Once again, the RIAA
Ellen Evans
Caught in the Middle" and includes tidbits such as:
===========
Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the
1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management
said
==========
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
David Kaye
> Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the
> 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management
> said
And the Backstreet Boys' manager is blaming it on file sharing rather
than on their label? That manager should be imprisoned for falsely
representing himself as a band manager. No real manager could be that
stupid.
John Whiteside
Kaye <sfdavi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Actually, I think it's not that uncommon. I'm no expert in the details
of contracts between musicians and their labels, but not too long ago I
heard an interesting interview with Aimee Mann in which she said that
she and her bandmates never made a dime off of Til Tuesday's record
sales, even when they had hits. When she went solo and started her own
label, she was able to make a good income selling far fewer CDs because
she wasn't dealing with a major label contract.
I think a lot of bands, when they are unknown, will sign up for fairly
bad contracts in hopes that they'll become famous enough to start
making money later on. It's not exactly a situation where there is a
balance of power between the parties to the contracts.
The file sharing angle is, of course, stupid.
Ellen Evans
>
>> Even the Backstreet Boys, one of the best-selling acts of the
>> 1990's, did not appear to have received any CD royalties, their management
>> said
>
>And the Backstreet Boys' manager is blaming it on file sharing rather
>than on their label?
You know, if you actually read things before you made your stupid
comments, you might be able to avoid the stupid comments.
In the cited article, this was paragraph preceding the one you are
commenting on:
=================
Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue
that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever
actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which
managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review.
(Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has
earned back the money it has spent on them.)
==================
Ellen Evans
John Whiteside <logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com> wrote:
[]
>Actually, I think it's not that uncommon.
It's absolutely not. Which was the point of the article cited.
Steve
rock music industry since day one. The favorite scam is to not pay
any royalties until the recording "turns a profit", which through
clever accounting will never happen. Imagine if the same method was
used for employees of a new Taco Bell... Sorry kid, we can't pay you
until we pay for this oven. The Kingsmen who recorded the original hit
Louie, Louie in the sixties lost out on their royalties until they won
a lawsuit in the late 90s.
Another popular ruse is the "big advance" from the record company.
What they don't explain is all costs like printing, advertising etc
comes out of the bands big advance.
The band the Police were wise to this and before they hit it big in
the US took out a miniscule advance and instead asked for high
royalties. The saved themselves millions.
Charlie Fulton
: Well, I found it online:
: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html
I'm not going to register to read their shit!
--
Charlie Fulton--foultone@mtcc.com--http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"You wouldn't recognize your own reflection in a mirror."
Steven Levine
John Whiteside
<foul...@fasolt.mtcc.com> wrote:
> the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> : Well, I found it online:
>
> : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html
>
> I'm not going to register to read their shit!
Why?
Frank McQuarry
Give your irony meter a good whack there,
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> : Well, I found it online:
>
> : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html
>
> I'm not going to register to read their shit!
Close your eyes and think of Andorra.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
John Whiteside
Ellen Evans
>: Well, I found it online:
>
>: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html
>
>I'm not going to register to read their shit!
username: formyfriends
password: writethis
HTH.
David W. Fenton
<140920030940276567%logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com>:
And musicians signing bad contracts, even when the they are the
only game in town, does not justify illegal file sharing.
It's a non-sequitur to bring up the question of the bad contracts
to justify illegal file sharing, because the artists don't make
anything off the illegally shared files, either.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
COTTP
says...
> the artist formerly known as rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
> : Well, I found it online:
>
> : http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/technology/14MUSI.html
>
> I'm not going to register to read their shit!
Username: cottp
Password: cottp
xym...@suds.com
rzepelaa <SOC.MOTS...@panix.com> wrote:
>Although fellacious,
Is this a Freudian typo?
Katie, felicitous, phallicitous, what's the difference, besides the
spelling?
Ellen Evans
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
[]
>And musicians signing bad contracts, even when the they are the
>only game in town, does not justify illegal file sharing.
>
>It's a non-sequitur to bring up the question of the bad contracts
>to justify illegal file sharing, because the artists don't make
>anything off the illegally shared files, either.
Uh, the article in question simply pointed out that over and over again,
the RIAA has used "the artist" as a sort of moral cover when talking about
who *may* be losing money as a result of file sharing. This is simply
bushwah - even excedingly *popular* recording artists like the BackStreet
Boys don't make money from the sale of their CDs. Whatever your stand on
file-sharing, it is clear that the RIAA's chest beating on the part of the
artists they "represent" is pure nonsense. And, the article points out,
there are a growing number of artists who find themselves uncomfortable to
be the supposed cause of the harassment of 12 year old girls.
Cornelia Wyngaarden
wrote on 9/14/03 7:34 AM:
> =================
>
> Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue
> that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever
> actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which
> managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review.
> (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has
> earned back the money it has spent on them.)
>
> ==================
So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of mine just signed a
book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any royalties until the publisher
makes back the $60,000. That is after it gets written and published so
probably more than $60,000. That is how it works right?
corry
David Horne
No. It depends a lot on the nature of the business. Maybe this is a
discussion concerning apples and wing-nuts. To illustrate the
differences between professions, as a classical composer, I get a _set_
percentage of any piece of music my publisher sells. That's fixed, and
pretty much a worldwide standard- and has nothing to do with the
commission fee, which is separate. In addition, I get a (higher)
percentage of the amount charged to an organisation that hires a work of
mine for performance. (Most new music isn't for sale- the publishers
make more money by hiring it out for specific performances.) If I
originated the parts, it's higher still. That said, none of it is
particularly 'high.' [Don't get me started on the complex agreements
that had to be negotiated when I transcribed some Electronica artists
recently...]
As for performance royalties (which are different to hire and sale
'royalties'), they are immensely complex, and perhaps only the rich can
afford to have accountants work them out. It's all bollocks to me.
Basically, if a piece of mine is performed on a (for example) Lithuanian
radio station, there's an exisiting formula which will attempt to
translate the airtime I had against the money I'm due. This can vary
considerably depending on the country, obviously. Then, there's the
issue of "grand rights"- which affects performances in large venues or
performances on "grand" scales. (This, FWIW, is usually the case with
big pop stars. For us classical composers, it usually only applies to
grand opera and other theatrical works.) As a UK resident, my publisher
and I rely on the PRS to gather all the foreign details (sometimes with
a nudge from me or the publisher) and present an itemised payment. A lot
of it is pennies- 73p from such-and-such a Belgian radio station etc.,
for a 5 minute piece played at 1am. That kind of thing. And, it can take
up to 3 years for it to show up on the statement.
This is fairly standard, i.e. "how it works" for classical music
publishers. Book publishers- no idea, I don't write books. Having to
wait until you get a certain amount of sales until you get paid? That
sounds tough, and is not the way music publishing typically works. Not
that composers are rolling in it, by any means, but there's a more
upfront agreement as to what you will get, and when. (I get two
statements a year, with payment, from my publishers.) That said, music
publishing is in as much trouble as the wider music industry- publishers
getting taken over, liquidated etc. Even my own company (Boosey &
Hawkes) which is one of the major houses, is currently being bought
over.
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Ellen Evans
The question is about accounting practices, what counts as "earned back
the money it has spent on them". The way the system is set up now, very,
very few records ever "earn back" anything. It's similar to the issues
involved in movie accounting, where huge blockbusters don't ever seem to
"break even".
Ellen Evans
David Horne <i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[]
>No. It depends a lot on the nature of the business.
And there's also a difference between composers/writers and performers
vis-a-vis monies seen from recordings.
David Kaye
> I think a lot of bands, when they are unknown, will sign up for fairly
> bad contracts in hopes that they'll become famous enough to start
> making money later on. It's not exactly a situation where there is a
> balance of power between the parties to the contracts.
The classic example was Creedence Clearwater Revival, recording on the
Fantasy label, owned by Saul Zaentz (the film producer). Creedence's
record sales *built* Fantasy from an obscure jazz label housed in a
one-story building with a leaky roof in west Berkeley, into a major
modern label.
Yet, Fantasy claimed that Creedence never made a dime, and thus
Creedence didn't make any money on their record sales. John Fogerty
was so pissed off at this that he even wrote a song about it, "Zantz
Can't Dance". It took a lot of years and a bunch of lawsuits to get
Creedence their money.
The Cliff Notes version: Nearly all record labels are sharks out for
blood.
David Kaye
> You know, if you actually read things before you made your stupid
> comments, you might be able to avoid the stupid comments.
I responded to what you posted, not what you DIDN'T post. I'm not
about to establish a user account on yet another website that's going
to sign me up for even more junk email. If you post something I will
respond to it.
> In the cited article, this was paragraph preceding the one you are
> commenting on:
...which you didn't post.
> (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has
> earned back the money it has spent on them.)
This depends on the contract. Some contracts front the expenses; some
don't. Some buy the rights outright, while some set up only a
production and distribution arrangement.
While it's true that many releases by major companies do not actually
make money, it's the record companies' fault for fronting too much
money in the first place. They know the business; they should have a
handle on what the actual expenses are.
However, there is a *lot* of downright dishonest bookkeeping. Note
the case of Creedence Clearwater Revival (John Fogerty et al) and Saul
Zaents' Fantasy Records. Zaentz claimed that the Creedence recordings
NEVER made any money. And yet, Fantasy grew by leaps and bounds. How
did they do so? Eveything else they sell is specialist jazz back
catalog. They certainly didn't refurbish their building and give
Zaentz enough money to dabble in producing movies by running in the
red. You can BET Fantasy made a bundle on that act.
Arnold Zwicky
<cor...@telus.net> asks:
>So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of mine just
>signed a book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any royalties until
>the publisher makes back the $60,000. That is after it gets
>written and published so probably more than $60,000. That is how
>it works right?
in this particular context, "book deal" = "advance royalties".
ordinary royalties kick in immediately, or after the first thousand
domestic sales, or whatever, but they don't depend on the publisher
getting its money back first; it's a joint venture.
an advance is a gamble on the publisher's part - that it will get
royalties beyond the advance. sometimes the book never makes
royalties equivalent to the advance, and the publisher loses. but
mostly publishers are cautious about giving advances, and in a few
years the royalties exceed the advance. (yes, i know, the calculation
of the royalty percentage is a wild card, and we're not talking about
actual expenses here in any case.)
not infrequently there are charges against the advance. in my most
recent, co-edited, book, my collaborator had to pay the indexer out of
his advance and i had to pay the contributors out of mine. after
several years, we began to get actual checks. until then, we got
statements saying how many thousands of dollars (or pounds) we were
behind on our advances.
alex adams, published author
Cornelia Wyngaarden
wrote on 9/14/03 8:21 PM:
> In article <1g1b4dj.1wepo891q7bxqvN%i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com>,
> David Horne <i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
>> No. It depends a lot on the nature of the business.
>
> And there's also a difference between composers/writers and performers
> vis-a-vis monies seen from recordings.
Yes I have some experience in managing a venue that often performed "New
Music" Electroacoustic and much more. CAPAC (Composers, Authors,
Performers, blah blah) used to collect fees for the performances and payed
down the copyright residuals etc. For live performances it gets a bit more
complex.
I guess my point was that the author does get the $60,000 up front and
really has little to worry about except to write a successful book so that
next time he can get more up front. Publishing and promoting is a bit of a
gamble and it is a business. My royalties come mostly from rentals. It is
a 50/50 split with my distributors but they have nothing to do with the
production. Artistic royalties have always a bit of a laugh unlike
royalties on inventions like yet another mouse trap.
corry
Mike McKinley
>Although fellacious, the argument is a constantly repeated
>staple in the file-sharing wars, and as such, its citation
>has a place in the article.
>
>
Does that mean "of or concerning fellas?"
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Michael Thomas
> So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of mine just signed a
> book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any royalties until the publisher
> makes back the $60,000. That is after it gets written and published so
> probably more than $60,000. That is how it works right?
It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
David W. Fenton
wrote in <bk2p9b$c29$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
>In article <93F6B2BB8df...@24.168.128.78>, David W.
>Fenton wrote:
>
>> And musicians signing bad contracts, even when the they are the
>> only game in town, does not justify illegal file sharing.
>
>> It's a non-sequitur to bring up the question of the bad
>> contracts to justify illegal file sharing,
>
>It is also a non-sequitur to boogie-man file-sharing by bringing
>up the spectre of unpaid musicians, when 100 years of history
>shows us that this is a constant standard operating procedure from
>day 1.
If you want to get musicians paid, proposing that you prevent
someone else from getting paid is not going to help.
>Although fellacious, the argument is a constantly repeated
>staple in the file-sharing wars, and as such, its citation
>has a place in the article.
"Fellacious?" Is that something to do with cocksucking?
Again, Tony, you post something and I really can't say what point
of view you're arguing.
David W. Fenton
<bk31f3$4kr$1...@panix3.panix.com>:
>In article <93F6B2BB8df...@24.168.128.78>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>
>[]
>
>>And musicians signing bad contracts, even when the they are the
>>only game in town, does not justify illegal file sharing.
>>
>>It's a non-sequitur to bring up the question of the bad contracts
>>to justify illegal file sharing, because the artists don't make
>>anything off the illegally shared files, either.
>
>Uh, the article in question simply pointed out that over and over
>again, the RIAA has used "the artist" as a sort of moral cover
>when talking about who *may* be losing money as a result of file
>sharing. . . .
Yes, and that's vastly hypocritical for them to do that and they
should be roundly condemned for it.
> . . . This is simply bushwah - even excedingly *popular*
>recording artists like the BackStreet Boys don't make money from
>the sale of their CDs. Whatever your stand on file-sharing, it is
>clear that the RIAA's chest beating on the part of the artists
>they "represent" is pure nonsense. . ..
I absolutely agree.
It still doesn't justify illegal file trading, though.
> . . . And, the article points out,
>there are a growing number of artists who find themselves
>uncomfortable to be the supposed cause of the harassment of 12
>year old girls.
I don't blame them for feeling that way. The RIAA is a bunch of
hoodlums and disgusting hypocrites who leech the lifeblood out of
musicians and wrongly claim the high road for doing so.
That still doesn't justify stealing music that they have the legal
right to pay for.
But we've had this discussion many times.
Ellen Evans
Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
[]
> It's certainly not hot *I*
You served the rabbit cold?
David W. Fenton
<1g1b4dj.1wepo891q7bxqvN%i_will_almost_...@yahoo.com>:
>This is fairly standard, i.e. "how it works" for classical music
>publishers. Book publishers- no idea, I don't write books. Having
>to wait until you get a certain amount of sales until you get
>paid? That sounds tough, and is not the way music publishing
>typically works. Not that composers are rolling in it, by any
>means, but there's a more upfront agreement as to what you will
>get, and when. (I get two statements a year, with payment, from my
>publishers.) That said, music publishing is in as much trouble as
>the wider music industry- publishers getting taken over,
>liquidated etc. Even my own company (Boosey & Hawkes) which is one
>of the major houses, is currently being bought over.
It works that way to a certain extent in academic publishing. My
friend Robert Bailey, who wrote the Tristan Norton Critical Score
(published in 1985) still gets royalty statements from Norton
showing that he still has a couple thousand to pay off before he'll
get anything from them. This is because they require the *author*
to pay for the rights to the translated excerpts that they
*require* the author to include in the back of the score. Seems
pretty shady to me, but in academic publishing, you feel fortunate
to get your words into print and don't really expect to make a
dime.
Now, what Corry was talking about, though, was an advance. And
that's totally different. If your music publisher paid you $10K
against future royalties, you'd be in the same boat. Since they
don't do that, you don't see the same kinds of arrangements.
David W. Fenton
<v7he3ew...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>Cornelia Wyngaarden <cor...@telus.net> writes:
>> So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of mine
>> just signed a book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any
>> royalties until the publisher makes back the $60,000. That is
>> after it gets written and published so probably more than
>> $60,000. That is how it works right?
>
> It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
> maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
have been structured.
Michael Thomas
> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
> <v7he3ew...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>
> >Cornelia Wyngaarden <cor...@telus.net> writes:
> >> So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of mine
> >> just signed a book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any
> >> royalties until the publisher makes back the $60,000. That is
> >> after it gets written and published so probably more than
> >> $60,000. That is how it works right?
> >
> > It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
> > maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
>
> If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
> have been structured.
