But shouldn't it be that way? You're shelling out $10-$20 bucks for the movie. Since the movie makers pay royalties to the artists, isn't it only fair that the cost of the movie includes the songs?
But shouldn't it be that way? You're shelling out $10-$20 bucks for the movie. Since the movie makers pay royalties to the artists, isn't it only fair that the cost of the movie includes the songs?
Some occasionally do. All the re-releases of Tarentino's movies (Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/Jackie Brown) do. But I think that it has always been a separation between the two (film & soundtrack). Honestly though, many made-for-movie songs such as the ones nominated on the Oscars are crap.
The movie makers pay royalties often for just "clips" of songs, and then negotiate lower prices by adding sound effects and dialogue over it. They don't negotiate the rights to redistribute the unabridged, full quality version of the song—that's what soundtracks are for, and even then, songs that can be licensed for a film aren't always able to be licensed for a soundtrack because the rights are too expensive.
Comments
NO. I'm no idiot...
But shouldn't it be that way? You're shelling out $10-$20 bucks for the movie. Since the movie makers pay royalties to the artists, isn't it only fair that the cost of the movie includes the songs?
Some occasionally do. All the re-releases of Tarentino's movies (Reservoir Dogs/Pulp Fiction/Jackie Brown) do. But I think that it has always been a separation between the two (film & soundtrack). Honestly though, many made-for-movie songs such as the ones nominated on the Oscars are crap.