Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.
So where do you draw this mythical line where someone has already made their money on it. It should be free.???
Why would anyone want to start a business, or put their heart and soul into an artistic endeavour, if they knew that at some point, their work is now "free" to whomever wants it????
""
That sucks for a company to disregard the wishes of the musician. I think it was Jello who got sued by his band members for not wanting to use a DK song in a soda advertisement.
The music industry is there with newspapers and cable televisions is loosing profitability and significance. The days of 20$ albums are gone, the music industry is slowly dying. I guess the newest thing is going to music venues where small musicians are playing covers. then suing over unpaid royalties. Great way to kill small time musicians.
In case you guys didn't bother to click the link, the Beasties asked them to stop using the song, the Goldieblox decided to sue them!
"GoldieBlox quickly and preemptively sued the Beastie Boys, asking the judge to approve their use of the song (Notwithstanding the late Adam Yauch’s request in his will that “in no event may my image or name or any music or any artistic property created by me be used for advertising purposes”). GoldieBlox argues in their suit that the 1987 version of “Girls” is sexist, regressive, and dangerous"
I think the artists were the one ones getting shafted here.
Trans_Maro wrote: In case you guys didn't bother to click the link...
Yeah, posting a synopsis should be considered a requirement around here. At least 38% of people don't bother actually following any given link before forming an opinion, which leads to a 94% chance that one or more of those people will make a ridiculous comment because of it.
If GoldieBlox made that parody and just published it to Youtube, I don't think anybody would have cared, because it would have been a fair parody.
The music on a record is an artist's entire being. It's their soul. To say that has no worth is asinine.
Walmart makes millions in profit. They have enough, so go steal a cart of stuff from them. Same deal.
The death of intellectual property is why the music biz is so bland/horrible at the moment.
Trans_Maro wrote: In case you guys didn't bother to click the link,
I normally do , but I didn't this time.
Guilty as charged.
turboswede wrote: Also understand that the artists aren't the source of much of this, the labels are as they are protecting their Intellectual Property. Most artists make their money from concerts, not from selling their music through their labels, that's where the labels make their money.
Unless the artist is also the songwriter, then they get a royalty every time the song is played on air, including commercials and radio. Songwriters rights can be bought or sold, such as Michael Jackson buying the rights to all those Beatles songs and then licensing them out to be used in commercials.
Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.
I agree as I've said ever since the mid 1980s that I will own a Porsche one day. I was a huge Porsche fanatic back then and still feel that I will own one one day. I feel that Porsche has more than made enough money off these cars and it only seems fair that I should just get one for free. I too hate greedy people.
N Sperlo wrote: Sexual discrimination is bad, so we're gonna make a toy only for girls.
+1
Thinking the same thing.
Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.
Wow crazy talk! I guess you also don't agree with copyright laws?
slefain wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.It will be free eventually, approximately 70 years after the last Beastie dies. "The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years. For a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death." And no, it should not be free. The Beasties made it, it is theirs to do with as they wish.
I believe this only covers the music and not the recording. Legally they are separate.
iadr wrote:gamby wrote: The music on a record is an artist's entire being. It's their soul. To say that has no worth is asinine. Walmart makes millions in profit. They have enough, so go steal a cart of stuff from them. Same deal. The death of intellectual property is why the music biz is so bland/horrible at the moment.No! The asinine and obsessive enforcement of copyright is what has destroyed the music industry. Learn a little history about copyright. Never in the history of civilization have we have even 1% the "protection". Answer me this- why should the average pop star be wealthy at all? I'm curious to see what the values are of some of you- I'm not singling Gamby out- because what you post makes no sense at all.
because they provide something that a lot of people are willing to pay money for.
Sultan wrote:Zomby Woof wrote: They've already made their money on it. It should be free. Pure greed.Wow crazy talk! I guess you also don't agree with copyright laws?
Correct.
In reply to iadr:
Don't waste your time.
I'm not sure if it was mentioned or not, by why isn't this just considered a parody? Do parodies need approval of the original artist?
