Copyright with respect to Music and Academia

[East Coast Hustle]

I think you're missing his point, and I think he's absolutely correct. The big 5 have COMPLETELY missed the boat as far as turning new technology into something they can use and profit from rather than taking a "HEY YOU KIDS GET YOUR FILE-SHARING OFFA MY LAWN!" approach. Now, I'll freely admit to illegally downloading an entire metric fuckton of music. When I really like a band, I make it a point to go to their shows and/or buy some merch direct from their booth or website, but that's not the point. The point is, if the record companies set up a site similar to Limewire (I don't use Limewire, but you know what I mean) and charged either for a block of downloads or a flat monthly fee for unlimited access, I'd be willing to pay that fee. The artists themselves make FAR more money off of touring and selling merchandise than off of album sales, so it would be in their best interest to sacrifice some of their album cut or per-song cut in order to gain wider exposure (and the reality is that when you buy a $15 CD, the band makes less than a dollar of that) and the record companies would still have a revenue stream.

Now, you could also make the argument that traditional record companies are completely obsolete, and that a model incorporating separate recording/producing and promotion companies would make much more sense, with it being up to the artists to pick and choose which of either they want to work with.

I'd take the second.

yeah, I think that approach makes more sense, but given that it assumes the eventual demise of traditional record companies I figure the first scenario is more likely* to happen in our lifetimes.




* - read: still never going to happen.

[Doktor Howl]

I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).

I was pro-copyright.  Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.

I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.

So, yeah.

[Payne]

I have only skimmed through this thread. So I dunno exactly were everyone stands.

But here is my take on it anyway:

For music - I have downloaded a assload of music. Most of it is passable, but some of it is stuff I really fucking love. When I get my finances sorted out with a job and a place to stay and other such things, I am sending money off directly to artists I like. Some of them, like Nofx, I wil tell them what the money is actually for (they once released an album with "Steal this album" stickers on it. I think they'd understand). Others I would just send the money and let them figure it out themselves. Note that I'm not sending my money to EVERY artist, just the ones I respect and/or like. LMNO will also be receiving a small amount of money, about as much as I send to Bad Religion or Nofx or whoever. It's not a question of size or scale of the "theft" as it is one of how much pleasure I get and respect I have.

For academia and written work - In many cases, I won't have NEEDED to pay for these things. Dok Howl, Cain, RWHN and a whole slew of others don't demand payment to read their essays, although some could, I suppose, and I would pay for the privilege (see the MSY project). Here then, I can often ignore the question of money altogether, and then move on to the other intent of copyright: the protection of artists (or other creative types) and their vision or idea. Again, this comes down to respect for me. I wouldn't plagarise outright Dok Howls work, because I respect him. I will plagarise various different translations of The Bible and other religious works. The question here for me is HOW derivative does my work become as a consequence of being exposed to these ideas, and how much is that is due to outright theft of concepts or homage. Oh, and one thing about money for this: I fully intend to send some money to Faust on the regular for the upkeep of PD. The artists mentioned by name won't directly benefit, but there will be some compensation.

Basically, I go by gut feeling. I don't wory the ethics too much, I do what I think is right at any given time. And if I do something which is less-good at some point, I will try to rebalance it at a later time.

I have no intrinsic "right" to any of these things, and I want to be sure to let the creators know that I appreciate their efforts.

[AFK]

The music industry is like any other industry.  It uses profits and proceeds for future production and business.  Copyright is basically the music industry's loss prevention system.  When you pirate instead of paying, you are cutting into that companies capacity for future production. In other words, recording and publishing new albums. 

One of the biggest problems with these arguments is the trap that this thread fell into almost from the get go.  One must remember there are varying levels of musicians and artists.  So while you mockingly say "Oh no poor Snoop Dogg can't afford x", do not forget the small time rapper who is just getting off the ground.  He needs record sales and paid-downloads so his label will finance a second album or single. 

Believe it or not, it isn't exactly cheap to record music.  I mean, yeah, anyone can buy $40 music editing software, but guess what, it's that whole "you get what you pay for" idea.  In this case, you can hear loud and clear what you pay for.  Compare one of my songs recorded on bargain-basement software compared to a Metallica album that used state-of-the-art Pro Tools software.  (I'm talking sound quality, not song-writing quality).  Not even in the same area code. 

And one other thing I would throw out, is I think it is a big disingenuous to legitimize piracy by commenting on the music industry's supposed lack of willingness to adapt to new technologies.  That's a bullshit argument because there are tons of legal ways people can download music.  Amazon MP3 or ITunes anyone? 

