Can SOPA Save the Music Industry?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Liquid360

My argument is that I still own copyrights. They will never pay much, but at least I have them. For 70 years.

Dude! It is 70 years after your death!

Or are you referring to copyrights on stuff you didn't create?

Alistair

[Liquid360]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

what are you talking about? You're not making any sort of sense.

It's true. What else do we have to use as a tool for our efforts?

[Liquid360]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Dude! It is 70 years after your death!

Or are you referring to copyrights on stuff you didn't create?

Alistair

No, Mine.

[hughbob]

chrisso is flogging a dying horse.
sopa won't save the music industry.

[Ianb007]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Greedy uber rich musicians wanting to be even richer pushing their agendas and somehow that means it is right? ?


Alistair

Really? You are living in an alternative reality. 99% of musicians that I know are farrrrr from being uber rich. Most of them are barely getting by or have other jobs to pay the bills. All of them believe in copyrights.

[Liquid360]

Originally Posted by hughbob

chrisso is flogging a dying horse.
sopa won't save the music industry.

I never said it would, but listening to all these responses has given me some insights.

[fritzschreiner]

Originally Posted by chrisso

maybe.
You can't expect musicians to act on their own though, and especially not by force.
My plumber will still charge me $80 an hour, wether I'm earning $80 an hour or $30 through the goodness of my heart.

This just proves you're a victim of the insane system. And it shows how it works to enforce greed. "If I've got to be the victim of my plumbers greed...then my fans will have to be the victim of mine because the vicious cycle doesn't stop like a merry go round". See? it's the environment at fault. not us or the downloaders of music.

Maybe that's a good point.
So start with the whole environment and the whole culture, not just on one sector, content creators.

Well Hallelujah! I've been heard.

Trying to do something about such a narrow symptom of a disease is silly. The treatment must be holistic. And the Chemo is underway.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Stop arguing against stuff that isn't being said. Do you have an opinion about it? Seriously Chrisso, why do you think such long posthumous copyrights are good? (Or bad).

Alistair

The most recent change in copyrights was when in 2011 the EU extended copyright for recordings from 50 to 70 years.
this was the change artists such as Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney sought.
they successfully argued that they would still be alive and still actively working when the original 50 year copyright on their early recordings ended, and as such those recordings could be misused in the public domain (cheap repackaging for example).
The change from 50 to 70 years from date of recording was hailed by many and various musicians across Europe.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

Trying to do something about such a narrow symptom of a disease is silly. The treatment must be holistic. And the Chemo is underway.

The trouble is it isn't.
Who else is taking a major pay cut?
Many members of the public are forcing a pay cut on musicians and using the money saved to buy iPads, or to go on holiday.
Hardly progress.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by hughbob

chrisso is flogging a dying horse.
sopa won't save the music industry.

I haven't ever expressed that view.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Ianb007

Really? You are living in an alternative reality. 99% of musicians that I know are farrrrr from being uber rich. Most of them are barely getting by or have other jobs to pay the bills. All of them believe in copyrights.

We were talking about members of the Beatles and Sir Cliff Richard. Not 99% of musicians. Please pay attention. :-)

Alistair

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by rack gear

... there are many ways to achieve the goals of anti-piracy legislation, not the least of which would be rolling it into an anti-terrorism bill ...

Something I saw while wearing another hat:

White House cyber czar stumps for comprehensive bill - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

White House Presses For New Cybersecurity Laws - Government - Security - Informationweek

Unless the anti-piracy folks get a move on, they'll miss the bus.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Liquid360

No, Mine.

So how does the 70 years after your death part increase your creativity and innovation?

Alistair

[Don Hills]

Originally Posted by chrisso

I haven't ever expressed that view.

... so you've never expressed the view that SOPA will save the music industry?
(It may not be what you meant to say, but that's how it reads.)

[Jason West]

Originally Posted by Liquid360

Perhaps not you but others would.

I'm having trouble understanding why asking about "genre" could be used as an attack by anyone.

It has nothing to do with street cred unlike some of the other previous questions delving into a person's background.

Originally Posted by spaceman

A HUNDRED pages of useless time and energy spent..

Hey, I'm glad you're a know-it-all and found it a waste of time.

