Interestingly, the rights that are usually signed away by the artist to a major label are for the master recording of the album. The artists, assuming they are also the composers/writers, still retain the copyright to the song itself (i.e. they do not have to pay themselves in order to perform the song live, and money from *published* covers will go to them, etc). They are totally able to re-record those songs and release a new album with those redone, though this isn't very often done due to the cost and the fact that people like the original versions most of the time.
However, in this case, if there's physical media out there, the retailers have already paid the wholesaler for the copies of the CDs. That money is already in the system, so to speak.
Who got the money from that depends on who wrote the song, what the contract between the artist(s) and the label states, and (usually) how much money has previously been made by that particular creative work.
Excessive copyrights interfere with new artists and new ways for consumers to take advantage of creative works and ultimately stifle the entire industry and create collateral damage in other related artistic endeavors
[Citation Fucking Needed]
The only time I know of where it "stifles" people is when they have to actually license samples from songs. The horror, they can't just use peoples' creative works for free.
As I often say, you can do a comic strip about a cat, a dog, and their owner, you just can't do "Garfield". That's not stifling creativity, that's forcing people to be creative and make something new. To wit, *longer* copyright terms result in more original creative output, because people can't piggyback on other artists' past works.
"I like Hotel California and all, but the copyright should have expired by now. Period."
Why? Just because you believe so?
No, because the U.S. Constitution says so. You are granted a monopoly, in this case called a copyright, FOR A LIMITED TIME. Unfortunately, copyright law has been constantly changed and extended to ridiculous lengths by the corrupt music industry together with equally corrupt polititions.
Yeah, and they've only done it in a Constitutional manner! Those bastards!
We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.
It was created to balance both. Our idea of copyright is derived from the English concept (as was most of our legal system), which switched from he publisher had all the rights, to the creator had all the rights. See: Statue of Anne
As for your comment about "estates" and money trees, I fail to see how an estate with a copyright portfolio is any different than an estate with a stock portfolio. Both can result in money streams long after the death of the person whose name the estate bears.
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
QFT. The alternative to buying music is not "I take it anyway because I want it, BUT I RESPECT COPYRIGHT AND ARTISTS". It's "I didn't buy it because I don't like it."
The folks who espouse the former are just rationalizing their desire for free stuff, but hedging their bets on peoples' perception of them by saying "but I respect the artists, it's just those mean record labels!"
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
Well, no, because music licensing can utilize revenue streams from a variety of sources, not just people who buy records/songs.
But you'd know that if you had any idea what you were talking about and weren't posting this from your dorm room before heading off to Phil 101.
Nothing is an emotionless act, *however* his line of though (and yours) betrays thinking that is stuck in the "sex is bound up with love" mindset. It also shows an outdated "only men who are preying on women would be so promiscuous" point of view.
Some sex is passionate, some sex is just fun, some sex is simply entertaining. Perhaps those of previous generations (keep in mind I'm well past college age) feel this is consistently true, but, I assure you, it just isn't anymore.
Uh, someone slept with you and someone else on the same night? What's wrong with that?
Unless you're being deliberately inaccurate and you mean that you had made a relationship commitment to one person and then cheated on them. That's a wholly different issue than "sleeping with two people on the same night". No small number of men and women these days have no problem separating sex from love, and vice versa.
Until groups of people start concentrating resources and working on projects together, enlisting people to do marketing for their content so they have time to continue making new creative works, people to manage money gathered from patrons, etc.
And we end up right where we are, again. There's a reason we're at where we are now, because artists always want to do bigger and better, and no one is good at every aspect of funding, producing, and distributing creative works.
Your idea shows you both don't know how we've gotten to the current state of entertainment business, and don't know how the current state even really works.
The more recent 2xxx series printers aren't so hot, either. I've had to replace laser shutter "open" levers with a piece of paper simply because they cheaped out on the construction and made the original levers too thin.
Their parents should say "No. You buy it yourself. Go earn some money." And why should they lower the prices if people are buying them as it is? I guess normal supply-and-demand isn't good enough for people that don't want to pay for their entertainment. It should be cheaper for the sake of being cheaper...
