• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Your feeling towards bands. The covers and orignals discussion.

#361
beggar98 said:
You're not working on their behalf. You're using their intellectual property in your own venture.
Click to expand...
No, If I would be required to submit a report on their behalf that provides them with a profit then that is labor so I should be able to extract a fee for my labor. So yes I am working on their behalf. Every agent that they came in contact with that did anything for them extracted a fee. So why can't I? I agree that I use their intellectual property but I provide a service to them by tallying and submitting that form. I pay 5 cents for the use of their intellectual property and they pay me 1 cent back to me for my labor. Nothing out of the ordinary in a free market.

In my example the product I am selling for my company is also their "property".

I object to volunteering to provide profit to someone else.

The fee would be negotiable and they can pay me on the first of the month.
 
#364
whocaresnotme said:
No, If I would be required to submit a report on their behalf that provides them with a profit then that is labor so I should be able to extract a fee for my labor. So yes I am working on their behalf. Every agent that they came in contact with that did anything for them extracted a fee. So why can't I? I agree that I use their intellectual property but I provide a service to them by tallying and submitting that form. I pay 5 cents for the use of their intellectual property and they pay me 1 cent back to me for my labor. Nothing out of the ordinary in a free market.

In my example the product I am selling for my company is also their "property".

I object to volunteering to provide profit to someone else.

The fee would be negotiable and they can pay me on the first of the month.
Click to expand...

You object to volunteering to provide profit to the someone else that unwillingly provided you with a set list and hence some cash in hand
?
 
#365
whocaresnotme said:
No, If I would be required to submit a report on their behalf that provides them with a profit then that is labor so I should be able to extract a fee for my labor. So yes I am working on their behalf. Every agent that they came in contact with that did anything for them extracted a fee. So why can't I? I agree that I use their intellectual property but I provide a service to them by tallying and submitting that form. I pay 5 cents for the use of their intellectual property and they pay me 1 cent back to me for my labor. Nothing out of the ordinary in a free market.

In my example the product I am selling for my company is also their "property".

I object to volunteering to provide profit to someone else.

The fee would be negotiable and they can pay me on the first of the month.
Click to expand...

You're not required to do anything. I just think any decent person who is using someone else's work to make money would want to ensure the right people get compensated.

That said, if they wanted to make submitting forms a requirement of using their property they could (this si the case for film/TV sync licenses). And you could then decide whether to use the song or not, but as the buyer you don't get to set the terms.

I understand that some people only judge things based on personal gain/loss, but those are generally shallow, empty people.
 
#366
beggar98 said:
You're not required to do anything. I just think any decent person who is using someone else's work to make money would want to ensure the right people get compensated.

That said, if they wanted to make submitting forms a requirement of using their property they could. And you could then decide whether to use the song or not, but as the buyer you don't get to set the terms.

I understand that some people only judge things based on personal gain/loss, but those are generally shallow, empty people.
Click to expand...


Well put. It seems that a lot of people think that current legal situation or the odds of getting caught are what dictates right and wrong.
Its very simple.... you are profiting off of someone else's work. If the Rolling Stones thought that playing Joe's Dive Bar would be great publicity they'd book themselves.
In the current situation the cover band is blanketed by the license of the venue (if they have one). This may or may not change but the least you can do is submit a copy of the set list to ensure that the proper people get their dues. Is that so much to ask that you spend 10 minutes doing that in return for using their work for personal gain?
 
#367
What Beggar has been talking about is that with the blanket license situation the fee's paid by the club are simply dispersed to the artists based on what amounts to current popularity and/or productivity.
So if you are playing your cover set and you do a song by Better Than Ezra they may only see .00001% even though they made up 10% of your set. Also lady gaga might get .00547% even though you didnt play any of her music.
 
#368
beggar98 said:
Not really. That would be like your employer taking money back out of your paycheck as a fee for providing you with a job.
Click to expand...

No, with all due respect you are wrong again. Let's look at it from another viewpoint. I am not providing anybody with a job. I am renting intellectual property for 3 minutes which I am willing to pay for at the rate of 5 cents per play. The artist bills me for that rent (how the artist knows how many times I played it is the artists problem). Since I am providing income (profit) for them, I am UNwilling to fill out a form informing them of how many times I played it but I will if they give me a discount of 1 cent per play. I do the same thing with my rental properties. If I use water (eg.) to maintain the yard I credit back a certain amount to the renter to cover the amount over and beyond normal.

