Music piracy

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,200
Just concentrate on the billboard. That billboard shows what the most popular songs are right now. We can also take a chart from other months or weeks, if you wish.
This is a red herring. The billboard represents only a very tiny percentage of musicians/performers -- the ones that record companies have chosen to promote to the top. That list does not represent the highest standard for modern music, but rather, the most profitable properties for the record companies.

You can still find thousands of highly skilled musicians and vocalists performing all over, in festivals, in clubs, and producing their own work for sale.
 

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
288
That's not copyrightable material. It's not intellectual property. It's a completely different venue. Copyrights can outlive the authors, and when so are passed on to the estate of the author. What you need to do is, make accounts in sales and service, copyrightable! Petition the government where you live, start a "movement." Hell, Willy Loman could have taken care of Biff, his other son and his widow too if they had copyrights to sales and accounts! Think of the tragedy!
I just think copyrights are overprotected. I think 5 years after the people's deaths would be reasonable, like a life insurance policy to take care of the family, but there's no reason for Big Joe Turner's great-great-grandkids to be getting checks for things he did in the '50's. Except I'm a little bit conflicted on that. Sort of. I have a friend who's in that position. His brothers and sisters have put all of the money into a public service foundation. The acquaintance who's the only child a major jazz star just takes the checks and lives pretty well on that and a freelancing job.

I'd really like to see this claim substantiated.
Dunno. The claim was made by their manager. But. My tip to any musician - Do an anthem. A chant. A Christmas song. A birthday song. A weather song. Forget lost love; "Riders On The Storm" gets played every time it freaking rains here.
 

Anton Chigurh

Ultimate Badass
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1,398
I just think copyrights are overprotected. I think 5 years after the people's deaths would be reasonable, like a life insurance policy to take care of the family, but there's no reason for Big Joe Turner's great-great-grandkids to be getting checks for things he did in the '50's. Except I'm a little bit conflicted on that. Sort of. I have a friend who's in that position. His brothers and sisters have put all of the money into a public service foundation. The acquaintance who's the only child a major jazz star just takes the checks and lives pretty well on that and a freelancing job.
Soooo... Lemme see if I can get this straight. Because you're kind of nebulous on it. Do you have this 5 year idea for all property of the deceased, or just on things the dead person created? Would it apply to just songs or all other creative intellectual property copyrighted too? Then what happens to the property after five years, public domain? If not, who gets it and who would be the arbiter?

But their houses, their net worth, all of that though it is okay to pass on through the heirs in perpetuity? Or should all real property be given away after 5 years too, just because owner of it died? If so who gets it and who decides?

Copyrights already have a sunset provision, if the holder doesn't renew the copyrights. But if the estate continues to renew the copyright, what's the problem?

Or, is it just the money thing you're hung up on. Okay if the estate still owns the copyright, spends money maintaining it and defending it, but all proceeds arising from it, royalties and stuff, should go somewhere other than where the estate designates?

Help me out here.
 

sbjsbj

Fan
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Messages
680
I agree with him on the copyright thing that it lasts too long. Haven't had time to respond yet. Saving it for later. I also have a theory about it damaging the culture heavily and making the chemical industry the 2nd biggest industry for a reason (in that case it is about patents but it is somewhat also a copyright).
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,597
There's other aspects to this in addition to financial gain. Many songwriters and musicians don't want their music devalued, ending up as a backing track to an advert or have tracks added to compilations.
 

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
288
Music, writing and movies are commercial products (in most cases). You make your money when you sell them, same as glue or aerospace fasteners. Most writers don't even get royalties, so there's no difference with most books or articles, no matter how good they are. Same with art and architecture. Ed Kleinholz and Frank Lloyd Wright don't get cuts whenever their work is viewed or resold. And their work is a heckuva lot better than most of the garbage protected by music copyrights. I can understand protecting the work, to a point - especially as regards commercial re-use - while the people are alive, but I think most of it is overprotected.
 

Anton Chigurh

Ultimate Badass
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1,398
Well... You didn't really answer the questions. Makes it hard to explore any specifics.
 

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
288
Soooo... Lemme see if I can get this straight. Because you're kind of nebulous on it. Do you have this 5 year idea for all property of the deceased, or just on things the dead person created? Would it apply to just songs or all other creative intellectual property copyrighted too? Then what happens to the property after five years, public domain? If not, who gets it and who would be the arbiter?
I thought I'd answered it when I said it was a commercial product. Same as a box of nails - or a masterpiece painting or work of great architecture. It's yours until you sell it. Then it and its rights of ownership belong to the person who bought it.

Yeah, public domain.

But their houses, their net worth, all of that though it is okay to pass on through the heirs in perpetuity? Or should all real property be given away after 5 years too, just because owner of it died? If so who gets it and who decides?
Now you're being absurd. Real estate and money are actual stuff - belongings, if you will. And they belong to the people or their heirs until they're sold or spent. Then they don't belong to them anymore and the now former owners relinquish all rights to their use.
 

Anton Chigurh

Ultimate Badass
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1,398
I thought I'd answered it when I said it was a commercial product.
It's not. Look up "intellectual property."
Now you're being absurd. Real estate and money are actual stuff - belongings, if you will. And they belong to the people or their heirs until they're sold or spent.
Exact same is true for intellectual property. With real estate, you still have to continue to pay taxes annually on its value. With intellectual property, you still have to maintain it legally, which involves expense, and also have to pay to defend it when it gets infringed upon. AND you pay taxes on any earnings derived from it.

And you never did answer, who decides who gets the property after the creator of it dies.

What's absurd is, you don't understand what it is we're discussing. And I expected as much. Once you understand that it is property, perhaps the light will come on.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,597
For info; in the UK copyright on artist works generally lasts for the life time of the artist plus 70 years after their death. From a purely personal point of view I think this is reasonable. It means the artist's descendants can benefit before the work finally passes into the public domain.
 

Anton Chigurh

Ultimate Badass
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1,398
For info; in the UK copyright on artist works generally lasts for the life time of the artist plus 70 years after their death. From a purely personal point of view I think this is reasonable. It means the artist's descendants can benefit before the work finally passes into the public domain.
For the US, it's the chart below. Chart assumes age of 35 when works are copyrighted for the first time, and the creator lives to be 70. Chart also shows the expansion of the term with the passage of different laws.

uscopyright.png

Main difference is the term is for a fixed number of years after creation, instead of lifetime of the author plus X years.

The main gripe seemed to be though, that "their grandkids shouldn't get paid for something they didn't have anything to do with" and that of course, is at the discretion of the estate. Surely these folks aren't arguing for a law that tells the deceased what he/she can do or can't do, with their intellectual property after they leave the planet. Nah, nobody would want to have the government deciding that. Right?

It really damages the rest of us, violates our rights, that some grandkids of old rockers might still be getting paid for 50 year-old tunes? How does that actually hurt anyone?

See what an infantile objection this is?
 

Nev_Dull

Anachronism
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,200
Canadian copyright is similar to the UK; lifetime + 50yrs.

As for the argument about "real stuff" vs intellectual property (IP), there is no difference to the law. A house or land may be physical, but the only thing that proves ownership these days is a piece of paper and some entries in various databases. And let's not forget the inheritors of a property don't have to sell it. They can lease it, giving them perpetual income. That's not a lot different from getting royalties on an IP like a song, book, or software.

Whether you agree with the idea of passing on copyright or not, it IS recognized as property under the law. Music piracy is still theft of property (Just to bring it back on topic).
 

JQP

Dork
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
288
How does enabling Chaz Bono and the Zappa kids to retire straight out of high school protect "the rest of us?" The US Constitution guarantees copyrights and patents "for a limited time" to encourage science and creative works. I have no problem with the creators of the works making as much money as they can from them and passing it all on to their heirs, just like all the rest of us can. But I don't see why the entertainment business should get to treat "commissions" so differently than the rest of us do. Well, other than their having boatloads of money to lobby Congress to stretch "limited" to its, um, limits. Businesses that deal with a lot of patents actually work against having to pay such fees. A lot of engineers who own patents don't get much more than a pat on the back for their work. Their descendants don't even get that.
 

Anton Chigurh

Ultimate Badass
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1,398
How does enabling Chaz Bono and the Zappa kids to retire straight out of high school protect "the rest of us?"
Nobody said it did. The question was, who does it harm?
But I don't see why the entertainment business should get to treat "commissions" so differently than the rest of us do.
It doesn't. Supreme Court said so. Eldred v. Ashcroft ruling.
A lot of engineers who own patents don't get much more than a pat on the back for their work.
Irrelevant to the discussion, since butt-tons of songwriters and authors never see a dime in royalties either. The work has to be in demand, see, for there to be royalties paid. And of course, you are conflating patents with copyrights. They're two completely different things. Total red herring.

You still haven't explained the problem, other than your own personal animosity towards kids and grandkids of rockers getting paid royalties from the estate, for use of copyrighted material. You understand it's the estate itself which decides where the money goes, right? Sounds like it's just a personal beef. You're not being injured by it, it's not violating any of your rights, it's just childish envy.
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,597
How does enabling Chaz Bono and the Zappa kids to retire straight out of high school protect "the rest of us?"

I know very little about Chaz Bono but I do know a lot about the 'Zappa kids' and they are probably as far down the list as it gets when it comes to retiring on their father's legacy.

Frank Zappa released 62 albums during his lifetime and another 50 after his death via the Zappa Family Trust. Zappa was a musical genius and like other geniuses he was largely ignored during his life time. His music didn't fit the common formula and wasn't considered suitable for airplay. He made almost nothing from record sales and any money he made from touring was channelled into his next protect. Hiring the London Symphony Orchestra doesn't come cheap.

His musical legacy controlled by the Zappa Family Trust was said to owe millions of dollars in 2016. So none of his four children retired straight out of high school, quite the opposite in fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dweezil_Zappa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Zappa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmet_Zappa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diva_Zappa
 

sanction9

Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
242
All I'm going to say is that I think things were a lot more free and easy "back in the day" and bands and musicians were always "borrowing" bits and pieces from others. I'm not saying that there weren't cases where certain people in some cases were plagiarizing to an extent they plainly knew was wrong even back then, but in general I think that most of them most of the time didn't think of it in terms of stealing - or if they did, it was something that everyone else was doing and there were no real legal consequences in most cases. When they admit to it today, they don't think they're confessing to the great crimes that some seem to think they are, and I'm not sure it's fair to judge them by the standards of today.

Kind of like in the early days of the internet when probably a majority of people online leaned toward thinking it was fine to share their digital goods as freely as they would their physical property, because they paid for it and it was theirs, but 30 years later most of us have been made to understand that we're really just renting or leasing it all. :)
 

zappaDPJ

Administrator
Joined
Aug 26, 2010
Messages
7,597
Live music isn't alive, what a load of horsesh*t. We just had a massive music festival this weekend in our town, people from all over the USA (and the world to a lesser extent) come to it every year.

View attachment 52964

This was in a town with 17,000 people. The festival had 65,000 attendees.

We still have live music festivals in the UK and Europe featuring bands such as Coldplace, Antarctic Monkeys, Guns2Roses, Stereotonics, Blondied, The Killerz, Oasish, Green Date, New2, Flash (Queen), the Bootleg Beatles, Bjorn Again etc. All fake of course but a lot of people prefer it to the line up at major festivals such as Glastonbury.

To be fair I've managed to obtain a VIP pass to what I consider is the final major music event I'll attend in my lifetime, Bob Dylan and Neil Young performing in London's Hyde Park.
 
Top