I also liked Aled Jones version better than the original. The arrangement modulates into a different key, for the last verse I think, which has a nice effect. It takes a good singer and orchestra to do that well, and he does a good job with it.
Suing The Music Industry
by Lost in the fog 17 Replies latest social current
-
-
Anony Mous
Interesting, after reading up on the case, it seems Jones’ album writers did get permission to use the song from a German rights holder.
According to the WTBTS that rights holder does not have permission to sublicense it. It will be interesting to see where the WTBTS got the license to use the song from then, they likely purchased some exclusive rights from a ‘wordly’ Christian songwriter but didn’t purchase full exclusivity.
Even in the lawsuit they only claim copyright on the “song book” and not individual songs https://torrentfreak.com/images/1-20-cv-10844-watchtower-v-BMG-complaint-201222.pdf
And if anyone had a bigger purse than the WTBTS to fund endless copyright lawsuits, that is BMG and the music industry.
-
dropoffyourkeylee
I predict that they will reach some sort of agreement out of court and then we'll hear no more about it.
As an aside, I think it is kind of sad that the WT would waste their time and resources to prevent one of their songs from being recorded and distributed, especially when the artist was doing it in a positive way. I know it is part of their doctrine and belief system to be 'separate' and all that, but this issue just underscores how stupid that belief system is.
-
Drearyweather
Even in the lawsuit they only claim copyright on the “song book” and not individual songs
The lawsuit does say:
Watch Tower is the author and copyright owner of the musical composition “Listen, Obey and Be Blessed” (the “Composition”).
Watch Tower also is the author of and owner of several other copyright registrations for original works of authorship concerning or embodying the Composition, including: (a) U.S. Copyright Registration SR 864-110 for a sound recording entitled “‘Sing Out Joyfully’ to Jehovah: Song 089, Listen, Obey and Be Blessed,” effective as of December 30, 2019
-
jwundubbed
The appearance of this song on a commercial album immediately raised alarm bells among the religion’s followers who, through their teachings and knowledge of their faith, knew this track shouldn’t have been used in this manner.
That's a whole lot of people listening to a Christmas album.
I know it is part of their doctrine and belief system to be 'separate' and all that, but this issue just underscores how stupid that belief system is.
Most religions have a separatist belief system. "There is only one God' often precludes being inclusive of other religions. But the copyright infringement is not the same issue as the 'being included' issue. The watchtower has filed separate charges in this case; 1. copyright infringement 2. having their song included among other religions 3. having their song used as a Christmas song. GEMA probably did not have the correct permission. They have a lot of lawsuits against them for copyright infringement in the music industry. I knew that before I read the article as their cases come up in news a lot. They rarely win. I think it is interesting that the JWs might get the profits from their song being sold as a Christmas song. Shouldn't that go against their beliefs?
-
Anony Mous
@drearyweather: That is indeed correct. They own the rights to "the musical composition", not the song or its performance.
Sound recordings and musical compositions are considered two separate works for copyright purposes. Even though a sound recording is a derivative work of the underlying musical composition, a copyright in a sound recording is not the same as, or a substitute for, copyright in the underlying musical composition.
They have worded their argument very specifically. They want the singer to stop the distribution of the sound recording and public performance, by claiming they have the rights to the musical composition. This is so antithetical to copyright as it would mean that people that create sheet music of eg. Beethoven's fifth would suddenly own all the performances as well. It would also mean that the congregations could be liable for the few cents (51 cents I believe) per person it costs to license whenever they sing the song, actually, legally speaking, if they did not collect said license from their congregations, they may lose their rights to the work altogether.
You can buy the musical composition of many songs without buying the copyright on the further distribution and performance. You CAN buy public performance rights as well, but that is typically a ton more expensive and separate from the piece of sheet music from a composer. This is what makes the specific wording so suspicious, it points to a fact they do not own those rights, which means they did not write it themselves but purchased it from someone else. If you create a piece of music yourself, you can claim the performance rights, which they do not in the suit.
To give you an example, many (most) singers do not write their own songs, they buy them from someone, the bigger musicians will also buy the exclusive rights and the big labels will also pay out to get the exclusive rights on the public performance. Hence you cannot perform Beyonce's latest hit album and sell it, hell, they'll kick you off YouTube and fine you for just humming a snippet of it online. Same goes for Happy Birthday, licensed to I believe BMG or Warner Music, you can't perform it in public without paying them.
-
Simon
Artists own the music they write (until / unless they sell the rights) but sometimes they may not own the specific recordings if someone else paid for the studio time.
Sometimes the ownership is disputed so some even re-record their songs so they then own the full undisputed rights to all distribution. Neil Sedaka for instance re-recorded his older songs and he'd looked after his voice so they sound almost identical to the originals.
-
skin
Ok, things are moving. That video as now been removed from You Tube.
I must say, I did like his version.