There seems to be a lot of confusion in the copyright threads about the difference between music as a commodity – for which the user pays a single, one time price – and music as a service – for which the user pays a fee every time they use the service.
When you buy a CD, you are purchasing a commodity. You pay for it and then you (should) have the right to do what you want with the music it contains, provided you don’t use it to make money – with the exception of selling it second hand. I think that’s fair use.
However, for a music radio station, music not a commodity, it is a service that they need in order to make money, just like any company needs a phone line. Without one, the business would find it difficult to communicate with suppliers and find customers. A phone line is a service that they need in order to make money.
Most of us are familiar with how it works. The company buys the phone and has it installed. The phone is a commodity for which they pay a single, one time price. However, the company need the service of the phone line to be there everyday to connect them to clients. It’s a fully automated service, the engineer doesn’t have to come down every time they want to make a call, yet they still pay the phone company a fee for each use.
Music radio stations are similar in that they too need my services on a daily basis. They don’t call me into the studio every time they want to play my song – that would be too expensive, the equivalent of calling out the engineer every time you used the phone. Instead, they play a recording of me singing that song and pay me a fraction of what it would cost to get me into the studio playing live.
They are happy to pay for the service as it attracts the audience that they need in order to sell advertising to make money. No music = no listeners = no advertising = no money, just like no phone line = no communication = no customers = no money.
I realise there are people posting here who have expressed outrage about this ‘unnatural’ practice, but the radio stations seem happy about the arrangements, because they keep paying for the service.
Billy Bragg
October 30th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
There is a fundamental difference between art/knowledge and work/service. For both one pays for the labour involved in creation or production, not the value one obtains from it.
Only copyright creates the unnatural notion that one should pay for value obtained, but that’s only because copyright prevents the exchange or development of published art or knowledge. And thus copyright holders are effectively able to charge for use in proportion to value.
Until 1710 when copyright was enacted no-one had ever been able to do this.
Today, with the advent of the Internet, even copyright’s ability to contrive this (with the amassed power of multinationals and state combined) is disintegrating.
Despite having become used to it over the course of three centuries, no-one has a natural right to charge for value obtained, nor should they ever be given a privilege that pretends they do.
If you believe your skill at fishing can be substituted by a book, or your talent at performing music can be substituted by a recording, then make sure you don’t sell that book or recording for less than you feel it’s worth, because once you’ve sold it you can’t go around charging people for the value you believe they’re getting from it. Unless of course, you can convince the king that granting you such a privilege would be worth his while…
October 30th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
” They are happy to pay for the service as it attracts the audience that they need in order to sell advertising to make money. No music = no listeners = no advertising = no money, just like no phone line = no communication = no customers = no money. ”
Similarly, for artists, no radio = no listeners = no advertising = no money. If no one knows who you are then they won’t buy your stuff. Works both ways.
I am NOT saying you should get nothing for radio plays. I am saying it should be a balanced and reasonable system that ALL stations, internet, sattellite, terrestrial .. of ALL sizes can afford. Not a rate that only the largest, wealthiest stations ( the ones owned by the labels through Clear channel ) can afford to pay. What’s being done is a rate is being applied that will close small stations, and leave only the big boys, owned by the same parent companies as the labels, that only showcase ‘featured artists’. This is something that continues to be glossed over. It’s not the fact that something should be paid, it’s that the amount that’s being asked is not fair and will close off another set of doors for artists that don’t want to be ‘featured’ ( any artist signed by the labels – your definition ). AGAIN I’ll say it, payment is fine but intent and amount of money involved need to be applied as a yardstick to draw the line at how much is right and fair, and how much is out of line and anti-competitive.
October 30th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
First off, let’s discuss the following string:
“No music = no listeners = no advertising = no money”
As a musician, you “naturally” placed “music” first in the chain of priority, and then illustrated this chain as if it were some “definitive equation” that inferred some type of “vector” (direction). This is wrong on so many levels.
One could argue that “listeners” may deserve the first mention, as without them, there’s no market for the rest. Others could argue that “advertising” kept the station afloat enough to give the “music” its “listeners”. Etc., etc., etc. The arguments abound!
One could also argue that you also left out a “variable” in that “formula”… “exposure”, which has a slightly different quality than “listeners” exhibit in your example. You simply pointed “listeners” toward “advertising”, when “listeners” also result in exposure of the music. In other words you could also say “listeners = exposure = money” is a benefit of airplay.
(It’s just unfortunate that most of the money from physical sales is kept by the labels. That point is, of course, a separate thing from this discussion.)
But, the bottom line is, the relationship between all these factors is NOT a “vector formula”, as many points in it are certainly “bi-directional”.
______________________________
“…just like any company needs a phone line.”
Analogies are sometimes the greatest tool of spin (which I’m not accusing you of, to be clear), as they so often can’t accurately reflect the comparisons they’re supposed to illustrate.
Does the phone company charge me a fee every time I make or receive a call? NO!! Yes, there’s still something called “long distance”, but the practice of charging for it is currently becoming another dinosaur, as the telcos have to compete with services that are threatening to defeat the long-distance fees. (Another example of how industries have to adapt to progressive technologies. Even cellphones are starting to migrate away from the “per second/minute” model.)
I pay for the phone. It’s a product and it is required to use the service. I pay for the service because the current structure of a phone system says that is a separate thing from the product. There are also some companies that supply the phone and some of those who do, don’t charge for that. (And, they’re doing okay, by the way.)
But, here’s the sinker:
Does the phone company charge me a royalty (or similar fee) for every call that I either make or receive that would be judged to “improve my bottom line”?! I think you already know the answer to that, but THAT’S what the phone company would have to do in order for your analogy to fit.
Why doesn’t or why can’t the phone company do that?…
Simple. You can’t copyright an actual “service”, and any types of charges incurred by that service are a matter of contract that wouldn’t tolerate a “royalties clause”.
To compound matters, come to think of it, radio is supposed to be a “public” service, and “music” is not a “radio” service. Radio exists to air things of public interest (music included!), and the benefits from such exposure are undeniable, and may already outweigh the profits acquired by the station from the advertising. Should the radio station not also profit?? The stronger the station becomes, the better everyone’s exposure. The more strong stations you have, the more widespread the exposure.
As I said before, there is also an “inverse” quality about all this that makes it a symbiosis. If the music isn’t benefitting from the exposure, then neither would the radio station be benefitting. Think about it. If the music isn’t becoming popular, then it’s not boosting ad revenue, as the listenership goes down in that scenario.
Paying to air music wasn’t the way it started.
Airplay was originally considered to be “free promotion”. That’s why we had the well-known “payola” problem some time back, in which labels PAID to have some tunes EXPOSED more “stubbornly”. What happened to that?! Suddenly, it’s the reverse! And we know the problem that’s already causing…
Now, since a station has to pay, it has to manage how much is spent on playing music. Only so many licenses can be purchased, leaving us with a very limited list of songs that get airplay. These songs just keep getting “cycled”, and many upcoming artists that have signed with a label get no play – no exposure! The same, tired stuff keeps getting pumped, and a compact cabal of already-famous, already-wealthy musicians get the rewards.
*IMPORTANT POINT ALERT*
Because of this, I have virtually stopped tuning into the radio for my music. Many people I know have reacted the same way.
______________________________
“… the radio stations seem happy about the arrangements…”
I dunno, I would say radio stations keep paying because they pretty well have to, in order to continue, and not because they’re happy about it.
I doubt they’re happy with being limited in how much music they can actually get out to their audience. After all, this automatically limits the scope of their listeners, and their ability to generate ad revenue.
One question the current situation has me asking is “why are different radio stations and different forms of radio all charged differently?”
______________________________
The more I examine the concept of paying a royalty for using another’s creation as a background or tool for their business, the more I can’t justify it, even in its present applications. Not only does it seem to do more harm than good all around, but it opens a very obvious door…
Is such a use supposed to be considered as receiving a “service”?
Personally, I would be careful about the use of the word, and who is actually receiving it.
There are many, many “critical services” out there that could be said to be holding the very livelyhood of all business in their hands. Should we be paying them all a royalty?
Case in point 1: A power company.
Without electricity, you can’t run an ISP, a home-based computer, a music-offering website, recording equipment, a radio station, ad infinitum. In the context of this discussion, it would seem they all “owe their prosperity” to the power companies, and we should be cutting them in with the biggest levies.
Your formula would then be a version of these:
No power = no radio = no listeners = no advertising = no money.
(or even…)
No power = no provider = no internet = no internet radio = no license money.
Case in point 2: An interior decorator.
Should a store cut the designer in on the profits earned because the interior was made so appealing that it actually generated more business. (NO! Increasing business was the reason you hired one to resculpt the place.)
(Case in point 3: The pretty new hire that just increased the male visitor number ten-fold?)
Case in point 4: The listeners who caused their friends to buy the music they recently heard.
Should they not get a sales commission? Nobody’s paying them.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
Crosbie,
In you fishing metaphor, I’m the bloke who has a boat that the fisherman needs to get out to where the fish are. Every time he uses the boat, the pays me for the service.
Dredd,
I’m not disputing the fact that artists get promotion from being on the radio. That’s why they don’t pay the performer in the USA, just the songwriter. However, you can apply your ‘it works both ways’ logic to any mutually beneficial financial arrangement. If there is no fisherman to hire my boat, then I lose out. That fact doesn’t mean that I should give him my boat to use for free.
DA,
I didn’t start with the listeners because they have no financial interest in the equation. The radio station doesn’t charge them for listening, they get to tune in for free. The financial arrangements are between musician, station and advertiser.
With regard to your argument about the phone company, it’s not just call charges, the connection rental that would have to disappear too for your point to hold.
The question is, if you are running a business, can you do so without a phone connection? If not, then that a service that you need to pay for. And guess what, you need to give a cut to the power company too, because as you stated, without them, your phone won’t work. Radio stations pay power bills too btw.
Case in point 2 – don’t be silly. Could the company still do business without the interior design? Yes. Without the phone connection? No.
Case in point 3 – disallowed as against employment law
Case in point 4 – Now you are getting on really thin ice. What you are describing is very close to p2p recommendation. Please don’t tell me you want a fee for that!
Can I just point out that, in this argument, you guys are on the same side as Clear Channel. Now ain’t that ironic
October 30th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I know I for one am tired of seeing this over and over again, with no quarter given and none received.
” An artist must be paid ” keeps being pushed as an absolute. But, lets look at this a little closer .. most of the label artists in fact DID get paid, right at the onset of their contract. It was in the form of an ‘advance’,The quality of which vary due to many factors, but the artists got paid. The absolute was made true. Unfortunately in the process most of those artists had to sign away their copyrights and negotiate for royalties. The reason ? For a very long time, the only way that anyone would ever know who you are would be through the radio stations, which for a long time have been the sole property of the labels. They decide who gets played, so they in a not so roundabout way decide on how much you get in royalties. Make them mad, you get less because they pull you out of rotation. Make them happy, you get 50 plays a day in steady rotation, thus more ‘royalties’. They held all the keys to all the doors, so you really didn’t have much of a choice.
The next generation of artists though do, for now.
They can sign with no one, keep their copyrights make their OWN deals, albeit only with internet options, the labels won’t allow any of those unsigned ones at their parties, but for now there arer still plenty of ways to bypass the labels.
The labels want you to sign of on policies that will eventually turn the net into corporate controlled radio. If they manage to end net neutrality only certain artists will be able to afford internet or radio exposure .. the ones that sign with the labels. They want you to help them be certain that the next generations of musicians have no more choice than you did, to sign away your rights, and hope the labels don’t screw you .. much. You GOT paid. What you got wasn’t necessarily right or fair, but it was the way the system was controlled, the way it worked. We need to not doom the next generation into having to sign away their rights as well. Let them have proper avenues to decide how much THEY get paid. I’m sorry most of you got screwed, but it’s not the fault of the fans, listeners, or the sharers.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
” I’m not disputing the fact that artists get promotion from being on the radio.”
And i’m not disputing a royalty. I’m disputing the scale and scope of it,that keeps getting skipped over.
” Can I just point out that, in this argument, you guys are on the same side as Clear Channel. Now ain’t that ironic ”
Really, I’m not so sure about that. Of course clear channel doesn’t want to pay. They are owned by the same corporations that own your labels. I reiterate, I am not saying there should be no royalties, i’m saying there should be limits according to scale and intent. How does that side me with clear channel ?
