[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: artist rights vs. fans



At 11:23 PM 6/16/96 -0400, you wrote:
>This discussion is a regular Pandora's Box if 
>there ever was one.

     Yep. 

>... by buying [boots] I have taken money out of 
>the pockets of those that created that music.

     Nope. That assumes that the artists are ready,
willing and able to supply the recordings at a
comparable price. If so, then the unauthorized
recording constitutes piracy and should be 
condemned vigorously. If not, then the *real* question 
is whether the artist should be able to "free ride"
from the downstream distribution efforts of others.
In a commercial context, I'd be willing to say
"somewhat" -- commercial boots should pay a compulsory
license to the artist of $1-2 or so which is 
comparable to their cut from a contract recording.
For noncommercial live boots -- the artist was paid to
perform and someone paid to hear it. That's enough for
me.
...
>The music belongs to the band and their contracted record 
>company - not the fans, unless the band and/or record 
>company desire that music to be issued to those
>fans.

     For studio recordings, I would agree in principle. 
For live recordings, the assertion is a conclusion
that overlooks several things. First, the product is a
specific live performance, not "the music" in the 
abstract. Second, the artist and contract cohorts 
"sold" that performance to those who paid to attend.
Third, the artist and cohorts have contributed nothing
to downstream distribution channels. So there is no
economic basis for imposing downstream royalties apart
from some moral notion of entitlement. And the last
time I read the U.S. Constitution, it referred to
copyright in the context of the "public" interest, not
perpetuating a private monopoly.    

>We do not have some divine right to that music - we 
>did not write it, record it, perform it or copyright 
>it in any way, shape or form. Therefore, why do some 
>people think they do have some divine right to that music?

     Because the artist and cohorts placed it in the
public marketplace and I paid cold hard cash to hear it.

>If you built a house in your neighborhood, does someone 
>else in your neighborhood have a devine right to
>your labors?

     The analogy not only doesn't work, it backfires. I
don't have the right to live in your house, but I most
certainly have the right to look at it whenever I choose.

>The United States has some of the most stringent 
>copyright laws in the world. They are designed to protect 
>artists from having their creations stolen or
>appropriated by others for financial gain.

     Actually, they are designed to protect businesses
that paid lots of money to obtain copyrights and want
to preserve their monopoly against the public interest.
That may or may not be appropriate depending upon the
context, but presuming that copyright protects artists
directly in a significant way simply ignores the reality
of modern publishing.

>... it was created that way because many artists DID lose 
>fortunes due to record company ripoffs, publishing 
>company ripoffs, managerial ripoffs and many more. Some 
>of these artists, particularly blues artists, died 
>completely broke! I don't think that is fair - and I'm 
>sure you don't either.  That's why these laws exist.

     I don't think it's "fair," but more importantly
I don't think that current law would change the results
for any of those folks. Artists still may be cheated 
of their copyrights. If anything, the "work for hire"
that transfers copyrights from artist to employer has
grown stronger in recent years.

>... the collector side of me wants more music than is 
>released by the band or record label because we love 
>The Who. ... So, how does this situation get resolved?
>I would lke to hear some solid responses to this.

     No warranties about what's "slid" or not, but you
might "try this:" In my world, you're out of luck with 
respect to unreleased studio work. Regarding live 
performances, noncommercial downstream distribution is 
free & easy & not as high-quality as an official release.
Commercial but "unofficial" downstream distribution 
result in a license fee paid to the artist through
something like ASCAP or BMI. The result is more
competition for distribution of live performances, and
methinx that's a good thing. 
Bad defeats Good then self-destructs