Over in the UK, Crosbie Fitch is developing 1p2u (1P to you), which he describes like this:
- It’s a little widget you put on your blog
- It lets your readers become paying subscribers
- Subscribers pay you a penny for each article you write
In other words, his interest in finding ways for people pay each other is more than merely academic.
“On the new a2f2a website Billy Bragg asks me ‘Why do you believe you have a natural right to share and build upon the published music you receive without having to seek permission, or pay any tax or royalty’?” – Crosbie says on his blog, Digital Productions, continiung >>>
To me this is akin to asking me why I believe the Earth is spherical.
It is not an unreasonable question, especially if we simply take what we’ve grown used to at face value as ‘the way things are’. Consequently, for the Earth to be flat doesn’t seem particularly unnatural. However, if you take any time to investigate things in depth, just as you realise that the Earth can’t possibly be flat, you realise that one can’t possibly have a natural right to prevent others making copies of anything that you give to them.
Just as a basket maker has never naturally been able to prevent those who purchase their baskets from making copies or using them to carry silver without a cut, so a songwriter or musician has never naturally been able to prevent those who hear their songs or tunes from singing or performing them, or doing so for money without royalty. It has always taken a potentate and their police force to do such things, e.g. prohibit the wearing of imperial colours or collect a levy on wine. Individuals naturally born as equals are not born with such a privilege of dictating what other people may or may not do with the things they have made, purchased, or discovered (irrespective of similarity to, or provenance from, any other). Even the power of collecting a tithe, levy, tax, or royalty takes the power of a church, baron, or king to achieve.
Natural rights are those powers or abilities to defend their interests that individuals are born with (as equals), i.e. the power to protect their lives (their bodies), their privacy (and the possessions within it), the truth (their apprehension of it against deceit or impairment), and their liberty (against the will of others). Rather than solely relying upon each individual’s physical strength these natural rights are supposed to be additionally and fairly protected by a government empowered by the people precisely for this purpose. Such a government is not empowered to grant privileges (though sadly, by dint of the power they can assume, they do anyway).
In 1710 Queen Anne suspended from individuals’ natural right to liberty their right to copy or perform the original works of others. This right to copy was reserved as a transferable privilege attached to each original work, hence ‘copyright’. In effect the individual’s inalienable liberty had been alienated from them by the state to serve both the state’s interest in seeing political expression controlled, and the interest of the stationers’ guild in continuing their members’ monopolies (especially as legally enforceable). Neither state nor guild was interested in their power or profits being undermined by the propaganda or piracy of an uncontrolled press.
Three centuries later, we are still born with the natural right to copy or perform the original works of others, but there now exists a privilege known as ‘copyright’ that enables the holder thereof to exclude us from doing so. Government via the police protect our natural rights, but they do not protect privileges. This is why the police aren’t supposed to arrest people for singing songs against the copyright holder’s wishes or making recordings at concerts and selling copies thereof. The responsibility and expense of policing and asserting their privilege is entirely that of the copyright holder. Well, it has been until relatively recently. The publishing corporations are lobbying for their privilege of copyright to become as protected by the state as any natural right of an individual. Such privileges are also known as legal rights, since whilst they appear to recognise a right, that right does not arise in nature (to be protected by law), but arises only from the law itself (protecting the state’s, crown’s, or lobbyists’ special interests).
So, all discussion of the legal rights artists may still need or those that might remain lucrative to them, even if copyright’s ability to exclude unauthorised copies is largely ineffective, are misguided. Ethically, people can only ask for the protection of the natural rights they have, not those privileges they may covet or believe they need to make a living. They should certainly not be tempted to adjust one privilege into another, e.g. if one’s privilege is no longer able to prevent copies made by another, one should be given the privilege of extracting a royalty from another, if their business involves the use of one’s work.
The distinction of natural right from state granted privilege is not new thinking, but was well known even as the US Constitution was being framed in 1787. See the WikiPedia entry concerning the work Rights of Man by Thomas Paine:
Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:
It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice.
The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.
The US Constitution correctly recognised that authors and inventors have a natural exclusive right to their writings and inventions (where exclusive – deriving from the individual’s natural right to privacy). However, while this right should certainly have been secured, it should never have been extended or substituted with the grant of monopolies. It just goes to show how appealing monopolies are to those interested in them that they were legislated anyway (in 1790), in spite of the Constitution.