October 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Billy, do you think that every time someone downloads this web page, and profits from either my or your pearls of wisdom (in their capacity as a professional consultant), that we deserve a cut of whatever their client paid them?
Or perhaps I should approach you and Jon, and say “Hey, guys, you’ve got all these comments of mine and people are earning good money on the comedy circuit using them as material for their well paid stand-up acts, so I figure you should be paying me some dosh for broadcasting them. After all my comments are subject to copyright. How about it eh?”
Nah, don’t answer it. It’s too ridiculous.
Incidentally, if anyone’s up for a drink (my place, yours, or a pub in a mutually convenient location like London), don’t hesitate. We may all be penniless artists (or software engineers), but at least we can afford a drink to discuss how on earth we can sell our work that people can copy despite copyright.
October 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Dredd,
I’m afraid the artist must be paid is an absolute. It may not be to you, but then you have to justify your belief that all recorded music should be free to use. In order to do that, you have to argue that radio stations shouldn’t pay royalties because, if they do pay for using recorded music, that makes you look kinda bad, doesn’t it, taking it for free?
October 30th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Billy
Just because radio stations pay doesn’t mean they are happy or it’s right.
t’s a fully automated service, the engineer doesn’t have to come down every time they want to make a call, yet they still pay the phone company a fee for each use.
It doesn’t require a person but the phone company maintains the machine that automates the service, they maintain the lines and several other parts, they man a call center.
Radio stations don’t need a musicians service they need the commodity of recorded music. To play that music requires equipment (commodity) and electricity (service).
Just because you need something to make money doesn’t make it a service.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
” I’m afraid the artist must be paid is an absolute. It may not be to you, but then you have to justify your belief that all recorded music should be free to use. ”
interesting how my discussion of Radio royalties got turned in to ” your belief that all recorded music should be free to use. ”
Some of my own quotes …
” I am NOT saying you should get nothing for radio plays. I am saying it should be a balanced and reasonable system that ALL stations, internet, sattellite, terrestrial .. ”
” And i’m not disputing a royalty. I’m disputing the scale and scope of it,that keeps getting skipped over. ”
” i’m saying there should be limits according to scale and intent. How does that side me with clear channel ? ”
Does any of that sound like .. ” but then you have to justify your belief that all recorded music should be free to use.
Do any of those quotes from me support an accusation like that ? I thought we were going to stay away from ‘attack the messenger ‘ junk. But if that’s what you get out of my quotes, that I ‘believe all recorded music should be free to use’ then that doesn’t make you look too bright, since I have never said anything like it.
Mods, that was a cheap shot, and no way resembles anything I posted, I would hope that you would allow my counterpoint to stand.
October 30th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
If you want to get paid, Billy, sell something. You don’t need an artificial construct to do that.
October 30th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Devil’s Advocate:
I’ve started listening to Amazing Radio, independent/unsigned artists, and available in the UK on DAB broadcast as well as the internet (I usually listen on the internet). Some of it is… well, amazing …
October 30th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Billy
“for a music radio station, music not a commodity, it is a service that they need in order to make money”
or
“for a musician, a musical instrument not a commodity, it’s a service that they need in order to make money”
Now the second statement is for musicians that play instruments to make money, just like the first is for radio stations that play music to make money.
Same could be said about recording equipment.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
@ Dredd:
There are three admins, Billy, Chris and myself in two time zones – North America Pacific (me) and Chris and Billy in the UK (GMT).
I don’t know about either of them, but I’m trying to read, and take in, every comment post, and when I see the same people repeating much the same thing in different ways, my eyes tend to glaze over.
I try not to let that happen, but I’m sure it does. And before you get all upset, I’m not singling you out: I’m just telling you how it is for me in general terms.
So I can easily see how things can be missed, or mis-read.
As to “Mods … I would hope that you would allow my counterpoint to stand,” I think I’ve probably seen the vast majority of posts and nothing has been deleted that I know of. It would have to be pretty egregious for that to happen, particularly since nothing goes up without one of us seeing it first.
Cheers! And all the best .. really
October 30th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Dredd,
The only posts that will get moderated by me will be those that use the kind of language and personal attacks that we saw on Lily Allen when we were discussing things at p2pnet. Opinions, provided they are not abusive, will be tolerated, I promise.
My post was an angry response to your suggestion that artists getting paid was something that was not paramount in this discussion. That really pissed me off. Having said that, I recognise that I have slighted you by stating that you don’t want artists to get paid royalties by radio stations that play your music, for which I apologise.
You have to understand that for the past few days I have been fighting a two headed attack on the notion of radio play royalties from you and Crosbie – who, imho, really doesn’t want artists to get paid for recorded music. In my anger, I responded hastily and got the two of you mixed up.
Forgive me.
However, there is something in the point I made. Why do you guys care if Clear Channel have to pay me royalties? It doesn’t impact on you.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Just this guy,
“Just because you need something to make money doesn’t make it a service.”
Okay buddy, just stop paying your electricity bill and see what happens.
“for a musician, a musical instrument not a commodity, it’s a service that they need in order to make money”
No, for a musician, a musical instrument is a commodity, they purchase it with a single, one off payment, like a carpenter would a saw.
October 30th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
Steely,
“If you want to get paid, Billy, sell something. You don’t need an artificial construct to do that.”
If the deciding factor in selling something is me getting paid, then I sell something to the music radio stations – I sell them a service which brings them listeners. No artificial construct there.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“Just because you need something to make money doesn’t make it a service.”
Okay buddy, just stop paying your electricity bill and see what happens.
Electricity is a service. I also need a computer to make money but that computer isn’t a service.
“for a musician, a musical instrument not a commodity, it’s a service that they need in order to make money”
No, for a musician, a musical instrument is a commodity, they purchase it with a single, one off payment, like a carpenter would a saw.
For a radio station music is a commodity, they purchase it with a single, one off payment, like a carpenter would a saw.
Even though all 3 (saw, musical instrument and music) are needed for them to make money.
Hence just because you need it or use it to make money doesn’t mean it’s a service.
If I stop paying for electricity they stop providing it, musicians don’t only provide recorded music ONCE, there is no more value, work or anything added by the musician.
Power, phone and things like that are services because they continually provide work.
A recording, saw or musical instrument is a commodity because it’s purchased once and no further work is needed or provided by the maker.
Please answer this.
If the musician stopped providing the “service” how would that stop radio stations from playing the recorded music they purchased?
October 30th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
” My post was an angry response to your suggestion that artists getting paid was something that was not paramount in this discussion. ”
I don’r recall saying that in any terms either. the closest thing I can find is …
” An artist must be paid ” keeps being pushed as an absolute. ”
That to me does not mean anything even close to ‘artists getting paid is not paramount to this discussion’ .
Nope .. to fully explain, and please no one take offense, I am not making this shit up .. also realize this is the EXTREME side of the spectrum .. There is an artist who promotes himself, produces his own stuff etc, and calls himself Slo’ Mo’ The Rappin Retard – http://www.iamlost.com/features/slomo/
I give the guy props for trying to turn lemons into lemonade but just because he makes it, doesn’t mean he ABSOLUTELY HAS TO GET PAID. It’s like the field of dreams, you can build it, but they may not come. It’s up to the artist to find someone who wants to pay it. Saying an artist must be paid as an absolute sounds to much like, entitlement. In order to get oaid the onus is on the artist to find the way that works the best for them to get the material gain they want. The label way is not the only way, and sometimes, stuff just sucks. All of the best artists and bands that I have ever listend to managed to,at some time or another, make stuff that sucks. Indiana Greggs assumption that 1 in 20 cd aren’t bought is strictly because of sharing and ignoring the possibility that maybe her stuff isn’t as great as SHE thinks it is rubs me the wrong way as well. Are you going to tell me that because Slo Mo made it, he NEEDS to get paid, as an absolute ?
It also chaps my hide that every single time I stated that I SUPPORT ROYALTIES WITHIN REASON it appeared that all you heard was ‘you just want stuff for free’. While I think that Crosbie and fred are mostly right, it is unrealistic to expect those that are stuck in the current model to just jump ship. It won’t happen. The best we can hope for now , right now, is to agree to REASONABLE ROYALTIES, end DRM, return right of fair return to the customer, STOP allowing those that share for no personal gain from being punished more harshly than murderers and rapists, stop supporting levies and sanctions, and keep the net OPEN so that the next generation of artists have better options than you did.
I don’t see that as unreasonable and it does not add up to ‘I just want shit for free’. not in any way shape or form.
As for clear channel, as long as they are the only game in town, no one except ‘featured artists’ will ever be heard. I don’t want them to be the only game on the net as well. They are part of the problem, but excessive royalties won’t hurt them at all, it will only knock out the little guys.
Please read this post CAREFULLY and you will see I am NOT an unreasonable boob. And I am not in the minority.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
“A recording, saw or musical instrument is a commodity because it’s purchased once and no further work is needed or provided by the maker.”
You mean a CD, a saw or a musical instrument.
“For a radio station music is a commodity, they purchase it with a single, one off payment, like a carpenter would a saw.”
Radio stations do not purchase CD’s, they get them free.
“Power, phone and things like that are services because they continually provide work.”
Er…just like recorded music provides work for the DJs at the radio station?
“If the musician stopped providing the “service” how would that stop radio stations from playing the recorded music they purchased?”
It wouldn’t. But what would happen if the radio station stopped paying for the service provided by recordings? No more listeners, no more pay for the employees.
Hope that answers your questions.
October 30th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Dredd,
here’s the wording that lit my fuse:
“I know I for one am tired of seeing this over and over again, with no quarter given and none received. ” An artist must be paid ” keeps being pushed as an absolute.”
What inference am I supposed to take from that? That you are sympathetic to the right of artists get paid or opposed to it?
Since you ask, what I am telling you is that when money is made, artist must get paid, okay? Not when they think they should get paid, not when they demand to get paid, not when you deign to pay them, but when someone else is making money off of hawking their work.
That is an absolute.
Indiana rubs you up the wrong way? Well touche, buddy, touche.
October 30th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
” What inference am I supposed to take from that? That you are sympathetic to the right of artists get paid or opposed to it? ”
You don’t need to infer, I explained.
” t’s like the field of dreams, you can build it, but they may not come. It’s up to the artist to find someone who wants to pay it. Saying an artist must be paid as an absolute sounds to much like, entitlement. In order to get oaid the onus is on the artist to find the way that works the best for them to get the material gain they want. ”
” Since you ask, what I am telling you is that when money is made, artist must get paid, okay? Not when they think they should get paid, not when they demand to get paid, not when you deign to pay them, but when someone else is making money off of hawking their work. ”
And I agreed, as I have all along, but by using reasonable methods that don’t favor large players over smaller players. By methods that take into account intent and amount. What exactly don’t you get about that ? Why is it so impossible to accept that I agree with you , but better boundaries must be put forth.
why is it all or nothing .. or else I ‘just want shit for free’ ? What is wrong with reasonable boundaries ?
No it’s not an absolute, and you can repeat it as often as the labels repeat the lie of lost sales. It’s still not true. There is a middle ground to reach, but you’ve already decided, haven’t you ?
October 31st, 2009 at 1:25 am
I apologize for a somewhat off-topic question, but this seemed like something Bragg or the other pros could answer easily. On another forum there was the question of the costs of development of music vs. software, and I was wondering exactly how many people you might estimate it takes working full-time to produce a typical CD. I know for something like Windows you’re looking at hundreds if not thousands of developers working full-time, year-round, and I was wondering how the amount of labor compared to music.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:38 am
“There is a middle ground to reach, but you’ve already decided, haven’t you ?”
I will elucidate the principles, but I won’t compromise them. Would you really have me do otherwise?
October 31st, 2009 at 9:26 am
” I will elucidate the principles, but I won’t compromise them. Would you really have me do otherwise? ”
No.
Neither will I.
That does not equal ‘thief’, or any other ‘name’ you wish to call me or anyone else who doesn’t agree with you.
As far as compromising principles go, you’ve already compromised the ‘Do unto others’ principle here. I haven’t seen anyone else do that, angry or not. And there are a lot of angry people here, the number of fans, angry at what they perceive the artists are doing FAR outnumber the angry artists. The high ground is supposed to be yours. Try to keep it.
October 31st, 2009 at 9:37 am
There seems to be a lot of back and forth here as to whether artists should be paid for radio play, as well as just how much. I think there is room for compromise, I would like to throw in my 2 cents with this suggestion.
