Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 54 55 56 57 58 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
-
Also http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/27/the-sorry-state-of-music-startups/
I usually take Arrington with a grain or several of salt, but interesting, nonetheless
-
Print copyright really is different from music (or visual) copyright.
As if on cue, local book publisher Martin Taylor promotes e-books with upcoming event.
-
If you know your independent music, it's a treasure trove. It's a great way to earn an honest buck. But it doesn't feel to me like anyone is getting rich.
These are two key points for Rob re eMusic. If you are a non-mainstream music fan it really is good, so hopefully this means it is worth alternative/independent labels being there. There may be a question over how much is being earned but I would hope that over time, with your catalogue available, that it provides some kind of income for the music makers.
-
for Rob re eMusic
and simon, get on his back too,
-
@Simon:
My old stuff will be up on eMusic mid year-ish...and iTunes and a few other places.
Let's talk before then and use PA to get some hype behind it. It'll be fun.
@Peter:
These are two key points for Rob re eMusic. If you are a non-mainstream music fan it really is good, so hopefully this means it is worth alternative/independent labels being there. There may be a question over how much is being earned but I would hope that over time, with your catalogue available, that it provides some kind of income for the music makers.
I think there's likely to be a big difference between letting a catalogue sit passively on eMusic, and really working it. You need to get your mates in there giving the records good reviews, or making playlists. It might be an idea to join so you can communicate with the NZ music buffs already there.
Rob, Hype Machine is indexing a couple of blogs praising Kimo. They link to your website, but Hypem, because it's automated, can't tell the difference between your Kimo and the American one -- and so is sending people to a sale for the US band on eMusic, iTunes and Amazon. Hence my confusion ...
-
and simon, get on his back too
True :)
-
and so is sending people to a sale for the US band on eMusic, iTunes and Amazon. Hence my confusion ...
its a minor problem and one I don't know how to remedy.
a similar problem exists on lastfm where you have all these markets with bands called the same name in their small territories.suddenly its a glbal territory and the LEDs in russia can not be differentiated from the LEDs in australia and the one in CHCH.
it doesn't matter on a local scale but in an international market co-existing bands who didn't know about each other suddenly have confusion over its brand.
Lastfms reaction to this problem (and its one that spans across time cos there are bands called the "xxxx" from 1982- 1984 and other people who have picked up the name in 2002. these bands have to share the same page. there's probably some legal recourse.
Here's one closer to home.
There's a local indie record label called failsafe records. They did their first release in 1984 and have been distributing their stuff internationally since then.
simple enough you'd think, they've got a big web presence in search engines etc.Now a Gainsville florida guy thought failsafe would be a great name for his label and has forged ahead with that as his company name.
I wouldn't even know how to go about kicking his arse or even if there is any legal recourse available (he responded with essentially a "fuck you, I'm within my rights" email).
The global economy presents lots of its own problems doesn't it.Its weird cos its not even a very good name, for the nz music nerds amongst us there's a free CD of your choice if you can tell me which early eighties NZ record the name was taken from.
one letter difference propeller records.
-
I wouldn't even know how to go about kicking his arse or even if there is any legal recourse available (he responded with essentially a "fuck you, I'm within my rights" email).
The global economy presents lots of its own problems doesn't it.What a major pain. I'm assuming you don't have a registered trademark. Chris Hocquard might be able to help you, but whether it'll be worth the cost is another matter.
One potential option is the domain names resolution process -- it's not like you haven't defended your namespace, and this guy just adding a hyphen looks wrong on the face of it.
But I don't know much about that: can anyone help?
-
I'm assuming you don't have a registered trademark.
company registration in nz, I don't know how that works internationally. you're right about the cost though. I'm worrying about 20 cents an mp3 and breaking a project even. International identity defense isn't in this years budget :)
-
I don't know if you could do much because of the geographical difference. That said, the ICANN Dispute resolution page is http://icann.org/en/udrp/
he Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) has been adopted by ICANN-accredited registrars in all gTLDs (.aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel and .travel). Dispute proceedings arising from alleged abusive registrations of domain names (for example, cybersquatting) may be initiated by a holder of trademark rights. The UDRP is a policy between a registrar and its customer and is included in registration agreements for all ICANN-accredited registrars.
-
Let's talk before then and use PA to get some hype behind it. It'll be fun.
Thanks Russell, I will indeed. I'm back in NZ for a month in June / July (Box / Cause Celebre 20th anniversary gig...well 19 1/2) so It's a priority.
-
company registration in nz, I don't know how that works internationally. you're right about the cost though.
To protect it you need to use the various trademark protection facilities offered under the Madrid Convention. It takes a wee while and the price varies depending on the number of territories you want protection in.
one letter difference propeller records
Nope, same spelling (the correct way). These guys actually wrote to me about 10 years back and asked if I minded. I said I saw no likelihood of any confusion so I was happy for them to use the name.