What we see today is that copyright is not only a privilege that conflicts with individuals’ natural rights (their cultural liberty and freedom of speech), but a privilege that conflicts with the very nature of information and its communication. It is simply not possible (even for the state, let alone an individual), to remotely constrain the distribution of intellectual works, because it is not possible to remotely constrain the communication and diffusion of information (despite the snake oil that is DRM).
So, it is foolish to suggest either that copyright’s term is shortened (to 28 years, 28 weeks, or even 28 days later), or that those whose business may be seen to benefit from the use of another’s work should pay a share of their earnings. Such privilege is preposterous and an offense against both nature and man. It is a protection racket of those already corrupt and powerful, or of those who have become corrupted by unnatural power.
We earn a living from our work by exchanging it with the work of others, voluntarily. Money=work. There’s nothing wrong in exchanging our labour, in selling the music we make or the copies we make of others’. What’s wrong is in being unnaturally able to prevent anyone else doing so, or being able to demand a royalty. What we have a right to is the free exchange of our work or possessions (liberty). We do not have a right to give our work away and then demand payment for its possession, use, or reproduction. Such a ‘right’ would be appealing, but nature has not seen fit to imbue us with it.
Without unnatural monopoly, we’re still left with the natural ability to sell our music, and the ability to make and sell copies of it. However, there is no market for copies that people don’t need to buy (that a monopoly can no longer prevent being made). The market for musicians is in making music that people want to buy (in preference to, or in addition to, making their own).
The market for copies has ended. The market for music continues unabated. There is neither need nor sanction for monopoly or any other privilege.
“I and umpteen thousand others may pay you a penny to write or sing a song, and you may consider that an equitable exchange,” says Crosbie, adding:
“However, my audience can also pay me to sing that song and I don’t owe you a penny – naturally. That’s how it used to be, and that’s how it should be. We just have the embarrassment of three centuries in which we put up with a state granted privilege that had it otherwise.”
October 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Crosbie,
You could have saved yourself 1500 words by simply quoting that chap from The Pirate Bay who justified what he was doing by saying ‘I take it because I can’.
There’s your high-minded ‘natural law’ exposed for what it is. Or as somebody else put it:
“Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” – Aleister Crowley
October 25th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I have issues with the 1p2u concept. In some ways the idea goes against everything the bloggers are saying and makes them hypocrites. Why? because you do not deserve to be paid just because you have done something – you deserve to be paid because the content is useful! If I only read 10% of your content, why should I pay for the 90% i dont? At least the articles are not overpriced like the music!
October 25th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
” “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” – Aleister Crowley ”
Actually, Mr. Crowley ‘built’ that law on top of one that already existed, and no one sued him over it
It was originally …
” Do what thou wilt and harm none ” , the origins of which are Wiccan.
It’s a great example of building on a pre existing work which overly oppressive copyright would not allow.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
As Dreddsnik observes we are effectively arriving at the definition of liberty.
Libertinism=Do what you want.
Libertarianism=You have a natural right to do anything that does not violate another’s.
Utilitarianism=An individual’s liberty may be suspended by the state in order to grant privileges in society’s interest.
It is with the latter philosophy that we arrive at such things as the PRS threatening people with prosecution for singing other people’s songs.
So Billy, would you have the PRS prosecute me if I asserted my natural right to sing one of your songs without a license to do so?
October 25th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Billy,
Although I have a suspicion the question you put to Crosbie was designed to “feel out” his or others’ sentiment, I’m going to say the following anyway…
I think that reply was a bit short-sighted and undeserved.
I realize what Crosbie posted may have been a little lengthy, but if you take the time to absorb what’s being said, he’s merely trying to explain the principle of how the rights we are naturally born with actually work.
Natural rights ARE the basis of life and the building blocks for the very constitutions that enabled the formation of democratic republics. Surely, natural rights can’t be disputed.
It was only the great Quest for Profit that created the (perhaps false) “need” for some of those natural rights to be shelved. And, it is the continual and expanding practice of shelving natural rights that brings us “here” today.
On the other hand, maybe you do get it, and you’re having trouble dealing with the implications it may have for the artist. He did repeat a statement I know has you in a conundrum – “the market for copies is over”. You may be guilty of a knee-jerk reaction to that. If this is the case, I still think you haven’t read it for what it’s actually worth.
One thing you may or may not be overlooking is, nobody’s saying you can’t sell copies to those that want to buy them. It doesn’t take copyright to facilitate that.
October 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
No Crosbie I wouldn’t.
Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising?
October 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Dev,
The market for copies isn’t over, no matter how many of you keep repeating this canard.
It’s ironic that both you guys and the RIAA/BPI come to the same wrong conclusion over the ubiquity of digital music. You both assume that if digital music files can be had for free, then no-one will pay for them. This is the unshakable logic that both terrifies the Big 4 and makes you lot think that you are the harbingers of some libertarian utopia.
However – as often happens – consumers are defying the experts by refusing to act in purely rational terms. Out there in the real world, millions of people are still buying downloads – in ever bigger numbers.
What we need to do here is to work together to get the record industry to accept that this shows that p2p actually helps in promotion.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”
Would you rather the Radio never play anything of yours, ever ?
I would think that would lead to obscurity rather quickly. Since the record labels CONTROL most major radio stations through ClearChannel, ‘Featured Artists’ don’t have to worry about lack of airplay.
Yes, I know I have said this before .. Once the oppressive fees drive away all of the smaller radio and internet stations, the only ones that don’t have to worry about obscurity are the ‘Featured Artists’.
October 25th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
” What we need to do here is to work together to get the record industry to accept that this shows that p2p actually helps in promotion. ”
You mean, the way radio does ?
October 25th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Dredd,
“You mean, the way radio does ?”
It may help if we think of the role of p2p as being much like radio. And just like radio, if p2p sites sell advertising they should pay a royalty to the artists whose music they use.
btw a featured artist is anyone who signs a recording contract. The majority of featured artists face obscurity, believe me.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
“It may help if we think of the role of p2p as being much like radio. And just like radio, if p2p sites sell advertising they should pay a royalty to the artists whose music they use.”
We need to stop using the term Artist and Copyright Holder interchangeably. They are seldom the same. The lawyers do that in court too, and it’s misleading. ALL monies go to the RIGHTSHOLDERS which are almost always the labels.You know this. It’s up to the labels to pay you.
This is the crux of the problem. The labels own or control all promotional and distributive outlets, or did, up until now. Because they controlled everything, artists pretty much had no choice but to sign away their rights. That’s no longer the case, but if we give into the labels demands for levies, ridiculously high royalty payments and such, they will be able to gain control of all of the new doors that are opening for artists. This will insure that the labels will continue to be the gatekeepers, and artists will continue to sign away their rights to third parties just for the chance to be heard by someone outside of their town, let alone worldwide.
You know the labels are the enemy, yet continnue to play their game the way they want you to.
October 25th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
“Dev,
The market for copies isn’t over, no matter how many of you keep repeating this canard.”
Billy, this statement conflicts almost directly with what I just said, which was “nobody’s saying you can’t sell copies to those that want to buy them.”
That’s why I say Crosbie’s version has you in a kind of conundrum. Maybe one of the following attempts at wording would have been better?…
-There’s no more market for the copyright-enforced copy of digital music. (Acknowledging the failure of copyright.)
or
-There’s no more market for “label-distributed” copies of digital music. (Acknowledging the failure of the labels to make digital music properly available.)
I, for one, do not subscribe to the “you can’t compete with free” idea. To believe that would be to deny the very fact we’re pretty much in agreement with – sharing has obviously served as a huge, free promotional vehicle for music, and people are buying because they’ve been exposed to stuff and were able to sample it.
I do understand the stress you may experience in trying to follow and absorb all the intial feedback, but let’s not forget what common ground we’ve already established.
October 26th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Billy, you ask: “Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising?”
If there’s no risk of misrepresentation (an endorsement implied by the artist for an advertised product) then ethically the radio station need not seek the artist’s permission to broadcast their work (by way of obtaining the artist’s authorisation for any endorsement). That’s the main issue introduced by ‘advertising’.
Otherwise your question could become one of two:
1) ‘Would you advise a radio station to pay me if they used my songs to make money?’
Well, if they believed your songs were helping them receive money in exchange for their labour (perhaps by adding value to those songs in terms of the service they provided), then I’d certainly advise them to pay you to produce more songs. However, they shouldn’t need my advice. It should be obvious.
2) ‘Would you support a law that prohibited a radio station playing my songs unless they either did it non-commercially (e.g. hospital/college radio), or obtained my permission or paid a (statutory/compulsory) license fee/royalty’?
Certainly not.
October 26th, 2009 at 5:59 am
@ Billy:
I have a link to Crosbie’s site on p2pnet because I like the idea. As I say here in a story of another Google scheme, this time on micro-payments, “1p2u (one penny to you) sees readers supporting writers and other creators as patrons, in the traditional sense of the word, rather than milking them, as in the Google monetising sense.”
(And well put, DA)
Cheers!
October 26th, 2009 at 7:24 am
“You know the labels are the enemy, yet continnue to play their game the way they want you to.”
Dredd, that is total bs. When I talk about the benefits of copyright, I mean when it is owned by artists, not by corporations. I know its going to be hard for your community, who have been hounded by lawyers bearing copyright laws, to see them as benign, but in the hands of artists I don’t think they would be used in the same vindictive manner.
“Billy, this statement conflicts almost directly with what I just said, which was “nobody’s saying you can’t sell copies to those that want to buy them.”
If I had a pound for every time someone has told me that I can no longer sell copies of recorded music, I’d have £37. It’s an article of faith at p2pnet. And no matter what way you try to articulate it, DA, its still wrong:
“There’s no more market for the copyright-enforced copy of digital music.”
So how come digital sales are growing year on year in the UK?
“There’s no more market for “label-distributed” copies of digital music.”
Tell that to Cheryl Cole’s record label who are currently having the biggest hit of the year.
This doesn’t mean that copyright is not failing and needs reform, nor that the labels have failed to make music properly available. Its just that neither do these two facts mean that the sky is falling in.
“Well, if they believed your songs were helping them receive money in exchange for their labour (perhaps by adding value to those songs in terms of the service they provided), then I’d certainly advise them to pay you to produce more songs. However, they shouldn’t need my advice. It should be obvious.”
Yes, it is obvious and they do believe it, that’s why they pay me.
Crosbie, I’m guessing that this is your way of telling me that you agree that radio should pay me when they play my records. If so, a simple ‘yes’ would have sufficed.
Also, can you guys please refrain from re-casting my questions instead of answering them?
October 26th, 2009 at 7:51 am
Billy, you may as well guess it’s my way of telling you that I should post you a cheque for £10 each time I hear a recording of you sing on the radio, but such guesses are unlikely to constitute comprehension of what has been written or meant.
Let’s be careful. This isn’t a matter of guesswork. If you’ve not understood something I’ve written please ask rather than make a guess. There’s also a risk that if unchallenged your guesses will lead people to assume they are an accurate representation of my views.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Crosbie,
Okay, I’m asking….
Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising?
October 26th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Before I could answer your intrinsically ambiguous question we’d have to pin down exactly what you meant by “have”, in what way you meant “pay”, and how the song you’d produced and published was being used by the radio station to sell advertising, and make them money as a consequence. And then we’d still arrive at a differently worded question.
I did not guess what you meant. Nor did I attempt to answer your question as worded.
Instead I touched on a potentially pertinent issue of implicit endorsement, and I provided answers to a couple of more precisely worded questions to clarify my position.
I cannot answer ambiguous questions with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. I could provide a laboriously qualified answer, but sometimes it’s more informative, simpler and more concise to provide precise answers to precise questions.
October 26th, 2009 at 10:17 am
” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”
Since the radio station is, for the most part, advertising YOU ( since without the radio no one might even know who you are ), then why isn’t it a ‘wash’ ?
This is their game. You are convinced that Radio is profiteering off of your backs, when the truth is without it, artsts would be unlikely to be known any farther than their own small geographical borders.
You see, this is another question that CAN’T be answered with a simple yes or no. If the DJ falsely states ‘ this is BB’s favorite station, and then plays one of your tunes, then arguably it is using your name and music directly for profit. but by just playing your songs, along with many others it is invaluable exposure, and once again I say, since the largest stations are controlled by the labels only certain few artists benefit from it, and they DO benefit.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Billy,
The 2 statements…
- “There’s no more market for the copyright-enforced copy of digital music.”
-”There’s no more market for ‘label-distributed’ copies of digital music.”
…were presented as only “prototypical”, to represent what appears to be a growing sentiment among fans.
As far as these replies go…
-”…how come digital sales are growing year on year in the UK?”
-”Tell that to Cheryl Cole’s record label who are currently having the biggest hit of the year.”
…copyright had nothing to do with the sales.
People buy music because they want to.
Not because they’re “mandated not to pirate” it.
Obviously, as those who don’t want to buy it, download it anyway.
As to your open question of having radio stations pay the artist based on music providing incentive to advertise (hopefully, I’ve got that one correctly), that might be too deep a question in its present context, as it begs for details. Then I have to ask myself, if it requires the depth of detailing it appears to in order to answer it, is it a constructive question to ask given the premise that a whole new scheme of artist compensation has to be designed?
The way I see it, when a viable plan comes to fruition, the “devil” will likely be in the resulting “details” for some of those issues. (Sorry, couldn’t resist the reference!)
October 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
@ Rabbit
“If I only read 10% of your content, why should I pay for the 90% i dont?”
Because you are actually paying for ACCESS to the 100%, and not the use. You have to decide, as a consumer, if the 1p is a fair price for access.
Look at it like an “all you can eat for $5″ buffet. If you pay going in, one person can just take soup, while another stuffs himself full of the roast beef. It’s the same price for both, and both the soup guy and the beef guy are getting what they want out of access to the buffet. The soup guy has no real right to complain that he hasn’t eaten as much as the beef guy. Both got equal access to what they wanted. If you base payment on something subjective, like the amount you read, you’re going to end up with a subjective estimation of what that content was worth, and you and I know there’s a high likelihood the value will be underestimated more often than over-estimated. That’s just human nature. However, if you base payment on the simple objective basis of access, there is no subjective calculation to be done. You either step up to the buffet or your don’t.
I could draw a parallel here and say that your complaint displays what is wrong with copyright as a device attempting to quantify and monetize use in a circumstance where we now live in an environment where access is the real determinant of value, but no one wants to play with me on that one.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Okay guys,
Lets say that the radio station plays my record because they think it will draw more listeners to their station. Lets say it has that effect. The radio station then use the fact that they have more listeners to charge advertisers for playing their ads on the popular show that plays my record.
Should the radio station pay me a royalty?
October 26th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Fundamentals:
1. Radio stations play music because it attracts listeners.
The relative level of attraction depends on the type of music and the type and number of alternative sources of entertainment, but it remains as true today as it was 80 years ago.
2. Radio stations want to attract listeners.
Advertising rates are based on the size of the audience. The larger the audience, the higher the rates a station can charge. The higher the rates, the greater the profit.
3. If music is “popular,” that means more people listen to it.
A station playing “popular music” will draw a larger audience than one playing music fewer people want to hear.
4. Radio airplay does create positive promotion for artists, but the advantage is limited.
I represent a number of artists who are very popular on radio stations that follow the “oldies” format. These artists are now in their 70s or older, and have no interest, or in some cases, the capability, to perform live any more, so the promotional value of airplay of their records is nearly nil. I will concede there is a residual effect on promoting CD sales of the oldies, although, from personal experience, if there is one audience that probably already owns a version of the song they are listening to, it’s the oldies radio audience. In a more telling example, I am currently listening to Pandora, where I set up a Charlie Poole station. Charlie Poole was a North Carolina musician who died in 1931. He’s not getting much in the way of usable promotion from me listening to “The Bluefield Murder.” He’s not going to be playing anywhere I can see him for a while (I hope).
The conclusion I draw from this is that the promotional value of radio airplay is not always adequate compensation for free use of the music by radio stations because there is no actual promotional value being created.
5. Should artists be fiscally compensated by radio stations who use music to draw listeners who increase ad revenue?
I think the answer is “Yes,” but it has to be qualified as well. Who gets Charlie Poole’s share of the money if he’s entitled to any? It isn’t going to be a lot, but if my ears have commercial value to Pandora (and I’m guessing they do), he deserves his cut of the pie. This may end up disappointing the artist side of these discussions, but I don’t think the slice is going to be large enough to make a real economic impact on any artists except the ones currently at the top of the charts, and their successors. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be paid, but I don’t think anyone can go into this expecting to retire on their share of radio perfomance royalties.
October 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Do you mean ’should’ as in ‘prosecuted if they don’t’ or as in ‘it is in their commercial interest’?
If the radio station obtains more listeners by playing new/unfamiliar and good music rather than the same old music, then it’s in their interest to commission the production of new music. Thus they would pay the musicians they believe are likely to increase their audience, to produce more music.
However, this is not ‘royalty’. You are not able to demand they pay a share of their revenue. All you can do is decide whether the commission that is offered to you is a sufficient incentive to produce new music.
And don’t forget, advertising removes value from a radio station.
A DJ that plays music without adverts is likely to receive more commission from his audience than one who includes adverts.
The DJ has to decide whether he’s selling his music selection service to his audience, or their ears to advertisers, i.e. whether the audience pays the DJ with money or their tolerance of advertising.
Advertising is diminishing in value, given it results from a communications asymmetry between the producer and their customers, as this asymmetry is rectified by the Internet. I wouldn’t place much hope on business models that obtain revenue via advertising (unless at very large scales). Given a choice between a DJ with ads and one without, which would you prefer to listen to?
October 26th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Crosbie,
I mean ’should’ as in do you think it is fair that if the station is getting material gain from advertising, I should be fairly rumunerated for my providing them with the means to attract an audience?
October 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Billy, the musician has already produced their work and delivered it to the public (supposedly either in exchange for a commission or as a promotional loss leader).
In the case of a radio station we have:
1) The DJ’s selection service.
2) Listeners interested in the DJ’s selection service, of music they would like to listen to, and by good artists they hope to be introduced to.
The DJ (like any other artist) either provides their service as a loss leader to promote their talent or as a service paid for by their audience, e.g. via tickets to a venue.
Alternatively, the DJ doesn’t seek any commission from their audience, but from advertisers willing to pay for air time to promote their services/products to the DJ’s audience. This incurs a loss of value upon the music selection service in the audience’s eyes, and is effectively a means of extracting payment from the audience, for those who remain able to withstand it.
As I said, the DJ has an interest in new/good music, so they (along with their audience) will direct some of their revenue to the production of new music, in the form of commission to artists.
So, getting back to your question, the musician does not provide the DJ with a means to attract an audience. It is the DJ’s service (skill) in selecting music that consistently appeals to their audience that attracts them. This can be polluted by advertising or corrupted by payola – each with compensation to the DJ.
So, the musician has as much claim on the DJ’s revenue as the manufacturer of their turntable.
Unless, that is, they are granted with the privilege of a being able to claim a royalty.
You then have a nice sales job on your hand trying to convince DJs why they should pay you to play your royalty incurring music, and suffer the consequent accounting and auditing headaches, rather than only play non-royalty incurring music.
October 26th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
” I mean ’should’ as in do you think it is fair that if the station is getting material gain from advertising, I should be fairly rumunerated for my providing them with the means to attract an audience? ”
Is it fair for the royalty to be so oppressive, as to drive smaller, non corporate owned stations out of business ?
Is it fair to have the radio pay an unreasonable amount when you benefit from the presence on the radio ?
None of these questions are simple yes or no questions. continuing to try to force them into an oversimplistic mode of Yes or No seems evasive. It’s not that simple. We all know that.
How much is ‘Fair’ ?
What constitutes a ‘reasonable living’ as an artist ?
How much material gain is enough to warrant a royalty payment ?
How do ascertain an ‘intent to profit’ off of your material ?
See .. not so simple.
October 26th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Crosbie, Dredds,
I encountered plenty of your ‘bullshit baffles brains’ approach to things when I was in the Army. It ain’t gonna phase me.
If you don’t think I should get a royalty from radio plays, just say so, okay?
October 26th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
” I encountered plenty of your ‘bullshit baffles brains’ approach to things when I was in the Army. It ain’t gonna phase me. ”
First off, I don’t even know what that means.
Second I am not trying to bullshit or baffle anyone.
I am pointing out that the question you’re asking is not a simpple yes or no question, and that’s all. I’m sorry if you don’t agree but that’s how I see it. A simple yes or no simply won’t work.
Actually my issue is far less with radio than it is with internet streaming radio. Right now, they have a gun at their heads. A law was passed granting royalties per song PER LISTENER. This doesn’t really harm the few large corporate internet radio stations, but it will ( and is designed to ) kill the hobbyists. Some of those smaller stations were set up as a hooby out of love for the genre, and play things that don’t often get heard on mainstream stations. Try to calculate just what that would cost. It is ridiculous.
Since the law passed, the RIAA ‘generously’ allowed these stations to continue while they ‘negotiate’ other arrangements. That’s kind of like ‘negotiating’ with a mobster while his buddy holds a gun to your temple.
The small stations barely make enough to cover their costs, maybe with a couple bucks left over. Wen they are forced to shut down, they won’t be thinking, ‘those darn lawyers’ they’ll be thinking ‘ those greedy artists ‘. That’s because this is all being done in the name of the artist.
Royalties are appropriate, but how much does a hobbyist have to make before you consider him to be profting off the backs of artists ?
200 a month after costs ?
100 ?
I can see a giant station making thousands a month should pay something but where is the point where reasonable becomes petty ? Thats another reason why a yes or no answer is not appropriate, no matter how much you think i am full of ‘bullshit’ ( a road that everyone promised not to travel, remember ) ?
A flat yes or no is not going to cover it.
October 26th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Dredd,
I didn’t say you were full of bullshit, I said you were trying to baffle me with bullshit.
Look, my question really is simple, but you are trying to avoid answering it by introducing all these other arguments. These are all good points that we can address once we have established whether or not you think I should get a royalty for having my music played on the radio. Because if you don’t, then your questions are immaterial.
