Beware Of Those Who Claim They're 'Saving The Culture Business' When They're Really Protecting Those Who Strip Artists Of Rights
from the 'culture-business'-ain't-culture dept
We've talked a few times about the ridiculously unsupported and unsupportable claim by Robert Levine that the "tech industry" (by which he means "Google") is somehow destroying culture by "free riding" on content. There are so many things wrong with this argument that it would take an entire book to debunk them one by one. But, as we've recently shown, the culture business isn't dying at all -- instead, it's been growing quite nicely over the past decade. So what's going on? Lateef Mtima, from the Institute for Intellectual Property and Social Justice at Howard University does a nice job dismantling Levine's argument by showing that what Levine is arguing isn't about "saving the cultural busness," it's about saving a few giant media conglomerates who used to be the gatekeepers to culture (often at the expense of artists -- especially minority artists), and pretending that without those companies, there wouldn't be much culture. As Mtima notes, this is, ultimately, an incredibly elitist position:Culture is not something reserved to an elite. No particular business or set of businesses and no particular business model should be protected from the winds of innovation and change in the name of preserving culture. A people’s culture is just that -- the people’s culture....And this is really a key point. The few companies that Levine is looking to save are not the deciders and arbiters of culture, no matter how much Levine wants them to be. In fact, they're often the companies who are really cheapening culture themselves and stripping the rights from the artists themselves, signing them to ridiculously one-sided contracts that are almost criminal in how they strip artists of their own rights and toss them out on the street for the profit of a few business fat cats.
Initially Levine presents his book on the pending doom of American culture as an appeal really done on behalf of the financial interests of artists, writers, and musicians. (One might be forgiven for skepticism and for asking where was/is Levine on the issue of IP corporate establishment exploitation of African American and other marginalized artists who have been pillaged by those entities for more than a century.)It really is quite a disgusting, paternalistic, almost antebellum argument: that these poor artists need some big conglomerate to come "rescue them," take control of their rights, in order to produce "the culture business." The reality is quite different of course. What's happening every day out here, in the real world, is that new companies -- often from the "tech industry" that Levine insists is killing off his heroes at the major labels and studios -- are providing the tools for amazing new cultural works to be produced, distributed, promoted, shared and monetized. Witness the great success of companies like Kickstarter, and the fact that they're doing it without typical Hollywood smarminess.
Of course “protecting struggling artists” is only the cover story. Levine actually knows what many other Americans realize–that most artists are trapped in contractual peonage with their corporate distributers and that they often retain no property interests capable of being ravaged by third-party pirates.
But the real cultural elitism from Levine shows through in his disdain for the kinds of amazing culture produced all the time outside of the circles of the gatekeepers.
Levine utterly ignores creative and impactful and socially desirable user-generated material such as the insertion into a picture of Seurat’s “A Sunday Afternoon on the Island of La Grande Jatte” a still from the video of a policeman nonchalantly pepper spraying demonstrators engaging in the Occupy movement. Such works make statements and connect people culturally in ways Levine apparently does not value and would stop....Levine's argument, in the end, comes down to a somewhat sickening assertion that without the Universal Musics of the world, artists wouldn't be able to produce their cultural works. It's that poor artists need big corporations to mold and shape their cultural creations, or such culture won't exist. To both the public and many artists, that argument isn't just laughable, it's insulting.
.... The constitutional grant of power to Congress to regulate copyrights and patents explicitly states that the purpose of such laws is to benefit the public. Innovation is to insure progress for everyone, not merely wealth for a few. The Internet may indeed be destroying the culture business, or at least some of it in its entrenched form, but it is not destroying culture. Intellectual property law is not designed to be, never has been intended to be, and must not be allowed to become the footservant of moneyed erstwhile overlords.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Talk about missing it! The point isn't the artists wouldn't be able to make their cultural works, it's that few people would ever get to SEE or HEAR those cultural works.
All the ballyhoo about the "new business models" still hits the same basic problem: You have no organized or meaningful distribution, just the huge firehose of the internet flatting anyone who gets near it.
You always need middlemen to sort it out and present it at reasonable levels. Until that happens, the internet models will all be wildly hit and miss, because they will rarely achieve the critical mass to get widespread distribution and penetration of the marketplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How do you explain the capacity of the Pirate Bay to distribute things to millions of people all around the world and they don't even have commercials.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1 - They have no costs to acquire the content they "distribute"
2 - The content producers do the marketing for them
3 - They are a firehose. Without the filtering and selection of hollywood or similar, would you really know what movies to download and which ones not to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I love that you think people are drooling sheep incapable of rational thought. It is so telling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The internet doesn't need middlemen to do this. With such wide distribution, somebody...somewhere will watch/listen/look and review it. If it impresses them they will use the powerful social networking tools on the internet to get their friends to check it out. A lot of art can be extremely niche oriented. It is much easier to find niche content on the internet...you would never get it from the legacy media nitwits. And now being a niche artist can actually be profitable when "the world is your oyster." If an artist has talent, he will be found and make money. Sorry to say that we don't want your culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember, nobody has a monopoly on anything here - in pure competition, the "other brands" are not making it to the surface. That is telling, in the "best business model wins" logic that Techdirt pushes all the time. Can you explain why there isn't a huge market for indie films?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Based on what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But... there are more indie films being made today than ever before, and there are more indie films making money (defined as making more than their expenses) than ever before.
You are making a very common mistake in that you are assuming that the culture that's being made today (and that which is supported by large-scale, highly controlled distribution networks) is the kind of culture that should be made tomorrow. This makes no sense. Consumers should be driving culture, not distribution networks.
If $100M films stop being made, but the market for entertainment continues to grow, we should celebrate that. Which, btw, is exactly what is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hollywood brands are terrible filters, and have been for a very long time. That a movie comes from a mainstream studio is not any indication of the quality of the movie.
Same as the indies.
We do need filtering, of course, but what more people are realizing is that it's better to have the filtering actually tailored to your individual tastes. You do this by paying attention to the opinions of people who largely share your tastes. You crowdsource, even if the "crowd" is just a handful of close friends.
We don't need large corporations who have a movie to shill to also tell us what's worth seeing. They do that job badly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In fairness, I'd say that they're good at their jobs for the most part. The problem is, their job isn't to sell you what you want to watch, but what they have to sell. If the quality of the product is low, or they have to deceive and misdirect in order to sell it, they will. As long as they get their fee, they don't care what the artistic merit of their product is, and they will often make content fit their advertising aims rather than the other way around. Therein lies their problems...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One single filter can only work for the "average taste," and if you're making movies for the "average taste" then all your movies will tend to be one of three tropes again and again. Which is, in fact, what we see from Hollywood.
Also, nobody has "average taste" any more than anyone has 2.3 children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And yes, there is an effective monopoly in place in the distribution of motion pictures in North America and always has been.
These days I wouldn't call Hollywood "brands" good filters, quite the opposite it's just that it's those brands people get to choose from and little else. People put up with most of it and when the odd great film comes through they flock to it.
That said, there's a large market for indie films in continental Europe where the Hollywood chains don't control the movie theatres, and in the UK and Scandinavia and Russia. The global market isn't just the United States, you know.
Filtering will come from where it's always come. Word of mouth, film festivals, reviewers on different sites if newspapers don't survive and so on.
I'm sorry if that looks like a firehose to you. But essentially it's the same as now. Even if the site it's being downloaded from is The Pirate Bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ehem... Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha! What are you, stupid?
I mean, pick a movie or a show. Any movie or show. Say I want... a movie.
> Search online.
> Get the title.
> Find reviews.
> Find the copy online.
> Get torrent filename.
> Download.
> Profit.
Even an elementary can download "Bourne Legacy" when it hits the net...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow. That argument is as about as insulting as Levine's.
Basically you are saying this:
"The unwashed masses are just too stupid to filter large amounts of content, so us middlemen must be there to tell them what they really like."
I'm guessing that you are or have been employed as a label A&R man. That is one of the few professions that I have such cluelessness from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe it's just me, but I have never, ever based my personal opinion of art on what so called "art critics" say, whether it be music, movies, sculpture, paintings, theater, crayon drawings, or whatever. I base my opinions on how such art makes me react or feel and more often than not my opinion is the exact opposite of what these so called "art critics" think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is true. But, this thread is discussing filtering by middlemen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, each person has 24 hours a day, they give up 8 to sleep, 8 to work, a couple of hours for needed stuff, and they are left with maybe a couple of hours a day for themselves. They can either spend that time downloading hundreds of songs hoping they hit one they like, or they can check out "filters" to find out what is new and hot.
The problem of the new models is that few of the filters really work. In fact, they are anti-filters, letting everything though and giving you endless choices - so many choices that you don't have time to choose.
What do most people do? They look for a reliable filter to help them narrow their search. The most reliable brands in movies pretty much all come from Hollywood. They go with what they know, most of the time.
The unwashed masses are very smart - smart enough not to do something stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hear what you are saying, up to a point. Yes, I can somewhat understand the need for filters. I have no problems with user generated filters, like the insightful button on this site or articles floating up to the front page on Digg. I will always have a problem with middlemen choosing what to filter on their own, even more so if these middlemen have vested interests in the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone who controls content in any manner on a website, magazine, TV, radio... they are all filters. The question is who you trust and who you don't.
Things like Digg and Reddit could be reliable, but to be fair, Digg can easily be gamed, and Reddit lost much of their credibility as an independent source when they decided to go all in with the anti-SOPA crowd. I now feel that what is on their site is as biased as Techdirt or Torrent freak, possibly worse - they are not a reliable filter.
IN the end, the most reliable filters are the ones that people follow - hollywood movies being one of them. Accepting that people are smart enough to know the difference, the vast majority of Americans choose that as one of their primary filters. That should tell you much about the "new business models" which appear to be mostly failing at being considered reliable and unbiased.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love it. You are tripping all over yourself to prove that you are right.
Do you want to know who people trust the most to recommend new music, movies, games and books? Their friends and family. Why is that? Because they have a personal relationship with those people, they know what those people like and know where those likes cross over with their own.
Do you know who people trust the least to recommend new music, movies, games and books? Marketers. Why is that? Because most people are smart enough to realize that marketers are going to recommend what is best for the person but what the company paying them to promote thinks is best for their pocket books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike may be the filter for his opinion blog, sure, but he is not, in any way shape or form, my "middleman for copyright thought". I engage in discussions here because the intelligence level of the comments here are more to my liking.
You might not be aware of it, but there is more information readily available to anyone and everyone than ever before in history and I do a fair job of filtering it on my own. I've also recently started using YaCy at home (need a better computer at work - grrr) for my searches because I no longer wish to rely on Google, who may or may not filter or censor my search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gatekeepers prevent you from watching movies by not making them. You can only watch the movies they decide to make. Critics merely suggest you do or don't watch a movie, but you are still free to watch any of them. them, as you claim yourself.
Basically what you're saying is that someone has to be chosen as the arbiter of your culture and you have chosen Hollywood as the gatekeeper and their marketing departments as the ultimate judge of taste. You are their total pawn and they must love you for it (I hope they pay you well).
Reddit was anti-SOPA because the majority of its users demanded it. It's a user driven website.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Everyone who controls content in any manner on a website, magazine, TV, radio... they are all filters. The question is who you trust and who you don't....
Not only do you not understand the way the new world works - you don't even understand the way the old one worked.
The old world was constrained first by technology, second by economics and third by marketing.
It went like this:
All the old analogue copying technologies had a high upfront "mastering" cost. This meant that really short production runs were impractical.
Economies of scale made really long production runs the most profitable and therefore markets had to be maximised.
Marketing then kicks in - and given the average human's inability to remember more than about seven things at once the marketing people weer all fighting for the same seven slots.
Now you can do all those things "right", spend the money and still have an enormous turkey on your hands. Remember Pearl Harbour - the film that was an even bigger disaster than the historical event on which it was based!
The point is that the old gatekeepers were guessing what the public would like - not selecting things for the public to save them the trouble. If the latter had been the case then they would never have got it so spectacularly wrong so often.
The real filtering of good from bad always happened AFTER the gatekeepers had done their cull. The "public filter" always had the final say - and sometimes it was the last laugh.
Now that cull is not necessary and we are discovering that there is far more good stuff out there than we ever dreamed possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have some stunning news for you. This isn't the only web site on the Internet. And some of us have been thinking about and debating these issue since well before the web existed, as it's not the only discussion medium on the Internet. Or the ARPAnet.
I think I'll stop there while you try to let that soak in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your "filters" told the masses they wanted to see 4 Twilight films with a fifth due out later this year...
You. Cannot. Be. Trusted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
so a few people get to be heard by millions, or a million get to be heard by a few
culture made by a few, or culture made by everyone
the cream always rises to the top wherever it comes from
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As Techdirt has repeatedly stated, middlemen are GOOD. It's gatekeepers that are bad. This statement of yours is hilarious because internet models are the new middlemen.
It's not a firehose - it's a complicated plumbing system. There are LOTS of ways for users to filter the content - and yes, it's still with the help of middlemen! Those middlemen just have a lot more faces now. Maybe the middleman is a recommendation algorithm that finds songs they will like based on their current preferences; maybe the middleman is their entire social network, organically propagating and promoting the stuff that their friends like; maybe the middleman is some guy's music blog, whose recommendations they trust; or maybe the middleman is good old fashioned traditional promotions and advertising, which have hardly gone away online.
Most likely the middleman is some combination of all of the above, and more. One thing is for sure though: the successful middlemen are the ones who enable, not the ones who restrict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In movies, the most successful middlemen are all in Hollywood. So there you go, you have proven the point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait a minute - Hollywood is successful? Okay good - piracy clearly isn't a problem then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you choose not to provide what the customer is requesting, then, like in all other business, you will fail.
The difference is that businesses that fail because they aren't adapting don't go running to make laws to preserve their business model.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually I think when you said "are" you meant "were" - and when you said "successful" you meant "profitable".
All of that is explained by the lingering dynamics of the old technology bolstered by the overhang of copyrighted back catalogue.
However none of that now matters going forward. Hollywood is like the old transatlantic liners in the 1950s - still big and impressive - but doomed to be overtaken by something smaller and more nimble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My God.
Your thought process is so foreign to me that I can't even conceive of a way to explain it to you in terms you might understand.
The fact that you inherently believe that someone needs to "tend the garden" is so antithetical to the entire foundation of the internet, it's no wonder you guys haven't been able to figure out how to make money using it.
I'm no longer angry at you. Now I'm sad. And I pity someone who thinks so little of his fellow human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The smart people know better, and find reliable filters to narrow their search and make it so they don't waste their time. Most people want to be entertained, they don't want a second job (or in your case, a first job).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now please proceed with the ad-homs about how I'm a freetard stealing my employer's time and computer resources (hint: I'm not - but don't try to wrap your head around that one, you might break something).
However, more on topic, what makes you think we need middlemen to be our filters? The herd of cats does pretty well with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Can't defend old media without insulting people!
Classic Troll Move #18
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What makes you think that these filter have to be associated with the **AAs out there?
What makes you think that a setup of independent filters and artists will be worse then than the current market that locks many artists out completely?
Why are you people so incapable of making any comment without personal attacks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What gatekeepers choose to make is based solely on its ability to make a profit.
What middlemen recommend you watch is based solely on its quality.
Or wait, are you one of those people who think box office = quality? If so I'm wasting my time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
More accurately, gatekeepers are the bad kind of middleman. Enablers, curators and critics are the good kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Absolutely. And the smart people don't think that anyone connected to Hollywood should be those filters.
It takes no time at all to divine the good stuff. I ask people who share my tastes what new, interesting things they have seen. I pay attention to the what artists I have enjoyed in the past are doing now. Sometimes I pick something at random. It's not exactly a big time-sucker, and the internet makes it even more efficient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The smart people know better, and find reliable filters to narrow their search and make it so they don't waste their time. Most people want to be entertained, they don't want a second job (or in your case, a first job).
I haven't got time to try every filter out there to find out which one will give me things I like.
(btw in my experience the ones you refer to are pretty reliable in serving up stuff I don't like.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The maple kind?"
'Nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you don't. That IS the point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So then, explain how the dinosaurs who have been fighting against the very technologies their customers use to access content are the best middlemen for the job.
I don't recall people saying that there should be no middlemen at all, only that the current people there have no business trying to enforce 30 year old business models into an environment that makes them unworkable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What you don't understand is that thanks to the internet, we are all middlemen.
