A clear example of how copyrights harm music

There’s a rare recording of Bob Marley doing an acapella cover of “Chances Are”, the Johnny Mathis classic. I could only imagine that it was a superb recording. So with wanting to hear it, I immediately head over to the page while thinking how great this will sound eagerly ready to press the play button.

Listen To Bob Marley Sing Chances Are Acapella In This Super Rare Audio – IReggaeNation.

In Britian

But at this point I paused to get my morning coffee as I think out loud… “what better way to hear Bob Marley sing Chances Are on a Sunday morning but with a nice cup of coffee”. I return with my coffee and click the link only to find out that the content is blocked, based on what country you’re in.

Screen Shot 2015-01-04 at 11.38.55 AM

Seriously….this happens. My coffee now tastes bitter. I’m wondering why this is so. Why block what has to be a great piece of recording. I can’t imaging that it is actively still being pressed and sold, it’s just sitting somewhere in an archive. So apparently the Harry Fox Agency, the same copyright company that actually claimed copyrights over the public domain works of Johann Strauss, somehow owns this copyright. I ask myself what’s the point in blocking this recording. Wouldn’t publicly sharing just lend to people wanting to buy the recording? I would.

You see, this is what frustrates folks who love music, and leads them to use nefarious measures to attain what they love. So I just want to thank the Harry Fox Agency for helping me keep my skills sharp. You see, digital copyright is an exercise in futility. Those who restrict access on the basis of money will always eventually loose to those who have the love for all forms of art. Our passions for the arts are greater than your passion for money.

“I can only imagine” that the recording is just so beautiful….yes, yes it is….



4 thoughts on “A clear example of how copyrights harm music

  1. Harry Fox Agency doesn’t own the copyrighted material. HFA just represents the owner of the copyrighted material. In this case Chances Are is owned by Charlie Deitcher Prod Inc and Music Sales Corporation. Bob Marley added unique qualities to the song and has a copyright on that arrangement. However, worldwarXPConcerts, who has it on their Youtube channel doesn’t have the rights to show the video in the US got tagged by Youtube’s content ID claim system.

    The copyright owner of that performance blocked the content: Blocking a video: Sometimes, copyright owners may block your video, which means people won’t be able to watch it. They can decide to block your video worldwide or just in certain countries. If your video is blocked worldwide, your account standing may be affected, which means you’ll lose access to some YouTube features. Please keep in mind that deleting videos that affect your account standing won’t restore your good standing.

    Is it fair? Yes. Why? Copyright holders have the right to determine how their property is used. If you think your right to listen/watch a copyrighted material is greater than the copyright’s owner to manager their property, then I guess you wouldn’t mind if one day I came upon a sailing boat that is just sitting there. It’s a sunny day and man, that boat really needs to be sailed, to feel the breeze against its sails. The owner of the boat shouldn’t mind as I am only going to use it for a few hours. The owner of the boat shouldn’t mind because I am just admiring the beauty of the boat, wind, sun for just a while.

    Since you are keeping your skills sharp, I’m sure you will not mind me keeping my skills sharp when I break into that sailing boat and take it for a spin?

    (BTW, I’m not saying here that HFA is perfect and that this whole copyright enforcement system we currently have is perfect. What I am saying is that your position to steal someone’s copyrighted material because you feel it is your music loving right to do so is incorrect).

  2. Well, we can discuss the merits quite a bit here, and you’re right on many points. Just that the comparison of ownership with physical vs digital properties is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion anyway.

    But does bring the question, it seems like there is so much effort by copyright and material owners to spend a lot of resources in allowing/restricting content for whatever the reason. Why not just work on global, simplified agreements? To my original point, you’d think they would want to reach as many ears as possible, I just don’t understand the willful restriction of music. It’s frustrating. I could maybe understand the artists’ desire to release or restrict, but not an entity that just bought the material to put it in a vault (which I just stumbled upon myself thinking about art collections).

    Regarding keeping the skills, while I had the opportunity to download and keep it, I didn’t. Just listened to it by changing my country. Which goes back to my point, all that effort to restrict something that’s so easily accessible? Understanding the monetization portion of it, just restrict that to third parties or take a cut of whatever revenue they make from the ads in the sidebar. I guess I just don’t and will never understand the willingness to restrict the reach of music.

    BTW, anytime you want to come up for a sail, ping me.

  3. I’m already on the water enjoying your boat!! It was just sitting there anyways! 😉

    BTW, I’m with you, why let it just sit in a vault when it can be priced for the consumers to buy it or consume it on a platform that pays the owner some fee like Youtube does.

    Problem is that copyright holders have different ideas of how to make money on their assets. Some think scarcity increases the value, why others think volume distribution creates the best return on investment.

    But, the real thorn in the side of artists is that the artist only gets pennies on the dollar in revenue sharing models. The distributor and other middle men get the lions share of the pie. Unless of course the artist, like Garth Brooks, has the control of the distribution channel to the end user. But few artists have the distribution network and control to make decent money off their work. I think over the next 10 to 15 years you’ll see the new age artists have real control of the distribution and revenue from their work. It just takes time to change old ways of doing things, even in the 21st century.

    Kind of cold and windy out on the water today… damn, how do you get the boat back to land if the wind is blowing the wrong way!!! 😉

  4. That’s my other gripe, artists never get theirs. It’s just the labels that clean up. Which is why I purchase music from places like cdbaby.com and artistshare.com. Interface and get it direct from the artist.

Comments are closed.