If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all.
You obviously haven't listened to much music where in some places you haven't quite figured out what the artist is singing. Therefore you just adlib and when someone hears you singing the wrong lyrics you feel REALLY dumb.
I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.
I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.
Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
I'm working on putting together a CD right now.
...and I'm including lyrics to all the songs.
If you'd like I can send you a copy once they get pressed, just so you can say you found a modern-day CD with printed lyrics.
Also.. I suppose its worth noting that I have paid $45 per song just to copyright the lyrics (another $45 to copyright the audio recording) so.. while I'd gladly tell you the words to any song for free, I can understand why some artists might whine about it.
I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.
I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.
Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
Even 20 years ago, there were plenty of albums that didn't include lyrics.
And even today, there are plenty of albums that do.
The only thing I miss about the good ol' days is the really awesome gatefold artwork that you'd often find on vinyl albums. You get similar pictures with some CDs, but a 5"x10" image just doesn't look nearly as awesome as a 12"x24" print of the same image. (And the 4-panel gatefold from Yes's 3-record Yessongs album was really awesome.) But that can never happen again, unless someone is crazy enough to use a 12" disc for the next generation of media.
If it's a private show (say, you hire a DJ for a wedding), then this doesn't apply. That's not a public performance. (The DJ still has to have bought the music, of course.)
If it's a public performance (say, at a club that charges admission, or at a bar), then license fees have to be paid. There are clearinghouse agencies that bulk-license music to make this easy. In the US, there are three agencies: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Most published music is licensed to one of them. In order to legally play everything published, it is common practice to pay license fees to all three.
When there is a public performance, somebody has to have paid for a license for the performance to be legal. In the US (according to a DJ friend of mine) the obligation is on the venue (the bar, club, etc.) not on the DJ. The DJ (or his employer) may, however, choose to pay for his own licenses in order to avoid problems when performing at a venue that hasn't paid.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.
Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
Yeah see.. I play music because (a) i enjoy playing music, and (b) i like playing in front of people.
While it would be nice to make some extra cash off of CDs and stuff... it's just a side thing for me. I'd rather you tell five friends about it than give me five bucks.
I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.
by the way, in case anyone is curious, http://www.myspace.com/ryangraves. You're welcome to listen. You'll notice they're all downloadable, as they're just demo versions of the full recordings I'm working on now.
As long as if you play a song of mine in public for free, you say "hey this is by this kid named ryan graves, he's pretty cool" then I'm game. haha, like you said... free promotion.
Although, if someone gives you $5 and says its cause they were glad you played my song, then.. I wouldn't mind if you passed some of that along to me. ha.
Edit:
I should note also that occasionally *a friend of mine* might download a song or two illegally, but nine out of ten times, *he* will end up going out and purchasing the CD anyway eventually. Sometimes *he* just wants to get a taste of the music first, but *he* likes owning the CDs too, so *he* ends up buying them. Therefore, illegal music can and does fuel marketing for the record industry. *my friend* is living proof.
Perhaps if what you did for a living could be as easily bypassed you'd have a different take on this old argument.
No it wouldn't. There are many views of Copyright and I just so happen to have a strict and narrow view. To me Copyright allows the originator or owner to ensure they do not have to compete with others for their orginal works for a period of time.
I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.
My opinion of Copyright is that it ensure the creator doesn't have undue competition for their works. It does not, in my opinion, give total access to every facet of a creation. Copyright exist to reward the artist/creator for their invention ...allow them to profit and then said art becomes public domain.
Like everything else in America. Copyright is broken. Artist now expect to control every facet for their lifetime+. Thus the goal isn't to reward the artist for a small period of time and then urge them to create a new piece of art but rather to shield them for their lifetime so that one idea can generate profit beyond the lifetime of the orginator. Thus the artist never has to give back as they will never see their work go Public Domain.
Sounds great if you feel like civic duty and philanthropy are for fools. But to many of us it sounds like facism. Patents don't last as long as Copyright. If they did you'd still be cooking on Wood ranges and riding a bike to work. Innovation isn't fueled by extending Copyright power. Increasing this power is the very antithesis of Innovation and progress.
