Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Black Fox · Nov 8, 2003, 05:24 am

Hello, RebelWithanAK.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Really, when it comes down to it, it's a question of power, or who needs who more. I'm sure that if the artist had an effective way of promoting and distributing her own work she would do so without doing a deal with the company.

As to whether the company is exploiting the artist, it depends on the extent of the power situation I mentioned earlier. In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. After all, there are many artists who decide that they want to maintain control over their own work and do market and promote their work independently. I think it is very rare to have a situation where if the artist does not do a deal with that specific company, she will certainly starve.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> True, the company can do this. But you forget to mention that the company is taking a risk on doing the deal with the artist. What if after spending all that money, nothing happens? But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person.

Anyway, it seems that what you should be campaigning for is for artists to educate themselves on the need to study any contract that they are signing with a company so that they know what they are getting into.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote> It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right?

And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...)

Nov 8, 2003, 05:24 am	#67 (permalink) (top)
Black Fox Molten Ash Posts: 40	Hello, RebelWithanAK. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by By buying the rights to the artist's creative work, the company is already exploiting the artist.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Really, when it comes down to it, it's a question of power, or who needs who more. I'm sure that if the artist had an effective way of promoting and distributing her own work she would do so without doing a deal with the company. As to whether the company is exploiting the artist, it depends on the extent of the power situation I mentioned earlier. In most cases, the company does not compel the artist to do the deal - she enters into it voluntarily, being fully aware that there are other choices. After all, there are many artists who decide that they want to maintain control over their own work and do market and promote their work independently. I think it is very rare to have a situation where if the artist does not do a deal with that specific company, she will certainly starve. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The company can decide whether or not to advertise, produce, sell or lease the rights to yet another party, and the artist must comply. What happens if the stuff goes out of print (the company's decision) and the artist wants it produced? The company can (a) say no, and the artist is legally outta luck, (b) lease the rights back to the artist at an additional cost, or © sell the rights to another distributor not of the artist's choosing.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> True, the company can do this. But you forget to mention that the company is taking a risk on doing the deal with the artist. What if after spending all that money, nothing happens? But it doesn't seem fashionable to look at a relationship from the point of view of the more powerful person. Anyway, it seems that what you should be campaigning for is for artists to educate themselves on the need to study any contract that they are signing with a company so that they know what they are getting into. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The question is, should it be a commodity or an inalienable right?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's not as simple as that. If you consider a piece of music, so much work goes into making it. There are the singers, the instrumentalists, the arrangers, the producers and the songwriter. How do you decide who of this lot should have the IP as her inalienable right? And if companies see that there is no future reward for taking a risk on an up-and-coming star (because the star will own the rights and money for her own music), there will be less of an incentive to promote the musician. (Come to think of it, that's not a bad thing - perhaps we will get less overhyped musicians. But that's just my personal opinion...)