Songs you have a theological problem with....list em here

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrimes87

no offence (this has nothing to do with the previous topic), but isn't that illegal? i could be wrong, but i would have assumed that unless the songwriter gave you permission to do that, then it would be illegal.

like i said, no offence Sean. I'm not picking on you or anything, it's just something I noticed. I do it myself, and often, actually....among other things that might be considered 'illegal'. I'm not placing blame or anything, just curious.

I'm in Canada, by the way, so the laws could very well be different.

Why would it be illegal? A law like that would be impossible to enforce. Because you literally would have to say the EXACT words that are on the copyright of the song that is stored in Congress (in the US). Being that none of us have access to that on your average day of the week, it would be impossible to know the actual words. Thus, how could you make sure that you sang them and who would be checking to make sure you're right?

Rich* · 10-30-2004, 12:05 PM

Quote:

A law like that would be impossible to enforce

just because it would be impossible to enforce doesn't make it legal!
the song is copyrighted as it was written and that is how it should be in all songbooks (the compilers of which presumably would check that their words match the 'official' version) and then that is how it should be sung. obviously it isn't really a problem changing a few words but that doesn't make it legal.

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Am-Snappy

just because it would be impossible to enforce doesn't make it legal!
the song is copyrighted as it was written and that is how it should be in all songbooks (the compilers of which presumably would check that their words match the 'official' version) and then that is how it should be sung. obviously it isn't really a problem changing a few words but that doesn't make it legal.

Show me the law?

Rich* · 10-30-2004, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by www.copyright.gov

Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
-To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
-To prepare derivative works based upon the work

i assume that means that you cannot change it unless you have permission

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I-Am-Snappy

i assume that means that you cannot change it unless you have permission

I wouldn't call changing "above all" to "Lord of all" a derivative work being that I give full credit to the author and I'm paying the author their appropriate fees for use of their material. A derivative work would be if I wrote my own song and took the chorus of "Above All" and used it in my song. If you can't change a single word in a song, then you wouldn't be able to change a single chord either. If you added some transition chord or a key change or slightly altered the melody.....you'd be in violation of the law. That simply doesn't make any sense.

Copyrights don't ban you from altering someone elses music. You just have to give credit where credit is do and pay them for their intellectual property.

***Leboman*** · 10-30-2004, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

Copyrights don't ban you from altering someone elses music. You just have to give credit where credit is do and pay them for their intellectual property.

Exactly....if the opposite were true there'd be no rap music.

agrimes87 · 10-30-2004, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Modlin

Exactly....if the opposite were true there'd be no rap music.

seriously though.....you have to draw the line somewhere.

Jay Tea · 10-30-2004, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Modlin

Exactly....if the opposite were true there'd be no rap music.

I believe special licenses exist for the purpose of a derivative work.

Quote:

If you can't change a single word in a song, then you wouldn't be able to change a single chord either. If you added some transition chord or a key change or slightly altered the melody.....you'd be in violation of the law. That simply doesn't make any sense.

Not entirely. The only portions of a song that are copyrighted are the lyrics and melody, IIRC.

Further, if you're making a change to a song because you think a song is theologically lacking, and your version isn't, that seems to me to be a major change to the song, regardless of the number of words changed. It may be a difficult to enforce law, and you'd probably never get taken to court on it, but I wouldn't bet on you winning if you did.

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

Not entirely. The only portions of a song that are copyrighted are the lyrics and melody, IIRC.

Instrumentals aren't copywritten?

Quote:

Further, if you're making a change to a song because you think a song is theologically lacking, and your version isn't, that seems to me to be a major change to the song, regardless of the number of words changed. It may be a difficult to enforce law, and you'd probably never get taken to court on it, but I wouldn't bet on you winning if you did.

What are you violating though? You're giving them credit for their work and compensating them for it. What are you getting taken to court for?

***Leboman*** · 10-30-2004, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

Further, if you're making a change to a song because you think a song is theologically lacking, and your version isn't, that seems to me to be a major change to the song, regardless of the number of words changed. It may be a difficult to enforce law, and you'd probably never get taken to court on it, but I wouldn't bet on you winning if you did.

Changing that one lyric would be the same as some people leaving out the "Precious Lord reveal Your heart to me" part in God Of Wonders. I've heard it recorded with and without that line. It's ad libbing.

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lee Modlin

Changing that one lyric would be the same as some people leaving out the "Precious Lord reveal Your heart to me" part in God Of Wonders. I've heard it recorded with and without that line. It's ad libbing.

Bingxactly!

If you took it the logical extremes, anytime you goofed up a word while singing you'd in fact be breaking the law. I have a really really really hard time believing that is true.

agrimes87 · 10-30-2004, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean

If you took it the logical extremes, anytime you goofed up a word while singing you'd in fact be breaking the law

not if the correct lyrics were on the screen (or whatever you use).

**Sean** · 10-30-2004, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agrimes87

not if the correct lyrics were on the screen (or whatever you use).

Part of a CCLI liscense is permission to perform the songs. Artists (even praise bands) have to pay to be allowed to perform others songs. Their performance is just as subject to copyright laws as is the words being put on screen. Concert venues (that aren't in violation of the law) pay to have a liscense so that artists can perform covers at their venues. In fact, theoritically speaking artists get paid by venues everytime they perform their own songs if the venue is actually keeping track of the music they're playing like they're suppose to.

Jay Tea · 10-30-2004, 08:31 PM

I believe I have to eat crow here. According to www.copyright.gov, derivative works seem to be more significant in scope than changing lyrics in any respect.

agrimes87 · 10-31-2004, 09:32 AM

Someone call a lawyer, or ask a government rep or something. I'm not american, so since most everyone here seems to be american, one of you should take the liberty of asking a government rep.

That's what they're there for, right?