Or, god forbid, play used games.
I make a crapload more than some kid does, and I still rarely will pay new-release prices for a game. I've gotta really like the previous in the series, or it's an MMO so the first month sub is wrapped into the price.
I'm pretty confident in saying that economies of scale have made actual sales of 360's profitably by this point. At least, that's usually the way things work with consoles.
"Back in December, the blog analysed statements by King Abdullah, and concluded that Saudi Arabia had a 'target range' for oil prices of $75 - 100/bbl. Yesterday, this analysis was confirmed by Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Naimi, who said the world economy could now 'weather oil prices at $75 - 80/bbl'."http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2009/05/saudi-confirms-75bbl-oil-price.html
"Saudi Arabia on Saturday cited $75 a barrel as a "fair price" for oil, the first time in years that the world's biggest exporter has identifed a target for crude prices.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said oil prices needed to return to $75 to keep the more expensive new projects at the margins of world supply on track. His comments may come as a relief to consumer nations fearful of a return to $100-plus oil."http://www.cnbc.com/id/27967401
"Big Asian oil consumers India and Japan gave a cool response to Saudi Arabia's suggestion that $75 a barrel was a "fair" price for oil, saying cheaper crude was preferable during the worst economic crisis in generations."http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-191062480.html
Those folks weren't looking to take delivery, they were looking to sell the futures to the companies that would take delivery once the contracts came due.
If so, they lost a lot of money when the price crumbled. Either them, or the suckers they sold it to.
Those losses should be showing up on somebody's balance sheets, and I'd kind of like to know who. The oil companies continued to turn substantial profits. Was it individual investors?
Only the ones left holding the bag lost. Futures come due every month, and the run-up lasted for quite a few months before the bubble popped. Word was that the "new faces" were mostly working for hedge funds or other private investment funds. I doubt they were individual/retail investors, except at the end (i.e. the ones left holding the bag). Usually by the time individual/retail investors get into that sort of bubble, the smart money is already out.
Well, there were people who dismissed naysayers on "pop" finance outlets like CNBC, and there were people who (rightly) said that the housing market was unsustainable. However, those are not the same people who are talking about peak oil, AFAIK, so there's zero valid comparison to be made between the two groups.
I suspect that there was rampant speculation going on, and that a great many speculators lost their shirts when the bubble they'd created burst. But I don't know who the winners and losers were.
You don't even have to suspect, it's pretty well known at this point that speculation was rampant due to the economy starting to slide and the profits in funds starting to decrease. Many a quote from a COMEX trader at the time mentioned that there were a lot of new faces in the pits, bidding up oil futures to ridiculous levels. Those folks weren't looking to take delivery, they were looking to sell the futures to the companies that would take delivery once the contracts came due.
The Saudi Oil Minister at the time said in a public statement that $75-80USD was their target price range for a barrel of oil, which suggests to me that the the natural price per bbl is somewhere around $50 (which is slightly above where it settled after the bottom felt out the oil futures market a year or two back).
Basically its showing that the basic parts of RNA can form in conditions that are likely in outer space. If they can be shown to do so, then the theory that "life" (in some sort of manner) either started "out there" (cue Patrick Macnee), or that it's plausible that the parts came together on Earth in a natural fashion after being transported here by comets, meteorites, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
However, in this case, if there's physical media out there, the retailers have already paid the wholesaler for the copies of the CDs. That money is already in the system, so to speak.
Who got the money from that depends on who wrote the song, what the contract between the artist(s) and the label states, and (usually) how much money has previously been made by that particular creative work.
Excessive copyrights interfere with new artists and new ways for consumers to take advantage of creative works and ultimately stifle the entire industry and create collateral damage in other related artistic endeavors
[Citation Fucking Needed]
The only time I know of where it "stifles" people is when they have to actually license samples from songs. The horror, they can't just use peoples' creative works for free.
