One part of this discussion is whether the music rights really "belong" with the recording artists. "Work for hire" and numerous "authors" create a difficult legal tangle.
Another part of this discussion, which Jessica alluded to, and which is more interesting culturally, is what the artists will do with the music once they get it - market it differently, sell it on their sites, let it be downloaded, rewrite contracts with labels to distribute? Record companies have been behind the curve on digital distribution for the last 20 years - they failed to figure out how to deliver to a new "digital native" population) - and had contentious relationships with their artists. Now that their business model is eroded, this development may change that although they will kick and scream. The anime example is regarded as true. Companies did not release anime in US and a thriving (and passionate) audience traded dupes, fansubs and fandubs at conventions and online until their number could not be ignored, and it is now a $4 billion industry. Not everyone steals everything always. What this story really foretells, with music rights further fragmented away from music labels, is the final nail in their coffin. They can't even release remastered greatest hits anymore. - - Roger Brown Manager UCLA Instructional Media Collections & Services 46 Powell Library Los Angeles, CA 90095-1517 office: 310-206-1248 fax: 310-206-5392 rbr...@oid.ucla.edu >> > >------------------------------ > >Message: 3 >Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:44:19 -0400 >From: Jessica Rosner <jessicapros...@gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [Videolib] Fascinating Copyright situation >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu >Message-ID: > ><CACRe6m8ET7Kj6EqDgjFZd4iAciwGLHjkfVB8tRpD=-3xugx...@mail.gmail.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > >I have seen this before and frankly it is simply poppycock to use a nice >word. I know my nephew and whole generation of college age kids NEVER pay >for a song or movie. I have never illegally downloaded anything, I have >also >never bought anything via download so hardly works re the stats used >here. I >often hear that same claim to justify illegal movie downloads. Someone >here >posted a study claiming Animee in particular was making money because >people >who downloaded illegally later bought it , which I simply find absurd. I >know people who download illegal stuff ( like my nephew ) and buy >nothing. >I know people who pay for downloads. I don't know anyone who downloaded a >film illegally and THEN decided to buy it. This is fake argument used to >defend theft. So basically if I steal a few dozen cars but actually by one >this is OK and good for the car business? > >On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Folmar David <keyfram...@gmail.com> >wrote: > >> Although I understand the knee jerk reaction to music downloading and >> royalties, here is an interesting article that shows that heavy >> downloaders actually are th people buying music, so yes there is some >> question about getting royalties from all the people who are not "heavy >> downloaders" but the record companies strategy of suing people who >> download music is sort of self-defeating because the same people turn >>out >> to be their biggest consumers >> >> >>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the- >>mo >> st-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html >> >> >> -David Folmar >> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
