Is the Internet Stealing from Artist?

[Digitus]

I know this sort of thing has been discussed ad nausem, but the idea of musicians not getting paid while companies make off like fat cats, is really disturbing!

David Byrne Article

Content Creators Coalition

[Aquila]

Of course it is. Both by the ways Mr Byrne pointed out in his article, and also by the vast devaluation of music and other content through mass consumption brought on by smart portable media.

[True]

Honestly, I think what we are seeing is simply the bursting of a bubble. If you think about it, licensed distribution is a rather unnatural way to make money. A musician makes a recording -- just a relatively small amount of time put into it -- and reaps the rewards for the rest of his life. Outside the entertainment industry, when does that ever happen? Most of the time if you want to keep making money, you have to keep producing. But entertainers somehow expect the money to come rolling in long after the effort was expended.

I don't look at it that way. As an entertainer, I expect to make the bulk of my money (in that regard) by going out and entertaining people -- live. If they want to buy something to take with them, that's icing on the cake. So it seems to me that the reason this whole "Internet is stealing from us" business has become such an issue is that musicians have strayed so far from their roots, they've forgotten what has historically made music so integral to our society in the first place.

Notice I've been talking about entertainers here. If we're talking about artists, then I think that's a non-starter. Since when do artists make much money in their lifetimes?

[EnochLight]

And yet, it's been - what - over 15 years since the Internet really took off in the mainstream? And while piracy is very much still a problem, there has never been more legitimate ways to digitally acquire music (whether through subscription streaming or pay-for-download). I get what Byrne is saying, but there are still more new artists (ahem, entertainers) coming out every year making just as much music - if not more since the democratizing of music production - than ever. I do agree that being a "career musician" has never been more difficult. I wonder where the Lady Gagas, Taylor Swifts, Drakes, and The Weekends of today will be in 20 years? Indie musicians?

Still, as a consumer of music - it's never been better. My iPhone is my primary music delivery platform, and I love it. I have a Spotify account, but I also purchase music still (though admittedly, it's been a while).

[normen]

I agree with what @True said, even if you wrote a hit that thousands of people hear decades after the fact - does that song belong to the guy who wrote it more than to the thousands that experienced so many moments with it? Still - copyright, patents etc. - its not the only place where this happens and I do pay for music when I download it - since its as easy as launching Kazaa

[platzangst]

Honestly, I think what we are seeing is simply the bursting of a bubble. If you think about it, licensed distribution is a rather unnatural way to make money. A musician makes a recording -- just a relatively small amount of time put into it -- and reaps the rewards for the rest of his life. Outside the entertainment industry, when does that ever happen? Most of the time if you want to keep making money, you have to keep producing. But entertainers somehow expect the money to come rolling in long after the effort was expended.

I don't look at it that way. As an entertainer, I expect to make the bulk of my money (in that regard) by going out and entertaining people -- live. If they want to buy something to take with them, that's icing on the cake. So it seems to me that the reason this whole "Internet is stealing from us" business has become such an issue is that musicians have strayed so far from their roots, they've forgotten what has historically made music so integral to our society in the first place.

Notice I've been talking about entertainers here. If we're talking about artists, then I think that's a non-starter. Since when do artists make much money in their lifetimes?

Honestly, I think this is a toxic way to look at things - it presumes, for one thing, some limited functions of recordings, and artistry, and so on.

Outside the entertainment industry, incidentally, we have things like patents to protect the works of people. The idea of the patent and the copyright is, in fact, to encourage people to produce - because if you write a song, or invent a gizmo, and some other bozo can just take those things and run off with them, leaving you nothing, then, well, what incentive do you have to create further works? The love of creation itself is a poor dietary substitute. The original copyright duration was to allow artists and authors to have a chance to profit from their own work before larger moneyed interests could swoop in and out-produce the creators. Do musicians not deserve to get money from the recordings they make for their entire lives? Fine, but then that means that iTunes or Spotify or whatever will be able to use those songs to make money for themselves, without compensating the artists at all. How is that more palatable?

