Quote:
Originally posted by Skunk:
For example, if I throw a private party to a 100 friends, I wouldn't play music at that party if I had to pay royalties for every song I played. This would deny the artist vital exposure.
|
You wouldn't have to pay royalties for playing songs at a party. However, if you were paying a DJ, and he was spinning music made by others, one would hope he was paying some sort of license, as he is making money from others music. Some DJs make thousands of dollars from others music.
The issue is income. Depriving artists of income on one hand, and using the artists work to make money on the other hand.
Playing songs at a party is not depriving anyone of income and not making you money. If you CHARGE entry for your party - built on a reputation of playing certain songs - then you are using those songs to generate income, and should by rights hand some of that back to the creators.
As I said, in Australia venues pay a license that covers any songs played in their venue. These fees are not exorbitant by any means, and the royalties per song are very very small. Think cents.
The issue is, that if someone makes a hugely successful product, and people make money off it, the originator is not left starving.
As a society we still have a way to go. Visual artists will starve while their art is sold for millions, Aboriginal Australian artists in particular are exploited in this manner.
I advocate a licensing system for visual art in the same manner as intellectual property. When you purchase a painting, you don't own it, you own the license to possess it for life, but if you resell it, the originator sees a royalty from it. Say 5% or 10% for example.
In this way, the struggling artist, who sells their ORIGINAL work for $500 to pay for food, doesn't lose out if their work one day sells for $100,000.
[ 02-06-2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]