Nope. Time and materials + royalties.
David Horne
> Now, what Corry was talking about, though, was an advance. And
> that's totally different. If your music publisher paid you $10K
> against future royalties, you'd be in the same boat. Since they
> don't do that, you don't see the same kinds of arrangements.
B&H used to do something a _bit_ like an advance, which was that, once
you were on the books, you would receive a minimum amount each year,
regardless of royalties. It was quite low though. Still, as an 18 year
old, when I signed up with them I was hardly in a position to get very
much in royalties- the more music you have, the more you make obviously.
So, for the first few years, I was getting more from them than they were
getting back. The difference with the book advance seems to be that it
is a specific amount for a specific work. That is hardly _ever_ the case
in music publishing, from the publishers. Indeed, as I pointed out in my
other post, for composers, it is the commission fee (which is almost
never paid for by a publisher) that is the main "payment" for the work.
The publishing and performance royalties come in addition to that- and
they very rarely come close (at least in the short term) to matching it
as a source of income.
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
>> <v7he3ew...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>>
>> >Cornelia Wyngaarden <cor...@telus.net> writes:
>> >> So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of
>> >> mine just signed a book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any
>> >> royalties until the publisher makes back the $60,000. That
>> >> is after it gets written and published so probably more than
>> >> $60,000. That is how it works right?
>> >
>> > It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
>> > maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
>>
>> If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
>> have been structured.
>
> Nope. Time and materials + royalties.
Which is my point: that's why you weren't treated the same way --
you weren't being given an advance.
Queen of the Damned
> > maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
>
> If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
> have been structured.
I am skeptical that is the case. Putting aside the nuances of a
recording contract, the royalty provisions dictate that the artist
is to receive nothing until the costs of production have been
recovered from what would have been paid to the artist. So if it
costs $100 to "make" a CD, and the royalty is 10%, the CD must
sell $1000 before the artist makes a dime, despite the fact the
label (or really, the group of companies operating as a label)
has recovered nine times its investment.
If you want to add some nuances, the 10% royalty figure will be
reduced to 8% because the label packages the music (reducing the
royalty to account for the *X*pense of album art, instead of
entering it as a dollar amount and recovering that from revenue).
In addition, the 8% will become around 7% because CD's are "new
technology" and the label is taking a risk in selling them for
which it must recover risk reward. You think I am making this
up, I know. In addition, the 7% will become about 6.5% because
as a rule, some percentage of records broke in shipment and the
label shouldn't have to pay a royalty on broken records. This,
despite the facts that: CD's don't break nearly as often as
vinyl pizza; and, the royalty is *X*pressly for records *sold* and
not records *shipped* anyway, so the label is flagrantly double-
dipping. You think I am making this up, I know. Finally, the label
will have the option of continuing the terms of its contract for
7 albums because of the risk it took on the first one, though of
course, if it doesn't make its money back by album 2, it will drop
the artist.
Notice what has happened: the label has reduced the artist's *royalty*
to account for the costs of doing business, while at the same time
required the artist to pay back the costs of doing business out of
the reduced royalty. This is why Toni Braxton filed for bankruptcy
despite being a multi-platinum superstar at the time (prompting the
RIAA to lobby Congress to specifically prohitib recording artists from
filing for bankruptcy... oh, the compassion).
Only very, very influential artists are able to clean up all that
baggage, and still make almost nothing from album sales. It's all
about getting played on the radio. The performance societies pay
songwriters directly. Of course, you actually have to be the songwriter
to get performance royalties.
The bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and therefore
loose nothing from file sharing.
*X*
(and if you are a nubile little heroin-addict yum yum aspiring rock
star, and you've read this far, you will still sign that contract as
soon as they put it in front of your face, and you know it, baby)
Michael Thomas
> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
> <v7znh5v...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>
> >dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
> >> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
> >> <v7he3ew...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
> >>
> >> >Cornelia Wyngaarden <cor...@telus.net> writes:
> >> >> So isn't that the whole nature of royalties? A friend of
> >> >> mine just signed a book deal for $60,000. He doesn't see any
> >> >> royalties until the publisher makes back the $60,000. That
> >> >> is after it gets written and published so probably more than
> >> >> $60,000. That is how it works right?
> >> >
> >> > It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
> >> > maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
> >>
> >> If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
> >> have been structured.
> >
> > Nope. Time and materials + royalties.
>
> Which is my point: that's why you weren't treated the same way --
> you weren't being given an advance.
Yes, but Corry was talking about the general case, or at
least it was unqualified. I merely meant that that isn't
standard operating procedure across the board. Manifestly.
Queen of the Damned
> You know, if you actually read things before you made your stupid
> comments, you might be able to avoid the stupid comments.
>
> In the cited article, this was paragraph preceding the one you are
> commenting on:
>
> =================
>
> Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue
> that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever
> actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which
> managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review.
> (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has
> earned back the money it has spent on them.)
>
> ==================
Per my long blatherous followup somehwere else, it would be more
accurate to say that artists do not receive royalties for a CD until
they themselves pay for the costs of the album out of what they would
ostensibly earn if they *were* getting paid, regardless of whether or
not the label has "earned the money back" through its own take of
album sales.
*X*
(and there is pretty much nothing artists can do about this - write
songs that get played on the radio, babies - and do not tell your
friends that you killed your drug dealer, I mean, come *on*)
Timothy McDaniel
Queen of the Damned <mel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>it would be more accurate to say that artists do not receive
>royalties for a CD until they themselves pay for the costs of the
>album out of what they would ostensibly earn if they *were* getting
>paid
OH -- album publishing is what the book world calls "self-publishing"!
Or, briefly, "scam".
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
DRS
[...]
> bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and
> therefore
> loose nothing from file sharing.
Then why did Metallica get their knickers so severely in a twist over
Napster?
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
Ellen Evans
Queen of the Damned <mel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>je...@panix.com (Ellen Evans) wrote in message news:<bk1u9j$rc5$1...@panix3.panix.com>...
[]
>> In the cited article, this was paragraph preceding the one you are
>> commenting on:
>>
>> =================
>>
>> Much of the stated concern over file sharing has centered on the revenue
>> that record companies and musicians are losing, but few musicians ever
>> actually receive royalties from their record sales on major labels, which
>> managers say have accounting practices that are badly in need of review.
>> (Artists do not receive royalties for a CD until the record company has
>> earned back the money it has spent on them.)
>>
>> ==================
>
>Per my long blatherous followup somehwere else, it would be more
>accurate to say that artists do not receive royalties for a CD until
>they themselves pay for the costs of the album out of what they would
>ostensibly earn if they *were* getting paid, regardless of whether or
>not the label has "earned the money back" through its own take of
>album sales.
*X*actly.
David W. Fenton
<6a7e154b.03091...@posting.google.com>:
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) wrote in message
>news:<93F790A50df...@24.168.128.86>...
>> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
>> > It's certainly not hot *I* structured royalty deals, but
>> > maybe our proximity to Hollywood made us wiser.
>>
>> If you had gotten paid an *advance* that's exactly how it would
>> have been structured.
>
>I am skeptical that is the case. . . .
In the book publishing world "advance" means "advance against
royalties" so far as I understand it, so I don't see any ambiguity
here.
> . . . Putting aside the nuances of a
>recording contract, . . .
Er, we were talking about books.
> . . . the royalty provisions dictate that the artist
>is to receive nothing until the costs of production have been
>recovered from what would have been paid to the artist. So if it
>costs $100 to "make" a CD, and the royalty is 10%, the CD must
>sell $1000 before the artist makes a dime, despite the fact the
>label (or really, the group of companies operating as a label)
>has recovered nine times its investment.
The example I gave of an author of one of the Norton Critical
Scores was a case where the publisher required certain things be
included in the book and that the cost of rights for those things
was paid by the author. The author could have paid it up front and
gotten royalties, or Norton would have paid it and then used his
royalties to pay them back (which is what they did). The situation
is very similar to that in the recording industry, in which the
author/artist has no real choice in the matter -- you either agree
to the contract or they don't publish you. In academic publishing,
this is pretty normal. That is, nobody makes money off of academic
publishing, you're just grateful to get your words into print.
In any event, expenses of production are borne by the author/artist
and paid out of commmissions. If that's the contract you've agreed
to, then that's the way it will work.
