Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

Why? You’re literally talking someone else’s song and reproducing it. You just have to ask the copyright holder for permission and then you’re good.

It’s how the whole world of covers work.

View on HN

In the US you don’t need to get the copyright holder's permission to record cover songs, you need to pay for a mechanical license. In the case of live performances you don’t need to get permission directly. The venue is the one that pays royalties to a handful of groups that have agreements with thousands of artists.

Yup. I have a strong “fuck you” to ASCAP for charging my favorite small coffee shop insurmountable fees and forcing them to stop having live musical performances. FWIW the musicians played mostly original work.

ASCAP has also been actively against the EFF, Creative Commons, and others.

> In June 2010, ASCAP sent letters to its members soliciting donations to fight entities that support weaker copyright restrictions, such as Public Knowledge, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Creative Commons

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composer...

In the US, you don't need permission. You DO have to pay a fee (royalties; pretty sure nothing upfront). It's a compulsory license.

> It’s how the whole world of covers work.

Yes, I am aware of how the law currently works. I think that it is unethical and that my playing of some pop song on the piano shouldn't be covered by property law because my performance is not owned by someone else.

But the song you’re playing is owned by someone else. I can understand the case for carving out an exception for this use but it doesn’t change the fact that your derived work now has two copyright holders: the original artist and you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com