United Church of God is encouraging its members who are singing in Feast of Tabernacles choirs at Feast sites to photocopy the sheet music they will be singing from. Instead of UCG doing what is morally right, purchasing the sheet music for the choirs, it is telling members to commit an illegal act.
Is UCG so financially strapped that they cannot spend a few hundred/thousand dollars on some sheet music? They can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on failed ad campaigns, office redecorating, personal appearances, and playground equipment, but they cannot buy some sheet music. Isn't that what the non-biblical 3rd tithe you collect is supposedly for?
In the UCG post previously, United Church of God: Continues To Struggle On How to Remain Relevant In The 21st Century the following comments were made:
Feastgoer said...
A stunning sign of $$ troubles in UCG right now is the request at one Feast site for all choir members to print out the sheet music, and carry it with them to the Feast.Another comment was made:
Is there not enough "Tithe of the Tithe" to purchase songs?
If UCG sent out an e-mail requesting that people violate copyright, the statutory penalty is $500 - $20,000 per violation, but rises to $100,000 if the violation can be shown to be willful.A quick internet search finds this:
If music stores or orchestra leaders could simply buy one copy of sheet music and photocopy it for all their customers or band members, the composer and publishing house would not be able to make a living and create more unique music. Copyright laws protect composers and music publisher's rights; it is a violation of copyright law to reproduce sheet music without permission from the copyright holder.
Copying
The copyright owner of a piece of sheet music owns the sole right to copy and distribute that sheet music including both the notes and words contained on it, according to the U.S. Copyright Office. Copying sheet music either by photocopier, scanner or by hand, or copying out any individual part or voice from that music without the express permission of the copyright owner is a copyright law violation. Illegal photocopying significantly diminishes the income of music composers, arrangers and publishers, according to the Music Publishers Association of the United States. Copyright violators may be sued for monetary damages. Sheet Music Copyright Laws
Reminiscent of HWA's letter telling members to get bank loans under false pretenses and send him the money.
ReplyDeleteIf the composers died decades ago copying their music is no big deal and won't reduce their income. The publishers are just trying to cash in on music they didn't even write. It's a scam, which is why in some countries you can copy all the music you want for no cost.
ReplyDeleteReally banned? No better stories than this huh.
ReplyDeleteThese copyright laws are taken seriously, and have been for some time. About 25 years ago, one of the major copyshop chains that usually has stores close to college and university campuses was the subject of a lawsuit for such violations, and was nearly blackballed.
ReplyDeletePiracy of all sorts has been subject to stronger enforcement over the past decade, whether it be unauthorized showing of videos, illegal downloading of music, or reproduction of copyrighted written materials.
You'd expect a church movement that encourages members to take out loans they don't expect to pay due to the church fleeing to be unethical in other ways.
BB
I find the answers from the members "no better stories than this?" and one about the composers being dead anyway, etc to be ugly.
ReplyDeleteIt shows the low moral state of the church of god. They are so flippant about law breaking.
Sorry Jack, but not true. I am one of the strictest, especially on myself when it comes to law breaking. The point of my post regarding "no better stories than this"; is that there are much worse things going on than to talk about or make a big deal about something so small in comparison when I know of ministers (so called), who are leading people astray by perverting scripture, and doing all other sorts of ungodly things. Bigger fish to fry is all I am saying.
DeleteIntellectual property is a very real thing. Even if the original author is dead, his heirs have rights. Some things are in the public domain but I know for a fact as an avid past square dancer, that square dance callers paid a set amount each year to the music association to cover their use of copyrighted records at their square dances. How much of that was actually paid out to the artists I'm not sure, but they got something, probably based on how many of their records were sold to callers. If you were in the business, it would be a thing of meaning to you, believe me.
ReplyDeleteAllen C. Dexter
The ACOGs ministers rob members of their adulthood, so this is unsurprising and petty in comparison.
ReplyDeleteCopyright is largely a legal issue, while plagiarism, which is well known to COG critics, is largely a moral and academic issue. There is some degree of overlap between the two.
ReplyDeleteIf challenged, UCG could try a claim of Fair Use.
Anon 522 wrote Really banned? No better stories than this huh.
ReplyDeleteJust keeping one step ahead of Bob Thiel...
Does it depend upon whether or not the songs are copyrighted? If the songs are not copyrighted and are in the general domain, does making photocopies become a mute point?
ReplyDeleteConnie, a good point. I know I jumped in earlier thinking the accusation had been verified, and hope it was, but then I came across this UCG Children’s Choir Music page.
ReplyDeleteNotice the copyright acknowledgement, and Used by permission. It’s possible that printing out the music from the website page was permitted. They could have been told to sing the music from the webpage on their smartphones, but that may have conflicted with a ruling on using phones during services.
Hhaha.
ReplyDeleteI love this how you keep the pressure on.
But truth be said. Private ownership and property are the basis and among the foundational principles of western civilization.
Nck
Jack wrote:
ReplyDelete"I find the answers from the members "no better stories than this?" and one about the composers being dead anyway, etc to be ugly.
It shows the low moral state of the church of god. They are so flippant about law breaking."
Exactly! The moral state of the COG has been in decline for decades and continues. The church has always felt it was above the law in so many things just because they were a church. If they really were the true church, practicing first century Christianity, they would not be expecting church members to photocopy music. The church always seems to find ways around doing what is actually right.
Hahaha
ReplyDeleteAnd we have "fire and brimstone BB" reporting those poor little children singing from their photocopied sheets.
Hahaha this is priceless.
The innocence of those children, BB's comment, the corporate lawyers I deal with, and the infringement on the foundation of our culture (property rights) since Roman times.
"Please rise, pick up your hymnals and sing out......Oh how love I thou law......."
Nck
And.... here's a related tangential rant that nobody cares about, but...
ReplyDeleteNot to side with UCG, which would claim to obey the law of the land and hence ought to pay any and all copyright fees, still, the concept of the "illegality" of using modern technology to copy works, and the music industry's attempt to equate going down to the Xerox or printer (for convenience or whatever), with some sort of felony-like activity, is something that is rather bizarre if you think about it.
I kind of think that if the producer/performer is using technology to multiply their profits, then the listener/user ought to be able to use similar technology to their benefit as well.
Was once a time (prior to printing/recording) that a performer got paid for what they performed. If you wanted more money, you performed again, got people to pay to come listen to you. More diligence, more income. Performers were not necessarily the richest among us.
With the advent of recordings, now you could perform once, and let technology do the rest of the work for you. You let a machine make unlimited numbers of digital copies that cost essentially $0, and charge whatever you think people will pay for it, and joy of joys, they do! So you can get megarich with just one hit song, which is all thanks to technology, nothing you yourself have done.
So it seems rather one-side to complain that listeners would use that same technology (digital copying) to multiply their listening pleasure. What's sauce for the goose...
Sorry, got way off topic. Bottom line is, UCG ought to pay those fees if they claim to follow Jesus' or Paul's teachings.
Regardless as to the actual circumstances as they relate to UCG and the Feast special music, it's always best to run these things through proper legal channels, because the penalties later down the road can be severe. English musicians who were fans of American Blues from the late 1920s through '50s discovered this the hard way. Songs that were thought to be in the public domain were not properly vetted or credited on record albums to the writers or their estates. Led Zeppelin were sued on several occasions, as were the Beatles and Rolling Stones. These groups were not deliberately attempting to steal the works of others for the most part. In fact, they revived the careers of some of the originators of the genre, and bumped them upwards and into more affluent lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteIf somehow the UCG chorale or choir were to go viral on Youtube (not likely, but it could happen), the layers of a whole different onion could begin to peel.
BB
The headline ‘UCG tells choir members to commit Illegal Act for Feast’ seems to be a case of accusation without any evidence, based on one person’s assumption.
ReplyDeleteThere are several factors to take into account.
First of all, are the pieces in question in copyright at all? Many older works are out of copyright, and can be freely used and copied, without any legal problems.
Also, UCG itself owns copyright or it has been freely given permission by other organisations for some material (e.g. most of the old WCG copyright hymns, WCG gave blanket permission for UCG to use many years ago). So again, no problem in copying the music.
Secondly, as Hoss has pointed out, and provided a link, UCG has sought permission for the children’s choir songs to be used at the Feast, and permission has been granted for that music to be downloaded and printed by anyone with children that may be taking part at the various feast sites.
UCG has done this for many years, so why should it be assumed that this hasn’t be done for other music that will be performed?
Certainly I am aware a few years ago at the feast site I was attending, permission had be given by the copyright owner that a certain piece could be performed, and copies made by members of the choir, provided that the copies were destroyed after the performance.
Another relevant point, there is no copyright infringement if copyright works are used in a live worship service – this is a special exception in both US and UK copyright law. This exception does not allow that the music can be recorded or cybercast. This is why clauses such as the following appear on UCG cybercast wed sites:-
“Note: Due to copyright and privacy issues, the webcast may be muted from time to time. Specifically, for some hymns and most special and/or offertory music, audio will not be broadcast.”
Again, this shows that UCG is aware of, and follows, copyright restrictions.
Copyright law is a bit of a minefield, but UCG appears to be trying to follow the law.
And I'm sure that nobody on here ever breaks the law.
ReplyDeleteThey would never jaywalk even when no traffic is coming; they would dutifully walk a mile to the nearest pedestrian crossing.
Nobody on here would ever speed. No sir. Not a single mile per hour over the limit.
Nobody here, not one person, fails to come to a complete stop (wheels not turning at all) at every single stop sign.
Nobody here ever runs a yellow light.
If you all applied the law as strictly to yourselves as you do to the COGs you would have to take yourselves off the road. You probably get enough points in a single day to lose your license.
But if you want to complain about ministers driving 15 m.p.h. over the limit, well that's another story, because they do, and it is dangerous.
There's a difference, 12:10. We're not ultra-pharisissies who insist on everyone keeping the law to the nth degree, and then advocate breaking it when it's more convenient.
DeleteSalivating over Germans hanging family members on meathooks for not keeping the sabbath and then advising people to break or ignore laws or human decency to benefit your church is something we SHOULD critique. And, I type this at Jimmy Johns having just driven 90 mph through the desert makin' it back to civilization. Oh, and I had some outrageous rock playing super loud on the car's stereo system.
BB
Youtube is fond of citing copyright law on music if they don't like your political point of view. They use that to take down your videos. In the mean time, others whom they favor get away with it.
ReplyDeleteThe people that left the WCG to join the UCG warned that because the WCG was abandoning the law that all sense of right and wrong would result by members who embraced the salvation by grace teachings. But now members of the UCG are being told to take what is not legally theirs by braking copy-right laws. What hypocracy!
ReplyDeleteIn early 1995, after the major doctrinal changes, the minister of the congregation I attended stated in a sermon that hymnals where disappearing. He suspected the members that where leaving where taking them home to use in whatever splinter group they where joining. Again, what hypocracy! They could try to justify that as much as they want but the fact is they where taking what was not theirs to take!