7 ms·

Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

by thomastjeffery 9y ago

mehly 9y ago
Said no music artist ever.
- whiddershins 9y ago
  Upvoted because I agree with the sentiment but also not true. Look at how the interpretation of copyright as it pertains to sampling and mashing etc absolutely stifled innovation and continues to do so. For visual art look at how ambiguous the law is around collage, which definitely stifles innovation.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law. Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes. There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy. What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that. That's not just Spotify's model; it's music labels' model.
    - dmitriid 9y ago
      Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t. Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.
      - EADGBE 9y ago
        Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FWIW, they would have had to sell ~100 (~450 for signed artists) albums in a month to make this same money vs. streaming. At this point, affiliating with a label is only worth it when you know you're going to break out. Most musicians, even niche ones, have learned how to use the system their confined in, and do well off of a royalty-based model vs the traditional selling-CDs-at-a-show [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-... [2] http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-paying-off-house-streaming-revenue/ http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-pa...
        whiddershins 9y ago
        FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.
        whiddershins 9y ago
        Edit: I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.
        EADGBE 9y ago
godzillabrennus 9y ago
It's a double edged sword. Less capital would flow into creating new technologies if there was no way to protect that investment. On the other hand onerous copyright protections slow the pace of innovation.
themagician 9y ago
Innovation isn't always the goal. It's not clear to me that streaming music has actually resulted in better music or a better listening experience. It's just resulted in more plays. This benefits Spotify and advertisers the most.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Music streaming has resulted in a better discovery experience, which is valuable to users and creators. There is an awful lot of innovation being held back. You are likely unaware, since it is not you who wants to innovate, and you aren't experiencing those innovations.
  - themagician 9y ago
    Just not sure that’s really the case. Discovery hasn’t changed much since Pandora or Last.fm. Vinyl has made a massive comeback. Probably growing at a rate faster than Spotify at this point. I’m really not sure what amazing “innovation” is being held back. The vast majority of social music applications just create “value” by taking revenue from someone else, not by creating new value of any kind. Not really what I think of when I think innovation. The CD was innovative. The iPod was innovative. Spotify was just the last man standing in a long line of music streaming applications that came after music piracy hit its peak. I never found it unique or innovative. They all offered the same damn thing. Most of Spotify’s growth came from spam on the Facebook newsfeed when that was still allowed. The whole social <whatever> app is a bit of a farce. It’s mostly based on quasi-legal theft. If that’s what counts for innovation these days then I don’t want to innovate anymore.
794CD01 9y ago
That doesn't make it okay to flaunt the law, Travis.
- andrepd 9y ago
  So we should obey the law because it is the law?
  - saalweachter 9y ago
    See, the "an unjust law should not be obeyed" rhetoric works better when the principle being upheld isn't "I want to be entertained for free". I can get behind the "the information wants to be free, man" line when we're talking about overpriced textbooks and academic journals and bytecode for tractors, but when it comes to entertainment, I have a hard time caring. I don't think producers have a fundamental right to control recording, performance and distribution, as granted by the gub'mint, but I also don't think the consumers have a fundamental right to consume any cultural artifact for free. But I do think that people should obey most laws, even ones they disagree with, until some ethereal line has been crossed, simply because it is the law, and I think "I want to be entertained for free" is way too low a bar, so I get kind of disgusted when pirates try to take a high-and-mighty stance.
    - redwall_hp 9y ago
      If it's "just entertainment," then why should the government (and by extension, we the people) be engaged in propping up the profitability of their industry? If you can't find a way to make your entertainment profitable without legal protectionism, maybe you don't deserve too.
      - saalweachter 9y ago
        I don't really care if the government is in the business of "propping up the profitability" of the entertainment industry. If the laws were changed to reduce or eliminate copyright protections, I'd be fine with that. I do care about rule of law. If copyright laws are the law of your land, I think that is sufficient reason to follow them, even if you are actively working to get them changed, either because you don't like them specifically or because you don't believe the government should be engaged in unnecessary activities. I don't believe that the existence of copyright law abrogates a fundamental right or denies a fundamental need, so I don't believe there is a legitimate basis for "protest" non-compliance.
foepys 9y ago
This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Short answer: Disney In the US, money = speech. Huge media corporations like Disney have deep pockets, and therefore have deep influence. Increasing copyright length only benefits these corporations.
  - on_and_off 9y ago
    Another reason to be deeply afraid to see Disney acquire everybody else.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- mcintyre1994 9y ago
  I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not. Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.
  - foepys 9y ago
    This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine). If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bogomipz 9y ago
Copyright is exactly how a a musical artist is able to turn their creative output into an asset on which they can make a living from. The copyright is the very thing that allows an artist to sell and license their recorded work. An artists record company buys tor licenses he copyright to the master recording from them. There will always be weasels and bottom feeders that seek to exploit but do you really believe copyright has somehow held back musical innovation? It was this copyright that enabled a business model that brought recorded music to the masses.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth. There will always be weasels and bottom feeders that seek to constrain every other individual in the world from extending an artistic work or idea, even generations after his or her death; but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?
  - bogomipz 9y ago
    >"Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth." Do you really believe that an artist who makes good money licensing their music for use in TV or movies views copyright as "more of a detriment than its worth"? The only reason that revenue stream is possible is because of copyright and the sync royalties paid out on them. >"...but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?" That's not the point I was making, my point was that it hasn't prevented musical innovation creatively. Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society.
    - thomastjeffery 9y ago
      > The only reason that revenue stream is possible Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility. Quite a few people make money with copyleft works. Even so, it is difficult, because strongly enforced copyright, and propaganda have created a culture that tries desperately to require copyright. > Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society. Of course not! But many are: I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM. Security research is illegal because of DRM. I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses. Any innovation in this sector must be done by incumbents; who have already found success, and are more content with stability. I can't upload a video with fair use copyrighted content to Youtube, because Google has been bullied to/shows off their "capability" to weed out copyrighted content. That also sets an unfeasible precedent for competitors; who will never have the resources to do anything similar. s/I can't/Practically no one in the world is allowed to/ Something need not be 100% detrimental to be more detrimental than it is worth. Copyright is a clear example of that. It began somewhere near middle ground, but has since drifted extremely to the benefit of media corporations, and the detriment of everyone else.
bwmeyers 9y ago
What innovation? Transporting things other people created from one place to another? Sounds more like the post office to me.

