<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Artists, Compensation and Business Models</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/</link>
	<description>Copyright Information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2011 19:02:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/#comment-21209</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:06:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=457#comment-21209</guid>
		<description>Patrick, what you consistently ignore on your blog is the concentration of the copyright gatekeeper industries. Just a handful of corporations - your major donors, i would hazard to guess - essentially control film distribution in the US. The same companies fund and control the ratings board that determines where films can be shown. There are more book publishers, but it&#039;s not a stretch to say that just a few - again, your major donors - control most of worldwide distribution.  Music used to be the same way but is becoming less so thanks to the very technologies you regularly call for banning or regulating on behalf of the gatekeeper oligopolies.  When just a handful of companies control distribution, they also control the terms of those contracts you mention.

Yes, I&#039;m sure you can list plenty of exceptions to the concentration of the &quot;copyright industries&quot;. The important thing is that many of those exceptions were enabled by the very technologies and businesses you criticize. Many bands have been &quot;discovered&quot; on YouTube or MySpace and been successful, after failing to get a contract from the Big Four labels. 

And yes, I know you&#039;ll point to antitrust law as the solution. But the existence of antitrust law doesn&#039;t mean we can make copyright policy without considering competition and market concentration issues. 

An absence of copyright law would certainly allow &quot;making money off of others’ creativity&quot; by free-riders, but ever-stronger, ever-longer copyright law allows oligopolies, rather than &quot;pirates,&quot; to do the same thing. That&#039;s why we need balance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Patrick, what you consistently ignore on your blog is the concentration of the copyright gatekeeper industries. Just a handful of corporations &#8211; your major donors, i would hazard to guess &#8211; essentially control film distribution in the US. The same companies fund and control the ratings board that determines where films can be shown. There are more book publishers, but it&#8217;s not a stretch to say that just a few &#8211; again, your major donors &#8211; control most of worldwide distribution.  Music used to be the same way but is becoming less so thanks to the very technologies you regularly call for banning or regulating on behalf of the gatekeeper oligopolies.  When just a handful of companies control distribution, they also control the terms of those contracts you mention.</p>
<p>Yes, I&#8217;m sure you can list plenty of exceptions to the concentration of the &#8220;copyright industries&#8221;. The important thing is that many of those exceptions were enabled by the very technologies and businesses you criticize. Many bands have been &#8220;discovered&#8221; on YouTube or MySpace and been successful, after failing to get a contract from the Big Four labels. </p>
<p>And yes, I know you&#8217;ll point to antitrust law as the solution. But the existence of antitrust law doesn&#8217;t mean we can make copyright policy without considering competition and market concentration issues. </p>
<p>An absence of copyright law would certainly allow &#8220;making money off of others’ creativity&#8221; by free-riders, but ever-stronger, ever-longer copyright law allows oligopolies, rather than &#8220;pirates,&#8221; to do the same thing. That&#8217;s why we need balance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patrick Ross</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/#comment-21179</link>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:54:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=457#comment-21179</guid>
		<description>John, it&#039;s safe to assume you have never signed a publishing or recording contract! :)

You are right in the abstract, in the way any economic venture seeks to maximize capital while minimizing expenses, but entirely wrong in your understanding of rights. 

A contract is an agreement freely entered into by both the creator (author or musician) and the distributor (publisher or label). They become partners in a joint endeavor to profit from the author or musician&#039;s creativity. Rights are transferred, shifted for a certain period or under certain terms, or withheld. In other words, both are rightsholders, far different from what you are implying. An author or musician can self-publish, but he or she may also prefer the publisher or record label to handle marketing and distribution, provide creative input (editing, etc.) and lend the published work credibility.

I write often here of business models where the creator&#039;s work is appropriated first, and then the appropriator says they&#039;re willing to enter negotiations as to payment later if pressured. I am not familiar with record labels or publishers producing a creator&#039;s work without permission first or a contract.

Actually, I can think of one book publisher who has developed a business model where he produces books without seeking permission of authors or their estates and doesn&#039;t pay them anything -- Eric Eldred.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>John, it&#8217;s safe to assume you have never signed a publishing or recording contract! <img src='http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>You are right in the abstract, in the way any economic venture seeks to maximize capital while minimizing expenses, but entirely wrong in your understanding of rights. </p>
<p>A contract is an agreement freely entered into by both the creator (author or musician) and the distributor (publisher or label). They become partners in a joint endeavor to profit from the author or musician&#8217;s creativity. Rights are transferred, shifted for a certain period or under certain terms, or withheld. In other words, both are rightsholders, far different from what you are implying. An author or musician can self-publish, but he or she may also prefer the publisher or record label to handle marketing and distribution, provide creative input (editing, etc.) and lend the published work credibility.</p>
<p>I write often here of business models where the creator&#8217;s work is appropriated first, and then the appropriator says they&#8217;re willing to enter negotiations as to payment later if pressured. I am not familiar with record labels or publishers producing a creator&#8217;s work without permission first or a contract.</p>
<p>Actually, I can think of one book publisher who has developed a business model where he produces books without seeking permission of authors or their estates and doesn&#8217;t pay them anything &#8212; Eric Eldred.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Artists, Compensation &#8230; &#171; Copyright</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/#comment-21163</link>
		<dc:creator>The Copyright Alliance Blog » Blog Archive » Artists, Compensation &#8230; &#171; Copyright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:51:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=457#comment-21163</guid>
		<description>[...] Re&#173;ad m&#173;ore&#173; he&#173;re&#173;: T&#173;he C&#173;opy&#173;ri&#173;ght&#173; Al&#173;l&#173;i&#173;an&#173;c&#173;e Bl&#173;og » Bl&amp;... [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Re&#173;ad m&#173;ore&#173; he&#173;re&#173;: T&#173;he C&#173;opy&#173;ri&#173;ght&#173; Al&#173;l&#173;i&#173;an&#173;c&#173;e Bl&#173;og » Bl&#38;&#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Gordon</title>
		<link>http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/2009/06/artists-compensation-and-business-models/#comment-21150</link>
		<dc:creator>John Gordon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:27:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.copyrightalliance.org/?p=457#comment-21150</guid>
		<description>&quot;its entire business model is based on making money off of others’ creativity while paying as little as possible for it&quot;

I challenge you to explain why this statement does not apply to the big four record labels.  Or any book publisher.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;its entire business model is based on making money off of others’ creativity while paying as little as possible for it&#8221;</p>
<p>I challenge you to explain why this statement does not apply to the big four record labels.  Or any book publisher.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

