Songwriters Guild Boss Claims Songwriters Can't Write Without Copyright
from the oh-really-now? dept
Last week, we wrote about a rather level-headed and quite interesting FT opinion piece written by The Pirate Party's Christian Engstrom, who now represents the Swedish Pirate Party in the European Parliament. While the entertainment industry has tried to paint the Pirate Party as a bunch of thieves who just want stuff for free, Engstrom's piece was quite sensible in explaining the real thinking behind the party: a focus on individual rights and worries about privacy invasion. Of course, the usual copyright supporters couldn't let such thinking go unchallenged...Rick Carnes, the head of the Songwriters Guild of America wrote a letter to the Financial Times, responding to Engstrom, but the letter is odd, poorly supported, flat-out wrong in some spots and seems to have totally ignored what Engstrom was actually saying. Let's take a look:
Christian Engstrom of the Pirates party is absolutely correct in his assumption that Elvis's music does not belong to him. It belongs to great songwriters like Otis Blackwell, who wrote so many of Elvis's big hits such as "All shook up" and "Return to sender", and who fought for years to protect and strengthen US copyright law. Without copyright, Mr Blackwell would never have been able to create that "common cultural heritage" that Mr Engstrom wants to think of as his own.First, this is a near total misreading of what Engstrom said. You have to assume that Carnes -- by no means an unintelligent person -- is simply deliberately misstating Engstrom's claims to further his own protectionist positions. Engstrom's point is just in noting how odd it is that we can't share a key part of our common cultural heritage. If you look at pretty much all of human history up until recently, part of what made a common cultural heritage possible was the ability to share it. Engstrom wasn't claiming that it was his own as Carnes states, but that as part of our common cultural heritage it makes sense that we'd like to share it with others. That's how culture works.
But, more importantly, Carnes is flat out wrong in claiming that Mr. Blackwell would never have been able to create those works without copyright. The incentives may have been different, but as we've been showing time and time again, there are tons of alternative business models for the creation of music that do not rely on copyright. And, given the massive demand for musical entertainment, it's pretty clear that such business models would certainly allow for compensation of songwriters as well. This assumption that copyright is the only way to pay songwriters is just silly and ignorant. It's just not true and has never been true. For someone who positions himself as a creative person, to insist that there's only one mechanism for songwriters to earn money is simply unbelievable.
He forgets that it isn't technology that "opens up new possibilities" -- it is the people who create the technology, the very people who earn their livings from patents and copyrights.No, actually, Engstrom is quite clear that he does not forget the people. He's quite focused on actually supporting their individual rights. What he's against is the abuse of their rights via overly encroaching government monopoly. Furthermore, Carnes is again wrong in claiming that these people "earn their livings from patents and copyrights." They do not. They earn their living by putting in place (or working for a company that has put in place) a workable business model that involves providing goods and services that people or companies want and pay for. They may use patents and copyright as a part of that, but it is false and misleading to claim they earn their money from the patents and copyrights. The patents and copyrights, by themselves, pay nothing. In fact, the only way to get money from such intellectual endeavors is to offer people something they want in order to generate money in a business model. No one is trying to take that away. We just think that it need not have the gov't setting up unnecessary and limiting barriers.
Computer code, songs, artwork and drug patents don't appear "as if by magic". These people invest their lives, their dreams, their money, their time and all their hopes for the future in their work.Indeed. No one has suggested otherwise. But part of that investing of lives, dreams, money and time is making sure they put in place a reasonable business model.
Creative people don't necessarily create only for money, but the money is necessary if only for them to continue to create.Again, this is a total strawman. Carnes is pretending that Engstrom said that creators shouldn't earn money. He did not. He was pointing out that how they earn money may change, but no one is saying they shouldn't earn money. That Carnes seems to think that copyright is the only way to make money from content is either willful ignorance or blatant lying by someone whose job it is to push for greater protectionism for his constituents.
