Multimillionaire behind Katy Perry’s music holds more than…

Bloomberg – Last month, Katy Perry sold most of her music covers for $225 million to Litmus Music. This is the latest in a series of high-precision sharpeners.

After receiving impressive offers from inversion firms such as Hipgnosis and Shamrock Capital, Paul Simon, Dr. Dre and other artists literally sold out all their work.

While the scale of these deals may be unprecedented, they took a long time to complete.

These discoveries cap a revolution that began more than a century ago, when music creators’ claims began with the unlikely metamorphosis of a legal claim limited to something that could be monetized on a large scale.

Although Congress approved the first copyright laws in 1790, it did not extend this protection to musical works until 1831.

But the new author’s comments refer to something very specific: publishing the letter and notes as a score.

Anyone who buys the score is effectively buying the right to interpret the music, and the gifts are returned to the composer. But this was a unique deal: a single copy of the score gave the buyer the right to interpret the music an infinite number of times, at his own time, at home or in front of a paying audience.

I use this for composers in discovery.

In the 1890s, Paul Dresser published “On the Banks of the Wabash Away,” a sentimental song about lost love in Indiana. The score sold 500,000 copies and earned over US$100,000, becoming one of the most profitable songs of its time. But Dresser never sees a centavo in the many performances of his work.

I just got the money with the grabs. New methods of reproducing musical sounds: the phonograph, which reproduced music using wax cylinders; a gramophone that depended on records; and the said pianos, “draped” on rolls of paper, took away the lei-derecho of the usual author. They created a situation in which, as historian Alex Cummings wrote, “nothing was sacred.”

The companies that drove these new technologies argued that, from a legal perspective, it was a matter of adoption rather than acquisition. Thus, when a phonograph or piano company wanted the rights to produce records or rolls, they would simply buy one copy of the score before selling mechanical versions to the general public.

Enraged composers, artists and performers made demands on the usurpers, making what now seemed a reasonable enough claim: the mechanical reproduction of the music was not an interpretation, but a pirated copy.

No embargo when the Supreme Court EE.UU. He solved a key case involving a piano company that failed against artists in 1908. Although copying the score of the following song on pirated paper was an infringement of the author’s rights, the gramophone record based on this song was not.

To be fair, the tribunal made this decision out of respect for the original version of the 1831 law, which did not involve new technological advances.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes subsequently made it clear in his decision that Congress could seek a revision of the law to recognize that “anything that mechanically reproduces (a) recording of sound must be considered a copy.”

One might think that Congress’s passage of the Copyright Act of 1909 stirred things up even further. The copyright holder (usually the composer and music editor) is given the right to choose who will be the first to mechanically reproduce the work.

After this point, without an embargo, anyone can purchase or make copies of the song by paying the copyright holder a mandatory fee of two centavos for each copy made.

My members of Congress could not come to the conclusion that a recording of a song would require protection like its lyrics and score. Instead, they tried to solve the problem entirely from the perspective of the original composer and editor. This effectively legalized the sale of pirated copies.

In the 1960s, the widespread use of magnetic belts further fueled widespread piracy, and when culprits began publishing illegal copies of albums by artists such as Bob Dylan and the Beatles, it prompted record companies to become more serious.

They began popping up in New York State to enforce anti-piracy laws, which others quickly followed.

Although they did not grant copyrights, these laws paved the way for Congress’s approval of the Sound Grabacions Act of 1971, which allowed companies to protect their grabacions. A later law, passed in 1976, created additional protection by giving corporations a 75-year right to any profits they generate.

In the process, purchases were transformed into something that could be bought and sold like any other inversion, and their value was determined by the belief that a popular song would follow if it did in the foreseeable future.

The growth of digital audio archives, and therefore in particular the cost of copying and distributing music, means that copyright ownership (music and lyrics on the one hand and recording on the other) is becoming an increasingly attractive proposition.

In Katy Perry’s song “If You Can Afford Me,” she sings, “You can’t write a check… You can buy it, but you’ll pay the price.”

Thanks to the evolution of the works of musical authors over the decades, inversionists have come to the conclusion that this activity is definitely worth pursuing, no matter how high the cost.

This note does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editors of Bloomberg LP and its owners.


Source link

Leave a Comment