# Copyright, theft, and making a living



## JohnG (Feb 15, 2011)

Interesting article on copyright, which reads, in part:

_"The rise of the Internet has led to a view among many users and Web companies that copyright is a relic, suited only to the needs of out-of-step corporate behemoths. Just consider the dedicated “file-sharers” — actually, traffickers in stolen music movies and, increasingly, books — who transmit and receive copyrighted material without the slightest guilt.

They are abetted by a handful of law professors and other experts who have made careers of fashioning counterintuitive arguments holding that copyright impedes creativity and progress. Their theory is that if we severely weaken copyright protections, innovation will truly flourish. It’s a seductive thought, but it ignores centuries of scientific and technological progress based on the principle that a creative person should have some assurance of being rewarded for his innovative work."
By SCOTT TUROW, PAUL AIKEN and JAMES SHAPIRO
Published: February 14, 2011_


Full article in the New York Times online: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/opini ... ef=opinion


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Feb 15, 2011)

Interesting.

If I'm understanding the authors' analogy correctly, the Internet and the associated lack of copyright enforcement represent the burning down of the Globe Theater and the severing of ties between dramatists and commerce.

However, these days it's just as accurate to say that--at least to an extent--the Internet and the associated lack of copyright enforcement represent the Globe Theater as well. Even for well-established content creators, there can be real value in the free distribution of creative work, as evidenced by this observation from author Neil Gaiman that's been making the rounds lately. Of course, that refers to free distribution of creative work with the consent of the copyright holder, but it's obviously a tremendously nuanced issue.


----------



## dinerdog (Feb 15, 2011)

I thought the Neil Gaiman piece was spot on - for him. Also for others like Radiohead, but I think this mainly works for already (very) established people.


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Feb 15, 2011)

Yeah, agreed. I'm just pointing out the other side of that coin.


----------



## mverta (Feb 15, 2011)

I'm afraid the comparison is a bit anachronistic; there has been no "explosion" of talented peoples for a period long pre-dating the Internet until the present. Entertainment markets are saturated with semi-competent works which comprise such a majority of the landscape, that the public has had their expectations lowered and their standards reset. We have successfully de-coupled quality from success. The result is a lot of disposable, mediocre work, which nobody is complaining about the lack of quality of, because they don't know any better any more. And that's not their fault. But the bottom line is that most of the stuff offered commercially today isn't especially worth paying for. Especially music. People "really like" a certain piece, and then move on to the next piece they "really like" about a nanosecond later. But the work itself isn't of the sustaining, transformative quality that great works can be, have been, and should be. So why would they pay any substantial amount for such a transient non-contribution to their lives? I wouldn't! I wouldn't pay $45 for one of those bug-laden non-food McBullcrap burgers either. It's not worth it.

I suppose it's a perfectly cute little mission, to try and legislate the morality that a generation-plus of parents have utterly failed to instill in their children, but at the end of the day, imposing a $100k fine and 10 years of jail time for stealing a hacked-out nothing of a song isn't going to make the music any better.



_Mike


----------



## Ian Dorsch (Feb 15, 2011)

mverta @ Tue Feb 15 said:


> I'm afraid the comparison is a bit anachronistic; there has been no "explosion" of talented peoples for a period long pre-dating the Internet until the present. Entertainment markets are saturated with semi-competent works which comprise such a majority of the landscape, that the public has had their expectations lowered and their standards reset. We have successfully de-coupled quality from success. The result is a lot of disposable, mediocre work, which nobody is complaining about the lack of quality of, because they don't know any better any more. And that's not their fault. But the bottom line is that most of the stuff offered commercially today isn't especially worth paying for. Especially music. People "really like" a certain piece, and then move on to the next piece they "really like" about a nanosecond later. But the work itself isn't of the sustaining, transformative quality that great works can be, have been, and should be. So why would they pay any substantial amount for such a transient non-contribution to their lives? I wouldn't! I wouldn't pay $45 for one of those bug-laden non-food McBullcrap burgers either. It's not worth it.



:lol:

Beautifully put, Mike.


----------



## SergeD (Feb 15, 2011)

It's just unbeliviable how such ass** find arguments to steal creative people. 

SergeD


----------



## David Story (Feb 15, 2011)

Thanks for another thoughtful post John.

Copyright doesn't provide "assurance of being rewarded ", that comes from making good business deals. 
The right mean little without a marketing and sales team, most of us sign over copyright to get access to those resources, and upfront pay.

The most active proponents of copyright are major corporations. They extended the period of US copyright from 25-years to what is in effect perpetuity. The public domain was killed to serve big companies. Not the individual the law was intended to protect.

Copyright extension was championed by Michael Eisner and Sonny Bono.

You probably know that internet performance royalties are tiny, thanks to large distributers who don't want to pay.

