On 16 Feb 2006 at 8:13, Johannes Gebauer wrote: > On 16.02.2006 David W. Fenton wrote: > >> Yes, that is what I said. It's sad for the recording side of > >> things. > >> > It's good for the critical edition side of things. Who has got > >> > more money? > > > > The logic behind your argument escapes me. If the recordings are > > abandoned because of the fact that the record companies would lose > > money if they paid the editors the royalties, then where is the > > extra money going to come from to line the pockets of the editors? > > If no recordings are made, then there's no recording to sell to > > generate the revenue to pay the royalties. No egg, no chicken. > > > > With the same argumentation you could also argue that musicians should > not be paid because this stops concerts from being put on. Very silly, > if you asked me. Do you also think that concerts should only be given > as a hobby for no money? Perhaps the same should apply to composers? > After all, if they didn't ask for any money they might get performed > more often.
This is an absolutely ludicrous response to my post. I have never said that editors should not be paid. I have only said that they should not be paid as the creators of the work. That is, they should be compensated for the use of their edition (which is copyrighted), but not as though they are an author of the work they edited. I'm not calling for editors to not be paid, or to be paid less. I'm simply calling for them to not be paid *more* than they have been in the past, especially when it's justified by a claim that amounts to stealing the compositional work of dead composers. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
