Don't let them steal ur tunes

Electroencephalogram

Mr Smiles Esquire
martin_e said:
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/

Clear defined - nice answer. thank you - no more questions from me...
Personally I spend to much time burried in mysticism and synthesis science to be worried about Copyrights... And when it comes down to it . You can all call me an ass for that fact aswell.

JPsychodelicacy said:
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.

sounds like the bank --- "you don't need to have to have money onhand... to borrow it out, as-long as the people withdrawing loans agree to pay percentages of what wasn't there in the first place. . sorry for going a bit off-topic...
 

JPsychodelicacy

Studio Elf
Iris Electronica said:
The guy who gave Madonna the begings of ray of light made about £100,000

That would be "the guy who wrote the song", originally titled Sepheryn.

He actually worked with my friend's dad for a cleaning supplies firm when he got the call from her label asking for permission to use it (they'd allegedly been trying to look him up for months). He co-wrote it when he was in a folkie duo in the '60s and 70s, with another guy who had since died - which left him and the other guy's family eligible for all songwriting dues.

Of course, he signed his publishing deal in the '70s, when there were less Watermans around...

J.
 

nik

Member
miszt said:
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?

Because somebody made that music and yes, although it is noncorporeal in essence somebody worked hard to make it. Its like saying charge for the paper, charge for the ink but dont give the writer a penny for the actual story.....I mean you could easily download a bunch of words.

miszt said:
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...

Every body wants to do a job that they love and makes them and others happy and smily. If you get that job then your a lucky person indeed and probably worked very hard to get it.

...and JK Rowling sits at home opening another can of tesco baked beans, fully content that millions of readers around the world are reading her story - she got paid her expenses!
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Because somebody made that music and yes, although it is noncorporeal in essence somebody worked hard to make it. Its like saying charge for the paper, charge for the ink but dont give the writer a penny for the actual story.....I mean you could easily download a bunch of words.

Do you think its fair that millionaire artists take home millions each year, while people are starving and dying? did they really work that hard??

of course people should be paid for their work, which is what I said....I wasnt saying just pay for the CD etc etc
 

nik

Member
Yes i do think its fair that artists should make money from their music. I dont think its fair that people are starving and dying around the world....how did you come to make that comparison? Probably about the same time you compared Music with GPL.
I think the whole way of thinking about the world in terms of capitalism/communism/itsnotfairisms is a dated concept.
I was in Oxford Circus when the police hemmed in about 5,000 people and wouldnt even let an old granny out to go to the toilet. I also saw a young man wearing a nike t-shirt throw a brick at the Nike shop....after i went home and turned on the telly.
Dont be anti. To even involve yourself with capitalism on an intellectual level only means you are feeding the beast. There are other ways - for example be anti anti.

Anyway i dont see why you or anyone else at this moment is so against giving artists a fairer share for their work. Why dont you pick on someone else like the guy who makes millions from Tescos baked beans?
 

trancetheory

♥♪♫
Anyway i dont see why you or anyone else at this moment is so against giving artists a fairer share for their work. Why dont you pick on someone else like the guy who makes millions from Tescos baked beans?

Nik why dont read what I actually wrote...??
 

martin_e

Pantheistic Cyberneticist
But if you have a usage policy the same as the GPL then no-one loses out. If you WANT to give your music away then you can. If you WANT to use Creative Commons music and samples as the basis for your own music then you can - but have to let others use the new work in the same way. If not, make your own samples, make your own tunes - just don't make money off other people's work.
You'll find that very quickly the community of music writers will be able to make better music much faster than the individual - the same way in which Linux bugs can be fixed far faster than Windows bugs. Sharing and community have massive advantages which are better for all of us in general.

But if you want to make the music yourself - fine, hope someone buys it...
 

nik

Member
miszt said:
Nik why dont read what I actually wrote...??
miszt said:
I am anti-capitolist, and the whole music industry just pisses me off, for excatly the reason this thread is about

Sorry i was making reference to this earlier comment.
 

nik

Member
dont forget Miszt that the copyright earnings go to the writers not the record company. The RC have their own royalty to collect for the recording that is sold on the CD.
 

JPsychodelicacy

Studio Elf
nik said:
The RC have their own royalty to collect for the recording that is sold on the CD.

Which is usually noticeably larger than the amount which goes to the artist, and it's that that I have the issue with - plus they take sizeable chunks out of artist's earnings until any advances are paid back... it's another kind of indentured servitude.

J.
 

giorgos

Junior Members
Yeah, music is all about creativity and kind of contadicts with the whole money issue, but in the world we live in at the moment the artist needs a financial reward to go on creating more inspiring music for him and for others. I think the best way is for artists to start promoting the music by themselves as much as they can, as someone suggested earlier in the thread. There is an interesting articles on Sound On Sound about creating your own label and managing copyright and things like that. Some of you might already know it, if not I am sure you will find it useful... http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Sep02/articles/diylabel.asp
 

nik

Member
soundonsound music business forum is a great resource for anyone wanting to find out more about the issues concerning this thread and the music industry.
 
Top