Re: [ARSCLIST] Public's rights....was offlist archival question from ARSC list member

[Tom Fine <tflists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George:

The legitimate argument from the record companies/copyright owners is that they paid for the 
sessions and if the payment was for playing for X hours in a studio and they owned the tapes at the 
end of the day, they can release what they want. I do see their point but I think in a lot of cases, 
short term greed dillutes long-term standing of the artist (and thus annuity-type constant steady 
sales) because art is kind of like Oz, you really don't want to show what's behind the curtain in 
most cases.  Here's a for instance -- I have a good friend who does still photographs for movies. 
We've discussed how he can look at a movie he's worked on and know exactly how it was put together, 
how a scene played out, how many takes, etc. I tell him that would ruin the experience of seeing the 
movie for me -- I like to digest the whole product at once and take in the overall artistic vision 
of the writers, producers and directors and enjoy the magic of good acting. Someone who really loves 
the art, it would seem to me, wouldn't want to know how the sausage is made.

But, like I said, what a record company owns in its vaults, it owns. These are commercial 
enterprises and they have a right to use their copyrights for whatever commercial purposes they 
desire. I just think some of this is exploitive of the original artists (not all of it by any means) 
and in most cases it dillutes the artist's historic standing except among completist-fetishists and 
academics (which make up a very small slice of the potential commercial market). So it's usually bad 
business thinking.

-- Tom Fine

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "George Brock-Nannestad" <pattac@xxxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Public's rights....was offlist archival question from ARSC list member


> From: Patent Tactics, George Brock-Nannestad
>
> Tom Fine wrote:
>
> > Roger, it's not the "fan base's" right to hear what the artist, producer and
> > record company don't want to release. These are COMMERCIAL products.
> > You as a fan do not own the artist, you mearly
> > purchase the right to own and enjoy what the artist puts forward as their
> > art. If you don't like that, take music lessons and make better art.
>
>
> ----- Tom I could not agree more (although I have stricken your examples).
> However, I maintain that the basis for the decision not to issue is the moral
> or ideal right ("droit moral") of the artist. It only becomes a commercial
> decision when the record company decides to keep it in-house. If they later
> decide to issue it after all, in spite of the artis'ts objections, then they
> are actually infringing the moral rights - these cannot be assigned. The
> moral rights are fundamentally eternal, and not dependent on date of death
> and whether you are a relative.
>
> ----- in Denmark there is a special provision for "subsequent sales" of works
> of art (painting, sculpture). If it is sold at auction, the original artist
> and his heirs during the copyright period will receive a fixed percentage of
> the sale price. A collecting agency takes care of these matters.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> George