willyhoops;201247 Wrote: > many here have now developed a copyright should be abolished and the > record companies deserve it viewpoint. The two are not connected. I do NOT believe that copyright should be abolished, but I DO think that the big record companies deserve it.
It strikes me that you don't have a clue how typical recording contracts operate, so here's a brief summary: 1. The record company advances the artist some money, in order to pay for the recording. 2. The artist spends that money and makes their recording. 3. The recording belongs to the record company. (Seems fair, they've paid for it, yes?) 4. The record company sells the recording, and from the proceeds the artist gets a royalty. Here's the gotcha: 5. EVERY SINGLE PENNY that the record company has spent "on behalf of the artist" (which includes all of their advance, all of the marketing, and all of the associated "corporate hospitality" - such as lunches for the executives in swanky restaurants) is deducted from their royalties. The outcome is: 1. The artist has paid for a recording which now belongs to the record company. This is morally indefensible. 2. Of course, the vast majority of recordings never recoup all of the costs that the record companies accountants claim has been spent, so the artist never actually makes any money at all. Do you really think this is fair? Does a company which behaves like this really deserve to have their business model protected? -- cliveb Performers -> dozens of mixers and effects -> clipped/hypercompressed mastering -> you think a few extra ps of jitter matters? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=34928 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
