 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I always maintain the "get it while I can" attitude
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many titles have disappeared from e-tailer stores over the years, including iTunes. As argued for some time, this is one reason physical media remains relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 7, 2015 - 6:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
What a wonderful world it would be if everything was available all of the time, for anyone who wanted it whenever they wanted it.
Music is an art form.
Instead, it is controlled by contracts and licences and bureaucracy by a few business people.
And yet, it is ultimately us, the paying consumer, who contributed to these being made in the first place, such as through ticket sales to see the films that the music was originally written for.
I'm glad I have my CDs, from which I can make my own digital files.
The Thing, no offense intented, but who is going to pay the artists and the people working to produce and preserve the art, and promote it and bring it to the people?
The government, institutions and private investigators can only fund that with limit, and furthermore, it would not be a liberal and free art (which is of course a much more complicated point to discuss.)
Art can't be available freely for everyone with the structures we have today. Society will accept funding health-care systems, help for other countries, eductional programs and I don't know what first (and rightfully so) and art second or third or fourth.
As someone making a living with it and enjoying art so much, we all have to pay for it to make sure there will be art tomorrow as well, and we should value it.
That's my point of view in general. Of course, since we are dealing here with commercial things also and the power and impact of broadcaster and labels is huge, it is much more complicated.
Usually unless you are not at the top of the game everyone gets more money for it than the guys really doing it....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2015 - 8:21 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
I'm not saying the music should be free.
Just that the availability should be there when the consumer wants to buy it, rather than finding they can't get hold of it legitimately when they want to.
I can understand the costs of pressing CDs can make it not worthwhile to an "occasional" consumer audience, but digital should be available all the time, and a mechanism to pay royalties "as and when".
As it stands, digital appears to be more restrictive than having CDs floating around. For example, licencing a digital title to limited world regions means I may not be able to buy a title in the UK if it is only licenced to iTunes America. That's like telling me I can't own something even if it is available somewhere to purchase.
Anyway, I don't want to argue this point, I was just surprised that digital titles go out of print far easier than CDs. One minute it's there, the next it's gone. No leftover "stock" which we could still seek out from somewhere.
I see, and I agree.
I understand that some digital music may be available in some countries and not (yet) in others due to national laws,
For the third time in this thread I have the feeling this is touching political points very much
I think we are still in a phase where society and government
edit
Interesting, the different natures of those media. You can easily buy second hand records say from the sixties, but you can't buy second-hand mp3 files, or offer them, that is illegal. The number of ownership is regulated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to be your own archivist. Get the music you love when it's available. Take steps to preserve it yourself with backups.
If you live long enough, probably every title will come around again eventually. But it might not be for sale when you happen to want it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 7, 2015 - 7:25 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
I can understand the costs of pressing CDs can make it not worthwhile to an "occasional" consumer audience, but digital should be available all the time, and a mechanism to pay royalties "as and when".
This is very new territory for all parties involved. I'm sure these things will be worked out. But as is naturally the case with new frontiers, there are fears and suspicions. The media companies fear they're losing their revenue stream, composers and musicians are suspicious they'll be taken advantage of and left in the cold.
This is not just true of music but of all things downloaded and streamed. As a television writer, a major source of my income has always been residuals from reruns of shows I wrote. It's worked for decades -- if your work is good enough that they rerun it, they share their profit by paying you when it re-airs. Now, the old rules rarely apply. More reruns are seen not on broadcast or cable television, but streamed on sites both subscriber- and ad-supported. The studios would prefer not to pay us for that, we writers beg to differ. It's an uneasy detente, but slowly the studios and the creative guilds are working out terms that both sides can live with. I have no doubt this will also be true in music. But it takes time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 8, 2015 - 12:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike West
(Member)
|
I can understand the costs of pressing CDs can make it not worthwhile to an "occasional" consumer audience, but digital should be available all the time, and a mechanism to pay royalties "as and when".
This is very new territory for all parties involved. I'm sure these things will be worked out. But as is naturally the case with new frontiers, there are fears and suspicions. The media companies fear they're losing their revenue stream, composers and musicians are suspicious they'll be taken advantage of and left in the cold.
This is not just true of music but of all things downloaded and streamed. As a television writer, a major source of my income has always been residuals from reruns of shows I wrote. It's worked for decades -- if your work is good enough that they rerun it, they share their profit by paying you when it re-airs. Now, the old rules rarely apply. More reruns are seen not on broadcast or cable television, but streamed on sites both subscriber- and ad-supported. The studios would prefer not to pay us for that, we writers beg to differ. It's an uneasy detente, but slowly the studios and the creative guilds are working out terms that both sides can live with. I have no doubt this will also be true in music. But it takes time.
Very important point.
There are usually institutions which are responsible for bringing the money back to the creator. In germany there is th GEMA which cares for writers and composers. I get money from them once or twice in a year for every piece of music which was performed publically or aired or released on CD or digitally. For that every performer and broadcaster has to report to the GEMA and pay for it.
However this gets more complicated when those performance happen abroad, because the institutions there are completely different ones. And the laws are completely different and the mathematics how performers have to report and pay and how much money goes to the creators. So all those institutions negotiated terms, and sometimes I get money from like two years ago. And when there are publishers for print media or more composers or writers included, everyone gets their share according to a complicate but exactly mapped-out code, to make sure whenever somebody makes money with your creation, you also get a share of it.
Then there is the GVL in germany, which is acutally like the GEMA, but not for writers and composers but performing musicians. I get money for every recording I was involved in and got a fee for, which is AIRED on radio or television. The broadcaster have to report in advance and pay, usually of course they have negotiated all-in contracts. Strictly sticking to a complicated systems every performer gets (very very little) money, when someone makes money with a recording they helped to get done.
Now there is the internet, and nobody can control it, and to apply general law is complicated. GEMA and GVL is constantly in law suits with youtube et al to fight for the rights of the creators. That's why sometimes a video is only available in a certain country for example.
And with listening habits changing and all, the usual flow of money to the creators ebbs down a bit, because for example broadcasters start to shut-down radio channels and narrow their program to adapt to the Internet-world and internet-society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
