Thanks very much for clearing up the headline and contents of the article. However NO THANKS to the last comment you made.
I'll explain.
Every time a song is sold, someone has to pay. Every time a song is played, someone has to pay. This system was setup in the USA a long time ago to keep the recording industry in business. Digital Music and Video files and the Internet have literally killed most of the careers of most of the professional artists who survive on royalties of music licensing. in case you have not guessed i am one of them.
What you are saying in your comment is that it is ok for a producer to keep selling their movie and making more money each time it is sold, but the music that powers the movie should only be sold a single time. That is not quite fair.
The issue worth discussing here is the fee that publishing companies might charge the licensor. It is certainly possible that the rate be too high or too low. That rate should be fair so everyone can make money and the consumer does not have to pay more as a result of a change.
This system has worked fine in the USA for over 50 years. A similar system could and should be adopted worldwide to protect the careers and families of recording artists and the millions of other people attached to the industry.
I think if you dig deep into the numbers and you compare the cost of tickets today vs 10 years ago you'll see why the music biz in the UK has grown. It is quite interesting that file sharing ahem stealing has had more of an impact in the USA than elsewhere. If anyone knows of a report that compares size of market (number of music buyers) it would be interesting to see the percentages.
BestNetTech has not posted any stories submitted by michael brent.
thanks and no thanks!
Hey Cram,
Thanks very much for clearing up the headline and contents of the article. However NO THANKS to the last comment you made.
I'll explain.
Every time a song is sold, someone has to pay. Every time a song is played, someone has to pay. This system was setup in the USA a long time ago to keep the recording industry in business. Digital Music and Video files and the Internet have literally killed most of the careers of most of the professional artists who survive on royalties of music licensing. in case you have not guessed i am one of them.
What you are saying in your comment is that it is ok for a producer to keep selling their movie and making more money each time it is sold, but the music that powers the movie should only be sold a single time. That is not quite fair.
The issue worth discussing here is the fee that publishing companies might charge the licensor. It is certainly possible that the rate be too high or too low. That rate should be fair so everyone can make money and the consumer does not have to pay more as a result of a change.
This system has worked fine in the USA for over 50 years. A similar system could and should be adopted worldwide to protect the careers and families of recording artists and the millions of other people attached to the industry.
Consider this?
I think if you dig deep into the numbers and you compare the cost of tickets today vs 10 years ago you'll see why the music biz in the UK has grown. It is quite interesting that file sharing ahem stealing has had more of an impact in the USA than elsewhere. If anyone knows of a report that compares size of market (number of music buyers) it would be interesting to see the percentages.