Moderators daddymack Posted February 25, 2012 Moderators Share Posted February 25, 2012 PROs do not attack fans, they are the revenue protector for artists. That you play for the love of music is fine. Some people actually rely on the sales of their licensed intellectual property to live on...and the PROs collect that money and distribute it. You can't eat flattery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 PROs do not attack fans, they are the revenue protector for artists. That you play for the love of music is fine. Some people actually rely on the sales of their licensed intellectual property to live on...and the PROs collect that money and distribute it. You can't eat flattery. Music and musicians survived long before lawyers. You just have to get the product out and stop worrying about people that love your music so much they play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 Only spam I see is on your posts. I wasn't talking to you. The other guy has a spam link in his post. Pros? I'm just a dude that loves music. Not 'pro' as in professional, PRO as in 'performance rights organization'. Music and musicians survived long before lawyers. You just have to get the product out and stop worrying about people that love your music so much they play it. So, all music should just be free? And what about people who write hit songs for other artists but don't perform them? Should Elton John make a ton of money but Bernie Taupin should be broke? Jesus, you really don't have a clue. I suggest you go buy a book called "The Business of Music" and read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 I wasn't talking to you. The other guy has a spam link in his post. Not 'pro' as in professional, PRO as in 'performance rights organization'. So, all music should just be free? And what about people who write hit songs for other artists but don't perform them? Should Elton John make a ton of money but Bernie Taupin should be broke? Jesus, you really don't have a clue. I suggest you go buy a book called "The Business of Music" and read it. Ha ha. We have nothing in common. I'm totally cool with that. Get your product out as easy and affordable to the people who want it. That's the business model of the future. Don't attack your fans. You're doing it wrong. For every fan you attack, you'll lose dozens more through bad reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MichaelSaulnier Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 The fees collected by PRO's is NOT an ATTACK on the FANS. It is the legal collection of performance fees for artists who rely on that income to augment the declining sales of cd's, and concert tickets. The PRO's take the revenue gathered from the use of these copyrighted materials and pass income to the artists. It's just business. The Music Business. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 The fees collected by PRO's is NOT an ATTACK on the FANS.It is the legal collection of performance fees for artists who rely on that income to augment the declining sales of cd's, and concert tickets.The PRO's take the revenue gathered from the use of these copyrighted materials and pass income to the artists.It's just business.The Music Business.M If a fan performs that music and they get a call from a lawyer, that's a threat. Copyright is legal fiction. A thought crime. The libertarian business model is the only future for the "music business". Figure out a way to get your product out to the public in the most efficient way without tarnishing your own reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dingoist Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 If a fan performs that music and they get a call from a lawyer, that's a threat. Copyright is legal fiction. A thought crime. The libertarian business model is the only future for the "music business".Figure out a way to get your product out to the public in the most efficient way without tarnishing your own reputation. I had so many replies to this but kept deleting them as not to be inflammatory. Sure a call from a lawyer is a threat, especially if the "fan" is making money playing a song copyrighted by someone else. Sure it's nasty, and honestly I'm not in 100% agreement with the whole state of affairs (coming from a more "folksie" musical background). But it seems that you are advocating that the originator looses the rights to works that they create? Where's the business in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miko Man Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 If a fan performs that music and they get a call from a lawyer, that's a threat. Copyright is legal fiction. A thought crime. The libertarian business model is the only future for the "music business". I respectfully disagree with you. Copyright protection is no more of a "legal fiction" than any other private property rights are legal fictions. If you don't believe in the rule of law, other than "might makes right", I suggest that you are not a libertarian, but your are an anarchist. I am willing to discuss whether the rule of law is important; but that is fundamentally a different discussion. I note that the power of Congress to provide for copyright and patent protection is part of the original text of the U.S. Constitution. Your profile does not indicate your location, but I'm willing to argue under most Western countries laws that copyright is a long established property right that exists in capitalist economies. Mark C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sgt. Rock Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 many places don't 'advertise' tha tthey have live music, and are not ASCAP/BMI licensees...and assume they can fly under the radar...the fees can seem a tad daunting....but if they have a jukebox, for instance, part of the cost of the juke are PRO fees. I would guess these folks were not paying the PRO fees, and were 'contacted/visited'. The PROs are getting more aggressive recently about enforcement. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Sgt. Rock Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 Smart business owners don't advertise. I think it sucks when they pick on small businesses like restaurants while the bigger fish are swimming away scott free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 I respectfully disagree with you. Copyright protection is no more of a "legal fiction" than any other private property rights are legal fictions. If you don't believe in the rule of law, other than "might makes right", I suggest that you are not a libertarian, but your are an anarchist. I am willing to discuss whether the rule of law is important; but that is fundamentally a different discussion. I note that the power of Congress to provide for copyright and patent protection is part of the original text of the U.S. Constitution. Your profile does not indicate your location, but I'm willing to argue under most Western countries laws that copyright is a long established property right that exists in capitalist economies. Mark C. Not an anarchist. I believe in private property. I don't think ideas are private property, though. No material property is stolen. Musicians need to spend their time writing, performing, and distributing music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miko Man Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 Not an anarchist. I believe in private property. I don't think ideas are private property, though. No material property is stolen. Musicians need to spend their time writing, performing, and distributing music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Voltan Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 if i may suggest a little reading just to get everyone on the same page as to what it is we actually discussing... this link will take you to a page that extrapolates a bit on ascap, bmi and sesac... it might not clear up all the controversy but it is a baseline for the discussion... click on this if you are truly interested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 I have met very few real anarchists in my life. I'm confused by your claim to be a "pure capitalist", however, and your sentiment that only tangible property has value that should be protected. I think that you