1371 Music at Milongas
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 16:54:18 -0500
From: Stephen Brown <Stephen.P.Brown@DAL.FRB.ORG>
Subject: Music at Milongas
We can ask the question about whether Piazzolla's music is tango, and
would find it hard to offer any answer other than yes. But that is
probably the wrong question to ask in the context of playing music for
dancing at a milonga. A much better question is which pieces of
Piazzolla's music might be suitable for playing for dancers at milongas.
I would contribute the following:
Carlos Garcia and Tango All Stars -- Adios Nonino
Raul Garello -- Verano Porten~o
Gidon Kremer -- Oblivion
Quartango -- Oblivion
But, I also recognize the need to be careful about incorporating these
recordings into an evening's music.
With best regards,
Steve
Stephen Brown
Tango Argentino de Tejas
https://www.tejastango.com/
Date: Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rick Jones <rwjones52@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] Playing copyrighted music at milongas
To: Tango-L <Tango-L@MIT.EDU>
Janis Kenyon <Jantango@feedback.net.ar> wrote:The milongas pay licensing fees to SADAIC for the right to play music.
I wonder if this is something that applies to milongas in the U.S., Europe, etc.
Should milonga organizers in those places be paying fees to play the same tango music that milonga organizers in Buenos Aires are apparently paying fees to play?
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 12:27:43 +0200
From: Ecsedy Áron <aron@milonga.hu>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Playing copyrighted music at milongas (slightly
OFF)
To: Tango-L <TANGO-L@MIT.EDU>
Jones> I wonder if this is something that applies to milongas in the U.S., Europe, etc.
Jones> Should milonga organizers in those places be paying fees to
Jones> play the same tango music that milonga organizers in Buenos
Jones> Aires are apparently paying fees to play?
they should be... Copyright laws are very similar all over the world in this respect since almost a century.
In the beginning copyright was there to protect the authors interests. After mass production of copyrighted material appeared, copyright was there to protect the publishing firms. However, lately copyright organizations take over 40% (yes that is forty percent plus) of the copright-related income as "costs" of collection, and therefore authors and performers tend to get very little (as opposed to the publishing firms - they dictate the terms).
The system of general copyright (especially for music) is based on distributing the costs of production among the users. However, since the overall number of users cannot be defined before publication, copyright fees are based on individual events and the number of their listeners/viewers. This creates a system that essentially sells the same thing over and over again: if there is live music played at a concert, of which there is a television broadcast that you screen at a milonga, of which event you make a video recording, that lands on youtube, which - in turn - is embedded into a commercial webpage on the subject, then - in theory - there are the following costs:
1) authors fees for the song at the concert
2) television pays fees to the authors again, plus the performer (for the broadcast)
3) milonga venue pays fees for authors, performers and screening the television broadcast
4) you publish your video on youtube, for which (non-profit is not an excuse, educational or news use in this case will not apply - youtube is not an educational or news site) you would have to pay fees for author, performers, television broadcast and if the dancing (choreography) performed is so special - most tango improvisations worthy of filming will fall into this category - for the dancers as "choreographers" (if entry to the milonga includes terms on video recording, you may even have to pay royalties to the organizer which is not copyright though)
5)commercial webpage should pay for author, performers, television broadcast, choreography, but doesn't have to pay fees for youtube or the person publishing the video (as publisher) because of youtube disclaimers
Of course - according to the copyright organizations - the above system is fair as there is a different and larger public involved with every new publication of the material. However, the only thing they don't include is that if you already own a CD of the performance above, then you already purchased the copyrighted material for your own unlimited personal use. This means if you have one copy of Libertango by Sexteto Mayor, then you have unlimited rights to listen to this recording by Sexteto Mayor and you would not have to pay authors fees to any other rendition of Libertango only performers and publishers fees, also if you watch television, go to a milonga or concert the broadcasters/organizers would not have to pay copyright fees for this song and for your participation in this. And that is for every time an event is organized/broadcast...
Obviously the system is outdated (it's origins and the distribution methods come from the time when only live music was available) and because the legal apparatus were mostly influenced by the copyright lobby until the 1980s, the legal systems are quite pro-copyright (and by copyright they mean the present distribution methods). Copyright organizations became a state within the state, because this distribution of copyright fees are accepted without revision by all countries.
Cheers,
Aron
PS: the above example reflects Hungarian situation (and according to my knowledge - I am no copyright lawyer), in other countries minor differences may exist.
PS2: most venues pay no fees here though - enforcement is extremely difficult (and therefore expensive), so the copyright organization doesn't bother themselves with small venues (especially that most venues do pay some fees for some music and the copyright firms will not do surprise raids to check whether they paid for all uses or just the most general. For example: venue pays for playing radio, copyright folks will not check if they occasionally put a CD in as well)
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:53:26 -0500
From: ceverett@ceverett.com
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Playing copyrighted music at milongas
Most venues pay a monthly fee to ASCAP for playing music, just like
milongas pay SADAIC. Events at such a venue are covered automatically.
If you host a private party and you have a friend DJ for free as a
favor, you don't have to pay a thing. If you rent a hall and charge an
entrada, and the hall doesn't have an agreement in place with ASCAP,
then you would have to decide if you wanted to talk to ASCAP or not.
ASCAP and SADAIC have reciprocal agreements in place to collect money
for each other. I would be surprised if SADAIC ever got a check from
ASCAP though.
We've had flamewars on the topic of royalty payments for tango music
before. To summarize:
SIDE A: the real crime is the beating that music in general has taken
>from culturally illiterate monopolists.
SIDE B: only major studio support can make me the next pop music
superstar, so I'll go with side C.
SIDE C: All the music belongs to us. We decide what, where and when
it's available.
You can assign labels to each side as you see fit.
Christopher
On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 17:06:39 -0700 (PDT), "Rick Jones"
<rwjones52@yahoo.com> said:
>
> Janis Kenyon <Jantango@feedback.net.ar> wrote:The milongas pay licensing
> fees to SADAIC for the right to play music.
>
> I wonder if this is something that applies to milongas in the U.S.,
> Europe, etc.
>
> Should milonga organizers in those places be paying fees to play the same
> tango music that milonga organizers in Buenos Aires are apparently paying
> fees to play?
