What is Digg?111 Comments
- jkneeshaw, on 05/05/2009, -5/+45Maybe he should have signed a better contract.
- boojoy, on 05/05/2009, -1/+38This video is very low on actual explanation, and very high on rambling old man saying the same thing over and over.
- pegothejerk, on 05/05/2009, -2/+36Someone needs to help him set up a paypal account and donate button.
- Kaosaur, on 05/05/2009, -2/+28I don't see the problem here. THEY DIDN'T WRITE THE SONG!
Sure, it made his band a moderate success but they were essentially a hired gun.
*****, they're lucky they didn't have to pay the songwriter to perform his song...
This is almost on the same level as saying that artists should get paid crazy royalties whenever their covers of other bands songs are played. - bobburn1, on 05/05/2009, -0/+16He didn't write the song, he simply performed it. But it's *his* performance that gets played at every game.
- kplo, on 05/05/2009, -0/+15Now you owe that guy five bucks.
- inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+14I'm sure he wasn't complaining when his band got all kinds of recognition for the song. They didn't even write it. Instead of complaining about not getting any money, he should be warning young bands to read their contracts before signing.
- Curtisnot, on 05/05/2009, -0/+14Actually writing one popular song can and often does grant a comfortable retirement for many people. The problem with this guy is that he didn't write anything.
- Nateon, on 05/05/2009, -1/+14Buried for total misinformation. People are misunderstanding, he didn't write the song, Richard Berry did. The Kingsmen were one of many bands to cover the song. The version you hear at sporting events is usually a marching band version with no relation to this guy at all. He doesn't deserve anything from this song unless people are buying his band's record.
- Balath, on 05/05/2009, -0/+12This is the way it works. Recording artists do not receive royalties for having their music played on the radio, but composers do.
There is a "reasonable" explanation of this. Read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture." It will change your perception of copyright law.
If recording artists see any money from record sales, it was written into the contract before they recorded the song. If he got a check for $5,000, he probably signed a contract agreeing to that.
I'm not saying it's right. The Recording Industry is made of thieves. - evilregis, on 05/05/2009, -1/+13I'm not familiar with any of his other work. Writing one popular song does not automagically grant him a comfortable retirement. Nor do I think that being just a one-hit-wonder should preclude a comfortable retirement for him.
I think he should be getting royalties for his work, but he clearly bunged up a contract somewhere along the way to be in the situation he's in.
Hopefully he can rectify it somehow. - mydigglogin, on 05/05/2009, -4/+16In a sane world, the song should be in public domain after all this time. MHO.
- Shipyaad, on 05/05/2009, -0/+11Thing is... he didn't write the song.
- asgardshill, on 05/05/2009, -1/+11This is exactly why artists shouldn't hire an agent out of the Yellow Pages or from a flyer nailed to a telephone pole.
The heirs and assigns of the women who wrote the song "Happy Birthday To You" still get paid every time the song is performed in a movie or TV production; why can't this guy do the same thing? - KarateMedia, on 05/05/2009, -0/+10How many of those "Louie Louie"s being played at sports arenas are the Kingsmen's version? How many even include vocals? Is he talking about marching bands playing the song? Recorded versions?
The fact is, he's not the composer. He's certainly not going to get paid for other versions of the song.
And does he think Springsteen's really not getting paid? He's the composer, he's getting paid, even if the performance royalties aren't getting to him.
The fact is that this is old news. Yes, he got screwed by a system from 50 years ago. (if even that's true, he was just the singer, and wouldn't get paid for other versions of the song). None of that applies now. Artists can found their own publishing companies, they can retain rights that they never would have had back in the Kingsmen's time. They can press and distribute their own albums, for Christ's sake. This is a non story.
(And that's not to say that royalty and rights issues still don't crop up -- just that discussing this story is like including the fate of a single random 18th century slave in a discussion of modern civil rights. It's an OK bit of historical info, but has little bearing on the current landscape) - theremixtrack, on 05/05/2009, -0/+9ANIMAL HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!
- Curtisnot, on 05/05/2009, -1/+10He doesn't receive money because he's not an artist. He didn't create anything. He was a hired gun....nothing more. Songwriters write songs and get royalties, he's just a vocalist no different than a hired trumpet player.
- RumpleForeskin3, on 05/05/2009, -3/+12Who else was expecting him to put on a tin foil hat and continue rambling about the CIA stealing his thoughts?
- Snoogs, on 05/05/2009, -1/+9The guy in the Chewbacca costume didn't get paid residuals either...
- reyoo30309, on 05/05/2009, -1/+8Sadly he is a little like golem, rambling about his stolen precious. But I do feel for the guy. Artist should be payed more for what they do. Our current system essentially rewards the leeches.
- reyoo30309, on 05/05/2009, -2/+9When your trying to get your foot in the door you will take just about anything.
- geoman2k, on 05/05/2009, -0/+6he didn't write the song, a guy named Richard Berry did
- woofers07, on 05/05/2009, -1/+7yep, those are the lyrics.
- zomgwaffles, on 05/05/2009, -4/+10Isn't this song about the pot smoking orangutan from Jungle Book?
- bigfatphony19, on 05/05/2009, -0/+6Yeah but at least he got his face out th....
Oh - asgardshill, on 05/05/2009, -1/+7According to Wikipedia, over 1,500 bands have covered Louie Louie. Should they all get a cut too? I'm sorry Jack Ely's having a hard time, but he should have had a more aggressive agent/produced more good stuff during his performing life.
- groo68, on 05/05/2009, -0/+6no one but harrison ford asked for money off of sales, they got payed up front.
- DrDigg, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5Here is a written story about it, and not the ramblings of an old man.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-radio-air ... - johnpaul191, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5It's not anything unusually bad about his contract. He didn't write the song. The person (or label) that owns the publishing rights gets all the royalties from radio airplay. Blame BMI/ASCAP or whomever owns it. Most/all of Europe has a system that also compensates the performer. In theory he should get a cut of "record sales", and that's where he could have signed a bad contract.
The same thing would happen to a singer like Sheryl Crow performing somebody else's song. In 2009 they can get a cut of the iTMS/Amazon/CD sales, but they get nothing off radio airplay. In theory, or at least 10 years ago, it also helped them sell albums and hopefully brought out people to see them live. Live performances are where the actual musicians make their money. That true from the smallest indie label bands to people like Madonna. - punkcat, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5update, 2:25 in and thinking wtf is this.
- bobbydiamondz, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5That pretty much describes the song as well.
- geoman2k, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5that's the first thing i thought too... it seems people don't really get how the music industry works. unless a contract is made to say otherwise, the singer/musicians only get payed for their performance.
the song writer is the one who receives the royalties.
this says something about the public's understanding of the modern music industry... people expect that anyone associated with any popular song from any time period instantly deserves to be rich for the rest of their life. that isn't how it works (for the most part), and shouldn't be.
we download mp3s all day and get pissed off when record companies try to charge more for CD's (i'm not defending the RIAA), but at the same time we expect all musicians to be rolling around in limos and escalades their entire lives. anyone else see the conflict here? - pegothejerk, on 05/05/2009, -1/+6I wouldn't click the donate button because I just listened to the song. I would click it to help out a fellow human who deserves it.
- Yazilliclick, on 05/05/2009, -0/+5As the video even says, the children of the person who actually wrote the song are getting $100,000 in royalties each every year.
- Trifold, on 05/05/2009, -2/+6The recording industry sign an artist to an unfair deal in which the artist sees little to no money? No way, I don't believe it!
/s, duh. - LastVisibleDog, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4It isn't that simple.
When music is performed (a recording is played or a band plays a song) - this is covered by ASCAP and BMI dues. I am a musician and I play both original and cover songs. The venues that hire my band must pay fees to ASCAP and BMI or risk being sued. Since venues pay a flat fee for a year - no matter what songs are played - very little (if any) of the money actually goes to the song-writers or performers.
