there was copyright and print royalties even in the time of Mozart and Beethoven. it's partly how Beethoven became wealthy and very much part of how composers freed themselves from the slavery of patronage and entering thru the servants entrance.
if you could read music notation you would see there is not a single duplicated line. Pharell is smart enough to know how to legally steal. But unfortunately for him the case was decided by a jury too stupid to know how smart he is! No tragedy as it's a terribly crap song and he doesn't need the money.
what you say is true of the record labels but the article is discussing PROs (performing rights organisations) which pay very generously to those who write their own songs.
of course business in the United States is EXACTLY the same as Africa. BTW have you circumcised any daughters lately? “Anyone really want to suggest that the collection societies in North America and Europe are any different?” instead of speculating wildly you could just ask any songwriter, not me tho. I’m kinda busy spending my latest quarterly deposit from BMI.
Because if an old song is still making money, one of the people it should be making money for should be the creator! Almost the entirety of a songwriter’s income comes from publishing royalties . Almost the entirety of publishing royalties comes from broadcasting and film/TV/ad licensing. When a song becomes public domain it is STILL generating income. Why should the creator be cut out just so Clearchannel , Google, Pandora or Disney Pictures can collect what used to go to the songwriter? And then probably the aged songwriter has to go on public assistance that you and I pay for with our taxes! Do you think Pandora or Spotify charges you less for streaming a public domain song? Do you think they charge advertisers less? No, they just get a bigger cut for themselves. All the songs in Disneys’ Guardians of the Galaxy are 40 or 50 year old. Do you really think Disney would charge you less if the songs were public domain? No, they just get a bigger cut for themselves. I personally prefer that the artist continue to receive the income stream of his product rather than that stream being diverted to the bottom line of Disney Pictures or the fuel tank of Daniel Eks private jet. Not because of fairness or justice but because artists put their income back into the cash ecosystem we all live in as opposed to the venture capital closed loop that the corporations are sucking all the assets of the world into. It’s May 1 ! Workers of the World Unite!
uh... why wouldn't you take the royalties collected by the PROs? if your song is being played on radio or TV, the money is waiting for you. I guess you could choose not take it because.... you're protesting? you're too 'cool'? religious principles?
Property and cars are taxed because the government provides infrastructure to maintain those assets. We taxpayers come out well on that deal. I certainly pay taxes on the INCOME from my songs and if someday the government becomes an infrastructure provider for songs (like suppose they took over the functions of ASCAP or BMI ) then I would happily pay taxes for that.
I would love to have a mechanic who took royalties ! I could tell him: I can’t pay you up front for a new engine, but if you put one in , I’ll pay you a quarter every time I drive it. Please lemme know if you can find that guy! My mechanic won’t take that deal, believe me I’ve asked. If I could be paid for a hit song up front I would like that , who wouldn’t? how is one paid for a hit song? All people are created equal, all songs are not! the only way to arrive at VALUATION of a song is when it makes it’s way thru the marketplace . That process can take months or years. that’s just one of many reasons why royalty compensation is the most efficient and fair system for creators, for the public and for enterprise.
I don’t agree with your idea of the ‘goal’ of copyright. Most people don’t nor does a single creative professional I’ve ever met. I assume you are referencing the Constitution, a document that also protected slavery and defined black people as 3/fifths of a person? The popular arts had not yet developed during the writing of the Constitution. The evolution of the artist from being a back door servant dependent on the whims of the rich to being able to take his art directly to the public and so being self sufficient without the patronage of lords and kings is a social phenomenon that developed over the course of the 19th century. I don’t understand your outrage that a creative person is allowed to share in the profit from his work. The public benefits from artists being able to sustain their careers . I feel deeply indebted and inspired by the careers and works of the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, Bowie, Stevie Wonder and songwriters like Holland/Dozier/Holland, Burt Bacharach and Lieber and Stoller. The careers and works of these creators was only made possible by the control , security and freedom that they derived from owning their compositions. When an artist gets his royalty check , he spends it at the grocery store or buys equipment, and so enriches the community he lives in. As opposed to the monetization of music as practiced by Google, Pandora and Spottily where the money just gets recirculated in world of venture capital, thus reinforcing the current dilemma of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer. Many songs from 50 years ago are still valuable and making money for broadcasters , advertisers and digital distributors. Why do you feel a sense of injustice if some retired bluesman is able to use his royalties to buy an oxygen tank? Should the music of the past only fill the tank of Daniel Ek’s private jet? Or buy Pandora’s Tim Westerberg another yacht?
yes clarification needed! I was commenting on a discussion about individuals and their progeny. and to be even more specific, I can only speak about musical artists as that’s the only thing I have deep and hard earned knowledge of. Naturally when one collaborator dies the survivors still own their portion. Corporations don’t write songs so that’s irrelevant but I would like to say that ‘corporate personhood’ is a repellant concept and a vile abuse of the english language. I don’t think corporate entities should EVER own the works of artists, they should only be allowed to license them. Legal protection for musical artist in their dealing with a traditional label is quite evolved . Even if an artist is coerced into selling or giving away their publishing, they still get 50% of the income. Sound recordings revert to the artist after 35 years , though of course the labels are now trying hard to change that.
‘middlemen from the traditional content industry’ ? your posting about a war that has been over for 2 years. here’s what’s happening in the business of music. the traditional middlemen (big record labels) have merged with the new middlemen (Silicon Valley/Wall St venture capitalists) in order to squash 21st century artists who own their own recordings.
yes, the distinction you are referring to is the difference between working for others and working for yourself. what can you possible see wrong with someone being their own boss? when you do ‘work for hire’ the people paying you are the creator not you. most artists prefer working for ourselves: risking our time and resources not just for greater gain but more importantly for artistic freedom. if you think royalties are a bad thing , search ‘ royalty free music ‘ there’s a lot of it. but you won’t like it, nobody does.
copyright ownership should be for the life of the creator. not a day less, not a day more. only problem is; you don’t want to give an incentive to profiting from shortening a creator’s life. it’s probably a good idea to add 10 years so distributors aren’t tempted to murder artists so they don’t have to pay them.
the first rule a music professional learns is: don’t sell your publishing. assuming a song you write is recorded unusually quickly, like within weeks or months, the soonest you would see royalties would be about 3 years later. Of course we all know that very few songs become hits. What most people don’t realize is how much music that is well known today was initially obscure or unpopular and gradually became known as a classic. That’s why when I see Iggy Pop’s ‘Search and Destroy’ in a Nike SuperBowl ad I am happy knowing Iggy got the biggest check of his life. Or when I see ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ using Joan Jett’s ‘Cherry Bomb’ I’m glad that song is not in the public domain.
Re: Re:
Re:
Pharell is smart enough to know how to legally steal. But unfortunately for him the case was decided by a jury too stupid to know how smart he is! No tragedy as it's a terribly crap song and he doesn't need the money.
Re: Re:
http://pando.com/2014/11/13/google-is-the-biggest-corporate-lobbyist-in-america-now-says -new-public-citizen-report/
Re:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/27/a-chart-of-lobbyists-white-house-visits-reveals-its-close-ties- with-google.html
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
BTW have you circumcised any daughters lately?
“Anyone really want to suggest that the collection societies in North America and Europe are any different?”
instead of speculating wildly you could just ask any songwriter, not me tho.
I’m kinda busy spending my latest quarterly deposit from BMI.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
Almost the entirety of a songwriter’s income comes from publishing royalties . Almost the entirety of publishing royalties comes from broadcasting and film/TV/ad licensing. When a song becomes public domain it is STILL generating income.
Why should the creator be cut out just so Clearchannel , Google, Pandora or Disney Pictures can collect what used to go to the songwriter? And then probably the aged songwriter has to go on public assistance that you and I pay for with our taxes!
Do you think Pandora or Spotify charges you less for streaming a public domain song? Do you think they charge advertisers less? No, they just get a bigger cut for themselves.
All the songs in Disneys’ Guardians of the Galaxy are 40 or 50 year old.
Do you really think Disney would charge you less if the songs were public domain? No, they just get a bigger cut for themselves.
I personally prefer that the artist continue to receive the income stream of his product rather than that stream being diverted to the bottom line of Disney Pictures or the fuel tank of Daniel Eks private jet.
Not because of fairness or justice but because artists put their income back into the cash ecosystem we all live in as opposed to the venture capital closed loop that the corporations are sucking all the assets of the world into.
It’s May 1 !
Workers of the World Unite!
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
if your song is being played on radio or TV, the money is waiting for you.
I guess you could choose not take it because....
you're protesting?
you're too 'cool'?
religious principles?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
you’d be waiting till hell freezes over, they never pay!
I was writing about PUBLISHING royalties, paid to songwriters by ASCAP or BMI.
Re: Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
I certainly pay taxes on the INCOME from my songs and if someday the government becomes an infrastructure provider for songs (like suppose they took over the functions of ASCAP or BMI ) then I would happily pay taxes for that.