Copyright NOT automatically renewed.
Last 15-20 years, NOT “author’s life, plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death”, as is the case in U.S. copyright law.
Small Internet radio stations clearly not making any money are exempted. If they had ads they could be required to open their books to prove bandwith expense equaled or surpassed ad income.
This would be tough to implement, as it involves getting into a pissing contest with Disney, who more than anyone else has been responsible for copyright extension in the U.S. In the U.K. it would involve wrangling with “Sir” Paul McCarney, who seems to feel that Beatles works should never go into the public domain. I think a LOT of the animosity from the p2p side is coming from resentment over just how long copyright lasts, and that it keeps getting extended in perpetuity.
I’d like to ask Billy if he feels that this compromise is at all reasonable, or does he feel, like McCartney and Disney do, that copyright should last forever?
October 31st, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’d like to see the same thing for music videos, – a station playing 24/7 nonstop videos with no commercials(Like the very early iteration of MTV) would not get charged, same for non profit net-casters.
October 31st, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Where do people get this idea that if only we didn’t have to wait 150 years, but something more reasonable like 20 years, that file-sharers would stop file-sharing?
Imagine a stable in which a horse had been kept for so long it simply decided to kick out the rear wall at the back of the stable and escape to greener pastures.
That stable is copyright, and the horse is the art to be constrained. The stable door remains securely bolted.
When you suggest that perhaps the horse shouldn’t be kept in the stable for quite such a long time, you are denying reality:
1) The horse has long gone.
2) Your stable only has three walls and it is irreparable.
3) You can try to put another horse in it, but when you come to let it out sooner, even after only a day of imagined captivity, the horse will still have long gone.
Copyright hasn’t become ineffective only for works of a certain age, but for all works that anyone has to copy, i.e. all published works.
You can try telling people “Hey, you know you had to wait 150 years before you could make a copy? Well, you’ll be glad to know it’s now just 20 years, i.e. when you’re 50 you can share your iPod with your iPals. Not so long to wait eh?”
“Hmm. Maybe 15 years? Whaddya think? Do you think little Johnny can wait that long? Ok, how about 5 years?”
Nope. Even a day is unrealistic.
So let’s be realistic. Copyright does not prevent people copying your art, it enables your publisher’s team of attack lawyers to bankrupt random members of the public. They don’t care how many years the copyright protection has left to run, whether 149 or 1.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Billy,
I certainly appreciate how taxing (pardon the unintended reference) this whole thing is becoming for you. You’re busy with a number of things, and still covering so much ground “here”. I commend you for that. (First order of business out of the way.)
Having said that…
I’m also having difficulty understanding this “concept of absolution” you seem to be hell-bent on. You’re demanding “black and white” opinions to questions that are simply NOT “black and white”.
Yes, some matters may appear to be “that simple” from your perspective, but some here have desperately been trying to explain to you that, while they agree with the underlying “principle” of what you’re after (eg. “artists should get paid”), they can’t agree on the endless implications contained in the undissected version it’s in.
Dreddsnik has even been quoting himself in a valiant endeavour to simply confirm to you he is not exactly “against” you.
Earlier in the game, we all discussed how certain “labels of judgement” were counter-productive (to say the least) to our abilities to have a logical, constructive forum. The same could be said about “assumed inference”.
(For those that don’t know, or think I’m making up the term…)
What is “assumed inference”?
That is when you place someone else who doesn’t agree with you 100% in the light to appear as if they are 100% against you, whether intentionally or not.
It was a major tool used by Dubya to keep the people from asking questions about 9/11 and everything else, and it consisted of one easily-administered message: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the TERRORISTS!!”
It’s also a major tool used by everyone who would have us surrender any of our remaining rights and powers. Just look at the widely-circulated idea that, if we’re against massive surveillance, we must be in favour of allowing child abduction and molestation to flourish.
Why am I talking about this stuff?
Simple. It’s because it’s proof that we’re all susceptible to fall into this trap of assuming that, just because somebody presents an unwanted obstacle to our arguments, that is must be because they don’t want us to succeed.
(Especially when we’re tired.)
One of the key points we already had concensus on coming into this was “artists want to be paid, and fans want to pay them”.
October 31st, 2009 at 5:50 pm
@Crosbie:
I’m not a huge copyright fan, never was. I threw this out as a compromise between the way things are now and no copyright at all. I don’t oppose the abolition of copyright for a better system, but many artists like Billy do. It may very well be impossible to swing the majority of artists over to a copyright free alternative system. Even the compromise I proposed would be a holy bitch to get passed, as it would have opposition from RIAA/MPAA MAFIIA groups. I also argued for the limitation of how copyright applies, so at least the non profits wouldn’t get screwed by it. I didn’t say it was perfect, and if it was done there is no reason the discussion couldn’t go on as to replacing copyright with an alternative.
October 31st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Thank you for that DA.
I am actually farther away from Crosbie and Fred in opinion than I am from BB. I’m glad SOMEONE sees that. What Fred and Crosbie seem to be getting at I can only see happening in the LONG run, as more new artists learn to avoid the labels, a gradual evolution into what they see. In the short run, things can be done but not to the extreme that those still stuck in the system don’t panic, and push for legislation that would be disastrous for everyone in both the near and the far future. Go for too much too soon and knees will jerk.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:11 am
@Dredd:
Fred and Crosbie certainly aren’t the only ones voicing the opinion that copyright is no longer reasonably applicable. What if they’re absolutely right?
That doesn’t mean they don’t want the artists to get paid for their efforts, or that they don’t want (deserving) artists to achieve any sort of popularity or wealth.
What if the whole concept of copyright is, in fact, already “dead”? What if it can’t be applied fairly in any form, existing or retooled??
Wouldn’t that also present a problem, should anyone try to launch another form of it? It would be sin if everybody goes through the necessary hoops to get a new copyright “installed”, only to arrive at a similar or worse scenario.
Fred and Crosbie may be sincerely trying to steer artists away from a “red flag” they believe is waiting through the trees in all of this.
After saying that, I find it quite interesting to note that a “new copyright” would require a great deal of effort, legal footwork, and battling with those that currently control the situation anyway, while “abandoning” it appears to require very little (or even none) of any of that.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:32 am
@Billy:
“I didn’t start with the listeners because they have no financial interest in the equation.”
That is the mindset of the CURRENT business model.
Are we not looking for a completely NEW one?!
A “new” model will most likely not have the same money trail, in which case its incentives would also be driven differently.
I’m not saying “put the listeners first”.
I’m just saying that “formula” can conceivably be written any number of ways and contain any number of “variables”, given a new business model it would represent hasn’t been established.
Perhaps I’m also trying to say it would be more useful to try not to think in any of the terms you’ve been conditioned to by the current model, since we already seem to agree it’s not working.
November 1st, 2009 at 11:49 am
“What if they’re absolutely right?”
No ‘if’ about it.
Cheers!
November 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
I don’t think they’re wrong. And I know they want artists to get paid for their efforts, just like I do. I even believe what they are describing can happen. Just not in the immediate future. Look at what happened between Billy and I just now. That was mild compared to what would happen if the world that fred and crosbie are looking for were to try to be enforced all at once . right now ? The artists that are currently mired in, and dependent on the old system would ’spaz’ and push for any bad legislation that even remotely promises them ‘protection’ from those that want ‘everything for free’. That’s how it would be portrayed even if it’s not true. I am looking at this from a somewhat conservative angle. Small, non threatening chages that those still in the system can deal with and do not find threatening, so they would’nt feel they have to push for ridiclous legislative solutions in self defense, while showing the next generation how to do things without the labels. As the ‘old guard’ leaves and the next gen start to take over, THEN the things that Crosbie and Fred suggest will be much easier to accomplish. I think they are probably right, but shouldn’t push too hard too soon.
I think evolution instead of revolution.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Guys,
Fred and Crosbie are right – copyright is no longer reasonably applicable, but only with regard to personal use. File-sharing has made that a reality. However, the fact that you can freely share files doesn’t mean that radio stations should not pay artists royalties for using their music to attract an audience. To assume that file sharing means the end of all copyright is to overplay your hand.
The FAC slogan ‘Where money is made, artists must be paid’ is designed to move the focus of copyright away from individual users. It is a hard sell to some artists, but the quid pro quo we offer them is that we hold the line on exploitation. If we can define that line here too, then I believe that others will join our fight for a complete reform of copyright law.
I recognise that Dredd is closer to my position than that of Crosbie, and that Crosbie and Fred think artists should get paid too. What I need for my constituency is a clear expression of support or dismissal from this website of our slogan. Why? Because if we can endorse it, it puts the FAC in a position to begin the process of bridging the gap between artists and p2p users. It will also go a long way to setting the agenda for debate here.
If we can endorse the slogan, that does not in any way imply that anyone here supports the current copyright regime, nor necessarily supports the idea of copyright per se. If we can simply establish the right of artists to be paid when their work is exploited for gain, we can then begin to talk about how smaller players might be exempted by fair use clauses under copyright reform and discuss whether copyright is the best mechanism for artists to get remunerated.
If this website is to be something more than a talking shop, if we hope to be able to intervene in and influence the debate around copyright and its abuses, then I cannot stress how important it is that we articulate our position in clear, simply understood terms.
November 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Dredd,
Regarding my ’statement’ at 24. That was a cut and paste of something that Crosbie said to me on the mash-up thread. I was just dashing out the door and couldn’t resist being cheeky.
I will compromise to achieve a result – remember I voted in favour of throttling at the Air meeting, despite believing that there is no technical solution to file-sharing. Fact is, if none of us is willing to shift their position to reach a common good, then we’re all just wasting our time here.
Monkey,
No I don’t believe that copyright should last forever. 70 years after the release of the recording is long enough.
Also, I don’t oppose the abolition of copyright. If you can show me a better system that guarantees that I get paid every time someone uses my music to make money, I’d be interested to see it. However, as you implied in your post, copyright is a concept that artists understand, so it helps if we can talk in that language.
DA,
I’m not hell bent on portraying this debate as black and white, I’m simply trying to get some clarification of where we stand with regards to artists getting paid. I’m using the FAC slogan as a way of measuring this. I realise that any slogan is a blunt object, but, given that there is a consensus here about artists getting paid, I believe that it’s a principle upon which we can build.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Knowing that then this was uncalled for.
That type of posturing lights MY fuse, especially if you KNOW that most of us also believe that artists should get paid. How is any trust supposed to be built if language like this continues to be thrown about ? I would say that the majority of us on the P2P front have managed to keep the garbage statements out of here, because we know they are debate killers.I can’t control you, any more than anyone can control Henry, or anyone else, but I can ASK that you do a better job of keeping known untruths outside in the cold where they belong.
November 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Billy said:
This is, I believe, a very good summing up of what is also Pirate Party official policy, at least as I understand it.
We believe that personal use, and non-commercial sharing where no money is being made, should be entirely unrestricted (effectively, declared fair use), as has been pointed out by Crosbie, that horse has already gone, and it isn’t coming back.
Commercial use can, however, still be restricted, and if someone is making money selling copies it’s not like the “download=lost sale” fallacy, there potentially is a real loss. The artist/rights-holder could have made that sale, maybe, someone was willing to pay something for it albeit… only if the rights-holder wasn’t stupid about demanding whatever price they claim to “deserve”, or about releasing it in different areas of the world, etc, that sort of control is just not possible any more, releases and pricing have to be at a level that the market will bear, and to me that’s really the point Dreddsnik is driving at.
We do think that even commercial copyright duration needs to be a lot shorter, my personal view is that anything getting close to a generation is out of order, and that it should be no longer than necessary to give enough a reward to encourage creative effort – and the evidence I’ve seen suggests that the “sweet spot” is much shorter than 20 years.
I also agree with Dreddsnik that while copyright may in the longer term become unsustainable, and disappear altogether, it isn’t going to happen overnight and it’s way too disruptive to do that. Going to a reasonably short copyright duration affecting commercial exploitation, I believe gives us 95% of what we need, while also providing a reasonable transition path that we can explain, and defend, and get implemented.
It was even proposed/seriously considered for Pirate policy, to state that in the longer term we believe copyright will end; I think we’ve toned that language down somewhat since then, and so far there seems a clear consensus amongst us that we need to reform, not abolish, copyright, for the pragmatic reason that it’s achievable and does most of what we want, and leave the question of whether to ultimately abolish copyright to the future; maybe even to a future generation.
