In good old Germany you can‘t sell the copyright, ans there are also a lot of protections set in law for artists.
But if Taylor Swift hat made all her songs available under a creative commons license, she would not have that problem in the first place.
Same here. I don’t think she intended it that way in the slightest, but the usual apologists for the neoliberal consensus are going to put exactly that bad-faith spin on it and accuse her of promoting anti-Semitism.
Ok, sure. For an artist who has avoided taking any kind of stance that would alienate even 1% of her audience until it bit her in the ass (as opposed to say, Beyoncé), I cant help but see this as little more than self-serving. There’s a reason she was considered a darling of the alt-right until about five minutes ago.
Michael Harriet does a good job summing it up:
And every so often they need to do it again as the financiers inevitably take over each one in turn.
You can own your music, but you probably won’t be able to own your distribution. And that’s where those big companies can screw you. CBS put Stax out of business over distribution.
True, but being run by artists is no guarantee that a company will respect artistic independence. K-Pop is held up as an example of extremely manufacturered pop, and the “Big Three” companies – SM Entertainment, JYP Entertainment and YG Entertainment – were all founded by performers.
Worse, some take it beyond the topic of empathy for other people. Now we have groups who claim not to believe information that doesn’t come from personal experience. I say claim, because for some this worldview makes a huge exception for religion.
While I sympathize with the plight, I have to say that I’m vaguely uncomfortable with the idea of artists not having the right to sell their work including copyright as they please.
I’m a programmer, and I’d be furious if I couldn’t completely control the rights I was granted through copyright including the right to sell that copyright to someone else. Art may be different, but most artists still want to be able to feed their kids, pay the mortgage and enjoy the occasional vacation, and that could involve selling rights.
(Disclaimer: My knowledge of the arts is from books rather than music. Perhaps there are other factors I’m unaware of.)
Maybe more-or-less true, but ultimately… so what? As long as somebody with that big a voice is saying something like this, isn’t that kind of a nitpick just gratuitous fussiness?
If you can sell exclusive rights to distribute/reproduce/whatever, isn’t it a distinction without a difference, as far as being able to feed your family?
Oh, you can sell your works if they are of a physical nature, like a painting, and you can license your works, e.g. to a publisher, or to an end user.
However you always keep the copyrights, they’re non-transferable. It still feels strange to me that they can be bought and sold in other territories.
What’s more, if the publisher you licensed your works to doesn‘t publish, you can license to somebody else. If somebody buys a painting from a young artist, and sells it at a huge profit, the artist is entitled to a share of that profit.
No, we need UBI and abolish copyright.
Most code in Germany does not fall under copyright in the first place, it needs to be of a certain quality end inventiveness. And then the copyright would belong to your employer, because they pay for your time.
digital rights management
Intersting also that she snobbishly dismisses the creative input of and value generated by other creators (in this case; architecture and shoes). Sir Christopher Wren or Manolo Balhnik might have a different take on this.
Huh? I’m not a particular fan of her music, but you can’t accuse Swift of not taking a stance:
https://m.slashdot.org/story/360786
And endorsing Democratic candidates in Tennessee in 2018.
I find it hard to side with the artists in these cases. A contract was offered to her. She signed it. They gave her money.
Yes, record labels have a long, well-documented history of screwing over musicians, especially aggressively screwing over young bands who aren’t yet familiar with how bad the terms always turn out to be. I simply don’t care - they could have turned it down, they could have sought more experienced advice, hired a lawyer to help their manager, or even had their mommies and daddies read it; but instead they voluntarily signed up.
Then YOU no longer own your data ^^’.
That’s not at all how I read it, and the thought that someone might take it that way didn’t even occur to me until you said it. I took the obvious meaning to be that private equity is now preying on musical artists the same way they have real estate and shoes for decades. Taking that to mean architecture and shoe designers aren’t artists seems like reaching. YMMV.
Yeah… No. Do we REALLY need to go into all the ways the big music publishing companies have directly defrauded musicians? You can read a contract until your eyes are somehow able to cause the paper it’s printed on to combust, but that’s not going to do diddly-squat when (just as an example) Sony’s A&R reps tell you your multi-platinum hit never made any money, sorry, kiss off.
To be clear, yes, some of the “screwing over” is taking advantage of fools with flawed contracts. Guess what? Just as much comes from actions by the publishers that are direct fraud. A contract doesn’t do much, when one of the parties always was willing to break it at their leisure and has the resources to bury you in bullshit, when you try to resist.
