23 ms·
A Man Who’s Spending $1B to Own Every Pop Song
- trunc 7y agoHa! Their homepage (www.hipgnosissongs.com) is full of Youtube embeds of songs they own.
- michaeljohansen 7y agoThis is not the Bond villain we want.
- walshemj 7y agoVevo actualy
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- makapuf 7y agoThe issue there is that new songs ans creativity destroys value of old songs and so this way of treating copyright plus no entries to public domain means that old songs will be pushed forward all the time whereas new songs have no incentive at all to emerge. Especially if distribution is consolidated between a few actors.
- HenryBemis 7y agoOh how I totally disagree with you... I thought I'd never move on to listen to "what kids listen to these days" and "most of it is crap". And then a cousin (with similar music taste) pointed me to "Post Rock" genre.. Mogwai (yes from the movie), Bloc Party, Sigur Ros, God is an Astronaut, 65daysofstatic.. I now split my time between good old classic heavy metal (Iron Maiden - Iron Maiden)(anything after 7nth son is junk imho), Metallica (up to Justice..), everything Sepultura, basically eveything rock/metal up-to-early-1990. I get it that for new musicians it's hard to find their place in the world/market, but go start your own cafe/bakery/what-have-you and face competition. Porter's five forces to the max!
- corrys 7y agoStrange to see Block Party in this list! Also post rock had its time in the late 90s / early 00s. Doubt we can put it in the category “what kids listen to these days”. This category today is more along the lines of Post Malone and Lil Yachty.
- masklinn 7y agoTBF GP's comment was responding to > new songs ans creativity destroys value of old songs […] new songs have no incentive at all to emerge and though it's probably not the most popular genre today, there's plenty of post rock being made these days: https://www.reddit.com/r/postrock/wiki/albums/2019 https://www.reddit.com/r/postrock/wiki/albums/2019
- prpl 7y agoYou might try out Mono, Boris, Pelican, Mastodon, Drive Like Jehu, Hot Snakes. Maybe Pissed Jeans and Envy, but that might be a bit too punk rock.
- chx 7y ago> anything after 7nth son is junk imho those are fighting words, my friend. Fear of the Dark and Paschendale are just two examples that came after Seventh Son and are rightly played often by the band at their concerts and immensely popular.
- HenryBemis 7y agoheh, talking about dogma (I just did), and my favourite IM singer is Paul, NOT Bruce. Although Bruce has a better/richer voice, I like the punk-tone of Paul's voice. I have this "fight" with my mates everyone we go to see IM live :)
- chx 7y agoDogma? Although you probably didn't mean https://youtu.be/Cz6FOyTmFUA https://youtu.be/Cz6FOyTmFUA it's what jumped to my mind, it's a really beautiful song for sure.
- corrys 7y agoNew songs do have an incentive to emerge - it’s just human creativity. In the last 2 decades distribution has been massively democratized, the opposite of what your fear is. Anyone can distribute their music online to billions of people for free (YouTube, SoundCloud, etc).
- lotsofpulp 7y agoNot a bad idea. Finding avenues to rent-seek seems to be the winning strategy, especially with all the cash floating around looking for returns.
- sjg007 7y agoMichael Jackson owned the Beatles catalog which made him a lot of money.
- shi314 7y agoAnd Sony made him gave that with pennies.
- fakinghistory 7y agoThats what he meant by the phrase "just Beat it"
- walshemj 7y agoWhich the Beatles lost due to some super scummy tax dodge
- TomMckenny 7y agoSeems that's the way society ended up being structured. Perhaps we will all end up selling houses to each other and no one will have to make anything at all! I swear, even the Aztecs had a less destructive system.
- poordaniel 7y agoThat's a strangely ignorant thing to say.
- fakinghistory 7y agoyou probably say that because you are a revolutionary that wants the aztec empire to exist again. You would be happy with the beheadings. Either that or your jokes are awful.
- 7y ago
- electriclove 7y agoWould be nice if he bought them to make them free.. this is just another capitalistic play by those who are already wealthy.. great..
- bbrree66 7y agoYes, because being wealthy is intrinsically a bad thing! Down with capitalism!
- adamsea 7y agoExtreme wealth inequality has been found to be bad for both the poor and wealthy individuals and for society, in terms of happiness
- bbrree66 7y agoWhat a juicy statement, I don't know where to start! 1. What study? How do you know it's causative and not correlated? Should we make policy decisions based on this study? 2. Are you saying the reason some people are poor is because others are rich? If so, why? 3. Does this mean we should have someone arbitrarily decide what too rich is and take their money to redistribute it?
- zozbot234 7y agoI wonder why this guy thinks that the rights to a successful song are an "uncorrelated" asset. Wouldn't strong economic growth mean that people are far more likely to spend money on these things? Especially for 'sync' rights which mostly come up for things like ads, or derivative mass-marketed media (e.g. successful song X ends up in the soundtrack of movie Y)? Just seemed like a weird claim to me.
- DSingularity 7y agoYeah. And that money goes to him. And with a weak economy people will stop paying him but now the streaming services will pay him more.
- stuart78 7y agoWhile everything may be influenced by macro trends, there will still be movies, Super Bowl Ads, radio and Spotify playlists which rely on music licensing. It may dip in bad times, but the bet is that they will do better than other investment types.
- MR4D 7y agoUncorrelated probably means to the stock market. The US market was up about 30% in 2019, but I doubt the value of any particular Taylor Swift song increased by that much. I’m sure there is some correlation to general GDP growth, and you would actually want that. It’s the specific stock market correlation that you tend to not want.
- lordnacho 7y agoHe really means "less correlated". Just about everything is glued to interest rates and the general economy.
- bagacrap 7y agoHe raised $1B of others' money; he hasn't spent anything close to that yet, even in aggregate. The article is extremely light on details of why this guy thinks he can turn a bigger profit off these song catalogs than the traditional publishers can, but I guess he's cutting a lot of fat compared to the big publishing houses? This seems positive to me because it's shifting more money towards the artists: "In the music industry, paying for assets at a 10x multiple is considered top dollar. Mercuriadis is reportedly paying up to 20x, making it impossible for others to compete."
- nickthemagicman 7y agoThat's optimistic of you to think that he's going to give more profits to the artist.
- mrnobody_67 7y agoHis big bet is that the assets are undervalued... Could end up exiting through the launch of a Music Royalties REIT. Liquid assets that trade always get a premium over illiquid limited partnerships. Could be an interesting asset class for diversification that's relatively uncorrelated... Anyway, full investment prospectus for his fund is here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5937f2f1bebafb1297678ff8/t/5b349487562fa750e010ad3a/1530172554717/Hipgnosis+Songs+Fund+Limited+-+Prospectus.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5937f2f1bebafb1297678...
- wtn 7y agoThat would be a royalty trust.
- decasia 7y agoThis new moment of marketization is interesting to observe from the sidelines. I'm a musician but I've never gotten paid for making music and don't want to be. This way, songwriting and playing music can remain something I do purely for the intrinsic joy of it. And it's not really so long ago that, if you wanted music in your house, you had to play it yourself. I have nothing against recorded music or professional musicians, but it's interesting how much we seem to collectively forget that buying music isn't the only way to have access to it. Not everything we need has to be obtained as a commodity (still less through a monthly subscription).
- maroonblazer 7y agoI could also write my own novels and produce my own TV shows but they wouldn't be as good as what an Orwell or Sorkin could produce.
- jahewson 7y agoDo the things you do have to be world-class all-time greats in order to be worth doing?
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoIf they are accessible, then yes, and I don’t see why that would be controversial. Normally enjoyment of the art making process for amateurs is just that, enjoyment of the process. If I want to enjoy literature, I’ll read the work of professional writers. If I want to enjoy the task of writing, I’ll write myself. For most people, art making as a hobby is occasional, simply by the time & resource limits of regular jobs, family obligations, etc. While consuming art is much more accessible. Some other things can be closer to a gray middle area. For me, that is cooking. I expect myself to be able to make really world class food even in my crappy apartment kitchen with limited time and a normal grocery budget. So when I can’t do that, due to time constraints generally, I won’t whip together something quick just ‘cause.. I’d rather simply transfer the grocery budget to restaurant budget and eat better made things. Thankfully, since most of the very best food is found at cheap or medium end restaurants, and not too much at five star expensive places, this is fairly easy without changing my budget. But compromising to make a mediocre thing myself, either purely for the sake of cooking or to allegedly save money, is not interesting or useful to me. I could imagine people feel that way about a lot of things.
- choward 7y agoThis is what's considered innovation. It's not innovative in that he's solving a problem but just an innovative way to try make more money.
- microcolonel 7y agoWhat's to say he's not trying to provide an innovative service? It'd be interesting to be at least able to license most pop music from one place, not that this is an ideal way to get there. If he prices pop music out of the culture, then less popular music becomes a viable alternative.
- adamsea 7y agoHopefully it will make the world a better place!
- zozbot234 7y ago> It'd be interesting to be at least able to license most pop music from one place Didn't Spotify do that already?
- microcolonel 7y ago> Didn't Spotify do that already? If you can license music for distribution or inclusion in TV/film scores from Spotify, I am not aware of that.
- _jal 7y agoThis is finance. "Innovative" means it puts more money in a banker's pocket.
- dangus 7y agoAnd more money in the investors' pockets. Essentially, the summary of this article is that this dude thinks he can leverage these song catalogs better than other investors. He's literally a music fund manager for music. His firm is "overpaying" for these back catalogs because he's essentially putting together a collection that might command more revenue than other "fund" managers, and possibly set up something of a targeted monopoly, and he's betting that they can extract more value than less competent managers and record labels. It wasn't directly addressed in the article but I suspect that the general strategy is to own the majority the sorts of songs that are more suitable for generating Synch fees. A big corporation is going to look around for a collection of songs that tend to do well in a TV commercial, for example. Perhaps they find that Hipgnosis happens to own all of them, and now they have to pay a higher rate, and all of a sudden the high price paid for this catalog doesn't seem like overpaying.
- gigatexal 7y agoall this means is that musicians need to find a way to own their masters. You will never see Chance The Rapper sell his masters for the very reason this guy is buying up rights.
- setpatchaddress 7y agoThe publishing rights are where the money is. Owning the masters doesn’t help much.
- gigatexal 7y agooh, dang. I thought they were one in the same. Then this guy is going to make a ton of money.
- microcolonel 7y agoThank you, if you try to make anything from that, we'll he a much healthier recorded music market. A billion dollars seems a bit low though, no? Surely he's gonna miss a lot.
- gilbetron 7y ago"I don’t believe in material things." Wants to own everything musical and starts up a billion dollar fund to do so.
- anm89 7y agoThis kind of posturing is nauseating but I find it to be bizarrely common. I think if you are not an overly literal person it makes more sense though. It's social posturing which is meant to mean "I don't like the most extreme elements of consumer culture like designer belt buckles and luxury automobiles". To many people "believing in material things" means that and not what they are literally saying. It seems like many people find this type of exaggerated speech to be really charismatic which I find really annoying.
- hinkley 7y agoSpends a lot of time in record shops expanding his collection.
- chiph 7y agoHas he never heard of the Hunt Brothers and their attempt to corner the silver market? Supply & Demand dictates that prices can go higher than you are liquid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday
- fastball 7y agoWith songs though, they'll generate revenue while you're sitting on them. Silver doesn't do that.
- cgriswald 7y ago> With songs though, they'll generate revenue while you're sitting on them. How, exactly? I'm fairly certain most of a songs revenue is made by the first year. To go beyond that, you've got to get your song back in the public mind. > Silver doesn't do that. You can certainly borrow against the value of the silver to fund low risk investments.
- djaychela 7y ago> How, exactly? I'm fairly certain most of a songs revenue is made by the first year. To go beyond that, you've got to get your song back in the public mind. Bass player with a 70s pop star who's still working and making music here.... I know that his hit songs still generate a significant amount of income for him (I'm not giving figures, but I would be more than happy if I had that much coming in for a full time income, let alone as passive income 50 years later). The songs get airplay, and get used in adverts and so on, and that generates income that I'd certainly be very happy to have. (I don't, I'm just a hired hand, very late to the party!)
- cgriswald 7y agoThat's kind of my point. Getting airplay and being in adverts helps keep his song in the public mind which generates income from the song. He may see it as passive income, but people are doing things to keep that income going. I'm also guessing he didn't start out eight figures in the hole by purchasing his songs from someone else.
