DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads - Forums: The General Forum: Copywriting...good or bad?

Forums > The General Forum

Copywriting...good or bad?

YaBoyDrew	Date: December 13, 2003 @ 10:58 PM i think copywriting is bad in some ways. i think its bad when someone just redoes someones total song. even if its like a dedication or sumthin, i dont like when sum1 does that. its cooool to perform some1 elses song as a dedication but to redo it to make money from it is just a disrespect. i think its rediculous though when people sue people for taking a lil sumin out their songs. when a lil tiny thing is sampled from a song i mean who really cares. like for an example djz scratch other peoples samples that should just be left alone. a lil piece of a song is nothin to fuss about but i cant understand somethin big cuz thats just pushin it. but mostly i hate when people use other peoples lyrics, thats just not bein original.
YaBoyDrew	Date: December 13, 2003 @ 11:02 PM
mhaygen	Date: December 13, 2003 @ 11:34 PM If you want to donate all of your hard work and creative output to the world, go right ahead, but if you want to be a professional musician/songwriter etc you need a way to pay the bills with your efforts. Sometimes a million dollar idea is nothing more than a riff, a phrase, or a distinct progression of chords. Something that small may have come easy or it may have taken a lifetime to create. If someone steals your efforts with out your consent and makes load of money you are entitled to some financial reimbursement. Why should they benefit solely from your work? Why not give the paycheck from your dayjob to your neighbor? Even great artists throughout history sold their work to pay their bills.
sinai	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 2:13 AM you want to pay the bills? get a goddamn job!!! copyrights for music, hell most all forms of art is a very very bad idea. true art isn't on sale with a free packin dvd. it's ideas, thoughts, and interpretations to the world to be absorbed by the world, not for fucking profit. charge a bare minimum for your time, and call it a day. i have so much more respect for a bum playing a penny whistle on a street corner so he can get some change to eat that night than for any schmuck that wants to charge for cds.
robin101	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 3:01 PM Like any other asset you may own, a song is an asset. Actually, the legal term for a piece of artistic endeavor (as a "song"), is called an: "intellectual asset". Subsequently, taking a piece of someone's song is much like taking one of someone's headlight off of their vehicle. Can you understand the analogy? I'm not attempting to be sarcastic. It's simply that a song (or any part of it), is truly an "asset". It's not a good thing to take another person's assets...it's stealing. V. Thou shalt not steal.
mhaygen	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 8:01 PM Mr Saini1, obviously we have different ideas on creativity and art. I would rather collect a royalty from selling a song for a toyota dealer and spend 80% of my time creating new music than working at Micky D's all day and having only 3-4 hours a day to create. My life actually evolves around music and art because I do make my living doing it. With so much time and heart invested I can create songs to sell, for the public or write just for me. I have choices. I create full time. No I'm not great nor am I filthy rich but I support my family, my home and my hobbies. (without flipping burgers) robin101 sounds like an intelligent person re-read the response. You may never agree but without financial consideration you will not be able to support your art to the level it sounds like you want to. By the way post everything you write to the site so if you have anything good we can use it for profit. See you at the McD drive thru.
Jennae	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 8:12 PM Robin101 produces records for a living and with over 50 albulms to his credit I think he has been through this area of music before. He speaks from experience. I personally think anyone that feel the need to use someone elses song is weak. I can maybe see remixes and collabs even covers, when given proper permission, but as to rip off someones song in general because you can't be creative enough to create your own is just weak. I agree with mhaygen as well now who's going to take my happymeal order
sinai	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 10:45 PM i make more money than you...
sinai	Date: December 14, 2003 @ 10:47 PM if you're doing it for profit, you approach it as such, and it compromises everything you do.
mhaygen	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 12:08 AM Its not about the money, its about the art isn't it! Would your integrity and song writing change if someone offered you money for it as is? Its the same music with the benefit of income. I'm not going to argue with you, if you don't want to profit from your material its cool with me, but don't assume that everyone else sells their integrity when they are able to profit from their work. Think of anyone of your favorite artists then crucify them for making a living from their art. If you only respect "true artists" that don't try to make money then you must have an extremely short list. I do it for the love of music, and because it is what I want to do every minute of the day if I could. The money is just a bonus ( a necessary bonus)
Jennae	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 2:40 AM
pog	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 5:15 AM Of course it's important to have copyright. It like police... we all hate em sometimes, but thats only cos it's human nature to do the wrong thing, and without em, we have total anarchy. I practiced for a long, long time (about 8 years of my 16 years as a guitarist) where my only income was my music, and unemployment benefits (which is about enough to feed a medium sized dog). Now Im working in a different industry so that I can afford to go back to my music with a stronger plan... like running/owning a studio. After all that, how do you think I'm gonna feel if someone were to use one of my riffs to get famous, and then they don't pay me royalties? It's a bruital reality that in order to exist, you need money.... to be a professional musician, and exist, you need more money. I agree that a true musician, sometimes works for free... but only to a point.