Which is evidence that copyright hold back innovation.

mehly 9y ago

Said no music artist ever.

whiddershins 9y ago
Upvoted because I agree with the sentiment but also not true. Look at how the interpretation of copyright as it pertains to sampling and mashing etc absolutely stifled innovation and continues to do so. For visual art look at how ambiguous the law is around collage, which definitely stifles innovation.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  It's simply nonsense to claim that sampling and mashups have been stifled by copyright law. Ignoring a few ancient parody/satire acts like Negativland, samples are made, used, cleared, and paid for with no serious negative consequences. Likewise remixes. There's some extra paperwork, money changes hands, and on the whole everyone is happy. What's been far more damaging is Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > Spotify's insanely exploitative model, which sees its officers making millions while the artists who provide the content get pocket change - if that. That's not just Spotify's model; it's music labels' model.
  - dmitriid 9y ago
    Spotify would gladly pay the artists all the money and it could. And it can’t. Precisely because of copyright laws: you end up paying the labels, not the artists.
    - EADGBE 9y ago
      Independent artists with whole or majority ownership exist and do well on Spotify. For example, a signed artist would have to stream 1,117,021 songs to make $1,260 in a month (what the attached infographic says is minimum wage for a month). However, an independent artist who owns their work only needs to stream 180K to make the same amount [1]. This data is in 2015, but is the best data I've seen in quite a while. FWIW, they would have had to sell ~100 (~450 for signed artists) albums in a month to make this same money vs. streaming. At this point, affiliating with a label is only worth it when you know you're going to break out. Most musicians, even niche ones, have learned how to use the system their confined in, and do well off of a royalty-based model vs the traditional selling-CDs-at-a-show [2]. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-musicians-make-spotify-itunes-youtube https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/apr/03/how-much-... [2] http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-paying-off-house-streaming-revenue/ http://diymusician.cdbaby.com/music-promotion/im-well-way-pa...
      - whiddershins 9y ago
        FWIW selling 100 albums/month, if you’re touring, was far far incredibly far more feasible than getting 180,000 streams is now. Also it seems a bit unclear whether Spotify’s payouts are as egalitarian as they claim. It may be the case that a bunch of cash went towards getting existing catalogues signed up. I’m all for Spotify btw, I just think it may not be as idealized as we like, and has some structural problems that make it infeasible for certain types of artists to make any sort of living.
        whiddershins 9y ago
        Edit: I’m not advocating for touring being better. I hate touring. But the streaming amounts we’re discussing are really tiny in the end. The guitar player you linked to is making less than a tenth of what someone should hope to make to even think about calling their music income a success.
        EADGBE 9y ago

godzillabrennus 9y ago

It's a double edged sword. Less capital would flow into creating new technologies if there was no way to protect that investment. On the other hand onerous copyright protections slow the pace of innovation.

themagician 9y ago

Innovation isn't always the goal. It's not clear to me that streaming music has actually resulted in better music or a better listening experience. It's just resulted in more plays. This benefits Spotify and advertisers the most.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Music streaming has resulted in a better discovery experience, which is valuable to users and creators. There is an awful lot of innovation being held back. You are likely unaware, since it is not you who wants to innovate, and you aren't experiencing those innovations.
- themagician 9y ago
  Just not sure that’s really the case. Discovery hasn’t changed much since Pandora or Last.fm. Vinyl has made a massive comeback. Probably growing at a rate faster than Spotify at this point. I’m really not sure what amazing “innovation” is being held back. The vast majority of social music applications just create “value” by taking revenue from someone else, not by creating new value of any kind. Not really what I think of when I think innovation. The CD was innovative. The iPod was innovative. Spotify was just the last man standing in a long line of music streaming applications that came after music piracy hit its peak. I never found it unique or innovative. They all offered the same damn thing. Most of Spotify’s growth came from spam on the Facebook newsfeed when that was still allowed. The whole social <whatever> app is a bit of a farce. It’s mostly based on quasi-legal theft. If that’s what counts for innovation these days then I don’t want to innovate anymore.

794CD01 9y ago

That doesn't make it okay to flaunt the law, Travis.

andrepd 9y ago
So we should obey the law because it is the law?
- saalweachter 9y ago
  See, the "an unjust law should not be obeyed" rhetoric works better when the principle being upheld isn't "I want to be entertained for free". I can get behind the "the information wants to be free, man" line when we're talking about overpriced textbooks and academic journals and bytecode for tractors, but when it comes to entertainment, I have a hard time caring. I don't think producers have a fundamental right to control recording, performance and distribution, as granted by the gub'mint, but I also don't think the consumers have a fundamental right to consume any cultural artifact for free. But I do think that people should obey most laws, even ones they disagree with, until some ethereal line has been crossed, simply because it is the law, and I think "I want to be entertained for free" is way too low a bar, so I get kind of disgusted when pirates try to take a high-and-mighty stance.
  - redwall_hp 9y ago
    If it's "just entertainment," then why should the government (and by extension, we the people) be engaged in propping up the profitability of their industry? If you can't find a way to make your entertainment profitable without legal protectionism, maybe you don't deserve too.
    - saalweachter 9y ago
      I don't really care if the government is in the business of "propping up the profitability" of the entertainment industry. If the laws were changed to reduce or eliminate copyright protections, I'd be fine with that. I do care about rule of law. If copyright laws are the law of your land, I think that is sufficient reason to follow them, even if you are actively working to get them changed, either because you don't like them specifically or because you don't believe the government should be engaged in unnecessary activities. I don't believe that the existence of copyright law abrogates a fundamental right or denies a fundamental need, so I don't believe there is a legitimate basis for "protest" non-compliance.

foepys 9y ago

This is a controversial stance but I too don't understand why patents are generally limited to 20 years but creative copyright is granted until 70 or more years after the death of all participating authors. If you cannot make money off of your work within 20 years, it's highly unlikely that this will change.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thomastjeffery 9y ago
Short answer: Disney In the US, money = speech. Huge media corporations like Disney have deep pockets, and therefore have deep influence. Increasing copyright length only benefits these corporations.
- on_and_off 9y ago
  Another reason to be deeply afraid to see Disney acquire everybody else.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
mcintyre1994 9y ago
I don't think companies like Disney lobby to extend copyright endlessly because they can't make money in the first 20 years, but because they can continue making money after 20 years and would prefer to do that than not. Especially with things like Disney cycling availability of older films and stuff, I'm sure they make loads of money on their older material and just want to keep doing that even if it was successful when first released.
- foepys 9y ago
  This is exactly my point. It only benefits the already big successful cooperations and people. It does nearly nothing for small artists while actively hindering people from enjoying cultural goods. Every song that is being created today will still be under copyright when you die. Meanwhile if someone creates a new way to manufacture a certain product, it's "only" protected for 20 years (which is fine). If Taylor Swift lives until she is 80, her songs will be free in the year 2140 - maybe even later if someone like a composer lives longer. Isn't this just absurd?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bogomipz 9y ago

Copyright is exactly how a a musical artist is able to turn their creative output into an asset on which they can make a living from. The copyright is the very thing that allows an artist to sell and license their recorded work. An artists record company buys tor licenses he copyright to the master recording from them. There will always be weasels and bottom feeders that seek to exploit but do you really believe copyright has somehow held back musical innovation? It was this copyright that enabled a business model that brought recorded music to the masses.

thomastjeffery 9y ago
Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth. There will always be weasels and bottom feeders that seek to constrain every other individual in the world from extending an artistic work or idea, even generations after his or her death; but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?
- bogomipz 9y ago
  >"Copyright has been abused to the point where it is more of a detriment than it is worth." Do you really believe that an artist who makes good money licensing their music for use in TV or movies views copyright as "more of a detriment than its worth"? The only reason that revenue stream is possible is because of copyright and the sync royalties paid out on them. >"...but do you really believe copyright/patent law has somehow pushed forward innovation?" That's not the point I was making, my point was that it hasn't prevented musical innovation creatively. Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    > The only reason that revenue stream is possible Enforcement is not a requirement to possibility. Quite a few people make money with copyleft works. Even so, it is difficult, because strongly enforced copyright, and propaganda have created a culture that tries desperately to require copyright. > Not every instance of copyright usage is automatically detrimental to society. Of course not! But many are: I can't watch Netflix in 1080p using Linux because of DRM. Security research is illegal because of DRM. I can't start a P2P music streaming service like Spotify did, because I don't have the capitol to pay for licenses. Any innovation in this sector must be done by incumbents; who have already found success, and are more content with stability. I can't upload a video with fair use copyrighted content to Youtube, because Google has been bullied to/shows off their "capability" to weed out copyrighted content. That also sets an unfeasible precedent for competitors; who will never have the resources to do anything similar. s/I can't/Practically no one in the world is allowed to/ Something need not be 100% detrimental to be more detrimental than it is worth. Copyright is a clear example of that. It began somewhere near middle ground, but has since drifted extremely to the benefit of media corporations, and the detriment of everyone else.

bwmeyers 9y ago

What innovation? Transporting things other people created from one place to another? Sounds more like the post office to me.