DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: What Is Copyright?: we need a plan, or somthing

Forums > Music Business: What Is Copyright?

we need a plan, or somthing

duck763	Date: August 3, 2003 @ 1:40 PM ok, personally im a little worried about the entire...leagal action thing. i dont think im alone in this. i havent downloaded any mp3's since they said stop, and i hate not having all the new songs... so what should i, we, do? i think the smartest thing would be to go to the musicians themselves. somehow contact them and hope that they are ok with the (i hate this term) piracy of their music. because thats what it is. THEIR music. the lawyers and recording companies, mean nothing if we can get the artists support. i dont quite know where to start with this but maybe one of you does. we should start contacting artists that will back us up on this. artists that will say "im ok with my music being shared for free" Somehow we, as mp3 downloaders, need to create our own case in favor of mp3 sharing. if you are actualy intrested in helping with this, please email me at Duck76367@hotmail.com. people whose entire contribution to the cause is "fuck the law" or "screw the RIAA" need not apply. im looking for people that we WANT to represent us, the mp3 sharing community. people that know somthing of the laws and are willing to spend some time on this.
geetarman	Date: August 3, 2003 @ 5:04 PM The big artists have no say in this matter. If they had any say they would be putting up their own sites and charging $1.00 per song. Case closed. But, big money doesn't want to pay the artist. That's the bigger problem. How do you, as an artist, keep creating great music that cost thousands to millions of dollars. I know what I spent on my last cd and it's thousands and thousands of dollars. Next thing you know everybody revs up their software to start ripping songs into mp3's. And finally they are on the Internet for free. Scenario: I got to a restuarant, a nice restaurant because I've been eating cheap burgers all week. Now, I have the taste of a really good steak. I like the steak because it's better than the hot dogs and burgers I've been eating. I order the best steak on the menu. I eat the steak and it is delicious. Waiter gives me the bill. I am shocked. I tell the waiter that I'm not paying the bill because I've already eaten the steak, which by the way was very tasty. I can't believe they want me to pay for this. It's an outrage. It's criminal. But, by the way what's on tommorow's menu. Question: How do the steaks keep coming in if nobody's paying the bill. Answer: I think you this should be considered: There should be two copyrights. A. P2P Copyright. You own your song but it becomes community property for all comers whom wish to share in your musical efforts. No charge. B. Personal Copyright. A fee of $1.30 will be charged for the downloading and use of this song. $1.00 to the company/artist. $.30 processing fee. A silent tag could be inserted at the beginning of each track as to it's status.
duck763	Date: August 3, 2003 @ 10:48 PM there are always loop holes in contracts and ways out of deals. prince found one. he changed his name to an unpronouncable symbol so it would be impossible to advertise his music. the contract was killed after he made no income for the record compony. there are bound to be other unseen ways, like princes, to get around contracts. and your 2 copyright thing...that makes no sense...you cant own somthing that becomes community property. there would be no reason to put a copyright on somthing that was going to be shared online for free. the problem with your "personal copyright" idea is that apple is already doing somthing like that. i dont know who the money goes to but you can download a song for a dollar. wich is an awful price. lets assume that there are 15 songs on a cd ( i listen to punk music so some of my cd's have up to 28 songs on them) the cd becomes 28 dollars...its disgusting. the most logical thing is to view the distribution of mp3's by kazaa as another buisness. the way for the companies to deal with it is to compete, lower prices increase quality. if the quality of a song is good enuff, and caps are put on p2p transfers then downloading songs that have been ripped off cd's would become too agrivating for most. and the convinience of buying a cd for LESS THAN $10 with SUPERB SOUND QUALITY would out-weigh the desire to just download
