Is the Internet Stealing from Artist?

[normen]

Isn't all of this simply a mater of legal distinctions? For whatever reason, some commodities, like bushels of corn and automobiles are sold outright. Ownership of the item is transferred in whole to the buyer. And others, like software and "art," are more or less licensed to the consumer. Retaining ownership legally entitles the creator to continue to be compensated for its use.

I apologize if I have restated anything above, but I really did not have the energy to swim through all of the bickering.

Well the legal situation is pretty clear. We're talking about the validity of that situation.

[Exowildebeest]

But artists can steal from The Internet, so it evens out

[Ronin]

There is some real pretentious muso beard scratching going on here.
Since when does being an entertainer mean you have to do it in public?
If i listen to music at home am i not entertained? does the musician who made what i listen to deserve nothing?
There are many people who dont go to live gigs for various reasons, and many producers and genres that are not appropriate, but sure, go ahead and devalue their contribution simply because they dont do it live on stage in front of mueling 18 year old drunks.
What about a lifetime of learning, practising, spending money on your "profession" of music, how much pay is that worth?
Sorry to be abrasive, but this discussion is so god damn pretentious.

[jonheal]

Well the legal situation is pretty clear. We're talking about the validity of that situation.

Validity comes down to whoever has the biggest lawyer or stick.

[normen]

Validity comes down to whoever has the biggest lawyer or stick.

Sad weltanschauung.

[jonheal]

Personally, I would like the whole world to live as one big commune, with everyone sharing everything and no concept of "money" whatsoever.

Happy weltanschauung.

But given the general depravity of humanity, not too likely, unfortunately.

[KEVMOVE02]

This perceived problem with the protection of the rights of intellectual property owners is nothing new. Every time a new distribution technology has emerged, paradigm shifts occurred in how to monetize the process. The fallout from the current environmental shifts have made it more challenging to make money and protect artists rights, but once the current migration to music on demand completes its cycle, those who paid attention will be swimming in money. The real question is what does an artist have to do to make sure they get their fair share? Become better at business practices! You can be a slave to your art form, but if you don't mind the cash till also, someone will always walk away with your money. If being a mercenary is unpalatable, you need to accept the fact that it is in man's nature to exploit one another. Maybe you will get lucky and find a patron who will pay all your bills, so you can "focus on the art".

[platzangst]

Ok, done arguing with you. You twist and turn everything to your liking, I was explicitly saying thats not "luxury" per se. Have a nice life.

Then why bring it up? Why single this guy out - twice - as a reply to my statement that one hit wonders don't live in luxury if you didn't mean to imply that he lives in luxury, and that compared to "80% of the world" it is luxury? And then say it's not luxury? What exactly were you trying to argue, then?

I mean, flounce off if you like, but don't blame me for "twisting" your argument if you've constructed a particularly flimsy argument.

[normen]

Then why bring it up? Why single this guy out - twice - as a reply to my statement that one hit wonders don't live in luxury if you didn't mean to imply that he lives in luxury, and that compared to "80% of the world" it is luxury? And then say it's not luxury? What exactly were you trying to argue, then?

I mean, flounce off if you like, but don't blame me for "twisting" your argument if you've constructed a particularly flimsy argument.

/sigh Not much more flimsy than the argument that a million dollar movie consists solely of 3 minutes of "Spirit in the Sky" with a black screen I suppose.

[platzangst]

/sigh Not much more flimsy than the argument that a million dollar movie consists solely of 3 minutes of "Spirit in the Sky" with a black screen I suppose.

Now who's making a strawman argument? (hint: you) Seriously, when did I even approach saying such a thing? Are we to lump "hypocrite" in there if you're going to blatantly make things up?

Did Greenbaum get anywhere close to a million dollars? Certainly not. Is it your argument that a multi-million dollar movie that uses a song owes the creator of that song nothing, so long as enough time has passed? That's what it sounds like, and by all means, if I'm twisting that somehow, do explain better.

Now, it is a fact that if Greenbaum's copyright was allowed to lapse into the public domain (as used to be more common in US copyright's early history), then not only could anyone play or cover the song at will, but also, a major movie studio could (for instance) use it freely in a movie and pay the creator nothing. If the moral sticking point against ongoing royalties is this idea that musicians ought to keep producing new works, that they ought to be making some kind of continuous effort to sustain themselves, then how does anyone figure that a wealthy movie studio has the right to use a pre-existing song for a soundtrack? Isn't that letting someone else do the work for them? Isn't it even lazier to say, "we don't need to pay composers or musicians to create original music, we'll just use some old public domain stuff and save that money!"

These are the options your argument allows for. Once a copyright lapses, it is free for all to duplicate at will, which includes the large corporations. So you have a choice between tolerating copyrights of long duration, or living with corporate greed exploiting those songs as soon as they can, and profiting off the work of others. Imagine how much money you could make off of "Greatest Hits of the 60s" or "70s" collections if you didn't have to pay the original artists anything. So if the song has value, if it can be desired, who more deserves the rewards? Greenbaum? A major label or movie studio? It's going to be one or the other.

[normen]

Now who's making a strawman argument? (hint: you) Seriously, when did I even approach saying such a thing? Are we to lump "hypocrite" in there if you're going to blatantly make things up?

Oh, you didn't say that? Wow. Annoying arguing about stuff you didn't say, isn't it?

[avasopht]

I think it's easy to get caught up with how things are rather than really analysing what they are.

Musicians do work which can either be doing a performance, recording a performance or producing a product consisting of arranged performances.

In busking we invade public space to freely present our performances where passers by will donate if they like it.

When performing at a gig we may do so freely to acquire fans and build a reputation. So we perform in exchange for a gain in assets.

Commercial releases however involve performances done with the expectation of residual income and mass payments for work by leveraging the image of the act and overall appeal.

There is always an element of give and take and there are no hard and fast rules about what works best overall. Nobody wants to spend money on albums they won't end up liking, and nobody wants to invest time and money on the expectation of this paying their wage and making nothing.

Music is not an ideal job, it's just an activity that provides value and as such has been capitalised on.

I will say though, my best musical experience was sitting in a field at night around a campfire with two guys on a guitar and some drummers with tambourines. Oh, and a radical accordion player

[normen]

Music is not an ideal job, it's just an activity that provides value and as such has been capitalised on.

Heh, "activity that provides value" is another description for "job" right? I mean I planned speaker systems for venues that made millions.. Why do I still have to work!

[platzangst]

Now who's making a strawman argument? (hint: you) Seriously, when did I even approach saying such a thing? Are we to lump "hypocrite" in there if you're going to blatantly make things up?

Oh, you didn't say that? Wow. Annoying arguing about stuff you didn't say, isn't it?

Quite, but what you have not done is actually point out what I said you said that was not true. You merely asserted I "twisted" things, but you didn't say what, you just said the equivalent of "how mean! I'm leaving in a huff!"

What I think really happened is that you got caught making a poor argument, but rather than admit that to yourself or others, you come up with "oh, you twist things so much!" as your exit strategy.

So, whatever - now we're arguing about arguing, I guess we can close shop here.

[normen]

Quite, but what you have not done is actually point out what I said you said that was not true. You merely asserted I "twisted" things, but you didn't say what, you just said the equivalent of "how mean! I'm leaving in a huff!"

What I think really happened is that you got caught making a poor argument, but rather than admit that to yourself or others, you come up with "oh, you twist things so much!" as your exit strategy.

So, whatever - now we're arguing about arguing, I guess we can close shop here.

Yes. You think one should be able to live off 4 hours of work (luxury or not), I don't. Case closed.

[SteveDiverse]

Isn't all of this simply a mater of legal distinctions? For whatever reason, some commodities, like bushels of corn and automobiles are sold outright. Ownership of the item is transferred in whole to the buyer. And others, like software and "art," are more or less licensed to the consumer. Retaining ownership legally entitles the creator to continue to be compensated for its use.

^ This ^

Corn physically exists, and at any given time, there is a finite amount of it, and the law of supply and demand applies in a very clear way.

You can't make more copies of the corn - you can plant more, and grow more - but there is no way to take the finite amount of corn that is available now and make more (copies) of it.

There's no way to defraud the farmer out of money by making copies of his corn behind his back and selling or giving it away.

Software, photographs, music, etc., are different.

Software involves source code which is compiled into executable code - and it is the executable code that is distributed to consumers.

It is possible for one software company to buy the software assets of another - in which case, the ownership of the original source code is transferred.

But as a consumer, when you 'buy software', what you actually buy is a license to run an instance of the software - not the original source code.

Same with music - you could by the rights to music - but what the consumer actually purchases is the right to have a copy of the final mastered release to play on their device - and has the right to make reasonable copies for backup purpose.

Technically, if you buy one copy of a song, you can put it on multiple devices, but it is technically not legal if someone else in your family and you are listening to it at the same time - a bit like how you can install reason on as many computers as you want, but can only run one instance of reason at a time if all you own is one license.

It is also technically a violation of the license if you have your own personal music, and are a bartender, and bring that music in to work and play it in the bar. This would technically constitute a commercial use of the music, and when you bought it - assuming you paid - you only paid for a personal use license, not commercial use.

The problem with the internet and digital formats for 'art' is that it makes it very easy to share a final product - so easy, most people don't even know it is wrong and that if they send say, an mp3 to a friend, that they are violating copyright laws.

Also, the value of the loss of one illegal share is so low - it is not viable to sue for damages.

Unfortunately, these all add up to tons of money - millions for some artists - but there's no way to litigate and come out financially ahead, because you would have to sue millions of individuals for one dollar each.

I suppose someone could attempt a suit against internet providers. I think in the US, if a minimum of 5 entities 'work together' and one or more crimes are involved, they can be brought up on racketeering charges.

Since internet providers make money selling connectivity, and even advertise speed and bandwidth options in terms of how much time it takes to download certain types of files - and i have seen it advertised in terms of how many seconds it takes to download a 3 minute song - and since more than 5 internet providers are all linked together, I would be curious to see if anyone could make a case for internet providers to pay damages to any and all artists whose works were transferred through their services where the sending party did not have proper copyright.

[Marco Raaphorst]

The labels are getting rich from Spotify. They recieved millions upfront.

[platzangst]

Yes. You think one should be able to live off 4 hours of work (luxury or not), I don't. Case closed.

Okay, this cheap shot was too much to resist.

The problem is you're viewing this entirely as a matter of hours logged in, you and True, and you're all in a dudgeon that some people might not have to work as hard to get by. But this isn't about "4 hours of work", this is about the value of what that work produced.

As an example, if someone, some new unknown genius scientist, sat down and put his mind to it for four hours and came up with the cure for all cancer, that would be an immense boon to all humanity. Shouldn't a person who contributes that much of a good to the world be compensated appropriately? Would you deny him a comfortable life from that point on, because "blaaah four hours work no fair"?

"Spirit in the Sky" is a memorable, somewhat popular song - probably more memorable and popular than anything anyone here on ReasonTalk has had any connection to - and it is in that way a valuable contribution to the arts and society in general. Why should he not get something, enough to get by? The only way this argument against royalties you're giving makes any sense at all is to chalk it up to either greed or envy. Greed, in that perhaps someone wants to use the song for their own purposes, and make a buck off of Greenbaum's work without paying him (or any other such artist), or envy, in that people resent the idea that someone might be getting by while their own career demands more effort.

Is that it? Are you just mad that Greenbaum or others are doing better and can coast a little while you still have to hustle? If so, that's kind of petty. If not, however, you've really failed to make any convincing case why Greenbaum or anyone else getting royalties is such a bad, offensive thing. There's effective arguments that one can make for limiting copyright protection, but nobody here arguing against royalties actually makes those arguments, it's all about this obsession with the perceived lack of work.

[normen]

Okay, this cheap shot was too much to resist.

The problem is you're viewing this entirely as a matter of hours logged in, you and True, and you're all in a dudgeon that some people might not have to work as hard to get by. But this isn't about "4 hours of work", this is about the value of what that work produced.

As an example, if someone, some new unknown genius scientist, sat down and put his mind to it for four hours and came up with the cure for all cancer, that would be an immense boon to all humanity. Shouldn't a person who contributes that much of a good to the world be compensated appropriately? Would you deny him a comfortable life from that point on, because "blaaah four hours work no fair"?

"Spirit in the Sky" is a memorable, somewhat popular song - probably more memorable and popular than anything anyone here on ReasonTalk has had any connection to - and it is in that way a valuable contribution to the arts and society in general. Why should he not get something, enough to get by? The only way this argument against royalties you're giving makes any sense at all is to chalk it up to either greed or envy. Greed, in that perhaps someone wants to use the song for their own purposes, and make a buck off of Greenbaum's work without paying him (or any other such artist), or envy, in that people resent the idea that someone might be getting by while their own career demands more effort.

Is that it? Are you just mad that Greenbaum or others are doing better and can coast a little while you still have to hustle? If so, that's kind of petty. If not, however, you've really failed to make any convincing case why Greenbaum or anyone else getting royalties is such a bad, offensive thing. There's effective arguments that one can make for limiting copyright protection, but nobody here arguing against royalties actually makes those arguments, it's all about this obsession with the perceived lack of work.

Almost thought you went back to the "one job should pay the whole education" argument.. But no, I don't have a grudge on Greenbaum, you wanted an example for a one-hit wonder that didn't have to work again, I gave one (and yes, I'll resort to saying not having to work is luxury). I also didn't say that he shouldn't get anything for making that song - just that writing one song and then being able to retire is imo insane.

As for your other arguments, if somebody is able to make money off your music why aren't you? And if you are not able to do that why would you deserve that money? (This is btw what I exaggerated to "3 minutes of Spirit in the Sky with a black screen" in case you didn't get it.) If some movie made one of my songs famous I'd run with those credits and use them to make more money with my music.

Furthermore nobody said "its such a bad, offensive thing" - this is exactly why talking to you is such a drag. What some here (including me) said is that its completely out of sync with how the rest of the population has to deal with this topic. I also don't think that you should be able to create money from moving money without creating anything in between for that matter. See, if I express my opinion about this that doesn't endanger your world view, in fact the world currently works exactly how you want it to in that regard.

Having such a genius scientist as in your example retire after he did one good thing would be a shame, yes. Imagine Einstein would have gone "Guys, E=mc^2, kthxbye!"

Anyway, my "cheap shot" was bullseye, I didn't see you refute what I said, you just supplemented it. You DO think that 4 hours of work should be able to put you in a position to never having to do anything again, I still don't.