TameasDust	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 9:02 AM copyright - good gives money back to the creator so they can get better stuff to make more music and such keeps lawyers in business makes the music industry money driven and everybody likes money and playing music is WORK and not a 8 hour JOB either. even when you don't feel like doing it , you have to do it. callin in sick is not an option so copyright is a good thing in that it pays the artist for all their pains and late nights.
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 9:47 AM "Its not about the money, its about the art isn't it!" Sorry. But there is no glory in being a "starving" artist. Being an active music publisher in the industry doesn't hinder my ability to be artistic. I've sat on a rock in the desert on a dose of acid playing flamenco guitar for the sky. I'll take my BMI royalty check now, please.
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 9:51 AM "...its cooool to perform some1 elses song as a dedication but to redo it to make money from it is just a disrespect." No disrespect to me if you want to cover a Larree song, release it on your next album, place the track in a movie, and sell 800 million copies... No disrespect at all... unless you do not pay me! Now THAT would be very disrespectful!
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 10:03 AM And how would I be disrespectful if I recorded a cover and released it? How on Earth do you feel it would be disrespectful if I recorded some old song and made some money for an old songwriter who hasn't seen a royalty check for years? PLEASE explain this to me.
Larree	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 11:39 AM "i have so much more respect for a bum playing a penny whistle on a street corner so he can get some change to eat that night than for any schmuck that wants to charge for cds." What about the bum playing for change AND selling CDs to the people passing by who might like to buy one? I once bought a CD from a bum playing string dulcimer out in front of a Grateful Dead concert. Gave the bum some change, too. Get a clue!
mhaygen	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 5:00 PM So Larree, For copyright or against, I'm unclear after your posts they seem to go both ways. I mean No Disrespect, here's a quarter for clarification.
GeneHilbert	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 5:06 PM Good.............
mhaygen	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 5:07 PM Also my "Its not about the money, its about the art isn't it!" quote was sarcasm MH
robin101	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 7:01 PM If someone was into art (meaning music), for art's sake, they wouldn't be playing their tracks for anyone...because it wouldnt matter to them.
Jazzmary2U	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 11:41 PM Face it.. copyright laws are WAYY broken. I would gladly pay the artist for a song he/she created.. but to pay their grandchildren, or an estate lawyer, or a corporation for a song?.. that's not right. I think the time limit should be shorter and once you are gone, "your" creation should be back to public domain.
sinai	Date: December 15, 2003 @ 11:47 PM that would mean you great nephew wouldnt be able to get that beachhouse in Guam, mary, and NOBODY wants that too happen!!!
woodhead	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:06 AM but to pay their grandchildren, or an estate lawyer, or a corporation for a song?.. that's not right. You go girl I agree with you totaly, and copy right law does need to be reformed. When the artist dies it goes to public domain would be a good start.
Jennae	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 1:57 AM I don't know, if I ever recorded a song or had it copyrighted I wouldn't mind seeing my son getting the rewards. Maybe not as far as his son per say, but reform is good too.
babykilla1	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 8:15 AM All I know is that copyrights are extended for too long, are imposed on too much, and taken to an idiotic extreme. Lets say I'm a major music star!!! So I make a song right. Its copyrighted Its protected til the day I die and THEN 70 years or somethin. HUH? what what the hell. What are those 70 years for? They arent for me, I am dead. They arent for my family either. Its for the music label who leased me out.
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 9:15 AM Life plus 70 isn't long enough. I think the copyright should be life plus 100 years at least! " What are those 70 years for? They arent for me, I am dead. They arent for my family either. Its for the music label who leased me out." Bullshit. It is for your heirs, fool. Wanna leave yo kids NOTHING? Let's say you die a poor broke worthless piece of sh*t songwriter who never made it. Let's say your kids are going through your trash getting ready to burn it and wipe your sorry-assed do-nothing existance out of their memories because you never took care of them, when they stumble upon your crappy demo tape. Now let's say they listen to your tape and realize that you were a genius, ahead of your time. Would you be happy if your shitty demo was public domain, and the kids you neglected during your life couldn't capitalize off of your junk? I am 100% in support of the current copyright laws, and have been actively lobying my representatives to extend the coverage to 100 years post death. It would behoove ALL OF YOU to take some music business classes. You are all in desperate need of some education.
