Reply to Re: Millimeter talks about copyright
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Copyright:
I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement"
Ah, I misunderstood the reason you brought it up. Thank you for clarifying.
As for the Rome Convention: it says on that page that exceptions in national law are allowed for "private use". That would certainly cover making copies for personal use. That means the rules in that regard will differ per country.
>>> 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?
No, I didn't. You said it's about making a second copy of something they own. I say it's about making copies of things they don't own. In particular, putting songs that were (illegally) downloaded from the internet on the CD.
the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property
Yes, I understand that, and I've heard it from other sources as well. It seems to me that working without the labels entirely (which I hear some artists are doing) is a good way to go. But if they're using their monopoly in deals like the one with Walmart you described, that has its own downsides. Aren't those sort of things abuse of monopoly and therefore illegal?
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.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you use a few more words?
I specifically stated that much of the claimed cost to a record label is in "Artist Developement"
Ah, I misunderstood the reason you brought it up. Thank you for clarifying.
As for the Rome Convention: it says on that page that exceptions in national law are allowed for "private use". That would certainly cover making copies for personal use. That means the rules in that regard will differ per country.
>>> 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?
No, I didn't. You said it's about making a second copy of something they own. I say it's about making copies of things they don't own. In particular, putting songs that were (illegally) downloaded from the internet on the CD.
the Artist has not traditionally been compensated fairly for their work and property
Yes, I understand that, and I've heard it from other sources as well. It seems to me that working without the labels entirely (which I hear some artists are doing) is a good way to go. But if they're using their monopoly in deals like the one with Walmart you described, that has its own downsides. Aren't those sort of things abuse of monopoly and therefore illegal?
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.
I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Can you use a few more words?