Personally, I found the comments interesting and it enlightened some of my understanding.

Originally Posted by chrisso

The change from 50 to 70 years from date of recording ...

All those replies from multiple individuals and none address what UnderTow was talking about. Some serious broken eyeballs reading the text.

keywords to slow down for:

"date of death"
"+70"
"dead"
"as in no longer alive"
"plus 70 after death"
"plus 70 after date of death"

Something about the phrases above is not registering in the conversation. Must try different phrases to wake up the eyeballs:

"life of author + 70 years of the Buddha reincarnation"
"life of author plus SEVEN ZERO years of the ghostly afterlife"
"lifespan of musician and beyond that with 70 more years of Egyptian mummification"

etc...etc...

[Yerba]

Originally Posted by Liquid360

So come out and say it then. You LIKE piracy. You think the current system is just peachy.

Then YOU will never become a paid musician, and that's your choice. But it's not mine.

Hey hey now...first stop putting words in my mouth. I don't like piracy one bit.

The post you are replying to was making the point that there ARE right times to break laws, and encouraging everyone to blindly follow them is dangerous advice, especially living in a time and country where our legislators are bought and paid for.

One can not like piracy and, amazingly enough, not like SOPA.

SOPA give too much power to do too much damage to people who probably wouldn't think twice about abusing it. That's the problem.

People are undoubtably selling stolen or counterfeit goods on eBay...should we shutter the whole site?

There are certainly at least a few affiliate partners selling through Amazon selling stolen or counterfeit merchandise...should Amazon be shuttered?

Now, of course neither of those sites would be torn down over legal infringements because they have too much money and political clout. But all parties must be treated equally regardless of how deep their pockets - which is why I wouldn't shutter a smaller site where users posted illegal materials either.

And to your second point - and I'm about to sound like a prick, because you've decided to say I'm not a "paid musician" (that's a pretty low bar to set, eh?) - I've made my entire living for almost twenty years now as a "paid musician", thank you very much. My wife has not even worked in the last eight years, because my income has been more than enough to support us and our child in a nice house in a fairly upscale suburb while funding a comfortable retirement portfolio and IRA. I'm not trying to sound like a prick, but I do not appreciate the implication that I'm somehow less than professional because I don't support poorly written legislation that grants such broad powers to people that aren't to be trusted. So please keep the personal attacks to yourself.

There are people that disagree with you, as there are people (like yourself) that disagree with me - and that's fine. Acting like your opinion is objectively "correct" and anyone that disagress is objectively "wrong" is ludicrous.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by Jason West

Props to you Kenny. It was intellectually honest of you to volunteer that and you didn't have to. You're one of the few here that put real effort into the discussion.



Well, the rights are already there. It's the whole delivery infrastructure that's fundamentally working against it.

The more I think about it, the more I found it impossible to reconcile how we're going to let 5 megabyte Bibles zing all around the world unhindered but at the same time, limit 5 megabyte MP3s from zinging around? We've created an impossible problem for ourselves.

It's like trying to invent a water faucet that can separate the specific molecules of water (H2O) that came from the Pacific Ocean vs the Atlantic Ocean.

What can we do to ensure a future for artists getting paid? Don't know for sure. It will require radical changes. Just thinking out loud:

• a national general culture tax to be redistributed back to musicians
• ad and sponsorship model (modern version of "patrons")
• a shared revenue model for new songs (doesn't help old songs)
• a new model where % of royalty income of the most successful artists are redistributed to up & coming artists. Sort of like a modern day "apprenticeship." E.g. Lady Gaga funds J. Bieber early youtube exploits
• a reset mindset that only focuses on selling/licensing music to commercial projects (films, video games, etc) and thinks of the consumer market as a bonus
• a new technology platform... e.g. 3-D holographic music to spur new sales and clamp down with a new form of DRM
• other ideas???

It's a very difficult puzzle.

Thanks. I thought we were onto something a few pages back.

Free music websites that track every download and pay artists royalties like radio stations do. It would be expensive and hindering for some sites to afford it, but they've had the chance to stockpile their money. Now they need to be the ones to adjust.

Music should be free and paid for by the one's profiting from it's distribution.

The websites.

