I remain unconvinced that this is something that should be handled in the realm of copyright when the issue is one of musicians not wanting to look like they endorse a political candidate or party.
... for a predetermined length of time. I don't understand why you are so intent on treating me like a fucking idiot. The people who initially determined copyright term believed that 14 years was the optimal balance. You believe otherwise. I prefer not to change something carefully considered because some guy on the Internet says so, in the absence of a more compelling reason than "I said so."
The converse to that is that the total dismantling of copyright or drastic copyright reform which reduces the ownership rights length down to a low single-digit percentage (or, in Nick's case, fraction of a percent) of what they are now would be more convincing if it wasn't being coupled with the argument that artists have more control now over their own fates and the fates of their product than ever before. If an artist doesn't need to sell ownership rights away - to not control the rights of their music in exchange for large short term gain - due to the market changing existing creation and distribution mechanisms within the existing copyright framework and industry then the argument that copyright is doing far more harm than good to individual artists is equally as unconvincing. The current discussion is about nothing more than easing consumer access to copyrighted works. Everything else has, at least inmy eyes, been outed as a red herring. Lizard_King's excellent post above summed what the issue really is, but I, like many, see a world without copyright or a world with extremely curtailed ownership rights benefiting only corporations at the expense of artist and consumer alike. Yes, the short term gain is that the consumer can buy any song from any outlet they want, likely without any compensation going to the artist and all going to the distributor. Sure, cry me a river, that isn't much different than it is now, as we all know artists are getting fucked. This future techno-utopian answer to what so many view as an old media problem is simplifying what is a human and a business problem, though. Fracturing the distribution chain into however many pieces, restricted only by the investment required to setup the server farm? Again, you think artists and consumers have it bad now, wait and see. It's really easy to say that doing away with this or reforming this will fix that or the market will force change or so on, but artists aren't normal people and will take exception to the idea that their creation isn't their own or that they have a severely limited time to benefit from it, the business of scouting and developing talent and distributing that talent isn't modelable by normal economics (breaking Aeon's heart), labels being run by accountants IS what has led to the industry's current problems, and I really don't know what to say to anyone who thinks that an artist should constantly fresh, exciting works to capitalize on the popularity of past success when they said, in the very same post, that popularity is determined basically by whim and image rather than by quality or objective criticism. Some artists get one shot. Sometimes that shot comes years after you'd think it would. I'd continue, but this thread seems a lot more testy and full of cliches than the last one. Sorry if i added to any of that.
That is the means, yes. Not the end. The simple equation is that in order to have a creative class they need to be able to find ways to live off their creativity. Granting them control over their creations is one way to achieve that, but by no means the only one.
Of those nine stories, three of them involve an artist suing somebody to stop their music from being used against their wishes. Those artists are Tom Petty, Jackson Browne, and David Byrne, which makes them hardly average musicians and therefore not a grand disproof of Kalle's point. Additionally, several of those stories are about a record company suing to stop music that it owns from being used without them getting a cut, which seems to actually help make Kalle's point. This is an important point I think, especially since some people are so quick to dismiss proponents of less extensive copyright as just wanting more free stuff. We stand to lose a lot as a society by restricting things this way, and I have a hard time getting too exercised about the idea of an artist being upset about one of their old songs being used in service of some cause or company that they don't support.
I don't understand why you're giving so much credit for thinking things through carefully to people who designed a system - 200+ years ago - that predates most of the technology and types of content we apply it to now. Hell even lifespans were shorter back then. There's no reason in particular to believe that the 14+14 year regime was "carefully considered" or that it has any particular relevance to how things work today. Perhaps the goal of copyright law has changed; it does not logically follow that it has therefore changed for the worse.
Bryce, I would argue that the current state of copyright law, architected as it is by Disney et al, is an aberration, and that it is what requires justification, not the previously accepted norm.
I think my POV should be pretty clear, actually; I want the interest of the content creator to be protected above all else.
