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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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”.