Copyright law right now says: “You created this – decide what to do with it.” That’s it. It’s up to you to decide whether you want to publish under the terms “where money is made…” using a Creative Commons license or whether you want to go “all rights reserved”. I don’t think anybody should dictate anyone what to do with his/her property. However, Clear Channel and filesharing are two totally different discussions in my eyes.

Whether Clear Channel pays you or not is not a question of copyright, but a question of enforcing this copyright through ASCAP, BMI, PRS, BUMA, GEMA – and the likes. If ASCAP and BMI are doing a lousy job on that, that’s bad, but not the filesharers obligation to change that. However it’s a doable task. So here is a way to get paid based on the enforcement of copyright!
Here it seems worthwhile to talk about ways to improve collecting societies to do their jobs and to give artists the power to exploit their copyright more efficiently be revising those tight licensing contracts common for most collecting societies. “Use it or lose it” & “where money is made” are issues that are to be discussed here, but which are issues to be clarified by licensing contracts not by law!

Whether filesharing pays you or not, also is not a question of copyright, but about its enforcement. This is a task, however, NOT doable without major technical implications AND ethically questionable changes in law (exaggerated: observe everyone, everywhere). So here is no way to get paid based in the enforcement of copyright!
So what should we be talking about are ways to get paid that are NOT based on the enforcement of the copyright. Those models exist. We highlighted them here: http://a2f2a.com/2009/10/30/shaping-the-future-of-a-much-loved-industry/ and it would be great having them discussed.

Whether filesharing should be legal or not, is good or bad, helps artists or helps wizards, again is another discussion. From the perspective that property entails obligations and my perception of the society as a whole being better off if it is legal to share cultural goods with friends and peers I would legalize that. But again, I would not do that through a law, as it should be up to the artist to make up his mind. And today’s copyright paired with Creative Commons licenses give every artist the tools to do just that.
However, in this discussion we should once again talk about the roles of collecting societies, because almost all European ones with their exclusive license deals take away just that power from the artists!

So, let’s restrict ourselves to only the power nature gave us. We cannot naturally control whether anyone shares or builds upon our published work, nor can we naturally demand a share of any monetary exchange that anyone makes where our art is involved.

Let’s abolish our unnatural privileges that have already come to a natural end, and get back to nature. Let artists be paid to produce their art by those who want them to produce it and need no compulsion to pay them: their fans.

Let’s take the folly of such privileges as copyright and patent as a lesson, not as inspiration to compound such folly.

There are some people who are delude themselves that being able to share files for free somehow makes them masters of the universe.

Thee shall seek no law to prohibit thy neighbour from sharing or building upon your published work, whether for love or money.

Thee shall seek no tax or levy to reward you in place of the exchange of your labour in a free market.

Thee shall thus have the liberty to freely publish your art, however original, however much you share and build upon the art of your fellows, however much your audience pays you for your work.

All the while, the cartel clutch at the face in horror as they realise the time has come when they no longer have the privilege of holding mankind’s culture to their ransom.

Artists will stop signing their rights away when they are convinced that it is possible to make a living outside of the industry.

One of the reasons why artists sign up to life of copyright deals is that they fear the power of the file-sharing community. There are those who think that the fact that the internet has given them the ability to share files also gives them to right to dictate to us how we make a living.

Thou shalt not sell recorded music.

Thou shalt not be protected by copyright.

Thou shalt not make any money from radio and tv plays.

All the while, Clear Channel rub their hands with glee and look forward to a time when all content is free to use.

Sorry, I think I need to make my points clearer. With the individual I referred to the individual artist or creator of any creative work. My point was that we should leave it to the artist to decide what to do with his/her work and when. I referred to Creative Commons to show that with today’s copyright and those licenses as tools to license certain rights to the whole world under certain conditions we have everything we need right now to apply “where money is made, artist shall be paid”. No need to change the copyright for that.

Plus, I think the whole discussion about copyright – how long it should be and which usage-rights it should comprise – (completely) misses the point. Of course it’s important to talk about those issues and it’s probably not the right direction to extend this right many years over the creator’s death. But that is a different discussion than the money discussion (and that’s what “where money…” is all about, isn’t it). The money discussion is all about the enforcement of copyright. Whether it protects a work for 1 or 100 years, whether it entails (private) file-sharing, mash-ups and remixes or not does not make any difference from the money perspective in regard to non-commercial usage. As long as artists rely on business-models that require the enforcement of the copyright for single units or copies, there is no way any change in copyright-law will help them securing alternative revenue streams (which are needed, I admit) as this copyright on that level simply cannot be enforced. From the file-sharer/remixer perspective it might make a huge difference, though.

My statement is the following:
1) Generally I belief copyright is good and important as it clarifies ownership of an intangible good.

2) From the money perspective, changes in that right will not help artists to make a living. Only alternative business models that are not based on the controllability of single units sold and that are able to function in the absent of copyright will be able to do that and I would love to see the discussion here going a bit more towards this direction.

3) From social order perspective updating copyright might be worthwhile; eliminating it not in my eyes. As said, it clarifies property. The German constitution states that “property entails obligations” (“Eigentum verpflichtet” (Article 14)). It entails the obligation to ensure that its usage shall be aimed at the general public’s good. I think that’s a good ankle to look at the problem-space from. From my perspective it’s clear that the criminalization of a whole generation of file-sharers and remixers does not contribute to that. Again a call for business-models that work in the absent of the controllability of single units sold and in the light of our connected digital world.

One last thing I am having in mind: I read too often (not in this community, though) that people and kids need to be educated about copyright. I belief they are not the only one to be educated about that. Artists need a big deal of education, too. Too many are signing away their rights to easily without knowing the consequences. Labels and collecting societies utilized their roles as gatekeepers to poplarity and money way to long and established a legal environment that let’s my hair stands on end. I mean, just the fact that most European collecting societies can legally prevent their members from licensing their work under Creative Commons license even if the respective member wants that drives me nuts.
Think before you ink!

The problem I have, as an artist, with your suggestion of leaving it up to the individual to decide is that I just don’t trust Clear Channel to do the right thing.

I totally agree with everything you’ve said in the last entry, but I’m having trouble understanding why you referenced my words, since they had nothing to do with what you just said.

For clarity, I was referring to the change of landscape also changing the very nature, or even need, of terms like “pirate”, etc. (The concepts of “right” and “wrong” if you will.)

In the context of a new business model (which is what we are all “here” to discover), the whole landscape will inevitably change anyway

Honestly, I don’t belief that any change in copyright will leave anybody with just one cent more in his/her pocket (lawyers are the exception maybe).

Why? Because it’s not the law that let’s you make money from your intangible good it’s the enforcement of that law and business models build around this enforcement. So if you take “private” sharing and mash-ups (in which scope defined ever) in or not – who cares? People share and mash-up right now and there is not way to stop or revert that with a law. Laws should follow reality and organize it in a socially acceptable manner – they should not create new realities.

From this stance “where money is made” is perfectly fine for me, but I would not put that into a law as a obligation. It should be up to the individual to decide how, when and where s/he shall be paid. That’s what our copyright allow us to do right now. If you want to let people legally share your stuff put it under Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/). They work alongside todays copyrighta and if you chose one of the non-commercial license, you are basically publishing your work under the condition “where money is made I shall be paid”.

The hook: most European collecting societies work with exclusive licenses and do not allow their members to work with CC licenses (exceptions are BUMA/STEMRA in the Netherlands and KODA in Denmark).

Long story short: What I am saying is that changes in copyright laws will help artists not at all (especially not if they sign those rights away to collecting societies and labels that prevent them from exploiting those rights efficiently. It’s the new business models that will help artists making money.