My own view is that copyright may indeed become obsolete and disappear in time; I do agree that creativity will still exist, and artists will still be paid, as described in those scenarios. On the other hand, I don’t rule out the possibility that allowing a short period of monopoly over commercial reuse, may help increase the amount of creative work that is produced, by providing a reward, both as a direct incentive and in making it easier for the creative person to do that as a full-time occupation.
If it results in greater creative output, which becomes fully free reasonably quickly (less than a generation, please), then I would not want to abolish copyright entirely, it’s worth the trade-off in that case. The only part I’m worried about is the tendency for those benefiting (who almost by definition have the money to lobby with…) to push and push and push for longer copyrights, for more control, for reasons why their activity is “special” and deserves longer protection than everything else…
That part, really, when people say to me “Oh but this art form takes longer for the rewards to roll in, we need special treatment/longer protection” my answer to them is really to make the arguments expressed here for copyright abolition, and point out that we don’t have to grant a copyright privilege, if we decided as a democratic society we could abolish it, perfectly morally.
Otherwise… there’s a never-ending queue of oh-so-necessary requests for special treatment, there’s only one thing I’ve seen which does actually seem special and different to other creative effort, and that’s software and access (or not) to source code, for particular technical reasons that don’t apply in the same way to other kinds of creative effort.
November 1st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
One other thing… In regard to radio stations, maybe that makes sense as commercial use, and attracting royalties (for distribution of in-copyright material, at least), there may also be other areas which are less clear-cut, however. What I say here is my own view, Pirate policy is not presently settled down to this level of detail.
Playing music that the employees have purchased, or having a radio on, in a shop or factory, I couldn’t accept that should attract performance royalties (maybe if it is a pub or a club and the entertainment of the public is the point of the establishment, perhaps that’s more defensible.) Certainly not where the main business would essentially carry on with or without music, e.g. if my barber has the radio on… Well, I’d still need my hair cut, even if was in silence.
Same with a shop or factory, or for example in a police station or a fire station, their work would continue whether with music or in silence, and allowing the Performing Rights Society to pursue them is simply permitting a legalised extortion racket, I believe that practice should be outlawed.
On the internet, search/indexing services should not be held responsible for what they link to it. Not even if they carry advertising and make money that way, if what they are linking to is a private individual making something available free of charge, without gaining commercial benefit, then that’s just personal use, which we’ve said should be allowed. That means that Google, or the Pirate Bay, would be fully legal, as they only provide indexing and search, and do not host; if someone they link to is making a profit by it, then that’s the person to pursue.
Note that YouTube isn’t quite like the Pirate Bay, of course, since with YouTube Google are hosting the material, and it’s downloaded to viewers from Google servers, not from the private individual who originally uploaded it.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Billy says “Fred and Crosbie are right – copyright is no longer reasonably applicable, but only with regard to personal use. File-sharing has made that a reality. However, the fact that you can freely share files doesn’t mean that radio stations should not pay artists royalties for using their music to attract an audience.”
If we are talking about a mechanism that is not commodified, I would support it. But then it would not be a copyright. It would be a moral assignment. A moral obligation for a corporation to pay its workers. I’ve been thinking about Fred’s contractual ideas. The way I understand it, the artist would get paid upon the delivery of a piece of music or a performance. This sits well with my own mindset of a work/pay scenario. However when we are talking about artistic expression, it has its drawbacks. I spent enough years as a journalist to know that you cannot fully express your ideas with the hammer of a boss perched inches above your head. For the public to be able to enjoy the benefits of a fully expressive artist, perhaps a seperate income stream is necessary. But I don’t see how a commodified idea like copyright, a transferrable mechanism, will change anything. You’d still have the owner class waving a pittance at artists during a vulnerable time in their careers in order to buy up content. A system that includes a moral obligation to pay the original creator (not the content owner)is what’s needed. And that is not what copyright is.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Dredd,
When I wrote that post, I wasn’t sure that you were in favour of artists getting paid or not – we’d just been through that ‘yes and no’ interlude, hadn’t we? I was having trouble telling your arguments from Crosbie’s.
Look, I could get just as upset by your habit of placing the phrase featured artists in inverted commas. A featured artist is legally defined as a person who signs a recording contract. You use it as if it is pejorative. Let’s not dwell on our past differences. Now we agree that artists should be paid, lets try to work out the when and how.
My other question to you is how do you do that neat thing with the box around the quote?
November 1st, 2009 at 5:25 pm
John,
I don’t think copyright will disappear altogether, if only because the concept of intellectual property is too deeply entrenched in our culture.
I think the argument for copyright reform will resonate with the public if it is couched in terms of allowing people to make copies for their own use: no more DRM, let people copy onto other machines, formats etc.
Playing music in the workplace, if it is not the primary source of the business, I think is okay.
Search/indexing service, I’m not so sure. If they are selling advertising off of the back of facilitating file-sharing, then I believe they should pay a cut of the money they make.
November 1st, 2009 at 5:33 pm
bill,
A simple way to introduce greater artistic control, albeit within the copyright model, would be to limit all contracts to licence rather than assignment. Instead of signing you work away for life of copyright, as is standard practice in record contracts, you would licence your work for a specific period. I licence all my recordings for 7 years, after which the rights come back to me. This gives me the power to negotiate new contracts which take account of current technology.
This is practice is law in Germany – you can’t sign someone’s work for life of copyright.
November 1st, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Billy Bragg
Use the tags under the text entry box. just replace the – in the example with Billy Bragg-/cite>
-blockquote cite=”">My other question to you is how do you do that neat thing with the box around the quote-/blockquote cite=”">
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:05 am
Billy, you are making some good points for the need of a payment approach for artists who are income producers for corporations. However, I don’t think you have, as yet, justified a 70 year protection. That still sounds like an entitlement to me. Should an artist, for example, be entitled to two generations of income for providing a single hit? (I’m not being rhetorical – I want to hear an explanation as to why) For example, should Paul McCartney be entitled to earn as much on Hey Jude in a year as most working class folks make in a working lifetime? (I have no idea what the actual figures are but that sounds about right considering the amount that the Beatle copyrights trade for.) Should a corporation? I think a lot of people in this discussion would probably balk at the idea of both. I would. I’m not sure it is a good idea to replace one entitled group with another. Not at all. You’ve convinced me of the need for an alternate payment stream to artists than the traditional work/pay scheme. But not one that lasts for 70 years or anywhere close. We need ideas that work more towards changing the system than co-opting it. Ideas that raise the quality of living for the working class as whole rather than a specific group within the working class. I.e. a 30 year system where the payments go to the artists for the first 15 years, to music education for the second 15 years, and to the public domain after that. That puts the corps in a must-pay situation, mandates that corps put something back into society at large, and places music in the public domain sometime during the public’s lifetime. I’m not offering this up as a cure all – just a starting point to be mulled over and either discarded or built upon. An idea off the top of my head. Some of the most high profile artists on the planet have embraced the status quo – in effect becoming corporations unto themselves. This does not bode well for trust. I salute you for the effort you are putting forth and for opening the dialogue. But I don’t think you can ignore the class issues involved. The public face of musical artists is that of the super rich. That is certainy not the reality, but it is the wide spread perception. And one you have to deal with. Maybe three perceptions. Those artists that are rich. Those that were scammed out of their riches. And those that aspire to be rich. None of those scenarios reflect any solidarity with the working class. The group most overlooked are the ones that struggle from day to day despite doing everything “right.” (hard work ethic, attention to craft, smart budgets) The group receiving the most sympathy are those that were scammed. Every working class person knows the feeling.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:17 am
With regards to Germany…
I’m not sure that Germany is leading the charge in where contract issues are headed. The bigger world is the world of GATT and I don’t think any such requirements are addressed in that treaty. Moral rights for artists have alway been off limits in any treaty involving the US. This is the whole reason that US artists were not protected from for-profit bootlegs in Germany during the ’80s ad ’90s. GATT put an effective end to that, but not for any reasons involving moral rights for artists (based instead on legal rights for corps).
November 2nd, 2009 at 5:10 am
I do not recognise any commercial/non-commercial distinction in artists sharing and building upon mankind’s culture. Whether artists have an audience that pays them, or not, they should have their natural liberty to do so unconstrained by privilege.
I’m here because I’m interested in enabling artists to be paid for their work. So the last thing I’m going to do is approve legislation that makes it illegal to be paid for your work (if it involves sharing or building upon art created by another artist).
This should be the end of ‘permission culture’, not its continuation.
Many fans freely sharing their artists music because they don’t pay for it, nor are they paid, are quite likely to naively rubber stamp copyright v2.0 if it gets them off the hook. What do those fans care if copyright v2.0 means that it’s still illegal for DJs to sell CDs of their sessions, or music bloggers can only stream new music if their readers don’t pay them for their work in reviewing them? What do fans care if Kutiman gets paid a single penny if he remixes music videos?
Why should our first thought be how to make it illegal for artists to make any money if they share or build upon art created by another? Shouldn’t we want them to make money? If you don’t want a DJ to get paid for playing your song, why publish it in the first place?
On the other hand, if you figure that everyone is going to earn a living from your art with out a law to stop them, doesn’t that by itself indicate that no such law is needed? Your fear is that others can earn a living from your music, but you can’t, even though no law is stopping you. If you can easily see how others can make money from your music, why don’t you join them instead of trying to beat them? Try competition. Instead of making it illegal for someone else to sing your song, why not compete with them and sing your song better than they can? Instead of making it illegal for a paid DJ to play a recording of your song, why not perform your song live, or sell a recording of your song? Instead of making it illegal to sell CDs containing recordings of you singing, why not sell recordings of yourself and others singing?
We do not need a new law to make cultural exchange more illegal than it already is. It may certainly be seductive, to have that power of prosecuting people unless they come begging to you for permission to use, share or build upon your published works, but that should not be the mission of anyone interested in enabling musicians and fans to make beautiful music together.
As I’ve observed before, there are two missions going on here:
1) How artists can get paid for their work, how they can exchange their art for their fans’ money – with no law to prevent them, and no levy to compel them.
2) How to get the self-appointed spokespeople of the file-sharing community to rubber stamp an ‘improvement’ of copyright that permits ‘non-commercial’ file-sharing, but prohibits anyone from using, sharing or building upon published works if any monetary payment is involved (unless the copyright holder’s permission has been obtained).
In the first case my fans can pay me to sing Billy Bragg’s songs, without paying any Internet tax, and Billy can’t send his lawyers round to collect his ‘dues’ on threat of prosecution, but must rely upon me (as I rely upon my fans to pay me for singing) to pay him to write more songs. If more than just me, he has a large audience, then he can look forward to a large payment.
In the second case, I don’t sing Billy Bragg’s songs because it’s simply too much hassle to ensure that no money is made by anyone as a consequence, nor do I pay him to write more because his songs are so culturally constrained. I’ll spend my money funding songwriters to write and publish songs that people are at liberty to sing whether they have a paying audience or not.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
What’s the definition of insanity?
Doing the same thing but expecting a different result.
Trinkets and sigils with magic powers don’t make you wealthy, they make the magicians that collect them extremely powerful and extremely wealthy as a consequence.
Try working. Try producing such good art that you build up a vast audience of fans. Try inviting your fans to pay you to produce your art. That will be money you’ve earned.
Copyright or ‘royaltyright’ is an invisibility ring. It renders your work obscure if not invisible because no-one will be inclined to share or build upon it, and it renders a dark lord more powerful because only he has the power to wield and exploit it for its true purpose: to harness mankind’s cultural productivity.
Wish for wealth by all means, but do not seek the unnatural power to have your wishes granted, for it is that power that corrupts.
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 am
bill,
“The public face of musical artists is that of the super rich.”
That is a ridiculous statement, like claiming that the public face of software writers is Bill Gates. Never mind Paul McCartney, how about the 95% of artists who never made it, whose albums are hidden away in the vaults of record companies, having been unavailable since the 1960s? legislation before the EU parliament to extend the life of copyright in recorded material from 50 to 70 years includes a use it of lose it clause which will give them the right to claim ownership of their recordings and make them available again for the digital age. They’ll never be millionaires, but they have the potential to make a little money to supplement their pensions for the remaining 20 years of the copyright.
Would you deprive them of that right? Or is it more important to you to make a dent in Paul McCartney’s earnings?
November 2nd, 2009 at 7:56 am
Crosbie,
“I’m here because I’m interested in enabling artists to be paid for their work. So the last thing I’m going to do is approve legislation that makes it illegal to be paid for your work”
So why are you putting forward a proposal that would allow Clear Channel to play my music without paying me anything for it?
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:03 am
@ Billy:
“… how about the 95% of artists who never made it, whose albums are hidden away in the vaults of record companies, having been unavailable since the 1960s?”
We need to know a lot more about this.
Cheers!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Jon,
EMI recently admitted that they have only digitised 30% of their entire back catalogue. Among the 70% languishing in the vaults will be albums made by contemporaries of the Beatles.
My mum’s cousin Dave was the drummer in such a band. They were called Sean Buckley & the Breadcrumbs and they were big in Dagenham in the mid-60s. I remember how proud I was when they were on a tv show one time, wearing Beatles suits. They made a record produced by legendary Shel Talmy.
I’ve just googled them and, amazingly, you can find them on MySpace, doing contemporary stuff. Under the proposed ‘use it or lose it’ clause, any artists whose works has not been available for five years would have the right to claim back ownership. The Breadcrumbs could then access their old recordings and sell them via their website for the remaining period of the copyright.
That is why 70 year copyright brings benefits to the vast majority of musicians whose records never hit the top.
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am
Billy, I suspect this is more a case of fearing that Clear Channel will become wealthy playing your music, and being under the copyright inculcated notion that you should be privileged to prevent their business or to be given a statutory royalty from what you imagine will be untold wealth.
I suggest you examine how on earth Clear Channel can become wealthy playing your music where you cannot. Or rather, question whether it is artists’ music that makes them wealthy or the sale of a DJ’s audience’s ears to advertisers. The audience is there for the DJ’s selection and performance of consistently good music recordings. They enjoy that service so much they will tolerate the value that is subtracted from that service by advertisements.
But remember, all music recordings can be freely shared (in your scheme only non-commercially). So no audience can be there for the recordings – given they can get the recordings for nothing elsewhere. They attend the DJ solely for the DJ’s service. If they come to like, and want any of the artists so selected to produce more music they’ll commission those artists directly.
If you remove from the cartel their only power (to prohibit unauthorised playback), then anyone can broadcast a radio station (web streaming). Given a free market in radio stations, where some music cannot be played without payment, and some can, then you will find that all small/independent DJs restrict themselves to playing royalty-free music, precisely in order that they are free to earn money from the audience that pays them for their service. Some stations will opt for payment via advertising, some from audience commission, but then the ad free stations may become more popular than those with ads, so ads become less attractive.
And let’s not forget, having music played is an advert for the artist. Artists aiming to be rewarded directly by their audience will wish to advertise themselves as much as possible in order to increase the size of their audience, because the larger their audience, the more money their fans will pay them.
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 am
Crosbie,
Just to get this straight – you are quite happy for Clear Channel to play my music without paying me a cent?
November 2nd, 2009 at 10:39 am
Billy, I am happy for people to use, share, and build upon the software I give or sell them, however much money they make in their business that may rely upon it.
I do not obtain happiness from people not being paid.
So, I would be happy if Clear Channel (or anyone else) paid you handsomely to make the music you are happy making – if you were happy being paid.
However, I would not be happy if a law was enacted that prohibited published art from being used, shared, performed, or built upon, simply to enable some privileged party to sell their permission.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:00 am
You’re happy, Clear Channel are happy, I’m happy, everyone’s happy. Hooray!
Are you on drugs?
Suppose Clear Channel were happy to play my music without paying me, but I wasn’t happy about that. What should I do then?
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
I’m glad we’re all happy.
I’m on a tadette of caffeine at the mo, courtesy of a Yorkshire Gold tea bag.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Billy, I daresay in many markets there are some merchants or craftsmen, unhappy that people aren’t paying them for their work.
Sometimes those merchants become so unhappy they either nobble competitors through underhand tactics (culminating in a protection racket), or they plead with a king to be given a statutory monopoly.
So, you could always plead with the government that Clear Channel (as anyone else) should be prosecuted for playing your music unless they had first obtained your permission (which you might provide for a goodly sum).
You should think twice before making such a wish, because you may find that Clear Channel will simply not play your music. Would you be happy then?
Ok, so you might say that collection societies can be empowered to collectively haggle on behalf of members, such that where a radio station collects any revenue a royalty tolerable to them can be commanded (a protection fee that does not render the business unviable). You’ve seen how well this works for YouTube and the PRS. It’s certainly worked well for Pandora who simply can’t afford to operate in the UK. And bear in mind what proportion of the royalty is retained by the artist’s collection society or publishing agent.
If you’re not happy about people playing your music without paying you there are certainly a few rather unnatural things you can do, but I don’t recommend them, as I don’t think they will bring you or anyone else much happiness (apart perhaps from a few executives running the collection society).
At the end of the day if you’re not happy about people playing the music you’ve delivered to them (unless they pay you), you shouldn’t publish it in the first place.
I suspect musicians would be happier if they were happy for their music to be freely played, performed, and built upon by all mankind. Musicians were once so happy. Musicians were paid to perform, to compose, to write, to sing, to play. They can be paid once again.
Making music is productive.
Manacling musicians and their audience is counter-productive.
Paying the ransom for a brief respite from cultural manacles is lucrative only to the jailer, not to anyone else, and it is certainly not productive. That the jailer may be persuaded to direct a tiny fraction of their income to the owner of the manacles is an illusory benefit.
Abolish cultural slavery. Set people free to create what they will, to share and build upon mankind’s culture with honesty and integrity, to be incentivised by an emancipated and culturally wealthy audience.
November 2nd, 2009 at 11:48 am
So, Crosbie, in your happy state, you are happy for Clear Channel not to pay me anything for playing my music?
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Billy, as I’ve already said, artists not being paid does not make me happy or happier.
Caffeine doesn’t make me happy, even a chicken phall only gives me the illusion of being happy.
People being culturally free makes me happy.
Artists and fans enthusiastically exchanging art for money also makes me happy – if it makes them both happy (I’m aware some artists prefer to avoid their audience’s commission in order to preclude its potential bias).
So, Billy, if you’re the sort of artist who is happy to be paid by their audience, then I’d be happy if Clear Channel was among that audience.
But, lest you make the wrong conclusion, to be happy that you are paid, does not mean I am happy for people to be forced to pay you, nor does it mean I am happy for them to be denied their liberty unless they pay you.
As with any payment to a person for their work, it is always a voluntary, agreeable, and equitable exchange, art for money, money for art. There is no compulsion, no force, no human hostage, no suspension of liberty, no ransom. It’s an ethical exchange: art for money, liberty for people.
November 2nd, 2009 at 12:49 pm
So let me get this right, you believe that any corporation that wants to use my music should be under no legal compulsion to pay me anything?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Billy, I believe that no individual should have their natural right to liberty suspended to use, share, or build upon published works in their legitimate possession (whether they are paid or not), nor should individuals be compelled to pay for that liberty, e.g. through tax, levy, statutory royalty, compulsory license, etc.
Corporations not being individuals, may be subject to whatever regulations the people decide are proper and socially harmonious. Even so, I suspect it is unlikely to be constructive to subject corporations to regulations or obligations that compel them to pay royalties for use. However, being purely a matter of economics rather than ethics, I am far less concerned at the constraint or legal compulsion of corporations than of individuals.
In other words, I have no ethical argument against a law that would oblige Clear Channel to seek your permission before being able to play your music, or would compel them to pay you a royalty. However, that’s only because Clear Channel is a corporation rather than an individual, e.g. unlike a blogger or podcaster running a web based ‘radio station’.
The only arguments I might have against it would be economic ones, e.g. that monopolies do not create a net economic benefit.
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Crosbie,
So you recognise that there is a difference between individual use and corporate use?
November 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
@ Billy
You still are avoiding the main point of my argument that the continued use and expansion of copyright, whether it be in the hands of artists or the hands of corporations provides a privaleged class at the expence of everyone else. Is my goal to put a dent in Paul McCartney’s income? No – and you know it. I offered an idea whereby the public at large can enjoy the benefits of copyright as well. You chose to ignore it. Your response was clearly slight of hand. You are the only one here so far that has accused anyone of beng intransient. While being unmovable yourself. Is yours an all or nothing proposition? I will state this as clearly as I can. I will not support any form of copyight where the public is not compensated for enduring a monopoly. The idea that I put forth does so. Do you care to comment on that idea?
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Billy, I certainly recognise a difference between an individual and a corporation, that the former have natural rights, and that the latter have none (though are able to accumulate a wealth of unethical privileges that effectively elevate them above the individual).
However, I’m not sure a difference in user changes the nature of use. An individual may use something in the same way as a corporation or in a different way.
A corporation may use an unscrupulous contractor to dump harmful materials in a town centre and cause death without any pangs of conscience. A corporation may use the law to prosecute families for file-sharing without ethical consideration. A corporation may use music in its business without respect for the musician. An individual could use things in the same way, but an individual has only one life, and their liberty and reputation to lose. An immortal corporation has no such concerns, it exists to profit at all costs.
It is the nature of the user we should be concerned about, not specifically the use to which something it put. The individual has natural rights and must respect those of others. The corporation is a legal entity obliged to maximise its share price, with a few token regulations intended to protect society from its mercenary and sociopathic tendency.
I wouldn’t worry about corporations being free to play your music. I’d worry about them being able to prosecute you for infringing their copyrights.
November 2nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Crosbie,
Are you concerned if a corporation uses my music without paying me?
November 2nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
bill,
What kind of world is it that you live in where all artists are the class enemy?
Did you see my response to Jon @ 53? As people live longer, the copyright extension will give them an opportunity to exploit their work, perhaps for the first time since they originally recorded it in the 1960s. These people are mostly pensioners who have worked all their lives in other professions. The net will give them the chance to market their own material.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Billy, I’m concerned that every individual is free to use, share, and build upon published works (whether for love or money), and without tax or other obligatory payment. I am not so concerned about whether corporations need permission or not, nor whether they are taxed or obliged to pay for use of music. However, this is a slippery slope: one may allege that ISPs and telecommunication corporations profit from (their customers’) transmission of music, and thus that ISPs must pay for it. All that ends up doing is indirectly taxing individuals. Corporations will pass on their costs to their customers.
So, it’s quite unclear whether there’s economic or social benefit in obliging corporations to seek permission, or pay a royalty. Do you perceive a social detriment otherwise?
As yet I see little to be concerned about in corporations using, sharing, or buiding upon anyone’s music without permission from, or payment to, the musician, songwriter, composer, performer, production engineer, or anyone else involved (whether or not the music is involved in the corporation’s business) – assuming the corporation respects everyone’s natural rights of course.
What I would be concerned about is that if a corporation had agreed to pay you in exchange for your music, that they were held to that bargain and obliged to pay up promptly.
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
BB,
1. If you don’t have rights to your own material, why did you sign those away ? ” It was a standard contract ” is not an answer.
2. Were there no other alternatives to signing away your rights at the time ?
November 2nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
@billy
I’d like to at least try to reach some kind of consensus/compromise; I can tell you right now copyright extension is an idea that is going to go over like a lead zeppelin with the p2p crowd here. While the extension you mentioned may provide some benefit for some of the musicians the record companies have ignored, I think it’s a huge negative overall. As I stated before I think copyright duration should be reduced, not extended. As part of that on the day a work goes public domain the master tapes should go back to the musician(s) who made them. Right now a lot of those are locked down by the record companies, and extending copyright to 70 years is NOT going to help musicians who got screwed by their record deals who would not come under the use it or lose it clause as the record companies are still making money off their stuff. I would argue that a reduction in copyright duration would be BETTER for musicians who’s music has been locked down by the recording companies. Once it hit the public domain, the musicians get their master tapes back. Sure, being in public domain anyone could sell the material, but the musician could re-release the album as a new cd or digital download with value added content, like new interviews, commentary,and unreleased pictures. I think a lot of fans would be willing to pay money for something like that.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Crosbie,
“As yet I see little to be concerned about in corporations using, sharing, or building upon anyone’s music without permission from, or payment to, the musician, songwriter, composer, performer, production engineer, or anyone else involved”
Are you a troll for Clear Channel?
We’re trying to work out a new copyright system that excludes individuals but continues to allow artists to make money from commercial exploitation and you’re saying no – let the corporations have artists work for nothing.
In this brave new world you’re creating, the consumer gets whatever they want for free, the corporations get whatever they want for free and the artists? We’ll they can just go and sell t-shirts. And then you guys have the nerve to wonder why artists sign up to long term contracts that pay a pittance? The record companies are the only ones telling artists we’ll make sure you get paid.
