Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring

from the the-business-model-of-today dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how Lady Gaga had leveraged free music as a huge part of building up her popularity, and turned that into money via sellout tours and corporate sponsorship. However, most of that article focused on "legal" free music -- such as the songs her label had put up on MySpace and YouTube and elsewhere. But what about the unauthorized kinds? Well, in a wide-ranging (and really quite fascinating) interview that Lady Gaga did with the Times Online in the UK (check it out before they put up the paywall), Lady Gaga admits she's fine with people downloading her music in unauthorized forms because she makes it up in touring revenue:
She explains she doesn't mind about people downloading her music for free, "because you know how much you can earn off touring, right? Big artists can make anywhere from $40 million [£28 million] for one cycle of two years' touring. Giant artists make upwards of $100 million. Make music -- then tour. It's just the way it is today."
Similarly, she knocks bands that don't really try to work hard to please the fans, and who just expect them to automatically buy each album:
"I hate big acts that just throw an album out against the wall, like 'BUY IT! F*** YOU!' It's mean to fans. You should go out and tour it to your fans in India, Japan, the UK. I don't believe in how the music industry is today. I believe in how it was in 1982."
Like Mariah Carey, it looks like Lady Gaga has realized that this concept of Connect with Fans and giving them a Reason to Buy works at the superstar level just as much as it does down at the indie artist level. The specifics of implementing a business model around the concept are very, very different -- but the core concept remains the same. Treat your fans right, learn to leverage what's infinite to make something scarce more valuable, and then sell the scarcity.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    Wesha (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 11:54am

    Wow! I would have never guessed that she has common sense. I think I need to start respecting her.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    carlos, May 24th, 2010 @ 12:13pm

    Hey guys, I don't know if it is my Mozilla Firefox, but I have some troubles with the RSS of Techdirt.

    Greetings from Chile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:26pm

    Mike , Point of Information.

    I too have free access to my music online. Folks are free to listen , and RECORD, but not to download w/o paying.

    I am just exherting free choice of Artistic Complete Legal Control over my COPYRIGHTED ART.

    So is Miss GaGa.

    Offered as a Point of Information.

    Mike you now have the floor, sir.
    -------------


    Free to record music: http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin

    Pay to download:
    http://amiestreet.com/music/rahalperin/rahalperin/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:32pm

      Re: Mike , Point of Information.

      I'm not Mike, but do you mind if I raise a couple questions?

      1) what is the difference between recording something that you are listening to/streaming online, and downloading a copy?

      2) Do you realize that your control over your copyrighted art is limited, not complete?

      3) How do you feel about situations where someone is denied access to music they have legally purchased?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:03pm

      Re: Mike , Point of Information.

      The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings, and gets a small piece of the recording profits pie.

      So, yeah, it's not surprising that she doesn't mind unauthorized downloading--she's not the one who's getting hurt the most and is probably profiting from increase tour proceeds

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:17pm

        Re: Re: Mike , Point of Information.

        It's entirely possible it was a set-up. I actually thought the boy sucked as a musician, and I didn't see this child had any discernible talent. My husband does post-production work for a media company, and everyone was watching the Ellen interview with the little boy. He said one of his co-workers yelled at the TV screen "For the love of God, would someone please take this kid to a Mets game?"

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:18pm

        The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings

        "The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings"

        Ans: I doubt that .

        I would bet She made the decission on the song use , and it was hers to make alone .

        THE point is also irrelevant to our dissussion as I see it-- but pleaee point out my mistake there if you see it .

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 5:04pm

          Re: The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings

          Ans: I doubt that .

          If you sign to a label, you do not own the copyright on your material. Even the biggest artists out there (Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2, etc) don't own the copyrights to their music. They are owned by their record labels. (In the Beatles' case, they are owned by the estate of Michael Jackson.)

          There is no question that Lady Gaga does not own the copyrights to her music, either. Perhaps if the rest of the albums on her contract are all mega-hits, she can negotiate with the label for future copyrights in her new contract... but don't bet on it.

          It makes sense, because copyrights are publishing rights, and labels are the publishers.

          So, A.C. (this one) makes somewhat of a valid point. But - if you accept this point, then you cannot accept that copyright "protects artists," nor that infringement "hurts" them.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 5:21pm

            Re: Re: The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings

            "If you sign to a label, you do not own the copyright on your material. Even the biggest artists out there (Beatles, Rolling Stones, U2, etc) don't own the copyrights to their music"

            by Artist choice yes. But they SOLD THE RIGHTS.

            And as Mike knows:

            John Fogerty ( ofCCR) v. Fantasy Records -

            Supreme Court of the United States.

            Argued December 8, 1993.

            Decided March 1, 1994.

            Full case name, John Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc. ...

            en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy .

            Read and get back to me.

            But as you will see the SCOTUS said , that even without holding legal copyright J.F. --the ARTIST-- still owns his personal reproduction of that ART for sale even.

            Great Legal decision and very IMPORTANT to understanding Artist's natural rights.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 5:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings

              clarify : the SCOTUS was ruling on law fees:
              But Read:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy

              "John Fogerty was the lead singer of the popular rock group Creedence Clearwater Revival.

              In 1970, as part of CCR, he wrote "Run Through the Jungle," to which Fantasy, Inc., eventually acquired the exclusive publishing rights.

              CCR disbanded in 1972, and Fogerty began a solo career with another music label.

              In 1985, Fogerty published "The Old Man Down the Road", which he released on Warner Bros. Records.

              Fantasy sued Fogerty for copyright infringement, claiming that "The Old Man Down the Road" was simply "Run Through the Jungle" with new words.

              A jury found in favor of Fogerty, ( that is the point !!!!) and he sought attorney's fees as provided by the Copyright Act of 1976, [ which went all the way up to the SCOTUS.]

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogerty_v._Fantasy

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 5:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: The main difference would be that Lady Gaga almost certainly doesn't own the copyright in her recordings

              by Artist choice yes. But they SOLD THE RIGHTS.

              "Sold" is probably not the right word, as copyrights aren't property in the traditional sense. "Relinquished" is better. It is not optional; unless you relinquish your copyright to the label, they can't legally publish your music.

              In the case of major labels, none will sign a contract with you unless you relinquish the exclusive rights to your music. And in order to even get to the bargaining stage with the label, you will have to sign a "deal memo." This means that you are legally obliged to eventually sign with that label, and cannot relinquish your copyrights to anyone else, or publish the music yourself.

              Minor labels usually operate the same way, but occasionally they will strike a "licensing" deal, meaning they only hold the copyrights for a specified length of time. Occasionally the rights will be non-exclusive, but that's amazingly rare (it usually applies only to licensing in different countries).
              John Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.

              This case only had to do with whether the defendant in a copyright infringement suit could sue for legal fees (previously, the answer was no).
              even without holding legal copyright J.F. --the ARTIST-- still owns his personal reproduction of that ART for sale even.

              Without holding legal copyright, the artist does not have any rights to their art. The copyright is held by the artist by default, until they relinquish it to the publisher. If they're self-published, no rights are transferred... unless that same art was earlier relinquished to the publisher, in which case the artist is committing copyright infringement.

              To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle." If he tried to re-release it, he would be committing copyright infringement.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:38pm

                To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:43pm

                To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle.

                Wrong. that was the core point . Other artists got to pay to cover RTJ to the current owner of the publishing rights , but John does not , because he wrote it !!!! Even if he still does not own the legal publishing rights NOW.

                This is why I see copyright coming out of Natural Law , as artist ownership of created works , EVEN trumps whoever may legally currently own the publishing rights.

                For his own use and personal profit ,, the artist cannot give up rights.

                AND yes copyRIGHTs are SOLD ,, for $$$ . Just like stock and bonds, that are not the biz itself.

                That was the dispute , and it was ruled in J.F.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:45pm

                  Re: To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle.

                  That was the dispute , and it was ruled in J.F.'s favor. Big Time.

                  there was no appeal.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 8:31pm

                  Re: To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle.

                  Other artists got to pay to cover RTJ to the current owner of the publishing rights , but John does not , because he wrote it !!!!

                  This is 100% wrong.

                  The courts found that Fogerty's song "The Old Man Down The Road" did not infringe on "Run through the Jungle." In other words, the jury found that they were not the same song.

                  If any other artist had written "The Old Man Down The Road," they would have won too. It had nothing to do with the fact that Fogerty wrote the first song.

                  Either way, "Run Through The Jungle" is not controlled by Fogerty. He cannot record it without infringing on copyright, unless he gets permission from Fantasy.

                  Don't believe me? Read the Supreme Court case:
                  http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/case_fantfogerty.html
                  Respondent Fantasy, Inc., sued Fogerty, Warner Brothers, and affiliated companies, in District Court, alleging that "The Old Man Down the Road" was merely "Run Through the Jungle" with new words. The copyright infringement claim went to trial and a jury returned a verdict in favor of Fogerty.


                  Here's an article about the original trial:
                  http://kwartlerlaw.com/Commentaries/wddyh.html
                  Judge Samuel Conti actually resolved in pretrial rulings the issue many associated with the case: whether Fogerty could infringe his own work. (...) A beneficial owner has no independent right to use or license the copyright, Conti ruled, but merely an economic interest in the legal owners' exercise of these rights. A beneficial owner may bring an infringement action against third parties to protect this economic interest. However, a beneficial owner who seeks to exercise the legal owner's rights may be liable for infringement. Thus a beneficial owner cannot create a new work based upon the original without the legal owner's consent, as Fantasy had alleged.

                  Emphasis mine.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 9:58pm

                    Re: Re: To this day, John Fogerty does not own any rights to "Run Through The Jungle.

                    "The courts found that Fogerty's song "The Old Man Down The Road" did not infringe on "Run through the Jungle." In other words, the jury found that they were not the same song."

                    I am sorry ,, but that is not my understanding ,, but it was , a while back ,, and I did cite it w/o , studiny the case ,, only waht was up at Wikki.

                    But I bellieve it was eventuallly resolved , where John's orginal authorship was a legal factor..

                    Remember :

                    Chords : cannot copyright

                    Melody is messy

                    Lyrics clear.

                    I was not at the trail , and my not have gotten 100% on the pop quiz here .

                    Sue me. This is not my job.

                    When Mike is wrong, it is his job.

                    ---------

                    Either way the J.F vs evil record company case record, is open to all,

                    it was hailed as an artists victory, as I remember ,

                    , but It is not my formal job to remember things.

                    but I do remember Musicians loved the verdict , but we may have been to drunk to understand it at the time.

                    That why we got Lawyers.
                    -----

                    there is a story in the Babylonian Talmud, about the test they gave to local younger Rabbis then so they could be judges on the Senior Rabbinic courts.

                    I paraphrase here:

                    The test starts with being asked to explain why a mouse is kosher.

                    But a mouse it not Kosher.

                    The senior Rabbis insist , and demands a list of of 100 reasons why a mouse is kosher from the aspiring young Rabbi.

                    He Toils for days , combs through tomes of Jewish law. Finds his 100 reasons , why a mouse IS KOSHER.

                    The young Rabbi presents his 100 reasons on why a mouse is kosher to the Senior Rabbis testing him.

                    They read the list they . They tell him he did a great job.

                    The Young Rabbi is bewidlered ,, tierd and cranky from day of little sleep ,, he yells at the senior Rabbis ,, " But a MOUSE IS NOT KOSHER !!!!"

                    The senior Rabbis repsond: EXACTLY.

                    You can give me 100 reason why a mouse is not kosher , all well researched for Jewish Law.

                    But the Answer is a Mouse IS NOT Kosher.

                    You passed the test you are now a young Senior Rabbi.

                    ==================

                    Why Am i writing this ,, whell if you have not figured out already ,,

                    You can give me 1000 reasons and circumstance on why PIRACY of copyrRighted works--- from the micro to macro level ---is fine , nice , legal and moral , in any one unique place and circumstance.

                    But the Answer is : Piracy is Illegal.
                    ---------------------------

                    Again Paul , Yoko, M.J. kids , ASCAP , BMI ,, and you ,,

                    PLEASE,, PLEEEAASSEEE ,, SUE ME ,,

                    for posting my instrumental cover version of the Beatles REVOLUTION # 1 on my My Space page ;

                    those links again :

                    http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin

                    http://amiestreet.com/music/rahalperin/rahalperin/

                    I need the publicity Paul,, and we can jam on uke during court recess>


                    =========

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 10:14pm

                      this is a major news story forn the NYTimes to put things in perspective. ENJOY

                      May 24, 2010
                      When Passengers Spit, Bus Drivers Take Months Off

                      By MICHAEL M. GRYNBAUM

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/nyregion/25spit.html?hp

                      "It could be the cutbacks to the city’s transportation system, or a general decline in urban civility. Perhaps people are just in a collective bad mood.

                      What else could explain why New Yorkers — notoriously hardened to the slings and arrows of everyday life here — are spitting on bus drivers?

                      Of all the assaults that prompted a bus operator to take paid leave in 2009, a third of them, 51 in total, “involved a spat upon,” according to statistics the Metropolitan Transportation Authority released on Monday.

                      No weapon was involved in these episodes. “Strictly spitting,” said Charles Seaton, a New York City Transit spokesman.

                      And the encounters, while distressing, appeared to take a surprisingly severe toll: the 51 drivers who went on paid leave after a spitting incident took, on average, 64 days off work — the equivalent of three months with pay. One driver, who was not identified by the authority, spent 191 days on paid leave.

                      Transit officials, facing a budget shortfall of $400 million, called the numbers troubling. “We have to see what we’re going to do with that,” said Joseph Smith, who oversees bus operations for New York City Transit.

                      Spitting falls under the category of assault in the drivers’ contract with the authority. And officials at Transport Workers Union Local 100, which represents city bus operators, said the extended absences were justified.

                      “Being spat upon — having a passenger spit in your face, spit in your mouth, spit in your eye — is a physically and psychologically traumatic experience,” said John Samuelsen, the union’s president. “If transit workers are assaulted, they are going to take off whatever amount of time they are going to take off to recuperate.”

                      Sensitivities have been heightened since 2008, when Edwin Thomas, a bus driver in Brooklyn, was stabbed to death by a passenger after an argument over the fare.

                      In response, the authority offered classes to drivers on defusing tense situations. Plastic partitions for drivers have been tested, but a design has not been set.

                      Yet spitting assaults have grown. More than 80 drivers reported being spat upon in the last year, the authority said.

                      Enforcement may be an issue. Almost no arrests have been reported for spitting on a driver, said Mr. Smith, who noted that a police officer “must witness the spat upon to give a summons.”

                      London and other cities have found a novel solution: collecting the DNA of the offending spitters.

                      Bus drivers interviewed Monday said they frequently heard about episodes involving spit.

                      Passengers “get angry at the MetroCard not working, they get very irate over the schedules and having to wait a certain period and the bus being late,” said Richard Davis, a union official in Manhattan.

                      “A lot of people are worried about diseases, and they go to the hospital to get checked,” Mr. Davis said, referring to the drivers.

                      Raul Morales, 52, has been driving city buses for five years, but his first encounter with spit came early.

                      “A guy wanted to get on the bus; I told him the fare; he didn’t want to pay it,” Mr. Morales said. “So, he spat at me.”

                      The spittle landed on his shirt and glasses. He stopped at a nearby McDonald’s to clean himself off, then finished his shift. “I just kept on going.” (An ice slushie was once thrown at him for the same reason.)

                      Mr. Morales said it did not occur to him to take an extended absence to recover. “Everybody has their own tolerance to these things,” he said.

                      Alan E. Pisarski, the author of “Commuting in America,” calls it “aisle rage”: a resentment toward declining mass transit. “It could be that the combination of declining service and increasing costs is a tough burden for people to accept,” Mr. Pisarski said.

                      Come June in New York City, that burden will grow. Dozens of local and express bus lines will be eliminated, taking the brunt of an austere slate of service cuts by the authority. (Fewer riders on the subway will be affected.)