The real "restriction" on Mr Engstrom's access to an Elvis song is a paltry 99 cents for a download on iTunes. For that he wants us to abandon the copyright and patent laws that have been constructed over hundreds of years.Again, this is a total misreading of Engstrom's comments. Engstrom's complaint isn't with the 99 cents one needs to pay to download a tune (though, I don't believe they use American money in Sweden...), but with the fact that he should have to pay to share and promote such a cultural artifact with others. It is only with intellectual property that such a restriction is placed on it, and it is a massive limitation on how people interact through culture these days.
Nor is the world "at a crossroads", as he claims. We will not face the apocalypse if people have to pay for music again. What is already causing serious cultural damage is the failure to enforce copyright law on the internet. I started making my own music at eight years old and by 13 I was making money at it. By 27 I was a professional songwriter and built a lifelong career as an "active" creator of musical culture; until, that is, I was put out of business by illegal downloading.Again, Carnes seems to have misunderstood and is misrepresenting what Engstrom said (I don't believe he reflected him accurately once in the entire letter, which is impressive). No one is saying we will face the apocalypse if people "have" to pay for music again. He's simply noting that it's impossible to stop what technology has allowed. There is no such thing as people having to pay for music again. No one has to pay for anything. They make decisions in the marketplace -- and many are choosing not to pay for music anymore.
Furthermore, while Carnes may sincerely believe that "illegal downloading" put him out of business, the only thing that really put him out of business was his apparent inability to adapt to the changing marketplace. There is absolutely nothing stopping him from writing any more songs, other than an apparent lack of creativity in adjusting to a changing marketplace.
Mr Engstrom warns that "society has to make a choice" between total anonymity or totalitarian control on the internet. This is naive. The right choice is neither. Instead, we need to find some sweet spot in between. It is simple to conflate the ideas of privacy and theft. I could, for instance, claim that it is my right to wear a ski mask into a bank in order to keep my identity "private" from the prying eye of the bank security camera. The security guards might take exception to that, and for good reason.Must we really explain the difference between copying and theft yet again? Engstrom is not talking about theft. He's talking about the ability to share and to communicate through content.
Similarly, while governments should limit intrusion into people's private lives they also have the responsibility to protect citizens from the theft of their property.Indeed. They do. But this is not about theft, and it's not about property.
Laws are passed based on history, common sense and hopefully the common good. The internet is a new medium and the world is still trying to come to grips with the balance between privacy and security. I would ask Mr Engstrom to give that a chance to happen by toning down the rhetoric.This is the most amusing of all, seeing as Engstrom's piece was rather devoid of inflammatory rhetoric, but was amazingly reasonable and level-headed. And speaking of rhetoric, it was Carnes who recently did an amazingly inflammatory interview where he used all sorts of bogus rhetoric. In it, he referred to the internet as "cyber somalia." He claimed the days of the stand alone songwriter were "over." He claimed that those who are sharing and promoting music online are "a mob of anonymous looters." He said he was hoping for "a 'bail-out' for all the songwriters who lost their jobs because their intellectual property was not protected by the US Government on the Internet." He calls Google "a real culture-killer." He called anyone who suggested that perhaps songwriters should explore new business models in a changed market "unbelievably arrogant and self-serving."
So... if we're talking about "toning down the rhetoric" perhaps Carnes should start with himself? At the very least, he might want to take a step back and try responding to what Engstrom and others are actually saying, rather than this straw bogeyman he seems to have set up in his mind.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: business models, christian engstrom, copyright, music, rick carnes, songwriters
Companies: songwriters guild
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's flip that around
It's pretty obvious that people will create DESPITE copyright. It's not AT ALL obvious that copyright is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please, please let carnes keep it up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...and he is choosing to no longer write the songs. That's the true story here, the longer term effects of the lack of income for song writers as a result of rampant piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He can stop writing all he wants. Other artists can stop. Who the hell cares if they do? Other (smart) artists will take up the slack, and then some. Despite "piracy" more music and movies are being created that at any other time in history. And it's only going to get better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
" ... the longer term effects of the lack of income for song writers as a result of rampant piracy.
You attempt to link the two, but that may not be he case at all. People may choose to not listen, buy or pirate music - then what ? You assume too much and do not provide any evidence to support your assumptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Total bulls**t
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe singer/songwriters, but
I don't buy the "cultural damage" argument from either side. The music will free itself via whichever people are there to perform it at the time. Corporations, songwriters, performers, pros and amateurs, a guy on the street with a bucket - music is in us and will be long after copyright and DRM. Like water coming down from the mountain, it can only be held up for so long before it finds a way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
To say that "the monetary incentive, as it is structured, disappears", is saying "the market is changing". It always has been changing and it always will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
-Sure, they can write songs for however long and get paid each time they do, but the monetary incentive
Exactly, when I stop working I stop getting paid, what a novel idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Maybe singer/songwriters, but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One point missed
Historically, the vast majority of works have been produced without copyright. Common sense dictates that we do not need a copyright because we can see all these other business models that make money off freely distributed music. And it is completely, indisputably, 100% in the interest of the common good to relax copyright protections, which are currently subsidizing lazy artists at the expense of the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey Mike, question
Would you consider doing that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal $.99 license!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Universal $.99 license!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Universal $.99 License!
Hear that guys? But a track on Itunes, and get ready to remix and reimagine to your heart's content! That's all we need to do to share our interpretation of our culture!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's the difference between one customer who is happy to do business with a company, and another customer who does business with a company only because all other options are more expensive either by time, money, difficult, or a combination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But the RIAA/MPAA are not using market forces to modify the supply, they are using the government to resist technological progress. This is supremely more difficult as we go along and will almost certainly fail in the long run once stupid politicians die off and the public slowly realizes the fallacy of the old system's defenders. Which is why their policies are short-sighted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course this is USA and I'm about to be punched many times over now, but at least you have a little insight. :-b
(and BTW, mind you, the aforementioned approach didn't leave the Soviet Union writer- and musician-less, despite what the copyright lobby might be claiming :-b )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If songwriters can only write and make money with the help of copyright protection, then how can one explain ... Bach [and] Mozart...."
These are excellent examples that should be mentioned more often in these discussions. They're making me rethink some of what purpose I thought copyright served.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fools On Parade
One man gets a song, the other gets nothing. How is this a fair trade? How can you rationalize obtaining the fruits of another man's labor for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fools On Parade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fools On Parade
Put another way, if a man spent a summer growing a crop of corn, and another man had the ability to make a copy of it for his own use when the crop was finished. I do not see how it is it fair that one man labored for months to create the crop, while the other man benefits from that labor without consent or compensation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fools On Parade
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fools On Parade
I have no problem with people deriving enjoyment from overhearing somebody's else song on the radio or blaring from a cd player on the beach(which would be appropriately analagous to enjoying the sight of someone's expensive sports car).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fools On Parade
You have obtained my writings without paying for it. By your definition, you reading this website is unjust.
Notice the problem?
One man gets a song, the other gets nothing. How is this a fair trade? How can you rationalize obtaining the fruits of another man's labor for free?
No one is rationalizing that. We're simply noting the reality of the market, by which you *can* use that to your advantage. Thus, it is not "unjust." It is merely a question of responding to what the market wants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fools On Parade
If a songwriter writes a song and does not choose to give it away for free to his fellow men, he currently does and should continue to be granted the sole rights to make that decision. When another man comes along and decides to distribute or copy that songwriter's work without consent, he is violating the songwriter's sole right to deploy his property as he sees fit.
Regarding the reality of the market, I agree that the current market conditions "could" be used to one's advantage. But that is a true statement given any product and any market condition. It is a morally and intellectually nuetral statement. The consumer in any market "wants" to get everything for free, however he does not go about doing so because there are laws that prevent it (i.e. thou shall not steal). Those laws are constructed to ensure just interaction between men. Just because the technology allows one to benefit from another's work without their consent or compensation, doesn't mean it is a just way to go about interacting with your fellow men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fools On Parade
You are confusing content with property. Don't be confused by the terms. They are entirely different.
You offer your writing for free. Because you wrote the piece, it is your choice to deploy and distribute it as you see fit. Thus, all readers of this forum have been granted your consent to consume your words without compensation. The sole right you have to deploy and distribute your work (i.e. property) as you see fit is something that copyright law entitles you to decide.
It's not because of copyright.
If a songwriter writes a song and does not choose to give it away for free to his fellow men, he currently does and should continue to be granted the sole rights to make that decision. When another man comes along and decides to distribute or copy that songwriter's work without consent, he is violating the songwriter's sole right to deploy his property as he sees fit.
Well, first you're still confused about property. But fine.
SO WHAT? People clearly don't care about that. So why not adjust and take advantage of that? If you can be BETTER OFF by using it to your advantage, aren't you a total fool to sit back and push against the tide?
Regarding the reality of the market, I agree that the current market conditions "could" be used to one's advantage. But that is a true statement given any product and any market condition.
Indeed. So why are you still trying to sell buggy whips to the market when they're all driving automobiles?
It is a morally and intellectually nuetral statement.
Yes. Of course. That's economics.
The consumer in any market "wants" to get everything for free
This is not true. Consumers are absolutely more than willing to buy things if it's seen as a fair transaction.
however he does not go about doing so because there are laws that prevent it (i.e. thou shall not steal).
Yes, for stealing. But this is not about stealing. This is about sharing, copying and promoting. And in other contexts that is absolutely encouraged. That's why so many people have trouble understanding why it's suddenly "wrong."
Just because the technology allows one to benefit from another's work without their consent or compensation, doesn't mean it is a just way to go about interacting with your fellow men.
Right, and I'm not defending unauthorized file sharing. I'm just saying you're a fool if you don't look to take advantage of it and pretend that people will magically stop file sharing and start giving you money if you don't put in place a better business model.
It's just economics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fools On Parade
Copying real items is long hard and easy to police, music is easy. Providing the internet exists it will never be possible to police it due to clever encryption and information hiding techniques.
This is the market as it is today, compnaies will have to adapt or fall, thats the way economies work (laws effect economies but only when they can be applied).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fools On Parade
It's utterly unfair. Please stop posting; I don't want to rip you off any more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fools On Parade
(see my comments to Mr. Masnick for a more detailed illustration of consent)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having thought about this for quite some time, I have as yet to identify a business model for a company that is in the business of creating and distributing utility software. Apple writes utility software, but then it is primarily a hardware manufacturer. Adobe, Corel, etc. write utility software, but they are not in the business of manufacturing and selling hardware.
What are your thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One could probably even make a similar argument about operating systems too...windows, mac, linux...the communities that have grown up around them, all cultural artifacts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
not exactly sure
Somehow they managed not only to survive as artists (and write new music) but they are beloved American icons as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you have an actual point? If you don't believe it is, then why not actually respond to the points. I was actually quite *surprised* at how level headed and interesting it was.
But you don't add any explanation for why you disagree. From that I can only assume that you didn't even bother to read it, you just assumed it was bad. Credibility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Watch out! If this keeps going, we might actually know what's being talked about!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, "Do you have an actual point" is standard Mike dismissive comment v. 1.0
Bring it, or stay home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Therefore, all these just seems like protection for the disabled/handicapped...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This sort of thing always scares me ....
We all know how badly governments do when it comes to censorship and monitoring, they end up leaning towards totalitarian.
So my question is who chooses the middle ground and how do we prevent the slide/need/want/fear mongering that leads to new and more oppressive rules.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and most people would think ur creepy but NOT CALL IT STEALING
"Right, and I'm not defending unauthorized file sharing"
this is probably the only thing i dont agree with mike on when it comes to copyright laws
go breaking stupid laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Double irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Songwriter Royalties
[ link to this | view in chronology ]