<Sigh>. Once again I've started a controversy. My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing.
Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist should decide whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not exclude making *some* money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else make a living at what he does. BOTH CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY OPINION to start out calling yourself a minister, and then end up trying to get rich at it. One seems to push out the other. "You cannot serve God and Mammon" I think was the phrase. Again, everything is about focus and balance. Bob On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote: > Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as > opposed to atheistic talent or agnostic talent???) or who is "rich" and I can > take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot - makes way more money > than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just > "borrow" it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to > know and he's rich, so it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same > time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends. They're both self-made > and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I > have a "right" to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't > need. Awesome! > > Marty K >> Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record >> label, so that we could produce "religious" music and not have to deal with >> the secular industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their >> studios. Some artists because quite successful in their careers, as they >> were quite good. >> >> Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of >> Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights >> infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to >> these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of >> these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten >> anywhere had they not started there. >> >> Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who >> belonged to one of these agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim >> for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if another artist went around >> performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money that >> the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay >> royalties on what we consider to be a "gift from God" namely the talent and >> the inspiration for the music seems to be... well "quenching". The >> moneychangers in the temple comes to mind. >> >> Bob _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