If the original artists said "our music is not to be used for ads" and you use a parody for an ad, is it still the same music because you needed approval?
Zomby Woof wrote: In reply to iadr: Don't waste your time.
yeah... some of us have this weird idea about how people should be able to control what is done with the things they create and even be compensated for it when someone else uses it to make money..
weird, i know..
iadr wrote:gamby wrote: The music on a record is an artist's entire being. It's their soul. To say that has no worth is asinine. Walmart makes millions in profit. They have enough, so go steal a cart of stuff from them. Same deal. The death of intellectual property is why the music biz is so bland/horrible at the moment.No! The asinine and obsessive enforcement of copyright is what has destroyed the music industry. Learn a little history about copyright. Never in the history of civilization have we have even 1% the "protection". Answer me this- why should the average pop star be wealthy at all? I'm curious to see what the values are of some of you- I'm not singling Gamby out- because what you post makes no sense at all.
(I can't believe I'm actually engaging in this)
So the entire concept of intellectual property/copyright is null and void to you? :facepalm:
Pre-Napster, the music biz was cash flush and could take risks on less-mainstream artists. Now, there are entire divisions of labels gone since the only stuff people will pay for en masse is the lowest of the lowest common denominator.
Once the collective decided that music should be free, the record business vanished. The major labels were pretty vibrant and diverse when people were paying for music. Now, we're left with an industry dominated by bland pop and country. Anything unique is on the underground.
If I write a song, I should be able to profit from its sale. No different than writing a book. If you sell a lot of those units, you should become wealthy--because capitalism.
The pop star is wealthy more from performance and merchandising. The person who wrote their songs is wealthy if those songs get bought enough. The wealth is deserved if the product (the song) is in demand enough to be bought in large numbers.
The music biz did indeed blow it in regard to embracing the digital age (the book Appetite for Self Destruction documented it beautifully). That said, to say an artist/songwriter shouldn't be able to profit from the material he/she wrote is asinine and irrational.
gamby wrote: Pre-Napster, the music biz was cash flush and could take risks on less-mainstream artists. Now, there are entire divisions of labels gone since the only stuff people will pay for en masse is the lowest of the lowest common denominator. Once the collective decided that music should be free, the record business vanished. The major labels were pretty vibrant and diverse when people were paying for music. Now, we're left with an industry dominated by bland pop and country. Anything unique is on the underground.
Which is why I buy my music directly from the artists at their shows when I can make it to one or by using Bandcamp or other channels. I buy my music. The artist still gets their money. I don't have to worry about DRM or any of that junk- I bought one of the infamous Sony root-kit CDs back in the day. I still have it. Spending 6 hours fixing my computer after I tried to play a frickin' CD in it did not win the labels any points with me.
Back in the day, there was a pretty well established model for getting your music.
-The label went out and did PR for the band and got their music out there. They sent copies to radio stations, got copies into record stores, that sort of thing.
-You heard a song on the radio (or maybe at a friend's place)
-You want to a record store and picked up a single or maybe a whole album
-You played that thing until it broke, and if you really liked it, you bought another copy.
What happened?
Well, radio became homogenized. Radio stopped taking risks and playing interesting music long before Napster and the like threw their lunch in the trash. Hearing new music is hard. You have to listen to NPR, college radio stations, satellite radio or other "non-traditional" distribution models to hear the non-mainstream acts. However, satellite radio and the web-at-large (youtube, blogs, etc.) are on the cusp of becoming the mainstream- heck, maybe they already have if you're under 30 years old.
People started posting music up for free on the internet. This was wrong, but it showed that digital distribution could work. Smart artists jumped on things like I-tunes. However, under pressure from the labels, I-Tunes stuck DRM on their songs and people realized that that really sucked, so they went back into the arms of Napster. Apple took a shot right to their wallet, got smart, told the labels to GTFO and removed their DRM. People started buying the songs there again. Other distribution channels like Amazon started popping up, wanting a piece of the long tail.
Some small artists decided that they didn't need a label- Kickstarter and BandCamp came onto the scene. These last channels bypass traditional broadcast radio (largely), record labels, record stores and they WORK. They work pretty well. The bands using them might never get as big as Elvis, Led Zepplin. U2, Nirvana or Lady Gaga, but lots of them are able to use them to make a career out of their music, mostly because they get a much bigger cut of their music from these channels.
And I'm ready to dance on the graves of the record companies. Screw them for breaking my computer. I just wanted MUSIC. I don't care how that music is legally delivered to me. Record Labels are Record Stores are an outdated method of distribution that rode themselves into the ground snorting coke through $100 bills and using them to wipe their butts afterwards, and they didn't see the world burning around them as it was happening.
In reply to Brett_Murphy:
These are all excellent points (because I agree with them 
)
I get my music from Sirius and I also get turned onto new stuff via some music places on twitter. I'll check them out on youtube/soundcloud and(out of laziness) buy their stuff on Amazon mp3 if I like it.
Youtube is now radio. This is fantastic because there are no gatekeepers to keep certain artists off of youtube--unlike radio. Sure, there's still a sea of stuff to wade through (the equivalent of bringing your mitt to a baseball game in hopes of catching a homer), but all it takes is recognition from a blog/tweet/article to get the ball rolling. It's beyond "indie" because the label is unnecessary.
The only purpose labels serve now is to get their "big" music played on the radio here and abroad. The cash cows are pop and country. Rock in the mainstream is dead and hip-hop in the mainstream is dying. Rock has gone the way of Jazz, where it was once a mass-market genre and now only those "in the know" listen to it.
That said, it's sad that there's so much less money in the business for bands to actually make a living at what they do. It's a noble profession and the artists who are "good" should be able to sustain themselves off of their talent as they could 20 years ago.
THAT said, there's no such thing as selling out anymore. The most indie/snooty of bands will license their music to companies with savvy marketing depts. (see: Washed Out's video for "All I Know" that was bankrolled by American Outfitters). I'd be outraged at that in the early 90's, now it's just survival.
Robin Thicke made a great point on the Stern show where he said that while album sales are in the toilet, singles sales are on the rise because now we can buy music anywhere, anytime. I buy my stuff on my phone because it's so easy. Sadly, this is much less romantic compared to waiting for the day new stuff came out and going to the record store to buy it, but these are the times.
(As a music teacher) I tell my students that we're in an amazing transitional time for music. We have no idea how it will be consumed in another 10 years.
Hey, wasn't Goldieblox doing a parody?
Gamby, singles sales and touring was how artists made their money back in the 50s. Heck, the top 40 countdown was created to track singles sales and never really changed from that. The labels were behind the mega-artists, but how many of those were there, really? Most of the bands that might have been able to make a living were kept playing their local bars and never got heard by people further away than they were willing to play.
I'd argue that all of the money is stil there, it is just going into hundreds of thousands of pockets instead of just a few hundred.
In reply to Brett_Murphy:
Well, the days of a band coming out with a 10-20 million seller are long gone. That was huge money that fueled a lot of other lesser projects. I don't think that legal downloads are taking up that slack.
Now, if you sell 2 million, you're at the absolute elite of the business. In the 90's that only helped you get your next album promoted.
Good point about the 50's model, though. Granted, Elvis made $2million in 1958. Now, if a rock band makes $2 million, that's a serious accomplishment.
This is what I meant by the labels pumping money into more fringe projects:
http://www.spin.com/articles/blame-nirvana-40-weirdest-post-nevermind-major-label-albums/
That simply doesn't happen anymore.
They pumped money into bands like Shudder To Think because they were trying to find the next Nirvana so they could get more blow.
Presley was in the Army in 1958. Did he make two million dollars there in 1958 money or today money? Also, Elvis is way-waaay-waaaaaaay far beyond a "typical" artist. I am thinking about more average bands.
So about that parody Goldieblox made of the Beastie Boys. Did he need their approval?
You'll need to log in to post.
