31–40 of 363 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's beside the point. The performers are starting to demand a portion of the revenue stream that should be going to "people who aren't the performers".
Would there be a revenue stream without the performers?
I mean, I have sympathy for the writers, but I also don't believe that it's necessarily equitable that a songwriter receives all the money when a song is played on the radio but the performer receives nothing (that is my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong). Consider the case of "I Will Always Love You", written and originally performed by Dolly Parton but made globally famous by Whitney Houston. I mean, Pa…
In this case the writers are talking about "publishing" rights which are distinct and separate from the sound recording (I believe those are called the "master" rights). ---- Copyright is split into two main sections: copyright in the song (known as publishing rights) and copyright in the sound recording (known as master rights). The publisher only deals with the publishing right, which is the songwriting side and in…
Wow I had no idea this was taking place. It reminds me a little of the fight hollywood screenwriters have fought to get equal billing and recognition. I always assumed that the writer got the most money!
Maybe in Christopher Nolan's case that may be true. Even in the rare case of an original script i doubt that the writers get any significant slice of the pie. It would be interesting to know more about how the film industry pays its contributors.
More commonly, at some point a different writer is brought in to update it, sometimes heavy rewrites, sometimes just tweaks. Once it gets filmed, the writer's guild has a process of arbitration to determine who gets credit, based on roughly who is believed to have contributed the most original material. The person or persons who are considered the primary creators get residuals based on % of money made (actual money made not the Hollywood accounting bullshit).
My opinion is that they shouldn't care and in fact have no basis to complain. I consider it "work for hire", and they are being paid handsomely for their work. Do we developers complain when, if we work for Apple, that Apple takes credit for our work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's beside the point. The performers are starting to demand a portion of the revenue stream that should be going to "people who aren't the performers".
Would there be a revenue stream without the performers?
My opinion is that they shouldn't care and in fact have no basis to complain. I consider it "work for hire", and they are being paid handsomely for their work. Do we developers complain when, if we work for Apple, that Apple takes credit for our work?
My opinion is that they shouldn't care and in fact have no basis to complain. I consider it "work for hire", and they are being paid handsomely for their work. Do we developers complain when, if we work for Apple, that Apple takes credit for our work?
> they are being paid handsomely for their work. I think the complaint is that they aren't being paid "adequately", but without actual numbers it's hard to tell. I suspect few of them are making SV developer salaries.
Seriously, who even listens to pop music these days??
My opinion is that they shouldn't care and in fact have no basis to complain. I consider it "work for hire", and they are being paid handsomely for their work. Do we developers complain when, if we work for Apple, that Apple takes credit for our work?