On 08/11/2011 08:55 PM, Bob Sneidar wrote:
<Sigh>. Once again I've started a controversy.
Lovely; where would we be without you? Probably considerably more bored
. . . :)
My original point, which perhaps I did not make terribly clear is that there is
a huge corporate machine that has grown up around copyright protection, that is
the main entity actually making the money, and often is operating contrary to
the original artists interests. A thing can (and often does) start out with
good intentions but ends up being counterproductive to the original goal. I
think in the Christian music industry, this has become a bad thing.
Perhaps I should put it this way. It is my opinion that a Christian artist should decide
whether he wants to devote himself to ministry, (which does not exclude making *some*
money by the way to cover expenses and needs) or else make a living at what he does. BOTH
CHOICES ARE EQUALLY VALID I must emphasize. But it is a bad idea and I stress IN MY
OPINION to start out calling yourself a minister, and then end up trying to get rich at
it. One seems to push out the other. "You cannot serve God and Mammon" I think
was the phrase.
Again, everything is about focus and balance.
Bob
On Aug 11, 2011, at 10:37 AM, Marty Knapp wrote:
Cool! So now all I need to do is figure out who has god-given talent (as opposed to atheistic talent or
agnostic talent???) or who is "rich" and I can take what I want!!! My brother is an airline pilot -
makes way more money than me. Has 5 cars, including a red '73 Chevy convertible. Maybe I'll just
"borrow" it for a while, when he's on a trip to Paris. He doesn't need to know and he's rich, so
it's my right! You can't drive 5 cars at the same time! Then there's my two multi-millionaire friends.
They're both self-made and very generous, but it never occurred to me that because they're rich, I have a
"right" to take some of their stuff that I've determined they don't need. Awesome!
Marty K
Years ago the large Church I work for had a recording studio and a record label, so that
we could produce "religious" music and not have to deal with the secular
industry and the exorbitant prices they charged for use of their studios. Some artists
because quite successful in their careers, as they were quite good.
Later we bought a radio station and began playing the now wide selection of
Christian music, but at one point one of the agencies that polices rights
infringements approached our radio station and insisted we pay royalties to
these artists (meaning the agency) for the right to use the music. Some of
these artists got their start in our studios, and would never have gotten
anywhere had they not started there.
Our head Pastor was so disgusted, he banned any music from an artist who belonged to one of these
agencies. Offerings on the radio were a bit slim for awhile. Now I can see someone being upset if
another artist went around performing another artist's songs for money, because it was less money
that the original artist charged. But the very thought of having people pay royalties on what we
consider to be a "gift from God" namely the talent and the inspiration for the music
seems to be... well "quenching". The moneychangers in the temple comes to mind.
Bob
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
