It's A Fiddle!

[Elton]

There are a number of artists now allowing free access to their music...perhaps he should have an 'acceptable playlist'.

 

"No Stairway? Denied!"

 

The world's going crazy....

[RobStubbs]

And don't forget with our new licencing laws they can now get hit from both sides. There's soem ambiguity about what licenses are required to 'perform' in public and what a public performance actually is in the eyes of teh law.

 

As said before, how very stupid.

 

Rob.

[poledark]

Only "stupid" if you didn't write the stuff in the first place..Why doesn't he/she write there own little piece for the customers and then no copywrite is being infringed.

 

[When he said they did, they told him that if anyone played a riff – an

identifiable piece of music – he was in breach of copyright and was

breaking the law.]

 

 

Den

Edited December 23, 2005 by poledark

[Alan Stubbs]

Surely for copyright to have been infringed, the music has to be perofrmed note-for-note the same as when it was published? Any variation is by definition not the piece the PRS composer wrote.

 

I can think of two professional choirs which routinely change 1 note - either transposing it up or down an octave, in order to photocopy a score without having to pay performing rights fees. Once copied, the choir then sing the correct note. One of the choristers ran a printing business and was always photocopying music scores for the two choirs in which he sang.

 

The PRS have always been vigilant in maximising revenue opportunities for their members, to the point of occasionally making themselves look like an a*s.

[Elton]

IMO, that whole industry is flawed.

 

I've just read Sharon Osbourne's autobiography and the mention of the union workers in there astounds me.

[Alan Stubbs]

IMO, that whole industry is flawed.

 

I've just read Sharon Osbourne's autobiography and the mention of the union workers in there astounds me.

 

The nature of some recording contracts in the past beggared belief...

 

Many artists simply found it better to perform than record - or simply leave the industry altogether. I cringe when I mention the likes of Gilbert O'Sullivan, but his was a case in point, as was Elton John's case with John Reid, which ended up in court and Elton John won in a very short space of time.

 

Perform but not record - the artists revenge over the bent A & R manager!

[SandTiger]

Shocked, Kowalski spoke of a second call. Kowlaski claims

that, after announcing his decision to not pay and to disallow

customers from trying the instrument out in-store, he was

asked if customers handled the instruments at all before

leaving the store. Naturally, he again confirmed that of course

they did. At this, Kowalski claims, he was told that he would

now be automatically fined for breaking copyright on John

Cage's 4:33, a minimalism composition that consists in four

minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence.

[UK-Fishing-Tackle.co.uk]

Indeed, take a Robbie Williams concert with what 200,000 people there (or more), at £40 a ticket. Thats a cool 8 million in gate revenues. Estimated cost of hardware, licences, site fees, staff and promotion maybe half of that (being generous) and then there are TV rights (worldwide) on top worth probably ten times as much. I suspect in many cases the performer gets a 'substantial' wedge of what remains.

 

Look at how some artists basically live out their careers in Las Vegas Casinos (mega bucks), and quite a lot of rock bands, especially those from the 80's and early nineties, have made -most- of their fortune from performing live (I suspect a lot of U2s wealth is for performing and Bon Jovi is one that also crops up a lot when this debate comes about).

[greg long]

OY! stop that whistling! no music allowed on a public forum....