With those sorts of numbers, the music business could totally kill off the file sharers and never deal with them again, and lose less than 1/3 of the total market. The other choice, I guess, is to give everything away and toss out 2/3 of the market.
Why would making your music available toss out 2/3 of the market? The finding that a person who downloads is more likely to buy a CD than a person who doesn't suggests the exact opposite. People hear music, people like music, people buy music -- in that order. Taking advantage of the internet to spread your music around grows your market (if the music is any good), it doesn't toss it away.
And, "totally killing off the file sharers" has a couple problems. In a the positive sense, again, these people are likely to be the biggest fans, more likely -- individually -- to spend money on music. Macropayments make a ton of sense, and file sharers who are more likely to spend money on music make up a pretty important 1/3 of the market. Micropayments, on the other hand, don't fair so well, with only 12% of survey respondents claiming to have purchased from a store like iTunes in the past 30 days. If you're interested in business models that work, it's a pretty bad idea to "kill off" the 1/3 of the market that's most likely to spend money.
Plus, what do you mean by "kill off?" Are you talking about the RIAA's strategy, or something else? An overwhelming majority of survey respondents don't think that file sharers should be punished by the law. The problem with campaigns like the RIAA's is that it alienates more than just the file sharer demographic, but also many people who think that file sharing is "what people should be able to do on the internet." If not the RIAA strategy, how do you suggest "killing off" the file sharers?
I'd suggest, rather, giving them more of a reason to buy. If you want to make money... why "kill off" when you can capitalize?
Just remember, in that concert in Toronto with 10,000 people in the seats, 8000 of them don't download music.
Again, "didn't download music in the last 30 days" doesn't mean "non-downloader."
What percentage of users actively download music? If 25% of the people download music actively, and 41% of them are likely to buy a CD, that is a 10.25% buy rate. The other 75% don't download,and 34% of them will buy music, making their buy rate about 25%. Wait! That means people who don't download buy more music! EEK!... So, wait, oops... people who don't file share actually buy more CDs and attend more concerts than people who do. How odd.
First of all, the key point was that downloaders are "often the most voracious music enthusiasts," not that downloaders necessarily purchase the most as a group. Per capita, downloaders tend to be more likely to spend money on music. They're the biggest fans. Now, this particular study didn't find this, but I would bet that the people who are the biggest fans and more likely to spend more are also more likely to spend more money. That is, when you put out your Live DVD or limited edition boxed set, it's the "most voracious music enthusiasts" that you're targeting.
Second, that ~25% of people had downloaded music in the last 30 days doesn't mean that the other 75% of people are non-downloaders. What about occasional downloaders, or people who've downloaded music in the past but have stopped?
The claim isn't that most people download music, but that most people didn't find anything all that objectionable with it. And, the claim isn't necessarily that downloaders are the biggest group of consumers, but that they are likely the biggest fans, likely to spend the most per capita on music.
I think the CC0 option is great, but my view is that, while ridiculous copyright restrictions still exist, copyleft is the best way to go because you're ensuring that content stays free.
But I'm more of a GPL guy than a BSD guy (or... CC BY-SA than CC BY).
Sort of like taking a walk in the woods and suddenly seeing "No Trespassing" signs everywhere. Even on the woods you own.
More like walking in the woods and looking for "Trespassing Permitted" signs to know that you're actually allowed to walk through...
Ehn, I think an inexpensive fee would go along way. You know, mental transaction costs and all?
I mean, if it costs nothing to acquire a copyright on something now, and damages for 20-however-many-songs it was are $225,000 USD... how much do you think copyright holders will want if it cost them $10,000 to get a copyright for five years?
Talking with someone with such a huge sense of entitlement and such a stunted and sophomoric sense of right and wrong as yourself, is a challenge to say the least.
Hey, how's it going?
Your confusion is grounded in the fact that you believe depriving a rightful owner of the income from the fruits of their labor is not wrong.
Ah, so it is an economic moral argument. I thought you'd have something stronger.
If it's economic, then we're debating economics, not morals. Mike believes and has spent years showing how there are plenty of new business models that work without copyright, often work better without it (consider the whole internet thing) and still all allow people to reap the financial benefits of their labour.
If your moral argument is that we're trying to prevent artists from making money, you'll need to make an economic case that that would actually happen. I'm certainly interested in hearing that, because the artificial scarcity that copyright on abundant goods creates is pretty provably limiting to one's ability to earn a living.
On the other hand, if the crux of your moral argument is that there exists a rightful owner of income, you need to make a moral case for who that owner is and why.
You realize the artificial monopolies granted to musicians and other copyright holders are somewhat of a special case? When I purchase a chair from Ikea, I don't need someone's permission to reupholster it, nor do I need someone's permission to put it into a restaurant and make money off it. There's no rightful owner of all income associated with the chair. The owner of the chair has a right to do what he wants, until he sells it to me. Then it's my chair. Do you share your royalties with the company that manufacturer your computer, or that developed the software you use in a recording studio?
The entire basis of copyright, certain in the United States, has nothing to do with the idea of a "rightful owner of income." It's simply about economic incentives to "promote progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is good insofar as it promotes progress. It's bad insofar as it doesn't.
If it were about "rightful owners of income"... why would the public domain even exist?
I have to give you props for actually coming out and saying that, but at the same time I have to say you are one of the most unethical people I have ever encountered online.
You haven't been to many websites, have you?
So today, intellectual property owners are facing an assault from certain segments of the population, depriving those provider's rightful income through illegal means. This is a textbook case for the need for new laws expressly written to address current and future technological conditions.
Sure, but which textbook are you reading? I agree that new laws are needed, I just fundamentally disagree with those laws should look like because copyright doesn't have anything to do with "rightful income." Where did you even get that term from?
I find it astounding that you accuse me of a sense of entitlement, while you believe people have a right to earn income from their art. If someone's art sucks and no one wants to buy it, they have no right to an income. Similarly, if they can't provide the market with what it wants, if they can't create any demand, they have no right to any income. Income is something you earn.
Again, more importantly, I'd love to see your legal basis "rightful income" being a foundation of copyright law. Copyright law is about creating incentives for creators to create, in order to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." There's no claim about "rights" or who deserves anything when it comes to copyright. It's a trade-off between society and creators, to grant temporary and artificial monopolies as an economic incentive.
As you believe that there is nothing inherently WRONG with depriving Content Creators (caps because we are a well defined party in this case) of their rightful income, we don't have much more ground to explore on that front.
I believe that depriving content creators of their income (again, define: "rightful") is wrong only insofar it would lessen their incentive to create art. Because I like art. And I create art. But, I don't believe that copyright is an effective or useful way for content creators to earn a living in the digital age. It favours artificial scarcity and squanders the abundant resource of a digital good. It wastes so many opportunities to grow and expand your market, to increase your income.
Techdirt arguments have nothing to do hindering people's ability to earn a living. Floor64 (the company behind Techdirt) earns its living by helping other people, like content creators, figure out how to earn a living in the digital age.
You've got to make an economic argument that business models which free up content actual deprive someone of their ability to earn a living. Even so, we're talking economics, not morals. We both want content creators to be able to earn a living. (Hell, I'm a content creator). You're just setting up a strawman to suggest otherwise.
btw I think caps for common nouns is more of a German thing. Also, it kind of gives off the impression that you're overvaluing your own work (would you capitalize Software Developers, Record Labels, Managers, Accountants...?).
Now regarding my "fans". I don't consider anyone who deprives me my rightful income a friend or especially a FAN deserving special consideration.
With your broad definition of "rightful income..." what customers do you have left? Honestly, if you think that treating people the way you've been treating them in this discussion will at all help your income, I seriously hope you have a backup plan.
Focus on giving people a reason to buy, and you'll be a lot better off.
And it's not about some "special consideration." It's about realizing that people who download your music are people who like your music. People hear music, people like music, people buy music -- in that order. Connect with them, let them hear your music and then give them a reason to buy and you'll make money. These are people who are more likely to see you live, more likely to be collector's edition items, more likely to crave access to the musician, more likely to help you spread your music and grow for fan base for free (i.e. you're not paying them to advertise). Why wouldn't you focus on ways to capitalize on people who love your music, rather than alienate them by calling them losers, parasites and even comparing them to rapists?
And you still think you have a right to earn income from people you compare to rapists?
You are not a friend. You advocate illegal and immoral activities.
Where did I do that? I don't use file sharing programs to access copyrighted content because I think it's immoral, insofar as it's illegal. I just, like you, think the laws need to be updated. And I don't think it should be illegal.
Moreover, even while it's illegal, my advocacy is about convincing content creators to let people share their content (because it'll help them to make more money). That's why I use a Creative Commons license for my music and writing (and a free software license for my software), and encourage others to do the same.
Ad hominem attacks make you look bad enough already, but if they're baseless, it's even worse. Careful with your assumptions. I don't advocate breaking the law.
And as I thought I CLEARLY pointed out here before, shoplifters still shop, albeit under the watchful eye of store cameras. So be it with our online community. They can shop, but under the watchful eye of a new set of rules that are desperately needed.
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It's still illegal, but it's conceptually, legally and ethically distinct from stealing. To lump the two things together is simply intellectually dishonest, or ignorant.
Your portrayal of this somehow being a fight between greedy corporate powers and humble "fans" is so dishonest and disgusting I am also as a want for words.
Talk about completely unsubstantiated assumptions! When did I say anything about "greedy corporations"? The license I use for my music let's anyone -- including "greedy corporations" -- make a profit from it. Same with the software I develop.
I have nothing against corporations in and of themselves (that wouldn't even make sense...), though I might oppose the actions of a particular corporation or group of corporations. For example, I don't think the RIAA's campaign has been particularly helpful (do you?) to the record labels (and subsequently artists) they are supposed to represent. I'd love to see the RIAA adopt a successful strategy actually helping artists and record labels to make money.
Problem is, that's not going to happen by suing your customers. It's got nothing to do with fans being "humble", but with them being your market. Why you would want to alienate yourself from your market, from the consumers that are supposed to provide you with the income you feel so entitled to, is beyond me.
Techdirt sells advertising that is enhanced by this position and the traffic it generates.
No, actually. As Mike pointed out elsewhere in this thread, advertising accounts for only about 5% of revenue. Techdirt employs the same business models it advocates. It provides content at no cost (the blog) and makes money off the associated scarcities. Check out the Insight Community, if you have any interest in understanding what actually goes on here. Floor64 (and Techdirt) make money by helping others to make money, by helping other people to understand economics and technology. Not by setting up some makeshift kiosk beside scavengers looking for "crumbs" from the Pirate Bay.
How is helping other companies and people (like content creators) figure out how to make money "opportunism?"
I truly want to wipe the stench of illegality from the hands of our young people. At least I want to give them the opportunity to buy their music, software, movies and games inexpensively and legally. However, wanting to give them the opportunity to change their ways, does not condone their current stealing.
How inexpensive is inexpensive? Because if it's not free (or close to it), you're going to have a tough time. (Especially while you call them names instead of focus on giving them a reason to buy.) It doesn't make economic sense.
There's an inverse relationship between price and supply. Given constant demand, as supply decreases, price increases (e.g. oil). Conversely, as supply increases, price decreases; so, as supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. Digital goods are reproducible ad infinitum. It's only natural that the price approaches zero.
In a competitive market, the price of a good approaches the marginal cost of reproduction. The marginal cost of reproducing a digital file is zero. It's only natural that the price approaches zero.
(Note: reproduction. Creating new content is an important scarcity that can command a high price.)
To suggest otherwise is not to engage in battle with an ideology, but with the laws of economics. If you're really up to disproving all of economy theory, at least try to make some economic arguments.
The most effective way to earn money in the digital age is not to pretend that digital goods (abundant) are like physical goods (scarce), but to recognize that they're different and that there are new ways and new opportunities to make money off your content (and, conversely, the old ways aren't that effective anymore, to put it softly).
I am, honestly, interested in continuing this discussion. I look forward to your next round of ad hominem attacks. But if you talk to your potential customers with the same contempt you've shown me, I'm not that surprised if you're having trouble earning a living.
You see the problem with this flawed and sophomoric idiot logic is that without the music, artist merchandise, concerts and access would not exist. The music is what draws attention. The music is what emotionally involves the fans. The music is the real commodity. Without the music, there would be no artist and artist peripherals
You're confusing music with digital audio recordings. Mike's business models are all about the music. The music can be so valuable that it makes the scarcities surround it valuable too. But, being about the music doesn't mean it always makes sense to simply sell recordings.
There are many distinctions to be made with the term "music." There's a composition (the idea), a performance, a recording... A composition is abundant insofar as you can share the idea without losing it yourself, and scare insofar as it requires a composer's time and talent to create a new composition. A live performance may be recorded, but the experience of being there cannot be reproduced. A physical embodiment of a recording (e.g. a CD) is scarce insofar as it's physical, but a digital audio recording is abundant insofar as it can be essentially reproduced at infinitum. I'm sure my rambling isn't exhaustive...
The point is: of course it's about the music. But there's more to music than recordings.
Of course music has value with fans. I mean... how could you possibly call someone a "music fan" to begin with, if they didn't value the music? It seems to me that, ontologically speaking, a music fan values music. That's what it means to be a music fan.
Ethan Kaplan, from Warner Brothers Records, has a lot of intelligent things to say on this topic. Last year, I heard him give a keynote at a conference in Toronto (there's a decent account of it here). He talks about improving the value of the experience rather than the value of the artifact. He argues that a good experience can drive more revenue than the artifact.
A recording is just a means of transferring music (of "sharing" it), it's not the music itself. That the price of digital audio files approaches zero is an economic reality, not a reflection that music fans don't value music.
There really is a moral issue here. When Napster first came out, I don't recall anyone justifying the downloads in this way. It was more about wow, "were getting all this shit for free...isn't that cool".
The free software movement, for example, predates Napster. You might want to read up on some of that history before you enter into ethical territory. If you want to talk ethics, it's not merely a rationalization, there's a rationale.
What's the moral issue?
Well my question is, who the hell wants to try to sell something else to people that take your product, and "share" your product with their friends. I would not call these people fans, I would call them the kids in the candy store.
Ok, so chase all the kids out of the candy store. Then who's gonna buy your candy?
Wow, you have to try really hard to suggest that Mike's a hypocrite.
It sure makes you look great. What's more valuable to you? Your own reputation, as a (hopefully) honest, ethical and sensible person? Or a campaign that would throw that away in a desperate attempt to show an inconsistency in Mike that, trust me, simply doesn't exist?
I think you'd do quite a bit more harm to yourself.
Plus, we're not even talking about copyright (or other forms on intellectual property) anymore. You're talking about fraud. Please, show me where Mike has suggested that fraud is good or that it's something that anyone ought to engage in.
You seem very desperate and confused. I hope you're not like this all the time.
You did NOT answer my challenge because you couldn't. It is just as illegal (and immoral) to copy and distribute electronic content without paying as it is to watch a movie in a theater WITHOUT PAYING.
It seems obvious to me why you are confused. You can't make a distinction between illegal and immoral. A legalistic ethical theory is pretty laughably infantile.
But Mike certainly doesn't believe that copyright infringement isn't illegal, he just thinks it's pretty dumb to enforce the law because you're just going to piss of your fans. It's better to adopt business models that align the interests of your fan with your interests of sustaining a living as an artist.
Let me put it another way. To me, the biggest fallacy of referring to copyright infringement as stealing is not simply that there's no legal basis for the statement (challenge: find the words "stealing," "theft" or "larcency" in copyright legislation), or that there's no conceptual basis for the statement, but that it invokes a claim of natural law, of "thou shalt not steal." It acts as if copyright infringement is a fundamental moral wrong.
You made this explicit by invoking the term immoral.
Copyright infringement is immoral, only insofar as it is illegal. If it were not illegal, it would not be immoral. It's not something like stealing or killing. It's not inherently wrong. It's wrong because it's against the law.
But if it's not inherently wrong, we have the ability to question the laws. Why do we have copyright laws? Oh yeah, to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So, does copyright still do that now? If so, we should keep the laws. If not, we should question them, and find out how we should change them.
