63% (1096 Votes)
30% (531 Votes)
5% (90 Votes)
0% (5 Votes)
Angry ferrets around the world support your right to use Napster.AngryFerret
The choices in the poll do not allow the range of gray areas that were brought up by the debaters in the Sound Off feature. When you ask if Napster is right or wrong, are you talking about the ethics behind the Napster phenomemon (i.e. is sharing of files "stealing"), or are you just talking about the Napster file-sharing technology? If the current swapping craze is the problem, then is it attributable to Napster or its users? There are alot of gray areas here which should be considered before one makes a "Napster's Right" vs. "Napster's Wrong" judgement, which is all we can do with this poll (other than select Undecided).I'm sure this has all been discussed extensively on this Napster board, but the Sound Off article is clearly meant to bring in the Fool community at large, so we're not all familiar with what's been happenning on this board.Illuminato
"Forum for new artists" my donkey. If you tracked the songs people are actually downloading it would mostly be popular already-released music - some from decades ago. The most common artist people download from me is Bonnie Raitt. It is stealing.........but until the industry gives me a site where I can open an account and download a SONG for a reasonable fee (well under $1 - probably more than 25 cents) I'll use Napster to get the Jimi Hendrix I want without buying the $150 "Collectors Retrospective" gold CDs.The record industry has a long history of price fixing and other "keep the prices up" restraint-of-trade tactics. ....Lee
Ok, I've heard the same arguments over and over about how Napster is raping and pillaging the music industry. Long story short, in my eyes, I don't see Lars really taking a huge hit from Napster. This guy has enough money as it is. How far can greed go? Just my 2 cents.
It's simple. Napster facilitates sharing the same way the VCR and cassette tape did. It is in no way illegal in itself. Only the downloaders are violating law.Just my 2 cents worth!Have fun!
I cast my vote in favor of Napster.I think an amazing revolution in music, art, and culture could develop if tools like Napster are free to be used by society.Would a new breed of artists emerge?Would N*Sync and the Backstreet Boyz evaporate into pop history?In my opinion, art should not be created with the intention to make money. There is a deeper purpose somewhere in this world. And this is what art explores.
I cast my vote in favor of Napster.I think an amazing revolution in music, art and culture could develop if tools like Napster are free to be used by society.Would a new breed of artists emerge?Would N*Sync and the Backstreet Boys evaporate into pop history?In my opinion, art should not be created with the intention to make money. There is a deeper purpose in this world. And this is what art explores.
<<It's simple. Napster facilitates sharing the same way the VCR and cassette tape did. It is in no way illegal in itself.>>Exactly - and the music industry is acting like the sky is falling...
I've read many arguments for Napster, the major flaw in most of them is the argument that artist don't suffer. Many of the artist of the 50's & 60's and before and after suffered from pirated materials. Artists that lived or died in poverty because they could not control the payment of royalities to themselves. Intelluctual property protection is a big enough deal to be protected by the U.S. constitution. Inventions, manuscripts, and other creative works are protected. The theft of recordings over the INTERNET is equlivant to the theft of a patented or copyrighted materials. The theft is blatent and should be treated like the crime against personal property rights and, like all crime, against society.
As an older fool, I have always wondered why the recording industry could not come up with a modern version of the old 45rpm single (double if you count the reverse side albums. Can't make any money selling single songs? If you can't, let Napster and the like do it for free. If you don't like it, produce single songs. Very simple.
I AM A MUSICIAN THE PURPOSE OF MUSIC IS COMMUNICATION NAPSTER ALLOWS THIS COMMUNICATION TO EXIST BETWEEN INTERESTED PEOPLE WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE IF U SHARE ON NAPSTER OR TAPE RECORD SONGS FROM THE RADIO THE BOTTOM LINE IS PEOPLE WANT TO SHARE CREATIVITY THE PROBLEM ARISES WHEN SHARING IS ACCOSTED BY GREED
>As an older fool, I have always wondered why the >recording industry could not come up with a modern >version of the old 45rpm single (double if you count >the reverse side albums. Can't make any money selling >single songs? If you can't, let Napster and the like >do it for free. If you don't like it, produce single >songs. Very simple. Aahhhh, an older Fool with a great memory! Having bought any number of 45's in my misspent youth, I can testify that the modern CD Single and Cassette Single are both quite alive and well!J. T.
I have gone back and forth on the Napster issue, but I've finally landed - against. Metallica may be the most vocal enemy of Napster, but they are not the most damaged by it. Consider the songwriter, as opposed to the performing artist. There are some great writers who either don't perform or whose renditions haven't achieved the renown of those of other interpreters. The only money they make for their work is a fraction of the royalties for each air play, or each album purchased. With Napster making these cuts freely available, these writers are being robbed. Metallica, as with other popular performing artists, can at least recoup through concerts. I have benefitted from Napster personally. When I've discovered or rediscovered artists whose music I liked, I went out and bought one or more of their CDs. On the other hand, I know many more people who have compiled complete CDs off Napster and have no intention or interest in _buying_ the work of those artists, as a result. I have to agree with Rick Munarriz that this is an issue of property, intellectual or not; it is an issue of protection of the rights of individual artists, not just those record production companies that get that music to the public. The paradigm for distribution may have changed, but the ethical issue does not. I've made peace with my own use of napster by making a rule that, if I listen to and like more than 2 of an artist's cuts, I buy the album, but that's a hedge. Some here and many elsewhere like to talk about the music industry as if it's a bunch of Fat Cats that are making millions and should, therefore, just shut up and take it. Now... this is a web site dedicated to the idea that us little folks can and want to become Fat Cats ourselves. Does being successful in business or investment entitle others to rip us off, when we finally arrive? On what moral principles is THAT argument based? Envy, maybe? Something worse? I happen to have known a few successful music industry "fat cats" personally and I can tell you that they worked their butts off, hauling records around the country in the trunk of a car to promote a new artist and to get them airplay, pitching and pitching and pitching artists, working 24 hour shifts in studios, sobering up and babysitting drugged-out and drunken artists, etc, etc. There are certainly a lot of bums in that industry: It's not a clean and tidy place to work, but people work hard for their money and many go broke in the process. That's not a justification, just a further clarification. But, in this issue, think: Property. If someone could peer-to-peer download your bedroom furniture into their home, would that be right? I think not. We all generally consider that being robbed. Let's keep the issue clear.Regards,Alan000
The brilliance of Fanning's concept will be important to so-called “peer to peer” information exchanges of the future. There are many potentially great business models that can be derived from this model, having nothing to do with music.Technically, the exchange of music between two individuals is illegal, and is an infringement of copyright laws. If I tape my buddy's CD, I'm committing a crime. This law is not enforced, however, and is now an issue because it is available on such a large scale.I love Napster, but I'm not sure it's right. Nevertheless, copyright laws respective to Napster are not enforceable, and legislation will not stop it. In a Gnutella-like architecture, for example, there is no website to shut down, so how can it be stopped?My advice to the music industry: Evolve and figure out a way to capitalize on it. I have a few ideas, and I'm sure they do, too. Crying about it is a waste of time, and legislation against it would be as effective as legislation against email. There is an unbelievably great opportunity for the development of the new standard of music data storage and distribution. When is the music industry going to pick up the ball and run with it?
If it hasn't already, it should be pointed out that Napster offered to start charging a subscription fee which would be used to reimburse artists when their sings are downloaded. The RIAA turned the offer down. Why? The RIAA wants to control the technology. It's not the theoretical revenues they lose when I download a song off of Napster that they are worried about. It's the fact the they don't control this form of distribution and the fact that new artists might not have to go through them (the recording industry) to be heard.Napster is just a new version of radio. Just like with radio, the artists should be re-imbursed when their songs are used. Napster has shown a willingness to provide this.The internet and especially peer-to-peer file sharing are making possible whole new ways of distributing music, which don't require artists to give away most of their revenue to middlemen. That's what the RIAA is fighting against. That's why I'm rooting for Napster in their legal struggles.
So, lesum, you dig the starving artist deal? Enjoy. Though getting paid for what you have done is not greed.Frolix8
Re: NapsterWhat disturbs me, as a professional musician, is that the word 'copyright' does not appear anywhere in the letters from those who don't think the Napster model is illegal. As Napster would have you believe that like the Artful Dodger, they're just honest crooks, trying to make a living by facilitating the violation of the copyright laws.Get it right folks. This is not a matter of 'touchy, feely', opinion. One would believe that you don't recognize an illegality when you see it.
Being an amateur Fool, but a serious musician with over 20 years playing time behind me, I will hazard a comment concerning Napster - probably the only subject I am qualified to discuss on this extremely interesting, and informative website. It should be obvious to all with a basic understanding of copyright law, and a little respect for the efforts of artists, both known and unknown, that Napster is clearly in violation whenever music is downloaded without the artist's prior consent. I am somewhat puzzled that any intelligent lover of music, or any other artform, should assume they have a right to enjoy the fruits of another's hard work, and inspiration without compensation, as set by the creator. How many Napsterites make a daily practice of giving away their time and expertise for free? Or more accurately, having the value of their time and expertise taken from them without their consent? How many would choose to continue in a line of work in which such exploitation were concidered appropriate, and just? Yet that is what they expect of the musicians whose talents they enjoy, appreciate, and consume. It is also quite obvious by now that new technologies are going to change the marketplace. So what else is new? Seems like that process in one way, or another, has been going on for several thousand years. Maybe it's time for a little thoughtful consideration, in place of the exploitation such changes have often propagated in the past. Here's a suggestion. Let the artist/band decide whether to be compensated, or not, when their music is downloaded off Napster. Many bands/artists will decide it is in their best interest to encourage people to hear their music, and will opt to make it free to all. Others may decide they wish to be paid, and may set a price as they see fit. Let Napster collect those fees electronically at time of download, retain a small percentage, and pay the net to the artists/bands. The web provides an incredible opportunity for musicians and listeners to find each other, but why expect those who are struggling, and will, in any event, continue to struggle to create works, which the world may enjoy forever, to work for nothing during their lifetimes. As Beethoven put it, "I don't do it for the money, but I don't do it for free." That's a direct quote, and sums up the situation rather succinctly, I believe. His fans waited years for a new symphony to be presented, and maybe only heard that symphony once, or twice in their lifetimes. Yet, virtually the entire populace of Vienna poured into the streets of the city in his honor the day of his funeral. Now it is so much easier for listener and musician to find each other. The technology which makes that ease of communication possible should not be used in my opinion to undermine an artist's basic right to be compensated for their efforts, if the artist so chooses. Let that technology provide greater freedom of choice for both musician and listener, so that both may benefit from their mutual need to find and appreciate one another. That's all for now - I hear the sounds of a guitar, bass, and drums coming from the living room, time to get out from behind this keyboard and in front of another, one played in the key of life. Peace.
the music industry needs to realize the genie is OUT of the bottle now and find a realistic way to change. My suggestion would be to start charging .50 to 1.00 per song, control all such sources and let it rip. There have to be millions of people like myself who won't buy a $14 CD just to hear the 1-2 songs they like but yet whose conscience would love to pay by the song.
Napster is neither right nor wrong. It'll probably take years for the general culture to work that out. The fact is that the capability exists and is too widespread to resist. Just like the rest of the web. In time there will probably evolve a new way to profit from being a musician. But it won't be universal copywrite and it won't rely on laws. For that matter the current system isn't producing much of value to either the "artist" or the public, especially when you think that the publisher (read advertising agency) scoops up an unconscionable profit from buying rights to the music.Even the makeshift idea of intellectual property is doomed (personally I think it a pile of um, garbage anyway).
There are two reasons I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Napster. 1) I think Napster is something that is good for us consumers. Maybe now the CD companies will start selling CD at a price that is resonable for how much the cost to manufacture. CD's cost less to manufacture than cassettes, but yet CD's still cost anywere from 16 to 21 dollars and cassetts are at 7 dollars. Its just not right. Also all these artist talking about how much money they are losing well I'm sorry I dont feel your pain, and anyway they have the fund that when anyone buys a blank cd or cassette they get like 2 or 3 cents per one. So I'm sorry but I dont see how they can be complaining about how we are ripping them off...when in actuallity it's them that are gouging us. 2) Lastly how can they shut Napster down when it is doing absolutly nothing wrong. All Napster does is conect usersthey have no material on their servers that in any way infringe on copy right laws. It just doesntmake any sense to me...but go ahead and try to correct me if ya want to. -brandon rutenbeck
--WHOSE VALUE ADDED? Not the performers' or the entertainment industry's!:The music industry has raped and pillaged its customers for years. CDs sell for twice as much as cassette tapes, cost only a quarter as much (i.e., about $0.75 each) to produce, and contain absolutely no more intellectual property than tapes. The better quality is not a contribution of the performers or entertainment industry, but of the electronics manufacturers -- it's like having Microsoft charge me twice as much for their software because I happened to buy a computer than runs twice as fast.--ABUSIVE INDUSTRY:The movie industry has tacked an additional charge onto every VHS tape sold for years. CD players would have been on the market over a year earlier except for the music industry holding them hostage for copy protection. Fortunately, DVD manufacturers were able to override the entertainment industry's recent attempt to do the same thing.--TEMPTATION AND LACK OF PROTECTION:This kind of blatant disregard for customers encourages customers to attempt to work around the system. In addition, the industry has failed to adapt to the changing environment. This whole issue is like that of a store having a sidewalk sale with tempting merchandise, leaving the merchandise unattended outdoors overnight, and then crying "Foul" when someone steals it.--MORALITY:It's still wrong to steal, but you also have to expect people who have been blatantly overcharged for years to take something that is waved temptingly in front of them with little liklihood of penalty.--JUDGEMENT:A judge should find those involved in the copying guilty, but assign little or no penalty because of the music industry's failure to be a responsible party. --AN ASIDE:Napster is no more guilty of copyright infringement than those who publish instructions for building a bomb are for a bombing. Frankly, I feel both are irresponsible and reprehensible. Napster's statements make it obvious that their intent was to thwart the entertainment industry's attempt to protect their intellectual property. For that, they should be strongly chastised.
