Jdog #15 on: February 18, 2015, 19:31

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8518
  • Karma: +14/-11
    • View Profile
Yes bencuri it has to benefit the publisher and the artist etc. thats one of their revenue streams. And nobody will like it if people are taking their money away from them if they could've made more if it wasn't for pirating. For the people who want to hear songs played but the artist is not there, they're either going to have to go to where the artist is playing at or wait for that artist to come to a city near them.
Or moto asala le monde eza yo Nzambe tata, Kita okata po mokili trop matata, kata- Fally Ipupa

bencuri #16 on: February 18, 2015, 22:24

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 821
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
But actually it is not their money. You talk about this copyright thing as a rule of nature. As if it would be a rule of the universe that if you write a song, it must have a copyright attached to it. Artists can get revenue because somebody once came up with the idea of creating a law for copyright. But it is just and idea, and not a rule of nature. As you can see from the evolution of classical music, having no copyrights can be just as normal as not having it. Songs are not intellectual property because nature made it to be like that, but because some people came up with the idea  that they should be intellectual property. You can accept it or not. Personally I don't accept it. The fact that some thinks it is an intellectual property doesn't mean it have to be that every way. And!!! It doesn't mean that they serve the art the best this way. Read this article, it also says copyrights are actually limiting creativity. It is not only me who is talking about such things:

Copyrights are for the sake of the author, having no copyrights are for the sake of the fans. The balance should be found between the two because else it can become a culture killer.

In this particular case that Tata Nkiadi mentioned, I even find it unetchical that copyright should be paid to the family of Tabu Ley and Franco. They didn't write any song, these are the songs of Franco and Tabu Ley. They lived a life and had time to collect money to raise a family. The decendats should secure their wealth alone, not buy living on the success of their ancestor for ages. It is unethical towards fans, and you cannot exclude his fact because without fans those two guys would be nowehere. And this it something that is a rule of nature. No fans, no art. Copyright is an idea, but this, it is a rock solid rule. And this should be respected.

Moreover, in the recent state Congolese music is in, when sombody sings songs by Tabu Ley and Franco, we should consider it a blessing. Who cares if they pay copyright for those songs or not? We should be happy that these artists and their fans feel desire for hearing those songs, and not turning on MTV instead to feed themselves with foreign music. If we were in the 70's in the booming economical cicrumstance of Zaire, and you would worry about copyrights, I would say, okay. But when Congolese music is in decline (not congolese artists, but the congolese character), if you feel desire to preserve in congolese music what makes it congolese, you should place emphasis on encouraging people to look for the congolese caracter in music rather than threatening them away from it. Insisting on copyrights in the recent economical state of the congolese society and the recent trends in congolese music is rather a threatening factor than encouragement.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 22:29 by bencuri »