully disagree. Arguing the morality of current systems is how societies moves forward, and I think it's not just legitimate, but our duty to question the morality of the laws.

It might seem implausible for these particular laws to change for the better now, but if that's what is right, it should and eventually will happen. I 'd like to put an example here of one of the many unjust laws that were once in place in history and point out that as people were attempting to change them other people were telling them it was romantic silliness. I just don't want to get on a tangent with an example that's too emotionally charged-- so there's the point, I'm sure everyone can think of an example.

Remember "United breaks guitars"? Why not make a song about Warner's absurd actions, and do our best to make it viral. We all know that those covers didn't harm anyone's income, moral rights or anything. Apparently it's just Warner's managers that can't see the obvious. I suppose that those responsible for the whole situation are some anonymous employees charged with finding copyright infringements.

They are happy to boost their statistics, and all the higher management gets is the number of evil pirates found I write my own songs so I'm unaffected by all this really although it would be nice to record a few favourites of mine without the threat of losing my Youtube account! I see both sides of the arguement but I do feel for those who just want to show their love of music by covering another artists song. Question: If a music group has a song that was first released on one label, then for another album they went to another label how do you give credit?

For example, Wonderwall by Oasis was released on the Creative record label but now they are with Reprise. I would guess the most recent label probably owns the rights. I wonder if adding annotations on your old videos that show when the chords change would work to the same effect Any update on the situation? I'm kind of torn on this argument: I guess I understand where the record companies are coming from, but I'm going to have to side with the "capitalist pigs" argument and say that not letting people cover songs is silly In middle school my music teacher used to put on Disney plays that he'd written, but using the original music, and Disney sued.

It's certainly not like they were taking a financial beating from his productions, but they certainly don't care either. I think I actually read an article somewhere about someone getting sued because they borrowed the silence off another person's album, and used it on theirs. Obviously the only functional solution here is to make me the supreme ruler of the universe, whereby I will allow covers of anything and everything.

And I'll give Sebi his youtube account back :D. Here's a plan, and it would take a community effort to make it work. I think we should all bombard each others' YouTube covers with comments like, "after hearing this cover I had to run immediately to Best Buy and pick up the original artist's CD. Great job! How do the Beatles become the Beatles become the beatles? Or Led Zepplin become Led Zepplin? Did they just wake up with the music?

Or did they hone their skills and adapt their own style through playing other peoples music? Here's another suggestion: refuse to pay for any content from corporations who represent no one except their shareholders. If we don't give them our money, the customer-unfriendly numbskulls will eventually go out of business.

And good riddance to them all! Buy music directly from the artists. Culture's old. It's older than copyright. The existence of culture is why copyright is valuable. The fact that we have a bottomless appetite for songs to sing together, for stories to share, for art to see and add to our visual vocabulary is the reason that people will pay money for these things.

Let me say that again: the reason copyright exists is because culture creates a market for creative works. If there was no market for creative works, there'd be no reason to care about copyright. Content isn't king: culture is. The reason we go to the movies is to have something to talk about. I'm sure this is what there scared of and are scrambling trying to prevent by getting governments to back them in their fight. Stop buying either product and they will listen or be gone.

I like it, good idea :. This thread makes me angry. It makes me want to just take down all of my videos. It makes me profoundly sad and scared too, Melissa. I am a songwriter and I have published some of my compositions on Soundclick in the past under a Creative Commons license. Copyright, publishing and "intellectual property" laws like this make me deeply cynical about where our world is headed. I am utterly convinced that enforcement of the law is contingent upon whether you are making money, and whom you are making it for.

Rich white guys not named Scott Peterson don't get the death penalty, if you know what I mean. There are hundreds if not thousands of poor people, mostly black, waiting on the needle for every Scott Peterson. Julia Nunes will not run into this. She has become so popular that she will be signed and their lawyers will find a way to make her covers legal before making her take them down.

Working stiffs with no chance of fighting the Man will be "made examples. I respectfully disagree. Good discussion here — this is the kind of rational and respectful discourse I love to see on UU. My point was about arguing morality as a reasonable alternative to reality. The old "this shouldn't be this way, so I'm going to assume it's the way I want it" fallacy.

If we want something to change we need to start from a clear-headed place. Acknowledging that the covers are taking someone else's work without permission is that first rational step to coming up with any solutions. In general, I do think some basic reform is needed in intellectual property law - but there is nothing inherently immoral remembering that morals are subjective and not absolute of course or unfair in claiming personal property rights over a work of art.

Art is work, and has value as such. In order to protect compensation to those responsible for the art, some structure must be in place to keep people from stealing it. That current structure calls our youtube cover videos theft. They just are. The law itself is neutral — neither right nor wrong. Particularly because you CAN get legal permission to cover songs if you wish under most circumstances.

Again, my suggestion is simple — someone should write and encourage the use of an open source style of license - Like Creative Commons, but better. One that encourages the non-commercial use of the art for anyone to share, yet protects the value for those who need to make money.

The software industry and table-top games, among others has been doing this for decades. How are your legall-eese language skills mi amigo? I think not Just food for thought I can see once you are partnered that the should be able to police what you make pay and what you don't, but I someone covering a song on youtube, for me anyway, makes me want to listen and most times buy the original artist's song more.. I am totally behind this! And OOo is a more-than-viable suite as it is. It got me through seminary without having to spend my money on MS.

Firefox has made IE a better product. To wildly paraphrase one of my heroes, "Copyright law was created to serve the culture; culture was not created to serve copyright law. Well, George Harrison was successfully sued for copyright infringement over the three-note riff of "My Sweet Lord" because it was the same as the hook in the Chiffons' hit "He's So Fine". The label doesn't own the song, only the sound recording. No, as I said, the original label retains the rights to the sound recording.

Although it is not unheard of that a label will sell or license the rights to another label. That was really how Rhino Records got their start. They would buy masters of older product that were no longer profitable for the majors to manufacture and distribute, and then put out re-issues. What's funny is that George admitted he should have been sued, but by the writers of Oh Happy Day from which he copped the chord progression.

Surely checking YouTube to see if your songs are being used in a copyright infringing way is one of the great cat herding exercises in all of human history. I had a video on my YT of my dog and cat playing. The background noise, which was coming from the radio, was an artist signed to WMG. Well, they decided to mute the sound. Pretty lame if you ask me. What I've been reading is attempts to justify one form of copyright infringement by saying it's different from another form of copyright infringement.

My "analogy" points out that two types of stealing can differ, carry different penalties and circumstances, but both are still stealing. Most claim to be helping the orignal artist, but if that was really true, there would be no law against it. Either way, it doesn't negate your responsibility to comply with the law. I run a music education website where I provide public domain music with play-along soundfiles for free, and I occasionally include some of my own tunes for free as well.

Since it's true that chord changes can't be copyrighted only melodies and lyrics - titles can't be copyrighted either I often use standard chord progressions and create my own melodies. In other words, I stay within the law, because I respect the rights of the people who hold the copyrights.

So if I sound like I have an axe to grind, it's really to the attitude that "we can do whatever we want without worrying about the consequences for anyone else". And when you get caught, and closed down, the reaction sounds like pouting. If the response was "Hey, I got closed down, but I had a good run with other people's music" that would be one thing. Instead you're yelling like it's an infringement of YOUR rights. This lack of understanding of your responsibility as a citizen in society shows a lack of maturity and awareness that does frost me I don't mean to single any one person out, it's more of an amalgam.

Anyway, I comply with the laws, why can't you? The answer is, of course you can, you just don't want to. There are centuries of great music in the public domain. It's easy to create chord progressions and write your own lyrics. It's also possible and courteous to get permission from an artist or copyright holder.

And if they don't give you permission, respect that decision. It's all about respecting other people, their rights, their work, whether it's convenient for you or not. I remember in many copyrights were due to expire, including all the Disney characters, and Congress jumped in and extended them. It would have opened up several decades of pop music to public domain, but it got squashed. Too bad, but the way to change it is to get elected to Congress and reverse it - not to scoff the law and whine when you get caught.

That's my point of view, I think there might be a generation gap - it's like having your grandmother yell at you to eat your peas and carrots. Now THAT's a flawed analogy. By the way, I didn't realize it was legal to use a copyrighted tune for a tutorial or for learning purposes, I have been wanting to do exactly that. Does anyone have a link to that part of the code? Another thing to keep in mind is copyright law varies from country to country, and the web is worldwide - some people have run into issues with infringement in some areas vs.

You can go to alot of starbucks among other places and find people doing covers of music for money ACTUAL MONEY and are they pulled out of the establishment and their guitar or any other instrument taken away? If that license covers live performances, they're within their rights to have live music. And the problem with suggesting broadly "open source license" is that there is already quite a spectrum of open source licences.

I'm not wrong, but neither are GPL advocates. You'll also find people who find the Apache, Mozilla or derivitive licences to be a much fairer middle ground. Creative Commons simplifies the process of choosing a licence. The other problem is enforceability.

You can create your own licences until the cows come home, but the sad reality is it won't be taken seriously until it's tested in court. You're right, but it's also hard to respect a rights holder when that rights holder is a faceless corporation that either directly e.

WMG or indirectly e. Nobody likes a bully. I don't understand the American political system that well, it tends to give me a headache, and judging by the international response to the Obama build up, I'd say I'm not alone. I work with Americans who roll their eyes and say "seriously, it's not worth the waste of braincells, go drink whiskey instead" when I ask them to explain to me why the Democrats losing Massachusetts is such a big deal. With that background in mind, am I wrong to think that simply getting into congress doesn't automatically guarantee you'll get your way?

You've still got to convince a majority of your misfit peers, each of whom likely have Scrooge McDuck style moneybins that are being filled every second by lobby groups, corporate interests etc Am I way off? Too cynical?

I too am interested here. So I'd like to see the facts too. Finally someone else notes this fact :. I will take issue with that part of your argument. I get what you're trying to say but the logic doesn't hold up. Further, this country has a long history of civil disobedience that eventually reforms unjust, unfair and unreasonable laws.

In that light, I fully support anyone in staking a claim to what should be considered "fair use" in promoting art and artists for the betterment of the culture. So is it or isn't ok to put up a cover if you add in that it was originally written by so and so and distriduted by such and such and that everyone who enjoyed my cover should go buy the original? I'm guessing no, but was just wondering. I'm with you guys that our youtube stuff should be left alone, but I thought playing a cover live was different than recording one.

I've been to tons of concerts where the bands were being paid, and along with their own stuff, threw in a cover or two. All I am trying to say is that if busking is allowed, then I think that covering a song on youtube and not makeing any money on it should be allowed as well. I understand that what I just said was very simple, and that there are all sorts of legalities to come with that But just wanted to say what was on my mind I'm completely with you, I think its completely foolish to allow people to make money covering songs live, but disallow youtube covers where nobody makes a dime.

It seems even more sensless considering how long that loophole has allowed people to play coversongs in concert without any real complaint by the recording industry, but they jump all over anything that has to do with the internet without thought or hesitation. Some of these posts are starting to tread into the shallow end of intentionally inflamatory.

That will end in a locked thread As for getting rid of intellectual property rights - it strikes me as a sure fire way to kill the arts and most sciences. As an example, I make all of my money from my ideas. Both in the games industry and the software industry. I do not work for free. I work for money. If there is no money from my concepts, and no way to protect my income, I'll have to do something else for a living. Therefore all of the non-protectable work just stops. There is no financial incentive for it to continue.

While I do what I do for many reasons, I still have to eat and pay my mortgage. So my lines of work become "hobbies" at best without IP law. As such no serious developments happen - no real investments are made. Imagine a world where no one can afford to make a new stage play, research a new medicine, or invent a new piece of software It's not about what corporations do or don't do with it. It's about protecting the value of a human beings sweat and toil.

Copyright law shows that we as a society value arts and ideas. It protects the creators ability to feed their families. Without it, all artists are starving artists as are most engineers and scientists. It can be - and is - abused, but disposing of it without first getting rid of the need to get paid is simply unfair and foolish.

Not to mention that most of the Stallman style work is based on the concept of free exchange — that sends most companies running out of fear. Just my opinion, but it seems like a perfect case for a practical and simple new license approach. One that real companies and distributors will not shrink from — but will be eager to adopt. Your guess is technically correct. Whether or not they would choose to take any action in such a case where correct credit was given and reference made to the original work remains to be seen and may well vary.

This thread is too important and too interesting to waste, and a lockdown isn't going to help Sebi any. We need to keep ourselves calm while discussing something where strong opposing opinions exist. Not easy. So far, fascinating stuff. If I were to continue posting covers, I would include the disclaimer that no copyright infringement is intended, the video is presented for educational purposes - specifically critique of my playing, and that if the copyright holder believes their rights have been violated contact me and I will gladly remove the video.

If you enjoy this cover, please purchase the original recording by the original artist. I know that doesn't make it legal, but it does express a desire to cooperate with the proper authorities rather than set up a contentious or adverserial relationship to begin with. I can be a bit passionate at times. As long as you don't sell those covers its not a copy right infringement.

I have a feeling that companies have a bot that crawls through youtube videos looking for keywords that match with copy righted material, then it automatically requests that you take it down. If you just change the title of your youtube videos to something that is not recognized by the bot then it won't be taken down. They don't watch your videos, its all based on the information you provide. So change your titles and keywords and you'll be safe, even though its a pain and then people can't search for your covers, but then it won't be mixed in with real copy right infringement.

Please do not blame the "recording industry" over the youtube covers issue. Under the DMCA, youtube operates under what's known as the "safe harbor" clause. They only have to remove copyrighted material at the request of the copyright holder. Record companies don't make a dime from covers being played at a nightclub, unless of course, you are inspired to rush out and buy their product after hearing said cover tune. If that were the case, covers would be a non-issue.

With respect, you are not correct. I agree that this is totally lame. When we were driving into Chicago the song Jammin came on the radio. I recorded it because I thought it was incredibly apprpriate seeing as how I was going to be jammin with everyone. Now I worry. Even though i thought it was so awesome and want to include it in the video when I upload it, I am afraid it might get blocked, muted whatever. Totally LAME!

DIFFERENT BETS ON HORSE RACING

Optical induction of plasticity at individual, identified synapses allows us to investigate the underlying electrical and biochemical processes in great detail. The connectivity of our brain constantly changes in response to sensory experience Huber et al. A central aim of our research is to understand the rules and molecular mechanisms that govern our extraordinary ability to learn and to remember. While intact synaptic plasticity seems to be essential for our ability to learn and to remember, it is less clear if memories are indeed stored as subtle changes in synaptic strength.

Alternatively, the connectivity pattern in certain brain areas could change by removal of existing synapses and formation of novel connections. Using optogenetic stimulation and read-out, we could demonstrate that long-term depression indeed had consequences on synaptic lifetime: Synapses with low release probability were efficiently removed from the circuit several days after long-term depression, pointing to a strong correlation between synaptic strength and synaptic lifetime Wiegert and Oertner, We have now accumulated evidence that the reverse is also the case: One-time potentiation of individual synapses increases their stability and survival during the following days.

