Announcement: I've started a petition for a change in copyright law.
Lynn
My long-awaited article on "Copyright - The way forward for the music
industry" is now online on the home page of my site
http://www.wobblymusic.net.
Please visit when you have around half an hour to spare as it is quite long.
At the end of the article is a link to a petition. If you think my
observations are valid, please go and sign my petition.
I am hopeful of your support.
There are also a number of updates to my site, so please browse further if
you
have the time to spare.
A previous post I read on this group from a contributor called "Citizen Ted"
is featured in the article.
Cheers!
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
Fletch
> Hi all!
>
> My long-awaited article on "Copyright - The way forward for the music
> industry" is now online on the home page of my site
> http://www.wobblymusic.net.
> Please visit when you have around half an hour to spare as it is quite long.
>
> At the end of the article is a link to a petition. If you think my
> observations are valid, please go and sign my petition.
>
> I am hopeful of your support.
>
> There are also a number of updates to my site, so please browse further if
> you
> have the time to spare.
>
> A previous post I read on this group from a contributor called "Citizen Ted"
> is featured in the article.
>
> Cheers!
Some initial thoughts...
The idea of what is suggested here is nice. But the practicality of some of these ideas is quite
another matter altogether. Without going into too much detail the simple reality is that no matter
what system is implemented, there will be violators.
I think Citizen Ted fails to recognise and understand that as long as there are bands/performers
willing to do what the record companies want, they will get signed, they will get promoted and they
will be the new "Britney" or whomever. Fame is a powerful, and addictive, drug. While these bands
will not make a lot of money, they will have their fifteen minutes of fame. If they're fortunate,
they will eventually make a decent income.
This is a basic human trait in many people, the need to be seen and heard, regardless of the cost or
consequence. Until we change the attitudes of the musicians of this nature, there will always be the
mindlessness of commercial radio. And don't even get me started on the song writers of this kind of
music -- they too would have to undergo a paradigm shift in their thinking about what constitutes
good lyrical content and good musical expression.
It also falls upon the "fan" or ardent music afficianado to cease being selfish and start paying for
what they want to hear, whether by the song or by the album. This, too, requires a change in
attitude. It's this perception of "music should be free" that creates the fault.
Okay, following that logic, I guess you, who rip off my stuff, as a Dentist (let's pretend), would
have no problem with me using your services and then just not paying for them, right? Oh, I see,
that's different. How? Please explain the difference, one professional to another.
As a lifelong musician, I want people to understand one thing about my music: if they like it, they
should "invest" in it by purchasing it. This investment will be just that, an investment in the
production of new music to add to that which I have already created. In this way, they are
demonstrating a commitment to supporting the music they want. Without this investment, my career as
a recording artist will cease and the music will disappear.
Just as the above mentioned Dentist expects to be paid for their services, so do I. And anyone as a
consumer of such services should have an expectation to pay for these services. You all work, right?
And you expect to get paid, right? So do I.
Stealing music will do only one thing: destroy the band/artist who created it. Sure, the songs may
get heard, and people may actually really, really like the material, but if they, the listener (end
user?), do not materially participate in supporting that artist/band, then they should really not
have any complaints when that band dies due to lack of support.
And, of course, performance is really the only way most bands can actually make a living until they
have upwards of four albums out and available, assuming they are popular, before the royalties will
support at least a decent life (not a "lifestyle"), assuming the labels and expenses do not
forestall the royalties disbursement.
So, I'm all for the idea of revising copyright laws, but we need solutions that will solve the
majority of problems in a way that can be applied internationally. A uniform copyright law would go
a long way to doing that, especially if it solves many of the real problems that currently exist
both outside and within the existing structure as it now stands.
--fletch
Zigakly
> industry" is now online on the home page of my site
> http://www.wobblymusic.net.
> Please visit when you have around half an hour to spare as it is quite
long.
First of all, I didn't bother reading what I would characterize as your
manifesto (no disrespect, just calling it as I see it). You NEED a summary
which should both inform the reader of the premise of your claims, and also
lure them into reading the full monty. I don't discredit your opinions, but
I'm a little distracted by everyone else asking me for 57 seconds of their
time, and you're asking for 1/2 hour...
