LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  December 2006

ARSCLIST December 2006

Subject:

Re: Britain: Gowers Report on Intellectual Property

From:

"Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 7 Dec 2006 20:38:47 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (104 lines)

see end...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
> > 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...
>
Okeh...I'll don my "musician's hat" for a moment here...and speak
to their example!

Jagger and the Rolling Stones are regularly among the top-grossing
musical acts in the western world each year...and I seriously doubt
that whateven tiny portion of that comes from royalties on their
original recordings is any more than a tiny fraction of that income!
Somehow, I find it a bit difficult to feel any sympathy for a man
with a predictable multi-million dollar income guaranteed as long
as he can have his aged body wheeled onto the stage...unless he
manages to outlive all his fans, of course(?!)...especially when
I spent most of the past couple of months trying to get my heat
turned back on before I, Ecru the cat and the pipes all froze...!

Now, on to the general idea...

Musicians ONLY receive royalties on recordings which are still in
print in some form and thus generating income from sales...and,
further, were made under contracts that provided artist royalties
in the first place (rare before c. 1950)!! Note that in some
cases reissue operations do this out of generosity, even though
they are in no way obliged to...

Further, if that were the problem, it would be simple to enact
legislation that required any reissue of a sound recording to
include royaties to the artist at, say, the standard AFM rate.

Second, the reference to a CNN story...well, sadly, most US-based
media are far from arms-length there...for many, especially when
the goverment and/or "Dubya" are concerned. CNN isn't quite as
biased as Fox News, but it's still a cheerleader for all things
neo-con...just a little more quietly. And most of that group are
quite happy with the quasi-eternal copyright term for sound
recordings in the good ol' USA that keeps our recorded history
firmly locked away until at least 2067 (subject to extension
if necessary)!

Currently, virtually all of our sonic history is in that same
manger with that same dog! Where there are identifiable owners
of copyrights (the vast majority of cases, thanks to national
and international merge-mania...) they can simply say, "Well,
we won't reissue it, because it doesn't guarantee adequate
profit...and you CAN'T reissue it as long as our copyright
is valid...!) This, of course, means that royalties on those
recordings also go unpaid, since they depend on sales...so
the poor musicians STILL are making SFA on their back
catalog, eh?!

Finally, the recording industry is currently "lost in space"
about what to sell or how to sell it! The "good old days,"
when there was one genre and a comparative handful of "hit
artists" which appealed to virtually all of the younger
demographic (i.e. "jazz," swing, rock'n'roll, rock,...)
and a minimal number of other genres to appeal to the
rest of the public(s) (i.e. classical, race, hillbilly,
various ethnic groups and "standard" music) no longer
exist...and no one is sure exactly what might work next!

Perhaps, since multi-terabyte storage arrays are just around
the corner (if they don't already exist?)...recording companies
can simply set up a multi-owner operation to provide digital
access to every sound recording that still exists in any form,
at a reasonable per-copy price...with the income made thereby
to be divided up among the partcipating recording owners
according to their recordings having been accessed...?!

Steven C. Barr

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager