3 ms·
Interesting questions you've asked, conflating a couple different issues, but worth flexing some thought to respond to, I think. 1. The $150,000 per song is a
by 6stringmerc 11y ago
Interesting questions you've asked, conflating a couple different issues, but worth flexing some thought to respond to, I think.
1. The $150,000 per song is a punishment amount, directly attributable to "willful infringement" which is, from my understanding, a pretty obvious bar to clear. Sharing a file on a mix CD and giving it to somebody for their birthday? Willful, but not really the intent of the law. Setting up a CD duplication shop and bootletting new releases to sell on street corners? That's the point of the very high dollar amount punishment. Society has basically determined that punishing infringement is supposed to cost a lot of money, so that would be a deterrent.
2. This is a completely fabricated problem, as not "every random artist" thinks their art is worth $150,000 per song until it's willfully used in an infringement format. Artists are pretty well aware that society thinks songs should basically be $0.99 to keep or very cheap to listen to through a retail/customer facing streaming service. However, if we substitute "every jackass record label" then you've got a much more valid point about the copyright system, because of how the record industry works.
3. Let's make a deal - we can abolish copyright on recorded music if you agree to abolish copyright on written computer code. After all, if you believe that the only time a musician should make money should come from performance, then I submit the only time a programmer or company should be paid for their software is during the hours it was created.
I'm all for copyright reform - limiting the ability to sign away rights to "no value" middlemen / hucksters like record industry conglomorates & putting very short protections on the created works (lifetime of artist only, impossible to transfer to outside corporation for renewal beyond artist's lifetime), but going that extreme is not preferable. I think my phrasing about music vs. software is really rough, but it's a tempting argument to hash out - if you want to throw out my baby with the bathwater, then I'm going to make sure yours is going along for the ride as well.
- icebraining 11y ago3. Let's make a deal - we can abolish copyright on recorded music if you agree to abolish copyright on written computer code. Where can I sign?
- 6stringmerc 11y agoRight under the part where you pledge $100 billion in funding to take on the legacy RIAA and Tech Industry heavyweights! I know this is a joke-style response, but it's intended to show how hard any kind of change might be. It's tough!
- neocraftster 11y agoYou think you are making a good counter argument with the relation to software, but there is a sizable population of developers who believe exactly this, that throwing out copyright is a good thing. Currently most if not all software is created using previously written code that developers find from other developers online, like on stack overflow. None of them actually think to pay a poster on stack overflow for their solution, and systems like that wouldn't survive if they had to. You would have much more support for your deal than you might realize.