to copyrights or a single low flat yearly fee that covers all the copyrights including streaming for stations (LPFM/part 15 and/or streaming) that generate low to no revenue. also copyrights need to be the original 14+14 not to exceed original authors death like our founding fathers intended.
I think when a song is released and heard, it becomes part of the public conciousness, and artists lose absolute control of that song. One of the reasons for that is music can be a commercial product, but is also an idea, and an artistic expression.
Listeners will feel ownership because they've given something of themselves to listening to a song, so it's not like the Rolling Stones could take away the rights to hearing Satisfaction, and if they did try, people would complain loudly.
It's a touchy situation, but the only way to really control your music is to not publish or play it for others.
Yeah it would be counter productive to try to license listening rights. Rather they are just interested in who's making money by playing their music.
So it comes down to this. Stanley Tools produced a hammer. They put their heart and sole into that idea; the handle, the grip, the shape of the head. Then they made the product and put it in stores for you to buy.
Now the fun part: What, you are using it to make money! Well, this hammer is only for personal use. If you are making money using it, you'll have to pay a licensing fee to use it. We're not saying you can't use it in a private, personal application but if you charge money for driving nails you're gonna have to pay us a fee.
Sounds ridiculous but it's the same idea. Lots of companies make hammers. Lots of artists make music. If you're gonna make money using the product you gotta pay a licensing fee.
I hope Stanley doesn't read this...
I'll be sure to use that analogy at the next anti RIAA campaign that the New Radio Revolution will be trying to participate in.
I tried to use the analogy of aliens and french fries. You buy your child a hamburger and french fries. Lets say for fun and fiction purposes aliens existed and thus a group comes to your child and borows the french fries. Now they copy them and suddenly there is 100,000 bags of those fries. They give the original bag back to your child and he eats them happily and there was no issues. Now here comes Ronald Mc Donald saying “You stole my fries!” Technically you didn't steal a thing.
Now if that alien were to say “Buy your fries at Mc Donalds” and does this before each bag of fries were duplicated this is what you call Ad Supported merchandise. This is how Napster intended filesharing to be where the money from the ads go to the creators. The public gets free music but in return there was ads for tangible (Degradable) products.
Radio could work the same way (especially Hobby Radio). I've spoke about this with other anti RIAA participants on those sites.
I'm hoping that we at the New Radio Revolution can somehow bring some sense back to this immature circus mafia type activity. Time will tell but thanks Mram for your wonderful rebuttal in which I'll use.
Snoore....
The hammer analogy is severely flawed.
Only one person can use a hammer at one time. It's a tool made of metal. When you buy a hammer, only you can use it. Or you can lend it to someone else & they can use it.
Music is an idea. A intellectual creation. When you purchase it in the form of vinyl or a CD, you get something similar to a hammer (i.e., a physical object) and you can resell or lend that object. But because it's also something more, it's possible to share the contents of that object with many others (as in a radio broadcast). And it's that which you can't do, because you don't own the intellectual creation, just the container.
If you want to make money selling the one container that you purchased, again that's OK. But you can't make money selling the music itself.
It's similar to purchasing software. You don't own the actual software, just the container (the CD or DVD).
I strongly believe that the creators of music deserve to reap the benefits of that music for some time. If one were to push the hammer (or fries) analogy further, you should be able to buy a CD (so you now own the music), make dozens of copies and then resell them, effectively cutting out the creator.
The problem with Napster was that it didn't have the right to make decisions on behalf of the music creators to distribute music free. You can't make unilateral decisions on behalf of the creators, even if you do intend on giving them money (which I'm not sure was the case). Much is made about how little money is given to the artists through the existing licensing agencies, but I wonder how much money was actually given to them via Napster (I suspect close to $0).
Over simplified at best, the point was if I play music on my radio station, not make copies and sell them, I have to pay a fee to play the music since it brings listeners to my station and my station makes money as a result.
So, if I buy one hammer and use it to make money, should I have to have it licensed. After all software is a tool. It can be used to make money. If you are using it for commercial purposes you usually pay a lot more money to use it than if for personal use.
I still hope Stanley isn't reading this...
I say screw it, you're screwed if you do and screwed if you don't.
The whole arguement is a losing one no matter which way you turn.
Okay for my station, which is a library of VINYL RECORDS, FACTORY RECORDED CASSETTE TAPES and VERY FEW FACTORY BURNED COMPACT DISCS, the music was bought and paid for by ME. (i.e NO PIRATED MP3s or STOLEN MP3s in my studio!!!!) I own the rights to listen to my music alone. That PART I understand, but I guess outside of my streaming it on line or on-air, if I had a few friends over sitting in my studio listening to MY MUSIC as I listen to it, I should be charging them so I can pay the record label for THEIR right to also listen to the SAME music I am listening to that is coming directly out of MY stereo system's speaker system, is that right and correct for ME to assume?
I'll leave this post as is and add more after I get my answer.
HINT: Think before you answer, my point has NOTHING to do with public exibition, over-the-air or Internet Radio BROADCASTING at this point. I am talking about ME AND 3 OF MY FRIENDS ALL SITTING IN MY STUDIO LISTENING TO THE SAME ALBUM AT THE SAME TIME WITH NO BROADCASTING INVOLVED.
Bruce.
I don't remember what country this happened at but a cab driver had to stop playing music for his customers because it was a copy write violation. I see this happening here at the home of the greed. We are devolution all the way in the USA.
What about books? You buy the book but it is only a carrier for the creation of the author. You can sell, give away or buy a used book. The author does not receive repeated royalties for his or her work. Books have been around longer than any recorded material yet books are exempt.
Good Point and they have also been Copied via copiers longer than music has because photo copiers were around before the Internet.
I can go to a library, sit and read or take home a book and read it without buying it. They even provide me with the tools to copy something I want....an unauthorized reproduction in part.
How come you never heard from publishers about them loosing money because the library gives their property to the public free and they're government run?
Libraries also have music....I can do the same with CDs as books.
If someone writes a book, with the intention of making money, how much in sales, copies sold, are lost to the author by all the libraries across the country?
Mark
Yes Mr Bruce, you're right....what's the difference with playing music on the air for a few people or for some friends in the backyard?
If you play the guitar and have some friends over and play other peoples songs you have to pay for the rights!?...rediculous!
As I said in my other post, I can go to a library and I am provided with the tools to make an unothorized copy or take the book and read it without paying for it but I can't make a copy of a song from a record?
There's a hardware store near me I go to and they have a radio station playing through a few speakers throughout the store....What are the odds they're paying resound for this?(Resound is in Canada)
Mark
Here's another, you and anyone can use my example in post#23 without paying me any royalties, but then again, how could I really charge such royalties for the use of the common English langauge? What I stated in post #23, I am sure has been stated before by another person, should I pay them royalties for their use of that sentence?
I realize in THIS post, I am getting a little crazy now, but, let's be realistic hear, the arguements are contradictory at times, if you really think about it.
If a song is BROADCASTED on part 15 radio, it is viewed as a public exhibition of said materials and the labels want to be paid, a part 15 station has the likelyhood of maybe 4 listeners at best, yet if the laws state that if more than ONE person is listening to the same recorded material, a fee has to be paid to the authors.
Now does that also mean if I am having a party in my house and have more than one guest, that I am to pay a royalty to a record label for each guest present for every song my stereo system plays that they are also listening besides myself?
It is not always about profit, like when a disc jocky goes to weddings or night clubs and gets paid to entertain a large crowd with their collection of music. It is about the arguement that anytime a song is played out to more than one person, the labels should be paid a fee for the rights of more than ONE individual to listen to the song other then the original purchaser of the song, which by law gives the person the right to listen to it, since they paid their dues to the band and or record label.
Think about the double standard that is at play here. You can't play their music for a crowd without paying for that crowds right to listen to it, but then again it is okay for you and 6 friends having beers or smoking weed together to listen to the same media and not required to pay anything.
Or am I wrong? Perhaps we are NOW expected to pay for their rights as well regardless of the circumstances, in home or at an outdoor party hangout even though, no one is being paid to play that music to begin with????
Like I said, the music licensing and record labels arguements are very contradictory if you really think about it throughly, intelligently and logically.
Bruce.
I'm not a lawyer, but this is my understanding.
You own the container that contains the intellectual property (book, music, software). The use that the intellectual property can be put to is in the license (at least for software). While you can sell the container, you cannot make copies of the property contained therein. You can also rent the container so that others can use the property, but they can't make copies of it (i.e., CD's of music).
Libraries pay for the right to make copies (such as e-books) but there is a limit to the number that are active at any one time. They can lend out CD's, DVD's, etc., and if they want to make a copy, again they have to pay.
You cannot copy a book without violating copyright, regardless of how long copiers have been around. Similarly, you can't broadcast music to others, which is essentially making copies to everyone who is listening. Home use is generally no problem, and that's the same whether your family watches a DVD, or you have friends over to listen to music. It's that deliberate broadcasting (or streaming) to others outside the home that is the issue.
I don't have any problems with any of that. I don't make the rules, but I do think that artists, writers, performers, etc. should be compensated for their work. I also think that there should be special music licensing agreements for small and Part 15 broadcasters, much like there are with libraries to lend out e-books (they could be based on average number of listeners, or even just a blanket agreement).
Currently, BMI has that blanket agreement for over-the-air broadcasting in the U.S., and I believe that the other two agencies don't care. It's streaming that is cost prohibitive right now, as well as the reporting. But if the licensing agencies want to shoot themselves in the foot and get nothing as opposed to something, there's really nothing you can do about it (other than to complain). The music isn't yours to begin with, unless, of course, it's in the public domain, and then it's everybody's to do with as they please.