[platzangst]

Almost thought you went back to the "one job should pay the whole education" argument.. But no, I don't have a grudge on Greenbaum, you wanted an example for a one-hit wonder that didn't have to work again, I gave one (and yes, I'll resort to saying not having to work is luxury). I also didn't say that he shouldn't get anything for making that song - just that writing one song and then being able to retire is imo insane.

But you don't say why that's insane, you just seem to dislike it a lot.

As for your other arguments, if somebody is able to make money off your music why aren't you?

Well, in Greenbaum's case, all people wanted from him after "Spirit in the Sky" was more Spirit in the Sky. When he wouldn't or couldn't do that, everybody dropped him. What was he supposed to do? Regurgitate that one hit over and over? Somehow finance his own record company to put out his stuff? This pat "why aren't you?" elides right over the difference in connections and resources that large corporations have, that your average musician does not.

And if you are not able to do that why would you deserve that money?

But that goes both ways: why would they deserve that money, as well? What work would they have done? You've dodged the actual question I asked about who deserves it more, the million-dollar studio or the author of the song - unless you're implying the studio actually would deserve it more...

(This is btw what I exaggerated to "3 minutes of Spirit in the Sky with a black screen" in case you didn't get it.)

I still don't get it.

If some movie made one of my songs famous I'd run with those credits and use them to make more money with my music.

You might try. How, exactly? Because if it's that one song that's famous, what's going to happen? People will want to hear you crank out that one song. Will they really care or pay attention to your subsequent work? If you're lucky, perhaps - if not, you'll be playing state fairs on the strength of one song for the remainder of your career. The one song which you no longer get anything from.

Furthermore nobody said "its such a bad, offensive thing" - this is exactly why talking to you is such a drag. What some here (including me) said is that its completely out of sync with how the rest of the population has to deal with this topic.

Two things:

So it's out of sync, so what? This goes back to what I said about envy and resentment. Why should you care, unless it offends you in some way?

Furthermore, it's obvious you do care, and dislike it - you just called the practice "insane" above, in the same reply you try to say nobody says it's bad!

I also don't think that you should be able to create money from moving money without creating anything in between for that matter. See, if I express my opinion about this that doesn't endanger your world view, in fact the world currently works exactly how you want it to in that regard.

Not really sure what you're trying to say with that.

Having such a genius scientist as in your example retire after he did one good thing would be a shame, yes. Imagine Einstein would have gone "Guys, E=mc^2, kthxbye!"

Maybe, but who knows until after the fact? What if that had been it for Einstein? What if that had been the pinnacle of his achievements and his next theories were all about how cats are cute but their hair gets into everything? Isn't E=mc2 enough for one man? Should we have chucked him to the street if he hadn't had more to give?

And let's suppose my genius scientist did have more to contribute: should we then threaten him with starvation and homelessness, deny him a living if he can't knock another one out of the park - after curing cancer? That would be the height of ingratitude. "If you want to keep eating, you better whip up another discovery pronto, mister slacker!" Wouldn't one have a better chance of inspiration without the pressure of having to provide for one's next rent payment?

Anyway, my "cheap shot" was bullseye, I didn't see you refute what I said, you just supplemented it. You DO think that 4 hours of work should be able to put you in a position to never having to do anything again, I still don't.

Because it was 4 hours of excellent work, quality work. Work that endures long after the effort of creation is over. You talk about designing speaker systems. Well, not to be too belittling about it, but what about that could not be done by someone else with the appropriate training? Surely you're not the only one who does it. I don't have the knowledge to do that, but it doesn't sound as if I could not have gotten that knowledge, had I chosen that kind of path in life. There's nothing unique or magical about that.

By contrast, when was the last time you wrote a song as popular as "Spirit in the Sky"? Hit songs are elusive - try to make one by formula and you're likely to flop. That inspiration isn't something you can study or train for directly. You can't predict what an audience will fall in love with. So you're equating four hours of elusive inspiration with the four hours a part-timer might put in with McDonalds. Which, in my opinion, is a devaluation of the worth of music and artistic creation in general. If you can look at "Spirit in the Sky" as simply "four hours of work", then I have to question how much you actually value music, and how much you think of it as a rote, grinding job with no more soul in it than half a day of factory work.

[normen]

But you don't say why that's insane, you just seem to dislike it a lot.

Because if everybody would just have to work four hours in his life we'd not get anywhere.

Well, in Greenbaum's case, all people wanted from him after "Spirit in the Sky" was more Spirit in the Sky. When he wouldn't or couldn't do that, everybody dropped him. What was he supposed to do? Regurgitate that one hit over and over? Somehow finance his own record company to put out his stuff? This pat "why aren't you?" elides right over the difference in connections and resources that large corporations have, that your average musician does not.

Yes, in theory our great capitalist system should easily allow doing just that. Also, how would that company make millions solely off that song in the first place if there was no royalties / copyright issues?

But that goes both ways: why would they deserve that money, as well? What work would they have done? You've dodged the actual question I asked about who deserves it more, the million-dollar studio or the author of the song - unless you're implying the studio actually would deserve it more...

Yes, a movie company making a movie would deserve that money, if only for choosing the right song for the right scene. As for the theoretical record company, see above.

I still don't get it.

The movie would have made millions with or without that song. The song wouldn't have made that many sales without the movie. The MOVIE is what made millions, not the song - the movie didn't consist of three minutes of Spirit in the Sky with a black screen.

You might try. How, exactly? Because if it's that one song that's famous, what's going to happen? People will want to hear you crank out that one song. Will they really care or pay attention to your subsequent work? If you're lucky, perhaps - if not, you'll be playing state fairs on the strength of one song for the remainder of your career. The one song which you no longer get anything from.

If you dwell on that song (which you'd only do if there was any more money to be made of that song) then you play state fairs. Many smart one-hit wonders managed to easily get properly paid positions in music though. Because of that song, not with that song.

Two things:

So it's out of sync, so what? This goes back to what I said about envy and resentment. Why should you care, unless it offends you in some way?

Furthermore, it's obvious you do care, and dislike it - you just called the practice "insane" above, in the same reply you try to say nobody says it's bad!

Not envy or resentment - theres many other examples where I don't agree how money is made, yet I don't resent or kill myself over it, I just call it insane, that also answers this:

Not really sure what you're trying to say with that.

I don't say its "bad" that people do this - obviously they do because thats how our system works at this point - that is the insane part.

Maybe, but who knows until after the fact? What if that had been it for Einstein? What if that had been the pinnacle of his achievements and his next theories were all about how cats are cute but their hair gets into everything? Isn't E=mc2 enough for one man? Should we have chucked him to the street if he hadn't had more to give?

And let's suppose my genius scientist did have more to contribute: should we then threaten him with starvation and homelessness, deny him a living if he can't knock another one out of the park - after curing cancer? That would be the height of ingratitude. "If you want to keep eating, you better whip up another discovery pronto, mister slacker!" Wouldn't one have a better chance of inspiration without the pressure of having to provide for one's next rent payment?

BS, that person would definitely work in some lab getting a decent payment, no matter if he'd create more cures or not. Einstein didn't really have anything comparable to the two parts of his theory afterwards either but he sure did have a lot of work with others over the implications afterwards, until his death. Nobody like that ends up "in the streets" unless they expect to live off that one thing without doing anything anymore.

Because it was 4 hours of excellent work, quality work. Work that endures long after the effort of creation is over. You talk about designing speaker systems. Well, not to be too belittling about it, but what about that could not be done by someone else with the appropriate training? Surely you're not the only one who does it. I don't have the knowledge to do that, but it doesn't sound as if I could not have gotten that knowledge, had I chosen that kind of path in life. There's nothing unique or magical about that.

By contrast, when was the last time you wrote a song as popular as "Spirit in the Sky"? Hit songs are elusive - try to make one by formula and you're likely to flop. That inspiration isn't something you can study or train for directly. You can't predict what an audience will fall in love with. So you're equating four hours of elusive inspiration with the four hours a part-timer might put in with McDonalds. Which, in my opinion, is a devaluation of the worth of music and artistic creation in general. If you can look at "Spirit in the Sky" as simply "four hours of work", then I have to question how much you actually value music, and how much you think of it as a rote, grinding job with no more soul in it than half a day of factory work.

Lol, you just royally shat on hordes of musicians that created beautiful music that just didn't make it to the charts. You put stupid one-line three-chord pop songs above musical masterpieces just because they were forced into peoples brains in a movie or even a commercial. You say that Norman stealing Boogie Chillun from John Lee Hooker is a stroke of genius.

You can learn to create music as well - its not "elusive". I worked with so many composers over the years that are simply able to put out great music because they learned it and work on it. A "Hit" doesn't really have to do too much with the music, its how the music is presented to an audience. Obviously a bad song won't become a hit but any decent song can be made a "hit" with the right exposure. Its mainly pop artists without a proper background in music theory that make up the whole "magic" thing about this. Why? Because they think the magic fairy can make them millionaires that don't have to work a day in their lives anymore. Magiiiccc!

And then you proceed to be so elitist about music that you actually put the work of artisans that created magnificent buildings, beautiful gardens, lasting tools or even electro-acoustical installations that gave joy to thousands of people to the dirt and say its nothing in comparison. Yes, I do value music but I also value any other work (especially the ones I can't do), even down to the guy at the restaurant or even fast food stand doing his work perfectly - I'd suck at creating great sandwiches, keeping the whole establishment clean and pretty and still having a smile for every customer. You in turn say "well thats easy, I could do that" while in fact you couldn't and maybe that person handing you the sandwich would even play your ass off on every instrument you ever laid your hands on...

[platzangst]

Yes, in theory our great capitalist system should easily allow doing just that.

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.

Also, how would that company make millions solely off that song in the first place if there was no royalties / copyright issues?

A large company can make money with music in ways regular folks cannot. Spotify is an example of a large company that makes its money by its users paying a monthly fee to get music fed to their systems. Suppose a hit song goes into public domain. If it's popular, Spotify will have it on its site, people will download and hear it as part of the overall Spotify package. Having a wide selection of varied hits is what is part of the attraction of Spotify - that a person can hear the widest range of music without having to go to some other service to get some other song. So that hit song, along with the many thousands of other songs Spotify offers, is part of Spotify's money-generating system. The difference is, Spotify is currently obliged to pay copyright holders a license fee to use all the music they didn't create themselves. Spotify will get paid, regardless of whether the music they serve up is under copyright or not, because they sell the convenience of streaming. All that happens if works go into public domain is that the original creators don't even get the miniscule cut they now get, and Spotify's profits would increase.

Similarly, while a record label can't prevent someone from downloading a public domain song for free off of some filesharing service, they can market those works in ways that are not as easy to duplicate without a budget, like perhaps a 5-disc vinyl collection of hits or some other form of packaging or curation. (Public domain books still show up in bookstores and get sold. Theoretically, anyone could print up their own editions of public domain works and try to sell them; but not everyone can afford to do so. Publishers can profit off of public domain works simply by virtue of being able to spend more money.)

The movie would have made millions with or without that song. The song wouldn't have made that many sales without the movie. The MOVIE is what made millions, not the song - the movie didn't consist of three minutes of Spirit in the Sky with a black screen.

Okay, but as you say, they made the choice to select that song, for that moment, for that particular feel, that particular style. It may not have been a black screen, but it wasn't a silent film, either. Without the song, the movie would have been subtly different. The song contributes, otherwise they could have just picked any old stock background music from the vaults. If the studio values that style, that feel, enough to want it in their movie, why should they not compensate the person who created that element? If the numbers are right, and Greenbaum gets about ten grand if his song is placed in a high-profile film, that's the barest fraction of what the movies rake in, and so it's not as if Greenbaum is taking some kind of oppressive, profit-killing fee for his song's use.

Not envy or resentment - theres many other examples where I don't agree how money is made, yet I don't resent or kill myself over it, I just call it insane, that also answers this:

Not really sure what you're trying to say with that.

I don't say its "bad" that people do this - obviously they do because thats how our system works at this point - that is the insane part.

Again, there's nothing really to substantiate this other than envy. Why "insane"? The only thing you offer is that, "why, most other people have to still keep working!" That is the very definition of resentment and envy: that someone else gets something you decide they don't deserve. It's a little disingenuous to keep coming back to that point, that everybody else has to keep working but some pop stars might be able to eke out a threadbare sustenance from one song, call it insane, and then claim it's no big deal to you. You don't have to lose your mind over it to be resentful or envious, you just have to believe that you (or someone, it's possible to be envious or resentful on behalf of others) deserve it more.

Lol, you just royally shat on hordes of musicians that created beautiful music that just didn't make it to the charts.

If they were so beautiful, why aren't they more popular?

If that sounds flip, it's because saying "all these unknown people are better artists" is largely a matter of opinion. (I'd be willing to bet that you and I have wildly different tastes in music. And so why should I take your word that you know anything about all this supposedly better, beautiful music?) I'm not even that huge a fan of "Spirit in the Sky", but I recognize that it did what a lot of what I consider to be superior music did not - i.e., be successful. That's not "shitting on musicians", that's acknowledging reality.

You can learn to create music as well - its not "elusive". I worked with so many composers over the years that are simply able to put out great music because they learned it and work on it.

Yeah, whatever. I mean, this statement is largely unverifiable. Is this music so great? No way to know. Have I ever heard of these people? Have I ever heard their music, is it distinctive? Pardon me if I don't just take your word on this kind of statement.

A "Hit" doesn't really have to do too much with the music, its how the music is presented to an audience. Obviously a bad song won't become a hit but any decent song can be made a "hit" with the right exposure.

And most of such hits fade. Plenty of acts when I was growing up were popular, the next big thing, perhaps even had several years of success, and today people can't name the songs they did without a Wikipedia search. Those that endure, the ones that get continual constant recognition, are even rarer. "Spirit in the Sky", whatever you think of it, has that lasting quality. Not nearly to the same extent as, say, a lot of Beatles tunes, but I bet you it'll outlast the majority of "decent songs" that make up today's hits, and probably will outlast the bulk of your "hordes of musicians", too.

And then you proceed to be so elitist about music that you actually put the work of artisans that created magnificent buildings, beautiful gardens, lasting tools or even electro-acoustical installations that gave joy to thousands of people to the dirt and say its nothing in comparison. Yes, I do value music but I also value any other work (especially the ones I can't do), even down to the guy at the restaurant or even fast food stand doing his work perfectly - I'd suck at creating great sandwiches, keeping the whole establishment clean and pretty and still having a smile for every customer. You in turn say "well thats easy, I could do that" while in fact you couldn't and maybe that person handing you the sandwich would even play your ass off on every instrument you ever laid your hands on...

Ah, I was wondering when we were going to drift into ad hominem territory.

Look, I'll say it again in a different way. It's not that I'm saying "well, that's easy" - that's your imagination at work - but I'm saying that a lot of it is replaceable. It takes a certain set of skills to work anywhere, even fast food. But if the guy at the fast food counter quits, that doesn't mean the restaurant has to close up shop. The skills needed can be found or trained into another person and replaced with relative ease. More complicated professions require more training, such as, say, a surgeon. But even surgeons aren't so uncommon that they can't be replaced if need be. That's not saying "it's nothing" - I sure as hell couldn't be a surgeon - but it recognizes that a lot of work done is not so mysterious that it can't be done just as well by multiple people.

On the other hand, if you don't think "Spirit in the Sky" was all that big of a deal, if you think a "hit" can be made out of any decent song, then where's your hit? Surely by working around all these high-quality composers you've picked up enough savvy to craft a decent tune. Why are you not already living off the proceeds of your one hit? Prove me wrong! Crank one out in four hours and shock the world.

If you can't, then perhaps you could concede that to make a real hit, one that not just charts but that endures over time, requires something more ineffable that doesn't just happen with any "decent song" that comes down the pipe. And that, whatever it is, is what's difficult to replace. Major labels burn a lot of money in failed hitmaking attempts. Even Greenbaum himself was never able to get it that right ever again.

[normen]

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.

The "great" part is sarcastic, the rest isn't. If theres money to be made it should be possible to get the initial investment going, thats the whole POINT of capitalism.

A large company can make money with music in ways regular folks cannot. Spotify is an example of a large company that makes its money by its users paying a monthly fee to get music fed to their systems. Suppose a hit song goes into public domain. If it's popular, Spotify will have it on its site, people will download and hear it as part of the overall Spotify package. [...]

Yeah, now you're complaining about how companies act based on how it IS - which is how you apparently want it to be.. iTunes, Spotify etc. - their advantage is that they managed to make contracts around the whole copyright / royalties issue, not that they're big companies. Who would pay for Spotify if they only had public domain music?

Okay, but as you say, they made the choice to select that song, for that moment, for that particular feel, that particular style. It may not have been a black screen, but it wasn't a silent film, either. Without the song, the movie would have been subtly different. The song contributes, otherwise they could have just picked any old stock background music from the vaults. If the studio values that style, that feel, enough to want it in their movie, why should they not compensate the person who created that element? If the numbers are right, and Greenbaum gets about ten grand if his song is placed in a high-profile film, that's the barest fraction of what the movies rake in, and so it's not as if Greenbaum is taking some kind of oppressive, profit-killing fee for his song's use.

You keep implying that I say a musician should get NOTHING for making music - I just say that a musician shouldn't be able to live off ONE song he made.

Again, there's nothing really to substantiate this other than envy. Why "insane"? The only thing you offer is that, "why, most other people have to still keep working!" That is the very definition of resentment and envy: that someone else gets something you decide they don't deserve. It's a little disingenuous to keep coming back to that point, that everybody else has to keep working but some pop stars might be able to eke out a threadbare sustenance from one song, call it insane, and then claim it's no big deal to you. You don't have to lose your mind over it to be resentful or envious, you just have to believe that you (or someone, it's possible to be envious or resentful on behalf of others) deserve it more.

I don't know how else to explain it, sorry. As I said, you do think one should be able to live off 4 hours of work, I don't. Not because I envy those people but because (as I said already, I'll repeat it once and then let you come back to this again and again if you want) 4 hours of work is imo not enough for a human being to contribute to society - also not for your genius cancer-killer. I don't say other people "have to" work, I say everybody SHOULD work. I could sell my house and live off that money for the rest of my life - but I don't. I have no reason to be envious - I just don't think its right.

If we turn this around and say everybody only has to work 4 hours in his life do you think thats a great thing? Or do you say that devalues the mystical power of hit composers? Or do you simply say "that would lead to no good" - which I do?

If they were so beautiful, why aren't they more popular?

If that sounds flip, it's because saying "all these unknown people are better artists" is largely a matter of opinion. (I'd be willing to bet that you and I have wildly different tastes in music. And so why should I take your word that you know anything about all this supposedly better, beautiful music?) I'm not even that huge a fan of "Spirit in the Sky", but I recognize that it did what a lot of what I consider to be superior music did not - i.e., be successful. That's not "shitting on musicians", that's acknowledging reality.

I explained why you didn't hear their music. You didn't see that theater piece (or play that game or see that TV series) and no million dollar movie picked up that song, you didn't get that song subliminally imprinted it in a commercial either. Well actually maybe you did hear some of their music on TV, in a game or a theater piece, who knows..

Yeah, whatever. I mean, this statement is largely unverifiable. Is this music so great? No way to know. Have I ever heard of these people? Have I ever heard their music, is it distinctive? Pardon me if I don't just take your word on this kind of statement.

