Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
Having experienced the music business in the 1980s as a musician, audio engineer, record producer, occasional DJ & concert promoter, record pressing plant sales & marketing rep, and staff worker for a PolyGram label, allow me to paraphrase O. Henry: ...As I said before, I dreamed that I was standing near a crowd of prosperous-looking angels, and a policeman took me by the wing and asked if I belonged with them. "Who are they?" I asked. "Why," said he, "they are the men who hired working-girls, and paid 'em five or six dollars a week to live on. Are you one of the bunch?" "Not on your immortality," said I. "I'm only the fellow that set fire to an orphan asylum, and murdered a blind man for his pennies." To which I would add: ", and pilfered every last nickel I could from young musicians who didn't know a royalty from a penury." Sean. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:07 AM, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Dave Crossland wrote: >> 2009/2/23 Robert (Jamie) Munro : ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." >>> Perhaps builders who built buildings in the 1950s should be paid rights >>> on the labour they used to build the building as long as the buildings >>> still stand. Or Doctors whose patients continue to be alive. >> >> Surely the comparison is with doctors who did the best they could but >> now their patients are dead, but they ought to be continually paid for >> the excellent job they did at the time? > > Musicians are only continually paid if the track happened to be a hit > (or perhaps was used in a film or something) lots of music has been > recorded in the last 50 years that was just as good as music that became > a hit but it didn't become a hit due to the vagueness of the music > industry. The performers of this music won't get any benefit from term > extension. > > Similarly Doctors and Builders should only be paid while their patients > are still alive or the buildings are still used, no matter how much > effort it took to treat the patient or build the building at the time. > > :-) > > Robert (Jamie) Munro > > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
Dave Crossland wrote: > 2009/2/23 Robert (Jamie) Munro : >>> ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." >> Perhaps builders who built buildings in the 1950s should be paid rights >> on the labour they used to build the building as long as the buildings >> still stand. Or Doctors whose patients continue to be alive. > > Surely the comparison is with doctors who did the best they could but > now their patients are dead, but they ought to be continually paid for > the excellent job they did at the time? Musicians are only continually paid if the track happened to be a hit (or perhaps was used in a film or something) lots of music has been recorded in the last 50 years that was just as good as music that became a hit but it didn't become a hit due to the vagueness of the music industry. The performers of this music won't get any benefit from term extension. Similarly Doctors and Builders should only be paid while their patients are still alive or the buildings are still used, no matter how much effort it took to treat the patient or build the building at the time. :-) Robert (Jamie) Munro signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
2009/2/23 Robert (Jamie) Munro : >> >> ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." > > Perhaps builders who built buildings in the 1950s should be paid rights > on the labour they used to build the building as long as the buildings > still stand. Or Doctors whose patients continue to be alive. Surely the comparison is with doctors who did the best they could but now their patients are dead, but they ought to be continually paid for the excellent job they did at the time? :-) -- Regards, Dave (Personal opinion only.) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
Dave Crossland wrote: > 2009/2/23 Ian Forrester : >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7899602.stm >> >> Via Glyn, just wondered what everyone else thought? > > Isn't this an old story? I thought the Ars Technica article from > December was much better ;-) > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/12/uk-ignores-logic-backs-20-year-music-copyright-extension.ars > >> I specially like this part >> >> Said the source: "The 'creativity' argument is based on ignorance. >> "There is nothing to stop a creative person using an old recording as part >> of their work - as long as they do not release it. >> >> Like to see that stand up in court... > > Right - typical comment from someone whose understanding of > copyright-law is for how it was pre-DRM-law. > > I liked this quote best: > > ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." So do some people who aren't creative performers. Perhaps builders who built buildings in the 1950s should be paid rights on the labour they used to build the building as long as the buildings still stand. Or Doctors whose patients continue to be alive. Robert (Jamie) Munro signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
"Harmonisation" at the European level led to a wider discrepancy last time round, with the Danes and French in particular making some extraordinarily progressive steps. It should therefore be disregarded as an effective logical argument for legislation. I'm intrigued by the SCA's moves at the moment http://www.jisc.ac.uk/contentalliance in particular the In from the Cold project: http://www.slideshare.net/stuartsw4/sca-ipr-toolkit-presentation There's a grey area here where we at the BBC have to tread carefully- on one edge is the position of objective expertise (which may have a point of view on particular policies), and at the other is the lobbying group (which may itself be a-political). Clearly the BBC ought to steer clear of the latter position, but as rights holders, audience champions, audience enabler, and a major rights buyer it would feel something of an abrogation of responsibility for us not to make a major contribution to this debate. >From an archive management point of view, my personal (and i must stress this is purely personal) opinion is that rights term extension does nothing to aid investment in archive preservation, and that if rights are to be enforced it can only be done so under an await claim framework, possibly with a recordable media tariff funding model. From where I stand, an extension of the current model would make the preservation of many archives economically unviable, and we would loose them within a decade. ant (have spent the last six years working on digitising and storing the BBC's archive) On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > > In fact technically changing all copyright durations to be 1 year > > would also harmonise everything.=20 > > Berne means copyrights have to be at least 50 years. > > > There is no logical reason why you > > can only harmonise upwards and not downwards. > > Governments don't want to strip people of their "property", however > worthless it may be. > > I agree with you in principle though. > > - Rob. > > -- Ant Miller tel: 07709 265961 email: ant.mil...@gmail.com
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
> In fact technically changing all copyright durations to be 1 year > would also harmonise everything.=20 Berne means copyrights have to be at least 50 years. > There is no logical reason why you > can only harmonise upwards and not downwards. Governments don't want to strip people of their "property", however worthless it may be. I agree with you in principle though. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
> "Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said. > "You are either gifted or good at business. It's rare to be both." Perhaps they should have worked for more of their life and made NI contributions, then they would get a state pension! Or they could have taken out a private pension scheme? You seriously expect us to feel sorry for people who worked for a few years then sat on their arse doing nothing? (They couldn't have worked for much of their working life or they would have paid NI and be entitled to a state pension). Do you really need to be "good at business" to pay tax and get a private pension? I also like: > An industry source told the BBC that record companies were determined to > lobby for a 95-year copyright extension, arguing it would "harmonise" Europe > with the US. Wouldn't lowering the US limit also achieve the same effect? In fact technically changing all copyright durations to be 1 year would also harmonise everything. There is no logical reason why you can only harmonise upwards and not downwards. Andy -- Computers are like air conditioners. Both stop working, if you open windows. -- Adam Heath - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
Dave Crossland wrote: > ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." A large enough cut of zero must be worth *something*. - Rob. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
2009/2/23 Ian Forrester : > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7899602.stm > > Via Glyn, just wondered what everyone else thought? Isn't this an old story? I thought the Ars Technica article from December was much better ;-) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/12/uk-ignores-logic-backs-20-year-music-copyright-extension.ars > I specially like this part > > Said the source: "The 'creativity' argument is based on ignorance. > "There is nothing to stop a creative person using an old recording as part of > their work - as long as they do not release it. > > Like to see that stand up in court... Right - typical comment from someone whose understanding of copyright-law is for how it was pre-DRM-law. I liked this quote best: ""Some of them have no pensions and need this money," he said." Shouldn't have squandered it on booze and fags then eh? :-) Cheers, Dave (Personal opinion only.) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
[backstage] Slightly bias view maybe?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7899602.stm Via Glyn, just wondered what everyone else thought? I specially like this part Said the source: "The 'creativity' argument is based on ignorance. "There is nothing to stop a creative person using an old recording as part of their work - as long as they do not release it. Like to see that stand up in court... Ian Forrester This e-mail is: [x] private; [] ask first; [] bloggable Senior Producer, BBC Backstage Room 1044, BBC Manchester BH, Oxford Road, M60 1SJ email: ian.forres...@bbc.co.uk work: +44 (0)1612444063 mob: +44 (0)7711913293 - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
