A Calgary radio station, 90.3AMP, has been playing condensed versions of popular
songs. The station is using a third party named Sparknet to shorten the
songs. Here and here and here’s some coverage.
Just to think – maybe a 90 second or two minute version of the
Beatles' five minute “A Day in the Life” or Arlo Guthrie’s 23 minute “Alice’s Restaurant”? After all,
we already know the “tune” and how the stories end. Who needs boring choruses
anyway?
One would be surprised if actual performers or composers (musicians)
are involved in this process. They are those sometimes pesky people who support
the huge corporate music industry and occasionally show a desire to be treated
with respect and their fair share of economic reward. A few of them occasionally
succeed in these mostly unrealized
aspirations. Moreover, according to Canada’s
Copyright
Act, ss. 14.1 and 28.2, musicians actually have “moral rights”, which
quite possibly could be violated by the unapproved abridgement of a work or
performance if it results in prejudice to the creator’s honour or reputation. It
would not be surprising if many musicians have been forced to “waive” these
rights in favour their record companies. However, even if there is a “waiver”,
it would be interesting to see if could apply in this type of situation and whether
any record companies would authorize any radio station to invoke it.
In this case, no less than @jannarden would seem to be seriously
upset. But the AMP station doesn’t play her anyway.
It will be interesting to see if Music Canada, SOCAN,
Re:Sound or other organizations
that exist only because of the creativity of musicians react to these reports. But, so far as I’ve seen
or heard, it’s been radio silence.
By the way, the only musical shortening of which I absolutely and irrevocable approve and
applaud and which has a strong Canadian connection is the late lamented Anna
Russell’s incomparable classic abridgment of
Wagner’s four evening four episode twenty hour “Ring Cycle” of operas into a
twenty minute hilarious and amazingly accurate condensation that will never be obsolete.
One can be quite sure that the humourless and thoroughly obnoxious Richard Wagner (1813-1883) NEVER
would have approved of this. Of course, this could also pass muster as a “parody”.
Either way, it’s worth listening to and watching again and again….
HPK
You'd think this might inspire SOCAN and Re:Sound to at least argue that 90.3 AMP should pay higher tariff rates because they are making increased use of those collectives' repertoire songs? As to those groups' silence regarding the creative infringement that AMP's actions represent; curious but not entirely surprising. Hopefully someone will speak up at some point.
ReplyDeleteI agree on a copyright exception for Anna Russell's work. Similarly, to my knowledge Victor Borge never received any complaints about his comic treatment of classic tunes. Maybe talent makes some difference in these things...