4 ms·

You have lots of points; I don't have the time to respond to each and every one (that's also the reply to your point 6 ;-) ) Overall: the point I'm trying to g

by emn13 7y ago

You have lots of points; I don't have the time to respond to each and every one (that's also the reply to your point 6 ;-) ) Overall: the point I'm trying to get across is that copyright must serve society and consumers first, and not rightsholders. If you want to think of it in terms of a transaction: the creator is being hired to provide a service, and that's the extent of the remuneration that should be provided, not more. Secondly, that it's not all or nothing; we could use a shorter copy right (or no copyright, eventually) and encourage creation differently. Finally, there's no question that I'm not going to come up with something as fully fleshed out as hundreds of years of legal precedent; nor even that if people in general did attempt such change with better and more fleshed out ideas that we wouldn't lose anything. But retaining every last specific positive aspect of copyright is an unnecessary bar; the replacement merely needs to have a better net benefit than indefinite copyright (which is the practical norm today). So some of the issues you point out are misunderstandings of what I meant; others are things I'm sure are plain bad ideas, but some are valid, yet acceptable. It's OK to have serious flaws, because copyright has really terrible flaws. 1c: boosting creativity in some cases is laudable... if there were no downsides. But there are huge downsides. And I'm not sure the upsides are worth the downsides at all, let alone a more realistic alternative with a pared back (but still present) copyright with some additional incentives. 2a: no. The statue of Anne was more complex than that. Vested interests (publishers) obviously wanted the control, but to sell it to the parliament and the public, which had interests in the matter, they needed to rephrase it to be in the public interest. And perhaps the mechanics of the act weren't ideal, or perhaps some of the drafters were entirely selfish; but the fact remains that it formally was to benefit "learning" in general. One hint of that is the act's title: "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by Vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or Purchasers of Copies, during the Times therein mentioned" - we now call it the statute of Anne ;-). 3a: mandatory fixed-price licensing: no exceptions. No data, no licensing; i.e. it's in the seller's interest to ensure that data can be made available, as it is in the buyers. This isn't an attempt to cover all bases (e.g. live); but rather to avoid the market distortions inherent in granting control to the licensing person. Literally applied to remixes that would imply that the end-user must pay the full price for each sample used in the mix - but only once, no matter how many songs it's in. You're right, this may not be practical; or perhaps it's usable for a subsection of the problem (again, the point is to explore ideas, not propose a one-sized fits all solution to everything). 3b) Perfect! we're in agreement. Who cares about new? Again: the aim is to slowly pare back copyright, and, where that would lose some of its benefits, to find alternatives that are also beneficial (even if perhaps in different ways). 4) copyright holders routinely deny the permission for derivatives. How many derivatives of windows did you see back in it's heyday? How many derivatives of mickey mouse? The control is absolute, and that is absolutely too much. Finally, and perhaps the greatest loss: people don't even bother trying to remix because it's just so impractical. 5) You don't need to be a legal scholar to use copyright either, and that is largely because people get used to it, and also because when push comes to shove you can hire somebody else that's an expert. Joe Average in some hypothetical alternative could do the same. You're implicitly assuming some kind of radical, sudden, unannounced change, and yes, in that scenario Joe Average would get confused. But not if Joe Average grew up with the alternative, and has lots of friends and examples, and can hire an expert when really necessary. Finally don't forget that Joe Average at the end of the day simply isn't all that relevant here. It's at worst unfortunate if they can't go on using exactly the same business model as before. They'll be new opportunities, to be sure, and a looong transition period (since clawing back existing copyright terms is likely infeasible). The issue is whether it's good enough for creativity without all the downsides of inflexibility and control that copyright has.