Then there's this quasi-elitist idea that music matters most when it's performed live - I mean, if that's what's important to you, great, but please don't presume upon this notion for all artists, or even all consumers. Think of the experimental nature of many Beatles recordings, which would have been nearly impossible to duplicate live. And for my money, I'm not really impressed when a "live" performer comes out on stage to hit a couple buttons on their laptop to trigger a pre-programmed sequence. Sometimes, therefore, a recording is a superior work in a superior venue. My own music often strays into abstract, atmospheric soundscapes which I'm sure would be just a massive hit on the dancefloor if I had to perform live any music from which I hoped to earn any profit. Not to mention that putting on an interesting live show requires equipment and effort and added expense - just because some folks think an artist shouldn't actually profit from their own recordings.

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit harsh here, but as a person who's seen the industry and market shift over several decades, I'm really put off by this creeping theory that artists should just relax about Internet theft and go perform live because that's somehow the ideal form of music to some folks. I might be more tolerant of it if it wasn't one of the ongoing justifications from non-artists about why they don't want to actually pay money for music recordings and, you know, actually support the people whose work they say they love. There's a lot that, boiled down to the truth, is actually "I'm too cheap to actually pay for the music I want, so screw the artists."

[normen]

The point wasn't that a composer can't take any money to create music - why would he do that in the first place then? The point is that a lifetime of payment for one song you wrote is unreasonable. If a synth has to be bought, a studio paid and the education of the musician has to be paid as well then OBVIOUSLY there will have to be some money coming from that. So he gets, say, 5000$ for that song, the musicians get 1000$ each, the studio gets another 500$ and thats it. Same for patents. Once the research is paid for and some money was made off the invention that should be it. Otherwise really, where else do you continuously get money for something you did once?

To take your example, where would the incentive to create new things come from? In fact it works the exact opposite way like it is now. Companies force the market to continue to use their product using the monetary power they gained from the invention. Musicians and producers dominate markets with the enormous amount of influence and money they gained from their creations.

And people do pay for the music if they like the artist. Its the fault of the music business (again sticking to their guns) that they didn't act on the fact that people can get music WAY more conveniently than going out and buying a CD (or copying a tape over at their friends place for that matter). They sat there and completely ignored that while basically expecting people to still go out and get that CD "or my lawyer comes and gets you". As soon as it was easy to buy music online (iTunes) people did just that.

Finally, live performances (even though for EDM artists this term seems to be like a red rag to a bull) are a much wider concept. Yes, the guy behind the turntables pressing play IS a live performance and he should get money for being there, possibly endorsing red bull or whatnot.. If somebody else does that with your material then yes, THAT person should be paid instead.

[EnochLight]

even if you wrote a hit that thousands of people hear decades after the fact - does that song belong to the guy who wrote it more than to the thousands that experienced so many moments with it?

Well yes, of course it does. Just because thousands of people hear the song and enjoy it doesn't automatically transfer ownership to them (aside from the copy they paid for). The person who wrote it should always own it, unless they choose to sell their ownership.

[normen]

Well yes, of course it does. Just because thousands of people hear the song and enjoy it doesn't automatically transfer ownership to them (aside from the copy they paid for). The person who wrote it should always own it, unless they choose to sell their ownership.

I explicitly tried to avoid the word "own" to get to a more metaphysical explanation - apparently that didn't work ^^ If your mom tells you to be a good boy and you are a good boy is your mom to be credited more than you are?

[True]

this is a toxic way to look at things

It's toxic to look at things the way they have been throughout recorded history, up until less than 100 years ago? I contend your view is the one that is toxic. Your view is the one that is causing division. Your view is the one that is causing grief. I'm advocating a method that worked for millions of musicians for thousands of years.

Almost all of the most famous composers throughout history made their living primarily through either performing their work or continuously generating output. One-hit wonders did not live in luxury 300 years ago.

I make money programming websites. It would be utterly ludicrous to expect to write a single website and then retire off the money I would make charging people who visited it. But somehow that's how people expect the music industry to work. And then they get all bent out of shape when it doesn't work out that way.

Again, it is that line of thinking that is toxic. And, quite frankly, it's lazy. Musicians are afraid of having to go out there and face an audience multiple times a week to make a living; they'd rather just sign with a label, get a mega-hit and buy a mansion. Oh, but people don't want to pay for your mansion. Welcome to the way it works for the entire rest of the population. So quit whining and go out there and earn this week's paycheck...just like everyone else.