- seanalltogether 7y agoSo if I'm reading this correctly, this guy is saying that traditional labels put too much time and effort into album sales and completely ignore the money available from licensing and performance royalties (if they don't own the rights to a song why would they care to) So by buying up the rights he has the incentive to push hard to sell licenses to that music and can build up teams of salespeople to do only that. What songwriter wouldn't want to sign up if they don't like the burden of managing those opportunities themselves and don't trust that labels will put the effort in.
- allcentury 7y agoI think he's buying the publishing (mechanical royalties).
- zozbot234 7y agoThat's quite ironic in a sense, because "the publishing" is the very thing where there's a huge amount of perfectly-serviceable music that's totally in the public domain, with zero "rights" or "royalties" to contend with. And it's not just 'boring', classical pieces, but music in popular styles too. This whole setup is ripe for a "disrupt from below"/"commoditize your complement" play where someone purposely brings those old 19th century (and before!) songs from IMSLP back in style as the perfect troll move. Heck, the record labels might do it at this point - after all, they'll still have the rights to the actual performed audio ("the master").
- technofiend 7y agoFrom the article he's dedicating marketers to synch rather than mechanicals. I quoted the explanation of all three revenue streams for people like myself who don't automatically know which is which. With Hipgnosis Songs Fund, Mercuriadis bypassed all of them. Songwriters are able to generate revenue from three sources: mechanical royalties (the sale or legal download of a song), performance royalties (paid every time a song is heard in public, whether it’s a live performance, on TV, or in a movie; played in a bar or restaurant; or streamed), and synch fees (song licensing for use in movies, video games, and commercials). Mechanical royalties are the only stream with a set rate; performance and synch royalties are negotiated percentages. Synchs are often more lucrative for the songwriter, since they generally split 50% for the writer and the artist, with the label taking its cut from the artist’s piece of the pie. Synch is where Hipgnosis Song Fund could make them money, as Mercuriadis explained to the 177 hedge fund and private investors he pitched between 2015 and 2018.
- nickthemagicman 7y agoThis doesn't bother me one bit. I think he's making a mistake though. Taylor Swift, Timbaland, and Bruno Mars are all arguably homogenous music made by marketing groups for middle American focus groups. They are endlessly replaceable, rather forgettable, artists and will be lost to history by the 'next big thing' that sounds just like it or very similar in a year or two. It has more in common with pop fashion than originally expressive art. Music made by marketers for middle America focus groups commodifies music so that the next thing can easily replace the current thing. Who remembers blaque, or 3LW, or All-4-One or the train is boy and girl bands from the past? This is just the music business cannibalizing itself. Truly expressive, original, personal, music will always be timeless in my opinion, because its irreplaceable, the style is non reproducible, and it's pretty much unexplainable how it's created.even by the artist...see led zepp, Beatles, Billy Corgan, Mozart, etc. etc. That's my thoughts and what music I think what he should be focusing on.
- dangus 7y agoThis gives me the impression that you didn't quite get what the article was about, and I'm not supposed to suggest that you didn't read it but let's just say I have my suspicions. This company is often buying songwriter's catalogs, not just specific public-facing artists that come and go. And while you may not remember the artists names, these songs often end up in commercials and other adaptations that generate revenue, even if they're not actually the original recording. If a commercial plays the song "Whip It," do you remember that it was performed by Devo? I sure didn't, but I've seen it in a heck of a lot of commercials, like this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqnPciNhQXU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqnPciNhQXU The rights holder to that song undoubtedly made money from that commercial, even though the lyrics have been changed. The importance of the songwriter over the artist has been growing, all of this was mentioned in the article.
- redis_mlc 7y ago> The importance of the songwriter over the artist has been growing, all of this was mentioned in the article. That has always been the case in the USA. The band's songwriter buys a mansion, and the rest rent apartments. The Go-gos (writer Jane Wiedlin), Twisted Sister (writer Dee Snyder) and Smashing Pumpkins (writer Billy Corrigan) broke up over that, and prolly a majority of other bands. Songwriter Diane Warren is prolly a billionaire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_written_by_Diane_Warren https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_written_by_Diane... What's interesting is that above even that is owning publishing rights, pioneered by Frank Sinatra. He produced his own albums, then after he mastered he shopped for a distributor. Almost no US musicians bothered to retain publishing rights, aside from Steve Vai, Frank Zappa and a few other hard-asses. I tell Youtubers to "own your publishing." Source: in the biz.
- sinoue 7y agoAt some point this is going to suck for consumers as spotify and other streaming services get squeezed hard.
- sunstone 7y agoThrough my bleary eyes this morning I read this on my phone as $18 and I thought, yes that would be a good investment.
- zmix 7y agoTitle is totally off!
- Jerry2 7y agoHere's their investing prospectus with the complete business strategy laid out: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5937f2f1bebafb1297678ff8/t/5b349487562fa750e010ad3a/1530172554717/Hipgnosis+Songs+Fund+Limited+-+Prospectus.pdf https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5937f2f1bebafb1297678...
- carbocation 7y agoHipgnosis is a beautiful portmanteau.
- goodmachine 7y agoPity the guy stole the name from Storm Thorgerson's design studio. Kind of a dick move. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis
- trsohmers 7y agoSince it says his favorite band of all time is Pink Floyd, it is fair he is using the name as Storm and Hipgnosis designed all their major album covers. Hopefully he paid for the name...
- walshemj 7y agoI invested in this interesting investment trust back in February last year when it was featured the investors chronical and late last year when they had an offer for subscription at 100. I look at it as an alternate bond like investment that is not corelated with traditional bonds - target yield is 5% I think
- Hipgnosis 7y agoand of course this guy is trying to associate his effort with the English art design group Hipgnosis[1] that specialised in creating cover art for many famous bands. 1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipgnosis
- JumpCrisscross 7y agoFrom one perspective, this looks like economically useless activity. And it could be. But it isn't necessarily so. Historically, content creation and distribution were bundled. Distribution further bundled the content per se and performances. This was all an artefact of the up-front cost of manufacturing and distributing physical media. With digitization, there is no reason a content creator shouldn't be able to essentially freelance. Make good content. Get paid for it. No requirement to promote yourself on social media, no need to perform for audiences. One could still do that. But it would be a vertical play, not the default. A financial vector such as this one, which identifies good content, buys it, and then works out distribution, is one way to solve this problem.
- mlthoughts2018 7y agoI’d actually argue the opposite. The way it is trending in with digitization, the owners of the commodity distribution channels decide what consumers prefer, through algorithmic manipulation, seeded content and artificial scarcity. It essentially allows the distribution channel to dictate terms both ways. If you’re an artist, you can accept a pittance to produce things the distribution channel approves of (through algorithmic selection or explicit curation), or else you can make all your money from concerts and merch. But if you “make good content” that the actual end users actually monetarily value, it won’t succeed except for the concert and fame cultivation route. Because the distribution channel is going to be a buzzsaw mowing down your created content on the way to whatever it decides to force feed the masses. It takes free will entirely out of content selection on the part of the ultimate paying customer. They pay for what they have been manipulated to think they chose. The alternative is something like Bandcamp where the artist just posts music and the world decides to buy it or not. But through license & regulatory capture, catalog hoarding, etc., big distribution channels can easily use non-market forces to crush these things, and what’s left is such a low volume so as to not matter at all. It’s a certain kind of irrational exuberance / maniac grab for stock returns that we lavish ridiculous overvaluations on media delivery businesses that empower them to build these types of moats, essentially de-risking themselves from having to participate in a market by delivering a market valued product by algorithmically manipulating the consumer to eat what they’re given so the distribution channel can have all of the negotiation power. Frankly the same is true for app store distribution and tv distribution, delivery food distribution and many other things. Just such destructive behavior by investors (both VC and everyday) who are bidding up these kinds of “delivery capture” businesses.
- superkuh 7y agoOh cool. Joshua Newman's print scifi dystopia short, "Feral", is coming true. https://glyphpress.com/talk/2014/feral https://glyphpress.com/talk/2014/feral
- ghastmaster 7y agoThis looks to me like WeWork on a smaller scale. There is nothing innovative about borrowing money in a central bank facilitated bubble.
- m3kw9 7y agoThey’d need to acquire more and more music as the years go by because they are always competing with other hits and the more that hits the market the more competition they have that cut into their returns. It depends how good they are at squeezing dollars from each music.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- turk73 7y agoIf I could buy up the rights to every pop song the next day would be Emancipation Day as every one of them was deemed public domain.
- peterwwillis 7y agoIt took me a while to realize I was basically reading a really long advertisement that wasn't even intended for me. There should be little flags on stories that indicate it's basically a junket for someone's start-up.
- wiseleo 7y agoIt will be industry-wide game over when they grab Max Martin and Lukasz Gottwald https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radio-was-probably-written-by-these-two/ https://nypost.com/2015/10/04/your-favorite-song-on-the-radi... I think the goal is to launch the next ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and basically charge astronomical rates for songs people want to hear. Songwriters will love it and artists will have no choice. This is pretty much a confirmation: "Along with owning a bigger chunk of the publishing market, he wants to continue altering it. He’s considering launching a songwriter’s union, something akin to the Screenwriters Guild, that would give songwriters more leverage to extract better deals from the industry’s power brokers." It's a public company. I might want to buy some stock in it when I can.
- doh 7y ago> I think the goal is to launch the next ASCAP/BMI/SESAC and basically charge astronomical rates for songs people want to hear. Songwriters will love it and artists will have no choice. In US, for mechanical royalties, the rates are set by government. So yes, they could charge whatever they want for live and synch, but that would have much smaller impact on the general population.
- MaxGabriel 7y agoFor anyone else who didn’t know, synchronization rights let you use the music for TV, movies, commercials, and some more things https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchronization-rights/ https://entertainmentlaw.uslegal.com/music-industry/synchron...
- wahern 7y agoI believe negotiated rates are often lower than compulsory rates, for a variety of reasons I couldn't begin to fully comprehend except in the abstract. This may be less true in the digital streaming realm, but it's hard to tell through all the rhetoric.
- walshemj 7y agoIts Listed on the LSE with the code SONG
- m0zg 7y agoI hope he succeeds and makes "every pop song" so expensive to license that pop music just dies a natural death, yielding way to musicians who can actually play instruments and singers who can actually sing. The current situation is kind of absurd.
- _wzsf 7y agoIn the current world, it seems the "artist" has taken the form of a hive mind (artists and songwriters) while the "instruments" are the mechanisms of production and distribution - and monetization: microphones, pickups, mixers, autotuners, amplifiers, filters, mastering artists, distribution companies, Logic Pro, digital-to-analog converters, headphones... Unless they're seeing a live symphony or literally sitting in the recording studio with an artist, the vast majority of people (99.999%) aren't hearing music performed by the named artist. They're hearing music recordings generated by teams of people and performed by a computer. Local musicians (the main source of music for people earlier than about 150 years ago) just cannot compete with the supranormal stimulus of pop/rock/soul written and performed and mastered by students of psychology and music and distributed by capitalists.
- m0zg 7y agoIt's kind of like most of the stuff in a US grocery store. It's overprocessed and it's not really food, but people buy it anyway because their TV told them to.
- sbassi 7y agoSo, how much does a song license cost?
- ngcc_hk 7y agoThis is one of the most crazy discussion thread I saw here. Very complex with so many aspects of what should I say life’s not just music comments
- Ericson2314 7y agoHow is this like pitched as a union and Disney at the same time? Weird....
- gregf 7y agoI'll worry when they start coming from 80s thrash metal.
- tehjoker 7y agoConcentration naturally builds in competitive markets. As each competitor is slain, you get the stuff they owned and add to your power. Nothing stops it except pressure from below. Allowing one man to own huge swaths of our cultural heritage is absolutely mind boggling insane, like a feudal king dictating what culture the peasants are allowed to have.
- perceptronas 7y agoIts not a physical object. Songs are not going to be locked in some room and taken from society. Its just investment from his side and that seems totally OK in my book
- djmips 7y agoI feel like there might be a parallel to when an older person is lured into taking out a second mortgage on their house. Are these songwriters jeopardizing their own future by taking a quick buck now?
- kostko 7y agoRead the title as Poop Song, I was not far off...
- Iv 7y agoJust a thought: If that is really what it would cost, then for 0.1% of the cost of the Iraq war, we could have had free culture, unencumbered by copyrights. I guess for 1%, the whole century's music production released in the public domain? Surely, it would have made more for everyone's life comfort than the operation Iraq Freedom did?
- lucian1900 7y agoIndeed. Although doing nothing at all would also be much better than invading a country and causing the deaths of more than a million people.