I completely accept that there are exceptions (which is why I said it's all down to context). Would you agree that the following example is wrong, or is this acceptable?
posted on a blog: "We've managed to get hold of the new XX album. You can grab it here."
Note: the link points to a one-click hosting site (like megaupload or rapidshare) so the file isn't hosted on the blog.
I think people should be responsible for the content of their websites (including links).
If Google are linking to sites which violate others' copyrights, they will remove the links if requested. Similar requests to the Pirate Bay to remove links are ignored. That's not really ok.
I appreciate that this is a big can-o-worms, but the "we don't host it, we just link to it" argument needs to be looked at somehow.
When I read the headline I thought this was going to be about the patent system and how it hampers innovation rather than encouraging it, but in this article you're talking about copyrights like those held on musical works.
Also, when you talk about innovation, you don't seem to be referring to innovation within the creative field; you're talking about innovation in the industry. So if an entrepreneur is considering setting up a new type of p2p file sharing company, the following could definitely be said to hamper such innovation:
1. Bad rhetoric about those infringing copyright
2. Copyright holders' fear of new technologies
3. A bias towards exaggerating effects of piracy
(sorry for the crude paraphrasing)
Conversely, if you ask the same of whether those three things would stop (or dissuade) a band from recording and releasing a "new sound" album, the points seem a bit irrelevant.
Sorry if that seems a little pedantic, but I think it's good to define what innovation we're actually talking about here. The rights of a content holder to sell copies of their content, and the rights of a company to sue another company because they own the [insert outrageous patent here] are very different and should be treated differently.
Could the same not be said of most areas of law? I would guess that there's a load of legacy nonsense in contract, insurance, drug, housing, health law too.
I agree with what you're saying and think that these things should be reconsidered with an open mind (free from existing ideas) but the legacy thing isn't actually an argument either way for the usefulness or effectiveness of the laws today. It's just a statement that the laws don't serve their original purpose.
I think I pretty much agree with everything you've said.
* We already have artists (and some labels) giving music away for free (using licenses other than copyright). In the absence of any examples of financial success with this method, we have to assume these people are hobbyists (with some other form of income).
* Many of the companies responsible for quality control of copyright works (label, promo, distro, stores etc) will cease to be without copyright.
* The new quality control filters are in their infancy. You mention pandora as an example - that's one of the better ones in my opinion. They basically pay a bunch of people to listen to tracks and score them on a load of criteria. That sounds like a huge task. The tracks they work with are those that have already filtered through the record labels. Imagine how much bigger their task would be if they had to listen to and grade every half-finished track that someone made in their bedroom then uploaded to soundcloud!
So with those things in mind, I think it's fair to conclude that: abolishing copyright before other systems that do not rely on copyright have developed to a point of offering similar quality control is likely to lead to a decrease in the quality of the music that the public hear.
Do you agree with that?
On a side note, I keep reading this term "copyright maximalist" on this blog. I'm not quite sure I get its meaning and I'm not sure if the above is making me sound like one of those! I am thinking about this stuff with an open a mind as I can. I know that copyright has problems; sampling and fair use is a mess; the 50 year term is much too long; the bullshit the big 4 are trying to get Amazon to agree to with their locker service is outrageous etc etc. At the same time, I have no problem with buying an mp3, and I have no problem with an artist or label making a living from selling mp3s. I hope that doesn't make me some kind of extremist!
Isn't "more copyright = higher quality" and "less copyright = lower quality" saying the same thing?
I said abolishing copyright is likely to lead to a decrease in quality of music and you paraphrased me as saying that copyright produces quality. Abolishing shoes from athletics is likely to see a decrease in running times, but that's not to say that shoes produce great athletes.
Why do you insist that those entities need to be financially successful? That is not what copyright is for. If they can survive and succeed, great. If not, fine - as long as the music gets made and is available.
I spoke to a colleague yesterday about this. He also didn't know of any record companies working outside of copyright with any success (although he did mention a couple that started with the free music idea and then switched to selling music once they were well-known).
So... if these businesses are not able to make a profit, they will obviously cease to be (or evolve into concert ticket / merchandise / whatever companies). So the question is whether that will promote or hamper the progress of music.
I find it hard to believe very many musicians would stop making and releasing music if there were no copyright. Do you think that is what would happen?
I agree with you. I don't think they would stop making music (although they may need to find a day job which could cut down available hours to make music).
Without the labels though, we've lost the first bit of quality control, so we'd get a mass of music being uploaded to soundcloud / myspace etc. There would be no direct feedback on the tracks from the label (something many artists benefit from greatly) and so a working relationship dedicated to ensuring high-quality has been lost. Fans end up doing the job of labels, and quality music is replaced by pop music.