In many many instances Napster is right, the music industry is wrong. Old-timers like me use Napster mainly for downloading songs we spent a fortune on in our youth, thousands of dollars spent on vinyl collections we can't even play anymore. We have trouble finding needles for our soon-to-be antique stereo systems, and we don't go out and buy compact disc replacements of our vinyl LPs just on principle. So here comes Napster and we have a chance to download hundreds, maybe thousands of songs we already own on vinyl, and these "new" copies sound as good, maybe better than our originals. We are vindicated at last. The music industry forced us to this point. They can go scr*w themselves as far as I'm concerned. I'm not stealing. I'm just reclaiming what I bought the right to enjoy many many years ago.
If Napster's right, then they should, by the same token, be right to extend their "sharing" model to include the written word as well. How would those of you who think it's okay for Napster to "share" the musical constructions of "artists" for free feel about extending the metaphor to the written word? It seems only "fair" that they start a literature downloading site as well where we all can "share" all the neat stuff from, say, best selling books, magazine articles, stock reports, scientific papers, and anything else in the print media which otherwise might bought or sold.Then, of course, Napster's "shared" movie site could be up soon, and nobody would ever have to buy or rent a video again. Information wants to be free, okay. But I say those who dig it up, put it together, or carve it out of the raw material of life deserve better than a handful of gimme and a mouthful of thank y'please.
<<<As an older fool, I have always wondered why the recording industry could not come up with a modern version of the old 45rpm single (double if you count the reverse side albums. Can't make any money selling single songs? If you can't, let Napster and the like do it for free. If you don't like it, produce single songs. Very simple. >>>There's no fool like an old fool! And you are a VERY smart fool. I completely agree! It is the business of businesses to either keep up with the times or get outmoded. The recording industry is no exception to this rule.
>I have always wondered why the recording industry could not come up with a modern version of the old 45rpm single.Uh, they have. Singles never went away... they just sell 'em on cassettes and CD's now, old timer. ;)
I agree with Brian Lund about viral marketing. The Grateful Dead understood this. Why do people buy Redhat Linux when they could get it free? Because it's cheap, it's documented, supported, and nicely packaged. If CD's were a little cheaper, the industry would sell more of them. I also agree with Bob Bobala. What is the difference, in principal, between Napster and VCR's or audio casette recorders? Unless the judges ignore precedent, it seems like a no-brainer.
