Sounds like a bad PR move but there is no inherent right of the fan to reprint the work of someone else. Sorry.

True, legally at least they are in the right for something like that, but that doesn’t stop it from being an incredibly stupid move on their part, to shut down something put together by fans, fans who are only trying to share their love of a band.

I didn’t say it did. If the artist/ right holder doesn’t want a site with their lyrics on them that is their right. They control reproduction of their work.

Here’s where it can get into a sort of gray area. A straight up lyrics site, is, at least according to the laws, treading on thin ice, and could be shut down. However not too long ago another example was brought up discussing a site that also posted song lyrics, but did so in order for people to deconstruct them, to analyses them and discuss various meanings they could hold.

Something like that would likely very much fall into the fair use category, as the lyrics were being posted in order for people to give commentary and analysis on them.

So to say ‘they control reproduction of their work’ is true, but not in all cases.

Your numbers above about digital downloads are informative however, I would point out the decline in sales started in 1999, when P2P for music began. They are not an accurate representation missing seven years of data.

True, the data, at least from what I saw didn’t go back that far, but I’d argue that the main reason album sales might have took a dive around there, and it’s something the labels could have fought(similar to how services like iTunes did later), was that for the first time in a long while it was possible to get a song, one or two good songs from an album, and not have to buy an entire CD, one padded out with a bunch of mediocre songs, in order to have access to the handful the person actually wanted.

The data has shown, offer people a service that gives them what they want, at a decent price and without too many strings attached, and they are willing to pay, it’s just that for so long the labels had been making major money selling entire albums, the idea of people being able to pay less money for only the songs they wanted, was all but unthinkable to them, so for the longest time they refused to offer such, and piracy stepped in and offered what they refused to.

Doesn’t make the piracy right mind, but it does explain why it would have been so prevalent for so long, before competing services popped up.

I agree with you that piracy was mostly a service issue and has stabilized and I think the MPAA needs to realize this. They must change the way they are getting their product to their customers.

Unfortunately, their way of ‘changing’ is the same it’s always been, purchase laws in order to lock out competition, and keep things in the ‘golden age’ where they had all the control. It might take a while, but give it some time, and they’ll either adapt and move onto how things work today, or die out as they’re replaced by more flexible groups.

To place any amount of someone else’s music to film or video requires you pay the right holder.

They tried to pick a sort of ‘middle path’ regarding that, with their ContentID system, it’s just the execution of it is so borked, and prone to abuse, it’s almost worst than having no system at all.

Also, as I’ve noted before, that statement is not correct, fair use rules state that if you’re using part of a work for commentary purposes, like say a review, you don’t need to pay anyone. The problem is, ‘fair use’ is something that can be tricky to determine at times, and needs to be examined on a case by case basis, which is something the big players absolutely hate, as their preferred method of dealing with that sort of thing is ‘claim everything we can, crush what we can’t’, so it’s no surprise they’d always argue against fair use, means less work for them.

I said I would argue fair use. To avoid any hassle and if I really wanted to use the clip or music I would probably license it. The choice is yours.

An act that while legally safer(usually), very much does not help, as it furthers the idea of ‘Fair use = Paid use’.

I did not say that people go to a store to hear music, I said there was a commercial benefit. If the music didn’t enhance the shopping experience then no business would play it, no? If it had no benefit then why do want to play music in your store anyway? There must be a reason you want to play music in your store, what could it be?

The same could be said of quality carpets, decent AC/heating, lights that don’t give people headaches from being under them for a while, and a whole slew of other things, why is it that in the case of radio the potential ‘commercial benefit’ means that the owners of the songs(which are very rarely the musicians themselves if you’re talking about a major label musician) should be paid yet again(as I’ve noted before, the station playing the music likely already paid to do so, and possibly even was paid, indirectly, to play certain music)?

As for why, at a guess I’d say it’s because most people don’t like silence, having some music playing in the background helps that out.

I state again, if in the US, you can play music from the radio or tv in your store without a care.

Unfortunately, that’s not likely to stop a collection agency or two from trying to shake the store down for whatever cash they think they can get away with. I really wasn’t exaggerating earlier when I said they are some of the most greedy groups around.

All the creator wants is to have the ability to commercially maximize their creation. If everyone creates then what does the term “talent” mean? Yes everyone can sing a song but for some reason many people want to hear the voice of one person over that of another. Anyone that is good at what they do should be compensated as such.

To some extent I agree, to some extent I disagree.

I do agree that a creator deserves the opportunity to profit off of their work, but the idea that they deserve to make money off of their creation is one I cannot agree with, as it seems to put the act of creation as higher importance than the quality or ‘worth’ that society attached to a work, basically saying ‘I made something, and even if no one actually wants it, I deserve to be paid for my work regardless’.

Regarding the ‘talent’ bit, while it’s true there are people who are more well known, more popular and skilled, and able to get attention and money from their creations, what I object to is the idea that only their creations ‘count’, or that they somehow created something in a vacuum, ignoring how culture is shaped and shapes the creation of everything, nor just the (relatively) few people who are able to make money or gain attention from it.

This is patently false. I read every argument and rationally think about it. If I didn’t I wouldn’t bother posting. If you felt the mention of Kool-aid was offensive I will refrain. I like Grape.

In that case I apologize for the mis-characterization and any offense, just know that in most cases, ‘drinking the Kool-aid’, or variations of that phrase, is pretty much calling the person you’re addressing it to a person who blindly accepts what they’re told and parrots it without thought, and so is generally considered pretty insulting, and will be taken as such.