5 ms·

> Woah, hang on there buddy. Without the artistic contribution you wouldn’t have the shared experience or history. That's just nonsense. Sure you would still

by emn13 7y ago

> Woah, hang on there buddy. Without the artistic contribution you wouldn’t have the shared experience or history. That's just nonsense. Sure you would still have shared experience and history: not all experiences are manufactured, and not all manufactured experiences are owned, and not all art is made for profit. Even without any copyright at all and without any incentive to produce art at all, people would still produce art, because it's fun, and perhaps for other reasons. By number, most musicians are hobbyists and never get paid a dime; lots of people make and play music just as social thing and as part of growing up. The idea that music needs to be a job, and beyond that a job beyond the actual performing art itself is clearly incorrect: evidence: every single human culture in history, which have all made art and music, well before copyright was ever a thing. Even today, despite the huge hurdle that copyright poses, communites create pretty impressive stuff even though their members never even consider the fact that some of their contributions are potentially copyrightable, and the fact that it's hopeless to figure out who owns what in a process like that. If you think that the only shared experiences worth having are those intentionally created by people being paid, you have a really, really distorted view of humanity. Have you never just had fun with a bunch of friends or family, and created something in the process? Seriously?? > > Don't forget that the aim is to help society, not to reward artists. > Errrrrrr. What? No. Copyright law is designed to protect the rightsholders first of all. Well, this depends at least slightly on where you're from. In the US, the constitution explicitly states that congress may enact a limited duration of exclusivity for the purpose not of protecting rightsholders, but to promote "science and useful arts". It would likely be unconstitutional for congress to limit transmission of ideas without constitutional amendment for the purpose of protection of rightsholders, but IANAL. In any case this wasn't articulated as clearly in earlier texts in e.g. england, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it likely played a part there too; if the aim were merely to keep the destitute off the streets, why single out authors like that? Because creation is valuable. Protecting rightsholders is a means to an end; not the actual aim of copyright. You might even say it's a cost, not a benefit: you're taking people's rights away, and there better be a good reason for that. > Also, this type of model assumes EVERYTHING can be measured online. I intentionally mentioned a bunch of different models, some of which do not assume that, e.g. the annual auction system. I'm positive thee are dozens of other (better) systems too, I just thought of those on a whim: the point isn't to promote any specific alternative but to emphasize that there are alternatives and they're not even hard to think of. But even the citation system does not require everything to be online, simply to be accounted for. You buy the vinyl you're worried about today, in most places you pay sales tax and thus in some sense formalize the sale. Formalizing the usage is conceivable. Would that be perfect? No. But copyright only "works" when nothing can be copied without permission, yet, that's quite possible nowaways. The feasibility of copyright is almost certainly one of the worst of all of these approaches, particularly because copyright introduces the dichotomy of consumer and producer, and puts them in opposition. And that makes it attractive to cheat. Also, we do live in a world with ever more pervasive automation. It would be inefficient not to leverage that where it's useful to do so. As to your question on what's a remix: either define it, or consider all usages to be derived works needing a mandatory license. That's only a problem with copyright because copyrightholders have users over a barrel; with mandatory licensing and fixed prices a remixer would know what they're getting into beforehand (and might choose to use older, cheaper samples, or use less of the sample or whatever). But what's not going to happen is that it turns into the quagmire is is now, because there's no exclusivity. It's even conceivable you could use the notion of entropy modern signal prcessing in dealing with what's a remix; that mathematical tool simply didn't exist back then! (Again, the options are legion, which is the point...)

dijksterhuis 7y ago
1a) My point was that without the creation (i.e. the artistic contribution, people getting together and jamming, me in my studio etc.) then the shared experiences wouldn't exist because nothing would have been created to be shared. That was where it seemed your original comment was heading towards. That the creation didn't matter. I think we agree here but we seem to have missed each other's points. 1b) Hold on, are you arguing that copyright shouldn't exist because music/art has always existed in some form or another and therefore it doesn't deserve to be protected? 1c) Actually, copyright helps to boost creativity in some cases. See point (2b). 2a) UK copyright law actually started as a way of enforcing censorship. Mind you, this was hundreds of years ago under the Statute of Anne. These days, however, its job is to protect the rights and welfare of creators. Because our society places an inherent value on the work musicians do - whether they be pro or hobbyist. 2b) Copyright means that someone can't just go onto soundcloud, copy one of my tracks and call it their own. And a damn great thing that is. They'd be ripping off my work. Why would I bother creating anymore music to share with people if all that will happen is that is gets ripped off every time? Yeah, I put the music out there for people to enjoy, but if someone else is going out and claim it as theirs and get some big concerts off the back of it, why would I bother? Humans are not altruistic beings. We are inherently selfish. Laws help keep us in line. That's the point of laws! So, in that way, copyright actually helps boost creativity, whilst balancing the rights of the consumers and the rights holders. 3) You've taken the existing models used by collection societies and wrapped them up as if they've new. Also, its not clear if you're talking about just trying to use samples, or copyright as a whole. I'm going with the latter, as you mention remixes towards the end of your post, but if it's the former feel free to call me out and i can come back with other stuff then. Let's go through these ideas in order... Using Average Joe, the dope smoking guitarist from The Average Band, as an example musician. 3a) mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone); PRS requires people who use music to have a license. The BBC pays a license fee. Pubs pay a license fee. Radio stations pay a license fee. The price per end-user fluctuates because the number of end-listeners fluctuates over the course of a year. Also, the majority of revenue domains (Live especially) can't estimate how many end-listeners were actually listening to each piece of music. This is why blanket deals happen. The data just doesn't exist. And before you start thinking "YouTube must surely be able to provide that data", their data was some of the most useless stuff we had to deal with back on the 2014 license. Seriously, it was atrocious. All your solution does is put the onus of understanding the licenses on the rights holders, like Average Joe. Average Joe sometimes forgets what an A Minor chord is, let alone the choices between legal frameworks. 3b) citation-based subsidy PRS receives usage data from licensees and then pays out to rights holders based on that usage. So nothing new here. 3c) mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?) So only one entity ever can have access to The Average Band's brilliant new album: The Average Album? 3d) I'm positive thee are dozens of other (better) systems too, I just thought of those on a whim If you've thought of these on a whim then I can almost guarantee that they will not work. In all my time at PRS, the "blue sky thinking" ideas were always the ones that resulted in members and/or Joe public getting angry at us over the phone. There is not one single specific model that works best. There are different models because they fit the purposes for which the music is used best. The system is complicated and there is not a one-size-fits all solution... The model that exists now actually pays rights holders pretty fairly, and is tried and tested over a number of years. 4) So the opportunities for "Remixes" are a bit of an issue in copyright at the minute, yes. WIPO put out a report mentioning the issue in 2015 and the potential need for reform. But you seem to be basing your position the idea that all rights holders will deny the use of a sample. Which just isn't true. 90% of the time they just want to be remunerated for the sample's use. Then of course comes the degree of the renumeration, which requires some negotiation. But I manage to make music and use samples perfectly legally. Why can't others? 5) How do you think Joe Average is going to fare when he has to learn about Boltzmann constants just to work out whether he can use a sample or not? 6) I noticed you didn't respond to my point about losing out on all my investment over the last 10 years. Any particular reason?

