Depressing!
hotchkisstrio
used to play at regularly:
"Since eliminating music my sales have continued to grow but I don't
have any of the expenses (musicians and ASCAP fees, etc.)."
He went on to say that while he enjoyed the music, he just couldn't
justify the cost from a business perspective.
I should point out these guys were great to play for and payed a very
fair fixed wage for jazz, without charging a cover. This is so
depressing to hear though, esp the part about ASCAP!!!
Later,
Paul H.
Pt
<paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That sucks.
I hope you fine an even better gig soon.
Pt
Marco
news:1142989208.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> I should point out these guys were great to play for and payed a very
> fair fixed wage for jazz, without charging a cover. This is so
> depressing to hear though, esp the part about ASCAP!!!
>
> Later,
> Paul H.
Paul,
do not be depressed in Italy we say: "si chiude una porta si apre un
portone" translated: "a door is closing a main door is opening" Just wait !
Marco
Mark Guest
shakedown thugs, as the formula they use for after-expense
disbursements does not even attempt to be fair.
Best,
Mark Guest
RickH
The guy is not looking at why his sales are up, which is because people
were being entertained and expect it. Now if he thinks he can maintain
or increase sales without the music, he's kidding himself. At some
point in the months ahead there will be a drop off.
A jazz restaurant here opened up about 10 months ago, they had nice
jazz groups on Fri/Sat/Sun, place was always packed for about 6 months.
Then they got a piano player with a MIDI laptop to "save money". Well
needless to say, my wife and some friends went there on St Pats. day,
the place should have been packed. But there were only 2 tables filled
all night! And we had to bear listening to raspy MIDI files and
non-jazz or jazz-ish music, we were all disappointed and will not go
there again even if the food is awesome.
Cant these guys save money elsewhere?
Joe Finn
news:1142989208.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
It sounds like you might be describing a restaurant.
Lots of restaurants feature music. People like to hear music while they dine
and it's nice that musicians have these various opportunities to perform
too, but the restaurant business is full of all kinds of people. Some can't
see the forest for the trees. There are those who really love and support
the music and see it as a central part of what they are presenting to their
clientele. Others are bottom-line bean counters who don't even care about
the food or even the customers; to them only the money matters. The business
itself obviously has it's ups and downs as well. These places come and go.
New restaurants are opening up all the time.
There's nothing to get depressed about. ..........joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
>
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
hotchkisstrio
ago. I contacted him to see if he'd like to start up again. His
initial decision to stop music was driven as much by dealing with
a-hole musicians as it was driven by cost. But in the last year his
sales have continued strong without paying ASCAP fees, dealing with
flakes etc. BTW, I was not one of the musicians he had trouble with, I
assume it was one of the rock-and-roll bands they booked (heh heh). I
think part of the problem they had was they paid a fixed wage, but
booked all sorts of music. Well, if you pay a good wage and book only
jazz, you're likely to have very high level players on a regular basis,
but when you start booking rock bands who are used to playing for tips
in dive bars, well ... Who knows what exactly happened.
I will keep looking for gigs though, just got to hustle and keep
working it.
Marc Sabatella
> shakedown thugs, as the formula they use for after-expense
> disbursements does not even attempt to be fair.
I agree it doesn't reflect reality, but I wouldn't say this is because
it "does not even attempt to be fair". I've given the matter
considerable thought, and have yet to come up with anything better that
would even remotely workable in practice.
In any case, I fail to see how demanding that people pay for the
services they are using constitutes "no better than shakedown thugs".
You can quibble with the specific amounts being charged - and I also
have issues with that - but the principle is sound. ASCAP may have cost
you a gig, but in so doing, they are helping to make sure the composers
they represent get paid.
---------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Music, art, & educational materials
Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
http://www.outsideshore.com/
paul
this sucks for us musicians, but I think that music should add value
and make the restaurant owner extra money. if it's not making the guy
any extra money, why on earth would he pay for it in a business where
his margins are razor thin as it is? if patrons complained about the
lack of live music and his business dropped off, he would almost
definitely bring back live music. but if no one cares, it doesn't make
a lot of sense for him to pay for it.
--paul
tow...@asdf2.com
>
> In any case, I fail to see how demanding that people pay for the
> services they are using constitutes "no better than shakedown thugs".
> You can quibble with the specific amounts being charged - and I also
> have issues with that - but the principle is sound. ASCAP may have cost
> you a gig, but in so doing, they are helping to make sure the composers
> they represent get paid.
Assuming this is a gig where they'd play a lot of Standards, I'd rather
present day musicians be able to gig, rather than get writers from the
30's - 50's their cut. Those tunes should be public domain, available for
everyone to use.
For the record, I'm for Copyright. I appreciate that songwriting royalties
are about the only guaranteed ways for an artist (or whoever is writing
their songs) to get paid. This is good, but the length of time given for
sole possession of Copyright is ludicrous, and everyday musicians are
paying the price.
I really don't see how we benefit as a society by making sure the
songwriters from 50 years ago are getting paid. If Copyright had a
reasonable length (say 28 years), I think we'd all be
better off. Right now, Copyright mostly helps big publishing companies at
the expense of everyone else.
Copyright was created to increase the works available in the
public domain; not to allow publishing companies the ability to squeeze
every last dime out of a creative work.