As I often say, you can do a comic strip about a cat, a dog, and their owner, you just can't do "Garfield". That's not stifling creativity, that's forcing people to be creative and make something new. To wit, *longer* copyright terms result in more original creative output, because people can't piggyback on other artists' past works.
No, because the U.S. Constitution says so. You are granted a monopoly, in this case called a copyright, FOR A LIMITED TIME. Unfortunately, copyright law has been constantly changed and extended to ridiculous lengths by the corrupt music industry together with equally corrupt polititions.
Yeah, and they've only done it in a Constitutional manner! Those bastards!
We forget that copyright was not created (at least in the US) for the good of the artist, but for the good of the public.
It was created to balance both. Our idea of copyright is derived from the English concept (as was most of our legal system), which switched from he publisher had all the rights, to the creator had all the rights. See: Statue of Anne
As for your comment about "estates" and money trees, I fail to see how an estate with a copyright portfolio is any different than an estate with a stock portfolio. Both can result in money streams long after the death of the person whose name the estate bears.
Whether or not he is happy to pay directly is completely irrelevant. If he truly respected the copyright he claimed to be in favor of, he would not be "pirating" at all -- it's not a conditional kind of thing.
QFT. The alternative to buying music is not "I take it anyway because I want it, BUT I RESPECT COPYRIGHT AND ARTISTS". It's "I didn't buy it because I don't like it."
The folks who espouse the former are just rationalizing their desire for free stuff, but hedging their bets on peoples' perception of them by saying "but I respect the artists, it's just those mean record labels!"
That's because the performance recording is copyrighted, not the source material itself. Subtle, but important, difference.
But, back to those artists. Yes, they work for people. No matter whether the money is channeled through a corporation or not, the PEOPLE who like their music pay them. What the people don't like, they don't pay for, and what the people like, they will pay for. It's really that simple. And all of those creative works are supposed to belong to the people, eventually.
Well, no, because music licensing can utilize revenue streams from a variety of sources, not just people who buy records/songs.
But you'd know that if you had any idea what you were talking about and weren't posting this from your dorm room before heading off to Phil 101.
Nothing is an emotionless act, *however* his line of though (and yours) betrays thinking that is stuck in the "sex is bound up with love" mindset. It also shows an outdated "only men who are preying on women would be so promiscuous" point of view.
Some sex is passionate, some sex is just fun, some sex is simply entertaining. Perhaps those of previous generations (keep in mind I'm well past college age) feel this is consistently true, but, I assure you, it just isn't anymore.
I'm pretty sure you mean Voyager 6
Uh, someone slept with you and someone else on the same night? What's wrong with that?
Unless you're being deliberately inaccurate and you mean that you had made a relationship commitment to one person and then cheated on them. That's a wholly different issue than "sleeping with two people on the same night". No small number of men and women these days have no problem separating sex from love, and vice versa.
If it was fun for all at the time, it was fun for all. Sounds like you found religion or some nonsense, which is unfortunate, but common.
Until groups of people start concentrating resources and working on projects together, enlisting people to do marketing for their content so they have time to continue making new creative works, people to manage money gathered from patrons, etc.
And we end up right where we are, again. There's a reason we're at where we are now, because artists always want to do bigger and better, and no one is good at every aspect of funding, producing, and distributing creative works.
Your idea shows you both don't know how we've gotten to the current state of entertainment business, and don't know how the current state even really works.
Wow... you're kind of a girly-man, aren't you?
The more recent 2xxx series printers aren't so hot, either. I've had to replace laser shutter "open" levers with a piece of paper simply because they cheaped out on the construction and made the original levers too thin.
Sad, but true.
I'm more surprised when someone *doesn't* talk, to be honest.
Their parents should say "No. You buy it yourself. Go earn some money." And why should they lower the prices if people are buying them as it is? I guess normal supply-and-demand isn't good enough for people that don't want to pay for their entertainment. It should be cheaper for the sake of being cheaper...
Or, god forbid, play used games.
I make a crapload more than some kid does, and I still rarely will pay new-release prices for a game. I've gotta really like the previous in the series, or it's an MMO so the first month sub is wrapped into the price.