I am for copyright reform. My minimum starts at ten; fourteen seems to be a good common minimum, however. Copyright within the United States was extended to 28+14 within 40 years of our constitution being written, though, so I would argue that copyright is an evolving concept, with numerous pieces of legislation and court decisions lengthening it and shortening it. I am for reform. Again, please note that: I am for reform. I hope you are not assuming otherwise, as I have made it explicitly clear that I am not a fan of the current regime and that I am in favor of reasonable reform. I am unsure how you arrived where you did from my post, however, as I was not seeking justification for either.
This is so vague as to be meaningless. The issue is to what extent the content creator should be "protected," as you put it, already an extremely loaded term. "14 years" "protects" the content creator. So does "1 year." So does "forever." Let's say 30 years? That is more than double the original term, to account for increases in lifespan and ease of distribution.
Yeah I agree that 'reasonable' reform is fine. I think 70 years past the death of the creator is pretty silly, although I don't really give 2 shits if Disney ever loses copyright on their movies. The types of media where it helps are other ones, like plays or musicals for example, which become performable by schools etc. without licensing issues. I just can't find any regime that takes the rights away from the creator during his lifetime and hands them out to, say, Penguin Books to make money off of his work, "reasonable".
Which seems to me to be you saying you want it to be protected at the expense of all else. The public expense. My expense. As the guy who gets to pay copyright organisations for music I've never listened to and films I've never seen your argument holds remarkably little weight with me. The content creator is being granted a privilege by society. Society gets to demand some concessions in return.
Words are slippery. You say take away and hand out like he's lost something, whereas other may say that his works enter the public domain for all to benefit from. Including him. Sure Penguin can sell them (and a local school can do a play for free), but he can also sell it - and there's no reason his shouldn't be the preferred version. And sure, for some minority of authors/artists who are so popular that their works continue to sell for years and years, they might now make less than they did under the old method... or they may have to work more to make the same as before. But for most the difference will be negligible, but the benefit to society bigger.
You expect an individual author, say, to be able to compete on price with a big company that can mass produce cheap books (or can pay for massive digital distribution systems)? You have a remarkably optimistic view of how things will go.
Sure, man. That's more than fine with me, with one caveat, which I'll get to in a minute. I go back and forth on what I think an acceptable length would be - sometimes I think 10 would be great, other times I think that, no, lifetime is where it is at. The former is mainly due to the fact that, like many musicians, I view music as a public good. Yes, I create it out of a need, but I share it out of that very same need. The sooner everyone can enjoy my music - well, maybe not mine, eh? - the better. The latter is mainly due to there being some mentally ill musicians or their families that do draw decent royalty checks long after that careers have ended. I am well aware how selfish that reasoning is, but I hope that you can sympathize with that line of thinking. I would say 30 years is reasonable. That's roughly half of a human's adult life span. So, going with that, I have one caveat: remasters or otherwise reworked editions (think the Pink Floyd set released late last year) released after that 30 year period are given a 10 year copyright of their own. Released before? Tough shit. After? Ten year copyright. I realize that has the potential for abuse, and might even prevent a small subset of artists from releasing remastered editions until after the 30 year mark, as any system is imperfect, but here's my thinking: your original work is still out of copyright and, therefore, public domain. That doesn't mean you just give away the masters; unless you were careless, you are probably one of only a handful of people in the world who possess them, if not less. So, you want to remaster them for a new format (Pink Floyd's collection)? Or take advantage of new technology to clean up the mix (Bowie's last Spiders show)? Do it and it is yours to profit off of for a set period of time. Then, we get it in the public domain, hopefully after you have recouped costs and, maybe!, made some money on top, too. Imperfect, but I believe it takes into consideration the realities of the record business (to clarify: the business of creating music for public consumption and every step between the two), artist's desires and the desire for the public to obtain works created long ago easily and at a cost (see: zero) that has been subsidized, hopefully, by the creator's popularity. And if the artist wasn't popular, their newfound public domain status might finally do it, and allow them to create a remastered release of their bedroom tapes to capitalize upon.
Well let me explain how I see it. The value of a give copyright is directly dependent on the package of rights that the copyright carries. A copyright that lasts 10 years is more valuable than a copyright that lasts 10 years, and a copyright that carries movie rights is more valuable than one that does not. That being the case, imagine two creators who create works that are equal in every way. One of the creators is 75 years old, and the other is 20 years old. If copyright is tied solely to the life of the creator, the value of the copyright in the work created by the 75-year-old is vastly less than the value of the copyright in the work created by the 20-year-old. That seems arbitrary to me: if two works are the same, the value of the copyright in them shouldn't dependent on something as irrelevant as the age of the creator. This is also reflected in proposals to shorten the term of copyright. The shorter the duration of copyright is, the less value is contained in a creator's copyright. If copyright was changed from life-time + 70 years to a term of say 30 years, that copyright is dramatically less valuable. This directly reduces the amount paid to content creators. Whatever the problems of the current copyright regime, I don't really think "paying creators too much" is one of them. Well, again the reason that most musicians don't control the rights to their music is that they sold those rights. If an artist is concerned about the use of his or her work, he or she can retain rights or just not sell the copyright at all. It's not the fault of the current copyright regime that artists voluntarily sell the rights to their works. If anything, that's a feature and not a bug. I also don't really agree that the sole purpose of copyright is to incentivize new work. As I understand it, copyright is now envisioned also as a tool to compensate artists for creating something of value. The creators produce works of value. That value can be exploited in various ways - through simple consumption, through inclusion in other works, through advertisement, and so on. To the extent that works are of value and are exploited by other people, it seems fair to me that the creator of the work be compensated in some way. Copyright fills this role. E: if what you guys are worried about are things like Dangermouse and sampling, I think that could easily be addressed through a mildly expanded "fair use" right. That would be a fairly simple change that would not require a shortening of copyright or a massive change in the knowledge industry.
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for. Under your proposed rules, could a label reissue the same album every ten years like clockwork, keeping them protected forever?
Patents have shorten protections than copyrights because the package of rights afforded to patent holders is much more expansive. Patents include a right to the idea itself, while copyright includes only a right to a particular expression of an idea. This is the fundamental difference between the two properties: patents are broad but short, while copyright is narrow but long.
You have a remarkably outdated view of how things will go. Do you envision the individual musician building music pipes to deliver his music content to his music customers? "Massive digital distribution systems", even under the current middleman-friendly regime, involve a cut, not a sunk cost. That can be tough, but I fail to see where setting back the clock to where companies would subsidize stars at tremendously profitable margins is an improvement. The goal should be to achieve a stable equilibrium rather than to recreate the ideal big company big star paradigm for every artist, because that second thing is not a reasonable standard no matter how precious your works are.
I thought I made it pretty clear, but apparently I did not. I apologize. In my caveat, the copyright on the original work(s) - as in, Pink Floyd's album DARK SIDE OF THE MOON and on individual songs such as "Time" - is expired. The works enter public domain and are free to consume, distribute, use in derivative works and so on as anyone sees fit, so long as they do not claim it is their own work. That is how public domain works currently and o see no reason to change it. Public domain and copyright also afford us the luxury of assigning copyrights when someone takes a unique piece of work and updates it - often-times, in publishing, this is simply adding illustrations or an introduction or a new cover. That new work is assigned a copyright, but the copyright holder is not considered the owner of the original work as it is still in public domain. That is how Penguin sells so many classic pieces of literature, but nobody sells their own ripped off version of Penguin's books, despite their all being public domain. So, keeping that in mind, Pink Floyd no longer possess the master rights to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON or "Time", as those have expired, but can have copyrights assigned to new works which are simply new versions of those public domain works. As Pink Floyd are the only ones in possession of the masters, or, most likely, only one of a few in possession, they are the only ones in a position to issue such new versions and therefore have the most to benefit from releasing new and quality works, for profit, that will eventually fall into public domain, just like the original works have. Now, one thing that is so often excluded from these discussions, and that I didn't bring up above because I didn't want to muddle my point, is the fact that having one owner of a work prevents people from releasing inferior versions of others works. Anyone who has ever attempted to navigate the multiple releases of a public domain artist, only to find numerous "re-issues" of "re-mastered" songs which were obviously just EQ tweaked stereo files instead of true multi-track re-masters, can attest to this. Public domain is rife with abuse at the hand's of unscrupulous people that make music industry executives look like saints. That is only meant to illustrate that the task facing all of us - consumers, artists, the industry, the government, licensors, etc - is monumental. Unlike anything that has ever been undertaken in the retail/consumer sphere, perhaps.
The market can, should, and probably does take care of this. If it doesn't, BRB, starting my one-stop-shop for top-notch versions of all public domain materials.
It really doesn't. The entertainment consuming public really are not as discerning as a message board full of loveable gaming geeks might skew the statistics to have you believe. (I do say that with all the love in my heart.) Ease of consumption/acquisition, again, as illustrated by Lizard_King's post above, ranks higher than most anything for most consumers. Now, I doubt any of us would continue using a service if we discovered they were butchering our favorite Rush albums, or, in my case, if I discovered they sold Rush at all (kidding!), but your average music or film consuming person isn't going to be able to tell when they're being ripped off... and that IS a problem! Starting your own online service would probably be a good idea, though. Even iTunes gets it wrong sometimes and they get all of their info/files directly from the labels/artists/publishers/distributors/whoever claims to hold the rights.
The subsidizing is important to the process of actually getting music out to a large audience, however. Don't get me wrong, I'm no huge fan of record companies, but they do provide a number of things that most musicians can't afford on their own: Marketing: whether this takes the form of advertising, getting songs prominently listed on the front screen of the iTunes store, getting radio airplay, getting the band onto soundtrack albums, paying for the production of videos. Up-front coverage of recording costs: studio time, cost of session musicians, paying the cover art artist, dealing with the legal aspects of any cover songs. Paying for the cost of distribution, CD manufacturing, etc. This is less important as everything goes to downloadable formats, granted. Underwriting tour costs. Touring is usually profitable for everyone concerned, and doesn't necessarily involve the label, but the label often gets the ball rolling on this stuff, as nobody else involved has any money at the beginning. Now I'm by no means saying that it is impossible for a band to get off the ground without record company involvement, but it is much, much harder and involves a lot more luck. For those guys who can succeed at it, they can self-publish through iTunes or whoever and get a bigger cut of their own sales than they would with a record company - and that's possible under the current regime, no changes needed. Now let's look at what happens to a record company's incentive to do any of that stuff when they're only going to have a limited number of years of control over the recordings. Music has a very, very long 'tail', income-wise. People are still buying Dark Side of the Moon at full price every day. That means there's a lot of incentive for investment in these things, because the long-term potential payoff is so good. Chopping that tail off at 14 years means that you're lowering the potential earnings from any given album rather significantly, so the incentive for record companies to invest in acts that aren't sure things goes down. End result: more bands "miss". That's a loss for everyone.
FWIW, the long tail theory has long since been proven as total crap. Only a very, very, very select few continue to sell well long into the back catalogue years. As this is all theoretical, I propose a counter-theory: Reformed copyright lengths of less than 30 years, ideally with my added 10 year bonus, force labels to re-orient A&R practices to pre-70s standards. They take more chances, not less. Lady Gaga might, with a heavy emphasis on might, still sell millions of records in ten, fourteen or thirty years, just like Madonna, but every other trendhopper will not. Labels cannot afford to simply sit on one trend per demographic at a time as they did in popular music during the 70s, 80s and late 90s-present; they will have to monetize, through aggressive scouting and cultivating of talent and release risk-taking of yesteryear if they want to remain relevant. The big four's pandering to irrelevant demographics with decreasing interest in consuming music would cease to be a sensible business practice. In effect, it would make the big labels bigger and more competitive players than they have been since Atlantic's heyday.
When in doubt, go populist. Dotcom proposes free NZ internet as what should be funded from the inevitable success of his lawsuit. Sorry, "inevitable".
CNET reports that after being denied Me.ga by officials in Gabon, the "new" Mega will be Mega.co.nz. You'd think a guy in his position would make every attempt to be as staid and proper as can be. But "Megacons". Really? Ugh. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57...-zealand-will-be-home-to-new-megaupload-site/
