My wife and daughter each gave me a book for Christmas. Imagine my shock when I notice that each bore a copyright notice stating, in essence, that I am not authorized to copy either of the books and give such copies to the masses.
Darn those hardback publishers. And here I thought I actually owned the book when in fact it appears all I have are rented copies.
This is downright un-American and an unjust infringment upon my civil rights as secured by the US Constitution and the laws enacted pursuant thereto.
Taking a cue from so-called "Tea Baggers" I am starting a "Copyright Whining Baggers" movement.
I wonder how discussions would be effected if all persons making comments understood the distinction between a trade association (e.g., RIAA, MPAA, BSA, AMA, ABA, IEEE, AIAA, AIA, etc., etc.) and its membership. If appears the the distinction between an association and its individual members is largely lost in heated rhetoric. Industry associations serve to advance or weigh in on issues its membership deems of interest and/or important to its members. It does not engage in commerce. It does not produce and sell products and/or services. This is what its individual members do on a daily basis.
In the context of the RIAA, it is not the plaintiff in any of the lawsuits brought by labels. The plaintiffs are the labels who may happen to be the holders of copyright in music compositions if the contracts they enter into with one or more musicians provide that the label will be deemed the owner of such copyrights. In return for an artists agreement to transfer copyright to a label under contract, the artists receive varying degrees of consideration, oftentimes cash payments, obligations assumed by a label to produce and promote musical "products, perhaps a royalty, and other benefits designed to get an artist's name out into the public eye. The artists are getting paid by the labels, but such payment is in accordance with the terms of whatever contracts may happen to apply.
Additionally, artists are in many respects the functional equivalent of inventors in the technology arts. They help create a product with the assistance of numerous other people in the employ of labels who each serve an important role, including, inter alia, product creation, marketing and distribution. In other words, the creation of music requires a multitude of persons each having a unique role and skill set they bring to the process.
Until these fundamental distinctions are understood, it is likely that discussions will continue to proceed based upon an inaccurate understanding of the music industry. Until these distinctions are understood and the roles so many other people play in the production, marketing and distribution of music products, it seems to me that people will continue obsessing with artists and overlook all the other people who for a necessary part of the music production process...all of whose salaries are dependent upon the influx of cash for product.
So, when people say "Show me how much the artists will get", what they should be saying is "Show me how much the music production/marketing/distribution will get."
I took a look at the linked article, but I was unable to find any attribution of the "tens of thousands" to Mr. Griffin. Perhaps you have a cite because I am quite interested in learning more about Choruss.
Merely for your edification, as a general rule I do submit posts on professional blogs using my complete name. Now seems to be an appropriate time to follow my general rule on your site. No more "AC" or "MLS".
As for my "avatar", I use it merely in a humorous vein. I could use a photo, but for some reason I like the painting "The Scream" so much better.