Fist, I would ask you what is the legal meaning of the expression "cover song."

Second, there is the intertextuality issue in multimedia.

Third, even when there is a clear violation, if the suspect is famous and powerful... For instance, if a pop icon copies a song from a poor third world country, probably nobody will care.

Forth, human beings can be mean. There is an entertainment YouTube channel that decided to improvise a place where people would sing wherever they want, without musicians and in a very simple way. They lost monetization and the videos were removed. In my humble opinion, it was like asking somebody to stop to sing at home...

Nowadays, justice depends on how much power you have.

Best wishes.

Dear Carljohnson G. Anacin,

Most Internet users follow certain unwritten social norms and ethical principles, which are also becoming a factor in information globalization associated with the use of certain internet information services. However, not all Internet users follow these ethical principles, and not all users know these principles. The rules of ethics should therefore result from legal regulations. Legal regulations should be constantly updated, amended in connection with the dynamic progress of ICT information technologies and information services available on the Internet. Amendments to legal norms should be carried out on a regular basis, among others, to remove loopholes in legal norms, which are used by hackers and cybercriminals hacking websites of companies and institutions to steal confidential information or specific intangible assets and possibly also to steal money. for example, the theft of intangible assets may relate to the theft and publication of cultural goods, artistic goods in the field of e.g. music, film, etc. The publication of such goods by unauthorized persons on social media portals is currently one of the key problems in the development of the concept of open access to information and specific values intangible on the Internet. Currently, there is a discussion on this issue, which is to answer the question of what scope of responsibility are to take over social media portals in the increasingly common occurrences of publishing specific works of culture, works of art by unauthorized persons. The specified scope of liability may involve any additional fees or taxes. If these additional taxes were introduced, would social media portals introduce specific additional paid services or would they increase the prices of marketing services? Or maybe this problem will be solved in a completely different way, e.g. by using more advanced security tools by using Blockchain technology to secure the customized services of paid music reproduction, movies, etc. or playback with the need to watch ads of various other products and services. Perhaps the development of Internet 4.0 industry technologies will significantly contribute to solving the above problem.

Best wishes

Ethics, by definition, is the concept of what is good, bad, right and wrong. In social media, the right ethic equals the right perspective and the right thinking on how to leverage social media appropriately and how to engage people in the right manner. Etiquette is a code of behavior within the context of our society.

Please look at this article:

https://www.compukol.com/social-media-ethics-and-etiquette/

Fist, I would ask you what is the legal meaning of the expression "cover song."

Second, there is the intertextuality issue in multimedia.

Third, even when there is a clear violation, if the suspect is famous and powerful... For instance, if a pop icon copies a song from a poor third world country, probably nobody will care.

Forth, human beings can be mean. There is an entertainment YouTube channel that decided to improvise a place where people would sing wherever they want, without musicians and in a very simple way. They lost monetization and the videos were removed. In my humble opinion, it was like asking somebody to stop to sing at home...

Nowadays, justice depends on how much power you have.

Best wishes.

Interested and follow up

In terms of YouTube, if you do not properly get a synch license for a song, the owner of the song can claim ownership of the video's revenues on the platform.

Interesting

BTW, a "cover song" is a recording of a song that has already been released in some commercial manner. To re-record a commercial version of a song, the person making the song has to apply to the song writer or publisher of that song. This is called a compulsory license, as it must be proffered, with a statutory amount of remuneration per item sold over the course of time set in the licence.

Severe violation of copyrights.

Hi,

It is both an easy and a complicated question to answer.

My opinion is that, this is a legal, rather than an ethical issue.

I am not a lawyer, so... everything I say must be checked with the legal counsel of the university you work for.

(Pseudo)ethical concerns may arise, if the cover song proprietors (singer, music production company) have read your paper and one of them has felt disparaged by your analysis on the quality or impact of their work.

It also depends on whether the cover song you are analyzing is commercialized or not.

If it is commercialized and monetized on YouTube or Facebook, and you have seen it/ listened to it, it means that you have "paid":

- with your click,

- the witnessing of attached commercials, and

- the duration you have listen to the song,

to become aware of the existence of the song.

Since the song is on social media platform, through that monetized click, you also get the chance to express opinion of the song - in the comments section below (unless the comments have been turned off).

Any comment, even a disparaging one, can then be deleted by song's proprietor, if they have felt offended.

Yet, since they cannot delete your hard copy/ digitally published scientific paper (or the part of it that they have felt offended about), they can take legal action against you:

- NOT for property rights' violations (since you cite them in your paper with the relevant http link),

- NOT for anonymity (since they have posted their song from a personalized registered account on a social platform - whether with their full/abbreviated real name, a nickname, an avatar, etc. + the song has an identification: cover version of the song with "title" performed by "identity of singer"),

- NOT for consent (as it is social media - they have already consented to viewings and comments on the video, through their account-contract with YouTube and Facebook),

but...

they can definitely go after you for being a negative influencer of social opinion, since in your paper, you are not simply making a cursory comment, but you are analyzing their work in an essay form on a second forum - the scientific community, to which they are not registered (and thus are not in contract with to present their work).

Now, the scientific community is part of society, but is a specialized part - its purpose is to study, qualify and quantify based on educated, professional opinion, which carries more weight compared to ordinary viewers/ listeners.

Also, scientists are not anonymous. They are publishing their articles through affiliation with a specific educational institution, the reputation of which carries additional weight with potential audiences.

The offended song proprietors did not legally agree (meaning have not entered a contract with a specific natural or a legal person) as to the resulting triple "added bonus" analysis of their work.

If the cover song is not commercialized/ monetized, but is just a video made at home/ with friends - none of the above (I believe) applies.

There should not be any "ethical" issues unless you discuss negatively: gender, sexuality, religion, family values, institutions, crime (which, most probably, will ruin your analysis).

Again, I am not a lawyer...

:)