[clug] 'Rip!' on SBS, last Tuesday night

steve jenkin sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au
Sun Jan 10 17:33:21 MST 2010

Ric de France wrote on 11/01/10 10:59 AM:

> At the end of the day, is the original concept of copyright good? Yep - well
> I believe so - feed the starving artists so they can produce more good
> music, pictures, art, etc.<snip>

Copyright protection was *never* about the content producer, but the
protecting the income of the publisher/distributor. "The right to copy"
is very different from "fairly compensate the creator". Which is why
(major) artists regularly sell on their back-catalogue rights.
[Famously, Michael Jackson owned the Beatles songs copyright]

Look to works of art:
 why doesn't the artist/creator of the work get a
 fixed percentage every time the work is resold?

When a piece goes for a record amount, that artist, if still alive, is
still struggling (and/or starving). All the get is a warm, fuzzy feeling
and the hope they can get more for their next work.

Would a 5% artist-fee significantly impact the investment market that is
Art? Nope...
But it would hugely benefit and encourage artists.

This is far from a new idea, but one that is now technically possible,
even easy.
So why doesn't the Art World adopt this practice, or Government
legislate it?

Who's benefiting (or not) from the Status Quo??

The royalty structure for musicians is woeful.
They notionally get 5% of the RRP, but have to bear all production costs
and fund the give-aways...
These costs are aggregated over all recordings/albums - the 'record
company' bears very little risk.  If an artist/band 'makes it' on their
third album, they have to pay costs for all albums from their royalties.

The 'Dixie Chicks' are very public in saying "Concert Tours Are Where
the Real Money Is"...

> ...Ric


Steve Jenkin, Info Tech, Systems and Design Specialist.
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 48, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

sjenkin at canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin

More information about the linux mailing list