In the case of mainstream book publishing, where advances are paid
to the authors to subsidize the writing of the book (i.e., pays
their rent), those are advances against the author's royalties.
In short, I don't see what point you're trying to make.
>If you want to add some nuances, the 10% royalty figure will be
>reduced to 8% because the label packages the music (reducing the
>royalty to account for the *X*pense of album art, instead of
>entering it as a dollar amount and recovering that from revenue).
>In addition, the 8% will become around 7% because CD's are "new
>technology" and the label is taking a risk in selling them for
>which it must recover risk reward. You think I am making this
>up, I know. In addition, the 7% will become about 6.5% because
>as a rule, some percentage of records broke in shipment and the
>label shouldn't have to pay a royalty on broken records. This,
>despite the facts that: CD's don't break nearly as often as
>vinyl pizza; and, the royalty is *X*pressly for records *sold* and
>not records *shipped* anyway, so the label is flagrantly double-
>dipping. You think I am making this up, I know. Finally, the
>label will have the option of continuing the terms of its contract
>for 7 albums because of the risk it took on the first one, though
>of course, if it doesn't make its money back by album 2, it will
>drop the artist.
People sign these contracts after having their lawyers review them.
Wonder why?
>Notice what has happened: the label has reduced the artist's
>*royalty* to account for the costs of doing business, while at the
>same time required the artist to pay back the costs of doing
>business out of the reduced royalty. This is why Toni Braxton
>filed for bankruptcy despite being a multi-platinum superstar at
>the time (prompting the RIAA to lobby Congress to specifically
>prohitib recording artists from filing for bankruptcy... oh, the
>compassion).
News flash!!!! The RIAA is odious!!!!!
>Only very, very influential artists are able to clean up all that
>baggage, and still make almost nothing from album sales. It's all
>about getting played on the radio. The performance societies pay
>songwriters directly. Of course, you actually have to be the
>songwriter to get performance royalties.
>
>The bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and
>therefore loose nothing from file sharing.
Uh, I said that a long time ago, in regard to mst artists.
And it's pretty much irrelevant, because you're still stealing from
the record companies.
Evil people still deserve compensation for their property.
>*X*
>(and if you are a nubile little heroin-addict yum yum aspiring
>rock star, and you've read this far, you will still sign that
>contract as soon as they put it in front of your face, and you
>know it, baby)
You're arguing your point in the wrong thread.
David W. Fenton
>In article <93F78786Bdf...@24.168.128.86>,
>David W. Fenton wrote:
>
>> If you want to get musicians paid, proposing that you prevent
>> someone else from getting paid is not going to help.
>
>True enough. While the price I pay at the counter probably
>does not find its way into the pockets of the sulking, pouty
>musicians slouching on the cover, it does nonetheless
>put a dent in their debt, and bring them out of the hole
>that much faster.
It also lines the pockets of the people who are responsible for
getting it from the factory to the shelf in the store where you
have the chance to see it and buy it.
>> Again, Tony, you post something and I really can't say what
>> point of view you're arguing.
>
>You seemed to be objecting to the "Musicians don't get paid
>anyway." lament of the brave filesharers as if it were a
>stance taken by the author of the article, or at least
>entertained seriously by that author. I was pointing out
>that it had merely been articulated again. Even though it's
>a non-sequitur on both sides of the aisle ("They won't get paid!"
>"They don't get paid anyway!" "They never get paid if you
>don't buy anything!", etc.) it's an argument ferociously
>held on to through all of this with the tenacity of two
>pit bulls debating ownership of a fresh child's leg.
OK, I just wasn't sure whether you were disagreeing with me or not.
>Speaking strictly for myself, and abstaining from deconstructing
>the Times' article, I propose that "it" is no longer about
>what the majors are doling out (pain) or not doling out (cash)
>to their indentured serfs. Even a complete overhaul of 100
>years of shady accounting practices, put in place
>tomorrow, is now moot. It's about what they are doling out to
>me as a consumer, a computer user, and a citizen. I don't
>really care if every artist-company relationship in the
>world went rosy and sweet like *that*. Appeals to artists'
>interests are momentarily interesting, but appeals to my
>own interests are now where it's at for me.
If the record companies can't make enough money to justify
exploiting the artists, there won't be any product to steal. Or the
only product out there will be the stuff that sells 10 million
copies, and who the fuck wants to listen to *that*?
The good stuff is mostly not available from the majors, anyway, no?
It's certainly not in the classical world, though I must say that
my review of recent purchases compared to the RIAA membership list
was an eye opener -- I hadn't realized I'd bought from that many
major labels.
>They are bad. They have to go. If it takes complete
>annihilation, then let it begin. Getting the Bee Gees paid
>is not as interesting to me as getting these people out
>of lives and issues they have no business being in in the
>first place.
Well, I think an awful lot of musicians are forgoing the record
labels anyway and going independent and producing and ditributing
their own stuff, are they not? The technology is there now to make
an end run around the majors possible, and thank heaven for that.
The record labels will have to change or they will just be
irrelevant.
And the whole question of file sharing is pretty much irrelevant to
that, because the main issue is the number of recording artists who
are simply sick of the way they are treated as serfs by the majors.
File sharing gives the RIAA something to scream about, but it is, I
think, simply the other side of the technological coin that now
makes it possible for the musicians to bypass the record labels. In
other words, they're blaming the file sharers instead of their own
practices for creating a situation where their old business
practices are no longer going to work.
Mike McKinley
back around?
I'll even discuss L*za.
>
>
Cornelia Wyngaarden
dXXXf...@bway.net wrote on 9/16/03 1:58 PM:
> File sharing gives the RIAA something to scream about, but it is, I
> think, simply the other side of the technological coin that now
> makes it possible for the musicians to bypass the record labels. In
> other words, they're blaming the file sharers instead of their own
> practices for creating a situation where their old business
> practices are no longer going to work.
Cary Sherman (RIAA) is a copyright attorney specializing in computer
software protection. Copyrights are a funny business they seem to protect
no one but lawyers.
corry
Michael Thomas
> SACD, for example, requires an enormous investment of cash
> just to carry out production. Heaven only knows about licensing
> and per-sale royalties in the long term. And if the free
> market does not respond by sufficiently embracing these
> technologies to the satisfaction of the RIAA, it's a sure
> bet they will make sure you go to jail by endeavoring to stay
> out of that system.
I'm sorry, but in their fevered dreams. For a purist this
might be true, but the Great Unwashed manifestly don't
mind a couple of notches down on the quality spectrum (cf
MP3). You simply can't put this genie back in the bottle
so long as there's analog inputs and outputs, and the
likelihood of the RIAA stormtroopers hunting down that
analog equipment and sending it off to the extermination
camps is, well, a bit far fetched.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
A thrombosis after a sphincterotomy -- DRS explaining what colors his worldview
Queen of the Damned
> Queen of the Damned <mel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
> > bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and
> > therefore
> > loose nothing from file sharing.
>
> Then why did Metallica get their knickers so severely in a twist over
> Napster?
Because they were good boys and did what they were told.
*X*
(such is the way of the metalloid)
Michael Thomas
>
> > I'm sorry, but in their fevered dreams. For a purist this
> > might be true, but the Great Unwashed manifestly don't
> > mind a couple of notches down on the quality spectrum (cf
> > MP3). You simply can't put this genie back in the bottle
> > so long as there's analog inputs and outputs, and the
> > likelihood of the RIAA stormtroopers hunting down that
> > analog equipment and sending it off to the extermination
> > camps is, well, a bit far fetched.
>
> trade of private porn and grandma's kitties in booties will
> be among the powerful market forces maintaining at-home
> production capabilities.
>
> But even though right now, as David suggested, Local Garage
> Band can conceivably compete with the product offered by the
> majors, this will not be true as DRM-friendly technology
> becomes the appliances of tomorrow, and Local Garage
> Band will sound at best like a bootleg tape next to slickly
> produced content. Technology and $$$ will re-create the
> divide between pro and amateur.
Again, in their fevered dreams. MP3's already exist and so
do hard drives and sound cards. That Genie is not going
back in the bottle. People manifestly think that the
quality is acceptable.
