Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Copyright:
His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make
Read the entire section please, I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement", which is partially in grooming the artist to better serve the potential market but largely, it is to increase awareness of the artist and encourage the masses to buy that artists music instead of something else.
When Elvis started out, he had recorded 1 of the 2 songs he ever wrote and was heard recording them at Sun Studio. The claim was he was recording it as a present to his mother. The record company did invest a large amount of time and resources in transforming him from an complete unknown into something known around the world. It's worth noting he never played outside of North America and only a handful of times in Canada, yet he is known the world over as "The King".
Bieber, on the other hand, already had a large following which means he already had a "potential market" ready to buy, and they were buying through the advertising revenue generated on Youtube. My argument here is largely against Corporate Labels being paid for things they don't have to do, and allowing the artist to be appropriately rewarded for their own work. The purpose of my numbers was to show that it becomes harder to justify some of the cost the artist has to forfeit to the labels, when the artist has already accomplished some or much of the work.
you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.
I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own.
You just said the same thing I did?
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of ...
I rephrased this portion of my post, it is only because we live in a capitalistic society, that Copyright has a need to exist. The unfortunate part is that the artist does much of the work and does possess the raw talent, but they don't share in the revenue in a manner that reflects output as compared to input and risk.
In the days that Vinyl records where the primary distribution medium, the labels would typically forward some of the future proceeds to the artist to allow them to focus solely on their music, rather than requiring other employment to survive. The labels also provided access to recording facilities and all that goes along with that. The down side was that these were actually loans against the future earnings of the artist and not of the total earnings from the music.
With respect to distribution specifically, the artist was automatically back charged with 50% of items claimed to be shipped, to accommodate for breakage, returns, and any other reason that all product could not be sold. Even if 100% were ultimately sold, this 50% back charge did not diminish.
For clarification only, presume 100,000 copies were pressed and sold wholesale at a cost of $5 = $500,000 potential revenue. The labels took of their 10% fees for Management, Artist Developement, risk, and a few others. Net projected revenue would now be at about $300,000 - $250,000 for "Breakage", leaving the artist $50,000 to pay back the loan of the living allowance, prepaid cost of recording in the Labels studio, advertising and promotion, and other frivolous charges included in the contract.
So far then, the artist has generated a Debt of 2-5 times the amount they were loaned as a living allowance while the Label has received their commissions and retained earnings for back charges, "in the event a record was not sold". Even explaining only this part of a record deal, It is understandable why I say that the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property, as compared to everyone else involved.
Ownership of the several Royalty streams is also an area where the artist typically has been deprived of their rightful share where the Corporate labels have generally continued to profit, even on acts that have been a complete bust.
It is worth mentioning that several of the Huge labels are getting out of the record making business, and are focusing greatly on securing their future earning potential on the recording medium itself. Worth researching, imo.
His one song that he released on Youtube is sitting at 244,548,037 views
You seem to make the same mistake that the record labels often make
Read the entire section please, I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement", which is partially in grooming the artist to better serve the potential market but largely, it is to increase awareness of the artist and encourage the masses to buy that artists music instead of something else.
When Elvis started out, he had recorded 1 of the 2 songs he ever wrote and was heard recording them at Sun Studio. The claim was he was recording it as a present to his mother. The record company did invest a large amount of time and resources in transforming him from an complete unknown into something known around the world. It's worth noting he never played outside of North America and only a handful of times in Canada, yet he is known the world over as "The King".
Bieber, on the other hand, already had a large following which means he already had a "potential market" ready to buy, and they were buying through the advertising revenue generated on Youtube. My argument here is largely against Corporate Labels being paid for things they don't have to do, and allowing the artist to be appropriately rewarded for their own work. The purpose of my numbers was to show that it becomes harder to justify some of the cost the artist has to forfeit to the labels, when the artist has already accomplished some or much of the work.
you cannot legally make separate copies for each of your devices
That's not what I understood. Do you have a link to the part of the law this is in, so I can read it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Performers,_Producers_of_Phonograms_and_Broadcasting_Organisations
There is a small fee charged on every blank CD/DVD, that is to compensate for the fact that so many people do duplicate recorded works rather than purchasing a second copy.
I don't think that's the reason. As far as I heard, it's because the assumption is that people will make copies from things they don't own.
You just said the same thing I did?
Ideally, Capitalistic values would not be such an important aspect of ...
I rephrased this portion of my post, it is only because we live in a capitalistic society, that Copyright has a need to exist. The unfortunate part is that the artist does much of the work and does possess the raw talent, but they don't share in the revenue in a manner that reflects output as compared to input and risk.
In the days that Vinyl records where the primary distribution medium, the labels would typically forward some of the future proceeds to the artist to allow them to focus solely on their music, rather than requiring other employment to survive. The labels also provided access to recording facilities and all that goes along with that. The down side was that these were actually loans against the future earnings of the artist and not of the total earnings from the music.
With respect to distribution specifically, the artist was automatically back charged with 50% of items claimed to be shipped, to accommodate for breakage, returns, and any other reason that all product could not be sold. Even if 100% were ultimately sold, this 50% back charge did not diminish.
For clarification only, presume 100,000 copies were pressed and sold wholesale at a cost of $5 = $500,000 potential revenue. The labels took of their 10% fees for Management, Artist Developement, risk, and a few others. Net projected revenue would now be at about $300,000 - $250,000 for "Breakage", leaving the artist $50,000 to pay back the loan of the living allowance, prepaid cost of recording in the Labels studio, advertising and promotion, and other frivolous charges included in the contract.
So far then, the artist has generated a Debt of 2-5 times the amount they were loaned as a living allowance while the Label has received their commissions and retained earnings for back charges, "in the event a record was not sold". Even explaining only this part of a record deal, It is understandable why I say that the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property, as compared to everyone else involved.
Ownership of the several Royalty streams is also an area where the artist typically has been deprived of their rightful share where the Corporate labels have generally continued to profit, even on acts that have been a complete bust.
It is worth mentioning that several of the Huge labels are getting out of the record making business, and are focusing greatly on securing their future earning potential on the recording medium itself. Worth researching, imo.
