I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
Just to reach the point where I could think about what records to include on the comp required months of agonising and ridiculously frustrating negotiations with the Cuban government. I won't bore you with any more details,
i for one would be quite interested in such details...
well if anything, this thread has caused at least one person (myself) to seriously consider buying this comp
when dealing with matters of art. . .making money cannot be the first priority and maybe not even a consideration.
A musician goes to see the doctor, cause he is not feelin well. After the examination, the doctor slowly says to him: "I am afraid, you only have 3 weeks left to live". The musician replies puzzled: "From what?" (dunno if this semijoke makes sense, but I wouldn't cosine 100% on the above. Sometimes it is an art too, to actually make a livin off of art....)
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
I have wandered down that same line of thought - it all stands to reason right.
But I was asking more specifically if you were actually doing these things. Because in my experience and in that of folks I talk to, producers are not giving much if any extra cash up for sourcing a sample, record dealers/comp compilers/tastemaking DJs are not getting tapped for soundtrack or jingle licensing, because it's all about juice and connections and who you know. There are people in Hollywood and NYC and elsewhere that do these things but it's not like encyclopedic musical knowledge alone will get you in those doors.
I have wandered down that same line of thought - it all stands to reason right.
But I was asking more specifically if you were actually doing these things. Because in my experience and in that of folks I talk to, producers are not giving much if any extra cash up for sourcing a sample, record dealers/comp compilers/tastemaking DJs are not getting tapped for soundtrack or jingle licensing, because it's all about juice and connections and who you know. There are people in Hollywood and NYC and elsewhere that do these things but it's not like encyclopedic musical knowledge alone will get you in those doors.
I hear you. I am doing my best to work connections! I know a few people who get by off 1-2 beats a year that get used for TV. The rest of the time they put out music they are into, on their own or other labels - and make nothing!
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
I have wandered down that same line of thought - it all stands to reason right.
But I was asking more specifically if you were actually doing these things. Because in my experience and in that of folks I talk to, producers are not giving much if any extra cash up for sourcing a sample, record dealers/comp compilers/tastemaking DJs are not getting tapped for soundtrack or jingle licensing, because it's all about juice and connections and who you know. There are people in Hollywood and NYC and elsewhere that do these things but it's not like encyclopedic musical knowledge alone will get you in those doors.
I hear you. I am doing my best to work connections! I know a few people who get by off 1-2 beats a year that get used for TV. The rest of the time they put out music they are into, on their own or other labels - and make nothing!
Yeah I think I know who you are talking about and in those cases it is great to get that stuff off... it allows artists to be artists the rest of the year which is good enough for me. However I don't really see an "in" for people like Dan in the game unless he a) moves to LA and works on his fellatio skills or b) realizes he has an immensely powerful entertainment industry relative (he is Jewish, after all )
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that if you don't want to feel like you originated something and it's being bitten, then you have to think bigger, or just be extremely happy with the fact that you introduced good obscure music to a wider audience, properly. Right now, it seems like Danno thinks it's a double edged sword.
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that if you don't want to feel like you originated something and it's being bitten, then you have to think bigger, or just be extremely happy with the fact that you introduced good obscure music to a wider audience, properly. Right now, it seems like Danno thinks it's a double edged sword.
But it's not just him that is being bitten, it's all of the artists on the comp. He told those artists he was going to make them money, and it sucks if illegal sharing cuts into their money.
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that if you don't want to feel like you originated something and it's being bitten, then you have to think bigger, or just be extremely happy with the fact that you introduced good obscure music to a wider audience, properly. Right now, it seems like Danno thinks it's a double edged sword.
But it's not just him that is being bitten, it's all of the artists on the comp. He told those artists he was going to make them money, and it sucks if illegal sharing cuts into their money.
The artists won't get royalties... it's a communist country.
Please show me where Danno is saying "I need that paper!" I really don't understand where the "pitched it to a label that knew what they were doing" part comes in either, as music gets downloaded regardless of the label's competence. You are taking what may be valid points but exaggerating them unecessarily and choosing to be pretty mean-spirited about it.
And that's why I deleted it and posted my apology.
I can make small consulting fees from providing work-to-hire beatmakers with reference material that I grab from my own collection. If I can make it up to the nextlevel I'll make more from royalties.
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that if you don't want to feel like you originated something and it's being bitten, then you have to think bigger, or just be extremely happy with the fact that you introduced good obscure music to a wider audience, properly. Right now, it seems like Danno thinks it's a double edged sword.
But it's not just him that is being bitten, it's all of the artists on the comp. He told those artists he was going to make them money, and it sucks if illegal sharing cuts into their money.
The artists won't get royalties... it's a communist country.
Okay, I didn't really think about that.
Anyway, usually licensing deals have some sort of duration of exlcusivity, in which case Dan or his label would profit off of an advertising or sampling deal.
The artists won't get royalties... it's a communist country.
Okay, I didn't really think about that.
Anyway, usually licensing deals have some sort of duration of exlcusivity, in which case Dan or his label would profit off of an advertising or sampling deal.
Actually, royalties to Cuba is a big gray area so I dunno what the deal is, but if Danno's dealt with the Cuban govt, it's probably because they own all rights for pre 1993-recorded music. Even if the artists have regained ownership, there is also a US govt embargo on payments to Cuban nationals. It's messy.
The artists won't get royalties... it's a communist country.
In fairness, I think there's truth to that. Aside from Juan Pablo Torres being dead, Ricardo Eddy Martinez and Juan Solar having immigrated to the US in the early 90s, I don't think any of the artists get paid when their music is licensed. The Cuban government paid them a salary when these tracks were recorded; in, return they didn't "own" their catalogue, the state did. It sounds a little draconian, but you need to keep in mind that this system allowed the musicians on the comp to create freely within certain parameters without particular concern for the profitability of their music. A lot of the issues being addressed in the thread were consequently avoided. Then again, communism is far from rosy; there are extremely good reasons for the emigration of so many accomplished musicians in the early 90s.
Thes - the issue isn't whether I think file sharing is wrong (for the record I do think it's wrong, but I do it anyway - but I also frequently go over the speed limit, occasional drink & drive and every once in a while take unprescripted pills), it's why one only complains about file sharing when it happens to them while being a moderator of a site that file sharing is a common occurance. It's uncool to download his shit but he looked the other way not only when singles like the Bjork jawn and the entire two-disc Primo JB tribute mixcd which seems convenient. If it's uncool for Danno's "toil and love" of the music, why don't we have the same regard for other people's musical passions & business ventures?
Given the option, a lot of people would pay for and download a legit copy. I actually bought a copy of this excellent comp and then ripped it to my laptop. I only buy CDs to get at the music inside.
Danno, you need to get this album on sale for download if it isn't already. People download for convenience as much as anything and the alternatives shouldn't be store bought copy or pirated download. This is where the money is being lost, not in physical CD sales.
Thes - the issue isn't whether I think file sharing is wrong (for the record I do think it's wrong, but I do it anyway - but I also frequently go over the speed limit, occasional drink & drive and every once in a while take unprescripted pills), it's why one only complains about file sharing when it happens to them while being a moderator of a site that file sharing is a common occurance. It's uncool to download his shit but he looked the other way not only when singles like the Bjork jawn and the entire two-disc Primo JB tribute mixcd which seems convenient. If it's uncool for Danno's "toil and love" of the music, why don't we have the same regard for other people's musical passions & business ventures?
I don't know. I agree for the most part and have stayed out of that one.
the issue isn't whether I think file sharing is wrong (for the record I do think it's wrong, but I do it anyway - but I also frequently go over the speed limit, occasional drink & drive and every once in a while take unprescripted pills), it's why one only complains about file sharing when it happens to them while being a moderator of a site that file sharing is a common occurance. It's uncool to download his shit but he looked the other way not only when singles like the Bjork jawn and the entire two-disc Primo JB tribute mixcd which seems convenient. If it's uncool for Danno's "toil and love" of the music, why don't we have the same regard for other people's musical passions & business ventures?
Thes - the issue isn't whether I think file sharing is wrong (for the record I do think it's wrong, but I do it anyway - but I also frequently go over the speed limit, occasional drink & drive and every once in a while take unprescripted pills), it's why one only complains about file sharing when it happens to them while being a moderator of a site that file sharing is a common occurance. It's uncool to download his shit but he looked the other way not only when singles like the Bjork jawn and the entire two-disc Primo JB tribute mixcd which seems convenient. If it's uncool for Danno's "toil and love" of the music, why don't we have the same regard for other people's musical passions & business ventures?
I don't know. I agree for the most part and have stayed out of that one.
Whenever someone notices members sharing material that shouldn't be shared, send me a PM and I'll take the appropriate action. It's not that I'm intentionally looking away from wrongly shared material, rather I'm just not especially diligent with threads about Bjork or Primo. Help me out by bringing this stuff to my attention.
Why didn't I delete the Bjork thread? As I mentioned earlier, I don't see a problem with sharing a couple of tracks.
A federal judge has dismissed Elektra v. Santangelo with prejudice, leaving the door open for defendant Patti Santangelo to recover attorneys' fees from the RIAA. Last month, Judge Colleen McMahon denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, ruling that the case should either be dismissed with prejudice or proceed to trial so that Santangelo could have a shot at being exonerated of the RIAA's accusations of file-sharing and copyright infringement.
A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was entered yesterday by both the plaintiffs and defendants, which means that Santangelo is the prevailing party and therefore eligible to file a motion to recover attorneys' fees. It is anticipated that the RIAA will strongly oppose any such award of fees, as they have in Capitol v. Foster.
Patti Santangelo was targeted by the RIAA in 2005 as part of its crackdown against suspected file-sharing. The divorced mother of five denied engaging in file sharing herself or having any knowledge of its happening in her house. The RIAA subsequently sued two of her children, Michelle and Robert, who were 15 and 11 years old when the alleged infringement took place.
The dismissal strikes another blow against the music industry's doctrine of secondary infringement. It's an argument that the record labels have consistently made in their lawsuits: if a defendant has "a reason to know" of any infringing activity, he or she should therefore be liable for any and all infringement???even if the defendant was not aware of it. So far, the courts have not found the argument convincing, which could lead to still more dismissals. Ruling in Capitol v. Foster, Judge Lee R. West called the record labels' secondary infringement claims "untested and marginal."
This is a scenario the RIAA has been anxious to avoid. Although the record industry has been eager to file lawsuits, it never wants to see the defendants exonerated, even when it's a clear case of mistaken identity. Instead, it would rather just quietly drop unwinnable cases and walk away, leaving defendants to deal with the legal bills from defending against a case that should never have been brought. For at least the second time, a judge has prevented the RIAA from doing exactly that. If the trend continues, the music industry's legal strategy could end up being far more expensive than it anticipated.
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
A federal judge has dismissed Elektra v. Santangelo with prejudice, leaving the door open for defendant Patti Santangelo to recover attorneys' fees from the RIAA. Last month, Judge Colleen McMahon denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, ruling that the case should either be dismissed with prejudice or proceed to trial so that Santangelo could have a shot at being exonerated of the RIAA's accusations of file-sharing and copyright infringement.
Having unfortunately been intimately involved with a Federal case(NOT involving copyright infringement, but a case is a case, a dispute a dispute) that was dismissed with prejudice (effectively, we won), it is HIGHLY unlikely that she would ever recover her attorney's fees. She is going to have to spend more on lawyers to even recover court costs (which is COMPLETELY different from attorney's fees, and considerably less money), and to recover attorney's fees she will have to sue Elektra in a new case which she is in no way guaranteed to win (probably more precedents that she would NOT be due attorney's fees), and even if they settled, she would have to spend even more $$$ to collect that from a huge company.
I am no lawyer, but let me take this opportunity to tell anyone who has never been sued/sued anyone....unless you have $$$ you can burn with no pain, stay out of the fucking courtroom at all costs.[/b] And when they bring it to you, make every attempt to settle the situation, right or wrong. When it's David vs. Goliath, Goliath has more blood to spare. Bleeding David takes no time at all, and that is the entire point.
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
I am no lawyer, but let me take this opportunity to tell anyone who has never been sued/sued anyone....unless you have $$$ you can burn with no pain, stay out of the fucking courtroom at all costs.[/b] And when they bring it to you, make every attempt to settle the situation, right or wrong. When it's David vs. Goliath, Goliath has more blood to spare. Bleeding David takes no time at all, and that is the entire point.
Very true, large corps/companies have abused laws to nth degree in order to snuff out the creative spirit, just ask a band like Negativland. And concerning artists' royalties, should it matter less that people are downloading this when the innovators are probably not seeing any return? Not saying it still isn't wrong, just interesting that these artists are marginalized from their work, thanks to the Cuban gov't.
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
Yes
Downloading is for pussies!
Great contribution!
He's right though, downloading stuff you could easily just buy is for pussies.
Speaking of communism, what's with all this "It's not about the money duuuude..." talk anyways? Fuck that shit, I am a capitalist.
I'm not speaking on behalf of Danno since I don't even know the guy, but if I paid $ out of pocket to make this thing legit, I don't give a fuck, money does have something to do with it. You conceptualize, license, package, put the product out, yeah you better get that money.
If people are downloading the shit, I would try to get IP adresses from bloggers, track motherfuckers down (or hire someone to do it), forcefully take their wallets out and take my cut which would include expenes of the whole shakedown operation. Then I would go on vacation to Cuba, smoke some cigars and start to compile my next comp.
Comments
Beatmakers are going to cut you points because you gave them a record to sample?
i for one would be quite interested in such details...
well if anything, this thread has caused at least one person (myself) to seriously consider buying this comp
also, this thread made me hungry for some donuts
A musician goes to see the doctor, cause he is not feelin well. After the examination, the doctor slowly says to him: "I am afraid, you only have 3 weeks left to live". The musician replies puzzled: "From what?" (dunno if this semijoke makes sense, but I wouldn't cosine 100% on the above. Sometimes it is an art too, to actually make a livin off of art....)
No points anywhere, I'm talking about the advertising industry, ie: where the money is nowadays for 99% of musicians and producers who aren't Kanye or Xtina, and even they are happy to get their shit on ads. You can use your knowledge of records to save clients big dollars on licensing, maybe even get a forgotten artist some royalites by pushing his or her tracks instead of the same old Kool and the Gang or Us3 samples, and you can get consulting fees for this. Then if you take that to the next level by actually making the beats or playing a note, you get royalties. Again, in the case of sampling, your knowledge of raer helps you navigate the licensing minefield. All I'm trying to say is, making a comp is like putting your ideas out there, and there's nothing to stop someone else taking those ideas and running with them. If some rap producer samples the CD, or some ad agency uses a track in an ad, they can go license the track directly, and unless Danno purchased the publishing and synch rights, he gets zip. This is why I am in favor of made up tracklists. But either way, Danno's comp is is resume and it's up to him what he does with it.
But I was asking more specifically if you were actually doing these things. Because in my experience and in that of folks I talk to, producers are not giving much if any extra cash up for sourcing a sample, record dealers/comp compilers/tastemaking DJs are not getting tapped for soundtrack or jingle licensing, because it's all about juice and connections and who you know. There are people in Hollywood and NYC and elsewhere that do these things but it's not like encyclopedic musical knowledge alone will get you in those doors.
I hear you. I am doing my best to work connections! I know a few people who get by off 1-2 beats a year that get used for TV. The rest of the time they put out music they are into, on their own or other labels - and make nothing!
Wow, you really make it sound like he had such an alterior motive for producing the comp. Is it possible he just wanted to introduce good obscure music to a wider audience and do it properly? I know he does a radio show, but from what I know, he's not out there trying to get DJ gigs. Anyway, even if he were, going through all the trouble to make this comp would be a really roundabout way of going about it.
Yeah I think I know who you are talking about and in those cases it is great to get that stuff off... it allows artists to be artists the rest of the year which is good enough for me. However I don't really see an "in" for people like Dan in the game unless he a) moves to LA and works on his fellatio skills or b) realizes he has an immensely powerful entertainment industry relative (he is Jewish, after all
That's not what I'm saying at all. Just that if you don't want to feel like you originated something and it's being bitten, then you have to think bigger, or just be extremely happy with the fact that you introduced good obscure music to a wider audience, properly. Right now, it seems like Danno thinks it's a double edged sword.
But it's not just him that is being bitten, it's all of the artists on the comp. He told those artists he was going to make them money, and it sucks if illegal sharing cuts into their money.
The artists won't get royalties... it's a communist country.
And that's why I deleted it and posted my apology.
Okay, I didn't really think about that.
Anyway, usually licensing deals have some sort of duration of exlcusivity, in which case Dan or his label would profit off of an advertising or sampling deal.
Actually, royalties to Cuba is a big gray area so I dunno what the deal is, but if Danno's dealt with the Cuban govt, it's probably because they own all rights for pre 1993-recorded music. Even if the artists have regained ownership, there is also a US govt embargo on payments to Cuban nationals. It's messy.
In fairness, I think there's truth to that. Aside from Juan Pablo Torres being dead, Ricardo Eddy Martinez and Juan Solar having immigrated to the US in the early 90s, I don't think any of the artists get paid when their music is licensed. The Cuban government paid them a salary when these tracks were recorded; in, return they didn't "own" their catalogue, the state did. It sounds a little draconian, but you need to keep in mind that this system allowed the musicians on the comp to create freely within certain parameters without particular concern for the profitability of their music. A lot of the issues being addressed in the thread were consequently avoided. Then again, communism is far from rosy; there are extremely good reasons for the emigration of so many accomplished musicians in the early 90s.
Given the option, a lot of people would pay for and download a legit copy. I actually bought a copy of this excellent comp and then ripped it to my laptop. I only buy CDs to get at the music inside.
Danno, you need to get this album on sale for download if it isn't already. People download for convenience as much as anything and the alternatives shouldn't be store bought copy or pirated download. This is where the money is being lost, not in physical CD sales.
I don't know. I agree for the most part and have stayed out of that one.
Whenever someone notices members sharing material that shouldn't be shared, send me a PM and I'll take the appropriate action. It's not that I'm intentionally looking away from wrongly shared material, rather I'm just not especially diligent with threads about Bjork or Primo. Help me out by bringing this stuff to my attention.
Why didn't I delete the Bjork thread? As I mentioned earlier, I don't see a problem with sharing a couple of tracks.
An interesting read. Though you might be interested.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/200...aring-case.html
A federal judge has dismissed Elektra v. Santangelo with prejudice, leaving the door open for defendant Patti Santangelo to recover attorneys' fees from the RIAA. Last month, Judge Colleen McMahon denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, ruling that the case should either be dismissed with prejudice or proceed to trial so that Santangelo could have a shot at being exonerated of the RIAA's accusations of file-sharing and copyright infringement.
A stipulation of discontinuance with prejudice was entered yesterday by both the plaintiffs and defendants, which means that Santangelo is the prevailing party and therefore eligible to file a motion to recover attorneys' fees. It is anticipated that the RIAA will strongly oppose any such award of fees, as they have in Capitol v. Foster.
Patti Santangelo was targeted by the RIAA in 2005 as part of its crackdown against suspected file-sharing. The divorced mother of five denied engaging in file sharing herself or having any knowledge of its happening in her house. The RIAA subsequently sued two of her children, Michelle and Robert, who were 15 and 11 years old when the alleged infringement took place.
The dismissal strikes another blow against the music industry's doctrine of secondary infringement. It's an argument that the record labels have consistently made in their lawsuits: if a defendant has "a reason to know" of any infringing activity, he or she should therefore be liable for any and all infringement???even if the defendant was not aware of it. So far, the courts have not found the argument convincing, which could lead to still more dismissals. Ruling in Capitol v. Foster, Judge Lee R. West called the record labels' secondary infringement claims "untested and marginal."
This is a scenario the RIAA has been anxious to avoid. Although the record industry has been eager to file lawsuits, it never wants to see the defendants exonerated, even when it's a clear case of mistaken identity. Instead, it would rather just quietly drop unwinnable cases and walk away, leaving defendants to deal with the legal bills from defending against a case that should never have been brought. For at least the second time, a judge has prevented the RIAA from doing exactly that. If the trend continues, the music industry's legal strategy could end up being far more expensive than it anticipated.
Having unfortunately been intimately involved with a Federal case(NOT involving copyright infringement, but a case is a case, a dispute a dispute) that was dismissed with prejudice (effectively, we won), it is HIGHLY unlikely that she would ever recover her attorney's fees. She is going to have to spend more on lawyers to even recover court costs (which is COMPLETELY different from attorney's fees, and considerably less money), and to recover attorney's fees she will have to sue Elektra in a new case which she is in no way guaranteed to win (probably more precedents that she would NOT be due attorney's fees), and even if they settled, she would have to spend even more $$$ to collect that from a huge company.
I am no lawyer, but let me take this opportunity to tell anyone who has never been sued/sued anyone....unless you have $$$ you can burn with no pain, stay out of the fucking courtroom at all costs.[/b] And when they bring it to you, make every attempt to settle the situation, right or wrong. When it's David vs. Goliath, Goliath has more blood to spare. Bleeding David takes no time at all, and that is the entire point.
Great contribution!
Very true, large corps/companies have abused laws to nth degree in order to snuff out the creative spirit, just ask a band like Negativland. And concerning artists' royalties, should it matter less that people are downloading this when the innovators are probably not seeing any return? Not saying it still isn't wrong, just interesting that these artists are marginalized from their work, thanks to the Cuban gov't.
He's right though, downloading stuff you could easily just buy is for pussies.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseac...e3-2f6bea661f36
I'm not speaking on behalf of Danno since I don't even know the guy, but if I paid $ out of pocket to make this thing legit, I don't give a fuck, money does have something to do with it. You conceptualize, license, package, put the product out, yeah you better get that money.
If people are downloading the shit, I would try to get IP adresses from bloggers, track motherfuckers down (or hire someone to do it), forcefully take their wallets out and take my cut which would include expenes of the whole shakedown operation. Then I would go on vacation to Cuba, smoke some cigars and start to compile my next comp.