Self-Perpetuating Copyright Enforcement
from the but-think-about-the-artists dept
One of the most powerful emotional tricks used by the copyright industry against those seeking to reduce the term and reach of copyright to more rational levels is to invoke the poor, starving artists, who would suffer if this were to happen.The fact that the vast majority of creators earn most money soon after producing their work, and relatively little years later, means that taking copyright back to the original 14-year term specified in the Statute of Anne would have minimal effect on them, but it's an undeniably clever pitch.
In reality, the copyright industry couldn't give two hoots about the artists it feeds off, as the following makes clear:
RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy previously told TorrentFreak that the �damages� accrued from piracy-related lawsuits will not go to any of the artists, but towards funding more anti-piracy campaigns. �Any funds recouped are re-invested into our ongoing education and anti-piracy programs,� he said.
If the copyright industry *really* cared about the artists, this money would go straight into their deserving pockets.
Moreover, this "re-investment" in anti-piracy programmes makes such actions self-fueling: the money supposedly gained for those poor, starving wretches is actually used to fund the next action, which funds the next action, and so on.
This means that the copyright organisations have a real incentive to choose a strategy that privileges heavy-handed enforcement over new business models. The latter might result in creators getting paid more, while the former ensures that the fat-cats running the enforcement machine continue to lap up the cream....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca.
Cross posted from Open....
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: artists, copyright, enforcement
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So,
Perhaps they'll invest in a self-perpetrating copyright enforcement so they can immediately sue for copyright infringement anybody who creates anything copyrightable...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost, but not forgotten.
Copyright. The definition of "oxymoron".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We must reach out to the artists and creators and get them to come to Jesus and tell them that Piracy doesn't rob money off of them, big business/Corporate Communism does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's on the internet, it has to be true, or so the Mormons tell me....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also ask Jesus how long he knew how we would design our calendar. I mean for him to know 12/21/12 would exist and schedule our end on a date so easy to remember is kind of him. I guess if you are all knowing you can plan for stuff like this and if you have to remember when you scheduled the end of the world best to do it on a day with a easy to remember date.
Im pretty sure we lived through 9/11 already...unless the terrorists know something I don't and were trying to line up their attack with the end of the world but just got it a decade+ off.
Good to know Jesus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If copyright benefits starving artists...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watch your language!
Artists -- and even if they aren't "Artists" but create something in which they have rights -- need marketers, PR people, distributors, etc. Do you think they can do all of it without getting paid? Do you know how expensive all of it is? And tell us about all the "Artists" who create works that make NO money, but lose money. Most of them. And who is to pay for that?
"...this money should go into the artist's pocket," indeed!
And I am a musician!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch your language!
Strawman argument.
As far as I know, Glyn has never said that some artists do not benefit greatly from PR, marketers and distributors and such. Neither has Mike - and Mike has even offered many suggestions in which labels can make themselves more valuable to artists by providing specific services - basically a reversal of roles, where the artists offer a contract to a label for those services.
And tell us about all the "Artists" who create works that make NO money, but lose money. Most of them. And who is to pay for that?
Might I point you to posts about "RIAA Accounting" and "MPAA Accounting" - where the labels and studios intentionally set up those works to "lose" money on paper (so they don't have to pay the artists) but actually make millions for the studio/label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch your language!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch your language!
Sure, but that's different than saying that they need copy protections. If anything, those copy protections only impede on the ability to distribute and redistribute said content.
"And tell us about all the "Artists" who create works that make NO money, but lose money. Most of them. And who is to pay for that? "
and the RIAA and copy protection laws have helped correct this problem ... how? Oh, that's right, they contribute to the problem.
You complain about all these problems that artists have, but you forget that there does exist (and have existed for years back before the Internet) copy protection laws and the RIAA and these problems still existed. You forget to mention that these problems exist even with the record labels and that the record labels have done nothing to help solve it, otherwise, these problems won't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Watch your language!
It is not a strawman argument. Why do musicians wish to sign with a label? To take advantage of what a label could provide them (or used to be very capable in providing, but not as much any more). Because the label fronts the capital, oversee production, arrange for distribution, do PR, etc. Sometimes, they do all of these things well, often poorly. But musicians want all of this for free or nearly so. If you don't use a label, you do the job yourself and you keep the whole shooting match. It's a DIY world now!
Content is only 1/2 the story. The rest is getting it to market. This is true in other industries as well. If I am a food manufacturer, it is not easy getting product on the shelf. There are brokers, pay for placement, etc. -- and when it doesn't sell, they have to take back unsold product. Who should take the loss? Tell me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch your language!
Please look into machinima, Red Vs Blue, The Guild, There Will Be Brawl, among the other types of ways to make content without having high overhead.
Content creators come in all shapes and sizes. Labels or middlemen can't speak for all of them. Neither can Mike Masnick, Glyn Moody, Lawrence Lessig, Stephen Kinsella, me or you.
The only thing that ANYONE is saying is that the rules should favor artists of all types in moving along with projects without worrying about a lawsuit for their trade. If a DJ wants to use your music in a party, it should be because it's good, not because you're making an indirect commission on it.
If someone is using a song in a video, it's because it was to the liking of the creator. The rules as they stand prohibit activities for monetary gain. It inhibits creativity in various ways.
All that anyone wants is to have the rules be fair to all involved. Why is it that everyone wants the rules to be changed to benefit them despite everyone else, I have no idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watch your language!
Got it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> are re-invested into our ongoing education
> and anti-piracy programs,� he said.
Of course the organization or sub-organization responsible for these anti-piracy campaigns has executives. And executives have to be paid, right?
Think of the starving executives!
They need their bonuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If copyright is a "right" then it could only belong to the original creator who could then licence their works but could not sell it or give it away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other articles on TD today indicate that people are giving away their rights under the 4th, 1st and probably other amendments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disconnect in Damages
[ link to this | view in chronology ]