I'm pretty confident in saying that economies of scale have made actual sales of 360's profitably by this point. At least, that's usually the way things work with consoles.
"Saudi Arabia has led OPEC through the largest supply cut in its history to boost oil prices to the level publicly favored by Saudi King Abdullah, $75 a barrel." http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-09/09/content_8669671.htm
"Back in December, the blog analysed statements by King Abdullah, and concluded that Saudi Arabia had a 'target range' for oil prices of $75 - 100/bbl. Yesterday, this analysis was confirmed by Saudi Oil Minister, Ali Naimi, who said the world economy could now 'weather oil prices at $75 - 80/bbl'." http://www.icis.com/blogs/chemicals-and-the-economy/2009/05/saudi-confirms-75bbl-oil-price.html
"Saudi Arabia on Saturday cited $75 a barrel as a "fair price" for oil, the first time in years that the world's biggest exporter has identifed a target for crude prices.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi said oil prices needed to return to $75 to keep the more expensive new projects at the margins of world supply on track. His comments may come as a relief to consumer nations fearful of a return to $100-plus oil." http://www.cnbc.com/id/27967401
"Big Asian oil consumers India and Japan gave a cool response to Saudi Arabia's suggestion that $75 a barrel was a "fair" price for oil, saying cheaper crude was preferable during the worst economic crisis in generations." http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-191062480.html
"At a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) over the weekend, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah reportedly said the "fair price" for petroleum is $75 per barrel." http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/12/saudi-king-suddenly-hopeful-for-75-oil-us-too.html
Can it change? Sure, and it has in the past, but it's pretty apparent that they've seen something in the $75 price point for a good while now.
Those folks weren't looking to take delivery, they were looking to sell the futures to the companies that would take delivery once the contracts came due.
If so, they lost a lot of money when the price crumbled. Either them, or the suckers they sold it to.
Those losses should be showing up on somebody's balance sheets, and I'd kind of like to know who. The oil companies continued to turn substantial profits. Was it individual investors?
Only the ones left holding the bag lost. Futures come due every month, and the run-up lasted for quite a few months before the bubble popped. Word was that the "new faces" were mostly working for hedge funds or other private investment funds. I doubt they were individual/retail investors, except at the end (i.e. the ones left holding the bag). Usually by the time individual/retail investors get into that sort of bubble, the smart money is already out.
Where did you get that figure? I keep track of this daily:
http://www.bloomberg.com/energy/
We've been flirting with $80/bbl for quite some time.
This price range is the Saudi target range for a bbl. I'm not entirely surprised we've been in this trading range for a while.
Well, there were people who dismissed naysayers on "pop" finance outlets like CNBC, and there were people who (rightly) said that the housing market was unsustainable. However, those are not the same people who are talking about peak oil, AFAIK, so there's zero valid comparison to be made between the two groups.
I suspect that there was rampant speculation going on, and that a great many speculators lost their shirts when the bubble they'd created burst. But I don't know who the winners and losers were.
You don't even have to suspect, it's pretty well known at this point that speculation was rampant due to the economy starting to slide and the profits in funds starting to decrease. Many a quote from a COMEX trader at the time mentioned that there were a lot of new faces in the pits, bidding up oil futures to ridiculous levels. Those folks weren't looking to take delivery, they were looking to sell the futures to the companies that would take delivery once the contracts came due.
The Saudi Oil Minister at the time said in a public statement that $75-80USD was their target price range for a barrel of oil, which suggests to me that the the natural price per bbl is somewhere around $50 (which is slightly above where it settled after the bottom felt out the oil futures market a year or two back).
Basically its showing that the basic parts of RNA can form in conditions that are likely in outer space. If they can be shown to do so, then the theory that "life" (in some sort of manner) either started "out there" (cue Patrick Macnee), or that it's plausible that the parts came together on Earth in a natural fashion after being transported here by comets, meteorites, etc.
It's almost like he doesn't know what he's talking about, isn't it.