It should be clear to anyone who looks at the issue closely that copyright as it has developed over the past hundred years is not fit for use in the digital age, based as it is upon control of use. It is frankly ridiculous to think that people who have paid money to buy a song should be prohibited from transferring that song to any musical medium that they might own.
Technology has allowed huge amounts of music to travel vast distances for no charge and bandwidth is only going to get bigger. Whatever the record industry might want to happen, the scope for file-sharing is only going to expand, because, while people may value a song, a media file has no intrinsic economic value.
Does this mean that we should therefore abandon any kind of copyright protection? I do not think so.
The Featured Artists Coalition, of which I am a board member, has developed a policy regarding the application of copyright laws which challenges the traditional definition of what is permissible and what is not. In simple terms, we believe that where money is made, artists should be paid.
This seeks to distinguish between those sharing files for personal use and those exploiting artist’s work for material gain. The latter includes everyone from pirate websites to major labels monetising catalogue in deals with media platforms like phone companies.
If we can develop viable artist-to-fan models that cut the record industry out of the equation, there will be more and more instances of artists owning their own material for life of copyright. In this scenario, copyright will become increasingly important in ensuring that individual artists are not ripped off by exploiters such as radio stations, tv and film companies and other businesses that use music to attract customers.
FAC also recognise the need to develop a new definition of ‘fair use’ that allows people to be creative without being forced to seek permission. Copyright would only kick in if their creation began to make money. Second-hand sales would be exempt from this rule.
So, Dreddsnik, to answer your question: do I think that artists should be paid royalties on the use of their work for the life of copyright?
If someone else is making money off it, yes I do.
Billy Bragg
October 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
” So, Dreddsnik, to answer your question: do I think that artists should be paid royalties on the use of their work for the life of copyright? ”
That was not my question.
My question was , “Do you think you deserve those right’s in Perpetuity, that is ‘forever minus one day’ ”
Your answer would seem to indicate a support of copyright NEVER expiring, and thus the elimination of public domain.
I never in fact questioned the artists right to royalties during the copyright period.
To Clarify, Here is my post from the other thread .
” This still goes hand in hand with the question ” do you believe your rights deserve to exist in perpetuity ”
Public domain, in theory would allow the natural right to build upon existing works after a FAIR period of time. LIMITED copyright is fair, in my opinion. Forever is not, and stifles innovation of any kind, burying it with the threat of litigation. This concept is definitely it’s own thread. ”
You’ll see that I am pretty clear that I believe that TIME LIMITED copyright is fair,
thus you are entitled to royalties while that copyright is in effect.
My issue is that some seem to believe that copyright should never end . ever.
So I guess you still haven’t answered my question. I am really not trying to badger you.
Do you think copyright should be forever ?
October 22nd, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Hi Billy,
As you feel artists should be paid royalties on the use of their work for the life of the copyright, assuming those generate a profit for that individual (as opposed to say YouTube with their advertising)… how long should such copyright exist?
What do you feel is a fair length of time for copyright before the work becomes public domain?
What do you feel about the public domain in general?
Do you think anyone would have heard of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or Pachabel if it were not for the fact that their work is in the public domain? People can rearrange it without fear and more people will get into it as a result of this cultural sharing.
How do you feel about it? Whether they are paid or not, once in the public domain, it’s no longer royalties for you.
October 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Billy,
The problem I’ve got with copyright (and I’m coming at this from the direction of someone who works for recording artists and songwriters) is that it has been a dandy way to compensate creators for several hundred years, but it based on giving the creator control over distribution of copies of his or her work. I think it’s time to realize that nobody can control distribution anymore in any practical sense because there is abolutely no way to prevent copies from being made and passed around. If you can’t control distribution, then copyright becomes little more than a blunt instrument used to pummel the occasional unauthorized copier who gets caught. I think we can agree that is a very small number, and their show trials haven’t been much of a deterrent. Copyright is an inefficient weapon in that fight; it’s like using a sledgehammer against gnats.
That’s why I think copyright, as we have learned to know and love it, is a concept who’s time has come and gone. Technology has overtaken it. I don’t think there even was a time when copyright could have been “adjusted” to prepare for the environmental change. Frankly, I think the only reason we even think in terms of copyrights these days is because the public discussion of compensation artists to this time has been largely framed by those who have tied their economic survival to maintaining copyright.
I think we’ve got to break free of that tunnel vision if we are going to find a way to compensate artists in the future. Copyright has served you well over your career, but, bluntly, I’m sure not as well in the last 15 years as it had before, as control over distribution weakened, and then disappeared entirely. Essentially, I think we need to consider ourselves back at the true Square One; before there was copyright, but also before there was anything that could be considered an industry based on distribution of copies. When we get there, we have to start with the REAL basics. What do artists bring to the table? What do fans want and what will they pay for? I think you might find that the common ground, and where there is money to be made, comes not from controlling distribution, but by monetizing access.
I’m not speaking of a pie-in-the-sky solution, either. Just today, the Disney Co. revealed details of it’s “Keychest” project, by which consumers could access Disney shows, movies and music from any player at any time, once they had paid for the privilege. Those consumers don’t download anything. They don’t end up with a single byte of Disney product on the hard drives, their music players or their phones. Sooner or later, we’re going to see the same idea applied to music, where every song ever recorded is accessable at any time to any consumer. When someone figures out how to make money off this arrangment, artists should get an honest share of it, and, if they do, their share won’t depend one whit on copyright.
I think we should be focusing on what we can build that will be of use in the future, and forget what worked in the past, and ins’t working so hot right now.
October 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 am
Fred,
I think you’ve missed the point of my post. You are focusing on how I am compensated by consumers using my music, while I am making a case for compensation from those who are exploiting my work for their own material gain. You are right that we cannot control distribution anymore, but we can still control exploitation. That’s what I think a new copyright law should aim for.
Dredd,
Sorry I didn’t answer your question as put. I do not think that life of copyright should mean perpetuity or forever minus a day.
Robert,
The current life of copyright for recorded music is 50 years here in Europe, although the European Parliament recently passed an as yet unratified extension to 70 years. I think that is fair, provided the artist gets 100% rights back after 50 years.
October 23rd, 2009 at 9:30 am
Billy,
I have no problem with you seeking, or getting, compensation from those exploiting your music. My post was intended to point out the deficiencies in using copyright as the grounds for seeking that compensation. It is simply the wrong tool for the job. You really need legal recognition of a different set of rights.
Let’s see if we can start with an understanding of what we mean by copyright and exploitation. For me, copyright is a method for compensating creators, and their assigns, by granting them a monopoly on distribution of copies of their work. The concept of monopoly is a legal fiction, which is simply a term used to describe something that has been invented by man to solve a particular problem. Being a legal fiction doesn’t mean it is a fraud, it just means that it really isn’t a natural right. Copyright was invented to fill a real need. Monopolies are generally considered to NOT be in the public interest, so, in the case of copyright, the monopoly is supposed to be granted for a limited time. At the end of the monopoly, the rights go to the public (not back to the artist, as you suggest elsewhere in this thread) as a way of compensating THEM for allowing the monopoly to exist under law. To be realistic, the legislative extension of that monopoly towards perpetuity reflects the law-purchasing power of those who have aggregated the biggest piles of copyrights, and it does not reflect a desire by the public to extend the monopoly out a love for creators, or because there is a broad appreciation that they deserve to have the monopoly forever.
Exploitation is a much broader concept than controlling distribution, which is all that copyright legally does. Exploitation includes broadcast, mash-ups and other sampling, incorporation in other works (such as videos, movies and commercials), and, in the case of compositions, derivative works, including arrangments.
In the broadest sense possible, exploitation is ANY use of the music in ANY context. Exploitation for profit is really a subset of the concept.
And that’s where your idea of compensation where someone is exploiting your music “for material gain” starts to run counter to the utility of copyright as a device to protect your interests. I have read elsewhere that you believe the copyright is what allows you to keep your music from being used in settings that you feel are inappropriate political campaigns that run counter to your own beliefs. Pegging the right to enforcement on “material gain” won’t stop this as a possibility. What WILL stop this is a broad re-establishment of what are known as “moral rights,” a concept that permits a creator to control the context in which his or her creation is used, regardless of the ownership of the “copyright” in the works. As you can well imagine, the same folks who started collecting copyrights like stamps are the ones who legislatively destroyed “moral rights’ because they presented limitations on how they could squeeze money out of the copyrights. Believe me, when a music publisher complains about a song being used in a partisan campaign here in the US, it usually has less to do with the possibility that the songwriter doesn’t like the politics of the candidate than the possibility that use in a political campaign could end up pissing off the half of the consumer base that doesn’t like the candidate.
Right now, there’s no requirement that exploitation be for “material gain” for usage to run afoul of copyright law. Every US webcaster is paying an annual license fee that is (supposed) to compensate copyright holders and artists, even if the webcaster is merely a hobbyist. Such webcasts, and the revenue they generate, will fall outside the revision you suggest based on “material gain.” I can assure you that your copyright-holding partners are not going to view enthusiastically the idea that they give up hundreds of millions of dollars in license fees a year, a fair portion of which is currently generated by not-for-profit webcasts.
We don’t need to prop up copyright to re-establish moral rights in all creative works. There are limited situations in which they exist now. In the US, graphic artists retain some moral rights over reuse of their works. In Europe, composers and musicians retain some moral rights, although the drive to homogenize copyright on a world-wide basis is giving the big copyright aggregators a wonderful opportunity to eliminate even those exceptions.
So, if we realize that many of your concerns fall outside the legitimate ambit of copyright, and that the legal recognition of OTHER rights meets your needs, we can start to use the right tools for the right jobs, and set copyright in its proper place.
This is being written while your comment is the most recent one moderated. I’m going to let Robert get first crack at dealing with your idea that the artist gets 100% of the rights back after 50 years of copyright, which was either misstated or misunderstands the idea of public domain. I really don’t think what you said is what you mean. If it is, there’s a whole lot more foundational work in terms of understanding copyright that needs to be done before this conversation gets very far.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:24 am
Copyright as a means of controlling social behavior is as useless as charging people to breath. Music as long as it has existed has been a social medium around which humans got together to enjoy as a tribe. Copyright is essentially a tool designed to restrict the cultural value of the tribe, unless the tribe is willing to pay. The public should never have to be aware of copyright laws, what they are and are not allowed to do with music, it should integrate into social behavior. With that said, when someone is directly profiting from copyright, or where music represents a undeniable necessity to the generation of profit, the artist should be compensated. An entrepreneur should be aware of copyright, much like a carpenter is aware of building bylaws.
The only way for copyright to not hinder social behavior is for it to allow music to be freely available. This does however limit the scope on which compensation can be attained. There are four ways to guarantee income Concert performances, merchandise, licensing deals and a donate to release model. By pay for release model, I mean where tracks would be held until fans donate a certain fee for the release. Once released it should fall under something similar to a creative commons license, since the fans already paid for it. Artist can no longer rely on every fan buying their music, it is purely up to the fans to give up their money in a sign of support when buying a cd, or making a donation. Everyone has a fixed income they spend on entertainment, and the goal for artist in the new marketplace is to find ways of encouraging people to spend it on them, not demand it.
October 23rd, 2009 at 10:46 am
” The current life of copyright for recorded music is 50 years here in Europe, although the European Parliament recently passed an as yet unratified extension to 70 years. I think that is fair, provided the artist gets 100% rights back after 50 years.”
I believe ( but I could be wrong ) nearly all of us on the non label side would
find 70 years extremely excessive. As for 50 years, personally I think thats
moderately excessive.
I would say, just for myself, 30 years, after 30 years control goes to the ARTIST, not
the LABEL, for the rest of the ARTIST’ life. After the passing of the artist it would go
to public domain. If the artist passes before that 30 years is up, whomever currently
holds those rights will benefit for those 30 years, and then the work would go to the
Public Domain. Passing rights to ‘Heirs’ would only happen if the ARTIST is the actual
copyright holder,and ONLY if the artist passes within the 30 year copyright period.
If the LABEL holds the copyrights ( which is the majority of the cases ), after 30
years is up, to public domain it goes. And, BTW .. NO EXTENSIONS.
One might say .. ‘doesn’t that take away from my CHILDREN !!!! ? ‘
Not at all.
Just like everyone else in the world, I assume you are getting paid by the label, and you
are stashing and saving, just like any other normal person in the world, so that when you
pass, there is womething to give to them. Just like any normal person in the world, if they
don’t use what you left them wisely, they’ll have to find a way to EARN THEiR OWN WAY.
Perpetual copyright doesn’t really help them all that much .. the lions share will always go
to the LABEL that holds the rights, and if you do a little research, once an artist passes the
labels have many many ways to ensure that the heirs get nothing. For some examples …..
Research Rafael Venegas
and http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30099 “How EMI Treated Dying Songwriter”
These are only two examples.
That’s my opinion on what’s fair.
October 23rd, 2009 at 11:10 am
So what exactly is “material gain?” If I run a coffee shop, and I play music, should I have to pay? What if I make a short film with a song in the background and charge admission to a showing? How about if I run a p2p site with ads on it?
What do you mean about 100% of rights back? After the term of copyright expires, the creator gets 0% rights. The work goes into the public domain where, frankly, it belonged in the first place.
Fred’s got some good points, but I think we need to go further and realize that no business model based on “control” is that great. Disney’s service, for example, only works on “pre-approved” services/devices. Of course, if somebody “hacked” the system so the access they paid for worked on a difference device, Disney would be coming down on them. Same for people “ripping” the files for sharing, using clips to make a music video, or featuring characters in amateur cartoons.
Yet Disney gains more from exposure than mere DVD sales. How many parents and children flock to their latest films and stock up on merchandise from lunch boxes to stuffed animals? How about Disneyland, and the exorbitant fees people pay to have somebody in a character outfit visit their breakfast table? How about putting money toward the creation of a new film by sponsoring a scene, or getting your name in the credits? What if Disney fans could buy (for whatever it would actually cost), say, Jack Sparrow’s tri-cornered hat for him to use in the next film, and then got the hat (signed) back when the film was over?
There is money all over the place, but not in control. It’s all about involving the fans directly, using this brave new world to find out exactly what is worth money to them and providing that. The content, once created, is nothing but a promotional vehicle. Remixing and sharing it (even for some monetary gain) only helps the creator in the long run. Instead of trying to build a “permission culture,” we need to be building a “free culture,” where fans and professional creators work together to keep making great stuff. It’s not about somebody holding the keys and doling it out anymore.
October 23rd, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Steelwolf,
I personally have never been comfortable with charging shops that play music. None of the money from the licence makes it back to the artists who has been played, so I’d leave that out of the scope of the maxim ‘where money is made, artists should be paid.’
It should apply to places where music is the main part of the attraction – gigs, disco’s etc.
With regard to the 100% reversion of rights, I’m talking about the proposed extension period. I support the extension so long as, for the extra 20 years, the artist has full control of the copyrights, allowing them to utilise the material in any way they choose to make a living from it.
Which would counter your argument, Dredd, that labels own all the copyrights anyway. That is a historical fact. As it becomes no longer necessary to take the traditional industry route, more and more artists will retain their ownership of copyrights, or else ensure that they only licence their material for a fixed short term – my record deals all end after seven years.
Mountain Rage,
Wanna buy a t-shirt?
Fred,
I recognise the world that you describe in which exploitation defined as any use whatsoever and we have no viable legal concept of what constitutes moral rights.
I asking if you think it is worthwhile seeking to recast the concept of copyright around the notion of me getting paid when people use my music as their main method of making money, either by charging for the service or selling advertising?
October 23rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Billy,
I think we agree on the fundamentals; you, as an artist, deserve to be compensated when people use your music as a way of making money. Where we appear to disagree is on the utility of copyright law as a means of achieving that goal. It is my opinion that copyright, focused as it is on control of distribution of copies, just won’t give you what you want without placing non-commercial uses of your music at great legal jeopardy. You’re willing to carve a non-commercial exception out of copyright to allow people to use your music without compensating you if they don’t get compensated for the use of your music. As Steelwolf points out with the store playing your music in the background, adoping that idea of a carve-out means you constantly have to apply a means test to every use of your music – how close a relationship is there between the basic commercial operation of the user and the use of your music. It’s easy when it comes to something like a radio station (ignoring for the moment that unless the PRA passes, you still won’t have a right to be compensated for their use of your recordings because that use is still outside the current limits of copyright), and not so easy when you get down to a situation where the music is used to provide an ambiance in a restaurant, or, to find a situation closer to the dividing line, when a shopkeeper sets up a loudspeaker playing your music outside his store to draw customers in. Your music isn’t the “main method” of making money, but it sure helps that shopkeeper out, and accepting that “main method” argument would permit a radio station owner that broadcasts music less than 12 hours a day to claim that his “main method” of making money is selling ads in the talk shows he broadcasts.
So, I suggest that we avoid that slippery slope entirely. If you want to focus on a compensation scheme that is based on commercial use of your music, then let’s drop the use of a scheme that is intended to compensate you only for authorized distribution of copies and which is showing real signs of being systematically incapable of adapting to other purposes.
In other words, tell me what you think you should be paid FOR, and we can probably figure out HOW you’re going to get paid.
October 23rd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Is that the way you think it is going, Fred? That there will be no copyright compensation involved in distribution whatsoever?
With regards to what I think I should be paid for, I can’t really put it any more straightforwards that I have: ‘When money is made, artists must be paid’. I recognise that the devil will be in the detail, but surely that is better than a blanket application that seeks to monetise any and every exploitation?
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Billy,
Thinking it’s a compromise at all is a fundamental misunderstanding of what’s going on. It’s not about artists “versus” fans or “balancing” copyright. It’s about figuring out a good business model, which means everybody benefits and participates because they want to, not because they’re forced or you’ve made the rules that way.
It’s what I’ve been trying to say since the beginning – the sooner we can stop focusing on whether or not sharing is bad or how long copyright terms should be, and start looking at ways artists can sell scarce things directly to their fans, the sooner we can get somewhere.
A better wording of your adage would be, “When music is made, the artist should be paid.” The only way somebody can make money off of non-transformative, direct duplication of work is to make copies and sell them, which is just as bad as the artist trying to sell copies. Better to stop worrying about the schmuck trying to sell copies of CDs and focus on how to reach the growing queue of incoming fans.
October 23rd, 2009 at 5:37 pm
When distribution of physical copies is an option, which is what it has become, you would be shortsighted to build your hopes (and rights) to compensation on a construct that ignores the other choices. This is, in fact, exactly the situation that the record industry is in, and artists relying on compensation from the record are in the same boat. Copyright is not a one-size-fits-all compensation scheme, and it is particularly ill-suited for use as a primary weapon against consumers. The process is too costly, too cumbersome, and cannot be employed on a broad enough scale to be an effective deterrent. It served its purpose as long as copies were difficult to come by or expensive to create; when bootleggers needed a physical plant, a couple tons of equipment and trucks for delivery.
The current situation boils down to this; if you can’t, or aren’t going to, demand compensation for every copy made of your work, you don’t need copyright in order to be paid.
So let’s look at your options in specific situations where people make money from exploiting your music:
Radio stations? A performance royalty doesn’t have to be tied to copyright ownership for artists to be compensated. If the artist can be identified on the recording, he or she earns the royalty.
Movie/TV/commercial use – If you want to restrict the usage of your recordings to approved projects, re-establish moral rights as a legal prerogative.
Commercial websites for downloads – establish a pool based on a negotiated (or statutory) percentage of revenue, either from ads or subscriptions. Establish an honest, artist-run, entity to collect and distribute the proceeds. The right to collect isn’t based on copyright, it’s based on straight principles of contract law; you use my property, you pay for the use.
The biggest practical problem here? By killing copyright, you’ve cut out the rights of the copyright owner to share in the revenue based strictly on the fact of ownership of the copyright, but as we have moved away from an economic system based on the distribution of copies, that’s their tough luck. I admit it’s harshly Darwinian, but nowhere is it written that copyright was divinely inspired. Remaining tied to copyright is like demanding that steamships carry sails in order to preserve the sailmaking industry. The entities that have built industries on the control of copyrights have to adapt or die, and it is not the function of consumers to keep them on life-support by allowing them to try to keep copyright alive long after it has stopped being relevant.
Now if you, or any creative artist, wishes to split YOUR revenue with a label or some entity that enhances the commercial value of your work (say, through marketing or promotion, or a skill at placing your music in movies and commercials), that’s YOUR choice because it is YOUR money and you can do whatever you want with it. If you even want to sell your right to future revenue to that kind of entity, you can, as dismal as the history of that transaction has been for artists.
It is my opinion that labels can still be vital economic participants in the post-copyright music business. They can participate, and thrive, by providing services that artists aren’t really good at; mass marketing, promotion, and yes, even distribution to those throw-backs who will still want physical copies.
So it boils down to this; we drop the legal fiction of copyright with all the specialized baggage it has picked up in four hundred years, and we replace it with a NEW legal fiction that the value of “intellectual property” lies in the ability to create it, not in the ability to control who sees it or hears it. Once you’ve made that jump, you simply treat that property like any tangible piece of personal property. You charge what you want for others to use it, with the added provision that you can refuse anyone you want (through moral rights). You get both the rights and responsibilities of general property ownership.
I admit this approach doesn’t address the duration of these rights. If you’re going to be “just” a regular property owner, maybe the “public domain” as a concept has to die along with copyright. Maybe some reasonable time limit can be built in as a trade-off for regaining moral rights. That’s something to think about for another day.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Good post Billy.
I agree with what your saying.
I recently read an article about ringtones on a mobile phone trying to be classed as a public performance. May i ask what your opinion of this is?
I personally think a ringtone is a ringtone and not a public performance of any kind. If a person has paid for a song whether it be a digital download or a CD which has been ripped i believe that they should be allowed to do (within reason) whatever they want with it. By within reason i mean not selling it for a profit to someone who has not purchased it from the artist.
I do fully agree that the copyright law should be changed to comply with the new technology that is available. If i want to copy a song to my MP3 player that i have legally bought i will.
October 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Steel,
I think you have to appreciate that there are are ways that money is made on music that have nothing to do with artists “selling” anything to fans; uses in commercial films/TV/commercials, commercial radio stations selling ads that surround popular music, etc. Simply coming up with a business model that covers direct artist-to-fan transactions doesn’t begin to resolve the issues these secondary uses create.
Or are you arguing that these uses, the ones that make money for third parties, should not be considered legitimate sources of income for artists?
October 24th, 2009 at 6:38 am
Steely,
I dunno if Jon has flagged this up on p2pnet, but there is an article in the Guardian today that seems to undermine your scarcity argument.
Apparently the annual sales of singles in the UK, 98.6% of which have been sold as digital downloads, has surpassed the previous record with 10 weeks to go to Xmas.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/oct/23/uk-singles-chart-downloads-2009
This seems to show that even though digital media files have no intrinsic value, people are still willing to buy them. I’m quite encouraged by that because I think this idea that music files are free therefore you can’t sell them anymore is fundamentally flawed.
Look at what is really happening on the ground – people are not deciding to never buy again just because they can get something for free. They are using the ubiquitous availability of music, via downloads, streaming, MySpace. YouTube, whatever, to enhance their consumer behaviour.
This suggests that neither of us are right in our predictions. Music files do have economic value and musicians will continue to make them.
trev,
I agree that a ringtone is a ringtone and once you’ve bought it, you should be able to use it as you see fit. If you sought to make money selling it on, then you should pay a royalty.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:20 am
” Look at what is really happening on the ground – people are not deciding to never buy again just because they can get something for free. They are using the ubiquitous availability of music, via downloads, streaming, MySpace. YouTube, whatever, to enhance their consumer behaviour.
This suggests that neither of us are right in our predictions. Music files do have economic value and musicians will continue to make them. ”
Yup,
Many of us have been saying for quite a while .. You CAN compete with free.It’s the labels that said NO ONE will buy if free exists. They will say the suits are why this is happening, but it’s not. You will also find that there has been NO lessening of P2P use at all, so the suits have done nothing.
Now, what do you think will happen if DRM is removed, and the price is dropped to a reasonable price point, like AllOfMP3 ?
October 24th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Fred,
I am with you on the need for a new legal fiction, but I think it may reside in the ability to create and exploit.
I think copyright – albeit reformed to fit the new reality – will prove to be surprisingly resilient in the case of so-called ‘legal’ services. We’ve got something they need to make their business model work, so they’ll be looking for a way to cut us in. I would imagine that there will be a number of mechanisms to do this, some of which will build on the copyright model.
I’m also with you in believing that the labels will have a role in the new digital industry, for the reasons you state. If you are a fully independent artist who suddenly breaks big, the sheer scale of activity needed to keep up with such a quantum leap forward in attention would snow under a cottage industry model.
What will be different is that the industry will no longer have a monopoly on distribution, so copyrights connected with that practice will have to adapt or die.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am
“Now, what do you think will happen if DRM is removed, and the price is dropped to a reasonable price point, like AllOfMP3?”
I think it will be hard to get the industry to drop it’s prices while sales are booming, but the case for removing DRM will become stronger when they realise that it inhibits sales.
Geoff Taylor of the BPI – the UK’s RIAA – has got completely the wrong end of the stick in his comment in the Guardian piece. He claims that one billion downloads could be somehow added to the total of sales – a totally spurious idea.
What he can’t see – or rather refuses to see – is that one billion downloads has resulted in more digital singles being bought than ever before.
October 24th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
copyright should return to a 7 year monopoly, period.
Until the MAFIAA realizes their artificially inflated scarcity of content is insulting to your intelligence, and value their product according to consumer demands, they will perish.
The solution is simple, all the musical serfs need to reparate themselves from their draconian masters, and do it alone, allowing a dead business model to expire. and not soon enough.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
So, Surfer, after seven years, radio stations should be able to play my music for free?
October 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
” So, Surfer, after seven years, radio stations should be able to play my music for free? ”
Yes.
Radio was such a valuable marketing tool that the Labels used to illegally PAY THE STATIONS to give certain songs favorable playing slots. ( payola, remember, they were convicted of that ). Millions of ears heard it, liked it, wanted to know who did it, and went out and bought it.
It’s pretty amazing.
October 24th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Some links about payola ….
http://wweek.com/html/cover041598.html
http://features.slashdot.org/features/01/06/05/1034234.shtml?tid=141
October 24th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
I do not see why not. Pharmaceutical conglomerates are allowed a windowed monopoly on drugs then research and get approval for. They pay millions and millions of dollars in R&D to invent the next Viagra. They are on a patent system that allows them a monopoly of the ‘name brand’ drug, and then must compete with the ‘generic’ equivelants post-monopoly.
If this can be done on such a large scale, why is copyright any different?
I would love to get paid for software I developed ad infinium, however some of us write more software to keep the payroll flowing, why is music any different?
October 24th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Billy, Funny thing about your exchange with sufer, back in the day, the LABELS payed the RADIO STATIONS to play your music. Its a sad fact that the entire process has been flipped upside down. Now, having read everything up till now that people are commenting, its good to see that the real dialogue is started. And I have to agree with all those who have pointed out the the original copyright laws NEVER intended the rights holder to have long term rights. The original intent was to give the creator an opportunity to make a profit before others took advantage of their work.
October 24th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Billy
To what degree have ISP commercially benefitted from uncompensated content? They talk of net neutrality, ‘we’re just dumb pipes’, safe harbor provisions, but just check out some of the enticements (in the US) they use to sign up subscribers. Music and movie download speeds are a selling point..
Meanwhile, 2009 Midem, one ISP guy, sent to make nice with the labels. The World Broadband Forum, rooms full of electronic engineers talking about managing p2p traffic, virtually no content people. Right now there is little real engagement.
Question. Are ISPs really net neutral? They need to manage their networks intelligently. Some apparently cache content, writing it, effectively hosting it. Copyright can still be a theatre of engagement.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:50 am
Discussion about the length of the term of copyright is a distraction. Of course people are angry about its ongoing rolling extension (the Mickey Mouse effect), which has certainly mutated its original purpose, but this is not the primary reason why copyright laws need to be rewritten or junked in 2009.
Copyright has become, in the private domain, an unenforceable and dangerous set of legal provisions which are being used to justify all kinds of corporate and state crimes, from extortion to mass surveillance.
The priority is surely to get everyone to agree that copyright laws should no longer apply to private copying, as Billy implies in his original post. This would be a major step forward; we can discuss afterwards what adjustments need to be made to the duration of what rights remain.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Hey all,
Part of this discussion seems to be heading towards “what defines non-commercial use”, which is ground that Creative Commons has ploughed for many a moon now.
The history of it, for those who are unfamiliar, goes like this : Creative Commons created a number of legal licenses which sit on top of copyright yet grant back some rights to both the end user/consumer (to freely share the work licensed) and other producer/musicians (to remix the work), one these licenses deals with “use” on a non-commercial basis.
For many years people like me have remixed samples, music and pellas via sites like ccmixter and Kompoz. Many of my fellow remixers aren’t concerned with the ins and outs of the licenseing beyond non-commerical meaning they presumably are not going to be ripped off by a commercial entity using their work and making vast profit from it.
Within the last couple of years, the more pedantic amongst us have started asking lots of awkward “what if” questions. For example :
* what if a blogger who has banner ads wishes to play my remixes?
* what if a charity wants to play my remix for their on-hold telephone system to save paying for it?
* what if someone posts a youtube clip featuring my remix?
…and there are many more.
Recently the Creative Commons organisation accepted the need to attempt to clarify their license, and as the first step decided to measure the public understanding of “non-commercial”.
The results of which has now been posted on the Creative Commons wiki : http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Defining_Noncommercial
October 25th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Surfer,
You’re not comparing like with like. A song is more like a play. If someone stages a play, charges people to see it, shouldn’t the author get a cut? Without their contribution, no-one else would be able to make any money.
Music radio stations do the same thing, use authored creations to scare up a crowd from whom they make a living either directly or through advertising. No music, no money. Therefore the authors should get a cut.
October 25th, 2009 at 8:44 am
So, what is a FAIR length to you ? How long before it should belong to everyone ? Whil you said you don’t think forever -1 day is appropriate .. when is ?
You agree that copyright SHOULD expire .. so .. when is it fair to put it into PUBLIC DOMAIN ?
October 25th, 2009 at 8:59 am
in that scenario, yes, the author should get paid. but if you allow that author unlimited forever minus one day copyright on that play, how many derivative works will twist off that play..
I count none…, cmon, even Shakespeare pilfered from previous works. Justifying excessive monopoly only makes copyright look more like interference to creativity, and not a benefit. The idea was to gratify the creator with limited monopoly (recompense for creation), followed by fair use abuse for derivative works.
You cant tell me that you want both? The oligolopic monopoly, AND restriction of fair use aftewards?
THIS is why copyright doesn’t work anymore.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:10 am
I live in the patent world, where I create software that gets patented, and with that patent, the benefit of finite monopolies on whatever functions are in the software. Software may be timeless, but it has a shelf life. By its own evolution, software expires, fades, becomes useless and/or obsolete, or someone simply builds a better mousetrap.
To get paid, I create, banging out one patent after another, however, I understand that to continue a revenue stream, I have to continue to create.
I put to you that software is more important to humanity than music. I mean, in the digital age, you cannot do without software, however, you can live without music. So this is a like to like compare. How can you justify music being timeless? You can’t, and because you can’t, justifying such an extortionistic monopoly is just ludicrous.
‘if everyone is breaking a law, there must be something wrong with the law’
October 25th, 2009 at 9:37 am
“You’re not comparing like with like. A song is more like a play. If someone stages a play, charges people to see it, shouldn’t the author get a cut? Without their contribution, no-one else would be able to make any money.
“Music radio stations do the same thing, use authored creations to scare up a crowd from whom they make a living either directly or through advertising. No music, no money. Therefore the authors should get a cut.”
Neither are you.
If you really want to compare like to like, Staging a play is like a live performance,you get paid for that.
Music radio stations do, like they always have, scare up interest for the creators and artists.They bring what those artists and creators do to people who might otherwise never know anything about those artists. This exposure is invaluable, hence the willingness of RIAA labels to pay for some artists, some ‘featured’ artists to get more than their share of airplay.
It’s nearly impossible, in this day and age, for non-label artists to get airplay on major radio stations.Major radio stations belong to Clear Channel,thus major radio stations belong to the major labels. Clear Channel owned stations get a better deal because of this. Increasing and oppressive royalties DO have an effect, though not the one you think.
Oppressive royalties drive the smaller stations off the air, and off the net,while the largest ones ( ones owned and controlled by major labels ) are the only ones left standing. Yes, the smaller stations use label content, but they are also the only places left that ALSO PROMOTE NON LABEL OFFERINGS. That’s the key point. The smaller stations, Radio and internet also play stuff that competes with the majors. Close all of them down, and the only ones left are under direct control of the majors.The majors parent corps are wealthy enough to buy up whats left after the little guys are driven out. The labels have a very clear understanding of the value of radio and internet promotion, thus know exactly what to do to eliminate competing artists.
So while they tell you that they are trying to get more royalties for YOU, while they charge you 3 times more than what they actually paid for it, what they are really after is the elimination of the smaller radio and internet stations that foster interest in artists that are not label owned.
October 25th, 2009 at 9:50 am
@Billy:
The Guardian piece is quoted on a2f2a here – http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/25/giving-the-lie-to-the-bpi/, and p2pnet here – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30230
Cheers!
October 25th, 2009 at 10:15 am
@ surfer:
“I mean, in the digital age, you cannot do without software, however, you can live without music.”
That would be a sad and miserable world.
Anyway, you know better than that, surfer. Apart from the fact music is, has been and always will be absolutely central to world cultures, without it, vast sections of commerce — including, not at all incidentally, Hollywood and Big Music — would collapse totally.
Music is in everything, everywhere.
Cheers!
October 25th, 2009 at 10:25 am
yes, music is IN everything, however, it is NOT everything. A primary disagreement is the value of the music. I listen to ETN iTunes broadcasts, commercial free music, free.. with that said, why does that scenario equate to free, whereas other artists are jumping on the entitlement wagon? demanding forever minus a day payments?
don’t get me wrong Jon, I am all for monetarily compensating musicians that I protract enjoyment from, none at all. The value of said protraction I believe is the debate.
October 25th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Surfer,
What I want is a 70 year monopoly on economic exploitation alongside fair use exceptions.
After that, public domain.
If software is more important than music, how come no one will pay to see you create your software in concert? You’re not comparing like with like. As you said, after a while software becomes obsolete. The Beatles back catalogue has not become obsolete has it? Look at the sales of Beatles Rock Band.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
” You’re not comparing like with like. ”
And , as I said, neither are you.
October 25th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
“If software is more important than music, how come no one will pay to see you create your software in concert?”
see, there inlies your monopolistic benefit, not sales of little round plastic discs. I concede that you should get paid every single time you perform your art to a venue of people willing to pay for the enjoyment. Does that include a passerby that overhears the music owes you money because he heard it? No. Does that imply using a 3 sec snippet of one of your songs for a ringtone is mandatorily preceded by a licensing fee? No.
My point is that you place entirely too much value on something that is of little value. There has been music since caveman beat on drums, so in reality, all the musical notes that can be played have been played, and you are only rearranging the same ones, and in your own definition, infringing on copyright.
70 years eh?, sure, and people in hell want ice water.
Is it that your ‘content’ is of such little value that you require 70 years to recoup the ’sweat and tears’ it took to write those soul wrenching notes on paper?
My software expires, therefore I write more, and people pirate my software, and I am fine with that, it expands my audience of people who actually bought a copy. All released under open source or CC.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Surfer,
Its not that my content is of so little value, quite the opposite.
It is that my content is still capable of creating income for a third party who is exploiting it for material gain. If, without my content, they could not make any money, then I feel I should get a cut, vis Beatles Rock Band.
“My point is that you place entirely too much value on something that is of little value. ”
Didn’t you read the news today, old boy? I billion illicit downloads results in the highest number of digital singles ever sold in the UK – and we’re still 10 weeks from Xmas. Looks like digitised music does have value after all….
October 25th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
so your point is that you are miffed someone is exploiting your content for material gain, ie RIAA, and not compensating you? This point I can agree with you on.
And I stated ‘little’ value, not zero value, as your quoted stats reflect. But you are only agreeing that illicit downloads have increased profit margins of legitimate sales, which again, has been proven again and again by reputable sources.
So, I guess we do agree on some points. I do not think you should be exploited by the labels, and you dont think you should be exploited by the labels.
October 25th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Exactly Surfer,
All the things I am proposing rely on the copyrights being owned and exploited only by the artists who created the work.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
” All the things I am proposing rely on the copyrights being owned and exploited only by the artists who created the work. ”
The only way that’s going to happen is if artists stop signing away those rights to said labels. The only was THAT’S going to happen if Artists start to TRUST their fans to be willing to pay, and step away from the labels altogether.
It has to start with trust, and little faith in the people you want to reach. Since it’s the money of the fans that you really want, that means that sometime you are going to have to be willing to trust the fans to do the right thing. You’ve already seen a few of the successes. Not all are going to succeed that spectacularly, or at all. But clinging to the labels, regardless of the minutiae of copyright, is never going to earn the trust of the fans … you know .. the ones that actually pay the money that the labels never seem to get to you.
October 25th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
The back catalog has next to nothing to do with it. I said above that your advantage was that you already had thousands of fans, and so presumably would either have the capital or be able to easily raise it to produce an “expensive” studio album.
Artists “born” into the new way of doing things are having the least amount of trouble. As we sit debating this they’re busily making small or home studio recordings and releasing directly to some of the biggest music sharing communities on the web. Their music gets heard worldwide from Day 1, paving the way for them to provide previously described “reasons to buy” to their new fans.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:39 am
“The only way that’s going to happen is if artists stop signing away those rights to said labels. The only was THAT’S going to happen if Artists start to TRUST their fans to be willing to pay, and step away from the labels altogether.”
The reason new artists sign their rights away to record labels is because the labels tell them that they can sell their recordings and make money from their copyrights. While you insist on shouting from the roof-tops that this is not true, how can you ever hope to win the trust of the artists? You’re just driving more of them into the arms of the RIAA.
Lets get this straight: most artists are scared of you. They think you want to destroy their ability to make a living through music. You got to get them to trust you. Isn’t that why we are having this dialogue? To build trust between our two communities? It has to be reciprocal, Dredds.
Steely, these artists who are utilising the biggest music communities on the web, how come I’ve never heard of them? Where were they at all the festivals I’ve played this year? Why aren’t they on the cover of the Rolling Stone, giving the finger to the Big 4?
October 26th, 2009 at 9:07 am
Billy,
Labels demand ownership of copyrights for the simplest of reasons; they can. It is a prime indicator of the lack of equal bargaining power in the negotiation of initial recording contracts, and the fact that the biggest stars, who have the most valuable catalgos, often negotiate to get them back only underscores the fact that the initial assignment is strictly a matter of relative strength, and has nothing to do with the functions the label provides.
A restriction on the artist’s right to sell copyrights, or as you are proposing, a complete prohibition, diminishes the value. There are circumstances in which it may be advisable or even necessary to sell your copyrights. Sudden illness, divorce, estate taxes (if the author dies before the end of the 70 year term), etc, or even if the author wants to finance new work by leveraging his old work. There are also going to be situations in which third parties end up with your copyrights by process of law; seizure of property for satisfaction of civil judgments, bankruptcy, etc. By completely eliminating the right to alienate, you end up causing more problems.
I hate to sound like a broken record (an archaic concept, to be sure), but if you talk in terms of copyright as a solution going forward, this kind of thing is going to happen every time,
October 26th, 2009 at 10:05 am
” Lets get this straight: most artists are scared of you. They think you want to destroy their ability to make a living through music. You got to get them to trust you. ”
And we can .. by choosing not to buy anything anymore ..ever.
It’s the money in OUR wallets they want , right ?
You have it backwards. By removing our right of fair return, by allowing DRM to be used to the point that it actually damages our PC’s, by suing people, many of whom are completely innocent of ANY wrongdoing, and by saying that cutting people off of the internet is OK by you, it your labels that have destroyed most of the possibility for the people WITH THE MONEY YOU WANT to trust you. As I said, even though SOME of those decisions were not under your control, some recent ones ARE.
Remember, the labels can’t pay you if we REFUSE TO PAY THEM. Most of us realize that the LABELS are the problem, but when the ‘featured artists’ band together and support them ( even though they say they don’t ) the people with the money ( you know , the fans ) see that. How would you expect us to react ?
Besides, you yourself pointed it out, sales are climbing, and the same amount of free is still out there. Doesn’t that tell you that fans can be trusted to do the right thing ? If the fact that so many fans are willing to pay, while free exists, is not enough to get you ‘featured artists’ to stop being ’scared’ of us, to trust us, then I have no idea what will do the job.
No, backwards it is.
Earn OUR trust back, by telling the labels that you WON’T accept what they do in your name.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
@Billy Bragg
70 years is a very long time? More than two generations?
A very long way between your position and mine, I’m not averse to the idea of zero copyright, abolition (as Crosbie Fitch advocates), I see copyright as a privilege granted, if we choose to do so, to encourage production of new works. Not a right.
A copyright period of 5 or 10 years, for the exclusive right to control commercial distribution and exploitation, is still a very long time, and a substantial opportunity to earn a reward and make a living.
In that time, up to a decade, we may hope you will produce new work (attracting a new copyright term), and also do not forget that the moral right of attribution does not expire (should not expire), it is still possible to earn a reward even when others can distribute freely, they are not (and cannot claim to be) the originator, and that is by itself worth something.
Private copying or redistribution, for love, not for commercial gain, costs nothing, and adds value to the work, by making it more widely known. This should never be forbidden or restricted.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Sorry, Dredd, you have it backwards.
“By removing our right of fair return, by allowing DRM to be used to the point that it actually damages our PC’s, by suing people, many of whom are completely innocent of ANY wrongdoing, and by saying that cutting people off of the internet is OK by you, it is your labels that have destroyed most of the possibility for the people WITH THE MONEY YOU WANT to trust you. As I said, even though SOME of those decisions were not under your control, some recent ones ARE.”
All of these decisions have been supported by artists who don’t trust you, who accept the lies that the labels tell them. Unless you can overcome that and get them to trust you, then they will continue to look to the labels for protection.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
John Barron,
“Private copying or redistribution, for love, not for commercial gain, costs nothing, and adds value to the work, by making it more widely known. This should never be forbidden or restricted.”
I agree. I’m talking specifically about third parties exploiting my work for material gain.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:49 am
If someone pays me to produce some software for them and they exploit it to become extremely wealthy then I’ll not ask them for even a millionth of their earnings.
I accepted the money offered in exchange for my work as complete and final, just as the vendor of a metal detector accepts payment for it without asking for a share of any treasure it is exploited to discover.
People are naturally paid for their work, not for the value that those who commission it extract from it. Otherwise, we have to pay the carpenter each time we sit in the chairs we’ve paid them to make for us.
Many session musicians also accept payment from a record label for their work as complete and final. As do musicians who perform at a concert – those who do not begrudge free exchange of any recordings made.
What are these strange musicians who believe they should have a cut of any money made by people sharing or building upon their music? Aren’t they satisfied with a single, equitable payment?
The allure of unlimited royalties that last beyond a mortal lifespan is certainly inspirational, but those royalties are not without far greater cost than the reward they provide. They are effectively a compulsory lottery ticket where the prize winner is the musician (1% share of ticket revenue) and the administrator is the state, record label, collection society and legal profession (99%). Who notices the cultural constraint and the cost? Just as the lottery is a tax on the stupid, copyright is a con upon the gullible.
Copyright is not a cultural incentive, but the opposite, it’s a cultural constraint that puts a brake on cultural productivity in order to channel the energy so obtained into the pockets of those with the power to purloin it.
Give people back their cultural liberty, remove the 99% cut, and let the audience pay the artist that 1% directly. Then we’ll get back that 99% of our cultural commonwealth that we’ve been missing.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Crosbie,
Why don’t you just listen to software and leave music to people who like it enough to pay for it?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:41 am
On the subject of listening to software, you may be interested in an article from 2003 that discussed the idea of encoding software as music in order for it to qualify under compulsory licensing schemes.
As to enabling people who like music to pay musicians to produce it, that’s why I’m here.
You seem to have the idea that I’m trying to stop musicians getting paid rather than help them.
I may well disagree with the proposition that musicians can go around like king’s men and collect royalties from anyone using their music as part of their livelihood. But being paid for one’s work is not quite the same thing as collecting dues from a protection racket – as in “Cough up or else!”.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
if I made ‘royalties’ off of my software, I would be a billionaire already.
what is so hard to understand, if you want to get paid, go work?
copyright is a privilege, not a right, that stomps on my rights, it is only fitting that the privilege of monopoly should go back to 7 years, and even THAT is biased. I should think that MY rights come before your ‘privilege’.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“where money is made, artists should be paid.”
Hummmm it sounds good, but it doesn’t sound right. More like something we have been lead to believe not something that is true.
When artists work and their work is valued they should get paid.
If I make something and someone buys it, then sells it for more should I get paid?
If I make something and someone buys it, then sells it for the same or less should I get paid?
If I make something and someone buys it, then uses it to make money should I get paid?
When I make something and someone likes and buys it there is where I should get paid.
When I make something and someone likes and rents it there is where I should get paid over and over again.
I can’t think of an example where I make something and then get to control where and how it get’s used and get paid when it get’s used for profit.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Guy,
Here’s your problem: Music, as used by a radio station, is not a ’something’. It’s a service that they use to attract an audience so that they can sell advertising time.
Radio stations value the service we provide, therefore, by your reckoning, we should get paid.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Music (as used by a radio station) is not a service, but an inanimate object. Similarly, the books in a library are not providing a service – they are not intelligent beings.
The only one providing a service is the DJ in selecting which music to play, or the librarian in helping the visitor select which books to read.
A musician provides a service in performing or composing music.
A fiction writer provides a service in authoring novels.
If you want music performed then pay a musician.
If you want a book written then pay a writer.
On the other hand, if you want to control the writing of books and their reproduction, in order either to prevent sedition or competition from other printers, then create the privilege of a reproduction monopoly.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:00 am
Billy
Why is recorded music a “service”?
I can see the act of making / recording music might be called a service, it sounds more like work, but once it’s recorded it becomes a physical / logical thing that no longer requires anything from the creator or a ’something’.
So a musician makes / records music to MP3, that MP3 is now a something not a service. If you played the song personally each time the radio station wanted to use it, then it’s a service.
Each time I repair something for someone I should get paid. If I write a book on how to fix something I can get paid for the book but not each time they use the book.
I do agree with your statement, you should get paid, and you do they buy the MP3 / CD. The difference is you get paid once not each time.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:12 am
It is interesting to look at the detail but not before the big picture. Creating music is like any other industry – other people will get rich off it but you have to make the industry attractive enough or you lose all your best people.
Somewhere along the line, a new artist has to have the ability to earn money.
These are often the phases an artist follows from writing songs to a brilliant career.
Write songs – no money earnt
Find band – no money earnt
Rehearse songs – no money earnt, costs money = costs money
Play small to medium gigs – get little money, loads of costs = lose money
Record an album – costs money (or with deal neutral or recoupable)
Sell albums – earns very little money
Get publishing deal/songs placed – earns money
Sell merchandise – earns money
Sell out tours – earns money
It goes without saying that the money earning opportunity comes towards the end of the journey – but with selling albums earning next to no money these days, the gap between starting out and earning some money is too damn big.
On the London circuit, I have noticed so many talented people fade away and I am mostly surrounded by more affluent artists who can be bankrolled through this money-losing process.
I am not saying I know the answer, but if a painter creates a brilliant painting on their 5th attempt, they can earn money. If a design agency wins a good client on their 5th pitch, they earn money. If a musician creates something that good at their 5th attempt, they should earn money.
This obviously now overlaps with a discussion on who gets to decide what gets played/what the public hear and see… but the theory seems right to me. Fundamentally, should an artist have to wait until they are selling out small tours to earn meaningful money, when thousands are enjoying their music?? My answer is no.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:02 pm
danielwm
Write songs – no money earnt
Find band – no money earnt
Rehearse songs – no money earnt, costs money = costs money
Play small to medium gigs – get little money, loads of costs = lose money
Record an album – costs money (or with deal neutral or recoupable)
Sell albums – earns very little money
Get publishing deal/songs placed – earns money
Sell merchandise – earns money
Sell out tours – earns money
This looks to me like anyone starting a business, with any start-up there is risks and rewards but most people fail because they don’t realize they need to know business or get someone who does.
Maybe someone could start up a Biz that employees musicians at a flat rate, just like programmers you create it but the company owns it. That way it removes some of the risk…but also removes some of the rewards.
It’s probably a bad idea and too much like the current one.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:26 am
Regarding a 70 year copyright:
Billy, Do you have any idea how preposterous this sounds to average working folk? Maybe if you approached the idea framed in a worker to worker context instead of artist to fan context (and aren’t most of us workers, both fan and musician) such an idea might not be so appealing. The idea of a 70 year copyright clearly separates artist and fan into an owner (ruling) class and a serf (worker) class. This is no way to build the trust that you seem to want between artist and fan. The only advances made by labor have been as a unified force. No laborer with an ounce of realistic thought ever viewed the owner class as trustworthy. The vast, VAST, majority of folks look at labor as something we do almost every day of our lives. We do it to provide basic needs for ourselves and our families. Stop working and we starve. We don’t continue to collect a check for 70 years. A case might be made that an artist has special talents and deserves special compensation. It’s a weak case. I know plenty of artists. Not too many are capable of building their own house, constructing a sewer system, fix their plumbing, write a computer program, prescribe medication, drive a fork lift, do their accounting, represent themselves successfully in contract negotiations, or any of the other tasks performed by working people with unique talents every day. Do artists work? Of course they do. Do they deserve to be compensated for their work? Of course they do. Should they be a privileged class? As I understand your politics, I don’t see how you could possibly believe this. Maybe I misunderstand your politics.
October 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Bill,
Surprisingly, musicians also work to provide basic needs for ourselves and our families. If I stopped doing gigs, I wouldn’t starve, but I would have to get another job. Please remember that the next time you download a free music file. Or is free music a privilege you reserve for yourself?
Just this guy,
You are confusing the way you consume music with the way a music radio station uses music. For a radio station, music is a service, not a commodity; they need in order to make money, just like a company needs a phone line. Without one, the company would find it difficult to communicate with suppliers and find customers. It is a service that they need in order to make money
The company buys the phone and has it installed. Now, according to your view, that should be it. The phone should now be free to use, because its already been paid for. However, the company need the service to be there everyday to connect them to clients. It’s fully automated, the engineer doesn’t have to come down every time they want to make a call, yet they still pay the phone company a fee for each use.
Music radio stations are similar in that they too need my service on a daily basis. They don’t call me into the studio every time they want to play my song – that would be too expensive, the equivalent of calling out the engineer every time you used the phone. Instead, they play a recording of me singing that song and pay me a fraction of what it would cost to get me into the studio playing live.
They are happy to pay for the service as it attracts the audience that they need in order to sell advertising to make money. No music = no listeners = no advertising = no money, just like no phone line = no communication = no customers = no money.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
If I stopped doing gigs, I wouldn’t starve, but I would have to get another job.
So you’re saying if you stopped working, you still wouldn’t starve? Sounds like you have it pretty good. I’m not clear why an artist who doesn’t continue to do work should continue to receive money.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:19 am
Steel,
I meant I wouldn’t starve because I live in a country where I can get social security. I was just trying to be a bit less melodramatic.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Music to radio stations
Phone to business
The Business pay for the phone and installation as a commodity.
The service they pay for each month are the connection, the line maintenance and call center that the phone company provides (there are even more services but these 2 should be enough for this). If the phone company goes out of business they have no phone connection.
Music
The radio station pays for it once as a commodity. They don’t need anything else from the musician to play that music. If the Musician goes out of business the radio station will not be affected.
A the phone service is an ongoing work exchanged for money. With music the musician doesn’t give anything more to the deal, doesn’t add value. The music adds value but so do a lot of other things.
A business buys artists paintings, opens a gallery where the business makes money. No paintings, no viewers, no money. Does the business have to pay the painters more than just buying the painting?
The paintings are no more or less a service than music. The music once it’s recorded is a commodity not a service.
A trucking business needs trucks but they only pay for them once, the trucks are a commodity not a service.
Just because your product is needed for a business to make money doesn’t mean the product is a service.
October 30th, 2009 at 11:04 am
Just this guy,
Radio stations don’t buy CDs. They get them for free.
A painting is a commodity. A truck is a commodity.
The key thing is the connection. The company pays for the line to be connected to their customers. The radio station pays for the music to be connected to their customers.
I’ve opened a topic about this if you want to carry on this argument. See ‘Why artists get paid by radio’
October 30th, 2009 at 11:49 am
Billy
Thanks for the topic I will go there.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Billy says “Surprisingly, musicians also work to provide basic needs for ourselves and our families. If I stopped doing gigs, I wouldn’t starve, but I would have to get another job. Please remember that the next time you download a free music file. Or is free music a privilege you reserve for yourself?”
I’m a throwback that still buys my music on CDs. Janis Ian points out that you can drink water from a fountain for free but the bottled water industry still generates billions of sales per year. Do fans attend concerts? Yes. Do they pay for their tickets? Yes. Does the artist get paid for the performance? Yes. I think it was Lightnin’ Hopkins that refused to record anything unless he was paid cash in hand. This is where Fred’s argument of a contractual approach to getting paid makes more sense to me. For example – I worked for a year replacing sewers in Austin. Should I get a royalty everytime someone walks into McDonalds and uses the crapper? Should I send the city of Austin a bill every month for my cut of water & sewer collections? Of course not. I was paid at the time of my labor an amount that I agreed upon. It is not suprising to me that artists work to provide for themselves and their families. I never said anything different. But I think when you ask for a 70 year monopoly on availability you enter the realm of the owner class. Corporations have used IP as a means to kill people. This s not drama. Look at the history of Africa, AIDS, the pharmaceutical companies, and GATT. The problem being addressed here, as I understand it, is how to set up a new system of compensation for artists that will work for both artist and fan. Not how to extend and expand old concepts of privalege and punishment. I understand that touring, an imbedded part of the current income stream for artists, can create difficult situations in family situations. You know what? So does long distance truck driving. The solution for truck drivers is to look for local work or find a new profession. Not to collect a royalty payment for 70 years on every load they ever delivered. It surprises me that artists have not approaced such social networks as youtube with the idea of live performances (from home, studio, or venue) for broadcast over the network at a contracted fee. Upon delivery (and payment) the performance becomes a part of the social archive. (the truck driver analogy being “local delivery”) Or other such ideas of a work/pay scenario that are more compatible with how most of us live our lives. IP is the most devastating tool in the arsenal of tricks used to widen the gap between poverty and extreme wealth. Offering it up as a “solution” will do nothing to build a means of trust. How does a common man or woman trust someone who aspires to the owner class? Maybe a subject line examining the social relationship between artist and fan is needed to build on that trust.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
bill,
Thanks for introducing class war into the conversation. Very helpful.
A CD is a product with a worker at each end.
October 31st, 2009 at 1:57 am
Billy says “Thanks for introducing class war into the conversation. Very helpful. A CD is a product with a worker at each end.”
Yes it is, as is a pair of trousers and a dinner plate. I realize that a2f2a has a limited focus – one area of worker to worker concerns – that area being music and the industry that surrounds it. I also realize that, unlike trousers and dinner plates, music is capable of being transferred through a digital medium. This results in a different set of circumstances for worker (musician) compensation. I don’t, however, believe the answer to the problem is to embrace concepts that have proven so destructive for the working class. Surely we can do better.