Radio and club DJs will no longer be sent music by promo companies (because they don't exist any more) and so they'll be left to trawl through soundcloud like the rest of us.
Same with music stores - they evolve into add-funded blogs, but they no longer have distributors, so they end up drowning in the saturated pool of blandness too.
(I might be rambling a bit now!) My point is that if the companies whose interest it is in to find/promote/push the best quality music they can suddenly go out of business, in my opinion, that will hamper progress and quality of music.
I had a reply all typed up on this ridiculously slow hotel computer the other day and then it crashed...
I hate it when that happens. This thread is getting pretty long though! =] It's an interesting topic so good to have a decent discussion on it.
Ok, firstly, I didn't say that copyright produces higher quality works. I said that abolishing copyright is likely to lead to a decrease in the overall quality of music that the public has access to.
The problem is, the idea that copyright is the only thing allowing the industry to function is a lie. You can see this by observing people succeeding in the industry without relying on copyright.
Please give me some examples of companies succeeding (financially) in the music industry without copyright, specifically, higher up the chain, so, music distributors, record labels etc. I work in the industry and don't know of any. I know record labels and artists that release their music under free licenses, but they all do it as a hobby.
Also (bit of a tangent here but anyway), I don't accept this idea that musicians should be selling tickets to gigs and t-shirts and signed photographs rather than music. Being a musician should be a profession in itself (as should being an author) rather than a side-line to help t-shirt sales. This is not about musicians "deserving" a living but about the public "deserving" the works these people produce.
If he decided to go the Kickstarter route, he would still have to hold off putting his work out until he'd been pledged enough that he deemed it worthwhile to release it. Of course he could:
..get the actual writing out there and get people hungry for more and more and more.
...but at some point, he has to sell some writings (or signed photographs / t-shirts / re@l scarcity) if he's going to profit from his work, non?
Okay, you could argue that copyright may provide a negative incentive in some situations. Perhaps there are some artists who won't record that next album because they're too busy riding a jetski around their private island. I suspect the number is insignificant compared to the number of artists who value and appreciate the royalties they receive for the music they've released, but either way, you're missing a big part of the picture: the music industry is made of more than just artists.
If we abolish copyright and, all of a sudden, all released works have no monetary value (as nobody has the exclusive right to sell copies of them), there's no incentive for a label to sign an artist, for a distributor to sign a label, for a store to promote a label/artist's catalog. There's no incentive for the majors to license tracks from an indie. My point is that if you remove the financial incentive that allows the industry to function, it's reasonable to expect the output of that industry to decrease.
Your point about the majors not producing the highest quality music is interesting and made me laugh. I don't think they really function in the same way as other labels. They dominate the charts but that is hardly a mark of quality. I don't think the normal rules apply to them...
I don't get this. What markets could you look at? How can you measure a change in quality? What units do you use?
I think it's reasonable to expect that if you remove an incentive from an industry, that will have an effect on the output of that industry. So far, I haven't heard anything that suggests that removing copyright will increase that output, and basic economics would suggest that the opposite is actually more likely.
Majors? I don't consider what they do to be a yardstick of quality in the music industry. The "quality" music usually comes out on small labels. Your question has got me wondering if most people view the music industry and the majors as synonymous, and if much of the anti-copyright sentiment is actually anti-corporation sentiment.
Whether the music is currently of the "best" quality - I can only answer that subjectively and say that 2011 has been absolutely amazing for new releases as far as my ears are concerned.
Means or end, I don't have any problem with it. It's supply and demand.
I make the museums point because it seems clear to me that without entrance fees some museums would close their doors just as without copyright, some individuals and companies would.
I get the greater-good idea that you are echoing from Mike's original post but I have no idea how that could possibly be measured to make any sort of educated judgment. My opinion is that the quantity of content wouldn't change significantly, but the quality would take a massive nose-dive.
It's not a welfare system. It's a system that (despite it's problems) gets people paid for their works if they are in high demand.
You could say that all museums should be free - even if it means some of them can't afford to stay open - it's better for the public. You could say the same about taxis, doctors, food, whatever; they can all find new ways to make a living.
I'm of the opinion that if you want a book/album/software that the owner wishes to charge for, then you should pay for it, or don't have it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
I just found it odd that you chose to use a made-up situation of people freely passing through the berlin wall with snipers shooting children as a metaphor for copyright.
Anyway, no offense meant, and interesting to read your thoughts on this stuff.
I'm trying to be as open-minded as I can about this, but I'm not convinced at all that abolishing copyright would be better than keeping it.
