Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: a fool in paradise

Um, ok. Look, I don’t care to comment on the merits of the RIAA, but as far as Steve Martin goes, no one forced him to sign on with ASCAP or BMI or whatever. If he thinks he can do better licensing his songs/comedy albums on his own, then he’s welcome to try it.

My point is that copyright holders under the existing law get screwed because there is inadequate incentive to bring civil suits against infringers.


28 posted on 05/21/2012 3:35:56 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: Publius Valerius
The collection agencies exist for profit. They seek to shake down revenue from many sources (not just illegal downloading but also tv sets on in waiting rooms and radios in mechanics’ garages).

NONE of the revenue they collect will actually be paid to the artists that may have been overheard by customers or employees. It will be paid out based on industry “expectations” that the public must be listening to U2, Jay-Z, or Bruce Springsteen because that's what "sells".

The big lawsuit payouts won't be going to the artists who were wronged and the collection agencies will never be paying more than a pittance to the artists. While they claim to be doing it for the benefit of the artists, they are just pimping their names. As pimps, they collect the money and dole it out on rare occasion to those they pwn. Who does extending copyrights to 100 years benefit? Certainly not the creators or their estates.

29 posted on 05/21/2012 3:46:41 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (Barack Obama has cut and run from what he called "the right war".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson