It’s been a busy couple of days in the copyright threads, where I have been attempting to find out where the p2p community stands on the issue of copyright reform.
The way I see it, if we hope to make a case for a recasting of copyright law that gives freedom to the individual while ensuring that artists get paid for commercial exploitation, then we here need to arrive at some kind of a consensus about the outline of that case.
Now I appreciate that for the p2p community, the whole notion of copyright is suspect, because you have been demonised, harassed and in some cases taken to court and had your lives destroyed in pursuit of protection of copyright. I can understand why you might want all copyright laws abolished.
The FAC, partly in recognition of the wrong that has been done to file-sharers, are trying to move individuals out of the scope of copyright law by campaigning on the maxim ‘where money is made, artists should get paid’. This is a significant move away from the current industry norm of blanket copyright laws, towards a recognition of the rights of the individual.
What I am trying to ascertain is whether or not the p2p community are prepared to move from their historic opposition to all forms of copyright, to a position in which copyright only applies to those who make material gain from the use of my work?
Or is the opposition to all forms of copyright an absolute demand?
Billy Bragg
October 27th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“The FAC, partly in recognition of the wrong that has been done to file-sharers, are trying to move individuals out of the scope of copyright law by campaigning on the maxim ‘where money is made, artists should get paid’. This is a significant move away from the current industry norm of blanket copyright laws, towards a recognition of the rights of the individual.”
Billy, does this follow an actual decision made by the FAC membershp? Was it at meeting? If so, when?
” … is the opposition to all forms of copyright an absolute demand?” – here’s my personal bottom line:
Copyright is an anachronism which’ll inevitably die the death, borne down by its own inertia. But until that happens, it’s far too well entrenched to be dismissed out of hand. Anyway, that couldn’t happen in the present climate. Obviously, I’ve been watching all the back and forth about copyright (much of which I don’t understand) but for me it’s almost a red herring. I’m far more concerned about finding ways for fans to pay artists directly.
To an extent, it’s happening already on web sites and at concerts. When that becomes the de facto standard (and it will) copyright — at least as far as music is concerned — will become irrelevant. So for now, by all means, let’s keep on discussing it. But more importantly, let’s also keep the main focus on thinking of ways to find a practical and workable system which offers artists fair remuneration in exchange for access to material by fans.
Cheers!
October 27th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Jon,
It ‘Where money is made..’ was the title of our first policy statement, formulated at our first meeting in April this year, which set out our positions on a number of issues. You can read the full document here:
http://www.featuredartistscoalition.com/showscreen.php?site_id=161&screentype=folder&screenid=2990&newsaction=showitem&newsid=1511&dc=6&sn=News
I accept that it this not the most important issue that we have to discuss, but we are trying at this forum to convince skeptical artists that the p2p users a potential allies in our ongoing battles with the record industry for fair remuneration.
If the file-sharing community were seen to be supportive of the artist’s right to be paid for commercial use, then I think we could really begin to make progress.
So far, the smoke signals coming from a2f2a.com have been confusing to an artist community trying to work out where the revenue streams are. Some posters have declared that copies can no longer be sold. Others have called for copyright to be abolished. Until we can find some consensus over these issues, I think it is going to be hard to entice artists away from the clutches of the record labels.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:06 am
That’s definitely the way forward.
The ethics of 18th century privileges and whether they have a future can be left to the lawyers and legal scholars, those who find the subject interesting.
There’s nothing to stop artists and fans dealing with each other directly, consensually, and if they can do so without needing to threaten litigation, then who needs to worry about the law?
Fans are perfectly happy buying tickets to see musicians perform live, so why wouldn’t they be happy buying tickets online for musicians to perform in a recording studio?
No need for attack lawyers.
Just a simple bargain: art for money, money for art.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I would like to re-state the question I asked on the copyright thread: are musicians willing to give up existing copyright provisions on private copying without asking anything in return?
October 27th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Billy,
I think you know by now where I stand on this issue; the ultimate solution won’t be in copyright, but based on some other foundation entirely. Drawing a line down the middle of the concept of copyright and saying “this use is OK” and “that use is not OK” means everyone will be spending time (and large legal fees) deciding just where the line is. If you look elsewhere for guidance, specifically on tenets of fundamental contract law, the lines are already there, and they have been tested and found workable for a very long time. (Modern contract law as we know it grows out of our capitalist system of encouraging the distribution of goods and services by promoting the profit motive, and I appreciate your own political philosophy may not square with that foundation, but, for the time being, those are the rules that much of the world plays by, and they seem to work within the context of the system, so I think we’re stuck with reality on this point.)
Allow me to test your premises about where the line should be to see if that kind of demarcation makes sense. This is an adaptation of the traditional law school torture technique known as the “Socratic Method.” I’ve waited over 30 years to use it on someone else the way it was used on me, so it’s your turn in the barrel. Once we know where you draw the line, and why it is where you draw it, we can probably deal with whether the location makes sense to the rest of us.
