On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 14:45:00 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 12:43:52 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Rob" wrote


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if
there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority. In
much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of bankers'
excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it right. Also,
distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this notion that the
sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is fanciful. And perhaps
'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off the back of copyright
revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we
have.


I avoid these copyright arguments because I am hung on the dilemma that
people shouldn't have their work or 'intellectual property' ripped off for
free but, at the same time, I don't see how certain sectors of society
should expect to be paid over and over again for work done when most of us
are not? All I know is there needs to be a 'quantum leap'* to get from the
mousetrap thinking from certain quarters in here to the 'money free
society'
hinted at in the futuristic Star Trek series/movies...???


Big problem though. The artists must be paid - should it be a lump sum
agreed in advance with the record company? What if the record goes
mega? Should the company reap all the resulting rewards? And what
happens to the independent artist with no Sony deal? How does he get
paid, and by whom? No, I can't see a viable alternative to the current
system by which an artist is paid a small amount whenever someone new
is added to his chain of listeners - ie the license fee.


Impossible to assail the *rectitude* of what you say but it doesn't get us
an inch nearer to The Wrath Of Khan, does it? If instead a musician was paid
a one-off lump sum for his music (like Mozart and his contemporaries) and he
was any good, the price he'd get for his work would go up as time went on
and the music production company would be the ones to risk failure or reap
large rewards.

Still doesn't answer the question who is going to pay him this lump
sum?

One benefit I can see straight away of a 'lump sum' system is it would
reward talent on a strictly pro-rata basis, instead of making 'flash in the
pan' spotty kids millionaires for well-marketed crap before they are old
enough not to be permanently damaged by it! (The money that is!)


Big record companies signing new acts work the percentages. They
factor in what proportion of new acts are likely to make them money in
agreeing rates. For the individual artists life isn't like that. His
career stands or falls. His risk is consequently much greater than
that of the record company, so it is justifiable that his personal
reward should be likewise higher.

It's the difference between a composer and a painter, isn't it?

Referring to another 'Star Thingy', I understand the jolly green giant in
Star Wars got a (then) handsome lump sum of about 20K for his role in Star
Wars while the considerably better off Alec Guiness was able to waive a lump
sum and took a punt on a percentage which netted him millions and probably
still is!


Yup. Alec Guinness PLC was a large concern, well able to play the
odds.

d