[EnochLight]

Well yes, of course it does. Just because thousands of people hear the song and enjoy it doesn't automatically transfer ownership to them (aside from the copy they paid for). The person who wrote it should always own it, unless they choose to sell their ownership.

I explicitly tried to avoid the word "own" to get to a more metaphysical explanation - apparently that didn't work ^^ If your mom tells you to be a good boy and you are a good boy is your mom to be credited more than you are?

Not exactly sure that's the same thing. I'm merely of the philosophy that one's music production (whether you are the sole artist or credited writer) belongs to oneself. Selling copies of the song doesn't mean the original artist gives up the rights of ownership, is all. No matter how many people listen to it or enjoy it decades later..

[normen]

Not exactly sure that's the same thing. I'm merely of the philosophy that one's music production (whether you are the sole artist or credited writer) belongs to oneself. Selling copies of the song doesn't mean the original artist gives up the rights of ownership, is all. No matter how many people listen to it or enjoy it decades later..

Yes, I agree with what you say, its what the law says. But its still not what I meant - the moment back in the day when you laughed with your friend about the joke he made - does that moment belong to him because he made the joke? If you're inclined to say "well no but the joke does" - how would that joke work if he had told it when no one was around? Or to try it another way would you take it seriously if some artist told you to stop listening to "your song" that you have with your loved one just because its "his"? Is the song that much part of the person that did it that you stop listening to it because he's now a wife-beating alcoholic, rendering all associations you have with that song invalid? Don't know how else I could try and explain what I mean by "belong to" and I guess I should stop trying now

To get back on track about the "real world" and money, you can see what is happening with all those artists that try to take every bootleg of their work down from youtube - they cease to exist for a whole generation. Others who have loads of material about them on youtube will be worshipped for decades still and gain new fans - and if they really need some money could easily go out and play some concerts. But I think being recognized for your work is what most artists are actually after. The biggest bigots are those who want their darn PRO money for their decades old song and then in concerts complain that they're so bored when they have to play THAT song again..

[platzangst]

this is a toxic way to look at things

It's toxic to look at things the way they have been throughout recorded history, up until less than 100 years ago? I contend your view is the one that is toxic. Your view is the one that is causing division. Your view is the one that is causing grief. I'm advocating a method that worked for millions of musicians for thousands of years.

Except it didn't. It worked well, for a relatively small number of musicians - those with patrons and sponsors, those who composed symphonies at the request of the rich and powerful (and certainly not millions). In some ways, there's not a lot of difference between that and signing with a big record label - the music is controlled by those richer than you.

That's what you want to go back to? Well, that's great for you, but kindly let the rest of us evolve something better. If capitalism hasn't been working out the greatest, that's no reason to slide all the way back to feudalism.

Almost all of the most famous composers throughout history made their living primarily through either performing their work or continuously generating output.

Again, for the rich.

One-hit wonders did not live in luxury 300 years ago.

And they don't now! Name one. There is no artist out there who has made one hit and then retired with some vault of money like Scrooge McDuck - that's the myth that the industry likes to sell (and that anti-artist types love to believe). Actual one-hit wonders either follow up their hits with a mediocre career, just scraping by, or they get out of the biz altogether, and supplement their real day jobs with modest royalty checks, which get more and more modest as time goes on and memory fades.

And you would deny them even that, because you think they don't "deserve" all that money you imagine they get for their one burst of luck and genius.

[Digitus]

this is a toxic way to look at things

It's toxic to look at things the way they have been throughout recorded history, up until less than 100 years ago? I contend your view is the one that is toxic. Your view is the one that is causing division. Your view is the one that is causing grief. I'm advocating a method that worked for millions of musicians for thousands of years.

Almost all of the most famous composers throughout history made their living primarily through either performing their work or continuously generating output. One-hit wonders did not live in luxury 300 years ago.

I make money programming websites. It would be utterly ludicrous to expect to write a single website and then retire off the money I would make charging people who visited it. But somehow that's how people expect the music industry to work. And then they get all bent out of shape when it doesn't work out that way.

Again, it is that line of thinking that is toxic. And, quite frankly, it's lazy. Musicians are afraid of having to go out there and face an audience multiple times a week to make a living; they'd rather just sign with a label, get a mega-hit and buy a mansion. Oh, but people don't want to pay for your mansion. Welcome to the way it works for the entire rest of the population. So quit whining and go out there and earn this week's paycheck...just like everyone else.

