Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
Vivien Send a noteboard - 06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
As you admit, it's actually good for small artists and artists make most of their money from concerts anyway (isn't that how it used to be anyway?) and it's actually easier for relatively small artists to sell tickets to their concerts. Overall, I just don't see the problem. Expecting to make a living from only selling recorded music was actually an aberration in our history (and even then, didn't elvis and the beatles and such still go on tours and make more money on the tours?). Musicians don't absolutely have to go on tour. They want to. They can also perform locally.
That's not what I said. I said many independent artists are back to the days when selling recordings is no longer a viable source of revenues to make a living. Their copyrights on their music are worth not much nowadays (it's more a protection against plagiarism than a source of income). Yes, their music is listened to by a much wider audience, and they have less problems filling their concerts, but they can no longer count on record sales to make money as their music get stolen rather than bought. It condemns many to be far more often on tour (which isn't an easy life for people with families etc.), or to take side jobs. Tons of small labels have gone down the drain or stopped their activities because of those structural changes in the music industry.
Of course it has also a lot of positive effects for small bands, but it also has vert negative effects that people no longer respect copyrights.
Do you have any evidence at all that there are less artists making living today off their art than in the 19th century? Ok, how about early 20th century?
That's not what I said. I said many independent artists are back to the days when selling recordings is no longer a viable source of revenues to make a living. Their copyrights on their music are worth not much nowadays (it's more a protection against plagiarism than a source of income). Yes, their music is listened to by a much wider audience, and they have less problems filling their concerts, but they can no longer count on record sales to make money as their music get stolen rather than bought. It condemns many to be far more often on tour (which isn't an easy life for people with families etc.), or to take side jobs. Tons of small labels have gone down the drain or stopped their activities because of those structural changes in the music industry.
Of course it has also a lot of positive effects for small bands, but it also has vert negative effects that people no longer respect copyrights.
Why Johnny Can't Read Any New Public Domain Books In The US: Because Nothing New Entered The P.D.
03/01/2012 11:33:34 PM
- 1791 Views
I find it difficult to see this as stealing rights from the public.
04/01/2012 11:15:35 AM
- 925 Views
Are you arguing for illegal use of legally protected works?
04/01/2012 09:34:18 PM
- 854 Views
No. I'm saying that keeping works in copyright doesn't stop them from being read, watched, etc.
04/01/2012 10:24:50 PM
- 862 Views
That's not the point, though.
05/01/2012 01:05:17 PM
- 907 Views
????
05/01/2012 03:22:58 PM
- 880 Views
Re: ????
05/01/2012 04:04:21 PM
- 922 Views
That isn't inspiration that wanting to use the popularity of the original to promote your work
05/01/2012 05:04:25 PM
- 880 Views
I don't get it.
04/01/2012 05:51:19 PM
- 1142 Views
You know those Jane Austen parodies? Only because Jane Austen is in the public domain.
04/01/2012 09:32:20 PM
- 950 Views
Parody is actually covered by the legal definition of fair use so doesn't break copyright.
04/01/2012 10:28:08 PM
- 928 Views
I'm fairly sure the Jane Austen parodies do in fact use actual paragraphs... no? *NM*
04/01/2012 10:31:32 PM
- 495 Views
The zombies one doesn't precisely. It's somewhat modernised. I've not read the others.
04/01/2012 10:32:59 PM
- 862 Views
Yes, they take tons of text from actual books. Contrast this with Ms. Rowling's reaction. *NM*
05/01/2012 07:01:46 PM
- 406 Views
If there's zero chance of needing a lawyer at some point, it's way more likely to actually happen.
04/01/2012 10:43:23 PM
- 951 Views
Answering you specifically
05/01/2012 04:57:33 PM
- 883 Views
Patents and copyrights aren't meant to last forever (shouldn't, anyway)
04/01/2012 10:33:30 PM
- 910 Views
I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
05/01/2012 05:01:05 PM
- 827 Views
Re: I know they aren't. I don't necessarily agree that they shouldn't though.
06/01/2012 12:47:50 AM
- 845 Views
That is a very confusing article.
04/01/2012 10:19:22 PM
- 977 Views
Works published between 1923 and 1978 are different
04/01/2012 10:25:16 PM
- 902 Views
Do you think it is right that Disney can protect its movies?
05/01/2012 05:29:08 PM
- 854 Views
Ok, what has movies Disney done lately that were on par with its classics? *NM*
05/01/2012 07:44:20 PM
- 388 Views
And speaking of Disney's classics...
05/01/2012 10:06:16 PM
- 1009 Views
Until Disney discovered and copyrighted them, they obviouslty didn't exist. *NM*
06/01/2012 12:58:55 AM
- 423 Views
OK why is that even a point of argument?
06/01/2012 02:42:47 PM
- 856 Views
No incentive to make great new works if they can just keep re-releasing Lion King in 3D *NM*
06/01/2012 09:45:38 PM
- 470 Views
I'm a lot older than your five year old, but I'm not sure I disagree Tangled is better.
06/01/2012 11:12:32 PM
- 909 Views
Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
05/01/2012 07:57:38 PM
- 1003 Views
Re: Well, if corporations are now people, then maybe their copyright could be different? *shrug*
06/01/2012 01:18:04 AM
- 904 Views
Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 04:17:35 AM
- 1027 Views
Re: Can you back that up?
06/01/2012 06:02:01 PM
- 820 Views
Artist/Singers used to *always* be on tour in order to make a living.
06/01/2012 09:34:44 PM
- 1111 Views