                      Gene Russianoff, staff lawyer for the Straphangers’ Campaign ****, the riders’ group, said the cuts could make riders less patient. “On a train,” Mr. Russianoff said, “you really can’t get at the train operator in most cases. If you’re late, or they missed your stop, you’re pretty mad. On the bus, the driver is the flashpoint.”

                      Nancy Shevell, the chairwoman of the authority’s bus committee, said she did not envy those spat upon. But she wondered whether three months’ time off was excessive.

                      “You have to wonder if you can go home and shower off, take a nap, take off the rest of the day and maybe the next day,” she said. “When it gets strung out for months, you start to wonder.”"

                      Emily Hager contributed reporting.

                      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/nyregion/25spit.html?hp=&pagewanted=print



                      *** i used to be employed with nypirg/ straphangers
                      http://www.nypirg.org/

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 3:34am

                    Judge Samuel Conti actually resolved in pretrial rulings the issue many associated with the case:

                    "Judge Samuel Conti actually resolved in pretrial rulings the issue many associated with the case:"


                    I think the key there is "pre-trail",, but i do wanna look this up someday , to be clear , what role J.F.'s ORIGINAL Authorship played ,,,,, thanks for pointing out links that will help

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 9:08am

                    In other words, the jury found that they were not the same song."

                    let us listen for ourselves:
                    Creedence Clearwater Revival: Run Through The Jungle
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbI0cMyyw_M
                    --
                    The Old Man Down The Road - John Fogerty
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtTNK5HZ84A

                    --------

                    And I remember it J.F. was purposely baiting Fantasy Records, and wrote Old Man with "hopes" that Fantasy would sue.

                    Listen and get back to me ,
                    -----------------------

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 9:10am

                      Re: In other words, the jury found that they were not the same song."

                      me ,, forgot to sign in ,, again,,
                      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
                      (anybody seen my house keys??)

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymously Brave, May 24th, 2010 @ 2:23pm

      Re: Mike , Point of Information.

      I am just exherting free choice of Artistic Complete Legal Control over my COPYRIGHTED ART.

      Keep in mind, your control over your "art" is limited to the rights provided by law. The only way to hold "complete" control over your art is to keep it to yourself -- locked away where no one even knows it exists.

      Once you make it available to the public -- for rent, purchase, or whatever -- your rights are limited to those provided by law.

      I applaud you for at least providing some access to your music, however your choice of wording compelled me to comment.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:20pm

        Re: Re: Mike , Point of Information.

        "Once you make it available to the public -- for rent, purchase, or whatever -- your rights are +++limited to those provided by law.++++"

        ans: I believe the law -- as it stand now in the USA--gives me 100% control , except fair use which is fair.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 4:42pm

        I applaud you for at least providing some access to your music, however your choice of wording compelled me to comment.

        "I applaud you for at least providing some access to your music, "

        ans: Thank you. Applause is always nice.


        "however"
        There is always a "but" , or "however" ,,,, I guess that is life on posting boards.

        "your choice of wording compelled me to comment."

        I did my job.

        Pay me. :)

        But again , really thank you for the applauds.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:43pm

    Point of Information.

    1) what is the difference between recording something that you are listening to/streaming online, and downloading a copy?

    Ans: I figure if someone wants to take the trouble to record -- G-D Bless them !! Thank You.

    2) Do you realize that your control over your copyrighted art is limited, not complete?

    Ans: No. ( I know what I am saying , it is not meant to put you off.)

    3) How do you feel about situations where someone is denied access to music they have legally purchased?

    ANS: Example please. but it sounds bad at first bite.

    But I can put a limtited time on your use.

    I do have the right to withdraw my art,

    and say you can no longer use it , if 1st stated by me before purchase , and agreed to by that purchase.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

      Re: Point of Information.

      1) So, the difference between downloading and recording is that one takes more effort? And that the extra effort must be put up by your fans?

      2) What about Fair Use? Doesn't that limit what control you have?

      3) Say I bought a CD with your music. For the sake of simplicity, lets say I bought it in the normal fashion, and without any special 'limited time', or 'right to withdraw' clauses in the contract of sale. Say the CD Broke, got scratched, or was somehow otherwise damaged. To rectify this, I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:15pm

        Re: Re: Point of Information.2) What about Fair Use? Doesn't that limit what control you have?

        I will get back to you ,, but I got a busy day here ,, look later .

        If you got a ?? for me ,, can you hold til this evening ?

        ,, I will be back .

        Post ,, but I will not reply for a while ,

        , A little overload ,,

        Mike's not paying me to be here .

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:28pm

          Re: Re: Re: Point of Information.2) What about Fair Use? Doesn't that limit what control you have?

          He's not paying me either. I'm just here for my personal enjoyment.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:01pm

            I'm just here for my personal enjoyment.// but quite honestly , it that much fun.

            quite honestly , it that much fun.

            I am here because i feel strong about Piracy and copyright law. and techdirt readers are mostly pirates (--- oooooohh , i here it now ,, but if the earbud fits -- wear it !! ---)

            And I figured why not argue copyright law in the Pirates den.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:02pm

              Re: I'm just here for my personal enjoyment.// but quite honestly , it that much fun.

              it is NOT that much fun.
              ======

              {wheres my ciggie?}

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:00pm

              Re: I'm just here for my personal enjoyment.// but quite honestly , it that much fun.

              techdirt readers are mostly pirates

              Just about everyone who owns a computer is a "pirate," whether they know it or not. See e.g. Lily Allen. I'm willing to bet that you are too; you just don't know it yet.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 8:30pm

                Re: Re: I'm just here for my personal enjoyment.// but quite honestly , it that much fun.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 8:46pm

                . I'm willing to bet that you are too; you just don't know it yet.

                I admit i get lyrics online .

                I hope and pray the lyric site pays royalties off of Any Earnings.
                ---
                If it does , I am at peace
                ----
                If lyric site not paying $$ royalties ,
                sent in the Navy ,
                an' slay them ol'
                Pirates
                without
                any
                mercy.
                ---------------------

                If there are no earnings ,, but the giving away infringes.

                SO now the artists maY:

                A] post their lyrics online anyway: Bob Dylan
                http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/hurricane

                B} Sue the Lyric Site Directly , or with ASCAP ,BMI ,, Micky Mouse , and who ever.

                C} Smoke a cigarette, while he plays Beatles videos at You Tube.

                ----

                If i record , of off you tube.

                It is happy-lawyer-land between "You tube" lawyers, and all
                other lawyers in the known universe.

                If it is up on youtube, I assume it is legally dealt with.

                some. how
                some way
                some where
                , by some one
                and ones
                another , who ,
                , all make
                a
                freak
                of a lot more $$$
                than I do.

                I might watch all of Star Wars 1-6 again tonite ,

                another ciggee,, and "I m SoTired"...................................

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:51pm

        Re: Re: Point of Information.

        1) So, the difference between downloading and recording is that one takes more effort?

        Ans: For ME and my artisitc choice it is. It it like the fruit stand leaving out a few apples , for the homeless to "steal"

        You want or need my art that much,, G-D bless you. Please come to gig to.

        AND you can record the MP3 for free @ myspace

        Download the orginal file Mp3 encoded with what ever i want , from the lyric to malware [sic] --for PAY @ amiestreet.

        Or you could buy the CD from me.
        ===================================

        Q; And that the extra effort must be put up by your fans?

        All six of them. Again my Art . MY UNIVIERSE. You want it MY rules. Copyright Law. It is natural.
        =====================================

        2) What about Fair Use? Doesn't that limit what control you have?

        Ans: Fair use is fair . But Fair use is only a quote or and excerpt,, or for educational purpose in limited circumstances. there may be other legal examples too.
        ===========================================

        3) Say I bought a CD with your music. For the sake of simplicity, lets say I bought it in the normal fashion, and without any special 'limited time', or 'right to withdraw' clauses in the contract of sale. Say the CD Broke, got scratched, or was somehow otherwise damaged. To rectify this, I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?


        ans:

        as i pointed out in the lyric thread last week:

        I own the Art. you own the physical meduim. You sratch the CD , tough.
        -----
        in 1970 we bought Abby road on Vinyl.

        in 1976 we bought the tape , because it vinyl wore out after 6930 plays.

        Then the tape got eaten in the Deck ,

        So I bought the tape several more times ,

        Till the CDs cam out in the 1990s.
        Bought that. ( I think you see where I am going )

        Then the Beatles released re-mastered the CDs , thus leaving the earlier CDs useless to my audio file brain.

        AND soon we will by the repressed vinyl of Abby Road Again.

        (Still want that 25 cents Paul for my cover of Revolution ?)

        AND AGAIN in 10-15 years we will , G-D willing , we will buy a mini analog disc of Abby Road , for our nano-tech-mini-analog- music player.
        (MAMuPs)

        =========

        I need a ciggertte. ( please no comments on that , I get it from Mom all the time. It hand rolled organic tobbacco)

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:58pm

          I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

          I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?


          Ask my lawyer.

          but my ans. No . you break the pysical medim you bought from the RECORD COMPANY,, you by another.

          Remember you are not just cheating the Recording artist and /or song writer,, but the Label , the producers , engineers, Visual Artists fo the record sleeve, the record store ,, to whole Music economy and their familes.

          Every body knows that Rome fell because of Pirates --on land or at sea!!!! -- or now online.


          Don't be a Pirate , be a legal sailor.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            athe (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:16pm

            Re: I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

            OK, so I buy your CD, then back it up to my music server (I do have the right to create a backup, correct?). I put the CD in storage. It remains there for some time, then some accident occurs, and the CD breaks. What, should I go out and purchase a new copy of the CD, deleting the backup until such time as I've got a new copy? I still have the (admittedly damaged) CD to prove that I bought and own it...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 9:04pm

              Re: Re: I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

              use common sense.

              ( A big risk I am taking here. clearly , with a techdirt poster)

              I you would not mind it ,IF it was YOUR livelihood being ripped off , use common sense. Artists tend to be control freaks about their art. Copyright endorses that natural right .

              Just as Lovers are too sometimes are control freaks , of honor and not $$ .

              "Why you looking at my Girl bub!?!",,......, punch.
              -------------------------------------------------

              Remember $$ moneys must be direct . If an artist sees a loss of income -- in potential or in reality -- than he gets angry.

              Also it is mostly not about $$$

              But control.

              The Law cannot micro-enforce , every little geek with a keyboard ,
              , who will always try yo get something
              for nothing, and then
              give his mate a copy.

              BUT WHEN
              it
              become
              larger
              ,organized
              , and
              criminal
              ,, Piracy,,


              Lock um up Dano.
              --------------------
              its late

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                athe (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 10:24pm

                Re: Re: Re: I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

                Didn't really answer the question there, did ya?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 4:03am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: I download your music, and burn a new CD, to replace the broken one. Do you think this should be allowed?

                  common sense.

                  Don't be a Pirate,

                  If it feels like cheating it is cheating.

                  ---

                  Really got a , a real world question ,,ask you local copyright law professor,,

                  But if you ask ,,

                  Suppose my computer , takes the CD into it's CD-Rom drive ,, and creates a new life form , from the computer's hardware/software/malware & my music CD ,

                  ( finally "form from" together consecutively in a sentence, a dyslexic nightmare).

                  and that NEW cyborg life form then eats Pittsburgh

                  ,, and the now USA Gov't claims it was my music on the CD , that interacted will malware on your computer,, to create the NEW life form,

                  !] Is the new life form covered , by my original copyright of my music ,, OR

                  2] Is the new life form , covered by the copyright of the Mal-ware on your computer,, that was needed to create the cyborg life form that ate Pittsburgh,,, but wait

                  #} you can't copyright Malware -- can you?

                  , so 4} the new life form that ate Pittsburgh ,, has two parents , one legal -- my CD ,, and one illegal -- the malwayre on you computer. ,,

                  In which case , being one parent is illegal ,

                  Arizonza, captures the new cyborg life form that ate Pittsburgh,, and deports it to Mexico ,, claiming the malware came form Mexico.

                  The new Cyborg life form , not liking Mexican food , starves to death.

                  Its that clear ??

                  Answered your Question?
                  ----

                  If not ask a lawyer, law proff, or Lady GaGa.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 4:32am

              (I do have the right to create a backup, correct?)

              yes , for personal use

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:46pm

    1) what is the difference between recording something that you are listening to/streaming online, and downloading a copy?

    Also : I only have MP3s and the like online.

    For Higher Quality .Wav ---

    you gotta pay me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 12:55pm

      Re: 1) what is the difference between recording something that you are listening to/streaming online, and downloading a copy?

      Also , I knew , understand , and accepted , that by posting the FULL song, I could not stop recording of it.

      I was an Artistic choice not to post an "excerpt". of the song[s].

      I felt the songs should be heard Whole and complete -- even down to the last reverb when i posted them @ MySpace.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tad Throckmorton, May 24th, 2010 @ 12:56pm

    Re: Point of Information.

    Once I purchase your MP3 you believe you can come get it back just because you have decided you don't want me to have it anymore? You need to learn to give people a reason to buy, not rent. By the way how much are you giving the Beatles from licensing Revolution (free download no less). You did legally license it right? Oh yeah, 10 years have gone by, how about putting up some new music.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 12:59pm

    Somewhere I d/l a free Lady Gaga song, probably through an Itunes or Amazon promo. I played a half-minute of the song the other day on my IPOD. To call her music caterwauling would be an insult to my cat. However, she does seem like a perfectly nice young woman, especially after hearing the conversation she had over the phone with a fan during the Ellen Show.

    There was nothing obligating her to call up and chat with this eleven-year-old kid. The boy had recorded a YouTube video of himself performing one of her songs, and the video, as they say, went viral and was seen by millions of people. Instead of suing the little boy or ordering her record label to issue a DMCA takedown notice, she seemed genuinely flattered, and she told him she liked the video.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

      Re:

      I wonder how much of that was simple manufacturing? I heard the kid now has a record label deal.

      Hmmmm. It did seem to move fairly quickly, even for the internet.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:23pm

      Re:

      There was nothing obligating her to call up and chat with this eleven-year-old kid. The boy had recorded a YouTube video of himself performing one of her songs, and the video, as they say, went viral and was seen by millions of people.

      The kid is signed to Gaga's label. There's a fair amount of speculation that the whole thing has been planned from the beginning and the YouTube video was calculated to launch his career.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Androgyn, Jul 23rd, 2010 @ 9:07am

      Re:

      I think the "Talented Boy" issue was a Pr publicity trick, of course Lady gaga was kind to that boy becouse that boy made an additional 8million wievs to Paparazzy song.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:07pm

    Once I purchase your MP3 you believe you can come get it back just because you have decided you don't want me to have it anymore?

    ans : no I said agreed tp before purchase. Read carefully brefore tou click here of before downloading my song. I can say LIMITED USe. Software does it all the time. Free to use for 30 days , after you got to buy or give back.

    You need to learn to give people a reason to buy, not rent.

    ans : Again my choice. You can and often do rent art. Song used in adv for example. It is not lifetime use , if you use my song in a an adv.

    By the way how much are you giving the Beatles from licensing Revolution (free download no less).

    ANS: The key word is FREE. If I have been charging $$, paul and Yoko could Sue me.

    . I have been meaning to write Paul, Yoko, Oliva and Ringo about that, and get permission, but I am too busy here.

    But I once played "I shall Be Released" for Rick Danko , many moons ago, in a bar gig of mine .

    Rick did not ask for his 25 cents.

    He instead gave a fist pump , went "whooo-- whooo", and drank some more beer.

    You did legally license it right? Oh yeah, 10 years have gone by, how about putting up some new music.

    ans: see above

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 9:38pm

      Re:

      The key word is FREE. If I have been charging $$, paul and Yoko could Sue me.

      Wow, it's really obvious that you have absolutely no clue at all.

      By recording and releasing that song, you are just as much of a "thief" as someone who downloads that same song through a torrent site.

      Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement.

      Non-commercial infringement is also illegal, so releasing that is against the law, even if you don't charge money. You do not have the right to release a cover version for free, any more than you have the right to release the original for free.

      You are, in other words, doing exactly the thing that copyright is supposed to prevent. More than filesharing, even.

      I thought you were probably an unintentional "pirate," but I had no idea. Seriously, if you think what you're doing is more OK than listening to a song for free, then you're way out of touch with reality.

      For the record: The estate of Michael Jackson is the exclusive owner of all Beatles material. If you ever decide to stop stealing, I'm sure LaToya would take a check. (Don't bother asking Paul McCartney; he doesn't have any say in the matter.)

      One last thing. As one shitty musician to another, please stop plugging your music here. It's really annoying.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Karl (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 11:31pm

        Re: Re:

        The estate of Michael Jackson is the exclusive owner of all Beatles material.

        Upon further research, I learned that MJ sold 50% of his share to Sony. Also, he apparently put his share up as collateral on a loan, so who knows who owns the copyrights now.

        In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 4:40am

          In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.

          but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.

          When MJ. ( may G-D rest his soul) ,,, started selling Beatle songs for ads ,, i remember reading Paul was not happy , and gave M.J. a polite ring on the phone to express his displeasure w/ beatle songs in ads.

          I do not remember the full details from what i read ,, and I bet Paul , does not either.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:05am

          In any case, not a single member of the Beatles (nor even Yoko) owns the copyrights to any of their music. They do still collect royalties on it, of course.

          no , as i understand it .

          M.J.'s estate get royalties from the "John & Paul" song publishing rights they own . ( George & Ringo own their music and publishing rights independently of John and Paul .)

          Beatles inc. still gets $$ from , physical or digital medium sales.
          --------------------

          and
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFgHB_3MOt8&feature=related
          gimme some truth JOHN LENNON cover remix ( could not find the original ) , by somebody ,, but you will get the point for the lyrics

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 4:13am

        One last thing. As one shitty musician to another, please stop plugging your music here. It's really annoying.

        >> it is a reality example to our discussion ,, and even if "annoying" it is not illegal , or against posting rules here.

        >> Piracy is illegal ,, and any posting that encourages and illegal activity, is immoral
        --------
        and to ans. you other points :: PAUL & Yoko , and M.J's kid's please sue ME !!
        -----------

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 4:56am

        "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."

        "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music.""
        I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing.
        ==========================

        "People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."

        What ? Think about that .

        My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.

        it is a given.

        =============

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Karl (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 6:39pm

          Re: "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."

          The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.
          but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.

          It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.
          My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.

          So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.
          I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing.

          Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want. If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Wilful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.

          If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.

          Here's the law:
          http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

          Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates. But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 12:10am

            Re: Re: "Perhaps even worse. From the posts here, it's really obvious that you recorded that song, at least in part, to promote your own music. People who just download music don't expect that kind of advertisement."

            Before I answer here ,, let me say , I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in musician to musician culture.

            But I think you are wring in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
            ---------------


            The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.

            ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
            -----------------------------

            Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.


            You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.

            Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE, Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash. I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatle covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- I would be shocked , and Paul would be too. While I can bet for sure there , it is a highly educated guess.

            When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a differnt color , and it can be shot. Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- even over ONLY infringement , and loss of control. $$ would just make it more likey for the Artist to sue,, but really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control. Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children. Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply. Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
            -----
            -------------------------
            ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.

            YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.

            AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,, it is a musician culture thing. This is as old as the blies in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better. Musicans do not sue othe good faith musicians.

            But together we will fight Pirates
            ----------------------------------------------

            YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.

            ME: Paul won't let them . Buy I get very little traffic --at leat now to myspace,, like I said , I dublt , anyone knows at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" , and if the did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on the song, and have nothing to sue , over.

            Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,, but that ain't worth the lawyers pay. And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.
            Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i retired in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square. ( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.

            My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there becomes money ,, The LAW rules. I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread-- doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)

            ------------------------

            ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Wilful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.

            ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op wil any formal request ,, and angain , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .
            Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists. BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicans , do not sue.

            Musicians do not experience professional jealousy as in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).

            Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song gooks form each other all the time. "Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,, was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
            "In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". ---- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
            (quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
            ==================================

            YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.

            Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
            and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , wil make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.

            Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
            -------------------
            You : Here's the law:
            http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

            Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
            ---------------
            YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
            But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?

            ME : Accually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe. The laywers will do our ,, and esp, Pauls bidding on these matters.


            Geeks , who download en mass , are pirates , and should be stopped. Lyric sites that fail to pay royalites will be shut down. Larger organized crime , will be suject to law enforcement.

            A no $$ dude like me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued, if the Musican (Paul in this case ) , is making the decsion.

            But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.

            But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.


            good note ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here ,, and questions ,, re-read the thread ,, more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts

            sorry for the typos ,, i ain't proof reading this thing

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 4:33am

              corrected typos & with elucitations : RE: I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.

              Before I answer here ,, let me say , I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.

              But I think you are writing in good "academic" faith , So let us beat the horse a bit ,, but with a feather , because PETA might be reading
              ---------------


              The horse is dead, yet I can't stop beating it.

              ans: w/ a feather i hope too.
              -----------------------------

              Me: but artist control , while not legally enforceable ,, is still , morally enforceable between the parties.


              You : It is not "enforceable." The copyright holder can listen to the other party, or not. If not, then tough titties. If most copyright holders are like you, they'll go with the "tough titties" answer.

              Me: Again between musicians , these lawsuits are RARE,

              Chuck Berry never sues the Rolling Stones for numerous "rip-offs",, as a mater of fact Kieth produced Chuck's 60th birthday concert jam bash.

              I know , Paul , loves to here , Beatles covers, and if someone for M.J.'s estate -- also art / musical types -- SUED ME I would be shocked , and Paul would be too.

              While I cannot bet for sure there , it is a VERY highly educated guess.

              When dealing with out sale of Pirated Music , that is a horse of a different color ( pun intended in context to opening of your post) , and it can be shot.

              Most any musician -- in my opinion --would & should sue ,-- with support of ASCAP /BMI /et. al.,-- ONLY FOR infringement , and loss of control.

              $$ would just make it more likely for the Artist to sue.

              But really it is never about the $$ , it is about Artist Control.

              Charles Mingus referred to songs as his children.** Musicians and songwriters feel that very deeply !!!!** ( major point !!)

              Other musicians can play with our babies ,, but Pirates will be shot on site , with a lawsuit.
              -----
              ----------------
              ---------
              ME: My music promotes my talent , with the goal that that talent gets me rich , or better yet broader respect for my music and art.

              YOU :So, you are committing commercial copyright infringement, then, even if you release the cover song for free. Legally and morally, you are no different than a car company who used "Help" without approval in one of their ads.

              AGAIN SAME ANS: I said i admit that ,,PAUL ,, [can]sue me ,,please,,

              It is a musician culture thing.

              This is as old as the blues in the delta, rip of the master , so he come to your house , to teach you to do it better.

              Musicians do not sue other good faith musicians.

              But together we will fight Pirates
              ----------------------------------------------

              YOU : Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA will probably bring the suit. And that is not something that you want.

              ME: Paul won't let them .

              FOR I get very little traffic --at least now to myspace,, like I said , I doubt anyone knows about ME at "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" ,

              ,,,, and if they did know , they would not care ,, I make ZERO $$ on my Beatle cover and have nothing to sue , over there.

              No one can say there is infringements ,, because no one is NOT going to by the White Album , or is songbook because of my cover of Revolution #1 .

              Yes if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" asked me to remove the song , w/ formal legal notice , i would ,

              , but that ain't worth the lawyers pay to write me the formal letter -- or informal phone call. ( Major Point in musicians culture )


              And if "Sony, the Jackson lawyers, or the RIAA" did so ,, I would appeal to Paul and Yoko for final judgement , and every would respect their wishes.

              Trust me . Musician culture. I have been doing this for 30 years now ,, and while , I had only very limited local fame in NYC ,, before i semi-retired-from-music in 1995 to go back to college and get my degrees ,, ,,,

              ,,,,,, I was respected at all levels, and counted bigger "names" as my supporters,, who often watched my busking gig in Washington Square.

              ((( I even take credit for helping start the ukulele craze,, as i was publicly performing on uke , way back in the early 1990's , when people ,, even other musicians , would go ,, can you really make serious music on that? I was doing "Wild Thing" and "Honky Tonk Women" ( and more) , on uke , and mandolin , before most everybody,, and I pushed all my friend to play uke. Seems to have spread,, I was not THE leader here,, but I was on the cutting edge.))

              My Point ,,trust me ,, no one will sue now ,, no $$ . and as I said if there EVER becomes money from my Beatle cover ,, The LAW rules.

              I am nor ducking anyone . I stated that several times in this thread--

              Doesn't anybody take the time to read all 1000 posts (sic) -- so i repeat here for the---- CORRECTED & spell-checked POST--- record. ( Who needs sleep?!?)

              ------------------------

              ANS :If they win (and they will), they can make you pay their legal fees, which will be in the tens of thousands at least. The statutory damages can be as high as $30,000. Willful infringement - which you have admitted in these comments - will net you an additional $150,000. And they will win an injunction against you, meaning that you can never make that recording available, to anyone, ever again.

              ANS : Like I said ,, I will co-op will any formal request ,, and again , it won't happen in MY case in a million years .

              Copyright law protects artists from Pirates ( which include bad faith artists.)

              BUT towards other good faith artists, artists ,, and esp musicians , do not sue.

              BECAUSE Musicians do not (normally) experience professional jealousy,,, as happens in other Arts -- like writers let us say--( Gore Vidal vs Norman Mailer comes to mind).

              Musicians wanna jamm.. we steal little song HOOKS form each other all the time. ....."Here come old flat top , he come grooving slowly." ,,

              ......was John stealing direct from Chuck Berry,, and ..
              "In 1973, "Come Together" was the subject of a lawsuit brought against Lennon by Big Seven Music Corp. (owned by Morris Levy) who was the publisher of Chuck Berry's "You Can't Catch Me". --

              -- BUT CHUCK WAS NOT INVOLVED,, just some greedy dude who bought his music , before most songwriters had biz savvy.
              (quote from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Come_Together ,, which does not mean it is 100% reliable fact.)
              ==================================

              YOU :If your income is like mine, that means that every single penny you earn in the next decade will be owed to the copyright owners.

              Me: again it ain;t gonna happen now ,, but again ,, PLEASE PAUL , sue me ,, i would be honored !!! REALLY.
              and if I ever get $$ , ASCAP , and BMI , et al , will make it all kosher for everyone to eat right.

              Like I said at the start ,, you are really nitpicking a highly unlikely scenario , in this case in reference specifically to me
              -------------------
              You : Here's the law:
              http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#504

              Me: I will read it , but I studied it on school as a pol-sci major. Good to review.
              ---------------
              YOU : Of course, people who are caught downloading music (because they like it, not because they're trying to make a buck) will face similar fates.
              But we'll be "protecting musician's rights," so I guess it's all OK by you, right?

              ME : Actually you are loosing me there ,, i do not see your point on my situation , which is between me and Paul in our musician universe.

              The lawyers will do our bidding -- as lawyers are just drones --- ,, and lawyers will do esp, Paul's bidding on these matters-- as he has more $$ than any lawyer -- thank G-D.

              Geeks , who download "en mass" , are pirates , and should be stopped.

              Lyric sites that fail to pay royalties will be shut down.

              Larger organized crime pirates , will be subject to merciless law enforcement.

              And a no-$$-dude-like-me, paying homage to his musical masters, but giving away a free cover , simply ain't ever gonna get sued,

              Especially if the Musician (Paul in this case ) , is making the decision.

              But as with the "Come Together " lawsuit cited above here ,-- where some non- musician music leech , saw a chance for a buck.

              But hey , there are idiots everywhere with lawyers.

              good nite ,, and no more ,, I have said all I can say here in this thread ,

              , any questions ,, re-read the thread ,

              , more questions still go to my profile here ,, and read my last 300 posts

              sorry for the typos ,, i ain't RE_ proof reading this thing a 2nd time
              =============
              ============
              ==========
              ========
              ==========
              ===========
              = and in the end , the love you make , is equal to the love you take ............
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_(The_Beatles_song)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 4:54am

                p.s. Re: corrected typos & with elucitations : RE: I think you are nitpicking technicalities , that do not apply in "musician to musician" culture.

                FYI :: A musician DOES NOT NEED PERMISSION to cover another musicians song.

                BUT ... S/He does have to pay the original SONGWRITER -- or who ever owns the rights these days --- if the cover version EVER makes $$$$

                ------------------------

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:11pm

    cleare : re Beatles Revolution

    Once I purchase your MP3 you believe you can come get it back just because you have decided you don't want me to have it anymore?

    ans : no I said agreed tp before purchase. Read carefully before you click here OR before downloading my song. I can say LIMITED USe.

    Software does it all the time. Free to use for 30 days , after you got to buy or give back.

    =====================

    You need to learn to give people a reason to buy, not rent.

    ans : Again my choice. You can and often do rent art. Song used in adv for example. It is not lifetime use , if you use my song in a an adv.

    ===============================

    By the way how much are you giving the Beatles from licensing Revolution (free download no less).

    ANS: The key word is FREE. If I have been charging $$, paul and Yoko could Sue me.
    I have been meaning to write Paul, Yoko, Oliva and Ringo about that, and get permission, but I am too busy here.

    But I once played "I shall Be Released" for Rick Danko , many moons ago, in a bar gig of mine .

    Rick did not ask for his 25 cents.

    He instead gave a fist pump , went "whooo-- whooo", and drank some more beer.
    ===============================================

    You did legally license it right? Oh yeah, 10 years have gone by, how about putting up some new music.

    ans: see above
    ==============================

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Modplan (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

      Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution

      It's irrelevant whether you're giving it away for free, they could still sue you.

      Or does the artists complete control over anything and everything that people do with their works not really matter to you, unlike what you keep stating.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:14pm

        Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution / It's irrelevant whether you're giving it away for free, they could still sue you.

        "It's irrelevant whether you're giving it away for free, they could still sue you."

        Very True.

        I was hoping to trick Paul into to coming to my house to get his quarter.

        REally !!!!!!

        Any time Paul. I can even leave in the mailbox for you.

        ---

        But if it becaume every serious money or publicity I got for my cover -- Paul & Yoko --(Love ya' guys!)--- get $$$.

        ( Or really who ever owns it now ,, I am confused ,, is not the M.J. estate anymore?? Is it ? He went bankrupt.

        Where do I send my 25 cents ,, some one please tell me !!?!?! )

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Hypocrisy Rules, May 24th, 2010 @ 2:38pm

          Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution / It's irrelevant whether you're giving it away for free, they could still sue you.

          Where do I send my 25 cents...?

          This is what all of those collection societies are for. You know, the ones with the initials. You pay them so you don't have to figure out who owns the rights to this particular song.

          Compulsory licensing means that you don't have to ask permission, but until you've paid for the right to record and distribute a song written by someone else (regardless of free vs. profit) you are infringing.

          What's your opinion of file-sharing, again?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:07pm

            What's your opinion of file-sharing, again?

            I do not like when people read my personal files.

            That is why my file cabinet is locked. ( I also keep my booze in there. don;t want to boss or the cleaning crew to get it .)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:23pm

            This is what all of those collection societies are for.

            Yes ,, but will someone please tell ,, who own the Beatle songs now ? Help!! ( I am too lazy to look it up!)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Rose M. Welch (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:49pm

      Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution

      So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:21pm

        Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?

        "So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?"

        NO .

        If you record or purchase you CANNOT make copies to give or sale w/o me saying so in writing , signed by me & creepy lawyer types.

        It is at my choosing when and to whom to apply that RIGHT.


        I can let you , but not someone else. Depends on the use.

        A donation to a charity for example.

