Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

When did YOU last BUY music?


Lu Ruello

Recommended Posts

Saturday, I bought the Rolling Stones Sweet Summer Hyde Park Live CD & DVD set. I'm rather "old school" as I only ever buy music on CD's, though I always transfer it onto my iPod. The Day they stop making CD's and make music download only, is the day that I stop buying it. I feel that paying for music and not having something physical to keep for ever is unthinkable. To me the loss of full size (vinyl) album covers was bad enough.

 

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Week before last.

 

Saw a band at the local Blues Club.

They were excellent and I bought two of their self-produced CDs after their set.

One was all-electric, self-penned, stuff and the other was all acoustic, 90% self-penned, stuff.

Give those who earn it the encouragement they deserve by buying their work!

 

I like listening to music through a decent Hi-Fi set-up so I buy hard copy items whether thay means vinyl or CD.

My system includes turntable, cassette deck, CD player and I can plug-in my MP3 player if I so choose.

 

P.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you missed the point rct. Free streaming of full albums that are put up through places like tunecore and end up on Rdio.com ISN'T STEALING!! But somehow artists are being used and paid crap whilst the streaming corps make a bucketload! Now THAT makes me mad.

 

It isn't stealing if you don't take it.

 

I go to places that pay the artist whatever it is the artist is getting. Since I know how much that is, I would rather pay them SOMETHING than go to "free" streaming sites, which you started this with.

 

I do get the point. I don't use those serivices. If you are so mad at the companies, don't patronize them.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of weeks ago I got good cheap s/h copies of 'Lee Ritenour Alive in L.A.' and 'R.M.S. Live At The Venue' via Amazon. Over the weekend I ordered 'T-Bone Walker - Texas 1966' and 'B.B.King Live At The BBC' which I'm looking forward to; the B.B. King contains tracks from his brilliant 1978 London concert which I saw. [thumbup]

 

But I know downloaders who get it all for free, only thing is it's usually MP3. Nothing too wrong with MP3 but someone played me the MP3 of 'Dixie Chicken' album by Little Feat and I could very easily tell the difference - not nearly as good, lacking much of the dynamics. I'm grateful for anything really (especially my hearing!) but generally I'm a CD/LP/cassette/Wav.file guy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I bought is the new Motorhead album a couple of weeks ago, I do buy music often, Vinyl and CD.

 

I only listen to MP3s using headphones (the earbuds that came with my iPhone 5 are incredible by the way)

 

While I can play my iPhone wirelessly in my car I still prefer to play CDs for better sound.

 

I just can't stand the quality of streaming audio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I bought is the new Motorhead album a couple of weeks ago, I do buy music often, Vinyl and CD.

 

I only listen to MP3s using headphones (the earbuds that came with my iPhone 5 are incredible by the way)

 

While I can play my iPhone wirelessly in my car I still prefer to play CDs for better sound.

 

I just can't stand the quality of streaming audio.

 

 

I agree,, streaming audio sucks. Other than background noise while I am doing something else I can think of no other practical use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't stealing if you don't take it.

 

I go to places that pay the artist whatever it is the artist is getting. Since I know how much that is, I would rather pay them SOMETHING than go to "free" streaming sites, which you started this with.

 

I do get the point. I don't use those serivices. If you are so mad at the companies, don't patronize them.

 

rct

 

Regardless of whether I patronize them as a musician, who has somehow allowed tunecore to stream my music to these sites, the public will continue to use them. Only way to patronize these sites is to pay for a subscription to their Premium services, which I do not. If you can stand a little advertising every 20 mins or so, voila! UNLIMITED FREE MUSIC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of "stealing" music:

 

http://www.techdirt....351569781.shtml

 

 

CB

 

Interesting. From my viewpoint, if anyone wants to use my music to make money in their business, I expect them to pay for that right. And APRA , ASCAP etc are just doing their job. If anyone thinks its OK to form a covers band and play someone else's songs free of charge, I call that stealing. The least the band can do is to report their playlists to APRA ASCAP etc. so the writers of those songs get some royalty for their efforts. I recall walking through the Queen Victoria Building, a landmark heritage building in Sydney, one morning, to hear our song Never Knew the Way blaring out of some shopkeepers speakers! I approached the sales assistant and asked where they got their music mix from, to which she replied "the boss makes his own mix tapes" or similar. Great! Now pay your dues!

 

Cheers,

 

Lu

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm with Lu on this one. To each his/her own, but there is a big difference to me between having a listener enjoy my songs enough to want to play them and having a band play my music and make money from it.

 

Take my songs and listen for free, share and I'll be happy. I am with Ani DiFranco, "I hope some day some woman hears my music and it helps her with her day." Heck, she encourages bootlegs.

 

Now, if Katy Perry took one of my songs and made it famous...I don't want someone ELSE to make a profit from my songs. Lets assume Katy Perry took my song and made it famous but she gave me credit, asked permission and said all proceeds would go to charity...heck, I'd be thrilled to hear my song on the radio. Profits be damned. If she took credit for the song and made money off it I'd be angry, more for the credit than the money. MY song is part of MY soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I'm with Lu on this one. To each his/her own, but there is a big difference to me between having a listener enjoy my songs enough to want to play them and having a band play my music and make money from it.

 

Take my songs and listen for free, share and I'll be happy. I am with Ani DiFranco, "I hope some day some woman hears my music and it helps her with her day." Heck, she encourages bootlegs.

 

Now, if Katy Perry took one of my songs and made it famous...I don't want someone ELSE to make a profit from my songs. Lets assume Katy Perry took my song and made it famous but she gave me credit, asked permission and said all proceeds would go to charity...heck, I'd be thrilled to hear my song on the radio. Profits be damned. If she took credit for the song and made money off it I'd be angry, more for the credit than the money. MY song is part of MY soul.

 

" MY song is part of MY soul." Exactly Izzy! And therefore it should be respected for being that. If songwriters don't work to protect their copyright, who will? Sure, listen for free and enjoy! But any business that uses that stream to profit from your work should pay a decent performance royalty. Good on Ani DiFranco for encouraging bootlegs. Its her music and she can do whatever she wants with it. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether I patronize them as a musician, who has somehow allowed tunecore to stream my music to these sites, the public will continue to use them. Only way to patronize these sites is to pay for a subscription to their Premium services, which I do not. If you can stand a little advertising every 20 mins or so, voila! UNLIMITED FREE MUSIC!

 

"who has somehow allowed tunecore to stream my music to these sites".

 

So someone is streaming your music without paying you? Am I getting this right or am I off in old guy land not understanding?

 

Advertising is payment. Is the payment ending up with the musicians, or are you saying the streaming site does not pay for the music it streams?

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" MY song is part of MY soul." Exactly Izzy! And therefore it should be respected for being that. If songwriters don't work to protect their copyright, who will? Sure, listen for free and enjoy! But any business that uses that stream to profit from your work should pay a decent performance royalty. Good on Ani DiFranco for encouraging bootlegs. Its her music and she can do whatever she wants with it. :)

 

My songs are copyrighten, but not so I can make money off them or protect potential financial gain. Its about my NAME being attached to MY work. Money be damned! Unless its enough to pay off my house or student loans. [flapper]

 

I see where you're coming from, but doesn't it feel good to hear one of your songs at a coffee shop even if you get nothing for it? How does a business that's playing your song profit from your song? Seriously, I don't get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I'm saying is unpopular among some, but I tend to go along with Izzy's comments.

 

The whole "copyright" thing and "ownership of intellectual property" is how one might make a case I've made my living for nearly 50 years. So don't figure I'm "anti-creative" or "anti-creators." For me it's been words and photography, along with a foray into choreography of martial arts movements.

 

Thing is, we're undergoing a change in all of our "creative endeavors" that may only be matched by the invention of sound recordings, and is, in fact, more of a change even than "radio."

 

Once something is on the Internet, the copyright owner doesn't necessarily own performance rights. For example, I've had some of my photos discovered all over the place. Not even, as Izzy notes, with my name attached. That's even included some use by "competing media."

 

Thing is, once upon a time if you bought an object that you could put into a machine and have music come out, you could assume you purchased the right to listen to it. Then radio came out and so did a batch of law questioning whether ownership of a radio playing entertainment from broadcast was "free" for anyone playing it - or just anyone playing it in their own home with no other audience. In your business? There were lawsuits over that, and they tended to bring up even questions of ownership of "music" if you purchased a "recording."

 

Then there was an attempt late in the 20th Century (in the U.S. the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), similar laws elsewhere) to update copyright on intellectual property that attempted to take copyright "protection" into an era of "high technology."

 

The problem is that first, it's incredibly complex and one might make a valid case that the spoken word and/or a sung song is on the edge of copyright infringement. The second problem is that the internet is functionally exempt.

 

A third problem has to do with definitions of doggone near anything. For example, a computer program is a "literary work." The breadth of such definitions are pretty interesting because is a complex spreadsheet a "program" or merely an instruction set to a program or... sheesh ...is the instruction set itself a literary work?

 

A fourth problem arises as "we" put more and more things on the internet. Who "owns" the material we put "up" on the web?

 

You can play some games with it, but let's assume that 1,000 youtube contributing musicians each play "I can't get no satisfaction," and each of those videos are viewed 1,000 times. Do you figure the Rolling Stones will see a penny? Yet, on the other side, a saloon has to pay off ASCAP and/or BMI (or other national equivalent) simply to have talk radio on throughout the day on the assumption that some "licensed material" might be played on the radio and that might be listened to by a saloon customer?

 

Worse...

 

You think you "own" creative material you created from scratch? Or material you thought you "purchased" but only "licensed?"

 

Good luck. Once it's on the web, you likely cannot practically halt its distribution. Or, conversely, as the "cloud" takes over all of our device storage, you have functionally lost ownership if you lose cloud access.

 

All this made sense if you purchased a Carter Family record in 1930 and it broke, it would be quite reasonable to buy another. You didn't expect a "backup" or replacement. Now? You have nothing tangible if you buy simply an 'iTune' type version; technically you've paid for what? Only the right to listen to that piece in private if nobody else is listening and only as long as you physically control the storage of the digital material. That's not just music, it's photography, text of various sorts, etc.

 

There's a big mess here awaiting a cleanup that's unlikely for probably another cupla generations of technology when people begin to realize they own absolutely nothing but the means to do one's own "recording" and "publishing," and an interface to their storage. But those words will continue to change in meanings under law. We'll also see a lotta litigation on everything from "human interface" to what we supposedly own and what we only are renting that could go away at any time - even when we're the creator - and whether the owner of the "cloud" has as many rights to material as the creator - or more.

 

We're already seeing some of this stuff. And it's but the tip of the iceberg of changing technology. Fact is, the tech outruns the law; the law then is a matter largely of gamesmanship since traditional legal concepts designed for tangible items are used in attempts to have "good law" for that which has no tangible reality until it hits our eyes or ears.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My songs are copyrighten, but not so I can make money off them or protect potential financial gain. Its about my NAME being attached to MY work. Money be damned! Unless its enough to pay off my house or student loans. [flapper]

 

I see where you're coming from, but doesn't it feel good to hear one of your songs at a coffee shop even if you get nothing for it? How does a business that's playing your song profit from your song? Seriously, I don't get that.

 

Hey it was a unique and lifting experience for sure! Think about every fashion/grocery whatever store you walk into and guess what ? They got background music playing tailored to their buying public. The psychology of having the right music in your store to lift sales is proven Izzy. We are so bombarded with music in every media except print, that we just accept it's there!

 

Money? What's that?? LOL..If you're not doing it for music sake, don't bother. Money be damned but gee we all wont knock it back ! lol

 

have a good one Izzy!

 

Cheers,

 

Lu :)

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what I'm saying is unpopular among some, but I tend to go along with Izzy's comments.

 

The whole "copyright" thing and "ownership of intellectual property" is how one might make a case I've made my living for nearly 50 years. So don't figure I'm "anti-creative" or "anti-creators." For me it's been words and photography, along with a foray into choreography of martial arts movements.

 

Thing is, we're undergoing a change in all of our "creative endeavors" that may only be matched by the invention of sound recordings, and is, in fact, more of a change even than "radio."

 

Once something is on the Internet, the copyright owner doesn't necessarily own performance rights. For example, I've had some of my photos discovered all over the place. Not even, as Izzy notes, with my name attached. That's even included some use by "competing media."

 

Thing is, once upon a time if you bought an object that you could put into a machine and have music come out, you could assume you purchased the right to listen to it. Then radio came out and so did a batch of law questioning whether ownership of a radio playing entertainment from broadcast was "free" for anyone playing it - or just anyone playing it in their own home with no other audience. In your business? There were lawsuits over that, and they tended to bring up even questions of ownership of "music" if you purchased a "recording."

 

Then there was an attempt late in the 20th Century (in the U.S. the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), similar laws elsewhere) to update copyright on intellectual property that attempted to take copyright "protection" into an era of "high technology."

 

The problem is that first, it's incredibly complex and one might make a valid case that the spoken word and/or a sung song is on the edge of copyright infringement. The second problem is that the internet is functionally exempt.

 

A third problem has to do with definitions of doggone near anything. For example, a computer program is a "literary work." The breadth of such definitions are pretty interesting because is a complex spreadsheet a "program" or merely an instruction set to a program or... sheesh ...is the instruction set itself a literary work?

 

A fourth problem arises as "we" put more and more things on the internet. Who "owns" the material we put "up" on the web?

 

You can play some games with it, but let's assume that 1,000 youtube contributing musicians each play "I can't get no satisfaction," and each of those videos are viewed 1,000 times. Do you figure the Rolling Stones will see a penny? Yet, on the other side, a saloon has to pay off ASCAP and/or BMI (or other national equivalent) simply to have talk radio on throughout the day on the assumption that some "licensed material" might be played on the radio and that might be listened to by a saloon customer?

 

Worse...

 

You think you "own" creative material you created from scratch? Or material you thought you "purchased" but only "licensed?"

 

Good luck. Once it's on the web, you likely cannot practically halt its distribution. Or, conversely, as the "cloud" takes over all of our device storage, you have functionally lost ownership if you lose cloud access.

 

All this made sense if you purchased a Carter Family record in 1930 and it broke, it would be quite reasonable to buy another. You didn't expect a "backup" or replacement. Now? You have nothing tangible if you buy simply an 'iTune' type version; technically you've paid for what? Only the right to listen to that piece in private if nobody else is listening and only as long as you physically control the storage of the digital material. That's not just music, it's photography, text of various sorts, etc.

 

There's a big mess here awaiting a cleanup that's unlikely for probably another cupla generations of technology when people begin to realize they own absolutely nothing but the means to do one's own "recording" and "publishing," and an interface to their storage. But those words will continue to change in meanings under law. We'll also see a lotta litigation on everything from "human interface" to what we supposedly own and what we only are renting that could go away at any time - even when we're the creator - and whether the owner of the "cloud" has as many rights to material as the creator - or more.

 

We're already seeing some of this stuff. And it's but the tip of the iceberg of changing technology. Fact is, the tech outruns the law; the law then is a matter largely of gamesmanship since traditional legal concepts designed for tangible items are used in attempts to have "good law" for that which has no tangible reality until it hits our eyes or ears.

 

m

 

Hi milod,

 

Thanks for the interesting observations you put forth about music today and the future. Talk about losing it once it's up...somehow my ITunes album and others I know, have been digitally stripped from either soundcloud or jango airplay, and subsequently offered as free downloads on a few pay subscriber sites!! How do you think that makes me feel? PLAIN OUTRIGHT THIEVERY, which I reported to PPCA and am awaiting a reply..zzzzzzz.

 

"You can play some games with it, but let's assume that 1,000 youtube contributing musicians each play "I can't get no satisfaction," and each of those videos are viewed 1,000 times. Do you figure the Rolling Stones will see a penny?

 

When you put up a video on Youtube, you are certifying it is your own work and that you own it, music images the LOT! Now, seeing those 1,000 musos don't own "I can't get no satisfaction", they also wont get any royalties for their video! In order to receive them , you will be pre-inspected for copyright violations by Youtube and then allowed to monetize your video. So yeah they will get their cover version up but that's it!

 

Cheers,

 

Lu :)

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of weeks ago I got good cheap s/h copies of 'Lee Ritenour Alive in L.A.' and 'R.M.S. Live At The Venue' via Amazon. Over the weekend I ordered 'T-Bone Walker - Texas 1966' and 'B.B.King Live At The BBC' which I'm looking forward to; the B.B. King contains tracks from his brilliant 1978 London concert which I saw. [thumbup]

 

But I know downloaders who get it all for free, only thing is it's usually MP3. Nothing too wrong with MP3 but someone played me the MP3 of 'Dixie Chicken' album by Little Feat and I could very easily tell the difference - not nearly as good, lacking much of the dynamics. I'm grateful for anything really (especially my hearing!) but generally I'm a CD/LP/cassette/Wav.file guy!

 

 

Spot on with the mp3 quality being low. I reckon wavs are the lowest quality that SHOULD be sold now online or Cd's. We all have plenty of HDD space right?

 

Cheers,

 

Lu :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about losing it once it's up...somehow my ITunes album and others I know, have been digitally stripped from either soundcloud or jango airplay, and subsequently offered as free downloads on a few pay subscriber sites!! How do you think that makes me feel? PLAIN OUTRIGHT THIEVERY, which I reported to PPCA and am awaiting a reply..zzzzzzz.

 

#1. Does iTunes know this? Because they are your digital distributor, and they don't want other distributors profiting from digital copies of material that they basically have the digital distribution rights, because you pay them, iTunes, directly or through your publishing. So they are compensated for distributing your work and compensating you.

 

#2. What is a "free download on a few pay subscriber sites"??? Is it free, or is it pay?

 

#3. Who is PPCA? Why aren't you talking to your publishing or to iTunes?

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My songs are copyrighten, but not so I can make money off them or protect potential financial gain. Its about my NAME being attached to MY work. Money be damned! Unless its enough to pay off my house or student loans. [flapper]

 

I see where you're coming from, but doesn't it feel good to hear one of your songs at a coffee shop even if you get nothing for it? How does a business that's playing your song profit from your song? Seriously, I don't get that.

 

Because people come in there and buy coffee, and your music is playing.

 

If you don't pursue your rights to compensation in the small venue that is making very little, you could have a very difficult time pursuing your right to compensation for your work when Toyota uses it in a commercial and sells a few thousand cars. If you get a giggle out of hearing your song on the teevee that's just great. But if you don't pursue your right to compensation for your work, you are what is called in the business, a chump. If they chump you, they can, and will try, to chump everyone, including me.

 

If someone is using your music without paying you, they for dam sure ain't crediting you. Your copyright is useless in that case.

 

That is what is wrong with musicians not learning and understanding what copyright is about.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the problem isn't with musicians not knowing about their copyright "rights," the problem is a combination of today's means of "distribution" one way or another, and also with the so-called licensing agencies, ASCAP and BMI in the U.S. and their national equivalents elsewhere.

 

Even current copyright law essentially is pre-internet. However, the perspectives involved are after recording capabilities were made inexpensive through various sorts of tape - even before recording music or videos was common on computers of various sorts.

 

I don't have answers to "protection" of anyone's creative endeavors, whether my words and photography or anyone's music.

 

Before the DMCA, the current copyright law in the U.S., and its equivalent elsewhere, I did a lot of copyright work. I've done more than a bit since.

 

Bottom line is that one can seek to mark one's work with copyright symbols of the appropriate sort, but functionally there's no way to entirely protect the work, especially if the 'thief' is not making money on it.

 

Secondly, if one of us wrote a fine piece of music, put it on the Internet with appropriate copyright notice (which at that point has nothing to do with YouTube but more with establishment of rights for future potential litigation), and someone else "used" the material, for remuneration or not, all that might be done legally would be an order restraining further use of that material. The exception would be if the piece had been formally registered for copyright with payment, etc. In that latter case, the copyright owner then has the potential in litigation to request monetary damages.

 

Now, in the case of ASCAP and BMI and other nations' equivalents, the question whether Izzy (for example) would get a nickel is rather interesting because there is no mode of determining the use of her material in the public performance by others. Period. In fact, even if she objected to the Rolling Stones using her piece only in concert, she would have some rather extensive litigation to get a restraining order.

 

ASCAP and BMI do require blanket licenses from various venues, but (regardless of some instances), functionally do not in any case distribute money to their registered artists for live performance. In fact, only "publishing" or "broadcast instances" would be covered in whether or not Izzy gets a nickel. Given that it's entirely likely that even 100 radio broadcasts with Izzy's piece would not be caught in their proprietary (secret) sampling method that rewards the publisher as well as artist(s) or author.

 

I'd call it a matter where practice trumps theory - and there likely should be a complete overhaul of the system given current technology and questions of security on Internet sites - and questions whether it is legal to "close down" an individual's cloud given that such "cloud space" contains intellectual material not owned by the cloud operator. In short, we've a potential application of property rights on digital properties that may be rather interesting.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Secondly, if one of us wrote a fine piece of music, put it on the Internet with appropriate copyright notice (which at that point has nothing to do with YouTube but more with establishment of rights for future potential litigation), and someone else "used" the material, for remuneration or not, all that might be done legally would be an order restraining further use of that material. The exception would be if the piece had been formally registered for copyright with payment, etc. In that latter case, the copyright owner then has the potential in litigation to request monetary damages.

 

For the intents and purposes of discussing "copyright protection", there is no other discussion outside of registered, copyrighted work. Putting copyright notice on something that isn't copyrighted is the same as copyrighting something and not pursuing whatever compensation you are entitled to, it is useless. Copyright notice without copyright is the same as without copyright.

 

Now, in the case of ASCAP and BMI and other nations' equivalents, the question whether Izzy (for example) would get a nickel is rather interesting because there is no mode of determining the use of her material in the public performance by others. Period. In fact, even if she objected to the Rolling Stones using her piece only in concert, she would have some rather extensive litigation to get a restraining order.

 

The Rolling Stones are no strangers to legal actions regarding music, and would not cover her song, my song, or your song, without requesting and paying for performance rights. There would be no need for litigation, they don't want it anymore than anyone else does, and they know the ropes.

 

ASCAP and BMI do require blanket licenses from various venues, but (regardless of some instances), functionally do not in any case distribute money to their registered artists for live performance. In fact, only "publishing" or "broadcast instances" would be covered in whether or not Izzy gets a nickel. Given that it's entirely likely that even 100 radio broadcasts with Izzy's piece would not be caught in their proprietary (secret) sampling method that rewards the publisher as well as artist(s) or author.

 

It isn't a secret, it is freely available, you can search this website and find it, I wrote most of that formula here once before, when you claimed it was a mystery.

 

Copyright protection is only as good as copyright protection participation. If people think that putting copyright notice on something they hang on the internet is as good as copyrighting it they are sadly mistaken. If "getting credit" is all someone wants for the use of their music then copyright is utterly useless to them as well, because copyright protects the owner of the material from others earning money using that material without compensation to the owner of the material.

 

Everyone works, everyone gets paid, and nobody here would continue going to work if their boss just stopped paying them.

 

Why don't people, musicians even, understand that about music?

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RCT...

 

IMHO - and I've worked with "intellectual property" my whole life - you're talking the theory and I'm talking the reality.

 

Yes, some relative "big guys" get paid. Yes, at the higher levels lawsuits and fear of them "work."

 

The reality is that live venues pay a blanket annual fee and if "my" song were to be played in 1,000 saloons the same night is that I wouldn't get a nickel. There's no playlist from live venues at large.

 

So, from ASCAP: "GENERAL LICENSING ALLOCATION

Fees collected from non-broadcast, non-surveyed licensees (bars, hotels, restaurants and the like) are applied to broadcast feature performances on radio and all performances on television, which serve as a proxy for distribution purposes."

 

That means air play only is supposedly measured. And that's by sampling.

 

"Where a census survey is impractical, we conduct a sample survey designed to be a statistically accurate representation of performances in a medium. All times of the day, all days of the year, every region of the country and all types and sizes of stations are represented in the ASCAP sample surveys. The greater the fee a licensee pays us, the more often that licensee is sampled. For example, a radio station that pays ASCAP $20,000 in license fees is sampled twice as often as a station that pays us $10,000."

 

Radio is not handled by a complete survey, but only through sampling, according to ASCAP.

 

The sampling method itself is proprietary.

 

That's just music.

 

Other copyrighted material runs the gamut from visual arts to "literary" forms that even include computer programs of various sorts; and we've seen "look and feel" become an issue.

 

Functionally if there's no "big money" involved, the copyright likely will end up the property of the biggest wallet. I've even had some of my photography used by competing media - and although I got them to stop, litigation wasn't likely until one might have a case for punitive damages enough to pay the lawyers and put a buck in one's own pocket.

 

ASCAP and BMI "assume" any live venue will have licensed music. If the venue disagrees, it's taken to court and functionally is guilty until proven innocent. Who has more money, the venue or the big guys? I was even hit when I had a radio in my private magazine editor's office. The harassment was pretty nasty even when I invited them in to see that I was not making money from "their" music by any of their own criteria.

 

Also, one must register material with one of those "licensing" firms and become a member. Etc., etc., etc.

 

Bottom line is that it's all about the money, and if there's not enough involved to pay the lawyers to pursue your claims virtually to the Supreme Court, that's about what your copyright is worth.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...