Every blog, forum, facebook page, chat room, online game, "you might also like" algorithm, search engine and indeed every person are the new middlemen.
Word-of-mouth, through any of the above channels or actual pressure waves through air, is the new filter. You participate in the filters relevant to your interests. And even those filters have probably been recommended (filtered) through one of the above channels. Recursively.
It is a beautiful chaotic yet self-regulating system that sorts the vast flood of content most elegantly and without any central authority. And I guess that's where your problem is. You are no longer in control.
Welcome to reality. Darwin says: Hello friend, adapt or die.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
Those whining the loudest (e.g., Levine) about how terribly these artists are being ripped off are defending the people who've done the most damage. The Internet didn't cajole/coerce these musicians into contracts that left them with little to show: the record companies did. The Internet didn't fail to pay them royalties: the record companies did. The Internet didn't back out of promises to promote them: the record companies did. The Internet didn't drop them to the B list when the latest thing came along: the record companies did.
There is something terribly wrong when people with Grammy Awards and gold records are living on welfare and food stamps. And the something is "record companies".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
Many great jazz artists are in a business sense on par with a really good rock cover band. Financially, it's a hard sell, as most of the money goes other directions, to the actual song writers and such.
Jazz artists who write new songs tend to do much better, because they have revenue streams.
As for "living on food stamps", shouldn't they be out there "selling the scarce"? True musicians should be out there working 250 nights a year making a living like the rest of us. At least, that is what I have learned reading Techdirt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
True musicians are doing just that. They are planing their tours, their shows and promotions. They are chatting it up with their fans to promote their music. THey are selling merchandise and tickets and other scarcities. They are working their butts off to be the success they want to be. I honestly don't know why you think a hard days work is an evil thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
If the labels are truly irrelevant for everything else, why are they suddenly the nasty boogie man here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
No one said labels were irrelevant. We have been saying that the way they used to do things is irrelevant. Times have changed and there are new and better ways to fund, promote and distribute music. The problem is that many labels do not want to adapt and are actively trying to stop the tide from rolling in.
The reason they are perceived as a boogie man is because they are attempting to make it harder for new artists to use these new and better tools of funding, promotion and distribution in an effort to keep their old status as king. Nobody likes a tyrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Mtima's comments are especially apropos...
Your failure to read and grasp history is stunning. Have you not followed the history of the recording industry? Do you not read? Can you not grasp even the simplest cause-and-effect relationship? And are you not capable of the most basic act of sympathy and compassion for the creative people -- you know, the ones you would dishonestly pretend to be sticking up for?
Your greed and selfishness is sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "only America-originated art form": jazz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idiots in Washington are seeding the end of America by empowering monopolies to become even bigger than what they are now and they will fall, things change and that industry will not be able to hold off the winds of change around the world.
The bigger they are the harder they fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*Our new troll*
Maybe we got one of the script-writing lobbyists... a real, live spin-doctor!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
can we stop with the "especially minority artist" crap?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Too late. Way too late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick do you have ANY concept of "culture" ?
Get a freaking clue masnick, you and your fellow Americans who continue to push this bullshit about what you consider "yours" or what you believe culture is, do not appear to have at all any clue about ANYTHING, except what you feel you have some "right" to or to allow you to justify the THEFT you are so keen on...
What a wanker..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick do you have ANY concept of "culture" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Masnick do you have ANY concept of "culture" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, I have read that that is exactly why it was designed. It was used by kings to crush political dissent and granted as a royal privilege to enrich preferred printers in the mercantilist system. It wasn't until the revolution in the US that the right was transferred from kings to creators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe you might try to explain away the continued success of Trent Reznor and Motorhead after they severed ties with their record companies and remain successful by use of the internet, even without the record labels controlling them.
And even lesser known band, Abney Park, they have never been part of a label, yet they are very successful, and they take in 100% of their revenue as no one else is taking a cut.
Again, try to explain away their success.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good article
With regard to things such as new movies, music, games, etc., I believe that people, specifically the artists and creators, should have the sole right to profit. However, I believe that with the technology available today that there should be a seperate digital copyright assigned to each new work which should last a maximum of 10 years. Copyright/IP should never be used as a whipping post to lock-down every known work and criminalize the flow of data.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]