Kiwi Musician Says Public Domain Only Exists So You Can 'Rip Off Dead People's Works'
from the someone-send-him-a-copy-of-james-boyle's-book dept
Here's a brief article from New Zealand, which suggests that part of the US's proposal for the TPP agreement is to extend copyrights across the various participating countries to life plus 70 years -- what it already is in the US, but 20 years longer than it is in many countries. That's not too surprising. However, what struck me was a quote from New Zealand musician Ray Columbus who appears to be in favor not just of extending copyright, but of wiping out the public domain entirely:"Some people believe in public domain. Why? Just so you can rip off dead people's works? That's pathetic."No, Ray, what's pathetic is not knowing how culture works, and the importance of building on those who came before. Having never heard of Ray Colombus, I decided to look around -- and lo and behold, it appears that in his younger days Columbus recognized this. An interesting bio of Columbus reveals that his band, Ray Columbus and the Invaders, was originally a cover band who copied their dance moves (and, yes, as crazy as it seems, dance moves can be covered by copyright) from American servicemen on leave in New Zealand. Oops.
Other bios note how strongly he was influenced by other artists, such as Elvis, Cliff Richard and the Beatles. His one big hit, She's a Mod, is a cover song. Yes, it was licensed, but apparently the changes they made to the song were basically to copy things from the Beatles. And that's fine, because the fact is, people build on culture. It's not just about "ripping off" others. So it's rather hypocritical of Columbus to decry others for the same practice.
What it comes down to is that poor Ray Columbus seems to think copyright is a welfare system because he apparently failed to invest wisely or plan for retirement:
When 60s pop star Columbus suffered a stroke nearly four years ago, he was able to pay the bills because every time a song he has performed gets played, he still collects a fee.How is that fair compared to most other professions? The bricklayer who has a stroke isn't able to pay the bills because by collecting a fee every time someone uses a building he built. No, the bricklayer and pretty much everyone else in every other profession has to actually save money and plan for their future. What makes Columbus so special that he gets to skip over that part?
"The performing fees I get give a dribbling of an income that's so important to artists."
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: copyright, inspiration, new zealand, public domain, ray columbus, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Clearly, you still don't understand the difference between influence and copying.
Perhaps some music lessons would help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !_!
Music lessons??
What, so he can learn to play dead people's music?!!
WHERE'S THE HUMANITY?!??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps some legal lessons would help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good luck with that defence in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It would be like I'd copy Windows 8 and change the logos and names everywhere to something else before releasing it as my own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And paid for the rights to do it. Non-issue, I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Every musician goes through that, indeed music lessons are all about copying as the music you get to play is always other people's because you aren't there yet to come up with something of your own.
In this case the song's a cover, licensed and paid for at the time so who cares?
That and you miss the point that why should be be entitled to a welfare scheme called copyright because he copied a song, legally, and made a few changes to it to hide the fact that it's a Beatles song when other professions, crafts and trades aren't entitled to that kind of thing.
Okay, he had a hit and good on him. That doesn't change that he doesn't understand the public domain or what it means. He gets a dribble of an income from COPYING (legally in the world of copyright and licensing) from someone else. So does Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono representing John Lennon's estate. Not that they'll notice it.
Again, perhaps some music lessons would help you, too. More, I suspect that they'd help Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First he ruined Harry Belafonte, now Toto... is there no end to this mockery of culture?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because he's a musician. And musicians keep Cthulhu at bay. When the last musician calls it quits, the world will end. Something that is likely to happen this year because of piracy. Knowing this, they are wise not to paticipate in pension plans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only people who seem to care are relatives who had nothing to do with the work, and the lawyers from licensing companies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I ever am lucky enough to create something people enjoy and may enjoy after my death I don't want it locked up behind what ever mess copyright is at that stage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, like I said, it will probably be retroactively changed to life + 70; all rights reserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe Homer is a Brad Pitt fan? Or Eric Bana, I've liked over half of the movies he's been in.
I think we can all agree it had nothing to do with Orlando Bloom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But but but... the artists!!
But but but... the artists!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't want artists to get paid, simply purchase the rights to the songs and then you will be the one getting paid. Stop comparing apples to oranges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is that the whole concept of purchasing "rights" is itself a fabrication.
WHen I by a brick I get to do anything I like with the brick by default.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh, I see - you're being willfully ignorant. Sorry, I didn't realize you were missing the point deliberately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The part about the bricklayer is so spot on I'm going to steal it and use it, unlicensed, in my own arguments.
And think of the fact that, as a result of their hard work, you not only get to enjoy using a clean toilet, but you also avoid catching a disease that could bugger up the rest of your life. So therefore you owe royalties to the cleaners for the privilege of living healthily the rest of your life�why shouldn�t they get a percentage out of that? After all, you are benefiting from use of their sanitary property rights. Do you really want to be a sanitright pirate, and just have your health for free? We need stronger sanitright-enforcement laws now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What right do they have to push another country towards extending copyright? That is the real issue here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it really that you do not like a royalty-based means of compensation, as opposed to a fixed price for labor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Copyright is supposed to make an incentive to create new works, and yet the perpetual Copyright that lasts beyond the death of the author is clearly in no way encouraging new works from that author. Handing the copyrights over to the estate certainly doesn't help, either; when was the last time any of F. Scott Fitzgerald's heirs created any new works?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, it's that I understand the importance of the public domain, and understand the difference between incentives to create and a welfare system.
Pity that you don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In an incentive system one generally does something with the hope of receiving something in return.
Where we differ is that I happen to believe copyright law is predicated upon an incentive system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now if a label steals your rights, then it's even more of a welfare system for them. They gave you a loan, and are now making money off something they didn't create while waiting for you to pay back the loan.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where we differ is that I happen to believe copyright law is predicated upon an incentive system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where we differ is that I happen to believe copyright law is predicated upon an incentive system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The incentive was to create the original work in the first instance.
(Yes, this guy was a one-hit wonder.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's almost like the original copyright framers thought "Wow, these long-haired creative types are so scatterbrained they can barely put their shoes on. Let's give them something so we don't have to keep seeing them at the back door begging for scraps."
/sarcasm
Is copyright insulting to artists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just sayin...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Context
"Some people believe in public domain. Why? Just so you can rip off dead people's works? That's pathetic."
This looks like a fake troll and I would vote it funny, but I guess he's serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Columbus [check]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If musicians had to save for retirement they wouldn't be able to party like rock stars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I saw a video quite some time ago about a musician that noticed how many many many songs today all have a certain number of notes in common. He recognized this because when he was in band at school he got sick of playing these same notes over and over again and heard them in a piece of music he was listening to. I think this was in response to a lawsuit between two musicians. In his video he points out the notes in common between the two songs in question. He then points out the same notes in songs going back several years and concluding by showing the same notes in some classical song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NZ contributions to copyright debate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlimited Copyright Term?
...as long as we go by the mobile phone industry's definition of "unlimited."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlimited Copyright Term?
Sounds nutty doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
he's not the first
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they consider it equivalent to the "N" word you like to use for African Americans....
just so you know, and to reduce some ignorance of CURTURE you are displaying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
we call OURSELVES that all the time...
far more common is objecting about the fact that, thanks to American military crate labeling, the rest of the world can't seem to grasp the fact that a 'kiwi' is a BIRD. not a fruit. (the fruit is called a 'kiwifruit' and was, prior to NZ becoming a major grower, known as a 'chinese gooseberry', God only knows why. the fruit is named for the people are named for the bird.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The guy actually has a point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]