Heck, John Fogerty could play his own songs again.
townes
Ted Vieira
1142989208.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com, "hotchkisstrio"
<paulyho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
That's a shame, Paul. I've always been understanding to club owners who just
can't justify the cost of live music. He's in business to make money, and
that can be hard enough these days. That doesn't make it any easier for us,
but of course we can't fight the logic of the situation.
Are you still in Portland? I still miss it up there. Good luck with finding
some new venues to play.
Ted
--
http://www.TedVieira.com
CDs, NEW: eBooks, Free Online Lessons
Free Online Articles, Performance Schedule & more...
http://www.JazzInstruction.com
A fresh new resource to lessons and
instructional materials on the web
to help your development as a jazz artist.
Marc Sabatella
> rather
> present day musicians be able to gig, rather than get writers from the
> 30's - 50's their cut.
It doesn't *have* to be an either-or thing. Sometimes we hear horror
stories about a small venue being charged $1000 or more per year, and
this seems high. On the other hand, that works out to around $100 a
month. If a place is having live music a couple of nights a week, that
$100 a month should be but a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of
hiring musicians. My guess is that 95% of the club owners who protest
that ASCAP or BMI is keeping them from hiring musicians are just using
that as an excuse - it's really the cost of the live musicians that is
the issue. Which is to say, we musicians are pricing *ourselves* out of
the gig. Not that I think we're charging too much. Its just a reality
of the business - some places by their very nature cannot afford to have
live music.
> Those tunes should be public domain, available for
> everyone to use.
If there were any way to ensure that people got paid an approprite wage
immediately on completion of writing a piece, I'd be all in favor of
having it go public domain sooner. As it is, I know of no other way for
a composer to have a decent crack at earning the money his piece would
prove to be worth.
> I really don't see how we benefit as a society by making sure the
> songwriters from 50 years ago are getting paid.
Because paying them over the course of 50 years is the only way to get
them paid what their songs are worth. If copyright lasted a
significantly shorter length of time, then we'd simply have to charge
signficantly more for each use in order to guarantee the same meager
income.
> Right now, Copyright mostly helps big publishing companies at
> the expense of everyone else.
Not true. It helps everyone who has ever composed a tune good enough
for someone else to want to play. And it helps everyone who plays
autnes written by people who might not have turned to composing as a
career if there were no way to get paid.
> Copyright was created to increase the works available in the
> public domain
To increase the works available, period. And the only known way to do
so is to pay composers a decent amount to do so.
Max Leggett
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> Copyright was created to increase the works available in the
>> public domain
>
>To increase the works available, period. And the only known way to do
>so is to pay composers a decent amount to do so.
>
You can only say that if you're not expecting a free ride on someone
else's talent. If you want a nice song in the public domain, write
one.
------------------------
"I woke up this morning an' I was fixin' to die."
Jailhouse Max Junior
---------------------------
Joe Finn
> It is a restaurant, and they actually stopped having music over a year
> ago. I contacted him to see if he'd like to start up again. His
> initial decision to stop music was driven as much by dealing with
> a-hole musicians as it was driven by cost.
It is for this reason that a lot of people use a musician that they know and
trust to coordinate the schedule. This way the owner can focus on other
important issues and not have to deal directly with the musicians
themselves.
>But in the last year his
> sales have continued strong without paying ASCAP fees, dealing with
> flakes etc. BTW, I was not one of the musicians he had trouble with, I
> assume it was one of the rock-and-roll bands they booked (heh heh). I
> think part of the problem they had was they paid a fixed wage, but
> booked all sorts of music. Well, if you pay a good wage and book only
> jazz, you're likely to have very high level players on a regular basis,
> but when you start booking rock bands who are used to playing for tips
> in dive bars, well ... Who knows what exactly happened.
I agree that using rock bands is a mistake where food is being served. Most
of these guys are just too stinkin' loud.
It's also a good idea for the clientele to have good consistent music
programming with dynamic levels that do not preclude conversation.
Joe Finn
news:1143051569.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All business is tough. Music can be tougher than most.
I think there have to be other reasons to be in a given business other than
the money. There has to be something about the nature of the business that
people are passionate about. Otherwise, why bother? If you're only in it for
the money what you have become? ....joe
paul
Joe Finn wrote:
> I think there have to be other reasons to be in a given business other than
> the money.
there is a huge difference between being in business solely for the
money (which I don't think many business owners are), and being willing
to take a (sometimes significant) cut in profits just because you want
to have music in your place.
again, if musicians aren't making the restaurant extra money and adding
value, you have to hope they are willing to do the same thing we do
when we play a gig for free, which boils down to subsidizing
entertainment. it's very hard for me to fault restaurant
owners/managers not willing to engage in this sort of activity,
although I am always grateful for those who are are.
--paul
Max Leggett
>
>again, if musicians aren't making the restaurant extra money and adding
>value,
You nailed it. Clubs aren't in the business of providing employmenr
for musicians, they're in the business of making money, and they make
money by having paying customers walk in the door. If the band isn't
good enough to attract clientele, it's not ASCAP's fault. I don't
believe these horror stories of clubs being shut down by outrageous
ASCAP fees. At best, the owner is being kind to the musicians by
making excuses when he fires them. No club owner is ignorant of ASCAP,
they all know about fees. And if ASCAP wants $1,000, that's $20 a
week. The staff will steal more than that. If the band's no damn
good, people won't go to the club, and it won't make money. ASCAP fees
are immaterial. Miles and Mingus and Dolphy and I all played clubs
that paid ASCAP and didn't go broke. That's because Miles et al were
good enough musicians to draw a crowd. No one owes anybody a gig. You
have to earn it through musicianship, and all this crap about ASCAP is
a red herring.
>when we play a gig for free, which boils down to subsidizing
>entertainment. it's very hard for me to fault restaurant
>owners/managers not willing to engage in this sort of activity,
>although I am always grateful for those who are are.
They have mortgages, kids, orthodontist bills, they want to put some
money aside for retirement, and I don't think they should subsidise
anybody. If I can draw a crowd, I deserve a gig. If I can't, I'll
blame ASCAP.
As far as royalties go, songwriters are already screwed. It used to be
that if you wrote a decent song it might sell 100,000 copies and you
might make a little coin. Now, with downloading and burning for all
your friends, you're lucky to see 10,000 sales. And people want to rip
you off for even more royalties so they can wiggle their ass on stage
and call themself a Jazz Musician. Jazz musicians draw crowds, paying
custoners, through their ability. Not because BMI waives their fees. I
say lifetime + 50 years. If it's good enough for authors, it's good
enough for composers. If you want a nice song in the public domain,
write one. If you don't have the talent to do so, don't blame ASCAP.
ric...@gmail.com
[...]
> To increase the works available, period. And the only known way to do
> so is to pay composers a decent amount to do so.
I don't want to get into this argument again :-). But here is an
interesting article called "IP Run Amok".
http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/03/intellectual_property.html
Mind you it's from a leftists magazine, so take it with a grain of
salt.
The funniest story is the one about heirs of John Cage suing a band for
using 60 seconds of silence on their CD (clearly a quote from the
famous John Cage piano piece) ;-)
Are you guys quoting John Cage in your music and not paying for it?
To be honest I supect the 60 seconds silence story is probably just an
urban legend...
...richie
tow...@asdf2.com
>
> >> Copyright was created to increase the works available in the
> >> public domain
> >
> else's talent.
I don't feel guilty about getting a "free ride" on someone else's talent
when they're dead.
>If you want a nice song in the public domain, write one.
I have and am currently writing more. In a sane Copyright system they'd
enter the public domain in 28 years. If I can't make enough $$$ of them in
that time, I don't expect anyone to feel sorry for me.
As it stands now, they'll enter the public domain sometime around 2130. I
think that's ludicrous.
townes
ric...@gmail.com
[...]
>
> As it stands now, they'll enter the public domain sometime around 2130. I
> think that's ludicrous.
>
You can always license your work with a Creative Commons license -
which can allow all of us to use your work.
Take a look here: http://creativecommons.org/
...richie
Marc Sabatella
> talent
> when they're dead.
Great. I'll feel free, then, to steal any money you might leave to your
descendents. Or, for that matter, any money any ancestors ever left
you. Because you are basically advocating the same - stealing from
descendents of dead composers.
> I have and am currently writing more. In a sane Copyright system
> they'd
> enter the public domain in 28 years.
It amazes me that peopople who have clearly done any statistical
projections seem so confident that 28 years is just the right figure.
Max Leggett
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> I don't feel guilty about getting a "free ride" on someone else's
>> talent
>> when they're dead.
>
>Great. I'll feel free, then, to steal any money you might leave to your
>descendents. Or, for that matter, any money any ancestors ever left
>you. Because you are basically advocating the same - stealing from
>descendents of dead composers.
>
>> I have and am currently writing more. In a sane Copyright system
>> they'd
>> enter the public domain in 28 years.
>
>It amazes me that peopople who have clearly done any statistical
>projections seem so confident that 28 years is just the right figure.
>
I would have thought, Marc, that you, of all people, would recognise
28 as the cube root of the length of the sides, in cubits, of the
Great Pyramid at Giza. As is well known, the chamber from the burial
platform to the opening 1/2 down the North Face points directly at The
Dog Star in Sirius at dawn at midsummer. Ergo, 28 years is the ideal
length of time for copyright protection. QED.
>---------------
>Marc Sabatella
>ma...@outsideshore.com
>
>Music, art, & educational materials
>Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
>http://www.outsideshore.com/
>
>
------------------------
tomb...@jhu.edu
> > I don't feel guilty about getting a "free ride" on someone else's
> > talent
> > when they're dead.
>
> Great. I'll feel free, then, to steal any money you might leave to your
> descendents. Or, for that matter, any money any ancestors ever left
> you. Because you are basically advocating the same - stealing from
> descendents of dead composers.
Also feel free to kill jazz while you're at it. Jazz and other
improvisational musics only thrive with a common around which an
artistic community can develop. For there to be an audience, the
repertoire must be recognizable to that audience. Jazz has been slowly
dying ever since it became disconnected from the pop repertoire, and
copyright taxes on the recording industry is the biggest part of why
that happened.
tow...@asdf2.com
>
> > I don't feel guilty about getting a "free ride" on someone else's
> > talent
> > when they're dead.
>
> Great. I'll feel free, then, to steal any money you might leave to your
> descendents. Or, for that matter, any money any ancestors ever left
> you. Because you are basically advocating the same - stealing from
> descendents of dead composers.
No. By walking into a restaurant and playing a Gershwin tune, I'm Copying
without permission. The U.S. Government says this is a crime, but
it's inherently different than stealing.
If I take $10 out of Gershwin's ancestors pocket, they no longer have
the $10. If I play one of Gershwin's tunes, his ancestor can still get a
sandwich.
I fully support the ability for Gershwin's ancestors to keep any money he made.
> > they'd
> > enter the public domain in 28 years.
>
> It amazes me that peopople who have clearly done any statistical
> projections seem so confident that 28 years is just the right figure.
Obviously, any possible Copyright length is going to be arbitrary. 28
years was the first Copyright term authorized by Congress (14 years
plus a 14 year extension). If a more recent term was used ( 56 years ) it
would still reasonably fit the description of a "limited time" in the U.S.
Constitution.
If there are any statistical projections I'd certainly like to see them.
In the event that my views would grossly harm Songwriters, I'm certainly
willing to rethink them.
townes
tow...@asdf2.com
>
> Also feel free to kill jazz while you're at it. Jazz and other
> improvisational musics only thrive with a common around which an
> artistic community can develop. For there to be an audience, the
> repertoire must be recognizable to that audience. Jazz has been slowly
> dying ever since it became disconnected from the pop repertoire, and
> copyright taxes on the recording industry is the biggest part of why
> that happened.
To be fair, it's not much of a hassle to play modern tunes as a performer.
Most venues where you're a "feature" act pay the ASCAP/BMI fees, so an
artist can play whatever songs they want.
Releasing a cover tune on a CD requires no special permission and costs
under 10 cents a copy per song. I think this is entirely fair.
townes
tow...@asdf2.com
>
> > Sorry to hear that. ASCAP cost me a gig...they're no better than
> > shakedown thugs, as the formula they use for after-expense
> > disbursements does not even attempt to be fair.
>
> I agree it doesn't reflect reality, but I wouldn't say this is because
> it "does not even attempt to be fair". I've given the matter
> considerable thought, and have yet to come up with anything better that
> would even remotely workable in practice.
Why is a Copyright term of 30-50 years unworkable? Composers still
have incentive to create and time to profit from their creation. And when
the Copyright expires the rest of the world can benefit from their
works, without shelling out $$$$ to whoever owns the publishing rights.
By "everyone" I mean society as a whole, including libraries,
schools, students, educators, fans and *gasp* the next generation of musicians.
townes
Marc Sabatella
>> your
>> descendents. Or, for that matter, any money any ancestors ever left
>> you. Because you are basically advocating the same - stealing from
>> descendents of dead composers.
>
> Also feel free to kill jazz while you're at it. Jazz and other
> improvisational musics only thrive with a common around which an
> artistic community can develop. For there to be an audience, the
> repertoire must be recognizable to that audience. Jazz has been slowly
> dying ever since it became disconnected from the pop repertoire, and
> copyright taxes on the recording industry is the biggest part of why
> that happened.
This is, of course, utter BS. People paid royalties on the pop
repertoire back in the day as well. And realistically, the interest in
recording these same standards has not diminished much. Ever since the
Gershwin started writing his tunes, people have been than willing to pay
royalties to record them, and they continue to do so all the time. If
they aren't also recording more recent pop tunes, it isn't because of
copyright issues. If not playing pop tunes is somehow killing jazz,
then that can be fixed without a change to copyright law. On the other
hand, I don't believe for a minute that jazz is "dying", nor do I
believe that any decline in the popularity of jazz is connected to the
fact that it does not represent the recent pop repertoire (eg, jazz
musicians covering pop tunes in ways that would appeal to jazz musicians
would still not appeal to most people), nor do I believe that any
changes to the nature of jazz that gave it a broader appeal would be
necessarily good things.
Marc Sabatella
> Copying
> without permission. The U.S. Government says this is a crime, but
> it's inherently different than stealing.
>
> If I take $10 out of Gershwin's ancestors pocket, they no longer have
> the $10. If I play one of Gershwin's tunes, his ancestor can still get
> a
> sandwich.
Yes, but you can only make that distinction because you imagine that the
already money in someone's pocket has already been earned, just because
he already has possession of it; whereas the money someone should have
made from your performance of their tune has not been earned, just
because he doesn't already have the money. That's just plain silly.
There *is* no difference. The service was provided and you took
advantage of it, so payment is due. Depriving someone of that payment
is no different than stealing in any relevant way. If you insist on
making this completely artificial distinction between money one is
already physically in possession of and money one has merely earned but
not yet received, then I'll be happy to modify my observation to saying
I should be allowed to steal your paycheck before your employer gives it
to you. Money you have earned but not received.
> I fully support the ability for Gershwin's ancestors to keep any money
> he made.
And some of that money he made but has not received yet. That's just
the nature of this type of work - one is *not* paid for it up front.
> Obviously, any possible Copyright length is going to be arbitrary. 28
> years was the first Copyright term authorized by Congress (14 years
> plus a 14 year extension).
It is possible such a law was in effect briefly a couple of centuries
ago, in a completely different world economically and technologically
from the one we live in. It is equally amazing that anyone would assume
this same figure - which was almost certainly just made up with no real
statistical basis back then - would somehow represent the One True Term
of copyright length.
Marc Sabatella
>> > shakedown thugs, as the formula they use for after-expense
>> > disbursements does not even attempt to be fair.
>>
>> I agree it doesn't reflect reality, but I wouldn't say this is
>> because
>> it "does not even attempt to be fair". I've given the matter
>> considerable thought, and have yet to come up with anything better
>> that
>> would even remotely workable in practice.
>
> Why is a Copyright term of 30-50 years unworkable?
It isn't, but it doesn't address the problem to which I was responding:
the fairness of the formula for disbursement. I agree that this
forumla is inherently unfair, but the unfairness has nothing to do with
length of copyright. It has to do with the fact that disbursement is
based on a sampling of radio airplay and not on what is actually being
performed live. That is, it is the songs that are played on the radio
most often that get the bulk of the money collected from live
performance. This does not reflect what is actually being played,
however - live covers of current pop songs are considerably less common
than live versions of classic tunes. I suspect that in the last year
there were more live performances of "All The Things You Are", "Song For
My Father", "Blackbird", "Sweet Home Alabama", or "Fire And Rain", last
year than there were of whatever song got the most radio airplay. Even
if this does not turn out to be literally true of some of these songs,
they make good examples of tunes whose frequency of live performance is
not reflected by their frequency of radio airplay.
ken
> You nailed it. Clubs aren't in the business of providing employmenr
> for musicians, they're in the business of making money, and they make
> money by having paying customers walk in the door. If the band isn't
> good enough to attract clientele, it's not ASCAP's fault. I don't
> believe these horror stories of clubs being shut down by outrageous
> ASCAP fees. At best, the owner is being kind to the musicians by
> making excuses when he fires them. No club owner is ignorant of ASCAP,
> they all know about fees. And if ASCAP wants $1,000, that's $20 a
> week. The staff will steal more than that. If the band's no damn
> good, people won't go to the club, and it won't make money. ASCAP fees
> are immaterial. Miles and Mingus and Dolphy and I all played clubs
> that paid ASCAP and didn't go broke. That's because Miles et al were
> good enough musicians to draw a crowd. No one owes anybody a gig. You
> have to earn it through musicianship, and all this crap about ASCAP is
> a red herring.
Exactly. Facing reality and hearing the truth is out of fashion these
days, so this post (and Paul's) is refreshing...
Max Leggett
It's the whole idea of entitlement which is so rampant. I'm entitled
to a VP's salary even though I only scraped through high school. I'm
entitled to a BMW even though I have a dead end job. I'm entitled to
use other people's songs without having to pay for them. I'm entitled
to burn CDs and never pay for them. I'm entitled to a gig because I'm
a Jazz Musician. I'm entitled to everything I want and there's no need
for me to make any effort to attain it. 'Cos I said.
I feel a rant coming on .................. LOL!
misterwilliamc
> Yes, but you can only make that distinction because you imagine that the
> already money in someone's pocket has already been earned, just because
> he already has possession of it; whereas the money someone should have
> made from your performance of their tune has not been earned, just
> because he doesn't already have the money. That's just plain silly.
> There *is* no difference. The service was provided and you took
> advantage of it, so payment is due. Depriving someone of that payment
> is no different than stealing in any relevant way. If you insist on
> making this completely artificial distinction between money one is
> already physically in possession of and money one has merely earned but
> not yet received, then I'll be happy to modify my observation to saying
> I should be allowed to steal your paycheck before your employer gives it
> to you. Money you have earned but not received.
Marc, Bless You for keeping at it.
Deaf ears, Dull/Dead Souls abound.
What you are trying to show should be a given, a self evident.
That people have become SoSelfish, have CauterizedConscience to the
point that they are AbsolutelyUnable to walk in someone else's shoes,
both while CreativePeople alive and in them leaving something for
progeny....
They are smaaaaaaal, Marc.
If they had anything going on, they'd be doing it themselves, instead of
BullschittRationalizedApologetics for draining the life out of those
(and their descendents) who Created What They Crave But Don't Have
Themselves...... Through OutRightWrongTheft.
What A Mess.
True Freedom has Dissipated
while
Thieves have Proliferated
So damned sick of all the peeee (as in weeeee) ple rushing into this
newsgroup....
Lookey here! Lookey Heeeeeere! Another shot at someone else's work
without Paying Mechanicals Listen To Me.
What for? Hell No.
Get a life folks.
Plug in to Spirit get your own thing going.
If you don't have that going on, at least have Decency To PayThePiper.
You get Your Paychecks, you PhuqingDeadSoulClueless.
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> > Obviously, any possible Copyright length is going to be arbitrary. 28
> > years was the first Copyright term authorized by Congress (14 years
> > plus a 14 year extension).
>
> It is possible such a law was in effect briefly a couple of centuries
> ago, in a completely different world economically and technologically
> from the one we live in. It is equally amazing that anyone would assume
> this same figure - which was almost certainly just made up with no real
> statistical basis back then - would somehow represent the One True Term
> of copyright length.
You totally missed his point. Your argument is totally based on some
arbitrary standard that has no empirical basis. Even though you're a
smart guy, you still can't defend your position without stooping to
ridiculous ad hominem attacks, such as accusing people of "stealing"
simply because they disagree with your unsupported arbitrary standard.
How about if I frame the debate from my perspective the way that you
habitually go about it? It would look something like this:
People who support extending the copyright law are sociopaths who want
to shit in the public commons without cleaning up after yourselves. You
don't care a bit about art; all you want to do is suck as much unearned
income out of the system before the public wises up and gives you the
ass-kicking you have coming to you. You're no better than Halliburton
or some other parasitical corporation sucking on the public teat for
money it hasn't earned.
misterwilliamc
tomb...@jhu.edu
Yeah, that was exactly my point. Way ahead of you, dude.
misterwilliamc
Everybody will stand or fall on the other side of this thing called life.
Multiplied.
If lead others, as in educator, more so.
