In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Frank Nordberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
years ago. Can't remember how much, but it was certainly far less than
the printing cost of all the brochures they've sent me, and definitely
not worth the time I spent filling in those forms they require for each
and eve
Bernard (I think) wrote:
Has anyone here ever made any money from these license fees? If so,
could you give us some idea of how much?
I have. I've been a member of TONO (the Norwegian performance rights
society) for a couple of decades and actually sent me a cheque a few
years ago. Can't rememb
On Wed, Jul 28, 2004 at 07:42:58PM +, Bernard wrote:
> >>
> I've read a number of discussions of this, in which the only conclusions
> seemed to be that nobody could find anyone who had ever
> received any money from these license fees. Most musicians know at
> least a few people
>>
I've read a number of discussions of this, in which the only conclusions
seemed to be that nobody could find anyone who had ever
received any money from these license fees. Most musicians know at
least a few people who have written music, and you probably know many
who have made r
Chuck Boody writes:
| On Monday, July 26, 2004, at 09:35 PM, Paul Rosen wrote:
|
| >> Therein lies the crux of the matter. The only one ever
| >> benefiting (at least with the exception of "maybe" 10% or
| >> so) is ASCAP or RIAA or whoever owns the rights to the work.
| >
| > That is the weird t
>>
Apparently, in the UK, the PRS just split it up amongst the big boys. They can't be
bothered with keeping track of small amounts (Except when collecting it!), so only
the top-selling people get anything at all. There have been many discussions of this
at The Mudcat Cafe (www.mudcat.org)
<<
Apparently, in the UK, the PRS just split it up amongst the big boys.
They can't be bothered with keeping track of small amounts (Except when
collecting it!), so only the top-selling people get anything at all.
There have been many discussions of this at The Mudcat Cafe (www.mudcat.org)
Chuck
I don't mean to extend this discussion. My one comment and only
comment is below:
On Monday, July 26, 2004, at 09:35 PM, Paul Rosen wrote:
Therein lies the crux of the matter. The only one ever
benefiting (at least with the exception of "maybe" 10% or
so) is ASCAP or RIAA or whoever owns the r
> Therein lies the crux of the matter. The only one ever
> benefiting (at least with the exception of "maybe" 10% or
> so) is ASCAP or RIAA or whoever owns the rights to the work.
That is the weird thing about making the Girl Scouts pay a lump sum. Who
gets the money? Let's say a troop in Kansas
<...they can wind up hurting the public rather than
providing a benefit.>
Therein lies the crux of the matter. The only one ever
benefiting (at least with the exception of "maybe" 10% or
so) is ASCAP or RIAA or whoever owns the rights to the work.
They try to make certain that "artist" is in the
The thing that really gets me about restrictive copyright regulations
is the way that they can wind up hurting the public rather than
providing a benefit.
If someone creates a work, they deserve to benefit from it. But do
their great-grandchildren deserve to benefit from the fact their
great-gran
11 matches
Mail list logo
