If the lyrics are wrong, do the publishers have a say?
At least half of all the lyrics I've seen on online lyrics repositories of any variety seem to be incorrect. This is often because the band never printed lyrics with their inserts, or the person typing up the lyrics just didn't bother to look for them.
In either case - is it any business of the publisher to take down what is essentially a creative reinterpretation?
"...and they only got there because of record labels"
In Trent's case, "in SPITE of" record labels. Do a little research. Trent's first label called his first album "an abortion", and refused to fund his touring. He funded the recording of his next album/EP by getting on the Lollapalooza lineup - which happened because of his live performances, not label influence. Every release he put out, he fought tooth and nail with the record labels to have them delivered as he intended.
And when he quit the labels, he released a double album of instrumental tracks - something the labels would have nixed right off the bat - and made a mint in under 48 hours.
Name one artist who'll happily collect money from any of these settlements
When you're talking about who deserves to get paid, where are you putting the original artist when all this comes down? Do you think they see a dime of what the record label makes on a lawsuit like this?
And in the highly unlikely chance that they did - what artist would ever speak aloud of cashing that check?
The other day, a friend of mine noted how weird it was to see articles in newspapers all around the world lifting words he crafted for the wikipedia entry on Nine Inch Nails, almost never citing their source.
And don't get me started on the likes of MTV and radio stations taking material that can only have been sourced from my site without ever so much as a mention of any concept of where it came from, never mind a shout-out or a link. This despite my own strident effort to make sure we cite the sources on our news page, and in particular, mention the specific author (not just the publication) when possible.
I pretty much got over being pissed off about that years ago, but I definitely took notice when Rolling Stone started to not only cite us but link back to us when they used material we had researched and written up.
Evil-kudos to whoever sold them on the idea that each word published by the AP is worth $2.50. I suppose there's a sucker born every minute. Wait... is this iCopyright thing really just a brilliantly executed satire?
Anecdote ahead: I run a music fan website that's kind of large, but not large enough to have an effect on the sales of periodicals, necessarily. About ten years ago, I realized that just linking to an article was not sufficient enough - publishers quit the business, or links change, and the content that was so convenient to hyperlink to disappears into the ether.
So that's when I decided to make backup copies of articles we linked to, and made that database accessible to our readers. When we'd post news to our front page, we'd be linking to the official website of the publisher, but we'd make a copy the text of the article, headline, byline, author, name of the publication, date of the publication, etc.
Because of this, I've been able to capture content - dozens, if not hundreds of articles - that otherwise have been completely erased due to the closing of companies and organizations. I don't feel bad about copying everything because I insist on attributing the original source, I don't sell ads on my archive, and I don't promote my archived articles ahead of the original articles. They're just there for later.
I realize (or I hope) I am not the kind of organization the AP is targeting with their really silly DRM (kudos to the scum who talked them into buying that. master salesman!) since mine is a very manual process on a fraction of a percent of news, but for some reason I felt the need to share this.
My first real-ish job was as a webmaster for my local newspaper, the York Daily Record. It was great, the staff in the newsroom were fantastic, and I helped to develop an independent website that destroyed the other local paper in terms of traffic and quality.
Later I took a job with the company that owned both papers, and was in a meeting with the CEO of MediaNewsGroup... this was about a decade ago now. The guy in charge of the company running 50+ newspapers wanted to do everything just about as opposite as our successful independent site could be. It's as though they intentionally wanted to kill off newspaper's online presence. It was astonishing how far in the sand that guy had his head.
I'm surprised that ten years later, newspapers still exist, and that they still adhere to the same kind of blockheaded mentality. I'm not at all surprised that they're all on their deathbed.
They eventually killed off the York Daily Record's website, and replaced it with a terrible, templated site that was indistinguishable from any other MediaNewsGroup owned newspaper website, and push a lot more wire articles than local content.
The newspaper industry should be completely bulldozed and rebuilt from the ground up. I guess that's already kind of happening, but folks in the industry don't realize it.
Don't know if you're still checking comments for this thread, but if you do post any material from your presentation online, I'd love to post something about it on our NIN news site. Really, I'd just like to read it myself, and I figure people who come to my site feel the same way. Drop me an email - thanks;