I think that the Big Fallacy here is thinking that a new
media format which they have control over will solve their
problems. This may have been possible 20 years ago, but
the net, hard drives, etc, have completely blurred what
constitutes "media" and at this point anything with teeth
is pretty much an exercise in cat herding. There are just
too many ways to circumvent, and the difference in quality
too minor. Audiophiles may scream, but as with CD's they
are utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
John Whiteside
<dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
> And the whole question of file sharing is pretty much irrelevant to
> that, because the main issue is the number of recording artists who
> are simply sick of the way they are treated as serfs by the majors.
> File sharing gives the RIAA something to scream about, but it is, I
> think, simply the other side of the technological coin that now
> makes it possible for the musicians to bypass the record labels. In
> other words, they're blaming the file sharers instead of their own
> practices for creating a situation where their old business
> practices are no longer going to work.
Bingo.
Personally, I lost what little interest I had in file sharing the
minute the iTunes music store came along. It's easy. It's worth a buck
to me. And I'm good at the technical stuff. While there are lots of
kids who are pretty savvy at all of this, I think that there are a lot
of who can't be bothered. But, they do want to get music song by song,
or electronically, and an industry that doesn't respond to that is just
plain stupid.
Add to that the financial dynamics that tend to give us a lot of really
bland music, and it's no wonder they're having problems.
Also, as one looks at the decline in music sales, one should remember
that one is looking at sales figures for a non-essential entertainment
item during a time when the economy's been in the crapper and lots of
people are unemployed. You expect a downturn in those kinds of
purchases.
Michael Sarris
> Queen of the Damned <mel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> [...]
>
>
>>bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and
>>therefore
>>loose nothing from file sharing.
>
>
> Then why did Metallica get their knickers so severely in a twist over
> Napster?
ObJanet: Control
Michael, that, and they have probably long since gotten the
clout to have a pay structure that actually pays them
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"This is beginning to feel good
Watching you squirm in your shoes"
-- Poe, "Control"
Michael Sarris
>
> The record labels will have to change or they will just be
> irrelevant.
I think all of this is the last gasps of an industry that
is walking up to the gallows and knows it. They can't
put the genie back in the bottle and they refuse to adapt,
so the only thing they can do is milk it for as long
as possible and squeeze every cent out of artists and
consumers before the walls fall in on them.
I recently signed up for eMusic, after reading that it
has a low monthly fee and no restrictions on downloads
(no expiring files, you can burn anything, no gimmicks).
In less than a week, it is already changing my expectations
as a music consumer. I can listen to things I have always
wanted to sample, but haven't been willing to fork out $16
to try. There's little downside to trying something new.
(Well, I'm on dialup, which makes an entire album I hate
a big waste of time, but one I can live with.)
The result is that I'm casting a much wider net, while
at the same time refining my tastes to find artists similar
to those I currently like but would have otherwise not
found or not taken a chance on. Or heard of.
This *destroys* their whole model. It's unpredictable,
uncontrollable, and scary. It's good for artists, who
get exposure, and bad for the big marketing and promotion
machine, which becomes irrelevant. As more services like
this become available (i.e. simple, and a good value),
dissatisfaction with the status quo will only increase.
Michael, listening to his newly downloaded Laura Love
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"The insurgency began and you missed it
I looked for it and I found it"
-- R.E.M., "Begin The Begin"
David W. Fenton
>SACD, for example, requires an enormous investment of cash
>just to carry out production. Heaven only knows about licensing
>and per-sale royalties in the long term. And if the free
>market does not respond by sufficiently embracing these
>technologies to the satisfaction of the RIAA, it's a sure
>bet they will make sure you go to jail by endeavoring to stay
>out of that system.
I've tried SACD and won't be buying any more of it. It's just not
enough better to be worth the incompatibility.
David W. Fenton
>But even though right now, as David suggested, Local Garage
>Band can conceivably compete with the product offered by the
>majors, this will not be true as DRM-friendly technology
>becomes the appliances of tomorrow, and Local Garage
>Band will sound at best like a bootleg tape next to slickly
>produced content. Technology and $$$ will re-create the
>divide between pro and amateur.
You seem to me to be describing a scenario in which equipment will
not play non-DRM-restricted media. Is that a reasonable scenario?
Seems to me it's a ridiculous, sky-is-falling scenario.
David W. Fenton
<BB8CCF90.100FF%cor...@telus.net>:
Copyrights are a good thing, no matter what people seem to think.
Cornelia Wyngaarden
dXXXf...@bway.net wrote on 9/16/03 8:18 PM:
> cor...@telus.net (Cornelia Wyngaarden) wrote in
> <BB8CCF90.100FF%cor...@telus.net>:
>
>> in article 93F8A28D2df...@24.168.128.86, David W. Fenton
>> at dXXXf...@bway.net wrote on 9/16/03 1:58 PM:
>>
>>
>>> File sharing gives the RIAA something to scream about, but it
>>> is, I think, simply the other side of the technological coin
>>> that now makes it possible for the musicians to bypass the
>>> record labels. In other words, they're blaming the file sharers
>>> instead of their own practices for creating a situation where
>>> their old business practices are no longer going to work.
>>
>> Cary Sherman (RIAA) is a copyright attorney specializing in
>> computer software protection. Copyrights are a funny business
>> they seem to protect no one but lawyers.
>
> Copyrights are a good thing, no matter what people seem to think.
I was very much part of the Canadian lobby groups that helped Canada
strengthen them, (CARFAC & ANNPAC) but now I am becoming less convinced
about rights qua things.
corry
Jack Hamilton
>If the record companies can't make enough money to justify
>exploiting the artists, there won't be any product to steal. Or the
>only product out there will be the stuff that sells 10 million
>copies, and who the fuck wants to listen to *that*?
10 million people? Just as a guess.
Mike McKinley
>Record companies are attempting to add value to CDs by including
>"limited-edition" DVDs with the first million copies or so.
>Did you know that L*za had Thanksgiving dinner at Mary J.
>Blige's house last year? And that the event was documented
>for posterity?
>
I'm sure L*za ate an entire turkey by herself.
Queen of the Damned
> >*X*
> >(and if you are a nubile little heroin-addict yum yum aspiring
> >rock star, and you've read this far, you will still sign that
> >contract as soon as they put it in front of your face, and you
> >know it, baby)
>
> You're arguing your point in the wrong thread.
Title of Thread: "Once again, the RIAA." Unless I am mistaken,
RIAA stands for "Recording Industry Association of America." I
described how recording contracts actually work, and they do not
work the way "most" people believe they do. That seems more
pertinent to a discussion titled "Once again, the RIAA" than a
description of book contracts.
So. Snoogles, darling! *Who* is in the wrong thread?
*X*
David W. Fenton
>In article <93F8E70D3df...@24.168.128.78>, David W.
>Fenton wrote:
>
>> I've tried SACD and won't be buying any more of it. It's just
>> not enough better to be worth the incompatibility.
>
>What incompatibility? More than a few SACD titles are hybrid,
>featuring a fully backward-compatible CD-Audio program.
And what's the point of paying extra for that when the SACD track
doesn't sound significantly better?
David W. Fenton
>In article <93F8EB24Adf...@24.168.128.78>, David W.
>Fenton wrote:
>
>> You seem to me to be describing a scenario in which equipment
>> will not play non-DRM-restricted media. Is that a reasonable
>> scenario?
>
>"reasonable"? No. "Probable"? Absolutely. "Universal"? Probably
>not.
Any citations on that?
David W. Fenton
<6rtfmvcbf7rmlvtva...@4ax.com>:
Do they? Or is that just the only thing they can get at Walmart?
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) wrote in message
Uh, then you should have done a followup to a post that was about
the RIAA, rather than one that was about book advances.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
<sigh> You won't love me anymore but I <heart> L*za, at least in her
earlier incarnations. She frightens me now.
Gwendolyn
at 11, I wanted to
be Sally Bowles when
I grew up
Mike McKinley
>Mike McKinley wrote:
>
>
>> Oh, lawsy, lawzy, lawsy! When does the Judy Garland thread come
>>back around?
>> I'll even discuss L*za.
>>
>>
><sigh> You won't love me anymore but I <heart> L*za, at least in her
>earlier incarnations. She frightens me now.
>at 11, I wanted to
>be Sally Bowles when
>I grew up
>
I still love you, darling.
