6 ms·

How does anyone except The Rolling Stones have a right to music recorded by The Rolling Stones?

shmerl 7y ago
How do they have a right to it in the first place? Copyright is only given on condition of it becoming public domain later. And now they are trying to undermine it becoming public domain. Which in turn, should mean they are trying to undermine their own right to it. That's how it should work, if the original intent of copyright is followed.
- echelon 7y ago
  Regulatory capture. Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it does, Disney still owns the Trademark.) I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and relevant to new audiences.
  - chrismcb 7y ago
    But the value of copyright isn't nil. I think there is enough evidence to support it isn't.
  - fnord77 7y ago
    > I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Lessig argues that it's worse than nil - that copyright stifles innovation
    - colejohnson66 7y ago
      I’d argue that copyright does have its uses, but it’s been extended too many times that it stifles innovation now. I know I’d be scared of demoing my product to a company if they could just copy it with no repercussions.
      - gpm 7y ago
        They still can, copyright doesn't protect the idea behind products.
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        I meant to say intellectual property, not copyright
        gpm 7y ago
        For the most part, no form of intellectual property protects ideas that companies and products are formed on.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    How will your company producing good copyright content be financed? Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected; also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively extended). You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would still be a form of copyright I think?
    - shmerl 7y ago
      > Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_ the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.
        echelon 7y ago
        It's a hard problem. I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.) Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes. By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing. I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much. And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice. I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits. I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  Copyright on unpublished works is typically more extensive than on published ones, because it overlaps with a sort of privacy right. In the U.S., many unpublished works are copyrighted up to 120 years after creation. The E.U. doesn't have that, but they have something called editio princeps rights, where a first publication of an unpublished work gets 20 years or so of copyright protection. Not out of line with what's happening here, so I'm not sure that there's much to complain about.
  - shmerl 7y ago
    The fact that putting it up and pulling is not publishing, it's cheating.
colejohnson66 7y ago
If this is a genuine question: one can sign over the rights to their work. Generally, small bands will sign with a record label who, in the contract, says they own all your music you release under their label. The Rolling Stones weren’t a big band originally; they had to start somewhere.
coldtea 7y ago
The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people. Not even some "right to life" - a person can be executed, lawfully too, in many countries including the US, if a court says so. So there's no reason for the Rolling Stones to have a right to music recorded by them, other than special provisions in the law (which we call copyright law). Well, the same law says that works also go into public domain if you don't release them in X years. This gives everyone a right to any such music released by the RS.
- clairity 7y ago
  > "The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people." you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution. human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us. the bill of rights simply enumerates our inalienable rights as a way of reminding us and governments not to even think about trampling on them. they exist regardless of the enumeration.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution. human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Not really. Those are mere words, the premises of the philosophy of those writing the constitution. There are no "intrinsic and inalienable" human rights in nature (of course: nature doesn't care one way or another) and not even in human cultures by default (empirically obvious). American US-constitution rights, whatever the constitution says they are based on, are only emerging and based on the constitution itself, and the power the government/police/army etc have to enforce it. In other words, the constitution says that these "rights are inartistic and unalienable" in the same way (mere philosophy/belief) that another constitution in some other country would say "rights are given from God" or "rights are based on the wisdom of Huhumu the Great, our founder and first leader" -- and of course the rights don't even have to be the same. What a constitution says rights come from doesn't make it so. A racist regime would also have constitution and also declares some reasoning and some foundation for the rights it describes in it. So what any Constitution says about how rights came to be or why they are chosen, is orthogonal to how rights appear, emerge, and are enforced in the real world. >the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us. Well, "intentionally and cooperatively" is a misleading too. It's the notion of the social contract, but nobody actually allowed the people to vote for the Constitution they want (not to mention that blacks, women, and the poor, couldn't vote at all at the time, and had no say at all, and for close to 2 centuries later). [1] (to the degree they are - those "intrinsic and inalienable" rights wouldn't apply to southern blacks until the Civil War, and to blacks generally and fully, not until the 70s)

How do they have a right to it in the first place? Copyright is only given on condition of it becoming public domain later. And now they are trying to undermine it becoming public domain. Which in turn, should mean they are trying to undermine their own right to it. That's how it should work, if the original intent of copyright is followed.

