I don't know the exact science but I wouldn't wager a whole lot that cut-out records (literally, throw aways) made money that found its way back to the artist. Selling records to a distributor is one thing, collecting from the distributor quite another, and collecting from the label (after buybacks and whatnot) a whole 'nother thang.
The details of the deal between the artist and label are a whole other issue, I'm argueing on behalf of the labels and publishers rights, too.
Right - my point is, if a record gets made, and the artist never recoups its budget... and tons of the title get left in a warehouse, which are then bought out some 20 years later and sold off at $40 a pop... is the artist or label still entitled?
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
The venue should be paying a blanket licence for public performances.
I don't know the exact science but I wouldn't wager a whole lot that cut-out records (literally, throw aways) made money that found its way back to the artist. Selling records to a distributor is one thing, collecting from the distributor quite another, and collecting from the label (after buybacks and whatnot) a whole 'nother thang.
The details of the deal between the artist and label are a whole other issue, I'm argueing on behalf of the labels and publishers rights, too.
Either way, by and large, the records you sell in your store were not stolen from the record labels.
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
The venue should be paying a blanket licence for public performances.
And if not, then the artists/labels/publisher have every right to go after the venue or my band. I'm not telling you that I don't do anything illegal or ethically wrong, and i'm not judging the practices of anyone here. We're just having a discussion about morals and law.
That is a good question, if a warehouse can't sell a product for 20 years, should they have to pay the label when they sell it 20 years later? What is supposed to be done with unsold stock?
No, I agree - and I'm not trying to single you out. Sorry if that came over a little aggressive.
Unsold stock is technically "supposed" to be returned to the label, and refunded... obviously, a lot of labels don't want it back.
I was drawing that comparison because to me it's similar in a tangential way to sampling - here's this totally unappreciated song from 30 years ago, forgotten and junked, that is resurrected in a totally different light and used to make a profit (as well as to make art, but that's another story).
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
The venue should be paying a blanket licence for public performances.
Do you honestly think this happens frequently?
As the covering artist it's not on you to pay. The venue or promoter pays out of the fees they pay to ASCAP and BMI, then those people pay the artists who are owed money. I don't know how they figure out who gets what, but there you go.
A bar I used to spin at had to stop having DJ's because ASCAP found out they werent paying the proper licensing for the music being played and got a huge bill for back royalties owed. So this does happen in real world situations.
Musicians, graphic wizards, web designers, writers and so forth, was your latest beat/.gif heatery/web site/article/whatever created on officially purchased copies of Ableton Live, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office et cetera? Or did you get your software from torrents et al?
Are you suggesting that taking money out of Bill Gates' pockets is morally equivalent to taking money out of Cosmo Baker's pockets?
I know the consensus is that it's OK to squeeze Microsoft for a few bucks because they're an evil empire and all that. I'm pretty sure the same logic could be applied to quite few of the major record companies. But forget Microsoft. There are plenty of other software houses that could be viewed as the equivalent of a struggling independent record label.
Isn't it a bit ambigous for e.g., a musician to lament the decrease in record sales while his/her computer is jam packed with illegal software worth thousands of dollars? Is this apples and oranges?
Again, this is not aimed at anyone specific. I just see this all the time IRL. One minute you'll hear people say "all this mp3 downloading is really bad for the music business" and the next it's "lemme holla at those plugins, yo" or "hey, can you get me the latest version of Creative Suite?".
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
Sorry but I don't understand the relevancy of this image unless you're insisting on the "theft is theft" model again.
I think he's saying that it's OK to bootleg and sample as long as your white.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice. This is one area of law where I do have some experience. If you buy an album you have every right to re-sell it. This is known as the first-sale doctrine (and it usually has an application to trademark cases). The only way you could potentially get in trouble for re-sale is if the company never authorized the initial sale.
I don't think "ironical" is a word. unless its short for "iron-on decal".
Hahaha.
Thats sum funny shit.
i??ron??ic - also i??ron??i??cal[/b]
adj. 1. Characterized by or constituting irony. 2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic. 3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
adj. 1. Characterized by or constituting irony. 2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic. 3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
Create a brand for yourself that is recognizable and desireable and put it on EVERYTHING. Shit, you could sell People Under the Stairs... stairs probably.
this is either a very funny joke or a very terrible suggestion
I don't think "ironical" is a word. unless its short for "iron-on decal".