Here are a couple to start with:
1. I know you have said that a shopkeeper who simply plays background music shouldn’t have to pay for it. What about the shopkeeper who has a loudspeaker outside his shop to attract customers? Isn’t that music directly related to his business? Shouldn’t he pay to use music that way?
2. I know you have defended copyright as a way of preventing the use of your music in advertising and political campaigns that you do not personally embrace. If we enact your “material gain” test, you can still stop the advertising, but you can’t stop the political use. Are you willing to give up that control, and, if not, what exception to the basic rule do you have to carve out?
3. You have suggested that copyright “only applies to those who make material gain from the use of my work.” What about a music-based business that doesn’t “gain” anything, but in fact, LOSES money? Is that business exempt from compensating you?
I’m really not looking to trick you. We need to establish a common vocabulary here and I not only need to understand what you say, but also what you mean.
And, in complete fairness to you, I will give you MY answers in advance.
1. No, he shouldn’t have to pay. The loudspeaker attracting customers is a commercial use, but it is contingent to the shopkeepers main business. If you forget “copyright” as a concept and focus on the actual, practical relationship of the use to the business instead, this falls outside any reasonable standard of commercial use. If there’s no commercial use, there’s no need to license the property for commercial use. The basis for this test is contract law, not copyright.
In the law school version of this inquisition, the professor would now suggest that the shopkeeper had a record store, and he would ask the same question again, is this use related to his business? The student’s appropriate answer is, of course, “What’s a record store?”
2. A test based on “material gain” under copyright would permit political campaigns to use whatever music they wanted for whatever purpose, regardless of the wishes of the creator. Forget “material gain” as a test. Reserve to the creator absolute moral rights, which exist independent of copyright, over political/commercial use. Companies or campaigns wishing to use your music must negotiate with you for the right, which is strictly contractual in nature.
3. This one comes down to simply semantics, and my inclusion of it here is just to underscore how important it is that we get our terms straight. If I understand your position correctly, it really shouldn’t matter if they make money or not from the use of your music. What matters is if they INTEND to make money from the use of your music. You may be willing to sign a deal allowing for the use of your music in return for a percentage of their revenue, like a royalty contract, or a percentage of their profits, like a partnership agremeent or other equity interest in the business, in which case you share in the risk that the business won’t be successful. On the other hand, you can simply demand a flat fee upfront (like a synch license), which means you get paid whether or not there is “material gain.”
I think the fundamental idea here is to give the creator the right to enter into the kind of agreement he or she wants to for the use, with the proviso that some circumstances, like performance licenses for radio stations will probably still be more practical if covered by a blanket license granted by a central entity like a PRO. If they want to wait until there is gain, fine, but that shouldn’t be the only option available.
Given my own answers to these three questions, I think it should be clear that I think copyright as a concept is not well suited to deal with the issues you raise, and that is why I think the best solutions lie outside it’s confines. With the exception of establishment of moral rights, all the legal requirements are already in place to get what creators want and need out of the commercial relationships that should generate revenue for creators. What you are suggesting by using copyright concepts isn’t so much reinvention of the wheel as it is attempting to make a wheel out of a bagel because you like bagels and they have roughly the same shape as a wheel.
We need to do better than that.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:42 am
“…is the opposition to all forms of copyright an absolute demand?”
This is certainly another “broad” question that begs for details in order to answer it. I’ll do what I can with it, however, the way it is written. I would just ask you take the analysis for what it’s worth, and not as some “personal jab”.
The phrase “all forms of copyright” might be too broad, as it seems to imply every mutation of copyright past, present and future. I don’t think anyone here could say that a “new style” of copyright couldn’t be conceived where the rules might actually be agreeable to all those affected.
On the other hand, the whole question of “copyright” does seem to be an issue. At least, the way it has been re-written over the last few decades has scarred many.
The one thing I find obvious about copyright in the digital world, is the lengths the IP holder has to go through to actually “enforce” it, and the question of whether or not it even CAN be enforced. If the answer for that is “no”, then perhaps copyright itself has no application.
I think that’s part of the “conundrum” I was talking about.
As to the part about it being some “demand” from us “consumers” (customers!) that copyright be removed from the picture, that’s a “broad” statement as well.
I think what people are “demanding” is an end to the insanity. They want to be able to enjoy music (and its artists) again, and use their legally-purchased technology again, without fear of being persecuted and prosecuted at every turn for that.
Copyright itself may not be the actual culprit for that, but, with the way it has been abused and allowed to be so freely applied against so many usages and by-products of music (and other IP), copyright has proven to be “the enabler” of a very bad scenario.
It wasn’t the idea that someone should be able to capitalize on their work and control where the profits go for a reasonable amount of time that people came to hate. It was…
1) The sudden restrictions that were placed on all the fair uses they were supposed to have as part of the deal.
2) The endless extensions that became commonplace, keeping everything from reaching the Public Domain.
3) The sudden conflict between the technology they were being sold and its capabilities they were being continually told they couldn’t use “legally” (and the lawsuits that were starting to pile up based on that).
4) The “criminalization” of music fans.
5) The endless lawsuits on everything from filesharing to the use of a clip/sample, to the use of a common chord pattern.
Could a new, “society-friendly” form of copyright be designed? Probably.
But, could this “new” copyright be successfully applied to the digital world? I can’t honestly see how it could.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Fred, I feel I should remind you that whilst material objects may be alienated from their possessors through contract, natural rights such as liberty may not be alienated (though they may of course be the subject of conditions). Thus even a contract cannot suspend someone’s liberty to communicate or copy the music recordings in their possession.
E.g. I can sell you a basket, but you cannot surrender to me your liberty to use it for certain purposes or to reproduce it. Similarly I can sell you a work of Shakespeare, but you cannot surrender to me your liberty to publicly perform it. All such suspensions of liberty are specifically reserved to copyright and patent. However, admittedly, in becoming familiar with those privileged suspensions of their liberty people are lulled into assuming that contract can suspend them just as effectively. Not so.
Contract cannot ‘come to the rescue’ when copyright is abolished.
We cannot sell our liberty to perform, copy, create or communicate, just as we cannot sell ourselves into slavery. We can certainly sell our performances, copies, creations, and communications, but that’s not our liberty to produce them.
Contract is an agreement to exchange work or goods, not natural rights.
The transferable privileges of copyright and patent, being known as legal rights, can certainly be exchanged, but then they are abominations in the first place just as in the exchange of slaves. One shouldn’t look to the practice of exchanging legal rights to deduce any ethical basis to the exchange of natural rights.
October 27th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
” Or is the opposition to all forms of copyright an absolute demand? ”
No.
I am 100 percent in synch with DA’s thoughts on this.No need for me to repeat it all. An ‘end to the insanity’ ( things like suing the cashier for singing on the job, treating it as a public performance http://www.p2pnet.net/story/30106 ).
That type of insanity.
October 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
” Given my own answers to these three questions, I think it should be clear that I think copyright as a concept is not well suited to deal with the issues you raise, and that is why I think the best solutions lie outside it’s confines. ”
You’re right, but it ain’t gonna happen overnight.It’s not even going to happen soon, unfortunately.Too many artists are already locked in, entrenched in it. I can only see the change happening with a future generation of artists that finally take the leap of faith and do it without the labels, which is of course why the labels are scrambling, throwing every dollar and every bit of propoganda to buy out or sue our of existence the currently wide open field of play. So , for me total abolishment of copyright is not an absolute, but will come as a gradual evolution IF that evolution isn’t artificially impeded.
For now, I think the most we can reasonably expect are careful sensible and fair lines to be drawn. Ones that can reasonably expect something from large commercial use and yet doesn’t cause the street musician playing covers on the subway platform to need to fear the appearance of the lawyers to throw him in jail, or grab their ‘cut’ from his tip can ‘or else’ .
October 27th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I would like to add to DA’s list an additional point or two. Coming from the folk millieu, I remember the days when Ascap and BMI agents haunted folk clubs, cursing traditional music and looking for ways to force music sites (that were operating on margins only love for the music would justify) to pay royalties. As commercial “folkmusic” became stable and singer songwriters waxed, they got their site licenses, but the bullying and threat tactics the industry uses now are reminiscent of those same tactics.
As most industry observers know, creative bookeeping and fine print robs more artists of more income than all the fan copying does, which makes the industry self-righteous ranting infuriating to many of us.
And finally, for the moment anyways, when the industry lobbyists bribed our lawmakers to extend copyrights from the original 32(?) years to 99 and effectively turning music into a commodity, any respect I had for copyright vanished.
Artists should be rewarded for the joy they give us. A just system can be achieved, but greedyand arrogant middlemen are going to have to be marginalized…
October 27th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The broad concept here is the same, I believe, as that proposed by the Pirate movement, and that is something which gives me hope that there is common ground to be found here.
It may be that ultimately copyright is doomed, and that in a hundred years time people will look back in time and wonder how anyone could have thought it was OK. But that is not where we start from today, and not so easy to see if it is so obvious or not.
I believe that private copying, reuse, or redevelopment, by individuals for love, and not commercial gain, causes no loss or harm, rather the reverse, and should not be restricted. Billy already answered me with agreement to that in a previous comment.
Where copies are made or redistributed, within the period of copyright, for direct commercial gain, and there is a real financial transaction, then some portion of that should be remitted to the rights-holder. The duration of copyright should be much shorter than at present, no longer than necessary; right now, so much change is happening so fast that zero duration is too short (even if it’s in principle right), we need to provide some kind of transition, and it may be that a short copyright does actually work and that we will choose to retain that indefinitely.
So reselling for profit, within the period of copyright, (e.g. street DVDs), should still be illegal, it was always criminal (not civil) before and it’s enforceable, whether in the physical world or the digital, because there’s a money trail to follow.
What about something like the Pirate Bay? Difficult to see how this could be restricted, or that it should be, advertising revenue or not, without also banning search engines. This is because Pirate Bay did not host, but only linked and indexed what was already out there, in just the same way Google can be used to search for torrents, and that’s unavoidable if search and indexing is to be useful.
Direct hosting, like YouTube, less obvious, but those videos are hosted and streamed from Google, and remain available even if the uploader disappears from the face of the earth. So more reasonable to pursue a share of revenue; but equally reasonable for Google simply to decline to host/distribute if the share demanded is excessive, which happened recently and forced the PRS to moderate their “performance royalty” demands.
There are questions about what exactly constitutes non-commercial use, or public performance, I would like to believe that people having a radio, or playing music they have purchased, in a shop or factory where they work is not commercial use nor public performance. Maybe a venue whose business is entertainment, such as pub, club, or restaurant, could more fairly be regarded as commercial use, I think there would be less objection to that, and I’m sure a sensible line can be drawn.
After copyright expires, all use should become free, including derivatives whether or not the original creator approves. This is a matter of free speech, anything else means that great works we want to see can be prevented from existing by individual whim of disapproval, and we should also want copyright to expire so that people creating derivatives gain the incentive of their own temporary commercial monopoly to do so.
This, however, forces the moral right of attribution to be crucial, and to be inalienable and last for life. This has two purposes; so that, irrespective of copyright, a creator can require that any use or redistribution of what they did be correctly attributed (something which has a commercial value, with or without copyright), and equally by implication that a creator can require use or redistribution which they do not approve clearly indicate that it is not endorsed by them (again, this has a commercial value, irrespective of copyright).
Therefore, political parties could use anything, but could face being required to state explicitly that the artist who created it does not endorse their cause; conversely, a corporation wanting to use music (or whatever) in advertising could do so, but might well be willing to pay for endorsement by the creator as the “official” approved version, with or without copyright.
Enforcement of that should not be very taxing, much less so than trying to catch or stop all filesharers! and the internet itself and new media help with that, false claims and misrepresentation typically result in a “Streisand effect” making sure everyone knows what happened, so in a way it can even be self-policing!
What’s not to like?
October 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
‘where money is made, artists should get paid’
I can agree with this, so if I don’t get paid I get the music for free?
The artists do get paid, the person making money in and around your music did buy the music right?
An example where the creators get paid a fee every year is software but that software vendor provides additional services to add value. Value such as tech support, updates and more.
The Software vendor get’s paid once (buying the CD) and then charges additional fee each year for a service.
Dose music offer an additional service? If I can’t figure out how to get a song onto an MP3 player can I call your help desk?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
the peer,
In answer to your question, as far as the FAC is concerned, I think we’d be looking for reciprocal recognition of artists right to earn from commercial exploitation.
Fred,
Thank you for sparing me the full Socrates. In response to your points:
1) I agree, the shopkeeper should not have to pay.
2) I agree with your point about the failure of the ‘material gain’ test to stop misuse of my songs by the far-right etc. We need to compliment copyright reform with enforceable moral rights.
3)You are right. It is the intent to make money that brings copyright into play.
DA,
I totally accept and agree with your five point summary of the reasons why copyright is a problem. A redefinition of copyright which freed up the individual to use music in the way they choose, provided it was not commercial, which included new fair use and moral rights clauses, ought to deal with most of your complaints.
I would argue that a new copyright settlement designed to respond to the changes that digitisation has brought and to unleash the potential it held for consumers and artists, could be successfully applied.
Dredd,
“For now, I think the most we can reasonably expect are careful sensible and fair lines to be drawn.”
This is precisely the conversation that we artists are looking to have with you guys.
Without it being overtly stated, I sense that there is a fair amount of agreement here about what a reformed copyright law might look like. How about if we try to actually draw those careful, sensible and fair lines right here, right now, on this thread?
October 27th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
@ Billy:
Right here and right now for suggestions on a reformed copyright law looks like an excellent idea.
Cheers!
October 27th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Late to this forum and still catching up on posts including those on the FAC site, I am struck by what seems to me to be the height of inconsistency.
The April newsletter provides a cogent analysis of the situation and while it raises some debateable philosophic issues, nonetheless seems to argue for a sane approach and a willingness to work toward it.
The latest “3 strike manifesto” is nigh on to a declaration of war on your fan base.
In the April posting, the FAC takes an adamant stand in relation to the industry, but when it comes to action, they again turn on the fan. Is that because the fan has no deep pocket resources with which to resist. I shake my head in amazement. What if the fans take a stand and refuse to buy any product produced by anyone who signed that piece of madness.
By all means, let us look to devising some kind of sustainable system before the FAC insanity can spread.
Divide and conquer, keeps the classes at war with each other. It is to the industry moguls advantage to keep musicians and their audiences divided and pick the pockets of both.
October 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
one last slogan for today… Then I’ll put rest to the rant for awhile.
The artist should not reap their reward for servicea to the industry, the industry should reap its reward for service to the artist(s) and their audience.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
In response to the original post, I am in favor of the phrase “IF anyone is making money, it should be the artist.”
It gets complicated though. Let’s say there’s a low turnout to a concert and the venue owner loses money (security, lights, bartenders, promotion etc…). Should the artist get paid at the expense of everyone else? I don’t know how concert contracts go, so I can’t say either way; there’s two sides to that argument.
So how about this. “Where PROFIT is made, artists should be paid first.”
You’ve got to make sure nobody is losing money, whether it’s hosting the website or putting up flyers or whatever else, but the first one to get the cream should be the artist instead of the middle man.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
To add to my post above, another complicating factor is use of music as ancillary to the real business. Such as playing a CD in the dentist’s office or a store. Or even using a song in a Youtube video. If the point of using the music is not to make a profit using the music, it ends up being promotional to the artist. If the point of using the music is commercial (e.g. television commercials), then the artist should be compensated.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
@Billy:
“a new copyright settlement designed to respond to the changes that digitisation has brought and to unleash the potential it held for consumers and artists, could be successfully applied”
While, I did state that I believe a “new” form of copyright could certainly be designed, I also stated that I still don’t see how it could be applied to the digital world.
This is where I think the train gets derailed.
Copyright always needs to be enforced – part and parcel of anything that artificially suspends natural rights. How constructive a copyright is directly relates to what is needed to enforce it. If you have to spend an unrealistic part of your profits and/or resources on enforcing it, it’s unconstructive and self-defeating (something which we’re already familiar with).
As I get into this, I would need to ask “on what, exactly would the copyright be required?”, before I could envision where its enforcement problems were.
The spark for this question is from simple, deductive reasoning…
- Copying is one of the primary functions of a digital world.
- Copyright is, literally, a suspension of the right to copy.
- We’re supposedly discussing a model where sharing is decriminalized and revenue travels alternate routes to the creator than the current situation.
- Decriminalizing sharing means it would no longer be necessary to place artificial protection on copies. (As the two ideas are really direct opposites.)
- Therefore, the copyright would be lacking a place to be applied.
Considering the other “benefits” of current copyright (concerning unauthorized uses of someone else’s creation) are already contained in Natural and Criminal Law, I’m having trouble understanding where any “new copyright” would be placed and useful, especially if were to include the limitless realm of digital technology and the Internet that has already defeated the draconian form of copyright we already have.
At this point, I don’t know the rest of what you’re pondering, but I gotta wonder if it’s more of a “patent”. (Admittedly, I know little about how patents work, but somehow “copyright” doesn’t seem to cover it, so I’m looking for a different set of parameters.)
I’m of the impression that the solution lies in something much simpler. Something that doesn’t take an army of money, time, people and other resources to enforce.
In fact maybe the fact it would need to be enforced is a clue in itself. As we all see now, enforcement can lead the rights holder to take self-defeating actions. And, when you’re starting off with limited resources (remember, the middleman and his unlimited team of lawyers, lobbyists and whathaveya are theoretically not in this plan!), you need to have the freedom to create and be able to keep your money where it’s intended to be… in your pocket!… Not wasting all your resources in what may very well be an exercise in futility.
October 28th, 2009 at 4:06 am
It’s a bit cart before the horse to start off with pithy sayings and then to figure out the privilege to make them come true.
Why not start off with the principles first and then arrive at mottoes?
Payment is generally the voluntary act of exchanging money in exchange for something both parties agree is equitable, e.g. the exchange of money for work.
The act of making art is the artist’s work. Money is that which the audience (who’d have the art) would offer as equitable exchange. The payment is the completion of the agreeable exchange.
If we assume that no artist will give their art away we could have a motto thus:
“When art needs to be made, an artist needs to be paid”
Don’t forget that artists aren’t special, and have the same natural rights as any other individual, so in general “When work needs to be done, a worker needs to be paid”.
But, many artists will give their art away, e.g. to promote themselves with a view to generating future commissions. Conversely, sometimes their art isn’t even for sale.
“An artist will either keep their art to themselves, give it to you, or produce it in exchange for your money”
It’s certainly appealing to have a motto that implies “Where workers are paid, I should get some of their money”, but then that is what is known as a royalty or tax. It takes the power of a state to do that sort of thing, or grant such a privilege.
But there’s plenty of scope for aphorisms that don’t involve taxation or privilege, e.g. “The art you’ve paid for is yours. If you want more, pay an artist to produce more.”
If you start off with an aphorism that appeals to you, you will ignore any principles that conflict with it. Better to work out the principles first and then find aphorisms that fit them.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:35 am
A shopkeeper derives a commercial benefit, whether it’s background or front of house to lure customers in, it all enhances his business which is why he does it. Same reason background music in a movie is and should be paid for. The issue is one of execution…just because PRS and PPL have a black box method of distribution does not undermine copyright itself. Come to think of it, technology should be able to dispense with the need for these unsophisticated distribution methods. Long tail artists: lobby collection societies to have Shazam log retail playlists.
“Where money is made” perhaps should be “where value is derived directly or indirectly”? Is Spotify where money is made? Yes but not but yes but…. Do ISPs derive commercial benefit from music? Sure they do…indirectly. Is that ‘where money is made’?…Hell yea. Likewise with file sharing, it’s not about the law, it’s about a strategy for execution. Do filesharers derive value? Yes. is that where money is made? Not now but maybe later. Should we sue them? No, it’s bad strategy. Should we give up our rights? No. Reserve them. It’s not about copyright per se, it’s about strategy.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:54 am
Mysteron, a shopkeeper may derive a commercial benefit from the artistic shop sign that they’ve paid a sign maker to produce for them, given it helps entice customers. They wouldn’t be too happy if the sign maker visited them a year later and demanded a share of the shopkeeper’s revenue given it had evidently been partially enabled by the artistry of their sign.
We also need to be very aware of copyright self-perpetuating itself through its own indoctrination.
It is only copyright that makes people familiar with the idea of a copyright holder charging for the use of a covered work, so obviously copyright was a way of achieving what it achieved. However, that doesn’t provide any ethical basis for copyright or what it achieved. There’s nothing apart from the privilege of copyright that gives rise to the notion that an artist should be able to get a royalty any time the art they created appears involved in someone else’s monetary exchange.
So, there seem to be two quests going on:
1) How to enable artists to be paid by their audience (without privilege).
2) What new privilege can be created to reproduce copyright’s ability to collect a royalty for artists, given that copying can no longer be controlled or measured.
I’m here for ‘1′, and will have no part of ‘2′.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:58 am
I think the concept is that radio stations should buy music then also pay rent on it.
I think that concept is wrong.
I don’t believe that each time I play a recording I should pay for it again even if I am making money doing it. I could see paying more for a commercial license but that should be ONCE, and upfront pricing. This way I can decide if I want to play what music based on price.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Mysteron,
Would you extend your “direct or indirect” test to makers of blank CDs? Burners? Hard drives? Speakers? Headphones? Radios? The publishers of “Rolling Stone” or any magazine that features music reviews? All of these derive commercial benefit out of the exploitation of music. Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?
October 28th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“When money is made, artists should be paid” is a phrase I’ve used on many occasions to explain the Pirate Party’s stance. We support copyright (albeit with a reduction from the current length of 70 years after the artist dies), abolition has never been our policy.
It’s from this principle that we make our case for allowing altruistic file sharing, since no money is made, and the artist gets invaluable free word-of-mouth advertising in return.
Legalising file sharing where no money is made would free up resources to to properly enforce the laws against commercial counterfeiting, which really does cost artists money.
I believe that the FAC and the Pirate Party UK should be talking. I also believe that at least 3 of the 6 demands set out by the FAC could find a place in our manifesto… however, I’ve not had much luck getting the FAC to talk to us so far. Maybe this site will help?
October 28th, 2009 at 11:28 am
How many of you ran afoul of ASCAP in the US? We had a live music lounge in Yuba City, California in the 60’s. One day we were shook down for a “per song” fee for every ASCAP song performed in our lounge. Now where do you suppose that money went? Kinda like donation to your favorite charity nowdays. After the administrative fees and expenses are deducted, the left overs are devided among the performers. That’s why we see so many performers living in a mobils if they are lucky. If not and they didn’t have social Security? How many of the Agents and Music Producers live in Mobil homes? In the first Regan Administration, Ronnie woke from a fame induced stupor and said “Suply Side Economics” Yeah. The Movie giant corporations blatantly violated a a federal law forbidding film Distributors from becoming exhibitors by purchasing a major Movie Chain. Thier explanation was “Let’s see if anyone objects” No one did. Now we have major corporations in charge of music and movies and now news. Who is getting paid? ask a musician near you. Possibly in that old mobil home, or cardboard box.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The following 2 exerpts speak volumes for me as well…
“22.Crosbie Fitch Says:
So, there seem to be two quests going on:
1) How to enable artists to be paid by their audience (without privilege).
2) What new privilege can be created to reproduce copyright’s ability to collect a royalty for artists, given that copying can no longer be controlled or measured.
I’m here for ‘1′, and will have no part of ‘2′.”
“24.Fred Says:
Would you extend your “direct or indirect” test to makers of blank CDs? Burners? Hard drives? Speakers? Headphones? Radios? The publishers of “Rolling Stone” or any magazine that features music reviews? All of these derive commercial benefit out of the exploitation of music. Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?”
The whole idea of expecting a royalty from indirect use of someone else’s work was a product of copyright in the first place. And, it blatantly overlooks the promotional value of such indirect use, as if the exposure itself wasn’t a valuable enough benefit in return for this use. (If it isn’t, then inversely, the use of that product can’t be helping out the “other guy” too much either. It’s literlly a symbiosis in that respect.)
The royalty concept also overlooks the fact that the product in question has already been purchased.
Imagine if every product on the market had royalty expectations incorporated in their patents! Practically everything we use on a daily basis could have wound up being classed as things that were “instrumental in increasing someone else’s bottom line”.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
“I believe that the FAC and the Pirate Party UK should be talking. I also believe that at least 3 of the 6 demands set out by the FAC could find a place in our manifesto… however, I’ve not had much luck getting the FAC to talk to us so far. Maybe this site will help? ”
Now THIS is interesting.
Your here, and some of them are here.
This IS a good thing.
The same assumptions were made about you as were made about p2p sharers, even more so i’m certain because of the name that was chosen for the party. Now they can see that you’re not the boogeymen they thought you were, while we try to show we’re not the ’scariest’ they have to fear.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
” How many of you ran afoul of ASCAP in the US ”
It’s been a long time for me, but because of what you just mentioned, the musical landscape around this area has changed pretty dramatically, and it really doesn’t benefit current or past label artists.
MY time was the early late 70’s through the mid 90’s. Almost all of us were cover bands, who would slip our originals in alongside the covers to see how things went. We weren’t getting rich, the bars weren’t getting rich, but we did just well enough to be able to keep going .. as long as we had a RL job to supplement. The royalty crackdowns over the years have caused some ‘interesting’ changes.
No one hires cover bands anymore, they only hire all original bands, been that way about 6 years now. 80’s bands, metal tribute bands etc .. are a vanishing breed because the bar owners no longer can afford to pay the band AND the man in the suit his ‘cut’. As a result, younger listeners are starting to forget some of the older stuff .. something that the labels want to happen. This way, when one of their ‘new’ acts plays an old song, no one realizes that it’s not new or innovative at all.
They are forgetting all of the older label artists, because no one can play them anymore without a ‘tithe’.
Another neat little side effect is that the a lot of the younger, original only bands actively despise the labels, and thus are more likely to use the internet as a means of bringing themselves to the fans .. and some of them are having success.
Think about that. Overcharge too many Radio and internet stations, the same thing will gradually happen. It’s the slow evolution that I mentioned, and the biggest thorn in the side of the labels. They know they are slowly erasing themselves. This is another reason net neutrality is critical. If the best speeds and access can only belong to the biggest pockets, then the labels once again can artificially stifle this new evolution.
October 29th, 2009 at 4:57 am
Crosbie Fitch – sign/work for hire/compensated. Fred – these arguments have been gone over, the Betamax case and the whole blank levy debate. Point I was making was that there has been much focus on copyright being inappropriate since control has been lost, but many of the issues are not to do with copyright rather how it is used. DevilsAdvocate raises a good point…the whole promotion vs cannibalization debate, there are many inconsistent examples across the industry and territories (public performance in UK vs US, radio airplay, MTV airplay, Youtube, TV commercials for compilation albums) where there are storied histories of commercial interests coloring copyright positions. ‘Where money is made’ is too simple in my view can only weaken an artist’s ability to get compensated. Again, it’s not about giving up rights that may seem unethical, because often it’s only the strategy to exercise those rights that is the problem. Reserve all rights and find ethical strategies to get compensated.
October 29th, 2009 at 11:27 am
” ‘Where money is made’ is too simple in my view can only weaken an artist’s ability to get compensated. ”
Careful, you may be thought of as a bullshitter for saying that.
Even though it’s true.It may not be schroedinger’s cat, but it is still true. The problem is where the line gets drawn, and that has been pretty inconsistent as well.
Modest royalties for radio seem fair, but those same set of rules should be extended to internet radio, not a completely different, much more oppressive set. But notice, now tat they have gotten the outrageous royalties passed for internet radio, it’s only a tiny step to extend those to regular radio, which is exactly what their after now ( the labels not the artists ).They have been doing this in baby steps, getting small concessions, and once they have those, it’s only a short step to more oppressive measures, which ’seem’ reasonable. Draw a FAIR REASONABLE LINE.