Lynn
news:dj110g$3uh$1...@news1nwk.SFbay.Sun.COM...
> Some initial thoughts...
>
> The idea of what is suggested here is nice. But the practicality of some
> of these ideas is quite another matter altogether. Without going into too
> much detail the simple reality is that no matter what system is
> implemented, there will be violators.
I don't think you understood the article fully. With the system I am
campaigning for, it would be impossible to violate the system on the scale
that it is today. Yes, as I explained, there will still be a little piracy,
but it won't be the money-making success that it is today. The liklihood
would be that it would eventually die out altogether.
However, the main stumbling block will be to get the idea implemented the
World over. With the human race as disagreeable as it is, it is an extremely
difficult task. However, if someone doesn't speak up and try to do something
about it, it will never happen!
> I think Citizen Ted fails to recognise and understand that as long as
> there are bands/performers willing to do what the record companies want,
> they will get signed, they will get promoted and they will be the new
> "Britney" or whomever. Fame is a powerful, and addictive, drug. While
> these bands will not make a lot of money, they will have their fifteen
> minutes of fame. If they're fortunate, they will eventually make a decent
> income.
I was using Citizen Ted's argument as an example of what many consumers want
from artists. If you continue to read about the ideas I have come up with,
you will see that not only is it possible to give the consumers what they
want, but it will also give the creators and copyright holders what they
want, i.e. to be paid for the use of their creations (but only if that's
what they want, of course)
>
> This is a basic human trait in many people, the need to be seen and heard,
> regardless of the cost or consequence. Until we change the attitudes of
> the musicians of this nature, there will always be the mindlessness of
> commercial radio. And don't even get me started on the song writers of
> this kind of music -- they too would have to undergo a paradigm shift in
> their thinking about what constitutes good lyrical content and good
> musical expression.
Whilst there may still be unscrupulous companies who will bribe radio
stations to play certain records, the fact that artists will have the choice
under my system to allow stations to play their records free of royalties if
they so wish, could help to reduce this practice somewhat. In fact, I see
the practice of "signing" an exclusive contract with a record company, dying
out. record companies will be replaced by marketing companies who will work
FOR the artists, not the other way around.
> It also falls upon the "fan" or ardent music afficianado to cease being
> selfish and start paying for what they want to hear, whether by the song
> or by the album. This, too, requires a change in attitude. It's this
> perception of "music should be free" that creates the fault.
The problem is that music is already perceived as free by a large section of
society in many countries of the World. It is too late ... you can't get
that value back. The solution is to accept that and use it to your
advantage.
With my system, everyone with an internet connection will be paying a small
monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download any music
you like. With internet costs coming down all the time, this additional sum
will barely be noticed. This revenue will be distributed among the people
responsible for making the music that is downloaded. Filesharing will no
longer be an issue.
> As a lifelong musician, I want people to understand one thing about my
> music: if they like it, they should "invest" in it by purchasing it. This
> investment will be just that, an investment in the production of new music
> to add to that which I have already created. In this way, they are
> demonstrating a commitment to supporting the music they want. Without this
> investment, my career as a recording artist will cease and the music will
> disappear.
I totally agree with you. That is why we must get together and petition for
the changes I have described.
> Just as the above mentioned Dentist expects to be paid for their services,
> so do I. And anyone as a consumer of such services should have an
> expectation to pay for these services. You all work, right? And you expect
> to get paid, right? So do I.
Exactly! Go and sign my petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
> Stealing music will do only one thing: destroy the band/artist who created
> it. Sure, the songs may get heard, and people may actually really, really
> like the material, but if they, the listener (end user?), do not
> materially participate in supporting that artist/band, then they should
> really not have any complaints when that band dies due to lack of support.
My system will reduce the stealing of music, plagiarism and copyright
infringement to almost zero.
> So, I'm all for the idea of revising copyright laws, but we need solutions
> that will solve the majority of problems in a way that can be applied
> internationally. A uniform copyright law would go a long way to doing
> that, especially if it solves many of the real problems that currently
> exist both outside and within the existing structure as it now stands.
