The Logic Off Topic list

Joeri wrote
>Don't confuse different copyrights.
I wasn't trying to, although I was writing in a hurry. My very point is 
that there are different kinds of copyrights. The right to distribute 
digital music is a new form of copyright, even if, as is happening at 
present, the primary form of generating those digital forms of music is in 
the producing records and CD's.

>Not all copyrights are assigned to
>the publisher.
True.

>Copyrights related to the master tape/recording are
>assigned to record companies.
And ... that's one place where one could have a good argument. Those tapes 
were produced with the INTENTION of exploiting them as the recorded sounds 
we know, namely vinyl, CD and the like. Those tapes were not produced with 
the INTENTION of exploiting them in the digital domain, because the digital 
domain was unknown, and therefore record companies are exceeding their 
brief in stating that all exploitable rights in that medium belong to them. 
As you know well, being an engineer, one has different ideas in mind when 
recording if one knows that the ultimate result is going to be an mp3 file. 
Knowing that it is going to be compressed makes a difference. That's an 
aside, however. Artists and authors have, in my view, a valid argument in 
stating that they may have signed contracts with respect to analogue 
recorded sound, but they were not also signing away rights with respect to 
the digital variety ... because they didn't exist and so they didn't know 
about them.

> >And since the publishing company won't open up its accounts, the authors
> >don't really have any information. Nasty business.
>In every contract I've negotiated so far, I've always included the
>option to investigate the books of companies, together with an auditing
>team that I authorize.

That is an option that more and more book authors are trying to avail 
themselves of, but it's a long and hard struggle. Maybe Stephen King and JK 
Rowling can do it. But ... you try getting a clause like that put in your 
contract, and your book will be stalled for months while it's argued over. 
Nasty business.

>??? Record companies pay advances that are often way too high!!!
Then they should learn to reform the way that they do business.

>The best known case right now is Mariah Carey. So I say it's the other
>way around: the advances are too high.
Mariah Carey is in it for what she can get. If record companies are stupid 
enough to pay those kinds of advances then all the more fool them. The 
original idea of an advance was to enable the artist to live while they 
produced the product. Now, if a record company is desperate to get an act, 
then it offers bigger and bigger advances in order to attract that act. Who 
pays for this? The few artists whose products sell and who make back those 
advances, that's who. Stupid if you ask me. They should find another way to 
do business. Can't think what other way, but this one's stupid.

>ROFL... I'm not going into this. Dunno a thing about it. :-))
I think that's what I should have told myself before I started this, 
actually!!!

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com