Aled Jones- "Listen, Obey and Be Blessed" (merged)

[Tortuga]

1 hour ago, ➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone said:

Hopefully some money will be made as well.

It seems that would open up another can of worms. WHQ may be accused of marketing the songs for profit.

[➕👇 ꓤꓱꓷꓠꓵ🎵Tone]

Sorry I did not make myself clear. The money would be for breach of the law.
Financial implications could be presented to the courts. However, we do not do it for the money. We do it to protect the information from abuse.
The monies I am suggesting is to cover the legal costs to get it rectified.
I am thinking a fine for infringement of copyright law. Loss of acknowledgement that it is the rightful owner of said song. It has damaged its reputation being next to a 'Christmas' carol.
And time, money and resources to mount a legal challenge, when this should never of happened.
The money I'm talking about is to send a clear message to all ==> steal the songs - be prepared to pay a hefty fine. Not just a slap on the wrist while the other hand collects money from continued sales. I'd like to see appropriate restitution! IMHO

Old (Downunder) Tone

[Mykyl]

I think witnesses should stop viewing the video. 😉 32 thousand views. Oops. Glad I don't have to sort it out. 2020 really is a weird year. Who saw one of our songs ending up on a Christmas album. 🤔 😦 Just crazy. Surprised it has not been taken down though as Youtube are usually quick to jump on requests.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Mykyl

[Romain]

I assume one can’t released an album without having all the rights on all the songs (copyright things being very strict in streaming platforms) and apparently the branch is aware. So they might have given or sold him the rights to do so. Plus the words aren't modified and it is really similar to the way our songs are recorded nowadays. The only things that bother me is the fact that there some catholic songs in the album. In any case the branch handle it.

[Thesauron]

I assume one can’t released an album without having all the rights on all the songs (copyright things being very strict in streaming platforms) and apparently the branch is aware. So they might have given or sold him the rights to do so. Plus the words aren't modified and it is really similar to the way our songs are recorded nowadays. The only things that bother me is the fact that there some catholic songs in the album. In any case the branch handle it.

The branch does not sell or give rights to do these things.

[Andy Bell]

Hi all

 

There's a specific copyright 'exception' in the music industry that applies when releasing a cover version of a song where:

• The original artist has already released a version for public consumption
• Your new version does not change the words and has the same tune, although the arrangement can be different
• You pay royalties to the original artist at the rate set by the music industry

'Listen, Obey and be Blessed' has had a public release on jw.org, therefore other artists are free to record their own version of it and release this commercially.

 

The law in question is called the Compulsory Mechanical License and the basic explanation of it, found at https://flypaper.soundfly.com/hustle/how-to-legally-cover-a-song/ says:

 

Quote

Anyone can cover anyone else’s song, and its creator cannot say no (that’s the compulsory part). But if you do cover a song, you must pay a royalty to the song’s creator (that’s the licensing part). What’s more, the royalty rate is always the same—it’s “statutory,” meaning fixed and not subject to individual negotiation—no matter who covers the song and how many (or few) copies they sell

In the music industry, everyone wins here. The original artist receives free publicity and some royalties, and may see renewed interest in his version of the song. The new artist makes some $$$, the record companies also make $$$.

 

This being the case, there is nothing illegal or unethical about Aled Jones releasing our song, with or without the Organization's permission.

 

What is more interesting is that the song is credited to 'Traditional' on Aled's CD and online releases. This usually happens where the song is an old folk song where the writer is unknown. Whilst we might think this is evidence that Aled/Warner Bros (who own the record label) are trying to avoid their legal obligations or haven't managed to find out who wrote the song, I would suggest there is a better explanation for this.

 

First, how likely is it that Warner Bros (WB) failed to find out that the song was released by the organization (WBTS)? I'd say zero. A quick Google search would tell them that. And, as Aled's version is faithful to the words and music, they must have referenced the official recording.

 

Second, how likely is it that WB would try to dodge their legal obligation to WBTS and not credit them or pay the royalties? Again, I'd say zero. WB would view WBTS as a large, resource rich Charity and would not risk their reputation and a huge court case for the sake of a few $$$.

 

So, is there a better explanation? I would suggest the following as a possibility:

 

WB approaches WBTS and says 'We're releasing your song. Who should we credit the writing to and pay the royalties to?'

WBTS 'Um, we don't want you to release our song'

WB 'We have a Compulsory Mechanical License - standard industry practice...'

WBTS 'Oh, ok. Well, we don't go in for that kind of thing, nor raise funds in that way. We don't want to be closely associated with this'

Negotiations ensue...

 

Eventually they agree to labelling the song as 'Traditional'. I would imagine the Organization declined to receive the royalties.