UltimateProfit. UltimateChagrin.
You've been notified.
Marc Sabatella
>> > Obviously, any possible Copyright length is going to be arbitrary.
>> > 28
>> > years was the first Copyright term authorized by Congress (14 years
>> > plus a 14 year extension).
>>
>> It is possible such a law was in effect briefly a couple of centuries
>> ago, in a completely different world economically and technologically
>> from the one we live in. It is equally amazing that anyone would
>> assume
>> this same figure - which was almost certainly just made up with no
>> real
>> statistical basis back then - would somehow represent the One True
>> Term
>> of copyright length.
>
> You totally missed his point. Your argument is totally based on some
> arbitrary standard that has no empirical basis.
Since I have never argued for any specific figure, I am not the one
basing my arguments on any aribtrary standard whatsoever.
> Even though you're a
> smart guy, you still can't defend your position without stooping to
> ridiculous ad hominem attacks, such as accusing people of "stealing"
> simply because they disagree with your unsupported arbitrary standard.
There is nothing ridiculous about copyright infringement and its
similarity to stealing.
> How about if I frame the debate from my perspective the way that you
> habitually go about it? It would look something like this:
[ crap deleted that has no bearing whatsoever on anything I've ever
written ]
tomb...@jhu.edu
>
> Since I have never argued for any specific figure, I am not the one
> basing my arguments on any aribtrary standard whatsoever.
This is a lame cop-out. There is the same glaring absence of evidence
in your arguments against specific figures.
> There is nothing ridiculous about copyright infringement and its
> similarity to stealing.
It's your constant claim to a moral high ground that is ridiculous.
> > How about if I frame the debate from my perspective the way that you
> > habitually go about it? It would look something like this:
>
> [ crap deleted that has no bearing whatsoever on anything I've ever
> written ]
You still don't get it. You're like a religious fanatic who cannot see
that his beliefs do not automatically make him morally superior to
others, and so he feels free to sit in judgment of people simply
because they disagree with him.
Marc Sabatella
> in your arguments against specific figures.
As I said before, there is nothing shameful about saying "I don't know".
What *is* shameful is going around insisting you have the answer when it
is quite plain to everyone reading that you don't.
>> There is nothing ridiculous about copyright infringement and its
>> similarity to stealing.
>
> It's your constant claim to a moral high ground that is ridiculous.
Opposing theft *is* the moral high ground.
> You still don't get it. You're like a religious fanatic who cannot see
> that his beliefs do not automatically make him morally superior to
> others, and so he feels free to sit in judgment of people simply
> because they disagree with him.
No, I judge people when they harm others and then claim they are not.
tomb...@jhu.edu
> >
> > It's your constant claim to a moral high ground that is ridiculous.
>
> Opposing theft *is* the moral high ground.
And there is the fanatic's tone once again. You believe that you alone
are positioned to define theft. Morality springs full-grown from the
head of Sabatella, and anyone who disagrees with him is immoral.
Has it never occurred to you that beliefs about property rights are
socially constructed, and that they vary across time, space, and
culture? And that even in one time, place, and culture, there can be
widespread disagreements about moral boundaries? And that social change
could not occur were it not for some minority of people willing to
challenge the prevailing moral boundaries?
Of course it hasn't, for Sabatella sits in judgment of his inferiors.
I refer interested bystanders to the classic psychological text on this
phenomenon--Theodor Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality.
Max Leggett
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>>> There is nothing ridiculous about copyright infringement and its
>>> similarity to stealing.
>>
>> It's your constant claim to a moral high ground that is ridiculous.
>
>Opposing theft *is* the moral high ground.
>
That all depends on how you define "is".
Roger Houston
<tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:1143252506.7...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> I refer interested bystanders to the classic psychological text on this
> phenomenon--Theodor Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality.
Adorno was quite judgmental and deprecatory toward people whom he deemed
authoritarian, if I recall correctly.
PowerPiano17
good (which I'm sure you are).
tow...@asdf2.com
> > No. By walking into a restaurant and playing a Gershwin tune, I'm
> > Copying
> > without permission. The U.S. Government says this is a crime, but
> > it's inherently different than stealing.
> >
> > If I take $10 out of Gershwin's ancestors pocket, they no longer have
> > the $10. If I play one of Gershwin's tunes, his ancestor can still get
> > a
> > sandwich.
>
> Yes, but you can only make that distinction because you imagine that the
> already money in someone's pocket has already been earned, just because
> he already has possession of it; whereas the money someone should have
> made from your performance of their tune has not been earned, just
> because he doesn't already have the money. That's just plain silly.
> There *is* no difference.
I see that you are unwilling to make a distinction between
intellectual property and actual property. That is your choice. It's not a
moral issue, societies have functioned under this belief. England at the
time of the U.S. revolution is an example.
However, the distinction was a fundamental one in the creation of the U.S.
Constitution and the resulting economy. We give temporary monopoly power
over ideas (in the form of Patents or Copyright), then (after a time) set
the ideas free for all to benefit from.
It was a novel idea at the time. Frankly, it's worked for us. It's a crucial
component on why we're (the US) here and some others are
not. If you've ever taken a "generic equivalent" medication, you've
benefited form it. Also, the computer you're typing on is a product of
the innovation created by this concept. Perhaps we should be paying
tribute to every innovator that led to it's development? If we treated
Patents the way you suggest treating Copyright, we would be.
We're not thieves, we simply think the concepts that built The U.S.
are still valid.
If you sat down and looked at the numbers, I think you'd see just how
little the existing Copyright scheme actually helps the overwhelming
majority of musicians (including songwriters).
townes
Marc Sabatella
>> Yes, but you can only make that distinction because you imagine that
>> the
>> already money in someone's pocket has already been earned, just
>> because
>> he already has possession of it; whereas the money someone should
>> have
>> made from your performance of their tune has not been earned, just
>> because he doesn't already have the money. That's just plain silly.
>> There *is* no difference.
>
> I see that you are unwilling to make a distinction between
> intellectual property and actual property
I'm willing to make it where it is relevant. I'm not willing to allow
people to use this distinction as an excuse to rationalize unethical
behavior by waving their hands and saying "its intellectual instead of
physical, so none of ordinary rules of logic need apply". Try showing
how any differences in any way negate my arguments.
> It's not a
> moral issue, societies have functioned under this belief.
As they have while allowing slavery and any number of other horrors.
The fact that people have allowed it in the past does not mean there is
no moral issue at stake.
> Perhaps we should be paying
> tribute to every innovator that led to it's development? If we treated
> Patents the way you suggest treating Copyright, we would be.
Frankly, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that, provided we're
talking the same amount (pennies per use) we are with music.
> We're not thieves, we simply think the concepts that built The U.S.
> are still valid.
As so I.
> If you sat down and looked at the numbers, I think you'd see just how
> little the existing Copyright scheme actually helps the overwhelming
> majority of musicians (including songwriters).
As a working musician and composer who deals with these numbers in some
capacity on a regular basis, I don't see any such thing. As I have
already acknowledged, the scheme for disbursement of performance moneys
is seriously flawed, but given that no one has come up with a more
equitable solution, I can't really complain.
Marc Sabatella
>
> And there is the fanatic's tone once again. You believe that you alone
> are positioned to define theft.
Well, I am somewhat of a believer in the Kantian ideal of ethics as an
absolute.
> Morality springs full-grown from the
> head of Sabatella, and anyone who disagrees with him is immoral.
Nonsense. Morality follows from fairly simple principles that most
people can agree on. It's just that some lack the inclination or the
ability to think through the issues logically to arrive at a sound
conclusion.
> Has it never occurred to you that beliefs about property rights are
> socially constructed, and that they vary across time, space, and
> culture?
I think this is true to much smaller degree than you seem to believe.
But in any case, I also think it's irrelevant. My views are *not* out
of step with society's - at least, that portion of society that bothers
to think these things from any perspective other than "how can I get
more stuff for free". Whether or not this constitutes a majority or
not, it's certainly not me against the world here.
> And that social change
> could not occur were it not for some minority of people willing to
> challenge the prevailing moral boundaries?
Absolutely. And that's why I challenge those who adopt the convenient
and selfish attitude that they should be allowed to use whatever they
want for free.
Max Leggett
>> Yes, but you can only make that distinction because you imagine that the
>> already money in someone's pocket has already been earned, just because
>> he already has possession of it; whereas the money someone should have
>> made from your performance of their tune has not been earned, just
>> because he doesn't already have the money. That's just plain silly.
>> There *is* no difference.
>
>I see that you are unwilling to make a distinction between
>intellectual property and actual property.
That's because there isn't one. Take off your blinkers and stop trying
to justify your desire for a free ride.
>However, the distinction was a fundamental one in the creation of the U.S.
>Constitution and the resulting economy. We give temporary monopoly power
>over ideas (in the form of Patents or Copyright), then (after a time) set
>the ideas free for all to benefit from.
>
>It was a novel idea at the time.
Bullshit. It's an idea that has beencommon in Europe since the16th
century.
>If you sat down and looked at the numbers, I think you'd see just how
>little the existing Copyright scheme actually helps the overwhelming
>majority of musicians (including songwriters).
I've looked at the nmumbers. You're full of shit.
tow...@asdf2.com
> than live versions of classic tunes. I suspect that in the last year
> there were more live performances of "All The Things You Are", "Song For
> My Father", "Blackbird", "Sweet Home Alabama", or "Fire And Rain", last
> year than there were of whatever song got the most radio airplay. Even
> if this does not turn out to be literally true of some of these songs,
> they make good examples of tunes whose frequency of live performance is
> not reflected by their frequency of radio airplay.
This is probably true if you only count live performances, although
I'm guessing "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Fire and Rain" still get plenty of
airplay. If you include clubs with DJ's, the present day radio hits probably
get played a lot more (and to many more people) than the standard jazz
repertoire.
But you raise a practical point, in many cases the right people aren't
even getting paid.
Maybe a more fair system would involve letting the little fish swim until
they turn into big fish?
Utilize a sliding scale based on
Does the venue have a PA system?
Is there a stage?
Do they advertise live music?
Are they charging a cover?
How much?
How much $$$ is getting paid to musicians?
How recent is the repertoire? (I realize you disagree with this)
If you've got a single player set up in a corner once a week playing songs
from the 30's, no fee. If you've got a stage, PA and play recent tunes. Pay up!
The problem is, too much power is place in the hands of the content
owners. They don't have to negotiate with the little fish, and the venue
owners and musicians only real recourse is not to have live music. This
is, in effect, a tax on todays working musicians.
I think musicians have enough trouble staying afloat. I'm sure I
don't need to reiterate the dismal economic state of being a performing
musician these days. The current system just makes it harder for them.
townes
tow...@asdf2.com
> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:36:53 GMT, tow...@asdf2.com wrote:
>
> >I see that you are unwilling to make a distinction between
> >intellectual property and actual property.
>
> That's because there isn't one.
Since you conveniently ignored my examples of how making that distinction
has benefited society (without offering a better solution), I
guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Thankfully, the authors of the
U.S. Constitution did not share your views.
The standard of living and innovation produced by the United States throughout
it's history are directly due to the distinction between intellectual
property and actual property.
townes
Max Leggett
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2006, Max Leggett wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 18:36:53 GMT, tow...@asdf2.com wrote:
>>
>> >I see that you are unwilling to make a distinction between
>> >intellectual property and actual property.
>>
>> That's because there isn't one.
>
>Since you conveniently ignored my examples of how making that distinction
>has benefited society
You've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is a feeble attempt
to justify you getting a free ride. Nice doublespeak. Where are whese
figures you speak of that prove your case? Cite them. Or shut up.
>guess we'll just have to disagree on that. Thankfully, the authors of the
>U.S. Constitution did not share your views.
Ah, yes. Hiding behind the flag. Scoundrels and patriotism, yet again.
>
>The standard of living and innovation produced by the United States throughout
>it's history are directly due to the distinction between intellectual
>property and actual property.
Bullshit. Economies of scale. Nothing else.
Your game is utterly transparent - you're a hack musician who can't
get a gig and so you want to blame someone else. Anyone else. If you
were at all competent club owners would be lining up to hire you.
ASCAP is immaterial. Want a nice song inthe public domain? Write one.
Don't blame ASCAP if you haven't the talent to do so.
Marc Sabatella
> I'm guessing "Sweet Home Alabama" and "Fire and Rain" still get plenty
> of
> airplay. If you include clubs with DJ's, the present day radio hits
> probably
> get played a lot more (and to many more people) than the standard jazz
> repertoire.
Right. I'm specifically thinking of the disparity in live performance.
> Maybe a more fair system would involve letting the little fish swim
> until
> they turn into big fish?
>
> Utilize a sliding scale based on
>
> Does the venue have a PA system?
> Is there a stage?
> Do they advertise live music?
> Are they charging a cover?
> How much?
> How much $$$ is getting paid to musicians?
> How recent is the repertoire? (I realize you disagree with this)
Actually, I'd be fine in principle with taking recentness of repertoire
into account - some sort of notion that royalties due for a given song
diminish over time, rather than holding constant and then suddenly
dropping to
zero. This would be easy enough to implement with mechanical royalties,
where payment is made per song, and with regard to other per-use
royalties that are individually negoatied, I suspect this already *does*
happen to some extent. But I'm not sure how practical it would be to
use this as factor in determining fees for blanket licenses - how do you
put one number on the average age of the repertoire performed at a given
club?
Anyhow, I agree a better way of figuring out how much to charge venues
would be a great thing, and this is a problem than can and should be
addressed, using just the sort of factors you mention. However, that
doesn't directly address the problem of *distribution* of those funds,
which is what I had been talking about. There is still no practical way
anyone has suggested (that I've heard) to divvy it up except based on
radio airplay, which sucks.
> The problem is, too much power is place in the hands of the content
> owners.
An obvious way to address this, if ASCAP and BMI won't do it themselves,
would be to legislate an analogue to the compulsory license for
recording (mechanical reproduction rights). It would also be possible
for restaurant associations of musicians unions to band together and
negotiate with ASCAP and BMI.
My point being, while I agree that sometimes performance licenses can be
more expensive than most of us think they should, there are ways of
addressing that other than abolishing them. And there is no particular
reason to imagine that shortening the term of copyright would have any
effect whatsoever on the fees being charged - since one is collecting
royalties over a shorter period, one would naturally want and expect to
receive higher royalties during that limited time. Ultimately, I think
shortening copyright term could backfire, as the corresponding increase
in licensing fees that would almost surely result would serve as a
disincentive to use copyrighted music as opposed to public domain music
in situations where it is licensed individually.
tomb...@jhu.edu
Yeah, I apologize for that. Cheap shot on my part. I have a low
tolerance for true believers, because it is impossible to have an
intellectual debate with such people. That's frustrating for me, and I
overreacted.
Max Leggett
wrote:
That's ok - go practice the melodic minor for 45 minutes and we'll
call it quits.
Ludmila Borgschatz-Thudpucker, MD
<tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:1143331090.5...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Adorno was quite judgmental and deprecatory toward people whom he deemed
>> authoritarian, if I recall correctly.
>
> Yeah, I apologize for that. Cheap shot on my part. I have a low
> tolerance for true believers, because it is impossible to have an
> intellectual debate with such people. That's frustrating for me, and I
> overreacted.
There is a place for passion.
Even moderation can be overdone.
tomb...@jhu.edu
But I was rude to Marc, and I'm sorry about that. Just because he is
throwing around accusations of thievery and immorality does not excuse
my own bad behavior. I know better and yet I do it anyway.
Marc Sabatella
> throwing around accusations of thievery and immorality does not excuse
> my own bad behavior. I know better and yet I do it anyway.
Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. If one believes in something
strongly, particularly a cause in which one believes people are being
wronged, I think it is one's *duty* to speak up with what we believe to
be the truth, even if that truth is perceived as harsh by others.
That's all either of us are doing here. It's just that one is happens
to be wrong... :-)