Why should artists be any different?
That's why.
Posted on 09/11/2009 2:23:31 PM PDT by a fool in paradise
Some of the world's largest recording companies are suing "The Ellen DeGeneres Show," claiming producers violated their copyrights by playing more than 1,000 songs without permission.
Many of the songs were played during the "dance over" segment of the show, when DeGeneres dances from the stage to the interview area, often through the audience.
According to the suit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Nashville, when representatives of the recording companies asked defendants why they hadn't obtained licenses to use the songs, defendants said they didn't "roll that way."
"As sophisticated consumers of music, Defendants knew full well that, regardless of the way they rolled, under the Copyright Act, and under state law for the pre-1972 recordings, they needed a license to use the sound recordings lawfully," the suit states.
Scott Rowe, spokesman for the show's Telepictures Productions, wrote in an e-mailed statement that the company has been working with the record labels for months to resolve the issue and remains willing to resolve it on "amicable and reasonable terms."
Rowe said the issue does not involve DeGeneres, who on Wednesday was named as the fourth judge on TV's "American Idol," and whom Rowe calls "a tremendous music enthusiast and advocate."
The suit claims the daytime talk show has used copyrighted music without permission since its inception, including "recordings by virtually every major current artist of popular music." It claims the show routinely used some of the most popular songs of the day, which the record labels don't license for daytime television at any price...
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
American Idol jumped the shark.
As I understand it ASCAP cops will go after bars that play records on a record player without paying the fees. Nothing gets past them. What kind of game did the Ellens think they were playing?
Why doesn’t Ellen just redefine the word “copyright” to mean whatever she wants, as with the word “marriage”?
How many times should artists get paid for the same piece of work?
If I’m a truck driver, I pick up a load and drive it from A-B and I get paid for it. Once.
If I’m a bank clerk I work five-eight-hour days and I get paid for that work. Once.
If I’m a cement worker I pour a driveway and I get paid for it. Once.
If I’m a pizza maker I make a pizza and I get paid for it. Once.
Why should artists be any different? Sing a song. Get paid for it. Once.
Hmmm ... didn’t pay ASCAP or BMI huh ...
>>> defendants said they didn’t “roll that way.” <<<<
They didn’t roll that way?
Ha ha.
I am looking through the copy of The Onion that I just picked up on the way home from work, and I cannot find this story.
If I have patented an invention and you want to build something using that invention. I could charge you a one time fee or I could charge you a smaller amount each time you use it.
>>> Why should artists be any different? Sing a song. Get paid for it. Once. <<<<
Sure, if that “Once.” is whatever fee the artist demands, say, something between 1 cent and $10 million.
Copyright. The right to make a copy.
Copyright owners make their money not by charging a lot for a single playing (like you do when you pour cement), they make their money by charging a little for each playing.
It's a system that works. It allows the person who owns the copyright to make money, and it makes it affordable for people that want to play a song once (like for a TV show) to do so, because the cost for a single playing is low.
If the system worked the way you wanted it to the cost to play a song a single time would be sky high (because the copyright owner would have to make ALL their money from the first playing.) The result would be new songs would never get played.
Every time the Tonight Show theme ( when Carson was host )was and is played, Paul Anka received royalties. The story is so well known that everybody who works on producing talk shows has to have heard about it as an example. Legal departments certainly should have. Somebody there thinks the rules don’t apply to them.
Isn’t there a law on the books that states businesses can’t play certain tunes in their stores without authorization?
This is one time when I support the RIAA.She used the songs for *profit*...as opposed to most people they sue...so she should be fined many millions...rather than the tens of thousands others are forced to pay.
Intellectual property rights is a very interesting and complicated topic. Good points, and unexpected points, on all sides.
You don't understand copyright. The singer DOES get paid just once to sing the song. But the creator of the song who owns the rights to the intellectual property gets paid each time the piece is listened to, just like a painter gets paid by each person who enters the museum and a writer gets paid by each person who enjoys the book.
Why should artists be any different?
That's why.
“whom Rowe calls ‘a tremendous music enthusiast and advocate.’”
Who the heck isn’t? I mean, even fire and brimstone preachers who think rock n roll is the devil’s music advocate some form of music.
“If I’m a truck driver, I pick up a load and drive it from A-B and I get paid for it. Once.”
You must realize that your having moved it from point A to B is an act that only has significance once, and fundamentally different from creating something that can be used over and over again. Also, truckers don’t own what they ship, nor do they have copyrights over the act of having shipped something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.