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:37 AM Well, maybe not ALL of you, but this topic gets me going because so many of my peers are ridiculously ignorant of the biz. I take an international music publishing and copyright law class at UCLA every 3-5 years just to refresh my knowledge and to keep up on changes related to new technologies. I just finished an 18 month intensive personal study of filmmaking at UCLA, too. The only person who can screw me in this business is me. I can read a record contract just like an entertainment attorney. And that doesn't get in the way of my ability to be very creative. So, I simply do not buy anyone's lame excuses for NOT knowing what's up!
mhaygen	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:45 AM Alright Larree the man! It is so true. If the rest of you would like to leave your songs or catalog of songs that you are collecting on to charity, I'm sure you can (Easy) Since its part of your assetts/your estate, you can do whatever you like if you plan ahead. It sounds like when you die, most of you would like the government or your neighbors or total strangers to pillage through your home and take everything you have while your wife and kids are at the funeral. Then when they arrive home they have nothing. They will be fending for themselves. I would rather plan ahead and make sure my family, children and/or grandchildren are taken care of or at least helped out. You never know what the future will bring. Could be college or a major sickness with loads of medical expenses. Also the amount you collect will change with the popularity of the song, it may disappear entirely for years. If I write a hit song when I'm 30 and die at 31, I want my wife to collect everything that is owed to us, even if its a remake 20 years later. I beleive that the people against copyrighting are probably not collecting anything. You will change your mind when you finally sell something.
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 11:21 AM Very cool mhaygen & Larree. I second that (as does most of the world of songwriters). I guess some people would rather give up all of their worldly possessions after they croak instead of leaving it for their families. Hmmm...let me think. Who wants my guitars after I die? Any takers?
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 12:15 PM "I beleive that the people against copyrighting are probably not collecting anything. You will change your mind when you finally sell something." HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No doubt!
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 12:17 PM Hey Robin! I'm always looking for a nice guitar to call MINE!
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 12:28 PM Cool, I'd hate to see them go to public domain.
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 12:59 PM HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
GeneHilbert	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 2:01 PM Oh no.. not public domain .... we're here for you .... So ... How are you feeling? OK .... are you sure? I'll send my ph# and address just so you'll have it at the time of crisis ... So don't you worry ...... One less thing for you to think about. Everything is going to be just fine.
robin101	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 3:03 PM Thanks Gene, I feel much better now. I've just taken my medications. I also have a bunch of microphones and keyboards I need to give away. I'll mail them as soon as possible. Now that I think about it, I also have 4 kids that I'm not sure what to do with either. Man, you've sure taken the burden off of my shoulders. I appreciate it. Hope you enjoy everything. ...and don't worry Larree, I'm sure Gene will divide the stuff up between you.
Larree	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 4:47 PM Fair enough!
BenRebel	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 9:38 PM The copywrite law needs to be re-written but for others reasons I see like "Work -for-hire" which is WAY more DAMaging than who you leave it to when you die .. BUt why is it that out of all the other types of ways to make money why should Music treated as a no worth value .. so maybe familys that own large companyies that they (created) when they pass they should just go to public domain..right? There no longer alive why should the family have it? NO this is the MUSIC BUSINESS you are really a "company" record companyies are not in the business of MAKING music there in the business to SELL CD's RECORDs DVD's (UNITS) YOU are in the business to MAKE music.. this value belongs to you .. don't copywrite your works and let sopmeone other than your family enjoy it.. NO the MORE important thing to talk about is WORK FOR HIRE the other is a no brainer
GeneHilbert	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 10:38 PM Absolutely I'm a man of honor .......... well ... kinda
mhaygen	Date: December 16, 2003 @ 11:32 PM What are your views on work for hire?
GeneHilbert	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 1:59 AM I see work for hire just like any contractual agreement. If all parties agree on a set price for a tune/project/job with or without use stipulations. Honor the agreement - if you feel under compensated later, you should have made that call and renegotiated the deal before you agreed or signed. This is provided the original terms of the agreement were honored by all parties and no fraud or intentional misrepresentation has occurred.
mhaygen	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 8:44 AM So you're saying NO Re-negotiating after the fact? That sounds OK with me, I would honor a legal good faith contract like that no matter how popular the song got or how much money the other party made. It might hurt a little but A deals a deal. I didn't realize that this was a major problem though. Is it? (sincere question not sarcasm)
Larree	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 10:00 AM If I am producing an 80 million dollar motion picture and I HIRE a composer to score my film, that composer's music becomes the property of my production and the work gets copyrighted as a work-for-hire composition. Now, what's the problem? Oh yeah. Songwriters. Well, if a publishing company HIRES you as a staff writer, or you are under a time contract as a featured songwriter, the works you create during that period of time are works-for-hire. Questions?
Larree	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 10:30 AM If I'm Sony music and I sign you to a publishing contract, and you THINK you are gonna own the songs you write while you were with Sony after Sony gives you the boot, you THINK too hard.
robin101	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 10:30 AM I've been a salaried staff writer for the publishing end of a major label, and you are correct. The only thing I can add is that no matter who publishes your song, they only own 100% of the publishing. You, being the songwriter however, ALWAYS retain 100% of the songwiting. In other words, your song is not sold outright. For each penny the publisher makes, you make the same penny. The only time I've heard differently, is when a song is bought by a large advertising firm. I have been led to believe that they sometimes buy your song outright (in it's entirty), in order to avoid paying residuals. Personally, I've never had to deal with that sort of thing, but what a decision that must be...
woodhead	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 11:48 AM am 100% in support of the current copyright laws, and have been actively lobying my representatives to extend the coverage to 100 years post death. It would behoove ALL OF YOU to take some music business classes. You are all in desperate need of some education. Copyright is good as long as the artist hold the copy right and can decide how it is used. A work for hire the artist loses the copy right and the work for hire becomes the property of the person that hired you (RIAA) lables for ex. For more info visit WWW.boycott-riaa.com I thnik some of you may be surprised how the lables do business. And yes the lables who push for the 70 yrs to 100 yrs are the ones who want to control what we hear and see
woodhead	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 12:05 PM here is an article for you to read about the music industry biz policy. http://dir.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
robin101	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 12:18 PM Again, very cool woodhead. I also believe the problem is simply a non-understanding of the nature of the business. I didn't feel like arguing the point, but you've got it covered...well.
BenRebel	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 1:28 PM Finally people who are willing to talk about Work-for-hire I have been shouting kicking and screaming for almost 5 years when they did the quarterback sneek and made changes to it.. As a Songwriter and publisher I never lose my copyright I've always maintained at least 1/2 my publishing but in the being I still was fooled by how deep Work-for-hire go's it not new it had been in Contracts for as long as I have been getting them .. it was bad then its worse now think about how bad it can get ..Labels can start saying that the artist never owned the songs they write while with them.. we (labels)pay for the studio time and there means to write and record we hired them to write these songs they (the writers)do not own anything.
BenRebel	Date: December 17, 2003 @ 1:33 PM Thanks Wood and Robin... the work for hire issue if not worked out now will destroy the music of the future
robin101	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 8:22 AM I'm not so sure that "copyright" is the true issue here. Your song (according to the 1981 laws), is basically copywritten the moment it is written). Quite possibly the problem may be: "who owns the publishing of the song", and for how long. As long as a record label owns your publishing forever (that is, without a reversion clause), they can and will do what they want with it. The only good thing abou that is that if they cover your song in the future, you will still be entitled to your half of the royalties. Granted we may get screwed on the mechanical royalty end, but BMI (or ASCAP...), will always see to it that we are payed for airplay. That, you can count on.
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 9:28 AM I OBVIOUSLY need to post this again, re: work for hire. If I am producing an 80 million dollar motion picture and I HIRE a composer to score my film, that composer's music becomes the property of my production and the work gets copyrighted as a work-for-hire composition. Now, what's the problem? Oh yeah. Songwriters. Well, if a publishing company HIRES you as a staff writer, or you are under a time contract as a featured songwriter, the works you create during that period of time are works-for-hire. Questions?
woodhead	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 9:44 AM composer's music becomes the property of my production and the work gets copyrighted as a work-for-hire composition This is the problem with work for hire and why copyright laws need to re written, in work for hire the creator of the music loses ALL copyrights and does not even own the song any more some one who did not create the music owns it. It should be, the creator of the score keeps all copy right and sanctions the movie production or label or who ever else to use the score, but NOT to basicly sign it over as a work for hire, this is crap and wrong period.
robin101	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 10:09 AM If I've read that correctly: "the creator of the music loses ALL copyrights and does not even own the song any more some one who did not create the music owns it." This is not true. You always retain 100% of the writing in a work for hire, while the publisher owns 100% of the publishing half. You see, a song is worth: "200%". That is to say there exists 100% writing...and 100% publishing. As I have stated, the only exception to this is if someone bought out your song - lock, stock and barrel. If you think about the song in terms of being worth 200%, it will start making more sense. Questions?
