The Digital Music Revolution

[thomas7g]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne...line.overview/

I'm sure most of you have known about this for awhile. But its good to see it summed up. And presented as one story.

I have mixed feelings about this. I believe an artist should make what his creativity has made. But at the same time I'm tired of paying $16 for a cd that only has one or two songs I like. ESPECIALLY when I know that cds can be made for a nickle a disk!

It also bugs me to see my hard earned sweatshop work pay for the extravaganzes of such big egos like Michael Jackson, and other nuts. I also see a extreme self indulgence and self righteousness from the elite music heirarchy. And they really can be condescending toward us. Like Janet Jackson and her boob display. Yeah, she apologized. But I see that as largly a marketing move. I mean we've seen her on album covers naked with her private parts shielded by someone elses hands.

Its like they live on Mt Olympus in another world, and they look down on us. Except when it comes time to sell an album or a ticket.

I don't know where we are headed. I'm definitely not on the side of music record labels which are pretty damn greedy. And I don't like MTV and its "high moral values". (sarcasm).

But Artists should make money from their albums.





I guess we are going to see where all this is headed.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/interne...line.overview/

I'm sure most of you have known about this for awhile. But its good to see it summed up. And presented as one story.

I have mixed feelings about this. I believe an artist should make what his creativity has made. But at the same time I'm tired of paying $16 for a cd that only has one or two songs I like. ESPECIALLY when I know that cds can be made for a nickle a disk!

It also bugs me to see my hard earned sweatshop work pay for the extravaganzes of such big egos like Michael Jackson, and other nuts. I also see a extreme self indulgence and self righteousness from the elite music heirarchy. And they really can be condescending toward us. Like Janet Jackson and her boob display. Yeah, she apologized. But I see that as largly a marketing move. I mean we've seen her on album covers naked with her private parts shielded by someone elses hands.

Its like they live on Mt Olympus in another world, and they look down on us. Except when it comes time to sell an album or a ticket.

I don't know where we are headed. I'm definitely not on the side of music record labels which are pretty damn greedy. And I don't like MTV and its "high moral values". (sarcasm).

But Artists should make money from their albums.





I guess we are going to see where all this is headed.

I think that the copyright laws should be honored.
When we download songs with out the artists permission that's
money out of THEIR pocket.

However if we pay to download their songs (a small fee that is)
then that's different and in the long run will still make the
artist money for that song while saving US money for being
able to download THAT song and not have to spend as much on
the entire album.

[thomas7g]

When I saw this argument in the times, and another article earlier, it really got me thinking about the value of copyrights.

Being an artist I fully endorse the right of an artist to the profits and use of their work through their lifetime. But then I've been seeing arguments of how infinite rights take away from what benefits soceity. A small example is from Star Trek Next Generation. There were several wonderful stories toying with Data as Sherlock Holmes. But then the someone with the rights sued and Trek could no longer do those stories. WHich means we lost stories we never saw. That's why they switched to Shakespear, since his work has no copyright. But what if some distant decendent of Shakespear could sue to stop even that from happening.

Here is another mythical example that hits close to home. Say Larson was able to find some way to get back all the rights to Battlestar Galactica. The court awards it to him and its his forever. But before he can do something with it, he dies. And the rights pass to a son, someone who HATES galactica, and he refuses to sell or fo anything with those rights. And say he stipulates in his will he never ever wants his descendents to make another Galactica.

That would mean we would be forever deprived of our show. That would be it.

Now that is not going to happen to us. But it can happen to another show we care about. And I'm not so happy about that. I've seen Disney sit on rights just to drive an artist crazy.

[shiningstar]

Originally Posted by thomas7g

When I saw this argument in the times, and another article earlier, it really got me thinking about the value of copyrights.

Being an artist I fully endorse the right of an artist to the profits and use of their work through their lifetime. But then I've been seeing arguments of how infinite rights take away from what benefits soceity. A small example is from Star Trek Next Generation. There were several wonderful stories toying with Data as Sherlock Holmes. But then the someone with the rights sued and Trek could no longer do those stories. WHich means we lost stories we never saw. That's why they switched to Shakespear, since his work has no copyright. But what if some distant decendent of Shakespear could sue to stop even that from happening.

Here is another mythical example that hits close to home. Say Larson was able to find some way to get back all the rights to Battlestar Galactica. The court awards it to him and its his forever. But before he can do something with it, he dies. And the rights pass to a son, someone who HATES galactica, and he refuses to sell or fo anything with those rights. And say he stipulates in his will he never ever wants his descendents to make another Galactica.

That would mean we would be forever deprived of our show. That would be it.

Now that is not going to happen to us. But it can happen to another show we care about. And I'm not so happy about that. I've seen Disney sit on rights just to drive an artist crazy.

Neither am I thomas ......but as an "ARTIST" who has had my work
stolen and used for profit by someone ELSE ........I can understand it.