[Liquid360]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

This just proves you're a victim of the insane system. And it shows how it works to enforce greed. "If I've got to be the victim of my plumbers greed...then my fans will have to be the victim of mine because the vicious cycle doesn't stop like a merry go round". See? it's the environment at fault. not us or the downloaders of music.
Well Hallelujah! I've been heard.

Trying to do something about such a narrow symptom of a disease is silly. The treatment must be holistic. And the Chemo is underway.

And I answer you with the same question:

Have you ever made a really special piece of art?

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by chrisso

The most recent change in copyrights was when in 2011 the EU extended copyright for recordings from 50 to 70 years.

According to this list List of countries' copyright length - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia the copyright in both EU and US is valid for life + 70 after death. Maybe that list is wrong. If it is correct, do you think having copyrights extend after death promotes creativity and innovation? That seems to be your main argument in favour of copyrights. (Again, I am not arguing against copyrights themselves. Just their length).

this was the change artists such as Cliff Richard and Paul McCartney sought.
they successfully argued that they would still be alive and still actively working when the original 50 year copyright on their early recordings ended, and as such those recordings could be misused in the public domain (cheap repackaging for example).
The change from 50 to 70 years from date of recording was hailed by many and various musicians across Europe.

I can well imagine it was hailed by many musicians. It means extra income. Why would they not be happy about it? But does it serve a public good is my question? Does it increase creativity and innovation in the music world or could it on the contrary make successful musicians rest on their laurels rather than produce more?

Alistair

[spaceman]

Come on now Undertow.... It's obvious by now that you're just desperatly seeking attention by wasting everyone's time here.

The fact that , as a "sound engineer" , you insist on being paid for your work, while considering that there's no reason for artists to be paid for their work "because it's just arbitrary laws that dictate that", just says it all.
Look for the word " Hypocrisy" in the dictionnary.

Stop trolling. Do something useful with your time instead.

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by Liquid360

Have you ever made a really special piece of art?

That is an entirely subjective question. Special to whom? A 4 year old kid might find their doodling very special. So? Someone might find the combined works of Rembrandt, Dali, Picasso and Da Vinci nothing special. So? What does any of this prove?

So if you have a point to make, please make it. :-)

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by spaceman

while considering that there's no reason for artists to be paid for their work "because it's just arbitrary laws that dictate that", just says it all.

You have again demonstrated that you can not read. Last time it was French. Now it is English so clearly the language itself is not the issue.

Alistair

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Don Hills

... so you've never expressed the view that SOPA will save the music industry?

Nope, because I haven't read it.
I've disagreed with some of the rhetoric produced to oppose it.
I'm also for legislative change that is meaningful and protects content creators against piracy.

[Yerba]

Originally Posted by chrisso

You know... I totally agree with you.
However, politicians, intellectuals, law enforcement et al, are regular sensible human beings.
If you break copyright law by downloading a song or a movie illegally, you ain't a freedom fighter.
You are doing it for personal gain, not to free slaves or give women the vote.
That's essentially how society works and how society evolves. Breaking a law 'cos it saves you some money and as a result damages another innocent party is NOT going to fly with the decision makers in society.

I did say many times in my post that I know that the things I brought up were NOT on equal ground with copyright law and SOPA. It was hyperbole for the sake of the larger point that somehow we should obey all laws because they are laws. That is a dangerous mindset to live by, unless we are trying to hasten ourselves into a dictatorship or plutocracy.

Again the post you reference was speaking to the larger point about obeying the law blindly - not saying you were going to be the next Rosa Parks if you steal an album.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

Obviously, it was at least in part tongue in cheek. But only part.

OK.

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

If you don't want your music stolen, don't put it in a place and in a format that you know for a fact is likely to result in it's being taken without reimbursement.

Do you mean digital?

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

If you were to develop an activation code requiring an activation key to "open" your CD which some shyster then hacked and started selling your CD, then you've got a deliberate crime on your hands.

I thought everyone hated copy protection schemes.

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

But some of you guys are trying to lump everybody together under the "label" of pirate/criminal and are speaking in support of enforcement protocols which would make everyone essentially guilty as a default condition and awaiting only discovery.

Anyone who finds a download link for a popular song on a torrent site, knows it's illegal. And if not, tough cookies. Ignorance is not an excuse.

