Copyright with respect to Music and Academia

[Roaring Biscuit!]

So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness.  So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.

First up:  Labour as an extension of the self.

The idea that the things we create should be owned by us.  I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good.  In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?

Ok, lets move on quickly:

The ownership of "ideas".  Well this one is a bit weird ain't it.  The ownership of ideas.

Now just what does that mean?

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).

So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work.  And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it.  It's right there in my head.  And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.

But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)

Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?

Music piracy happens.  And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that.  I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to.  Am I right?  (I'm probably right).

What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this.  More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry".  I call bullshit.  Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed.  I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.

I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation.  The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.

Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.


Acadmic texts.  Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is?  If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.

Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.


<3's and fucking xx's

edd

[bds]

I hear ya on the music thing. I download a whole load of music, but I also spend a high percentage of my income on music. I'm kinda bored with the music industry telling me I'm a terrible person for this, y'know?

[Kai]

In regards to academic texts, more and more scientists are responding to the inaccessibility of information and the expenses of publishing (for both the author of articles and institutions such as universities that must pay thousands of dollars a year for access) by creating and publishing in open access journals.

Many of these difficulties are summarized in this open letter from Henry Hagedom, one of the founders of the open access journal titled Journal of Insect Science.

Likewise, the journal page that that article is hosted on, Illiesia, is excellent. The editors have outlined their model, publishing entirely online except for physical copies which are deposited in at least five centers of learning (as required by the ICZN for new species descriptions) and upon request, as well as cd copies. In all cases every article is there in pdf format, freely accessible. Since the only real costs are website hosting, printing a few copies and making the cds, the journal is very cheap while still retaining rigorous peer review (you'd be surprised at the number of people who work on stoneflies).

All journals which are open access to at least some extent are cataloged on the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Theres a good list there, regardless of your discipline.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

It warms my heart that stuff like that is being done, thanks especially for the open access journals link.  I guess I'm just a bit annoyed that the "big shift" seems to be a long way off in a lot of ways, if ya get what I mean

x

edd

[Placid Dingo]

One thing I find useful is viewing copyright issues in pragmatic terms rather than ethical ones.

[Kai]

It warms my heart that stuff like that is being done, thanks especially for the open access journals link.  I guess I'm just a bit annoyed that the "big shift" seems to be a long way off in a lot of ways, if ya get what I mean

x

edd

In the academic world, the big shift is coming on fast. Once it was established that open access journals could have just as rigorous peer review as traditional print journals, people have taken them seriously. The PLoS series of journals is a stellar example of this.

But my examples are all dealing with information which scientists publish because they WANT it to be as widely and freely distributed as possible. It's different than publishing a book, or a cd, because the payback in those cases isn't the recognition for ideas but the currency the person receives in payment. True, copyright period (70 years plus the lifetime of the author now?) is indecently restrictive, but I can copy books for the purpose of research anyway. It does make it that much harder to find the books, though.

As for things that are done for entertainment (novels, movies, and music), well, just get with it. If you want to be entertained, you have to be willing to pay for entertainment. It's not like your life will be over if you can't buy that newest cd, that just out novel, can't pay to go to the theater.

[Roaring Biscuit!]

Re-reading I can see how the entertainment point could have come across as a bit "boohoo I can't afford the cool shit I want", but my main gripe is that it seems that instead of responding to changing markets and different demands from consumers, the record industry has tried to create the demand that they want.  I'm not sure if that makes sense, uh, I'll try with a ham handed example:

Ok, imagine CD's have just been invented, and everyone wants cd's because they are cheaper, and they can be transported and shared easier, the quality is better, all sorts of reasons.  Then, instead of jumping on the bandwagon, and finding a way to make putting music onto CD's and selling it that way, the record industry uses its monetary influence (I did warn it was ham handed no?), to try and make putting music onto CD's illegal, so it doesn't have to restructure its current market based on vinyl and tape.

It seems to me that (and this really is just me making shit up) any new technology can be both detract and improve a certain market or product or whatever, but it is always going to detrimental if its resisted.  I think someone (somewhere), needs to grab internet filesharing by the balls and say LETS FUCKING TURN THIS IN OUR FAVOUR.  I don't know how, it's certainly harder than other technological changes that entertainment industries have faced, but I also think it is possible.


x

edd

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness.  So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.

First up:  Labour as an extension of the self.

The idea that the things we create should be owned by us.  I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good.  In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?

Ok, lets move on quickly:

The ownership of "ideas".  Well this one is a bit weird ain't it.  The ownership of ideas.

Now just what does that mean?

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).

So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work.  And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it.  It's right there in my head.  And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.

But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)

Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?

Music piracy happens.  And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that.  I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to.  Am I right?  (I'm probably right).

What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this.  More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry".  I call bullshit.  Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed.  I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.

I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation.  The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.

Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.


Acadmic texts.  Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is?  If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.

Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.


<3's and fucking xx's

edd

I agree with you on the aspect of the expense of textbooks, and classes (which you didn't necessarily mention, but I'm lumping them in), that they should be more affordable to common man.  I mean, everyone has a right to learn, whether they choose to beyond high school is their prerogative. However, those who do want to, but can't because of their current environment or housing situation, should be able to without filling out a mountain of paperwork.

I'm not saying schooling should be free; I'm just thinking it should be more accessible.


As for music Piracy,

It makes me think of the Weird Al song, Don't Download this Song, where he says, "Don't take away money from artists just like me, How else can I afford another Solid Gold Humvee? And diamond studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees..."

Pfft. Artists have all the money they need that they throw away. They should donate it to some sort of fund instead of wasting it on expensive useless shit for their own selfish satisfaction.

/rant

[Adios]

So, here at PD, we've all heard the arguments for and against copyright a million times, its a classic round here, as an internet community, this is clearly something that resides somewhere in the collective consciousness.  So I'm going to skip the bit where I argue that copyright is "immoral" or some ridiculous thing like that, and start with a few basic points, that are probably important in understanding the rest.

First up:  Labour as an extension of the self.

The idea that the things we create should be owned by us.  I'm pretty cool with this idea, its good.  In fact I really have no quarrel with the kind of copyright law that enforces this, but this is getting awfully close to discussions we've had before no?

Ok, lets move on quickly:

The ownership of "ideas".  Well this one is a bit weird ain't it.  The ownership of ideas.

Now just what does that mean?

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).

So one day, I'm reading some of Dok's work.  And now copyright starts to get a bit weird, because as soon as I've read it, I have, to some extent copied it.  It's right there in my head.  And furthermore, it is now (arguably) impossible for me to make and creative work which is not a derivative work.

But that's just philosophical rubbish, and in all practical cases (pretty much), see above (labour etc.)

Ok so I quite like copyright, what's my beef with music then?

Music piracy happens.  And I'd bet in a lot of caes, it doesn't happen because of disrespect for the artist, or their property or anything like that.  I'm willing to bet it happens because people want to listen to more music than they can afford to listen to.  Am I right?  (I'm probably right).

What annoys me most, is the record industry's reaction to this.  More and more legislation against piracy because it is "killing the industry".  I call bullshit.  Piracy is actually killing their monopoly, never before has it been easier to listen to a whole slew of artists who you've never heard of and probably aren't even signed.  I think things like Spotify and last.fm are a move in the right direction.

I annoys me that "the record industry" pushes legislation instead of innovation.  The industry is marketing to itself not to the customer, that is why it is failing.

Ok, that's probably just about it for music, let me know if I missed anything.


Acadmic texts.  Do you have any fucking idea how expensive that shit is?  If someone can explain exactly how education only being for those who can afford it is OK, maybe I'll back down, but probably not, because you'll probably be wrong.

Yeh, I didn't have much to say on that.


<3's and fucking xx's

edd

I agree with you on the aspect of the expense of textbooks, and classes (which you didn't necessarily mention, but I'm lumping them in), that they should be more affordable to common man.  I mean, everyone has a right to learn, whether they choose to beyond high school is their prerogative. However, those who do want to, but can't because of their current environment or housing situation, should be able to without filling out a mountain of paperwork.

I'm not saying schooling should be free; I'm just thinking it should be more accessible.


As for music Piracy,

It makes me think of the Weird Al song, Don't Download this Song, where he says, "Don't take away money from artists just like me, How else can I afford another Solid Gold Humvee? And diamond studded swimming pools, these things don't grow on trees..."

Pfft. Artists have all the money they need that they throw away. They should donate it to some sort of fund instead of wasting it on expensive useless shit for their own selfish satisfaction.

/rant

Bullshit. Why shouldn't they be entitled to make money on their creativity and talent? If it's so fucking easy then go do it yourself. Or do you just see the on stage glory and none of the off stage work and risk they take.