by emn13 7y ago

dijksterhuis 7y ago

1a) My point was that without the creation (i.e. the artistic contribution, people getting together and jamming, me in my studio etc.) then the shared experiences wouldn't exist because nothing would have been created to be shared. That was where it seemed your original comment was heading towards. That the creation didn't matter. I think we agree here but we seem to have missed each other's points. 1b) Hold on, are you arguing that copyright shouldn't exist because music/art has always existed in some form or another and therefore it doesn't deserve to be protected? 1c) Actually, copyright helps to boost creativity in some cases. See point (2b). 2a) UK copyright law actually started as a way of enforcing censorship. Mind you, this was hundreds of years ago under the Statute of Anne. These days, however, its job is to protect the rights and welfare of creators. Because our society places an inherent value on the work musicians do - whether they be pro or hobbyist. 2b) Copyright means that someone can't just go onto soundcloud, copy one of my tracks and call it their own. And a damn great thing that is. They'd be ripping off my work. Why would I bother creating anymore music to share with people if all that will happen is that is gets ripped off every time? Yeah, I put the music out there for people to enjoy, but if someone else is going out and claim it as theirs and get some big concerts off the back of it, why would I bother? Humans are not altruistic beings. We are inherently selfish. Laws help keep us in line. That's the point of laws! So, in that way, copyright actually helps boost creativity, whilst balancing the rights of the consumers and the rights holders. 3) You've taken the existing models used by collection societies and wrapped them up as if they've new. Also, its not clear if you're talking about just trying to use samples, or copyright as a whole. I'm going with the latter, as you mention remixes towards the end of your post, but if it's the former feel free to call me out and i can come back with other stuff then. Let's go through these ideas in order... Using Average Joe, the dope smoking guitarist from The Average Band, as an example musician. 3a) mandatory fixed-price licensing (pick a price per human end user, but you cannot say no to remixes or alter the price for anyone); PRS requires people who use music to have a license. The BBC pays a license fee. Pubs pay a license fee. Radio stations pay a license fee. The price per end-user fluctuates because the number of end-listeners fluctuates over the course of a year. Also, the majority of revenue domains (Live especially) can't estimate how many end-listeners were actually listening to each piece of music. This is why blanket deals happen. The data just doesn't exist. And before you start thinking "YouTube must surely be able to provide that data", their data was some of the most useless stuff we had to deal with back on the 2014 license. Seriously, it was atrocious. All your solution does is put the onus of understanding the licenses on the rights holders, like Average Joe. Average Joe sometimes forgets what an A Minor chord is, let alone the choices between legal frameworks. 3b) citation-based subsidy PRS receives usage data from licensees and then pays out to rights holders based on that usage. So nothing new here. 3c) mandatory auctioning (e.g. the copyright owner sets a price, pays X% of that price as a tax, but must sell to the highest bidder over that price, potentially annually at increasing scale?) So only one entity ever can have access to The Average Band's brilliant new album: The Average Album? 3d) I'm positive thee are dozens of other (better) systems too, I just thought of those on a whim If you've thought of these on a whim then I can almost guarantee that they will not work. In all my time at PRS, the "blue sky thinking" ideas were always the ones that resulted in members and/or Joe public getting angry at us over the phone. There is not one single specific model that works best. There are different models because they fit the purposes for which the music is used best. The system is complicated and there is not a one-size-fits all solution... The model that exists now actually pays rights holders pretty fairly, and is tried and tested over a number of years. 4) So the opportunities for "Remixes" are a bit of an issue in copyright at the minute, yes. WIPO put out a report mentioning the issue in 2015 and the potential need for reform. But you seem to be basing your position the idea that all rights holders will deny the use of a sample. Which just isn't true. 90% of the time they just want to be remunerated for the sample's use. Then of course comes the degree of the renumeration, which requires some negotiation. But I manage to make music and use samples perfectly legally. Why can't others? 5) How do you think Joe Average is going to fare when he has to learn about Boltzmann constants just to work out whether he can use a sample or not? 6) I noticed you didn't respond to my point about losing out on all my investment over the last 10 years. Any particular reason?