geetarman	Date: August 4, 2003 @ 3:57 PM What do you think is going on at this very moment. As we type we are losing money. Our songs are flying by us at the speed of light and we not profiting from that. You are assuming that people would want all 28 of your songs. I would guess if I listened to all 28 of your songs I might buy one. Wouldn't it be better to sell me the one song than scare me away becuase I was forced to buy the entire cd? I would pass. Give the listener a discount for purchasing the entire cd. Excellent. But, I'd rather have the $1.00 than nothing at all. My fee structure is correct. Most people don't want to entire cd. I don't care who you are. I may like one song from the cd, "Next Big Artists, Inc." but I am not going buy the entire cd because all the songs usually sound alike. My existing songs are copyrighted and they are freely traded on P2P. If that is not community property how would you word it. Once it's on the Internet it is Community Property. Example: If I re-mix a song which sounds 100% better than the last version, can I call back all the existing versions online. Not that I know of. Community Property. Honestly, copyrights don't mean a thing until you hit the 50,000 units sold mark. After that you better have your ducks in a row. As you will see below. People want a mixed collection of songs. Sell you cd's at your shows and your web site. Price it so it sells. Here is how I envision the $1.00 per song scenario (which I think is priced too low) Divy up the money: 1. Uncle Sam (he has no sense of humor) 2. Record Company 3. Manager 4. Publishing Company 5. Touring Costs 6. Recording Costs 7. Engineering Costs 8. Future Recording Project Expense 9. Your payday 10. Spouse (this should be number 9) 11. Misc. Remember one thing: Making money and being busy are two different endevours. I am afraid you are dreaming if you think you are going to make money selling a cd for less than $15.00. If you are selling your cd for less you are losing money. If you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves. How many cd's did you sell today. We need something soon." id="57354">Ok. I see your point. But, all legal stuff is worked out before you get to the Net. That's a given. However you want to word it, write it, shake on it, do it. Now, let's say we are in front of our computer waiting for a customer to troll by. Your comment, "there would be no reason to put a copyright on somthing that was going to be shared online for free" is exactly what I am stating! What do you think is going on at this very moment. As we type we are losing money. Our songs are flying by us at the speed of light and we not profiting from that. You are assuming that people would want all 28 of your songs. I would guess if I listened to all 28 of your songs I might buy one. Wouldn't it be better to sell me the one song than scare me away becuase I was forced to buy the entire cd? I would pass. Give the listener a discount for purchasing the entire cd. Excellent. But, I'd rather have the $1.00 than nothing at all. My fee structure is correct. Most people don't want to entire cd. I don't care who you are. I may like one song from the cd, "Next Big Artists, Inc." but I am not going buy the entire cd because all the songs usually sound alike. My existing songs are copyrighted and they are freely traded on P2P. If that is not community property how would you word it. Once it's on the Internet it is Community Property. Example: If I re-mix a song which sounds 100% better than the last version, can I call back all the existing versions online. Not that I know of. Community Property. Honestly, copyrights don't mean a thing until you hit the 50,000 units sold mark. After that you better have your ducks in a row. As you will see below. People want a mixed collection of songs. Sell you cd's at your shows and your web site. Price it so it sells. Here is how I envision the $1.00 per song scenario (which I think is priced too low) Divy up the money: 1. Uncle Sam (he has no sense of humor) 2. Record Company 3. Manager 4. Publishing Company 5. Touring Costs 6. Recording Costs 7. Engineering Costs 8. Future Recording Project Expense 9. Your payday 10. Spouse (this should be number 9) 11. Misc. Remember one thing: Making money and being busy are two different endevours. I am afraid you are dreaming if you think you are going to make money selling a cd for less than $15.00. If you are selling your cd for less you are losing money. If you watch the pennies the dollars will take care of themselves. How many cd's did you sell today. We need something soon.
mracky	Date: August 4, 2003 @ 8:01 PM This is a bone of contention with some artists selling on Apple. They view their album as a 'concept' and their hot song is the loss leader for the listener to hear the entire range of an artists music. Hence, many are dragging their feet. I have expounded my flavor of copyright in other forums which I will re-iterate. Music is free for anyone to listen to and distribute _as long as they do not make money from it_ and pass along the copyright notice with the music. File sharing is perfectly alright as long as money (or similar) does not change hands. However as soon as commercial value is attached to the music, I claim my music to be mine and want licensing, royalties, residuals and all other fees due me. " id="57374">Gman -- "Most people don't want to (own) entire cd...but I am not going buy the entire cd because all the songs usually sound alike." This is a bone of contention with some artists selling on Apple. They view their album as a 'concept' and their hot song is the loss leader for the listener to hear the entire range of an artists music. Hence, many are dragging their feet. I have expounded my flavor of copyright in other forums which I will re-iterate. Music is free for anyone to listen to and distribute _as long as they do not make money from it_ and pass along the copyright notice with the music. File sharing is perfectly alright as long as money (or similar) does not change hands. However as soon as commercial value is attached to the music, I claim my music to be mine and want licensing, royalties, residuals and all other fees due me.
geetarman	Date: August 4, 2003 @ 8:29 PM I do not agree at all. How can you guarantee nobody is making money on our music. It's impossible. You undermine your own arguement. If you get "commercial appeal" then and only then you want money? With your argument you have created the mindset that music if "free" unless its "commercial". The guy next to you is going to give his stuff away because you are asking for money. I still believe you should ask for money for your work. I think it shows respect to yourself and your art. It will make others respect you. I pay for everything to create my music and I can't ask for a small fee? Unless you have some kind of trust fund you are going to die broke. I don't complain when I upgrade my software so I can get a better production, a better sound, or whatever. I don't take a stance that, "It should be free because I say so". Who does this benefit when you want music to be free. Who. Not you. Not me. Not the listener. It benefits nobody. Unless you want it to be free, let it go. I say, Pay to Play! You are right in that the copyright should follow the song. You are right that you should freely copy your music. I would never want to give that up. But, when I burn a cd I have the choice of selling the cd or giving it away. If I keep giving away the cd's for free I will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Money is changing hands. We pay our ISP every month or we get shut off. Alot of money is changing hands to get something for free. The ISP's don't really mind because the long hours trading songs fill's the tills. Why the big rush to get high-speed Internet access? To download quicker and for free. Everyday money is changing hands. Too bad nobody believe's in paying the creator. I would like to know how you fund your recording projects if you don't charge for your work. If you don't see it as business, then it's an expensive hobby. And the government doesn't like hobbies they like business. There's the ole saying, "If she give's you a teet you won't pay for the milk". Something I learned down on the farm regarding cows. " id="57376">Hmmmm. Something is not right here. I think my ISP should be free. Should I just tap into my neighbors router? Money is being shared. It takes thousands of dollars to listen to a "free" song. I do not agree at all. How can you guarantee nobody is making money on our music. It's impossible. You undermine your own arguement. If you get "commercial appeal" then and only then you want money? With your argument you have created the mindset that music if "free" unless its "commercial". The guy next to you is going to give his stuff away because you are asking for money. I still believe you should ask for money for your work. I think it shows respect to yourself and your art. It will make others respect you. I pay for everything to create my music and I can't ask for a small fee? Unless you have some kind of trust fund you are going to die broke. I don't complain when I upgrade my software so I can get a better production, a better sound, or whatever. I don't take a stance that, "It should be free because I say so". Who does this benefit when you want music to be free. Who. Not you. Not me. Not the listener. It benefits nobody. Unless you want it to be free, let it go. I say, Pay to Play! You are right in that the copyright should follow the song. You are right that you should freely copy your music. I would never want to give that up. But, when I burn a cd I have the choice of selling the cd or giving it away. If I keep giving away the cd's for free I will have to rob Peter to pay Paul. Money is changing hands. We pay our ISP every month or we get shut off. Alot of money is changing hands to get something for free. The ISP's don't really mind because the long hours trading songs fill's the tills. Why the big rush to get high-speed Internet access? To download quicker and for free. Everyday money is changing hands. Too bad nobody believe's in paying the creator. I would like to know how you fund your recording projects if you don't charge for your work. If you don't see it as business, then it's an expensive hobby. And the government doesn't like hobbies they like business. There's the ole saying, "If she give's you a teet you won't pay for the milk". Something I learned down on the farm regarding cows.
mracky	Date: August 5, 2003 @ 12:39 PM I'm not saying you can't sell your CD that you press. I am saying that the economic model of the Free Software Foundation can be used for something other than Linux: namely, music recordings. I did music as a business in the 70's. It wasn't P2P, more like P4F (play for food). And yes, today the government would classify my music as a hobby since I have not made a profit in 3 years time. That classification does not diminish the art. Ha! I always heard it: "Why pay for the cow when you get the milk for free?" peace. " id="57457">rebuttal -- ISP: I don't know how an ISP got involved in this. I use my ISP for more than downloading music. It is a service like telephone or natural gas. If they outlawed downloading of music, the ISP is not going out of business. Mindset of free and commercial: Isn't that whats happening now? I didn't create this division, its been around since the advent of the casette tape recorder. Also there's a difference between commercial use and commercial appeal. gman, I thought I was agreeing with you -- you called it 'community property', I called it free. My point was that it is no longer community property if someone picks your mp3 song and uses it in a truck commercial. Or sticks it on a CD compendium which they sell. This violates the "community property" boundaries. That was my meaning by money changing hands. I'm not saying you can't sell your CD that you press. I am saying that the economic model of the Free Software Foundation can be used for something other than Linux: namely, music recordings. I did music as a business in the 70's. It wasn't P2P, more like P4F (play for food). And yes, today the government would classify my music as a hobby since I have not made a profit in 3 years time. That classification does not diminish the art. Ha! I always heard it: "Why pay for the cow when you get the milk for free?" peace.
geetarman	Date: August 6, 2003 @ 12:56 PM ok. I do agree with you, wholeheatedly! I like you cow line better Well, this subject is about beat to death. Peace, with a little on the side
leflaw	Date: August 6, 2003 @ 8:27 PM I want to be paid every time someone thinks about me. Hows that?
geetarman	Date: August 6, 2003 @ 10:33 PM Ok! It's a plan. WE HAVE A PLAN!!!! See you at the next Post...
BenRebel	Date: December 11, 2003 @ 9:14 AM Wow so I guess the poor artist should just get req jobs to eat when the label drops them because of lack of sales.. that MP3's and bootleggs have taken away ..
sinai	Date: December 11, 2003 @ 8:51 PM yep, Ben...exactly. and God bless that too! what kind of bastard wants to scream it's all about the art and then piss and moan when people have a much simpler way of accessing said art. want more money? tour more.
TameasDust	Date: December 12, 2003 @ 9:53 AM Or do what they are trying to do in Canada ... make all internet users in Canada pay for the music that some of them download ... make all the internet rates go up cause the isp's have to pay the music industry for its losses ... and you got the RIAA ...sheesh
TameasDust	Date: December 12, 2003 @ 9:54 AM and Leflaw ... the check is in the mail
peatrap	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 1:31 PM business spends millions of dallors bring new products to market and then have 7.5 years to make their proffet before their product goes public domain. music should be treated as such, if you want to eat keep producing it,s the american way.
woodhead	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 6:56 PM Also in canada they are taxed heavily for blank media there fore allowing them to download music. We are taxed for blank media as well not as heavy as canada but we are and that money goes to the RIAA, and also taxed for the hard ware to burn the cd so in all actuallity the RIAA is making money on that but not sharing with the artist. Artist make most of their money from tours and merch not on cd, a lot of them actualy end up owing the record label money after their first cd, so saying you are hurting the artist is incorrect to a point. When we have copyright reform and the artist get what they deserve then you can say they make money from cd sales. Some artist do make money from cd's but these are the big guys and I mean the madonnas and the kiss's and so forth who have the power to get what they want.
sepidman	Date: December 26, 2003 @ 8:00 PM Personally I believe that the majors have to rethink the way that they deliver the product to the masses and make it so appealing that the average person will not want to worry about downloading "mainstream artists" but rather, will use the net as a tool to seek out the next best thing!! It can be done and I have discussed this possiblity with our mechanical rights society here in Canada.