The stages are built by the Belgian company Stageco, and construction of each requires the use of high-pressure and innovative hydraulic systems.[11] The steel structure is 164 feet tall—doubling the size of the stadium set for The Rolling Stones' A Bigger Bang Tour, the previous highest—can hold up to 200 tonnes underneath it, and requires 120 trucks to transport each of the 3 sets constructed to support the tour.[8][12] Each leg of the structure contains its own sound system.[8] The cost of each structure is between £15 million and £20 million.[13] As a result the tour is heavily insured.[4]  The size of the stage has led to some problems with its construction in certain venues. The band paid $2 million to raise the HD video screen in Cowboys Stadium for their concert in Arlington, and are paying $3 million to expand the Hippodrome de Montréal into a temporary stadium for their forthcoming concert in Montreal.[14][15] The 360° tour crew consists of 137 touring production crew supplemented by over 120 hired locally.[16][17]  Daily costs of the production are approximately $750,000, not including the stage construction; the majority of this comes from truck rentals, transportation, and staff wages.[18] The tour is not expected to break even until the conclusion of the second leg.[18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U2_360%C2%B0_Tour


Learn to fucking fact.

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.


I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg


How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...

From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.

Sorry if my stupidity angered you. At 18, I'm still forming my opinions on the world, and they change constantly. But I'm not using that as an excuse for what I said.  It's be a pretty lame excuse.

I'm just a dumbass. 

[Adios]

I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.


I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg


How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...

From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.

It's their money. How would you like for them to tell you how to spend yours?

[Roaring Biscuit!]

On a related note (and maybe I'm pulling this outta my ass), but I'm fairly sure that for smaller tours, the artist actually benefits a lot more from touring than from record sales, because the label/promoters don't take as big a cut of the profits as with record sales (where the artist gets something ridiculously low like 2% of sales :citationneeded:)

I'm certainly not going to argue that artists should not be paid, just that the way the market interacts with the consumer is in need of an overhaul.

x

edd

[Sir Fronkensteen, The Hawk]

I wasn't saying they weren't entitled to it at all. Sure, they are. They did work for it. But I feel that wasting their hard-earned money on stuff they don't need is pointless.


I suppose I wasn't being specific about "Artists". I'm sorry I lumped them all into one group. What I was referring to was:

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/1004293/MTV_Cribs_Snoop_Dogg


How many rap artists spend A LOT of their money on cars...

From now on, I'll refrain from using "all" in my opinions.

It's their money. How would you like for them to tell you how to spend yours?

Considering I don't have any...


Point taken.  Shutting up now.

[Adios]

This is not to suggest that major record cartels are irrelevant. Previously undiscovered artists benefit from the huge promotional break a major has to offer. It takes a ton of funds to break a new artist -- funds most artists don't have on their own. But it's important to weigh the pros and cons  of signing to a major before making the plunge. What's the real cost of signing a freaking 5-album major deal in the long run? What does it mean when an artist has to recoup, say $250,000 of her promo budget while the label earns 10 times that amount? Keep in mind that most artists makes $0 from royalty points until recoupment is clear. That's sad.

http://rap.about.com/od/articles/a/TheCostOfARecordDeal.htm

[Roaring Biscuit!]

This is not to suggest that major record cartels are irrelevant. Previously undiscovered artists benefit from the huge promotional break a major has to offer. It takes a ton of funds to break a new artist -- funds most artists don't have on their own. But it's important to weigh the pros and cons  of signing to a major before making the plunge. What's the real cost of signing a freaking 5-album major deal in the long run? What does it mean when an artist has to recoup, say $250,000 of her promo budget while the label earns 10 times that amount? Keep in mind that most artists makes $0 from royalty points until recoupment is clear. That's sad.

http://rap.about.com/od/articles/a/TheCostOfARecordDeal.htm

Just highlighted the stuff I think is important here:

I think that major record cartels will become irrelevant if they are not careful.  To get a new artist into the public consciousness now, can be done almost entirely for free (thanks to the web), the Dresden Dolls for example, pretty much just advertised on the web that they wanted to play, and play they did.

Admittedly top-end recording and distribution are costly and new artists rarely have enough money to do it independently, on the other hand, web based distribution has almost zero cost in comparison, which also means that the artist can (hypothetically) make a much greater profit by being independent from record labels.  maybe record labels should go back to their nomenclature: and deal more exclusively with recording?

Just thoughts...

x

edd