2 ms·

You could do the alternative. Pay the musician $400-$500 for each song and then you don't need to pay a recurring fee for it in perpetuity. Also I'm pretty su

by jpc0 3y ago

You could do the alternative. Pay the musician $400-$500 for each song and then you don't need to pay a recurring fee for it in perpetuity. Also I'm pretty sure if your carpenter has been studing to produce the works they produce and each work takes several months to a yeah then my estimated price above is off be at least 1 but probably more factors or 10

izacus 3y ago
I'm happy to do that, let's start with putting copyright back to 14 years and then we can pay more :)
- jpc0 3y ago
  These things are not mutually exclusive under current copyright law. If it wasn't expensive time wise a musician can happily give you a no-redistribution license verbally, you may want it in writing to prove they gave it to you but that is about how loose these things are. If you ask me "hey can I use this in my video for free" and you respond "yeah sure no problem" that's all it takes, if its in a text even better. Granted most musicians don't currently have redistribution rights to their own music but that is between them and their lack of hiring a good contract lawyer, and this would fall under contract law not copyright. Understand you are paying a lawyer to make intent clear in the first place since how do you define "use", we I might define it differently and the court may as well unless it is made explicit what "use" means. There is a reason that even the licensing agreement you didn't read for most software is so verbose and licensing for any creative work is about as obtuse. Intent is important though, if I intendef for you to use it to listen to at home but you instead played it tp a crowd of 20000 people and earned a fat paycheck there is a big difference there morally and under current law legally. Most musicians want their music listened to, they just want a little money back for that... Same with other art forms.

by jpc0 3y ago

izacus 3y ago

I'm happy to do that, let's start with putting copyright back to 14 years and then we can pay more :)

jpc0 3y ago
These things are not mutually exclusive under current copyright law. If it wasn't expensive time wise a musician can happily give you a no-redistribution license verbally, you may want it in writing to prove they gave it to you but that is about how loose these things are. If you ask me "hey can I use this in my video for free" and you respond "yeah sure no problem" that's all it takes, if its in a text even better. Granted most musicians don't currently have redistribution rights to their own music but that is between them and their lack of hiring a good contract lawyer, and this would fall under contract law not copyright. Understand you are paying a lawyer to make intent clear in the first place since how do you define "use", we I might define it differently and the court may as well unless it is made explicit what "use" means. There is a reason that even the licensing agreement you didn't read for most software is so verbose and licensing for any creative work is about as obtuse. Intent is important though, if I intendef for you to use it to listen to at home but you instead played it tp a crowd of 20000 people and earned a fat paycheck there is a big difference there morally and under current law legally. Most musicians want their music listened to, they just want a little money back for that... Same with other art forms.