NOT The biggest secret in the music industry

[whynot]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389489410' post='2334830']
Once that work has been paid for, the fact that others are gaining from it should not be a factor.
[/quote]
I think it should. That piece of music is promoting products, it's keeping commercial radio in business, it's filling out the o2, it's effectively helping to employ millions of people worldwide. I see no reason why the writers that deliver that product should not deserve something along the way all the while others are earning off the back of it.
The last time I received a royalty cheque was in the 80's FWIW.

[whynot]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389489410' post='2334830']
Is the writer jealous of others folks good fortune..? Surely not..!
[/quote]
Theres that word jealous again. As your stance is anti royalty then I can only see it from one perspective.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389490227' post='2334834']
I think it should. That piece of music is promoting products, it's keeping commercial radio in business, it's filling out the o2, it's effectively helping to employ millions of people worldwide...[/quote]

You're right, absolutely, as are so many other parts of the chain. The bloke printing the CD jackets, the sound engineer behind the glass , the delivery driver dropping off the packets... All have contributed (and jolly good it is, too...). All are paid (fairly, one hopes...). The writer is important, I agree, but his time is no more 'worthy' in my eyes than any other participant in this (or any other...) industry.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389490437' post='2334836']
Theres that word jealous again. As your stance is anti royalty then I can only see it from one perspective.
[/quote]

Sorry, I omitted the 'sarcasm' smiley. I shan't edit my post, but take it as being there, belatedly.
My stance is not only anti-royalty. You are free to see it from any perspective. This does not change the reasoning, only your interpretations of my motivation. The arguments remain valid.

Edited January 12, 2014 by Dad3353

[SteveK]

It may be unpalatable to some, but, in the free world it's the pursuit of wealth that feeds innovation, development and the arts. Not always by the person with the original spark, but certainly by those that make it happen. Every one of us enjoys the spoils.

[whynot]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389490566' post='2334838']
You're right, absolutely, as are so many other parts of the chain. The bloke printing the CD jackets, the sound engineer behind the glass , the delivery driver dropping off the packets... All have contributed (and jolly good it is, too...). All are paid (fairly, one hopes...). The writer is important, I agree, but his time is no more 'worthy' in my eyes than any other participant in this (or any other...) industry.
[/quote]
But this is where your argument for me falls down. No more worthy on a human level, but the writer is there at the very beginning creating (or ripping off in some cases). Just like any business, there are no Cd jackets and delivery drivers without the product.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='whynot' timestamp='1389491348' post='2334842']
But this is where your argument for me falls down. No more worthy on a human level, but the writer is there at the very beginning creating (or ripping off in some cases). Just like any business, there are no Cd jackets and delivery drivers without the product.
[/quote]

Someone has to sow the potato. It starts somewhere. Should a potato planter get paid for every spud eaten, just because he started it..?
An armchair designer designs an armchair. He gets paid for it (jolly good...). The armchair is manufactured and sold worldwide (and very good armchairs they are, too...) Should he get a cut for each one sold..? No, he's busy, designing the next armchair (or table, or something...); that's to say: working, and getting paid for it (jolly good...). I can't see why working should be such an anathema. Is that not a good, healthy, occupation in one's life..?

[Dad3353]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389490902' post='2334841']
It may be unpalatable to some, but, in the free world it's the pursuit of wealth that feeds innovation, development and the arts. Not always by the person with the original spark, but certainly by those that make it happen. Every one of us enjoys the spoils.
[/quote]

'Unpalatable' might be a bit strong (but not by much...); this thread was started along exactly that premise. Is the original post being defended here as being entirely normal, acceptable; even desirable..? To me, not; others have differing opinions. None, so far, have given me cause to change my views, despite meditating the suggestions offered. I sincerely hope, however, that in this here 'free world', there is room for other motivations than those advanced. In past times (OK, I'm old, but not [i]that [/i]old..!) there seems to have been a place for vocation, passion and creation, without necessarily pursuing financial wealth. Not that earning one's crust is wrong, of course.

[Bassman Sam]

A bit OT but my father invented the process to make semi skimmed milk. It was part of his job remit and he got played well, for the time, for doing his job. Does that mean that for every pint of semi skimmed milk that is sold worldwide today, his estate is worthy of a cut of the cost. He didn't thinks so and so never copyrighted his invention.
Tw*t, I could have bought Skank's island and supply of cocaine and died like John Entwistle if he hadn't been so daft. Bugger.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Bassman Sam' timestamp='1389492512' post='2334846']...Tw*t, I could have bought Skank's island and supply of cocaine and died like John Entwistle if he hadn't been so daft...[/quote]

I like you Dad already.

[Bassman Sam]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389492795' post='2334849']
I like you Dad already.
[/quote]

I used to miss him but I'll take better aim if I get another chance. [size=4] [/size]

[Dad3353]

[quote name='Bassman Sam' timestamp='1389493166' post='2334851']
I used to miss him but I'll take better aim if I get another chance.
[/quote]

[TimR]

Maybe we're missing the point here. A musician has two choices. He either sells his record to one person for a couple of thousand pounds who then packages and sells it to others, or he waits to see how many units he sells and makes money that way. He takes the gamble and is rewarded.

The chair designer designs the chair but usually someone else takes the risk. They buy the design off him and build the factory and employ the workers and sit back and watch the profits roll in. Once the factory is paid for and the original design what should he do?

Has Sting really just written and performed a tune and sat back and waited?

Has he promoted it by going round the world and attending interviews and playing stadiums? Has he had to stand in a TV studio miming?

The idea of copyright is to protect the interests of someone whose creativity is worth more than the actual physical product. That creativity is a difficult thing to put a value on based on 'human endeavour' as there is an unidentifiable quality in it other than pure hard work. If it was something we could all do given the same timescale we wouldn't need Sting and we would just do it ourselves

[Dad3353]

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389516276' post='2334894']...That creativity is a difficult thing to put a value on based on 'human endeavour' as there is an unidentifiable quality in it other than pure hard work...[/quote]

Difficult, but not impossible. I would suggest that the unit 'man/hours' is as good as any for quantifying human labour, of whatever 'quality'. The time spent at a forge banging metal or the time spent sucking a quill are, to me, equivalent in 'value'. The 'extra' because someone is talented (or lucky; why not..?) enough to think up a popular tune/song/symphony qualifies no more (nor less...) than someone else's (acquired or innate...) skills in making well-fitting horse shoes. Creation is not restricted to the non-physical, nor artistry.
We are not so far apart, I would suggest, as all that. Due recompense is not being denied, in fact rather accentuated as a 'motor'. A lifetime meal ticket is not, though, in my book, whether it be a writer, poet, architect, lawyer or smithy (list non-exhaustive...). Once one's time has been rewarded, in whatever sphere, then one continues to earn, by continuing to create. No-one is being short-changed by this. It seems quite ordinary, to me.

[UglyDog]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389489561' post='2334831']
No, I don't adhere to inheritance, either.
[/quote]
Ok, so if I can't pass on my house to my kids when I die, who do you think should have it?

[lowdown]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389525687' post='2334987']
Ok, so if I can't pass on my house to my kids when I die, who do you think should have it?
[/quote]

Now.....the response to this should be interesting.. [size=4] [/size]

[Dad3353]

[quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389525687' post='2334987']
Ok, so if I can't pass on my house to my kids when I die, who do you think should have it?
[/quote]

