Out of touch.. - Page 2

jaysay · 12-04-2009, 09:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Admittedly Pete Waterman is already a wealthy man, but that really isn't the point.

Millionaire or pauper, there's a principle at stake.

If he co-wrote the song, it should be protected by copyright.

After all the owners of YouTube/Google aren't exactly short of a bob or two either, and they are making money off Waterman's work. Especially if they're just paying eleven quid, for a song that's been watched 154 million times.

Think thats a point thats escaped everybody Rindi

derekgas · 12-04-2009, 21:42

I agree with Garinda, but have no sympathy for Waterman personally, I would guess he has exploited a few over the years, the talent shows he co presented stitch all the finalsists up to a contract which makes them more money than the eventual winners for starters.

Taggy · 13-04-2009, 13:55

Yeh forget Waterman and his rubbish...if you want real quality from a you tube video click on this one of me mate Dene redoing that fantastic song Agadoo!!!

A star is reborn!!!

Best Regards - Taggy

andrewb · 13-04-2009, 14:53

Perhaps he needs a new publisher who has a clue then? Youtube had a deal with them. My main outrage is that he compares himself to exploited third world workers.

derekgas · 13-04-2009, 14:57

If he is so concerned about the third world, perhaps he could give some of his many millions over to them!

jaysay · 13-04-2009, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taggy

Yeh forget Waterman and his rubbish...if you want real quality from a you tube video click on this one of me mate Dene redoing that fantastic song Agadoo!!!

A star is reborn!!!

Best Regards - Taggy

I skipped it the first time around Taggy, think I'll give it a miss this time too

Taggy · 13-04-2009, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I skipped it the first time around Taggy, think I'll give it a miss this time too

LOL!! Me too...on both counts Jaysay!! I only knew about the remix from talking to Dene out in Benidorm, he plays in a few tribute type acts out there, he's a really nice chap actually and doesn't mind folk talking the mick out of the Black Lace days....mind you its probably wise to only take it so far...he's a pal of Ricky Hatton too!!!

Best Regards - Taggy

Mancie · 13-04-2009, 21:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Admittedly Pete Waterman is already a wealthy man, but that really isn't the point.

Millionaire or pauper, there's a principle at stake.

If he co-wrote the song, it should be protected by copyright.

After all the owners of YouTube/Google aren't exactly short of a bob or two either, and they are making money off Waterman's work. Especially if they're just paying eleven quid, for a song that's been watched 154 million times.

It's a valid point, it's the argument performers/producers have with google.. but Watermans stuff will have been played millions of times all over the world by DJ's at clubs and discos..I doubt he gets paid anything for those plays.

garinda · 13-04-2009, 23:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

It's a valid point, it's the argument performers/producers have with google.. but Watermans stuff will have been played millions of times all over the world by DJ's at clubs and discos..I doubt he gets paid anything for those plays.

'In 2008, PPL and MCPS created a joined license, named ProDub license, which covers the licensing for both organizations. The new licensing scheme is tiered, tier 1 costing £250 including VAT, and allowing the copying of up to 5,000 songs, up to tier 4 which costs £400 including VAT and allows the copying of up to 20,000 songs.'
Digital DJ licensing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'The licence money goes to the 3,500 record companies represented by PPL.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4609378.stm

Mancie · 13-04-2009, 23:16

maybe it boils down to what is called "broadcasting"..you could argue that the bloke next door playing Kylie loud enough for the nieghbours to hear is broadcasting!.but you'd have a job trying to get royalties.

jaysay · 14-04-2009, 09:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mancie

maybe it boils down to what is called "broadcasting"..you could argue that the bloke next door playing Kylie loud enough for the nieghbours to hear is broadcasting!.but you'd have a job trying to get royalties.

He'd be in bother if he set up a disco with flashing lights in his garden though Mancie