<Veda Pierce>
But let's not get sticky about it.
</Veda Pierce>
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I still love you, darling.
I'm so relieved.
> <Veda Pierce>
> But let's not get sticky about it.
> </Veda Pierce>
No, no, we don't do sticky.
Gwendolyn
Nick Fitch
> Gwendolyn
> at 11, I wanted to
> be Sally Bowles when
> I grew up
At 11 I just wanted to do what I can, step by step, inch by inch, mile
by mile, man by man.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
>
> In article <3F68BFE6...@cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu says...
>
> > Gwendolyn
> > at 11, I wanted to
> > be Sally Bowles when
> > I grew up
>
> At 11 I just wanted to do what I can, step by step, inch by inch, mile
> by mile, man by man.
As I've said before, I <heart> <heart> Dr. Fitchie.
Michael Thomas
> In article <3F68BFE6...@cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu says...
>
> > Gwendolyn
> > at 11, I wanted to
> > be Sally Bowles when
> > I grew up
>
> At 11 I just wanted to do what I can, step by step, inch by inch, mile
> by mile, man by man.
And at 17?
Nick Fitch
> Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> writes:
> > In article <3F68BFE6...@cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu says...
> >
> > > Gwendolyn
> > > at 11, I wanted to
> > > be Sally Bowles when
> > > I grew up
> >
> > At 11 I just wanted to do what I can, step by step, inch by inch, mile
> > by mile, man by man.
>
> And at 17?
"I know what you're thinking
You wonder why I chose him
Out of all the laddies in the World
It's just a first impression
What good's a first impression?
If you knew him like I do
It would change your point of view...
If you could see him through my eyes..."
So much for faith...
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
Scott Safier
No honey? No chocolate syrup? No whipped cream?
You people are NO FUN!
--
Scott http://www.pink-triangle.org/scott
AOL IM: CorwinScot YahooIM: CycleMuscle
"Stand firm for what you believe in until or unless logic or experience prove
you wrong. Remember, when the emperor looks naked the emperor is naked. The
truth and a lie are not sort of the same thing. And there's no aspect, no
facet, no moment of life that can't be improved with pizza." -- Daria
Scott Safier
> Nick Fitch <nick....@TAKE-THIS-OUTbtopenworld.AND-THIScom> writes:
>> In article <3F68BFE6...@cornell.edu>, gd...@cornell.edu says...
>>
>> > Gwendolyn
>> > at 11, I wanted to
>> > be Sally Bowles when
>> > I grew up
>>
>> At 11 I just wanted to do what I can, step by step, inch by inch, mile
>> by mile, man by man.
>
> And at 17?
I LEARNED THE TRUTH AT SEVENTEEN
THAT LOVE WAS MEANT FOR BEAUTY QUEENS
AND HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WITH CLEAR SKINNED SMILES
WHO MARRIED YOUNG AND THEN RETIRED
THE VALENTINES I NEVER KNEW
THE FRIDAY NIGHT CHARADES OF YOUTH
WERE SPENT ON ONE MORE BEAUTIFUL
AT SEVENTEEN I LEARNED THE TRUTH
DUH!
ObNyTimes: the legislative director of the PA ACLU married his
same-sex spouse and appeared in the Style Section of the Sunday Times.
At a 9-11 ACLU event that occurred immediately after the press, this
was discussed. A person at the event noted Ms Ian's announcement at
about the same time as "some lesbian couple had a legal marriage in
Canada." I shuddered.
Scott Safier
You are so British.
David W. Fenton
>In article <93F99FC1Fdf...@24.168.128.90>,
>David W. Fenton wrote:
>
>> And what's the point of paying extra for that when the SACD
>> track doesn't sound significantly better?
>
>Some hybrid SACDs are priced exactly the same as standard
>CDs. The recent rollout of Rolling Stones' 60s titles, for
>example, is said to have moved a couple million units.
I shopped for SACDs when I got a DVD player that played them (SACD
capability had zilch to do with my buying decision). I had a
terrible time finding anything I was interested in buying. And all
of it cost more than the CD versions. And I've never seen a single
classical SACD in a bricks-and-mortar record store.
>That was a somewhat unique situation in that the standard
>CD tracks were significant improvements over what had been
>their standard catalog for many years. So there was a
>"buy it again" incentive for die-hard fans, even ones
>who had no plans for new hardware.
Not for the music I listen to.
>And there was no impediment presented by the price. . . .
Not for the music I listen to.
> . . . Now,
>any schmoe wandering into a store and buying one of those
>titles today has no idea he's buying a hybrid until he opens
>the package at home. It's priced identically to standard
>discs, and, aside from the initial run, bears no outside
>evidence that it's anything but a standard music CD.
I would like to have been able to have walked into a store and buy
a SACD, but stores don't stock them for music I want to listen to.
>The seamless transition is aimed at encouraging folks who
>will soon be shopping for new hardware to lean SACD. These
>sheep^H^H^Hoppers will already have compatible
>media at home.
Not for the music I listen to.
Frank McQuarry
Michael Thomas wrote:
> And at 17?
I LEARNED THE TRUTH AT SEVENTEEN
THAT LOVE WAS MEANT FOR BEAUTY QUEENS
AND HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS WITH CLEAR SKINNED SMILES
WHO MARRIED YOUNG AND THEN RETIRED
THE VALENTINES I NEVER KNEW
THE FRIDAY NIGHT CHARADES OF YOUTH
WERE SPENT ON ONE MORE BEAUTIFUL
AT SEVENTEEN I LEARNED THE TRUTH
AND THOSE OF US WITH RAVAGED FACES
LACKING IN THE SOCIAL GRACES
DESPERATELY REMAINED AT HOME
INVENTING LOVERS ON THE PHONE
WHO CALLED TO SAY - COME DANCE WITH ME
AND MURMURED VAGUE OBSCENITIES
IT ISN'T ALL IT SEEMS AT SEVENTEEN
A BROWN EYED GIRL IN HAND ME DOWNS
WHOSE NAME I NEVER COULD PRONOUNCE
SAID - PITY PLEASE THE ONES WHO SERVE
THEY ONLY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE
THE RICH RELATIONED HOMETOWN QUEEN
MARRIES INTO WHAT SHE NEEDS
WITH A GUARANTEE OF COMPANY
AND HAVEN FOR THE ELDERLY
SO REMEMBER THOSE WHO WIN THE GAME
LOSE THE LOVE THEY SOUGHT TO GAIN
IN DEBENTURES OF QUALITY AND DUBIOUS INTEGRITY
THEIR SMALL-TOWN EYES WILL GAPE AT YOU
IN DULL SURPRISE WHEN PAYMENT DUE
EXCEEDS ACCOUNTS RECEIVED AT SEVENTEEN
(INSTRUMENTAL)
TO THOSE OF US WHO KNEW THE PAIN
OF VALENTINES THAT NEVER CAME
AND THOSE WHOSE NAMES WERE NEVER CALLED
WHEN CHOOSING SIDES FOR BASKETBALL
IT WAS LONG AGO AND FAR AWAY
THE WORLD WAS YOUNGER THAN TODAY
WHEN DREAMS WERE ALL THEY GAVE FOR FREE
TO UGLY DUCKLING GIRLS LIKE ME
WE ALL PLAY THE GAME, AND WHEN WE DARE
WE CHEAT OURSELVES AT SOLITAIRE
INVENTING LOVERS ON THE PHONE
REPENTING OTHER LIVES UNKNOWN
THAT CALL AND SAY - COME ON, DANCE WITH ME
AND MURMUR VAGUE OBSCENITIES
AT UGLY GIRLS LIKE ME, AT SEVENTEEN
Michael Thomas
> Michael Thomas:
> ObNyTimes: the legislative director of the PA ACLU married his
> same-sex spouse and appeared in the Style Section of the Sunday Times.
> At a 9-11 ACLU event that occurred immediately after the press, this
> was discussed. A person at the event noted Ms Ian's announcement at
> about the same time as "some lesbian couple had a legal marriage in
> Canada." I shuddered.
And ObRIAArants too.
Kevin Michael Vail
Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[something in ALL CAPS]
You know, Frank, even though Toby's gone, I'm sure he would Not Approve
of this posting.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
David Horne
> In article <3F68E885...@earthlink.net>,
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [something in ALL CAPS]
>
> You know, Frank, even though Toby's gone, I'm sure he would Not Approve
> of this posting.