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 11:23 AM In the film business there is too much money at stake. Of course the composer makes their share of the writer royalties (ASCAP, BMI, soundtrack album sales, etc.) if the film gets distributed, and maybe a share of the publishing IF it's in his or her contract. But only top guns like John Williams get those deals. The publisher/film production maintains ALL control over the composition after the work is complete. The work is MADE-FOR-HIRE. Licensing songs for films is a little different. The publisher and master owner each (if they are different) get paid a license fee for usage, but they maintain their ownership of the masters and songs. Once again, they make their standard royalties if the film gets distributed. Main title themes that are written specifically for a film fall in between. Naturally, the film companies needs to control their main title themes.
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 11:26 AM And Robin is right. Think 200%! You own 100% and your publisher owns 200%!
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 11:28 AM I mean, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEANN! Writer=100%; Publisher=100%!
robin101	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 11:33 AM exactly!
BenRebel	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 1:11 PM ok maybe I'm missing the piont.. oh what I believe CAN be the future... a Recording Artist that while signed to a record Labelsigns a contract with the WORK FOR HIRE cluse he will NOT own 100%
BenRebel	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 1:14 PM lol sorry .. He will not own 100% Writers or Publishing and I the only one that sees this as a problem???
woodhead	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:18 PM no your are not alone Ben, I agree with you totaly. Sign to a major label and they own the tune. IF you dont belive me ask the 300 some odd ppl that are being sued by labels for copyright infringment. If you see the subpeonas it is not emenem who is suing the ppl. Labels do not as of today let the artist keep the song it belongs to the lable or at least is the way I understand it and I may be wrong. the lables own the song, recording, publishing, they own it. Leflaw could you clarify this?
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:38 PM If you are LUCKY enough to break into the industry and get signed, the label will own 100% of the publishing on the songs you write whilst under contract. Not only that, if it's a rookie deal, you will most likely have to sign away the songs from your demos that got you your deal. And that is the only reason on Earth that it is worth the label's time and money to take a chance on an unknown artist. Naturally, once you establish a track record for yourself you will gain negotiating power.
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:40 PM If you want in the game, you have to ante up. Better to be an insider playing the game than to be an outsider bitching about the copyright laws!
woodhead	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:41 PM but you still lost your songs, this is what has to be stopped, why should the asrtist lose their song at all
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:45 PM BenRebel Date: December 19, 2003 @ 1:11 PM ok maybe I'm missing the piont.. oh what I believe CAN be the future... a Recording Artist that while signed to a record Labelsigns a contract with the WORK FOR HIRE cluse he will NOT own 100% BenRebel Date: December 19, 2003 @ 1:14 PM lol sorry .. He will not own 100% Writers or Publishing and I the only one that sees this as a problem??? The writer (or writers) always owns 100% of the writer's share. But the publisher owns 100% of the song and has control of the copyright. Really, in theory, all work is made for hire unless you're a hobbyist.
woodhead	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 2:48 PM The game is changing faster than the insiders can keep up, so that may not be a good place to be.
robin101	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 3:39 PM No! As a staff writer, I've always kept 100%of my writing, while the label owns 100% of the publishing. I have the BMI stubbs to prove it. What is so difficult to understand about that. I don't get it. That is not an unusual staff-writer contractual agreement. It is the norm. Questions?
Larree	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 4:38 PM I don't get it either.
BenRebel	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 5:47 PM I have to say this because it really is a true statement .. LABELS are not out to get you they'll give you a contract thats in "there best interest" you read the contract and give it back to them in "your best interest" ITS BUSINESS you will have to come to some sort of terms your both happy with some give and take..you may lose a little on your side to get something you really want.. If you walk in there no legal team and sign a contract thats whack is it the labels fault? or your lack of knowledge of the business also I had to give up 50% publishing on my deals .. with the majors but never 100% also for some small indi I kept 100% publishing put I also know of friends that thought they had to give up all there publishing .. or for the extra money gave up publishing but in all cases it was the lack of business since and the lack of knowledge of the artist and there representatives " id="74885">Larree said:If you are LUCKY enough to break into the industry and get signed, the label will own 100% of the publishing on the songs you write whilst under contract. I have to disagree with I will say this: If you are LUCKY enough to break into the industry and get signed, and you "Sign" a contract giving the label ownership of 100% of the publishing on the songs you write whilst under contract then 1 its your fault. I have to say this because it really is a true statement .. LABELS are not out to get you they'll give you a contract thats in "there best interest" you read the contract and give it back to them in "your best interest" ITS BUSINESS you will have to come to some sort of terms your both happy with some give and take..you may lose a little on your side to get something you really want.. If you walk in there no legal team and sign a contract thats whack is it the labels fault? or your lack of knowledge of the business also I had to give up 50% publishing on my deals .. with the majors but never 100% also for some small indi I kept 100% publishing put I also know of friends that thought they had to give up all there publishing .. or for the extra money gave up publishing but in all cases it was the lack of business since and the lack of knowledge of the artist and there representatives
BenRebel	Date: December 19, 2003 @ 5:54 PM and I also have to say I have never been a staff writer so i have no knowledge of how thats done.. I have only had artist and production deals only so thats the only thing i can speak on...
Larree	Date: December 20, 2003 @ 1:12 AM "If you walk in there with no legal team and sign a contract thats whack is it the labels fault, or your lack of knowledge of the business?" RIGHT ON! This question sums it all up!
robin101	Date: December 20, 2003 @ 3:17 PM The decision is really based on what's in it for you, such as salary, benefits, perks, years of contract ect... ...and yes, there is ALWAYS "attorney review". With any contract, it is standard procedure (at least from what I know of). That is, it is perfectly acceptable (and expected), to respond to a contractual agreement offer with something like (if not exact): "Sounds great! I'll get back to you as soon as my attorney reviews it". All I'm saying that if you sign a contract without legal review, you could be in for big problems.
pog	Date: December 20, 2003 @ 5:10 PM To sell out to a large enterprise doesn't mean you have to sell them your soul. You just need to negotiate somewhat better when compiling an agreement with them. It's like anything in life. When you're 18 y's old, how much negotiation skill do you have with a potential employer, as opposed to a 40 y.o. You are allowed to tell them the contract is not good enough, and shop around. Hell you could prolly even handle every aspect of your bands business, provided they want your business bad enough. They only act like they aren't interested if they think you'll fall for it.
robin101	Date: December 21, 2003 @ 5:42 AM Not so fast...not necessarily accurate. If your trusted attorney explains a deal, and feels it's worthwhile, it most likely is...as long as you agree. (I said: "trusted attorney").
leflaw	Date: December 21, 2003 @ 10:40 PM Laree, etc: "Really, in theory, all work is made for hire unless you're a hobbyist. " What???? I took Copyright classes, and have litigated copyright cases as well as trademark, and on occasion some patent issues for 25 years. Among scolars, lawyers, musicians, law professors, computer scientists, and many more people, it it a widely held belief that intellectual property laws are screwed up because of thoughtless multiple idotic amendments to difficult concepts by content monopolies throughout the 20th century, without regard to the "idea/expression" dichotomy or the tangible fixation requirement. Thats why they call it "intellectual". I don't think it is possible to have an inkling of what copyright really is and why its screwed up, unless you have taken college level metaphysics or are a Jesuit or studied some other learned philosophical discipline,or have read treatises such as Nimmer. You can't build an atom bomb just because you memorized E=Mc2. Music courses on copyright are generally shallow. Read Lessica Litman 's "Digital Copyright". Read MAI v. Peak (1993). Read Nimmer. Read Greg Aharonian 's Patent news service. Read the "Look and Feel" computer copyright cases of the 1980's. Read anything. Copyright is anti-art. I will debate this publically if you want. But I am wrestling with the concept of why should I waste my time fixing "my" intellectual property into a tangible medium for you for free, when you expect to be paid everytime you fart an altered chord. Expand your thinking. Copyright law is every bit as complicated as music. You wouldn't start pontificating on music after taking Music 101, now would you? As to other current copyright issues, the argument of the day is whether copyright ought to bow to first and fourth amendments, and Article III of the US constitution; whether the treaties negotiated by WIPO are illegal extensionjs of executive privilege; whether computers and data ought to be the subject of patent, not copyright. If you aren't prepared to discuss this, then you are not at all familiar with copyright issues. I don't count knowing how to fill out form PA or SR as constituting expertise in copyright matters. And if you elevate copyright monopoly rights over individual freedoms - woe be unto you.
leflaw	Date: December 21, 2003 @ 10:42 PM .....and you are in big trouble if sign an entertainmnet contract without review BY AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT CONFLICTS. I heard that there was one in New York once, but he died.
leflaw	Date: December 21, 2003 @ 10:50 PM http://news.dmusic.com/article/9617#comments
robin101	Date: December 21, 2003 @ 10:52 PM I am obviously in complete agreement, but remember Leflaw: "A lawyer's time and advice are the tools of his trade". (just kidding around, but it's true). I too must reiterate Leflaw's statement: ".....and you are in big trouble if sign an entertainmnet contract without review BY AN ATTORNEY WITHOUT CONFLICTS".
ChillinBuzz	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 3:05 AM what did he die of? ? ?
leflaw	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 3:39 AM embarrassment.
ChillinBuzz	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 3:50 AM the day i see someone die of embarrassment is when im old, grey and pissing my grandad pants in the middle of town. with no hair. zimmerframe. and a crooked smile on my face.
robin101	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 10:10 AM What?
leflaw	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 11:57 AM Chillin, that was a bit obtuse, I have to agree.
peatrap	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 6:50 PM copyright laws are wrong,there should be laws like patents that cover artis, after seven and a half years what your selling becomes public domain. This is the same rules that all companies work under that bring new products to market.Entertainment is no different, either keep producing are go hungry just like everbody else that works eight to five.
woodhead	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 7:13 PM copyright laws are wrong,there should be laws like patents that cover artis, after seven and a half years what your selling becomes public domain I agree peatrap it should be this way, is a patent is null and void so should a copyright to an extent. Yea public domain for personal use but with the copyright going back to the person who wrote it, so if a corporation wants to use the song for a comercial the artist gets a majority of the cash, and the lable the released it gets say 10% maybe even less give them the same deal they gave the artist, 50 for every twenty bucks, yea that would work.
peatrap	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 10:02 PM right on woodhead
BenRebel	Date: December 22, 2003 @ 10:06 PM ok so I guess I'm nuts... I disagree with Peatrap and woodhead.... lets look at it from my eyes right or wrong.. I'm a songwriter yes and i'm a producer but I totally look at this as a business (just as record labels whom i believe is behind this mind control of copyright) as a business I write and produce a product (music) that I sell to other companyies or consumers I am a business much like pepsi LUGS M&M's except my product has the form of reuse this reuse is how i make and can make my profit copyright secures my profit.. for me and my family for my life and profit for my familys lifes 70 years after I'm gone.. those against my not agree but I do not care I write for the love of MUSIC and the love for my FAMILY.. go to pepsi and say that you wish to take there profit making company and give it away because it publis domain now...
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 12:24 AM the form of reuse this reuse is how i make and can make my profit copyright secures my profit.. for me and my family for my life and profit for my familys liefs 70 years after I'm gone.. those against my not agree but I do not care I write for the love of MUSIC and the love for my FAMILY the copyright going back to the person who wrote it, so if a corporation wants to use the song for a commercial the artist gets a majority of the cash, and the label the released it gets say 10 Ben this is basically what I was saying. the artist retains the copy right after 7.5 yrs completely, yea for personal use, public domain I can down load it, get it from a Friend what ever with no legal consequences, I cant be sued for it by a record company that is not part of this country. And the artist retains the right for commercial use. IN a movie, commercial what ever. I admit some of these idea's are crazy. But if you hold the copy right to a song that is 10 years old and no one listens to it or very few do, why shouldn't it go in to public domain of some sort. Is it alright to sue music fans. these are the ppl that you are trying to sell music to and well if the RIAA has it's way it will control all the music for all time and be able to sue a 12 yr old kid for simply downloading or recording a song, this has already happened also a 70 yr old retired man, and a grandma. Yea copy right is important to a point but can get out of control to fast and alienate the very ppl that you are trying to get to listen to you. This is the reason I do not support RIAA artist any more, and until the copyright laws change for the better of all I will stay a supporter of indie artist. When it comes to the labels and there artist well oh well. Oh and 70 years after you are gone, well the copy right may not be worth much, and if the RIAA has it they will store it in a vault somewhere will no one will be able to get to it, unless they feel like it, Not even your family. This is the reason on our site we have the download feature turned on, for all to listen and if you like it take it and listen to it any where, and feel free to pass it around to your friends, for the big guys if you do some research have said "you make most of your money from tours and merch, not really from record sales" this is for RIAA acts that is.
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 7:04 AM "Oh and 70 years after you are gone, well the copy right may not be worth much, and if the RIAA has it they will store it in a vault somewhere will no one will be able to get to it, unless they feel like it, Not even your family." This statement is such a crock! HAHAHA Anyway, my little sister went to high school with a kid whose grandpa wrote I'll Be Home For Christmas. I believe that song paid for the kid's COLLEGE EDUCTAION. I'm lobbying for life+100 years.
