4 ms·

Why exactly should their product be less deserving of copyright, protection and revenue than the websites/apps/iphone games/whatever everyone here makes, copyri

Why exactly should their product be less deserving of copyright, protection and revenue than the websites/apps/iphone games/whatever everyone here makes, copyrights, and is trying to profit from?

lucisferre 16y ago
I suppose I could see your point if he had made the argument that it didn't deserve the same copyright software and apps get, except he didn't. AFAICT he simply said music will survive and perhaps implied copyright will likely change significantly in the coming decades.
- benologist 16y ago
  Let them die because historically it's just a recent trend that allowed only a few to get rich. How does that not exactly describe us and the internet, especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? The only difference between us and them is someone has to hack our servers to get our IP.
  - DeusExMachina 16y ago
    especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? As we, do you mean a few big companies, patent trolls or the bigger set of startups? I'm not a lawyer or a big expert in startups, but it seems to me that the latter do not leverage copyright laws that much.
wdewind 16y ago
Copyright and protection: it shouldn't be. And Steve Jobs certainly isn't wrecking that, and legal free digital music certainly isn't either, just like open source and free apps aren't wrecking the software industry: they simply change the game. As for revenue: it's just the markets, not everyone gets to be an artist. There's too much music out there now for people to pay for. You can argue "there will always be a market for premium content" til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one agrees on what premium is.
- tptacek 16y ago
  You can't say pop music is deserving of copyright protection in one breath, rationalize copyright violation in the next breath, and claim to have a serious argument.
  - wdewind 16y ago
    I think you misunderstood me, I never rationalized copyright violation I meant to imply that there isn't as much copyright violation going on as people assume. I also meant both should be copyrighted, and I agree that those who argue music doesn't deserve copyright while software does are hypocritical. But the fact that the music industry is failing (changing, whatever) right now can't only be the fault of piracy and copying. Along with those came a HUGE increase in the volume of media. Old institutions that confused themselves with being quality barriers were actually just distribution barriers operating in a drought. I support people's right to copyright their music and sell it, and sue those who copy it as well (edit: support as fairness within our system, overall I do think it sucks for both, but we don't live in a perfect world). But if people just aren't buying, maybe it's because there is a wealth of mainstream, free, legal stuff out there everywhere.
mcculley 16y ago
As other replies have stated, I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of copyright protection of music versus any other IP. Copyright exists because it is intended to create social utility, a temporary monopoly guaranteed the creator and enforced by the government. I don't think social utility is served by Disney lobbying to get copyright terms extended every few decades so that nothing ever falls into the public domain. I don't think social utility is served by laws (e.g., DMCA) that disallow hackers from modifying their own hardware and showing others how to modify theirs. I'm just saying that when rich musicians protest that something must be done to prevent the death of the music industry, we should consider whether the music industry needs special protection.

Why exactly should their product be less deserving of copyright, protection and revenue than the websites/apps/iphone games/whatever everyone here makes, copyrights, and is trying to profit from?

lucisferre 16y ago

I suppose I could see your point if he had made the argument that it didn't deserve the same copyright software and apps get, except he didn't. AFAICT he simply said music will survive and perhaps implied copyright will likely change significantly in the coming decades.

benologist 16y ago
Let them die because historically it's just a recent trend that allowed only a few to get rich. How does that not exactly describe us and the internet, especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? The only difference between us and them is someone has to hack our servers to get our IP.
- DeusExMachina 16y ago
  especially when we leverage the same laws and protections? As we, do you mean a few big companies, patent trolls or the bigger set of startups? I'm not a lawyer or a big expert in startups, but it seems to me that the latter do not leverage copyright laws that much.

wdewind 16y ago

Copyright and protection: it shouldn't be. And Steve Jobs certainly isn't wrecking that, and legal free digital music certainly isn't either, just like open source and free apps aren't wrecking the software industry: they simply change the game. As for revenue: it's just the markets, not everyone gets to be an artist. There's too much music out there now for people to pay for. You can argue "there will always be a market for premium content" til you're blue in the face, it doesn't change the fact that no one agrees on what premium is.

tptacek 16y ago
You can't say pop music is deserving of copyright protection in one breath, rationalize copyright violation in the next breath, and claim to have a serious argument.
- wdewind 16y ago
  I think you misunderstood me, I never rationalized copyright violation I meant to imply that there isn't as much copyright violation going on as people assume. I also meant both should be copyrighted, and I agree that those who argue music doesn't deserve copyright while software does are hypocritical. But the fact that the music industry is failing (changing, whatever) right now can't only be the fault of piracy and copying. Along with those came a HUGE increase in the volume of media. Old institutions that confused themselves with being quality barriers were actually just distribution barriers operating in a drought. I support people's right to copyright their music and sell it, and sue those who copy it as well (edit: support as fairness within our system, overall I do think it sucks for both, but we don't live in a perfect world). But if people just aren't buying, maybe it's because there is a wealth of mainstream, free, legal stuff out there everywhere.

mcculley 16y ago

As other replies have stated, I'm not saying anything about the relative merits of copyright protection of music versus any other IP. Copyright exists because it is intended to create social utility, a temporary monopoly guaranteed the creator and enforced by the government. I don't think social utility is served by Disney lobbying to get copyright terms extended every few decades so that nothing ever falls into the public domain. I don't think social utility is served by laws (e.g., DMCA) that disallow hackers from modifying their own hardware and showing others how to modify theirs. I'm just saying that when rich musicians protest that something must be done to prevent the death of the music industry, we should consider whether the music industry needs special protection.