[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Composers should also get paid (was: Fripp & Eno 1973 / BBC / Peel /RIAA)

On Jul 9, 2007, at 11:06 AM, Per Boysen wrote:

> On 9 jul 2007, at 18.39, Rev Fever wrote:
>> The RIAA.   What a bunch of thugs and vicious brown shirts.
>> Years ago, I knew of a restaurant in Dallas TX that had a guy who  
>> played PIANO in there for the soft and smooth entertainment of the  
>> diners,
>> and he played well known songs from sheet music.  Well, one day,  
>> the RIAA showed up and FINED the restaurant since the place was not
>> PAYING the royalties to have that guy play those tunes on the  
>> piano!!  This resulted in the place NO MORE having a piano player
>> and the guy LOST his JOB, which very likely was NOT some high wage  
>> job to begin with, and was supplemented by any tips he managed to  
>> get.
>> So, that poor guy was quickly and suddenly unemployed.   Welcome  
>> to Corporate World.
> So what?
> I can't argue against the RIAA being bad guys. But it seems you  
> have misunderstood the point in the system that takes care of  
> composers rights to their work. The point is not to sack bar  
> pianists but to create an option for creative people to make a  
> living as composers. I fully support that!

I never said that composers should have no protection whatsoever, and  
I am well aware of why the RIAA, BMI, and ASCAP were ever created to  
begin with.
  My point was the heavy handed "enforcement" that occurred, and HAS  
occurred elsewhere countless times, and for a LONG time now.
THAT I do NOT support.

That is almost like saying that it is OK for the police to beat the  
hell out of someone, like let's say a peaceful antiwar protester,
just because the OVER ALL idea of the police is "to protect and  
serve" the general population.

Speaking of that, I wonder WHO actually "polices" entities like the  
RIAA, BMI, and ASCAP,anyway? Are they not accountable to anyone ?
Reminds me a bit of the bounty hunters in the USA who seem not  
accountable to almost anyone and who seem to be able to get past  
certain laws with impunity.

> On the other hand, it may be that the RIAA are using too heavy  
> tools as their administrative routines when assembling the tariffs   
> for using others songs in public (money that are distributed back  
> to the composers). But be careful not throwing away the respect for  
> composer's work only because of some brown shirt attitude clerks.

I was not implying as such, but you do make a good point.

However, I have always wondered "how much" $$ any non-music based  
establishment like a restaurant, coffee shop, dentist office or  
wherever actually "makes"
simply by playing some compositions created by someone unrelated to  
those places? If there were no music played at all in those places,  
recorded or otherwise,
I seriously any of those places would see a drop in customers and  
profits, and especially now since the i-pod has come into existence. :-)

And, I will wager big bucks that not one person on LD has ever paid a  
royalty to some composer for dubbing from someone else's copy of a  
recording by some composer.
So, what's the real difference with that, as opposed to some tunes  
being played in a restaurant?   None that I can really tell.  ;-)

-Rev. Fever
> Greetings from Sweden
> Per Boysen
> www.boysen.se (Swedish)
> www.looproom.com (international)