Hahaha.
Thats sum funny shit.
i??ron??ic - also i??ron??i??cal[/b]
adj. 1. Characterized by or constituting irony. 2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic. 3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
Create a brand for yourself that is recognizable and desireable and put it on EVERYTHING. Shit, you could sell People Under the Stairs... stairs probably.
this is either a very funny joke or a very terrible suggestion
A funny joke to emphasize my suggestion... if that makes any sense.
Create a brand for yourself that is recognizable and desireable and put it on EVERYTHING. Shit, you could sell People Under the Stairs... stairs probably.
this is either a very funny joke or a very terrible suggestion
A funny joke to emphasize my suggestion... if that makes any sense.
The internet now is about to hit a crossroads, if the government has anything to do with it. It's rap music again, circa 1987-1991, a bit of Ted Nugent if you will.
I see it this way. Laws that haven't be created will be created, and are probably being written up right now when it is possible to be sued for either uploading a song, or downloading it. Google now owns Blogspot, and Blogspot has loads of blogs where people upload, either one song a day, one or two songs a month, or blogs where a community of people will upload links to zip or rar files of anything and everything. One day, Google will have to give up that information. One hopes they will not, although my Adam Wind MP3 is nothing compared to someone who may have put up a Bjork leak a month in advance before release, or more realistically, something by Maroon 5 or Akon.
The American recording industry, if they could, would be formatless. However, they still make billions of dollars off of compact discs. People are being blinded by bold flashing headline stores of "CD sales down, digital sales up", but the fact is, people ARE still buying CD's, by the millions, creating billions. There's also a rise in vinyl sales, and while vinyl will never reach the level that it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's (when vinyl was the primary format), and they want quality. But more people are also digitizing their collections, doing needle drops/vinyl transfers and making CD-R's, hi-res DVD's, or MP3's. Some want to share that, and the RIAA doesn't like that.
It's funny, what used to be considered "cut-out material" or stuff left for the dead is now something that can make money from, because the opportunity to make money from it is there. Even if only two people download it compared to 50,000,000 downloads of "Lean Like A Cholo", they're going to jump on someone's case. Is that right? Not for me to answer.
The FBI want to enforce fingerprinting if you sell your CD's to a store, I don't know, is music really the issue, or is music the second class citizen of the music business[/b]?
I'm just blabbering on. I understand the legality on both sides of the issue, Oliver and others explained it very well. My point is that, now is the time when a lot of music fans are taking advantage of the availability of everything. Music fans are also taking advantage of the lack of laws involved in uploading anything and everything. There may come a time when law catches up and forces everyone to remove everything or else. Technology will be one step ahead of the game, and if people aren't using forums or blogs to post music, they'll find other ways to do it. Gone are the days when the only way to find a massive amount of MP3's was to find Napster. Now you have thousands of p2p's, and if the industry is willing to tackle them all, more power to them. But how do you stop Apple, who have made their billions from creating an object that, as one news article reported recently, "can house thousands of illegally obtained files"? Or any company that makes digital players? Automobile companies that now advertise their cars as being "MP3 compatible"?
A part of the appeal is that with modern technology, you can be ahead of the game, be sneaky, and get what you want. Now you have the consequences, and I think that's where big business tends to have a tug of war with itself.
Comments
:realblogz:
Right - my point is, if a record gets made, and the artist never recoups its budget... and tons of the title get left in a warehouse, which are then bought out some 20 years later and sold off at $40 a pop... is the artist or label still entitled?
Do you honestly think this happens frequently?
That is a good question, if a warehouse can't sell a product for 20 years, should they have to pay the label when they sell it 20 years later? What is supposed to be done with unsold stock?
Unsold stock is technically "supposed" to be returned to the label, and refunded... obviously, a lot of labels don't want it back.
I was drawing that comparison because to me it's similar in a tangential way to sampling - here's this totally unappreciated song from 30 years ago, forgotten and junked, that is resurrected in a totally different light and used to make a profit (as well as to make art, but that's another story).
As the covering artist it's not on you to pay. The venue or promoter pays out of the fees they pay to ASCAP and BMI, then those people pay the artists who are owed money. I don't know how they figure out who gets what, but there you go.
