Death to Copyright

[Dale]

Tell me where I'm wrong in thinking that if music copyright went away, it wouldn't hurt.

Most professional musicians do not make their livelihood from music copyright, from CDs being produced by record companies. They make a living by teaching, giving lessons, day jobs, and performing. The death of the "music industry" would mean that 50Cent and Carrie Underwood wouldn't be able to become millionaires in 2 weeks from recording a couple of CDs. Ok, so Marilyn Manson has to sell a home or two and get an apartment. It would mean that capitalists wouldn't be able to make big money from major music labels. Music by a wide range of musicians would be available for little or no money on the Internet, as now but more so.

At the same time the ability to control the distribution of recorded music is going away, it is increasingly cheap and easy for musicians to create their own recordings with a good mic, a laptop, and some software. So, nobody will be able to argue that people won't be able to experience recorded music anymore.

Ok, books. The majority of people who write books don't make their living at it. Only the writers of best sellers can make a living at it. Otherwise, most authors teach at universities or whatever to make a living. Etc., etc. big publishing companies, etc. etc., distribution of written material on the Internet, etc. etc., see "music" above.


Where am I going wrong in my thinking here?

[Bloomfield]

I wouldn't work. The children of famous artists might actually have to work for a living.

[peeplj]

There is rarely ever a way back from more restrictive to less restrictive.

Copyright as we know it may well be dying; the music industry as we know it actually appears to be dying, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it'll make much difference to you and me when it happens.

There will be legislation, there will be regulation, there may even be government bailouts for the industry's bigwigs...there will be new "better" media formats...and at the end of the day, trading and swapping tunes will still be illegal, the ridiculous penalties will only get stiffer, the outrageous fines will only get higher...

...and it'll be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Oh, by the way, the day is coming that every time you use your computer, you'll be billed in realtime for the amount of CPU time and resources you used while you sat there doing whatever you do on your computer....but that's a different story, for a different thread.

"Welcome to City Seventeen! You have chosen, or been chosen..."

Have a nice day.

--James

[Jack]

Dale, this is a very political post. I'm surprised you put it here.

[Bloomfield]

There is rarely ever a way back from more restrictive to less restrictive.

Where were you in the 80s and 90s when the U.S. saw massive waives of deregulation?

Copyright as we know it may well be dying; the music industry as we know it actually appears to be dying, but don't make the mistake of thinking that it'll make much difference to you and me when it happens.

There will be legislation, there will be regulation, there may even be government bailouts for the industry's bigwigs...there will be new "better" media formats...and at the end of the day, trading and swapping tunes will still be illegal, the ridiculous penalties will only get stiffer, the outrageous fines will only get higher...

...and it'll be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Isn't this a needlessly messianic? And at that moment swapping tunes is getting legaller and legaller and the penalties are getting harder and harder to impose. It even looks like the RIAA is running out of steam, because their funding is being cut.

[Dale]

Dale, this is a very political post. I'm surprised you put it here.

I'm full of surprises, no to mention the power to move it as necessary.

[Bloomfield]

Dale, this is a very political post. I'm surprised you put it here.

I'm full of surprises, no to mention the power to move it as necessary.

Can't you stay on topic at least in your own thread, Dale? Bloody threaddrift.

[Walden]

I'm not opposed to private ownership of property, but music and ideas are not property. I do not believe they can morally be said to belong to anyone.

[Bloomfield]

I'm not opposed to private ownership of property, but music and ideas are not property. I do not believe they can morally be said to belong to anyone.

Bravo. BRAVO! Couldn't agree more, the whole Intellectual "property" thing is propaganda of those who have controlled distribution for decades. Walden for President.

[s1m0n]

Ok, books. The majority of people who write books don't make their living at it.

Where am I going wrong in my thinking here?

Speaking as someone who doesn't make a living writing books, I wish to point out that neither "teaching at universities" nor "whatever" actually pays people to write books: they both pay to do other things, and from experience get downright shirty if you, instead, spend your time there writing books. In consequence, every minute I spend doing "whatever" is a minute I'm not writing a book.

[falkbeer]

I'm not opposed to private ownership of property, but music and ideas are not property. I do not believe they can morally be said to belong to anyone.

They are intellectual property!

[Walden]

They are intellectual property!

How can that which is intangible be property?

[Dale]

Dale, this is a very political post. I'm surprised you put it here.

I'm full of surprises, no to mention the power to move it as necessary.

Can't you stay on topic at least in your own thread, Dale? Bloody threaddrift.

Ok!

I'm full of surprises, no to mention the power to move it as necessary.

This comment Copyright 2008 by Dale Wisely and 3Fish Productions.

[Dale]

Ok, books. The majority of people who write books don't make their living at it.

Where am I going wrong in my thinking here?

Speaking as someone who doesn't make a living writing books, I wish to point out that neither "teaching at universities" nor "whatever" actually pays people to write books: they both pay to do other things, and from experience get downright shirty if you, instead, spend your time there writing books. In consequence, every minute I spend doing "whatever" is a minute I'm not writing a book.

For the most part, American colleges and universities certainly tend to reward faculty that publish and certainly encourage that they spend time on payroll working on the research that can lead to publication.

[falkbeer]

Tell me where I'm wrong in thinking that if music copyright went away, it wouldn't hurt.

Most professional musicians do not make their livelihood from music copyright, from CDs being produced by record companies. They make a living by teaching, giving lessons, day jobs, and performing. The death of the "music industry" would mean that 50Cent and Carrie Underwood wouldn't be able to become millionaires in 2 weeks from recording a couple of CDs. Ok, so Marilyn Manson has to sell a home or two and get an apartment. It would mean that capitalists wouldn't be able to make big money from major music labels. Music by a wide range of musicians would be available for little or no money on the Internet, as now but more so.

At the same time the ability to control the distribution of recorded music is going away, it is increasingly cheap and easy for musicians to create their own recordings with a good mic, a laptop, and some software. So, nobody will be able to argue that people won't be able to experience recorded music anymore.

Ok, books. The majority of people who write books don't make their living at it. Only the writers of best sellers can make a living at it. Otherwise, most authors teach at universities or whatever to make a living. Etc., etc. big publishing companies, etc. etc., distribution of written material on the Internet, etc. etc., see "music" above.


Where am I going wrong in my thinking here?

I agree, most musicians aren´t great geniuses or famous composers. They earn their living playing at weddings, bar mitzvas or at street corners. Never the less, I belive we should uphold the copyright laws. Let me give you an example. I friend of mine is a music teacher (in an elementary school). 20 years ago he decided to write textbook for the kids "Introduction to world of music". Not very revolutionary stuff, but a very nice book and the kids liked it. Since the he has earned a small but steady incom from his book. (something like $1.500 a year). What if there were no copyright laws? Anyone could have stolen my friends work and just published it again on his own company without paying my friend a nickel! Is that fair?

The same goes for drug companys. If anyone could just copy a new drug on the market, what would be the incentive to develope new drugs? But these patent are just for ten years or so.

On the other hand i think 70 years after the death of the composer is a too long a period. It should be something more like 25 years or so after having published your work. Paul McCartney was born 1942 and he wrote Yesterday 1965. If he leads a normal life (to become 85 or so) he will probably pass away around 2027. Yesterday will accordingly be a free piece then around 2094! Huh... If we had copyright laws like patent laws Yesterday would be a free piece of intellectual property today, which I think it should be!