 

That's just a possibility... But I don't think anyone has done anything wrong here.

 

More info about these compulsory licenses is at https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-you-should-know-about-compulsory-mechanical-licenses-2460917

 

Should we be upset that this has happened? A scripture came to mind: Phil 1:15-18, which says in part: 'Some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill... With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this'

 

Some who hear Aled's CD may look up this song on Google and end up on jw.org. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

Andy

 

 

 

[Romain]

1 hour ago, Andy Bell said:

WB approaches WBTS and says 'We're releasing your song. Who should we credit the writing to and pay the royalties to?'

WBTS 'Um, we don't want you to release our song'

WB 'We have a Compulsory Mechanical License - standard industry practice...'

WBTS 'Oh, ok. Well, we don't go in for that kind of thing, nor raise funds in that way. We don't want to be closely associated with this'

That make sense 

Thank you for your research and taking the time to explain ☺️

[Nelly Kim]

On 11/6/2020 at 9:34 PM, moosic said:

Hi everyone  

Apologises if this has been started elsewhere, I did scroll through quickly but couldn't see anything. 

 

Friend drew attention to the fact that Alex Jones has a new album out, one song is covering the organisation's "Listen, Obey and Blessed"

 

I can't say for certain that this has been done with permission (especially as other songs on the album are Christmas related), but I'm sad that it has been used without quoting Jehovah's organisation for the original song 😔

That's not right at all... 

[Tortuga]

5 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

Hi all

Welcome to the forum. I really appreciate your first comment and look forward to more.

[Mykyl]

9 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

Hi all

 

There's a specific copyright 'exception' in the music industry that applies when releasing a cover version of a song where:

• The original artist has already released a version for public consumption
• Your new version does not change the words and has the same tune, although the arrangement can be different
• You pay royalties to the original artist at the rate set by the music industry

'Listen, Obey and be Blessed' has had a public release on jw.org, therefore other artists are free to record their own version of it and release this commercially.

 

The law in question is called the Compulsory Mechanical License and the basic explanation of it, found at https://flypaper.soundfly.com/hustle/how-to-legally-cover-a-song/ says:

 

In the music industry, everyone wins here. The original artist receives free publicity and some royalties, and may see renewed interest in his version of the song. The new artist makes some $$$, the record companies also make $$$.

 

This being the case, there is nothing illegal or unethical about Aled Jones releasing our song, with or without the Organization's permission.

 

What is more interesting is that the song is credited to 'Traditional' on Aled's CD and online releases. This usually happens where the song is an old folk song where the writer is unknown. Whilst we might think this is evidence that Aled/Warner Bros (who own the record label) are trying to avoid their legal obligations or haven't managed to find out who wrote the song, I would suggest there is a better explanation for this.

 

First, how likely is it that Warner Bros (WB) failed to find out that the song was released by the organization (WBTS)? I'd say zero. A quick Google search would tell them that. And, as Aled's version is faithful to the words and music, they must have referenced the official recording.

 

Second, how likely is it that WB would try to dodge their legal obligation to WBTS and not credit them or pay the royalties? Again, I'd say zero. WB would view WBTS as a large, resource rich Charity and would not risk their reputation and a huge court case for the sake of a few $$$.

 

So, is there a better explanation? I would suggest the following as a possibility:

 

WB approaches WBTS and says 'We're releasing your song. Who should we credit the writing to and pay the royalties to?'

WBTS 'Um, we don't want you to release our song'

WB 'We have a Compulsory Mechanical License - standard industry practice...'

WBTS 'Oh, ok. Well, we don't go in for that kind of thing, nor raise funds in that way. We don't want to be closely associated with this'

Negotiations ensue...

 

Eventually they agree to labelling the song as 'Traditional'. I would imagine the Organization declined to receive the royalties.

 

That's just a possibility... But I don't think anyone has done anything wrong here.

 

More info about these compulsory licenses is at https://www.thebalancecareers.com/what-you-should-know-about-compulsory-mechanical-licenses-2460917

 

Should we be upset that this has happened? A scripture came to mind: Phil 1:15-18, which says in part: 'Some are preaching the Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill... With what result? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is being proclaimed, and I rejoice over this'

 

Some who hear Aled's CD may look up this song on Google and end up on jw.org. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?

 

Andy

 

 

 

The only possible loophole is the original version I believe has to have been released commercially for it to fall under the compulsory license as far as I can tell. Either way, it explains why the song has not so far been taken down. Still time. 😉

[Andy Bell]

1 hour ago, Mykyl said:

The only possible loophole is the original version I believe has to have been released commercially for it to fall under the compulsory license as far as I can tell. Either way, it explains why the song has not so far been taken down. Still time. 😉

The sites I quoted say this:

 

Quote

The song must have already been recorded and distributed by the copyright owner. Another way this is stated is that the copyright owner gets "first use" of their creation. Note that the copyright owner has to be the one who recorded it; if someone else steals their work and records it, that doesn't qualify as "previously recorded." Also, recording it is not enough. The copyright owner has to have made it available for public consumption.

And

 

Quote

Once an artist releases their musical work, anyone can create and distribute their own sound recording of the work (i.e. release a ‘cover’) as long they secure a mechanical license and pay the owner of the musical work a ‘mechanical royalty’ (currently 9.1 ¢ per copy of the song).

 

No mention of released ‘commercially’, just ‘released for public consumption’. 
 

I do not think, for one moment, that a company as big and respected as Warner Bros would release a song that they had no legal right to.  The song is not essential to the album. They would not risk doing this if they didn’t have a 100% watertight right to do so.

 

Andy

[Mykyl]

31 minutes ago, Andy Bell said:

The sites I quoted say this:

 

And

 

 

No mention of released ‘commercially’, just ‘released for public consumption’. 
 

I do not think, for one moment, that a company as big and respected as Warner Bros would release a song that they had no legal right to.  The song is not essential to the album. They would not risk doing this if they didn’t have a 100% watertight right to do so.

 

Andy

I know but the sites I have seen it had to be released commercially. Thats why I mentioned it. I have posted the parts in bold. These are only some of the links I have found that mention the song must have been commercially released. Things may also be different as laws change. Either way I know the the right brothers are dealing with the situation.

 

Here is one quote. Note both points are either for rent or sale. Our songs are NOT rented or sold commercially.

Quote

Once a musical work has been published, anyone can record a cover version of the song by obtaining a mechanical license. A song is published when copies or recordings are distributed to the public for sale or rent. A live performance is not publication.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/posting-cover-songs-on-youtube-what-you-need-to-know

 

Quote

Now there may be some cases when using these agencies that the song you wish to cover comes up saying "This song is not available for mechanical licensing". This could be enough to put you off doing the cover version, but there may also be another path, and a legal one, because once a song has been commercially released by an artist, that artist's song may be re-recorded and released by anyone who chooses to do so.

 

https://www.makeitinmusic.com/licence-cover-song/

And this

 

https://law-arts.org/pdf/Legal_Issues_in_the_Music_Industry.pdf

 

Quote

Mechanical Royalties:

Mechanical royalties are fees paid to the copyright owner of a song (usually the songwriter and/or the music publisher) for the right to reproduce the song on a recording. The U.S. Copyright Act provides that once a song has been commercially released, any other artist can record and release their own version of that song in an audio-only format (CD, cassette tape, vinyl, digital download etc) without the copyright owner’s permission so long as they pay the copyright owner or the copyright owner’s publisher the minimum statutory royalty rate for every copy of their version of the song that is pressed and distributed. The minimum statutory (“mechanical”) royalty rate is currently 8.5 cents for each copy of the song that is pressed and distributed but that amount increases periodically and is computed differently if a song is more than five minutes long. Usually, the record label releasing the recorded version of a copyrighted song pays mechanical royalties to the publisher or songwriter according to the terms of a contract called a “mechanical license agreement”. Mechanical licenses can be obtained through the Harry Fox Agency (www.harryfox.com) or can be negotiated directly with the publisher or copyright owner of the song. Mechanical licenses do not apply to dramatic works such as operas, ballet scores, and Broadway musicals.

In the music and record business, the terms statutory or compulsory license refer to a mechanical license obtained under the provisions of the Copyright Act.

 

Edited November 11, 2020 by Mykyl

[Shawnster]

11 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

This being the case, there is nothing illegal or unethical about Aled Jones releasing our song, with or without the Organization's permission.

There actually is if he didn't pay royalties.  You said it yourself. 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

You pay royalties to the original artist at the rate set by the music industry

So, if he did not pay royalties, or if the Organization refused to sell the royalties, then the song's inclusion on this album is unethical and illegal. 

 

Now, we may never find out if the royalties were sold. The Organization is not required to inform us. 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

WB approaches WBTS and says 'We're releasing your song. Who should we credit the writing to and pay the royalties to?'

WBTS 'Um, we don't want you to release our song'

WB 'We have a Compulsory Mechanical License - standard industry practice...'

WBTS 'Oh, ok. Well, we don't go in for that kind of thing, nor raise funds in that way. We don't want to be closely associated with this'

Negotiations ensue...

