No, because he isn't arguing whether or not the rights were violated. He's arguing the legitimacy of those rights to the point where the person who created the song likes what people are doing with his music ... but since another company holds the rights, and pretends to act in the interest of their recording artists, the use of the music is objected to.
The system is out of whack because the person who wrote the song approves of its use. But, someone else owns the rights to it and doesn't.
The argument is not: the lipdubs are right and EMI is wrong. The argument is: the system is messed up.
ha ha ha, no the government doesn't NEED money. The government income tax program is supposedly voluntary (there is no law that requires citizens pay federal income tax), until you volunteer not to participate.
The government needs to steal money from its citizens because it can't operate in a fiscally responsible manner and provide valuable goods and services that people will voluntarily use. They have to resort to the threat of violence and force to extract money from people for services they may or may not even want or need.
If the government provided the services it's required to and didn't compete with private citizens in industries where private businesses can provide, then it wouldn't need to extort money from the average person at all. It's government bloat, greed, and corruption that makes "government need money" from the average person.
That's the thing, I'm saying they don't view themselves as "performing artists". They're "recording artists". They feel they should get paid for recording a song for perpetuity.
The RIAA (RECORDING Industry Association of America) and its members are not in the business of making music, but in the business of making recordings. They don't sell music, they sell recordings. They don't make money off of music, they make money off of recordings. Their stable of "artists" are "recording artists" not "musicians"/"performing artists".
That's the cornerstone of the problem between the people and the industry. We want music, they want us to buy recordings.
The problem is that Gorillaz and Blur are recording artists. They aren't musicians. Recording artists make their money recording a song once, and expecting to be paid for that single performance for the rest of their lives. A musician makes music and expects to be paid for playing their music each time, and uses recordings to market their live performances.
Gorillaz is a cartoon band that doesn't even have a set group of members, but several artists that contribute to a character persona. And then perform behind screens with the characters getting projected in front of the performing band members. So, someone in the band early on won't be in the band later to make money off of performances, so the royalties for their contributions to the recordings are much more important to them.
Blur? Well, what can you say for a band that released their One Hit Wonder without clearing all licensing and using a sample from a band that NEVER licenses their music (at least at the time). Well, their views of "piracy" and copyright are not to be trusted anyway, since they were on the receiving end of a harsh lesson in the ridiculous laws of music ownership. They've obviously been swayed by the dark side because the dark side walloped them a good one. If you can't beat 'em ...
"10,000 albums would be about 100,000 or so songs sold (assuming 10 per album, usually more)."
Usually it was more like:
10,000 albums would be about 10,000 songs sold and 90,000 songs given away FOR FREE.
People usually bought an album for 1-3 songs, and the rest was just there to fill up a CD. One of the major driving forces from audio cassettes to CDs was the fact that the "filler" could be skipped, and the handful of good songs repeated ad nauseum without rewinding/fast forwarding and degrading the physical tape.
Just because people bought a physical delivery method with 10 songs doesn't mean the person was buying all 10 songs. They had NO CHOICE. To buy 1 song meant you got 10 songs.
How much do I owe you for that comment? You wrote a sentence, and obviously every person who reads it owes you money because you can't be expected to write for free. Otherwise, why would you ever write anything down every again. Should I make the check out to The Sarcastic-Mike, or Mr. Sarcastic-Mike?
Not at all. It's not an attack. Mike here is really good about editing his posts for grammar and spelling mistakes when they are pointed out. I'm helping him edit his posts for clarity and posterity because I read it literally initially and had to think about what was actually being said.
Mike fixed it. Problem solved.
Not an attack, but a helpful comment to an attentive blog poster.
They sure aren't going to allow Netflix to stream a new release if they aren't even allowed to ship out the DVDs, because that would be totally counter-productive to WB's entire desire to limit DVD renting to create their windows.
And they sure aren't going to allow Netflix to stream new releases as soon as they are allowed to ship the DVDs because then Netflix wouldn't need to purchase as many DVDs themselves.
Likely, they worked with Netflix to create more of their wondrous "windows". They'll get more of WB's back-catalog of titles to stream, the ones that have already been sapped dry of DVD sales or are seen as non-sellers ... and then after several months the "new releases" will be windowed for on-line streaming, probably after a couple of television deals have been signed.
Essentially, to get more of WB's old crap, Netflix has probably signed away their soul of current cultural relevance. And this is good for the consumers, somehow. And great for RedBox, Blockbuster, and torrent sites.
more like should you download the torrent, or wait 45 days for the DVD to be available via Netflix.
Because (1) DVDs are usually available on torrent sites a couple weeks before release, and (2) you sure as sh*t ain't gonna be able to watch brand new releases via Netflix streaming if they won't even be allowed to ship out the DVD.
On the post: Newsday Exec: We Didn't Put Up A Paywall To Get People To Pay
Re:
On the post: Content As Advertising; Advertising As Content On The iPhone
Re:
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Re:
On the post: As EMI Cites Harvey Danger Lipdub As Inducing Infringement, Harvey Danger Singer Says Lipdub Makes Him Incredibly Happy
Re:
The system is out of whack because the person who wrote the song approves of its use. But, someone else owns the rights to it and doesn't.
The argument is not: the lipdubs are right and EMI is wrong. The argument is: the system is messed up.
Not to mention ...
How can a video be happy?
On the post: What's A Bigger Entitlement Mentality? Demanding Old Business Models Must Remain... Or Liking Free Stuff?
Re: Re: What's more indicative of entitlement than?
On the post: Baltimore Accused Of Stacking The Deck For Speed Cameras
Re: Not plausible but . . .
The government needs to steal money from its citizens because it can't operate in a fiscally responsible manner and provide valuable goods and services that people will voluntarily use. They have to resort to the threat of violence and force to extract money from people for services they may or may not even want or need.
If the government provided the services it's required to and didn't compete with private citizens in industries where private businesses can provide, then it wouldn't need to extort money from the average person at all. It's government bloat, greed, and corruption that makes "government need money" from the average person.
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Re: Re:
The RIAA (RECORDING Industry Association of America) and its members are not in the business of making music, but in the business of making recordings. They don't sell music, they sell recordings. They don't make money off of music, they make money off of recordings. Their stable of "artists" are "recording artists" not "musicians"/"performing artists".
That's the cornerstone of the problem between the people and the industry. We want music, they want us to buy recordings.
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Re: Re:
On the post: Unsubstantiated Claim: iTunes Success Makes It Harder To Discover New Music
Re: Re:
On the post: Still Some In The Music Business Who Believe The Impossible: Blur Manager Says 'Piracy' Can Be Stopped
Gorillaz is a cartoon band that doesn't even have a set group of members, but several artists that contribute to a character persona. And then perform behind screens with the characters getting projected in front of the performing band members. So, someone in the band early on won't be in the band later to make money off of performances, so the royalties for their contributions to the recordings are much more important to them.
Blur? Well, what can you say for a band that released their One Hit Wonder without clearing all licensing and using a sample from a band that NEVER licenses their music (at least at the time). Well, their views of "piracy" and copyright are not to be trusted anyway, since they were on the receiving end of a harsh lesson in the ridiculous laws of music ownership. They've obviously been swayed by the dark side because the dark side walloped them a good one. If you can't beat 'em ...
On the post: Finding The Long Tail In Music
Re: The changing levels of what is success
Usually it was more like:
10,000 albums would be about 10,000 songs sold and 90,000 songs given away FOR FREE.
People usually bought an album for 1-3 songs, and the rest was just there to fill up a CD. One of the major driving forces from audio cassettes to CDs was the fact that the "filler" could be skipped, and the handful of good songs repeated ad nauseum without rewinding/fast forwarding and degrading the physical tape.
Just because people bought a physical delivery method with 10 songs doesn't mean the person was buying all 10 songs. They had NO CHOICE. To buy 1 song meant you got 10 songs.
On the post: Summit Entertainment Shuts Down Twilight Fanzine For Infringement
Re:
Then they came for ...
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Court Reduces Award In Jammie Thomas-Rasset Case From $80,000 Per Song To $2,250
Re:
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: William Hung
On the post: 'Pants On The Ground' Guy Lawyers Up, Looks For Money From The Sky
Re: Re:
On the post: BPI Insists UK ISPs Overstating The Cost Of Three Strikes; So Will BPI Pay The Difference If Wrong?
Re: Re:
Mike fixed it. Problem solved.
Not an attack, but a helpful comment to an attentive blog poster.
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
Re: just trying to wrap my head around this.
And they sure aren't going to allow Netflix to stream new releases as soon as they are allowed to ship the DVDs because then Netflix wouldn't need to purchase as many DVDs themselves.
Likely, they worked with Netflix to create more of their wondrous "windows". They'll get more of WB's back-catalog of titles to stream, the ones that have already been sapped dry of DVD sales or are seen as non-sellers ... and then after several months the "new releases" will be windowed for on-line streaming, probably after a couple of television deals have been signed.
Essentially, to get more of WB's old crap, Netflix has probably signed away their soul of current cultural relevance. And this is good for the consumers, somehow. And great for RedBox, Blockbuster, and torrent sites.
On the post: Netflix Exec Claims That Delaying Movie Rentals For A Month Benefits Customers
Re: decisions, decisions
Because (1) DVDs are usually available on torrent sites a couple weeks before release, and (2) you sure as sh*t ain't gonna be able to watch brand new releases via Netflix streaming if they won't even be allowed to ship out the DVD.
On the post: BPI Insists UK ISPs Overstating The Cost Of Three Strikes; So Will BPI Pay The Difference If Wrong?
Should probably be:
"Of course, BPI can't accept those numbers"
Next >>