Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Legality of ripped music

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2 
Legality of ripped music
alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

So, basically, copyright law in this domain is a heavy object for the record companies to prevent competition. :P My views on IP law are well known.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Matt Smith
Member #783
November 2000

Bach sounds like Beethoven? yeah...a bit

If you follow trends you are, almost by definition, unoriginal.

The best pop acts shamelessly rework classical tunes, because they are out-of-copyright. It's a good defence when sued to say "No it isn't your tune, I stole it from Mozart" and that's similar to Prior Art in patent cases.

Quote:

My views on IP law are well known.

You views would change quickly enough if you were feeding your family with your royalties.
</quote>

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

Quote:

They did this without seeking permisssion first, and as a consequence the court awarded 100% of the songwriting and performance royalties to the Rolling Stones.

Actually, they did seek, and were given, permission:

Wikipedia said:

The band had obtained composition rights to the sample from ABKCO Records owner Allen Klein, which controls the Rolling Stones' back catalogue and permission to use the recording of the sample from Decca, the publisher of the original album. Just before the CD Urban Hymns came out, Klein obtained a copy of the song and decided that the band had used "too much" of the sample and threatened a lawsuit. At that late time there was no way the sample could be removed, so the band and Klein came to a verbal agreement. “We were told it was going to be a 50/50 split," said band member Simon Jones. Later, when it was apparent that the song was a worldwide hit Klein demanded 100 per cent of the royalties or they would be forced to removed the CD from the record shops. The band settled out of court, agreeing to give ABKCO Records 100 per cent of the songwriting royalties.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

Your views would change quickly enough if you were feeding your family with your royalties.

No doubt. However, that argument is a red herring, because the people who ostensibly would be feeding their families with royalties are the artists, and they get very few of the royalties anyway. The main beneficiaries of the current copyright scheme are the record and movie companies, and they add no value to the system--they are just parasites that have made themselves monopolies. The CEO of some record company is not what most people think of when they think of someone feeding their families with their royalties.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

Quote:

If you follow trends you are, almost by definition, unoriginal.

I'm saying that trends are unavoidable. Especially in this arena where money is concerned. Original music in the main-stream, money-driven world is ironically designed to be familiar so that it will sell. Music is attached to familiar artists, familiar products, familiar harmonic progressions, etc so it will communicate clearly. Its a double-edged sword.

Quote:

"No it isn't your tune, I stole it from Mozart"

but what's being stolen? the melody? How many other countless components to music are original? Is the melody the only part of a tune that constitutes originality?

Absolutely not, but it's the part that people recognize and attack. What about Michael Jackson's "oow!", echoed by countless artists at that time? Trend of the time.

A three not melodic cell that finds itself time and time again in teen pop music? Trend of the time. A characteristic of the style. A device used by the artist to establish a particular niche.

The "amen break"? Theft. Plain and simple. But The Winston's never took it to court and now it's part of a whole musical style.

Matt Smith
Member #783
November 2000

LennyLen said:

Wikipedia said:

Ah, if wikipedia is accurate, this Klein is a toerag of the first order.

Quote:

because the people who ostensibly would be feeding their families with royalties are the artists, and they get very few of the royalties anyway.

And yet there are professional artists who do make a living, in spite of the greed of their publishers.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

And yet there are professional artists who do make a living, in spite of the greed of their publishers.

Yes, but they could do that without the publishers. There was a band that made quite a bit of money by posting their album free for download on their own Web site and soliciting voluntary donations. Also, we already had this discussion.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Matt Smith
Member #783
November 2000

If an artist chooses to let a Publisher do the publishing, it is their right.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

I'm not questioning the artist's right to publish through a publisher; I'm questioning the publishers' practices. If you want examples, check out the older thread I linked to.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

Quote:

There was a band that made quite a bit of money by posting their album free for download

Yeah, any band can do that. ::)

Publishers are a good thing. If an artist is good enough to get a real publisher he will make more money. Bottom line.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Matt Smith
Member #783
November 2000

If you can afford to do your own publicity, then you get much better value from self-publishing, if you choose to spend your time (or money emplying people) that way.

It's the unestablished people who really need a publisher at first, because the publishers have the resources and experience already in place.

 1   2 


Go to: