Composer Jason Robert Brown Still Standing By His Position That Kids Sharing His Music Are Immoral

from the well-that's-how-it-goes dept

Composer Jason Robert Brown got some attention in recent weeks for his blog post debating with a teenager over the morality of trading digital copies of his sheet music online. That story continued with a David Pogue blog post at the NY Times which quoted an accomplished musician and professor who defended the teen. And while Brown had said that he was done talking about this subject, it appears he can't resist. He's taken to the (digital) pages of the NY Times himself to restart his argument and to complain about the way people have treated him in this debate.

As we noted in our original post on the subject, I thought it was good that there was a civil discussion on the topic, and I know that these discussions can get rowdy and angry at times. But I do find it a bit silly when anyone suggests that it's all one side who are obnoxious in their treatment of those on the other side. It's the internet. People are going to make short and angry responses no matter what you say. People are quite frequently obnoxious or threatening to me, but I hardly leap to the conclusion that the majority of people who disagree with me are somehow hostile or even make a big deal of it. It's the internet. Get used to it and move on.

For example, I find that Brown's dismissal of certain arguments to be every bit as "hostile and haughty" as what he accuses those from "the Slashdot World" of making:

In the Slashdot world, the idea that creators are losing something in the free and unauthorized exchange of their creative capital is somehow controversial. People who like to quote Stewart Brand's mantra "Information wants to be free" insist that the minute I express a creative idea in any fixed form, it becomes the property of the world.

First of all, it seems like the only people who still use the (mis)-quote "information wants to be free" any more are people knocking down a strawman. The quote is meaningless. If people use it, they're using it as shorthand for a much more nuanced argument, but rather than respond to that argument, it seems that copyright system defenders use it to mock those who have more serious arguments by brushing them off as the "information wants to be free" crowd. And the argument is not that once you express a creative idea in any form it becomes "the property of the world," but that you physically cannot limit what happens to it. That's just how it is. That doesn't mean it becomes property of the world. After all, ideas are not property. But it does mean that because people can copy it at no cost, they will do so.

The question is, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to argue and whine and stomp your feet as the tide comes in... or are you going to adapt and adjust your business model?

The blueprints for your house should be free. Movies should be free. The DSM-IV should be free, regardless of the expense required to create these things.

This is really frustrating because people accuse me of making this kind of statement all the time. It's not should, it's will. "Should" is a moral argument. "Will" is a predictive economic explanation. People aren't saying the information "should" be anything. They're saying it will be -- or, more likely -- already is. Again, the question is what do you do about it? Falsely claiming people are giving it moral value by saying "should" twists an economic/business model debate into a moral one.

I don't think I'm guilty of simplifying their side of the argument; they insist on simplicity -- the preachers of the "new ethics" imply that anything short of a tangible good or service should have a value of precisely zero, for the simple reason that the Internet makes it cheap and easy to disseminate intellectual property, regardless of the laws of copyright or traditional moral custom.

You are guilty of simplifying the other side, and many of us do not insist on simplicity at all. We insist on accuracy -- and it is inaccurate to claim many of us are saying "should" when we are not. That an accurate explanation of basic economic (not moral) forces may seem simple does not mean we wish to simplify the argument.

Following on that logic, if it were as simple to reproduce a chicken online as it is to reproduce a copy of my song, everyone could just get free chicken whenever they wanted, provided they had enough ink in their chicken printer or whatever.

Yes, that logic sounds perfectly sound. Is he really suggesting that an invention that could solve world hunger is a bad thing?

These same people insist that I should be happy to give my music away because it's free advertising, and that word of mouth will spur more performances of my work.

The people saying that are pointing out that there are more factors at work here than just what Jason Robert Brown has said originally. They're not just saying that it will spur more performances. They're saying that the issue is more complex than you're making it out to be, and there are other business model options and that, perhaps, it would help to explore them, rather than to mock them.

I don't doubt, however, that if these people could figure out how to get to my performances for free, they would do that too.

Indeed. If such things were available infinitely, than that would be the case. What Jason Robert Brown is ignoring is that as one thing becomes infinitely available, it always creates additional scarcities that he can charge for.

We can all rationalize stealing in any number of ways, but taking something that doesn't belong to you is theft, and I no longer have any patience with those who want to justify (or worse, ennoble) the taking of what is rightfully mine.

Infringement is totally different than stealing. It is making a copy of something. You have not lost anything. This point has been made so many times it's silly that it needs to keep being made. And if he no longer has the patience to "justify" his (wrong) argument, why does he keep writing about it?

It seems reasonable to me that if you want that information, I should be able to charge you for it.

Fair enough. It seems reasonable to me that if you want to read this page, you should have to pay me $100,000 to do so. What, you don't want to do that? Then my business model fails. But that's my problem, not those who chose to find alternative markets for my content.

The fact that you can get that information for free, thanks to some naive teenager or Crusading Copyright Killer, does not diminish my entitlement (both legal and moral) to be paid for providing it.

Actually it does. And that is the point. Markets adapt based on supply and demand. When a product becomes infinitely available, supply goes way up, and the price goes down. Your sense of entitlement to a business model that no longer fits the market is what people are complaining about. They're not upset that you want to get paid. They just are letting you know that you've chosen a bad way to get paid, and they're going to get your works from alternative market places.

It's very easy for me to make that material available if I wanted people to have it, but it is enormously frustrating to have that control wrested from me by the simple act of someone scanning a copy of sheet music and sending it freely out into the world.

The crux of the problem: Jason Robert Brown wants control. But copyright was never about "control." Markets change. Old providers lose control. Don't blame everyone else. Learn to adapt.

I write for the theater. It's not a particularly reliable or consistent way to make a living, but I have found my way to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle by offering my work for sale in ways ancillary to public performances. It no longer makes sense to produce and sell CDs of my work -- the expense of producing those recordings far exceeds the income earned in the current climate. Now sheet music is equally endangered.

So you've adapted before, and you can adapt again. Welcome to a dynamic world.

It seems legitimate to wonder if there isn't some way to take back those income streams, if not through legal enforcement measures, than at least through changing the terms of the debate from "Why people should be allowed to steal all the content they want" to "Why creators are entitled to payment for the work they do."

It's legitimate to wonder, but it's still asking the wrong question. You don't "take back" income streams that no longer make sense in a market. You adjust and adapt -- just like many other artists are doing -- and move forward. Instead, Jason Robert Brown is looking backward wistfully at a world that no longer exists.

And, again, no one is saying that creators shouldn't get paid or shouldn't make a living. They're just saying that it's your responsibility to find the right business model, and to adapt when the market changes. That's not "amazing." It's basic economics.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, jason robert brown, morality, music, sheet music

Teenager And Composer Argue Over File Sharing

from the fight-it-out dept

Early last week, reader dcm sent over an interesting blog post by Jason Robert Brown, a somewhat well known theatrical composer where he posted a debate he had with a teenager concerning file sharing. Since then, it appears the story also appeared on Reddit and some other sites, and now everyone is submitting it to me (that'll teach me not to leave interesting stories to write up over the long weekend...). Anyway, the basics of the story aren't too surprising: Brown is upset that the girl isn't paying him, the girl tries to explain that she wouldn't buy his work otherwise (she doesn't have the means), but is trying to promote his work because she likes it and thinks more should know about it. And, from those two very different viewpoints, nothing approaching agreement is ever reached.

It's definitely an interesting discussion, in that both sides mostly remain friendly throughout the debate. Brown starts off with a simple request to various users of some file sharing system to please stop sharing his works because it's "totally not cool" with him. Thankfully, he doesn't threaten anyone or break out any legalistic cease-and-desist type language. There is some back and forth at the beginning where the girl doesn't believe that "THE" Jason Robert Brown is really emailing her, but then the conversation gets a bit more interesting. She starts out by asking him a simple question about why he's spending so much time asking everyone to take down his scores:

I'd like to ask you a question. Why are you doing this? I just searched you on this site and all of the stuff that people have of yours up there say that it's "Not for Trade Per Composer's Request." Did you think about the aspiring actors and actresses who really need some good sheet music? If you're really who you claim to be, then I assume you know that Parade, Last Five Years, 13 The Musical, etc. are all genius pieces of work and that a lot of people who would love to have that sheet music can't afford it. Thus the term "starving artist." Performers really need quick and easy ways to attain good sheet music and you're stopping a lot of people from getting what they need. It matters a great deal to them that they can get it for free. Why does it matter so much to you that they don't?

Brown takes a while to actually get around to responding to the questions (there are some emails in between), but he finally says:

I should think the answer is obvious: I think it's annoying and obnoxious that people think they're entitled to get the sheet music to my songs for free, and I'd like to make those people (you, for example) conscious of the immorality, illegality, and unfairness of their behavior.

The teenager, Eleanor (sometimes referred to as Brenna, but that's not worth discussing), points out that many artists have no real means of obtaining his works, but by being able to download the scores for free and use them, they're making many more people aware of his works. She presents a hypothetical that describes the value of word of mouth marketing for those who might not be aware of his works, even highlighting how many of those people will likely end up making transactions that help his bottom line. He, not surprisingly, is not buying it:

That same scenario could take place exactly the same way if you paid for the music. And that's how that scenario is SUPPOSED to take place. You assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it's therefore mitigated. That's nonsense. I'm glad people want to sing my songs, and I'm glad that when other people hear them, they enjoy them -- that doesn't mean I surrender my right to get paid for providing the sheet music.

This is a point that is raised quite often, but misses the point, which Eleanor is quick to point out: that the scenario won't happen, because many up-and-coming artists will simply shift to music from composers who do allow it to be traded for free:

You think the same scenario could have taken place exactly the same way? Funny. Most of the teenagers I have met who are into theatre would do the free song before they would do the one for $3.99 unless they had a really good reason. It could theoretically take place the same way. The question is would it? And the answer is probably not. I never said that it was an amazing thing happening and I never said that it doesn't start with what I'm sure seems to you as a bad thing. I "assume that because a good thing comes from an illegal act, it's therefore mitigated"? .... Yes. I assume that because something that good comes from something so insignificantly negative, it's therefore mitigated.

Brown comes back with a few comments about how it's not worth arguing with a teenager who thinks anyone who tries to correct her is "the enemy," but then comes up with three "stories" of his own about why file sharing is wrong -- even though none of them actually show that. Instead, there are two that are about borrowing a physical item, and one about fair use. What's most amusing here, however, is that Brown seems to have no problem with the kind of fair use where you rip a CD, but doesn't seem to think that Eleanor's use of his music could possibly be fair use. Then he concludes with four paragraphs where he tries to convince her she's wrong and tells her she should take his works out of the library instead:

Now you're frustrated because even if you wanted to do the right thing, the ethical and legal thing, you still need a credit card to buy the sheet music and that isn't going to happen. Listen, Eleanor, I'm frustrated on your behalf. It really sucks to be a teenager. I'm not being sarcastic or ironic, I really get it. I wrote a whole show about it. But being able to steal something doesn't mean you should. If your parents really won't pony up the four bucks to buy a copy of the sheet music, then you can ask them to take you to the library and you can take out all the music you want, free, and pick the song you want to use for an audition or a talent show, and you can keep borrowing the book from the library until you're done with it or until the library demands it back. My song may not be in your library -- you could ask them to get it from another library, through an interlibrary loan (this is common, standard library practice), but if you're in a time crunch, that's not practical -- so you may have to just pick another song. It may not be the perfect song, but if you're a talented girl, it won't matter all that much. As long as it shows off what you can do and who you are, it will suffice because you are a teenager and the people who you are auditioning for will cut you slack on that account.

That's the end of my jeremiad, and I'd be surprised if it persuaded you in any real way, but it is the truth and it is your responsibility as a citizen, as a member of the theatrical community, and as a considerate human being to pay attention to the laws, ethics and customs that make it possible for you to do the thing you love. I'm very much impressed by how passionately you've stood your ground, and how articulate you've been in doing so, and I can't tell you how excited I am that you didn't misspell anything, not once in this entire exchange. (Well, you wrote "you're" when you meant "your" once, but I'll let it go.) But being able to argue a point doesn't make it right -- lots of lawyers lose cases all the time.

I'm sorry if you still think I'm a jerk, but what I'm talking about here is not "insignificant." The entire record business is in free-fall because people no longer feel the moral responsibility to buy music; they just download it for free from the Internet, from YouTube, from their friends. When I make a cast album or a CD of my own, I do it knowing that it will never earn its money back, that I'm essentially throwing that money away so that I can put those songs out in the world. That shouldn't be the case, and I suspect in your heart you believe that too. All of us who write music for the theater are very much concerned that the sheet music business will eventually go the same way as the record business. I'm doing my little part to keep that from happening.

If you want me to talk to your parents and ask them to buy you the sheet music, just have them write me an email. You know how to find me.

Not surprisingly, I side more with Eleanor than with Brown in this debate, but I do think it's a good thing that the two sides engaged in a civil discussion on this topic, and think it's a bit unfortunate, as Brown notes in his "update" that he's hearing from "hostile" men who are trying to "educate" him on this subject. I would bet, of course, that many of the people trying to educate Brown are not, actually, hostile at all, but I'm sure some of them certainly are. And it's unfortunate, then, that he automatically lumps all such responses into the "hostile" camp.

The simple fact of the matter is that Brown is, in fact, wrong on many of his key points, though it's not surprising that he is. For example, his claims that "the entire record business is in free-fall because people no longer feel the moral responsibility to buy music," is quite an incorrect statement. First of all, since when has there ever been a "moral responsibility to buy music?" There hasn't been. And, of course, while certain major record labels may see their business in free-fall, the actual music business is doing incredibly well -- in fact, it's having quite a renaissance in terms of the number of albums released, and the amount of overall money that people are spending on it. It's just that they're not spending it on recordings (or sheet music) directly.

That said, Brown has made his living this way for a while, so you can see why he'd be upset that the old way of making money has been disappearing, but I doubt that a significant portion of his earnings came from teenage girls buying his sheet music in order to perform it at talent shows. In fact, since most of his work is for the theater, there are numerous business models available to him that have little, if nothing, to do with direct recordings, and for which file sharing -- like the kind Eleanor cites -- could help attract more revenue if he'd learn to adapt, rather than demand that the rest of the world adapt to him.

In the end, though, Brown did not go legalistic (even if he did go moralistic) and seemed at least willing to engage with Eleanor. I doubt he's going to change his mind any time soon, but we've seen a lot worse and a lot more obnoxious from folks who were a lot less informed. Brown strikes me as the kind of guy who, if actually given more evidence on this subject might actually come around to recognizing that, perhaps, it was he who made the wrong assumptions, rather than Eleanor, even if it might take quite some time before he realizes this.

Filed Under: copyright, file sharing, jason robert brown, morality, music, sheet music

Is Intellectual Property Itself Unethical?

from the making-the-argument dept

For many years I've argued that the economics of abundance is not a moral issue. This is in response to the typical moral and ethical arguments in favor of things like excessive copyright or patent law, with normative claims about how we must protect artists' or inventors' creations for moral reasons, in that it would somehow be "unfair" to have others make use of their creations or inventions. My argument, in response, has always been that the role of morality is in determining a different level of fairness, it's determining the allocation of harm. In other words, moral questions come up when there is a choice over who gets harmed. If you're in a situation where no one gets harmed, then there should be no moral question. So, in approaching an issue like intellectual property, my argument is that if you can create a solution in which the economics allow a greatly increased opportunity for everyone, then you preempt the moral question. Since everyone has a chance to be better off, if you understand the economics and apply it properly, then the only issue is one of economics -- how to best achieve that goal -- rather than morality.

However, if it's true that by doing away with the idea of intellectual property, you create greater opportunities for everyone, could you make the argument that intellectual property laws themselves are immoral or unethical in that they are actually what makes everyone worse off? Could you make the argument that by restricting the use of certain resources and restricting freedom of expression, those laws lead to unethical limitations? Put another way, if intellectual property is causing actual harm, then you could make the claim that there is a moral issue in discussing them -- in that the laws of intellectual property, by themselves, are immoral. That is, if taking away IP causes no direct harm, then there's no moral issue to discuss. But, if leaving them in place does cause harm, then that is a moral issue worth considering.

It's really not something that I had thought about, but Stephan Kinsella points us to a recent talk given by David Koepsell, who not so long ago wrote a book, Who Owns You?, all about the serious problems in patenting genes. I've actually had a few email conversations with Koepsell over the past few months, and it's worth paying attention to what he has to say. He's very deliberate and careful in his work, supporting his positions with deep levels of analysis and evidence. This talk appears to be a new area that he's taking on, trying to make the case that all intellectual property is, by its very nature, unethical: Now, I will be the first to admit that the talk itself is a bit dry at parts and rough around the edges, and at times seems to go off on tangents. But it certainly has some potential. The argument uses different language than we use here to describe some points, but they map back to the points we discuss on a regular basis pretty easily. He talks about the difference between real property and intellectual property, in that real property concepts predate the law -- predate "institutions" -- because of the brute facts of the situation. If you possess a physical good, there need not be any law saying that you are excluding others from using it. You have it. But if it's an idea or an expression, you need an institution or a law to try to exclude it from others. Effectively, he's distinguishing between what we refer to as scarce goods and infinite goods. Scarce goods, by their nature, are rivalrous and excludable. Infinite goods are not.

He also discusses that the concept of "the commons" is too simplistic, and that there are different kinds of commons. Again, there are the commons that are created through legal or institutional necessity -- such as national parks or the highway system. Without the institutions, then others would likely claim that land via possession. Keeping them as a commons is the legal attempt to avoid a "tragedy of the commons," where that property is allocated inefficiently. But, he argues, there's another type of commons as well: a commons that itself is normal that cannot be enclosed and possessed outside of the law. And that includes things like your genes, or any expression. He refers to the former as a "commons by choice," and the latter as a "commons by necessity," which is an interesting concept.

Thus, the key argument he makes is that intellectual property is an attempt to lock up the "commons by necessity," in the false belief that it is the same thing as the "commons by choice." And while he doesn't directly make this final point, what's clearly implied is this: the purpose of a commons-by-choice is to avoid the tragedy of the commons and to better allocate a scarce resource by letting everyone share it. But when we try to take a commons-by-necessity and pretend there's a tragedy of the commons when it might not exist, we actually make the allocation of resources significantly less efficient. And making a choice to limit the efficiency of a space -- such as by limiting your rights to expression or your rights to innovate or, perhaps worst of all, the rights to your own genes, you are creating harm -- and that harm is immoral.

It's definitely an argument worth considering.

Filed Under: david koepsell, ethics, intellectual property, morality

Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'

from the but-wait... dept

We often see critics or industry folks make absolute statements like, "copyright infringement is stealing and it's bad." Of course, this is wrong for any number of reasons, but rather than jumping all the way to why such statements are obviously wrong and misleading, why not peel back that onion one layer at a time. Ross Pruden points us to an interesting blog post by Luci Temple, where she begins the process of questioning the assumptions around "piracy is bad." It starts out with that premise (it's bad!) and then starts asking questions:

Purchaser: This person has already paid for a legal copy of the film. Now, the Purchaser might want to do a number of things that are technically in breach of copyright:

a) Burn a copy of the dvd for personal use, so that their original copy won't get scratched.
b) Create a digital copy for use on a portable MP4 player, media gate, or computer.
c) Lend the burned dvd to a friend for their personal use (their friend being a Previewer).
d) Lend the digital copy to a friend for personal use (which actually involves making another digital copy).

All these things are technically acts of "piracy," however, are they all morally "wrong"? Is copyright law applicable to the mores of the digital age, or does it need to be updated?

She goes on to discuss "lending" to a friend, noting how it's fine to lend a physical copy, but why not a digital copy? The thing is, the more you play this game, the more you'll realize how many situations that are automatically lumped in with what's considered "bad," almost certainly aren't "bad" in anyway at all.

Filed Under: ethics, file sharing, morality, piracy

Is Morality Even A Question In Copyright?

from the and-should-it-be? dept

I've explained in the past why I think it doesn't make much sense to include a moral argument in discussing things like copyright law. If you can structure things such that everyone is better off, then morality shouldn't even come into play at all. My focus, then, is on setting up systems that do tend to benefit everyone, so there isn't a moral question at all. If even the content creators are better off under certain systems, then where is the moral question? The problem, of course, is that it's often not the actual content creators whose livelihoods are at stake. Instead, it's various middlemen who have worked themselves into a certain position. But arguing that they need to prop up their own obsolete business model isn't very interesting, so they tend to play the morality card, claiming that a system where content is given away for free has some sort of negative moral component. That's hogwash.

William Patry recently did a series of posts over at The Volokh Conspiracy, and addressed this issue as well, concerning copyrights and morality, where he noted:

Morality is used in the Copyright Wars as a way to cover up the inability to justify expansion of rights on economic grounds.

Indeed. Since copyright is intended as an economic right (as detailed and cited in Patry's post), the arguments over copyright need to focus on the economic issues. And a properly calibrated system is one where there's the greatest overall economic good and everyone has the greatest opportunity to benefit. At that point, where's the morality question at all? The answer is that there isn't one. Claiming morality in an economics discussion on copyright is a crutch used by those who can't support their position. There is no moral issue at all.

Filed Under: copyright, morality, william patry

Latest Unsubstantiated Claim: Twitter Makes You Immoral

from the oh,-please... dept

What is it with these bizarre exaggerated claims about the "harms" associated with modern social networking tools? There was just a totally exaggerated report claiming that social networking was harmful to your health, but when you looked at the details, it didn't actually say that at all. The latest, is the claim that new research says that Twitter can make you "immoral." Really? Well, if you actually read the details that doesn't seem to be what the report says at all. Instead, it seems to note that if you only interact with people through short bursts of information, it may take you longer to recognize the emotional impact of what's being said because it's harder to spend the time to reflect. It's difficult to see how that finding is really all that new or surprising. But it says nothing about Twitter somehow turning moral people into immoral people, as the original story suggests.

Filed Under: hype, morality, studies, twitter
Companies: twitter

Free Market Capitalism, Moral Character And Doing Good All Work Hand In Hand

from the can-we-get-over-this-already? dept

I've never quite understood the complaints of some that free market capitalism somehow goes against morality or good deeds. As we've discussed in the past, moral questions shouldn't even come up at all in scenarios where everyone is better off. Moral questions only arise in scenarios where some are worse off and some are better off, and a decision needs to be made about who is worse off and who is better off. The nice thing about free market capitalism is that it tends to increase the overall pie, allowing a much larger number of people to be better off, and tends to do so in a more efficient manner than other systems.

Yet, then we have odd stories about people complaining about for-profit charitable organizations even when those charitable organization end up raising significantly more money for charities than their non-profit "competitors." There's nothing inherently evil about profit -- and if you look at much of the important charitable giving out there today, it was created because of profit. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation -- which is based on this very idea of doing good through capitalism is built off of the vast profits earned by Gates and Warren Buffet. Google's charitable wing, Google.org, is also designed as a for-profit enterprise, recognizing that if it can make everyone better off while making itself better off, there's no moral dilemma at all.

But, still, there are some who suddenly question whether or not the free market takes away a moral backbone -- but the only situations in which that would clearly be true are in cases of either outright fraud, or where you're dealing with a zero-sum game. In an economy that has the potential for growth, then one should encourage more growth to increase opportunities for everyone. There may be additional moral questions later concerning overall allocation, but increasing the wider opportunity, which is exactly what free market capitalism does, seems ridiculous to question.

In the end, it seems that some have this odd guilt associated with money -- as if because one person has made a lot of it that it somehow takes away from others. That's simply not true. Adam Smith, who wrote the original book on free market capitalism, The Wealth of Nations, only did so after first writing a book on morality, called The Theory of Moral Sentiment. Free market economics and morality go hand in hand. To think that they're mutually exclusive shows both a misunderstanding of morality and economics.

Filed Under: capitalism, free markets, morality

UK Culture Secretary Pushes Copyright Extension With Questionable Logic

from the can-I-get-paid-the-rest-of-my-life-please? dept

SteveD points us to the full text of a speech given by UK Cultural Secretary Andy Burnham, pushing for copyright extension on performance rights. The speech itself is interesting, in that Burnham at least pays some tribute to other ideas, even quoting John Perry Barlow on the nature of information. However, there are still plenty of troublesome (or downright incorrect) statements in the speech. Even though he kicks it off by saying that the government generally should stay out of the music business, he then goes on to mostly ignore that:

But, the truth is, government intervention in the music business does not have a glorious history. To paraphrase one of our greats, mixing pop and politics is not a straightforward business and, indeed, can be a bit embarrassing for all concerned.

The British music business has been a major success story with government at arm's length, or further - in something of a state of mutual distrust.

Over the second half of the last century the industry grew into one of real economic and cultural significance -- and its output for many defined us internationally -- yet without significant government intervention or political help.

But I'm going to make the case this morning that necessity means that the old order of things needs to change.

You would think, having admitted that when the industry has been successful without intervention and admitting that when the gov't does get involved, things tend to get messed up, he'd have a pretty rock solid reason for saying it's time to change. But he doesn't. His focus seems to be on the fact that musicians need to get paid for every song listened to -- which is simply not true. That may be the way things worked in the past (actually, that's not true -- because most record labels never handed that money over to musicians, but...), but plenty of musicians have figured out other ways of getting paid. Burnham seems to ignore all that, and posits the fallacy that if musicians don't get paid from each use of a recorded song, they don't get paid at all.

While he talks about new and innovative business models that can come about due to the internet, he then makes the mistake that all music industry business models must be based on copyright:

Copyright underpins the music business -- and all our creative industries -- and the right response when it's put under pressure is not to abandon a system as outdated, but to make it work better.

And then he goes for the "moral" angle, which makes very little sense:

There is a moral case for performers benefiting from their work throughout their entire lifetime.

There are numerous problems with this sentence. First of all, no one has ever said that performers don't benefit from their work throughout their lifetimes, even if they're not paid for every single use. But they should be the ones who set up how they benefit -- not the government. If I performed on a hit song in the 60s, there are plenty of ways to benefit: such as by convincing others to hire me by noting "Hey, look, I played the guitar on this number one hit from 1968..." or whatever.

But, Burnham is making a totally fallacious argument: that if you're not getting paid directly and repeatedly for the work, then there's some sort of moral code broken. On that, I think many people would disagree. Most folks get paid for their work once. They don't continue to get paid directly for it throughout their lifetimes. They're expected to keep working, and to save money so that eventually they can retire. Why should things be any different for performers?

And, the worst part is that Burnham leaves out the truly "moral" question of copyright extension: that it's taking content away from the public domain. The musicians who recorded performances fifty years ago entered into a deal with the public -- the public that Burnham is supposed to be representing, though he seems to think he represents the artists. They would perform the music and retain exclusive rights over it for 50 years. Then it goes into the public domain. To retroactively and unilaterally change that deal is completely unfair to everyone. It's saying that a deal that was entered into fifty years ago can be ignored and changed to benefit a single party against every other person. How is that possibly moral?

There's a lot more in the speech that is equally troubling, but it's just repeating the same old talking points. The speech also ignores the research that has shown that copyright extension won't actually give very much to the musicians, but will dump millions into the coffers of the big record labels. It's not surprising, because we've heard this before, but it's a speech that ignores reality and paints a fantasy picture of both what's happening in the industry and the entire purpose of copyright law.

Filed Under: andy burnham, copyright, copyright extension, morality, uk

The Reality Facing Those Who Rely On The Copyright Crutch

from the it's-not-pretty dept

Whenever I write things like the post yesterday about the fact that too many people are relying on copyright as a crutch that allows them to avoid putting any effort into more innovative business models, people accuse me of being some sort of "idealist" who is not in touch with the real world. That always strikes me as a funny thing to say, because my discussions on copyright have nothing to do with idealism -- but are simply based on the reality of what's happening in copyright. If you want further evidence of that, just take a look at David Pogue's latest column where he discovers that college kids don't view this as a moral issue at all. They just don't see why anyone would think it's "wrong" to copy content. No education campaign, no legal campaign, no change in laws is going to change that. That is the reality anyone who relies on copyright is going to face in the near future, if they aren't facing it already. So, given that reality, why not look into business models that embrace it, rather than pretending we live in an idealistic world where everyone respects the artificial barriers of copyright? Is it really so idealistic to try to build business models based on reality?

Filed Under: copyright, generation gap, morality