Calling copyright infringement "stealing" is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest because it presupposes that it's an inherent moral wrong, which isn't even possible unless you have a laughably legalistic view of ethical theory.
Mike, biggest fans PAY FOR THEIR MUSIC. Parasites steal their music. Biggest fans want to support the artists they love, NOT STEAL FROM THEM. How hard can that be to understand? Even for you!
I don't think many people here would disagree that true fans support the artists they love. That's why Techdirt has been so committed to showing that if you connect with fans and give them a reason to buy, there is still money to be made.
Where you'll find a of disagreement is that it's at useful to call your fans and potential customers "parasites" and "losers". Good luck giving people a reason to buy like that.
Then why do you argue FOR file "sharing" and against the rights of artists?
Why do you assume that file sharing is against artists' rights? Lots of artists encourage file sharing because they understand that it helps their business and that their fans want to do it.
An artist right now has MORE RIGHTS than others in terms of telling you what you can or cannot do with property you've bought. I find that troubling. I would prefer that the law make it so that things are equal. When I buy something, I should be free to do with it what I want. I shouldn't be limited by the person who sold it to me.
This is because you clearly do not understand the difference between Intellectual Property and Tangible Property.
Have you ever heard of the First-sale doctorine? You do realize that copyright law doesn't mean ultimate control of what people can do with things after they've obtained them legally. What Mike said was perfectly intelligible, there's a debate to be had. You do understand that there are legitimate concerns here, right?
The FBI did not lie down and give up when huge pressing plants in Hong Kong were pumping out millions of CDs in the 1990's.
Are you equating music fans sharing the music they love with their friends with huge pressing plants running unauthorized commercial operations? It's at least worth making a distinction between non-commercial and commercial use, and worth realizing that sending the FBI after pressing plants is slightly different than suing your fans and potential customers (and their dead grandmothers).
Why? Because it is in the national interest of the United States to protect our artists intellectual property rights. We should not lay down now, even though the problem is immense. I do not agree in any way that it is insurmountable.
How do you suggest that you can defy the laws of economics, raise the marginal cost of reproduction of an infinitely reproducible good above (essentially) $0 and stop people from sharing what they love?
Seriously, how? Lawsuits? Educational campaigns?
... don't you think the FBI and the American government have a few more pressing (no pun intended) issues to deal with?
Just to be clear...
Ok. Now I am really confused. You say...
I am totally in favor of a business model that removes all penalties for downloading music, movies, games and software, that removes the stink of illegality that hovers over our teen population, that rewards creativity and productivity of our content creators and that brings a new public channel of access to artists, movie makers, game creators and software developers.
But then...
So if you REALLY believe in such a thing, then help to make it happen, not by condemning content creators who are being robbed to death by file stealing, but by supporting the value of intellectual property and helping to pass the laws, set the standards and design the systems to make online file distribution safe, secure and legal.
... First of all... how can you still call it "file stealing" when you just said you were in favour of "removing all penalties." Should people be allowed to steal? Or is it not stealing?
Second... have you spent any time doing research on Techdirt? Over the last decade or more, Mike's devoted a ton of his effort to showing how these business models can and do work (and how they don't and won't), and arguing for laws that make sense and enable innovation and new business models to flourish. The difference that the answer isn't by trumpeting the "value of intellectual property," because copyright actually gets in the way and makes things much, much harder in a digital world. Artists who've found success have done so despite copyright, not because of it.
ps "safe, secure and legal..." are we talking about abortion, STDs, or sharing files on the internet?
Mike, laws must change as conditions change. This is a fundamental tenant of governance. Laws must address inequities and injustices. If your ox was being gored (and you could just as well be the next one in line to lose to online corruption as anyone) you would cry just as loud.
Ah, I'm glad to see you're not so legalistic. But maybe you've got a false idol then. Where's the inequality or the injustice? How is file sharing inherently wrong? What's wrong about it, because the fact that copyright infringement is currently illegal?
The only tenable answer I see is an economic argument: file sharing is wrong because then artists wouldn't be able to make a living. Except, Mike's been providing countless examples of how that's simply false, and he's been helping lots of businesses to realize this and to make money by freeing up their content.
What's so unjust?
You claim to be for the modern musician. But the ONLY way you can be FOR a rape victim, is to be AGAINST the rapist.
Oh... no... so close to the end of the comment too. You've already called music fans "parasites" and "losers"... but, "rapists"? Seriously?! You're going to call someone a rapist, and then except them to want to support your business?
I'm beyond words.
I trust that some day, through a combination of laws, moral awareness, technological advancement and yes, modern business practices, we will have control of their rightful property returned to Content Creators.
What sort of laws, I thought you wanted to "remove the stink of illegality" on "file stealing"?
Moral awareness of what -- what's the moral issue?
And, why must it be about "control"? I think that's distracting you from the sorts of business models you're looking for.
Mike, when people that started uploading other people's tracks to the internet, this started changing the experience that bands and musicians wanted
... that's your argument? If someone takes a "what you want doesn't matter" approach to their fans, I wouldn't be surprised if they find it hard to sustain a business that depends on their support.
It wasn't originally like that, and the internet actually started out as a good way for bands to have a website and promote themselves, WITHOUT other people uploading their music to file sharing sites.
You're lamenting that the internet is not only used for one-way broadcast, but for two-way communication? Maybe that's part of the problem. Lot's of successful artists, like Jonathon Coulton, have found success by taking advantage of the two-way communication that the internet enables. Whining that you can't control everything doesn't seem terribly productive.
Similarly, on YouTube, when someone uploads different mixes of songs (or bootlegs or rare songs) that the band didn't intend, then the world starts assuming that the band sanctioned it
I disagree that people assume things are official simply because they're online, but, if that is the case, maybe it should happen more often then so that people don't assume that anymore.
What if a band had something that they felt didn't represent their best live performance? Does that give a fan a right to upload it to the world so that there's something that the band may not even like, to the rest of the world? You're assuming that the fan always has the best interest of the band in mind, when indeed, they often have NO idea of what the band's take actually is on the subject.
Does a band have some inherent right to control every representation of a performance? If they don't give a good performance, that's tough. And, I mean, everyone has a bad performance. If your fans desert you because something is distributed that "wasn't their best," they didn't have a very strong fan base to begin with.
But, I find it interesting that you think this is about control. Does a band then have the right to forbid someone from writing a bad review of a concert or a recording? I mean, if it didn't represent their best work, you can't just assume the critic always has the best interests of the band in mind.
And who else gets this sort of protection? If a politician has a bad interview (e.g. in fall elections, Sarah Palin comes to mind for the States, Stephane Dion in Canada), do they have some sort of right to forbid a TV station from airing it? That's what *really* happened. Professionals learn to handle those situations. I don't see how it helps to whine and try to control them, that often just draws more attention to what you don't want people to see.
If you have a performance that fans are spreading around that you don't think is all that great, why not record and spread around a better performance?
I don't buy that all the botched MP3 rips/ downloads haven't created some sort of inadvertent disdain in how people hear music, because on a subliminal level, all that data compression on the file is going to alter a file (significantly less in 320 KBPS and 192 KBPS)...
Personally, I don't understand the audiophile argument. I think a passionate performance of a great song at 64 KBPS would almost always be preferable to a boring recording of a lame song on vinyl. And if people hear something they like in a lower quality, and care about the quality, that would probably make them more interested in getting a higher quality recording.
People want convienience, not quality, and it's started to already have a very negative effect on the way that people listen to music--it's more disposable than ever, people have no attention span, yadda yadda.
Maybe this was just a tangent, but if that's actually what people want, how would you expect to run a profitable business without recognizing and catering to that? Wouldn't it make more sense to listen to fans, to find ways to fulfill the demands of the market? I'm sure there's still a niche market of audiophiles, but I'm not sure how lamenting that "zit faced kids" aren't "listening" to music anymore is going to help in constructing a business model that will be sustainable in the digital age.
And you might want to be nicer to "zit faced kids." Sometimes, they grow up and have money. ;)
The question of whether or not a new model has "adequately replaced the last one" doesn't seem particularly fruitful to me. We're not in a position to say, "should we keep the old business models? Or try new ones?" The old business models don't and won't work anymore because they don't make any economic sense given the *realities* of a digital age. As much as you or anyone else may which you could go back a few decades and sell cassette tapes, that won't change the laws of economics at play. The question ought to be, can new business models work? Not, are they some sort of drop in replacement. I don't understand your search and demands for "equivalents."
Stats about the number of songs sold versus shared are a bit misleading too. If you free your music up to be spread around and there's an audience for it, you will grow your audience. It's often the difference between hoarding a small pie and getting a smaller percentage of a much larger pie. Look at Adam Singer. His music was largely a hobby, until he freed it up with a Creative Commons license, and now it's become a serious source of income. It's a macropayments thing; rather than worrying about the "freeloaders," you free up your music, grow your audience, connect with fans and give them a reason to buy.
How do you compete with free? That's what Mike's been talking about for years, showing countless examples of success and failure and providing lots of insight and ideas. You compete with free by building relationships and giving people a reason to buy, not by whining about "piracy" or a perceived need to have a failing business model artificially propped up.
I operate under the conviction that people buy records because they want to own them, not because they want to hear them. It is too easy these days to hear a record without having to buy it. I don't resent that fact, rather I feel we at Asthmatic Kitty embrace it through streaming albums and offering several free mp3s (even whole free albums). And why do they want to own it? They want it to illustrate to others their taste and identify who they are as a person. I also believe they want to be part of something bigger than themselves, they want to belong.
And that's one of the reasons why, even though I'm a huge supported of free (libre) culture and sharing music, I still buy CDs (not MP3s).
From one musician to another: if your entire argument rests on putting the term "fan" in scare quotes, supposing that there are no Techdirt readers who are also music lovers and who also support music with their wallets, I suggest you think twice about how you treat your potential customers.
Sorry, GK, for taking so long to respond, it's been a long month. Hopefully you're still around to respond!
I think it's noble of you to be interested in "better laws", Blaise, though that is an EXTREMELY subjective definition, isn't it? Your idea of "better laws", I suspect, mightn't concur with mine (judging by your latest post, anyway), so I do think that, while we all may hope to bend the law to suit our own opinions, ultimately that's a rather futile criteria for discussion.
You're not saying anything here. My "better laws" comment was just to clarify that I wasn't solely describing the legal realities, but talking about other possibilities. Of course "better" can be subjective, but that's what we're arguing about.
Personally and professionally, I think the middle ground this law particular law oversees is pretty much the best compromise we can hope for to protect composers and artists without getting silly about it.
... and not "getting silly about it" isn't "futile criteria for discussion?"
Anyways, onto the real points!
Composers' reputations are built upon people's opinions of their work. To me it's no wonder they do all they can to defend it. I suppose that encompasses both Satriani's AND Coldplay's stances, one crying foul with the other in a state of denial. Public opinion, both present and future, are surely factoring into this situation. Clearly, there HAS to be a certain point at which one composer is protected.
Strongly disagree that there "has to be a certain point at which one composer is protected." Protected from what? What does this have to do with copyright? Copyright is not about protecting reputations, and reputations can be harmed or upheld without it. Once something is in the public domain, you can do what you want with it, without giving any credit.
If people look down upon passing someone else's work off as one's own, we're talking about plagiarism, not copyright. And reputations can be held or harmed without copyright law. Attribution is what's relevant there.
But the legal aggression in the "any and all" demand, unfortunately, is where lawyers generally start in cases like this. Perhaps the initial cold reaction led to this? I can't really say, I don't have that information. But I can speculate that, in that same situation, I'd probably start there and hope to reach a compromise eventually.
"Any and all profits" is a pretty stiff starting point, and lawyers don't always start there. In the Dibango lawsuit against Jackson and Rihanna, his lawyers asked for €500,000, not "any and all profits." At best, this is a bad PR move by Satriani's lawyers. Otherwise, some might be tempted to say that part of this is certainly about the money.
If Joe Satriani is legally recognized to have created that melody, then (a) that information will be available to anyone wondering about it at ANY time in the future...
And what if Coldplay came up with it independently, but because of the legal realities, are forced to settle? What about their reputation? And, often these settlement cases involve money, but no admission of guilt.
(b) Satriani's own personal, artistic peace of mind... would, certainly to some extent, be achieved. That satisfaction may be of real importance to him.
That's nice if it's important to him, but "artistic peace of mind" is not important for copyright law. Copying is.
A case, perhaps, of standing up for what he believed was right. If no-one cared enough to do that regarding things they hold dear, the world would be a far sorrier place.
The world would also be a far sorrier place if people constantly abuse the law and twist it for their own ends. This is not what copyright law is about.
Sorry, Blaise, that's merely your opinion and I'm afraid I can't agree that it's not about respect and legacy. In all arts, a huge number of artists certainly do care about this, from novelists to musicians, screenwriters to poets, actors to painters. It is the driving force for many and laws designed to protect their rights do not do that unless they protect their name, reputation and body of work. Again, I must say I am glad that the law DOES in large part protect these things.
If it's about respect and legacy for people now, that's because they don't understand the real intent of copyright law. That's why they file lawsuits like this. The constitutional basis for copyright is not at all about "protecting" anyone's rights? What rights? The rights granted by copyright law are artificial and temporary, there are not natural rights. It's about an economic incentive, "promoting the progress."
If copyright were about "protecting the rights of an artist," why is there a public domain?
[How does it promote progress?] I'll answer that in four words: Credit where credit's due. That may not be enough for you, but it's enough for me and a great many others
if a song is built around another composer's work, that composer (through his publishing company) must grant rights and the subsequent song must be approved, often by the composer him/herself.
Copyright isn't about credit, it's about permission. You don't honestly believe that (assuming Coldplay copied the melody), if Coldplay had approached Satriani for permission to use the melody, he'd have said, "sure -- just credit me!" You said "the subsequent song must be approved" and that often royalties are split. It's not just about "credit where credit's due."
It's about permission, and licensing, and money. Because copyright is an economic incentive.
And what if it was some small independent artist, what means would they have of getting permission? They probably wouldn't create or would be forced to create something different, because they wouldn't be able to get permission or afford the risk of a lawsuit.
If it were just about credit and attribution, trust me, I'd probably be pretty happy.
I can add that it is in the interests of creativity and the arts in general for musicians (and those in other arts) to reach a bit further, try a bit harder and think a bit more in order to create something sufficiently different as to be deemed original, even compared to previous works by others.
That's just ridiculous. (1) How many films put out by big content companies or remakes of old films, or books turned into movies? How many cover songs have there been? These build on previous works. Copyright is about permission, and thus, usually licensing. (2) Read much Shakespeare? How much did he borrow from others? He'd have been in violation of copyright law, were the works he build off under copyright. (3) Again, talk about subjectivity: define "sufficiently different as to be deemed original." (4) What's wrong with creating things that aren't original anyways? That's often how we learn to create, by imitating.
I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis: "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."
The Satriani/Coldplay lawsuit seems to be an example of how copyright discourages many forms of creation. To be focused on "originality, respect and legacy" is to (a) miss the intent of copyright law, and (b) encourage artist to file and worry about lawsuits like this, rather than to create art.
I think it would be a far greater problem if anyone could use anything of anyone else's they liked and be utterly excused simply by claiming ignorance. That, to me, would be a completely unacceptable state of affairs.
I don't. First of all, unless a work was fairly different from the one it allegedly copied from, a claim of ignorance wouldn't even be believable. And if it's that different, that a claim of ignorance might actually be true, that seems to be a pretty strong argument for fair use, in terms of a derivative work being transformative. So, even if it was a derivative work, it would likely be fair use. And if it wasn't actually a derivative, copyright law has no place regulating it anyways. I don't share your concerns.
To settle and honestly say that they didn't mean to get too close to his song, but do recognize and honour the achievements of a fellow pro...
(1) What doesn't being a "pro" have to do with it (except for highlighting the point that it's near impossible for "amateurs" to create in the same way because of copyright)? (2) What's wrong with being "too close" if they didn't copy? How many songs use the same chord progression, or similar melodies?
I do believe they accidentally created something uncomfortably similar, but, as with patent laws, if I invented something but someone beat me to it, that's my tough luck, isn't it?
It is flat out wrong to compare copyright law to patent law in this respect. The lack of a defence of independent creation is one of the biggest differences between copyright and patent law (and, I would argue, problems). If you're talking about independent creation as infringement, you are simply not talking about copyright law.
True, it's not about intending to create something similar, so it may have been accidental copying, but unless it was copying, it's not copyright infringement.
I do believe they were not consciously aware of the infringement itself, though I also believe the likelihood of one of them hearing the tune somewhere and "regurgitating" it later cannot rightly be discounted - or disproved.
Then, it seems to be that the argument of unconscious copying is a serious problem with copyright law, because it undermines the important and essential defense of independent creation.
Aren't those different types of innovation? It's one thing for an artist like Trent Reznor to come up with innovative business models, but that's a very different type of innovation than the sort of thing that web services like Last.fm or Muxtape or Blip.fm, or Pandora, etc etc, have been doing (or trying to do).
There's innovation in ways to connect with fans and give them something that they want to buy, and then there's innovation in services and platforms and distribution surrounding music. Sure, artists can do what they want with their own music (provided they and not their labels own the rights...), but it's the latter type of innovation that's really hampered by licensing schemes.
That's why it certainly is a form of grasping at straws to dig up examples that clearly fall on the opposite side of that line, if you're using it try to prove a point that is too far away from the legal reality of instances like this. There are many legal precendents for this type of situation, too.
Ah, well, the legal realities are one thing, but I'm also interested in better laws.
It's hard to see how a song not being infringement until the point at which it becomes uncomfortably similar is a "problem" with copyright.
Actually, it seems quite easy to me: define "uncomfortably similar." If a musician needs to hire a lawyer to figure that out (or a psychologist to see if they're guilty of unconsciously copying), I think we can do better.
I would think that Joe Satriani's concern is more of a "big picture" issue than a worry about weekly sales! If an instrumental entertainer were to play "If I Could Fly" and audience members were to assume it as an instrumental version of "Viva La Vida", he could rightfully feel artistically damaged.
(1) Then why is he asking for "any and all profits"?
(2) Do you really think that a lawsuit will make a big difference to his respectability as a composer? Imagine, in 40 years' time, Satriani's song is used in a movie, in a newly recorded version, and today's 9-year olds, then nearing 50, say.... "I remember that lawsuit!"...
Do you think today's 9-year-olds will remember some copyright settlement? I'd bet that most people forget the lawsuit, especially if they're under the age of 10 right now.
Ultimately, there are literally millions of variations which could have distanced VLV from IICF which were not hit upon... If you're standing on the shoulders of another, credit ought to be given, whether it was or wasn't intentional.
Unless you add a few variations? This is about more than just credit, and you wouldn't expect an artist to credit every influence. If it's really about crediting an influence, then some variation wouldn't be enough to avoid that responsibility.
Copyright infringement is about the unauthorized use of material covered by copyright law in a way that violates the exclusive rights provided. The exclusive rights are provided as an incentive to encourage creation. If Coldplay had noticed the similarities and contacted Satriani, I doubt he'd have said, "just credit me."
Every composer wants his musical legacy intact. It's that reason which contributes largely to the current law of lifetime + 50 yrs - to allow respect and legacy where it's deserved. Believe it or not, some artists care about the art itself than the bucks.
Copyright isn't about "respect and legacy" though. It's about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. How does it promote progress to lock a song up with copyright for a century, so that anyone might face a lawsuit who happens to independently come up with a melody that's similar to a song they "might" have heard, just to somehow "protect the legacy" of the composer?
Ultimately, I suspect Coldplay's lawyers will continue the front of denial until it becomes clear Satriani's lawyers won't back down. Then, given the shaky legal ground they are standing on, they'll probably opt to settle before trial.
It's not just Coldplay's lawyers taking a stance of denial, but the band members themselves. What about Coldplay's legacy? What if this was actually a case of independent creation, but the legal realities make a settlement the best option. You don't think that's a problem?
Also, are there many cases of artists licensing melodies like this? In other words, is this the type of right that Satriani would have actually exploited (e.g. if you credit me and pay $x then you can sing the tune), or is it more than likely that a few variations would have just been added, or maybe that the song wouldn't be heard?
I don't think anyone is suggesting they copied it unintentionally, but rather that it's a pretty natural melody to sing over those chords... which is why Billy Joel, Cat Stevens, Doves, Creaky Boards, etc, all came up with something similar. Pointing out a handful of similar melodies over the course of the last decade is hardly grasping at straws. Quite frankly, if this is copyright infringement, then there are a lot more problems with copyright than I thought.
The problem with the "fine but fair line" is that it's not at all obvious, and not at all fair (especially if you don't even have to prove conscious copying). What about all the songs based on Pachabel's Canon chords, or a T-shaped progression? There are melodies that are much more similar which occur far more often than the three note overlap between these two songs.
Do you honestly think that Coldplay's single has any effect on Satriani's? Are people listening to it instead of his song? Are they buying Coldpaly's album instead of Satriani's? Even if the melody did come from Satriani, where's the harm?
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies
Re:
Why would making your music available toss out 2/3 of the market? The finding that a person who downloads is more likely to buy a CD than a person who doesn't suggests the exact opposite. People hear music, people like music, people buy music -- in that order. Taking advantage of the internet to spread your music around grows your market (if the music is any good), it doesn't toss it away.
And, "totally killing off the file sharers" has a couple problems. In a the positive sense, again, these people are likely to be the biggest fans, more likely -- individually -- to spend money on music. Macropayments make a ton of sense, and file sharers who are more likely to spend money on music make up a pretty important 1/3 of the market. Micropayments, on the other hand, don't fair so well, with only 12% of survey respondents claiming to have purchased from a store like iTunes in the past 30 days. If you're interested in business models that work, it's a pretty bad idea to "kill off" the 1/3 of the market that's most likely to spend money.
Plus, what do you mean by "kill off?" Are you talking about the RIAA's strategy, or something else? An overwhelming majority of survey respondents don't think that file sharers should be punished by the law. The problem with campaigns like the RIAA's is that it alienates more than just the file sharer demographic, but also many people who think that file sharing is "what people should be able to do on the internet." If not the RIAA strategy, how do you suggest "killing off" the file sharers?
I'd suggest, rather, giving them more of a reason to buy. If you want to make money... why "kill off" when you can capitalize?
Again, "didn't download music in the last 30 days" doesn't mean "non-downloader."
On the post: Surprise, Surprise: Canadians Aren't Interested In ISP Levies
Re:
First of all, the key point was that downloaders are "often the most voracious music enthusiasts," not that downloaders necessarily purchase the most as a group. Per capita, downloaders tend to be more likely to spend money on music. They're the biggest fans. Now, this particular study didn't find this, but I would bet that the people who are the biggest fans and more likely to spend more are also more likely to spend more money. That is, when you put out your Live DVD or limited edition boxed set, it's the "most voracious music enthusiasts" that you're targeting.
Second, that ~25% of people had downloaded music in the last 30 days doesn't mean that the other 75% of people are non-downloaders. What about occasional downloaders, or people who've downloaded music in the past but have stopped?
The claim isn't that most people download music, but that most people didn't find anything all that objectionable with it. And, the claim isn't necessarily that downloaders are the biggest group of consumers, but that they are likely the biggest fans, likely to spend the most per capita on music.
On the post: Student On Probation For Expressing A Negative Opinion About An Instructor On Facebook
Re:
On the post: Terry McBride: Songs Are Not Copyright. Songs Are Emotions
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option
No Copyleft
But I'm more of a GPL guy than a BSD guy (or... CC BY-SA than CC BY).
On the post: Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option
Re: This should be telling...
On the post: Creative Commons Adds A 'No Copyright At All' Option
Re: Re: Re: From the (non) license..
I mean, if it costs nothing to acquire a copyright on something now, and damages for 20-however-many-songs it was are $225,000 USD... how much do you think copyright holders will want if it cost them $10,000 to get a copyright for five years?
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, how's it going?
Ah, so it is an economic moral argument. I thought you'd have something stronger.
If it's economic, then we're debating economics, not morals. Mike believes and has spent years showing how there are plenty of new business models that work without copyright, often work better without it (consider the whole internet thing) and still all allow people to reap the financial benefits of their labour.
If your moral argument is that we're trying to prevent artists from making money, you'll need to make an economic case that that would actually happen. I'm certainly interested in hearing that, because the artificial scarcity that copyright on abundant goods creates is pretty provably limiting to one's ability to earn a living.
On the other hand, if the crux of your moral argument is that there exists a rightful owner of income, you need to make a moral case for who that owner is and why.
You realize the artificial monopolies granted to musicians and other copyright holders are somewhat of a special case? When I purchase a chair from Ikea, I don't need someone's permission to reupholster it, nor do I need someone's permission to put it into a restaurant and make money off it. There's no rightful owner of all income associated with the chair. The owner of the chair has a right to do what he wants, until he sells it to me. Then it's my chair. Do you share your royalties with the company that manufacturer your computer, or that developed the software you use in a recording studio?
The entire basis of copyright, certain in the United States, has nothing to do with the idea of a "rightful owner of income." It's simply about economic incentives to "promote progress of science and the useful arts." Copyright is good insofar as it promotes progress. It's bad insofar as it doesn't.
If it were about "rightful owners of income"... why would the public domain even exist?
You haven't been to many websites, have you?
Sure, but which textbook are you reading? I agree that new laws are needed, I just fundamentally disagree with those laws should look like because copyright doesn't have anything to do with "rightful income." Where did you even get that term from?
I find it astounding that you accuse me of a sense of entitlement, while you believe people have a right to earn income from their art. If someone's art sucks and no one wants to buy it, they have no right to an income. Similarly, if they can't provide the market with what it wants, if they can't create any demand, they have no right to any income. Income is something you earn.
Again, more importantly, I'd love to see your legal basis "rightful income" being a foundation of copyright law. Copyright law is about creating incentives for creators to create, in order to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." There's no claim about "rights" or who deserves anything when it comes to copyright. It's a trade-off between society and creators, to grant temporary and artificial monopolies as an economic incentive.
I believe that depriving content creators of their income (again, define: "rightful") is wrong only insofar it would lessen their incentive to create art. Because I like art. And I create art. But, I don't believe that copyright is an effective or useful way for content creators to earn a living in the digital age. It favours artificial scarcity and squanders the abundant resource of a digital good. It wastes so many opportunities to grow and expand your market, to increase your income.
Techdirt arguments have nothing to do hindering people's ability to earn a living. Floor64 (the company behind Techdirt) earns its living by helping other people, like content creators, figure out how to earn a living in the digital age.
You've got to make an economic argument that business models which free up content actual deprive someone of their ability to earn a living. Even so, we're talking economics, not morals. We both want content creators to be able to earn a living. (Hell, I'm a content creator). You're just setting up a strawman to suggest otherwise.
btw I think caps for common nouns is more of a German thing. Also, it kind of gives off the impression that you're overvaluing your own work (would you capitalize Software Developers, Record Labels, Managers, Accountants...?).
With your broad definition of "rightful income..." what customers do you have left? Honestly, if you think that treating people the way you've been treating them in this discussion will at all help your income, I seriously hope you have a backup plan.
Focus on giving people a reason to buy, and you'll be a lot better off.
And it's not about some "special consideration." It's about realizing that people who download your music are people who like your music. People hear music, people like music, people buy music -- in that order. Connect with them, let them hear your music and then give them a reason to buy and you'll make money. These are people who are more likely to see you live, more likely to be collector's edition items, more likely to crave access to the musician, more likely to help you spread your music and grow for fan base for free (i.e. you're not paying them to advertise). Why wouldn't you focus on ways to capitalize on people who love your music, rather than alienate them by calling them losers, parasites and even comparing them to rapists?
And you still think you have a right to earn income from people you compare to rapists?
Where did I do that? I don't use file sharing programs to access copyrighted content because I think it's immoral, insofar as it's illegal. I just, like you, think the laws need to be updated. And I don't think it should be illegal.
Moreover, even while it's illegal, my advocacy is about convincing content creators to let people share their content (because it'll help them to make more money). That's why I use a Creative Commons license for my music and writing (and a free software license for my software), and encourage others to do the same.
Ad hominem attacks make you look bad enough already, but if they're baseless, it's even worse. Careful with your assumptions. I don't advocate breaking the law.
Copyright infringement is not stealing. It's copyright infringement. It's still illegal, but it's conceptually, legally and ethically distinct from stealing. To lump the two things together is simply intellectually dishonest, or ignorant.
Talk about completely unsubstantiated assumptions! When did I say anything about "greedy corporations"? The license I use for my music let's anyone -- including "greedy corporations" -- make a profit from it. Same with the software I develop.
I have nothing against corporations in and of themselves (that wouldn't even make sense...), though I might oppose the actions of a particular corporation or group of corporations. For example, I don't think the RIAA's campaign has been particularly helpful (do you?) to the record labels (and subsequently artists) they are supposed to represent. I'd love to see the RIAA adopt a successful strategy actually helping artists and record labels to make money.
Problem is, that's not going to happen by suing your customers. It's got nothing to do with fans being "humble", but with them being your market. Why you would want to alienate yourself from your market, from the consumers that are supposed to provide you with the income you feel so entitled to, is beyond me.
No, actually. As Mike pointed out elsewhere in this thread, advertising accounts for only about 5% of revenue. Techdirt employs the same business models it advocates. It provides content at no cost (the blog) and makes money off the associated scarcities. Check out the Insight Community, if you have any interest in understanding what actually goes on here. Floor64 (and Techdirt) make money by helping others to make money, by helping other people to understand economics and technology. Not by setting up some makeshift kiosk beside scavengers looking for "crumbs" from the Pirate Bay.
How is helping other companies and people (like content creators) figure out how to make money "opportunism?"
How inexpensive is inexpensive? Because if it's not free (or close to it), you're going to have a tough time. (Especially while you call them names instead of focus on giving them a reason to buy.) It doesn't make economic sense.
There's an inverse relationship between price and supply. Given constant demand, as supply decreases, price increases (e.g. oil). Conversely, as supply increases, price decreases; so, as supply approaches infinity, price approaches zero. Digital goods are reproducible ad infinitum. It's only natural that the price approaches zero.
In a competitive market, the price of a good approaches the marginal cost of reproduction. The marginal cost of reproducing a digital file is zero. It's only natural that the price approaches zero.
(Note: reproduction. Creating new content is an important scarcity that can command a high price.)
To suggest otherwise is not to engage in battle with an ideology, but with the laws of economics. If you're really up to disproving all of economy theory, at least try to make some economic arguments.
The most effective way to earn money in the digital age is not to pretend that digital goods (abundant) are like physical goods (scarce), but to recognize that they're different and that there are new ways and new opportunities to make money off your content (and, conversely, the old ways aren't that effective anymore, to put it softly).
I am, honestly, interested in continuing this discussion. I look forward to your next round of ad hominem attacks. But if you talk to your potential customers with the same contempt you've shown me, I'm not that surprised if you're having trouble earning a living.
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: re: scarce goods
You're confusing music with digital audio recordings. Mike's business models are all about the music. The music can be so valuable that it makes the scarcities surround it valuable too. But, being about the music doesn't mean it always makes sense to simply sell recordings.
There are many distinctions to be made with the term "music." There's a composition (the idea), a performance, a recording... A composition is abundant insofar as you can share the idea without losing it yourself, and scare insofar as it requires a composer's time and talent to create a new composition. A live performance may be recorded, but the experience of being there cannot be reproduced. A physical embodiment of a recording (e.g. a CD) is scarce insofar as it's physical, but a digital audio recording is abundant insofar as it can be essentially reproduced at infinitum. I'm sure my rambling isn't exhaustive...
The point is: of course it's about the music. But there's more to music than recordings.
You seem to be confusing price and value.
Of course music has value with fans. I mean... how could you possibly call someone a "music fan" to begin with, if they didn't value the music? It seems to me that, ontologically speaking, a music fan values music. That's what it means to be a music fan.
Ethan Kaplan, from Warner Brothers Records, has a lot of intelligent things to say on this topic. Last year, I heard him give a keynote at a conference in Toronto (there's a decent account of it here). He talks about improving the value of the experience rather than the value of the artifact. He argues that a good experience can drive more revenue than the artifact.
A recording is just a means of transferring music (of "sharing" it), it's not the music itself. That the price of digital audio files approaches zero is an economic reality, not a reflection that music fans don't value music.
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: scarce goods
The free software movement, for example, predates Napster. You might want to read up on some of that history before you enter into ethical territory. If you want to talk ethics, it's not merely a rationalization, there's a rationale.
What's the moral issue?
Ok, so chase all the kids out of the candy store. Then who's gonna buy your candy?
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: techdirt
Techdirt's business model is not based on ads anyways, and Mike isn't bothered by positive externalities.
You're not going to find any inconsistencies by doing that. Have fun, though.
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: Re: Re: techdirt
It sure makes you look great. What's more valuable to you? Your own reputation, as a (hopefully) honest, ethical and sensible person? Or a campaign that would throw that away in a desperate attempt to show an inconsistency in Mike that, trust me, simply doesn't exist?
I think you'd do quite a bit more harm to yourself.
Plus, we're not even talking about copyright (or other forms on intellectual property) anymore. You're talking about fraud. Please, show me where Mike has suggested that fraud is good or that it's something that anyone ought to engage in.
You seem very desperate and confused. I hope you're not like this all the time.
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
It seems obvious to me why you are confused. You can't make a distinction between illegal and immoral. A legalistic ethical theory is pretty laughably infantile.
But Mike certainly doesn't believe that copyright infringement isn't illegal, he just thinks it's pretty dumb to enforce the law because you're just going to piss of your fans. It's better to adopt business models that align the interests of your fan with your interests of sustaining a living as an artist.
Let me put it another way. To me, the biggest fallacy of referring to copyright infringement as stealing is not simply that there's no legal basis for the statement (challenge: find the words "stealing," "theft" or "larcency" in copyright legislation), or that there's no conceptual basis for the statement, but that it invokes a claim of natural law, of "thou shalt not steal." It acts as if copyright infringement is a fundamental moral wrong.
You made this explicit by invoking the term immoral.
Copyright infringement is immoral, only insofar as it is illegal. If it were not illegal, it would not be immoral. It's not something like stealing or killing. It's not inherently wrong. It's wrong because it's against the law.
But if it's not inherently wrong, we have the ability to question the laws. Why do we have copyright laws? Oh yeah, to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So, does copyright still do that now? If so, we should keep the laws. If not, we should question them, and find out how we should change them.
Calling copyright infringement "stealing" is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest because it presupposes that it's an inherent moral wrong, which isn't even possible unless you have a laughably legalistic view of ethical theory.
I don't think many people here would disagree that true fans support the artists they love. That's why Techdirt has been so committed to showing that if you connect with fans and give them a reason to buy, there is still money to be made.
Where you'll find a of disagreement is that it's at useful to call your fans and potential customers "parasites" and "losers". Good luck giving people a reason to buy like that.
Why are you so worried about "parasites" or "freeloaders"? You don't need to make money from everyone who enjoys your product.
Why do you assume that file sharing is against artists' rights? Lots of artists encourage file sharing because they understand that it helps their business and that their fans want to do it.
Have you ever heard of the First-sale doctorine? You do realize that copyright law doesn't mean ultimate control of what people can do with things after they've obtained them legally. What Mike said was perfectly intelligible, there's a debate to be had. You do understand that there are legitimate concerns here, right?
Are you equating music fans sharing the music they love with their friends with huge pressing plants running unauthorized commercial operations? It's at least worth making a distinction between non-commercial and commercial use, and worth realizing that sending the FBI after pressing plants is slightly different than suing your fans and potential customers (and their dead grandmothers).
How do you suggest that you can defy the laws of economics, raise the marginal cost of reproduction of an infinitely reproducible good above (essentially) $0 and stop people from sharing what they love?
Seriously, how? Lawsuits? Educational campaigns?
... don't you think the FBI and the American government have a few more pressing (no pun intended) issues to deal with?
Ok. Now I am really confused. You say...
But then...
... First of all... how can you still call it "file stealing" when you just said you were in favour of "removing all penalties." Should people be allowed to steal? Or is it not stealing?
Second... have you spent any time doing research on Techdirt? Over the last decade or more, Mike's devoted a ton of his effort to showing how these business models can and do work (and how they don't and won't), and arguing for laws that make sense and enable innovation and new business models to flourish. The difference that the answer isn't by trumpeting the "value of intellectual property," because copyright actually gets in the way and makes things much, much harder in a digital world. Artists who've found success have done so despite copyright, not because of it.
ps "safe, secure and legal..." are we talking about abortion, STDs, or sharing files on the internet?
Ah, I'm glad to see you're not so legalistic. But maybe you've got a false idol then. Where's the inequality or the injustice? How is file sharing inherently wrong? What's wrong about it, because the fact that copyright infringement is currently illegal?
The only tenable answer I see is an economic argument: file sharing is wrong because then artists wouldn't be able to make a living. Except, Mike's been providing countless examples of how that's simply false, and he's been helping lots of businesses to realize this and to make money by freeing up their content.
What's so unjust?
Oh... no... so close to the end of the comment too. You've already called music fans "parasites" and "losers"... but, "rapists"? Seriously?! You're going to call someone a rapist, and then except them to want to support your business?
I'm beyond words.
What sort of laws, I thought you wanted to "remove the stink of illegality" on "file stealing"?
Moral awareness of what -- what's the moral issue?
And, why must it be about "control"? I think that's distracting you from the sorts of business models you're looking for.
btw why is "Content Creators" capitalized?
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
... that's your argument? If someone takes a "what you want doesn't matter" approach to their fans, I wouldn't be surprised if they find it hard to sustain a business that depends on their support.
You're lamenting that the internet is not only used for one-way broadcast, but for two-way communication? Maybe that's part of the problem. Lot's of successful artists, like Jonathon Coulton, have found success by taking advantage of the two-way communication that the internet enables. Whining that you can't control everything doesn't seem terribly productive.
I disagree that people assume things are official simply because they're online, but, if that is the case, maybe it should happen more often then so that people don't assume that anymore.
Does a band have some inherent right to control every representation of a performance? If they don't give a good performance, that's tough. And, I mean, everyone has a bad performance. If your fans desert you because something is distributed that "wasn't their best," they didn't have a very strong fan base to begin with.
But, I find it interesting that you think this is about control. Does a band then have the right to forbid someone from writing a bad review of a concert or a recording? I mean, if it didn't represent their best work, you can't just assume the critic always has the best interests of the band in mind.
And who else gets this sort of protection? If a politician has a bad interview (e.g. in fall elections, Sarah Palin comes to mind for the States, Stephane Dion in Canada), do they have some sort of right to forbid a TV station from airing it? That's what *really* happened. Professionals learn to handle those situations. I don't see how it helps to whine and try to control them, that often just draws more attention to what you don't want people to see.
If you have a performance that fans are spreading around that you don't think is all that great, why not record and spread around a better performance?
Personally, I don't understand the audiophile argument. I think a passionate performance of a great song at 64 KBPS would almost always be preferable to a boring recording of a lame song on vinyl. And if people hear something they like in a lower quality, and care about the quality, that would probably make them more interested in getting a higher quality recording.
Maybe this was just a tangent, but if that's actually what people want, how would you expect to run a profitable business without recognizing and catering to that? Wouldn't it make more sense to listen to fans, to find ways to fulfill the demands of the market? I'm sure there's still a niche market of audiophiles, but I'm not sure how lamenting that "zit faced kids" aren't "listening" to music anymore is going to help in constructing a business model that will be sustainable in the digital age.
And you might want to be nicer to "zit faced kids." Sometimes, they grow up and have money. ;)
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re: Re: Re:
The question of whether or not a new model has "adequately replaced the last one" doesn't seem particularly fruitful to me. We're not in a position to say, "should we keep the old business models? Or try new ones?" The old business models don't and won't work anymore because they don't make any economic sense given the *realities* of a digital age. As much as you or anyone else may which you could go back a few decades and sell cassette tapes, that won't change the laws of economics at play. The question ought to be, can new business models work? Not, are they some sort of drop in replacement. I don't understand your search and demands for "equivalents."
Stats about the number of songs sold versus shared are a bit misleading too. If you free your music up to be spread around and there's an audience for it, you will grow your audience. It's often the difference between hoarding a small pie and getting a smaller percentage of a much larger pie. Look at Adam Singer. His music was largely a hobby, until he freed it up with a Creative Commons license, and now it's become a serious source of income. It's a macropayments thing; rather than worrying about the "freeloaders," you free up your music, grow your audience, connect with fans and give them a reason to buy.
How do you compete with free? That's what Mike's been talking about for years, showing countless examples of success and failure and providing lots of insight and ideas. You compete with free by building relationships and giving people a reason to buy, not by whining about "piracy" or a perceived need to have a failing business model artificially propped up.
On the post: Yes, Let's Create A Real Day Of Sharing
Re:
And that's one of the reasons why, even though I'm a huge supported of free (libre) culture and sharing music, I still buy CDs (not MP3s).
From one musician to another: if your entire argument rests on putting the term "fan" in scare quotes, supposing that there are no Techdirt readers who are also music lovers and who also support music with their wallets, I suggest you think twice about how you treat your potential customers.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're not saying anything here. My "better laws" comment was just to clarify that I wasn't solely describing the legal realities, but talking about other possibilities. Of course "better" can be subjective, but that's what we're arguing about.
... and not "getting silly about it" isn't "futile criteria for discussion?"
Anyways, onto the real points!
Strongly disagree that there "has to be a certain point at which one composer is protected." Protected from what? What does this have to do with copyright? Copyright is not about protecting reputations, and reputations can be harmed or upheld without it. Once something is in the public domain, you can do what you want with it, without giving any credit.
If people look down upon passing someone else's work off as one's own, we're talking about plagiarism, not copyright. And reputations can be held or harmed without copyright law. Attribution is what's relevant there.
"Any and all profits" is a pretty stiff starting point, and lawyers don't always start there. In the Dibango lawsuit against Jackson and Rihanna, his lawyers asked for €500,000, not "any and all profits." At best, this is a bad PR move by Satriani's lawyers. Otherwise, some might be tempted to say that part of this is certainly about the money.
And what if Coldplay came up with it independently, but because of the legal realities, are forced to settle? What about their reputation? And, often these settlement cases involve money, but no admission of guilt.
That's nice if it's important to him, but "artistic peace of mind" is not important for copyright law. Copying is.
The world would also be a far sorrier place if people constantly abuse the law and twist it for their own ends. This is not what copyright law is about.
If it's about respect and legacy for people now, that's because they don't understand the real intent of copyright law. That's why they file lawsuits like this. The constitutional basis for copyright is not at all about "protecting" anyone's rights? What rights? The rights granted by copyright law are artificial and temporary, there are not natural rights. It's about an economic incentive, "promoting the progress."
If copyright were about "protecting the rights of an artist," why is there a public domain?
That's plenty enough for me, but clearly not what you're talking about.
Later, you say:
Copyright isn't about credit, it's about permission. You don't honestly believe that (assuming Coldplay copied the melody), if Coldplay had approached Satriani for permission to use the melody, he'd have said, "sure -- just credit me!" You said "the subsequent song must be approved" and that often royalties are split. It's not just about "credit where credit's due."
It's about permission, and licensing, and money. Because copyright is an economic incentive.
And what if it was some small independent artist, what means would they have of getting permission? They probably wouldn't create or would be forced to create something different, because they wouldn't be able to get permission or afford the risk of a lawsuit.
If it were just about credit and attribution, trust me, I'd probably be pretty happy.
That's just ridiculous. (1) How many films put out by big content companies or remakes of old films, or books turned into movies? How many cover songs have there been? These build on previous works. Copyright is about permission, and thus, usually licensing. (2) Read much Shakespeare? How much did he borrow from others? He'd have been in violation of copyright law, were the works he build off under copyright. (3) Again, talk about subjectivity: define "sufficiently different as to be deemed original." (4) What's wrong with creating things that aren't original anyways? That's often how we learn to create, by imitating.
I tend to agree with C.S. Lewis: "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."
The Satriani/Coldplay lawsuit seems to be an example of how copyright discourages many forms of creation. To be focused on "originality, respect and legacy" is to (a) miss the intent of copyright law, and (b) encourage artist to file and worry about lawsuits like this, rather than to create art.
I don't. First of all, unless a work was fairly different from the one it allegedly copied from, a claim of ignorance wouldn't even be believable. And if it's that different, that a claim of ignorance might actually be true, that seems to be a pretty strong argument for fair use, in terms of a derivative work being transformative. So, even if it was a derivative work, it would likely be fair use. And if it wasn't actually a derivative, copyright law has no place regulating it anyways. I don't share your concerns.
(1) What doesn't being a "pro" have to do with it (except for highlighting the point that it's near impossible for "amateurs" to create in the same way because of copyright)? (2) What's wrong with being "too close" if they didn't copy? How many songs use the same chord progression, or similar melodies?
It is flat out wrong to compare copyright law to patent law in this respect. The lack of a defence of independent creation is one of the biggest differences between copyright and patent law (and, I would argue, problems). If you're talking about independent creation as infringement, you are simply not talking about copyright law.
True, it's not about intending to create something similar, so it may have been accidental copying, but unless it was copying, it's not copyright infringement.
Then, it seems to be that the argument of unconscious copying is a serious problem with copyright law, because it undermines the important and essential defense of independent creation.
On the post: Time To Scrap All Music Industry Licensing Schemes
Re:
There's innovation in ways to connect with fans and give them something that they want to buy, and then there's innovation in services and platforms and distribution surrounding music. Sure, artists can do what they want with their own music (provided they and not their labels own the rights...), but it's the latter type of innovation that's really hampered by licensing schemes.
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, well, the legal realities are one thing, but I'm also interested in better laws.
Actually, it seems quite easy to me: define "uncomfortably similar." If a musician needs to hire a lawyer to figure that out (or a psychologist to see if they're guilty of unconsciously copying), I think we can do better.
(1) Then why is he asking for "any and all profits"?
(2) Do you really think that a lawsuit will make a big difference to his respectability as a composer? Imagine, in 40 years' time, Satriani's song is used in a movie, in a newly recorded version, and today's 9-year olds, then nearing 50, say.... "I remember that lawsuit!"...
Do you think today's 9-year-olds will remember some copyright settlement? I'd bet that most people forget the lawsuit, especially if they're under the age of 10 right now.
Unless you add a few variations? This is about more than just credit, and you wouldn't expect an artist to credit every influence. If it's really about crediting an influence, then some variation wouldn't be enough to avoid that responsibility.
Copyright infringement is about the unauthorized use of material covered by copyright law in a way that violates the exclusive rights provided. The exclusive rights are provided as an incentive to encourage creation. If Coldplay had noticed the similarities and contacted Satriani, I doubt he'd have said, "just credit me."
Copyright isn't about "respect and legacy" though. It's about promoting the progress of science and the useful arts. How does it promote progress to lock a song up with copyright for a century, so that anyone might face a lawsuit who happens to independently come up with a melody that's similar to a song they "might" have heard, just to somehow "protect the legacy" of the composer?
It's not just Coldplay's lawyers taking a stance of denial, but the band members themselves. What about Coldplay's legacy? What if this was actually a case of independent creation, but the legal realities make a settlement the best option. You don't think that's a problem?
Also, are there many cases of artists licensing melodies like this? In other words, is this the type of right that Satriani would have actually exploited (e.g. if you credit me and pay $x then you can sing the tune), or is it more than likely that a few variations would have just been added, or maybe that the song wouldn't be heard?
On the post: Joe Satriani Sues Coldplay For Copyright Infringement
Re:
The problem with the "fine but fair line" is that it's not at all obvious, and not at all fair (especially if you don't even have to prove conscious copying). What about all the songs based on Pachabel's Canon chords, or a T-shaped progression? There are melodies that are much more similar which occur far more often than the three note overlap between these two songs.
Do you honestly think that Coldplay's single has any effect on Satriani's? Are people listening to it instead of his song? Are they buying Coldpaly's album instead of Satriani's? Even if the melody did come from Satriani, where's the harm?
Next >>