Tresona's SPiN Network

[BDCorno]

38 minutes ago, Kamarag said:

 

 

Well, that would depend on what Tresona's costs are. Remember, they have to pay the publishers...that's the whole point.

LOL. If anyone thinks that the people making money are the composers/publishers, they'd be mistaken. Anything of this type results in the lawyers cleaning up, and the composers get pennies. It's sort of a running class action lawsuit...the lawyers (Tresona) are "helping" the aggrieved and exploited class actioneers (composers) fight back against exploitation by representing them. After all the billable hours, retainers, and whatever profitable mechanisms they can come up with (streaming service, in this instance) are backed out of the collected money, the "client" (see sucker) gets the crumbs. I'm sure the lawyer will say "hey, they got something where there was nothing", but they've cut themselves in nicely to the situation and really aren't interested in clients getting their fair share. After all, the lawyer, unlike the composers, have created nothing but a money-making scenario for themselves. The composers should have a lawyer to negotiate with Tresona, instead of getting what Tresona says they are entitled to.

Edited October 27, 2017 by BDCorno

[skevinp]

2 hours ago, BDCorno said:

LOL. If anyone thinks that the people making money are the composers/publishers, they'd be mistaken. Anything of this type results in the lawyers cleaning up, and the composers get pennies. It's sort of a running class action lawsuit...the lawyers (Tresona) are "helping" the aggrieved and exploited class actioneers (composers) fight back against exploitation by representing them. After all the billable hours, retainers, and whatever profitable mechanisms they can come up with (streaming service, in this instance) are backed out of the collected money, the "client" (see sucker) gets the crumbs. I'm sure the lawyer will say "hey, they got something where there was nothing", but they've cut themselves in nicely to the situation and really aren't interested in clients getting their fair share. After all, the lawyer, unlike the composers, have created nothing but a money-making scenario for themselves. The composers should have a lawyer to negotiate with Tresona, instead of getting what Tresona says they are entitled to.

What forced the composers to sell their rights to Tresona to begin with, if it is really such a bad deal for them?

[N.E. Brigand]

46 minutes ago, skevinp said:

What forced the composers to sell their rights to Tresona to begin with, if it is really such a bad deal for them?

Sure, sure. But they're composers not finance experts. And it is fairly well known that licensing agencies often don't serve artists well. I remember stories in the 1990s about restaurants and stores getting letters from such firms demanding that they pay a royalty for the music they were playing in the background. Sounds reasonable enough, until one such store whose playlist tended to be on the esoteric side learned that none of the artists they played would actually get any money. The agency collected fees from businesses for all artists in its stable, but only paid an ambient-music royalty to the top 100 artists. They didn't want to be bothered doing the math.

[Stu]

I Love the USA!!!  A country where intellectual property ownership is secured and protected; a country where permission to use that property and/or distribute it must be granted by the owner; a country where property owners are justly compensated after permission is given; a country where business owners are paid for their services while using that property; and a country where those who steal or use other’s property without permission are fined or prosecuted.  God Bless the USA!!!  And that is not sarcasm, but how I really feel!!!

[N.E. Brigand]

24 minutes ago, Stu said:

I Love the USA!!!  A country where intellectual property ownership is secured and protected; a country where permission to use that property and/or distribute it must be granted by the owner; a country where property owners are justly compensated after permission is given; a country where business owners are paid for their services while using that property; and a country where those who steal or use other’s property without permission are fined or prosecuted.  God Bless the USA!!!  And that is not sarcasm, but how I really feel!!!

Is it better now that copyright lasts for 95+ years than it was when the Founders set the term at 28 years? Or was it better then?

[Stu]

27 minutes ago, N.E. Brigand said:

Is it better now that copyright lasts for 95+ years than it was when the Founders set the term at 28 years? Or was it better then?

The Constitution only says ‘securing for limited times’ for that ‘exclusive Right’, and it also says that it is up to Congress to set the duration.  The Founder's were brilliant not to set a firm time limit, because it allows for expansion and contraction of that time duration based on many cultural factors (such as human longevity and expanding technology).  While there are many pros and cons to the various times of exclusive ownership duration, my preference is Life of the Author and at least some set time period for exclusive ownership to remain for a Spouse, a Child, or a Trust after the Author’s death.

By the way, I am also for the concept of Limited Fair Use as it is currently written.  A teacher, for example, should be allowed to exhibit a small portion of a Copyrighted material in a classroom strictly for student educational insight without fear of reprisal.  Note that use in a Marching Band Contest, or a DCI Contest, or a Public Performance, does not fit the criteria of use within a strict classroom student education!

[N.E. Brigand]

6 minutes ago, Stu said:

The Constitution only says ‘securing for limited times’ for that ‘exclusive Right’, and it also says that it is up to Congress to set the duration.  The Founder's were brilliant not to set a firm time limit, because it allows for expansion and contraction of that time duration based on many cultural factors (such as human longevity and expanding technology).

As you know, the first limit set, by a Congress including some of the same people that wrote the Constitution, was 14 years with a possible 14 year extension. Life expectancy for adults has not increased anywhere near as much as more recent Congresses have extended the term of copyright. Ironically one of the big drivers of this extension was Disney, who benefited greatly from having access to works that had fallen in the public domain. Then they attempted to prevent others from doing the same with their works. In that respect, they're rather like DCI's G7, trying to lock down a status quo in which they dominated and prevent change.

[skevinp]

15 hours ago, N.E. Brigand said:

As you know, the first limit set, by a Congress including some of the same people that wrote the Constitution, was 14 years with a possible 14 year extension. Life expectancy for adults has not increased anywhere near as much as more recent Congresses have extended the term of copyright. Ironically one of the big drivers of this extension was Disney, who benefited greatly from having access to works that had fallen in the public domain. Then they attempted to prevent others from doing the same with their works. In that respect, they're rather like DCI's G7, trying to lock down a status quo in which they dominated and prevent change.

This post seems to imply that the copyright term was 14+14 years prior to "recent" changes and/or Disney's influence.  I'm sure the implication was innocently made, but it would be a massively incorrect conclusion for anyone to draw.  It has been over a century since the Copyright term was made extendable to 56 years, and it has been over 40 years since it was changed to the lifetime of the author plus 50 years (or 75 years from publication where anonymous, made for hire or copyrighted at an earlier time).  The 1998 extension extended the 50 to 70 and the 75 to 95, and people can argue about that if they want, but the point is it has been quite long for quite a long time.

[skevinp]

Can anyone speak to what the transactions typically look like when composers initially transfer their work to another party, be it to Tresona or a first link in the chain therebetween?  

For example, is it a complete transfer of ownership of the rights, or is it a license that they can revoke or re-negotiate?  Are they paid in any kind of absolute amount or lump sum up front?  Or do they get nothing up front other than a right to royalties for future uses that may or may not exist?

These things seem important to the discussion and essential to understand before drawing any judgmental conclusions, but they seem ever absent from the discussion.

[N.E. Brigand]

10 hours ago, skevinp said:

This post seems to imply that the copyright term was 14+14 years prior to "recent" changes and/or Disney's influence....

That was not the intended implication. Disney (and Mrs. Bono) were merely the latest offenders, taking what was already ridiculously long and making it longer still. But the irony is particularly strong in Disney's case. (Mrs. Bono testified that she felt copyright should never expire.)