On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 10:27, Daniel James wrote:
> Just imagine that this record company doesn't understand or care about
> your licence, and neglects to include this information. Your only
> recourse would be to sue, and that might not be practical or
> affordable.
This is impossible. They all have very competent legal advisers and
can't afford not understanding or not caring. It would cost them too
much (not to mention reputation).
>
> Or worse, they do understand your licence, but it gives them the right
> to redistribute your music commercially without paying you. They
> would then have the upper hand in any negotiation, since they aren't
> going to invest in promoting your music without first having got you
> to sign something.
They would not have an upper hand in negotiations. I can simply say:
'I'm not signing anything.' at any time.
>
> > How many people will actually
> > buy it if they see that they can download it for free
>
> That's exactly the position that labels are in now with conventional
> CDs, and they are still selling.
Of course they are selling. People like to have tangible goods.
However, if you buy a CD in a store (and pay for it >=20$) and read a
legal notice that says that the product is free and you can redistribute
it anyway you like, how will you feel? And on top of that you go to the
artist's website and you get the whole kit as a free download...
>
> They don't need exclusive distribution, they just have to be able to
> do it better and cheaper than you!
What's better and cheaper than DIY solution? Here, I even have upper
hand, because I can state on my website that the physical CDs I ship
have a hand-made case and add some other hand -made features. I will
make them $10 then, or even $20 and collectors and real audiophiles will
buy them from me anyways... No large publishing company will fool
around with unique copies and such. Trust me.
>
> > If, on the other hand, Sony Music hands my CD to some hot shot
> > producer and they use it, sample it, modify it and sell a billion,
> > they still have to credit me and make all derivatives under the
> > same license.
>
> Again, I think it would be more likely that they would negotiate a
> royalty, just as they do for conventional samples. But if you've
> already declared that your work can be sampled gratuit, then you're
> not likely to get a cut.
But I get exposure. Gratuit. If I got a cut it might not be enough to
pay for enough publicity for such exposure and the contract may include
clauses where they don't need to provide the source of their samples and
that I may not be able to use this in my own publicity (this is true, I
know of a musician who played for a house-worming party of one of the
richest people in North America and his contract forbids him to use that
gig in any ad, publication. He didn't know who he was playing for until
he got there. Needles to say, he wasn't offered a better fee, either).
-- ./MiS
_
__ __ (_)___ Michal Seta
/ \/ \ _/^ _|
/ V |_ \ @creazone.32k.org
(___/V\___|_|___/
http://www.[creazone]|[noonereceiving].32k.org
