Uploading MP3's to the forum server will not be possible

[Pine]

The last thing SC admin wants is to get sued. They have to post that for liability sake. There are over 2300 covers posted at the moment...and that is just in country. No one can or will sue you if you aren't trying to make money. How many bands play covers all night in bars?...and they ARE getting paid. Neither Neil Young or his record company are going to get upset if Pinedog sings some of his songs. Nobody cares. If you try and charge and SC admin sees that, i would think they would indeed give you the boot to cover their own butt. I've never known anyone there to have had an issue with it.

[dwardzala]

I do realize its a CYA on their part, but it does make me uncomfortable enough that I won't use the site at this point.

[Ted]

No one can or will sue you if you aren't trying to make money. How many bands play covers all night in bars?...and they ARE getting paid. Neither Neil Young or his record company are going to get upset if Pinedog sings some of his songs. Nobody cares.

Pinedog: You're thinking reasonably.

The perspective of music publishers is that if you perform music from their catalog, you are taking something of value from them--unless you do it alone in a soundproof room with the lights out.

In the USA at least, bars have to pay licensing fees to the ASCAP for the right to play canned music or live music on their property--even if a live band plays all originals.

What Neil Young cares about is one thing.  What the publisher of his catalog cares about is another--and the publishers are the ones with the lawyers.  (They're the ones who tried to make cellular networks and their users liable when copyrighted music played on a ringtone in a public place.)

So it does matter.

The only things that keep us under the radar is that we are small, and apparently not backed by any deep pockets.  Sometime in the future, Admin's problem might not be about database servers load, but about take-down notices.

Personally, I think cover songs on this site are a potential problem for Admin and/or those of us who post them here.  If I were running this site, I'd have a Terms of Use agreement to which users of this site would have to agree, and that agreement would say (a) that the user is liable for any copyrighted work that they upload, and (b) any copyrighted work discovered on the site may be taken down without notice.  The YouTube model, essentially.

[Diego Ayala]

This forum has become a big part of my happenings, and I am stearing folks to the forum to listen to songs (including) some very cool covers - what we are doing is not malicious in any shape or form --- this is a great learning tool and a very relaxing site for me.  I for one think that if the problem deals with storage for our mp3's then lets handle it - I have posted some alternatives and there are some additional ones.

To me this is quite similar to getting together with family and friends and sharing music - and if we do covers it would not be much different than sitting in the UK/USA/Norway/Finland/Austalia/Brazil or any other location - around a camp fire sipping spirits and playing songs - including covers!

It is good that we are planning ahead, and I am truly amazed at the expertise of a lot of the folks on this thread regarding the issues and the possible fix.   - becaue to me this site is alot more than just a forum --- it is comparable to a school (the school of BR recorders and music), with developing friendships, learning material, and have a blast with it.

With the brain power on this site I am sure a workable solution will be found.

A BIG THANKS to Pedro, 64, Jim H and others that have taken it upon yourselfs to find workable solutions for us all!!!

[Pine]

Points well taken Ted. You are right on all counts. I know about ASCAP and the problems they have trying to collect on places that have some original bands, some cover bands, and the half and half. I once worked at a bar where we had a sound system and they wanted money for that. Owner didn't pay and they backed off. Your example of the ringtones is also a good one..but in that instance there was someone looking to profit from someone else without paying. I'm sure that you are right...if a publisher wanted to sue me for singing a Neil Young song (even though it was posted as "stream only"), he could. I'm just saying that i don't think that would ever happen. When the profit equation is removed, litigation becomes highly unlikely.
I guess if this issue makes ya nervous, it's best to just avoid it by not posting covers. It would definitely suck to find out i was getting sued over some crummy version of a Neil Young song that nobody ever listened to anyway  

PS...my apologies to all for taking this thread a bit off course

[Diego Ayala]

Points well taken Ted. You are right on all counts. I know about ASCAP and the problems they have trying to collect on places that have some original bands, some cover bands, and the half and half. I once worked at a bar where we had a sound system and they wanted money for that. Owner didn't pay and they backed off. Your example of the ringtones is also a good one..but in that instance there was someone looking to profit from someone else without paying. I'm sure that you are right...if a publisher wanted to sue me for singing a Neil Young song (even though it was posted as "stream only"), he could. I'm just saying that i don't think that would ever happen. When the profit equation is removed, litigation becomes highly unlikely.
I guess if this issue makes ya nervous, it's best to just avoid it by not posting covers. It would definitely suck to find out i was getting sued over some crummy version of a Neil Young song that nobody ever listened to anyway  

PS...my apologies to all for taking this thread a bit off course

This forum, would not be the same without covers ---  I for one do not think that we should have any problems - bands are getting payed at bars and such - so i agree with you!!!

[tony]

This forum, would not be the same without covers ---  I for one do not think that we should have any problems - bands are getting payed at bars and such - so i agree with you!!!

I don't think payment is the issue.  From the perspective of the copyright holder, if you 'do a cover' you are taking their property and publishing it internationally without their permission.  That is actionable.  Whether they would take any action is debatable but Warner's closed down a pizza joint near me for decking itself out as the batcave, JK Rowling's lawyers closed down a stick model of Hogwarts at an Indian religious festival, things happen.

If the idea is to move to a more secure footing then I think liability as well as load is an issue.  I also think that, as Ted suggests, the YouTube model, a disclaimer and promise of action if infringement offends, is a good idea.

One thing is for sure, you are never going to convince someone who wants to close you down, for whatever reason, that recording music on advanced digital technology and distributing it around the world is like sitting around a campfire.

[Ted]

If I were running this site, I'd have a Terms of Use agreement to which users of this site would have to agree, and that agreement would say (a) that the user is liable for any copyrighted work that they upload, and (b) any copyrighted work discovered on the site may be taken down without notice.  The YouTube model, essentially.

One thing I wouldn't do if I were the Admin, is ever comment on a cover song, or facilitate cover songs in any way (festivals, playlists, etc.).  The purpose would be to maintain deniability. "Your Honor, there are more than 100,000 posts on the site, I can't possibly be expected to monitor them all. However, I address all violations of the terms of use immediately when they are brought to my attention."

Sorry if my vicarious paranoia is a bummer.

P.S. Wouldn't Vicarious Paranoia be a good name for a band?

[Pedro]

Regarding the bluehost issue I think now it's the time to solve any flaws in my initial idea, specifically, the unlimited upload. It is really necessary to reduce the attachments database to ensure the continuity of our community.

I'm trying to see if it is possible to redirect all the attachments to an external webserver.

[Ted]

I'm trying to see if it is possible to redirect all the attachments to an external webserver.

If the issue is database load (and not disk space), couldn't you write the attachments to the same server you're on already?

My understanding of database-backed Web applications is that it's fairly inefficient to store binary data (such as sound, image, and video files) in database tables. This is why the database seems to be the issue (its size and the strain on the server), and not the amount of storage space.

Web developers prefer to store in the database a reference (i.e. path and filename) to where the file is stored.  So the database has to supply a bit of HTML, instead hundreds of KB of data.

I just poked around looking for a mod that does this.  I didn't find one, but I bet someone in the SMF developers community might have a solution for this problem.  Have you asked around?