(untitled comment)
I could tell him: I can’t pay you up front for a new engine, but if you put one in , I’ll pay you a quarter every time I drive it.
Please lemme know if you can find that guy! My mechanic won’t take that deal, believe me I’ve asked.
If I could be paid for a hit song up front I would like that , who wouldn’t?
how is one paid for a hit song? All people are created equal,
all songs are not!
the only way to arrive at VALUATION of a song is when it makes it’s way thru the marketplace . That process can take months or years. that’s just one of many reasons why royalty compensation is the most efficient and fair system for creators, for the public and for enterprise.
Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
I assume you are referencing the Constitution, a document that also protected slavery and defined black people as 3/fifths of a person?
The popular arts had not yet developed during the writing of the Constitution. The evolution of the artist from being a back door servant dependent on the whims of the rich to being able to take his art directly to the public and so being self sufficient without the patronage of lords and kings is a social phenomenon that developed over the course of the 19th century.
I don’t understand your outrage that a creative person is allowed to share in the profit from his work.
The public benefits from artists being able to sustain their careers .
I feel deeply indebted and inspired by the careers and works of the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, Bowie, Stevie Wonder and songwriters like Holland/Dozier/Holland, Burt Bacharach and Lieber and Stoller.
The careers and works of these creators was only made possible by the control , security and freedom that they derived from owning their compositions.
When an artist gets his royalty check , he spends it at the grocery store or buys equipment, and so enriches the community he lives in.
As opposed to the monetization of music as practiced by Google, Pandora and Spottily where the money just gets recirculated in world of venture capital, thus reinforcing the current dilemma of the rich getting rich and the poor getting poorer.
Many songs from 50 years ago are still valuable and making money for broadcasters , advertisers and digital distributors.
Why do you feel a sense of injustice if some retired bluesman is able to use his royalties to buy an oxygen tank?
Should the music of the past only fill the tank of Daniel Ek’s private jet?
Or buy Pandora’s Tim Westerberg another yacht?
Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
I was commenting on a discussion about individuals and their progeny. and to be even more specific, I can only speak about musical artists as that’s the only thing I have deep and hard earned knowledge of.
Naturally when one collaborator dies the survivors still own their portion.
Corporations don’t write songs so that’s irrelevant but I would like to say that ‘corporate personhood’ is a repellant concept and a vile abuse of the english language.
I don’t think corporate entities should EVER own the works of artists, they should only be allowed to license them.
Legal protection for musical artist in their dealing with a traditional label is quite evolved .
Even if an artist is coerced into selling or giving away their publishing, they still get 50% of the income.
Sound recordings revert to the artist after 35 years , though of course the labels are now trying hard to change that.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: compromise
your posting about a war that has been over for 2 years.
here’s what’s happening in the business of music.
the traditional middlemen (big record labels) have merged with the new middlemen (Silicon Valley/Wall St venture capitalists) in order to squash 21st century artists who own their own recordings.
Re: Re: Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: compromise
what can you possible see wrong with someone being their own boss?
when you do ‘work for hire’ the people paying you are the creator not you.
most artists prefer working for ourselves: risking our time and resources not just for greater gain but more importantly for artistic freedom.
if you think royalties are a bad thing , search ‘ royalty free music ‘ there’s a lot of it. but you won’t like it, nobody does.
Re: How will we earn a living? - GET. A. JOB.
only problem is; you don’t want to give an incentive to profiting from shortening a creator’s life.
it’s probably a good idea to add 10 years so distributors aren’t tempted to murder artists so they don’t have to pay them.
Re: Re:
assuming a song you write is recorded unusually quickly, like within weeks or months, the soonest you would see royalties would be about 3 years later.
Of course we all know that very few songs become hits. What most people don’t realize is how much music that is well known today was initially obscure or unpopular and gradually became known as a classic.
That’s why when I see Iggy Pop’s ‘Search and Destroy’ in a Nike SuperBowl ad I am happy knowing Iggy got the biggest check of his life. Or when I see ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ using Joan Jett’s ‘Cherry Bomb’ I’m glad that song is not in the public domain.
Re: Why are artists so special?
from royalties. publishing royalties from copyrighted works.
Re: Re:
now the biggest corporate lobbyist in the United States!
http://pando.com/2014/11/13/google-is-the-biggest-corporate-lobbyist-in-america-now-says-new- public-citizen-report/
More comments from Stevo >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Stevo.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt