Apparently songs are worth $9250 each...Dumb Jury

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Once you admit that you arent against all IP laws, then you (implicitly) imply that you agree that IP can exist. So, this debate isnt about whether IP exists, but about whether or not music should be considered IP.


So, essentially: then what is the difference between someone who writes a song and someone who invents a process to make a drug (or whatever aspect of IP you agree with)?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really bad comparison. A patent has a shelf-life of 20 years. A drug is patented with exclusivity shelf life of seven years. A song is copyrighted with a shelf-life of life + 70 years.

Why is a song worth 90 years of protection and a life-saving drug is only allowed twenty years of protection with only seven years of exclusivity?

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, how long exactly IP shelflife is, is kinda moot. This is more about whether it should exist for music. If we dont agree there, debating how long it takes to expire is putting the cart before the horse.


But, wrt what you asked, id say its probably a good idea not to have life saving drugs be patented for something like 70 years, since it ALLOWS PEOPLE TO HAVE A MONOPOLY ON A LIFE SAVING DRUG, POTENTIALLY KEEPING THE PRICE OUT OF THE REACH OF SOME CONSUMERS.


I think its pretty clear keeping cost of drugs down is more important than it is for music. You need to balance keeping costs down for consumers with making sure the companies that make the drugs have significant incentive to keep making them.


edit: mia beat me to it

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]

Because the public interest in having life-improving and life-saving drugs widely and cheaply available is stronger than the public interest in free Black Eyed Peas songs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very good.

[KotOD]

So both of you are only for property rights to a certain extent. Is that a consistent view that you both hold and apply to all matters of property rights or is this specific to artistic expression?

For everyone saying that there won't be music if there is no IP because artists won't make money, how do you rectify this with the fact that there are still drugs being produced even though we have extremely limited IP in drug production?

[daveT]

This whole thing is turning into a mess.

For one, most bands make less than you. This is a product of forwarded money, production costs, and other costs that are paid for by the CD sales. A record company needs money to operate, and if the record company goes broke, then they are not able to find any new bands, if they aren't able to find new bands, you will be exposed to less music, and of coarse, you will continue downloading because the music sucks. But why you are downloading bad music is beyond my recognition.

An artist is paid through several ways. The first way is through a CD right. This is the money agreed upon between the artist and the record company. According to Donald Passman's book and artist can earn either a percentage of the whole-sale cost, or the MSRP costs.

The Second way they are paid is through what is called a . mechanical rate . This is money that is collected by the publishing company. Congress has established this rate at 9.1 cents per song sold on every CD. Mind, that this is divided 50/50 between the artist and the Publishing Company. If their are multiple songwriters, then these rates are divided up however they have been negotiated.

The publishing company is also responsible for collecting performance royalties. These are rates paid to the songwriters. The rates are earned from Radio, TV, Coffee Shops, etc., but do NOT include movies. These royalties are enforced and collected by three companies: ASCAP , BMI , and SESAC. These fees are shared 50/50 between the publisher and the artists. I know that some of you will say that the publisher rips of their songwriters, but this is not true, as ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC sends one check to the publisher and one check to the artists.

I should not have to explain that most new artists make most of there money from their publisher. In fact, most bands never get paid a dime except from their publisher.

Finally, touring. For a band to earn "bank" on a tour, they would have to be able to cover the fees associated with Ticket Master, their Booking Agent, their Tour Manager, the fees charged to them from their venues, insurance, travel expenses, etc.

To note that your stealing is not only affecting the artist. The A&R is perhaps the most important part of the music business, as they are responsible for finding new talent, are fired. The producers loose money. Their assistants loose money. The secretaries get fired, because record companies slash entire divisions. I don't have to do through the whole food chain to show you the effect of the music economy. What I do know is that the less people involved in finding, writing, and promoting music, the less music you will ultimately have.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
So both of you are only for property rights to a certain extent. Is that a consistent view that you both hold and apply to all matters of property rights or is this specific to artistic expression?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think I'd have a big problem with eternal copyright on art (though, mia recently mentioned its unconstitutional). I would def. be against eternal copyright for something like drugs, for pragmatic reasons.

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone saying that there won't be music if there is no IP because artists won't make money

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please refer us to a post where this viewpoint is expressed?


[ QUOTE ]
how do you rectify this with the fact that there are still drugs being produced even though we have extremely limited IP in drug production?

[/ QUOTE ]

because people go to the store and exchange money for drugs and not download them off of the internet?

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
can you please refer us to a post where this viewpoint is expressed?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's mentioned twice in the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
because people go to the store and exchange money for drugs and not download them off of the internet?

[/ QUOTE ]

People also exchange money for concert tickets which is encouraged by the advertising of the downloaded music.

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think I'd have a big problem with eternal copyright on art (though, mia recently mentioned its unconstitutional). I would def. be against eternal copyright for something like drugs, for pragmatic reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alright, how do you feel about property rights in Kelo vs. New London?

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone saying that there won't be music if there is no IP because artists won't make money

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please refer us to a post where this viewpoint is expressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freakin's post pretty much says that.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
It's mentioned twice in the thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you just link?

[ QUOTE ]
People also exchange money for concert tickets which is encouraged by the advertising of the downloaded music.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. But, since Im not arguing that music will disappear, having SOME income doesnt seem relevant. what is the point of this comment?

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, how do you feel about property rights in Kelo vs. New London?

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think the plant was fair public use, and agree with Thomas.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone saying that there won't be music if there is no IP because artists won't make money

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please refer us to a post where this viewpoint is expressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freakin's post pretty much says that.

[/ QUOTE ]


"I'm sure artists will keep creating music"
- Freakin

[Sayitloudernow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For everyone saying that there won't be music if there is no IP because artists won't make money

[/ QUOTE ]

can you please refer us to a post where this viewpoint is expressed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Freakin's post pretty much says that.

[/ QUOTE ]


"I'm sure artists will keep creating music"
- Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

"I just don't think they'll be recording it"
-Freakin'

This implies a lot and is beyond incorrect.

edit: What I mean is, that it implies music will stop being spread around instantly(recorded and hosted on internet), I agree, if this did stop it would be very problematic, but it wouldnt happen, people want to spread their music, we might lose elaborate inserts and packaging but who really wanted that anyway?