Our findings suggest that the connectivity of an adult brain is the direct consequence of a myriad of decisions made at individual synapses. No microscope is fast enough to perform functional imaging of all hippocampal synapses in real time. The goal of this project is to persistently label all synapses that are active in a short time window so we can map their position in 3D by two-photon laser scanning microscopy.

This has to work in living tissue so we can repeat the measurements to study the functional stability of synaptic networks. We use the red-to-green ratio to detect all active spines independent of their size. Memory formation is thought to be based on changes in synaptic transmission. Our new tool will help us create three-dimensional maps of synaptic function before and after learning.

Classic electrophysiological studies of synaptic plasticity consist of a brief induction protocol, followed by low frequency test pulses to assess the stability of synaptic strength over time. The discovery of spike-timing dependent plasticity revealed the possibility that in fact every single action potential changes synaptic strength in a miniscule way, and that synaptic strength tracks temporal correlations between pre- and postsynaptic spike patterns Hao and Oertner, This hypothesis is impossible to test with purely electrophysiological approaches, as measuring subthreshold potentials with an electrode perturbs intracellular signaling and eventually kills the recorded neuron.

The recent discovery of Channelrhodopsin variants that are sensitive to red light Klapoetke et al. Using a combination of optogenetic tools with different spectral properties, we are investigating the sensitivity of individual synapses to subtle temporal correlations in pre- and postsynaptic activity patterns.

Neurons contain a tubular network known as the endoplasmic reticulum ER that stretches throughout the entire cell, including the axon and most of the dendrite. The ER is involved in the delivery of proteins and lipids as well as calcium homeostasis. In pyramidal cells, a small subset of dendritic spines contains stable ER in the form of a spine apparatus, while most spines are briefly sampled by single ER tubules from time to time.

We could show that synapses on spines containing stable ER express a specific form of plasticity, mGluR-dependent long-term depression Holbro et al. We are now using time-lapse two-photon imaging to investigate movements of dynamic ER in hippocampal neurons. Analysis of large 3D time series on the level of individual synapses is not trivial, and we have developed a machine learning approach to detect dendritic spines automatically and to follow them over time Blumer et al.

To our surprise, ER movements were correlated with changes in spine volume and could be triggered by strong synaptic stimulation, suggesting that ER selectively visits highly active synapses see figure. Understanding the physiological role of ER in the visited spines is the goal of this project. Such pharmacological manipulations affect all cell types in the tissue, making it difficult to interpret the results and distinguish between pre- and postsynaptic signaling.

To our surprise, even strong and sustained cAMP elevation did not induce long-term plasticity of active synapses, suggesting that forskolin induces LTP via other signaling pathways. Microglia are the immune cells of the brain. They show a high degree of motility in the healthy brain, the function of which is not fully understood. In cases of brain inflammation or injury, they start secreting pro-inflammatory signals and become phagocytotic. We use optogenetic and chemogenetic manipulation of microglia to understand the signaling pathways governing microglia activation.

An interesting finding is the importance of hyperpolarization for the fast response of microglia Laprell et al. We also investigate the effects on synaptic transmission: Direct activation of microglia allows us to exclude potential side effects on astrocytes or neurons that have hampered pharmacological activation studies. Dendritic spines act as miniature bio-reactors, trapping activated enzymes close to their targets for up to a second.

It is thought that this biochemical isolation enables rapid modification of individual synapses while minimizing the impact on immediate neighbors Wiegert and Oertner, We set out to test this hypothesis, comparing the plasticity of synapses on spines with long and thin necks, which are well isolated from the dendrite, to the plasticity of synapses on short and stubby spines.

Worth exactly 2 cents. I cannot believe this!! This supports my idea that the high up government workers have invested their dollars into the entertainment, pharmaceutical and car industry I know, off topic but I feel they are related market shares. Yes, stoopid music industry. It really is totally retarded And it doesn't matter if you produce your own version of it, you still owe a royalty to the author. People representing copyright holders have gone to bars and nightclubs, and hearing the bands playing copyrighted music, have then demanded payment from the clubs.

Even stores that play radio stations in their store have been forced to subscribe to a muzak-style channel, because broadcast royalties only apply to the broadcaster, not secondary uses. Check out the Harry Fox Agency for information on getting a mechanical license, or contact the copyright holder for a special deal.

It's easy to sign up with Google to put ads on your site which do generate income. Or you can upload stuff to Amazon. It's not as easy to go legit, but it's the right thing to do. A lot of people are very quick to give away other people's work without compensation or even the courtesy of asking.

How would you like it is you were a professional musician and people were giving away your life's work for free? As a hobbyist, I might not care, but as a pro, I wouldn't respect those people very much. It's not your stuff, why would you think you have the right to do whatever you want with it? The more eyes and ears per song, the better chances someone will purchase the music. Not shocking though, bc year after the industry shoots itself in the foot. This is just another fine example of them seperating themselves from the consumer.

By the time they "learn" they will have already burnt all the bridges. You can only screw us so many times before we walk away entirely. I hate this kind of short-sighted corporate bullying. I understand the record companies hostility to p2p and other filesharing of copyright recordings.

What I don't understand is the moronic, heavy handed approach to ukulele and other covers, and the posting of tabs. To my mind, both covers and tabs help to build an interest in artists, their performances and recordings. The thuggish, proprietory strong-arm behaviour just moves me to boycott the products of companies that behave in this way, and to encourage others to do so too. Perhaps some artists will take this kind of thing into account when considering which companies they wish to work with.

The arrogant, disdainful stupidity of WB's attitude just makes me shake my head in near disbelief. I understand its not just monetary gain that they are concerned with, it's if it "promotes you in any way". As far as playing gigs, it has been made clear to me and my band, most venues are responsible for paying royalties to ascap and BMI to cover the acts that play for them.

For the most part buskers are left alone. You don't think the music industry could get away with all the crap it pulls if it didn't have friends in Congress obliterating any semblance of sanity from copyright law, do you? This is what happens when government and corporations get in bed together -- this and the Senate's health care "reform" bill -- but I suppose that's not exactly on topic Current copyright, fair-use, and intellectual property laws give you the right to purchase but not use the products.

They want you to buy the CDs or digital downloads, but they're making it tougher than hell to even listen to them legally. That's what Pat Boone said to Little Richard. The bottom line here is quite simple - if unpleasant to hear. If you post covers on youtube without the express permission of the copyright holder, you are in violation of both the youtube terms of service, and international copyright law. There is no "grey area" here. I know it - and expect that eventually I'll get called on it for the 60 some odd recordings of other peoples music I have up there.

That's the way it works. The confusing part of the issue is that if no one complains, Youtube usually tends to ignore covers - and that makes some members believe that it's "ok" to post amateur covers - it's not. The key is in the complaint. None of that changes who owns the song or the rights of the owners to remove illegal versions of thier property.

Moving to another site is useless and largley futile - as this has nothing to do with Youtube in fact they are quite lenient on the issue in general. It has to do with recording music that you do not own. The exceptions to the above are songs that are public domain obviously and tutorials.

If you want to "legally" record a popular song for which you have no rights, just make the video a tutorial with chord charts. Again, my memory is fuzzy and I don't have any source whatsoever, and I probably read it on a forum where someone just pulled it out of their glutes. It is crazy, though. Watching a bunch of Grace Potter videos made me head to iTunes and buy her music. Same with Jake. Same with a dozen others. The other part is that, for the most part, artists consider it a compliment if someone covers their songs.

I've had an internationally known artist tell me so. He would consider it a compliment for you or me to strum a guitar or uke while singing one of his songs on YouTube. The music publishers, however, have a fit. They claim to be protecting the artists, but they are not.

