General Community > Chit Chat
Why Does Everyone Think the Music Industry Sucks?
CoreISP:
--- Quote ---The thing that is causing most of the problems is illegal downloads.
--- End quote ---
Prove it.
ML:
--- Quote from: CoreISP on March 30, 2012, 07:16:25 PM ---
--- Quote ---The thing that is causing most of the problems is illegal downloads.
--- End quote ---
Prove it.
--- End quote ---
Read the last post and click on the link.
Sales of music is where writers get a great deal of their income. If they don't earn money, they will not write and find something else to do. They are quitting left and right because they are losing so much money to theft.
Stealing is stealing. Take someone's livelihood away and they will find a different occupation.
You have proven that you know how to use a computer. Lets see how you are at using Google.
Teaching someone right or wrong is the parents responsibility. So I will exit this discussion.
青山 素子:
--- Quote from: ML on March 30, 2012, 12:05:48 AM ---I see it as like one would in renting a home. If you are the owner and keep that house up, it doesn't matter if the house is 50 years old or more....you will still get your rent. By your analogy, if I build that house and rent it for 50 years or so, I should then start letting people live in it for free.
--- End quote ---
No, because that house is your physical property and you have a contract with the people making use of it to pay you for it. It's more like you build a house for someone to rent but require them to pay you annually for the rest of your life plus an additional 100 years of the use of that house.
--- Quote from: ML on March 30, 2012, 12:05:48 AM ---Writers typically have to share their income 50/50 with publishing companies. Those companies, if they do their job right, will work a song for all it is worth to make more money. They also license the song to overseas interests (whichever side of the sea you are on) for the writers.
--- End quote ---
Sometimes the publishing companies own them outright. Here's an example.
You know that "happy birthday" song? The one everyone always sings? The one that starts "Happy birthday to you".
Well, that song is currently copyrighted by Warner Music Group. The writer of the song, Patty Hill, died in 1946. Currently, in the US, the song will not become public domain until 2030 at the very least, and it likely will be extended when yet another extension is approved for copyright. That song makes Warner about 2 million dollars a year.
With that kind of money, I hope the long-dead Patty Hill is encouraged to write more songs!
Look, I don't think most smart people will be in favor of removing copyright completely. It serves a worthwhile goal. The problem is that the balance it was designed to offer - encourage the author to create art by offering a limited-time monopoly on reproduction of the art in return for the work to enter the public domain and become the base for future works by others - has become completely skewed away from serving the public good. It is awful that something like the Birthday Song isn't public domain 66 years after the death of the author.
--- Quote from: ML on March 31, 2012, 02:30:37 AM ---This is where writers get a great deal of their income. If they don't earn money, they will not write and find something else to do. They are quitting left and right because they are losing so much money to theft.
--- End quote ---
Theft from the publishing agencies, maybe. Don't try and say they don't take every chance they can to screw writers out of cash owed to them. It's like Hollywood accounting where everyone knows you're a fool to take a cut of the net profits as no film ever makes money on the books, or the recording industry where artists are charged inflated fees to sink them in debt.
Don't equate copyright infringement to theft, and don't make the mistake of equating every infringement action to a lost sale. If it wasn't available at all then the majority of infringement actions would likely never occur and that income wouldn't have happened.
--- Quote from: ML on March 31, 2012, 02:30:37 AM ---Do some of you people think it would be OK to just walk onto a farm and help yourselves? How about going into an antique shop and just walking out with something without paying because it is old and should be "free".
--- End quote ---
In those situations you are depriving someone of an actual physical item. Copyright infringement does not deprive anyone of a physical item. Rather, it is the violation of a government granted time limited monopoly.
--- Quote from: ML on March 31, 2012, 02:30:37 AM ---Stealing is stealing. Take someone livelihood away and they will find a different occupation.
--- End quote ---
Yep, stealing is stealing. I think the millions that the publishing and recording industries owe in royalties should be paid to the artists to which they are due. Maybe some cleanup of copyright law to reset the balance it offers would also be a good start to repairing the respect lost when copyright started to become a perpetual money-grab.
busterone:
I would also like to add that in most cases, illegal downloading of music, or even movies doesn't actually cut into the profits of the media companies themselves. Most of the people I know that do download would not buy it in the first place, nor would they go to a theater and pay the unwarranted outrageously inflated cost. They also refuse to pay the exorbitant prices for cds or dvds and by consequence, there was never any income there to be lost. I myself have paid to see only 2 movies in the last 10 years, and have bought absolutely 0 music cds. I will occasionally pay for a local concert, but even then, the prices are outrageous and unwarranted. The greed of the corporate media gurus is the real problem. The artists are robbed by the labels and marketing companies, not by down loaders.
K@:
I've been known to download the odd song, myself.
But, there's a reason for me doing so. The songs I get aren't available, legally or otherwise, anywhere else.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version