Horace Martin & who has the rights to distribute his works...

[OrthodoxReuBen (silver)]

First off, maximum luv to Horace Martin for making his fist ever trip to San Diego ,CA and for doing a live instore @ Trade Roots Reggae..A real honest and hardworking bredren with integrity about the muzik he creates..
One of our first discussions was obviously about muzik and the disappearance of the local Reggae/Cultural shops around the globe.. (Horace is currently residing in Toronto).Even though this topic has been brought up before by us, meaning forum members, it was very interesting to hear the artists side of this sad fact.
Horace was very clear when he said to me "Where the people going to go to get the real vibes and history of Reggae music if the shops are all closing down."? ..."What a joy it was to walk into Trade Roots and hear my voice booming out of the two HUGE Steel-Horn Cerwin Vegas by the front door"...
From an artists standpoint, Horace was surprisingly very apathetic towards the global-internet community and its "dishonest use and selling of artists private collections, unreleased material and somtimes xclusive dubplates/specials without regards to privacy and piracy"..One mystic sidepoint to this was at the time InI were disussing this, a customer was having me go thru a cd he downloaded off the internet. When I began to tell the youth the various songs and artists he said to me "YOU're wrong on that one,Milton Henry sings "Wicked a Go feel it" not Sugar Minott, it said so when I downloaded that song".. I then preceeded to show him an original press copy of both Milton Henry & Sugar Minott's works on Wackies just to squash the arguement..
This proved alot of what Horace & I were discussing.. Bad info and sometimes downright lying to create sales or download hits...
InI also discussed who actually has the rights to his Postive Vibes cd/lps.. Now the Positive vibes cds he sold us @ Trade Roots was def not the packaging you get when you buy it off EB Reggae..Same quality different look..This then lead into a discussion "certain companies undercutting artists by selling the cd CHEAPER then the artists themselves can sell it to the public"..Kind of what Wal-Mart does with the Bob Marley Legend album (retail @ Wal-Mart is $9.99 US and EB Reggae's wholesale price is $11.99 US most days)..
Horace's problem is that he is not asked either way to who the cd/lp is sold to, even though he is still alive in the flesh and that he had an original deal with The Palmer Bros. (Negus Roots) and Trevor Elliott who distributes the cd..There was an earlier mention in a post from EB that he was also part of the Negus Roots deal in some fashion (maybe EB will get on here and clear some things up)..
The fact of the matter is that a man like Horace Martin, who is alive and well, has no accesss to his own collections and has a hard time getting info. from those who say they own/distribute his works..From the amount of signed lps/cds he did @ Trade Roots Reggae of his POSITIVE VIBES album, there has to be some kind of compensation for the amount of copies sold world wide..

Please only respond to this post if you have something progressive to say.. We are trying to help these artists finally get rewarded for the great muzik they have blessed us with...
Maximum Luv...
Orthodox ReuBen

[stepping razor]

The situation that exists today, is that the music industry trade is no more. Finished. Full stop...

The only way you can earn a living from music is the do live gigs and tour. Even if you sort out ownership it will cost a lot of money going through the courts and then to win and get ripped off again. Everyone in computer world is ripping everyone else off. The new world order dog eat dog. Recording artists, recording engineers are obselete. Might as well take up being a roadie or learn a different trade.

peace

[Dave K]

We are still in the early days of on-line music distribution, which I believe in many ways mirrors the early days of U.K. companies selling and pressing Jamaican music...inflated expectations. While Horace should definitely benefit if money is made from his work, I wonder what the actual revenue is with on-line downloads.

For example, how many people would download a particular song by Horace offered on a site, for say, $1.00. And what would be a fair royalty rate for that, .25 per track? Would 100 people download that track (netting Horace $25.00). Enough for a few nice meals maybe, but it won't sustain a career.

What I am getting at is that people used to think that a record shipped to "foreign" meant a potential market of 5 billion people, which of course isn't the case. With on-line distribution, I think that the expectations of the new technology, and market size, are a little optimistic.

[stepping razor]

More like 2% royalty. Usually they pay an advance upfront payment to own/ownership the artists, which you then have sold out your royalty for the advance. That`s why itunies are cornering the closed market place and if you don`t like it , then tuff. I see the other day that the record industry want to ban people from the internet if they break the three strikes and out rule, for file sharing of music. It don`t matter if it`s downloaded for a price or on cd/vinyl, it`s a very small market compaired with rap music and pop. That`s why there is no good Hip-Hop music coming out, for many a year now. With too much choice on the internet it all gets losts.

How would the big artists fair if they were starting out today? The Beatles, The Sex Pistols, Take That, Tom Jones, etc. . . So many 80`s bands are reforming at the moment The Specials etc. and are doing tours. Even the big names have to support themselves with gigs because the records/tunes/downloads whatever you want to call it, don`t pay more than working for 20p an hour. So released music is a promotional tool to promote their live gigs so that they can get more people going to more gigs, which means even more gigs, living out of a suitcase and not in the studio.

peace

[Dave K]

2%? Yikes.

Interesting post. So really, we aren't moving to a new model....it's back to the old, pre-recording days model of where singers would sing for their supper, travelling town to town. The more things change.....

[stepping razor]

Yeh they get them running about, can`t talk to no one because you`d be breaking your record contract, let alone singing or performing without their permission of your owners you just signed away to. I`m talking generally here with pop music and how the industry has fallen to its knees, that`s if you want to get somewhere. But they forget they have to pay back the advance!! Rather than take royalties. just for the quick fast life buck. They`re no accountant they want the fame and rubbish that goes with the 15 minutes of fame and forget they will be paying off the record company for the next 10 years. Oh dear another band come back on tour just to pay back what they owe and their expensive lifestyle. The music industry was my trade in the 80`s and 90`s I don`t owe them nothing. It`s all one big rip off and it`s one of my hobby`s keeping tabs on the industry, because I wouldn`t call it a job for 20p an hour. You might as well go busking.

peace

[stepping razor]

So many people to pay: The promoter, The manager, the PR, the make-up artist, the hairdresser, the lawyer, the accountant, the phone bill talking to all of them, the adviser, the tour manager, the runner, the taxis, 40% business tax, Company director headed paper the list goes on and on down to 2%.

peace

[stepping razor]

IPODS, FIRST SALE, PRESIDENT OBAMA, AND THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND.

Commentry by Fred von Lohmann
Electronic Frontier Foundation.
April 2nd 2009

President Obama reportedly gave an iPod loaded with 40 show tunes, to England`s Queen Elizabeth II as a gift. Did he violate the law when he did so?

You know your copyright laws are broken when there is no easy answer to this question.

Traditionally, it has been the job of the "first sale" doctrine to enable gift giving -- that`s the provision of copyright law that entitles the owner of a CD, book, or other copyrighted work to give it away (or resell it, for that matter), notwithstanding the copyright owner`s exclusive right of distribution.

In the digital era however, first sale has been under siege, with copyright owners (and even the Copyright Office) arguing that it has no place in a world where "ownership" has been replaced by "licenses" and hand-to-hand exchanges have been replaced by computer-mediated exchanges that necessarily make copies. But it`s precisely because first sale is central to everyday activities like giving an iPod to a friend, selling a used CD on eBay, or borrowing a DVD from a library, that EFF and others have been fighting for it in case after case.

So, how does President Obama fare in this? Its nearly impossible to figure out. If he`d simply purchased a "greatest hits" CD of show tunes and given it to the Queen, the first sale doctrine would have taken care of it. But because digital technology is involved here, suddenly it`s a legal quagmire. (And, for the remainder of this discussion, I am going to set aside the Presidential immunity issues and the UK copyright law issues, which make it even more of a quagmire.)

First, let`s imagine that the President (or his staff) bought the 40 show tunes from the iTunes music store. Do you "own" the music that you buy from iTunes? The nearly 9,000 words of legalese to which you agree before buying don`t answer that question (an oversight? I doubt it). Copyright owners have consistently argued in court that many digital products (even physical "promo" CDs!) are "licensed," not "owned," and therefore you`re not entitled to resell them or give them away. (And the Amazon MP3 Store terms of service are even worse for consumers than iTunes -- those terms specifically purport to strip you of "ownership" and forbid "redistribution").

Second, even if the first sale doctrine applies to iTunes downloads, what about the additional copies made on the iPod? So President Obama`s staff made an additional copy onto the Queen`s intended iPod. How are those copies excused? The iTunes terms of service say that downloads are "only for personal, noncommercial use." Is giving a copy to a head of state a "personal" use? Seems more like a "diplomatic use," doesn`t it? So copyright owners could argue that the copy on the iPod was not authorized, because it was beyond the scope of the iTunes "license." And according to the typical rightsholder arguement, any use beyond the scope of the "license" is a copyright infringement.

Perhaps it`s a fair use? I`d certaintly take that view. But does it matter whether President Obama`s staffer first deleted the copy that is still on her computer? Should that matter? (It does not matter for first sale purposes, which is one reason why the first sale doctrine answers questions so much more clearly.)

Third, what about a breach of contract? As I mentioned above, some might argue that this "use" of iTunes downloads breaches the "personal use" limitation in the agreement. And if it is a breach of the iTunes contract, can the copyright owners sue President Obama as "third party beneficiaries" of the iTunes contract? It`s not clear (in the Amazon terms of service, copyright owners specifically made third party beneficiaries, which appears to be an attempt to clear a path for record labels to sue Amazon customers for breaches of the contract.)

And all of this even before you start asking what happens when the Queen connects her new iPod to her computer, thereby making even more copies (the Uk, after all, lacks a fair use doctrine) . . . UPDATE: Prof. Michael Froomkin points out that the Queen enjoys sovereign immunity under UK law because she is, well, the sovereign.

Of course, no one thinks that copyright owners are going to send lawyers after either President Obama or the Queen over this. But none of us should want a world where even our leaders--much less the rest of us--can`t figure out how copyright law operates in thier daily lives.
Fred von Lohmann
Senior Staff Attorney

Fred von Lohmann is a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, specializing in intellectual propety matters. In that role, he has represented programmers, technology innovators, and individuals in a variety of copyright and trademark litigation, including MGM v Grokster, decided by the Supreme Court in 2005. Fred has an A.B. from Stanford University and a J.D. from Standford Law School.

source : Electronic Frontier Foundation: -
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/fi ... en-england

peace

[Swisher Dread]

We at spliffdance.com are well aware of this roytalty issue destroying the art. We also know the artist is sure to get his pay when the fans go to the live shows. So we stream the concerts, and keep em online forever. NO YOUTUBE. We don't want to sell the clips or have them pirated by the internet thugs. Strictly preserving this music forever. We want people to get an idea of how great the shows are, and maybe they will attend in higher numbers. There is a 20 Min. clip of the Horace Martin Show right now at www.SpliffDance.com.

Nuff respect to Orthodox Reuben and all of the Trade Roots Crew in my hometown San Diego.

[stepping razor]

Your link don`t work, here`s the link working
http://www.spliffdance.com/

"See me yah, see me yah, a who me favour, tell me who me favour, just the other day me go a England, the Queen say she love me, but she want me fe cut me natty, me nah cut me natty, me nah trim me natty, to achieve vanity, me nah cut me natty"
Horace Martin - See Me Yah

peace