Cliff Richard will lose royalties

[BOB.DOLE]

who wants to copy this trash anyway is music is garbage and most of all who wants to listen to this dribble.

 

[keyplayer]

It depends on several things, not least of all the size of audience that the radio play receives. All stations send their playlists to the PRS, who then divide the royalty fund among their members on a sliding scale. The more airplay you get, the higher the portion of the fund received.

 

[markie]

If that amount of money is what they get lets make our own song i'll get the ball rolling,


f##k the D.I.S.C.O song , we'll go with this one.


D.I.Y.N.O.T























markie have a word with yourself, give yourself a slap

 

[Antwerpman]

don't you think it is strange that I could invent a cure for cancer or an endless supply or green energy and yet I could only protect that invention and profit from it for 25 years through a patent, even though the implications for greater mankind would be huge, and yet someone singing about a stupid summer holiday can profit from their twittering for 50 years and then STILL be pi$$ed off that it is not enough?

I think they should think themselves lucky to be in such a priviledged postion and stop bloody moaning

 

[Softus]

Strange is one way of putting it; fu**ed up is another!

Hurrah for Antwerpman

BTW, the way that copies of music are sold (and stolen) seems destined for irrevocable change, what with all the digital Interweb smacking stuff around the globe these days, so CR, if indeed he is moaning, might wish to ponder on the extreme good fortune of the stars of his era.

 

[hermes]

If tables had no value there would be no tables.

Even the most sh*tty table has a functional value, but we've been talking about monetary value hermes.

You can't distinguish. If a table has value then someone somewhere would pay for it. If furniture did not have monetary value then furniture-makers would not make them. The same would apply for a song, I expect, as long as someone wants to listen to it then someone would buy it.

Music has value if people enjoy it, even if it is just a few lines on a sheet in your hand or a few notes in someones head.

And a CD has value when it's in its case, like a table has value even when you're not sitting at it.

Yes I agree. When we are talking about copyright I don't think it matters what form the music is in.

Laws are not always right.

However, the system that allows laws to be created and changed is right, so what do you do to change the laws that you think are wrong?

I don't think the system that creates the law is either right or wrong. It sometimes makes good laws, it sometimes makes bad ones, depending on where you are standing. There may be better systems out there.

I was responding to softus saying that it is right to observe copyright for 50 years because it is the law. I was merely saying that just because something is law doesn't mean it is right. It used to be legal to keep slaves. Is that right?

Again, this is not a moral dilemma. It's interesting that all of the analogies that are being drawn are highly emotive, e.g. war, slavery, Council Tax - do you really believe that the number of pennies from the sale of a CD, or the playing of a track in public, that end up in Cliff's hands is as important an issue to be Christian about as whether or not Tony Blair should be allowed to get away with the illegal decision to send professional killers to another country?

No I dont, I was using extreme examples to illustrate the point that something is not necessarily right because it is the law. If you want a more trivial example, there are a few round here who think that the law which says you can be prosecuted for driving at 41mph down a straight, deserted dual carriageway is wrong.

 

[Softus]

You can't distinguish. If a table has value then someone somewhere would pay for it. If furniture did not have monetary value then furniture-makers would not make them. The same would apply for a song, I expect, as long as someone wants to listen to it then someone would buy it.

It doesn't happen often, but you've succeeded in baffling me. I don't feel motivated to rake over the topic, so I'll just agree with you on this point.

I don't think the system that creates the law is either right or wrong. It sometimes makes good laws, it sometimes makes bad ones, depending on where you are standing. There may be better systems out there.

Hm, well everyone who votes at a general election is expressing a view of whether the system is right or wrong. And the fact that it can generate bad laws is irrelevant as long as it provides a mechanism for correcting them, which it does - as well as there being parliamentary review, the judiciary may choose to ignore the letter of the law and make a ruling based on the spirit of the law and its overriding objective.

No I dont, I was using extreme examples to illustrate the point that something is not necessarily right because it is the law.

This is a good illustration of my opinion that extreme examples are rarely useful.

...there are a few round here who think that the law which says you can be prosecuted for driving at 41mph down a straight, deserted dual carriageway is wrong.

You have a point - if we had a system that provided one policeman for every car on the road, then of course the prevailing conditions could be taken into account, but the current law is the the only practical solution that anyone has managed to conjure up. Can you imagine a better comprimise? One that could actually be implemented, bearing in mind the potential cost of capturing and measuring the ambient light, the condition of the road, and the volume of traffic at the time of an incident?

Returning to the question that you give the impression of dodging, do you, or the "few round here" who believe the law to be wrong, actually do anything about it?

 

[hermes]

You can't distinguish. If a table has value then someone somewhere would pay for it. If furniture did not have monetary value then furniture-makers would not make them. The same would apply for a song, I expect, as long as someone wants to listen to it then someone would buy it.

It doesn't happen often, but you've succeeded in baffling me. I don't feel motivated to rake over the topic, so I'll just agree with you on this point.

The point I'm making is that if someone wants something enough, whether it's a table or a Cliff Richard single, then they will pay for it and so it has a monetary value. If you find this baffling then that's fine but I think it makes you seem childish when you start being condescending or sarcastic.

 

[Softus]

The point I'm making is that if someone wants something enough, whether it's a table or a Cliff Richard single, then they will pay for it and so it has a monetary value. If you find this baffling then that's fine but I think it makes you seem childish when you start being condescending or sarcastic.

Precisely what about this:

It doesn't happen often, but you've succeeded in baffling me. I don't feel motivated to rake over the topic, so I'll just agree with you on this point.

...was condescending or sarcastic?

I agreed with you FFS

--------------------------------

Returning to the question that you give the impression of dodging, do you, or the "few round here" who believe the law to be wrong, actually do anything about it?

 

[hermes]

Returning to the question that you give the impression of dodging, do you, or the "few round here" who believe the law to be wrong, actually do anything about it?

I was not intending to dodge the question as it did not really seem relevant as I'm not saying I disagree with the copyright law, but I am not without voice on the subject of unjust laws, I can complain about them down the pub along with the best of them. I do contact my MP from time to time (the newly-elected Natascha Engel who seems to be everywhere at once around here, very hard-working) but to tell the truth I have not complained about the law...yet.

Back to copyright and Cliff. I was thinking about what would happen without copyright laws. Presumably Cliff would perform 'Living Doll' for the first time and all the other singers around at the time would think 'hey that's a good song, I'll record it' and the song would do the rounds with everyone singing it and it would be quite likely that one version would be more popular than Cliff's. The song would be done to death and Cliff would make very little. It seems to me that the copyright law is a good incentive for good music. You know that if you write or perform a hit then you will be greatly rewarded. Without copyright law this would not be the case and it may stifle ambition and talent.
As for the table analogy that someone mentioned, a table may be used for as long a timescale as the song is around but it is not enjoyed by the millions of people who may listen to or buy the record.

 

[markie]

C.R is in the paper's today saying.

I'm fortunate because i continue to make money. But what about the families of Tommy Steele, Adam Faith or Lonnie Donegan ?
many artists rely on one hit record as their sole source of income, but now they will earn nothing.

 

[Softus]

I was not intending to dodge the question as it did not really seem relevant...

Benefit of doubt duly delpoyed - I retract the assertion, and I thank you.

However, the following matter remains glaringly unanswered:

The point I'm making is that if someone wants something enough, whether it's a table or a Cliff Richard single, then they will pay for it and so it has a monetary value. If you find this baffling then that's fine but I think it makes you seem childish when you start being condescending or sarcastic.

Precisely what about this:

It doesn't happen often, but you've succeeded in baffling me. I don't feel motivated to rake over the topic, so I'll just agree with you on this point.

...was condescending or sarcastic?

I agreed with you FFS

 

[Softus]

C.R is in the paper's today saying.

I'm fortunate because i continue to make money. But what about the families of Tommy Steele, Adam Faith or Lonnie Donegan ?
many artists rely on one hit record as their sole source of income, but now they will earn nothing.

If the paper has quoted him accurately, which I realise is a contradiction in terms, then CR is a bigger w****r than I though possible.

Would it not be prudent for the families of said artists to earn themselves a living, rather than live on the apparent opportunity of the wallet, er I mean artist, to do absolutely f*** all for the entirety of their lives following the hit?

 

[joe-90]

Cliff Richard never even wrote a hit single. Not one. All he did was sing it in the studio in the days when it was done in one take.


joe

 

[Softus]

I can see why Joe-90 loses his patience with you Softus.

So can I, and it's not the reason that you think.

You're probably a real nice guy, but you do come across as a bad tempered chap.

Sound observation on both counts.

You started the thing with the table

True enough - I was the first to use the word "table", but you were happy to discuss it at one stage, viz:

A piece of furniture has an intrinsic value...

Really? The table is valuable even if nobody is either using it or getting pleasure from looking at it? How so?

Meaning that the table has a value to it - it can be sold to make money.

But suddenly you don't like the table analogy - have you realised that any furniture analogy is meaningless and confusing?

...you obviously didn't understand the thread if you start on about tables...

To be equitable, you should also point out that you don't understand the thread, on the grounds that you "started on" about furniture.

...so how can you possibly understand my response to your inane questions

So, you feel a need to call my questions inane. All of them, or just some of them? In any case, why not start by answere them sensibly and worry later about how I'm able to understand them?