Didn't Toby ever BARK?
David
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.co.uk
davidhorne (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
Frank McQuarry
Kevin Michael Vail wrote:
>
> In article <3F68E885...@earthlink.net>,
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [something in ALL CAPS]
>
> You know, Frank, even though Toby's gone, I'm sure he would Not Approve
> of this posting.
I'M SORRY. I'LL BE MORE CAREFUL IN THE FUTURE, SIR!
Scott Safier
> Scott Safier <sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> writes:
>> Michael Thomas:
>> ObNyTimes: the legislative director of the PA ACLU married his
>> same-sex spouse and appeared in the Style Section of the Sunday Times.
>> At a 9-11 ACLU event that occurred immediately after the press, this
>> was discussed. A person at the event noted Ms Ian's announcement at
>> about the same time as "some lesbian couple had a legal marriage in
>> Canada." I shuddered.
>
> And ObRIAArants too.
Sue me.
Scott Safier
> In article <3F68E885...@earthlink.net>,
> Frank McQuarry <fmcq...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [something in ALL CAPS]
>
> You know, Frank, even though Toby's gone, I'm sure he would Not Approve
> of this posting.
BECAUSE I DID IT FIRST... damn copy cats (and you know how dogs hate cats)
DRS
6a7e154b.03091...@posting.google.com
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
> news:<bk5jpb$qmb$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
>> Queen of the Damned <mel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> bottom line is: artists make nothing from album sales, and
>>> therefore
>>> loose nothing from file sharing.
>>
>> Then why did Metallica get their knickers so severely in a twist over
>> Napster?
>
> Because they were good boys and did what they were told.
That's not at all how I read it. I think you need to easy up on the
cynicism.
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
David W. Fenton
>In article <93F9C56D4df...@24.168.128.90>,
>David W. Fenton wrote:
>> Not for the music I listen to.
>
>SACD is no clear victor in the coming format wars. And it's
>not universally market-priced yet. And its' underlying, inherent
>problems may kill it before anything in the marketplace does.
>But the hybrid compatibility makes the specific question you
>asked about incompatibility moot.
My main problem is that it's just not enough better to be worth
buying.
Queen of the Damned
> >Title of Thread: "Once again, the RIAA." Unless I am mistaken,
> >RIAA stands for "Recording Industry Association of America." I
> >described how recording contracts actually work, and they do not
> >work the way "most" people believe they do. That seems more
> >pertinent to a discussion titled "Once again, the RIAA" than a
> >description of book contracts.
> >
> >So. Snoogles, darling! *Who* is in the wrong thread?
>
> Uh, then you should have done a followup to a post that was about
> the RIAA, rather than one that was about book advances.
Or... a post about book advances could be returned to the topic
of the *thread* with a post on recording advances, eh whot? The
general tenor of discussion *appears* to be that the RIAA is stealing
from artists and therefore has no right to complain about being stolen
from. I do not actually take that view, for reasons that are
rather amusingly related to the fact I've been representing
emotionally disturbed children and, well, what is a recording
artist if not an emotionally disturbed child? Record contracts are
the equivalent of a Level 14 group home (Anti-Splat Moment: God,
I'm good).
Where was I? Ah, yes. The general tenor of the thread has nothing
to do with book advances, darling. Ergo, using them as proxies for
the position that you would like to support is not something that
entitles you to complain about "thread" hijacking, insofar as you
are the "hijacker" (Anti-Splat Moment: God, I'm good).
*X*
(IP LLM cum something and juvenile delinquency with special ed for social
and emotional disturbances, the utlimate music attorney, so why am I
so fucking poor? Nedly! Nedly! Hundreds of millions of... oh, nevermind.
Lex! Lex! Toss Bette Davis and make room for *me* *me* *me*!)
Aaron mC
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
RIAA, hmmm...
Well I'm sitting here looking at my original music CD (which will be
the last one I buy may I add) and it clearly states the following:
"All rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work
reserved. Unauthorised copying, public performance, broadcasting,
hiring or rental of this recording prohibited."
fair enough......
Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
I know some of you critics out there will be thinking "oh yeah, you
had no idea you were downloading copyright protected music....", well
actually in the case of the 12 year old girl I bet none of the files
she downloaded had a copyright statement attached so actually she
really didn't have any idea that those particular files were
copyrighted. The RIAA cant just expect people to know which file is
illegal and which one isn't and before they counteract this claim with
some silly 'web based copyright listings' they can't expect people to
double check with them every time they download a file, open a page or
move a mouse....
If the file had a copyright statement attached then that would be
different, so if they have the time to trawl through 50 million + MP3s
on the web and change the ID tags then good luck to them.
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
David W. Fenton
>The general tenor of the thread has nothing
>to do with book advances, darling. Ergo, using them as proxies
>for the position that you would like to support is not something
>that entitles you to complain about "thread" hijacking, insofar as
>you are the "hijacker" (Anti-Splat Moment: God, I'm good).
I wasn't using book advances as proxies in the RIAA discussion. I
was mostly pointing out how they were rather different, in fact.
David W. Fenton
<1f63ecd1.03091...@posting.google.com>:
>Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not?
>How am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was
>made for profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can
>enforce a copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
Your doubts are wrong. Indeed, your post had no copyright notice,
but copyright law says that it is implicit in the act of writing
that the creator has copyright, even if it's not explicitly stated
and even if it's not officially registered. Claims of infringement
may be stronger in terms of damages awarded when the copyright was
explicitly stated, but the violation itself is the same either way.
In other words, if it doesn't say "public domain" you can be 99%
certain it's copyrighted.
>I know some of you critics out there will be thinking "oh yeah,
>you had no idea you were downloading copyright protected
>music....", well actually in the case of the 12 year old girl I
>bet none of the files she downloaded had a copyright statement
>attached so actually she really didn't have any idea that those
>particular files were copyrighted. . . .
She probably didn't care.
But, ignorance of the law has never been an excuse, though it might
very well be used as mitigating factors in sentencing, for
instance.
> . . . The RIAA cant just expect
>people to know which file is illegal and which one isn't and
>before they counteract this claim with some silly 'web based
>copyright listings' they can't expect people to double check with
>them every time they download a file, open a page or move a
>mouse....
If you see some guys selling stereos out of the back of a truck, do
you assume that the merchandise is likely to be legit? Nope. You
assume it's illegal in some form.
MP3 trading is the same way. Since there's only a relatively small
amount of music that can be legally traded in that fashion, the
lack of a copyright notice should cause you to assume that the
content is copyrighted.
And copyrighted material can be freely traded if the owners of the
copyright allow people to do so.
>If the file had a copyright statement attached then that would be
>different, so if they have the time to trawl through 50 million +
>MP3s on the web and change the ID tags then good luck to them.
Your observations have nothing to do with the way the law works.
Copyright notices are not necessary to retain copyright, and lack
of a notice does not excuse the violation. Given the mechanics of
how the files get on the file sharing networks, which everyone
knows, the assumption should be bloody obvious that most of the
material is derived from copyrighted materials.
Lars Eighner
<1f63ecd1.03091...@posting.google.com>,
the lovely and talented Aaron mC
broadcast on soc.motss:
> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
Okay. I've had enough. I'll be glad when Talk Like a Pirate Day
is over.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
I've been asked to masturbate on the job. -- Will Parsons
Mike McKinley
You've never recovered since my victory over your Daddy, have you?.
Mike McKinley
>TO UGLY DUCKLING GIRLS LIKE ME
>
>
This assumes that you became I swan.
*I* did.
::triple twirl::
Ellen Evans
Mike McKinley <mpmck...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Frank McQuarry wrote:
>
>>TO UGLY DUCKLING GIRLS LIKE ME
>>
>>
>
> This assumes that you became I swan.
> *I* did.
Well, I *swan*!
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
Queen of the Damned
> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
> profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
Well, you're wrong. If you copy something, you are what is known in
the legal 'biz as "strictly liable" for any mistakes in your right
to copy. The spanking gets much harder the more you know, but
pleading ignorance will not save you. *Criminal* charges would
require some state of knowledge,and I do not know them off the top
of my head. I suspect the standard is "reckless disregard of
copryight status."
*X*
(copyright sticks as soon as you put down your original expression
in a media with some permenance... these very words are copyrighted
and there is no notice. some remedies are only available after
registering with the Copyright Office, but you can register after
you've been infringed... and I assure you, the major labels have
registered their material.)
Scott Safier
> cam...@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) wrote in message news:<1f63ecd1.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or not? How
>> am I supposed to know if that particular piece of music was made for
>> profit just by looking at a file name? I doubt you can enforce a
>> copyright without first declaring 'copyright'......
>
> Well, you're wrong. If you copy something, you are what is known in
> the legal 'biz as "strictly liable" for any mistakes in your right
> to copy. The spanking gets much harder the more you know, but
> pleading ignorance will not save you. *Criminal* charges would
> require some state of knowledge,and I do not know them off the top
> of my head. I suspect the standard is "reckless disregard of
> copryight status."
Your majestic *X*ness. Being an ignorant baffoon with little
knowledge beyond my own perfunctory pompousness, how am I too know
when a copyright expires or not. Certainly the practice has never
been routine nor set a common standard for all time. Some have been
extended to infinity, while others have falled into the trash can of
the public domain (spit). Who is to tell and know such status aprior.
Of course, Mr. Fenton's high regard of the musical delights of
Ms. Brittany Spears certainly requires protection of the law, but what
of that knave (and presumed Nazi by german birth) Mr. Irving Berlin
whose works may or may not have fallen to the reach of the (spit)
common man? Can status, in this question, be so callously
disregarded?
Your court jester,
Michael Thomas
> Your majestic *X*ness. Being an ignorant baffoon with little
> knowledge beyond my own perfunctory pompousness, how am I too know
> when a copyright expires or not. Certainly the practice has never
> been routine nor set a common standard for all time. Some have been
> extended to infinity, while others have falled into the trash can of
> the public domain (spit). Who is to tell and know such status aprior.
> Of course, Mr. Fenton's high regard of the musical delights of
> Ms. Brittany Spears certainly requires protection of the law, but what
> of that knave (and presumed Nazi by german birth) Mr. Irving Berlin
> whose works may or may not have fallen to the reach of the (spit)
> common man? Can status, in this question, be so callously
> disregarded?
Er, even if Irving is publicly dominated these days, a
recent recording of same would not be.
Besides so long as Disney is around, anything post Mickey
will never fall into the public domain.
HTH.
Ned Deily
>(IP LLM cum something and juvenile delinquency with special ed for social
>and emotional disturbances, the utlimate music attorney, so why am I
>so fucking poor? Nedly! Nedly! Hundreds of millions of... oh, nevermind.
I hear that them there venture capital wells are starting to trickle
again out on Sand Hill Rd. If at first you don't succeed, venture
venture venture again.
>Lex! Lex! Toss Bette Davis and make room for *me* *me* *me*!)
"Law and Order: Special Handling Unit"
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> Besides so long as Disney is around, anything post Mickey will never
> fall into the public domain.
Most of the free world has copyright laws that last for 50/70 years
(for different types of works), which is why ultra-cheap jazz cds from
the fourties and fifties have started popping up everywhere. (And
probably Elvis, too.)
I've been looking at buying replica Bauhaus furniture lately, which
is finally possible. I wonder whether one could get arrested for
trying to smuggle contraband like that into the US...
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Frank McQuarry
Sigh. I wish he'd come around here more often.
Mike Jankulak
>No, no, we don't do sticky.
"Kiss my sticky and a cow will come out."
-- Gertrude Stein, apparently
--
"Your Uncle Albert and I had a whirlpool romance,"
Aunt Ruthie tells me. Then she pauses. "Is that
the word I mean?" -- Patricia Volk
David W. Fenton
<slrnbmnbs3...@pong.telerama.com>:
>Queen of the Damned:
>> cam...@hotmail.com (Aaron mC) wrote in message
>> news:<1f63ecd1.03091...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>> Except that the bunch of MP3s I downloaded the other day didn't
>>> mention any such thing. If a file is called 'Crazy in Love -
>>> Beyonce.MP3' how am I supposed to know if it's copyright or
>>> not? How am I supposed to know if that particular piece of
>>> music was made for profit just by looking at a file name? I
>>> doubt you can enforce a copyright without first declaring
>>> 'copyright'......
>>
>> Well, you're wrong. If you copy something, you are what is
>> known in the legal 'biz as "strictly liable" for any mistakes in
>> your right to copy. The spanking gets much harder the more you
>> know, but pleading ignorance will not save you. *Criminal*
>> charges would require some state of knowledge,and I do not know
>> them off the top of my head. I suspect the standard is
>> "reckless disregard of copryight status."
>
>Your majestic *X*ness. Being an ignorant baffoon with little
>knowledge beyond my own perfunctory pompousness, how am I too know
>when a copyright expires or not. . . .
If the MP3 is ripped from a CD, it's definitely under copyright.
Are there any MP3s ripped from 78s? I dunno.
And, in any event, you should presume that material is copyrighted
unless it says that it's public domain or has a copyright date that
now places it in the public domain. I'm not certain that any
recorded music has entered the public domain, as the copyright
holders are likely to re-release the recordings, which places the
thing under copyright again, even if the original recording was
made long enough ago that the original would no longer be
copyrighted.
> . . . Certainly the practice has never
>been routine nor set a common standard for all time. Some have
>been extended to infinity, while others have falled into the trash
>can of the public domain (spit). Who is to tell and know such
>status aprior. Of course, Mr. Fenton's high regard of the musical
>delights of Ms. Brittany Spears certainly requires protection of
>the law, but what of that knave (and presumed Nazi by german
>birth) Mr. Irving Berlin whose works may or may not have fallen to
>the reach of the (spit) common man? Can status, in this question,
>be so callously disregarded?
Sound recordings or Irving Berlin's music are probably all under
copyright. And you should assume that they are not unless they say
they are public domain.
Michael Palmer
<sc...@pink-triangle.NO.org.SPAM> wrote:
>Your majestic *X*ness. Being an ignorant baffoon with little
>knowledge beyond my own perfunctory pompousness, how am I too know
>when a copyright expires or not. Certainly the practice has never
>been routine nor set a common standard for all time. Some have been
>extended to infinity, while others have falled into the trash can of
>the public domain (spit). Who is to tell and know such status aprior.
>Of course, Mr. Fenton's high regard of the musical delights of
>Ms. Brittany Spears certainly requires protection of the law, but what
>of that knave (and presumed Nazi by german birth) Mr. Irving Berlin
Darling, Irving was born in Russia (Mogilov), not Germany.
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Michael Palmer
Ingebrigtsen <la...@gnus.org> wrote:
>Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> writes:
>
>> Besides so long as Disney is around, anything post Mickey will never
>> fall into the public domain.
>
>Most of the free world has copyright laws that last for 50/70 years
>(for different types of works), which is why ultra-cheap jazz cds from
>the fourties and fifties have started popping up everywhere. (And
>probably Elvis, too.)
That's 50/70 years *after the death of the creator*. The reason that
ultra-cheap CD's of jazz from the 1940's have begun to surface is that
when the original recordings were first made and copyrighted the
copyright term was 28 years, and renewal (for another 28 years) was
not automatic (that is, the copyright holder had to make a conscious
effort to renew the copyright). However, only about 8% of copyright
holders renewed their copyright, so a certain amount of material
created in the 1940's has reverted to the public domain. It is,
however, a relatively small percentage of the material that would have
reverted to the public domain had not Disney, Valenti, Mary Bono, and
their cohorts not hoodwinked Congress into extending the term of
copyright.
>I've been looking at buying replica Bauhaus furniture lately, which
>is finally possible. I wonder whether one could get arrested for
>trying to smuggle contraband like that into the US...
The US is a signatory of all the standard international copyright
conventions: if it's legal to create, sell, and buy replica Bauhaus
furniture in Europe, it's legal to do so in the US.
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> That's 50/70 years *after the death of the creator*.
Yes... but I seem to recall that there's different copyright rules
for performers as opposed to composers. The ultra-cheap cd
manufacturers pay royalties to the descendants of the composers.
(Those royalties are pretty low, though. (As they are in the record
biz.))