echelon 7y ago
Regulatory capture. Do you think we'll see Mickey Mouse enter the public domain? (And even if it does, Disney still owns the Trademark.) I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Older content is a very long tail, but the vast majority of revenue is with new art. It's perennially refreshed and relevant to new audiences.
- chrismcb 7y ago
  But the value of copyright isn't nil. I think there is enough evidence to support it isn't.
- fnord77 7y ago
  > I want to create a company and pump out so much (good) content that we can show the value of copyright is nil. Lessig argues that it's worse than nil - that copyright stifles innovation
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    I’d argue that copyright does have its uses, but it’s been extended too many times that it stifles innovation now. I know I’d be scared of demoing my product to a company if they could just copy it with no repercussions.
    - gpm 7y ago
      They still can, copyright doesn't protect the idea behind products.
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        I meant to say intellectual property, not copyright
        gpm 7y ago
        For the most part, no form of intellectual property protects ideas that companies and products are formed on.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  How will your company producing good copyright content be financed? Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. I'd go for much shorter terms 7+7 years (7 years automatic right, 7 years paid), and make various other changes (deposit non-DRM copies or you don't get copyright at all, things that can't enter the public domain can't be copyright protected; also the copyright term is set at the start, and can't be retroactively extended). You might be able to create a "fair recompense" right or something (those exploring works have to pay a fair amount to the original author) but it would still be a form of copyright I think?
  - shmerl 7y ago
    > Copyright seems almost essential to having media creators get paid. Not when it's 120 years long. How exactly are creators benefiting from it? Those who benefit from such long term are various publishers who just sit and profit on what was created long in the past by the actual creators. At that point it's already completely parasitic.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Yes, but if the term is 0 then the main beneficiaries will also be the publishers, only then the creators will get nothing. At least with a copyright of some form they have chance to make a recompense rather than losing _all_ the financial value of their creations to the Capitalists.
      - echelon 7y ago
        It's a hard problem. I think one negative trend is the focus on creating tentpole films that eat up the competition at the box office. (As well as the consolidation of all major brands and copyrights under one studio.) Not only are these films watered down to appeal to a wide audience, but they're safe rehashes of the same recurring themes. By inflating the cost of films, you decrease the diversity. Fewer actors and directors get a chance. Fewer ideas are used. All the screens show the same thing. I hope that better tooling will help democratize the market. Maybe films don't need to cost so much. And maybe you're right about copyright. I don't think I can presume to make rules that fair without harming someone. Maybe it's not that copyright needs to be revisited, but rather that the big elephants in the room need to be made to play nice. I still think more content creation is one answer. By having a greater diversity and abundance of content, you average out the concentration of interest (and value) across the board. This prevents singular entries from soaking up all the benefits. I don't like the status quo, though. And it's getting worse.
zozbot234 7y ago
Copyright on unpublished works is typically more extensive than on published ones, because it overlaps with a sort of privacy right. In the U.S., many unpublished works are copyrighted up to 120 years after creation. The E.U. doesn't have that, but they have something called editio princeps rights, where a first publication of an unpublished work gets 20 years or so of copyright protection. Not out of line with what's happening here, so I'm not sure that there's much to complain about.
- shmerl 7y ago
  The fact that putting it up and pulling is not publishing, it's cheating.

colejohnson66 7y ago

If this is a genuine question: one can sign over the rights to their work. Generally, small bands will sign with a record label who, in the contract, says they own all your music you release under their label. The Rolling Stones weren’t a big band originally; they had to start somewhere.

coldtea 7y ago

The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people. Not even some "right to life" - a person can be executed, lawfully too, in many countries including the US, if a court says so. So there's no reason for the Rolling Stones to have a right to music recorded by them, other than special provisions in the law (which we call copyright law). Well, the same law says that works also go into public domain if you don't release them in X years. This gives everyone a right to any such music released by the RS.

clairity 7y ago
> "The are no "rights" but what the law/constitution/etc gives people." you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution. human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us. the bill of rights simply enumerates our inalienable rights as a way of reminding us and governments not to even think about trampling on them. they exist regardless of the enumeration.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >you have this exactly backwards, at least as it relates to the US constitution. human rights are intrinsic and inalienable. Not really. Those are mere words, the premises of the philosophy of those writing the constitution. There are no "intrinsic and inalienable" human rights in nature (of course: nature doesn't care one way or another) and not even in human cultures by default (empirically obvious). American US-constitution rights, whatever the constitution says they are based on, are only emerging and based on the constitution itself, and the power the government/police/army etc have to enforce it. In other words, the constitution says that these "rights are inartistic and unalienable" in the same way (mere philosophy/belief) that another constitution in some other country would say "rights are given from God" or "rights are based on the wisdom of Huhumu the Great, our founder and first leader" -- and of course the rights don't even have to be the same. What a constitution says rights come from doesn't make it so. A racist regime would also have constitution and also declares some reasoning and some foundation for the rights it describes in it. So what any Constitution says about how rights came to be or why they are chosen, is orthogonal to how rights appear, emerge, and are enforced in the real world. >the constitution only lays out the limited ways we intentionally and cooperatively delegate certain powers to the government for our common good. the government does not bestow any rights upon us. Well, "intentionally and cooperatively" is a misleading too. It's the notion of the social contract, but nobody actually allowed the people to vote for the Constitution they want (not to mention that blacks, women, and the poor, couldn't vote at all at the time, and had no say at all, and for close to 2 centuries later). [1] (to the degree they are - those "intrinsic and inalienable" rights wouldn't apply to southern blacks until the Civil War, and to blacks generally and fully, not until the 70s)