CD to MP3: Format shifting allowed, but pirates beware, says RiSA

DarkStreet said:
What?! :eek:
Click to expand...

Yep, once you have taken out the Production Cost, Distribution Cost, Marketing Cost, Industry Fees, Management Fees, Sideline Royalties, etc.... there is not much left for the person who actually wrote the music in the first place.
 
DarkStreet said:
Not for me obviously.
Click to expand...

Most music artists make more money from live appearances and scheduled gigs than they do from album sales. The album sales only start to pay off years later and if they hit the millions. And if they can make any money off future royalties.
 
Drunkard #1 said:
So unless you concede a few key points, like dropping the copyright term back to seven years, you can kiss my ass, despite any laws you may manipulate to your liking.
Click to expand...

What is the current term for Copyright in South Africa? And does international copyright law apply here? ie, if our copyright term was 7 years, would that mean any international publication older than 7 years is public domain in South Africa?
 
psichron said:
What is the current term for Copyright in South Africa? And does international copyright law apply here? ie, if our copyright term was 7 years, would that mean any international publication older than 7 years is public domain in South Africa?
Click to expand...

To the first question I can provide an answer: According to the AfricanCommons website the current term is 50 years, but there is a push (it doesn't specify how hard or emphatic that push is, though) to have that increased to 70 years. Part of the AfricanCommons petition is to have the period of copyright kept at 50 years.
 
I remember reading an article a few years back where it stated that Madonna (not exactly your little indie label artist) would only get 1 US$ per copy sold. So, yeah, the artists get royally ripped off!
 
If they know the law is wrong/outdated then shouldn't they focus on getting the law current instead of relying on a no-prosecuting policy? Alas there isn't any profit in that.

When asked to comment Du Plessis said
Regarding reform of the copyright law he said, "Just because our Copyright Act reads differently to that of the US doesn't make it dated. As it is written today, the law allows copyright owners and RiSA to prosecute those who sell or share music without having the rights to do so."
Click to expand...

Obviously only interested in prosecuting. Nothing to do with the law really, its all about the money involved.
 
What gives RISA the right to decide on the interpretation of a law?
 
It's ok to break the law if it suits RiSA. They will only prosecute if they feel the need.

Oh, I have such a warm nice feeling now. :cry:
 
Garyvdh said:
Artists typically get less than 5% of the sales revenue.
Click to expand...

Garyvdh said:
Yep, once you have taken out the Production Cost, Distribution Cost, Marketing Cost, Industry Fees, Management Fees, Sideline Royalties, etc.... there is not much left for the person who actually wrote the music in the first place.
Click to expand...

Swines :mad:
 
This is exactly what is wrong with this country! They are saying it's OK to brake the Law! This makes ALL other laws questionable. Is it ok to kill someone? Is it ok to drive without a seatbelt? Is it ok to have more than one wife? ect. ect. ...
 
I've always wondered, these guys who can't afford to buy a set of earphones for their cellphones and who instead play their music via speakerphone for all to hear, aren't they guilty of illegal public performance?
 
Wyzak said:
What gives RISA the right to decide on the interpretation of a law?
Click to expand...

You do. In not petitioning your MPs to change the law you tacitly approve of the current situation where RISA acts on behalf of its customers to file civil suits against violators of copyright.

Remember, the issue here are RISA member CDs. Non-member CDs - eg indie or foreign CDs are not under RISA's jurisdiction. The copyright owner or his agent has to sue and in this case RiSA has those powers only for its members.
 
jtr said:
I've always wondered, these guys who can't afford to buy a set of earphones for their cellphones and who instead play their music via speakerphone for all to hear, aren't they guilty of illegal public performance?
Click to expand...

Well they are certainly guilty of public annoyance.
 
jtr said:
I've always wondered, these guys who can't afford to buy a set of earphones for their cellphones and who instead play their music via speakerphone for all to hear, aren't they guilty of illegal public performance?
Click to expand...

Yes. RiSA can sue but only if they're playing their members' music.
 
The entire Copyright Act in South Africa requires modification to keep up with technological developments. Imagine recording an old 78rpm vinyl that clearly states that it may not be reproduced in any form whatsoever - but who can play it when no one has 78rpm players?
 
g-d-zilla said:
The entire Copyright Act in South Africa requires modification to keep up with technological developments. Imagine recording an old 78rpm vinyl that clearly states that it may not be reproduced in any form whatsoever - but who can play it when no one has 78rpm players?
Click to expand...

I'll bet those guys at RiSA still have their record players! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X