Obviously you don't listen any other music but whats in the charts based on what you say here. Of course I know that probably can't be but from what you say thats the only conclusion I can make.

And most of such hits fade. Plenty of acts when I was growing up were popular, the next big thing, perhaps even had several years of success, and today people can't name the songs they did without a Wikipedia search. Those that endure, the ones that get continual constant recognition, are even rarer. "Spirit in the Sky", whatever you think of it, has that lasting quality. Not nearly to the same extent as, say, a lot of Beatles tunes, but I bet you it'll outlast the majority of "decent songs" that make up today's hits, and probably will outlast the bulk of your "hordes of musicians", too.

...because it was picked up for a movie and made famous and the musical quality has been imprinted on peoples brains since the 40s. The thing is catchy because of the same reason Boogie Chillun and La Grange are, not because Greenbaum is such a genius. The riff and groove is basically public culture by now. This particular implementation of that feel is popular because of other reasons (like a movie).

Ah, I was wondering when we were going to drift into ad hominem territory.

Look, I'll say it again in a different way. It's not that I'm saying "well, that's easy" - that's your imagination at work - but I'm saying that a lot of it is replaceable. It takes a certain set of skills to work anywhere, even fast food. But if the guy at the fast food counter quits, that doesn't mean the restaurant has to close up shop. The skills needed can be found or trained into another person and replaced with relative ease. More complicated professions require more training, such as, say, a surgeon. But even surgeons aren't so uncommon that they can't be replaced if need be. That's not saying "it's nothing" - I sure as hell couldn't be a surgeon - but it recognizes that a lot of work done is not so mysterious that it can't be done just as well by multiple people.

On the other hand, if you don't think "Spirit in the Sky" was all that big of a deal, if you think a "hit" can be made out of any decent song, then where's your hit? Surely by working around all these high-quality composers you've picked up enough savvy to craft a decent tune. Why are you not already living off the proceeds of your one hit? Prove me wrong! Crank one out in four hours and shock the world.

If you can't, then perhaps you could concede that to make a real hit, one that not just charts but that endures over time, requires something more ineffable that doesn't just happen with any "decent song" that comes down the pipe. And that, whatever it is, is what's difficult to replace. Major labels burn a lot of money in failed hitmaking attempts. Even Greenbaum himself was never able to get it that right ever again.

Look up "ad hominem" in the dictionary. I was not referencing you but what you said. Your explicit example was my installations vs. Mr. Greenbaums creation - my installations being mundane while Spirit in the Sky being something ethereal. Thats elitist. Sure you could have learned to do what I do/did - would you create similarly successful/good installations? We don't know - I don't just apply knowledge from my education there. And you still imply that creating music is something "mysterious" - even the death of Mozart didn't mean music ceased to be. Musicians are just as replaceable as surgeons (or fast food staff) - it won't be exactly the same but it will still be. You're still not making a point about why musicians would be the ones being able to live off 4 hours of work - enduring time, pleasing people - many things do that.

And now you're the one taking cheap shots.. I am an audio engineer, I don't create music for a living - my "hits" are in the form of speaker installations, live concerts, musicals, mixes and the likes. I can't really fathom you really believe chart positions and record sales are the essential gauge for musical genius (if we may call that so - you should know what I mean, the thing that makes us like "hits" or simply our favorite music)..

I don't strive to make a "hit", if you do - you're doing it wrong. Get out of your basement and in contact with people who can give you exposure instead of hoping you're creating that ethereal, mystical, lasting "wonder" that automatically grants you money 'til you die. So yes, I still think a hit can be made of any decent song.

[challism]

Otherwise really, where else do you continuously get money for something you did once?

I read this question and couldn't help but answer it.

There are many types of residual incomes out there in the world.

Stock dividends, income properties, selling a published work (such as a book), movie/show business (directors, writers, producers, some actors, etc), selling digital products (software, mobile phone apps, ebooks, videos), monetized websites, monetized youtube videos, residual commissions (insurance sales, distribution/wholesale accounts), net-metering with a power company, inventions and patents, direct sales (MLM downline commissions and/or return customers who order directly from the company website), franchising a business.... and many more, I'm sure. These are just a few ideas off the top of my head in about a minute. More from a google search.... http://www.4hb.com/09mfresidualincome.html

I see nothing wrong with musicians/composers getting paid ridiculous amounts of money for a one time work. It saddens me to see how difficult it has become for a recording artist to make a living in this modern age. I earn some money every month from music because I found some great niche markets, but I don't expect to ever make Beatles kind of money. In fact, it really seems like those days are gone forever for most musicians.

[kitekrazy]

You might be shocked how artist are stealing from developers. Search about Carnage and Razer laptops. He had a cracked version of Sylenth in his tutorial. Meanwhile many artists will have cracked versions and own a license. So someone called him on his cracked Sylenth and he replied "wtf does it matter?" and Lennard Digital responded.