"Some people say the world has had enough of silly love songs.
I look around me and I see my toilet's gold..."
"Some people say the world has had enough of silly love songs.
I look around me and I see my toilet's gold..."
So this is what it says in the article.
And now I don't feel bad for Paul. I always thought it was a bidding war.
By 1984, Paul McCartney and John Lennon's widow Yoko Ono had been given at least two opportunities to purchase the catalogue, but both times they passed, thinking the $40 million price tag was too high. When Robert Holmes à Court purchased ATV Music in 1984, McCartney and Ono were offered another chance to make the first bid, but once again they declined
" My advice is to get them off right after your shoes and before your trousers... that's the sock gap. Miss it and suddenly you're a naked man in socks. No self-respecting woman will let a naked man in socks do the squelchy with her. "
http://thefairlysecretarmy.bandcamp.com/
http://wavesofmercury.bandcamp.com/
This is an interesting twofold question, which boils down to...does making songs electronically available (e.g., on bandcamp) constitute publishing?Originally Posted by The Czar
Assuming it's a "free hosted publishing platform for musicians," the answer sounds like "Yes."
Without knowing how bandcamp works from the musicians' end...are there agreements that you sign with bandcamp that establish your clear ownership of songs you make available there? I would hope so.
Further, does the ruling body for copyrights (ie., The Library of Congress for United Statians, not sure about other countries) acknowledge that publishing music on bandcamp can somehow fit into the "deposit of two complete phonorecord" requirement for Form SR? If not, I wonder if there's a way to deposit files on disk with supporting evidence that music was put forth on bandcamp. In the absence of a Form SR filing, it's unclear to me how e-publishing works. On the other hand, if there's a way to clearly establish provenance of original material made available to the public on the Internet, maybe that constitutes publishing where any disputes might arise, and there's no need to copyright. (Personally, I would want the copyright.)
In the absence of copyrighting published music, the process of which is geared toward traditional record-label-produced media, the bandcamp question is intriguing. At the very least, it would make sense to copyright music as unpublished works to avoid any possible disputes about ownership...which would in practicality most likely arise only if the music/artist hit the big time via bandcamp. Meanwhile, at least the artist would enjoy whatever percentage of the download profits bandcamp provides for. If you're happy with the profits you reap via bandcamp, I don't know why you'd bother with traditional publishing.
As for the original question...I'll echo the "illegal is illegal" sentiment expressed by others. Whether it's stealing from the little old lady on the street or the megabank cartel that foreclosed on her home, it's stealing.
Edited to add: It could be that Form PA is more appropriate to copyrighting e-published music in the States than Form SR.
Last edited by augdimsus; 06-26-2014 at 04:26 PM. Reason: Form PA note
Well, I assume bandcamp musicians own all their music, or else Cuneiform probably wouldn't be on it.
I can take my music down whenever I want.
OK my understanding is that the Beatles catalogue was up for sale around 83 or something like that... And Jackson was fresh from his Thriller album
My guess is had Lennon still be alive around that time, it would've probably been a different scenario...
Was Maca already the richest entertainer back then? I thought that came to be later on in the 80's and early 90's.
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
Yeah, I saw this article after my previous post, but I still think if Lennon (not Yoko) had been alive...
my music collection increased tenfolds when I switched from drug-addicts to complete nutcases.
In the early 80's, Paul was already listed as the most successful songwriter in the world in the Guinness Book Of World Records. Besides whatever monies he received from his own work, he also at the time owned at least The Buddy Holly catalog (a bit of trivia: the night before he died, Keith Moon went to a party Paul threw in celebration of the release of The Buddy Holly Story...somewhat eerily, there's pictures of Keith from that night hanging out with Kenney Jones). And if Paul was smart, he would have worked up an agreement so that he had a piece of Live And Let Die in exchange for doing the title song.
The Broccoli hasn't been born who would approve that deal!
Yeah, you could have a point there. Paul may have been shrewd enough to attempt to negotiate for a piece of the film, but whether or not Cubby would have gone for it is another.
GG: I've long felt that, sleazy as the record biz can be, they're pikers next to the film biz, if for no other reason than Hollywood Accounting and the myriad opportunities to sideline creative effort. Also, there's probably more "protection" of intellectual property in music...it's probably easier to get away with a screenplay "inspired by" an earlier work than it is to crowd a song's copyright. Bottom line of this thread, intellectual property has market value, and there's plenty of product for sale and subject to negotiation with any bidder. The higher the stakes, the higher the aggression.
Don't need to...welcome to my ignore list.
Check out my solo project prog band, Mutiny in Jonestown at https://mutinyinjonestown.bandcamp.com/
Check out my solo project progressive doom metal band, WytchCrypt at https://wytchcrypt.bandcamp.com/
Not sure. Possibly Bandcamp exists in that legal gray area where nobody worries much about copyright because the material made available has so little monetary value that filing the paperwork would cost more than the artist could ever hope to recoup.
Just sayin'.
That reminds me of this
I remember when McCartney complained about some aspect of MJ's ownership of his songs, there was a comment by someone in the media either on TV or in the press along the lines of "you didn't think yours and Lennon's output was worth a miserable $40m, serves you right you cheap bastard!"
"Publishing" in this context refers not to the means of dissemination, but to the *copyright* in a composition, which resides with the writer(s). Writers retain 100% publishing rights unless they choose to do a deal with a publisher. In the old days that meant the publishing company would acquire the copyright forever (and pay the writer a share of publishing royalties). Nowadays writers can do time-limited collection deals with publishers and hold on to their copyrights.
So, unless writers choose to signed away their copyrights to a publisher, they own their songs, and I would guess most of the material on Bandcamp falls into that category.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks