SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX | reply to b34tBoX
Re: MPAA Becoming the RIAA
You call rolling your eyes a response? Please share you views with actual comments. |
|
Thaler
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA | I think he means that the MPAA never really had any respect to be lost. |
|
Trakker
Danger
Premium
join:2003-01-12
ß
| reply to SRFireside
I would say he means that
1. who cares if you lost respect for the RIAA or MPAA.
2. How can you lose respect for a company enforcing their rights to a product?
3. FYI it's not the RIAA or the MPAA...if the artists want to give away their rights to the product, they freely can...the RIAA and MPAA is the buffer between the artists and the fans...and the RIAA and MPAA work at the request of the artists.
Bling Bling ain't free babies.1 |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | The artists don't own the copyrights, so the labels don't give a damn what they want. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| It's a misnomer that the record labels own all the copyrights on all of their artists. Some artists own all of their copyrights. Some artists own none. Some artists don't write their own music, thus either the original songwriter or the label (especially if the songwriter is a work for hire) owns the copyright.
The situation is different with every artist. With the possible exception of pop stars. Who most of the time don't write their own music, which means they have nothing to own in the first place. |
|
Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC
| There are some artists that hold their own copyrights, but it's on the rare side and is generally reserved for artists who have established themselves over many years & albums.
The usual record contract (with the major labels), if I remember correctly, requires all rights to music and production, as well as a fixed number of albums and tours. Most of the artists who own their own copyrights completed their obligations under their original contract and bartered a better deal on their next one. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| True. Though I feel this trend will start to change what with home studio technology blossoming and more independently minded artists come to play. More and more artists are producing their own works and most of the unsigned ones won't even be looked at unless they have practically a finished product in their hands. That gives the artist a little more leeway if they play their cards right.
Also you now have the Internet, which can be a major promotional tool for unsigned artists. A major record label will likely start offering more favorable contracts with those artists who create a strong buzz before signed. It's better to get an artist signed with you and make a little money than hold out for more money and end up having the artist sign with someone else. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| "Some artists don't write their own music, thus either the original songwriter or the label (especially if the songwriter is a work for hire) owns the copyright."
----------------------------------------------------
You're talking about two different types of copyright here. The main contention by the RIAA in terms of filesharing has less to do with publishing rights (who wrote the song) than it does to do with performance rights (which in the majority of cases is owned by the label--unless they're only acting as a distributor). For example, Donald Roeser wrote "(Don't Fear) The Reaper" but Sony owns the recording everyone's familiar with so therefore Donald Roeser can't give copies away (even though he owns the compositional rights). He CAN record a new version and give that away, provided his recording of a new version doesn't violate his contract with Sony. All compositions carry one copyright (the "C" in a circle) and all recordings of compositions carry a different copyright that protects the actual performance (the "P" in a circle). Thus, a CD is covered by two copyrights. |
|
