 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Caco185
Date: 2007-08-18 00:02
I need a good P2P music sharing program. I am looking at starting to download more classical music. I just can't find CD's anymore in this area. What program does everyone recommend?
Dale Huggard
Clarinet Performance Major, Michigan
Buffet R-13 - Silver plated
Genussa Excellente
Spriggs Floating Rail Ligature
Vandoren V12 #4
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-18 00:10
Caco185 wrote:
> What program does everyone
> recommend?
One that keeps you legal but doesn't cost an arm and a leg. P2P doesn't fit the legal part.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-08-18 01:22
I find that I prefer paying for my music. Just as I would not walk into a store and walk out with a CD under my coat, I don't download music without paying for it. I realize that someone somewhere is doing this for a living as I do. It may be the musicians, engineers, producers, etc. I would not ask a lawyer, doctor or plumber to do work for me for free, I don't expect to get my music (or software) for free either. Call me old fashioned.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bahamutofskycon
Date: 2007-08-18 02:20
Well, this isn't P2P, but check this out - www.naxosmusiclibrary.com
You can subscribe for pretty cheap and have access to LOTS of music. It is streaming however, no downloading possible, so you have to have a fast connection.
Also, you can find lots of CD's on www.amazon.com or www.arkivmusic.com . Arkivmusic.com is great for hard to find recordings.
Steve Ballas
Post Edited (2007-08-18 02:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2007-08-18 02:36
How can a music performance major justify downloading classical music illegally? Don't you know the future is bleak enough?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chauncey
Date: 2007-08-18 03:05
Limewire and Kazaa are free (but really quite crappy), but I really don't recommend using these types of software because:
A) They are illegal (unless that doesn't peeve you)
B) You usually don't know who is performing the pieces. If you don't know who's playing it, I don't think you should include a piece in your library.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OmarHo
Date: 2007-08-18 03:17
Yeah, I also don't recommend using Limewire or Kazaa, they also put a whole bunch of worms in your system, some way :P.
I like using iTunes, they have a good selection of stuff at a decent price.
I have a free membership to the Naxos Library and they have TONS of labels other than Naxos on their system that you can listen to. You can listen to ANY piece of music on that thing, because they have it! They also have really old recordings from the early 20 century, with Toscanini and the legends conducting. I found a recording of Bonade playing the Rachmaninov Piano Concerto no.2 on there, but the recording quality was terrible, thus making it hard to truly appreciate the performance.
Also, check out your local library. Mine is AMAZING, they have tons of cds that have been recently released, that are currently in CD stores. You may find yourself lucky, if you check out the hardly touched classical CD section of your library (that's what I love about it too, you can rely that nobody will want to steal the cds you've had your eye on).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: moose6589
Date: 2007-08-18 03:31
To play the devil's advocate for a while, the general reason for downloading music (or not listening to music at all) as opposed to purchasing CDs is that the record companies are stuck in an ancient business model that is rapidly falling apart due to the prominence of the Internet and the ability to easily copy and share such files at very high or perfect quality.
Instead of adapting to market changes and putting out a quality product at a reasonable price, they have instead decided to litigate and alienate their own customers. Then, when sales fall, they blame this so-called piracy (whose effects are hugely exaggerated by organizations such as the RIAA). All of this discourages people from purchasing CDs.
Moreover, simple economics dictates that people are naturally drawn to filesharing as opposed to online stores or CDs. This is because one can often get a superior product (lossless encoding as opposed to low-quality iTunes) and service at a much cheaper price (effectively free). It's simple competition, albeit from an illegal source.
The real solution is not to simply try to destroy all forms of piracy through onerous DRM restrictions (which is doomed to failure and will only alienate customers further) but rather to move to a new business model in the music industry (one in which the record companies no longer play a major role).
With the advent of cheap recording studios and distribution of music over the Internet, pretty much anyone can release their music to a very wide audience and without a middleman like a record company taking the vast majority of profits made. Musicians who create and play the best music (as opposed to the best advertised) will naturally be the most popular and the most well compensated. That's the magic of the free market at work (as opposed to the current oligopoly/cartel that is at least partly responsible for the destruction of the music industry).
Furthermore, these musicians can use the extra publicity given by releasing their works on the Internet in order to attract more fans and performance opportunities. So as you can see, there is a major advantage to be had for both musicians and consumers. Musicians enjoy more control over what they release and record, and they will likely have more publicity and freedom to do what they want (if they are good enough). Consumers will enjoy drastically lowered prices (possibly even free recordings), leading to the ability to enjoy much more music and attend many more concerts. Once again, the free market prevails where an oligopoly fails.
Moreover, there is a significant difference between theft and copyright infringement (only the first is relating to a physical good). Non-commercial copyright infringement (without distribution) in the U.S. is simply not a criminal violation but rather a civil violation, so there is clearly a significant difference between the two, both morally and legally.
As you can well see, the issue of piracy and "theft" of music is not even close to being as clear-cut as you may be led to believe at first. Should we spend all our money supporting an anticompetitive media conglomerate, or should we instead use our money to support the musicians in a much more direct manner? I think it's clear which side of the debate I'm on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2007-08-18 03:57
I'm sorry, but I have heard variations of that tired, self-justifying argument made by all sorts of pirates, from software thieves to those who were such big supporters of Napster's original thievery of music recordings without compensation to the artists.
Stealing is stealing; whether it is a dollar or a thousand, it is still wrong. Trying to justify it with arguments like those listed above is simply justification for bad behavior. I hope that when my daughter realizes her lifelong goal and graduates from music school, she will still be able to count on part of her salary coming from the royalties from recordings.
Making excuses for reprehensible acts of piracy is not much above stealing money from the musicians directly. Moral relativism doesn't work. Stealing is stealing, plain and simple.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-18 06:31
Moose, you gowon now and play devil's advocate in the sandbox with the other ignorant children.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-18 06:50
Dale, doesn't your university have a music library?
Also, I second what Omar said. iTunes. Worst that can happen is that you search for something and you don't find it there. However, for a film project I needed to bone up on motets and other medieval forms of music, and I found an absolute wealth of such recordings on iTunes. And you don't always have to buy the whole album --- often you can purchase single tracks on iTunes. My point is that it can be a surprisingly good resource. And not over-priced either.
There are also a gazillion places on the Internet from which you can order CD's. Amazon immediately comes to mind...
Post Edited (2007-08-22 21:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-08-18 10:28
It's so easy to make insensitive remarks behind a mask.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-18 12:30
moose6589 wrote:
> To play the devil's advocate for a while, the general reason
> for downloading music (or not listening to music at all) as
> opposed to purchasing CDs is that the record companies are
> stuck in an ancient business model that is rapidly falling
> apart due to the prominence of the Internet and the ability to
> easily copy and share such files at very high or perfect
> quality.
Doesn't mean anything. It's illegal in the US to copy and share.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-18 15:54
Itunes is pricy, the Naxos streaming I've found unreliable and of inferior quality. I've had good experiences with eMusic.
Philosophically, I agree with moose, but as a musician I pay for the music, just as I throw coins into buskers' cases. I do, though, try to direct my purchases to non-RIAA labels as much as possible, as I find the big players in the recording industry reprehensible. I don't see moose's argument necessarily as a justification for filesharers' actions, but rather as an explanation for why it's so widespread. If the people in charge would offer a quality product at a reasonable price without treating their customers and artists like dirt, we wouldn't be in this pickle.
Then comes the issue of ridiculously long copyright terms, but that should probably be a new thread...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OmarHo
Date: 2007-08-18 16:25
Or better yet, you can always listen to your local classical radio station and make requests. You can listen to the WNED online radio, it's great. They have live broadcasts of the New York Philharmonic and San Fransisco Symphony frequently.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chauncey
Date: 2007-08-18 17:18
I visit my library routinely, and I upload the CDs into my iTunes library. I've gotten all sorts of gems there. Sure, harp on me for doing that, but I really have no problem with it.
