-
Yep I'm done. These conversations just waste of time. The law is the law and if you want them changed our society has a mechanism to change them, its parliamentary democracy. There's always an excuse for breaking the law though isn't there? The record company is rich and I'm not so... Sounds a bit like a thief caught at the local Manor House. Always someway to justify bad behaviour.
-
01-25-2013 04:40 PM
-
Why not? That doesn't mean photocopying books or downloading mp3s is theft, it isn't. Theft means taking something away. Others may not mind the copyright industry rewriting the dictionary, I'm buggered if I'll just lie down for it.
Originally Posted by Bill C
-
Right Chris - you are done with conversation - you accuse those who disagree with you as being thieves and you meet conversation with a refusal to converse with those who disagree with your position. You, of course, would prefer that no-one question the law as written apparently. The law is always right and no-one ought question whether the law is reasonable or not. Got it. Contrary to your imagination, I have only seen one individual advocating breaking the law and that sounded like the over-exuberance of youth. I certainly have not. Originally Posted by ChrisDowning
I suppose that a Manor House is a brothel? I have never heard that term before. What bad behavior are you suggesting I have committed? A theft? Details please.
-
What exactly do you say I'm doing? If I ask my local musicians union whether it's ok for me to question the appropriateness of current copyright laws, what do you suppose they will tell me? Do you think that they will call me a thief? If you are going to be strident, just be sure that you don't get caught playing any Wes licks or anything else that might have been played by someone else ever, or some jackass might call you a thief too.
-
I'm say that a lot of copying is done because people think they are not actually taking anything - but when challenged excuse themselves. If you weere a composer, nowadays you would have to assume that the laws of copyright are so widely ignored that you would want paying up front with one big fee - not royalties.
I know what it feels like to get ripped off though. A few years ago a did what looked like a little job for £500. The client then took what I'd done and spread it all over their company Worldwide - suddenly thousands of people were benefitting from my ideas. Bad stuff happens. Something more like £10 ,000 would have been a fairer price for the way my work was ultimately used. Its lawyers' territory!!
-
As someone previously has said, this is an emotional topic. I'm sorry you were ripped-off. As I have said in most of my previous posts, everyone should obey the law as it stands. But if we can't discuss whether current copyright laws are appropriate or not without calling each other thieves then nothing can ever be changed for the better.
If you have put your situation in the hands of lawyers, I hope you are successful.
-
Well you are right - I didn't chase it because the lawyers would have cost me more than I would have got back. And I guess that's why copyright is widely ignored. Nobody can be bothered to take action. Now the horse is out ofthe stable its never going to be like it was in the past days of vinyl, tapes, and film. The music industry needs to man up and join the 21st century. There's no more easy money guys.
-
Well at least stop relying on copyright laws that were written by big corporations. Maybe those laws were not written with the best interests of artists in mind? Maybe, instead of relying on those laws which are difficult to enforce and not based on reality, artists would have used other means like contract law that might have been more effective in protecting themselves from the real thieves.
-
Clearly not. My point was that if my intellectual work adds real financial value to someone else's project I would expect a cut of the money. Originally Posted by ColinO
-
Several points here seem to have become somewhat mixed up. Just to clarify my stance, at least...
A nurse gets paid an hourly rate, as do many working folks. I hold that a software engineer, composer or inventor does the same. His/her time spent engineering, composing, creating has, to me, the same value as that of anyone else, and should be compensated on that same basis. What becomes of the creation has, in my view, no relationship to the time spent creating. The future use for promoting a commercial success for any other product (the example given of a catchy tune that 'takes off'...) changes nothing in the time spent in the creation, and need not be counted in. The creator is already occupied in creating more (and being paid for this, as an hourly rate, same as the nurses and such...).
Laws are to be obeyed..? It was not so long ago that it was the law in many countries to wear a yellow star if held to be of a certain category of person. Should such a law be obeyed..? This is just an extreme example, to illustrate, almost by the absurd, where that kind of 'obedience' takes one. 'I was only doing my job...' Now where have I heard this before..?
Always question authority. Never obey laws that go against one's own personal morals. The 'tools' for getting laws changed have never been blunter, and are not fit for purpose.
All in my (humble...) opinion, of course; I ask no-one to agree with me or act as I do; I assume my own actions.
No malice intended.
-
This doesn't work where the creative process requires significant investment - eg making a movie. The owner of the work needs to recoup their investment. If they make a profit they can put food on the table as well. Originally Posted by Dad3353
-
I'm most definitely one of the little guys, but if someone is playing my music and making money out of it I want some of that money - copyright laws help me to make that happen - in a very very modest way in my case. Originally Posted by ColinO
-
I'm assuming that if you can be bothered to photocopy a book, or part of it, that you have a use for it, it has value to you. When you benefit from that value without remunerating the publisher, you are taking a sale away from the people who published that book, so they will make less profit, maybe lay people off, publish less, or publish less adventurous work, or pay their authors less. Originally Posted by JohnRoss
The other thing that I just don't get is that it isn't yours to take. The publisher is saying I have this book, we've put a lot of time and money into it and we think we can make a modest profit if we sell it for 10 euros a copy. You can have a copy for 10 euros. What gives you the right to just take it for nothing?
So much work in the western world is intellectual work now. If we don't respect the value of that kind of work we are sunk IMO.Last edited by Bill C; 01-25-2013 at 06:46 PM.
-
No more so than a luthier spending his time on guitar creation, with 'investment' in raw materials, tooling (cnc machines aren't cheap, either...). Any investment should be costed in, as with other lines of work. Time, however, is time. The same for us all. Once it's used, it's used. No more value is being generated once it's used. Originally Posted by Bill C
A film would cost more, I agree, but only on the basis of time spent and monies invested. No royalties (where does that term spring from, anyway..? Is there a clue hidden in there..?) or life-long revenue, just because it's on 'telly' again this Christmas. The 'creation' of the actors, chippies and electricians making the film is rewarded by their wages; so should every one else.
-
Ok, so let's say I've made a film. By the time I've paid all the contributors their flat fee I've spent 10 million euros which I've borrowed. How do I repay the loan and make a modest profit to live on? Originally Posted by Dad3353
-
you keep conflating the idea with its actual realization. for example, the idea of a composition as opposed to an actual performance or recording of it. Originally Posted by Bill C
all of those people make a living from the actual physical goods they create from whatever ideas they may have. a film maker makes money for making his actual films, not for his thoughts about films. a composer makes money for the actual arrangements they write out on paper, not their ideas about what they may write. software engineers make money from the actual software they write... i could go on and on.
once again, when we are talking about so called intellectual property, we are not talking about stealing physical goods, we are talking about the emergence of ideas in people's minds.
and i want to be clear that i am not on the same side as Dad3855, who is talking about a marxist theory of value as far as i can tell.Last edited by mfa; 01-25-2013 at 07:46 PM.
-
By selling the copies to cinemas (or rather, cinema chains, or TV...), the same as an ice cream manufacturer sells his wares. They, in turn, get their revenue from bums on seats. You pay your entry, you enjoy the film, you go home (or on to a concert..! Originally Posted by Bill C
). All is well with the world.
Let's invert your question, whilst we're here. How many millions of euros did it cost Lennon and/or McCartney to write and record 'Yesterday'..? How should (morally...) they be justly rewarded for their efforts..? No, I don't think it should be 'free', but bucket-fulls of revenue, not just for that pair, but anyone 'owning' the lucrative rights for decades is, to me, not right. Just reward; no problem. Eternal lunch ticket..? No, sir.
-
I wouldn't know about that; let's call it a Dad-ist 'theory', if we must. I'm in no 'camp', and have no agenda, hidden or not. In fact, I'm very, very small fry. Originally Posted by mfa
-
Originally Posted by ChrisDowning
this has nothing to do with property law, something i am firmly in support of. i am not advocating stealing audio files, sheet music, records, or anything physical like that. i am talking about hearing a melody at some point and then going and playing it on a piano for an audience. or even just accidentally playing a melody that some other guy has played before. im saying there is no reason that should be illegal.
you, like others, seem to be placing metal concepts in the same category as physical items, and i think this is the cause of the misunderstanding.Last edited by mfa; 01-25-2013 at 08:33 PM.
-
right, and i don't think there is any discrepancy between the two thoughts. usually it works out quite naturally that creators do profit from their original work, without any kind of legal involvement. the first one to think of a song obviously will be the first one with the chance to play and record it. and if its a good song they will benefit from being known as the composer even if others make their own versions later on. an inventor will benefit from being the first to the market with their new product, even if others start copying it. Originally Posted by ColinO
all copyrights do are create these fake monopolies that end up benefitting no one except the ones connected enough to secure them. just like how the london olympics copyrighted the use of the phrase "London 2012" or something like that. its really crazy that there is this negative response on a jazz board, jazz being an art centered around appropriation. but somehow people have been convinced that copyrights are the one thing keeping musicians from completely starving on the streets, when really its holding them down.Last edited by mfa; 01-25-2013 at 08:36 PM.
-
The copyright laws are not a nazi regime. Read my earlier post on doing the deal for royalities only. Anyone who'd thought they would get a regular income from that route - however ethically they went into the deal - is getting fried by the market.
Last edited by ChrisDowning; 01-26-2013 at 04:10 AM.
-
That's broadly speaking how it works. If five people show up, I make a massive loss. If five million show up, the financial risk I took is massively rewarded. If no-one shows up because they all downloaded it "for free" I make a massive loss. Originally Posted by Dad3353
By selling the copies to cinemas (or rather, cinema chains, or TV...), the same as an ice cream manufacturer sells his wares. They, in turn, get their revenue from bums on seats. You pay your entry, you enjoy the film, you go home (or on to a concert..! ). All is well with the world.
I doubt anyone would have payed a credible flat fee for any song that has turned out to be a huge success to be written. And if they had, we would now be recounting stories about how the writers were ripped off by the music industry, who went on to make a fortune from the song. Originally Posted by Dad3353
The thing is, most of the time, no one is prepared to pay that flat fee to have the song written. And if the writers know they've written a good one, they won't want a flat fee! But many millions of people are prepared to pay one euro on iTunes or whatever it costs to enjoy the song - the rewards to the writers are proportional to the popularity of the song.
You can't stop success. If one of my tunes is played on daytime TV I'd get the same PRS payout as a major act would. It's just that more people want to use their stuff than mine, so they get many more payouts - that's fine by me. If one of my tunes produces a windfall - as if - I can retire from the day job and study jazz guitar!Last edited by Bill C; 01-26-2013 at 07:14 AM.
-
If you perform my song live at a gig that is perfectly legal where I live. If you'd be good enough to submit a set list to the performing rights organisation I'll get paid, because the venue will have paid for a PRO licence. Originally Posted by mfa
If you record one of my songs, you can buy a cheap licence from the PRO that ensures I get paid.
You, after all, are getting paid in both situations, gig money and CD sales.
If your CD gets radio play we both get paid!Last edited by Bill C; 01-26-2013 at 05:40 AM.
-
Not my experience at all. I'm an occasional player and composer - I have a day job. I've earned little from music over the years. But relatively speaking, I've made a lot more from royalties on a few copyrighted compositions than I have from gigging or teaching guitar. Originally Posted by mfa
Last edited by Bill C; 01-26-2013 at 05:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions