The great music copyright debate.

[munchkin]

I think what's important to remember here is that some folks feel that maintaining a highly visible pro intellectual property rights stance is important at KVR in order to appear developer friendly. I'm not trolling here, nor am I tarring all with the same brush, but there's been some frankly ridiculous 'high moral ground' positions taken here that fly in the face of copyright law, fair use, and general common sense.

It's a damned good thing none of this codswallop was an issue back in the days when the travelling minstral was a news reporter, historian, and political commentator, and people were *expected* to pass songs along from town to town, and generation to generation.

K

I'm back! I think it's not about trying to impress anyone. I think people just hold different views on this subject. I don't think it's helpful to assume that someone is against sharing because they want to impress anyone. IMO we're discussing the legal/moral/social implications of sharing vs copyright not the personal motivation behind these opinions. Personal opinion is shaped by social factors.

[dystonia_ek]

It's a damned good thing none of this codswallop was an issue back in the days when the travelling minstral was a news reporter, historian, and political commentator, and people were *expected* to pass songs along from town to town, and generation to generation.

K

I.E. before the wholesale commodification of music.

Very good point.

[kaden]

I don't think it's helpful to assume that someone is against sharing because they want to impress anyone.

It is equally unwise to discount it as a motivating factor.

Sad, but true.

K

[shamann]

There's no real argument to be made that unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material isn't against the law. Under current international treaties, and the laws of many countries, it is illegal. The point of the debate really is, should it be illegal? Are the copyright laws of today the best thing for us all?

One of the great things about p2p when it first got big was that suddenly any song was accessible. I can remember hunting through Bearshare and Audiogalaxy for songs I hadn't heard in 20 years, stuff long out of print. Sure it was stealing, but it was a system that music fans wanted. Sadly, for 5 years of mp3s everywhere, there was not a viable legal solution. If you couldn't find the disc to buy, you couldn't hear it, simple as that.

Copyright became the industry smackdown tool of choice to eliminate unfettered access. The business model in the industry has always been one of forced scarcity, a land of plenty scared the crap out of them. Just think, a world where the average teenager made choices out of more than a slavish observance of the MTV dicta.

We'll not change the laws in our lifetimes. The powers who mind the store have been greased from on high, and the citizenry just won't be allowed in to spoil the party. But we can make a difference.

Stop trying to suckle at the teat of the moneyhandlers, stop thinking about art in the commercialized form that they want you to, start trying to come up with ways to make music freely and legally accessible. If music was the top priority of most musicians, we could force the hand of the industry to adopt alternate approaches. Old material is a lost cause, but stuff yet to be written does not have to be shackled to commerce.

People say, "But what about money," but musicians aren't getting rich from the record sales very often. They get hosed on record deals, forced to pay for high production costs, forced to share profits down to slim margins. That doesn't justify theft, but it does warrant the suggestion that maybe musicians need to start thinking of alternatives. Most musicians able to make a good living from music do so through gigging, merchandising and licensing. I suppose record sales on a small scale would get you through if you only need $2000 a month to live, but even that is hard to come by. And all those big name performers who have done so well off the big labels did so more by capitalizing on the exposure/marketing. Doubt you'll be able to sell out a 50 city stadium tour by selling discs only from the boot of your car.

But to anyone inclined to chomp at that big money, rock star bit, just know that you're doing so at the expense of community and slowly erase the social role that music has played for millenia.

[munchkin]

I agree with a lot of what you say shamann but to put whyterabbyts point forward - what if musicians don't want to share their music? Don't they have the right to try and control that?

You and I might believe that this is fitting in with profit before music either because they've 'sold out' or have chosen to believe the RIAA. But some musicians feel very strongly that they should be able to control who owns their music. I don't have an answer to that one.

I was thinking about what it would be like to be on a label that's anti-sharing. Either you wholeheartedly embrace their ethos or you tow the line and hide your real views. I wonder how many 'anti-sharing' musicians actually believe the anti-sharing philosophy or feel they have to tow the line? I imagine the consequenses of not agreeing with your record label on this subject could be dire.

