Audio Advent
31-07-2015, 22:33
I came across this news article from 1993 that's been posted on the internet and thought it might be interesting to look back on with regard to today's copyright/royalty complaints of today's artists.
Back then Garth Brooks was ranting against secondhand CD sales because artists don't get paid royalties a second time and that the secondhand market prevents people being forced to buy new (and so produce royalties).
To me this just goes to show how warped peoples minds have been in the music industry about royalties since the big money came in some time 40/50 odd years ago.
The more I think about it, the more I think artists should get either paid for their work as a one-off like a commision or have a limited time to recoupe and earn money from an album before having to go back to work again on the next, like the original 14 year copyright length. And then make a load from touring and playing live. It seems so crazy to me that artists expect an eternal golden egg laying goose for only one bit of work they did once.. Other than image rights perhaps (which move into the same crazy area), an artist artist (painter, sculptor etc) gets paid for the sale of that single work and following commisions. Of course fans are free to support them any way they wish for new projects etc.
Also gives a sign for the future where there are no secondhand media items because of downloads and legally downloads can't be transfered from person to person (part of the terms of licence to listen).
Discuss?
Back then Garth Brooks was ranting against secondhand CD sales because artists don't get paid royalties a second time and that the secondhand market prevents people being forced to buy new (and so produce royalties).
To me this just goes to show how warped peoples minds have been in the music industry about royalties since the big money came in some time 40/50 odd years ago.
The more I think about it, the more I think artists should get either paid for their work as a one-off like a commision or have a limited time to recoupe and earn money from an album before having to go back to work again on the next, like the original 14 year copyright length. And then make a load from touring and playing live. It seems so crazy to me that artists expect an eternal golden egg laying goose for only one bit of work they did once.. Other than image rights perhaps (which move into the same crazy area), an artist artist (painter, sculptor etc) gets paid for the sale of that single work and following commisions. Of course fans are free to support them any way they wish for new projects etc.
Also gives a sign for the future where there are no secondhand media items because of downloads and legally downloads can't be transfered from person to person (part of the terms of licence to listen).
Discuss?