this was your original statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Somehow I doubt all of those using covers to build an audience are doing so. This means that these people are also fucking over the artists. The record company fucks the artist (no argument on that) and so do all these people who record their songs, get tons of views on YouTube and sell downloads/CDs without paying royalties.
And whatever happened to writing your own songs and building up an audience with your own talent and your own words? I guess it is easier these days just to piggy back and make money off of other people's work.
|
you accused artist doing covers of ripping off the song writers
Quote:
Originally Posted by kane
Dude, calm down. I'm not trying to justify anything. I simply said you can't buy a Stephen King book, copy it word for word onto a website and then add the commentary "This is my favorite Stephen King book" and then say it falls under fair use.
I understand the difference between an original song and a cover song and so long as the original writer/publishing owner of the song gets paid if you try to sell your cover version of the song I don't have any problem with people doing cover songs. It is a time honored thing in music. Back before the internet bands would often play covers at live shows while they wrote their own music and use them as a filler for the show to help draw listeners. Today they just do it on YouTube.
|
now you say it a time honored thing in music.
the fact is ruling like the one against isohunt are basically designed to prevent this process to leverage the new medium/technology.
To protect the abusive system of the record companies and to reduce the choice of musicians
to either sign with the record companies
or fail.