There are existing routes (and lisenses) that people can use to release content freely and there are existing routes that people can use to release content under copyright. I don't understand how deleting one of these options is going to improve matters.
Ok, but we already have the fan-funded model. Companies like Kickstarter, Slice The Pie, Pledge Music are doing it. I don't see anything wrong with it, in the same way I don't think there's anything wrong with selling merchandise at a gig (or any other system which supplements the income of musicians). None of those are mutually exclusive to copyright though.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
Re: Re: Re: Re:
posted on a blog:
"We've managed to get hold of the new XX album. You can grab it here."
Note: the link points to a one-click hosting site (like megaupload or rapidshare) so the file isn't hosted on the blog.
On the post: The Senators Who Say Merely Linking To Certain Sites Should Be A Felony
If Google are linking to sites which violate others' copyrights, they will remove the links if requested. Similar requests to the Pirate Bay to remove links are ignored. That's not really ok.
I appreciate that this is a big can-o-worms, but the "we don't host it, we just link to it" argument needs to be looked at somehow.
On the post: Why Innovation Is Under Attack
What do you mean by "innovation"?
Also, when you talk about innovation, you don't seem to be referring to innovation within the creative field; you're talking about innovation in the industry. So if an entrepreneur is considering setting up a new type of p2p file sharing company, the following could definitely be said to hamper such innovation:
1. Bad rhetoric about those infringing copyright
2. Copyright holders' fear of new technologies
3. A bias towards exaggerating effects of piracy
(sorry for the crude paraphrasing)
Conversely, if you ask the same of whether those three things would stop (or dissuade) a band from recording and releasing a "new sound" album, the points seem a bit irrelevant.
Sorry if that seems a little pedantic, but I think it's good to define what innovation we're actually talking about here. The rights of a content holder to sell copies of their content, and the rights of a company to sue another company because they own the [insert outrageous patent here] are very different and should be treated differently.
On the post: The Anachronism Of Today's Patent And Copyright Laws
I agree with what you're saying and think that these things should be reconsidered with an open mind (free from existing ideas) but the legacy thing isn't actually an argument either way for the usefulness or effectiveness of the laws today. It's just a statement that the laws don't serve their original purpose.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
* We already have artists (and some labels) giving music away for free (using licenses other than copyright). In the absence of any examples of financial success with this method, we have to assume these people are hobbyists (with some other form of income).
* Many of the companies responsible for quality control of copyright works (label, promo, distro, stores etc) will cease to be without copyright.
* The new quality control filters are in their infancy. You mention pandora as an example - that's one of the better ones in my opinion. They basically pay a bunch of people to listen to tracks and score them on a load of criteria. That sounds like a huge task. The tracks they work with are those that have already filtered through the record labels. Imagine how much bigger their task would be if they had to listen to and grade every half-finished track that someone made in their bedroom then uploaded to soundcloud!
So with those things in mind, I think it's fair to conclude that: abolishing copyright before other systems that do not rely on copyright have developed to a point of offering similar quality control is likely to lead to a decrease in the quality of the music that the public hear.
Do you agree with that?
On a side note, I keep reading this term "copyright maximalist" on this blog. I'm not quite sure I get its meaning and I'm not sure if the above is making me sound like one of those! I am thinking about this stuff with an open a mind as I can. I know that copyright has problems; sampling and fair use is a mess; the 50 year term is much too long; the bullshit the big 4 are trying to get Amazon to agree to with their locker service is outrageous etc etc. At the same time, I have no problem with buying an mp3, and I have no problem with an artist or label making a living from selling mp3s. I hope that doesn't make me some kind of extremist!
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
I said abolishing copyright is likely to lead to a decrease in quality of music and you paraphrased me as saying that copyright produces quality. Abolishing shoes from athletics is likely to see a decrease in running times, but that's not to say that shoes produce great athletes.
Why do you insist that those entities need to be financially successful? That is not what copyright is for. If they can survive and succeed, great. If not, fine - as long as the music gets made and is available.
I spoke to a colleague yesterday about this. He also didn't know of any record companies working outside of copyright with any success (although he did mention a couple that started with the free music idea and then switched to selling music once they were well-known).
So... if these businesses are not able to make a profit, they will obviously cease to be (or evolve into concert ticket / merchandise / whatever companies). So the question is whether that will promote or hamper the progress of music.
I find it hard to believe very many musicians would stop making and releasing music if there were no copyright. Do you think that is what would happen?
I agree with you. I don't think they would stop making music (although they may need to find a day job which could cut down available hours to make music).
Without the labels though, we've lost the first bit of quality control, so we'd get a mass of music being uploaded to soundcloud / myspace etc. There would be no direct feedback on the tracks from the label (something many artists benefit from greatly) and so a working relationship dedicated to ensuring high-quality has been lost. Fans end up doing the job of labels, and quality music is replaced by pop music.
Radio and club DJs will no longer be sent music by promo companies (because they don't exist any more) and so they'll be left to trawl through soundcloud like the rest of us.
Same with music stores - they evolve into add-funded blogs, but they no longer have distributors, so they end up drowning in the saturated pool of blandness too.
(I might be rambling a bit now!) My point is that if the companies whose interest it is in to find/promote/push the best quality music they can suddenly go out of business, in my opinion, that will hamper progress and quality of music.
On the post: The Massive Treasure Trove Of Historic Jazz Recordings That Almost No One Has Heard... Thanks To Copyright
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
I hate it when that happens. This thread is getting pretty long though! =] It's an interesting topic so good to have a decent discussion on it.
Ok, firstly, I didn't say that copyright produces higher quality works. I said that abolishing copyright is likely to lead to a decrease in the overall quality of music that the public has access to.
The problem is, the idea that copyright is the only thing allowing the industry to function is a lie. You can see this by observing people succeeding in the industry without relying on copyright.
Please give me some examples of companies succeeding (financially) in the music industry without copyright, specifically, higher up the chain, so, music distributors, record labels etc. I work in the industry and don't know of any. I know record labels and artists that release their music under free licenses, but they all do it as a hobby.
Also (bit of a tangent here but anyway), I don't accept this idea that musicians should be selling tickets to gigs and t-shirts and signed photographs rather than music. Being a musician should be a profession in itself (as should being an author) rather than a side-line to help t-shirt sales. This is not about musicians "deserving" a living but about the public "deserving" the works these people produce.
On the post: Not Relying On Copyright Doesn't Mean You Don't Make Money
..get the actual writing out there and get people hungry for more and more and more.
...but at some point, he has to sell some writings (or signed photographs / t-shirts / re@l scarcity) if he's going to profit from his work, non?
On the post: Deconstructing Reasons To Buy
++++
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
If we abolish copyright and, all of a sudden, all released works have no monetary value (as nobody has the exclusive right to sell copies of them), there's no incentive for a label to sign an artist, for a distributor to sign a label, for a store to promote a label/artist's catalog. There's no incentive for the majors to license tracks from an indie. My point is that if you remove the financial incentive that allows the industry to function, it's reasonable to expect the output of that industry to decrease.
Your point about the majors not producing the highest quality music is interesting and made me laugh. I don't think they really function in the same way as other labels. They dominate the charts but that is hardly a mark of quality. I don't think the normal rules apply to them...
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
I think it's reasonable to expect that if you remove an incentive from an industry, that will have an effect on the output of that industry. So far, I haven't heard anything that suggests that removing copyright will increase that output, and basic economics would suggest that the opposite is actually more likely.
Majors? I don't consider what they do to be a yardstick of quality in the music industry. The "quality" music usually comes out on small labels. Your question has got me wondering if most people view the music industry and the majors as synonymous, and if much of the anti-copyright sentiment is actually anti-corporation sentiment.
Whether the music is currently of the "best" quality - I can only answer that subjectively and say that 2011 has been absolutely amazing for new releases as far as my ears are concerned.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
I make the museums point because it seems clear to me that without entrance fees some museums would close their doors just as without copyright, some individuals and companies would.
I get the greater-good idea that you are echoing from Mike's original post but I have no idea how that could possibly be measured to make any sort of educated judgment. My opinion is that the quantity of content wouldn't change significantly, but the quality would take a massive nose-dive.
On the post: Grooveshark Insists It's Legal; Points Out That Using DMCA Safe Harbors Is Not Illegal
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: alternatives...
You could say that all museums should be free - even if it means some of them can't afford to stay open - it's better for the public. You could say the same about taxis, doctors, food, whatever; they can all find new ways to make a living.
I'm of the opinion that if you want a book/album/software that the owner wishes to charge for, then you should pay for it, or don't have it. I don't see anything wrong with that.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Anyway, no offense meant, and interesting to read your thoughts on this stuff.
Peace.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re:
You're comparing copyright holders to communist snipers shooting children in some fantasy crumbled-berlin-wall scenario!
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re:
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There are existing routes (and lisenses) that people can use to release content freely and there are existing routes that people can use to release content under copyright. I don't understand how deleting one of these options is going to improve matters.
On the post: Revisiting The Question Of Who Deserves Copyright
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Next >>