So no...I don't agree with you. I do plan on doing more creative endeavors with regards to music and cinema but you won't catch me agreeing with Disney about Copyright. As long as I don't have to compete with others with my own content that provides my bread n butter I don't see an issue.
I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.
Not quite, the lyrics are what songwriters author to make money. On a lot of songs, the musician /band and the song writer are unrelated people, there are a lot of songwriters that don't make money performing that song.
I do believe that the lyrics should be included with the song, because the writer was paid for that. It isn't as if the words on the CD gives other artists rights to perform that song.
I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.
Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.
Ok, point taken.
But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
That is sensible as well.
I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.
Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonessodarally
I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.
I assume, then that you live off of the income from another job.
Believe it or not, some musicians are trying to make a living off of their music. It's not just something they do for fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.
And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.
It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.
I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.
Agreed, that's copyright infringement. I'm talking about DJs properly crediting you with the work if asked about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.
Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.
We're not talking about illegally profiting off of someone else's work by selling it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.
I'm not talking about pirating music. That's wrong! I buy from iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.
Not talking about piracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.
My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.
I'll go ahead and plug her site while I'm talking about it (I made it) - Emma's Bridal Jewelry
EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore. So therfore all other performances of it are piracy, which I'm against. - I guess you can't stop the copies that were already sold from being played. But if you didn't want the stuff to be out there, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.
I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.
You're missing my point.
Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.
It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.
So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?
An artist selling to you as an individual isn't going to charge hundreds of dollars for his CD, because he knows nobody will buy it. Depending on circumstances, he might even give it to you for free. If, however, he knows that you plan on using that song as a part of your business, you can be certain he's going to charge more (possibly a lot more) for it. Without public performance royalties, however, it becomes possible to cheat by buying non-commercial distributions, using them commercially.
As for your sister's Jewelry business, you're not considering commercial applications. She may design an item and sell it for $500. But if that same item is going to be used in a television commercial, as a means of making money for a third party, I would expect her to charge a lot more than her normal price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay
EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore.
Sometimes, a musician doesn't want to sell ANY CDs of a particular song. He may want to use the copyright law to block ALL distribution of the song. I've seen a few examples of this - usually songs that were written for a specific event. And he's got that right, too.
Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.
It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.
A radio station or a DJ has every right to make money for the effort that their work requires. Sure, their business is dependent upon artists, and the artists depend on the radio stations and DJs to get their music out there. It's a symbiotic relationship.
And it's not callous or immoral to *believe* that I shouldn't have to pay those licensing fees. If I ever perform music I'll pay the proper fees, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the philosophy behind them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shamino
So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?
If one song was capable of bringing that much money in for them, which it's not, it would have to be an *amazing* song - the biggest thing since the Macarena. In which case, I'm sure the artist behind it wouldn't be hurting financially either, because people would buy the song after hearing it on the radio. That's all assuming piracy wasn't a problem. Maybe you could justify the licensing fees that way - to counter piracy \
You know, it occurs to me that there's a double standard here. A tiny, insignificant artist who has virtually no exposure would be absolutely thrilled to get their song on the radio, they'd probably be willing to pay the RADIO station to play it if they could because of all the exposure it would get them. (Remember the Wonders in That Thing You Do)?
The radio helps make them famous, their popularity soars and they make millions. Now that they have a hit song that everybody loves they feel entitled to more revenue from that song. It's not enough to simply sell the CD or song in iTunes, they need *more* so they can milk that song for all its worth. Now that the situation is reversed radio stations would be willing to pay THEM for the privilege of playing the song.
Comments
If someone wants a song's lyrics, they can just listen to the song enough times to get them all.
You obviously haven't listened to much music where in some places you haven't quite figured out what the artist is singing. Therefore you just adlib and when someone hears you singing the wrong lyrics you feel REALLY dumb.
http://www.amiright.com/misheard/son...erms=4&Start=0
I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.
I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.
Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
I'm working on putting together a CD right now.
...and I'm including lyrics to all the songs.
