Text 2847, 116 rader
Skriven 2012-08-24 13:34:35 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
   Kommentar till text 2811 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Anton Vickerman
=======================
Hello again Bob,

On Fri 2012-Aug-24 10:14, Robert Bashe (2:2448/44) wrote to Dale Shipp:

RB> Although they do have the advantage that authors and composers,
RB> among others, don't starve or live in poverty anymore. I suppose
RB> you've never heard of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? They still don't even
RB> know where he was buried. No money for a big monument at his time.

This is true, and many of those artists who can otherwise
afford to make their living from their art at all depend on
controlling those rights themselves.  There is no big
conglomerate holding the rights to their works, and often
these are the very people that are hurt most in today's
climate.

RB> And of course people like Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose works were
RB> plagarized in England on a massive scale. Plenty of other examples
RB> before copyright laws were enacted.

Right, and we're coming back to that time again for the
small and midlevel operators whose revenues are deeply cut
by piracy.  The big pop artists aren't really hurt that bad
by piracy, but the small jazz or folk artist or ensemble
that's eching out a living on tour sure is.

RB> The trouble with Bjorn is that he goes off the deep end. Some
RB> protection for authors, composers and the like is certainly
RB> justifiable - I mentioned the possibility of granting patents for a
RB> limited time on creative works - but he complains nearly constantly
RB> about the present situation, which is heavily weighted in favor of
RB> rights HOLDERS rather than the artists themselves, and allows a
RB> rights HOLDER to restrict or even forbid publication of creative
RB> work even after the death of the author, and often even after the
RB> deaths iof his immediate family.

Many reasonable people are coming to just such conclusions
Bob.  I've argued for a little reason and reworking of those laws for years.
DOne that way they enable future artists to reintroduce those works to the
public.

Yet by Bjorn's own admission he produces content for
periodicals for pay.

RB> I certainly agree that is not a fair balance, and still argue for
RB> something like an "artistic patent" lasting at least as long as the
RB> author's life - maybe plus 10-20 years to take care of the immediate
RB> needs of his/her family - but certainly nothing like what exists
RB> today.

That's a reasonable approach, and I've seen many advocate
for just such a thing.  But, the big rights holders have
deep pockets for the lobbying effort.

MEanwhile, it's the folks who hold their own rights instead
of a publishing company who are getting screwed.  A guy goes to your show,
hears your music, and, if he couldn't find it
on the web maybe buys the cd from you.  Then, before you
know it, it's on the web, for free.  NOw that guy at the
next show who would have bought the music from you,
enhancing your revenue, making life a little easier on tour
isn't buying, he's sucking it down free somewhere.  HE heard you on the small
local folk or jazz station, or was turned
onto your music by a friend, and at the show really decided
he enjoyed the performance enough that he wanted some of
your works in his collection.  But now, no need to buy from
you.  Just go grab it somewhere, or maybe even have a friend of his with your
music email him a copy.

NOw all your recordings are good for is to help you book the gig in the first
place, but you can only book the gig for
enough money to feed you that day.  THings that the
recording helped pay for, better accomodations while
traveling, maybe hiring a driver, chartering a bus, etc.
aren't there.  Sometimes the little bit of profit from those recordings buys a
little extra comfort, a night at a higher
end hotel with more amenities maybe, or the emergency fund
that keeps the truck full of gear rolling.

Why bother to spend money for professional services for your next recording?

Those of us in the technical end of the recording business
see this all the time.  For every major player with
publishing companies, major labels, etc. behind him that
becomes a client there are a dozen strugling clawing their
way up artists.   These are the folks that get hurt.  Disney studios and Sony
records aren't getting totally clobbered,
but that small jazz combo you might have enjoyed last week
that's on tour is.  What Madonna or Jay Z lose to piracy is
pocket change.  What that folk trio might lose in potential
sales can mean the difference between bringing their music
to already existing fans, or staying home and taking a day
job.  IT also means that small fry won't avail himself of
professional services such as a real recording engineer,
mastering, etc. etc.  Those are often the very services he
needs to avail hismelf of to reach the next level.
Mastering helps ensure that his art can be heard adequately
by everyone, from the guy listening on earbuds on the train
to the guy with the nice stereo to the clerk in the
stockroom with a boom box on the shelf.  THat artistic
decision that soudned great in the studio might not
translate so great to many folks' listening conditions.
Mastering folks put the brakes on such decisions before they make for
unlistenable product going out to the public, but
mastering labs don't hire themselves out for burger flipper
rates of pay.  I try to tell every client that mastering is
an essential step in the process, and it's often the big
corner that gets cut, because the budget isn't recoupable
these days, thanks to out and out theft.



Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)