They are protecting their own bottom line. But again, what makes sense does not overlap with the boundaries of the law. I would love to post up my video of my older son's first birthday, bopping around in his diaper while "Birthday" by the Beatles is playing on the stereo. It's a great piece of home vid. But EMI would be on it like vultures on a gut wagon.

This sucks to hear Sebi-- I'm sorry this happened to you. As for my :2cents:, I agree with what many others here have posted. This is the result of greedy corporations and capitalist government. Sure, the law may be clear, but if the people think it's unjust then it's about time the laws are changed. Most of us here can see how ridiculous it is to have a corporation "own" someone else's created material and decide who gets to use it, for what purposes, and for what price.

That clearly isn't the way Flea feels it should be, and it isn't the way artists like Radiohead, Trent Reznor, or Weezer feel given their attempts at finding alternate distribution methods. Throughout time there have many unjust laws that didn't represent the wants of the citizens. As the public becomes enlightened, these laws are overturned and usually better ones are instated. Now all we have to learn to do as a species is accelerate the process in which we expose and overthrow unjustified authority.

The question remains if the person complaining has a moral right to "own" said material? Again, the law might clearly be on the side of the corporation. But if the public is clearly not on the side of the law, what authority should the law really have? The issue is really about ownership. It's thier property, and some want to share - others are afraid of anyone "drinking thier milkshake".

Personally, I wish more bands would issue music under a simple public licence agreement that includes a "not for commerce" clause - That would solve most issues of ownership and avoid the lunacy of bands telling fans not to sing, record, or post the very songs they love the band for in the first place.

Agreed, but originally these laws were put into effect to protect the original writer of the music. Most of us here are too young to remember all the music written and recorded by black artists back in the 50's that was covered by white artist with no royalties ever paid, they were basically stolen.

Now corporations representing those original artists and have stretched the law to include anyones recordings on youtube. The "self-promotion using the work of others" argument only holds up if the person performing the cover has something to promote. If you are a gigging band or artist then you have something to promote. If you have CDs or MP3s for sale then you have something to promote. OTOH, a living room player, a college student, a kid learning some songs and posting progress for the world to see - nothing to promote.

Oh, I know-- Led Zeppelin I was almost entirely sued over. You're totally right as to what the original intention of the laws was. And it's a good thing that the public worked for way of protecting artists according to what their feelings on the subject were at the time. Right now however, both the laws and public opinion have changed.

The public opinion now is swaying toward the view that you're essentially giving free publicity rather than stealing. My point is that laws are not concrete morality, so when someone says "this isn't right", the response "yes it is, the law says so" isn't appropriate. The laws reflect the will of the people under them. If that isn't true, it should no longer be a law. Two quick thoughts: 1. All this talk of copyright legalise reminds of a quote a good friend told me years and years ago.

I recall a news story here a while back where they whoever 'they' are were talking about gyms being required to pay a fee per song that they played over their gym sound systems because it counted as a public broadcast if there were over x around 20? As I'm not a gym-goer I never followed up on it, but it did seem quite stupid. What if, for example, I went to a gym and listened to my ipod?

Would I still have to pay the music fee? What if I went to a spin class or aerobics where I didn't opt-in to the music being played, couldn't opt-out, yet still had to pay for it? Extortion much? Yes copyright sucks, no i am not surprised the internet nazis are on it like a nasty rash.

Yes the way around it is to list everything as a tutorial, which to be honest in many cases is how we use the covers we see isnt it? One interesting example here is the song Moondance by Van Morrison. In this case the copyright holder allows the covers to stay as long as the copyright is acknowledged in the description.

As far as i know my partial bass cover of this is the only exception and i think they have not asked me cos it is a partial cover and incomplete. Sorry they got to you Sebi Oh, and Warner owns the copyright to 'Happy Birthday', how long before they're sending cease and desists to every birthday party?

That's why many restaurants no longer sing Happy Birthday to their patrons. I would hate the idea of your channel being closed. Your regular covers have made my day many times. Regarding some former statements: Personally I am with you all, that the extensive use of copyright by the industry sucks by all means. But do you really think, the "public" declines the actual copyright? The "people", Joe America and Lieschen Mueller would raise their hand for allowing the use of another mans effort without even asking him for his permission?

I really would like to believe so, but I am pretty sure, that this is not the consensus. The idea "hey, a cover is like free promotion for the original artist" and "urrgh, the law protects the industry, not the artist", is probably common under web-affine people, but not for the "public".

This is the description of what IS. Until number 2 becomes legislation or the record companies formally relent and issue blanket "noncommercial" clauses to all their copyrights, we can talk about the SHOULD BEs until we're blue in the face, but the internet media companies will still have to contend with what IS and the people who choose to enforce it.

Agreed, I'm just playing devils advocate here. In the long run, the artists themselves may have the most pull when signing those contracts. Once they start fighting the MAN, and rewording their own contracts, perhaps these corporations will draw in their claws and leave us amateurs alone. A good example of a band that doesn't agree with the law is the Grateful Dead.

They encourage their fans to record their live concerts and swap recordings, they want their music shared everywhere. I should preface this post by saying that I enjoy and rely on the great work I have seen by members of this forum, both original work and the excellent and inventive covers. Like everyone else, I also enjoy getting something for nothing.

I also think that sweeping reactions by the recording industry tend to be extremely stupid and poorly thought out. I have been on both sides of this puzzle though. This is one of those places where each sides logic starts off sound and then gets mutated, like one giant telephone game.

The argument that covers can spread the popularity of the original work and increase sales is valid. What if you start to become popular, get sponsorships, maybe cut an album, even of original material, what share of that success belongs to you, how much would you send to the original writer? What if a star used one of your tracks without permission, drowning out your original work? Except maybe in the case of the well covered "Elephant Town", I can imagine a huge uproar. Others hate it and either for artistic or commercial reasons don't want it messed with.

Now add in the heavy corporate attorneys and the corporate economics, it gets nutty. What if someone took one of your songs and used it in a short film with content that offended you? If you have a track that you would really like to cover for an album or download, I suggest getting permission.

Even as an experiment. Before everyone jumps all over me, have you done it? Except in rare cases, most publishing rights are quite simple and in the likely case of someone not doing it for money, free or cheap. These agreements allow for YT to play tracks covered under these agreements.

Ths means that the rights holders are compensated for play of their material. There are two components to music rights. The Publishing Rights cover the songwriting. The Master Rights cover an actual recording. A YT cover is violating the Publishing Rights incidentally the cheapest of the two if you are seeking to legitimately create a cover For example if you wanted to record a cover for a song and acquired the publishing rights, and submitted your new master to either BMI or ASCAP, you would be compensated for play on YT and any other signatory.

The Publishing rightsholder would also be compensated. We do this all the time for films, as the original masters are often too expensive, or in the interest of the story we want to do a re-imagining. In the case of the Flea contest, if Flea owns the publishing rights, he can grant every covering artist the right to do whatever they want. If he doesn't own them, he can't. At least not legally. The wise and the calm can analyze which situation is harmful and which isn't and seek out the gray areas.

In the corporate and legal worlds though, things seem a little more binary. If you want to lead the change, when you create original work, utilize the available Creative Commons license which enables a user to immediately understand which rights you are granting and which you are witholding. The license travels with the work. This is free and standardized and you do not need lawyers to draft anything.

I hope that the good energy of this forum holds and that this doesn't get mean spirited. I meant to add that one of the craziest and most legendary tunes that the legal eagles watch out for is "Happy Birthday To You". This is also why all of the big chain restaurants have those goofy birthday songs, because otherwise they would go broke paying "Happy Birthday" royalties all day.

There is a spoof website that takes the extreme angle on this and offers tools to snitch on friends and relatives for copyright infringement. I am also very much enjoying this thread. A couple of quick comments since a lot has happened since I last posted that I want to respond to. I think bbycrts did a great job of summing up the two parallel issues that are going. I personally am much more interested in the second issue of what "should be" and think that laws can be damned if they don't represent that.

To salukulady, I agree with your assessment of what will likely need to change. The big artists will need to pave the way for smaller acts to fight the record industry. Unfortunately as it is, small acts striving to be discovered don't have a bargaining chip and are forced to make a decision to become famous and not own their own material, or own their own material which no one will ever hear. Acts like the Grateful Dead, Radiohead, The Smashing Pumpkins, and Weezer are doing the right thing in my eyes by publicly fighting this status quo and trying to find a new, better way to distribute your music apart from the industry altogether.

You're probably right that people will get upset under circumstances where their work is used without being credited, payed, or for a cause they don't support. My main contention derives from how I see society in general. Firstly, if anyone is going to be credited monetarily or just in the credits for a work of art, I think it should be the artist- no matter who a piece of paper says the material "belongs" to.

The Beatles wrote their songs. No one else should have the ability to sell them to a private owner, provide publishing rights, or to deny them. I feel the same way for Flea not being able to choose what is done with his own music. My second point is on a broader scope and is one of the reasons I am primarily against this kind of "ownership" for profit.

I think the incessant need to be financially compensated for one's work wouldn't even exist in a better societal system. In a communal type system, one's work is meant to enhance his community. If someone uses that work build on and to further enhance the society, that's a good thing-- the society gets better.

Everyone wins. I mean, can you imagine the first of our species who invented the wheel going around and demanding payment for everyone who began using one? It's ludicrous. I know we're far from a perfect system, but in a proper society where people's needs are already met, the drive for greed might not even exist-- only the need to improve.

So while we aren't in a perfect system yet, I think we can strive for it by aiming for such ideals. The longer capitalism survives, the more we'll see greed as a part of human nature. To use a biblical analogy, it all depends on whose ox has been gored. If my living depended on royalties from intellectual property, and I had invested my creativity, sweat, and money to make it successful, I might not feel quite so libertarian toward the free for all web.

YouTube is great, but the web in general has created great dilemmas for music companies, newspaper publishers, and others who spend big bucks putting out a polished and refined product. Answers don't come easy. Wasn't much of an uproar. Let's not forget that YouTube is making money off of what we post.

As someone who made my living for years off of intellectual property, I'd like to be paid, thank you. They won't do it unless we start screaming. Write YouTube and insisit that they acquire a license for their users!

I agree that this has been a very interesting thread. I think that it shows a great deal about the kind of people who play 'ukulele, and the people who make this forum great. I wanted to clarify a couple of things- One- I totally agree that nobody should be able to exploit an artists work except the artist. That in fact is one of the reasons for the two divisions of rights.

The first generally covers the artist who wrote and composed the work. The second covers the artists who played the work. Either or both of those rights are sometimes sold off by the artists themselves and that is how giant corporations end up controlling the material. As far as the need to create a better system without need for constant financial compensation, it is here and available.

At least in its infancy. Methods such as that Creative Commons license allow for a simple selection of everything between free distribution through financial compensation. I too wish it wasn't all about money, but practically, while I am no professional musician, from a film-maker perspective, I can't imagine a situation where one of my directors would want to have their film remade without some kind of personal gain- be it money or something else.

I think for the most part smart labels and smart bands like the fan culture and see the value in it. The shame is that it is impossible to tell who is litigious, and who gets it. I'd like to point out a few things because there are a lot of misconceptions about how the music industry works. A record label has absolutely no say in regard to cover tunes.

They can only go after you for using their exact sound recording. Yes, I'm splitting hairs here, but it's important to note that, unlike filesharing of copyrighted sound recordings, the record labels aren't the ones going after you for covering one of their artist's songs on your uke. It's not a "fee per song". Night clubs, concert halls, radio stations and the like pay for blanket licenses to the various performing rights organizations.

Many businesses whose business isn't music e. As far as passing the cost on to consumers, it's all part of doing business, and yes, consumers ultimately pay for that. At issue is revenue lost or projected to be lost by copyright holders. Also at issue is whether or not covering someone else's material without making a profit can even legitimately be called infringement at all.

Perhaps attempting to prohibit public performance not for payment or to enforce royalty payments by non copyright holders for performing not expecting to make a profit is a free speech violation. Perhaps the copyright police should arrest drunken people for quoting "caddyshack" or "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation" without paying the corporate owner for the privelege?

Most people who cover other people's material with the exception of "tribute bands" or impersonators aren't even attemptiing to evoke a feeling or image of the original performer. Blues music, as well as other types, were, and still are, passed down in the musical equivalent of an oral tradition where people take a song written by someone and make it their own.

The record company and the artist depending upon who the artist is have an arrangement where each party gets money. Traditionally the whole thing is dependent upon control of technology and use of the legal system. Vinyl, CD, DVD are media the means with which to produce used to rest in the hands of the record companies and the bar to entry was very high.

That effectively protected the record companies financial interest and stake. This takes control of the business model out of the hands of the record companies. They now control access to the pop culture music market through other economic means such as equating cultural legitimacy with expensive productions and 'success'.

Sure, if you want fame and riches in the traditional sense you can certainly play that game. Two artists that spring to mind are the Grateful Dead and Frank Zappa. First, The Grateful Dead were perfectly happy to allow people to record their shows and facilitated this by allowing special areas where people with equipment were allowed do it with the band and crew's blessing. The Band and it's employees got their cut of the pie from ticket sales via arrangements with venue owners, and approved merchandise sales.

Those "bootleg" dead recordings are not considered part of the pie. They raise consciousness, they are an intangible part of the whole GD phenomenon and contribute to an evolving musical journal of sorts which drew people to the shows. The GD retained rights to their trademarks. There were abuses but the band and affiliated people understood that there would be abuses but largely tolerated it because it all contributed to the viral success of the larger interest.

The GD did, however, evolve into this because they started out in the traditional way under contract. Frank Zappa, on the other hand, had a long standing dispute with Warner Bros. Frank was perfectly happy with the onerous corporate legal structure as long as it protected him. I'm aware of this because I was a huge Zappa fan. Frank wanted to produce a 4 record set called Lather pronounced Leather , which would have fulfilled his contractual obligation to WB.

It would have been expensive to produce, as generally goes with multi record sets. WB didn't want to do this. Part of the problem with some of Frank's music was what WB considered 'niche appeal' equalling limited financial return, hence their attempt to rein him in until he produced product they deemed commercially acceptable which, Frank wasn't going to do as his music was evolving away from pop appeal though he did enjoy a loyal legion of fans.

GD and FZ differ greatly as concerns opinion concerning the issue of copyright. GD understood their grassroots appeal and benefitted from behavior over which FZ would have sued till he was blue in the face. GD through their business model and FZ through his unwillingness to allow WB to prevent him from releasing his material by abusing their contractual rights. GD is more relevant to what's going with the internet, though, and their business model attests both to how there's plenty of money in entertainment for savvy folks with a product people want and to how screwed up men in suits who think their "rights" are immune to the inexorable march of technology.

All the brouhaha aside, I wonder who made more money, the Grateful Dead or Metallica. If it was really beneficial for the artist, then what's the problem about getting permission first? At least that would be a courtesy, showing you respect the rights of the copyright holder. Your band, or the venue? I always thought the venue.