What is the difference, in principal, between Napster and VCR's or audio casette recorders? Unless the judges ignore precedent, it seems like a no-brainer. There is a huge difference between Napster and vcr's/casette recorders/etc. Napster is not strictly a program which allows users to record their music into an mp3 format. Napster is, by design, a method by which different users may distribute these copies unchecked. Let's imagine that there was no difference between Napster and VCR's. This would mean that everyone with a VCR would make an instant recording of their movies, and then share those movies with anyone anywhere at anytime. This is obviously very unlike VCR's as we know them. MP3's are going to be around forever ... at least until mp4's or something better comes along. The act of distribution of an artist's work without their expressed permission is illegal. Making a copy of a purchased work for your use is perfectly legal. It doesn't matter if you made a copy of a CD, cassette, or even if you made an mp3 file. However, you may not legally distribute that work. It is the artist's responsibility to protect their copyrights. There you go.Cheers and keep up the good discussion!-Axecell
On the surface Napster may seem wrong however if you seriously look at the technology, how is Napster different from existing technology? Napster has simply combined peer-to-peer networking and provided an indexing engine. How is that really different from downloading MP3s off the web, placing them on your web server so someone else can download them from you? All they did was bundle existing technology. With minimal modification Napster could be modified to share virtually any type of file (pictures, video, text). If you think about it, Napster simply acts like a web browser or any other type of "file" manager going against a search engine to retrieve files from a server. Even if Napster is gone, it is not going to stop the sharing of music files or any other type of file. The real issue is making free copies. The recording industry had control because the average person who desired music could not easily make a copy of records purchased. As a result, people were willing to buy records. So shouldn't we really be holding the inventor of magnetic tape responsible?With the changes in technology there ultimately exists changes in society. The real issue is to find alternate ways to compensate artists. Being a musician myself, I feel safe in saying this. Maybe the artists/musicians should focus on performance and not selling records. Does a painter paint once and get paid over and over again for the one painting? Usually not unless its in a gallery and even then the consumer is paying for the experience of the exhibition. Concert attendees can continue to pay for an artists performance. Maybe its time for the recording industry to shrink and level the playing field for other artists. Rubbing out Napster is NOT the answer!!!!!
It's not an issue of control, this is not about voting rights. It's about the property rights and infringement of those rights through what can only be compared to criminal theft.The rest of your logic, or lack thereof, is beyond my comprehension, communism just isn't my strong suit.
Naptster basically facilitates stealing music. Dealing drugs is illegal, why shouldn't brokering unlicensed material be illegal, too?However, I think that this is the beginning of something big. How many people have had one of their favorite CDs rendered unusable from wear (or inconsiderate friends)? What about a warped tape? Once you have paid for the right to listen to music, you shouldn't have to pay to get it again. The digital music revolution will solve this problem eventually. It will also change the way we buy music in a more general scheme. Artists will eventually be able to charge whatever they want for their music. The question for investors is, which company will lead the charge?MD
Someone said in defense of Napster "Napster benefits artists." If the artists or copyright holders CHOOSE to let their work be downloaded for free via Napster, they can. There is no problem with that. The problem is that their work is available for free download whether they want to allow it to be distributed or not.Copyright law gives the owner of the copyright the exclusive right to make copies of the work, or authorize others to make them, subject to a few provisions of "fair use". Napster is a wholesale infringement of this right.
I AM FOR NAPSTER! IT'S ALL POLITICS. BIG BROTHER TRIED TO STOP PEOPLE FROM USING VCR'S AND TAPING MOVIES, NOW ITS A BIG BUSINESS, THE MOVIE INDUSTRY HAS NOT SUFFERED. WHEN AN INDEPENDENT PERSON TRIES TO MAKE A GO OF IT, THEY (BIG BUSINESS) TRIES TO MAKE A RECORD FOR THEMSELVES, AND ALL THERE DOING IS PUTTING MONEY IN THERE OWN POCKETS ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE, OR THEY WOULDN'T TRY TO CREATE HAVOC. I HOPE THAT NAPSTER DOES NOT LOOSE BECAUSE THE INTERNET SHOULD BE FREE AND PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE. NAPSTER IF YOU DO LOOSE YOU CAN GO OUTSIDE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND CONTINUE. GOOD LUCK. FROM ONE WHO ENJOYS THE INTERNET AND MUSIC.
I know I'm not techno. But this whole thing about Napster and MP3, neither of which I know how to access yet, is strange to me. Altho it's a little faster than taping from the stereo, what's the difference? Is it that no one pays that one, first fee for playing the tune once? I mean, if that's the case, why doesn't Napster just pay them once, one royalty fee, and then everyone can copy it. No one says you can't tape music off the stereo, or moview off the tv, or shows, or whatever, do they?
Hey there wingedinvestor!In my mind, Napster should't pay anything. They do not distribute the files. On Napster, files are not actually uploaded or downloaded through the Napster servers - There is no way for Napster (at this point) to determine if the file is what it says it is. Napster merely cretaes a catalog on their databases of file names of a certain type (in a user-selected "shared" directory) and the user who has them. You can then search the databases on Napster's backend and select a file on another user's machine which connects you directly to that user to attempt to reproduce that file on your own computer by downloading it from the other user's machine (just like when you download a program from tucows, Microsoft or anyone else).One of the major issues is that of copyright. Can a user legally do this when it comes to music which has not been legally and officially made available for free distribuion? For music that is "public domain" or music that has been legally and officially released for free distribution - there seems to be no question (I don't believe) - it is legal.There are lots of little side debates going on as well, and many good points being brought up. Some opinons, some facts, some,... well it's debateable whether they are opinons or facts. If you have an interest I say - paruse the postings and see what you think. I and others have made some postings to places where you can read the relevant laws. And most everybody has good points to make and good questions to ask.Personally my favorite post in the whole shootin' match is the one with the highest number of recommendations. Go figure!Welcome to the foolish group. Enjoy your stay!
I joined the napster community, after having read about their first lawsuit, by metallica in a newspaper - before that I and probably the last 100.000,00 members had never heard of them, and had no clue what we were gonna encounter.Once downloaded I logged on,and thought..what should I search for??? I did this for curiousity...So... I ended up looking for old pink floyd, that song with that word .."u know..." in it, robert palmer and some danish stuff(yeah, I'm danish)- even searched for john denver, because i remember groving up with this one song that my mum really liked - never found it.I thought Napster was a great community for nostalgic stuff, that you were not gonna go out and buy anyway,so I guess the truth of the matter is that if they are gonna charge me - I don't need them no more.regardless of what I download I will go out and buy the cd if I like it, now I just wont pay for a membership of something i lived happily without knowing about, loved when I found It, but can live without again.Viv
some one please tell me the differance between down loading a song off of napster for free or recording it off a radio station? the only differance i know is convenience. so if i record a song off the radio there is not any one getting paid. i just think they did not think of the idea for napster they dont like it. thats the problem with this country greed
There is very little difference. Technically (according to copyright law) it IS illegal for one to record music off of the radio without paying a compulsory license, although there may be some precident overruling those laws (I know there is precident overrulling videotaping television broadcasts but ONLY live broadcasts). But the argument about audio recording by home users from radio onto compact cassette was dismissed because of broadcast rights, the argument that broadcasters give live broadcast presentations over the songs they play, and the fact that this was something no one could possibly enforce. Broadcast royalties - radio stations, bars, Internet music streamers, etc. pay a fee to ASCAP or BMI (collectors of publishing rights) everytime they broadcast a song. Hell, even bands playing music live are supposed to pay a royalty. Even when a band plays their OWN songs live they pay a fee everytime they play it (If the song is published).Biz
Even when a band plays their OWN songs live they pay a fee everytime they play it (If the song is published).I'm assuming you're talking about cases where the band don't own the rights but have signed them over to a publisher, otherwise they'd be paying a fee to themselves. Sorry if I'm oversimplifying but interested if I'm missing something there.I've relied on bands performing their own original works to make three series of music programmes for cable TV (okay, this was in the UK so could be different). In every case, we could only record unsigned artists or musicians performing music that had gone out of copyright because two of the main copyright collecting bodies (representing publishers and record companies) didn't want to negotiate with us for commercial recording rights (ie. songs available on CD's in the shops) on the small scales we were distributing to.We did pay a performing rights licence through the cableco, so musicians who were part of that collective (eg. through a union) collected some royalties back for performances when we sent back our quarterly returns.Ascalon
I'm assuming you're talking about cases where the band don't own the rights but have signed them over to a publisher, otherwise they'd be paying a fee to themselvesUsually artists who are their own publishing company prefer to pay the fees to themselves to keep things simple (unless they have very little experience). The fees paid to performers are tracked and paid by different agencies than those paid to songwriters. So the same person or group of persons may fill several legal roles. When those fees are not logged properly they have a tendency to come back and bite ya' especially if certain portions of the rights eventually get sold to someone else.But yes - a Band who is signed to a publishing company usually pays royalties on the tunes they play (even their own) when they are out on tour.we could only record unsigned artists or musicians performing music that had gone out of copyright because two of the main copyright collecting bodies (representing publishers and record companies) didn't want to negotiate with us for commercial recording rights Yeah - Public Domain is definitely less-expensive then paying reuse and other royalties on works with owners. You shouldn't need to negotiate anything with the publishing companies though on previously released works (unless you want a special deal - which everyone does). You just pay the standard compulsory license and have another group create a sound-alike. Most TV commercials are done this way.Just a thought. Feasibilty always varies by project budget and need of course.Biz
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |