Youtube and Copyright

[quasimodo]

OK, but nowadays many composers self-publish (as I do) so the composer in such cases profits (when he/she can) from selling his/her scores - but this is unlikely to produce much if any revenue nless there are performances, broadcasts and recordings. There seems to be no obvious way to "compensate" composers in the way that you speculate about other than the way things currently stand, or some close-ish variation thereon.

Best,

Alistair

Actually, I think you are wrong in that assessment. You seem to imply royalties and commissioning are the only options. While it is right that as of now, in music, these are the main vehicles for compensation, there are alternatives that are dramatically overlooked by musicians. Namely, I am convinced that online donations constitute a very powerful alternative economic model to remunerate Creators.

This is what many professional bloggers have opted for; this is how Nils keeps this wonderful website going; this is also the model for shareware, including the famous web-browser Firefox. I actually see no reason why it wouldn't work wonders for composers and performers, as long as they are delivering something artistically valuable.

You really should try it, Alistair, make a music-blog or a Myspace music page, post some of your selected work there, downloadable for free and set up a donation button asking people to contribute so you can keep on doing your job. If you’re not technically savvy, I’m sure you can find some geek to design something sexy for you.

And it’s not just about the money; it’s about exposure as well. I’m ashamed of admitting to having never heard anything you composed. If you do something along the lines of what I’m suggesting, I promise I’ll find a way to be one of your first online donators.

 

[ahinton]

Actually, I think you are wrong in that assessment. You seem to imply royalties and commissioning are the only options.

No - self-publishers can also derive an income from selling their work.

While it is right that as of now, in music, these are the main vehicles for compensation, there are alternatives that are dramatically overlooked by musicians. Namely, I am convinced that online donations constitute a very powerful alternative economic model to remunerate Creators.

This is what many professional bloggers have opted for; this is how Nils keeps this wonderful website going; this is also the model for shareware, including the famous web-browser Firefox. I actually see no reason why it wouldn't work wonders for composers and performers, as long as they are delivering something artistically valuable.

You really should try it, Alistair, make a music-blog or a Myspace music page, post some of your selected work there, downloadable for free and set up a donation button asking people to contribute so you can keep on doing your job. If you’re not technically savvy, I’m sure you can find some geek to design something sexy for you.

And it’s not just about the money; it’s about exposure as well. I’m ashamed of admitting to having never heard anything you composed. If you do something along the lines of what I’m suggesting, I promise I’ll find a way to be one of your first online donators.

 

It is indeed another "option" and I applaud your kind gesture, but I have considered this by observing how it has worked for others and, for the most part, it has achieved little if anything beneficial; the same thing could be said for websites that invite donations from interested parties, as ours does - there's not the slightest guarantee that thes will generate income and certainly not the kind of income that could viably take the place of royalties, commissions and sales.

You have no need to be ashamed at not having heard anything of mine, although there are CDs out there with which you could remedy that if so you choose!

Best,

Alistair

[quasimodo]

It has long been a mystery to me how some publishers can claim copyright on a Mozart Sonata. It would appear that all one needs to do is remove one trill, write half a page of notes and staple it all together with a shitty cover and there you have your own copyrighted Edition.

Might try it myself.

Thal

There's an even better idea to make big money: Copyright a score that's constituted only of the famous I-IV-V chord progression for blues.

[richard black]

It has long been a mystery to me how some publishers can claim copyright on a Mozart Sonata.

They don't, they claim copyright on their edition of it. They don't have to change anything: just newly typesetting it is enough, but they don't get the same degree of copyright protection that a newly-written work gets. As for performance rights, they'll get those for an edition if someone owns up to playing from it, but unless they've got a spy at the gig looking at the performer's copy that's pretty hard to prove.

[thalbergmad]

I understand a new edition of an existing work is in copyright for 20 years, but without any artistic effort applied, it seems bloody stupid to me.

Thal

[quasimodo]

I understand a new edition of an existing work is in copyright for 20 years, but without any artistic effort applied, it seems bloody stupid to me.

Thal

That's precisely the whole issue with Copyright: it's not achieving what its proponents claim: stimulating and promoting creation (artistic effort).