Whether the artist A gets paid for his work, solely depends on who will buy his work, and that is dependent on if his work fits the demand. At present, the companies that license A’s work are choosing the demand, whether it fits the market or not.

Historically, artists/musicians were patronized by an handful of aristocrats, and yet most of the famous artist/musicians would still need to make a living- whether it by Leonardo DaVinci designing weapons and drawing portraits of local aristocrats, or Mozart performing for an audience. In any case, the artists/musicians had to adjust their work to make a living. This culture has lived on, many years after their passing.

Now “artists”/musicians and even more so, cooperations, think that they should be able to choose what the buyer wants as well as have infinite control of works that have been produced.

I have translated interview of various bands from around the world during a “World Band Fest”, who think it’s “cool” to end their interview with a comment on how evil it is to “Pirate their music off the internet”, and that everyone should “buy” their new CD- and yet I can’t help but think “Who are you? You may be known in your backwater town, but not here”. The point being, is that no one will pay for a product that they do not demand, and limiting their choice only kills the demand.

When will people learn that if their “product” is not making money, maybe there is a problem on how it is sold.

Just my two cents

1. Anybody seeking to preserve (or tighten) the current legal mess — to put it bluntly — doesn’t give a damn about art, creativity, innovation, or anything else: it IS “all about the Benjamins” with them, and they’ll gleefully resort to having the State act as “Leg-breaker” for them, if they don’t get their cut.
I mean, come on — anybody who actually believes in copyright “protection” for almost a century beyond their own death is — how do I put this? Morally suspect? That’ll work.

2. I’d take the “future of music coalition” far more seriously if they were advocating that “work for hire” type contracts be abolished. If copyright really IS about “protecting the artists”, then it stands to reason that the artists shouldn’t have to sign away their precious, precious monopolies just to get distribution. To my way of thinking, the only ones whose efforts should be regarded as “work for hire” are: sound engineers and distributors. If you’re going to “brand” your product with the name of an artist, then that artist — NOT some weasel in a suit and tie — should get ownership of the master recordings.
(That is, of course, assuming that copyright ever DID benefit “the artists” — which has never historically been the case, as we’re all well aware…but their rhetoric is always about “the artists” being “protected” so I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.

3. The ultimate strike against any such “coalition” (and anybody who’d be a member of it) is that they conspicuously fail to say they won’t lobby for longer copyright terms in the future. That’s not good — to put it mildly. Everything else they say that they’re about stands or falls on whether they can be content with the monopoly privilege they have NOW, or whether they’ll claim to need “more” in the future.

The Eldred decision leaves the door for this WIDE OPEN, in that it explicitly allows Congress to arbitrarily extend copyright terms, RETROACTIVELY, at whim, just as long as it remains a “limited” time on the books. In other words, “infinity by increments.”

So no, the “Future of Music Coalition” isn’t just bullshit — it’s DANGEROUS bullshit, in that it’s just the Status Quo masquerading as reform.

Cheers!

But their applications are delayed by the parasites in charges of the major entertainment (but not entertaining) corporations.

Either they will step down or will be exterminated to let these solutions out.