A benchmark combination of intent and actual gain seems reasonable but is also a little tougher than it appears.
October 29th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Dredd,
The FAIR REASONABLE LINE is where people are exploiting my work for material gain.
You buy my CD, you pay me. What you then do with that music is your business. You can tape it, put it on your i-gear, share it, so long as you don’t seek to make money from selling my music (with the honourable exception of selling the CD second-hand. I think you should have the right to do that.
What about re-mixing? That should be covered by fair use which allows you to make the mix and moral rights which allow me to tell you I don’t like what you’ve done and you can’t exploit it.
Fred,
“All of these derive commercial benefit out of the exploitation of music. Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw it there?”
You draw the line at broadcast media, simply because none of the examples you cite rely on playing recorded music. A radio station does. Even when the line is drawn, there will be some squiggles – like the shop that blasts out music to attract customers. If he didn’t play music he’d still have his shop front to display his wares. Music radio without music is just…..talk radio.
Andrew,
Copyright in recorded material in the EU is currently 50 years from date of release. IFPI want to extend that to 70 years from day of release. Glad to see you PP people here. Hope we can work out a consensus about these issues.
Mysteron,
‘Where money is made…’ may be an over-simplification, but if we want to move the copyright debate away from control and onto artist remuneration, then we have to start somewhere.
October 30th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Billy, being able to stop people ‘exploiting’ your songs because they’ve been paid to sing or remix them, or you don’t like the way they sing them, or you don’t like the remixed recordings of you singing, is a matter of control. Such control is not within moral rights. It’s only within copyright.
Moral rights are about truth, whether someone is liable to mislead people into assuming a distortion or adaptation of your work is authorised by you (your work), and consequently liable to misrepresent you. There is nothing wrong with art that is honest, that does not lie, deceive, or misrepresent. An adaptation or modification may well offend, such as a flagrant moustache upon the Mona Lisa, but this does not intrinsically constitute an impairment of the truth. No-one is suggesting nor is anyone likely to infer that the modified work is that of the original artist, Leonardo da Vinci.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:06 am
” The FAIR REASONABLE LINE is where people are exploiting my work for material gain. ”
How much material gain is enough to cross the line ?
IS it right for the internet hobbyist, running a small streaming radio station which just MIGHT get him 50 to 100 $ a month AFTER expenses, to be charged a ridiculous per song PER LISTENER royalty, when in all reality he isn’t ‘gaining’ jack squat ? Thats the line i’m talking about. Benchmark intent plus actual income. These need to be taken into account or the brush is way to broad.
October 30th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Crosbie,
“It’s only within copyright.”
That’s one of the reasons why we need to keep copyright.
Dredd,
“How much material gain is enough to cross the line?”
Any material gain. If he’s making money, he’s not a hobbyist, he’s a business and he has to pay the going rate for the service that recorded music supplies, just like Spotify.
Look, we are trying to get exemptions from copyright for individuals who share files – most of us think that is fair and reasonable. However, if you’re talking about exemptions for websites that distribute music or offer streaming services, these are business models that compete directly with businesses that pay us income. That is not fair and reasonable.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
@ Billy
This is something I couldn’t necessarily agree with, something like I see from time to time used to justify copyright, on the basis that it’s about protecting the artistic vision of the creator, and a matter of moral respect for what they produced. That is, not a question of commerce or reward at all, but a moral question.
However… That isn’t right. No art exists in a vacuum, or is produced as a “virgin birth” with complete originality, whatever the form it always depends on the context of the society it was created in, and is built on what went before. Maybe the truly great is more original than most; on the other hand, maybe the truly original is simply incomprehensible?
So anyone should be able to reuse/remix, and distribute their efforts, however it builds on what went before. If they are doing so non-commercially, for love, then there’s no question that preventing that is a restriction on freedom of expression, and should never be possible; so for example fan-fiction can only be fair use, irrespective of copyright. Which I realise you agreed, I’m just restating before I continue.
Even if the derivative is sold commercially, however, to interfere in that… You are saying your vision of what that piece of art should be is so absolute, that even though someone else wants to see an alternative rendition or reworking, and is willing to pay another artist to create that (and you won’t do it, if you disapprove), that you have the right to prevent that transaction between them?
Sorry, I don’t buy that. I could accept/tolerate you having that control for a limited time, just as I can accept you having a limited monopoly, so that you have an opportunity to earn a commercial reward from your efforts.
However, once the work is some years old, I do not accept that you should be able to interfere in what others do with it, even if you disapprove, or their ability to earn a reward from their efforts. If their work does develop yours further, then I do agree that attribution is essential, they must make clear that the work is not endorsed by you (unless it is, of course).
That, however, I see as much closer to the way libel/slander laws control the distribution of malicious information. This isn’t quite the same, it’s similar however, and whatever it is should last your lifetime, and copyright isn’t the way to do it.