Speaker: Copyright Must Change
2201 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 68 69 70 71 72 … 89 Newer→ Last
-
The "fairness" of the business model that sells people copies is simply that it means people pay for what they consume. Under that model, noone gets paid for creating content noone wants to consume: brilliant or not (funding that sort of content is traditionally the role of the Creative NZ </tee hee>- or patrons or enthusiasts or artists).
Of course I'm not advocating that content creation be limited to 'professionals'. It's a stupid position on so many levels.
I'm just standing up for the quaint old notion that people who create content should have the right to profit from other people's use and enjoyment of it.
And that we all benefit from there being a financial incentive to create content: basic copyright 101.
Let's say we limit copyright to the supposed societal maximum benefit of 14 years. Accepting that this is the best for society, if not for creators, would you be willing to accept a strictly enforced 14 year term?
Because it's easy enough to see that eternal copyright that's unenforced is worth less than 14 years with strict policing.
I suspect you wouldn't. Bbecause it's claimed (not, it has to be said, with any empirical evidence) that any strict enforcement of copyright will break our new techno-socio-cultural marvel, teh intertubes.
I think of this perspective as Internet Absolutism.
Nothing that threatens the free flow of the new God WWW is to be countenanced- whatever the consequences.
So you all support copyright- but only if it's unenforced!
Yeah? -
So you all support copyright- but only if it's unenforced! Yeah?
No, Rob. Go and read the rest of the thread. Is it something in the water or the name?
-
I have no argument with the assertion that CD sales have been on the decline for other reasons, that people are shifting to buying single tracks, that on-line sales are inherently cheaper and the 'middle-men' of the music industry are fighting a rear-guard action to protect a dying business model. Granted.
I'm just not convinced that the bones of that business model- the control of copying- can disappear, without it having an adverse effect on content creation.
You talk blithely of the "culture of abundance" as if it has to be a good thing. Yeah, digital content is dead simply to multiply. My fear- (and yeah, it may be a little irrational, but I'm not alone in feeling this, and the whole notion of copyright is based on it)- is that unlimited copying will result- not now, maybe not for decades- in a culture where great new content TO copy gets scarce. That's another culture of scarcity. -
No, Rob. Go and read the rest of the thread.
Actually, I've read the rest of the thread and I don't find the characterisation terribly unfair.
-
Sacha- how would you enforce copyright? I, ahem, have read this whole thread. I don't recall you suggesting any measures to enforce copyright. If you have made such suggestions, I'm very sorry, I missed 'em. Worth repeating, and please do!
(And Chch water is indubitably the best of any NZ city. Fight ya- Derrida at Dawn- on that one, any day you choose!;-) -
And Chch water is indubitably the best of any NZ city.
Yeah Right
Ok, it may not be the city but................. -
Giovanni
It's been the basis of my gripe with Mark's position throughout.
And my gripe with your criticism is that you haven't understood my position, yet you continue to bag it.
One of the responses to this changed environment has been to claim that copyright is too restrictive anyhow, and not serving society nor the creators, so let's do away with it, take the guilt out of the downloading and embrace the new.
Copyright is not too restrictive, as a concept, but it doesn't do what you seem to think it does - it doesn't guarantee revenue (see previous comments). The application of copyright law, on the other hand, is too restrictive and getting more so, as outlined in my previous comments. It's the overzealous enforcement of copyright law to support broken business models purely because the advocates can pay for that to occur that will poorly serve both creators and society.
Which never made a lot of sense to me: even if it were true that new technologies don't hurt creators in the pocket, why would you respond by taking measures - shortening copyright terms and reducing copyright provisions - designed to do just that?
You're conflating a bunch of things.
I do believe copyright terms are too long. There is research to show that shorter terms are more optimal for society, and that, in the main, the majority of revenue earned is in the earlier part of the life of a work. Fine art seems to be the exception there, as most artists become much more valuable after their death.
There appears to be a belief that someone who has created something is entitled to an income from that for the rest of their life. This is reinforced by the mis-use of the term "intellectual property" which implies property rights for creative works in the same fashion as property rights for land or physical objects. Despite a small use of the term prior to 1960, this mis-use stems from the creation of WIPO and the economic theory from the Chicago School that everything is for sale, and that the price you can get for it is the only value it has. This was reinforced by the Sonny Bono Copyright term extension Act which, let's face it, was about preserving Disney's monopoly on the Mouse, but which has had major impacts on the US creative scene where lawsuits are a way of life.
Copyright law does not ascribe property status. It's about the right to make copies. That's it. That's all it does. Many mountains of material have been written about it making all sorts of claims but that's the basis of it. It was written in an environment where relative scarcity was the fundamental basis of commerce (and that scarcity was often artificially maintained). That's the fundamental change the digital environment makes. Scarcity is no longer easy to maintain, even artifically.
That's not advocacy - that's just recognising the reality of the situation. It seems to me that you have assumed that, because I have analysed it, I'm in favour of it and any conclusion that you can draw out of that is then justified.
I haven't haven't requested changes to copyright provisions - the publishers have. They've been pushing copyright more tightly into a corner in order to make as much money as they can. What I've seen disappearing are rights that we used to have as consumers and as society. Everything is in the favour of the publishers. And they've persuaded some of their creatives that it's all for their benefit, because creatives don't usually want to think about the business they're in, they want to create stuff. So those creatives stand on their hind legs and say "you're stealing my pension!", a pension that didn't exist 40 years ago before this sustained attack on the public domain started.
I oppose the changes the publishers want because I believe it's not healthy for the creative or consumer aspects of the game.
-
Mark Harris, why didn't you post that on page one? It would have saved a lot of copy, right?
;-)
fnah -
You talk blithely of the "culture of abundance" as if it has to be a good thing.
Whether I think it's a good thing or not, it's here. Your failure to deal with that simple fact leads you into convoluted and self-contradictory arguments.
Yeah, digital content is dead simply to multiply.
And say stuff that makes no sense at all. What does this mean?
My fear- (and yeah, it may be a little irrational, but I'm not alone in feeling this, and the whole notion of copyright is based on it)- is that unlimited copying will result- not now, maybe not for decades- in a culture where great new content TO copy gets scarce. That's another culture of scarcity.
Based on what evidence. There's more content than ever available and more gets created everyday.
The "whole notion of copyright" is not based on irrational fear, as you assert. It's based on the right of a creator (or their assignee) to control the copying of their work. If you're arguing otherwise, it may be the real reason that this thread has gone on so long- that, like those others you mention, you don't really understand what copyright is.
-
I oppose the changes the publishers want because I believe it's not healthy for the creative or consumer aspects of the game.
So, to sum up: after dismissing the argument that downloading actually hurt contents creators in the pocket, you are suggesting (under the guise of having 'recognised the reality of the situation' - your are never opinions, always facts somehow) that copyright terms need to be reduced. A And how is that different from what I said above, exactly?
-
Yeah, digital content is dead simply to multiply.
And say stuff that makes no sense at all. What does this mean?Er, "digital content is dead simple to copy".
-
why didn't you post that on page one? It would have saved a lot of copy, right?
And where would have been the fun in that? ;-) And anyway, I didn't even join the fun until half way down page 2.
Actually, my understanding has grown because/in spite of this thread. While my position hasn't actually changed, my capacity to articulate it has become more concrete. I couldn't have written the above back then, because I hadn't articulated it in those terms to myself.
-
I have no argument with the assertion that CD sales have been on the decline for other reasons, that people are shifting to buying single tracks, that on-line sales are inherently cheaper and the 'middle-men' of the music industry are fighting a rear-guard action to protect a dying business model.
There is also an unreasonable assumption and equivalence being made between the slow grinding death of the CD format (which still has a way to go BTW) and the inevitable downgrading of the importance of the major record companies to the music industry and some alleged loss of return to creators (I'm talking the music industry which is my area of expertise). It's a fairly tough and, to date, despite loud and often quite ludicrous claims, line to draw. There is, to date, little evidence that music creators have suffered greatly from piracy directly. Record companies on the other hand, I accept and would argue, have and there is a flow through in their reluctance to invest in acts. That, however, internationally, was happening before the decline and indeed one of the arguments for the decline in CD sales comes from the reluctance, in the post corporationisation of the recording era, of labels to invest or take risks. It's hard to overstate how negative an effect the consolidation of the record labels in recent years had on the industry, and the likely flow through to sales, is...but that's something industry bodies would never accept.
The biggest loss to creators has been the return from music publishing income from sales..so called mechanical royalties. And yet music publishers and performing rights bodies (which, for over a century, has been where the real money in the recording industry is) are doing very well and you could make a pretty strong argument that the market has re-aligned itself here to compensate for the drop in mechanicals.