dijksterhuis 7y ago
> Overall: the point I'm trying to get across is that copyright must serve society and consumers first, and not rightsholders. If you want to think of it in terms of a transaction: the creator is being hired to provide a service, and that's the extent of the remuneration that should be provided, not more. So music is just a service economy? This is quite a simplistic viewpoint. Copyright should serve both interests. Protect the rightsholders and allow people to use the works. Which is what exists right here, right now. If it serves both those points already, it clearly ain’t that broke. > Secondly, that it's not all or nothing; we could use a shorter copy right (or no copyright, eventually) and encourage creation differently. Sure. We could. I’d love to see how big media companies act when there’s no copyright on anything anywhere. Rather than freeing creativity, it would free their bottom lines. Also remember that most musicians don’t earn linearly from their work. It’s a long tail. > 1c: boosting creativity in some cases is laudable... if there were no downsides. But there are huge downsides. And I'm not sure the upsides are worth the downsides at all, let alone a more realistic alternative with a pared back (but still present) copyright with some additional incentives. You’re not sure the upsides are worth it. I am. I live in the upsides. I’ve lived with people living on the upsides. Just because you can’t see value doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can only see reality as you see it. And yes, I’m biased. I get how frustrating it must be to have a YouTube video demonetised. But things like YouTube operated outside of copyright law for so long I think it’s fair they get their comeuppance. > Again: the aim is to slowly pare back copyright You’ve mentioned your aim 3 times, and it seems to be different each time. So which is it? Provide benefit to society, pare back copyright (maybe not all of it) or remove copyright altogether? > 4) copyright holders routinely deny the permission for derivatives. How many derivatives of windows did you see back in it's heyday? How many derivatives of mickey mouse? The control is absolute, and that is absolutely too much. Finally, and perhaps the greatest loss: people don't even bother trying to remix because it's just so impractical. Depends on the copyright holder. And there are thousands of musical remixes being released everyday with the rights holders consent. There is a balance in copyright. People who don’t want their works used can say no. If they don’t mind, they can negotiate. If they don’t care, they can just not register the work. That is the balance. Want to remix a Lady Gaga song? Good luck. Want to remix Average Joe? You’ve got a shot. By no means is it perfect. But I’d rather an imperfect system than be forced to give control out when I don’t want to. Incidentally, anyone can make a parody of Lady Gaga songs. So there are existing exceptions that do allow for certain things under fair dealing. > 5) You don't need to be a legal scholar to use copyright either, and that is largely because people get used to it, and also because when push comes to shove you can hire somebody else that's an expert. I am an anomaly in the musician world. I worked on policy at PRS for music. So the 170 page distribution document was my bible. That’s the only reason I know what I know about copyright. There are vast swathes of policy I never touched. Never even looked at. There’s that many different scenarios to cater for. Average Joe is most definitely not a legal scholar. He gets confused about why TV and Radio are paid differently. He sometimes checks his cheque and is pleased when it’s near £100 (phew, one less gig to play this month!). Average Joe also can’t afford to hire someone to understand this stuff for him. So when push comes to shove, he has to get a job in a print shop. That’s why the system, as it stands now, works. The big hitters subsidise the little guys, potentially for decades. Then some of the little guys become big hitters and the cycle starts over again. > You're implicitly assuming some kind of radical, sudden, unannounced change, and yes, in that scenario Joe Average would get confused. In my experience, Joe Average got confused even if the change was announced way ahead of time. The phones in our membership department were often a difficult job as a lot of musicians fundamentally do not get on well with legal stuff. Thats why they’re musicians, otherwise they’d be lawyers... > Finally don't forget that Joe Average at the end of the day simply isn't all that relevant here. Once again, the people who actually create the stuff, which you say benefits society, are not relevant at all? Seriously man. This is why copyright is designed the way it is today. Because they are relevant. Our legal system places an inherent value on the work they do and deems that their work should be protected. ———— Overall - I’m happy with the current system as a musician. You’re unhappy with the current system as a [insert label here]. I’ve made a choice to accept the system for what it is and to work within the confines of it. It’s much more productive and my head hurts a lot less. Much like tax law. We all have to pay tax, right? But no one likes paying tax...

