Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by billorites
As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster...
Conundrum #1: Has the Internet, the most powerful information pump the world has ever known, drowned the incentive to create in words or images?
Conundrum #2: Has the Internet effectively displaced the antique notion of the profit-motive with a newer, unstoppable reality that everything on the Internet is, if it wants to be, "free"?
Conundrum #3: How is it that millions of Americans who wouldn't cross the street against a red light will sleep like lambs after downloading onto their computers a Library of Alexandria's worth of music or movies--for free.
Even writers gotta eat. But this means one has to buy into the validity of eeeek, "profit." Absent that, there's no hope.
New business models like iTunes and techno-fixes such as micropayments matter a lot, but the unshakable reality is that digits and microchips are not like any previous reproducing technology. If you can digitize it, you can grab it, for free.
No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain, for "everyone."
What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
<< Put a reason time on copyright, no problem >>
This is really the crux of the problem. The current rules for copyright are insane. Look at the problems caused by greed from Jimi Hendrix's legacy. And we'll have to put up with this taint on his catalog of music for the rest of our lives.
Compare this to the laws associated with technology patents. John Chowning is not crying that the 1995 expiration of his FM synthesis patent is causing his children to starve. Or Bob Moog, or Rupert Neve, etc.
I just find it sad that Rogers and Hammerstein's grandchildren's call in life is to police and regulate material they had no part in creating. Musicians and composers need to let go of their fruits with the same constraints as technology pioneers.
More like $50, on top of the $300 or $400 for the band adds up. Any idea how many beers a bar has to sell to cover a $450 expense? Sales would have to be $900 just to cover the band at 2 bucks a beer that is 450 beers, 50 people (big crowd for a small venue) all drinking 9 beers.
The music industry is killing itself with greed.
The way it works is venues who hire musicians pay those agencies, not the performer. They usually pay a flat fee to both, which allows them to use from the entire catalog, and then those agencies use their own formulas and tracking mechanisms to distribute royalties. If asked, I can and do provide a playlist for any gig.
So, to make it as easy as possible to understand:
Does a royalty get paid for the singing of Happy birthday? (assuming its copyright is still in force)
Yes.
Do I, the musician, pay it?
No.
Who does?
The bar I play in, usually in the form of a general use fee that covers the entire catalogs of ASCAP and BMI.
Hope I explained it better this time.
You can cry all you want over the fact that I don't believe you. In case you haven't noticed, I don't care. Not even a teeny tiny bit.
They rationalize their behavior. It's selfish and childish, but they do it. It's not so hard to pay for music. I subscribe to real rhapsody. for 10 bucks a month, I get access to countless songs, new and old. It's not that hard. I bet most of these selfish takers spend more than that on lunch break.
An artist has his work put on the net, to advertise it. and someone downloads it w/o paying, if I'm not mistaken that's called stealing, and that's against the law. Example: want a print to hang on your wall? Easy download it print it hang it. An the artist who created it gets...nothing.
"Writers aren’t making the money they deserve? Musician’s?"
So in other words it's ok to steal from people IF they're rich?
Actually it is roughly $3000 for a venue up to 3800 square feet for the licenses from ASCAP, BMI and SESEC, payable per year. If they have one band a month, that's $250 per performance. Get a band a week and you're down to $57 per performance, but no matter what the number of bands, the fees have to be paid yearly and in advance.
So, would you be willing to sick thugs to collect a fee from the head of the household, who allows collected friends of the 5 year old kid to sing 'Happy Birthday'? After all, royalties are due.
You call someone a thief and a liar when you don't have a clue what they are doing and then you tell them you don't care what they think? Classy
I'm with you on that....No Show Jones is the king, not Elvis. I checked your profile and see you're also from God's Country...I am no longer in the Tidewater, but it's still in me...my dream is to return one day, but housing prices will probably prevent it.
Exactly right. I've acknowledge 5 or 6 times already on this thread that the Constitution stipulated a "limited" time for copyrights. Further, I have stated that I do not know what the length should be. But I maintain, and will continue to maintain, that downloading and distributing copyrighted music without regard for the rights of the copyright holder is theft.
If it were my copyright? I'd bring an aluminum bat.
Thanks. I'm all class. It's called skepticism, and I really don't care what you think about it.
Does a royalty get paid for the singing of Happy birthday? (assuming its copyright is still in force)
I believe it's in public domain now.
On second thought, no. It would be bad publicity to show thugs breaking down the door all because the head of a household let a bunch of 5 year olds sing 'Happy Birthday' without paying. Might even motivate soccer moms to form a lynch mob. Now that would be interesting.
Yup, but not my the one violating the copyright but by the one foolish enough to hire musicians in the first place. Which is why my bar, and all the other bars in the local area, no longer do live music on a regular basis.
And that is the bottom, line. Maybe I'd take a loss, and provide my customers a band on Friday or Saturday night. But I am not gong to do that when all it means is that I am going to get a shake down by ASSCAP or BMI too. Screw it, so everyone loses, nice system huh?
Yes. But the weasel wording uses 'commercial' to keep off the lynch mobs of soccer moms.
I don't think it is. I think it's more similar to manufacturer's of drug paraphenalia.
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.