when the artist of any sought after record going for say...$100 and up is contacted by a dealer, who buys all of the remaining copies from the artist for $10-20 a pop....and then turns around and sells them for $100 and up..... artist is in the dark never sees a dime on the reflip. oh what..you aint know your records go for loot cat-daddy.
i know this has happened over a paticular record that was tracked, dude saw the ebay auction after the fact and was heeeeaaated.
Paying 25% of perceived value is pretty standard for purchasing store stock. Rounding that downward due to expected decrease in value when lots of copies of a single title are at play makes sense (of course other factors could change this equation too: buying out remaining stock of a very limited title that is going up in value could mean rounding upward as well I suppose).
Of course, I'm not referring to an individual trying to get his e-hustle on here, just speaking on the mechanics of the physical record store since I've worked at one for a longass time...
As far as the blog game is concerned... I don't know, it seems like there's just so much obscure stuff available that you wouldn't be able to purchase otherwise and the ethics aren't really a concern to me in that case. I also don't mind downloading a rip of a record I already own cuz its just a lot easier than making it myself.
What bothers me is when I hear folks say they're not going to bother reissuing something because its already all over the web... I don't care much about low bit-rate MP3s of old records personally, and if I can't buy a quality reish b/c that stuff is out there thats a damn shame. I don't think the availability of old obscure music online affects the market that much cuz its one of those things that most of the people who buy it will continue to buy regardless, but I could see how a relatively small reduction in sales could have a big impact on the (mostly small) labels that do these things right.
obviously none of this digital dling stops me from wanting to own the vinyl....so.
when people were taping FULL LPS from radio stations, this was a big problem for the industry. the same argument was at hand. labels/ artists werent making money and they wanted to control this. whether its one song or 1/2 a song...the riaa will tell you its the same as the whole lp.
with the exception of some extremely rare lps for download floating about, i would assume the artists would be happy that that music is being enjoyed/listened to....thats what its for. not to be shelved due to some corporate red tape or long forgotten about cuz it was so hard to own a copy.
most of the lps i see full rips of online are not indie for the most part. most bloggers dont even own the super sought after "raers". i see tons of stax, capitol, cti, and all kinds of major label stuff online. speaking of swindles, take the group "boston" read up on the deal they signed for an lp that you will hear on the radio forever. one of the worst contracts in the business was signed. they got fucked.
tons of artists are now GIVING away the music on line. the future is now, most artists (not labels) have stopped making $$ from the actual music they make vs merch and touring. lets be real.
That's the ARTIST'S decision, not some dude sitting behind a computer sharing his high-priced record collection.
thing is, dude sharing his high priced collection, isnt making any money...hes actually just promoting. if one can obtain physical promos (free) why is this really that bad ?
you said it best... the ARTISTS decision. thats the way it should be! artists are tired of labels running/controlling shit. artists usually dont get to make any decisions with their music.
remember when prince wrote slave on his cheek ? if i were prince and saw bloggers uploading my entire warner bros cat. for free...i wouldnt care. labels making %85 is absurd !
on a major, (majority of artists) the most you can get is %15 out of a whole pie !!! wtf kind of shit is that ? dont forget the fact that the artist is forced to give up the masters. the industry on a whole has been raping artists far too long now. its near impossible for some of todays biggest producers to get remix projects going from corporate giants like WEA, because they just dont give a F*ck about the music/ artists that they OWN the rights to. its all about dollars. itd be nice if all you had to do was get permission from the artist...since it is theirs...siiiike !
as far as the inventory/ turnover deal... say new music is being sold to a dist. for around $6 then sold to any online stores for say $8, then sold to the consumer for $10-15. not much mark up going on here.
if people are going to get all up in arms about bloggers uploading artists music to give away for free ( because your ripping the artist/label off) then the same sentiments should be there when "xyz" is getting raped for all remaining copies of the sought after 45" that xyz sold to the dealer/collector for next to nothing, compared to what that dealer KNOWS they are worth.
its not like anybody is saying," hey buddy you know these records im buying off of you are priceless, and you deserve a cut more than i do...so heres $2k from the one 45 i sold for $3k".
if heads are so worried about situations of artists not getting paid, why not hip the artists to this within this particular practice ?
the middleman is now playing the same role of the big corporate label.
imo, this is worse than any of the illegal downloading.
its certainly not as if any one of us is selling our illegally downloaded internet files to make money.
amir and i could never have done something like on track if we were to go about it "legally". do you know how much the on track/ off track stuff has ben bootlegged/ on megaupload/blogged !
all of this is just devils advocate...just saying the sale of music has never really been about the artist getting what they deserve. has it ?
im all about getting the choke hold labels have had on artists, done away with. its bullshit.
charge it to the game b/w i aint mad..get cha money !
One thing I was thinking about earlier is that these blogs aren't charging necessarily, but they're getting something out of it. Blog traffic doesn't exactly pay the rent, but there are intangibles there. The dude with the illest blog is certainly gaining some kind of capital, one way or the other. I mean, I don't make money off my blog but my blog certainly has helped me make money in other ways, you know?
Also, I don't really feel like most of these blogs are promoting the artist. I mean sure, they're spreading the music but how many of these blogs feature any serious attempt to research or find the artist/band? The vibe I get, most of the time, is that the blogs use the music as a form of self-promotion, not selling the artist so much as the blogger's possession of the record. To the extent that it inspires other collectors to pick up used copies of the record, it's still not really of any benefit to the artist. Let's face it, how many times are these artists going to be able to assemble a touring career out of this? Sure it happens, once in a blue moon... but the people I can think of who actually birth careers for older artists are not album-blogging. They're reissuing, writing, compiling.
I agree that there's lots of terrible contracts in the recording industry. I just don't really follow the logic that the existence of shitty record deals makes it OK for us all to freely reproduce artists' material.
One thing I was thinking about earlier is that these blogs aren't charging necessarily, but they're getting something out of it. Blog traffic doesn't exactly pay the rent, but there are intangibles there. The dude with the illest blog is certainly gaining some kind of capital, one way or the other. I mean, I don't make money off my blog but my blog certainly has helped me make money in other ways, you know?
What about blogs that don't take advertising? I can assure you that the total amount of swag I've received in the five years I've been blogging is just about worthless.
I do a Paypal drive once a year to pay for the server space for the blog and the web zine, but that's about it.
I wasn't really pointing at you Larry - I think your blog's great - but to play devil's advocate, you never got a gig based on your blog? Never made a connection through it that gained you access to some records? There's other stuff than ad dollars that can benefit someone with a good site.
That's what I meant about not making money directly off my blog, but getting other things through it.
I wasn't really pointing at you Larry - I think your blog's great - but to play devil's advocate, you never got a gig based on your blog? Never made a connection through it that gained you access to some records? There's other stuff than ad dollars that can benefit someone with a good site.
That's what I meant about not making money directly off my blog, but getting other things through it.
I've definitely gotten DJ gigs, and someone once gave me a raer [/b]out of the goodness of their heart, but all told, it's not a lot.
i dont blog whole lps, and with all of the great music in my collection, certainly not trying to gain cool points by posting it up.
while there are some blogs out there that just post a pic of the lp and a link and thats all, there are a bunch ive seen that really go in depth with the story behind the lp and so on. if it were a perfect world, record companies would take the same time that these particular bloggers do, to shine light on lps and the artists recorded over 30 years ago. for me...its like free the music already.
if its too expensive for the labels to revamp because they wont make any MORE money off of something they have ALREADY made money on, blogging is an option they should thnk about. in a bigger picture its keeping the music alive, not killing it.
i feel what your saying johnny...theres mos def. some bogus hype going on for sure, im just not buying into this artists not getting paid via free dls thing. truth is even if we go out and buy the vinyl after the download..im not really putting money back into the artists pocket. which i would gladly do.
it sickens me to hear stories of the riaa showing up at clubs trying to get money for music they own being illegally played by djs. shits evil.
Technically Jonny. To the RIAA & the big labels and even some artist. Even what Good Records does is illegal and/or disrespectful to artist.
I've been reading this thread form the bottom up and the only thing that kept coming into mind about Jonnys stance is that he is making money on other peoples records, Unless he is keeping a percentage of the money made from each artist/album to be given to each artist upon potential request I'd say its fairly hypocritical to speak out on this practice.
It's not hypocritical at all, Adam - the acquisition and subsequent sale of physical copies of used records is not even in the same retail subsection as the sale of new merchandise. It's not even in the same ballpark as unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted material.