If you want to defeat the government’s plans for disconnection, you are going to need the support of artists. In order to do that, you are going to have to meet us half way. Artists can be convinced of the need to support the individual’s right to copy and share files provided the file sharing community shows that it is willing to support the artists right to commercial exploitation.
Unless we can start to build that consensus – on this site – then the record labels will continue to dictate the terms of this debate.
And they will point to our failure as proof of their arguments.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Dredd,
I do own the rights to my own material.
The reason why artists sign their rights away are because they need investment to make their first record, to fund their touring and to be able to give up their day job. That last one is the clincher. If you have dreamed all your life of making a record, then it is very hard to think of the long term ramifications when signing a deal.
Unless you are one of those very lucky bands that has several majors chasing their signature, there is always the fear that the label will withdraw the offer if you start asking questions and you’ll be out in the cold again.
I was able to hold onto my rights by accepting less money, which was easy for me as I was solo and my first record cost nothing to make. Much harder for bands to do.
November 2nd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Monkey,
“I can tell you right now copyright extension is an idea that is going to go over like a lead zeppelin with the p2p crowd here”
But what are they going to do about it? Just because they can freely share files doesn’t mean they can dictate the terms of the copyright debate. If they want to intervene, they will have to build alliances and to do that, they need to bring something to the table. At the moment, they are just taking things away from artists – no royalties from radio, no more selling copies of recordings, no copyright extension.
November 2nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Sorry for cross-posting but it seems like here is all the action and I’d like to be heard. So gere we go:
I don’t see this discussion going anywhere helping us to solve the problems that are coming with going digital.
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.
TOP1
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 it’s 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 by 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!
TOP2
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 in this discussion 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.
TOP3
Whether filesharing should be legal or not, is good or bad, helps artists or helps trolls, 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 this decision. 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!
November 2nd, 2009 at 9:38 pm
@Billy
It’s a tough issue, and yeah, for change to happen there does need to be an alliance between the p2p crowd and the artists, as any change that cuts out middlemen is going to be fiercely opposed by the RIAA/MPAA MAFIAA groups. I tried to propose a compromise of reducing but not eliminating copyright, but that idea didn’t seem to go over well with either side. The problem, from the p2p side with copyright is you have the RIAA using it to sue old ladies, war veterans, deceased people, little kids, ect. You get NOTHING out of it(except bad publicity) as the artists in whose names the lawsuits are issued don’t even receive a cut of the settlement money.
I think maybe for a start one thing that both sides could push for is a law stating that musicians own the rights to their work, period. Contracts could be like book authors get, the record company gets exclusive rights to sell the artists works for an agreed apon time, say 5 years, the musicians retaining the song rights. Contract expires, the artists can either re-negotiate or sign with a different record company, taking their catalog with them.
As Jon points out, this site is still brand new, it’s going to take a little while for ideas from both sides to be tossed into the pot before anything can be worked out.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:19 am
Billy says “What kind of world is it that you live in where all artists are the class enemy?”
I don’t live in any such world. I wish you’d stop putting words in my mouth in order to avoid addressing my question. Yes I did see yor response to Jon at 53. So a 70 year copyright is going to help your friend? If a new copyright contains a use it or lose it clause the corps simply up the speed in which they digitize their catalog on anything and everything they feel would sell sufficiently enough to cover the cost of a digital transfer. Production costs are limited to licensing a file. Then where will your friend be? Out another 20 years of income. My enemy is not musicians. It is the concept of content ownership. I’m a little confused about what you mean by “I won’t betray my principles” as a defense for not budging.
Are your principles “If money is made, you must get paid?” Or is it “If money is made you must get paid for a lifetime?” Or is it “If money is made, you must get paid a lifetime plus social security?” Or is it “If money is made you must get paid for a lifetime plus social security plus added benefits for the estate if you die before the 70 year period has transpired?” I’m not sure which world YOU live in, but that doesn’t sound like the world most people live in. Content ownership has done irreperable damage to the vast majority of folks on planet earth. Which just happens to be the planet i live on. I suggested a system of content ownership that mandates that the public get back something for enduring a monopoly. If you don’t want to comment on the advantages or disadvantages of that, then I am simply wasting my breath and will withdraw from the discussion.
November 3rd, 2009 at 4:30 am
Billy, how many corporations have you noticed lobbying for copyright or patent abolition?
None.
They don’t lobby for it because it is the source of much of their income. Those who profit from monopolies in their own favour will lobby for their extension and enforcement, not the opposite.
If anyone can freely play your music how on earth do you think Clear Channel are going to make any money from playing it? Advertising?
Don’t forget, without copyright Clear Channel can’t prevent anyone taking their radio station and retransmitting it without adverts, and that of course works vice versa. Clear Channel want copyright because it helps them keep out their competition. They are also a cartel in any case, but to solve that you need antitrust law to assure a free market.
Why, instead of pursuing a means of enabling your audience to pay you, are you instead intent on preventing your music being played by corporations? Do you really think they won’t simply squeeze the musicians who charge off the airwaves?
You’ll probably find that the publishers making moves to charge radio stations royalties is simply a power play. It would still end up as payola with the labels continuing to bias selections for promotional purposes. It’s just that the labels need leverage against the growing power of Clear Channel. So, if you walked into Clear Channel’s head office and offered them an introductory discount on your standard broadcast royalty/license, you’d either need to have an amazing chart hit that would bring in tons of advertising, or they’d get back to you. But, before your eyes light up with dollar signs perhaps question how on earth you can get a chart hit if no-one can play your single without obtaining a license or paying you a royalty? Perhaps you’d make it free to everyone except Clear Channel and other broadcasters with significant revenue?
You appear simply to be admitting that you can’t stop your fans freely exchanging copies of your music, but that in all other respects copyright should remain in force so that publishing corporations still retain monopoly control against other corporations.
You know, I think that could be a good stepping stone to abolition. Copyright remains precisely as it is, except that all individuals are exempt from infringement and prosecution thereof (no individual may be subject to copyright litigation). NB That means that people selling DVDs at car boot sales are exempt (unless they are selling counterfeits rather than genuine/authorised or clearly unauthorised copies). Individuals would still remain liable for infractions of moral rights, e.g. misattribution, misrepresentation, etc.
You get what you want, the ability to control the use of your work by corporations. File-sharers, podcasters, re-mix artists, et al get what they want: exemption from prosecution (for infringement or circumvention of TPMs). And everyone gets to keep copyright (that they imagine they can exert against corporate exploitation of their work).
How about that Billy? Is that what you mean by compromise?
November 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 am
Crosbie,
That is what I mean, yes, and I appreciate your recognition that moving individuals out of the scope of copyright is a step in the right direction. That is what I want to achieve too. The remaining difference between us is where we draw that line.
Copyright was invented to protect creators from having their work exploited for profit by others without remuneration. Since then it has been extended to ridiculous lengths – not allowing people to copy music that they have bought and paid for etc. I am interested to see if, between us here, we can find a consensus that returns copyright to its original intent, so that it only comes into play when someone is using your creation to make money.
Can we fashion something that gives individuals the right to use, share, and build upon published works, but also places a statutory responsibility upon them to remunerate the originator if the work they have used, shared or built upon is used to make money?
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 am
Creative Commons License “Attribution-NonCommercial” does exactly that in line with our copyright: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
Any artist who want to go this route can to that right now…
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
bjoern,
I am aware of that, but CC doesn’t apply to the copyrights owned by the RIAA and that’s what we’re trying to liberate with a complete reforming of the international laws on copyright as they are currently applied.
November 3rd, 2009 at 11:56 am
Copyright wasn’t invented to prevent commercial exploitation. It consolidated existing requirements of the crown to control the press, and of the press (the Stationers’ Guild) to enforce their de facto monopolies. The idea that copyright was legislated to help authors avoid penury is revisionism, a fairy story to fool the proletariat. The fact that the privilege of copyright is attached to an original work is a logical necessity – it is just politically convenient to pretend this was contrived to reward the author. Copyright was always a privilege designed for the press, and unlike poor authors only the wealthy press were expected to enforce it against pirates.
So, there is nothing noble in copyright’s ‘original intent’.
As to giving individuals rights, try and bear in mind that one cannot give rights, one can only suspend rights in order to privilege others. Individuals started off with their right to liberty, the right to use, share and build upon the works in their legitimate possession. Copyright suspended that right in favour of the press, and it’s been extended, expanded and enhanced ever since.
I think it’s ridiculous to leave copyright in place such that it only constrains corporations, but that at least means that the individual’s cultural liberty is restored to them. Though the publishing corporations individuals might like to use remain constrained.
Copyright was an industrial privilege that didn’t have a significant practical impact upon the liberty of the individual for many years. If you’re interested in that ‘golden age’ when copyright only applied to the owners of presses, then make copyright a regulation of corporations only, and restore the individual’s natural rights by exempting them – completely.
I daresay you’ll find plenty of support from couch potatoes for a reformed copyright that permits them non-commercial sharing given they can’t conceive of paying to share or being paid to, but how about artists who’d like to be free once more to use, share, and build on published art and earn the custom of their audience for doing so without fear of prosecution?
It would be ironic if in your attempts to force those who used your art to cough up, that you ended up denying artists the means of being paid by their audience (unless they were wealthy enough to afford the lawyers to defend them against all publishers’ claims of infringement).
Do you really want to retain legislation that enables corporations to sue individuals if they receive a single penny in their artistic endeavours? Remember, they don’t need any evidence of infringement these days. They just need to make an accusation. And if you can’t afford to defend yourself you lose your Internet connection, pay a colossal fine, or go to jail. What line of reasoning persuades you that corporations need the power to sue individual artists for doing nothing more than engaging in natural, cultural exchange?
As I said, I have only economic arguments against reproduction monopolies being applied against corporations, so I wouldn’t lose too much sleep in seeing copyright reformed rather than abolished, if at least individuals were exempt from its constraint.
But no, no-one should be fined or subject to prosecution for being paid to play, sing, or remix one of your songs without your permission or without surrendering a share of their earnings to you. Instead of desiring the power to control who can sing your songs, or the power to take their money through force, why not invite them to pay you to write another song?
November 3rd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Also see Forget copyright. It’ll bury itself.
Cheers!
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I am aware of this, too. It’s even worse than just the RIAA. Almost all European collecting societies GEMA, PRS, SPPF, etc. with the exception of BUMA/STEMRA in Netherlands and KODA in Denmark prevent their members to work with CC.
And why? Beacuse of messed-up exclusive licenses that let artists sign away all their rights to the respective organisation.
Of course you can try to solve that top-down by reforming international law. Sounds to me pretty tough.
OR you try to solve that through some sort of grass-root approach where organizations like the FAC apply the collective power of their members to renegotiate those outdated exclusive license deals.
I belief that a reformation of copyright laws should happen/must happen from a normative perspective, but not to correct faulty business practices.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
To bring in the money perspective in again and to get this straight:
No law should give you the right to make money or to exclude others to make money. Making money has nothing to do with law. Law should merely create a socially feasible environment in which it is possible to enter into contractual agreements with each other to make money.
How you do that is a question of business models and NOT of law in my eyes. If I am an entrepreneur and have a great idea I cannot rely on my IP to make any profit. Often enough I cannot even protect that idea through patents. I can only make profit if I am better than my competition and if I come up with a business model that makes my customers pay me – deliberately!
Why should that be different with music?
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
bjoern
We are doing just that. But then the question arises, where do you apply that power? You have to look at what opportunities present themselves.
I am attending a meeting tomorrow at the Intellectual Property Office in London to discuss the EU plan to extend copyright with other groups representing performers. We believe that we can use this legislation to get rights back from the labels through the ‘use it or lose it’ clause. We are campaigning for artists to get the right to distribute and sell their own material after 35 years.
Ultimately, if we want to lift individual users out of the scope of copyright law then this will need legislation, but we will be working on a number of different tactics to bring about this change. In fact, that is why I am here, to find out if it is possible to build an alliance with p2p users on this issue because we believe that our case would be much stronger if we had consumers on our side against the labels.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
@Billy
Yes, and I am happy to see that someone is taking on this task. It’s not an easy on so be assured that I certainly appreciate what you guys are doing.
November 3rd, 2009 at 2:40 pm
It’s not. We have contractual agreements under which the radio stations use our music. IP law has broken down over p2p, but not for radio stations. Some people here think that just because the former has happened, then the latter should follow.
November 3rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
@Billy
I’m with Bill from his #77 post. The record companies are like a mythical, bloated dragon sitting on a hoard of loot. Even though the dragon has no intention of spending any of it, he’s not going to let even a penny of it go. Same with the record companies, either they will digitize everything as Bill mentioned, or not too far down the road they will get the law revised to remove the use it or lose it clause. As long as the RIAA owns most of the rights to artists music any extension of copyright is a very bad idea.
November 3rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Monkey,
The game plan is to use the occasion of the extension legislation to win artists rights back so that they can exploit them for their own benefit for the remainder of the extension. However, that idea is rather undermined by those who argue that there should be no copyright at all.
In terms of what we are trying to achieve here, it is not enough to say that copyright extension is a bad idea as long as the RIAA owns most of the rights. Artists need to hear you say that the extension is a good idea if artists own their rights.
November 3rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Billy, if you exempt individuals, you can make copyright perpetual for all it matters.
Copyright will not last another decade anyway.
The important thing is to stop people being persecuted for sharing or building upon their own culture today (whether they are paid or not), and to start helping their audiences pay them to do so.
November 4th, 2009 at 11:41 am
That’s a nice gameplan. However, since, as Monkey said, as long as the Labels hold all the rights, what makes you think for one second you can convince them to give them back to the artist that signed them away in the first place ? The goodenss of their heart ? Do you honestly expect, with all of the money they spend on governments worldwide, that anyone can get a law that forces them to give them back ? That’s dreaming.
It might be, but since most of the artists DON’T in fact, own their own copyrights, saying so is meaningless and supporting extended rights as said before only serves the labels.Besides, how can you ‘win back your rights’ , that you CONTRACTUALLY AGREED TO SIGN AWAY, if you can’t even stand up to them against legislation you know is wrong ?No, I don’t see any way of breaking the lable hold except by making certain newer artists never sign in the first place, and keeping the internet open, which is something unfortunately the artists fear with NO VALID REASON.The artists are here to find out that we want to pay THEM, not the labels. We have told you that is true, and there is factual and statistical proof to that effect.IT will not happen while the labels pull you around by a leash, and if you allow bad legislature to force the same choice on future artists, then the labels will always hold sway,and as long as you support legislation that criminalizes those who PAY FOR YOUR STUFF you wont get support.Someones has to break the circle, but fans don’t have a big lobby with lots of cash. The artists themselves are the only ones that can break this cycle, but it doesn’t look like they’re inclined to do it either.
November 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
@Billy
I would not have a beef with copyright extension either, if individuals were exempted from it. I think what we may be arguing about is what comes first, and I think an exemption for individuals needs to preceded any extension of it. Unfortunately from reading the post “3 strikes and you’re gone, world-wide” it looks like things are getting worse, not improving. Does ANYONE here think kicking people off the net is going to improve music sales?
November 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Dredd,
It’s not dreaming. I was at a meeting today where we discussed with civil servants how artists can get their rights back and how to pass laws that stop new artists signing life of copyright deals.
The meeting was at the Intellectual Property Office in London where along with representatives from other groups representing the interests of performers, we were discussing with civil servants what to do regarding the EU term extension legislation currently before the Council of Ministers in the European Union (for our foreign friends – all copyright legislation in Europe happens at EU level).
The legislation passed by the EU parliament in the last session extends the current 50 year period of copyright to 70 years. It contains a ‘use it or lose it’ clause, which gives artists their rights back after 50 years if their work is not available for purchase. The FAC are now campaigning to have that period reduced to 35 years.
We also discussed how it might be helpful to artists to restrict copyright to short term licences rather than assignment for life of copyright.
A senior civil servant stated that the focus of copyright was moving from permission to remuneration. Talking afterwards we all felt that was very significant, a tacit acceptance of the FAC argument that non-commercial behaviour needs to be lifted out of copyright law.
We are working to break the cycle, Dredd, but we could use some support from the file-sharing community – particularly in the big fight that we will have next month when the government publish their Digital Britain Bill, about which I’ll write a post later.
This is why copyright is such an important issue here – despite Jon’s thoughtful post yesterday. It is the stick that they use to beat you and I believe that, as it is being debated at the highest level over the next six months, as governments ask for submissions on the subject, we can work together to disarm the industry to such an extent that they can no longer beat you up over non-commercial use.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Billy, you’re missing the elephant.
Artists and their fans must not be subject to litigation or prosecution TODAY!
This is not something that can continue to be tolerated.
Artists and their fans must not be subject to litigation for any reason – whether they have copied or performed a published work, or whether they have been paid by their fans to do so.
We are all supposed to be here to enable artists to be paid by their fans, and fans and artists to have a harmonious relationship that doesn’t depend upon a legal threat or a compulsory levy.
You appear to be here to persuade us that artists and fans should be prosecuted if money is involved, but can be forgiven if they remain unpaid.
You’ve clearly got the wrong end of the stick – the end that perpetuates the publishing corporations’ use of unethical litigation against artists and fans alike, and the end that denies the liberty of artists to exchange the fruits of their labour with the money of their fans in a free market.
If you and your fellow artists fear exploitation by publishing corporations, and feel that copyright prevents that, then pursue copyright that can only prosecute corporations, not individual artists or their fans.
Please don’t pursue the creation of a non-commercial ghetto, where people can run radio stations, produce remixes, or sing covers, but only if they remain unpaid. You’re very much mistaken if you believe artists the world over will accept that the only way they can be paid by their fans is by being signed to a publisher that takes a 99% cut (if they’re lucky).
It also seems you’re more in pursuit of privileges (that you fail to realise are impotent in all except publishers’ hands) than their undoing and the restoration of the liberty they suspend.
If you truly want to stop the publishing corporations beating up individual artists and their fans, then you should understand that the smallest step that can be taken to do that is to exempt individuals from prosecution for copyright infringement.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Crosbie,
To paraphrase Dredd, that’s a nice gameplan. However, since, as Monkey said, as long as the Labels hold all the rights, what makes you think for one second you can convince them to give up copyright altogether ? The goodness of their heart ? Do you honestly expect, with all of the money they spend on governments worldwide, that anyone can force them to just abandon the concept of intellectual property? That’s dreaming.
You make sweeping statements like this:
“Artists and their fans must not be subject to litigation or prosecution TODAY!
This is not something that can continue to be tolerated.”
Yet you have no viable method of implementing such a policy. Get real.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
” Yet you have no viable method of implementing such a policy. Get real. ”
You might.
Refuse to go along with them when they want you to ‘endorse’ a practice that will create even more litigation.
That might be a nice start.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
At the very least, even if you can’t stop them, you will at least be showing everyone that BUYS your stuff that it really is NOT in the name of you or your ‘fac’ that this is being done. That would be a nice show of good faith.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
A ‘nice start’? A ‘nice show of good faith’?
Okay. Say I refuse to go along with them. What changes? Does the term extension go through? Yes, with no reversions for artists after 35 years. Do the labels get the right to cut people off for file-sharing? Yes they do, with the presumed support of the artistic community. Does Crosbie’s libertarian utopia come any closer, not it doesn’t.
So who gains from my nice gesture? Me. I get to feel smug because I am utterly untainted by any compromise and everyone else who might have been helped by my engagement can fuck off.
Nice.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Billy, I’m not trying to represent a constituency, I’m trying to help everyone understand what’s happening. I’m trying to help you understand what’s happening.
p2pnet and its community aren’t representatives of an association. They are members of the public particularly interested in technology that liberates people from anachronistic constraints of the 18th century, and particularly interested in its enablement of greater cultural exchange. They are also interested in ameliorating the depredations of corporations struggling to preserve an anachronistic and dying business model.
This isn’t catholics vs protestants, or peasants vs aristocrats. It’s the natural law of the people vs the unnatural law of the corporation.
So, all I’m doing is trying to help you understand human nature. Whereas you are acting as a corporate appeaser hoping to bargain with their enemy in order to win paltry concessions.
Do you think people will continue to tolerate persecution by publishing corporations? Even if they are only prosecuted if they try and earn a living?
Which do you think the masses will opt for? The restoration of their liberty, or the continuation of the privilege that enables the corporations to persecute them?
I think you’ll find the liberty of the many surpasses the privilege of the few.
Then consider whether ACTA is an act of a vainglorious conqueror or the last, desperate command of king Canute?
While the corporations gradually realise that with each tightening of their grip they loosen their hold, the best thing we can do is to repair the artist-fan relationship and help artists and fans exchange their art for money.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
And how do they intend to achieve this?
November 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
And so, by going along with them, here’s what else you will gain. The emnity of the fans , the cutomers, that both you and the corporations rely on. Without OUR money, none of you would have anything to complain about dividing up, since the only way to divide zero is zero. The only thing they will see is an artists coalition that goes along with attacking fans, and moe and more will stop buying. No legislation will stop it. Keep escalating and the sharing, which right now has no impact on sales will become the civil disobdience of the century. And no, the labels do NOT have the right to cut people off for filesharing, especially without due process. Even if they get it, it won’t matter. The labels are too stupid to see it. It would be nice if the artists were smart enough to realize it. So, if you are willing to sell the right to attack fans for not for profit sharing, without due process, for ‘term extensions’., more power to ya. I hope you get it at the expense of the fans. I hope the labels get every law they want. The reaction will be spectacular.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
” Without OUR money, none of you would have anything to complain about dividing up, since the only way to divide zero is zero. ”
Aaaahhh, THAT explains why the only ’system’ that the labels find acceptable is a levy. With a levy, even if everyone on the planet stopped buying label product, they are guaranteed cash for life. No wonder no other system is good enough.
November 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Liberty comes naturally to people.
Learning through copying is what humans have evolved to excel at.
Mankind is a master at understanding his environment through the collaborative exchange of ideas.
This is what the p2pnet community is effectively developing, an understanding that it can share with others to help everyone understand why cultural exchange (aka file sharing) is good, and laws against it are bad. This helps artists and their fans shift their paradigms from the 18th century “controlled distribution+sale of copies” to the 21st century “free distribution+sale of art”.
The more people who come to understand, the better, and thus the sooner people cease being persecuted for sharing or building upon their own culture.
November 5th, 2009 at 3:14 am
Getting back the rights you guys signed away is one thing. (And BTW 35 year does not really knock me off the feet but feels like a lame joke! Sorry, but this is 2009 – time is moving fast…)
Another increadibly important appraoch is to make sure that today’s and tomorrows artists do not sign away there rights in exclusive deals. Not to collecting societies, not to labels! I’d love to see you guys fixing your own ecosystem which is messed-up with completely outdated licensing agreements and contractual framworks.
Making sure that artists retain control over their work and educating them about what the new media, P2P, THEIR FANS, this whole connected world can to for them would be a straight way forward.
Fixing old mistakes is one thing. Shaping the future another.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:33 am
Wrong, Dredd,
What they will see is an artists coalition campaigning to have individual file-sharers lifted out of the scope of copyright law, because, whether you work with us or not, that is what we are committed to doing, a commitment implicit in our slogan ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’.
Liberty is going to come naturally is it? People are just going to come to an understanding and all the persecution is going to stop? Crosbie, you really have no idea how to implement your ideas, do you? FAC are actively campaigning to change the copyright laws to exclude file-sharing. What action are you taking to make the persecution stop, other than posting another empty declaration in cyberspace?
bjoern,
You can’t shape the future unless you are prepared to work with those who can help you to achieve your goals. That is what I was doing yesterday at the IPO.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:38 am
People simply cannot ’sign away their rights’ because (natural) rights are inalienable. The privileges (aka legal rights) are certainly transferable, but they represent suspensions of the people’s rights. And they do not start off as imbued in the author as if a natural right, but attached to their original work – prior to its printing by the publisher they assign the monopoly to.
It’s a terrible situation when our language has become so corrupted by the corporations’ lawyers and their warping of ‘privilege’ into ‘right’, that people are comfortable with the idea of signing their rights away.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:25 am
Billy, I’ve not been proposing ideas to be implemented, but elucidating the principles to help you understand that it is not the labels who are in power, but the people. I’m trying to help you realise that this is not a matter to be resolved by negotiating with publishers or legislators.
It’s time artists realised the privilege to prevent copying wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on, and let the publishers continue to kid themselves they were in complete control of cultural exchange.
Artists must rediscover their audience, their fans, stop treating them as the enemy and start negotiating with them, resume selling their art to them – instead of to the publishers that abuse both.
As I’ve pointed out before, FAC is in a good position to make that shift, away from appeasing labels, and back toward a kinder relationship with their fans.
I’m not here for power, nor to negotiate it. I’m here to help you understand.
I’m here to help you understand that artists will share your songs, sing them, remix them, and get paid by their fans for doing so, whether you like it or not.
That may offend your copyright inculcated notions of being able to control the public’s use of your music (on threat of prosecution and extreme penalty). It may also conflict with your aspiration of charging anyone who is paid in the process of singing your songs.
But, you need to confront the reality that you can’t do anything about it. Even the might of governments and publishing corporations can’t, so you certainly can’t nor can FAC. It has now got to the point that a global cabal must conspire in a final attempt to subjugate the people, i.e. ACTA. So, this is truly a tide of the liberated versus a sandcastle of the privileged.
So, stop pissing about petitioning for sanctuary at the sandcastle’s ramparts. Your salvation and solution lies without.
You’ve got to learn to swim. To go with the flow. Don’t fight it, embrace it.
If you make friends with your fans they will buoy you up. If you fight them you will drown without a trace.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:08 am
” What they will see is an artists coalition campaigning to have individual file-sharers lifted out of the scope of copyright law, because, whether you work with us or not, that is what we are committed to doing, a commitment implicit in our slogan ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’. ”
Riiight.
Backing a three strikes law really shows the fans you are behind them. But you are correct. The three strikes proposal takes them outside of the scope of the law, that’s for sure. Fans reading your FAC see you voting for a three strikes proposal,the same way that I say ‘reasonable’ and you see thief.
” ou can’t shape the future unless you are prepared to work with those who can help you to achieve your goals. That is what I was doing yesterday at the IPO. ”
So, either we are in 100 percent agreement with you, or we don’t support you ?. Funny that’s exactly the thing DA was talking about, that you say you’re not doing. Once again, I support the reasonable aspects ( 35 year term, reasonable royalties etc .. ), but since I think backing a 3 strikes bill against fans is bullshit, therefore ‘I don’t support you’. As soon as the first few people get cut off of the net without due process, and with no legal recourse ( that they can afford ) the victims will be looking not at the RIAA, but the artists that supported it. That’s an opinion, but before you simply dismiss it, keep in mind fan reactions to the FAC people that called filesharers thievs, and openly backed the bullshit. Get what you want.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:17 am
What do you think I’m doing here Crosbie? I’m negotiating with fans. Before we can be expected to stop signing up with publishers, we need to see that there is a viable career path for us outside of the industry. Your vision of artistic liberty is just too flimsy to convince. Instead of getting artists to embrace the potential that the internet offers, you are scaring them into the clutches of the publishers.
I’m interested in doing more than just making friends with my fans – I’m working to stop them being persecuted for sharing files. Are you interested in doing that?
If so, what practical methods do you recommend?
November 5th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Sorry, did you see me say that I will be backing the three strikes law? As I have said before, I do not believe that there can be any technical solution to the problems that artists face as a result of filesharing.
As you know from our discussions elsewhere, Dredd, the vote in favour of bandwidth throttling was not done under auspices of the FAC. When we come to give evidence to the Digital Britain Committee, the FAC will be arguing in favour of making file sharing legal by reforming the copyright law to only cover commercial use. That is what we are prepared to do in support of the p2p community.
If you don’t feel that you can support that position, I respect that. However, your opposition will send a message to artists which gives weight to the lies that the record labels pedal about p2p users.
November 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
I’d say the most important people in that industry are the artists and their fans. I understood the purpose of the FAC to give a voice to one half of that group – the artists – as a reaction to our “new” world. Today we are able right now to cut out some of the middlemen within this industry (somewhat the topic of this forum).
The ones who can help you as an artist to achieve your goals are your fans. They always were. Just like the only stakeholders that can make a company achieve its goals are its customers. The only way to sustainably achieve your goals is to help your customers achieving their goals. Logistics, marketing, productions are all just means to an end – to achieve your cutsomers goals.
November 5th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Billy, I didn’t mean ‘negotiate with’ fans in terms of persuading them to lie back and think of England while the labels continued sucking at their necks and their lawyers refrained from shafting them too brutally, but negotiate with fans in the sense of doing business with them directly, just as artists have traditionally negotiated with publishers.
We’ve established that artists can negotiate and sell their art to publishers, so why the flip can’t they start doing that with their fans? At least the artist/fan relationship is a loving one, unlike artists’ indentured prostitution of themselves to publishers.
I suspect you’re still too wedded to the power of control as a way to collect money. That is the way of the publishing corporation, not the way of the artist.
Practical methods to recommend?
Create an artists’ association that disavows use of copyright, that neutralises all copyright that may arise in their work (copyleft). Compare with the Free Software Foundation.
Could FAC do that?
Stopping labels from persecuting people is really a matter for politicians. I’d leave that to the Pirate Party, though they need to recognise that individuals must be completely exempt from copyright, not just so long as no money changes hands, but they’ll get there eventually.
Career prospects?
Foster the development of revenue mechanisms to enable fans to pay artists to produce their art.
All these things are happening anyway.
However, the more people that understand, the faster things happen, the sooner pirates stop being keel hauled, and the sooner they are recognised for the fundamentally innocent fans and artists that they are.
If we can help you understand, then you can help other artists at FAC understand: your fortunes have always been at the pleasure of your fans. That’s your past, your present, and your future. Publishers selling copies is just a blip, a business that has ended. Get over it. Go to your fans, give them back their liberty and a good bargain to boot – they’ll respect you and repay you.
November 5th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
” If you don’t feel that you can support that position, I respect that. However, your opposition will send a message to artists which gives weight to the lies that the record labels pedal about p2p users.”
I can’t support the position of throttling or 3 strikes, which your FAC voted in favor of. If my opposition to this one particular aspect means that I therefore am 100% against artists, that gives lie to the artist position that they are in fact looking to smooth things over with the fans. Voting for tech solutions that won’t work also give lie to the artists position. You see, once again you have taken 2 key positions that I oppose, and use it to suggest that I am 100% against you, therefore a ‘liar’. Is that how it’s going to go with everyone on the artists side ? Disagree with one or two key points and suddenly we’re the liars and thieves the labels say we are ? You are sending a message to fans as well. So far you are negotiating with the labels for what YOU wan’t, the labels are going for what THEY want, and concessions are being made that will go after the FANS. Who is representing them ? Who is going to be willing to represent them if they are considered crooks and liars because they are not 100% with your position ?
The ‘Your either with us or against us’ principal will get no one anywhere. As long as the biggest players get what they’re after though .. it’s ok, right ?
November 5th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Dredd,
I never suggested you are a liar. That is unfair. Nor have I used the Bush maxim of ‘you’re either with us or you’re against us’.
I wasn’t referring to 3 strikes when I said if you can’t support our position. I was talking about our campaign to lift file-sharing out of the remit of copyright law under our slogan ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’
That’s what I’m asking you to support. Not 3 strikes.
Here’s where I perceive the middle ground to be between our two communities lies. We campaign to get you exempted from copyright law and you support us in our fight to get paid for commercial use. John from PPUK says that ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’ is very close to their current policy. I believe that we can build a double edged campaign around that.
November 5th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
It would be ironic to see file-sharers joining in a label sponsored campaign to have artists, who finally managed to get paid by their fans, sued for copyright infringement.
Something tells me the labels have caught wind of artists getting paid directly by their fans and are desperate to make any bargain to prevent THAT happening.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
” Something tells me the labels have caught wind of artists getting paid directly by their fans and are desperate to make any bargain to prevent THAT happening.”
Sì.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
There is a much discussed game plan which calls upon artists to start selling their own material while still in copyright, forcing the labels to sue us, thus revealing in open court the pernicious terms of the contracts we are forced to sign.
We just need to find willing artists who are brave enough and big enough.
November 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Billy, COPYRIGHT is pernicious.
Artists are going to have to relinquish copyright and ignore the copyright of others. Sooner or later. File sharers are simply the pioneers (unlucky martyrs among them).
All published art belongs to the people. It is only their credulity in copyright that paralyses them from taking possession. As soon as a groundswell of artists say “Ok everyone. That’s it. We relinquish copyright. Published culture now belongs to the people.” then the people will accept that as final and complete permission. Copyright will then be a means of corporation tormenting corporation, until the corporations also see its futility.
However, prior to that, as you suggest, artists need to see that they can be paid by their audiences directly, without going via labels, without the threat of copyright, without a tax.
November 5th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Oh, I see – it’s inevitable! Well, that’s handy for you, isn’t it? You don’t have to do anything, just wait till everyone else sees the wisdom of your argument.
Meanwhile, the Big 4 persecute more and more individuals for file-sharing. Do you have anything to offer them other than rhetoric?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
@Billy
Nice. Do that thing, very useful step along the road and I think that the Pirate contigent will be very happy to support that initiative. Certainly I will personally support and speak in favour of Billy’s proposal.
Not the disavowed bandwidth throttling, of course, the limitation of copyright to only cover commercial use.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Billy, if artists such as you stopped thinking your salvation lay in negotiating with labels to get your copyrights back, and started confronting your imminent future without either of them, then you might just consider demonstrating to the rest of the world that it’s possible for artists to be paid by their fans (without either labels or copyright).
When people then see that copyright is redundant as well as ineffective and unethical, then they might realise how stupid and cruel it was to keep on punishing people for engaging in cultural exchange.
a2f2a is all about this opportunity YOU have, through your willingness to be enlightened by the writing that p2pnet has been exhibiting on its wall for several years.
This is not the opportunity to join forces to bring the labels under control, or to inveigle support from file-sharers in order to win concessions. This is the opportunity to disintermediate the labels. The fans are ready and waiting. All we need are the artists.
It’s going to happen with or without you, but it’d be faster with.
Before it can happen, you have to understand. And that understanding isn’t going to happen overnight, but that’s fine, these paradigm shifts take time.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
I don’t expect anybody here to support any kind of three strikes sanctions. That’s not the compromise we are seeking. We want support for a policy that would move file-sharers out of the range of three strikes type sanctions – the limitation of copyright to only cover commercial use, as expressed in the slogan ‘where money is made, artists must get paid’.
November 5th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
This is what the Marxists used to tell me. Funny, I don’t hear from them anymore.
November 6th, 2009 at 3:21 am
Well, Billy, concepts of natural rights, liberty, and the free market have been around a tad longer than Marxism.
You’re looking at three possible futures:
1) The monopolies of copyright and patent, extended and enforced through ever more draconian measures.
2) A communist, centrally planned resourcing of music and other art, from taxation.
3) A free market: artists and their fans exchanging their art and money of their own free will.
It is a refusal to consider and explore the last option that encourages the others. And bear in mind that no publisher will do so as it necessarily disintermediates them.
November 6th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Yes, but isn’t it funny that you both believed that your ultimate victory was inevitable.
November 6th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Billy, as I’ve already tried to make clear. I’m not here for power or victory. I’m trying to help you understand why king Canute cannot hold back the tide, just as I’ve tried to help you understand why you cannot sell snow to Sámi.
I am not forbidding you, nor am I leading an army to overthrow you. I am helping you understand that the labels are not your parents who love and feed you, but vampires who suck virtually all the creative juice from you with nothing in return except the hunger to continue, to win that rare prize of their favour if you do well. And by day they harvest the revenue from the cattle they consider your fans to be.
You’re still in thrall to your Nosferatu, and have been persuaded by him that I’m leading a mob of pitchfork wielding peasants to take you from his care to throw you in an oubliette to starve.
Bit of a nightmare there isn’t it?
You still believe your fans are a vicious mob out to get you rather than an audience of admirers trying to rescue you.
The paradigm shift between those perspectives is scary – from either side. From your perspective I am a crazy cult leader trying to brainwash you and steal you away into slavery. From my perspective I’m trying to help you deprogram yourself from the cult that you surrender your earnings to, that you fight for despite the litigious persecution it engages in against your fans.
It seems you’ve already an inkling that perhaps it’s not all rosy where you are, that perhaps the fans might be safe to talk to.
Small steps…
November 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Yeah, that’s why I am engaged in a campiagn to get the RIAA of their asses by lifting them out of the scope of copyright.
Crosbie, I don’t think you’re a crazy cult leader, I think your a libertarian who enjoys grandstanding.