Sorry fellas...

As one who has stood squarely in both camps, I see this as a 50% 50% deal...

the songwriter is no more deserving of money from the artist to sing the song, than the artist is entitled to a fee from the songwriter for exposing the public to the song.

Nobody should be paying anybody, each needs the other.

If the songwriter wants to make money they should get off their flaccid asses and go out and sing somewhere..or shut up !

Or beg an artist to perform their song so people will hear it and buy it !

So simple....

The right way always is !

Bob

And, Ed and Graham and those of you of a like mind on this issue...consider this....

I'm a very talented performer...
I'm the kind of guy that gets people to come up at a gig and say "Wow...that was a cool song...where can I get it ?"

If your attitude of "you gotta pay me to play my song" induces me not to play it...then you're screwing up.

I'm just the guy you WANT to play your song...me and others like me...without me,alot of people never hear your song, and never buy it !

Argue the logic in that !

And, just because some greedy bastards got together with some greedy lawyer bastards and got an agreement signed, that does not negate the channel lock argument.
It just means that the guy that invented the channel lock was not as greedy a bastard as the songwriters and their lawyers.

Ed...my guess is that you don't favor gratuitous taxes...
That's just what this is !

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 12-15-2003).]