When I get Maria Schneider CDs, I buy them off of her site. Getting her music any other way doesn't make me feel comfortable, and would make me feel guilty of ripping her off. I really don't think Brahms, Mozart, Bach, Mahler, or Villa-Lobos would really benefit from my buying their CDs, though.
Sounds like twisted logic, but that's the way I roll...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2007-08-18 17:43
isn't that #8 on the big 10 list, 'thou shalt not steal'?
go to amazon . com everytime you save up $20 and buy a cd. thats the cost of a box of reeds. if you can't afford $20, get a job.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-18 17:44
Alex,
iTunes is really that expensive? Let's take Caco's (Dale's) case to see how true this is.
Dale says that classical music CD's are hard to get in his area. Now, none of us really knows what this means because he hasn't explained how far he'd have to travel to find a decent source for music. Five miles? Fifty miles? In any event, let's take for granted that it's highly inconvenient for him to travel to such a store. (gas, tolls, parking, or taxis, and of course, time...)
Enter iTunes. He wouldn't have to leave his chair to travel to it. A minor amount of energy need be spent typing and clicking to access it. So let's say he finds a recording he wants on iTunes and the price is $13.99. I ask you: is that too high a price to pay for something that might otherwise cost a significant amount of time and money to get?
The point here is that the convenience of iTunes itself is worth something. I know it is for me; I live in a rural area and the nearest decent music store is 50 - 60 miles away. So I have iTunes, Amazon, and innumerable other internet-based retail sources for music.
And if $9.99 or $13.99 or $whatever.99 seems too expensive, would that then justify foregoing music purchases entirely and looking for it for free? Well, if you're some spotty little teenager who doesn't understand the ramifications of stealing music upon those who create/play/record it, then this kind of ignorant, immature outlook might seem justifiable.
But if you're a responsible person -- of any age -- and particularly a musician yourself, the situation is quite black and white: download music for free and you're stealing, as well as being a hypocrite.
So for those who think it's OK to download music for free and not compensate the musicians who recorded it, I have an idea... send me a copy of each and every commercial recording you've ever made. For free, of course.
Post Edited (2007-08-18 17:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caco185
Date: 2007-08-18 18:59
Okay.. I would like to say one thing.. Get this out in the open. I am really angry at the fact that people would assume I am out to steal music. I didn't mean free servers.. ARES Offers a service that I pay for right now in which you pay 99 cents each download. I am NOT looking to download or "steal" music. Christ..
As a music major, don't you think I would have a little bit more respect for the industry?
I will check out iTunes..
Dale Huggard
Clarinet Performance Major, Michigan
Buffet R-13 - Silver plated
Genussa Excellente
Spriggs Floating Rail Ligature
Vandoren V12 #4
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-18 19:15
In your original post you mentioned P2P, so I don't think it should be too surprising that people have reacted in the way they have. And although I have extrapolated upon what you wrote for sake of example, I have not accused you of stealing. Nor was my intention to imply that you have been.
Quote:
As a music major, don't you think I would have a little bit more respect for the industry?
A colleague of mine is a major-league songwriter. When he needs to do research he goes to Limewire, making him, in this situation, the worst kind of hypocrite. I'm glad to know that you're not in that camp.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2007-08-18 20:10
Quote:
I need a good P2P music sharing program
By definition, the phrases P2P and "music sharing" don't translate as "where is a great online service to purchase music?"
If that indeed was your question, my answer is- check out iTunes. It has a lot of great music and is extremely reliable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-18 20:24
Ski:
I do find 99 cents a track expensive, as I find CDs at retail price expensive (especially with the lousy cut artists on big labels get). Should be lower, in my not-so-humble opinion, ESPECIALLY since you're not even getting the physical CD, the manufacture and distribution of which was a good bit of the rationale behind them being so expensive to begin with And, iTunes locks you into their system with the tracks you buy, charging a premium for non-DRMed tracks when available. At about 25 cents per track, without crippling copy-protection, eMusic is much more reasonable, and still completely on the level.
Dale:
I'll have respect for the industry when the industry has respect for the artist and listener. Until then, I'll only have respect for the minority of labels that behave with respect and decency.
Again, many smaller labels and self-publishing musicians do indeed succeed in giving the artist a significant chunk of the money that comes in, and the internet is making this MUCH easier to do, but many big players are trying their best to make it as difficult as possible.
It's not about "Is $15 that expensive", it's about "if the artist is getting $1, why is it $15?"
And that's not even to go into the original purpose behind copyright, which was NOT to make artists and publishers buttloads of money indefinitely, but rather to give some sort of incentive to artists to create their work, and after they have been reasonably compensated, to release said work for the uninhibited enrichment of society at large.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-19 01:18
Yeah... which is good and bad about emusic. Good to make discoveries, bad if you have a particular recording in mind. IIRC, they do have the whole naxos catalog.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-19 05:42
Alex,
Quote:
I do find 99 cents a track expensive, as I find CDs at retail price expensive (especially with the lousy cut artists on big labels get). Should be lower, in my not-so-humble opinion, ESPECIALLY since you're not even getting the physical CD, the manufacture and distribution of which was a good bit of the rationale behind them being so expensive to begin with
My point about iTunes was straightforward: if Dale is finding it difficult to get classical music CD's, my view was that the price paid for obtaining music via the convenience of iTunes outweighs the inconvenience of otherwise having to travel to find it. Whether or not the cut received by the performers of that music is fair is a tangential matter -- not a matter that doesn't concern me, but tangential nonetheless.
I just typed "classical music CD" into Google and naturally came up with a gazillion hits. So even is there is a dearth of brick & mortar CD shops in which to find classical music in any particular locale, or libraries in the area (university or otherwise) can't supply what's needed, there's no excuse IMO to claim that classical music isn't somehow available in retail form.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-19 13:50
Rhapsody gives you unlimited downloads for $15 a month - that's what I use. I've tried Napster, iTunes, Naxos, WarnerClassics, eMusic and I've found that Rhapsody has the largest collection of classical music. They have the entire Naxos library as well as great selections from most of the other major classical labels.
Regarding the debate about illegal downloads, keep this in mind:
Musicians/Composers receive NO royalties for downloaded music!!!!
We recently lost this one in court - according to US law, a piece of music that is downloaded is not afforded performance royalties. It's just like composing for film: composers get no royalties when the film is displayed in theaters (only in the US, not true in the rest of the world!!!).
So, downloading music illegally is illegal and wrong, but you're not actually doing any direct harm to the musicians, only iTunes/Rhapsody/whatever.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-08-19 14:19
"Regarding the debate about illegal downloads, keep this in mind:
Musicians/Composers receive NO royalties for downloaded music!!!!
We recently lost this one in court - according to US law, a piece of music that is downloaded is not afforded performance royalties. It's just like composing for film: composers get no royalties when the film is displayed in theaters (only in the US, not true in the rest of the world!!!).
So, downloading music illegally is illegal and wrong, but you're not actually doing any direct harm to the musicians, only iTunes/Rhapsody/whatever."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course you are doing harm to the Musicians!!! Here's an example:
I just got Clarinetist Joze Kotar onto Itunes. If you go there and purchase a track of his he gets xxx $ per track downloaded. If you were to find it on an illegal site (ya can't as there aren't any as of yet who have it) than he wouldn't be getting any royalties from Itunes as a result of that sale. The 60 cents that he would have gotten is lost if you don't purchase the track legitimately!! What happens then is that the album doesn't make enough for him to bother to record more works and ya know who looses?
the consumer
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-19 16:29
Sure, compared to having nowhere to find CDs, services like iTunes do indeed fill the void, and do a decent job at it. They're a step in the right direction. I just think they don't go far enough with still relatively high prices and a lot of bizarre limitations that you don't find on music you bought on CD (or downloaded illegally for that matter). In essence, you pay more, get less.
My problem with Rhapsody is that it has limited support for different mp3 players (no iPod compatibility. Thanks, Apple!), and once you cancel your Rhapsody subscription, all your downloads stop playing, except for the ones you (usually have to) pay an ADDITIONAL iTunes-esque price to "purchase." And, given the recent events on Google Video (everyone's purchased videos are magically de-purchased), I don't trust the word "purchase" in any context other than "I get a non-restricted copy on my hard drive."
Also, on any of the services, the track selection is quite limited. Give people a system with an endless selection of music, the versatility of unencrypted MP3s, a low price, and the legitimacy of fairly compensating the artists, and they'll come running. At the moment, the patchwork of services fails to cover all those bases.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-19 16:38
EEBaum wrote:
> Give people a system with an endless selection of
> music, the versatility of unencrypted MP3s, a low price, and
> the legitimacy of fairly compensating the artists, and they'll
> come running.
That assumes general honesty in the consumer - pay for unencrypted tracks. It also assumes cheap micropayments in the infrastructure - the cost of the transaction has to be lower that the transaction's worth. The current .99 cost is right at the limit as it is.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-19 16:58
Quote:
Of course you are doing harm to the Musicians!!! Here's an example:
I just got Clarinetist Joze Kotar onto Itunes. If you go there and purchase a track of his he gets xxx $ per track downloaded.
I'm not so sure about iTunes but that doesn't sound like the way most deals work. Usually, you (or whoever the publisher is) sign a mechanical license authorizing x number of copies of your music to be sold and distributed. Then, in addition to the license fees, you are paid royalties when the music is publicly performend (e.g. at a concert, on tv, or on the radio, but NOT in a film in the US). The broadcaster/venue is responsible for filing the records of these performances and paying the fees to the performing rights organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC in the US).
In US court earlier this year, it was ruled that internet downloads are not considered "broadcasts" or "performances" and, therefore, publishers and writers are not paid performance royalites. Streaming downloads are, however, still considered broadcasts/performances and are subject to royalty payments. See, for example, this article.
Maybe iTunes has a different type of agreement - How is it written into Joze Kotar's license with iTunes? Is it a per-download license fee? Is there a blanket mechanical license fee, as well? I don't see how it can be a performance royalty.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-19 17:12
rgames wrote:
> In US court earlier this year, it was ruled that internet
> downloads are not considered "broadcasts" or "performances"
> and, therefore, publishers and writers are not paid performance
> royalites. Streaming downloads are, however, still considered
> broadcasts/performances and are subject to royalty payments.
It was a clarification of law. A download could be seen as a "point to point" broadcast - or narrowcast if you prefer. The question was whether or not the broadcast royalties come in. Since the intent is to private party reproduction, the court decided it wasn't a broadcast in the sense of broadcast royalties, but more akin to a traditional physical transaction (buying a record at a store).
If the downloaded track were to be played at a public function then broadcast royalties would probably apply again. I'm sure some lawyers will argue otherwise - and then the law will become even clearer.
Every jump in technology causes a concomitant jump in legal actions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-19 17:33
Quote:
It's just like composing for film: composers get no royalties when the film is displayed in theaters (only in the US, not true in the rest of the world!!!).
First an anecdote, then a question about this...
Recently I did some arranging/orchestrating work for a direct-to-DVD project produced by a major film animation company. In my contract I was offered (and gladly accepted!) royalties for my work based on DVD sales. As far as I'm aware, arranging/orchestrating is considered "lower rung" than composing in the grand scheme of things, yet here I am awaiting my future checks! ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
So can you confirm that what you wrote is true across the board? And is it limited to films in theatres? Do you know if royalty payment conventions and practices differ for film, TV, and direct-to-DVD? Or are they dependent on the individual deal struck between composer and film company, and/or perhaps subject to certain Musicians Union reuse payments?
Post Edited (2007-08-22 21:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-19 17:36
Ski wrote:
...
It depends what you signed. Hopefully you retained a lawyer well-versed in that area of the law; as some actors and musicians have learned, if royalties are computed after expenses, creative accounting for expenses seems to follow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-19 17:56
Mark: I think the customers are more honest than the record companies give them credit for. It's when the customer is treated poorly that they, by and large, behave dishonestly in return. I find it somewhat bizarre that, if a customer pays an extra 40 cents per track, they are suddenly deemed honest. But then, that's partially an Apple mandate... unencrypted tracks mean you're no longer locked into using Apple's software and hardware, breaking into the iPod's near-monopoly.
Heck, if you're PAYING for tracks at all rather than downloading them for free, you are by definition and honest customer, and the music services should be breaking down your door to offer you more, not charging high prices and crippling the download files.
I also find it exceptionally bizarre that nobody has come up with a decent micropayment structure. It seems like a fairly easily solvable problem. From what I gather, the people coming up with micropayment schemes seem to prioritize immense profitability over convenience and simplicity. I've heard quite a few reasonable schemes proposed; it's about time someone runs with one.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-19 18:06
EEBaum wrote:
Having been in the software industry for the last 30 years, I'd have to disagree with your estimation of customers being honest ... unfortunately.
There have been a number of micropayment strategies already tried. No matter what you do, you need a debit system in place that is accessible by all. Currency has been the only thing that has worked in the past couple of millenia - you can trust currency even if you can't trust the person. Electronic currency - be it credit, debit, micro-checking, whatever - requires a trust bond and infrastructure that costs real money, and by definition you're working with very little real money. How do you establish a trust bond with someone not of legal age to sign a contract?
It's a very complicated situation. If micropayment strategies can exist, perhaps then you'll have some chance of getting track fees lower. Go for an MBA & some up with a good solution.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-19 18:06
Mark, thanks for your reply. Re lawyers, I'm happy to say that I'm well past that point in my career where I couldn't afford a lawyer and ended up signing dodgy publishing contracts in the back of a van . (true story) So yes, everything's above board, and the contract itself -- as well as the people in the company -- couldn't have been more amicable. A true rarity.
So... film/tv/direct2dvd/game/etc. composer's royalties. Conventions and practices?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-19 18:33
Ski - what Mark said - it depends on how the contract was written. It might help to define a couple terms, though:
1. License Fee: paid by a PRODUCER to a composer/musician for the right to use his/her work in some form (in a film, in a TV show, on a CD, on a DVD, etc.) This is where are the deal-making happens and it usually comes in two forms: synch licensing and mechanical licensing. You grant the producer a synch license for the right to play your music "synchronized" to a film, TV show, video, etc. You might also grant a mechanical license if the production company wants to sell a soundtrack CD, DVD, or any other type of "mechanical" reproduction of the work. Bottom line: THESE CHECKS COME FROM THE PRODUCTION COMPANY.
2. Royalty Fee: paid by a BROADCASTER or CONERT VENUE to a performing rights organization for the right to publicly perform/broadcast the work. There's no deal-making here: if you meet the legal definition of a "performance", you (should) get the royalties, and the rates are pretty well fixed in stone. In the US (but not the rest of the world), films played in movie theatres are not considered performances and, therefore, are not subject to performance royalties. Bottom Line: THESE CHECKS COME FROM ASCAP/BMI/SESAC/ETC.
Since it's direct to DVD, you won't get any "performance royalties" but you will still get paid for the license fees (synch and mechanical). If it were going to movie theatres, you would get royalties for all performances OUTSIDE the US.
What you were offered sounds like a license agreement based on the number of DVD's sold but I'm willing to bet you'll actually see that it's based on "gross revenues" if you're lucky but more likely "gross profits". Either way, you're subject to the mysteries of the world of accounting  . Here's a general rule for low-budget films and direct-to-DVD: get as much money up front as possible! The "back-end" payments tend not to amount to much... You say the work you did was for a major studio, though, so there's probably some hope there.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-19 20:24
Mark:
I have no delusions of ALL customers being honest (I'm in software too). My problem with the current system, though, is that a significantly *inferior* service is provided to the honest customers. There will always be both honest and dishonest customers. The options I've seen are to attempt to make the dishonest customers more honest by offering a high quality product at a low price, or to attempt to make the honest customers dishonest (under the guise of "keeping the honest customers honest") by making it difficult for honest customers to use your services.
It has happened a number of times that I have been prevented from legally using my legally purchased software by an error or obsoletion of some technical copy-protection measure. Heck, a couple of times I *LOST* the software activation key (I know it's in my room somewhere) and as a result had to repurchase software, the other option being to obtain a "special" copy.
The same principle applies to music. If someone discards their portable music player in favor of another brand (or, heck, if they just don't like the software), depending on the brands and music services involved, they'll be extremely lucky to be able to just straight-up use their tracks, somewhat lucky if ALL they have to do is burn their entire collection to CDs and re-rip them, and quite possibly have to RE-PURCHASE their supposedly-"purchased" music.
At this point, the listener is quite likely to look into less legitimate means. And, frankly, I don't blame them.
On principle, I obtain all my music legitimately. And, as a result, any music I buy online is either crippled (see Rhapsody or iTunes) or of mediocre selection (see eMusic). It's my thanks for being an honest customer.
As for micropayments, I imagine there'll be a happy solution people like within a few years. Hopefully that'll help sort things out somewhat.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-08-19 23:02
> On principle, I obtain all my music legitimately. And, as a result, any music I
> buy online is either crippled (see Rhapsody or iTunes) or of mediocre
> selection (see eMusic). It's my thanks for being an honest customer.
It's getting really absurd if you pay for a pressed CD with jewel case, cover and booklet less than what you pay when you d/l the same album but have to overcome some silly protection (heck, I can burn any of those protected tunes on a CD-RW and rip it back into MP3), burn a CD, print a cover etc.
So far, I'm done downloading music. It's easier to have your stuff shipped by Amazon - the choice is immensely bigger, and - when you count in your own time needed to download and prep - cheaper.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: b.roke
Date: 2007-08-20 06:09
several years ago Janis Ian wrote an article called - THE INTERNET DEBACLE - AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW.
google wil find it.
it's worth a read.
.
steadfastness stands higher than any success
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-20 06:37
I respect the amount of analysis and thought that went into her article, but nevertheless, she made many many assumptions about the severity of the problem. It's an opinion piece, viz:
Quote:
Who's to say that any of those people would have bought the CD's if the songs weren't available for free? I can't find a single study on this, one where a reputable surveyor such as Gallup actually asks people that question. I think no one's run one because everyone is afraid of the truth - most of the downloads are people who want to try an artist out, or who can't find the music in print.
(emphasis added)
I've had numerous conversations with people (i.e., adults) who quite cavalierly admit that they DL music for free, and never buy CD's anymore. And per my previous post, my songwriter pal uses Limewire for his research (and proffers all kinds of self-serving 'justifications' for doing so). And I know he's not the only one.
Over the past 5 years a good chunk of my livelihood went bye-bye because the record companies I regularly worked for (as an MD for promotional performances their artists) closed shop or consolidated. And of those left standing, my work went from a torrent to a drip because the budgets were no longer available to do the kinds of promotion they used to do. Why? Because sales were down, and down in great part due to loss of revenue via Internet downloads.
That's what I was told, by people in the industry with whom I had long and trusting relationships with.
So people can extrapolate and theorize on the issue all they want. Bottom line is that the downturn in my bottom line coincided with a decrease in sales, blamed (in part) on Internet downloading of music. I know that revenue loss dues to music downloading is a real issue, as do plenty of others in this business.
Post Edited (2007-08-20 06:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-20 07:47
That's a rather poor context for pulling the word "think" out of an article. At that point, he is opining as to why nobody has done a study about whether people would have bought the CD if the tracks weren't available for free, not about how downloaders act.
For the matter of it being an opinion piece, I'd say the supposition that sales are down "in great part due to loss of revenue via Internet downloads" is just as much opinion. There are more factors at work, not the least of which is backlash against the recording industry for poor publicity regarding artists and customers. When the artists (such as Janis Ian) talk such trash about the people paying their bills, something is amiss. It's an "if your own employees, so to speak, think you're scum, perhaps I should think twice before supporting you" reaction. Or, for some, possibly some twisted "screw you" form of civil disobedience. There's fairly widespread sentiment that record companies are large, wealthy, and focused only on their own profits.
Interestingly enough, the downturn in sales has also coincided with the ubiquity of the internet, and, consequently, much easier access to whiny stories of artists being handed a new one by record companies. I, for one, wouldn't touch a contract from one of the major record companies with a ten foot pole. And if I wouldn't dream of WORKING for them, it hardly makes me want to BUY from them. Disdain for the big media corporations is very common in my circles, for too many reasons to count, and we do vote with our wallets.
Not a justification for downloading, just a possible explanation for any reduction in sales.
As for consolidation, I hardly think it's specific to the music industry. Industries across the spectrum are merging and acquiring like there's no tomorrow. Oil companies. Video game publishers. Grocery stores. Restaurant chains. Telecoms. Google. It all ends up with a more hostile marketplace for the little guy, who must find a place between the dumptruck full of cash offered for their demise, eking it out on their own, and going under. If they DON'T merge voraciously, and act with decency rather than putting ultimate profitability first, they are sued by shareholders.
In the case of video game publishers (my area of experience), the companies have become ludicrously risk-averse. It is much "safer" to produce Madden 2009 or Age of Empires 6 or Halo 4 than it is to make an innovative non-rehash title that actually tries something new. You have some guaranteed sales by name recognition, no matter how wonderful or cruddy your game is. And so, smaller companies (like the one I work for) have a much harder time getting new contracts. Almost overnight, the industry has changed from lots of worthwhile publishers and scores of developers to a few big players with all the resources, and select few independents that can even pay the bills. It's not a crash or a downturn, but it is a consolidation that shuts out everyone but the big guys and the occasional visionary entrepreneur. Now that they've bought the proper portions of the development chain, the handful of conglomerates do almost everything in-house.
In essence, massive consolidation in any industry tends to shut out (and shut down) the small outside contractor. In an industry (games) that boasts record sales year after year (which also could be where some of the music industry money is going. You going to play World of Warcraft or buy another CD?), we're even feeling the pinch. That sort of situation could, at least in part, have contributed for the unfortunate circumstances Ski experienced.
It's akin to why people get so worked up about global warming (and let's not take this thread there)... there are SO many different factors in the mix that nobody knows for sure exactly what's going on and why, though theories abound. And, frankly, it's not entirely clear whether the downloaders or the music industry are playing the part of Al Gore in this one.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: joeyscl
Date: 2007-08-20 07:50
Reading all this makes me wonder, while everyone on the board claims to get their music Legitimately, I wonder how many of us do the same regarding movies. (Movie Piracy IS pretty big after all)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JessKateDD
Date: 2007-08-20 11:06
Interesting topic. I wonder how many of us have made copies, for our personal use, of rental-only music like "Pines of Rome"?
I make a pretty decent living (well - at least it's more than I had when I was in college!) and spend several hundred dollars a year on recordings from Amazon. I just got 2 more CDs this week. I like having the jewel case with the cover art rather than just a bunch of CDRs with cheap holders and labels.
However, I also go to Youtube a lot and watch the videos there. There are plenty of violations, of course, and several youtube videos have been linked to this site. When I really like an audio track or movie clip on Youtube, I will sometimes buy it. Though some people may choose to go with pirated stuff rather than buy, I know that in my case I've been exposed to things in a dubious manner that I ended up buying. Things that I would not have bought had I never gotten a sample of the product first.
And I certainly echo the idea of going to university libraries and public libraries for recordings. A good university music library has thousands of classical recordings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-20 15:45
I think the LEGAL download distribution model is vastly superior to the old record-store model. Because you remove so many of the middle-men, and costs associated with physical packaging and distribution, the costs are coming way down.
I don't want a physical CD of everything I'm interested in listening to. For example, I recently finished up a piece for strings done in the style of Barber's adagio. While I was writing it, I downloaded something like 30 different recordings of works in similar styles, many of them different performances of the same work. I only wound up buying a couple of the CD's. Under the old distribution model, I would have had to purchase something like 20 CD's, most of which contained tracks I wasn't interested in, and at a cost of something like $250. Instead, I pay $15 a month, download everything I want, and get it delivered to me much faster than I ever could under the old distribution model.
The audio quality issue: like it or not, pop sales drive music sales/distribution in all genres, so the "low-quality" mp3 format, which is more than adequate for pop, will drive the distribution of music in all genres. And for studying music, you don't need pristine audio quality. Let's face it, even the most audiophile recording still doesn't come close to a live performance. So the quality really doesn't bother me. And the money I save under the new distribution model leaves me more money to spend on live performances.
Since signing on with Rhapsody, I listen to a lot more music and spend a lot less.
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-20 18:19
MP3 can be of excellent quality. It just isn't always encoded that way. Plain MP3s, though, are not encrypted. In any case, my beef isn't with the quality of sound playback. The files you're getting on Rhapsody are not vanilla mp3s. They are streams (which, really, aren't downloads) or DRMed tracks, tracks that can only be played where Rhapsody approves. It's the DRM that causes a lessening of versatility of the tracks. If the record store goes under, you still have unlimited access to your $250 of CDs. If Rhapsody goes under (or changes their policies), you're SOL. Also, you can take your CDs in the car, to a friend's house, etc. Rhapsody ties you to the computer and to certain approved devices. In essence, for no good reason other than "they want it to be that way," you have very little versatility in your listening options.
Granted, it's a step in the right direction. Just not quite there yet.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rgames
Date: 2007-08-20 20:55
Yeah, DRM is a pain, but so is buying a CD that turns out to be not worth the money you spent on it. I still buy CD's of recordings I really like (and some that I can't get online) - for the cost of a single CD a month, though, I get the right to "audition" as many as I like. Those tracks are, indeed, crippled in terms of the freedoms I have with them but, given the cost, I think it's a great tradeoff.
Buying CD's and buying downloads are not mutually exclusive: having the option to do both is much better than the options you have with either, alone.
Quote:
you still have unlimited access to your $250 of CDs
Replace "CD" with "8-track" or "BetaMax". Consumer audio/video technologies are ALWAYS dependent upon a supporting distribution/presentation network. Having a DRM-enabled digital audio device is just another form of required supporting technology. Sure, I still have 8-track tapes, and I can do whatever I want with them. Well, except play them, that is...
DRM is the way of the future; I'll bet on it. And just because you have a physical copy of a CD or DVD won't mean much in a few years, anyway, because the big names are incorporating DRM into those technologies, as well. For example, I just bought a new computer monitor and I had to make certain it was HDCP enabled so that it will let me watch the latest DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs in a couple of years.
Speaking of HD disc content, anybody know which format will be the next BetaMax? Prices are coming down and I'm thinking of getting a player...
Ain't technology grand?
rgames
____________________________
Richard G. Ames
Composer - Arranger - Producer
www.rgamesmusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-20 21:09
Compared with 8-track, Betamax, and CDs, though, there's no technological reason to have DRM. I'd put "digital music files" as the next technological step, not DRM, because they can, and very often do, exist without it.
At the rate people are ditching DRM in favor of plain unencrypted files and watermarking (you can do what you please with the file, but it keeps track of where it came from), and with the level of backlash DRM is receiving, I wouldn't be so sure that it's here to stay. It's too early in the game to know.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-20 21:23
Really, though, I don't have a problem with the $15/month streaming service. Sounds like a reasonable deal, especially if it's billed as listen-only. My real problem with DRM is when it gets in the way of my non-infringing uses in a baby-with-the-bathwater manner.
I've lost software keys to software I legitimately purchased and was therefore unable to use something I spent $150 on because my system crashed.
I was scoring a film once, and the director gave a soundless version of it to me on DVD to work with. It's quite hard to import a film into music-editing software when there is no legal software to rip video from the disc, which I had the author's express permission to do.
With a lot of services, once you've "purchased" a track or movie, you can still only do so much with it, much less than legal precedent affords to, say, a VHS or a CD, getting in the way of established fair-use rights. As long as the service controls a magical kill-switch, you really haven't purchased a thing.
All of these are very easy for the unscrupulous customer to circumvent, but most are impossible if you want to stay completely on the level. Effectively, fair use is thrown out the window on a very convenient technicality.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2007-08-20 21:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tdinap
Date: 2007-08-21 20:30
This is a very interesting thread; it's good to hear what people in the industry think about the topic, especially when so many other people just ignorantly throw around opinions and "facts" for both sides.
Anyway, I try, as most of you do, to obtain all my music, videos, (and everything else, for that matter) legally. Luckily, as a college student, I can use Ruckus Music for unlimited free music downloads. I think I have about 10 or 15 GB of music on my PC from Ruckus alone. It's far from perfect--it's kind of buggy, and it's extremely license-restricted (music can only be played in its own player or Windows Media Player, and the licenses can't be transferred at all). But it's free, and completely legal (supported by advertising and subscriptions from non-students), with an unbelievable selection of music. New music, especially the more popular stuff, is sometimes blacked out, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've been unable to find a classical or jazz piece on there, and multiple versions/performances are often available. I think it would fit Dale's needs pretty well.
Along those lines: I don't know that much about all the technicalities of this debate, but why haven't there been more attempts to provide a service like that, supported by ads and maybe a premium paid service? Ruckus is open to anyone with a ".edu" email address, and I would think that this encompasses a significant portion of the P2P downloaders out there.
PS: I forgot to mention, the service may only work on-campus; I've heard this rumor, and I've been having problems getting it to work fully at home (although it's possible this is a problem with my own computer). But for my purposes, it's still pretty darn good for a free service.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-21 22:24
Ruckus sounds quite similar to Rhapsody. Rather than a monthly charge, it's ad-supported.
This brings up another issue (whether we want to go down that road or not), for which there are also varied opinions. That is, the switch in much of media from owning to renting. Services would much rather you rent their music/software/etc. than own a copy of it, because you have to keep going back to them for more. If done well (at a reasonable price, with excellent selection, without technical limitations), it could be quite a nice way to go. The problems with the services as they stand is that you're very limited with what you can do with the music... pretty much stuck using it on your computer or on approved devices. That, and if they decide to hike the price or turn off all your tracks, you're SOL.
If these really catch on, though, I can imagine a day not too far off where services like Rhapsody and Ruckus are used so prevalently, and by such a large portion of the population at large, that, since everyone already has access to all the music there is and is paying a rate that all parties find reasonable, there will be no reason NOT to allow people to do what they please with those files, because the legitimate services are so reliable and such a good value that there will be nobody left to share them with, since they can get it EASIER through the legit services.
Essentially, it could be like charging everyone in the world the equivalent of blanket BMI/ASCAP fees, in return for which all music can be freely used by anyone. I'd pay $30/month for it, easy. The monies would then be divvied up through some sort of fair (that'll be fun to come up with!) system based on who's listening.
We're not nearly there yet, but I don't think that's too far-fetched.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: christian_comeau
Date: 2007-08-22 13:29
I love talking about stealing music!
I can hardly conceive how any composer would be sad to be listened to.
The argument that it helps supporting new musicians is true, thought. So I prefer buying from local unknown artists than major ones.
And it's even more stupid to pay for a classical recording... where do you think the money's going? Into Bach's grave? Even the orchestra will not be payed as much as the disc company...Some cents on every cd sold?
Of course, no one is goning to agree with me, but I personnaly think music as an art*, not as a product.
*Just like you can google images, just to watch them and that you have to pay to use it commercially.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: howarth
Date: 2007-08-22 15:50
As a small side point I would like to point out that Clarinet related CD's are still readily available in a hard copy from many internet sites and from many retailers. Not being able to find a piece that is recorded, in our experience at Howarth, is not really an issue. If it has ever been recorded, generally it is still available somewhere, from someone.
If in need of clarinet CD's I would suggest contacting a large woodwind retailer, (Howarth who for your knowledge stock over 300 clarinet CD's) who will be able to hopefully find them for you at not too large a cost.
(I am an employee of T W Howarth London, although this opinion is mine and not of the company......)
Howarth of London
31-35 Chiltern Street
London
W1U 7PN
clarinet@howarth.uk.com
www.howarth.uk.com
Post Edited (2007-08-24 12:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-22 19:09
Christian: I agree with you whole-heartedly. In the U.S., you can thank Sonny Bono, among others, for the wildly long copyright terms.
Howarth: As a side note to your side note, my biggest complaint isn't being unable to find something that I already know the title of. It's the difficulty I have in finding stuff I've never heard of but might really like.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: howarth
Date: 2007-08-24 08:15
If you speak to/email the staff at specialist stores with the information you do know I'm sure they will be able to point you in the right direction. A little bit of information goes a very long way some times when talking to people who deal in recordings for a living!
(I am an employee of T W Howarth, although this opinion is mine and not of the company....)
Howarth of London
31-35 Chiltern Street
London
W1U 7PN
clarinet@howarth.uk.com
www.howarth.uk.com
Post Edited (2007-08-24 12:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2007-08-28 11:21
It seems that the original question was written in an academic context, but has strayed off into an argument about copyright and big, bad corporations.
But it seems to me that the original question begs another: what is the difference in legal or ethical terms between a written text and a musical text?
For example, I have just downloaded a 1980s piece from the New York Times and a few articles from Early Music, the Musical Quarterly and the Revue de Musicologie in connection with a thesis I am writing. At the same time, I have some borrowed books from the library and a large stack of books that I have bought myself. I use all of this for general background, and correct academic fashion I will attribute any direct borrowing in footnotes or in the bibliography.
Similarly, I have scraps of music taken from here and there on my hard disk, which I keep to remind myself of musicians or compositions I may not necessarily like and which I will wipe when I've finished my project; I have lots of scores and Midi files. I have a few CDs I borrowed from the library and I have hundreds of CDS I bought myself.
If I copy a paragraph fom Early Music into my notes, that is legitimate. If I copy a passage from one of my CDs into a music data base to which only I have access, I am breaching copyright? Seems weird, doesn't it?
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I strongly support the French concept of Droit d'Auteur. If I hear music I like, I buy the CD and play it on my hifi, not my computer. An MP3 played through computer speakers sounds like the antithesis of music to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: srattle
Date: 2007-08-28 19:44
Sorry, I haven't read all the posts here, but I'm interested about people's thoughts on this subject.
I am a musician, and I have many people in my family who are recording musicians aswell.
I do download music on occasion, just as I do buy music on occasion. I have $20 dollars to spend on a CD every once in a while, but not as often as I need music (mainly for studying purposes) This doesn't matter in particular.
I hear read people mentioning iTunes a lot on this thread. What I want to know is, from itunes, how much do the musicians make from an iTunes purchase? I find the recording industry very unfair (think about how much a classical musician is making compared to so many other kinds of music artists for recording) There are many strange rules about who can work with one another on particular recordings due to contracts, which limits all musicians. Is it fair to the musicians to base what we do so highly on a countries law?
I'm not trying to advocate p2p file sharing. I just think that we should think about what is actually going on rather than assuming that what is in place is the right thing. . .
If there were a system where the musicians and the actual recording personel received even a majority of the revenew, then I think I would always buy music without thought of another option.
I would also like to know what is so different from copying a CD, to copying a tape (which most people seem to think is fine) and then why is that such a step to finding something on the internet? Why is buying a new CD for half price from iTunes (which is essentially buying a used file of music, without the cover, case or almost any information about the artists) in perfect morality?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-28 19:52
srattle wrote:
> I find the recording industry very
> unfair (think about how much a classical musician is making
> compared to so many other kinds of music artists for recording)
When classical musicians sell quantities comparable to pop musicans then they'll be compensated at the same level, I'll bet. A few classical albums made reasonable money for their artists (Walter/Wendy Carlos, for instance).
> There are many strange rules about who can work with one
> another on particular recordings due to contracts, which limits
> all musicians.
That's the point behind signing a contract. A meeting of the minds is required for a contract to be valid. Your understanding and acceptance of the terms is required.
> Is it fair to the musicians to base what we do
> so highly on a countries law?
What a musician does isn't based on law (in general). How you're compensated may be based on contract law.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-28 21:18
If there were a system where the musicians and the actual recording personel received even a majority of the revenew, then I think I would always buy music without thought of another option.
By "actual recording personnel" do you mean recording engineers?
I would also like to know what is so different from copying a CD, to copying a tape (which most people seem to think is fine) and then why is that such a step to finding something on the internet? Why is buying a new CD for half price from iTunes (which is essentially buying a used file of music, without the cover, case or almost any information about the artists) in perfect morality?
Working backwards... there is no such thing as a "used file of music". It's not like every time a music file is read from a disk and downloaded that it somehow 'wears out'. And that is precisely the difference between making cassette copies and making digital copies... A digital copy is a clone (i.e., exact, bit for bit) of the original source copy. Theoretically, you can make an infinite number of copies from any other copy and all copies will be precisely the same. And this is the primary objection to Internet downloading of music; it allows people to get the product FOR FREE.
The basic problem, though, is not that the digital nature of today's recorded music makes it prone to cloning. It's a social and behavioral problem. People throughout the ages have been known to treat musicians with less than the respect they deserve. It's no different today, where many people -- including some of the people contributing to this thread -- question whether or not a musician should be paid for their work. How bloody out-*&@#*&-rageous is that?
Other people impose some sort of self-serving artificial limit on how much money a recording artist "deserves" to make, using that as an excuse to download music for free, "because they have enough money already."
Now, cassette copies are different. Each time you record something on tape the signal degrades somewhat, regardless of how good the tape and machine might be. So you're not hearing that music in the most ideal state -- the very state that artists, recording engineers, and producers spend untold hours and often hundreds of thousands of dollars to make sound good --- for your pleasure. A cassette copy might be sonically "acceptable" at first but it won't stay that way over time with repeated playing of that tape. And if you make copies from that cassette (i.e., a third generation copy) the fidelity of that copy can be pretty bad. Make a copy of that copy and... see where this goes?
Look, this whole conversation is academic. If you enjoy music and want to listen to it, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. Really now, does that not make sense somehow? Sadly, though, some people out there will continue to look for the lamest of lame-@ss excuses not to pay for other people's hard work and artistry.
Post Edited (2007-08-28 21:24)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-28 21:56
srattle:
Money made on iTunes depends on who puts the music up there. Someone self-producing their music gets a nice chunk, as David says. Someone under contract to a recording company gets about the same as they get for a physical CD sale. Really, you get very roughly as much through iTunes as you do for a CD sale, whatever your situation.
Mark:
When classical musicians sell quantities comparable to pop musicans then they'll be compensated at the same level, I'll bet. A few classical albums made reasonable money for their artists (Walter/Wendy Carlos, for instance).
They're already compensated at about the same level with the big labels. From what I've heard (on the internets! among other places), most pop artists end up significantly in DEBT to the labels.
Ski:
If you enjoy music and want to listen to it, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT.
Musicians being paid for their work, for what they're paid, how long they're paid, and how they're paid is something that has evolved over the ages. Used to be, anything over 29 years old was public domain, free for the enrichment of mankind as a whole. The copyright term was treated as an incentive... if it's free from the start, nobody's going to make music or art or literature because they'll go broke with no income. The end goal, however, was for it to be public domain, free to enrich humanity as a whole, after a period if "thank you" time to the people who made it possible.
Problem is, that time has been extended continuously, to the point now where the vast majority of all creative work is still wrapped up by someone, very rarely the original creator. The absence of new works in the public domain makes it all the more expensive to buy music, not to mention de-enriching humanity as a whole and stifling new forms of creative expression.
Somewhere over the past hundred or so years, copyright has been changed from a means of encouraging new works to be created for the good of society (essentially, "we'd like this to be free, but artists have to eat too") to a means of ensuring a century of profit for the creators or to those the creators have sold their rights to.
Why do people have no qualms whatsoever about freely xeroxing Beethoven scores, but suddenly it's taboo to copy an 80-year-old Stravinsky piece? I hardly think Stravinsky would have avoided writing Firebird because his great-grandchildren (or his publisher's great-grandchildren) wouldn't be able to partake further in the spoils. Or would you prefer that the great^15 grand-children of Hildegard von Bingen be compensated every time a student buys a music history text?
I fully endorse the concept of an artist being able to cash in on their music for exorbitant amounts of money. Once said exorbitant amounts have had an ample opportunity to appear, however, in a free society the art really should belong to the public.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-08-28 22:20
EEBaum wrote:
...
I didn't see your name on the contributors to Eldred vs. Ashcroft. Mine was.
For all those US citizens complaining - put your money where your mouth is and support legislation to reduce the term of copyright (or at least try & keep it from getting longer!) I did. We may not win all of them, but if you don't try, you never will. Why aren't you gathering people to form a lobbying group? That's how laws get changed. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that the Congress sets the terms of copyright, and if you don't agree with the terms - get the terms changed.
You might have it a bit harder to reduce them a lot because of WIPO ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-28 22:22
Alex,
...in a free society the art really should belong to the public.
What distinguishes art from any other commodity such that it should belong to the public? Who determines what art is, and whether or not any one work is "worthy" to join other works in a pantheon of "art that should belong to the public" artists? Why should artists of any ilk have their work relegated to some nebulously defined altruistic cause?
If everyone were doing their work for the good of society, I'd like to start with doctors, nurses, and hospitals. I'm sure they'd be equally as happy as I am at the thought of doing my work "for the good of society" while other trades remain exempt from this kind of altruistic stipulation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2007-08-28 22:25
Alex,
Too true. I don't even have rights to most of the articles that I have written because these were all ceded to my employer, the copyright holder and I believe Corbis now has the rights to a lot of news pictures that I took early in my career. That is why I said in an earlier post that I support the French concept of droit d'auteur, which is fairer to the creator.
By the way, I followed your adventures in Russia and much enjoyed the account. As a former Moscow hand, I am always interested in fresh impressions of the place such as yours. So thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-28 23:02
Mark:
Yeah, I need to get off my butt on this one. FWIW, I contribute to the EFF and regulary send emails to my representatives and senators (though, granted, mostly form letters at this point) on a variety of issues. I don't think by any shot that I've done enough, but I have done something.
At the moment, I have the magical lousy crap excuse that my time is severely limited, what with a 40-hour non-music job, graduate school hunting, and writing a 15 minute piece for wind band that mixes styles of Ives, ice cream trucks, minimalism, and elementary school talent shows.
Ski:
I consider the work of an artist significantly different from that of a doctor. If a doctor performs liver surgery on a person and saves their life, they are compensated up front, or perhaps on a payment plan. Forty years after the doctor dies, should we expect the patient to write a check to him every time he has a beer?
My point is that they are fundamentally different services, and shouldn't be lumped together under the same analogies.
Creative works are unique. They are not likeliver surgery, a computer, a piece of toast, a massage, or an air conditioner. They are a wholly different beast for a number of reasons, including:
- They can be used just as well in 100 years as they can today. They do not deteriorate, with the exception that the media they are stored on deteriorates... but making a copy makes it all new again.
- After you've used them, you can use them again, indefinitely.
- If I make a copy and give one to another person, I still have mine as well, and all of it, just as functional as it was before I made a copy.
Therefore, it seems silly that we should treat them as just another commodity. How we treat them is up to us as a society, but it can be troublesome to lump them into the same category as other commodities.
The term "intellectual property" bothers me as well, because it suggests that it is a tangible thing that one person can have at a time.
Why an altruistic cause? I dunno. Perhaps because, when something is old enough, it seems reasonable to may people that it is considered an item of historical interest rather than creative profit. Perhaps for the same reason we have public libraries. Perhaps so that anyone, regardless of their situation, can have access to the collective knowledge of mankind, to learn from it, to build upon it.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2007-08-28 23:12
"...in a free society the art really should belong to the public."
-------------------------------
Whomever wrote that - I'll be over to cook my dinner in your microwave, use your paper plates, and take your TV for a while, maybe forever, afterall - it is all of ours yes?
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-28 23:52
Alex,
Why an altruistic cause? I dunno.
It's my label for what you intimated in your previous post --- in this case, a work of art (music) that ends up contributing to or even helping define, amplify, or modernize -- to significant extent -- the cultural identify of a given society, if not humankind at large; where the originator of that work relinquishes ownership (not authorship) of that work so that society at large might benefit more than, or to the exclusion of, themselves.
Perhaps because, when something is old enough, it seems reasonable to may people that it is considered an item of historical interest rather than creative profit.
I have to ask the obvious --- how old is "old enough"? Darn good question... Personally I'd offer this: "the lifetime of the composer plus 50 years". Having said that, I feel that the notion that when something is (of sufficient age) it loses commercial value and should then "belong to society" is a bit Utopian.
Perhaps for the same reason we have public libraries. Perhaps so that anyone, regardless of their situation, can have access to the collective knowledge of mankind, to learn from it, to build upon it.
But those books (for one) don't appear from a vacuum. They have to be printed, published, and marketed. All the people involved in that chain of production would understandably be compensated for their work. Why should the content be omitted from that chain of profiteering?
Post Edited (2007-08-28 23:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-29 00:39
David:
Whomever wrote that - I'll be over to cook my dinner in your microwave, use your paper plates, and take your TV for a while, maybe forever, afterall - it is all of ours yes?
No. Those items are property. Similarly, the original piece of art would not be free for anyone to take. However, a work of art becomes a piece of the society's culture, and it is my opinion that, after the author has had a significant run at taking advantage of his works, it is of benefit to society at large for outstanding copies of it to be freely duplicable.
Ski:
I have to ask the obvious --- how old is "old enough"? Darn good question... Personally I'd offer this: "the lifetime of the composer plus 50 years". Having said that, I feel that the notion that when something is (of sufficient age) it loses commercial value and should then "belong to society" is a bit Utopian.
A recent study suggests 14 years as the optimal term...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070712-research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.html
With copyrights lasting as long as they do now, many, MANY works go completely out of print and are lost forever, because people are forbidden by copyright law from making copies of very, very old works. Heck, the storage media (especially now with CDs) deteriorates LONG before life+50. Many less popular and less carefully preserved items end up lost forever.
I find life + 50 to be an obscenely long term for copyright, and can think of no justification for making it that long. Would any self-respecting creator of any creative work conduct business any differently if their work would be released say, 30 years from its creation date? The only rational argument I can even fathom for making it much longer is to provide a financial legacy for one's family years down the road, and, really, you can do that already with the money you make off the work NOW. The only conceivable benefit to the author him/herself of extending it long after their death is that a publisher might throw a few extra bucks at them for the rights to ride the gravy train for a handful more decades.
If this was all about the artist, I'd be more sympathetic. However, copyright term extension is all about Mickey Mouse. And since it was done little by little, over time, we've just gotten used to it.
But those books (for one) don't appear from a vacuum. They have to be printed, published, and marketed. All the people involved in that chain of production would understandably be compensated for their work. Why should the content be omitted from that chain of profiteering?
If the complaint is that things should remain under copyright in order to keep the production chain in business: People are still printing and distributing the Bible, Dickens and Shakespeare. It's profitable enough to keep doing, even though it's public domain.
If the complaint is that free digital distribution eliminates the need for printers and publishers: Printing, publishing, and marketing exist in order to get creative works from the creator to the reader/listener/looker/etc. If your business model is downsized or rendered obsolete by technology, it's hardly the general public's job to keep you employed out of habit. Blacksmithing has also been hit hard over past centuries.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-29 00:45
As for
Having said that, I feel that the notion that when something is (of sufficient age) it loses commercial value and should then "belong to society" is a bit Utopian.
If, by Utopian, you mean "of great benefit to all of society, with very little detriment to anyone except a very small handful of people that are descendants of someone (or someone who did business with someone) that created the work 80 years ago," then, yes, it's a bit utopian.
I really don't see the downside, though.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-29 02:33
Alex,
Going to go back to a point from one of your previous posts...
Somewhere over the past hundred or so years, copyright has been changed from a means of encouraging new works to be created for the good of society (essentially, "we'd like this to be free, but artists have to eat too") to a means of ensuring a century of profit for the creators or to those the creators have sold their rights to.
Forget about 100 years ago, or 50 years ago. Let's talk about now. In fact, let's talk about a dry cleaner. He built his business up from nothing, ran it for 50 years and maintained a good reputation all the while. He wasn't the only dry cleaner in town, but his services were superlative compared to the others. His business grew and he became "successful" and became a highly regarded asset to the community. What the dry cleaner "produces" isn't exactly tangible: clean clothes are as fleetingly clean as dirty ones are fleetingly dirty. But were he not such a consciencious dry cleaner, life would have been all the poorer.
Having established a business, he's entitled to bequeath it to his progeny upon his death, and thus two things are ensured: a continuation of a service of value to the community, and, a financial legacy that can be inherited by his children. "Passing down the business from father to son/daughter". Very traditional stuff.
Now let's talk about the composer. The composer studies and practices and builds upon his talent for years. He may not be the only composer around, but his work was considered to be superlative. What the composer produces isn't tangible, but without him life would be all the poorer. Greater music is only greater when compared to lesser works.
The composer has a family too. Does the composer not have the same right as the dry cleaner to bequeath to his children a financial legacy? I say "yes!". But what does the composer have to pass on to his children? He doesn't have a brick and mortar business, but he DOES have his music --- his creation, that remains uniquely his, no matter how long he's alive or dead. It doesn't belong to society; it belongs to HIM. He created it.
I'm frankly surprised that this latter point isn't obvious amidst all this conversation going on in this thread. I'm sorry Alex, but to say that a composer's work should become society's property after any arbitrary period of time is, to me, just another poor excuse for separating a composer from their right to earn a living, or, their family's right to benefit from the "business" they built up over many years, just like the dry cleaner.
Post Edited (2007-08-29 02:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-29 03:04
There is a difference between the legacies.
If a person who operates a dry cleaning shop passes the legacy to his children, those children continue to work the shop. New work is continuously put into the shop, and new output is constantly produced. If nobody maintains the shop, the revenue stream ends. Even if they hand it to some other management company and aren't working it themselves, the shop can go under, and the revenue stream ends.
If a composer writes pieces and passes the legacy to his children, those children don't do a darn thing other than receive a check. They don't write any music themselves.
In either situation, though, the person can save up money to give to their children.
The dry cleaner does indeed produce a tangible product. You take your clothes to him, and he cleans them. He cleans them once, they become clean once. Cleanness is quantifyable. If he stopped cleaning clothes today, they would stop becoming clean today, and a person 10 years from now wouldn't find their clothes any cleaner.
Now, in an ideal situation, I might have more sympathy for your arguments. However, it isn't the artist-wanting-a-legacy that is extending copyrights. It's the recording, publishing, and movie industries. The vast majority of music earns the vast majority of its money within the first short period. 50 years past the death of the author, the work is almost never producing much cash, certainly not enough to leave a decent nest egg. Except for the certain few items, the Mickey Mouse, Snow White, Beatles, etc. MOST of which are owned by a corporation, and if the actual author sees any of the money at all, it's practically negligible by that point. It makes sense for the corporation, because they have enormous volumes of the stuff. It doesn't make sense for the artist who, if the works were NOT under copyright, would likely see their work enjoyed far more.
Really, it would be nice if society would actually have this discussion to determine who should be entitled to what. And if we came up to the conclusion Ski is proposing, as a society, I would be happy with that. But we haven't. We're still using a system that claims to be in place to promote the creation of new works by creating a temporary monopoly. The terms have been extended, at the behest of large corporations and their lobbyists, under the guise of promoting the poor starving artist who can't feed their grandchildren. No public discussion. No input from all sides involved. Just some big players declaring what's best for others, "on their behalf." And not even creating a new system for it, but inching an old system along piecemeal until it no longer does what it was intended to do.
I also don't see why it should be society's business to ensure that one person's stream of income is inherited by their children. Perhaps the composer would do well to invest his money in dry cleaning? :P
his creation, that remains uniquely his, no matter how long he's alive or dead. It doesn't belong to society; it belongs to HIM. He created it.
But it doesn't belong to him, because he sold it to Universal or BMG. Chances are, he couldn't give free copies of it to his friends legally. He retains AUTHORSHIP, which is a formality at best. What can be done with OWNERSHIP is a societal construct, and that's what's being extended.
Assume for a moment that copyright was indefinite. After all, it belongs to the person who created it. Now imagine that, tomorrow, the heirs of JS Bach came out and made a public statement that they are pulling all of his works out of circulation. No further copies could be made of any works of JS Bach. And they would be totally within their rights to do so.
Not to mention the myriad works that would NOT have been written if current copyright laws had existed in the 18th and 19th centuries. Music, especially, is an art of borrowing, and of building on past listening. Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, for example, would have to have gone through a small army of agents and publishers, and would quite likely have been denied permission outright or sued into oblivion.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2007-08-29 03:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2007-08-29 03:14
And another thing....
Having established a business, he's entitled to bequeath it to his progeny upon his death, and thus two things are ensured: a continuation of a service of value to the community, and, a financial legacy that can be inherited by his children. "Passing down the business from father to son/daughter". Very traditional stuff.
The service of value to community by the composer is ensured whether or not he still has copyright, and actually better serves the community if it is public domain. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is bequeathed to his progeny.
He hasn't "established a business," unless he is personally publishing and distributing the music. If someone else is publishing it, he's effectively either an employee or a contractor. I currently work as a programmer for a software firm. When I die, I am not given anything special. Perhaps they will say something at my funeral. I provided a service, for which I was paid money. Also not receiving a legacy are janitors, telemarketers, engineers, or newscasters. If he is a contractor, the business likewise doesn't go on. Just because I work on contract, doesn't mean my kids, with no programming experience, will suddenly be hired by all my former clients. And if he HAS established a publishing business, THAT business can be bequeathed to his progeny.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
Post Edited (2007-08-29 03:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