TameasDust	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 8:39 AM If you want FREE music write it yourself and GIVE IT AWAY ... now don't that make you feel good ... all that WORK you did on your FREE music you ain't gonna get paid for EVER ... Making music is hard work ... you have to love doing it, cause if you didn't it would drive you insane ... although some artists it has already drove there So you want FREE new music ... ok I want FREE food and a new FREE car and I want you to Clean my house, Get me food, Take care of ALL my bills, Promote me and drive me to where I perform, Set up all the instruments and make sure it all sounds GREAT, Produce and Record my music plus create all the cd's so we can give them away to P2P people ... Oh and I want to have FREE access to ANYTHING you have cause turn about is fair play ... don't YOU think.
peatrap	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 10:01 AM (if you want free music write it yourself)ok, if you want a car, build it youself, if you want your teeth fixed, fix them yourself, if you want to eat, grow you own food, this could go on and on, ever job classfication has the same end to the product, you sell it and it belongs to that person who bought it with a limited time protection frame for the developer. copright laws are wrong, they favor just one sector in our society, there called special enterest. artist and music are not special items, there labor and product. You want to speak out for a special group try your local fire and police dept.
peatrap	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 10:01 AM (if you want free music write it yourself)ok, if you want a car, build it youself, if you want your teeth fixed, fix them yourself, if you want to eat, grow you own food, this could go on and on, ever job classfication has the same end to the product, you sell it and it belongs to that person who bought it with a limited time protection frame for the developer. copright laws are wrong, they favor just one sector in our society, there called special enterest. artist and music are not special items, there labor and product. You want to speak out for a special group try your local fire and police dept.
TameasDust	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 12:27 PM Nice double post ... copyright is good when it protects the artist ... bad when it makes the artist no money ... so you want no copyrights ... so you have any good ideas I want them so I CAN MAKE MONEY from them and I won't ever pay you a cent for them
TameasDust	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 12:29 PM THEN I will copyright YOUR idea and then sue you for having even thought of it ... making ME ME ME MO MONEY ... Buwahahahahahahahaha
peatrap	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 2:02 PM No copyright, time limited protection like a patent, no special privileges
peatrap	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 2:32 PM if you know anything about copyright law, you know the last post (then i will copy your idea and sue you for thinking of it)has happened, all you have to do is prove you thought it up first even if you spent thousands to develope it, the first thought counts in the current legal system. as far as a double post, sticky key. i,m not out to put the artist in the poor house, they should make money of their product just like thousands of companies in this country, but their entitlement to a lifetime + of protection is wrong, if this is wright then lets offer this to all for their products, you may have to pay $2000. for a car tire and $500. for shoes, $1000. for a tooth brush ant this be a great world.
TameasDust	Date: December 27, 2003 @ 4:16 PM Yup that is why I live in the woods with bears for company ... keeps the air clean
peatrap	Date: January 4, 2004 @ 11:05 AM heres a riaa killer (earth station 5) real cool
gcnmarcus	Date: January 4, 2004 @ 6:54 PM geetarman, How long do you spend in the studio to get one song "just right", I may not mind your burgers or steaks for that matter but if you are stuck in the studio recording no one will hear you play, you could have used that time to play online LIVE for $2/hour. If you don't like it, you move onto a different project but you won't be tied down to a contract. If the money comes, you continue to play. Pay to play, not to record!!!

Post A Reply
From:	guest	(Icons - Linking)
Post: