Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Duuvian, which industry is trying to do that? I'm honestly not sure! I know the RIAA has been pushing for laws saying it has the rights to get revenue from all music published in the US, but that doesn't seem quite the same.

Although, lets be honest, you don't have any protections from that now, so you probably shouldn't be sharing it. :/

Edit:
Continuing - good points on the apple margins being high, though, again, he provides no useful numbers. It's decent of him to note that its probably why is Apple stock is so high.

[Leafsnail]

I quite like the Candlemakers' Petition as an analogy.  Just move the focus of satire away from domestic vs foreign trade and towards piracy and you're there.

[Pnx]

I quite like the Candlemakers' Petition as an analogy.  Just move the focus of satire away from domestic vs foreign trade and towards piracy and you're there.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us.

This made me laugh.

[Fenrir]

Although, lets be honest, you don't have any protections from that now, so you probably shouldn't be sharing it. :/

CC BY-NC?

[GlyphGryph]

It's a shame the copyright enforcement system only really allows you protection from those with similar amounts of wealth. Since he mentioned corporate paymasters, it doesn't seem likely it would offer much, if any, protection - at least from the people I know who've had corporations casually steal their work and make loads of money off it. The most you can do in many cases is prevent them from making any MORE, and that doesn't stop the next guy.

If its another artist around your level, then it's not too shabby.

[Gantolandon]

Furthermore, if you're going to be a private enterprise operating in a capitalist society, it reeks of hypocricy when you start demanding legislative change because you're finding yourself unable to turn a profit anymore. "a bloo bloo bloo, why money no come to me no more? Make new law for me everyone! ".

Yeah, that's one of the reasons why I - despite agreeing with many parts of the text - I find it difficult to care. It's pretty hipocritical to rant on Cyber-Bolsheviks and act like an avatar of capitalism, yet still demand special protection for your product and view it as your right, on par with a fair trial or free speech.

[Sensei]

It's pretty hipocritical to rant on Cyber-Bolsheviks and act like an avatar of capitalism, yet still demand special protection for your product and view it as your right, on par with a fair trial or free speech.

Fun fact: nine out of ten times when you type "cyber", I will read "cyborg" and not realize my mistake until several sentences down the line.

[kaijyuu]

I'm pretty sure music as a career will continue to be just fine (and not just in making jingles for commercials). People with stories like Johnathan Coulton will continue to pop up. We'll still have rock stars.

[lordcooper]

The music industry (much like the film, television and videogame industries) is mostly shite.

Whoever came up with the idea of turning creative endeavours into an 'industry' that treats these things as commodities deserves a righteous smacking IMNSHO

[Duuvian]

Duuvian, which industry is trying to do that? I'm honestly not sure! I know the RIAA has been pushing for laws saying it has the rights to get revenue from all music published in the US, but that doesn't seem quite the same.

Hmm, you're right. I assumed somewhere in that article there was a link showing something where there was evidence of someone doing what the author was talking about when the author said in the article linked to in the OP:

Spoiler: From the OP article (click to show/hide)

The New Boss wants to take ALL of your songs,  past present and future and pay you nothing.

I’ll make technologists a deal, I’ll give up my song copyrights if you give up your software patents.  Software patents are even less unique than your typical song.   So this should be easy right?

I was apparently wrong (judging from the limited evidence I've purveyed so far) about something vaguely threatening to my copyrights possibly happening (unless something is and I don't know about it yet) and I apologize.

However I think there could be an internet solution involving having free listening/previews with paid downloads for personal copies instead of mass-media advertising influencing which artists are known to the public. In addition I think it would be fine if the law said it's ok for someone to give their buddy a copy of my music if he can prove he can't afford it at the price I sell it thus resulting in a lack of a sale anyhow. I wouldn't mind selling music dirt cheap in order to pre-empt pirateers. Large productions apparently can't do this as outlined in the OP's link.

Spoiler: related (click to show/hide)

From wikipedia:

The direct incentive beneficiaries of exclusive rights have an interest in expanding their rights and benefits: this is known in economic terms as rent-seeking, and is generally considered a bad thing by economists. Many beneficiaries pool their resources to form organizations that attempt this. Such examples include the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which purports to represent the interests of the commercial software industry or the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), which represents the interests of the commercial music publishing industry. As policy expands in accordance with the notion of "intellectual property", in the interests of those who benefit directly from its economic incentives, "intellectual property" tends to reduce the rights of its primary beneficiaries, the general public.

I think a news article that I've read sometime within the past few years influenced me into jumping to the conclusion something new and similar was afoot; something the RIAA was involved in where they attempted to change the bolded portion of current law:
from http://www.arsny.com/basics.html

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

How Long Is a Work Copyright-Protected in the United States?

Works created on or after January 1, 1978: A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is given a term of copyright protection enduring for the lifetime of the artist plus an additional 70 years after the artist's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more artists who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving artist's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the artist's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter

If I remember at some point (either in a lawsuit in the 90s or early 2000s prior to it's modern campaign for legislation in the interest of IP; or in the later legislation itself) RIAA was involved in something where their argument if prevalent would have amounted to removing the protection offered even under a chosen anonymous pseudonym unless I register at the Copyright Office. I've searched and can't find the case or legislation in question but I learned of it from an article a few years ago that I read then that was about supposed hypocrisy by the RIAA. I remember using it as an example but I'm having trouble finding it now.

EDIT2: (can't find it in a google search)

EDIT: related though separate from financial copyright in the US: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_%28copyright_law%29

Potential guideline that does not apply to audio probably (in the US): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

[scriver]

Well, I understand why copyright is a necessity for artists, but I don't understand why it has to look like it does today. It doesn't serve the founding intentions any more - it was established so that the creators could earn money of their works. Having a copyright period of 95, 120 or 75-after-death years means that it is the heir (be it the creators' children or more likely the publisher they were attached to) that is protected, not just the creator. And why should the heir have any right to such protection? If a work stays popular for that long it should enter the publich sphere, since it has become the intellectual property of a culture rather than one single person.

While I haven't settled on a single number, if I got to make them laws I'd set the copyright to something between thirty to fifty years (or until the author's death). Thirty is by far enough time to make sure the creators earn money of their works and sees their cut of whatever media-transcending deals might be possible, and fifty is as far as I can go before copyright to one single person stops making sense in my mind.

And yeah, obviously your work won't be able to be credited to you if you're not known, Duuvian. That's the same as with any property - if you can't prove you owned something before it was stolen, there is no proof that anything was stolen. If you're big and famous you'll have enough recognition to associate your works with you by default, but if you're small and unknown and a hobbyist? You'll need documentation that your work is actually yours if you want protection.

[Duuvian]

And yeah, obviously your work won't be able to be credited to you if you're not known, Duuvian. That's the same as with any property - if you can't prove you owned something before it was stolen, there is no proof that anything was stolen. If you're big and famous you'll have enough recognition to associate your works with you by default, but if you're small and unknown and a hobbyist? You'll need documentation that your work is actually yours if you want protection.

In the process of editing either traditional recordings or producing music digitally there are leftovers that fit seamlessly with what is published and easily kept because it also is utilitarian since you can access those pieces you haven't used if you ever wish to re-edit. This is especially true with modern recording techniques. Mainly removing that bit of law protecting pseudonyms wouldn't benefit anyone except someone who can fight big lawyer battles (which they could then have a chance at winning). Looking for what I remember is also extremely hard to find with google since it wasn't a major issue to most people.

Other than that I agree with what you said. Of the options you gave I'd rather rights ended at death instead of sometime while the artist potentially lives for simplicity if nothing else. Otherwise you'd possibly have to revisit whether the same creator simply raising the pitch of the song a barely noticeable amount for a new release 'refreshes' the copyright by being a new product for the next period of copyright.

I think one of the main things keeping the music business the way it is, is a lack of infrastructure.

[da_nang]

Given how media tends to reach its ROI point in a time shorter than current copyright terms, new IPs or sequels are already in the works and the product is most likely not on sale any longer, I'd opt for a bit shorter copyright term. Maybe even have different terms for different forms of IP. Example, video games typically stay on sale for a set number of years until the majority of purchases are used. This typically depends on the popularity of the product and platform. Until recently, older games were extremely hard to find and only the memories of those games remained. So unless the owner of said IP re-releases it (paid or free) or it ends up in the public domain, that part of culture is lost to the majority of people. This is also true for other forms of IPs to some degree of extent. With the rise of digitization, it also becomes significantly easier to preserve that culture due to the ease of copying.

Suppose then that instead of the 100+ copyright terms we have now, we instead opt for 15-20 years for the IP "universe" but 5-10 years of the bits that have already been released. These terms begins at the time of "announcement". The "universe" gets enough time to develop creatively while still making sure that it isn't lost. People would also get the chance to fully reinterpret the "universe" once it goes into public domain. The changes these people make do not affect the public domain status of the "universe" but instead are interpreted as bits of released IPs and thus those specific changes get a small limited copyright term.
Furthermore, the already released IP gets the time it needs to reach it's ROI point, thus economically sustaining the owner of the IP, and speeds up the preservation of the culture. It also serves to send a stronger message of the reception of the product and spurs the owner of the IP to be creative and release quality products.

Finally, this prevents the stagnation of the IP and profit-only re-releases. The latter is important, as no creativity has gone into those product. Passion is needed for creativity and passion must thus come first. It does enable reimaginations of the products but the prices should then reflect the costs of those changes to give more incentive for creativity.

It's not perfect, but I believe it's a step in the right direction.

[Willfor]

Given that I am going into the music industry, and not primarily as one of the musicians but as an upfront contractor and additional expense, my future will largely depend on trying to convince artists that paying me will be worth their while. (and running soundboards (or wires) at local clubs/concerts/venues)

I'm generally unconcerned about the future of music as a paying career (albiet low-paying career) despite the rise of piracy. People will always find a way to make money for doing what they love.

[Frumple]

I’ll make technologists a deal, I’ll give up my song copyrights if you give up your software patents.  Software patents are even less unique than your typical song.   So this should be easy right?

Is called FOSS, free open-source software, and it's various permutations. Is working pretty well from what I've seen, albeit not necessarily from the 'feed my children on creative efforts alone' front.

I'm not sure if it's a fair thing to say typical software code is less unique than typical song -- actual coding is a hell of a lot more involved than a lot of music playing, from what I've seen. 'tis an aside, though, heh.

However I think there could be an internet solution involving having free listening/previews with paid downloads for personal copies instead of mass-media advertising influencing which artists are known to the public.

Bandcamp? Bandcamp. Pretty sure there's a few others doing the same/similar. Your solution is a thing done, so we're already collecting data points on how effective it is.

As for the more general discussion, I'm of the opinion that copyright should be doing what it was actually intended to do -- which isn't protect the creator's right to copy, that's just how copyright goes about doing what it means to do. That is to say, incentivise the creation of new creative works. Which roughly translates to a much freaking shorter time limit, say ten to twenty years at most, for profitization of a particular creative work, after which the work becomes public.

None of this riding a single success for lifetime silliness -- copyright duration that gives a creator no incentive to succeed more than once or twice is as (or at least nearly as) damaging to creative content creation as no copyright whatsoever, imo.