Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by billorites
The hell you say?
But I see you still have no wish to retract your statements that I am a liar and a thief, even though you have absolutely no basis for making them. It is pretty obvious what that makes you.
I said outright I had no basis. I'm entitled to my prejudices.
Do you pay any royalties to the RIAA when you sing 'Happy Birthday' to someone?
The bar could pass the cost on to the band if they wanted. Bars pay to use music in their venues, period. They pay to use the jukebox. They pay for bands. If it's an original music band, they don't have to pay, but then, original bands don't draw as good a crowd.
If a bar can't afford entertainment, that's their problem. A cover band playing 3 sets will play roughly 30 songs. That's 30 bucks, according to your math. If a bar band can't draw enough happy drinkers to cover 30 bucks, they don't deserve the gig.
As for what you are, your false accusations, your cowardly inability to acknowledge your error, and your childish attempt to justify your statements provides evidence aplenty.
Fine. I admit it. You've never illegally downloaded a song. (rolling eyes.) Feel better?
Nope the jutebox is liscensed, that is a dogde. The fact is, that you as a musician are just to damn cheap to bay the copyright fees and push that cost onto the bar. The bar isn't playing anything, you are. The bar is just contracting you to entertain and YOU are the one breaking the law.
RIAA doesn't collect royalties. ASCAP and BMI do. 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.
Incorrect.
Thats a self serving presumption. That was the compromise ruling that FR grudgingly accepted to stay in operation. Nothing stronger would be enforceable on a wider scale without disrupting the net. Blogs today copy until theyre big enough to be noticed and formally notified. Morally, its not much different than downloading music, but more legally tolerated.
We've been through this before: Think Lotus 1-2-3 and CopyWrite, for those over 40. 123 was a good product, vastly overpriced for the ordinary user. By "overpriced", I mean that it was overpriced for the market, which was thought of as corporate only but was in fact the growing home/small business world. So cheap, useful knockoffs came out and copying methods also appeared. (And viruses started to, so there's no free lunch.)
Soon, books came out on how to use the copies, which didn't have manuals. Back when Help systems were even worse than today.
Companies learned to price, and copy protect at what the market would pay. (Leave aside the overseas piracy--separate, tough issue--and those who will spend hours to save $10.)
Music is now overpriced. It can be gotten around by copying, in classical buying Nonesuch instead of the retail Renee Flemings, and so on. When the prices come down to reflect delivery costs which no longer include a bloated distribution channel and its protection, a good portion of the copying will disappear.
It's not nice, or moral, but the amount of copying is also the market speaking.
read and learn:
ASCAP Customers:
the three major television networks: ABC, CBS and NBC
public television - the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) and its affiliated stations
the majority of the 11,000 cable systems and virtually all of the cable program services
over 1,000 local commercial television stations, including affiliates of the Fox, Paramount (UPN), Warner Bros. (WB) Networks and PAX
the Univision Television Network and its stations
about 11,500 local commercial radio stations
about 2,000 non-commercial radio broadcasters, including college radio stations and National Public Radio (NPR) stations
hundreds of background music services (such as MUZAK, airlines)
about 2,300 colleges and universities
about 5,700 concert presenters
over 1,000 symphony orchestras
over 2,000 web sites
tens of thousands of "general" licensees: bars, restaurants, hotels, ice and roller skating rinks, circuses, theme parks, veterans and fraternal organizations and more
If you ask ardent downloaders to name the best site for siphoning music out of the ether, they won't say Grokster, but more likely Allofmp3, which resides in . . . Russia, and was described to me by one knowledgable user as "more or less legal."
And here's the problem(?) with the net. No borders on the net. And it's only going to get worse(?).
That's hilarious. That's like saying a crowd who crashes the gate to bust into a concert without a ticket is "the market speaking." What rubbish!
Nothing personal but I was a musician for many years,
I know what it means when your first set is at 2am, and
there's NO billing.
Spare me.
Copyright is not property. It is a limited public grant. Huck, you want to change it, that's fine, but it must be done in the Constitution.
Similar advance in technologies of reproduction that now threaten copyright holders and, more importantly, distributors, were responsible for the ongoing extensions of copyright to near indefinite status of today. When the profitible cycle of a copyright product ran a few printing runs, a show or concert tour, there was little profit in extending copyright. Artistic production naturally fell into the public domain with little complaint. Along come Edison and his audio and visual recording devices, suddenly, the franchise needed extending. Into the latter 20th century the serious pressure came not from music or movies but in licensing, which is why these copyright extensions are named for Disney. Come cable TV and the VCR, and Hollywood caught the bug as old catalogs found new outlets.
It's technology that drives modern copyright. There is no innate, natural period of time for copyright protection but the profitibility of a product.
In the print industry, copyright is disastrously long. Ideas are trapped in a protection racket that benefits only publishers and not authors (the copyright holders). There's nothing in F.Scott Fitzgerald's "This Side of Paradise" that more belongs to the public domain than "Great Gatsby," except that the one was published before 1924. As such, "This Side of Paradise" is far more valuable today than "Gatsby," for Scribner's no longer holds it in the vault. You may say this hurts Fitzgerald's descendents. They have no claim on it as an inheritance. Their claim is based upon the length of copyright, solely. As such, there is nothing "unfair" in their loss.
Is the Mickey Mouse franchise worth more to the people or to Disney? If copyright is property, the answer is clearly Disney. If copyright is a grant -- as it is in the Constitution -- than the public is the loser, as all the innovation copyright was intended to advance is smothered by Disney's clamp. My view is that current near-indefinite length of copyright stifles innovation and knowledge. To argue otherwise requires changing the meaning of copyright from license to property.
Actually, the current situation has little to do with copyright length. Illegal copying impacts new and old copyright equally, and new copyright more for the dollars at stake. At issue here is not extending or retracting copyright. One thing that does scare me in the case is this notion that a tool's potential can be criminal. Do guns or SUVs kill, or do people?
I agree with you, it seems it is stealing. I thinks some justify it in their minds by transposing the music to zeros and ones.
You didn't answer the crux of my question. Do you pay royalties if you sing 'Happy Birthday' to someone?
Feel better? I didn't feel bad to start with. But I won't let you falsely accuse me without responding, and despite your silly assertion you are not "entitled" to do so.
The problem is obviously that you just don't have enough sense or brains to get past the simplistic view that internet file sharing is, by definition, theft. File sharing is no differenct than trading cassette tapes. Some of it is legal, and some of it is not. But the legality, or illegality, of that has nothing to do with the makers of blank tapes or cassette decks, and the illegality or legality of file sharing is not dependent on the creation of software.
So keep up with the juvenile name-calling. It is so helpful for your argument...
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.