Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Touchy Touchy Record Industry

1

a billion here, a billion there- soon we'll be talking real money.

sourcemind: the etymology of groot

Posted by Garrett | August 10, 2007 9:29 AM
2

Whew. I was worried I wouldn't be able to loop the 29 seconds of Prince I heard into a 3 minute mp3, causing me to not purchase the music.

Thank God she put it back up.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 10, 2007 9:36 AM
3

Um, Recording Industry, "Fair Use", remember that?

I know, in theory at least, this is SUPPOSED to help recording artists (although how much of this type of income actually trickles down to artists is probably miniscule), but really, do they have to ALWAYS be such Asshats about this sort of thing?

Posted by COMTE | August 10, 2007 9:39 AM
4

I hate paying for music almost as much as I hate paying to see pro sports. It's always the little guy who gets screwed.

Posted by monkey | August 10, 2007 9:43 AM
5

Um, it's their property, though, and if they don't want it appropriated, that's their deal. She could have sought permission or licensed the music in the clip, like everyone else can.

Posted by Nick | August 10, 2007 9:45 AM
6

@3

Yeah. Look at the people they've been working with for years and years. I don't blame them for being chapped anuses.

Of course, that does not excuse this bullshit.

Posted by Mr. Poe | August 10, 2007 9:45 AM
7

Meanwhile, the older child (oblivious to cameras, onlookers, record industry monoliths or Prince), has completed three laps around the dancing tot, easily winning the Kitchen Table Derby.

Posted by homage to me | August 10, 2007 9:48 AM
8

@5

WRONG!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Posted by John | August 10, 2007 9:55 AM
9

can't you just picture the wage slaves in the basement of the RIAA, scouring the internet 24/7 for little people to threaten?

"i'm just doing my job, sir."

Posted by maxsolomon | August 10, 2007 9:57 AM
10

Sure sure, touchy touchy, fuck you UniversalóBUT THEY'VE ALSO JUST DECIDED TO SELL SONGS WITHOUT COPYRIGHT PROTECTION, which is nice. Too bad it won't be on iTunes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/business/10music.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by clarkj | August 10, 2007 10:16 AM
11

The labels should be allowed a maximum of seven years to wring every last dime they can get out of the artist before the music goes straight into the public domain. What about the rights of the listener and the culture at large?

Posted by demolator | August 10, 2007 10:21 AM
12

I have mixed feelings about downloading music...I want artists to get paid for their work. The problem is that I don't want to pay the record company, which takes most of the cut when you purchase a CD, right?

I keep thinking...as a painter, I'd have no problem if someone bought a painting, made a bunch of digital copies, and gave them away. I figure that would expose more people to it, which is a good thing. I know it's not the best comparison, because a painting costs more than a CD, etc.

So confusing.

Posted by Dianna | August 10, 2007 11:16 AM
13

This is why people should steal music. Fuck Universal!

Posted by Arrgh! | August 10, 2007 11:23 AM
14

@8 - The video doesn't fall under fair use. She doesn't use the song to criticize, make a point about the song, and it wouldn't bar her own freedom of speech if she cannot appropriate it. It has no educational use; its a video that YouTube is making money off of (by having it on their site) and she has zero right to use it. Fair Use sounds nice on paper, but rarely succeeds in court.

@12 - As a painter, you pay for the paint, the canvas, the brushes, etc. You aren't the only one making money on the production (or dependant upon it), and if you sell through a gallery, the gallery takes up to 50% as well, just like the record companies/publishers get their cut. Everyone hates the music business, but there's real work to be done, and risky investments made in music. That is why the companies get big cuts, they risk the funding and time to get one hit out of every hundred or so songs.

Posted by Nick | August 10, 2007 12:15 PM
15

I don't get her beef. If they had tried to sue her for it, I'd probably take her side, but she used protected content with out licensing it and they asked her to take it down. She can share the video with her own music if she likes.

Posted by Dougsf | August 10, 2007 1:10 PM
16

Oh what a happy, happy little boy! And a good dancer too!

Posted by crazycatguy | August 10, 2007 3:09 PM
17

lenxrqz ikmoazgpj rbhekfnz gpnzqemb bwpjk pgbseuxz xnwyi

Posted by tmqhncf rldjxsy | August 18, 2007 8:46 PM
18

fbkl urkazibye bpynr sefwb dhmi xcarn iduorlfw http://www.gjlim.fjhpzsa.com

Posted by yfrgitkx agmfqoxes | August 18, 2007 8:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).