It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


US signs ACTA

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 07:45 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 09:04 PM

posted on Oct, 5 2011 @ 10:56 PM
Does anyone commenting here even OWN a copyright?
(Yes, I do own several myself...but Im not getting farther into this discussion).

Just seems its running opinioned commentary by folks who have no clue why to have one and what it protects.

Im just refering to copyrights, not downloading. Thanks

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by LazloFarnsworth

I do.
I have been through the whole record deal process and experienced the trauma which is the music industry personally. I ran a recording studio for almost a decade and still run mixing and mastering projects from a small office. I understand that record labels are the power in the industry and that they are protecting themselves through pushing for legislation like this. However, to tear down the rights of artists simply because the labels are greedy only hurts the artists more.

"Hey, you greedy labels, you should share! We deserve to steal from artists too!"
Nonsense to the nth degree.

What would work is for music distribution itself to be not-for-profit so that musicians receive monies from sales directly. 99 cents for an mp3 is outrageous if the artists were getting paid directly. And for those who had investors pushing advertising, covering recording costs, etc, they should only make a percentage of the musicians' sales until they are paid back plus interest.

However, it is not that simple in today's game. In modern times, a label can charge you for simply printing your name on an item. So they perpetually keep you in debt.

The answer to the music industry's problems is not to further the abuse of artists, it is to ensure artists get paid more directly. This must begin with artists seeing that, through hard work, they can monetize on their creativity themselves rather than thinking that they should place all of their hopes in a record label to make them "make it."

added - but laziness/willful ignorance is the common denominator in many of our culture's problems!!!
edit on 10/6/2011 by Dasher because: note

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by Dasher

Thats the problem with modern day capitalism. The advertiser and middle man gets rich at the expense of the producer and consumer. Its not just in the music or art industry...its everywhere! I am of the opinion we need to make life simple again by getting rid of all the "excess fat".

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:49 PM

Among other things, the accord demands governments make it unlawful to market devices that circumvent copyright, such as devices that copy encrypted DVDs without authorization. That is akin to a feature in the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, where the law has been used by Hollywood studios to block RealNetworks from marketing DVD-copying technology.

Sooo, goodbye CR-R/DVD/Blu-Ray readers and writers?

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I agree with the sentiment of your post, however, demonizing a form of economics is not the answer. Capitalism is the default of nature. In terms of it's manifestation as a human economic system, the current form we see is a result of a regulated form of capitalism (not really capitalism at all) which is facilitated by imperfect people, and also is a result of a willfully ignorant/unwillfully ignorant/terribly lazy consumer.

Just keep in mind, the more people involved, the more likely it is to be tainted. Conversely, the more closely knit the minds and hearts of the people involved, the less likely it is to be tainted. The simple answer is locally-based economic systems facilitated by local authorities which are accessible by the local people. Less hands, and closer ties.

posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by Dasher

I could go into just how many pennies I get from each song...but it gives me a headache. Writers credit, authors and co-writers credit. Publishers etc....and the folks who are complaining here just dont know how all this works.

I have a song in the Sopranos' Episodes #24 and 51.
Same tune in Trains, Plains and Automobiles with John Candy and Dan Ackroid.
Another in Tommy Boy with Chris Farley and David Spade.

All vary from a huge 1 time payment to use in movie forever, and the others small, quarterly payments.

In one of the above, they hire a cover band to play the song so they didnt have to pay us performance credit in the movies.

There are a million variables to copyright. Im also an author and that is a whole other ball game of variables.

My opinion? Use something of mine...just dont sell it to someone as yours, and make a profit. Just say I was the composer/author and Im fine with that.

This from my music publishers, forwarded to me.
From: Laura Childs On Behalf Of IFPI Press Release
Sent: 12 September 2011 11:02


Brussels, 12th September 2011 – The international recording industry welcomed today’s decision by the European Union to extend the term of copyright protection offered to performers and producers from 50 to 70 years.

The decision was applauded by Plácido Domingo, chairman of IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide: “The decision to extend the term of protection for recordings in Europe is great news for performing artists. Artists at the start of their careers will benefit from an increased pool of revenue that will be available to invest in new talent. Established artists can benefit from their work throughout their lifetimes. This is especially important today when licensed digital services make music widely available online.

“Extension of protection also reflects the important role performers play in the success of songs by narrowing the gap between the protection offered to recorded performances and that offered to compositions.”

Frances Moore, chief executive of IFPI, added: “This is a victory for fairness. With this decision, the European Union is giving artists and producers in Europe the fair treatment they deserve. The extension of the term of protection to 70 years narrows the gap between Europe and its international partners and improves the conditions for investment in new talent.

“Over 38,000 artists and performers petitioned for this extension, supported by right holders from across the European music sector. Their calls have been heeded, and we thank the European Commission for having the vision to table this Directive, the European Parliament for giving it resounding support and the Member States, led on this occasion by the Polish Presidency of the EU, for making term extension a reality.”

Notes to editors:

The EU term extension Directive extends term of protection for performers and producers of musical works from 50 to 70 years. It brings Europe’s artists and producers closer into line with the protection offered to authors and composers (life plus 70 years).

The Directive also narrows the gap between the term of protection in Europe and that of other countries and regions, where term of protection can range from 70 to 95 years.

The EU term of protection Directive was proposed by the European Commission in 2008 and voted on by the European Parliament in 2009. The Directive was adopted by the EU Council of Ministers in Brussels today. The legislation will be implemented by Member State Governments within two years from publication in the Official Journal.

About IFPI

IFPI is the organisation that promotes the interests of the international recording industry worldwide. Its membership comprises some 1,400 major and independent companies in 65 countries. It also has affiliated industry national groups in 45 countries.

<< 1   >>

log in