FWIW I would say that this has nothing to do with being a professional musician as I understand the word professional.
So based on what you tell me of noise music (is this what I would call concrete music?) Karl is interested in Art. I love Art. I like Cage and Boulez as much as I like Frank Zappa and Professor Longhair (to name some random Artists I like).
But if one wants to make Art then one takes ones chances with making money. If one wants to make money for sure, then you go pro. And in my books a professional in any field is distinguished by their ability to work productively in a variety of situations, under a variety of conditions, not always of their choosing, and still be able to produce consistent results to their employers satisfaction.
By extension, I maintain that a musician who is willing and able to play a variety of styles, with a variety of different other musicians, not always of their choosing, and produces consistently satisfying (to the employer) results will be as able to earn a decent living as any other similar professional. Perhaps a welder was not the best choice, perhaps a copy writer or a professional illustrator would have been a better comparison, but the main point remains the same:
All this copyright bull has little importance to most professional musicians I know. I means a whole lot to records companies (which by virtue of being a company are soulless). It might mean something to Artists who dream of striking it rich.
But I started by saying: A) please don't drag musicians into this. and B) that contrary to what Richard wrote, the professional musicians I know do not "labor unpaid in the hope that whatever cash flow is received from such labors proves well worth the effort". They earn regular livings and get paid predictably for their labors.
That is one of the offered proofs: that nowhere can be found examples of music-less societies.
Even if the best people can muster if is banging two spoons together, or slapping their thighs, or playing a washboard, or using their voices - then that is what they do.
These two authors (and I am sure they are not the only ones) maintain that music is so essential that special highly specific areas of the brain exist for the sole purpose of processing music which is rare (very very few parts of the brain are as site specific as pitch processing sites, most brain function is regionalized and somewhat plastic) and that humans will create music by *any* means available rather than live without it.
"Exactly, copyright is about the record labels ... it was invented because the middlemen"
This may be true as regards sheet music and music recordings, in the US, but I would argue that copyright in its original pre-musical form was a more complex issue, and not always about middlemen.
"For most it's not really different from buying a lottery ticket"
With all due respect, as I say in my reply to the anonymous coward, this is not the case at all for most of the musician I know and/or play with.
Most either play simply because they love to play, or they play and make a living at it because they want to earn their living doing what they love.
I got out of pro music specifically because *I did not want* to earn my living doing what I loved. I felt the "earning a living" part of it compromised "the doing what I love" part of it.
Although I have no doubt that what you say may be true for someone somewhere, I can honestly say it does not describe any of the musicians I have every personally met.
And for a musician that wants to earn a living playing music, it is not much harder than any other profession.
Just like a welder, you work 8 hrs a day at it, make sure that you know what you are doing, choose your employer (and there are many) wisely, and live with the fact that you don't always like your boss, and some days you don't like your job. And just like welders, there are some people who just not very good at it and will never find a job welding because they suck, there are many people who will not make a living playing music because from a professional standpoint, they are simply not competent.
"Now, the musician here takes a risk. He labors unpaid in the hope"
I read this and I have difficulty connecting the dots between musicians and copyright.
Most of the musicians I have played with get paid regularly. There is a union scale, and when we play a gig or do a recording session we get paid to scale. Non-unionized musicians also get paid a fixed amount per gig, although there is a greater risk that the venue will rip them off.
Professional orchestral musicians have an annual salary as do professional musicians in the armed forces (quite a nice one too because they make captain quickly), and house musicians.
Of all the musicians I have played with and known, only a small percentage composed music that was subsequently recorded. And this small percentage is the only percentage that cares much about copyright one way or the other.
The people who own copyrights, the people who care about it, are record companies who have been screwing over musicians since day one. And for every musician who actually does make some nice coin on a record, for every Metallica, there are thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of musicians who have been taken advantage of, ripped off, screwed every way that you could possibly imagine and a few ways that you could not.
So I do not really think that it is relevant - or even appropriate - to bring musicians into this debate. To me, it seems the same as saying: "think of the children".
