>Whereas the CNN story, from the first, wants us to feel sorry >that Mick Jagger will be losing his royalties for recordings due to >the new law. But that won't happen for at least seven years, as >Mick didn't make records until 1963. And it's not as though he >has no other avenues for revenue (are you kidding?) or that >revenue from what he recorded in 1963 would generate
>much income anyway. Mick still gets the revenue for the >songwriting, so what's the big deal?
I believe it is all about the record companies and not the musicians, yet the record companies and the media...perhaps because the media are part of the same organizations that own the record companies...or because it makes for a human interest story...carefully position the argument as a case for the musicians. For me, the main point in all of this is that the musicians gain nothing unless the record company decides to make the recording available. Hence, the recording is available only if the COMPANY, usually a major label, with high overhead, thinks it can make money.
Obviously it makes more sense to present the situation as being supportive of the musician as it personalizes it, and therefore offers the option of making an emotional argument, versus presenting it as supporting big business and therefore having no emotional appeal.
Having read that report, it would seem that there is a reasonable argument to suggest that the limited term of ownership is indeed good for the business of the major labels, a possibility which I had never really considered.
Then there would be the problem that to take advantage of that potential will require some readjustment of the infrastructure of the major labels as it may well be that they have developed A & R departments less geared to developing younger musicians...or, in the vernacular of the biz...not younger musicians, but "new product."...and speaking of dehumanization...