This argument has been used before (not very effectively) but can I charge for advertisement also? I think I-Tunes pays a small amount to preview songs don't they? That brings in profit that they share with a multitude of invested clients including the artist.

Again I am not willing to volunteer my labor based on an altruistic platform so they can make more profit.

Anyway, nice jousting with you but as the sage Billy Bob Thornton says, "I have thought about this a lot and I agree with myself". I think that is from the movie "Homegrown". Damn, do I have to pay a royalty for that?
 
#369
whocaresnotme said:
No, with all due respect you are wrong again. Let's look at it from another viewpoint. I am not providing anybody with a job. I am renting intellectual property for 3 minutes which I am willing to pay for at the rate of 5 cents per play. The artist bills me for that rent (how the artist knows how many times I played it is the artists problem). Since I am providing income (profit) for them, I am UNwilling to fill out a form informing them of how many times I played it but I will if they give me a discount of 1 cent per play. I do the same thing with my rental properties. If I use water (eg.) to maintain the yard I credit back a certain amount to the renter to cover the amount over and beyond normal.

This argument has been used before (not very effectively) but can I charge for advertisement also? I think I-Tunes pays a small amount to preview songs don't they? That brings in profit that they share with a multitude of invested clients including the artist.

Again I am not willing to volunteer my labor based on an altruistic platform so they can make more profit.

Anyway, nice jousting with you but as the sage Billy Bob Thornton says, "I have thought about this a lot and I agree with myself". I think that is from the movie "Homegrown". Damn, do I have to pay a royalty for that?
Click to expand...

Its the principal of the matter. If you arent willing to make sure that artist gets their share you shouldnt use their music. Yes the artist has no way of knowing but that doesnt make it right.

And should you charge them advertising? I cant even take that seriously.
 
#370
beggar98 said:
You're not required to do anything. I just think any decent person who is using someone else's work to make money would want to ensure the right people get compensated.

That said, if they wanted to make submitting forms a requirement of using their property they could (this si the case for film/TV sync licenses). And you could then decide whether to use the song or not, but as the buyer you don't get to set the terms.

I understand that some people only judge things based on personal gain/loss, but those are generally shallow, empty people.
Click to expand...

Your first statement, again, requires volunteerism to make sure someone else makes a profit. Personally not my thing. If the company involved can't figure out who gets what then they are a poor company and should be replaced.

Sorry, but in any contractual agreement both parties have the right to set terms. That is why lawyers make money. Especially in the music biz.

Your last statement (shaking my head??!!). By that logic the artists themselves should give it all away for free, shallow, empty people that they are.
 
#371
LaklandBass said:
Its the principal of the matter. If you arent willing to make sure that artist gets their share you shouldnt use their music. Yes the artist has no way of knowing but that doesnt make it right.

And should you charge them advertising? I cant even take that seriously.
Click to expand...
As somebody says, "logical fallacy". Sorry, I hate using liberal debate tactics but it seemed so appropriate.

I agree there is a principle here but I don't really want to help Sting or Prince get any wealthier. If you can make up a list of down and out artists I will help out.

So If I am not willing to make sure that the potato grower is getting his fair share do I stop eating french fries until I get a firm answer?
If the company is not willing to do that for them then why contract them? I have NO desire to help ASCAP/BMI do their work for free.

Advertising: I understand that is a loose argument but why can't you take it seriously? Everybody that does ad work for "the artists" certainly does!
 
#372
LaklandBass said:
You object to volunteering to provide profit to the someone else that unwillingly provided you with a set list and hence some cash in hand
?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do object!!!! Sorry, I am a mean SOB and I am sooooooo sorry that I cheated Sting out of his profit. I went to his house and beat the rap out of him until he conceded to let me play "Fields of Gold". Poor wimpy chap, he cried the whole time. Use your head!!!
 
#373
whocaresnotme said:
No, with all due respect you are wrong again. Let's look at it from another viewpoint. I am not providing anybody with a job. I am renting intellectual property for 3 minutes which I am willing to pay for at the rate of 5 cents per play. The artist bills me for that rent (how the artist knows how many times I played it is the artists problem). Since I am providing income (profit) for them, I am UNwilling to fill out a form informing them of how many times I played it but I will if they give me a discount of 1 cent per play. I do the same thing with my rental properties. If I use water (eg.) to maintain the yard I credit back a certain amount to the renter to cover the amount over and beyond normal.

This argument has been used before (not very effectively) but can I charge for advertisement also? I think I-Tunes pays a small amount to preview songs don't they? That brings in profit that they share with a multitude of invested clients including the artist.

Again I am not willing to volunteer my labor based on an altruistic platform so they can make more profit.

Anyway, nice jousting with you but as the sage Billy Bob Thornton says, "I have thought about this a lot and I agree with myself". I think that is from the movie "Homegrown". Damn, do I have to pay a royalty for that?
Click to expand...

You may be willing to pay $.05/ performance. What if they decided the new rate is $10? That's their right, they own it. What if they decided you needed to pay $0.05 for every second of their song you use and it was your responsibility to accurately document usage and any discrepancy in your documentation could result in fines? They could do that, too, and basically do when it comes to mechanical sync licenses.

They have come up with a system that is 1) cheap and 2) easy to use, that shouldn't mean they give up what is coming to them. You don't pay anything to use their songs (in most cases whatever crappy dive bar you're playing at does), so the extent of what they ask you to do is to tell them what songs you play. And the don't even really tell you to do that, they simply give you the option to. I don't think its too much to ask.
 
#374
whocaresnotme said:
So If I am not willing to make sure that the potato grower is getting his fair share do I stop eating french fries until I get a firm answer?
If the company is not willing to do that for them then why contract them? I have NO desire to help ASCAP/BMI do their work for free.
Click to expand...

Well, if ASCAP and BMI and the others were to devote the man power required to track everything, you can bet you wouldn't be playing anyone else's music because you couldn't afford it.

Your potato/french fry argument is a "logical fallacy" because you're not eating the french fry in this case, you're re-packaging it and selling it for profit.
 
#375
whocaresnotme said:
Sorry, but in any contractual agreement both parties have the right to set terms. That is why lawyers make money. Especially in the music biz.
Click to expand...

And you are free to negotiate your own licensing agreement, but if you want to use the pricing on the shelf you use the terms as well. You can't walk in to Best Buy and purchase a television and later decide you should get the warranty for free- the seller sets the terms.
 
#376
#378
the yeti said:
are you serious? normally i try to post something that's either useful or funny or maybe even both on a good day, or else i just scroll on but that one got me.

sorry.
Click to expand...
I don't go through the forums everyday. Search everyone extensively. I much prefer actually playing my instrument. I just was discussing this with my guitarist and wanted to see what other bassists thought.
 
#380
Ideas exist independat of minds. What might be a new idea to one person may be old hat to another. It is totally an American invention to charge people for ideas they might have if another unrelated person can prove they thought something before.... Ideas are not work, bringing ideas to life is. A band playing a cover IS doing the work, the composer did work once and when people buy his recoded work he should get paid. The rest of the sillyness regarding royalities based on ideas is a commercial gimick for profit generation and they would love to leverage it as "Right .vs Wrong and brainwash people like beggar who believe "That doesn't make it right."

What makes it wrong? Who is to say in the very limited set of notes and scales that two people completely unknown to each other cannot both put notes and chords on paper in the same order? Why does one deserve payment and not the other? Wasn't the same amount of effort done by both.

Ahhh, what a silly dream to sit around and profit for life because you ONCE put in some effort.....

Sorry but intellictual property is an invention by laywers used to secure profit for themselves and there clients. Copyright law allowing rights to exist for 99 years past the life of the author is all about locking people into class structure, the rich stay rich and you keep paying for it. That isn't right. it's outright criminal to extort like that. You show up, play the instruments and keep the crowd dancing, you get paid, nobody sitting home watching TV should get a dime and it is totally brainwashed thinking to believe people should get paid for ideas not accompanied by actions to see those ides through.

Let's reduce to the rediculous for a sec to prove the point. Do you think the first guy to figure out how to rub sticks together is owed money by everyone who ever lit a match? Should people not perfom the himelick manouver on a chocking person unless they are willing to send cash to the guy who figured out it works? You drive to work? Do you send money to the Roman Government? after all, they invented roadbuilding.... not to mention modern plumbing, should you send them cash each time you flush?

It is a trick by those looking for cash to guilt you into thinking you own something for sitting and playing your instrument. They don't own your ideas and once you hear something out in the public domain, any ideas it brings to you are your own.


-eSmith.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back