Hartmut Noack wrote:
why should the iTunes-sales increase for the
original author if someone remixes his work for a movie *whithout*
mentioning his name ??
In this hypothetical situation (there aren't many movies that use
unlicensed music) people who liked the track would find it on their own
and you could help them by jumping up and down a bit with a lawsuit or
well timed press release...
And of course: if some David Lynch / Jim Jarmush etc type of director
would ask me, if i would give him/her my tracks for a movie just for the
glory i would not think twice. Everybody would ask "What dude made this
sickening strange music at about 10 minutes before the ending? Where do
i get more of that..."
That would be a hell of a royality and very well acceptable.... ;-)
Which is where it comes down to licensing your work in a way that
ensures you will get recognition for it if it is used by someone else
and if you don't get recognition then you have the option to sue for it
if it's financially viable or otherwise justifiable.
The music industry is cut throat, twisted and down right dirty. The days
of being able to stop people from illegally copying recorded material
are long gone. Combine both of those points and the only way to stop
your work from being reproduced without permission is to not release it.
Then we go back to the kindof musicianship that Ron is most interested
in. Real people playing live instruments.
--
Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
Http://www.boosthardware.com
Http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
========================================
"Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
become reality" - Macka B
