Nothing New Under The Copyright-Eclipsed Sun

[Grimlock]

http://torrentfreak.com/nothing-new-under-the-copyright-eclipsed-sun-110218/

Now before anybody says what do you have against people making money from their works? Let me say i got nothing against it, i fully support that people should have the option of making money from their work.

HOWEVER as the article and anyone with eyes in their head clearly points out (more then once) its seldom the artist themselves who complain, but rather the huge companies who profit from their work.

Oh no those poor monks won,´t earn anything anything if the printer is legalized as already shown the church at that time didn,´t care one bit about the so called poor monks what they cared about was that their control over the information and thus the population would disappear.

Fast forward (past all the other times where the companies cried wolf) to the decision to make libraries public again they cried, that should such a thing happen no book would ever be published again since no writer would ever be able to earn money from his or her work (though if you take the disaster that was twilight maybe that would have been a good thing...god i hate twilight) What happened oh yeah more books are published then ever before.

And now to the music and all the other companies outcry over piracy and how they lose money except...They are earning more money now then ever before and music and art seems to be flourishing more then ever before.

Those poor artists that are losing their money seems to be doing better then ever before same with the musicians and so forth.

Its very clear that the more things change the more they stay the same, the more the companies are losing control over the population the more they complain and try to get it back.

 

[nemesiss]

here the simple explination of the system

A = consumer
B = company
C = artist*

A buys stuff, B gets money, C gets paid buy B.
A buys more stuff, B gets more money, C still gets paid the same by B
A buys less stuff, B gets less money, C gets less money from B, because B is a greedy selfish evil money-whoring cunt that should be killed and dropped in a volcano.

so when B gets less money, they blame A for it and claim that C is the victim
A buys stuff, B gets money, C still gets less money from B, because B is a greedy selfish evil money-whoring cunt that should be killed and dropped in a volcano.

its the same bullshit reasons why there is still that bonus system in the banking world.

 

[Aught3]

Fast forward (past all the other times where the companies cried wolf) to the decision to make libraries public again they cried, that should such a thing happen no book would ever be published again since no writer would ever be able to earn money from his or her work

Did this ever actually happen? I'm just interested.

 

[Pennies for Thoughts]

Ah, a copyright thread. The horror! The horror! Keeping the focus on copyrighted music is a good idea, because delving into other forms of copyrighted material risks opening it up to enough issues to choke the server.

Copyright isn't a bad idea per se, but its implementation in music has reduced it to near meaninglessness. Hopefully this post will reinforce suspicions that the copyright vs. piracy argument has more in common with comes out of the back end of a cow than financial justice for songwriters.

One place to start is at Grimlock's link to TorrentFreak.com which offers many articles on the subject including this one on why so-called "music pirates" are the music industry's best customers. http://torrentfreak.com/pirates-are-the-music-industrys-most-valuable-customers-100122/

The Non-Profit Elecronic Frontiers Foundation which defends freedom in the digital world is another. http://www.EFF.org.

But nemesiss' post summarizes the scam rather well. In theory, consumer (A) pays publisher (B) who in turn pays artist (C). But since B controls the spigot, and C has no reasonable access to B's decision making, then B gets steal far more -- and in hard cash too -- from C than all the downloaders in the world. There is a small cadre of superstars who do have the muscle to limit this practice -- even they can't stop it -- but the rest get to go pound salt. And they do. Oh boy, do they ever!

Still, this just covers music that consumers purchase directly. The real monster is the rip-off based on music the consumer may not purchase at all, like music played on radio, covered by bands, in jukeboxes and so on. Publishers have no way to police this, so what they've done is take a pile of money to Congress, dump it in campaign coffers, and get legislation endowing publisher front organizations like the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to be copyright policemen managed by no laws other than their own.

Now to the anecdotal part, inconclusive as usual, but not far off the mark by consensus. I know published songwriters: lots of them, and to satisfy my curiosity I've asked, "Have you ever received any publishing money from a publishing association?" The answer is rarely positive, but my favorite came from a reasonably successful musician who had a qualified yes. In order to receive money from the RIAA, and others of its ilk, songwriters have to join the organization. Over time, the amount the publishing associations take in dues will exceed the amount received in royalties for a modestly successful songwriter.

There's another Catch 22 that is specific to music. The 1909 Copyright Act is the basis for music copyright law in the US. This act was passed when music publishing was in its infancy, recorded music didn't exist, sheet music was all consumers could buy, and there were only a handful of songwriters. Music, of all the arts, just isn't like that anymore. Songwriting is no longer privileged. Now, any damned fool can write a song, and as every music fan knows, many damned fools do.

So, is songwriting still an art form, like painting or even creative writing, or is it a commodity, like wheat or barley? Now that one can pack 40,000 songs onto a device that's little larger than a credit card, and a lot smaller than printed sheet music, well, it's difficult to argue that music isn't a commodity, and what does copyright have to do with commodities trading? Nada mas, which in these times means that copyright protection of artists' rights is nothing more than a myth-o grande.

 

[Grimlock]

Fast forward (past all the other times where the companies cried wolf) to the decision to make libraries public again they cried, that should such a thing happen no book would ever be published again since no writer would ever be able to earn money from his or her work

Did this ever actually happen? I'm just interested.

If you read the article then the answer is Oh yes

Fast forwarding to the advent of libraries, the monopolist publishers , now strong in their almost religious belief that they had a right to dictate how people could read , tried to ban the lending of books. You couldn't allow people to read without paying for their own copy, they argued. When politicians considered public libraries, the monopolist publishers went stratospheric.

"You can't let anybody read any book for free! Not a single book will be sold ever again! Nobody will be able to live off their writing! No author will write a single book ever again if you pass this law!"

And you better believe it, they screamed just as loud when audiobooks came around and even louder when VCR and Audiotapes began to show up in the neighborhood.

It,´s of Panda,´s and People all over again they just replaced the old word with a new one but the message remained the same.

 

[Aught3]

Well I did read the article and all it had was the fabricated quote that you mention above. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything, I was just interested in that claim in particular - no big deal.

 

[IBSpify]

The only problem i have with copyright laws is that they last well beyond their usefulness, when the laws we first instituted copyrights lasted for 28 years, now copyrights last for the life of the author +70 years, or in the case of copyrights held by a corporation 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication which ever is less

There is really no reason for these copyrights to last that long, Does the estate of Ronny James Dio really need to have the copy rights to his songs until 2080? in the year 2054 will anybody even know who Dio was?

There is nothing wrong with works hitting the public domain, and some classic films and books which are in the public domain still make money yet don't have copyright protection.

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

The only problem i have with copyright laws is that they last well beyond their usefulness, when the laws we first instituted copyrights lasted for 28 years, now copyrights last for the life of the author +70 years, or in the case of copyrights held by a corporation 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication which ever is less

Agree! Copyright laws should make the time you hold a copyright shorter. If you look at the music industry, a musician has a job which is making music. These musicians get payed by the record companies. However, when said musician dies, he does not need anymore money. Because of this, I think the copyright should end not too long after the death of the musician. You can complain about the decrease in profits of the record company but they already have enough money and can always find a new artist to exploit. I have no opinion about other copyright because I know not enough about it but it should not be too difficult.

in the year 2054 will anybody even know who Dio was?

:shock: I hope not, because that will make me :cry:

There is nothing wrong with works hitting the public domain, and some classic films and books which are in the public domain still make money yet don't have copyright protection.

I would say the same, however it must not be made too expensive. There are people who do like to have the physical copy of a movie or a book but a free alternative should always be available though.