Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
Very true, but irrelevant.
This point is rather debatable, but also a separate topic that is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.
I fully support criticizing any organization when it does something wrong. In this case, the flaw is that the labels exploited an aspect of the structure to deny an artist the royalties they were contractually obligated to pay. However, again: this has nothing to do with copyrights -- other than that the artists are using copyright laws to protect their own rights.
If you catch a thief red-handed and the thief says "stealing is wrong," does that somehow prove that stealing is in fact right?
I concur that record labels aren't exactly holding the moral high ground here. But again, record companies -- large and small -- would abuse or abide by whatever system was present, regardless of the actual specific structures of copyright, based upon their own moral character rather than legal constructs. (E.g. I don't see a lot of people screaming that Blue Note Records is a vile corporation because they've made enough of a profit to survive a few decades of operation....)
Y'know, the hatred of "Corporations" for the desire to make a profit is getting rather tiresome.
The idea that the artists are only possible individuals who should financially benefit from the sale of a creative work is -- how should I put this politely -- an analysis bereft of nuance.  For example, a musician often requires resources, financial and structural, to make and distribute a professional recording. Really, how many musicians will be great songwriters and performers and recording engineers and at making a great master and making good cover art and doing their own press photos and booking gigs and getting radio play and hauling gear, doing their own accounting and marketing and promotions, ad infinitum?
It is easier to do it yourself nowadays than it was 20 years ago -- but it's still exceedingly rare for an artist who hasn't already achieved major success with a major label to go it on their own, and get national attention.
Again, I do not see any justification for violating a contract and preventing an artist from their royalties. However, record labels and publishers put significant resources on the line to get content into your "greedy" hands, eyes and ears. The labels take a risk on the artists they work with; even a platinum-selling artist can spend huge sums on a new recording and it can bomb. In exchange for the risks they take, they have the right to earn a fair profit. Not a profit that violates their agreements, but a profit nonetheless. |
Hmmm. what is relevant? Copyright is dying. It was born from technology. it is dying from technology. My first post here (which I've forgotten how to find to link to) was a long description about this.
This may be a bad thing or a good thing, but regardless, it is an
is thing.
As far as "hatred for Corporations". Let's be precise. It's hatred for
unethical corporations. What do I find unethical in corporations? Unwillingness to follow contracts, as written and agreed to. Suborning the political process through bribery (and I draw no distinction between
quid pro quo legally defined bribery, and
quid pro defacto which is providing goods, services, and money to help a politician get elected or re-elected - they're both bribery to my worldview).
When a piece of I.P. was created for a corporation, it was done under legal "rules of engagement", i.e. what copyright was at the time. When corporations lobby for extension for sunk expenses, in order to continue to profit from I.P. that should go into the public domain, that's being unethical. It is stealing from the public, if you will. In the US, if the rule of contract was enforced, everything before 1954 would be public domain. Instead, only one years worth of I.P. has gone into the public domain in the last 40 years, with the major I.P. players working the world (bribing all the way) over to get longer terms, over and over again. Totally unethical.
To the lawsuit at hand. If the corporations wanted to "make examples of people", destroying economic lives in order to protect their monopolies, well, they should be subject to the same Draconian law they espouse. If this bankrupts them, that is justice,
as they themselves espoused. That isn't "bashing corporations" that is seeing justice prevail.