Actually, we do that sort of thing. We have credits at the end of all our videos.  The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society owns the copyright.  Appropriate credit would look like the credits at the end of our videos. 

[Lance]

Not really our problem.... the branch are big boys and they can look after whatever needs to be done or not...  tempest in a teapot.

[Mykyl]

3 minutes ago, Lance said:

Not really our problem.... the branch are big boys and they can look after whatever needs to be done or not...  tempest in a teapot.

That they are. 

[Naturale]

Whatever the case, Aled Jones is a really nice and genuine person, he would not have done anything wrong deliberately.  He probably didn't even know this is a witness song.  He would have had it presented by one of his team

Edited November 11, 2020 by Naturale

[Andy Bell]

38 minutes ago, Mykyl said:

I know but the sites I have seen it had to be released commercially. Thats why I mentioned it. I have posted the parts in bold. These are only some of the links I have found that mention the song must have been commercially released. Things may also be different as laws change. Either way I know the the right brothers are dealing with the situation.

Wikepedia quotes the book "Halloran, Mark (1996). "Copyrights: The Law and You". The Musician's Business & Legal Guide. Pretence Hall." as saying:

 

 

Sure, the legal experts will need to confirm whether it had to be released commercially, but none of the sources I have seen make that statement....

 

Andy

[Andy Bell]

36 minutes ago, Shawnster said:

There actually is if he didn't pay royalties.  You said it yourself. 

 

11 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

You pay royalties to the original artist at the rate set by the music industry

So, if he did not pay royalties, or if the Organization refused to sell the royalties, then the song's inclusion on this album is unethical and illegal. 

 

Now, we may never find out if the royalties were sold. The Organization is not required to inform us. 

That's just conjecture, and I do not think WB would 'refuse' to pay legally owed royalties. Why would they? They'd be out of business and endlessly sued if they did that.

 

Second, the Organisation *cannot* refuse to sell the royalties. The whole point of the Compulsory Mechanical License is that is it compulsory. The Organisation might decline to accept the royalties but they cannot refuse the license. And it isn't the WBTS that grants the license.

 

Andy

[Janek]

25 minutes ago, Naturale said:

Whatever the case, Aled Jones is a really nice and genuine person, he would not have done anything wrong deliberately.  He probably didn't even know this is a witness song.  He would have had it presented by one of his team

Of course he did not do anything wrong. The UK law allows covers without asking anyone for permission.

Quote

 

Covers are a re-recorded version of a song, replacing the original vocals and instrumentation with your own. Under copyright law, cover versions cannot change the underlying melody or arrangement.

In the UK, you won’t need any licenses to release a cover song. However, you will need to acquire a Mechanical License for sales in North America.

 

https://www.acm.ac.uk/covers-remixes-samples-legally/#:~:text=Cover songs,to release a cover song.

[Hope]

The biggest drag to me is that our song is on a "Christian" (so-called) album with Christmas songs.  I don't like that at all 😡

[Mykyl]

2 hours ago, Andy Bell said:

Wikepedia quotes the book "Halloran, Mark (1996). "Copyrights: The Law and You". The Musician's Business & Legal Guide. Pretence Hall." as saying:

 

 

Sure, the legal experts will need to confirm whether it had to be released commercially, but none of the sources I have seen make that statement....

 

Andy

My quotes are much more recent.  It doesn't matter. It is in hand. One way or another.

Edited November 11, 2020 by Mykyl

[M.J.]

8 hours ago, Hope said:

The biggest drag to me is that our song is on a "Christian" (so-called) album with Christmas songs.  I don't like that at all 😡

Everyone keeps saying this is a Christmas album, but is it really? I'm not an expert, but it seems like the songs are deeply spiritual... and one or two happen to be a Christmas song, selected because it is very spiritually moving. But it is a great pity, that if someone liked our song, they couldn't be led to JW.org to receive a witness.

[Thesauron]

The biggest drag to me is that our song is on a "Christian" (so-called) album with Christmas songs.  I don't like that at all

Perhaps the publisher does not know how insulting it is to us? Or they don’t care? Which is worse?

[Naturale]

As has already been said the Warner Music Group definitely would understand fully the copyright laws and the legal obligations of recording music.  They would hardly risk being sued so there must have been permission given for it to be recorded and released but that doesn't really make any sense at all. ??

 Aled Jones is releasing it on his Interfaith Album. The song is just before Silent Night.  So it seems it is a Christmas Album.

 

Trouble is that it could be a bad witness since it could look to others like the WT is making profit :/

Edited November 12, 2020 by Naturale

[Naturale]

So what if the person who originally wrote the song has now  left the truth and wants to make some money?    I know I'm making it up