Re: Comments on CD Burning/Unauthorized Duplication etc.
Then there is the subject of used cd's. I told him that when he bought a used cd he may as well have made an unauthorized copy...becuase the artist does not see any of the money past the initial sale of that cd. Or that when he sells used cd's to stores he may as well be selling audience tapes because he is now making money off of someone else's music.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I can't see how that theory works. When you sell a cd you don't want, you rarely make money, but rather lose money - say you spend $20, then perhaps get back $10, you have paid out $10 for a cd which you don't even own anymore! Similarly with the buyer, as you said the artist has already got whatever money they are going to with the initial sale. When someone buys it used, there is still only one owner, and hence shouldn't there still only be one payoff to the artist?
The basic point behind this is: what is the artist paid for? The physical CD copy, or royalities for his intellectual property? I think the idea that it is the CD you purchase is only a vehicle which makes intellectual property tradeable in the first place; a practical consideration of how to make solid money from something as aetherical as music. For the artist to make a living, this is the crucial point. But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there the question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive since the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? Fritz ############################################## Fritz Feger mail@fritzfeger.de www.fritzfeger.com ##############################################
Hello Fritz, Saturday, November 30, 2002, you wrote: FF> But theoretically, the artist should get paid per listener. Or per FF> listening. With an intensity of listening experience factor. But there the FF> question arises: should the more intense listening be more expensive since FF> the listener gets more from the artist, or should it be cheaper as a FF> discount price, or to prevent misuse of inattentive listening? This is actually the strangest point of view I ever heard. Copyright laws are weird already and should be changed to be softer not harder. Why on earth somebody who writes or plays music, writes texts or acts in a movie should be paid by the number of sold copies or tickets? Nobody else except these categories of people are paid that way and that's why nobody else can become a billionaire just because he happened to have pretty face or managed to compose popular tune. Lets say I'm cleaning some path in the park, should I charge every person who passes this path some money? Even other sort of artists like sculptors or painters or architects are not paid that way. When the sculpture is sold, it is sold, that's it, no more money. People two hundred years ago didn't know anything about copyright so why should we use this thing? Can you imagine that somebody will start to claim their rights for Odyssey or even Bible? Obviously, my opinion about the subject doesn't mean that I don't care about the artists and copy whatever I can possibly find. In fact I'm buying lots of new and used CDs and copying and downloading sometimes the music which I wouldn't buy anyway. In case I like something which was copied or downloaded enough to have it for a long time, I buy it on a CD. And surely I prefer to buy music directly from the artists. And let me end with another issue. I happened to live in the countries where the price of one brand new CD would be equal to having dinner every day in a week. The price of five CDs might be the same as somebodies monthly salary. In that case how should I say to these people no when they ask me to copy one of CDs I have, or how should I blame them when they exchange music in MP3s? NP: David Gould "Adonai Dub" (CD) -- Best regards, Peter Gannushkin e-mail: shkin@shkin.com URL: http://www.downtownmusic.net/
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002 17:27:33 +0100 Peter Gannushkin <shkin@shkin.com> wrote:
Why on earth somebody who writes or plays music, writes texts or acts in a movie should be paid by the number of sold copies or tickets? Nobody else except these categories of people are paid that way and that's why nobody else can become a billionaire just because he happened to have pretty face or managed to compose popular tune. Lets say I'm cleaning some path in the park, should I charge every person who passes this path some money?
Hmm... ever heard of sales commissions? Bridge tolls? Camping fees? Under capitalism, as practiced (for better or worse) here in the US at least, a whole lot of the economy is based on such per-person fees. And don't discount "having a pretty face" as a factor in getting people to buy just about anything that someone visible happens to be selling. Is it shallow? Yeah. Is it nonetheless common? Hell, yeah. -- | jzitt@josephzitt.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | GPG: A4224EFA http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code / VoiceWAVE Silence: the John Cage Discussion List |
----- Original Message ----- From: Fritz Feger <mail@fritzfeger.de>
The basic point behind this is: what is the artist paid for? The physical CD copy, or royalities for his intellectual property?
That's an interesting point. That's the way it should work, in theory. But the prcatice is noy based on that asumption. You pay for a CD version of a record even if you have it on a LP, you pay for a remaster. There's no clear rational idea behind copyright of music, just bunch of practices that make it all work. And the record companies (especially the big ones) make sure they make tons of money out of that (can you imagine the money they got from selling the LP material on CDs?). Marcin
participants (4)
-
Fritz Feger -
Joseph Zitt -
Marcin Gokieli -
Peter Gannushkin