5 ms·

But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? Copyright still holds. With him dead, whoever owns the copyright to

by unalone 17y ago

But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? Copyright still holds. With him dead, whoever owns the copyright to his music — Yoko? — can do whatever she wants with it, until copyright expires. Your argument says all these are illegal, because the person listening to the music didn't pay for it. Personally, I think the issue needs a slightly more subtle approach. Agreed. And record companies have absolutely moved towards the irrational in their defense of copyright. But I can understand why they're being so irrational, and, misguided as I believe they are, I think their heart's trying to be in the right place. I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly.

DarkShikari 17y ago
I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly. The question is one of total cultural value. Compared to the value supposedly lost by the original artists by allowing their work to be remixed, how much does society gain from allowing their work to be remixed? Did the Gray Album devalue the White Album more than it created value? Did the video of the kid dancing to Dragostei Din Tei (aka Numa Numa) devalue the original song more than it created value? Let us say that it did; what about if we include the additional sales of records that resulted from the popularity of the video? Was value still lost? Could we get into a situation where you claim value was lost, yet the original artists would insist that value was gained?
- unalone 17y ago
  No, it's not of "total cultural value". That's a bullshit term. It's about the artists first and society second. The Dragostei Din Tei video didn't use the entire song. It make a lot of people who wanted to hear the rest of the song go out and buy it. The Gray Album is shadier, but it was remixing a much older album, and remixes aren't directly presenting what already existed. They're making some kind of creative alteration. Even then, I don't think it's wrong to assume that perhaps the original artists deserve some compensation. Not a ridiculous compensation that puts the remixer out of a job, but suggesting they have no rights to the final work is similarly silly. The solution, as Marco writes here, is for more musicians to adapt to Creative Commons, so that people can use their works and contribute to that remix culture. The artists who're fine with that, and I think most of them are, can permit their works to be taken, and the ones that aren't can miss out. But it's their choice, not ours. Suggesting that all those artists only exist to contribute to culture is retarded.
  - barrkel 17y ago
    I believe that if you ever find the time to actually look into it, you'll find that most artists do not do what they do because of "compensation", but because they love it, because of the social and cultural value they see it creating, and because of the effects it has on other people. In other words, what you describe as "retarded" is in fact one of the primary motivations of artists. I speak from my own experience of growing up in a home with a theatre actress / community theatre director mother and songwriter / playwright father, and their wider social network. An intellectually stimulating but extremely frugal existence.
    - unalone 17y ago
      I'm an artist myself. Otherwise I'd have avoided this whole discussion. I like having some idea of what I'm talking about. I make art primarily because I love the creation, and I absolutely love when my work creates a response in somebody else. But that's my love for my work and for those people, not for a vaguer society. I could see myself being really pleased over a lip dub of a song of mine. I could also see myself hating that something I'd made had leaked out without my receiving anything for the trouble. I mean, if I'm out to make a living with my work, then having it taken without compensation might not be what I'm looking for. But the point I was trying to make was that it would be my choice either way, that the work I make serves me first and society second.

by unalone 17y ago

DarkShikari 17y ago

I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly. The question is one of total cultural value. Compared to the value supposedly lost by the original artists by allowing their work to be remixed, how much does society gain from allowing their work to be remixed? Did the Gray Album devalue the White Album more than it created value? Did the video of the kid dancing to Dragostei Din Tei (aka Numa Numa) devalue the original song more than it created value? Let us say that it did; what about if we include the additional sales of records that resulted from the popularity of the video? Was value still lost? Could we get into a situation where you claim value was lost, yet the original artists would insist that value was gained?

unalone 17y ago
No, it's not of "total cultural value". That's a bullshit term. It's about the artists first and society second. The Dragostei Din Tei video didn't use the entire song. It make a lot of people who wanted to hear the rest of the song go out and buy it. The Gray Album is shadier, but it was remixing a much older album, and remixes aren't directly presenting what already existed. They're making some kind of creative alteration. Even then, I don't think it's wrong to assume that perhaps the original artists deserve some compensation. Not a ridiculous compensation that puts the remixer out of a job, but suggesting they have no rights to the final work is similarly silly. The solution, as Marco writes here, is for more musicians to adapt to Creative Commons, so that people can use their works and contribute to that remix culture. The artists who're fine with that, and I think most of them are, can permit their works to be taken, and the ones that aren't can miss out. But it's their choice, not ours. Suggesting that all those artists only exist to contribute to culture is retarded.
- barrkel 17y ago
  I believe that if you ever find the time to actually look into it, you'll find that most artists do not do what they do because of "compensation", but because they love it, because of the social and cultural value they see it creating, and because of the effects it has on other people. In other words, what you describe as "retarded" is in fact one of the primary motivations of artists. I speak from my own experience of growing up in a home with a theatre actress / community theatre director mother and songwriter / playwright father, and their wider social network. An intellectually stimulating but extremely frugal existence.
  - unalone 17y ago
    I'm an artist myself. Otherwise I'd have avoided this whole discussion. I like having some idea of what I'm talking about. I make art primarily because I love the creation, and I absolutely love when my work creates a response in somebody else. But that's my love for my work and for those people, not for a vaguer society. I could see myself being really pleased over a lip dub of a song of mine. I could also see myself hating that something I'd made had leaked out without my receiving anything for the trouble. I mean, if I'm out to make a living with my work, then having it taken without compensation might not be what I'm looking for. But the point I was trying to make was that it would be my choice either way, that the work I make serves me first and society second.