That Clarence Avant began his interview as almost sympathetic to what happen to Rodriguez but then, as the interview went on, and he was questioned about the money, he became almost aggressive and angry that the interviewer would be asking those questions. I started out liking him but then really grew to dislike him. Anyone else?
sharehe's a business man. this is the norm from what i've seen and this is how they survive in their cutthroat world. i really wonder where that money went? great documentary!!
shareAgree 100% with what you said. I too wonder where the money went. I got the feeling that Clarance knew/knows. If 500,000 copies of an album are sold anywhere you can bet that the record label would know where the cash is.
shareperhaps there was a pipeline directly into his pocket. this is a question that i suppose everyone who sees this will ask, as my friend just did as we were raving about this doc.
the music business is sooooooooo corrupt and always will be......
The business end of the entertainment industry whether music, movies, or television is full of people who got ridiculously wealthy, while the performers are often shortchanged. Artists have been suing for royalties forever and it usually takes that long for them to collect. By the time the lawyers and the IRS get their cuts there isn't that much left. Most musicians make the bulk of their money from touring. Look at actors who had hit shows and are still suing for residuals that they never received from the networks. The perception is that all performers are wealthy from residuals or royalties when in actuality the executives are the ones who really clean up financially.
shareSo true and so sad at the same time!
shareSome of the albums/CDs can be found on Amazon. My question is: If I were to buy them, would royalties go to Rodriguez, or would he/family still get ripped off?
shareRoyalties are only generated from the original sale or from airplay, not from resale.
shareWhile there are some resales on Amazon, that's not what I was talking about. It would seem the original releases have been rereleased as CDs or MP3s from Light In The Attic LLC, or Sony. It would depend on the contract though, but if Sussex is defunct, then what happens?
shareLight In The Attic has quite an artist-friendly reputation, so I'd buy their reissues. A few years ago they also reissued Betty Davis' fantastic back catalog, even managed to rescue an unreleased album from 30+ years ago - and poor Betty, now in her 60's, started receiving her first royalties in decades.
shareCopperHeart0718 wrote:
"Royalties are only generated from the original sale or from airplay, not from resale."
---
That's not what rmccarthy-473-266995 was talking about. You're confusing resales with re-releases. A good analogy is eBay vs Amazon. While eBay sells mostly used CDs (aka resales), Amazon mostly sells new CDs from the factory. Some of these new CDs are old recordings that have been re-released. That's what rmccarthy-473-266995 was talking about. Generally speaking, artists do get royalties from re-releases.
As for resales of used CDs, the fact that artists don't financially benefit is the major reason many performers want the practice outlawed. They claim that others are benefiting from their art, without any say from them. Country singer Garth Brooks was a major opponent of reselling, and spoke extensively at hearings. Downloadable digital music, of course, has changed the issue drastically since there is now no physical medium to be sold.
No matter what Garth Brooks or others say, that is a major no-go in the courts. The rights of an artist to a physical copy are gone after that first sale. If the courts were to rule that you couldn't resell something, eBay would disappear not to mention Antique shops and your next door neighbor's yard sale!
Digital music is a different deal altogether.
And, starting the 4th thread on the same topic of the money doesn't make things clearer. It's what I dislike about imdB message boards - the lack of moderators. Do we really need 46 threads on THE DARK KNIGHT RISES to the effect of, "what I thought of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES...." ?
gortx wrote:
"No matter what Garth Brooks or others say, that is a major no-go in the courts. The rights of an artist to a physical copy are gone after that first sale. If the courts were to rule that you couldn't resell something, eBay would disappear not to mention Antique shops and your next door neighbor's yard sale!"
---
That's simplistic. In previous legal analyses of the issue, artists have argued that when you buy a book or CD, you are purchasing the RIGHT TO USE CONTENTS, but the contents still belong to the artist, author, etc. Once you've used it, that privilege is yours alone and it is not transferable. The CONTENTS is separate from the MEDIUM, which would be a CD, disc, paper, etc. The physical medium can be traded freely.
This is the same successful legal argument used by software publishers since the days of floppy discs. You can do whatever you want with the disc itself, but the intellectual property -- the contents -- cannot be transferred, altered, etc, except for backup purposes. In other words, if you erase the floppy, you can sell it freely. But the use is bounded by a license, which is generally SINGLE USER. Once the package is opened, it's yours and cannot be transferred or resold. Read the fine print that comes with your software.
Artists and authors are attempting to use the same argument for their contents. When you buy a CD, you are actually purchasing a non-transferable license to use its contents. After all, the plastic CD/DVD itself is useless without any contents, and worth about 25 cents. This is the same logic used to price eBooks and digital music on par with their physical counterparts. It answers the complaint of why eBooks often cost as much as paper books. The answer is that you're paying mostly for the intellectual contents, not the paper.
In other words, your statement, "Digital music is a different deal altogether," is naive and mostly wrong. In the eyes of copyright law, digital music is NOT "a different deal altogether" from CDs.
Your analogy to eBay and antique shops is also flawed. First off, you're arguing against a point no one ever made. No one ever said that nothing can be resold. In the case of CDs, DVDs, etc, we are talking about intellectual properties. EBay and antique stores are safe because virtually none of the objects being sold rely mostly on intellectual contents. For example, you don't buy a car, table or diamond necklace for intellectual contents. You buy them for their PHYSICAL properties. More importantly, none of them come with a legal copyright agreement like those in books, CDs, DVDs, software, etc. So eBay and antique stores will continue to flourish, regardless of copyright and licensing laws.
Right now, the resell laws are explicit regarding software but still murky regarding artistic media such as CDs, DVDs and books. Artists and authors make an argument equating their work with software that cannot be easily dismissed. The advent of digital music, eBooks and the Internet has made this a hot issue once more. I am ambivalent on the issue but I do know that it's not as simple as you claim it to be.
I have trouble following your logic. I don't think I disagree, but your reasoning is vague/confusing.
"That's simplistic. In previous legal analyses of the issue, artists have argued that when you buy a book or CD, you are purchasing the RIGHT TO USE CONTENTS, but the contents still belong to the artist, author, etc. Once you've used it, that privilege is yours alone and it is not transferable. The CONTENTS is separate from the MEDIUM, which would be a CD, disc, paper, etc. The physical medium can be traded freely."
Are you basically saying that it is (or should be?) illegal to sell used books and CDs, according to the artists?
"This is the same successful legal argument used by software publishers since the days of floppy discs. You can do whatever you want with the disc itself, but the intellectual property -- the contents -- cannot be transferred, altered, etc, except for backup purposes. In other words, if you erase the floppy, you can sell it freely. But the use is bounded by a license, which is generally SINGLE USER. Once the package is opened, it's yours and cannot be transferred or resold. Read the fine print that comes with your software."
While software companies want that to be the case, you are not bound to any legal obligations that are worse than the laws in your domain dictate. In this case whether you actually own the software you bought. In the EU you do. Your example has been repeatedly refuted by the courts in the EU. So what might be true in your 'state'/country will not necessarily be the same all over.
Which is where digital music is different by law, for now. As of yet there hasn't been a case in the EU courts about Apple's (and alike) approach to 'ownership' for items bought in the iTunes store, where you essentially are allowed to borrow the music for an extended period of time. Until you or the iTunes service ceases to exist. I do however feel it is a question of time before they will be forced to follow the general rule regarding ownership/transferability of software (as enforced in the EU).
...if your hand touches metal I swear by my pretty floral bonnet I will end you.
Using her logic it would also be illegal to resell a book as the book is just holding the intellectual property that the author place on the pages, the author had not intention of transferring the story within to anyone other than the first person to open the book. Anyone else reading the book would be a thief.
shareAs I understand it the music that was copied and then recopied and recopied and handed around was more about sharing and passing it on and bootlegging than legit sales.....
shareThe record label "Light in the Attic" has officially (meaning in consultation with Rodriguez himself) released:
- Cold Fact (reissue of 1970 album)
- Coming From Reality (reissue of 1971 album)
- Searching For Sugar Man (film soundtrack)
<Some of the albums/CDs can be found on Amazon. My question is: If I were to buy them, would royalties go to Rodriguez, or would he/family still get ripped off? >
iTunes is your friend...and Rodriguez too. He will get paid for every song sold
Were you listening to the Coob's story?
[deleted]
i felt the interviewer was asking a fair question and avant tried to turn it round to avoid the question "is that all you care about??" he asks. obviously not... it was just a simple question among the others he asked. i don't really remember him answering that question to be honest!
shareProceeds from the sale of the music were sent to Clarence Avant for years on end, and Rodrigusz never received a dime in compensation. Had Rodriguez been aware that his rightful income was being illegally pocketed by the record company (Clarence Avant), it would have been a very different story. In other words, it appears that Avant breached his fiduciary duty and stole the money.
shareSource for that accusation against Avant? It's not presented in the movie.
shareThe SA label owner only mentions Sussex when asked where royalties were sent as far as I can remember. Seeing as though Sussex folded in '75 you have to ask where the money ended up.
Sugar mentions the fact that every white middle class household had a copy of the album in the 70's/80's. Bootlegged copies might have been how it first became popular but this was in a time when owning vinyl and pouring over the sleeve was important. I should think once it went on general release, each of the records would have generated considerable profits for both the SA label, Sussex and Sixto, if only he'd known.
Come on Clarence Avant - fess up and pay up. It doesn't matter whether it was 40 years ago or 40 minutes ago, pay the man his dues.
I don't remember seeing it in the movie, but I thought that was where the trail ended, and as soon as he started asking about money the guy went ballistic, and refused to answer the question. The money was sent to the record label, to Sussex -- that was said. If Avant didn't get it, I'd think he's be real curious to know who did. Slimy. A great wrong has been committed, and he is my number one suspect.
--
GEORGE
And all's fair in love and war?
MRS. BAILEY
[primly] I don't know about war.
From what I recall, the only 'fingering' of Avant is the South African record execs vague claim of sending money to the American record companies. I don't remember any direct claims against Avant.
A more detailed discussion of following the money in this thread:
(Who, ultimately, stole all the money from South African sales?)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125608/board/flat/200868299
Regardless of where the money went, if Avant had known about the record sales in S. Africa, then Avant was both legally and ethically culpable for not ensuring that royalties were properly paid.
shareI'm looks to me like Avant ripped off the money, but to release the movie the Producer's would need to get a music release from him, so they probably had to back off the accusations. I'd be surprised if Rodrieguez isn't getting ALL or most the royalties now until he is caught up on the S.Africa sales. If they had made more direct accustations about Avant in the movie he could sue them and he would have likely witheld the music releases and the movie would not be releasable in theatres, dvd, etc. So they probably negotiated a settlement without acknowledgment of wrongdoing... and simply left it to our imagination.
Avant claims Sussex is shut down and there's no records, it was long time ago, blah, blah, blah, but the SA record companies probably know how much money they sent.
There is more to this aspect than movie could afford to go into apparently.
While Clarence Avant looked unsympathetic, many Motown artists ended up with nothing and Barry Gordy and others did quite well. If Sixto Rodriguez did not have a contract with the Producer, there is nothing to require Sussex to send him residuals and for the last owner of the company to pocket the proceeds probably was viewed as compensation for producing the record. I was impressed about the quality of production (orchestrations behind were full orchestras). I would have thought that "following the money" would have resulted in knowing who endorsed those checks. Maybe Clarence Avant is reinvesting some of that money in this movie since he got good billing.
shareFolks on this board talking about following the money refer to these "checks" as if it were a proven thing. Unless, Rodriguez (or somebody else with deep pockets) hires a troop of lawyers nobody will ever find out what really happened to the money. As pointed out in that other parallel SUGAR MAN thread, there is real doubt over not only where the money from South Africa went, but how much of the South American sales were of "legitimate" (non-bootleg) records, tapes and CDs.
The other follow the money thread: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2125608/board/flat/200868299
Actually the SA record company sold in excess of 500,000 copies, putting him on par in their words with The Beatles and Elvis, and stated so in the movie. None of which Sixto was ever paid a dime on.
shareAlso people talk of a population of 40 million but in actual fact as the audience is mainly the white population those sales are five times more
amazing due to the small audience base.
I agree with the OP completely--in fact I came to this board to see if others thought so as well. He became defensive and aggressive. I wonder if he has something to hide.
shareI just started a new thread on the issue so that I can make topic more descriptive in the SUBJECT line. Please read my post for director, Malik Bendjellou, told The New Yorker regarding the matter.
shareI find it strange that people attack Avant based on his anger at being confronted about where the South African royalties went. I think Segerman really dropped the ball here. He takes the word of the South African distributor who says casually says that he sent royalties to Sussex records. Sussex records closed its doors in 1975, just as Rodriquez was gaining traction in South Africa. We are to believe that the South African distributor diligently sent money to the USA even though the company has closed its doors. He does not produce one cancelled check, a letter demanding royalties from Sussex or Avant, or even an estimate on how much he sent over. But based on this Segerman accuses Avant of stealing. Even Rodriquez's daughter suggests it was bootlegging that explains the lack of royalties. If Segerman is going to imply theft of royalties, it would be nice if he had a shred of evidence.
shareA&M was the major they paid the money to A&M who in turn would likely pass it on to Clarence minus their cut.
shareClarence got defensive because he got the royalties and never told Rodriguez. It's clear that Clarence is a crook.
shareI really don't know if that's an accurate conclusion. The film is very vague and there is no evidence that South Africa legitimately licensed the albums for release. They could have very well been all bootlegs. Do we even know if the SA albums and CDs came from master tapes or not? I kind of doubt it because everything that has come out on CD from Sussex have been needle drops. My guess is that there were no checks sent, especially since Sussex went into bankruptcy and went out of business in the mid 70s.
shareHe definitely acted very suspiciously during that interview. His mood suddenly changed from being caught up in nostalgia to angry and defensive. He then used reverse psychology by being outraged that the interviewer was focused on things like money when they should concentrate on the artist and not the money trail. It was quite a telling reaction when you think about it, it's hard to not assume that Avant at least knows what happened to the money, if he hasn't already consumed it.
And a strange thought, ironically if the interview was filmed at Avant's home, it's possible that home was funded by the stolen money. Both the interviewer and Avant might have been literally sitting on Rodriguez's money.