        Artist donate art for charity auction et, al.,,, all the time ,,, & musicans Albums , and performances.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Rose M. Welch (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:11pm

          Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?

          But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 3:28pm

            But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

            Like I said ,, if there is $$ to be had ,, Paul and Yoke are free to come get , and I will willfully give it.

            If there is no $$ it is academic.

            But yes if Paul asked to take my cover of Revolution #1 from my myspace page ,, I will.

            MySpace makes this clear when you upload.

            ( And Paul , I know you lost my phone number,, BUT i am stil getting your emails , for the beatles.com,, but you offer "No Reply" when I write back.)

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 5:06pm

              But yes if Paul asked to take my cover of Revolution #1 from my myspace page ,, I will

              there is a powerful musician to musician culture.

              Quite honestly it is very unlikely this who happen ,, no mater who are the musicians involved -- rich or poor.

              Songwriters -- at any level of fame and fortune -- love to see their songs played live and covered on recording. IT is the big kick , that means more than $$.

              It is the reason why Art will outlive Money, in Utopia,,, ( -- ain't that right anarchists ?).
              -----

              as well, , Sometimes it is a good cover of a song , and you like it . And other times -- rarely I'd say -- you think some hack just destroyed the beauty of your song,
              ======

              Money schmomey , between Musicians.

              Yes, if the $$ gets big , the vultures,, err -- lawyers,, are there , but if there is little or no $$ , the composing Artist will usually let it slide, and tell his lawyers to feed elsewhere.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Rose M. Welch (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:24pm

              Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

              So what you're saying is that it's okay to ignore the law, as you're doing, and give away other people's copyrighted materiel, as long as we don't give away yours?

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:03pm

                Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

                ". So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?"

                With permission you can.

                Yes I posted my Beatles cover w/o permission , as an artist , paying homage to the Boys -- and to show my musical chops too.

                But Paul has yet to contact me. I wish he would. REALLY.

                BTW ,, this is a pretty standard poor musician trick ,, make a good cover ,, get the original artist to notice. More than likey if Paul likes it ,, he will help back it w/ his own $$, that is musician culture.

                Then if I I make big $$ ,, Paul gets his cut , or M.J.'s kids , or whoever.

                HOWEVER:
                If non-musician Joe Tobacco ,, gives out free copies of Abbey Road , while standing in front of a Wal-mat ,, for whatever strange anarchist reason he is trying to prove ,,

                .., Ringo can beat Joe Tobacco with his drumsticks , in a legal effort detain a criminal till the police come

                and put Mr. Tobacco before a judge,

                , who will tell J.T. , that it is not right to give out copies Abbey Road w/o asking the Beatles AND the current owner of the song publishing rights --- and Joe Tobacco should stop it and go home--- OR go to jail for a couple of days.

                Joe being homeless , opts for Jail.
                ( c.f an "Oh Henry" story whose name I forgot )

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

                  "just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?"

                  Remember ,, I admit , technically it is illegal,, but artist -to artist -(- esp,, but with civilians too , also -)-musicians have choice on how to enforce their rights..

                  Right now being there is no $$ being made by me ,, it ain't even worth a lawyers phone call, as legal fees will dwarf , what is recoverable. This is again part of musician culture..

                  If i make $$ ,, lawyers will flock in

                  ,, but , I will be VERY HAPPY too.

                  So will Paul and the gang-- again I love you guys ,,

                  that why I made the song

                  I made the song because I LOVE , the boys , John, Paul, George , and Richard Starkey. ( George is my fav, and main man, may G-d always rest his wonderful soul.)

                  So , no as Paul would say .... ( do I have to say it ??) ,, "Can't Buy Me love".

                  I need another ciggee.
                  two actually.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:27pm

                    George is my fav, and main man, may G-d always rest his wonderful soul.)

                    of coarse that goes for John too,

                    and Brian Epstien,,

                    And all late musicians rich or poor.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Rose M. Welch (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:42pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

                    I'm an artist. So that makes it okay for me to give away your music, in hopes that you'll come collect your fee yourself and then give me some money, right?

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      icon
                      Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:57pm

                      George is my fav, and main man, may G-d always rest his wonderful soul.)

                      circles.

                      Paul ,the beatles and M.J.'s have legal right to sue me.

                      At this time , they choose not to sue me, as I have no $4 for then to recover.

                      I hope one they they can sue me, but if thete is $$ ,, they do not have to sue,, I give .

                      ----
                      "I'm an artist."
                      Cool.

                      " So that makes it okay for me to give away your music,"
                      Never w/o my permission. but Clealy I must have knowledge of this "giving away".

                      If Paul , really knows , and visits my my space page ,, I will quit smoking-- everything.

                      Because does not know , there is no damage,, but yes what I an doing is Illegal under copyright law. Paul please sue me !!!

                      PLEAAAASEE. !!

                      We can settle over coffee. And bring our ukuleles. Paul,,, Please sue me.
                      http://www.myspace.com/radamhalperin
                      -------

                      Now for you.

                      If you give it away .

                      If I know and care,

                      I would weight the situation ,

                      as it affects my Art.

                      I may ignore it.

                      I may ask you to stop.

                      and if you did not stop ,,

                      I would call Rufus T. Firefly ,

                      my lawyer.

                      ------


                      in hopes that you'll come collect your fee yourself and then give me some money, right?

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      •  
                        icon
                        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 8:03pm

                        Re: George is my fav, and main man, may G-d always rest his wonderful soul.)

                        If I understand you ,,

                        right .

                        but i am not sure

                        i understand you ,

                        so officially

                        no comment

                         

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        •  
                          icon
                          Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 8:04pm

                          "in hopes that you'll come collect your fee yourself and then give me some money, right?"

                          "in hopes that you'll come collect your fee yourself and then give me some money, right?"

                          If I understand you ,,

                          right .

                          but i am not sure

                          i understand you ,

                          so officially

                          no comment

                          ----------------------

                           

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  icon
                  athe (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 7:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: But you just said that it's okay for you to give away the Beatles' music, because you're not charging for it. So why can't I do that with your copyrighted material?

                  Better pull up your socks, you hypocrisy is showing...

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          mike allen (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 1:23am

          Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?

          Actually you are worng in some context. I can record your music and if i felt inclined copy that to the radio station to play on air. but of course you wouldnt mind that as being in the uk you get paid every time i played it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            mike allen (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 1:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: cleare : re Beatles Revolution// So I could purchase your download, and then give it away to everyone for free, and that's okay?

            but i wont having heard it you need protools pal.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 5:05am

              but i wont having heard it you need protools pal.

              actually , i like soundblaster wave studio, It is free for one.
              and it is simple to use ,, and I feel , i can mix , all that I need to at this time for demos and the like right @ home , for free w/o renting a studio for 1,000,000 bucks a day in NYC.

              "Damn it , Jim ,, i am a musician ,, not and engineer" (star trek)

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 5:22pm

            I can record your music and if i felt inclined copy that to the radio station to play on air.

            law covers that , radio pays-per-play to artist , no matter the copy source

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:12pm

    Major label behind it

    One thing to keep in mind that Gaga is very much a product of the major label system. Both the label and her manager have gone on record saying the label has promoted the hell out of her. And in exchange, they have a 360 deal with her. They get a percentage of all aspects of her income, including touring and merchandise.

    So if there was ever an example of the major label system working, it is Gaga.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Just Another Moron in a Hurry (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

      Re: Major label behind it

      Maybe it is working, but I'd want to ask if it's working well. Is it possible for the label and Ms. Gaga to be generating even more revenue, if they had pursued an alternate business model, rather than the old-school model?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 6:19pm

        Re: Re: Major label behind it

        Is it possible for the label and Ms. Gaga to be generating even more revenue, if they had pursued an alternate business model, rather than the old-school model?

        The label made a major investment in her, so no, I don't think she would be as visible now solely on her own.

        Lady Gaga's Lessons for the Music Business - WSJ.com: "From concerts, including four sold-out nights at Radio City Music Hall this month, a percentage of her take goes to her label, Universal's Interscope Records. The label also gets a cut of her revenue from Polaroid, Este Lauder's MAC and other corporate partners. Does Gaga validate the 360 model for other artists? While she pockets relatively less money on tour, Interscope puts more muscle behind her than it would have in the old days. 'Would she be in the position to play in front of 20,000 people a night if the record company had not put up the marketing dollars?' says Gaga's manager Troy Carter."

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 6:33pm

          Re: Re: Re: Major label behind it

          solely on her own, she was a a stripper and an unremarkable lounge singer. the lady gaga character was created for her (someone else came up with the idea, it seems... there is a lawsuit out there) and the record label agreed to invest in the project. without the label money, she would likely still be a stripper (or an unremarkable lounge singer).

          she needs to remember that in the end, the record label made her, and she shouldnt crap on their ability to make the money back. her tour isnt likely to bring in as much money as that, as she spends like crazy, buys expensive props, outfits, and the like, and generally runs the show into the red.

          i tend to think of her as lady 14:59, because i think the 15 minutes is almost up already.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Modplan (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:26pm

      Re: Major label behind it

      The point isn't the label system, it's the piracy is evil and killing CD's so stop it vs all the money is in tours regardless so who cares.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:23pm

    sadly, gaga forgets to mention a few things that really change everything:

    1) she only just started out doing major tours recently. her first 'arena' show was in november 2009, so she hasnt done a full tour cycle yet. however, she is already going back to the same cities for a second time, as she appears to be hot in certain areas.

    2) her tour is so expensive to put on, that it spent much of its time in the red. http://www.gigwise.com/news/54033/Lady-Gaga%27s-Monster-Ball-Tour-%27Makes-4million-Loss%27

    3) her music is disposible, what you would refer to as the absolute worse of the label system pap. dont get confused by anything she says, she is just another major label act with plenty of corporate money behind her to get here where she is. without it, she would probably still be a stripper.

    so she isnt all that, sorry mike!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      But it's cool that I can download her music, right? The artist here doesn't care and we should respect the artist's wishes.

      Downloading now.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:23pm

        Re: Re:we should respect the artist's wishes.

        "we should respect the artist's wishes."

        always. with or w/o law. It is natural.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 7:16pm

        Re: Re:

        of course its cool to download her music, now that she is well known she no longer has to respect the people who put up the money to get her here. she seems to have forgotten the basic rule, be nice to people on the way up, because you tend to meet them on the way back down (and that elevator moves faster).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    P3T3R5ON (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 1:30pm

    Even she knows!!!

    Just proof that it's the evil money mongering, cd-stamping recording companies that are the true complainers when it comes to the loss of $ from piracy. Artist makes less then 20% from each cd sale, they aren't the ones lossing the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 24th, 2010 @ 1:53pm

    last line

    scarce not scare

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tad Throckmorton, May 24th, 2010 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Point of Information.

    "But I once played "I shall Be Released" for Rick Danko , many moons ago, in a bar gig of mine .

    Rick did not ask for his 25 cents.

    He instead gave a fist pump , went "whooo-- whooo", and drank some more beer."
    Danko had no right to your 25 cents since the song was written by Bob Dylan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 24th, 2010 @ 2:31pm

      Re: Re: Point of Information.// Danko had no right to your 25 cents since the song was written by Bob Dylan.

      I knew that ,, i could have just as easily been playing a rick song -- and propably did -- those years are FUZZZY.
      Rick was good friens with my mentor Kenny Gwynn, so I got to chill with Rick a few times. May he rest in Peace. Great guy1

      it was a fair example

      And Rick did sing "I shall be .." on the BANDs 1st album,--- ( a nickel if you know the title of the Ablum , w/o googleing)---- SO from an artist perspective , that made me sweat. Rick siting there ,, and I am at the time , only six months into my public performing carreer.

      BTW :"released" was writen by Bob AND late Richard Munual the keyboard/piano player for the Band.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mertz, May 24th, 2010 @ 11:06pm

    enganging in circular arguments that just aren't logical really doesn't benefit anoyone.

    great point from gaga.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 25th, 2010 @ 5:48am

    I'm an artist... bla bla bla... Piracy is illegal... bla bla bla... (broken English) bla bla bla (more broken English)

    Artist? You wish.

    And Lady Gaga is just a miscellaneous merchandise. This is the culture copyright has given us. Total crap.

    I'll go back to download something interesting...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 9:31am

      Re: I'll go back to download something interesting..

      "I'll go back to ""download"" something interesting.."

      "Legally download" is what you meant , i am sure

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Norman Rogers (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 9:14am

    Lady GaGa is Smarter than Everyone Else

    I think that she will end up being a producer and a record label owner, albeit one that has embraced talent and new technology, and I think that she will become the prototype of the new music entrepreneur. You can't control the distribution of little pieces of information, but you can control when and where you appear live, and you can even get a piece of the box office.

    Now, on to smash Ticketmaster.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Overtkill (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 9:59am

    WOW!

    I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a fan of hers, BUT this gal has the right idea!

    I certainly respect her more! She has the right attitude, BAR NONE!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:40am

    the $$ is in Touring.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), May 25th, 2010 @ 10:48am

    "the $$ is in Touring."

    for Miss GaGa , it is true ,, her $$ is in touring,

    , BUT for other bands ,, esp , older bands that still get moderate airplay ,,

    but really "cannot" or "do not want to" tour because :

    : 1] they just don't want to physically tour , at the age of 60 +

    , 2] can't get their fans to pay again to see the same act as ten years ago,

    or , 3] can't get investors for the tour they are willing to do.

    Those bands get their $$$ mostly from royalties under copyright law.
    =====================

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tom Davenport, May 25th, 2010 @ 4:12pm

    She is literally regurgitating everything she has heard Madonna say since making friends with her. Read it again and pretend Madonna is saying it, you'll see.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Suzanne Lainson (profile), May 26th, 2010 @ 1:10pm

    Why it can be tough to be a musician today.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Eric Schiffer Fanatic, Jun 14th, 2010 @ 11:52pm

    Love Gaga More!

    This stuff makes me love Lady Gaga more!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    jenn, Jun 15th, 2010 @ 9:40am

    The Monster Ball Tour is the second worldwide concert tour by recording artist Lady Gaga in support of her second studio album, The Fame Monster. http://InSeats.com is the premier source for purchasing event tickets online for Lady Gaga concert tickets!

    For cheap Lady Gaga tickets visit
    http://inseats.com/lady-gaga

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    yuregininsesi, Jun 24th, 2010 @ 4:03pm

    solely on her own, she was a a stripper and an unremarkable lounge singer. the lady gaga character was created for her (someone else came up with the idea, it seems... there is a lawsuit out there) and the record label agreed to invest in the project. without the label money, she would likely still be a stripper (or an unremarkable lounge singer).

    she needs to remember that in the end, the record label made her, and she shouldnt crap on their ability to make the money back. her tour isnt likely to bring in as much money as that, as she spends like crazy, buys expensive props, outfits, and the like, and generally runs the show into the red.

    i tend to think of her as lady 14:59, because i think the 15 minutes is almost up already.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Suzanne Lainson (profile), Jun 24th, 2010 @ 7:11pm

      Re:

      she needs to remember that in the end, the record label made her, and she shouldnt crap on their ability to make the money back.

      Her manager definitely knows she owes her success to the label and has said so. So I think everyone knows how big a role the label has been in promoting her.

      Since the label gets a piece of everything she does, it's probably okay with the label folks if fans take her music for free as long as they still go to her shows and give her product promotions. One way or another it's all money in the label's pockets.

      As for whether her career will be a long-term profitable venture for either her or the label remains to be seen.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Technopolitical (profile), Jun 25th, 2010 @ 5:00am

    Since the label gets a piece of everything she does, it's probably okay with the label folks if fans take her music for free as long as they still go to her shows and give her product promotions. "One way or another it's all money in the label's pockets."

    SL : "Since the label gets a piece of everything she does, it's probably okay with the label folks if fans take her music for free as long as they still go to her shows and give her product promotions. One way or another it's all money in the label's pockets."

    Me : exactly True!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This