Message
Re: [Logic_Cafe] Re: Lawsuits (was M-Audio 88Pro
2005-01-05 by GAmoore@aol.com
In a message dated 1/5/05 1:58:35 AM, dennis@... writes:
> I don't think he advocated borrowing from someone else without their
> permission.
That is exactly what you are advocating when you say the Vervepipe
should not have been prosecuted for borrowing the Stones property
without their permission.
Please don't change my words. I have always said that the Vervepipe were wrong, and that the Stones desserved compensation (or whoever wrote the string arrangement of their song who was clearly not them - that unknown guy was the one who was actually ripped off). My only point was that the Verve Pipe added a melody, lyrics, and a made a song out of it, and it doesn't seem fair in my view that they get nothing at all for their creativity and intellectual property rights.
I think you and several others have made your point quite clear (multiple times) that the Stones desserve 100% of all royalties as some sort of punitive measure. I understand that view. If I was in one of the biggest and richest bands in the world I would have been a bit more magnanamous and asked for them to properly credit the sample, perhaps recall unsold copies and have a sticker placed on them about the source of the sample, and demanded half of their earnings. I think that would have sent a message. If I was very successful I wouldn't try to crush a new band with their only hit song. It just seems unnecessarily greedy. But that is my opinion and I don't ask anyone else agree with it.
> and thats why I felt the Vervepipe should get >some< compensation for
> thier creative endeavors. That doesn't mean its ok to steal samples.
They did steal samples and they got fined for it.
Fine. They should pay. The only difference in our views is in how much they should pay. What if I A wrote the music for Bittersweet Symphony and B wrote the Lyrics. A steals the sample and doesn't tell B. Should B not get any money for his lyrics?
> Jokes are written by human beings - creative and clever ones - and
> comedians make livings just as muscians do.
And the comedians who get paid to use the jokes pay them as do the
people who publish the books with the jokes in them.
Many jokes are put into email lists and sent around the world. If people arbitarily sent MP3's around I don't think you would be happy. One could argue that writing good jokes takes the same amount of talent as being a great musician - a different kind of talent, but not something many people can do.
> So do chefs. Check out www.foodnetwork.com for thousands of recipes
> from tv shows. New recipes are created all the time by people who went
> to chef school and spent years praticing their craft and using their
> creativity.
And they get money for publishing recipes. That's why they publish
them. And if there were not intellectual property rights to protect
those publications they probably would not publish them.
Actually some recipes are copyrighted. But we don't pay royalties for their use.
> Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag for mp3's just as its easy to
> send email jokes and email recipes, people share music now.
You have already said that and it does not work. People do not get
paid for forwarding a Joke or a Recipe so there simply is no cut of any
royalty to be sent to the original author.
Comedians get paid for live shows, tv appearances, and DVD's. If someone copied thier jokes to text and emailed it, its equivalent to someone ripping an MP3 and forwarding it. I imagine that there are quite a few CD's you can't find on the Itunes music store and can only be purchased in an AIFF/CD format. So in the same way, there is no particular cut of MP3 forwarding, but it might cut into sales of the legitimate product.
> So the business model has changed, and people need to adapt to make
> money.
Adapt how? By letting the Vervepipe screw them at will?
Its been a fact for several years, that 'stealing' MP3's is a world wide phenomenan. Its doubtful that its going to ever be curtailed. With Ipods and computer audio systems, the entire world of music is changed. Like it or not. You can argue until you are blue in the face, but the reality remains that people steal music and they listen to music in different forms. Its a changing business world. and its necessary for music creators to adapt - as Prince and Bowie and Peter Gabriel and others are trying to do.
When synths came out, the musicians unions tried to prevent thier use - these guys worked hard to become good musicians then suddenly the model for making music changed. And the ones who kept complaining about the new technology didn't make it, while the ones who adapted, did.