We're widening the subject quite considerable here, aren't we..? I'd start by returning the question, though. If one has several children, who gets the house..? That's to say: unless all the kids are, in fact living there, only one could actually inhabit (although could well already have their own house...).
So, we're not really discussing a house as a home; rather, the house as a value. I will allow (for the sake of debate...) a certain 'ceiling' to be passed on, including some sentimental value of artefacts (a clock, or portrait; whatever...). Above that value (to be determined, I've not got a set figure in mind...), the 'estate' goes to the state. The idea is not so much to prevent children inheriting their father's (or mother's...) watch, or armchair; rather whole empires and tracts of land (even whole counties, in extreme cases...) to inheritors who have done nothing to merit them. I find it hard to understand how anyone could 'obtain', by honest effort, hundreds of acres of Scottish moors, or estates covering half of Bedfordshire. These lands were handed out to folks for 'services rendered' to long-dead monarchs, who (still my opinion, of course...) had no 'right' to dispose of it and render it private. Land is not private. It belongs to us all, represented by the state. Similarly with businesses; someone who has developed his affairs and then dies, does not, to me give a right to their offspring to the wealth that has been created by someone else (their father, or mother, by coincidence...).
There. Is that a bit clearer (although off topic...)..?

Edited January 12, 2014 by Dad3353

[Dad3353]

[quote name='lowdown' timestamp='1389526833' post='2335013']
Now.....the response to this should be interesting..
[/quote]

[i]Should [/i]be, but isn't..!

[oggiesnr]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389490566' post='2334838']
You're right, absolutely, as are so many other parts of the chain. The bloke printing the CD jackets, the sound engineer behind the glass , the delivery driver dropping off the packets... All have contributed (and jolly good it is, too...). All are paid (fairly, one hopes...). [i]The writer is important, I agree, but his time is no more 'worthy' in my eyes than any other participant in this (or any other...) industry[/i].
[/quote]

Disagree, if there's no writer then none of the rest exists. The writer is also the one who's taking the risk here, if no-one wants their songs they has no income, all the others have orders to be fulfilled, if they don't make CD "Y" it's not a problem because they'll make CD "X".

Steve

[Dad3353]

[quote name='oggiesnr' timestamp='1389528852' post='2335057']
Disagree, if there's no writer then none of the rest exists. The writer is also the one who's taking the risk here, if no-one wants their songs they has no income, all the others have orders to be fulfilled, if they don't make CD "Y" it's not a problem because they'll make CD "X".

Steve
[/quote]

Your prerogative, of course; that's how debates work. No problem.
You're right, too, that, without the writer, there's no product. I would say the same of the armchair designer. No design, no armchair.
To me, it's somewhat irrelevant. I'm not diminishing the importance of the writer. I'm simply saying that his/her time is no more (nor less...) valuable than any other. That he/she be paid, we seem to all be in agreement. That this 'importance' be rewarded by a life-time revenue is, to me, inexplicable and unjustified. A poet who has worked hard at refining his/her art, and spent 6 months writing, re-writing, tearing up and starting again, has earned and merits reward for that time spent. Once paid, I see no reason why that reward should be given again and again, each and every time someone recites their work. Once those 6 months are paid for, another poem will pay for itself, if the poet continues to produce good work. If not, as with any other profession, times will be hard. Why does this one-time stroke of brilliance justify a lifetime of revenue..? How is it different from other creators (in insurance, welfare, IT or any profession...)..? The writer takes a risk, in the same way as a research worker, or an architect. They should get paid for their work. OK. Now, why the lifelong payments..?

[flyfisher]

Interesting discussion, though I don't detect anyone's position moving very much. Fair enough.

Seems to me that the whole issue is bound up in our inherent tendency to be selfish. Whatever we have we want more, we tend not to like others having more than us and we don't want to share what we have with those who have much less. Survival of the fittest and don't worry about any casualties on the way.

[SteveK]

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389492238' post='2334845']
'Unpalatable' might be a bit strong (but not by much...); this thread was started along exactly that premise. Is the original post being defended here as being entirely normal, acceptable; even desirable..? To me, not; others have differing opinions. None, so far, have given me cause to change my views, despite meditating the suggestions offered. I sincerely hope, however, that in this here 'free world', there is room for other motivations than those advanced. In past times (OK, I'm old, but not [i]that [/i]old..!) there seems to have been a place for vocation, passion and creation, without necessarily pursuing financial wealth. Not that earning one's crust is wrong, of course.
[/quote]
The thread was started to illustrate what an insensitive prick Sting appears to be, with lines like, [i]"Okay Andy here's all the money [pours some change on the table]. Unfortunately, I've spent the rest of it." [/i]As was pointed out early on in the thread, this may well have been band humour. Although, I doubt Andy S would have found it particularly funny. The thread was in no way meant to question the system of royalty payment.
I'm also no spring chicken (58), and remember the "good old days", when "value for money" and was the order of the day, and good service the priority. But it's not all bad today, afterall, Rose tinted glasses are two a penny. I think the only difference is that in the past it was considered vulgar to be [b]seen[/b] to be motivated entirely by profit. These days, it's quite blatant, it's clear for all to see that, in big business, ruthlessly maximising profit is the only motivation.
As much as I hate this situation, I'll say again, the lust for big bucks is the motivation for innovation and development (generally speaking). Do you suppose drug companies would develop new drugs, drugs that combat the most hideous and cruel diseases, if they just received an hourly rate for work done, and no more.

[Dad3353]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389533415' post='2335139']
The thread was started to illustrate what an insensitive prick Sting appears to be, with lines like, [i]"Okay Andy here's all the money [pours some change on the table]. Unfortunately, I've spent the rest of it." [/i]As was pointed out early on in the thread, this may well have been band humour. Although, I doubt Andy S would have found it particularly funny. The thread was in no way meant to question the system of royalty payment...[/quote]

No problem there. As I've nothing to say concerning folks I don't know, I shan't comment on that. If the rest is off topic, I'll leave gracefully (well, in spirit, at least. Grace is not an adjective normally associated with me... )

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389533415' post='2335139']...Do you suppose drug companies would develop new drugs, drugs that combat the most hideous and cruel diseases, if they just received an hourly rate for work done, and no more.[/quote]

[Robert Robinson] "Are, but do they..?" [/Robert Robinson]

I'm not sure that combating "the most hideous and cruel diseases" is, in that case, the prime motivation, nor result, of their work. Yet another powder for stopping a dripping nose, maybe, or creating a lip gloss that doesn't leave a mark on collars..? Yes, there is research on diseases, of course, and all the more merit to those involved. Once their time spent (could be years, with a big team, and much expense in equipment and such...) has been recovered from sales, should they then get a continuing revenue, or make the product more affordable for the sufferers..? I know which option I'd recommend.
There are too few, imo, but there are individuals and enterprises that put less emphasis on "ruthlessly maximising profit", with some success (I'm not going to name any in particular, but several charities come to mind, or international agencies aiding children...). Some have no physical 'product', but their 'ethic' can be applied elsewhere. (...or is it that 'ethics' are, indeed, old hat..? What a shame if this is so...).

Edited July 13, 2014 by Dad3353

[TimR]

It's about how we value other people's time. Some people are worth more man hours than others. They're mire valuable.

I can fit a new back door. It will take me all day. I'm not great at it but I have the tools and I can do it. My friend can do it in two hours. How many man hours is fitting a back door worth? The problem comes when he needs me to play bass, which he can't do at all.

Now if I play bass for two hours in his band, is this the two hours that he spent fitting my door, or two of the six hours I saved when he fitted my door? Do I owe him 4hours? I think I should it's only right, but then he can't play bass at all so I'm saving him hundreds of hours of learning.

This is where we remember that money is a tool to be exchanged and not hoarded.

My vision would have a limit put on profits, a tax if you like to be paid to the unemployable, but the limit wouldn't be absolute, it would be relative to the number of people you employ. I think it's being proposed in the form of pay ratios between directors and employees. Eg. You cannot pay a director more than 200x the lowest paid employee. I think my idea is better, (of course)

[flyfisher]

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1389533415' post='2335139']
Do you suppose drug companies would develop new drugs, drugs that combat the most hideous and cruel diseases, if they just received an hourly rate for work done, and no more.
[/quote]

Well, the actual scientists doing the difficult and creative design and development work only receive an hourly rate, so would that be another example of a few people getting inordinately rich on the back of the work of many others?