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 ...
Total BS. First of all, the next U2 will be an original music band, like U2, not a cover band. Therefore, no royalties are due anyone. Second, you could charge a cover, and let the band succeed or fail on their own ability to draw, which would cost you nothing. You're whole argument is total fiction.
Answer this question:
If the next U2, like the real U2, came to your bar and played a set of all original music, how much do you owe ASCAP and BMI as a result?
No cause they are not paying license fees. tell them it is going to cost an extra 50 every time you play and see wnat they say.
The issue of 30-40 year old songs being downloaded without permission is just a ruse being used by people who want music for free anyway. The vast majority of music being illegally downloaded are songs that are only a few years old at best. There is, as you have said, room for debate over how long copyrights should be extended. That debate really has no bearing on most of the music being downloaded. Even if the copyright was put at 10-15 years, most downloads would still be illegal, and rightly so. So people just can't handle the fact that they will have to pay for something.
You're wrong. There's plenty of bands out there playing their own songs from the ground up. You won't hire them because they probably don't draw or hold a crowd as well. If you were truly a patron of the arts, as you are posing to be, you'd let em come in and play. But you run a business, which is why you hire cover bands, which is why you get to pay like everyone else.
the next U2 (IMHO) is playing at my bar and they play a mix of cover and orginal. A bar band MUST play cover, the customers DEMAND to hear music they know and like.
You’re reading things unimplied. I said that it was cost prohibitive to strictly enforce, like charging everyone who views your art. The same IT that made it easier to create and distribute music made it easier to pirate. The artists and industry have generally lost nothing. The larger thieves are at risk as always. The balance hasn’t changed, just a lot of complaining on all side.
If law enforcement ever sent out hundreds of thousands of expensive tickets to little downloaders, the laws would change in their favor. The record industry that relies on the good will of the consumer can’t push too hard. The public that wants new music can’t push too hard. Nothing fundamental has changed from the days that both music creation and music pirating were 5-10 times harder
And if the band happens to do a cover of a commercial song? Nah. Couldn't take that chance. Better they don't play at all.
No, they are not required to play covers, but as you say, the audience likes you much better if you do. Which proves the point that you and the band are making your money off of those songs, the rights to which belong to someone else. So you pay a fee. You don't like it? Just hire all original bands, like U2. Plenty of punk bands, which is how U2 started, play all originals. But something tells me that might not be good for business. So drop the pose that you are really just an overcharged patron of the arts. That's BS, and I've proven it.
If he is truly interested in the next U2, he can hire original music bands only. There are TONS of bands DYING to play their original music and maybe be the next big thing. If that was this guy's true intent, he could open his venue at no cost to him. He doesn't because he wants to make money, which means give the audience what it wants, which is LICENSED music. If he can't make that profitable, thats his problem.
Maybe in college towns or big cities, but not out here in the rural east texas. The one local band from this area ZZ Top played cover tunes too, when getting started.
Good point. I am sure the most downloaded songs are Eminem, Green Day, Jack Johnson, or whatever the flavor of the month is.
That's your problem. U2 didn't hit it big in east texas either. that's what big cities are for.
Janis Joplin and the Winter Brothers are also from that area. (I’m from Beaumont.)
And THAT is exactly why people don't care about this matter.
Did they play cover tunes when staring out?
You are correct. It is not theft, it is a copyright violation. I love how these fools think that using the word theft makes it sound so bad. They are living in the past and can fight the future all they want, but it won't change the facts of life - the old distribution system is DEAD.
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.