Apple Logic Pro /LogicExpress Discussion

On Jan 5, 2005, at 7:29 PM, GAmoore@... wrote:

>
>  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.

It is perfectly fair.  The reason they got nothing for their 
intellectual property was because in the process of publishing it they 
tried to use the intellectual property of somebody else for nothing.  
It is the most beautifully symmetrical bit of fairness I can imagine.  
They got done to them the exact thing they were trying to do to someone 
else.


>  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.

We only made it clear to those with a sense of morality.

> 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.

The wealth or lack thereof of the plaintiffs is not supposed to matter. 
  The law is supposed to apply equally to all.  Thieves are not supposed 
to be rewarded for stealing.  There is nothing complicated about 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?

I don't know but I also do not know if that is what happened in fact I 
doubt very much that is what happened.  Furthermore for publishing 
purposes of that album the Vervepipe is probably a single entity under 
the law.  Also when you sign publishing documents you sign an affidavit 
that the material you are publishing is yours free and clear and that 
nobody can make any claims against it.  The Vervepipe most certainly 
presented such a document to the European publishing authority and 
clearly it was done in bad faith since in fact they were not the sole 
authors of the material and some of contributing authors (the Stones) 
had not been notified.  This in itself renders the Vervepipe's claim to 
royalties null and void.  The Stones did not screw them, they screwed 
themselves.

>
> >  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.

People do arbitrarily send mp3s around and people who make the music 
don't like it.  So?

> 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?  Like I keep telling you people publish these things in magazines 
or books ore whatever or comedians pay for them as original material 
and if they are really good the general public picks them up and starts 
retelling them.  The people who write them get their bit from the 
initial publication.  That is the way it happens that is the way it is 
expected to happen, that is the way it always has happened and that is 
the way it always will.  No one is upset about it.  The people who pass 
them on DO NOT GET A PROFIT FOR IT SO THERE IS NOTHING FOR THEM TO PASS 
ON TO THE AUTHOR.

It is not a comparable situation to the VervePipe ripping off the 
stones.


> > 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.

That is because like I have said about 5 times now the people who 
publish them make their money on the sale of the publication they 
appear in.  They do not expect any other compensation and that is 
reasonable for the simple reason that policing their usage would be 
impossible.


> > 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.

No it is not comparable.  They did the show and they got paid.  It is 
one thing to see Steve Martin tell a joke, it is another thing 
altogether to hear me repeat it.  It is like the difference between 
hearing the stones play Jumping Jack Flash and having me hum it to you 
over the phone.


> 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.

The old "Lots of people steal so therefore stealing is not wrong" 
argument?  Your moral compass has been resting on a magnet for too 
long.  But really what does that have to do with the Stones letting the 
Vervepipe get away with ripping them off.

> With pods 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.

That still does not suggest that the Stones should allow the VervePipe 
to rip them off at will if they do not have to and the facts on the 
ground are proof that they don't have to.

So what exactly is your point?

>  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.

Pff.  Somebody's stupidity proves nothing.  Real violins and saxophones 
still have not been replaced.