I sort of look at it like this, when I upload my illustrations to sell on microstock sites, I continued to get paid for my images as long as people continue to download them. In essence, I continue to receive payments for images that I created one time for as long as those images exist and continue to be downloaded. I don't have to keep recreating the exact same illustrations over and over again in order for them to retain value. The hard work has been completed, and I deserve to get paid as long as people value and continue to download my work. Why should it be any different for other artists? Music production is hard work and it's very time consuming. The rewards for an artist should be ongoing for as long as the produced product continues to be consumed. These streaming sites owe their very existence to the artist that provide them with their content and yet these artist aren't getting paid in a commensurate manner. How in the world is that acceptable? I'm sure you would not be happy if your employer decided to pay you just 5 dollars a week and told you to just deal with it.

[avasopht]

But this has nothing to do with the internet or consumers devaluing music, but with publishers taking the biggest cut.

Power is often abused. Spotify makes nearly $10Bn /yr and publishers are earning well from it.

I also think the expectation to be paid devalues music making itself. There are lots of great things I can create. I mean, I could create my own music streaming service, or an online Role Playing Game based around the perils of self published music but doing so doesn't grant me money. I still need to market my product, refine it to suit the users and also convince users their time and money is worth being spent here.

Being paid can give you the freedom to spend all of your time making more music if you please. Bear in mind that giving away your songs for free (as with games and apps) is what is necessary to get enough exposure to monetise 99% of the time.

It's a tough cookie to crumble, but I like to make music thinking the value is the music, not the monetisation.

[normen]

And they don't now! Name one.

Norman Greenbaum. Doesn't live in luxury but he actually only had one hit song and never had to work afterwards - which is luxury for more than 80% of the worlds population.

[buddard]

This is a bit long, but well worth watching if you're interested in this topic:

[True]

Except it didn't. It worked well, for a relatively small number of musicians - those with patrons and sponsors, those who composed symphonies at the request of the rich and powerful (and certainly not millions). In some ways, there's not a lot of difference between that and signing with a big record label - the music is controlled by those richer than you.

You have a very narrow viewpoint. Yes, some of the most famous composers had sponsors. Yes, those are the ones whose output has been preserved. And whoever was paying their salary, they had to keep it up to make a living.

But as you point out, that was a relatively small number of musicians. The vast majority of musicians were the ones playing music in pubs and saloons and on the side of the road, making a simple honest living, just like everyone else. And Johann wasn't complaining that Francois was singing his composition over in Paris without giving him a royalty. They made their living just like everyone else: by continuously working and not expecting payment for something they produced 40 years earlier.

One-hit wonders did not live in luxury 300 years ago.

And they don't now! Name one. There is no artist out there who has made one hit and then retired with some vault of money

I imagine Los del Rio has been doing pretty well on the money off "Macarena", and I'm sure there are others, but it was not my intent to imply that Vanilla Ice necessarily retired off the money he made for "Ice Ice Baby". But he was certainly living in luxury for quite a while. That's what I'm saying didn't happen a long time ago.

Actual one-hit wonders ... follow up their hits with a mediocre career ... with modest royalty checks, which get more and more modest as time goes on and memory fades.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Again, just like everyone else.

And you would deny them even that, because you think they don't "deserve" all that money you imagine they get for their one burst of luck and genius.

My main point of contention is not so much that musicians get royalties -- it's that they complain about it. I have a friend who put his daughter through college with a little nothing song that got 30 seconds of screen time in a nothing B-grade horror movie that became a cult hit in Japan. Good for him, but in what other industry would that even make sense?

All I have said, and all I continue to say, is that musicians should be out there performing music. That should be their focus. Anything that takes their focus off that is toxic not only to them but to the livelihood of musicians worldwide. I can't tell you how many people I hear saying, "You can't make money playing guitar." Sure you can. You just can't live like a rock star playing guitar. But if you stop trying to hit it big and focus on being good, you'll discover there are ways to make as much as a school teacher, who generally are able to make it by even in the low-paying USA. You will never convince me otherwise because I have known plenty who do. They aren't rich, but they make a living doing what they love, and they get very little money from royalties.

So what exactly are people complaining about?

[True]

The rewards for an artist should be ongoing for as long as the produced product continues to be consumed.

I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't. But what work is being consumed? The composition? The recording? And what is a reasonable time frame to continue to be paid for either of those?

But again, all is isn't really my point. It's this:

I'm sure you would not be happy if your employer decided to pay you just 5 dollars a week and told you to just deal with it.

You're comparing apples to oranges, and that is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. If I want to get paid for designing websites, I have to show up for work. I have to show up every day. I have to continuously generate new output. As soon as I stop doing that, I'll be making even less than $5 a day. Because that's how the real world works.

What I am saying is this: Musicians should get paid what they are legally entitled to be paid, but they shouldn't expect that to be a significant portion of their income. If you're living off royalties, you aren't an artist because you've sold out commercially; and you aren't an entertainer because you are no longer out there entertaining. So what exactly are you?

[platzangst]

The vast majority of musicians were the ones playing music in pubs and saloons and on the side of the road, making a simple honest living, just like everyone else. And Johann wasn't complaining that Francois was singing his composition over in Paris without giving him a royalty. They made their living just like everyone else: by continuously working and not expecting payment for something they produced 40 years earlier.

And your assumption seems to be that, given the choice, that's how they would prefer it to be. I submit that being ignorant of a better way is what kept such people from "not expecting" royalties from their creations. But you're doing, what: comparing apples to oranges. Francois singing Johann's song in some other city wasn't going to impact Johann's livelihood. But the 21st century doesn't have the luxury of isolation - if I write a song and you sing it, our respective versions compete directly with each other, worldwide. Why then should you not pay me a royalty? If you want to tell musicians to just go out and perform on a regular basis, then would it not be fair for me to then tell you to write your own damn song?

But the point of copyright is not so much to protect musicians from musicians, but to protect musicians from publishers. If I write a song, and EMI hears it and goes, "hmm, we could make some money off that, throw it at one of our pre-packaged singers and we'll flood the radio with it," only copyright prevents them from shutting me out entirely. If a song is popular enough, someone is going to be making money off of it somehow, and if it's not the creator, you can bet that some well-financed company is going to wring every last buck from it.

There is no artist out there who has made one hit and then retired with some vault of money

I imagine Los del Rio has been doing pretty well on the money off "Macarena", and I'm sure there are others, but it was not my intent to imply that Vanilla Ice necessarily retired off the money he made for "Ice Ice Baby". But he was certainly living in luxury for quite a while. That's what I'm saying didn't happen a long time ago.

There is so much that is patently ridiculous about this, where do I start?

First off, a long time ago a composer would be commissioned by some wealthy patron to compose things, and would get paid large sums of money to do so, and would live off those earnings - for a time, depending on expenses - and then have to repeat that process. (Or find a continuous patron that would essentially pay them a living salary for just being a musician.) If you had a million dollars drop in your lap today, you could live off of that for a while - but not indefinitely. And Vanilla Ice, does he live in luxury today? What is he even doing? He's getting arrested in Florida while trying to maintain some tiny touring career, and one can assume that the bulk of his luxury has been spent. What does "quite a while" mean, anyway? A couple years? So not only do you not really have a clue about how well musicians live off their works today, you seem to be unaware that similar living styles happened throughout history.

I mean, it's accurate to say that you "imagine" Los del Rio has been doing pretty well, because imagination seems to be where you dredge up these nuggets. Is Los del Rio sitting back and sponging off all their Macarena money? Apparently not, they're still active and touring, producing albums - hardly the kind of freeloading wastrels you seem to think one-hit wonders turn out to be.

My main point of contention is not so much that musicians get royalties -- it's that they complain about it. I have a friend who put his daughter through college with a little nothing song that got 30 seconds of screen time in a nothing B-grade horror movie that became a cult hit in Japan. Good for him, but in what other industry would that even make sense?

Drug companies hold patents on formulas that can earn millions for many years before becoming publicly available. Many an invention has financed its inventor's lifestyle over decades. Pick the right stock investment at the right time and you can have a sudden fortune to sustain you for life. These things happen in many industries, apparently far more than you're aware of.

So what exactly are people complaining about?

What musicians complain about is not getting a decent share of royalties, compared to what everyone else is getting. I wonder if you even read the Byrne article, because he addresses that very point - that musicians are getting a pittance compared to what music publishers like EMI and sites like Spotify make from the works of those same musicians. Do you think the labels and streaming sites deserve to get more money than the artists themselves? Are you that against the idea of continuing royalties that you're willing to let corporations take the lion's share of them?

All I have said, and all I continue to say, is that musicians should be out there performing music.

And I continue to say, screw that noise, I refuse to accept your edict on what musicians "should" be doing.

That should be their focus. Anything that takes their focus off that is toxic not only to them but to the livelihood of musicians worldwide.

You know, you're not particularly clear on how any of this is actually a detriment to other musicians. One gets the sense that you think the majority of musicians out there are all being constantly tormented by excessive royalties. "Won't someone please save us from the money??"

The only other thing is that you have some kind of purist ideal of how a musician should behave, and that condescending crap can go right out the window. Fortunately, the musical world can and does exist well outside the narrow shoebox you want to confine it to.

[True]

And your assumption seems to be that, given the choice, that's how they would prefer it to be.

No, you are the one making the assumption. My whole point has been that musicians prefer to get a mega-hit and retire on the money. In fact, I think I've come flat out and said as much. That is what they prefer, but I find that attitude to be unrealistic, selfish and lazy.

Why then should you not pay me a royalty? If you want to tell musicians to just go out and perform on a regular basis, then would it not be fair for me to then tell you to write your own damn song?

At what point did I argue otherwise? You are creating straw-man arguments here. All I said was that musicians should be focused on performing music, not on legal wranglings to find ways around it. That doesn't necessarily mean we don't have copyright laws, just that, as I have said, musicians complain about not being able to make money playing music when what they really mean is they can't become millionaires by getting a little airplay.

And I continue to say, screw that noise, I refuse to accept your edict on what musicians "should" be doing.

Get over yourself. I never declared an edict. I said it's a toxic place to put your focus, and I stand behind that statement. If you want to toxify your life, go right ahead. For those with an open mind, I offered my opinion.

One gets the sense that you think the majority of musicians out there are all being constantly tormented by excessive royalties.

You're right: I've only seen one get that sense.

The only other thing is that you have some kind of purist ideal of how a musician should behave, and that condescending crap can go right out the window. Fortunately, the musical world can and does exist well outside the narrow shoebox you want to confine it to.

Fair warning: Your attitude has turned this into pure entertainment for me. So I may blur the line between serious and egging you on.

But in regard to your last statement, I'm not trying to force anything to be anything. That is your (over)reaction to what I'm saying.

[normen]

I mean, it's accurate to say that you "imagine" Los del Rio has been doing pretty well, because imagination seems to be where you dredge up these nuggets. Is Los del Rio sitting back and sponging off all their Macarena money? Apparently not, they're still active and touring, producing albums - hardly the kind of freeloading wastrels you seem to think one-hit wonders turn out to be.

Greenbaum, Norman.

[platzangst]

Greenbaum, Norman.


Doesn't live in luxury but he actually only had one hit song and never had to work afterwards - which is luxury for more than 80% of the worlds population.

Yeah, some context:

Greenbaum's career stalled after that one song (incidentally, he had a few minor charting singles before Spirit in the Sky) and he was out of the music business for a time, working as a cook - and only when his work was used in high-profile movies starting in the late 80s did his fortunes reverse. So for 15-plus years his one hit wasn't getting him squat. And his "luxury" is a two-bedroom apartment, wow. (I like how you drag in "the world" to try and prop him up as some kind of moneybags.)

Let's analyze: I assume you feel he doesn't deserve that basic level of income from his work? But what creates that income? When high-profile movies and other placements use that song. So you think they should be just free to use his work, make millions off the films his song appears in, but not pay him anything, because, well, time passes! Perfect! Let's let big business keep all its money where it belongs - in its own pocket - and let them sponge off of Greenbaum's work, instead of lazy old Greenbaum!

Oh look, internet, he's been injured and is in the hospital! I bet all those movies studios are going to rush right in and pay his medical bills!

[normen]

I like how you drag in "the world" to try and prop him up as some kind of moneybags.

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.

[jonheal]

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.