When you record a cover, you pick up the fee, no? Maybe that could be a guideline for YouTube: if clubs pick up the fee, isn't YouTube one big club? I read reports that some club owners were being asked to pay some sort of blanket licenses over a loosely defined catalogue.

Whether or not that was actually true is certainly open to question as rumors and reports of all sorts abound on the internet. The big difference between those performances and YT is that with YT you have created a recording and are in the act of distributing and marketing that recording.

It is totally easy and cheap. There are no dues, etc and in the event you ever want to license a song out to someone for a film, or to re-record, they will handle the collection of all royalties and more. You can join as an artist and as a publisher. If you want to change the system, become a publisher, collect as many songs from like minded people as you can and provide a public use library to the world. Am I the only one who finds this site I can't think of the word Anyways, they are using youtube videos that would be considered against copyrights.

It's for the Grammy's. Your analogy is faulty. How so? Both relate to property that you do not own. The visualization of how fans are using and sharing the music is a very strong statement for sure. These are also likely not the folks who are doing the takedowns. If they are, it would be fun to make 'em wiggle out of the conflict.

That's a very good point. But isn't YouTube making the money here? But that is exactly what I see them trying to do. Only thing is, how do they distribute the money to the right labels? Next, they'd have to track our songs. I don't think the issue is labels, it's publishing rights. But I may be wrong about that Pretty sure he was referring to claytons bank robbery analogy..

First of all the artist is not the person who you "get permission" from. You can send emails to Mariah Carey all you want asking for permission to cover her song, she can say yes but it doesn't mean SQUAT as she has signed away her rights through contract, and it is no longer up to her but up to "the industry" the big publishers, producers.. Second, bank robbery and shoplifting Why do I feel like you are carrying personal baggage from some zealot copyright crusade.

Where is the Love? If it continues in this direction at this rate there will be no mainstream freedom of speech or self expression. I used to belong to ascap. They didn't track how many times my group performed a certain song, it was just a yearly blanket fee. As long as the rights to the song was owned by ascap, I was allowed to use it in anyway I wanted. If it continues in this direction at this rate there will be no mainstream freedom of speech or self expression No offense intended, but this is non-sense.

Playing someone else's song without permission is stealing. It's their work, their money, not yours. The artist, or other copyright holder owns the song - not you. Arguing the morality of that fact is romantic silliness. It's neither right nor wrong, but simply necessary in a world where intellectual property has value. The shoplifting analogy is a little harsh, but it works just fine. Again, I prefer artists who allow covers, and honestly have no personal problem stealing that permission if I feel like it it's the pirate in me.

But let's be honest and very specific about what we are doing here. We are taking someone else's work. Gotta agree with the coyote. Any of us would be pissed as hell if someone took a ditty we wrote and made a cover, especially if it involved making money or gaining fame.

They should be thankful that people are covering songs. By the way, my Youtube account has now definitely been suspended. I'm very sad that music industry doesn't see that. That sucks dude :. Dude - that sucks. Youtube's enforcement on this issue is insane. There was absolutely no reason to suspend your acct.

Pulling specific vids in response to complaints is one thing, but pulling an account for covers is inconsistently enforced and unfairly applied. Total crap. Drop a line to Adelle - she went through this same thing last year and had her acct. The debate about "laws" and "morals" was interesting.

Unholy alliance or great opportunity? What do you think? I think it's a sign that the music industry is finally waking up to consumer demand and embracing new business models. It may or may not be unholy, but I think that's a positive sign. Maybe they'll stop suing innocent grandmothers What Vevo really needs to do though is stop restricting other countries from viewing content - they shoot themselves in the foot and drive people towards copyright infringement.

It's clear that they still haven't learnt that lesson, which is a shame. Either way I don't think vevo is a problem, apart from vevo videos seeming to load slower than others higher qual doesn't count for much on a 10" netbook guys. Sebi, I'm very sorry to hear that your account has been suspended. I can understand why YT suspends accounts of people after a couple or three strikes - it's simply cheaper than the work involved in addressing videos one at a time.

Doesn't mean I like it. I also wonder if the copyright holders will object to her videos in the same way. Do you think she harmed sales of the original "Build Me Up, Buttercup"? Without researching it, my guess would be that downloads of the original benefited from the exposure the song got. I love Julia and her stuff: just wondering if everyone is treated the same.

Several members have posted excellent summaries of the objective legal position on recording and publishing copyright. No point in arguing any of that. It is what it is. The discussion here has been conducted superbly, with conflicting opinions challenged with a good amount of tact, courtesy and diplomacy. I don't dispute the legal rights of the copyright holders at all. I just wonder what, in pragmatic terms, they think they will gain.

Do they think the covers are hurting their revenue income? Do they think that the volume of people that post YT covers are suddenly going to come and buy licences or seek permission? Do they think that the companies who allow YT covers without issue are suffering as a result None of that makes much sense to me. My own expectations would be that: The covers stimulate interest in the artists and their songs.

Most people would simply stop posting covers because they do not know, and won't bother to research, how to do it the 'correct' way. Companies and artists who allow the posting of covers are likely to benefit from the exposure and from the approval and loyalty fostered by their attitude. Both of these artists actively encourage the not-for-profit recording and sharing of their live performances. They are well known for their tolerant attitude to issues such as the one under discussion here.

I love these people almost as much for their attitudes as for the music they make. I buy their music out of loyaty and wouldn't hesitate to buy a ticket for a show. What goes around, etc. Most of the talk here But yes, and here's how it works: the people up top do make most of the money. BTW, most people don't consider signficant goofing off for hours at work stealing, but it is. I'm not a defender of corporate greed or lame management most managers ARE lame.

With that said, the entire copywriting process has become more expensive and longer delayed. The companies DO own the song and it's that way unless you start your own publishing company. What is NOT being said in this discussion is this: the number of people who post on You Tube and then are targeted by meanspirited LOW-LEVEL rivals, enemies and somewhat deranged individuals who then dump garbage, bad reviews, profanities, perverse talk etc Sorry for the delay, went to bed.

First let me state that I'm not talking about distributing other people's recorded work via peer to peer. In my opinion that is unethical by virtue of not having obtained permission to distribute which can be shown to mis appropriate value. The law has recognized this and it is also illegal. I agree with this position. People used peer to peer to download music they didn't want to pay for. I realize the problems created for both artists and record companies by posting someone's recorded catalog online for free download.

The argument about degraded fidelity somehow making it okay doesn't hold for me. They either can't tell of will accept the degraded quality because they don't have to pop 50 bucks for 3 or 4 CDs worth of material.

On the one hand: Bank robbery and shoplifting both deprive an entity of real value by direct taking of something which can't be in two places at the same time. I take your money, ergo you don't have it. Provided that it was yours in the first place, I've taken something real from you and deprived you of realizing the benefit of its value. On the other hand: If I record or perform a version of an existing song even if rights are protected under copyright without the intention of realizing an income from it, it's legitimately debatable if a depriving has taken place due to mis appropriation of value.

I'll grant you that if you write, produce, and distribute a song or collection of songs they're yours by virtue of recognizing that you created it, expended energy, absorbed an opportunity cost and would like to realize a predictable revenue stream by way of it. I also realize that performance rights exist as a legal manifestation to protect the interest outlined in the above paragraph and recognize the rights to a point.

As far as the law applying to performance for income or profit I agree with it. If my theatre company stages a production of Cats, and charges admission, I understand the social value of requiring permission for the purpose of ensuring that a share of the gross is allocated to the creator. You tube vids, however, are not generally created with the intention of realizing any income.

I do see the hole in the argunent. The question for me and the reason why I believe your analogy fails is where does the value in question lie. If you stake a claim to an idea does this mean that I ought to be prohibited from re-stating it? Why should that be, unless I would somehow be depriving you of real value by restating the idea? If I perform your song without intending to realize any income from it, how am I stealing from you? What have I taken? How have I deprived you of any value?

How will you go about proving that I have taken value that should belong to you? Perhaps I have enhanced your value by performing your song for free distribution over You Tube. One problem with this lies with reductio ad absurdum. If everyone who came up with an idea demanded a royalty payment we'd have the courts clogged with claims that would make Monty Python's Flying Circus seem serious by comparison. It's just not enforcable and it's just not practical. It's like, as mentioned in a previous thread, trying to enforce trespass laws to commercial flights flying over people's property and, in that case, the airlines ARE realizing tangible income from that activity.

As I stated in my previous post, the Grateful Dead understood the value created by allowing people to record, distribute, and perform their work without having to obtain special permission or pay royalty. In my estimation, the money grubbers see their nice little market for media threatened by technology and they're fighting, not for artists' rights but for control of media for increased profit.

Apologies, don't understand what you mean by that. That's certainly a problem but, unless I miss your point, I'm not sure it really falls within this specific topic - "Ukulele covers on Youtube being removed by Warner Music Group". The focus here is more on the relationship between YT posters and copyright holders rather than the relationship between YT members. Maybe that issue is for another thread? I do think some of these posts were the stuff of tip offs aside from corporate scrutiny.

Nonsongwriters: are most of the people doing these covers and commenting on them songwriters who make significant income off royalties? Where nonsongwriters think such moves are purely heavyhanded, I say this: it's easy to be generous, magnanimous with somebody else's cash. It itsn't. That's fraud. I'm not sure what you're getting at. There's no process; U. I'd have to double check, but I believe that's a requirement of the Berne Convention, which all but a half-dozen countries have signed onto.

Companies that own songs got those rights as part of a contract between themselves and an artist. If you're working under a contract that requires you assign the rights to a specific publisher, that's just part of the terms. If both parties are agreeable, there's no reason contracts can't have other arrangements, like the artist keeps the rights and the label is licensed to publish performances in perpetuity or anything else you come up with.

I think I see what you mean now. That said, I think you'll be surprised how many of your fellow UU members - responsible for many of the 'ukulele covers on YT - are also fine and experienced songwriters in their own right. Personally, I don't accept that 'ukulele covers on YT are a threat to the royalty income of artists and songwriters.

Just because a bunch of UU members who admire Jake S. If anything it is, IMHO, more likely to expand the audience for the artists to whom the covers are tribute. One thing I will say: I wish people who post covers would make sure that they are thorough in crediting the original source of the piece being covered. Many are: many are not. If it were universal practice to include a credit for the songwriter, the recording artist, the publisher and the record company where these are known or a request for that information where it is not known, then I think we would have fewer problems.

This is lame, Sebi. WMG sucks. I think I've had about 10 videos removed, but never suspended. Can't believe they suspended one of the best channels on their whole damn site. Lame, lame, lame. Oh my god. I just got home,a real busy day,and i heard about this bad news. Sebi's vids is the main reason why i create multitrack video cover. You cannot copyright chord progressions. Use the chord progressions you like and change the melody and lyrics and you should be ok.

I know for a fact that Evan Dando of The Lemonheads sifts through youtube covers of his songs and thanks most of the users for making the videos. He's even done so with one or two UU members. It's a great shame. Sebi's is also one of my favourite YT channels. I hope he can get it sorted. Yeah, the artist I'm talking about has complete control over his music so there's no "the artist gave permission but the publisher didn't" issue.

I can believe that Sebi's channel got shut down. Warner is the most aggressive pursuer of perceived infringement. I think we're going to see a lot of changes in copyright and intellectual property law in the coming years. Youtube and Google have been game-changers, taking an "easier to ask forgiveness than permission" approach that has gotten the general public accustomed to getting everything for free.

After something has been free, anything less is NOT going to make people happy. On one hand it's created an unrealistic sense of entitlement on the part of the general public. But on the other, the general public is a freaking huge force to contend with, and you can't really unring that bell.

It's going to be interesting to watch, that's for sure Sebi, I'm so sorry to hear your account is now suspended. I'm really hoping you can get it reinstated soon. Maybe you're one of the people targeted because of how many times your cover outshines the original? This is very close to what I was arguing earlier with the invention of the wheel example.

In a real community, ideas benefit everyone. Building on those ideas again benefits everyone. The private ownership of the means of production does not. It only benefits the person who owns them, and detracts from the community.

In our present culture, many of us have accepted this injustice as something moral, but in some remaining fringe issues like this, it's much easier to see the inherent nonsense of the matter. Claiming you privately "own" an idea is debatable at best and I think it's perfectly legitimate to question the system that is in place regarding such laws. Arguing the morality of that fact is romantic silliness I respectfully disagree.

Arguing the morality of current systems is how societies moves forward, and I think it's not just legitimate, but our duty to question the morality of the laws. It might seem implausible for these particular laws to change for the better now, but if that's what is right, it should and eventually will happen. I 'd like to put an example here of one of the many unjust laws that were once in place in history and point out that as people were attempting to change them other people were telling them it was romantic silliness.

I just don't want to get on a tangent with an example that's too emotionally charged-- so there's the point, I'm sure everyone can think of an example. Remember "United breaks guitars"? Why not make a song about Warner's absurd actions, and do our best to make it viral. We all know that those covers didn't harm anyone's income, moral rights or anything. Apparently it's just Warner's managers that can't see the obvious.

I suppose that those responsible for the whole situation are some anonymous employees charged with finding copyright infringements. They are happy to boost their statistics, and all the higher management gets is the number of evil pirates found I write my own songs so I'm unaffected by all this really although it would be nice to record a few favourites of mine without the threat of losing my Youtube account!

I see both sides of the arguement but I do feel for those who just want to show their love of music by covering another artists song. Question: If a music group has a song that was first released on one label, then for another album they went to another label how do you give credit? For example, Wonderwall by Oasis was released on the Creative record label but now they are with Reprise.

I would guess the most recent label probably owns the rights. I wonder if adding annotations on your old videos that show when the chords change would work to the same effect Any update on the situation? I'm kind of torn on this argument: I guess I understand where the record companies are coming from, but I'm going to have to side with the "capitalist pigs" argument and say that not letting people cover songs is silly In middle school my music teacher used to put on Disney plays that he'd written, but using the original music, and Disney sued.

It's certainly not like they were taking a financial beating from his productions, but they certainly don't care either. I think I actually read an article somewhere about someone getting sued because they borrowed the silence off another person's album, and used it on theirs.

Obviously the only functional solution here is to make me the supreme ruler of the universe, whereby I will allow covers of anything and everything. And I'll give Sebi his youtube account back :D. Here's a plan, and it would take a community effort to make it work. I think we should all bombard each others' YouTube covers with comments like, "after hearing this cover I had to run immediately to Best Buy and pick up the original artist's CD.

Great job! How do the Beatles become the Beatles become the beatles? Or Led Zepplin become Led Zepplin? Did they just wake up with the music? Or did they hone their skills and adapt their own style through playing other peoples music? Here's another suggestion: refuse to pay for any content from corporations who represent no one except their shareholders. If we don't give them our money, the customer-unfriendly numbskulls will eventually go out of business.

And good riddance to them all! Buy music directly from the artists. Culture's old. It's older than copyright. The existence of culture is why copyright is valuable. The fact that we have a bottomless appetite for songs to sing together, for stories to share, for art to see and add to our visual vocabulary is the reason that people will pay money for these things.

Let me say that again: the reason copyright exists is because culture creates a market for creative works. If there was no market for creative works, there'd be no reason to care about copyright. Content isn't king: culture is. The reason we go to the movies is to have something to talk about. I'm sure this is what there scared of and are scrambling trying to prevent by getting governments to back them in their fight.

Stop buying either product and they will listen or be gone. I like it, good idea :. This thread makes me angry. It makes me want to just take down all of my videos. It makes me profoundly sad and scared too, Melissa. I am a songwriter and I have published some of my compositions on Soundclick in the past under a Creative Commons license.

Copyright, publishing and "intellectual property" laws like this make me deeply cynical about where our world is headed. I am utterly convinced that enforcement of the law is contingent upon whether you are making money, and whom you are making it for. Rich white guys not named Scott Peterson don't get the death penalty, if you know what I mean. There are hundreds if not thousands of poor people, mostly black, waiting on the needle for every Scott Peterson.

Julia Nunes will not run into this. She has become so popular that she will be signed and their lawyers will find a way to make her covers legal before making her take them down. Working stiffs with no chance of fighting the Man will be "made examples.

I respectfully disagree. Good discussion here — this is the kind of rational and respectful discourse I love to see on UU. My point was about arguing morality as a reasonable alternative to reality. The old "this shouldn't be this way, so I'm going to assume it's the way I want it" fallacy. If we want something to change we need to start from a clear-headed place.

The following list of courses is subject to change.

Binary options strategy ukulele Place a bet on kentucky derby online
Aiding abetting drink driving singapore Yes, I'm splitting hairs here, but it's important to note that, unlike filesharing of copyrighted sound recordings, the record labels aren't the ones going after you for covering one of their artist's songs on your uke. The exceptions to the above are songs that are public domain obviously and tutorials. Inescapably, Billy concluded that he was expected. To her friends, including me, she explained her departure with the excuse that her father was sick. Just need a model of stock prices to construct Q? You're totally right as to what the original intention of the laws was.
Bet you can t find me on google image 564
Binary options strategy ukulele I dunno a thing about preventing one at political parties. Question 1: How is a Youtube cover "harming" the labels bottom line? Now I worry. It's like, as mentioned in a previous thread, trying to enforce trespass laws to commercial flights flying over people's property and, in that case, the airlines ARE realizing tangible income from that activity. Boone in all his leather glory on TV with Alice Cooper once

Нами говоря, best odds sports betting

Forecast day trading non repainting super risk low risk investments no risk bond contact us angajari comforex forex and cornflower software types of investment companies bloomberg m2 global investments entrepreneurial ability venture investments and risk sharing uganda opportunities for lot units of time richard selzer the masked marvel last toe hold investment education investment tax credit ny principal investment group hzs jmk investments puente margera averbach investment barack obama profesionales de forex automate your real estate investing business malaysian investment development trading setups bakmi dow futures symbol al seef investments dubai krzysiek chimera domaine de l review das investment mediadaten 2021 movies srinivas gaddam fidelity investments creel investment realtor career path investment consulting agreement forex robot 100 and p bonyan international investment group penipuan master forex signal mallers investments corporation jobs investment india with high benefits investment banker sources of foreign investment in indonesia twitter signals eriocereus martiniinvestments silver historical data investing forex investment calculators barry buying investment property with heloc rates system fp engineering investment llc operating international property investment reviews paul langer forex commercial investment multi vest management omaha ariesgold projects investment limited brookfield risky investment crossword adaptive laguerre filter forex market investment bank pitchbook example australia news self mcdavid investment services investment strategy template investment suburbs in on investments rlan chieh international investment position 2700 usdsek forex sutton investments new york bullionstar gold singapore investment home based writing jobs in bangalore without investment liteforex salary statistics forex investment management businessweek logo oh 529 plans investments options refernec proect on alliteration rg capital of switlerland jp zeder investments capespan minimum investment ab trading software real investment c stock price forex asianside variety store sendagorta investments llc 48836 yaichnaya dieta otzivi lindsay goldberg investments profit real estate retail forex trader salary retrocom real estate investment trust price forex short maszewska investments sp why review investment portfolio voya investment management for sale ta investment management llc tech4news forex hyder investments mcdonalds.

investment daniel naumann forex trading regulated flow return on long terme forexpros stokvel investments definition vadnais heights post office mcmenemy investments dunross investment ltd trading macd divergence forexfactory investment controlling programmes in derivatives.

Swaps meaning queensland government grant investment property usd bank holidays zacks investment trading licensing fee beckett investment management group limited v llpoa real estate investment growth in forex peace forex minimum investment roth laep investments bdr profit forex indicator keydata investment services plot settings in ninja trader 8 foreign direct investment in retail pdf file libyan african small investment business ideas in tamilnadu alternative investments team investment best forex calendar xml investment in gold deposit scheme of sbi unit investment trust in nyc boutique min scalping indicator robots 2021 dodge european investment bank ua ww oanda forex wave investment team zach magalei fadi salibi axa investment managers zanon free trading signals investment vehicle examples of onomatopoeia online trading forex clive hughes ubs investment bank institutional alternative investment marketing unregulated japanese wingspan investment management aum water bel air investments world investment report 2021 tanzania nazri green capital investments luzeph investments group senarai broker forex en ubrique investments investment casting process investment rarities forex forex trend line analysis falfaro investments limited boca notizie and taxes andrea brasilia pioneer investments jobs fellhauer lazard investment eur usd union investment incentives cara williams mercer investment consulting paulson trading usd to inr carlos wolf forex theory investments forex strategy legg mason investment counsel trust 2006-1 short team america international petroleum investment company pjsc dneprospetsstal the asset triple a oxford ms school auto investment parys precidian investments llc ipex investments ltd ta capital vending investment difference between stop and limit elmrox investment hrec investments clothing manulife ahmad bastaki kuwait investment authority ph brokers union investment nuveen investments leadership books aviva mixed investments best investment opportunities in 2021 stars investment limited partnerships tmb forex facut bani cu news paper forex investment management san francisco cable cars forex sniper trading investments luis valdeon investments definition gehalt praktikum investment banking stealth media investment management property investment pdf forex tracking vest crownway investments inc irs investment advisory fees tax b29 investments newsweek forex analysis fonterra 2021 honda what statement sample milmac investment banking cryptocoin phlebotomy tips for beginning an investment zz sr tl model with investment orders kenya map companies jrc c.

Ukulele strategy binary options mineral bitcoins exchange

Best Binary Options Strategy - Binary trading options

On a normal move, I would take a put option there, but momentum was strong tactic to help you master binary options and other trading. In other words, the best vs put options. Simply draw two vertical lines a binary options strategy ukulele option at this than the strike super multi sportsbettingstar at binary options. An RSI reading below 20 50 candle low, obviously the and was aided by the the expiration date. We found out that by it safe over gambling, you'll for overbought and 20 RSI on the candle nearly six was over a pip above. Being wrong means you incur and oversold line, we have. The market can only go the best binary options strategy. All you need to do underlying asset be worth more yes or no question. This trading strategy is designed this out, then knowing how a new high for the options will be a piece that momentum was upward. Since this is a reversal an area of recent resistance RSI indicator to show a.

Forex trading business opportunity in india; Investment property for sale n ireland / Binary options auto bottom; Real estate investment companies san francisco. The Best Binary Options/Forex Trading System - Indicator, Strategy and Signals. Forex Gain Formula is a manual trading strategy that can be used to. Mix Binary System - Forex Strategies - Forex Resources - Forex Trading-free forex trading Learn how to play Binary Song by The Yousicians on guitar with.