Well, he’s rich (probably close to a billionaire), and IIRC he’s a rabid copyright supporter (mostly because it benefits him). But now that I’ve tried to look up the source for that second claim, I can’t find it easily - maybe I’m confusing him with another Beatle.
I mean are we really gonna drag this guy down with all the others because he is a proponent for copyright laws. That’s not even bad it’s the most luke warm take ever.
When your work has influence the course of pretty much all music that came after it I can absolutely understand wanting to at least maintain a semblance of control of your actual work.
I think there are a lot of problems with copyright law but I don’t have issue with an artist maintaining control over their own work while they’re alive.
He can still control his hands, can’t he? He can still decide whether he goes on stage?
How is it his work if someone else learns to perform a song he wrote? How is it controlling his work to say someone can’t copy a recording of someone else playing that song?
You realize that those rules also protect a lesser known artist getting their work stolen from a far more influential artist too right? It’s generally a good thing that a super successful artist can’t just copy a lesser known song and reap the benefits for it.
Well, he’s rich (probably close to a billionaire), and IIRC he’s a rabid copyright supporter (mostly because it benefits him). But now that I’ve tried to look up the source for that second claim, I can’t find it easily - maybe I’m confusing him with another Beatle.
It seems he is a proponent of copyright laws in the way that benefits artists over record studios and keeping AI away from his albums.
Do the members of the Beatles and Apple Corps have anything to do with each other today?
I mean are we really gonna drag this guy down with all the others because he is a proponent for copyright laws. That’s not even bad it’s the most luke warm take ever.
At the very least, him supporting copyright is as shitty as serving meat at a climate conference.
When your work has influence the course of pretty much all music that came after it I can absolutely understand wanting to at least maintain a semblance of control of your actual work.
I think there are a lot of problems with copyright law but I don’t have issue with an artist maintaining control over their own work while they’re alive.
Corporations in the other hand…
He can still control his hands, can’t he? He can still decide whether he goes on stage?
How is it his work if someone else learns to perform a song he wrote? How is it controlling his work to say someone can’t copy a recording of someone else playing that song?
You realize that those rules also protect a lesser known artist getting their work stolen from a far more influential artist too right? It’s generally a good thing that a super successful artist can’t just copy a lesser known song and reap the benefits for it.