He did not write Louie Louie so all that is really coming to him is money related to sales of the records (depending on what kind of contract he signed) - asgardshill, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4"A lot of the "Good ol' boys" singing "bye-bye Miss American Pie..." signed-over all rights to their songs for drinking money."
Correct. And don't get me wrong - I've nothing against artists who do iconic covers getting paid. Hell, if Jack Ely will open a Paypal account, I'll send him some bread. It's just that the system simply doesn't work that way unless your aggressive and whip-smart agent sets it up that way. - Yazilliclick, on 05/05/2009, -0/+4Paid more for what? He's not doing anything. He's not looking to get paid for what he's doing, he's wanting to get paid constantly because he played somebody elses song once.
- Yazilliclick, on 05/05/2009, -1/+5Why should he be living comfortably from playing one song? Nah, he's doing nothing and that doesn't warrant being able to sit on your ass and pull in cash especially since he didn't even write the song (and as the video says, the children of the writer are getting good money from roytalties).
- KarateMedia, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Interesting article - thanks. Based on the record industry's past history, who wants to bet they're trying to ride this through on the backs of people like Ely, then will turn around and give them pennies for their share?
Also, this quote: "It gets played twice a day by every oldies radio station everywhere in the world." Really? There are still oldies stations? I live in a major metropolitan city and they got rid of the oldies station years ago.
I can't remember the last time I heard the Kingsmen's version of "Louie Louie." In the recent past, I've heard marching bands play it, Black Flag play it, even the quasi Joy Division version in 24 Hour Party People. But I'm certainly not hearing the Kingsmen's version anywhere recently. - jkneeshaw, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4Gotchya.
Either way, as a professional artist, you should know how the system works. Want radio royalties? Write your own songs, or only cover songs if you are able to negotiate your own deal with the original songwriter (some of these must exist).
I would understand if he was campaigning to change the system and warn new artists, but the general feeling I got from the video was he was just trying to get money he isn't entitled to. - greevar, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3*paid*
- gametavern, on 05/05/2009, -1/+4And that's why contracts are made. Needs to be a tougher negotiator I guess.
- cleanme, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3It rewards the Manager rather than the Worker. Not cool. I always assumed that something was always being worked out and it is but to the wrong people. Well, yes the producer should get a royalty too as well for his/her efforts but as well as the Musicians for theirs.
Yazillliclick, if it wasn't for Jack Ely that song may never have been a hit and thus the producer's family would not be getting $100,000 per year. It rightfully should be divided up, what percentage I'm not sure. - Stingwolf, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3"Copyright will protect the song for the entire life of composer (as it should)."
Why should it? That is completely unreasonable. 30 years is the absolute longest anything should be held under copyright.
"It has only been 12 years since he died, so his family/estate is still entitled to collect money off of this song."
Why are they "entitled" to do so? Did they write the song?
"Imagine if the Lennon estate stopped receiving royalties after he was murdered in 1980, it wouldn't make sense as his wife still had a child to support."
That is a ridiculous justification. If I died today, my wife would get my life insurance payout and that's it. No one is entitled to profit. People should work to survive, not cash in on the work of others. - inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Sorry, "He" was the original writer AND artist.
- gttim, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Actually, The Kingsman version that he sings on is the most played and the most famous. If you hear it at a sporting event, it is most likely his voice.
- UselessTrivia, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3So you lose money on that song, but if you're a good musician you get a better deal on the next album.
That's kinda how it works. Some one-hit-wonders end up living large off their song, but most just fade away. - inactive, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Most people are missing that the right man is getting paid for the song- Richard Berry. I was the original writer AND artist. This guy covered it. His version might be more popular, but that doesn't matter. Why is Diggnation caring anyways? Everyone steals music here lol...
- Yazilliclick, on 05/05/2009, -0/+3Or you know, to put in some ***** work afterwards and earn some cash.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 113 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is