Don't let them steal ur tunes

Register everything u write with the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society & guard ur midi files with ur life :Smile3: The guy who gave Madonna the begings of ray of light made about £100,000
Copyright infringement is a criminal offence in England so perhaps one day the police might actually realise it or has anyone had a successful prosecution?
 

nik

Member
miszt said:
:irofl:
why does everyone have to be a money grabber? :irazz:

its not about moneygrabbing but more about getting what you deserve. Imagine if your psytune went multi platinum (highly unlikely but possible) and you realised you signed ALL rights to the label who intially gave you in return £150 and a pat on the back...
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
I wouldnt sign up to anything like that, coz I really dont care about making money out of musik...being payed for performance is a bonus afai-care, why people have to be so concerned about making millions out of musik is beyond me

Any musik I make is free, so if a company wants to try and make money out of it, well thats there problem, coz peepz can get it for free anywayz...if they wana spend money promoting me, fine, let them, its STILL gonna be free :Smile3:

I am anti-capitolist, and the whole music industry just pisses me off, for excatly the reason this thread is about

of course people need to live, but therez where performance comes into it, imo, thats where artists can make the money they need to live...you cant excatly steal a live performance can you? (well I guess you could if you had some sophisticated animatronics, but then you wouldnt need to would you...)
 
Really miszt so tell me what music worth stealing have u made? & How do you earn a living?
Most contracts have been written by a solicitor for the benefit of both the musician & the label and they tend to state whether it's an exclusive contact or whether the label is merely buying the rights to copy it X amount of times so if only 2000 copies are being pressed then how much should an artist be paid baring in mind that a distributor will make approximately £4.50 per unit, production costs have to be paid, as does the person who does the artwork, the company who do the mastering, engineering and the promtion expenses can be huge. Try phoning AGR Multi-media (London don't know the current code 0181 594 9412) to find out it will cost to manufacture 2,000 CDs with jewel cases if they provide the plates for the artwork with full colour? Not all Electronica and psychedelic music is dance music and thus appeals to a far wider audience so thus royalties to the composeur are potentially huge. Why should a struggling artist give away 2weeks work for free? I hate to tell you this but musicians do have to eat occasionly no matter how many drugs they take. How much does a Korg prophecy, a 303, a Yamaha A3000, an ensoniqu DP4 & an ensoniqu DP Pro cost?
To the quality electronica artists that don't bother releasing anything anymore like Hallucinogen, Dimension 5 & Chi-A.D. do the words 'filter wankers mean anything to you? :Smile3:
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Really miszt so tell me what music worth stealing have u made? & How do you earn a living?

Currently I am developing a network package which is to be released under GPL (ie. For Free) for use by the NHS and european health services around the EU, in response to the huge price tag certain other major corporations wanted to impose on the various governments for the use of there software. I am paid for my time developing the application by various sponsers, I have the possibility of teaching people how to use the software aswell and can be paid for my time to do that (although I hope to be out of this bussiness before that comes up). Thats how I earn a living :Smile3:

Your tone is a bit pretentious really, why is that? 'music worth stealing'...your assuming what about me? You dont know me.

I hate to tell you this but musicians do have to eat occasionly no matter how many drugs they take.

Pherhaps you should re-read what I originally wrote?
 

turkeyphant

http://turkeyphant.org/
Ding! Ding!

Miszt: 1
"Intellectual Property": 0

Of course this is a complex argument with subtle nuances, but Miszt is making a lot moresense. Read into the beginnings of things like Open Source, the GPL and Creative Commons and you'll see a different way of thinking about art is possible. Make it about the music, not the money.
:peace:
 
Tell Avi & Avi that David Chen put out 1,000,000 of Dancing Galaxy in China. He told me so.
Miszt tell me when ur next gig is & I'll come & have a fucking good laugh :Smile3:
 

Electroencephalogram

Mr Smiles Esquire
miszt said:
Currently I am developing a network package which is to be released under GPL (ie. For Free) for use by the NHS and european health services around the EU, in response to the huge price tag certain other major corporations wanted to impose on the various governments for the use of there software. ....

You might end up looking the arse though if someone STOLE your package changed it slightly , copyrighted and commercialised it....

all your hard work down the toilet. :isad:
 

Monkey Do

#1 Internet Toughguy
Electroencephalogram said:
You might end up looking the arse though if someone STOLE your package changed it slightly , copyrighted and commercialised it....

all your hard work down the toilet. :isad:

I'm not massively up on open source licencing but isn't that part of what the GPL prevents?
 

JPsychodelicacy

Studio Elf
Iris Electronica said:
Most contracts have been written by a solicitor for the benefit of both the musician & the label

Rubbish - the lawyers are paid by the label, and the small print usually reveals a significant bias in favour of the labels (and their lawyers) inherent in most record industry contracts.

Try phoning AGR Multi-media (London don't know the current code 0181 594 9412) to find out it will cost to manufacture 2,000 CDs with jewel cases if they provide the plates for the artwork with full colour?

But you don't need to have a physical product to distribute music any more - this is why the current music industry is a dangerous anachronism sucking the life out of artists who are potentially good, and why it needs to be destroyed.

If decent artists explored the avenues of releasing their records themselves, then the majors would slowly become the sole preserve of Waterman-esque pop pap and the occasional old dinosaur like Phil Collins or Elton John, and become as much of a relic as their business model.

Not all Electronica and psychedelic music is dance music and thus appeals to a far wider audience so thus royalties to the composeur are potentially huge.

Only if you sell parital rights to advertising firms, as Moby demonstrated.

Why should a struggling artist give away 2weeks work for free?

In my experience, all but the luckiest musicians stop whining and get a job. There's more than enough free time in the evenings to get your creative mojo on. Failing that you can gig every night, just as musicians used to do before the recording industry came along.

How much does a Korg prophecy, a 303, a Yamaha A3000, an ensoniqu DP4 & an ensoniqu DP Pro cost?

And how unnecessary are they in today's world of virtual synths and the ability to take a virtual studio - more powerful than many project studios of the 1990s - on the road in a package no larger than a briefcase?

To the quality electronica artists that don't bother releasing anything anymore like Hallucinogen, Dimension 5 & Chi-A.D. do the words 'filter wankers mean anything to you?

That's got nothing to do with it - Posford doesn't release as Hallucinogen anymore because he has moved on as an artist, and I'm prepared to bet that the other artists you mention have as well too.

Without meaning to sound harsh, those days are over and it's time to get with the programme!

J.

PS:
Electroencephalogram said:
surely it CAN't if the source is modified--- I'm asking you ... if it did where does GPL protection stop ?

It doesn't - that's the point. The onus would be on the developer of the commercial product to prove in court that their implementation is completely 'clean-room' and contains no GPL'ed code.
 

Monkey Do

#1 Internet Toughguy
Electroencephalogram said:
surely it CAN't if the source is modified--- I'm asking you ... if it did where does GPL protection stop ?

Same argument applies to music with or without copyright laws.

And how come The Verve and Vanilla Ice get the book thrown at them for nicking a couple of bars of a tune to make a new song out of yet Robson and Jerome can record as many versions of Unchained Melody as they like without changing it at all and that's OK?

Copyright laws are arse. Yes artists etc. should be paid but the whole thing becomes a big fucking claims culture if you get too protective (and can afford clever enough liers...sorry lawyers)
 

martin_e

Pantheistic Cyberneticist
Monkey Do said:
I'm not massively up on open source licencing but isn't that part of what the GPL prevents?

Absolutely. The GPL allows ANYONE to use, reproduce and modify the source code - as long as they agree that they cannot re-release the package unless it's also under the GPL.

With music it's the Creative Commons Licence which would apply.
The Creative Commons Licence is available to look at here:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Electroencephalogram said:
You might end up looking the arse though if someone STOLE your package changed it slightly , copyrighted and commercialised it....

all your hard work down the toilet.

GPL doesnt mean the program isnt copyright, it is, and the GPL states that the program may be use/modified/reproduced however anyone wants, as long as they include the GPL, which says that the program is available for free, is developed freely and freely available for modification

The people who pay for the commercial version would end up looking like an arse really wouldnt they?

Of course they could repackage it, but they cant sell the actual program, only the packaging, and they still have to include the GPL (General Public License btw)
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Iris Electronica said:
Miszt tell me when ur next gig is & I'll come & have a fucking good laugh

I'm sure that the people who came to the last 2 partiez will tell you, they also had a good fuking laugh :Smile3:
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Electroencephalogram said:
surely it CAN't if the source is modified--- I'm asking you ... if it did where does GPL protection stop ?

Theoretically, the copyright holder for the software could take the person/company to court and sue them for commercialising a GPL Product and not including the GPL

Some GPL products are available to buy on the shop shelf, eg SuSE Linux, although Linux is GPL, and 99.9% of thesoftware on the DVD is GPL, SuSE includes a few manuals and an installation program to make it easier to use, they are perfectly entitled to sell the manuals and installation program (as it happens SuSE dont, the install app is also GPL, unlike some companies, eg Red Hat).

Linux is freely available to anyone to download without charge, and this is how I also see music, fair enough, charge for a CD, charge for performance time etc etc but why charge for the music? unless you are making it for money rather than for the love of making music and seeing people smile n dance when your tune comes on...
 
Top