Actually some very respectable neurologists (Oliver Sacks, Daniel J. Levitin) argue that music is indeed a fundamental need, and that there is both physical and sociological evidence in support of that position.
If you are interested in reading their arguments I suggest Musicophilia and This Is Your Brain On Music respectively.
@Sid You say "Under today's laws it is illegal to copy a piece of music and use it when someone else owns the rights to distribute that music"
But this is factually incorrect. Under today's laws the owner has the exclusive right to copy and distribute... EXCEPT...
The exclusive right is granted in 162 words including section headings. The exceptions to this exclusive right cover 77 pages and well over 35,000 words.
So as a matter of fact, there are many, many, many instances in which under today's law it is perfectly legal to copy a piece of music and use it.
There are also instances in which it is illegal as you suggest, but let us not forget that there are myriad cases where contrary to your rather bald statement copying is absolutely legal.
You also state "The huge flaw in all the arguments for copying is the assumption that our right to use this music is greater than the right of the copyright owner to legally control the use of that music"
However as I just pointed out, there are 35,000 words worth of legal rights granted by act of Congress that make it matter of legal fact that the rights of use are greater that the rights of the copyright owner.
Finally, I appreciate that you do a good job of referring to "copyright owner" and not "creator", because as we know, the copyright owner is very often not the creator.
Although at times it may be due to conflating use with payment, a quick read of the comments suggests otherwise.
My observation of the bogged down debate in the comments section is that it mostly due to:
1. a basic lack of common courtesy and civility
2. dogma and lack of critical thinking
3. Manichean thinking where everything is construed to be either absolutely Good or absolutely Evil
4. Name calling and swearing are rarely if ever conducive to open and productive exchange of ideas
Copyright is a legal construct, not a moral imperative.
For those who take their morality from the Bible, Koran or Torah, I point out that copyright appears nowhere in religious law.
For those that consider morality from a non-religious perspective, I would remind you of the the common good - agreed by almost all to be a fundamental underpinning of morality - and that a) it is considered to supersede personal satisfaction or gain, and b) it is not dogmatically or strictly defined and therefore needs open and productive exchange of ideas (polite discussion) to achieve a working societal definition as regards specific cases.
Of course the above comments do not apply to every single contributor to the comments. Some of you have been reasoned and balanced, and making a good faith attempt to really discuss. You know who you are.
Others of you have been rude, closed minded, and in some cases completely incoherent. I have my doubts as to whether those people know who they are.
Mike asks: "why do we allow US courts to enforce foreign rulings that appear to go against US law at all?"
Because if a US citizen or resident travels to another country, and breaks that countries laws, they should indeed be liable for whatever penalties they incur, even if there the same activity is legal within the US.
For example if I travel to the UK and drive on the right (therefore wrong) side of the road, I most certainly should pay the ticket, even if I have returned to the US by the time the fine is decided upon the the UK court.
I can't believe that you continue to legitimize the idea that there is such a thing as "cyber"bullying.
I have been unable to find any reports of bullying that was so restricted to an online forum that it warranted the moniker cyber.
I have searched Google for reports of "cyber" bullying and in all of them there was bullying and harassment in all areas of the person's life. I am seriously concerned that by raising "cyber" above the other pervasive aspects of bullying we are minimizing their importance.
I would rather be called a name on line than be hit in the head with a soda can.
Bullying is bullying. Harassment is harassment. I really do not think that any worthy purpose is served by applying the prefix cyber, and I do wish that you Mike - of all people - would stop feeding the moral outrage over "cyber" bullying that only serves to distract from the real problem.
On the post: Michael Jackson's Family Sues Touring Company For His Death
Re: The touring company is responsible because...
On the post: Transparency Pea Soup: The USTR Planned From The Beginning How Not To Be Transparent On ACTA
Re: Spineless Politicians
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FWIW I would say that this has nothing to do with being a professional musician as I understand the word professional.
So based on what you tell me of noise music (is this what I would call concrete music?) Karl is interested in Art. I love Art. I like Cage and Boulez as much as I like Frank Zappa and Professor Longhair (to name some random Artists I like).
But if one wants to make Art then one takes ones chances with making money. If one wants to make money for sure, then you go pro. And in my books a professional in any field is distinguished by their ability to work productively in a variety of situations, under a variety of conditions, not always of their choosing, and still be able to produce consistent results to their employers satisfaction.
By extension, I maintain that a musician who is willing and able to play a variety of styles, with a variety of different other musicians, not always of their choosing, and produces consistently satisfying (to the employer) results will be as able to earn a decent living as any other similar professional. Perhaps a welder was not the best choice, perhaps a copy writer or a professional illustrator would have been a better comparison, but the main point remains the same:
All this copyright bull has little importance to most professional musicians I know. I means a whole lot to records companies (which by virtue of being a company are soulless). It might mean something to Artists who dream of striking it rich.
But I started by saying: A) please don't drag musicians into this. and B) that contrary to what Richard wrote, the professional musicians I know do not "labor unpaid in the hope that whatever cash flow is received from such labors proves well worth the effort". They earn regular livings and get paid predictably for their labors.
And really, that's all I am trying to say.
On the post: How Should Facebook Respond To The Social Network Movie?
Brendan Behan
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re: Copyright
Even if the best people can muster if is banging two spoons together, or slapping their thighs, or playing a washboard, or using their voices - then that is what they do.
These two authors (and I am sure they are not the only ones) maintain that music is so essential that special highly specific areas of the brain exist for the sole purpose of processing music which is rare (very very few parts of the brain are as site specific as pitch processing sites, most brain function is regionalized and somewhat plastic) and that humans will create music by *any* means available rather than live without it.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
That was me up there
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re: Re:
This may be true as regards sheet music and music recordings, in the US, but I would argue that copyright in its original pre-musical form was a more complex issue, and not always about middlemen.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Re:
With all due respect, as I say in my reply to the anonymous coward, this is not the case at all for most of the musician I know and/or play with.
Most either play simply because they love to play, or they play and make a living at it because they want to earn their living doing what they love.
I got out of pro music specifically because *I did not want* to earn my living doing what I loved. I felt the "earning a living" part of it compromised "the doing what I love" part of it.
Although I have no doubt that what you say may be true for someone somewhere, I can honestly say it does not describe any of the musicians I have every personally met.
And for a musician that wants to earn a living playing music, it is not much harder than any other profession.
Just like a welder, you work 8 hrs a day at it, make sure that you know what you are doing, choose your employer (and there are many) wisely, and live with the fact that you don't always like your boss, and some days you don't like your job. And just like welders, there are some people who just not very good at it and will never find a job welding because they suck, there are many people who will not make a living playing music because from a professional standpoint, they are simply not competent.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re:
I read this and I have difficulty connecting the dots between musicians and copyright.
Most of the musicians I have played with get paid regularly. There is a union scale, and when we play a gig or do a recording session we get paid to scale. Non-unionized musicians also get paid a fixed amount per gig, although there is a greater risk that the venue will rip them off.
Professional orchestral musicians have an annual salary as do professional musicians in the armed forces (quite a nice one too because they make captain quickly), and house musicians.
Of all the musicians I have played with and known, only a small percentage composed music that was subsequently recorded. And this small percentage is the only percentage that cares much about copyright one way or the other.
The people who own copyrights, the people who care about it, are record companies who have been screwing over musicians since day one. And for every musician who actually does make some nice coin on a record, for every Metallica, there are thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of musicians who have been taken advantage of, ripped off, screwed every way that you could possibly imagine and a few ways that you could not.
So I do not really think that it is relevant - or even appropriate - to bring musicians into this debate. To me, it seems the same as saying: "think of the children".
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Copyright
If you are interested in reading their arguments I suggest Musicophilia and This Is Your Brain On Music respectively.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Re: Copyright
But this is factually incorrect. Under today's laws the owner has the exclusive right to copy and distribute... EXCEPT...
The exclusive right is granted in 162 words including section headings. The exceptions to this exclusive right cover 77 pages and well over 35,000 words.
So as a matter of fact, there are many, many, many instances in which under today's law it is perfectly legal to copy a piece of music and use it.
There are also instances in which it is illegal as you suggest, but let us not forget that there are myriad cases where contrary to your rather bald statement copying is absolutely legal.
You also state "The huge flaw in all the arguments for copying is the assumption that our right to use this music is greater than the right of the copyright owner to legally control the use of that music"
However as I just pointed out, there are 35,000 words worth of legal rights granted by act of Congress that make it matter of legal fact that the rights of use are greater that the rights of the copyright owner.
Finally, I appreciate that you do a good job of referring to "copyright owner" and not "creator", because as we know, the copyright owner is very often not the creator.
On the post: Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down: Conflating Use With Payment
Why Debates Over Copyright Get Bogged Down
My observation of the bogged down debate in the comments section is that it mostly due to:
1. a basic lack of common courtesy and civility
2. dogma and lack of critical thinking
3. Manichean thinking where everything is construed to be either absolutely Good or absolutely Evil
4. Name calling and swearing are rarely if ever conducive to open and productive exchange of ideas
Copyright is a legal construct, not a moral imperative.
For those who take their morality from the Bible, Koran or Torah, I point out that copyright appears nowhere in religious law.
For those that consider morality from a non-religious perspective, I would remind you of the the common good - agreed by almost all to be a fundamental underpinning of morality - and that a) it is considered to supersede personal satisfaction or gain, and b) it is not dogmatically or strictly defined and therefore needs open and productive exchange of ideas (polite discussion) to achieve a working societal definition as regards specific cases.
Of course the above comments do not apply to every single contributor to the comments. Some of you have been reasoned and balanced, and making a good faith attempt to really discuss. You know who you are.
Others of you have been rude, closed minded, and in some cases completely incoherent. I have my doubts as to whether those people know who they are.
On the post: Chair Designer Sues Disney Over Chair Used In Alice In Wonderland Movie
Re:
Quote from his website: "CASINO CHAIRS ARE COPYRIGHT INVENTION"
Honestly; I do not know whether to laugh or lose my mind.
On the post: Peter Sunde Explains The History Of The Pirate Bay: A Joke Where Lawyers & Politicians Missed The Punchline
Re:
Stop beating around the bush and tell us how you *really* feel.
Its nice to see such passion from an anonymous coward.
On the post: The Car That's Driven 2.8 Million Miles
Re: Feul effeciency
You know, it is just as bad for the environment to make them as it is to drive them...
On the post: Senate Passes Libel Tourism Bill: Won't Recognize Ridiculous Foreign Libel Judgments
Because if a US citizen or resident travels to another country, and breaks that countries laws, they should indeed be liable for whatever penalties they incur, even if there the same activity is legal within the US.
For example if I travel to the UK and drive on the right (therefore wrong) side of the road, I most certainly should pay the ticket, even if I have returned to the US by the time the fine is decided upon the the UK court.
On the post: NY Times Becomes A Trademark Bully Over A Logo For A Newspaper That Hasn't Existed In 40+ Years
Trademark Bully?
On the post: Still Don't Know What Cyberwar Is... But The US Has A Cyberwar General Now
What is cyber war?
On the post: USPTO Ramping Up Patent Approvals
Re: Re: Re: Re: where to put those pesky lawsuits
No I did not. I meant as having to go to court in any way, for any reason, which is unpleasant and does not do much for one's career at the USPTO.
On the post: Louisiana Wants To Put You In Jail If You Embarrass Anyone Under 17 Years Old Online
Cyber? bullying
I have been unable to find any reports of bullying that was so restricted to an online forum that it warranted the moniker cyber.
I have searched Google for reports of "cyber" bullying and in all of them there was bullying and harassment in all areas of the person's life. I am seriously concerned that by raising "cyber" above the other pervasive aspects of bullying we are minimizing their importance.
I would rather be called a name on line than be hit in the head with a soda can.
Bullying is bullying. Harassment is harassment. I really do not think that any worthy purpose is served by applying the prefix cyber, and I do wish that you Mike - of all people - would stop feeding the moral outrage over "cyber" bullying that only serves to distract from the real problem.
Next >>