I'm not going to argue that vast numbers of tracks are being taken from p2p sites, and I have a real issue with the likes of Pirate Bay, no matter what a mess the IPFI's legal assault on them has mutated into, but I am going top argue with the logic that says that such has necessarily hurt the creation of music or the return to the creators as we are repeatedly told it has.
But in a funny sort of way there already has been an adjustment. Creators are being compensated but one grouping, the old school big labels, is increasingly finding itself out of that loop, or at least their recording arms are.
Copyright and it's enforcement remains fundamental to our society..I think we all agree on that, and I think we all agree on the fact that there needs to be a fair return to those creators. This argument isn't about that, it's more about how we distribute and who gets to clip the ticket...and one party that clipped said ticket over the past decades is being slowly cut out of the loop by the most radical machine mankind has invented since the wheel.
-
So, to sum up: after dismissing the argument that downloading actually hurt contents creators in the pocket,
Prove it. Hard verifiable data, please, none of your post-modern interpretations.
you are suggesting (under the guise of having 'recognised the reality of the situation' - your are never opinions, always facts somehow)
Are you disputing that the Internet has changed the nature of publishing? Are you saying that the digital world is not different from the analogue?
Is your whole criticism really based on me being sure of myself and my knowledge? Bro.
that copyright terms need to be reduced.
I have been careful to say that I believe that copyright terms have become too long. They have been rapidly lengthened since the mid-60's and I don't think this has been good for the creative sector or for the consumers. The only people who have really benefited are a few corporations (did you miss that?).
And how is that different from what I said above, exactly?
I've never advocated doing away with copyright completely, which appears to be some thesis you have ascribed to me. I have noted that that may well be the end result of not taking the issues seriously, as more and more people ignore laws that don't take a change in the environment into account.
I have, in fact, stated on more than one occasion that I think copyright is a good thing, but that the process around it is broken.
-
Simon
As you said, some time ago, we coincide more in our opinions than we diverge. Where we differ, it seems, is that I still don't believe it's "piracy" that has caused the record companies so much woe.I don't believe copyright is the answer to getting remuneration to creatives, mainly because I don't believe breach of copyright was the problem. But I do agree that the industry bodies will never accept that they've been the authors of their own downfall (I don't say "demise" because there's still a chance they could come to understand, but the pain the rest of us have to go through will hardly be worth it).
-
Prove it. Hard verifiable data, please, none of your post-modern interpretations.
I don't have proof either way, it's simply impossible to disambiguate the evidence. And you won't see me arguing that artists are being hurt in the pocket, simply because I don't know - and I don't know that they haven't, either. It does give me a certain amount of pause that there is a generation who is growing up thinking (and we have some evidence for that) that you don't have to pay for music.
Are you disputing that the Internet has changed the nature of publishing? Are you saying that the digital world is not different from the analogue?
I was referring specifically to the quoted bit. You claim that "the belief that someone who has created something is entitled to an income from that for the rest of their life" is an accident of history and not what copyright is there for (based on your understanding of what copyright is *actually* about). You also make the argument that only corporations benefit from long copyright terms, based on I don't know exactly what evidence. Ask islander if she'd like to relinquish her rights to The Bone People because she has enjoyed them for over 14 years, see what she has to say.
've never advocated doing away with copyright completely, which appears to be some thesis you have ascribed to me.
I never have. I have wrote that you advocate for them to be shortened, which you have just confirmed that you are. So, again, I fail to see how what I wrote on page 86 is an unfair characterisation of your position.
-
quote>that unlimited copying will result- not now, maybe not for decades- in a culture where great new content TO copy gets scarce. That's another culture of scarcity.</quote>I believe this is a fallacy
. Music, for instance, changes constantly, just look at what has been "Number One on the Charts" over the years, the "style" of the content has changed significantly. To take your point to a logical conclusion would suggest that the creation of music is driven by demand and that demand can be satisfied by copying existing works. This is plainly not the case. As in all creative endeavours the production of something new is the goal. As with the current discussions about the cost of News gathering vis a vis the cost of News reporting and distribution, the discussion of creative Arts should encompass this concept too.
There has been little discussion of the role of the creative in this area, we have touched on the perceived cost or loss to the Artist but not his reason for existence. There is always, or should be, something more than material gain as a reason for living. Do we consider thew possibility that the Artist may, indeed, have an Ego, he may find a desire in being first, a competitive desire perhaps?As with the News gathering discussion, there should be some recompense for being first to market. This concept is recognised in current copyright law but, as Mark would surely agree, the length of copyright is the real area to address.
I think. Anyway, I'll be here for a while, I'll just grab a beer. The copyright thread is a good a place as any to hang out on a wet Sunday when you're barred from your local Pub but that is another story.
;-) -
"I have wrote," jeebus. I can haz language skills.
-
And I broke my
Quote
Where is that EDIT BUTTON?
-
Here's a thought.
If I wrote a book, had it published and then edited it significantly and re-published and then some blighter nicks a passage that appears in both publications. Do I get double royalties or have I broken my own copyright.? -
Mark, you keep insisting we don't understand what copyright is- Puhleese!
We can agree to disagree about it's 'moral status' in relation to physical property, but noone is arguing that that owning copyright guarantees income. That's just dumb. I don't know where you pulled that from, but it's not from anything I've read anyone here argue.
And thanks Steve. Yeah, typo, I menat simple. (work that out!) (And yeah, Canterbury artesian water is fast heading for trouble. But it still tastes bloody good, straight from the tap! Worth fighting for. I hope you don't dilute your fine scotch with that awful chlorinated "swimming-pool water"...)
And thanks Gio... you're a scholar and a wit.
Mark- if you read a little more carefully... I was suggesting that my (yeah, I admit it- not based on 'empirical data'- but how much of this discussion has been?!) fear for the future of content creation is based on the idea that everyone benefits from the financial incentive for creation an enforced copyright brings.
You can laugh it away, but I'm pretty sure you've said yourself that's the rationale behind copyright.
I agree, this 'new scarcity' (of content WORTH copying) might not happen for a range of reasons. One of them is that artists will still create- for other reasons. I think this is the 'free-load 'cos we can argument.'
(You've also raised the possibility is that artists are all still too thick to see the reality of the situation, and have gone on creating with their heads in the sand ;-)
But how 'bout answering a few of those deceptively simple questions, eh? Since you support copyright, lets say for 14 years- how would you enforce it? What imposition on yr beloved intertubes would you be willing to accept (for the good of society!)
'Cos unenforced for 14 or 999 years is all the same. Tiddley widdley widdley, Mr Tittlemouse- no teeth! -
Where we differ, it seems, is that I still don't believe it's "piracy" that has caused the record companies so much woe.
The woes of the recording industry are real and are severe, but the causes of these are complex...far more so than the industry bodies will have you believe, and, I'd argue, far more so than casual observers, and those who often are advocates of their case both here and elsewhere grasp.
I'll argue that piracy is an element but I temper that with a) the causes of piracy are also complex and often come back to things that have been either caused or aggravated by the actions of the labels...not always but often, b) I don't think that piracy as such has had as negative effect on the industry as a whole, or at least a wholly negative effect..there are many acts who've used the grayer regions of the net to some advantage (as have the movie studios with torrents) c) I think piracy's cost to the labels is grossly overstated and the removal of piracy tomorrow would likely not really help them at all as the world has moved, it's axis has permanently shifted, typesetters and typewriter manufacturers also found themselves out in the cold..redundant. They're gonna have to wipe out iTunes, Amazon, eMusic and the others who don't support the old way of doing things either.
The slow grinding death of the big record labels to little more than catalogue repositories and subsidiaries of music publishers is inevitable. It's tough and I feel for the people at the coalface but I'm also excited by the freedom this offers, and clearly, since music is being created in volume still, others are too and it's demise is wilfully and grossly overstated by those who are finding their world disappearing forever.
-
And thanks Steve. Yeah, typo, I menat simple. (work that out!)
menat, fnahh fnahh
-
who is growing up thinking (and we have some evidence for that) that you don't have to pay for music.
How many billion downloaded and paid for tracks on iTunes, Amazon, eMusic, Beatport, Boomkat and 20,000 other sites do I need to point to to prove that ain't true. You have to make the fairly wild assumption that people are downloading instead of paying when they take from soulseek or wherever, and I just don't think that's mostly the case. In a percentage of course but I'd argue that overwhelmingly music taken from p2p sites does not replace sales.
The big issue here is the cash return to labels and the fact that people now only take the songs they like..unit sales have gone from a $30 album to a $1.80 track. It's funny to read in the industry forums I'm a member of, the number of old school record label folks asking why customers have a right to expect an album of reasonable quality...surely hunting through 8 tracks of average or dross to find the gems is part of the 'joy' of discovering an artist. They're serious ...
-
I meaned menat
Post your response…
This topic is closed.