by emn13 7y ago

dijksterhuis 7y ago

> Overall: the point I'm trying to get across is that copyright must serve society and consumers first, and not rightsholders. If you want to think of it in terms of a transaction: the creator is being hired to provide a service, and that's the extent of the remuneration that should be provided, not more. So music is just a service economy? This is quite a simplistic viewpoint. Copyright should serve both interests. Protect the rightsholders and allow people to use the works. Which is what exists right here, right now. If it serves both those points already, it clearly ain’t that broke. > Secondly, that it's not all or nothing; we could use a shorter copy right (or no copyright, eventually) and encourage creation differently. Sure. We could. I’d love to see how big media companies act when there’s no copyright on anything anywhere. Rather than freeing creativity, it would free their bottom lines. Also remember that most musicians don’t earn linearly from their work. It’s a long tail. > 1c: boosting creativity in some cases is laudable... if there were no downsides. But there are huge downsides. And I'm not sure the upsides are worth the downsides at all, let alone a more realistic alternative with a pared back (but still present) copyright with some additional incentives. You’re not sure the upsides are worth it. I am. I live in the upsides. I’ve lived with people living on the upsides. Just because you can’t see value doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You can only see reality as you see it. And yes, I’m biased. I get how frustrating it must be to have a YouTube video demonetised. But things like YouTube operated outside of copyright law for so long I think it’s fair they get their comeuppance. > Again: the aim is to slowly pare back copyright You’ve mentioned your aim 3 times, and it seems to be different each time. So which is it? Provide benefit to society, pare back copyright (maybe not all of it) or remove copyright altogether? > 4) copyright holders routinely deny the permission for derivatives. How many derivatives of windows did you see back in it's heyday? How many derivatives of mickey mouse? The control is absolute, and that is absolutely too much. Finally, and perhaps the greatest loss: people don't even bother trying to remix because it's just so impractical. Depends on the copyright holder. And there are thousands of musical remixes being released everyday with the rights holders consent. There is a balance in copyright. People who don’t want their works used can say no. If they don’t mind, they can negotiate. If they don’t care, they can just not register the work. That is the balance. Want to remix a Lady Gaga song? Good luck. Want to remix Average Joe? You’ve got a shot. By no means is it perfect. But I’d rather an imperfect system than be forced to give control out when I don’t want to. Incidentally, anyone can make a parody of Lady Gaga songs. So there are existing exceptions that do allow for certain things under fair dealing. > 5) You don't need to be a legal scholar to use copyright either, and that is largely because people get used to it, and also because when push comes to shove you can hire somebody else that's an expert. I am an anomaly in the musician world. I worked on policy at PRS for music. So the 170 page distribution document was my bible. That’s the only reason I know what I know about copyright. There are vast swathes of policy I never touched. Never even looked at. There’s that many different scenarios to cater for. Average Joe is most definitely not a legal scholar. He gets confused about why TV and Radio are paid differently. He sometimes checks his cheque and is pleased when it’s near £100 (phew, one less gig to play this month!). Average Joe also can’t afford to hire someone to understand this stuff for him. So when push comes to shove, he has to get a job in a print shop. That’s why the system, as it stands now, works. The big hitters subsidise the little guys, potentially for decades. Then some of the little guys become big hitters and the cycle starts over again. > You're implicitly assuming some kind of radical, sudden, unannounced change, and yes, in that scenario Joe Average would get confused. In my experience, Joe Average got confused even if the change was announced way ahead of time. The phones in our membership department were often a difficult job as a lot of musicians fundamentally do not get on well with legal stuff. Thats why they’re musicians, otherwise they’d be lawyers... > Finally don't forget that Joe Average at the end of the day simply isn't all that relevant here. Once again, the people who actually create the stuff, which you say benefits society, are not relevant at all? Seriously man. This is why copyright is designed the way it is today. Because they are relevant. Our legal system places an inherent value on the work they do and deems that their work should be protected. ———— Overall - I’m happy with the current system as a musician. You’re unhappy with the current system as a [insert label here]. I’ve made a choice to accept the system for what it is and to work within the confines of it. It’s much more productive and my head hurts a lot less. Much like tax law. We all have to pay tax, right? But no one likes paying tax...