Please take the time to read my whole article. I know you agree with me, so
go and sign my petition. Only WE can make a difference!
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
Lynn
news:Er15f.227919$vt2....@fe08.news.easynews.com...
I do appreciate that you may be a very busy person. Please go straight to
the petition page where there is a summary of the benefits that can be
acheived.
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
However, I'm afraid if you want to learn of the way this can be acheived,
you will have to read the article. For just the solution and summary, skip
down to just over halfway through the "manifesto". I will see if I can put
in a link to the summary.
The future livelihood of the music industry is at stake here. I think this
situation is deserving of just a little of our time. Don't you?
Bob Olhsson
anything they choose. The whole point is that it ought to be up to the
ORIGINAL copyright owners who are ALWAYS the artist and the composer.
The only reason there are multiple performance licensing agencies is
because American broadcasters refused to come to a renewal agreement
with ASCAP and set up BMI, their own broadcaster-owned agency. The main
reason there are different territories is because US broadcasters have
refused to allow the US Congress to sign on to the Rome Convention that
sets uniform performance licensing terms for most of the world. The US
has the weakest copyright laws in the world and a number of corporate
special interests would like to weaken individual artists' and
composers' negotiating positions even more.
--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!
615.385.8051 http://www.hyperback.com
huwg...@my-deja.com
Lynn wrote:
> With my system, everyone with an internet connection will be paying a small
> monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download any music
> you like. With internet costs coming down all the time, this additional sum
> will barely be noticed. This revenue will be distributed among the people
> responsible for making the music that is downloaded. Filesharing will no
> longer be an issue.
We should do the same with films. Everyone who makes films should get
paid some money. It's unfair now that only a few people get to make a
lot of money off the films they make, whereas there are many people
making films that no-one sees who don't get paid.
And with books. I wrote something the other day, and no-one paid me for
it. But Stephen King gets paid millions of dollars! It is so unfair. I
like writing books, and I think that my books are as good as his. But
the system keeps me out. Everyone who writes anything should get paid
by a personal license to read books. It shouldn't just be those who
insiders (or "experts") think deserve to be published.
And playing golf. Tiger Woods gets paid millions. I have to "pay to
play"! That's ridiculous! Woods is a fine golfer, but we have different
aims. In my own way, I'm just as good as he is. The sponsorship money
should be shared out amongst *every* golfer, not just those who have
been promoted by the industry.
I'd like someone else to pay for me to wash my socks as well. The
laundry guy gets paid for it. There should be central fund distributed
to *everyone* who washes socks, not just those in "big business".
Life would be so much better that way.
hank alrich
I think you've figured out how much sense this really makes!
I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
should be paid to put up with listening to that.
--
ha
Jay Kadis
walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
[snip]
>
> I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
> should be paid to put up with listening to that.
>
> --
> ha
But I'd have to say the same about commercial radio and TV.
-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x
Joe Blough
> small monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download
> any music you like.
This is the most arrogant, self-centered thing I have read in a long
time! Already, in Canada I have to pay a tax to artists, to back up my
data, or record my own material to CD.
Piss off!
You artists aren't the only people on the earth(though you usually
believe you are)
Joe Blough
You got TOO much attention from your parents didn't you
Joe Blough
@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com:
"For this idea to work we need complete World Unity"
You need to remember to take your meds...
You are grandly delusional...
Pull off this world unity thing, and John Lennon may rest in peace.
huwg...@my-deja.com
Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article <1h4rw7g.116tql2cnkx8oN%walk...@thegrid.net>,
> walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
> > should be paid to put up with listening to that.
> >
> > --
> > ha
>
> But I'd have to say the same about commercial radio and TV.
Commercial radio and TV is profesionally put together and
well-produced, even if most of the time it isn't intellectually
challenging. That's always been the case. "The Spanish Tragedy" was
more popular than any Shakespeare play.
Most free music is not even played competently. At least there's a
barrier to entry for commercially produced music.
Lynn
"Bob Olhsson" <o...@hyperback.com> wrote in message
news:j8Z5f.5356$Wk4....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> There is nothing stopping an artist or composer from giving away anything
> they choose. The whole point is that it ought to be up to the ORIGINAL
> copyright owners who are ALWAYS the artist and the composer.
Well in the UK, it is impossible for me to declare my work "Public domain".
I hold the copyright until I sign it over to another party by a formal
contract. If there is no "other party"; and no contract; it is automatically
mine by law. So for instance, if I give away my song by allowing anyone to
do what they wish with it, then someone steals it and makes a hit out of it,
he could claim that I have stolen his song. Having given it away freely, I
would have no way of proving that I wrote it first, so he could legally sue
me for a large sum of money for continuing to give it away for free. If I
could declare it "public domain", no-one would be allowed to claim it as
theirs and sue me for stealing it.
My main point of contension is that copyright as it stands is unfair for
many parties involved. There are many people involded in the production and
marketing of a song. It is unfair for anyone along the line to go back on
their word; as it means that everyone else who has put the work in, will see
it suddenly go down the drain through no fault of their own.
What I am trying to do, is to have the composer's rights based on their
personal moral ground. Once that is clear, there is no reason for them to
contest any use that doesn't contravene their initial wishes.
> The only reason there are multiple performance licensing agencies is
> because American broadcasters refused to come to a renewal agreement with
> ASCAP and set up BMI, their own broadcaster-owned agency. The main reason
> there are different territories is because US broadcasters have refused to
> allow the US Congress to sign on to the Rome Convention that sets uniform
> performance licensing terms for most of the world. The US has the weakest
> copyright laws in the world and a number of corporate special interests
> would like to weaken individual artists' and composers' negotiating
> positions even more.
I understand that. I didn't suggest it would be an easy task to get everyone
to agree to a single set of rules. I merely think that it should be done.
No-one is going to budge on the issues unless a considerable number of
people get together and state that these changes are required for the
benefit of the industry. The more we just sit around saying "they will never
agree"; "it will never work", etc, the less likely it is that it WILL be
done!
So regardless of the practicalities...if you think these changes are needed,
please sign my petition!
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights
Lynn
Jay Kadis
huwg...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Jay Kadis wrote:
> > In article <1h4rw7g.116tql2cnkx8oN%walk...@thegrid.net>,
> > walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > >
> > > I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
> > > should be paid to put up with listening to that.
> > >
> > > --
> > > ha
> >
> > But I'd have to say the same about commercial radio and TV.
>
> Commercial radio and TV is profesionally put together and
> well-produced, even if most of the time it isn't intellectually
> challenging. That's always been the case. "The Spanish Tragedy" was
> more popular than any Shakespeare play.
>
But who cares how good the production values are if there's no content?
> Most free music is not even played competently. At least there's a
> barrier to entry for commercially produced music.
>
Plenty of commercial music wouldn't be perceived as competently played if we
didn't have ProTools to fix it.
Lynn
I assume you are quite happy that people share music freely online, and
others inadvertantly get taken to court for unknowingly plagiarising someone
else's creation?
BTW. I do think that all intellectual property should have a similar system.
I'm not simply talking about music, but it is a starting point.
Socks aren't quite the same thing though! ... Nice try!
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
<huwg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1129905575....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Lynn
> data, or record my own material to CD.
I actually think that is a bad idea. I have never advocated a tax on media,
as it is most often used for data and legitimate backups.
I suppose you're one of those rare people who has never freely downloaded a
copyright-protected file in your life!. If so, you have my greatest respect.
--
Lynn
Wobbly Music
"Supporting the Mature Artist"
=============================
http://www.wobblymusic.net
Latest Release... "Friends" by John McKeon
Order your copy now and get 2 FREE bonus tracks!
http://www.johnmckeon.wobblymusic.net
"Joe Blough" <j...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96F6879AF6673...@140.99.99.130...
hank alrich
> hank alrich wrote:
> > I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
> > should be paid to put up with listening to that.
> But I'd have to say the same about commercial radio and TV.
I'm with ya; what's a reasonable rate? If it's good enough I could start
watching and listening.
--
ha
james
Bob Olhsson <o...@hyperback.com> wrote:
>The whole point is that it ought to be up to the
>ORIGINAL copyright owners who are ALWAYS the artist and the composer.
*cough* work for hire *cough*
Mike Rivers
Lynn wrote:
> Well in the UK, it is impossible for me to declare my work "Public domain".
Declaring your work "public domain" isn't quite the same as letting
anyone you choose record it. You have the right to deny permission,
too, and that can be a good thing.
> I hold the copyright until I sign it over to another party by a formal
> contract. If there is no "other party"; and no contract; it is automatically
> mine by law.
Do you have a formal procedure for registering your copyright? In the
US, a song is automatically copyright once it's put in the form of some
tangible media. Record it on your telephone answering machine, or write
the lyrics and a lead sheet on a napkin and it's copyright, and it's
yours. You can sell your right to someone else (usually a music
publisher if it's a legit sale), or you can give (or sell) anyone a
license to use the song if you choose to be the publisher yourself.
We also have a copyright registry, a formal procedure by which you can
declare your authorship and ownership, and get a piece of paper with a
date on it that proves that. That gives you the right to collect
certain damages if someone steals your song, but you still have to
prove it. The US Copyright Office doesn't do a very good job of
checking registrations for duplicates, however.
Let's say you write a song on Thursday, decide you like it, and figure
you'll send it off for copyright registration next week. Then you sing
it in a club on Friday night, and I'm in the audience. I jot down the
lyrics as you're singing and keep the melody in my head long enough to
go to the restroom, call my answering machine, and hum it into the
recorder. When I get home, I rush to the post office, get my
registration form postmarked Saturday morning, and several months later
I get my proof of copyright registration. Next week, you do the same. A
month or so after you wrote the song, you hear it on the radio, sung by
me, it goes to the top of the charts, and I make a pile of money. You
say "That's my song!!!!!!!!!" and try to sue me. I got the copyright
registration in before you did, so you'd have a hard time proving that
I stole it from you.
> So for instance, if I give away my song by allowing anyone to
> do what they wish with it, then someone steals it and makes a hit out of it,
> he could claim that I have stolen his song.
What would be the point of that? He's making the money, not you. And
you gave him the right to do so. The only way it could provably become
"his" song is if he registered a copyright prior to yours. And if you
never registered a copyright, then you really have little support under
the law.
The copyright law is, ostensibly, to promote creativity by giving you
some protection and some some opportunity to make money from your
creative work. But you have to take care of business, just like in any
other business. Because you once used a bent piece of wire to hold a
few sheets of paper together, you can't claim that the paper clip is
your invention once you see that someone is making money from the same
concept.
> Having given it away freely, I
> would have no way of proving that I wrote it first, so he could legally sue
> me for a large sum of money for continuing to give it away for free.
I suspect that if he decided to claim that it was his song and indeed
had a hit with it, he'd probably go after anyone else who he heard
playing the song rather than you. He's the one who's giving the song
all the exposure. Why should he think that others who record it got it
from you and not him?
> If I
> could declare it "public domain", no-one would be allowed to claim it as
> theirs and sue me for stealing it.
Has this actually happened? It seems mighty far fetched as a business
case. Pardon me if I haven't read your entire missive.
> My main point of contension is that copyright as it stands is unfair for
> many parties involved.
I won't disagree. It's particularly unfair to the original creator
since he doesn't really have a way to market his work profitably
without the help of a lot of other people who all want there share of
the profit. That doesn't leave much for the creator. This is why so
many songwriters publish their own work. But it's the publishers that
start the money-making process once there's something to sell. Smart
songwriters often collaborate with a publisher or co-writer connected
with a publisher, giving away as much as half of what they're entitled
to collect. But what they get for that is an opportunity to generate a
lot more income from royalties than if he just recorded the song
himself and nobody famous enough to make him any money ever heard it.
> What I am trying to do, is to have the composer's rights based on their
> personal moral ground. Once that is clear, there is no reason for them to
> contest any use that doesn't contravene their initial wishes.
Unfortunately, business and morals don't always go together.
> I understand that. I didn't suggest it would be an easy task to get everyone
> to agree to a single set of rules. I merely think that it should be done.
