Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 10:38 am
by nolus
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.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:46 pm
by henry ford
ugggghhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhHHhhhHHHhhHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Copyright gone crazy
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:40 pm
by Suade
[quote="nolus"]
it's only a matter of time before they prosecute someone for whistleing while they work or singing in the shower.
[quote]
The time has been and gone already. Did you know that ASCAP, the organisation which collects songwriting royalties in the USA sued the Girl Scouts for singing their members songs around their campfires without paying?
If you are really interested in Copyright Issues I'd suggest reading Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture. it's freely available from his website
www.lessig.org. I haven't yet read his other books but this one is a fascinating read, very in-depth on copyright issues and full of fantastic anecdotes which illustrate the main point which is that the idea of copyright has been misused and transformed by greedy middlemen with little or no interest in the views or financial health of creative people.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:19 pm
by djsynchro
spiderprod wrote:elemental wrote:What a load of shit. These people are getting desperate. FFS!!
.
Well you can be sure that the Karaoke bar already pays public performance royalties for playing copyrighted music. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, that's just the way it is.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:26 pm
by basetwo
<sarcasm>The direction they are going, they'd actually end up making it illegal to "reverse-engineer" any song. They'd have to start blacking out music videos where they did close-ups on a guitarist's hands so people couldn't easily learn how he played a particular chord or achieved a specific sound.
Come to think of it, why don't they just copyright the chords?</sarcasm>
Seriously, though, how many people have learned to play instruments by being inspired, and to some degree, copying various artists? I know guitarists and keyboardists do. It would be really cool if musicians just stopped producing for these jerks. All they do is try to squash the creative spirit and hamper those who would come after. Not that many of the major artists today are really great examples of talent, but still...
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:00 am
by telekom
and then there's the opposite of all this...
www.creativecommons.org
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:28 am
by Moody
Is it illegal to sing in the shower?
