Copyright insanity

[SineSwiper]

http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.d ... 80343/1006

Okay, that's it. Every last single fucking musician is my enemy now. Any cocksucker that gives any money to these fucking bastards is also my enemy. The way I see it, every time I steal music, I'm robbing money from these greedy fucks.

The musicians started this mess by signing their life away at a chance to be a selfish rock star. Now it's their job to fix it.

Andrus said a friend of his who owned a restaurant that did not feature music was contacted by a company looking to charge him because it owned the rights to a Hank Williams Jr. song, "Are You Ready for Some Football?" The song preceded every "Monday Night Football" telecast, which the restaurant carried on its televisions.



GODDAMMIT!!!

[Nev]

Sine, I doubt the artists are encouraging this scenario. This has to do with the *licensing* business, which is shady beyond the mind of measured man.

It's not going to be the artists who are behind this, most likely. It's some of the shadier "executives" at these licensing companies. A lot of people smell money in the music business, and a lot of them are pretty shitty people. Have you not been aware of this?

One of the things driving this kind of lawsuit is the fact that the recorded music business as we now know it will probably not exist in ten years. Since the advent of music sharing, it's hard to make money off a recording. The major labels are in *rampant* financial trouble over this. Go look up some figures if you don't believe me.

Most people tend to think it's primarily their own fault for not seeing this coming, but it does explain why the industry is desperately seeking to get a dollar any way it can.

It is interesting for me as an amateur musician and game designer to notice this kind of thing, because I don't want to be associated with that crap, and it makes me realize that if I ever compose something worthwhile I don't want to deal with this kind of shady, shitty element as far as licensing goes. Would have to do some research into an upright licensing firm. But don't blame the artists for the excesses of the labels and licensers.

[Tessian]

WAIT a second... WTF is about that last part with the Monday Night Football?? That's not legal is it?

You can't charge someone to LISTEN to something on TV unless you're the fucking provider of the channel. Monday Night Football paid them to use that song on the air, since when does that mean viewers have to pay too?


As for the rest...yeah, I heard they're starting to go after cover bands which will just destroy things for them further... cover bands never hurt anyone, but as Nev said the beast is dying and they're trying to make money however they can.

The music industry had, and still has, the chance to get with the times and change their business model-- but they refuse. They still want everyone to pay $20 for a CD and don't like the idea that consumers want to start paying for individual songs at a reasonable price. They're used to making a killing by exploiting both the consumer and the artist...and so far I've only seen major outrage from the consumers...wtf are the major artists in all this?

Basically we're seeing the downfall of an industry...and once the dust settles artists can sell directly to the consumers and not have to share their profits. Prices go down, artists make more money-- win/win. Sometimes it's good to get rid of the middle man...especially when said man is obese, worthless, and horribly corrupt.

[SineSwiper]

Sine, I doubt the artists are encouraging this scenario. This has to do with the *licensing* business, which is shady beyond the mind of measured man.

It's not going to be the artists who are behind this, most likely. It's some of the shadier "executives" at these licensing companies. A lot of people smell money in the music business, and a lot of them are pretty shitty people. Have you not been aware of this?

I blame the artists, because they are the ones signing their life away. Every time a new band signs a contract that includes giving away their copyrights to the middle-man, they are causing problems like this. If the artists had their own copyrights, they wouldn't be pulling shit like this.

[Julius Seeker]

Wow, the courts actually back the record labels on this?

Also, I don't think that any music artists would object to having their songs covere adding to their cultural significance.

[Kupek]

Sine, have you ever written code for an employer?

[Zeus]

The artists now have a choice. They can record and release some songs for free online to get their popularity up then sell directly to the consumer. Let's see if some of them actually do that

[Nev]

I blame the artists, because they are the ones signing their life away. Every time a new band signs a contract that includes giving away their copyrights to the middle-man, they are causing problems like this. If the artists had their own copyrights, they wouldn't be pulling shit like this.

By all means, please continue to blame a lot of people who don't tend to actually have a lot of means of income production besides money - naive rock bands from small towns, struggling rappers from straight out of Queensbridge housing projects, etc.

I agree that artists should keep the rights to their own masters. Some do. Dr. Dre famously stated that owning one's own masters was the key to success. But not all artists are smart enough to do this, and your vindictiveness doesn't serve. It's a complex picture.

[Don]

The copyright owner is free to selectively enforce it whenever they feel like it. If it actually turns out having Monday Night Football music is worth paying some royalty then it was the right thing. If it's the wrong thing to do then being draconian about copyright will probaly end up biting them later indirectly so they only hurt themselves.

As for the artist themselves, many musicians have a rather unspecialized set of skills that is not particularly valuable. If they're not making music they might be flipping burgers at a fast food place. If all I can do is flip burgers or rap, I'd want to get some security first too. As far as I know no one signs their entire life away, so if it turns out I rap way better than I thought, I can eventually re negotiate a better contract or just publish it on my own when the current deal ends. There are always plenty of sob story about how artist don't make anything because the evil middle man took it all. Well, those contracts have to expire eventually. How come the artist aren't making cash left and right when it does expire?

It'd seem to me in the music industry, most of the value is actually added by the record labels spending the money on the tours and promotion. Therefore it stands to reason the middle man should be the one reaping the rewards. If the value comes from the artist, he'd eventually either be able to leave and publish on his own, or the record company will pay him a much better deal. As I understand the cost of publishing is quite low these days thanks to advanced technology, so if the artist deserve to make that much money, there isn't considerable hurdle to stop them from doing so.

Now there's always legalese stuff, but then that's why you got lawyers. If you're going to sign something that impacts your life significantly, you can't just say well it is almost certainly setup to screw me but I will have to sign it anyway because it's too complicated.

[Nev]

Now there's always legalese stuff, but then that's why you got lawyers. If you're going to sign something that impacts your life significantly, you can't just say well it is almost certainly setup to screw me but I will have to sign it anyway because it's too complicated.

And yet many do. A lot of artists don't smarten up about the legal system, or the "beast" of corporate/major label sponsorship...

[SineSwiper]

Well, those contracts have to expire eventually. How come the artist aren't making cash left and right when it does expire?

Yeah, that's why Prince changed his fucking name to get out of a contract. Because they expire, right?

[Don]

I believe Prince is now releasing stuff online for free, which would suggest his existing contract is over since that'd be a very unlikely sceario if he was still under one.

[Nev]

Prince's new album promotion scrapes the bottom barrel of humanity.

They're including it with a weekly newspaper and trying to claim that it should be included in sales charts according to numbers sold:

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2125795,00.html

I did find the idea of a "bundled" newspaper and Prince CD amusing though, in terms of showing what's happened to his career lately. Kind of reminds me of cereal box promotions - I can just see some kid opening up a box of cereal all like, "Let's see, secret decoder ring, x-ray glasses...Prince CD...better throw that away..."

Makes one wonder about the future of recording, too. Anyone up for mass AOL-style album mailings in order to support desperate bids for pop stardom?

[Zeus]

So, he tries to get out of the music industry monopoly shackles and he's scraping the barrel of humanity?

[Nev]

Zeus, you didn't even read the article I linked, did you?

His album promotion has nothing to do with escaping industry shackles - that was his name chage. The promotion I'm talking about is actually a heavily financed corporate gambit - and what makes it scuzzy is that they're trying to claim that every copy of the paper featuring the bundled CD should count as a full album sale when it comes to the charts. Which would imply that each person who buys the paper and throws away the CD, or just never listens to it (and there will be many) is as relevant to the charts as someone who actually goes and buys a CD out of desire to own the artist's music, and to me, that's more or less when you're faking your own relevance to the industry.

Hopefully Billboard will stand up to them and say "you guys are full of shit, bundle the CD with the paper if you want, but we're not going to chart you for anything except CDs sold in stores".