If you'd like I can send you a copy once they get pressed, just so you can say you found a modern-day CD with printed lyrics.
Also.. I suppose its worth noting that I have paid $45 per song just to copyright the lyrics (another $45 to copyright the audio recording) so.. while I'd gladly tell you the words to any song for free, I can understand why some artists might whine about it.
I remember a time when lyrics were included right on the album sleeve . . . for free.
I also remember a time when CD booklets used to include those. Perhaps some still do.
Pretty pathetic how things have devolved.
Even 20 years ago, there were plenty of albums that didn't include lyrics.
And even today, there are plenty of albums that do.
The only thing I miss about the good ol' days is the really awesome gatefold artwork that you'd often find on vinyl albums. You get similar pictures with some CDs, but a 5"x10" image just doesn't look nearly as awesome as a 12"x24" print of the same image. (And the 4-panel gatefold from Yes's 3-record Yessongs album was really awesome.) But that can never happen again, unless someone is crazy enough to use a 12" disc for the next generation of media.
If it's a private show (say, you hire a DJ for a wedding), then this doesn't apply. That's not a public performance. (The DJ still has to have bought the music, of course.)
If it's a public performance (say, at a club that charges admission, or at a bar), then license fees have to be paid. There are clearinghouse agencies that bulk-license music to make this easy. In the US, there are three agencies: ASCAP, BMI and SESAC. Most published music is licensed to one of them. In order to legally play everything published, it is common practice to pay license fees to all three.
When there is a public performance, somebody has to have paid for a license for the performance to be legal. In the US (according to a DJ friend of mine) the obligation is on the venue (the bar, club, etc.) not on the DJ. The DJ (or his employer) may, however, choose to pay for his own licenses in order to avoid problems when performing at a venue that hasn't paid.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.
Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
Yeah see.. I play music because (a) i enjoy playing music, and (b) i like playing in front of people.
While it would be nice to make some extra cash off of CDs and stuff... it's just a side thing for me. I'd rather you tell five friends about it than give me five bucks.
I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.
by the way, in case anyone is curious, http://www.myspace.com/ryangraves. You're welcome to listen. You'll notice they're all downloadable, as they're just demo versions of the full recordings I'm working on now.
As long as if you play a song of mine in public for free, you say "hey this is by this kid named ryan graves, he's pretty cool" then I'm game.
Although, if someone gives you $5 and says its cause they were glad you played my song, then.. I wouldn't mind if you passed some of that along to me. ha.
Edit:
I should note also that occasionally *a friend of mine* might download a song or two illegally, but nine out of ten times, *he* will end up going out and purchasing the CD anyway eventually. Sometimes *he* just wants to get a taste of the music first, but *he* likes owning the CDs too, so *he* ends up buying them. Therefore, illegal music can and does fuel marketing for the record industry. *my friend* is living proof.
Perhaps if what you did for a living could be as easily bypassed you'd have a different take on this old argument.
No it wouldn't. There are many views of Copyright and I just so happen to have a strict and narrow view. To me Copyright allows the originator or owner to ensure they do not have to compete with others for their orginal works for a period of time.
I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.
My opinion of Copyright is that it ensure the creator doesn't have undue competition for their works. It does not, in my opinion, give total access to every facet of a creation. Copyright exist to reward the artist/creator for their invention ...allow them to profit and then said art becomes public domain.
Like everything else in America. Copyright is broken. Artist now expect to control every facet for their lifetime+. Thus the goal isn't to reward the artist for a small period of time and then urge them to create a new piece of art but rather to shield them for their lifetime so that one idea can generate profit beyond the lifetime of the orginator. Thus the artist never has to give back as they will never see their work go Public Domain.
Sounds great if you feel like civic duty and philanthropy are for fools. But to many of us it sounds like facism. Patents don't last as long as Copyright. If they did you'd still be cooking on Wood ranges and riding a bike to work. Innovation isn't fueled by extending Copyright power. Increasing this power is the very antithesis of Innovation and progress.
So no...I don't agree with you. I do plan on doing more creative endeavors with regards to music and cinema but you won't catch me agreeing with Disney about Copyright. As long as I don't have to compete with others with my own content that provides my bread n butter I don't see an issue.
I do not view lyrics as the intellectual property that generates income. Websites posting lyrics for free do not bother me as it is the songs that generate revenue. This is far different than say posting a pdf of a book in which you are giving away the prime source of revenue generation.
Not quite, the lyrics are what songwriters author to make money. On a lot of songs, the musician /band and the song writer are unrelated people, there are a lot of songwriters that don't make money performing that song.
I do believe that the lyrics should be included with the song, because the writer was paid for that. It isn't as if the words on the CD gives other artists rights to perform that song.
I don't think it is publicity, usually the music played is well-known.
Also, it's not the record company involved here. Music is covered through two sets of rights, mechanical rights and performance rights. The record companies got paid through the mechanical rights, i.e. the CD. The private performance rights are paid through the CD. The public performance rights are handled through the artist guilds and such, ASCAP and BMI. The artists don't get much, if any, money through CD sales. Besides, if the DJ is getting paid for the work, then I don't see a problem with the DJ paying royalties on the works he's exploiting to do the job.
Ok, point taken.
But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
That is sensible as well.
I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.
I still don't get the reasoning behind that. Why would any artist or record company say, "Hey, there's people out there playing our music for hundreds and hundreds of people! Those dirty rotten thieves, publicizing our music free of charge. How DARE they! I know, let's charge them! Yeah, let's make them pay US to promote OUR music!"
It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.
Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.
@jonessodarally: Would you really care if this CD you're putting together right now I played at a live performance. Suppose I downloaded a song from the CD illegally, would you even care? I'm not saying I download or condone downloading illegally, but I'm promoting your music free of charge! You should be paying ME!
It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.
IMO - It's the greedy record companies, not the artists, that care about these sort of petty legalities. Now, if I took the lyrics to one of jonessodarally's songs and started selling it and calling it my own, THEN I would be extremely guilty of copyright infringement. *That's* what the copyright laws are for. As long as artists are getting credit where credit is due for the lyrics they write (And at all the lyric sites, they *are*) Why should they care? It's free promotion.
Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.
I look at recordings as like... a vehicle to get my music to more people, so I don't have to constantly sit down and say "Here, listen while I play this song on my guitar." While I do need to make back the money I'm spending on the production of this (kinda jumping head-first into the process single-handedly)... I'm not too concerned with profit.
I assume, then that you live off of the income from another job.
Believe it or not, some musicians are trying to make a living off of their music. It's not just something they do for fun.
But, if I were the little guy trying to get my music out there, I wouldn't want people to think twice about playing it whenever or wherever they wanted.
And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.
For instance, my sister runs a jewelry business online. Suppose somebody buys one of her tiaras, then a club offers them money to take the tiara and show it off to everybody at the club. I say more power to them! As long as they bought the tiara from her to begin with. She got her money, she's happy. And the person showing it to everybody deserves to get paid for their work too.
Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.
I do think an unknown/unsigned band should promote their recordings and performances how they see fit.
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's.
I agree. To clarify, an unsigned artist can chose to do this, but once they sign, they lose a lot of these options.
It's no different from a radio station. If your band releases a song, and radio stations worldwide are playing it every hour, wouldn't you agree that the performer and writer deserve to get paid more than they would if the song was ignored? Consider the fact that some people won't buy the CD if they hear the song a lot on the radio - they may record the broadcast, or they may just decide they don't need a copy.
I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.
Think also of a cover-band. If I write a song, you hear it, and your band starts performing it without my knowledge, don't I deserve something? You wouldn't have the song to play without me, after all.
Agreed, that's copyright infringement. I'm talking about DJs properly crediting you with the work if asked about it.
It's hardly free promotion if everybody pays you for the music and nobody buys it from me.
Credit without payment doesn't put food on the table. If write something and you give it away for free, I'm just as broke as I would be if you were selling it.
We're not talking about illegally profiting off of someone else's work by selling it!
And what happens if/when you become popular. You find that everybody is listening to your songs, and you've sold maybe 10 CDs, because everything else is pirated. I hope you can eat your popularity, because you won't have much else.