A bar I used to spin at had to stop having DJ's because ASCAP found out they werent paying the proper licensing for the music being played and got a huge bill for back royalties owed. So this does happen in real world situations.
I know the consensus is that it's OK to squeeze Microsoft for a few bucks because they're an evil empire and all that. I'm pretty sure the same logic could be applied to quite few of the major record companies. But forget Microsoft. There are plenty of other software houses that could be viewed as the equivalent of a struggling independent record label.
Isn't it a bit ambigous for e.g., a musician to lament the decrease in record sales while his/her computer is jam packed with illegal software worth thousands of dollars? Is this apples and oranges?
Again, this is not aimed at anyone specific. I just see this all the time IRL. One minute you'll hear people say "all this mp3 downloading is really bad for the music business" and the next it's "lemme holla at those plugins, yo" or "hey, can you get me the latest version of Creative Suite?".
I think he's saying that it's OK to bootleg and sample as long as your white.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This is one area of law where I do have some experience. If you buy an album you have every right to re-sell it. This is known as the first-sale doctrine (and it usually has an application to trademark cases). The only way you could potentially get in trouble for re-sale is if the company never authorized the initial sale.
i??ron??ic - also i??ron??i??cal[/b]
adj.
1. Characterized by or constituting irony.
2. Given to the use of irony. See Synonyms at sarcastic.
3. Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended: madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker.
Thank you.
(ə-grē-əns)
1.
1. (n.) The state of agreement; when two or more people possess the same opinions or ideas.
Origins: While this word was once found in dictionaries, it is now considered obsolete, and was removed for some strange reason.
wait did you and drbrown trade avatars again?
this is either a very funny joke or a very terrible suggestion
"iron-on decal"
+
=
Hence my laughter
A funny joke to emphasize my suggestion... if that makes any sense.
okay, thanks for clarification
">Home Cooking is Killing the Restaurant Industry!
I see it this way. Laws that haven't be created will be created, and are probably being written up right now when it is possible to be sued for either uploading a song, or downloading it. Google now owns Blogspot, and Blogspot has loads of blogs where people upload, either one song a day, one or two songs a month, or blogs where a community of people will upload links to zip or rar files of anything and everything. One day, Google will have to give up that information. One hopes they will not, although my Adam Wind MP3 is nothing compared to someone who may have put up a Bjork leak a month in advance before release, or more realistically, something by Maroon 5 or Akon.
The American recording industry, if they could, would be formatless. However, they still make billions of dollars off of compact discs. People are being blinded by bold flashing headline stores of "CD sales down, digital sales up", but the fact is, people ARE still buying CD's, by the millions, creating billions. There's also a rise in vinyl sales, and while vinyl will never reach the level that it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's (when vinyl was the primary format), and they want quality. But more people are also digitizing their collections, doing needle drops/vinyl transfers and making CD-R's, hi-res DVD's, or MP3's. Some want to share that, and the RIAA doesn't like that.
It's funny, what used to be considered "cut-out material" or stuff left for the dead is now something that can make money from, because the opportunity to make money from it is there. Even if only two people download it compared to 50,000,000 downloads of "Lean Like A Cholo", they're going to jump on someone's case. Is that right? Not for me to answer.
The FBI want to enforce fingerprinting if you sell your CD's to a store, I don't know, is music really the issue, or is music the second class citizen of the music business[/b]?
I'm just blabbering on. I understand the legality on both sides of the issue, Oliver and others explained it very well. My point is that, now is the time when a lot of music fans are taking advantage of the availability of everything. Music fans are also taking advantage of the lack of laws involved in uploading anything and everything. There may come a time when law catches up and forces everyone to remove everything or else. Technology will be one step ahead of the game, and if people aren't using forums or blogs to post music, they'll find other ways to do it. Gone are the days when the only way to find a massive amount of MP3's was to find Napster. Now you have thousands of p2p's, and if the industry is willing to tackle them all, more power to them. But how do you stop Apple, who have made their billions from creating an object that, as one news article reported recently, "can house thousands of illegally obtained files"? Or any company that makes digital players? Automobile companies that now advertise their cars as being "MP3 compatible"?
A part of the appeal is that with modern technology, you can be ahead of the game, be sneaky, and get what you want. Now you have the consequences, and I think that's where big business tends to have a tug of war with itself.