Crosbie,
Your DJ argument is questionable. If DJs are so important to the whole process, how come Clear Channel has dispensed with them in some markets?
Are there any circumstances under which you believe that an artist should be granted the privilege of a being able to claim a royalty from a radio station?
October 26th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
” Look, my question really is simple, but you are trying to avoid answering it by introducing all these other arguments.”
No, i’m not.
conversely, i’m not going give a yes or no answer where it isn’t appropriate, to avoid being called a bullshitter.
There are times when it’s appropriate, and times it’s petty.
The answer is both yes and no.
October 26th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Personally, i’d be more concerned with avoiding creating even more ‘Black Box’ situations than squeezing every last fin you can out of radio stations and hobbyists. We all agree that the labels are the largest part of the problem, I would think one would worry more about how to get them to pay what their supposed to pay artists, or how to get away from them altogether.
October 27th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Fred wrote “I think the answer is “Yes,” but it has to be qualified as well. Who gets Charlie Poole’s share of the money if he’s entitled to any? It isn’t going to be a lot, but if my ears have commercial value to Pandora (and I’m guessing they do), he deserves his cut of the pie.”
Fred, This is probably fodder for a seperate discussion, but if the public benefit – which all laws are supposed to have – is that copyright gives financial incentive for artists to continue to create, what benefit is it to the public for Charlie Poole’s estate or IP holder to continue to collect royalty payments? They haven’t created anything. Isn’t the absurd levels to which copyright has been expanded (what is it now? 75 years past death?) contrary to its original intent? Whether or not Charlie Poole deserves anything is a mute point. There’s no delivery system to wherever he is. What does the public deserve?
October 27th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Billy, a human DJ may provide a good music selection service, but as Pandora and LastFM have demonstrated, computers and algorithms can help perform a similar service (in some ways superior).
No individual should privileged above another, so no, you should never be granted the privilege of being able to demand a royalty from another individual (and I doubt it’s sensible to make an exception for corporations).
But, your previous question didn’t mention royalties, but was more along the lines of whether a radio station should ever pay you anything. As long as that’s ’should’ as in ’sensible to’ then I’d suggest stations interested in keeping their music selections fresh should commission/sponsor/fund/patronise musicians to produce fresh music.
I think it’s high time we stopped trying to cling on to this copyright inculcated mentality of having privileges that enable us to claim a cut of each other’s earnings. Without privilege you don’t charge each other for use of your published work (on threat of prosecution), you pay each other in exchange for producing their work.
Try and bear in mind that there is no win to privilege. Your gain in privilege is another’s loss of liberty, and their gain in privilege is your loss of liberty, and not least there’s the added overhead in terms of a litigation/policing cost, and a reduction in cultural depth given the effective inhibition of cultural intercourse (each work must be an island in a sea of permission).
October 27th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Dredd,
‘The answer is both yes and no’.
FFS, we’re talking about royalties for radio plays, not Schrodinger’s bloody cat.
Crosbie,
I don’t see how taking a royalty from a radio station that is using your music to increase its audience share so that it can make more money from advertising is ‘a privilege’.
How is the radio station losing its liberty by paying me for a service that I provide?
You are confusing the way copyright proscribes the freedom of individual music fans – which is wrong, in my view – and the way copyright ensures that artists get a cut of money that the radio station would not be able to make without using the service provided by me as a musician.
The FAC is campaigning to get the copyright laws changed so that they only come into play when the user makes material gain.
Do you think that is a good idea?
October 27th, 2009 at 8:45 am
I think this is a good idea, Billy. Crosbie is a visionary thinker but practically we have to work within the parameters of what’s feasible, which will come down to what seems fair to the average person.
On the Music Tax thread people are complaining that there is no need for an ISP levy or something similar because of the a2f2a founding principle that personal copying should be legalized (ie that this is an absolute demand, with no concessions to be made). I’m interested to know, Billy (and all the lurking musicians), if you agree with this argument, or whether you think users need to give some ground in exchange for the proposed exemption in copyright law for non-profit uses.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:35 am
” FFS, we’re talking about royalties for radio plays, not Schrodinger’s bloody cat. ”
You’re right, it’s not.
The answer is still yes and no.
I’m sorry if you can’t see that.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Billy, taking a royalty is a ROYAL privilege, and it takes a king (or Queen Anne) to grant such a thing.
There’s nothing in nature that enables a craftsman to walk up to a user of their works and take a share of their income on the basis that such income is alleged by them to be partially dependent upon the use of the works they’ve manufactured.
The ability to collect what are known as ‘monopoly rents’ is certainly lucrative, but it is neither natural nor ethical.
The privilege of copyright takes away someone’s liberty. A license (whether voluntary or compulsory) gives some of it back.
A royalty is effectively saying “The king has suspended your liberty to play my songs unless you obtain my permission (at my price) or pay a compulsory license fee”.
Perhaps you imagine a compulsory royalty as in “Whatever revenue you make in your business of playing others’ songs, for which their permission is not required, 10% of it will be collected by the PRS to be disbursed as they see fit”?
A tax for musicians? Easy money if you can get it. It’s an idea that is clearly seductive.
Your business uses software? It’s now free of charge, but 10% of your revenue will be collected and disbursed to all software engineers. Nice.
Most people have to go through the hassle of selling their products in a free market. They can’t simply pile ‘em all up in the middle of the town square and wait for a treasurer to send them a cheque in the post, that results from a vast team of auditors scouring the land for who used what, how much, what value was extracted, and what revenue was generated.
Of course, if like a wealthy publishing corporation you have the ear of the king and can convince him it’s worth his while to make your business much easier and more profitable, then he might just grant you a privilege that prevents competition and warrants the creation of an organisation legally empowered to collect your dues.
The last time that happened was in 1710, so there’s certainly a precedent, but then it was familiarity that convinced far too many people that there was nothing wrong with slavery. Familiarity with copyright doesn’t make it right. It is the fact that it has generated the publishing corporations’ wealth that keeps it legislated, and that it has not noticeably impacted people’s liberty, that has kept it legislated. However, it is the relatively recent advent of information technology that is making people aware of the fact that a right royal conspiracy in 1710 suspended their liberty, and the people want it back.
Now is not the time to propose new, improved privileges. Now is the time to finally abolish them.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:08 am
“The FAC is campaigning to get the copyright laws changed so that they only come into play when the user makes material gain.
Do you think that is a good idea?”
I think it’s a great idea, and it answered my question about small internet radio stations with no advertising income. I think a lot of the small net radio stations with ads are running them simply to offset bandwidth cost, it would not surprise me at all if most of them were running at a loss even with ads.
One thing I DON’T think you should be paid for is when some person sings your songs at their workplace, even if other people can hear them while walking by. An example of this was posted in p2pmet here: http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30106
October 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am
“I’m interested to know, Billy (and all the lurking musicians), if you agree with this argument, or whether you think users need to give some ground in exchange for the proposed exemption in copyright law for non-profit uses?”
In response to the peer’s question, I’ve opened a new thread to try to focus this particular discussion – ‘Where money is made, artists should get paid’
October 27th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Billy
” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”
Let’s see it from another trades side
” Would you have an apple seller pay me if they used my basket to make money selling apples?”
My basket helps with the presentation, and attract customers who then buy the apples.
Now let’s also flip the coin.
” Would you have me pay a radio station if they helped me sell my song? ”
Radio stations make money off advertising, by playing your music aren’t they advertising your music?
Also
” Would you have a radio station pay me if they used my song to make money selling advertising? ”
Could you prove that your song VS everyone the other songs they play make them any more money?
Aren’t they already paying you by buying the CD/song? – just because they make more, longer than the one CD sale doesn’t mean they owe you more.
I hope this helps.
October 27th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Just this guy,
Do you pay money to listen to the radio?
October 28th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Billy
When I did listen to the radio I didn’t pay. (simple answer = NO)
October 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
How about other questions?
1) “Did you ever discover artists you especially liked via the radio?”
2) “Did/would you ever share in the cost of paying an artist you liked to perform at a concert by purchasing a ticket to attend?”
3) “Would you ever offer to pay a $1-10 share in the cost of paying an artist you liked to produce a new single in a recording studio if you were only charged upon delivery of the CD or high bitrate FLAC/MP3 file that you could freely share, remix or sell?”
October 28th, 2009 at 11:36 am
People pay money to listen to the radio?
Where??
October 28th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Billy – addendum
After thinking on this for a bit I realize I did pay, I listened to the music and ads. I then sometimes bought a song or what they were advertising. The key here is they get money from ads by how many people listen and I listened. The companies advertising hope I buy and pay for my attention. I also buy music that I only knew about because of the radio, yet the radio station doesn’t get a paid for that.
Playing music is a benefit to both the party that plays it and the musician and the people who play the music pay the musician once for the music just like everyone else.