On Discogs it's just identified as Propeller.
-
From Arrington:
No longer will the labels be tied to revenue limited to sales of master recordings
It's hard to take him seriously when he spouts stuff like this. Admittedly the mistake is common, but sales of recorded music has only ever been a portion of the income a copyright owner receives, often a small portion. Sure sales of physical have declined but alternative forms of income have rocketed
by then most or all artists will be under 360 music contracts that give the labels a cut of virtually every revenue stream artists can tap into - fan sites, concerts, merchandise, endorsement deals, and everything else.
Uhhhh, only in the dreams of major label boards. There has been massive resistance to this at just about every level for a multitude of pretty convincing reasons. Personally I think most acts would be nuts to hand over these sorts of things, and I think that's a pretty common philosophy from what I'm reading and hearing. Why would you hand over such a massive part of your income stream to someone who made such a mess of their core business. And the whole concept of your label owning your management is just ludicrous.
-
It's hard to take him seriously when he spouts stuff like this.
I found the whole thing hard to take seriously.
-
Well, I did mention salt, though we might have to raise the ante to a coupla sacks ;-)
Here's one from Ars Technica, a review of Steve Knopper's new book, Appetite for Self-Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital Age
Backs up Simon's point from the other day
-
Ta for link, Mark (and Simon for the earlier one to Amazon).
I quite like this bit:Knopper quotes Robert Pittman, the cofounder of MTV. "Stealing music is not killing music," said Pittman. "When I talk to people in the music business, most of them will admit that the problem is they're selling songs and not albums. I mean, you do the math."
"I realized that as an industry we'd kind of been smoking crack," said Universal exec Barney Wragg...
-
From a link in the comments for the Ars story: Courtney Love's record industry j'accuse from 2000.
It's still pretty amazing.
-
You can take the girl out of Nelson...
-
via boingboing
HOWTO Negotiate a Creative Commons License: Ten Steps [for your book]One is aware CC is a hack on copyright but there are some interesting dataz viz free downloads.
-
Thanks Lyndon- this is interesting:
David Blackburn, a Harvard PhD candidate in economics, published a paper in 2004 in which he calculated that, for music, “piracy” results in a net increase in sales for all titles in the 75th percentile and lower; negligible change in sales for the “middle class” of titles between the 75th percentile and the 97th percentile; and a small drag on the “super-rich” in the 97th percentile and higher. Publisher Tim O’Reilly describes this as “piracy’s progressive taxation,” apportioning a small wealth-redistribution to the vast majority of works, no net change to the middle, and a small cost on the richest few
Has it been confirmed? It seems to fall very conveniently into wishful thinking territory- anyone found this study?
Forever Minus a Day? Some Theory and Empirics of Optimal Copyright (warning! pdf and gets way too wonky for me) looks interesting, too. (Apologies if it's been posted before) Very short version- 15 years... -
yes, the key phrase from the Love article is this:
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ...
Remind me, who are the pirates?
-
And does this sound familiar MO?
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
-
Worst of all, after all this, the band owns none of its work ...
that's not entirely true. the band own the composition (ie the idea of the song, lyrics and music) and have the right to re record it any time at theirs or someone elses expense.
The recorded works which are in this case funded by someone else are owned by someone else. That's like a builder wanting to own a house that he was contracted to build from his own designs.the con (and Simon will wax lyrical about this at the slightest provocation) is that the company then make the artist pay for the recording costs out of their cut of the profits. It would sit somewhat differently if these costs were covered from total income and the artists cut was left intact.
I had a couple of questions re Love's article.
firstly she says the artist gets nothing. By her own calculations they got $45,000 each from the project in advances which isn't nothing. also they didn't get $45000 they got $87500 before tax, which isn't a bad income for a year, but not when you take into account the total income for the project. but still,the band may as well be working at a 7-Eleven.
if a 7-eleven pays $87500 then yes, get a job at a 7-eleven, and save me one while you're at it.
Secondly her tax calculation was confusing.
she says there is $350000 left from the advance and then tax of $170000 leaving $45000 each.
is she saying that the tax on $87500 is $42500? ie a 48% tax rate.
ouchie!haven't read the rest yet. got work to do,
-
Remind me, who are the pirates?
And that was written in the (very) good old days, before the companies toughened up on the terms of recording contracts. Those old terms seem positively philanthropic next to some of the stuff that new acts are asked to sign now. Fortunately more and more are just saying no and looking elsewhere.
The industry also forgets that it was created by pirates and rogues. A huge part of why it's in the shit now comes down to the passing of the reigns from those rogues to the accountants who jumped in to lap up the vast profits from the CD boom, thinking that it would last forever. That it hasn't and it's reverted back to the 'it's tough to make a hit and a dollar from music' reality of the pre-CD era drives the bullshit that RIAA and the others are spouting as much as any P2P issues.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.