The key word there is "reproduction". Something I am not doing. The used records in my shop have already been produced, manufactured, and sold. Whether or not the artist got their cut then is none of my concern, beyond my general hope that all artists get compensated fairly.
Dudes are making great leaps of logic here. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material, no matter how pro- or con- you are to it, is not the same as buying and selling a used record. It just isn't. If you have a problem with the buying and selling of old records, for great or small profit, then make a thread about that. Otherwise, it's just a strawman put up to make everyone feel better about owning a shit ton of music that nobody has been paid for.
Technically Jonny. To the RIAA & the big labels and even some artist. Even what Good Records does is illegal and/or disrespectful to artist.
I've been reading this thread form the bottom up and the only thing that kept coming into mind about Jonnys stance is that he is making money on other peoples records, Unless he is keeping a percentage of the money made from each artist/album to be given to each artist upon potential request I'd say its fairly hypocritical to speak out on this practice.
this over simplifying...Johnny sells used records, the sale that nets the artist money has already occured (promos excluded)...you dont give GM a cut when you sell your used Buick...painters dont get a cut when someone re-sells a painting.
Actually Garth Brooks tried to help introduce a law years ago that would require used CD shops to pay royalties on what they sold...the whole idea is beyond rediculous. Why just records? We should have to pay roaylties to the desgner of pieces of clothing that get sold at resale shops, we should have to pay publishers for used books that are sold...etc...
Actually Garth Brooks tried to help introduce a law years ago that would require used CD shops to pay royalties on what they sold...the whole idea is beyond rediculous. Why just records? We should have to pay roaylties to the desgner of pieces of clothing that get sold at resale shops, we should have to pay publishers for used books that are sold...etc...
hardly a valid point
I'm assuming it came up because this was something the RIAA pursued several times over the past 20 years, back when they had the time/energy to get all nit-picky and greedy about little shit like this.
It isn't really comparable, although my guilt over the fact that I buy pretty much all my music used is greater than whatever I feel about the MP3s I have.
With music, the RIAA and labels are saying that you don't own anything. You just have a licence. When you buy a car, YOU OWN THE CAR.
This is my main problem with music sales.
If anyone expects me to buy music... I want the right to use it any way I deem fit. For example, NO DRM telling me how and on what I can listen to what I just bought or allow me to resell. Until the day that the RIAA/Majors understand this...
It's not hypocritical at all, Adam - the acquisition and subsequent sale of physical copies of used records is not even in the same retail subsection as the sale of new merchandise. It's not even in the same ballpark as unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted material.
The key word there is "reproduction". Something I am not doing. The used records in my shop have already been produced, manufactured, and sold. Whether or not the artist got their cut then is none of my concern, beyond my general hope that all artists get compensated fairly.
Dudes are making great leaps of logic here. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material, no matter how pro- or con- you are to it, is not the same as buying and selling a used record. It just isn't. If you have a problem with the buying and selling of old records, for great or small profit, then make a thread about that. Otherwise, it's just a strawman put up to make everyone feel better about owning a shit ton of music that nobody has been paid for.
where I'm approaching this from is the call that its unfair to the artist to redistribute their music. To exploit an artists work for profit, whether its a liscencing thing or not is still to make money on their work, right? It is from this view that I'm saying you shouldn't throw stones at these glass housed blogs.
and to say its ok to post a song, but not an album is strange too. I am currently working on multiple music licensing agreements, all of which are for individual songs or portions of individual songs. How is it ok to post a song, but criticize others for posting full albums?
it sounds more like justifying what you do while still trying to find issue with others doing similar things.
and to say its ok to post a song, but not an album is strange too. I am currently working on multiple music licensing agreements, all of which are for individual songs or portions of individual songs. How is it ok to post a song, but criticize others for posting full albums?
it sounds more like justifying what you do while still trying to find issue with others doing similar things.
Obviously I disagree Ad*m...Maybe they are technically the same from a legal standpoint (though I think there's room to disagree there as well). Posting a single song with historical background and original commentary isn't remotely the same thing as ripping an album (if they even did that)posting a link and a picture and then basically setting up your own mini-torrent site. I've been doing the blog for five years and almost ten if you include the web zine. I have never gotten anything but positive feedback from artists and their families, and the only takedown request I ever got was from Soul Jazz (re: Ernie K Doe and 'Here Come the Girls').
and to say its ok to post a song, but not an album is strange too. I am currently working on multiple music licensing agreements, all of which are for individual songs or portions of individual songs. How is it ok to post a song, but criticize others for posting full albums?
it sounds more like justifying what you do while still trying to find issue with others doing similar things.
Obviously I disagree Ad*m...Maybe they are technically the same from a legal standpoint (though I think there's room to disagree there as well). Posting a single song with historical background and original commentary isn't remotely the same thing as ripping an album (if they even did that)posting a link and a picture and then basically setting up your own mini-torrent site. I've been doing the blog for five years and almost ten if you include the web zine. I have never gotten anything but positive feedback from artists and their families, and the only takedown request I ever got was from Soul Jazz (re: Ernie K Doe and 'Here Come the Girls').
I understand where you're coming from, and just to clarify I myself have no issue with posting music on the internet. I've posted songs on soulstrut and even put up full LP's in the real heads section.
my head scratching came from reading people talk against posting music because the artist isn't being paid liscencing, And to have it come from someone who sells music that doesn't go to paying the artist was just strange. Especially when I've seen that person post music themselves for both personal and business reasons (ie advertising and set sales)
Posting a single song with historical background and original commentary isn't remotely the same thing as ripping an album (if they even did that)posting a link and a picture and then basically setting up your own mini-torrent site.
once again I agree. but to qualify with a recent story about the show I work on. We had Robin Thicke on and he was discussing his parents as TV theme songwriters and Our guy did a verbal reinterpretation of the opening to the fact of Life he literally said (not sang) "you take the good you take the bad, you take them all and there you have"
we were charged $5000 for the use of the song.
bottom line, it doesn't come down to what any of us reason to ourselves but rather what the publishers and owners of the music say.
It's not hypocritical at all, Adam - the acquisition and subsequent sale of physical copies of used records is not even in the same retail subsection as the sale of new merchandise. It's not even in the same ballpark as unlicensed reproduction of copyrighted material.
The key word there is "reproduction". Something I am not doing. The used records in my shop have already been produced, manufactured, and sold. Whether or not the artist got their cut then is none of my concern, beyond my general hope that all artists get compensated fairly.
Dudes are making great leaps of logic here. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material, no matter how pro- or con- you are to it, is not the same as buying and selling a used record. It just isn't. If you have a problem with the buying and selling of old records, for great or small profit, then make a thread about that. Otherwise, it's just a strawman put up to make everyone feel better about owning a shit ton of music that nobody has been paid for.
where I'm approaching this from is the call that its unfair to the artist to redistribute their music. To exploit an artists work for profit, whether its a liscencing thing or not is still to make money on their work, right? It is from this view that I'm saying you shouldn't throw stones at these glass housed blogs.
This is moronic - what don't you understand about my post above? I'm not redistributing anything. Once an album is bought, the ownership of the physical merchandise is transferred. When that album is sold yet again, say, to a junker - the ownership is again transferred. When I buy it from the junker, I obtain ownership of the physical product (let's just say we're dealing with commercial copies not promos here). None of us own the material contained on the physical album, which is why it's technically illegal to reproduce it. Thankfully, it is not illegal to re-sell used merchandise, at least not in the fine state of New York.
and to say its ok to post a song, but not an album is strange too. I am currently working on multiple music licensing agreements, all of which are for individual songs or portions of individual songs. How is it ok to post a song, but criticize others for posting full albums?
it sounds more like justifying what you do while still trying to find issue with others doing similar things.
I'm not trying to argue the relative legality of either thing, both are just as illegal as the other. I'm arguing for some restraint, and most importantly some investment beyond just the wholesale duplication and passing around of someone else's work.
You're licensing stuff for television. Not a blog with a low visitor count. Let's stick to the apples here, leave the oranges for another thread.
my head scratching came from reading people talk against posting music because the artist isn't being paid liscencing, And to have it come from someone who sells music that doesn't go to paying the artist was just strange.
Dude - it's not even remotely the same thing. I'm amazed that you could be doing licensing of anything and not see this difference.
Especially when I've seen that person post music themselves for both personal and business reasons (ie advertising and set sales)
If you're talking about me posting music on my blog, guilty as charged. Like I've said - RIF - I don't totally object to sharing music on blogs. I've got issues with the ways it's being done, but I'm not totally against it.
As it pertains to my set-sales, I'm not sure we're even on the same page. A soundclip of mine is generally a minute to a minute thirty. If you think I'm in grievous violation of someone's copyright, you're welcome to report me. I think it would probably fall under "fair use". Trying to compare what I do in order to give people a sample of a (used) record they might buy to your experiences licensing the Facts Of Life theme song is a fool's errand.
all of this got me to thinking about artists like manu dibango winning $$$$ from mj for him saying "mama say mama sa...."
then peeping the gary bartz gentle smiles and how gary sings william devaughns vamp " diamonds in the back , please dont stop, play saxy for me". all of which is a prelude for hip hop> sampling.
although legally they are breaking the law, morally i see it as fair....nothing was blatantly stolen or reproduced.
Did anyone verify if Rod Stewart *actually* stole "Taj Mahal", court decision aside? I feel like a read somewhere that he went down to Brazil, or some circumstantial evidence like that.
I mean, as DOR alluded to earlier, the horse is out of the barn. Free music is not going to stop, and to a certain extent I'm pissing in the wind. But I like offering my opinion on this stuff because it seems like very few people have any moral qualms with it. I'm conflicted too. It really is a gray area.
Comments
perhaps you can buy some interweb advertising with that 75K....banner ads that say "I did it first! hmmmmph!"
Paying 25% of perceived value is pretty standard for purchasing store stock. Rounding that downward due to expected decrease in value when lots of copies of a single title are at play makes sense (of course other factors could change this equation too: buying out remaining stock of a very limited title that is going up in value could mean rounding upward as well I suppose).
Of course, I'm not referring to an individual trying to get his e-hustle on here, just speaking on the mechanics of the physical record store since I've worked at one for a longass time...
What bothers me is when I hear folks say they're not going to bother reissuing something because its already all over the web... I don't care much about low bit-rate MP3s of old records personally, and if I can't buy a quality reish b/c that stuff is out there thats a damn shame. I don't think the availability of old obscure music online affects the market that much cuz its one of those things that most of the people who buy it will continue to buy regardless, but I could see how a relatively small reduction in sales could have a big impact on the (mostly small) labels that do these things right.
www.djmarkusseta.blogspot.com
when people were taping FULL LPS from radio stations, this was a big problem for the industry. the same argument was at hand. labels/ artists werent making money and they wanted to control this.
whether its one song or 1/2 a song...the riaa will tell you its the same as the whole lp.
with the exception of some extremely rare lps for download floating about, i would assume the artists would be happy that that music is being enjoyed/listened to....thats what its for. not to be shelved due to some corporate red tape or long forgotten about cuz it was so hard to own a copy.
most of the lps i see full rips of online are not indie for the most part. most bloggers dont even own the super sought after "raers". i see tons of stax, capitol, cti, and all kinds of major label stuff online.
speaking of swindles, take the group "boston" read up on the deal they signed for an lp that you will hear on the radio forever. one of the worst contracts in the business was signed. they got fucked.
That's the ARTIST'S decision, not some dude sitting behind a computer sharing his high-priced record collection.
thing is, dude sharing his high priced collection, isnt making any money...hes actually just promoting.
if one can obtain physical promos (free) why is this really that bad ?
you said it best... the ARTISTS decision.
thats the way it should be! artists are tired of labels running/controlling shit. artists usually dont get to make any decisions with their music.
remember when prince wrote slave on his cheek ? if i were prince and saw bloggers uploading my entire warner bros cat. for free...i wouldnt care. labels making %85 is absurd !
on a major, (majority of artists) the most you can get is %15 out of a whole pie !!! wtf kind of shit is that ? dont forget the fact that the artist is forced to give up the masters. the industry on a whole has been raping artists far too long now.
its near impossible for some of todays biggest producers to get remix projects going from corporate giants like WEA, because they just dont give a F*ck about the music/ artists that they OWN the rights to. its all about dollars.
itd be nice if all you had to do was get permission from the artist...since it is theirs...siiiike !
as far as the inventory/ turnover deal...
say new music is being sold to a dist. for around $6 then sold to any online stores for say $8, then sold to the consumer for $10-15. not much mark up going on here.
if people are going to get all up in arms about bloggers uploading artists music to give away for free ( because your ripping the artist/label off) then the same sentiments should be there when "xyz" is getting raped for all remaining copies of the sought after 45" that xyz sold to the dealer/collector for next to nothing, compared to what that dealer KNOWS they are worth.
its not like anybody is saying," hey buddy you know these records im buying off of you are priceless, and you deserve a cut more than i do...so heres $2k from the one 45 i sold for $3k".
if heads are so worried about situations of artists not getting paid, why not hip the artists to this within this particular practice ?
the middleman is now playing the same role of the big corporate label.
imo, this is worse than any of the illegal downloading.
its certainly not as if any one of us is selling our illegally downloaded internet files to make money.
amir and i could never have done something like on track if we were to go about it "legally".
do you know how much the on track/ off track stuff has ben bootlegged/ on megaupload/blogged !
all of this is just devils advocate...just saying the sale of music has never really been about the artist getting what they deserve. has it ?
im all about getting the choke hold labels have had on artists, done away with. its bullshit.
charge it to the game
b/w
i aint mad..get cha money !
I agree that there's lots of terrible contracts in the recording industry. I just don't really follow the logic that the existence of shitty record deals makes it OK for us all to freely reproduce artists' material.
What about blogs that don't take advertising? I can assure you that the total amount of swag I've received in the five years I've been blogging is just about worthless.
I do a Paypal drive once a year to pay for the server space for the blog and the web zine, but that's about it.
That's what I meant about not making money directly off my blog, but getting other things through it.
I've definitely gotten DJ gigs, and someone once gave me a raer [/b]out of the goodness of their heart, but all told, it's not a lot.
while there are some blogs out there that just post a pic of the lp and a link and thats all, there are a bunch ive seen that really go in depth with the story behind the lp and so on.
if it were a perfect world, record companies would take the same time that these particular bloggers do, to shine light on lps and the artists recorded over 30 years ago. for me...its like free the music already.
if its too expensive for the labels to revamp because they wont make any MORE money off of something they have ALREADY made money on, blogging is an option they should thnk about. in a bigger picture its keeping the music alive, not killing it.
i feel what your saying johnny...theres mos def. some bogus hype going on for sure, im just not buying into this artists not getting paid via free dls thing. truth is even if we go out and buy the vinyl after the download..im not really putting money back into the artists pocket. which i would gladly do.
it sickens me to hear stories of the riaa showing up at clubs trying to get money for music they own being illegally played by djs. shits evil.
I've been reading this thread form the bottom up and the only thing that kept coming into mind about Jonnys stance is that he is making money on other peoples records, Unless he is keeping a percentage of the money made from each artist/album to be given to each artist upon potential request I'd say its fairly hypocritical to speak out on this practice.
The key word there is "reproduction". Something I am not doing. The used records in my shop have already been produced, manufactured, and sold. Whether or not the artist got their cut then is none of my concern, beyond my general hope that all artists get compensated fairly.
Dudes are making great leaps of logic here. Unlicensed sharing of copyrighted material, no matter how pro- or con- you are to it, is not the same as buying and selling a used record. It just isn't. If you have a problem with the buying and selling of old records, for great or small profit, then make a thread about that. Otherwise, it's just a strawman put up to make everyone feel better about owning a shit ton of music that nobody has been paid for.
this over simplifying...Johnny sells used records, the sale that nets the artist money has already occured (promos excluded)...you dont give GM a cut when you sell your used Buick...painters dont get a cut when someone re-sells a painting.
Actually Garth Brooks tried to help introduce a law years ago that would require used CD shops to pay royalties on what they sold...the whole idea is beyond rediculous. Why just records? We should have to pay roaylties to the desgner of pieces of clothing that get sold at resale shops, we should have to pay publishers for used books that are sold...etc...
hardly a valid point
I'm assuming it came up because this was something the RIAA pursued several times over the past 20 years, back when they had the time/energy to get all nit-picky and greedy about little shit like this.
It isn't really comparable, although my guilt over the fact that I buy pretty much all my music used is greater than whatever I feel about the MP3s I have.
With music, the RIAA and labels are saying that you don't own anything. You just have a licence. When you buy a car, YOU OWN THE CAR.
This is my main problem with music sales.
If anyone expects me to buy music... I want the right to use it any way I deem fit. For example, NO DRM telling me how and on what I can listen to what I just bought or allow me to resell. Until the day that the RIAA/Majors understand this...
where I'm approaching this from is the call that its unfair to the artist to redistribute their music. To exploit an artists work for profit, whether its a liscencing thing or not is still to make money on their work, right? It is from this view that I'm saying you shouldn't throw stones at these glass housed blogs.
and to say its ok to post a song, but not an album is strange too. I am currently working on multiple music licensing agreements, all of which are for individual songs or portions of individual songs. How is it ok to post a song, but criticize others for posting full albums?
it sounds more like justifying what you do while still trying to find issue with others doing similar things.
Obviously I disagree Ad*m...Maybe they are technically the same from a legal standpoint (though I think there's room to disagree there as well).
Posting a single song with historical background and original commentary isn't remotely the same thing as ripping an album (if they even did that)posting a link and a picture and then basically setting up your own mini-torrent site.
I've been doing the blog for five years and almost ten if you include the web zine. I have never gotten anything but positive feedback from artists and their families, and the only takedown request I ever got was from Soul Jazz (re: Ernie K Doe and 'Here Come the Girls').
I understand where you're coming from, and just to clarify I myself have no issue with posting music on the internet. I've posted songs on soulstrut and even put up full LP's in the real heads section.
my head scratching came from reading people talk against posting music because the artist isn't being paid liscencing, And to have it come from someone who sells music that doesn't go to paying the artist was just strange. Especially when I've seen that person post music themselves for both personal and business reasons (ie advertising and set sales)
once again I agree. but to qualify with a recent story about the show I work on. We had Robin Thicke on and he was discussing his parents as TV theme songwriters and Our guy did a verbal reinterpretation of the opening to the fact of Life he literally said (not sang) "you take the good you take the bad, you take them all and there you have"
we were charged $5000 for the use of the song.
bottom line, it doesn't come down to what any of us reason to ourselves but rather what the publishers and owners of the music say.
This is moronic - what don't you understand about my post above? I'm not redistributing anything. Once an album is bought, the ownership of the physical merchandise is transferred. When that album is sold yet again, say, to a junker - the ownership is again transferred. When I buy it from the junker, I obtain ownership of the physical product (let's just say we're dealing with commercial copies not promos here). None of us own the material contained on the physical album, which is why it's technically illegal to reproduce it. Thankfully, it is not illegal to re-sell used merchandise, at least not in the fine state of New York.
I'm not trying to argue the relative legality of either thing, both are just as illegal as the other. I'm arguing for some restraint, and most importantly some investment beyond just the wholesale duplication and passing around of someone else's work.
You're licensing stuff for television. Not a blog with a low visitor count. Let's stick to the apples here, leave the oranges for another thread.
Dude - it's not even remotely the same thing. I'm amazed that you could be doing licensing of anything and not see this difference.
If you're talking about me posting music on my blog, guilty as charged. Like I've said - RIF - I don't totally object to sharing music on blogs. I've got issues with the ways it's being done, but I'm not totally against it.
As it pertains to my set-sales, I'm not sure we're even on the same page. A soundclip of mine is generally a minute to a minute thirty. If you think I'm in grievous violation of someone's copyright, you're welcome to report me. I think it would probably fall under "fair use". Trying to compare what I do in order to give people a sample of a (used) record they might buy to your experiences licensing the Facts Of Life theme song is a fool's errand.
all of this got me to thinking about artists like manu dibango winning $$$$ from mj for him saying "mama say mama sa...."
then peeping the gary bartz gentle smiles and how gary sings william devaughns vamp " diamonds in the back , please dont stop, play saxy for me". all of which is a prelude for hip hop> sampling.
although legally they are breaking the law, morally i see it as fair....nothing was blatantly stolen or reproduced.
I mean, as DOR alluded to earlier, the horse is out of the barn. Free music is not going to stop, and to a certain extent I'm pissing in the wind. But I like offering my opinion on this stuff because it seems like very few people have any moral qualms with it. I'm conflicted too. It really is a gray area.
From the quote I used above. It's because "Common sense revolts at the idea".
JP, if you ever are bored. Read Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture.
There is a free download here
http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/
The quote I use above comes in the first chapter I believe.
It involves a supreme court case from the mid 40's.
In any case. I'm not all for free everything. Anyone who makes money, there should be some form of payment made to rights holders.
But this idea of going after non-commercial use is just nonsense.
This is coming from someone who had a family business for over 30 years on music sales and closed mostly due to this issue we keep talking about.
Thanks. That Los Caballeros de Colon album is srtaight fuego.