OK. Perhaps we could start with the 1985 United States Supreme Court judgment in Dowling v. United States, distinguishing between copyright infringement and theft, and finding that bootleg phono records did not constitute stolen property. It found that “... interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.” The [US] Copyright Act employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: [...] an ‘infringer’ of the copyright. In the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law—certain exclusive rights—is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
Not so much putting words in your mouth as extrapolating your position in a logical fashion. You don't like pirates? What's not to like? Pirates are cool. Instead of "pirating", would you prefer, "copying in such a way as to deprive the artist of his rightful income"? Does that sit better with you?
How many artists 'sample' other artists (ie nick their hard work) rebadge and make a fortune? They can do it, with almost no cost or risk, yet a teeneager cant download a few tunes, cut them, reorder and make their own mix. Go figure
The whole thing doesn't really make much sense. You could argue that maybe music in the form of downloads or CDs is actually advertising for the artist in question - but how is an artist to make a living? Live concert ticket sails, merchandising and such, I suppose, but in the end, you'll just end up with a bunch of Madonna's and U2s in the industry, bland household names. How will lesser-known, quality, bands make their living?
Apparently, the only money to be made by an artist (performing, not writing) is in performance hence Gaga and others give music away
True, for Gaga and for others at the height of the popularity. Harder for acts that haven't made it yet, or for those whose hay days are past.
Thats how they get in the limelight tho isnt it? Youtube channels and those othet new fangled techy things
True but concert promoters will still prefer popular acts to the idea of taking a punt on an unknown (or an old fogey band that are past it).
It's not quite that simple. They do normally have to pay for samples and in the case of The Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony I remember hearing that nearly all the money it made went to Jagger & Richards as it is based on their riff. I also remember Andy Summers saying that Sting got a pile of wodge when some rapper sampled the guitar part on Every Breath You Take. This was ironic at it was Summers' work that was used but it was Sting who was credited as the writer of the song so he was the guy who got paid. Plenty of remixes are done at the behest of the artist, so you can bet they are cut in on the deal somewhere. Where it's all been rather less straight is Jamaica where the wholesale reuse of entire rhythms or horn lines or pretty much anything is commonplace. But you don't expect to be paid for that unless you've got a big gun. It appears that in Jamaica if you get paid for anything at all it's something of an event.
There was a prog on radio 2 this week talkimg about some of that stuff. Turns out its pence, literally, for a sample and its hard to day no. However...when its played on radio, the original artists gets a share of that which is where money is made. But...a full cover needs permission as does an ad etc. and again thats where money is: get Levis to use your song and its a winner
I find this whole thing a complete 'can of worms'. It isn't just music. The computer software industry has had the problem for years and finds ways around it as do the DVD producers but, as with any system, whatever safeguards you put in place there is always someone looking for a way around them. There is a car sales company near where I live called M&S Garage (or something like) And advertises itself as 'Not just any garage...' Are they ripping off M&S? I would say yes, but they've been around a long while and M&S have done nothing about it. An Ex of mine was a graphic designer and made a very good living 'adapting' other peoples' designs. She said 'as long as I change one colour it's a different design!' Me, I thought it was a rip off. It is not a moral world we live in. Oh, and I buy all my music - on CD from charity shops. The artist gets no more than they did when the original purchaser paid - moral or not?
While we are on the subject, the one advertising slogan that really pissed me off (and I like advertising) was Carlsberg's "Probably the best lager in the world". Of course, they would have liked to have said "The best lager in the world" but the Advertising Standards Authority wouldn't have allowed that, as they couldn't prove the claim. So they put in "probably". But that for me doesn't improve matters. There are countless lagers in the world so the weight of probability that Carlsberg's is the best seems to me to be highly unlikely. It is based on nothing but thin air and I don't think it should have been allowed. Now, if they'd said "Possibly the best lager in the world" I wouldn't have had a problem with it. It is possible, not probable. And frankly, for an ad slogan, it would really have done just as well.
Pirated what?............. Any of todays current crop of shite isn't worth pirateing............well, not since the late 80s anyway.