are saying that there is no real value or property rights in innovative ideas; that copying somebody else's designs and inventions is OK. If that is the case, it is a waste of time and money to engage in research and development. Am I tracking with you? Mark C. There's a reason why Coke's secret recipe is sealed in a vault. And there's a reason why they make billions of dollars selling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miko Man Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 PROs do not (at least in theory) exist to eliminate competition. They are organizations that are formed to sell a service to the owners (creators) of music to collect a fee that the owners have decided to charge certain people who benefit from the public performance of the owner's property. While we may disagree about whether the creators of music should have property right in the music, the existence of PROs is the application of a very capitalist concept. Mark C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 PROs do not (at least in theory) exist to eliminate competition. They are organizations that are formed to sell a service to the owners (creators) of music to collect a fee that the owners have decided to charge certain people who benefit from the public performance of the owner's property. While we may disagree about whether the creators of music should have property right in the music, the existence of PROs is the application of a very capitalist concept. Mark C. Only a successful artist would feel that way about a fan playing their own music. How often does an unsuccessful artist have their songs performed by someone else? And without a mention to who wrote the song? How great would it be for people to play your music. That kind of word of mouth is something you can't buy. Imagine the turnout when you do perform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miko Man Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 As a capitalist, I assume that you believe that the inventor/author of a product is entitled to decide what to do with it. The only person who can assign her/his rights to an invention/creation is the person who invented/created the item. If that person (as a capitalist) decides to sell the product (rather than give it away free to everybody who wants it), I assume that you do not object. If the person assigns that right to sell the product to a third party, don't you agree that the innovator has that right? That is what happens when a songwriter or musician sighs a contract with a PRO. I'm surprised that a pure capitalist does not see that as natural and proper way to do things. Mark C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 As a capitalist, I assume that you believe that the inventor/author of a product is entitled to decide what to do with it. The only person who can assign her/his rights to an invention/creation is the person who invented/created the item. If that person (as a capitalist) decides to sell the product (rather than give it away free to everybody who wants it), I assume that you do not object. If the person assigns that right to sell the product to a third party, don't you agree that the innovator has that right? That is what happens when a songwriter or musician sighs a contract with a PRO. I'm surprised that a pure capitalist does not see that as natural and proper way to do things. Mark C. I see a product as something material, not an idea. Properties are material. There have even been writers that put their full work online for free as a torrent and subsequently got enough buzz to be published in material form and become successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miko Man Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 I see a product as something material, not an idea. Properties are material.There have even been writers that put their full work online for free as a torrent and subsequently got enough buzz to be published in material form and become successful. So if I understand you, the act of transcribing or affixing a creative work onto a physical medium turns that work from a mere "idea", which is not property, into a "product", which is protected as property? Mark C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goominim Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 So if I understand you, the act of transcribing or affixing a creative work onto a physical medium turns that work from a mere "idea", which is not property, into a "product", which is protected as property? Mark C. The idea in your mind does not turn into a physical material. It remains in your mind. Your body manipulates material matter to change its configuration in nature. There's a reason why vinyl LPs are making a resurgence in popularity. Not only is the audio quality superior to digital media, the physicality of them is difficult to replicate. Bands often include the mp3s with the vinyl. Reward your fans. You can't fight freedom. You have to use freedom to your own advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ptkbass Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 This is a relevant read. It's kinda old, but I assume much of it still stands.http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/09/mann.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 I have very mixed feelings about the PROs. Of course, I think songwriters should be compensated for their work in some way, and good that their are orginazations out there that work to make sure that happens. But the way they go about it, especially in the case of small business, reeks of bullying to me. Constantly harrassing and threatening people until they give in...that's pretty much the definition of sleazy. Just rubs me the wrong way. I know some might say as a songwriter I should be grateful they are doing these things, in case I ever write a song that makes enough money where what they do is even relevant to me. But there are three of them that want their own piece of the pie, which means three separate fees that businesses are hit with...I don't know the exact figures, but it doesn't sound very affordable to me, if you're a small business, especially if music does not provide any significant source of income. And the more places they go after, the less places there are for musicians to play, network, etc., which sucks for us. There's got to be a better way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members daklander Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 Not an anarchist. I believe in private property. I don't think ideas are private property, though. No material property is stolen.Musicians need to spend their time writing, performing, and distributing music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ptkbass Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 But there are three of them that want their own piece of the pie, which means three separate fees that businesses are hit with...I don't know the exact figures, but it doesn't sound very affordable to me, if you're a small business, especially if music does not provide any significant source of income. And the more places they go after, the less places there are for musicians to play, network, etc., which sucks for us.There's got to be a better way. That's my opinion also. Although it deals with pirated mp3's and not songwriting credits, in The Atlantic article I linked to, his research showed that only the top fraction of highly successful musicians (Madonna, Springsteen, Metallica) made any money from their records. The rest got nothing, and preferred that their fans got the music any way they could (that is to say, stealing from the thieves). This created fans that would pay money to come to their shows and pay more money for their merchandise; that's how they paid their bills. Me? I'm not really involved in the music industry close enough to know how true this is. Just that it was an interesting article that shed a little light on the "other side". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Bartus Posted February 25, 2012 Members Share Posted February 25, 2012 There's a reason why Coke's secret recipe is sealed in a vault. And there's a reason why they make billions of dollars selling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.