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