^ As part of the venue's right to host live music yes, but it's a flat annual fee. The artist doesn't have to gain permission or pay any royalties to perform a live cover and the venue doesn't have to gain individual permission for any particular work as long as it is covered by the body they are being licensed by. Copyright holders are not allowed to deny permission for a newly recorded work, or for a live performance.
So the money was once in the sales of the sheet music, and much like the actual performance being downloaded taking the artist money the educational sites giving "tips" on performing the song are stealing the song writers fees
^ Well lots of websites like Youtube have already started paying a license fee so that people utilising songs in their videos will not be breaching copyright. I don't know if that yet applies to the websites you are talking about, but I'm sure it's only a matter of time.
^ Problem is it is constantly having to react to new technology, piling one piece of legislation on top of another until you end up with the absolute lumbering mess we have now. The right to produce a cover version without permission goes all the way back to the early 1900s, the legislation was originally supposed to pertain to the music rolls for player pianos. With phonographic recordings not yet ubiquitous, nobody really considered the implications.
The thing going on with radio at the moment in the United States is hilarious. The labels say that radio should have to pay for broadcast rights. Radio sez that it's free advertising and that therefore it shouldn't have to. The labels can't really argue with this since not only do they continue to license their music to radio for free, most of them at one time or another have been caught paying radio to broadcast their music. They've no 'free market' leg to stand on, so of course it's time to turn to Congress to pass a law. Backdoor negotiations between corporations and government ensue and they arrive at a mutually acceptable compromise: radio agrees to pay some money to labels and in return the government will mandate the inclusion of FM radio in all music playing devices: iPods, phones, etc.
Hard to get at what the real reasoning is behind this. I'm pretty sure the "sell out" part is something added by the blogger and not an actual quote from the band. It's been pointed out elsewhere that they allowed their music to be used on Gossip Girl. So maybe it's just this one song that has special significance to them? Or maybe they think a Glee cover of this particular song is a horrible idea?
Are the Kings of Leon that popular? Arcade Fire seems to be getting the push this month that the Kings got last year
I've never heard of Glee, but I've just read a summary of it and it sounds awful. I have, however, heard of Kings of Leon, and I know they're awful.
Then you haven't heard the best songs, or enough of them that are good; I have, and I love the song 'Molly's Chambers' a lot. Maybe that's not enough, but it is for me.
It's one of those rare shows where the execution far, far, far exceeds the horrible premise. It's a fluke show. The only people I've met who disliked it and who've actually watched it (as opposed to simply saying they have) are those who went in hating the premise and didn't give it a chance despite watching it. Not surprisingly, most of them tend to just overcompensate in everything they do anyway, too. Their loss. It's a fun show, especially the first half of the season.
Yet another case of musicians picking and choosing what they consider to be selling out. Theyre okay to whore themselves on every chat show on the circuit when their next album is coming out but god forbid they should allow a fun, cheesey, light hearted massive hit to use one of their songs. Yawn. SO over KoL.
Yet another case of musicians picking and choosing what they consider to be selling out. Theyre okay to whore themselves on every chat show on the circuit when their next album is coming out but god forbid they should allow a fun, cheesey, light hearted massive hit to use one of their songs. Yawn. SO over KoL.
You really can't compare a band performing their own material as musical guests on chat TV to allowing it to be performed by other people on a fiction show. It's perfectly reasonable for them to distinguish between those two uses of their music and it's perfectly reasonable to promote yourself on chat shows if you are a professional musician. Performing your own music as a musician for the public isn't selling out, that constitutes a large part of the point of being a musician, as does selling your records to people. No offence, but a lot of the complaints here just sound like sour grapes that people think this band is insulting something that they like, people should not take it so personally. They put a lot of effort into writing and recording their music, and they don't want a bunch of kids popping it up for a TV show, they want to control where it is used. So what?!
Kings of who? (I'm being serious here) It's their prerogative to not have their music performed on Glee. I'm sure with the show's runaway popularity, they're having no trouble finding enough songs to fill the second season.
No, they're really quite bad. They're also massive knobheads going by this story. Arty farty twats with ideas above their station.
The Kings are a southern rock group who broke out the pack in 2009. As for Glee, it reminds me of the second year of Miami Vice when TV Guide and USA Today would list the songs used in each episode. The USA Today had a special section for it in the Friday paper