The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Copyright Alliance
Old 6th February 2010
  #1
Copyright Alliance

Copyright Alliance

The Copyright Alliance believes that copyright law promotes creativity and job creation and strengthens the U.S. economy. Those who create, render, and publish copyrighted works rely on the copyright law and its enforcement, for their creative and financial success. Without it, these creators would likely cease to exist, or at the very least, cease to produce these important works that are enjoyed by billions of people around the world.


Our shared belief in protecting copyrighted creative works brings together in the Copyright Alliance a broad panoply of parties, from artists’ unions to major publishers. A sweeping swath of creative works are represented, from songwriters to photographers, motion pictures to videogames, recording artists to graphic designers, software developers to sports leagues.
We are committed to promoting the cultural and economic benefits of copyright, providing information and resources on the contributions of copyright, and upholding the contributions of copyright to the fiscal health of this nation and for the good of creators, owners and consumers around the world.


The Copyright Alliance is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization dedicated to the value of copyright as an agent for creativity, jobs and growth. It is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. Membership fees and contributions are not tax deductible as charitable donations. However, membership fees may be deductible as ordinary business expenses under IRC Section 162. Please consult your tax advisor.
Address:


Copyright Alliance
1224 M St. NW Suite 301
Washington, DC 20005
Our Principles

Recognizing that property rights and free expression are drivers of economic growth and personal freedoms, the Copyright Alliance promotes the following principles:


Cultural Enrichment
  • To enrich our culture through incentives to create and disseminate new and innovative creative works to citizens
Progress
  • To promote the progress of science and creativity, as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, by upholding and strengthening copyright law and preventing its diminishment
Education
  • To advance educational programs that teach the value of strong copyright and its vital role in fostering creative expression, driving economic growth, and enriching the lives of our citizens
Enforcement
  • To protect the incentive to create by supporting effective civil and criminal enforcement of copyright laws domestically and internationally
Dissemination
  • To defend the rights of creators to control their property, understanding the necessary balance of those rights with the public good
Global Development
  • To encourage the inclusion of copyright protections in bilateral, regional, and multilateral agreements to protect creators and foster global development
Free Expression
  • To protect the rights of creators to express themselves freely under the principles established in the First Amendment, with copyright as an "engine of free expression"
Old 6th February 2010
  #2
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by redvelvetstudios View Post
Without it, these creators would likely cease to exist, or at the very least, cease to produce these important works that are enjoyed by billions of people around the world.

<snip>

To protect the rights of creators to express themselves freely under the principles established in the First Amendment, with copyright as an "engine of free expression"
Ok, whilst I think it's good these guys protect their business, it is insane to suggest that copyright is related to freedom of speech or that people will not write/create when copyright is 'gone'. They will stop to do so commercially.

Copyright is in a way opposite to freedom of speech, because I cannot use copyrighted statements in my work even though those statements became part of my culture. When I use the word 'Nike' in my song I risk getting sued.

With all due respect, this statement is farce and in fact an insult to all teachers in the world who carefully construct their communication to their pupils in order to teach them the values of the world. Luckily they do so without copyrights: what good would it be to teach people stuff they are not allowed to repeat without paying?

This is only about money. That's ok. But it is far from ok to pretend otherwise.
Old 6th February 2010
  #3
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
...it is insane to suggest that copyright is related to freedom of speech or that people will not write/create when copyright is 'gone'...
That may be the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen posted here.

Freedom of speech depends entirely on the ability to reach listeners with an authentic message. Otherwise what's the point?

Reaching listeners always requires resources. If the only way you can be heard is by a third party paying for distribution, the only people who will be heard are those who the third party approves of. This is precisely why the only music that can get on the radio today so frequently sucks.

The freedom of speech component of copyright protection is immense. It's just an inconvenient truth for folks who seek to exploit the intellectual property of others.
Old 7th February 2010
  #4
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Freedom of speech depends entirely on the ability to reach listeners with an authentic message. Otherwise what's the point?

Reaching listeners always requires resources. If the only way you can be heard is by a third party paying for distribution, the only people who will be heard are those who the third party approves of. This is precisely why the only music that can get on the radio today so frequently sucks.
Hehe, well maybe I don't understand what you mean but I still fail to see how copyright and freedom of speech are tied.

What do you mean with the whole 3rd party distribution thing? We have copyright, it is commercially exploited and that is why we only hear commercial stuff on the radio. Non commercial stuff is not interesting to exploit. Copyright makes sure non mass exploitable IP will not be heard.

Here's how I see it:
Freedom of speech simply means being able to say what you think without being prosecuted. Copyright limits that freedom to the person that claims the IP first. This is not necessarily the person whom the IP origins from, specially in countries where you can sell IP. Copyright turns IP into a commercial asset. Nothing wrong with that, but how is this important for the freedom of speech?

Mind you: I'm not an anti copyright guy. Copyright = good because it makes my ideas commercially exploitable. To me that has nothing to do with freedom of speech: it just means you can make a living with IP (if it is indeed commercially exploitable).
Old 7th February 2010
  #5
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
We have copyright, it is commercially exploited and that is why we only hear commercial stuff on the radio. Non commercial stuff is not interesting to exploit. Copyright makes sure non mass exploitable IP will not be heard.
Sorry, that's absolute bolony.
We've had copyright for the whole history of popular music.
Niche music, difficult music and music with a challenging message has never been hindered.
Yes you can even hear it on the radio.
Commercial radio is exactly that, commercial.
We have commercial Hollywood and television too, but that doesn't stop indie films from being made, or films covering difficult unpopular subjects.

Quote:
Copyright = good because it makes my ideas commercially exploitable. To me that has nothing to do with freedom of speech: it just means you can make a living with IP (if it is indeed commercially exploitable).
No, freedom of speech is enhanced if you can make a living, eat and support your family.
Non mainstream, commercial artists have lived off publishing royalties and the odd licensed song for many, many years.
Take away their residual payments and you are silencing them.
It's the opposite of the effect you want.
Believe me brother, I've been working with left field, poorly paid artists for most of my career.
They live off the publishing contracts, and whenever a song is used in a movie or covered by another artist.
They absolutely don't live off touring or corporate sponsorship.
Old 7th February 2010
  #6
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Sorry, that's absolute bolony.
We've had copyright for the whole history of popular music.
Niche music, difficult music and music with a challenging message has never been hindered.
Sure. And there a millions of songs that are published that will never see the light of day unless someone finds a way to exploit them commercially. Nothing wrong with that, it is a free choice to copyright protect something.
The statement I made is that copyright regulates the commercial value of IP and although some of that content is made possible by the principle of freedom of speech, it does not mean copyright protects freedom of speech. That is a classic example of false reasoning.

Quote:
Yes you can even hear it on the radio.
Commercial radio is exactly that, commercial.
We have commercial Hollywood and television too, but that doesn't stop indie films from being made, or films covering difficult unpopular subjects.
And here you even turn it around saying 'copyright doesn't hinder freedom of speech'. That is kicking in an open door. Of course not, copyright has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It doesn't promote it, it doesn't hinder it.


Quote:
No, freedom of speech is enhanced if you can make a living, eat and support your family.
Non mainstream, commercial artists have lived off publishing royalties and the odd licensed song for many, many years.
Take away their residual payments and you are silencing them.
It's the opposite of the effect you want.
Believe me brother, I've been working with left field, poorly paid artists for most of my career.
They live off the publishing contracts, and whenever a song is used in a movie or covered by another artist.
They absolutely don't live off touring or corporate sponsorship.
I know those artists too, just as I know some great writers with a daytime job. Again, your statement that those guys would starve if it wasn't for copyright so copyright enhances their freedom of speech is a classic example of false reasoning. They use the principle of freedom of speech, copyright makes sure they can commercially exploit that. But copyright doesn't enhance freedom of speech anymore then any job they could take or every sandwich they eat.

Copyright = good. Freedom of speech = good. But to say that freedom of speech is made possible or even enhanced by copyright? How? To me it sounds like false reasoning for propaganda purposes which questions the obviously good intentions of the copyright alliance.

The copyright alliance should focus on their goal: to commercially exploit stuff that is written to, in any way, meet the demands and desires of the public. The people who dream up this stuff need to be able to make an income in order to dedicate their time to service the public. Other wise, because they do this for a living, they will quit and do something else for a living, or, just like the old days, dream up stuff to promote a product of a company that pays them instead = more commercials. And I am honestly fed up with commercials already.

Again, this has nothing to do with 'freedom of speech'.
Old 7th February 2010
  #7
Quote:
Originally Posted by boody View Post
Copyright = good. Freedom of speech = good. But to say that freedom of speech is made possible or even enhanced by copyright? How? To me it sounds like false reasoning for propaganda purposes which questions the obviously good intentions of the copyright alliance.
It's just a reality mate, not political theory.
You brought up the whole subject of freedom of speech by the way. I think it's bolony too, only for a different reason to you.

The artists I know who don't sell a bucket load of records still make a good enough living from licensing and publishing to stay full time in music.
If you take away their ownership rights, anyone can sample their records, digitally share their records, and cover their songs free of charge. Hence their potential income is much reduced.

I guess it doesn't specifically reduce their freedom of speech, but they are much more freely able to create the music they want when they are financially solvent and working at their music 100% of the time, than if they worked at McDonalds 5 days a week and had the weekend for their art.
Old 7th February 2010
  #8
Lives for gear
 
boody's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
It's just a reality mate, not political theory.
You brought up the whole subject of freedom of speech by the way. I think it's bolony too, only for a different reason to you.

The artists I know who don't sell a bucket load of records still make a good enough living from licensing and publishing to stay full time in music.
If you take away their ownership rights, anyone can sample their records, digitally share their records, and cover their songs free of charge. Hence their potential income is much reduced.

I guess it doesn't specifically reduce their freedom of speech, but they are much more freely able to create the music they want when they are financially solvent and working at their music 100% of the time, than if they worked at McDonalds 5 days a week and had the weekend for their art.
Darn, you're right: I did bring it up. Had some of this discussion earlier with some fanatics who confused IP with freedom of speech. Somehow in my mind I changed 'freedom of expression' combined with the 'first amendment' thingy into 'freedom of speech' and jumped the gun. Oops, zorry Makes my point a little less valid I fear.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump