Music Publishers: We Need Strong Copyright Laws Because We Don't Like The Consumer Electronics Association
from the um,-what? dept
A few folks have sent over a Forbes article by David Israelite, the head of the National Music Publishers Association (NMPA), provocatively entitled: We Need Strong Copyright Laws Now More Than Ever. I read it carefully, expecting an argument to discuss concerning copyright law... but it never comes. Instead, the entire article appears to be about how the Consumer Electronics Association is big, and the NMPA is small. So, copyright.Technically, the article is a "response" to another Forbes piece, by Gary Shapiro, the head of the Consumer Electronics Association, in which he notes that a series of recent issues suggests that copyright law is not serving its proper function, and the time is right to take "a fresh look at copyright laws." The article makes the case that copyright laws do have a purpose, and it even celebrates some actions by the entertainment industry to seek to innovate and embrace some new technologies. There's actually very little that I think anyone on any side of the debate should find particularly controversial. So, without an actual argument possible to make, Israelite decided to just focus solely on the fact that CEA is bigger than NMPA.
The first eight paragraphs of the article are just attacks on CEA. Then there's finally one paragraph that actually talks about copyright. Just one:
Copyright significantly contributes to the trade balance for our nation. A song written decades ago in Nashville can be heard, legally, in Japan, and today’s American hits instantly become top international downloads. Products associated with copyright, and this goes beyond music to include television, movies, newspapers, magazines, books, and computer software, are one of the few sectors expanding internationally. The most recent data finds copyright industries outpacing aircraft, auto, food, and pharmaceuticals in sales and exports. And as our economy gets back on track, consider the power behind songwriter-driven small businesses that provide jobs in every state.Of course, there are multiple problems and misleading aspects to this paragraph. It assumes that copyright is the same thing as the music itself. While the music may contribute to the economy, that does not mean that copyright itself contributes to the economy. Second, he assumes that "stronger" copyright laws would somehow increase the ability of those sectors to make money, when there's little evidence to actually support that. There's just a big correlation/causation error. Either way, nothing in the post actually touches on the title of the article. It basically is just a piece to bash the Consumer Electronics Association because Shapiro mentioned in his article that the NMPA supported SOPA last year, and how that was a move in the wrong direction.
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, copyright reform, david israelite, gary shapiro, music, music publishers
Companies: cea, nmpa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yes, as it always could be. I think they mean to say "Can now be monetized in Japan."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does that even mean regarding copyright? Japanese people have ears and voices and eyes, of course they can hear an old tune or see it performed. Copyright has jacksquat to do with that. Legal issues have jacksquat to do with that.
Hearing something legally...what a preposterous belief system this guy has! What a tiny mind!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No fives...no rounded corners...no old nashville tunes sung in Japanese...the world fades to grey. :(
They must be stopped!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huzzah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huzzah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Huzzah!
So...more movies are sold than aircraft? Strange, I could've sworn that would be a given, what with aircraft being large, expensive and scarce relative to movies. Why point that out? It's not apple to apple comparison, or even apple to oranges. Its comparing two things that have, well, nothing in common as far as I can see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huzzah!
That's because all aircraft now include copyrighted software and therefore count as part of the copyright industries...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huzzah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Huzzah!
Because you can watch movies on planes, silly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now copyright on the other hand is just terribuhl.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or in other words:
"Infinity minus one."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Masnick is fully aware that copyright helps artists monetize their creations instead of Google. And he hates that.
The article is just more of the same bullshit seen everyday on this blog.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's not enforcing "existing laws" if you keep changing said laws, jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But hey, insulting Mike Masnick is way important.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More people can buy movies and music and play them back at home. Without electronics, we could only see the movie one time, that's it, and only hear the songs one time, that's it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is something seriously wrong
I could not possibly doubt that more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is something seriously wrong
How could anyone NOT call bullshit on this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is something seriously wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There is something seriously wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are there manufacturing plants cranking out tons of blank copyrights per year, ready for music or movies or text to be inserted into them? Are the proper patent owners being paid, or are these illicit bootlegged blank copyrights?
And if I were to offer to sell blank copyrights to the recording industry, how much money would I make per copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such laws, per se, are not "industries". They are merely the rules by which commerce is transacted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is a shorthand that everyone understands, representing a group of legacy companies who rely heavily on existing copyright laws for their business model, and who often move in lockstep, concerning legal and policy issues.
Everyone else understands this. Why can't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Yeah, what the hell? Relying on a legal tenet that's been around as long as the country itself to create a business model. That's just cray, brah."
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ahh, but when the shoe is on the other foot, like when an internet company sets up a service that relies on the legal tenets of the DMCA, they are accused of all sorts shady activities by the legacy companies.
What is crazy is trying to have your cake and eat it too, Bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Patents and copyrights are legal instruments. Imagine, if you will, usage of the term "Semiconductor Chip Protection industries", "Vessel Hull Design Prodection industries", etc.
This and my earlier comment were not a criticism directed at TD. They are/were motivated by the contents of the article you critiqued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They abuse their position, power, money to buy the laws they want and subvert the course of justice just like the drug cartels have historically done in other nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meanwhile in reality, the songwriter will not be properly paid per the contract. The performer will not be properly pay per the contract. They will be found decades later having been huge stars living in flophouses or under bridges, not sharing in the huge cash windfall that lined the pockets of an industry who can't manage to find the people they owe money to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oh wait, no they didn't...
...said everyone with more than one functioning brain cell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Come on, doesn't it get tiring acting like a small child? Don't you want to discuss reality and adult things for a change? The offer's always been there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But it was, in fact, you that decided to use that language first, when I thoroughly burned you and the rest of your pirate buddies with the ugly light of logic, and left you with no comeback. Sorry that makes you so butthurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On top of that, you retort with a blatant lie about me and no attempt to redeem yourself by acting like an adult. My point stands.
Please feel free to present your holy light of logic, oh anonymous one, because all I ever see from your here is lies about the people posting, personal attacks, distortions of the positions presented, and oversimplifications of complex points that you're not willing to discuss without acting like a small child.
The offer is open - present your evidence, and be open discuss it like someone who's managed to graduate from middle school, and then we can do so. Otherwise, your lies about me and others here being "pirates" is just that, and you've not presented a point yet that isn't easily disproven with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Aw, the beauty of flawed perspective.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can you say HUBRIS???
"Many innovative and wonderful music-related products are made by CEA members. But many of these products have no purpose without music." -David Isralite.
Please support that quote with facts. I double dare you. Because I can't think of a single electronic device that I own that has no purpose without music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
And btw dumbass, content is everything. Your dorky gadgets mean dick without it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
That is the single most intelligent thing that you have ever said.
Long live the human race for without it content is nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
The other side of that coin is that you can no longer monetize your content without those "dorky gadgets" either. Not too many people buying player pianos these days, are there?
Those "dorky gadgets" are also allowing average people to produce their own content without you. Is that what really scares you? That anybody with a smidgen of talent can now be a part of your exclusive club?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
He'll get over it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
So that would be every single business that has an online retail section. Filthy pirates, every single one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can you say HUBRIS???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Monopoly revenues != value added
Read, the copyright industry is sucking more monopoly rents out of productive sectors of the economy than ever before.
New aircraft and cars add new value to the economy. Decades-old Nashville songs add no new value, whether heard in Japan or elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]