Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

The issue has never been that people don't make money. The issue has always been whether they think they're making enough money. Whether we're talking about artists or the industry itself, the escalation of copyright silliness is about people wanting more than they're already getting. In the case of artists, I can sympathize somewhat. In the case of the industry, I don't. Because the industry is completely incapable of saying, as a body, enough is enough.

[Domenique]

The issue has never been that people don't make money. The issue has always been whether they think they're making enough money. Whether we're talking about artists or the industry itself, the escalation of copyright silliness is about people wanting more than they're already getting. In the case of artists, I can sympathize somewhat. In the case of the industry, I don't. Because the industry is completely incapable of saying, as a body, enough is enough.

I roughly skimmed through this topic (lots of text) but I didn't see anything about the fact that artists usually get way more money from gigs and that they use albums more as promotional, because they usually get very little from sales themselves. I mean Jimi Hendrix used to get $50k a gig, I'm sure that artists that get $10k for a gig should be happy enough (considering that bands and artists usually play gigs a lot).

[GlyphGryph]

I'm not sure if it's a fair thing to say typical software code is less unique than typical song -- actual coding is a hell of a lot more involved than a lot of music playing, from what I've seen. 'tis an aside, though, heh.

Music Playing != code, and doesn't grant you copyrights anyway. Music Playing == Running a Script. Music Composition == Coding. Though if you're on a label, that usually doesn't give you the copyright either.

[Pnx]

No, as far as I know you get copyright on a recording of you playing, or singing, unless you've signed away that copyright. This applies even if it's a cover.

In fact, I'd like to point out that even if you own an original piece of music, if I've got my facts straight (which I'm not entirely sure I do), you don't actually have the ability to prevent people from performing covers of your work for profit... They're just obliged to pay a mandatory fixed fee to the copyright office which should hopefully make it to the artist.

[Aklyon]

When was it fixed?

[palsch]

I roughly skimmed through this topic (lots of text) but I didn't see anything about the fact that artists usually get way more money from gigs and that they use albums more as promotional, because they usually get very little from sales themselves. I mean Jimi Hendrix used to get $50k a gig, I'm sure that artists that get $10k for a gig should be happy enough (considering that bands and artists usually play gigs a lot).

This has not generally been the case and is, in a way, part of the current problem.

Touring has traditionally been a loss leader and a way to promote new albums. A tour that broke even was considered a good one, economically speaking. Usually costs were offset against bands' royalties along with other advertising and promotion costs.

The problems come when this traditional state of affairs remains true for smaller bands. Touring only works as an earner when you have a critical mass of existing fans who are willing to fork out the high ticket costs. You might be able to get 1,000 record sales through internet/social media promotion. Getting 1,000 fans to come to your gigs is harder, especially when they are distributed across the country or even the globe. And even then you aren't getting near the scale you need to turn a notable profit.

This Guardian article is only partially related, but there are a few comments on the realities of small scale touring at the bottom. They line up a lot with my friends who have been in bands or promotions.

[GlyphGryph]

No, as far as I know you get copyright on a recording of you playing, or singing, unless you've signed away that copyright. This applies even if it's a cover.

In fact, I'd like to point out that even if you own an original piece of music, if I've got my facts straight (which I'm not entirely sure I do), you don't actually have the ability to prevent people from performing covers of your work for profit... They're just obliged to pay a mandatory fixed fee to the copyright office which should hopefully make it to the artist.

That's... not quite how it works. But it's complicated. Someone who makes a video of them playing a video game, for example a Lets Play, also owns the copyrights to that "run", if you will, as well. The actual work, the recording, NOT the song itself. They have no rights to the song, which is what I thought we were discussing here. And you STILL own the full copyright to the song you composed but people can sometimes, under some circumstances, if they or someone else has paid for the privilege, ignore that. But they've ALWAYS got to pay, and there's a limited number of things you can use it for.

And the cover/fixed fee thing isn't quite right, but its... complicated. Really, stupidly complicated. And is pretty much an explicit exception in the law agreed upon  by the music industry so doesn't really apply to our analogy here.

Much like how every time you buy a blank CD you pay a fee to the major music labels, the laws here are seldom intuitive or straightforward, and are more a matter of practicality than idealism.

[DarkWolfXV]

Your work is copyrighted at materialization of it, and if you can prove it, for example, you recorded something in your home and have every raw track, pre mastering, or something you probably will win case or whatever, unless you signed rights away.
Probably artists get more from touring and merch than albums, lets say, Cannibal Corpse sells 5,000 copies of their new album(Actually they sell probably more, but just an example), lets say is 10 dollars, its 50,000 dollars for it all, while they probably get more per gig.
We didnt broke the music industry, well, at least not for what music i care for, death metal has been mainly underground scene, and we have labels which dont rip us off as much as major labels, and give a bit more of fuck about artists.
Also, i do have a question i didnt find anwser to.
What if i started selling songs on sites and if i had bank account the cash would flow in, would i have to pay taxes or would they pay "automatically", or no taxes, or does the website (Cdbaby, for example) pay tax?
(In my country at some point of year you must do tax report or something, probably like elsewhere in the world)

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Sure is hilarious how the people who go out of their way to defend the integrity [profits] of the media industry usually aren't artists, musicians, or filmmakers; yet these are the people who happen to make the most money off the entire shebang. Have your cake and eat it too, ey?

[Domenique]

I roughly skimmed through this topic (lots of text) but I didn't see anything about the fact that artists usually get way more money from gigs and that they use albums more as promotional, because they usually get very little from sales themselves. I mean Jimi Hendrix used to get $50k a gig, I'm sure that artists that get $10k for a gig should be happy enough (considering that bands and artists usually play gigs a lot).

This has not generally been the case and is, in a way, part of the current problem.

Touring has traditionally been a loss leader and a way to promote new albums. A tour that broke even was considered a good one, economically speaking. Usually costs were offset against bands' royalties along with other advertising and promotion costs.

The problems come when this traditional state of affairs remains true for smaller bands. Touring only works as an earner when you have a critical mass of existing fans who are willing to fork out the high ticket costs. You might be able to get 1,000 record sales through internet/social media promotion. Getting 1,000 fans to come to your gigs is harder, especially when they are distributed across the country or even the globe. And even then you aren't getting near the scale you need to turn a notable profit.

This Guardian article is only partially related, but there are a few comments on the realities of small scale touring at the bottom. They line up a lot with my friends who have been in bands or promotions.

A lot of my favourite bands, both local and global, got their first money from music by playing gigs in small venues (clubs, restauraunts etc.), where they were pre-paid for the night. Touring is another thing, of course, because you can't be sure how much you will make, and I think that if you're small, you shouldn't tour at all, unless some festival or something. Touring is for big bands, or atleast known bands.