ERRORS THREAD Report Errors and Omissions Here

Sorry about that...you got it right as Dec 5, 2005

Thanks for the corrections, looks great as always

"For Annie" is an Edgar Allen Poe poem so no problem there as it's public domain.  Unfortunately, rather than reciting it myself, I sampled a version from a cassette audio book I bought many years ago called, "The Poetry of Edgar Allen Poe" - actually still available on amazon.  Actor David Warner (who I love from a couple Lovecraft based movies, "In the Mouth of Madness" and "Necronomicon - Book of the Dead") recited the poem and that's the version I used in the song.  While the poem is public domain, I don't have permission to use his recording of it or anything else from that audio book

I'm extremely careful about copyright (as you've probably noticed working on my MIJ discography these past few weeks), and the rules on Bandcamp are very clear and simple.  If you didn't write it, or if you sampled it without permission you're not allowed to upload it.  Ya, people do it anyway but they're taking a crazy risk and it's just not worth it. 

Case in point, my wife owns a social media marketing biz and several of her clients have used images they found on google images or just from internet searches in their social media without having permission from the image owner.  All of the sudden they receive a letter from Getty Images.  It basically says, "You're using one of our images without our permission.  We don't care if you immediately remove it, or if you give us accreditation, you violated our copyright.  Attached is an invoice for (usually between $750 and $1000) due in 10 days.  If payment is not received we will initiate legal proceedings."  And they'd win, and for a lot more than $1000

The other interesting case is youtube.  I posted some of Mutiny in Jonestown's Beatle cover tunes there in the past, sometimes without even putting the name of the song or band anywhere in the title, the name of the uploaded file, the comments, nowhere.  They apparently have a very smart algorithm, because they were still are able to determine the song and the current holder of copyright.  For fun (and to test just how good they really are), I recently posted a solo pedal steel guitar cover of a song from obscure doom metal band Cathedral that sounds almost nothing like the original, and they still flagged it as a copyright violation!  They must have some software that can analyze a chord progression and compare it to a billion songs or something looking for a match.  It's quite impressive!

After they identified my Beatle covers a few years ago they sent me an email that basically said, "you're violating copyright but it's ok because we have an arrangement with the owner of the copyright that we will embed adverts to monetize your video and forward all proceeds to the owner".  The main reason I never violate copyright on youtube anymore is...what happens if tomorrow Google (youtube's owner) changes their policy on monetizing copyright violators and decides it's more advantageous to enforce copyright the same way Getty Images does?  You're already on their list of youtube copyright violators and it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

It's a bummer because there are several Mutiny in Jonestown albums that are 50% to 100% cover tunes that I'd love people to hear, but there's no way I can get those songs out without becoming one of the 'fish in a barrel'.  Oh well, at this point I have 23 other MIJ albums of all original music up on Bandcamp and that's just going to have to be enough