FaX-01 wrote:How much of thsi bullshit is actually benefiting the artists.
Especially when mosed record companies own the publishing rights etc etc too alot of their rostered artists material.
If any of these LAWS actually benefited the artist's directly I wouldn't have a big issue with them.
The reality is they just use the artist as a foil too recoup more and more on their corporate bottom line.
The artist and the end user get screwed each and everytime.
The ratio of money earnt by artist too record company profit is atrocious.
It is infact quite possible to have 1-2 certified platinum album sales and still be in the red as an artist with regards to money owed for marketing / touring expenses / studio time / band fees / video production costs / legal fees etc etc etc ....
Look at TLC for example who still owed the record company close on $500,000 despite a swag of very commercially succesful releases.
And don't get me started on the whole "ponts" scheme and ratio of money per CD sale that goes to the artist before they have too repay all other marketing / promotional and associated debts.
It's such a con it isn't funny
i second that rant!
it's only a matter of time before they prosecute someone for whistleing while they work or singing in the shower.
what if i teach somebody the chords to a song; is that ok?
the only people to benefit from arguments over what constitutes a 'performance' or 'publishing' will be lawers. this is what happens when a company gives too much power to the legal department.