And why has this suddenly become such a concern. Are the jails filled with people who pirate music?

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

Nobody is saying don't create or share. Just maybe be careful where you put it, if it's important to you.

That's pretty much saying don't share.

Originally Posted by fritzschreiner

Determined thieves will always get what they are after. To gear the whole game to thwart those shytes imposes unreasonable and punitive restrictions on largely honest and law abiding people.

I don't believe the thieves are the minority.

[Yerba]

Originally Posted by chrisso

It passed by democratic means.
I wasn't there, neither were you.
I didn't hear the argument for or against.
You don't like it? You push for democratic change. That's fine.
Some people who lose out because democratic change goes against them, do not then have the right to ignore those democratically achieved laws.

Calling federal lawmaking in the United States "democratic" is kind of a stretch. When the candidate with the most money wins over 90% of federal elections, the guys doing the legislating are bought and paid for.

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by Jason West

All those replies from multiple individuals and none address what UnderTow was talking about.

Well he obviously confused everyone, because the most recent change to copyright, the one that involved the input of Cliff Richard was extending copyright for recordings from 50 to 70 years.

I actually started a thread about a year ago asking how copyright stifled creativity in music.
Only half a dozen people ever put forward a theory, and of those, about one was valid, pertaining to sampling.
But when music is all about innovation, how is a Johnny Mathis song being protected for 70 years after his death stifling creativity?
I'd rather write something new of my own.
As far as extensions beyond death to 70 years. I think it was to bring all the arts into line. Movies already had a 70 year after death copyright.
I'm ambivalent.
I compose my own content.
I don't believe music written in the 1940's and 50's continuing to be protected by copyright is doing anything to stifle creativity in this generation of musicians.

[2manyrocks]

Originally Posted by rack gear

nonsense, people understand stealing is wrong, although you can hope to the contrary I don't see lawlessness as a societal baseline.

Quite independently of this topic, my daughter recently mentioned how many songs she has on her Ipod and what she paid versus some friend of hers that downloaded all of hers for "free."

Some kids have gotten the idea that downloaded music is "free" and completely overlook the fact it is "stolen." How did this happen?

Unfortunately, there does seem to be a baseline of lawlessness as a within a certain demographic that chooses the "free download" over paying for a legit copy.

These kids--I doubt they've heard of what happened to Napster. I doubt they've heard of any of the folks that ended up paying significant damages for infringement.

What judge is going to jail a minor for free downloads or impose a huge fine on a minor?

Now I can explain to my daughter that this is stealing, but who is explaining this to the other kids out there?

[chrisso]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

But does it serve a public good is my question? Does it increase creativity and innovation in the music world or could it on the contrary make successful musicians rest on their laurels rather than produce more?

Alistair

I've just given my answer.
How does it stifle creativity?
The use of a certain drum machine or a guitar isn't prohibited. All that is copyrighted is the specific sequence of notes and/or words.
As most people in music want to create their own sequences of notes and/or words, I'm not persuaded that sequences of notes and/or words composed by previous generations are stifling the creativity of the current one.
Quite the opposite.

[Kenny Gioia]

Originally Posted by chrisso

Well he obviously confused everyone, because the most recent change to copyright, the one that involved the input of Cliff Richard was extending copyright for recordings from 50 to 70 years.

I actually started a thread about a year ago asking how copyright stifled creativity in music.
Only half a dozen people ever put forward a theory, and of those, about one was valid, pertaining to sampling.
But when music is all about innovation, how is a Johnny Mathis song being protected for 70 years after his death stifling creativity?
I'd rather write something new of my own.
As far as extensions beyond death to 70 years. I think it was to bring all the arts into line. Movies already had a 70 year after death copyright.
I'm ambivalent.
I compose my own content.
I don't believe music written in the 1940's and 50's continuing to be protected by copyright is doing anything to stifle creativity in this generation of musicians.

Correct me if I'm wrong:

If I record a record with me as the artist and all the songs are in the public domain, I get to keep the songwriter's royalty on that record. Correct?

Yet, I didn't write it.

So, how is it greedy by the songwriter to want to own their songs forever?

Isn't it greedy for someone else to just put their name on it and profit from it?