Copyright should be organized to benefit the creative individual, and then the public interest, not the distributer. IMO

Bach, Beethoven, Stravinsky, Edison, Newton, Einstein, all copy extensively. That's part of making great art, or great science. Yes there has to be a balance, but the internet, as Neil Gaiman says, is a way of opening up people to new things. And allowing the old ones to be creatively recycled.

I'd like copyright law that guaranteed everyone the right to distribution. But that might simply be YouTube. And that expired after the individual's death, so we all can learn and prosper from their contribution. Call me egalitarian  (or worse, maybe)


----------



## rJames (Feb 15, 2011)

Ian Dorsch @ Tue Feb 15 said:


> mverta @ Tue Feb 15 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm afraid the comparison is a bit anachronistic; there has been no "explosion" of talented peoples for a period long pre-dating the Internet until the present. Entertainment markets are saturated with semi-competent works which comprise such a majority of the landscape, that the public has had their expectations lowered and their standards reset. We have successfully de-coupled quality from success. The result is a lot of disposable, mediocre work, which nobody is complaining about the lack of quality of, because they don't know any better any more. And that's not their fault. But the bottom line is that most of the stuff offered commercially today isn't especially worth paying for. Especially music. People "really like" a certain piece, and then move on to the next piece they "really like" about a nanosecond later. But the work itself isn't of the sustaining, transformative quality that great works can be, have been, and should be. So why would they pay any substantial amount for such a transient non-contribution to their lives? I wouldn't! I wouldn't pay $45 for one of those bug-laden non-food McBullcrap burgers either. It's not worth it.
> ...



Yes, I agree with these two guys... only sustaining, transformative, great works should be protected by copyright. People who create mundane things should not be protected.


----------



## mverta (Feb 15, 2011)

That's sort of a curious bastardization of my point, to make another one. Perhaps I didn't use enough smileys.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 15, 2011)

I agree too.

And I get to be the one who decides.

Or do you want, to, Ron? I trust your judgement.

***

Oh - I didn't get the sarcasm either. Sorry Mike.


----------



## mverta (Feb 15, 2011)

Well I'm sort of making both points. As an artist who receives royalties it is obviously insane and indefensible for me to suggest we shouldn't have our work protected. Of course we should; I wouldn't ever suggest otherwise. But much like the battle over unionization of composers I think were leaving an important part of the equation out, which is that it's difficult to fight for money and respect when the work itself isn't really that valuable or great. The same kids will steal a piece of music will spend 75 dollars on a concert ticket because the experience is valuable to them. So I'm saying we should consider both sides of the equation.

_Mike


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Feb 15, 2011)

The problem is that if they could steal the concert without getting caught they would too.

That side of the equation always comes up in copyright discussions, especially with software: many people wouldn't have bought it anyway. And sure - not every instance of copyright violation is a lost sale.

But most sales have been lost. The number one album sells in the tens of thousands these days, vs. well over a million ten years ago.


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Feb 15, 2011)

> The problem is that if they could steal the concert without getting caught they would too.



Ah yes... but experiences are very difficult to somehow duplicate. By definition, you have to be there yourself, in person. That's why they'll always have inherent worth. 

Well, until we invent holodecks, I guess.

Anyway, you'd be surprised the viewpoints some people have. I had a long debate with someone on a music forum recently; a philosophy major (doing his masters, I believe) who believed that intellectual property is basically all bogus, and that the net increase in creative output by enabling people to do what they please with creative works of others would easily outweigh any negatives. Basically, he believed (very strongly) that there is no inherent right for people to profit from their creative output, and that the last 300 years or so of copyright law should be rescinded as a result.


----------



## mverta (Feb 15, 2011)

if it's true that they'd steal the concert ticket as well then your back to my other point about trying to legislate morality. that is the root of that problem and unless you kill the weeds roots it will continue to propagate. it's just a better mousetrap game, which ultimately always fails. so it seems to me that while we must do what ever we can legislatively, would help our case overall if the quality of the product we were offering was higher, that's all.


----------



## rJames (Feb 15, 2011)

Sarcasm... can't hold back... trying...


----------



## MichaelL (Feb 15, 2011)

I believe that this would be one of those "counterintuitive arguments" from a law professor.

http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/Napster.PDF

I never studied with the author when I was in law school, but we occasionally rode the subway together.

For the record, I favor strong copyrights. Just thought you might be interested in how one of the counterintuitive types thinks.

Cheers,

Michael


----------



## mverta (Feb 15, 2011)

Of course, the problem with using Napster as evidence that the degeneration of intellectual property protection doesn't kill creativity is that Napster doesn't _create_ anything. It's just a way to perpetuate crimes in a more anonymous way. It doesn't represent proof of an irrational fear. All it represents is that a lot of people are still whatever scumbag they can get away with being. Nothing new there; it represents no new frontier.

A lot of people will use internet "free exposure" to expose themselves, but the hope is that once exposed, they'll get paid like anybody else. I often detect an unspoken suggestion that, really, people are happy to give everything they do away for free, and the end of enforceable law "permits" that. It's a sentiment with no basis in reality, save for those few who have security and resources enough not to be particularly affected by the theft and loss of royalty. In the end, bringing art or movies or music or poetry, or novels into your life, willingly, enjoying it and making it a part of the very definition of your life, without having any intention of recognizing the efforts and economic burdens of the creator, is a total dick move.

_Mike


----------



## Andrew Aversa (Feb 16, 2011)

That's right, as many people say "why are CDs $18 when they only cost a few pennies to make?" or my favorite, "Why are you charging hundreds of dollars for MP3s?" (In reference to my catalog of music for sync licensing...)


----------



## MichaelL (Feb 16, 2011)

@Mike, I think the disregard for the value of people's work stems from the general commodification of almost every aspect of our lives. Hence, your McBurger analogy. 
I live in a 90 year old stone house. It will be standing 90 years after today's plywood McMansions crumble into dust. The problem is that our culture has developed a "disposable/convenience" mentality. Obsolescence is built in. So, it's no wonder that music isn't being created to stand the test of time, and consumers quickly dispose of it like a loaded Pampers. 

@Nick -- you're right, they don't get it. My experience with law professors is that they function in a very abstract realm. (BTW, I do not practice and have thankfully returned to composing for a living).

If you have an hour to kill, here's a more current video of Mr. Post's views. I think his vision of the internet as abstract from our reality is evident.

He starts speaking about copyrights around 4:30. I think you only need to watch a few minutes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF72LiMQ ... re=related

I don't know which is worse, those who steal our works on the internet or those who provide an "intellectual" justification for doing so.

__Michael


----------



## wst3 (Feb 16, 2011)

MichaelL @ Wed Feb 16 said:


> wst3 @ Wed Feb 16 said:
> 
> 
> > We (and by we I mean people from my general age group, economic standing, etc) were brought up to understand that theft was wrong... no exceptions, no loop holes.
> ...


OK, I think applying degrees of "bad" is generally a poor use of time, but I'll make an exception here. People that steal software, or sample libraries, or music for their own use are bad. But I hope there's a special ring reserved for folks that steal it for personal profit! Years ago I ran into a guy that was selling copies of the Sonivox String library (all 9 DVDs I think) for $100. His argument, and he may have even believed it, was that he deserved something for his efforts to remove the copy protection and burn the DVDs. Really??? Not that fencing stolen goods is a new idea, but REALLY???? When I pointed out that any idiot could go out and download the same library he argued that if they were smart enough to do that so be it, he'd just sell to folks that could not figure it out. At which point I just walked away - and reported the incident to the license holders<G>!

Sorry for the rant, but that sort of behavior makes me even crazier than the foolish arguments that piracy does not represent lost sales. UGH!


----------



## clarkcontrol (Feb 16, 2011)

+1

As the content creators, we should decide if it's free or not. Nobody else. If it's bad music nobody will buy it. If it's then decided by the composer to make it free great.

Kina grannis's "valentine" is a perfect example-- and it's one of her best songs! But she made the decision to make it free. SHE did.

And plus, WHO CARES if piracy actually does or does not represent lost sales? This is not the point! The point is the holder of the copyright gets to decide. Period. 

Clark


----------



## MichaelL (Feb 16, 2011)

wst3 @ Wed Feb 16 said:


> Dang dude... you're OLD!!!<G>




Yeah...and I remember when a 45 was just a round piece of vinyl with a big hole in the middle. :lol:


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 16, 2011)

There are two issues here:

1. getting paid for your works airing (broadcasting over the internet)
2. promoting your works

It's a marketing and royalty fact that only a few genre of music ever get radio air play. Outside of Sirius FM, there are no commercially available radio stations for film music. Then start working your way down the genre list and you'll find a whole lot of music that never gets airplay.

This music is sold by people hearing the work, somewhere/somehow, and liking it enough to buy it. The somewhere/somehow historically has been live performance. You get the first sale "live" and from there you get 'em on a mailing list and sell, sell, sell every time you have a new release. 

With the Internet, you can promote the work, but not get paid.

Or you can give away a portion of the work (30 second or more demo) and charge for the rest ala iTunes.

The question is: How do you want to use the Internet to promote you?


----------



## MichaelL (Feb 16, 2011)

Film music on the internet:

http://www.streamingsoundtracks.com/


----------



## Peter Alexander (Feb 16, 2011)

MichaelL @ Wed Feb 16 said:


> Film music on the internet:
> 
> http://www.streamingsoundtracks.com/



By commercially available I'm referring to terrestrial radio (AM/FM).


----------