[Cramulus]

I'm gonna use Dok Howl's (hi there) work as an example, because from previous experience, unless my memory is particularly faulty today, he is in the "GTFO my work biatch" camp (which is fine by the way).

I was pro-copyright.  Then I got offended by Youtube playing three (3) commercials before a video, and changed my mind, simply because they're greedy bastards at the RIAA that don't know when to quit.

I mentioned this, however, and Cramulus brayed laughter and mockery at me (Do never publicly change your mind here) to gloat, so I rethought it, and decided that I was right in the first place, and that a little inconvenience is part & parcel of copyright law.

So, yeah.

what? 

this isn't the first time you've interpreted me joking around with you as mocking and gloating.

This is reminding me of you interpreting my reaction to the safari (a jocular "Beware! When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you") as disapproving of the idea.

it seems like when I'm joking, you often read me as being an asshole to you

I'll remember to keep my mouth shut next time

[Adios]

The music industry is like any other industry.  It uses profits and proceeds for future production and business.  Copyright is basically the music industry's loss prevention system.  When you pirate instead of paying, you are cutting into that companies capacity for future production. In other words, recording and publishing new albums. 

One of the biggest problems with these arguments is the trap that this thread fell into almost from the get go.  One must remember there are varying levels of musicians and artists.  So while you mockingly say "Oh no poor Snoop Dogg can't afford x", do not forget the small time rapper who is just getting off the ground.  He needs record sales and paid-downloads so his label will finance a second album or single. 

Believe it or not, it isn't exactly cheap to record music.  I mean, yeah, anyone can buy $40 music editing software, but guess what, it's that whole "you get what you pay for" idea.  In this case, you can hear loud and clear what you pay for.  Compare one of my songs recorded on bargain-basement software compared to a Metallica album that used state-of-the-art Pro Tools software.  (I'm talking sound quality, not song-writing quality).  Not even in the same area code. 

And one other thing I would throw out, is I think it is a big disingenuous to legitimize piracy by commenting on the music industry's supposed lack of willingness to adapt to new technologies.  That's a bullshit argument because there are tons of legal ways people can download music.  Amazon MP3 or ITunes anyone? 

I approve of this message.

[AFK]

Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs?  Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs?  Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?

Not paying for shit is morally acceptable when you're going up an evil giant corporation that, while evil and giant, serves a purpose to the individual artists.

[AFK]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

[Adios]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

I was hoping he was being sarcastic.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

I was hoping he was being sarcastic.

I am. Labels serve a purpose for the artist. I'd have no qualms about signing to a label. That's exactly what I want to do, since I'd rather be a career musician instead of an office monkey.

[East Coast Hustle]

Let's consider this, if we had those Star Trek replicator thingies, and could replicate physical products, would you guys still buy that used 1996 Ford Escort, or would you start pirating yourself some BMWs?  Can we at least be a little honest and own up to some of the motivations in music piracy and not dress it up in this "ZOMG, It's all the Music Industry's fault!!!" get-up?

I don't think anybody is saying that it's the music industry's fault that we've decided that taking shit for free is easier than paying for it, just that they're shooting themselves in the foot with their response to how things are in that regard. And the "music industry" comprises a whole lot more than the big 5 record companies and their subsidiary imprints, which is really all we're talking about here. I already stated that I thought they were obsolete as a business model and that it would make more sense for the recording industry to fracture into multiple recording/engineering companies and promotion companies (tour management could fall under this umbrella or become a 3rd aspect of the industry), with artists free to pick and choose between them as they see fit. If I'm a band, why should I (if I want to achieve any sort of meaningful success) be forced to get my recording, post-production, promotion, and tour management all from or through the same company?

[East Coast Hustle]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.

It doesn't HAVE to screw over artists, though. The percentage of most recording artists' income that comes from album and song sales is negligible. That's how the record company makes their money, but the artists themselves make the vast majority of their money from touring and from merchandise sales. There are a whole lot of bands that I've payed to see live or bought a t-shirt from that I never even would have HEARD of if I hadn't stolen their music. So their label might be getting screwed by my thievery, but they are coming out ahead in the end.

[AFK]

So, when people pirate music, they take out their "are they a giant evil corporation" decoder ring to determine whether or not they are going to pirate the particular song in question? 

So it is morally unacceptable to pirate songs from small and independent labels? 

Where is the cutoff point? 

I'm agreeing with you, I'm just pointing out the foolishness of pirating and saying it doesn't screw over artists.

Oh, okay.  I guess I misunderstood.