5 ms·

Clearly there is value since there is demand. What you're saying essentially is that peoples right to pay what they want outweighs the creators right to set th

Clearly there is value since there is demand. What you're saying essentially is that peoples right to pay what they want outweighs the creators right to set their own price for their creations. That's not the way the world works. Demand can dictate price to an extent in that the seller wants to maximize earnings but it doesn't dictate it absolutely. These companies(RG, azlyrics, etc) are making money where their main product is the creative work of someone else. Damn straight that other person deserves a cut of the profits because without them there is no site.

gnaritas 13y ago
> What you're saying essentially is that peoples right to pay what they want outweighs the creators right to set their own price for their creations. That's not the way the world works. No, that's exactly how the world works for luxury items like music; demand drives, not supply. What the seller wants to charge means absolutely nothing if demand is elastic and consumers can simply stop buying. Demand sets the price, not the seller. Creators can set whatever price they like, and consumers can and will ignore them; if you want to sell something you have to set a price the market will actually bear. > Damn straight that other person deserves a cut of the profits because without them there is no site. No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong and it's stupid. You as an artist do not deserve to be paid every time someone makes a copy of your art; period. If I paint a copy of a Picasso, I don't owe the Picasso family anything and the same should apply to any other creation. Copies are not theft and the artist doesn't deserve anything.
- sanswork 13y ago
  The seller sets the price. People either don't buy it or acquire it without paying. But the buyers don't set the price. In this case the buyer is the website and they have to pay the price since they are using the product openly and publicly. >No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong. Who is this magically being that pays the writer to write the song exactly? It isn't a secondary market it's a primary market. The song writer has created something(A song!) and the site wants to use that song. They are dealing with the song writer or copyright holder that is a first sale. That person deserves to be paid for what they have created which is what this is. Your job wouldn't exist without that belief and neither would mine.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > But the buyers don't set the price. I never said they did, please do try and comprehend before simply repeating yourself. > That person deserves to be paid for what they have created which is what this is. False. > Your job wouldn't exist without that belief and neither would mine. This is a belief you hold, not a fact.
- shock-value 13y ago
  > No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong and it's stupid. Whether or not a person deserves to get paid forever for their work is irrelevant to this discussion... The point is that someone is getting paid forever in this situation -- either the original songwriter or the owners of the lyrics site. I'll accept for the sake of argument that it shouldn't be possible for a person to monetize his or her work in perpetuity -- so then why the hell should it be allowable for an unrelated third party to do so?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > I'll accept for the sake of argument that it shouldn't be possible for a person to monetize his or her work in perpetuity -- so then why the hell should it be allowable for an unrelated third party to do so? Ok, fair question. I didn't claim a person, be it first or third party, shouldn't be able to monetize anything; I said they don't deserve it, not that they can't do it. I'm disputing the sense of entitlement displayed by the use of the word deserve. No one, whether the creator nor the third party, is entitled to consumers money.
- enneff 13y ago
  So it's ok to copy and resell books without compensating the author?
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  > they got paid to write the song, they're done. In the vast majority of cases this is wrong. Most songwriters do not get paid to write songs. They get paid only when they receive royalties on the reproduction of their song. This is good for society because it means that the songs that everyone likes will provide the most reward--so songwriters have a strong incentive to write the best songs they can.

gnaritas 13y ago

> What you're saying essentially is that peoples right to pay what they want outweighs the creators right to set their own price for their creations. That's not the way the world works. No, that's exactly how the world works for luxury items like music; demand drives, not supply. What the seller wants to charge means absolutely nothing if demand is elastic and consumers can simply stop buying. Demand sets the price, not the seller. Creators can set whatever price they like, and consumers can and will ignore them; if you want to sell something you have to set a price the market will actually bear. > Damn straight that other person deserves a cut of the profits because without them there is no site. No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong and it's stupid. You as an artist do not deserve to be paid every time someone makes a copy of your art; period. If I paint a copy of a Picasso, I don't owe the Picasso family anything and the same should apply to any other creation. Copies are not theft and the artist doesn't deserve anything.

sanswork 13y ago
The seller sets the price. People either don't buy it or acquire it without paying. But the buyers don't set the price. In this case the buyer is the website and they have to pay the price since they are using the product openly and publicly. >No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong. Who is this magically being that pays the writer to write the song exactly? It isn't a secondary market it's a primary market. The song writer has created something(A song!) and the site wants to use that song. They are dealing with the song writer or copyright holder that is a first sale. That person deserves to be paid for what they have created which is what this is. Your job wouldn't exist without that belief and neither would mine.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > But the buyers don't set the price. I never said they did, please do try and comprehend before simply repeating yourself. > That person deserves to be paid for what they have created which is what this is. False. > Your job wouldn't exist without that belief and neither would mine. This is a belief you hold, not a fact.
shock-value 13y ago
> No they don't; they got paid to write the song, they're done. The notion that a person deserves to be paid forever in secondary markets where people trade their creations is a perverse and absurd notion that exists only in the messed up modern world; it's wrong and it's stupid. Whether or not a person deserves to get paid forever for their work is irrelevant to this discussion... The point is that someone is getting paid forever in this situation -- either the original songwriter or the owners of the lyrics site. I'll accept for the sake of argument that it shouldn't be possible for a person to monetize his or her work in perpetuity -- so then why the hell should it be allowable for an unrelated third party to do so?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > I'll accept for the sake of argument that it shouldn't be possible for a person to monetize his or her work in perpetuity -- so then why the hell should it be allowable for an unrelated third party to do so? Ok, fair question. I didn't claim a person, be it first or third party, shouldn't be able to monetize anything; I said they don't deserve it, not that they can't do it. I'm disputing the sense of entitlement displayed by the use of the word deserve. No one, whether the creator nor the third party, is entitled to consumers money.
enneff 13y ago
So it's ok to copy and resell books without compensating the author?
snowwrestler 13y ago
> they got paid to write the song, they're done. In the vast majority of cases this is wrong. Most songwriters do not get paid to write songs. They get paid only when they receive royalties on the reproduction of their song. This is good for society because it means that the songs that everyone likes will provide the most reward--so songwriters have a strong incentive to write the best songs they can.