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 7:06 AM And of course I can't forking SPELL education! HAHAHAHAHA
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 7:22 AM Actually, the real problem is not the current copyright law. Our problem is the over-saturation of talented writers and musicians. Because there are way too many of us, the labels will always control the show. Hey. If you don't like the deal, someone else will. And they will be just as good as you. How many artists get signed every year? How many get to release albums? How many actually sell albums? How many artists get nominated for best new artist at the grammys every year? Who won five years ago? Ten years ago? Are they still working, or are they working at your local guitar store? ...And how many people do you know who play music? Face it. Our real enemy is not the record companies or the copyright laws. Our enemy is not NARAS or the RIAA. Our real enemy is the musical instrument manufacturing and retailing community that has used it's corporate power to sell the dream of music industry success to all of us. Forget about the record companies. we should be going after Guitar Center. I can't drive by a forking Guitar Center anymore without stopping and spending money. Soon there will be as many Guitar Centers as there are Starbucks, McDonalds, and 7/11's!
leflaw	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 7:34 AM "Forget about the record companies. we should be going after Guitar Center. I can't drive by a forking Guitar Center anymore without stopping and spending money. Soon there will be as many Guitar Centers as there are Starbucks, McDonalds, and 7/11's" You can't be serious. Most people are capable of writing some sort of literature ( poems, email, letters, stories, anything realy) but the book publishing industry doesn't act like the record industry.
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:15 AM Yes. I am serious. I get the shakes when I drive by the Guitar Center without stopping and going inside. I am able to get out without spending money sometimes. But I can't just... drive by.
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:18 AM "...the book publishing industry doesn't act like the record industry." You have to be a pretty damned good author to get laid... but any dumb-assed cheap shot guitarist...
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:29 AM ya see, the "rock stah" dream is a drug, man. A drug for the star and the fan. As I said in my previous post, any dumb-assed cheap shot guitarist can score on a good night! Now, I was into music before I "knew" what music even was. I was listening to classical, jazz, and soundtracks when most other kids were listening to the Beatles. I was way more into "Dawn Raid on Fort Knox" from the James Bond Goldfinger album than any Beatles or Monkees song... Not that I didn't like that music, too... because I did... The point is, having played in rock bands from age 13 on, I have seen every dork on Earth who got into music for the wrong reasons. And those dorks have multiplied like rabbits!
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:32 AM ...and the musical instrument manufacturers have taken advantage of the weak by selling that "rock stah dream drug" to the masses of dorks who can't get laid! Can you say "class action?"
leflaw	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:45 AM I actually fell in love with Shirley Bassey for several years myself
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 8:51 AM HAHAHA! You know what I'm talkin' about! Right on! Happy Holidays!
BenRebel	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 10:05 AM - WoodHead to that piont I agree with you people should be able to hear your work and my statements where really meant for companyies that wish to use your work or companies that sell you work not limited to radio ... do you really believe tho that Elvis or the beatles works will become public domain?
woodhead	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 10:48 AM With the Current status ofthe RIAA, Elvis no but the beatles,well that is to be seen simply for they hold exclusive rights to their material. All I am statimg is when a tune hits the seven year mark or ten or 15 it should be allowed for individuals to use. The fair use for an individual with out having to be worried about being sued. If the tune is no longer in circulation like so many are, and you can find some one who has it and willing to let you have it, copy it as long as it is for non comercial use should be OK. the labels will always control the show. This is stil to be determined, in the world we live in now, how can an industry control the show when they are so far behind tech and still trying to force a biz modle down our throats that is out dated. With the advent of computers and the internet the Labels have to catch up first.
withering	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 11:21 AM mainstream. When the copyright finally has expired the work will most probably be long forgotten. If an artist's work are not profitable, the "heirs" to that work will most likely do nothing about it, but they will still sit on the copyright. Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone! And I really do not see why intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property ? After all, my kids aren't going to benefit much from the tons and tons of programming knowledge stuck inside my dead brain, are they? :upsidedown:" id="75549">Woody, that's a ! All we need now is some multi-billion entities to lobby it into our governments... In the music scene I'm part of, quality music (at least for lunatics like me ) perish every day, because they were released in such small quantities ( mainstream. When the copyright finally has expired the work will most probably be long forgotten. If an artist's work are not profitable, the "heirs" to that work will most likely do nothing about it, but they will still sit on the copyright. Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone! And I really do not see why intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property ? After all, my kids aren't going to benefit much from the tons and tons of programming knowledge stuck inside my dead brain, are they?
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 3:22 PM "All I am stating is when a tune hits the seven year mark or ten or 15 it should be allowed for individuals to use." Well, in theory, anyone can use anyone elses music after it's released. If you want to record and release your favorite Beatles song you go to the Harry Fox agancy and pay your license fee! Oh wait. You don't feel the copyright owner deserves to make money. Are you a communist?
Larree	Date: December 23, 2003 @ 3:24 PM "Why do you want to give your kids something they haven't worked for? That's never good for anyone!" Why do you want to trample on the rights of the individual to do whatever he or she wants to do with his or her own property?

~~Previous 100~~

Page: [ 1 2 ]

Next 100

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