I'm not talking about pirating music. That's wrong! I buy from iTunes.
Your sister probably charges a lot more than $15 for that Tiara. And it's a bit more difficult for her customer to knock off a thousand copies over the course of a weekend.
Not talking about piracy.
An artist can choose to give away whatever they want. But it is the artist's decision, not the customer's. If I (for example) write a song, play it live once, and then refuse to ever perform it again, that's still my right. And nobody else has the right to undermine my wishes by distributing bootleg recordings.
My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.
I'll go ahead and plug her site while I'm talking about it
EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore. So therfore all other performances of it are piracy, which I'm against. - I guess you can't stop the copies that were already sold from being played. But if you didn't want the stuff to be out there, you shouldn't have made it in the first place.
I don't think recording the radio is very popular right now, or even a problem for artists. And if they decide they don't need a copy then that's their decision. That's just part of promoting stuff.
You're missing my point.
Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.
It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.
My point is that musicians have a product. Songs and Albums. They make money off their product by selling it on CDs and through iTunes. For all other products that's where the profit ends. But for whatever reason some artists feel their entitled to more profit from their product than simply selling it. The only reason I can see for this is simply because they can. My sister's jewelry business doesn't have that option because people don't go around to clubs showing off jewelry. Or broadcasting her jewelry over the radio. If that were possible, it would be a great means of promoting her stuff! She's a jewelry artisan as much as others are music artisans. So in reality, the people creating music have a much better advantage than she ever will.
So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?
An artist selling to you as an individual isn't going to charge hundreds of dollars for his CD, because he knows nobody will buy it. Depending on circumstances, he might even give it to you for free. If, however, he knows that you plan on using that song as a part of your business, you can be certain he's going to charge more (possibly a lot more) for it. Without public performance royalties, however, it becomes possible to cheat by buying non-commercial distributions, using them commercially.
As for your sister's Jewelry business, you're not considering commercial applications. She may design an item and sell it for $500. But if that same item is going to be used in a television commercial, as a means of making money for a third party, I would expect her to charge a lot more than her normal price.
EDIT - If you play your song once and never again, odds are you're not selling any CDs of it anymore.
Sometimes, a musician doesn't want to sell ANY CDs of a particular song. He may want to use the copyright law to block ALL distribution of the song. I've seen a few examples of this - usually songs that were written for a specific event. And he's got that right, too.
You're missing my point.
Artists should be paid for any public performance of their work. It doesn't matter if a cover band is performing the song, or if a radio station is playing it, or if a DJ is playing in a club. In all cases, someone other than the artist is profiting from the original artist's work, which should never be done without permission.
It's not like it's hard to get this permission. That's what the bulk-licensing clearinghouses (like ASCAP) are for. You may not like the amount of money they may want to charge, but it's an incredibly callous and immoral attitude to believe that you shouldn't have to pay anything to make a career out of playing other people's music.
A radio station or a DJ has every right to make money for the effort that their work requires. Sure, their business is dependent upon artists, and the artists depend on the radio stations and DJs to get their music out there. It's a symbiotic relationship.
And it's not callous or immoral to *believe* that I shouldn't have to pay those licensing fees. If I ever perform music I'll pay the proper fees, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the philosophy behind them.
So you also think that radio stations, for example, shouldn't pay anything more than the cost of the CD? Even though a hit song may make them millions of dollars in advertising revenue?
If one song was capable of bringing that much money in for them, which it's not, it would have to be an *amazing* song - the biggest thing since the Macarena. In which case, I'm sure the artist behind it wouldn't be hurting financially either, because people would buy the song after hearing it on the radio. That's all assuming piracy wasn't a problem. Maybe you could justify the licensing fees that way - to counter piracy
The radio helps make them famous, their popularity soars and they make millions. Now that they have a hit song that everybody loves they feel entitled to more revenue from that song. It's not enough to simply sell the CD or song in iTunes, they need *more* so they can milk that song for all its worth. Now that the situation is reversed radio stations would be willing to pay THEM for the privilege of playing the song.
Looks like pure greed to me.