> No-one is going to budge on the issues unless a considerable number of
> people get together and state that these changes are required for the
> benefit of the industry.
What industry? Right now, the rules benefit the publishing industry.
They're the ones putting up the most money and taking the most risk.
Why shouldn't they get the benefit of their work and their risk? The
more they sell, the more the artist makes. Should the artist make 10%
if his work sells poorly and 90% if it sells well? There's good
argument for that (from the artist's side).
It would be nice if copyright law was the same world wide, but I don't
see that happening in my lifetime.
huwg...@my-deja.com
Lynn wrote:
> Sarcastic response noted! :o)
>
> I assume you are quite happy that people share music freely online, and
> others inadvertantly get taken to court for unknowingly plagiarising someone
> else's creation?
Why would you assume that? Just because I don't agree with your
"long-awaited" monomaniacal scheme?
>
> BTW. I do think that all intellectual property should have a similar system.
> I'm not simply talking about music, but it is a starting point.
That's where your idea is idiotic. Of course, a system that rewarded
all creators of intellectual property equally would be a good thing for
you. But it wouldn't be good for those people who create viable,
valuable intellectual property.
huwg...@my-deja.com
Jay Kadis wrote:
> In article <1129918328....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> huwg...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Jay Kadis wrote:
> > > In article <1h4rw7g.116tql2cnkx8oN%walk...@thegrid.net>,
> > > walk...@thegrid.net (hank alrich) wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think anybody who has to listen to much of waht can be downloaded
> > > > should be paid to put up with listening to that.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > ha
> > >
> > > But I'd have to say the same about commercial radio and TV.
> >
> > Commercial radio and TV is profesionally put together and
> > well-produced, even if most of the time it isn't intellectually
> > challenging. That's always been the case. "The Spanish Tragedy" was
> > more popular than any Shakespeare play.
> >
>
> But who cares how good the production values are if there's no content?
All things being equal, nearly everyone prefers good production values
to bad. And I don't think its so easy to create a show like "Friends".
I don't like it either. But millions do.
>
> > Most free music is not even played competently. At least there's a
> > barrier to entry for commercially produced music.
> >
>
> Plenty of commercial music wouldn't be perceived as competently played if we
> didn't have ProTools to fix it.
That's splitting hairs. It is played competently because the end result
is tight. The end result isn't tight in most downloadable music.
William Davis
> > >
> > > Lynn wrote:
> > >> With my system, everyone with an internet connection will be paying a
> > >> small
> > >> monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download any
> > >> music
> > >> you like. With internet costs coming down all the time, this additional
> > >> sum
> > >> will barely be noticed. This revenue will be distributed among the people
> > >> responsible for making the music that is downloaded. Filesharing will no
> > >> longer be an issue.
> > >
The difficult to understand truth is, musicians don't actually get paid
for making music. They get paid for attracting an appreciative audience.
Rent the DVD for the Sting tour for Bring on the Night. Some annoying
toady was on camera explaining why Sting got all the money when so many
of the top-flight musicians backing him up where so much more talented.
The flack said "because if they put (indicating the band) any of these
cats names up on the marquee - the we probably sell some tickets. We put
STING on the marquee and we've got three nights sold out in an hour."
He gets the lions share of the money because his name puts the butts in
the seats. Cold and simple as that.
Any musician who fails to understand that is doomed to financial
difficulty.
Actually, anyone in ANY business who fails to understand the principal
behind this will have rough going.
The people who get the largest share of the profits in any field are
hardly ever those who do the work - but rather those who accept
RESPONSIBILITY for producing financial results.
So your suggestion is bound to fail because it equalizes rewards for
those who accept responsibility for driving financial results, and
those who do not.
Like I said, cold, but that's the way it's ALWAYS worked. Like it or not.
FWIW
Henry Salvia
> > > > Lynn wrote:
> > > >> With my system, everyone with an internet connection will be paying a
> > > >> small
> > > >> monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download any
> > > >> music
> > > >> you like. With internet costs coming down all the time, this additional
> > > >> sum
> > > >> will barely be noticed. This revenue will be distributed among the people
> > > >> responsible for making the music that is downloaded. Filesharing will no
> > > >> longer be an issue.
>
> The difficult to understand truth is, musicians don't actually get paid
> for making music. They get paid for attracting an appreciative audience.
>
> Rent the DVD for the Sting tour for Bring on the Night. Some annoying
> toady was on camera explaining why Sting got all the money when so many
> of the top-flight musicians backing him up where so much more talented.
I second the nomination, but point of order: the "annoying toady" was
Miles Copeland, Sting's manager, former manager of The Police, and
drummer Stewart Copeland's brother. He was describing the meeting called
by the band, all (then-)young jazz musicians, including Branford
Marsalis.
My favorite line from this scene is when he answers their statement
about
"what everyone brings to the table" with "yeah, but its Sting's table".
> The flack said "because if they put (indicating the band) any of these
> cats names up on the marquee - the we probably sell some tickets. We put
> STING on the marquee and we've got three nights sold out in an hour."
>
> He gets the lions share of the money because his name puts the butts in
> the seats. Cold and simple as that.
Even colder: the part where he first asks how many people will ask for
their money back if Branford doesn't show up, versus how many if Sting
doesn't show up. Great movie that (probably unintentionally) has a lot
to say about how the music business works.
I wouldn't want to work for Miles Copeland, but I'd sure like him to
be my manager. And there's so many things wrong with Lynn's idea that
I have no idea where to start. But rent the movie, the music's pretty
good
and the scenes with Miles in them are very educational.
Henry Salvia.
hank alrich
> "Fletch" wrote
<snippage happens>
> Whilst there may still be unscrupulous companies who will bribe radio
> stations to play certain records, the fact that artists will have the choice
> under my system to allow stations to play their records free of royalties if
> they so wish, could help to reduce this practice somewhat.
Naive. Stations play songs that garner an audience. Not having to pay a
small pittance for a song is not a motivating factor to play a song.
> In fact, I see
> the practice of "signing" an exclusive contract with a record company, dying
> out. record companies will be replaced by marketing companies who will work
> FOR the artists, not the other way around.
Record companies _are_ marketing companies. If you want them to market
you, you play with the best version of the rules that you can negotiate.
You are, of course, free to undertake your own marketing.
> > It also falls upon the "fan" or ardent music afficianado to cease being
> > selfish and start paying for what they want to hear, whether by the song
> > or by the album. This, too, requires a change in attitude. It's this
> > perception of "music should be free" that creates the fault.
> With my system, everyone with an internet connection will be paying a small
> monthly fee for a "personal license" that allows you to download any music
> you like. With internet costs coming down all the time, this additional sum
> will barely be noticed. This revenue will be distributed among the people
> responsible for making the music that is downloaded. Filesharing will no
> longer be an issue.
That's a lousy idea. I do not download music, and I have no desire to
pay your monthly fee so that you can download music.
> > As a lifelong musician, I want people to understand one thing about my
> > music: if they like it, they should "invest" in it by purchasing it. This
> > investment will be just that, an investment in the production of new music
> > to add to that which I have already created. In this way, they are
> > demonstrating a commitment to supporting the music they want. Without this
> > investment, my career as a recording artist will cease and the music will
> > disappear.
> I totally agree with you. That is why we must get together and petition for
> the changes I have described.
I refuse. Your changes are ill considered and selfish.
> > Just as the above mentioned Dentist expects to be paid for their services,
> > so do I. And anyone as a consumer of such services should have an
> > expectation to pay for these services. You all work, right? And you expect
> > to get paid, right? So do I.
> Exactly! Go and sign my petition!
> http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/Copyrights/
No, this thing is stupid.
> > Stealing music will do only one thing: destroy the band/artist who created
> > it. Sure, the songs may get heard, and people may actually really, really
> > like the material, but if they, the listener (end user?), do not
> > materially participate in supporting that artist/band, then they should
> > really not have any complaints when that band dies due to lack of support.
> My system will reduce the stealing of music, plagiarism and copyright
> infringement to almost zero.
Your system will steal money from me in order to pay for your habit.
--
ha