I wanted to raise two issues.

1. Is there a difference between individuals sharing music without profit and criminal organisations selling counterfeit goods? I would say there is a difference because sharing music does not generate money for anyone (including the musician) where as counterfeit goods involve massive profits going to organised crime.

2. Why is it possible for HMV/Virgin/Tower Records to sell music that costs full price one day and then more than half price in a sale the next? This also raises the issue of why supermarkets sell CD's at lower prices and the lower cost of music in different countries. Isn't the marketing of music arbitary and based on greed rather than real cost?

[TVD]

I agree! It get's so tiresome being scolded by people who believe the fantasy that copying music affects the profits of the musician. This is pure fantasy and has never been proven statistically. It's just moralising based on a false premise.

The reality is that the profit margin was decided long ago when that contract was signed. It's basic wage slavery without the rights offered to other workers.

Just try asking your record company to give you a pension scheme or to provide health cover. It will all come out of that tiny little profit margin you signed your creativity away for. It's the most unfair working contract imaginable. You'd probably get a larger percentage of income if you were picking tea in China.

That's why musicians are trying to break away from the multi-nationals stranglehold on media. Prince springs to mind - he's just won a Grammy without any help from the multi-nationals. I'm sure that loads of his music is available to download free yet he manages to make a respectable income without some conglomerate milking his profits. He may have started out benefiting from the promotion offered by Warner but he's paid them back a million times over in terms of the money that they make out of him.

The reason that the issue of unfair contracts is raised in the debate about downloading music is to point out what actually does affect the profits that musicians receive. Unfair contract are what decide whether musicians make a living out of music - not downloading mp3's. And until the real issue is addressed the record companies will continue to use the red-herring of copying music and ignore unfair contracts.

To anyone who is concerned about the welfare of musicians and wants to do something to help them make money then campaign against unfair contracts and copyright laws instead of backing the RIAA and furthering their propaganda.

Exactly! Unfair contracts with a record label & their self-contained management is exactly how TLC got screw!!!

[munchkin]

I don't think it's helpful to assume that someone is against sharing because they want to impress anyone.

It is equally unwise to discount it as a motivating factor.

Sad, but true.

K

Even if this is true in some cases don't we all have our own self serving motivations? I download music so I'm biased. I admit it. If we focus on the bigger picture, keep it general (as herodotus pointed out), then hopefully the discussion won't become personalised.

[shamann]

I agree with a lot of what you say shamann but to put whyterabbyts point forward - what if musicians don't want to share their music? Don't they have the right to try and control that?

They have every right to do so, but those of us who disagree with them have every right to say so bluntly. If someone feels the need to horde, tell them that doing so, while benefiting them, will have a negative social cost.

A very simple point on sampling. If you build in a licensing structure that is fair and easy to access, you will encourage others to make further creative works derived from your work. If you sign on to Sony tomorrow, you will be agreeing with a licensing structure that is hard to access (complicated and expensive) and not designed to be fair to anyone who might go on to create something. In doing that you stifle the creative bloodline of your work. As an artist, I think encouraging more art and creativity is more important than selfish gain. Not everyone agrees with me, and I won't rip them off, but I won't keep silent to protect their feelings.

1. Is there a difference between individuals sharing music without profit and criminal organisations selling counterfeit goods? I would say there is a difference because sharing music does not generate money for anyone (including the musician) where as counterfeit goods involve massive profits going to organised crime.

It's probably not the same in scope, but it's still theft. When you share other's music without consent, you run the risk of threatening their viability to sell their work. I don't think you do, plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that sharing encourages financial support of the arts. But you still run the risk and the argument could be made. That's why copyright exists, to protect your right to profit from your work. My point is to step outside of that system, think laterally, and acknowledge that for the small benefit of protecting the rights of the few, a lot of ugly business has happened in its wake.

2. Why is it possible for HMV/Virgin/Tower Records to sell music that costs full price one day and then more than half price in a sale the next? This also raises the issue of why supermarkets sell CD's at lower prices and the lower cost of music in different countries. Isn't the marketing of music arbitary and based on greed rather than real cost?

Marketing of any commodity works that way. Often, large retailers will sell below cost to control a market. It's economy of scale. Walmart can afford to make 5 cents on some widget when they sell a million of those widgets, the small retailer cannot afford such luxury. Walmart can also afford to undersell certain products to stake off the market, kill off any smalltime competition.

[TVD]

You're damn right they are! Just look at the artists that had gotten screw over the years because of the way the music industry conduct dirty business that benefit the industry itself & their stockbrokers more than the artists that made the music:

Little Richard
Prince (WB Music Group owns the master tapes)
TLC
George Michael
The Beatles (Michael Jackson & Sony Entertainment owns the publishings)
Madonna (just recently in 2004)
Dr. Dre (Suge Knight owns the The Chronic)
N*SYNC
Teena Marie
Martha Reeves

Yes, quite true...all of their record companies made more money than those artists, but those artists also did very well thankyou - they are not working as security guards at Sainsbury's because the record companies fiddled them out of their dues - in fact most of them live lives of luxury.

Much of the crap you hear about major labels is just that...it's a f**king business and always has been - and it is for small labels also. If major labels are so evil, why is it that 99.9% of musicians would leap at the chance of a deal with one of them, and that all the major stars have also done so at some time in their careers - possibly because they have large-scale distribution, access to top notch production facilities and more to the point - make the artists rich. So don't give us this false "major labels are evil" crap...small labels often also give out at best 25% royalties - more usually 12.5% and some alot less than that. They ain't no different and you're fooling yourself if you think they are.

If it's Janet Jackson, she is doing just fine with the $80 million advancement deal that she sign with Virgin/EMI back in the mid 90's. That meant about $20 million per album.

Was it a smart decision? Yes & No!

Yes, because Janet have been pay $20 million (by Virgin/EMI) for every time the master tapes were turn over for the new albums.

No, because the advancement is a loan!! Even long after Janet retire from the music industry, Virgin/EMI will still be making money off of Janet...getting their loan money back AND all of Janet's future album sales income for 50+ years after the fact.

Janet's future children & grandchildren will never see future royality outside of the advancement.

Moral of the story to all KVR artists/producers:

Don't ever take an advancement. Maintain the option of owning your master tapes. Because if you don't own your masters, your masters will own you.

[mr.me]

Couldn't that person have let her use his CD for a bit?

[kaden]

"You don't form a band to sell records...you form a band to sell t-shirts."

Smart guy, that Blackie Lawless. Understood the music industry from a musicians' point of view.

K

[lion_cub]

And so cheering on the record companies for cracking down on p2p and the like is like cheering on the guy who stole your identity for "finding" and prosecuting the poor bum who found your empty wallet after the real theft was over and done.

Two wrongs don't make a right !

[lion_cub]

By MrSpey
Wed Apr 25th, 2001 at 03:25:32 PM EST
Culture
Almost any time you read, hear, or view anything about Napster, music sharing, or mp3's you hear people talking about stealing music. The MPAA is starting to talk a lot about people stealing movies online. Book publishers are even talking about stealing books through online transfer. Well, I have good news for those who are worried about people stealing music or movies through file-sharing programs: no one is stealing anything. What they are doing is infringing.

Whatever you call it, it's wrong !

[herodotus]

And so cheering on the record companies for cracking down on p2p and the like is like cheering on the guy who stole your identity for "finding" and prosecuting the poor bum who found your empty wallet after the real theft was over and done.

Two wrongs don't make a right !

When did I say, or even imply, that they did?

[munchkin]

By MrSpey
Wed Apr 25th, 2001 at 03:25:32 PM EST
Culture
Almost any time you read, hear, or view anything about Napster, music sharing, or mp3's you hear people talking about stealing music. The MPAA is starting to talk a lot about people stealing movies online. Book publishers are even talking about stealing books through online transfer. Well, I have good news for those who are worried about people stealing music or movies through file-sharing programs: no one is stealing anything. What they are doing is infringing.

Whatever you call it, it's wrong !

And evil!