6 ms·

The system sure seems to have created a ton of music. I know many people who have benefited from being able to actually earn money from their work and would str

The system sure seems to have created a ton of music. I know many people who have benefited from being able to actually earn money from their work and would strongly disagree with you. I respect your opinion, but that is all you have written here, your opinion, not some great truth about copyright.

dcow 4y ago
You present a false assertion: that owning the copyright is a predicate to receiving money for creative works.
- falcolas 4y ago
  It is. You sell your music for $1. I sell your music (but without copyright, it's my music, really) for $0.50 in all the same locations as you do. I'll win any race to the bottom, because my cost in time is absolutely less than yours in the effort to sell my music.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Don't most artists make the majority of their money from live performances, not recording contracts?
    - falcolas 4y ago
      No. Most artists by quantity don't do live performances. And live performances are a lot of work for not a lot of money, unless you're Taylor Swift or one of her peers. Ticket sales end up getting split about 20 different ways. For example, Miracle of Sound doesn't do live performances, because his music is all electronic and created by one person. Plus, I can take my music and do "live" performances of it too. I can also hire folks (say, DJ's) to do these "live" performances on my behalf.
    - coldtea 4y ago
      Lives were traditionally a loss leader for album sales for the majority of artists (to get their name out). Some big names with big followings that charge a premium do make profitable tours, but those are the exception.
  - ginsider_oaks 4y ago
    I'd like to present a counterexample: SNKRX[1]. It costs 3€ and is under the MIT license, you can find it on github[2]. It sold >100,000 units[3], and AFAIK no one's massively undercut the author. I guess he's kind of undercutting himself by making it available on github, but I bet most people would rather pay 3€ and have nice steam features than download and compile a game off a site they likely don't know. And yes, I do realize he's still the copyright holder for SNKRX, but he's not really enforcing it with a permissive license like MIT. [1]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/915310/SNKRX/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/915310/SNKRX/ [2]: https://github.com/a327ex/SNKRX https://github.com/a327ex/SNKRX [3]: https://www.a327ex.com/posts/2022/ https://www.a327ex.com/posts/2022/
    - falcolas 4y ago
      Cool! I'll change a few strings and sell it under a public license on Steam and itch.io and the Epic Game Store for 1€, under a slightly different name. Maybe SNKRF. Probably see if I can compile it for mobile and throw it up for free on the app stores with tons of ads. The OC can spend their time on the updates, and I'll spend my time on marketing the new version. I'd probably want to report the original as a clone, because I can and it could help boost my own version's rankings. If the OC wants to fight that, it's his time, so cool. And should the OC actually succeed in getting that clone off the store, the other 10 I've put up while they're busy fighting against the first clone can take its place easily enough. After all, without IP - without copyright - it's mine to sell however I want to. Nobody can stop me, nobody can even really chastise me because nothing was taken and nothing was lost. That copyright you're dismissing is worth a lot. It states that it is, indeed, the owners' work. It raises potential legal ownership issues with the compiled work (which isn't under the same license as the code) and store listings. Even if he's not actively using it, it's still busy protecting his work.
      - dannyobrien 4y ago
        Well, first, let's note that you can do all of those things now, legally. It's MIT licensed. If your argument is that without a strong intellectual property discipline in place, this would inevitably happen, your burden is to explain why this isn't happening. Some potential arguments you might use are that it does happen, and will happen eventually to this project, that it's simply a matter of time. Another is that it currently isn't worth it for the amount of work you might put into doing this for this project, but as soon as it is worth something, it will be. Which implies in this case, the cost of all of this activity would not be covered by the return, even if you didn't have to pay the creator. There's almost certainly a market efficiency in scaling up this packaging activity -- so that the original creator could give up some of his copyrights to pay someone to do the packaging, as long as that packager is doing it for lots and lots of other projects. That's how IP really works. But in a world of explosive creative access -- where making copies, and creating works is extremely popular and hypercompetitive, the chances are that copyright as a sellable, alienable right isn't going to be the thing that pulls in the money for the artists. It's a thing that maybe you speculatively sell to that large-scale packager, that promoter, in a buyer's market, for a vanishingly small amount. Which makes the contrast between a world without copyright, and a world with, far less diabolically opposed. IP gets you a pittance, but for the vast majority of artists, it's not nearly enough. It may actually be kind of cruel to incentivize artists to produce with an endlessly drawn out false promise of IP riches. Could we do better? Well, one thing is that we could stop what you're describing without an alienable right to copy, more like a system to prevent the kind of fraud or misrepresentation you describe. There are components of this in our existing creative incentive laws, but they're actually some of the least "property"-like attributes, and do not revolve around making copies -- moral authorship, some elements of trademark. But it involves a lot of work to try and reform our outlook to come out with policies that genuinely rewards artists and enables innovation. I don't see it arising from those praising current intellectual property models, and arguing for their expansion.
jerojero 4y ago
Is it the system, or is it the access to technology and education? Tools like the internet allow pretty much anyone to learn so much about how to make music and not only that but being able to publish your music very easily as well as forming communities, meeting other artists, etc. I'm not sure if it's copyright that has really allowed for music to flourish, I think that's a claim that requires a bit more research behind it.
Rochus 4y ago
It's not just an opinion; I'm a musician myself and had many production contracts in the past; I also studied law and am well familiar with the business and the legal issues. There are indeed some people who were able to make a good living from the money they received from the copyright collecting society, though they are a small minority; all musicians I know who are members of a copyright collecting society get a few hundered Swiss francs a year and don't live from their music. Some years ago I analyzed the yearly business report of SUISA, the Swiss copyright collecting society responsible for musicians, and found that of the 120'000'000 CHF payed by the society only one sixth was given to Swiss composers ("Urheber"), and that the probability of any of those composers would get enough money from SUISA to make a decent living is less than 0.1%; for comparison, the probability of being seriously injured or killed in a traffic accident in Switzerland is > 0.2%; the vast majority (> 97%) gets nothing to less than 1900 CHF. In comparison the administrative cost to run SUISA in the same year was 26 mio CHF (compared to the 20 mio CHF payed to musicians), and the publishers received 54 mio CHF. SUISA payed ~19 mio CHF to their 166 employees; in 2006 357'000 CHF was payed to the director alone.
coldtea 4y ago
>The system sure seems to have created a ton of music Because of it, or in spite of it?

dcow 4y ago

You present a false assertion: that owning the copyright is a predicate to receiving money for creative works.

falcolas 4y ago
It is. You sell your music for $1. I sell your music (but without copyright, it's my music, really) for $0.50 in all the same locations as you do. I'll win any race to the bottom, because my cost in time is absolutely less than yours in the effort to sell my music.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Don't most artists make the majority of their money from live performances, not recording contracts?
  - falcolas 4y ago
    No. Most artists by quantity don't do live performances. And live performances are a lot of work for not a lot of money, unless you're Taylor Swift or one of her peers. Ticket sales end up getting split about 20 different ways. For example, Miracle of Sound doesn't do live performances, because his music is all electronic and created by one person. Plus, I can take my music and do "live" performances of it too. I can also hire folks (say, DJ's) to do these "live" performances on my behalf.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    Lives were traditionally a loss leader for album sales for the majority of artists (to get their name out). Some big names with big followings that charge a premium do make profitable tours, but those are the exception.
- ginsider_oaks 4y ago
  I'd like to present a counterexample: SNKRX[1]. It costs 3€ and is under the MIT license, you can find it on github[2]. It sold >100,000 units[3], and AFAIK no one's massively undercut the author. I guess he's kind of undercutting himself by making it available on github, but I bet most people would rather pay 3€ and have nice steam features than download and compile a game off a site they likely don't know. And yes, I do realize he's still the copyright holder for SNKRX, but he's not really enforcing it with a permissive license like MIT. [1]: https://store.steampowered.com/app/915310/SNKRX/ https://store.steampowered.com/app/915310/SNKRX/ [2]: https://github.com/a327ex/SNKRX https://github.com/a327ex/SNKRX [3]: https://www.a327ex.com/posts/2022/ https://www.a327ex.com/posts/2022/
  - falcolas 4y ago
    Cool! I'll change a few strings and sell it under a public license on Steam and itch.io and the Epic Game Store for 1€, under a slightly different name. Maybe SNKRF. Probably see if I can compile it for mobile and throw it up for free on the app stores with tons of ads. The OC can spend their time on the updates, and I'll spend my time on marketing the new version. I'd probably want to report the original as a clone, because I can and it could help boost my own version's rankings. If the OC wants to fight that, it's his time, so cool. And should the OC actually succeed in getting that clone off the store, the other 10 I've put up while they're busy fighting against the first clone can take its place easily enough. After all, without IP - without copyright - it's mine to sell however I want to. Nobody can stop me, nobody can even really chastise me because nothing was taken and nothing was lost. That copyright you're dismissing is worth a lot. It states that it is, indeed, the owners' work. It raises potential legal ownership issues with the compiled work (which isn't under the same license as the code) and store listings. Even if he's not actively using it, it's still busy protecting his work.
    - dannyobrien 4y ago
      Well, first, let's note that you can do all of those things now, legally. It's MIT licensed. If your argument is that without a strong intellectual property discipline in place, this would inevitably happen, your burden is to explain why this isn't happening. Some potential arguments you might use are that it does happen, and will happen eventually to this project, that it's simply a matter of time. Another is that it currently isn't worth it for the amount of work you might put into doing this for this project, but as soon as it is worth something, it will be. Which implies in this case, the cost of all of this activity would not be covered by the return, even if you didn't have to pay the creator. There's almost certainly a market efficiency in scaling up this packaging activity -- so that the original creator could give up some of his copyrights to pay someone to do the packaging, as long as that packager is doing it for lots and lots of other projects. That's how IP really works. But in a world of explosive creative access -- where making copies, and creating works is extremely popular and hypercompetitive, the chances are that copyright as a sellable, alienable right isn't going to be the thing that pulls in the money for the artists. It's a thing that maybe you speculatively sell to that large-scale packager, that promoter, in a buyer's market, for a vanishingly small amount. Which makes the contrast between a world without copyright, and a world with, far less diabolically opposed. IP gets you a pittance, but for the vast majority of artists, it's not nearly enough. It may actually be kind of cruel to incentivize artists to produce with an endlessly drawn out false promise of IP riches. Could we do better? Well, one thing is that we could stop what you're describing without an alienable right to copy, more like a system to prevent the kind of fraud or misrepresentation you describe. There are components of this in our existing creative incentive laws, but they're actually some of the least "property"-like attributes, and do not revolve around making copies -- moral authorship, some elements of trademark. But it involves a lot of work to try and reform our outlook to come out with policies that genuinely rewards artists and enables innovation. I don't see it arising from those praising current intellectual property models, and arguing for their expansion.

jerojero 4y ago

Is it the system, or is it the access to technology and education? Tools like the internet allow pretty much anyone to learn so much about how to make music and not only that but being able to publish your music very easily as well as forming communities, meeting other artists, etc. I'm not sure if it's copyright that has really allowed for music to flourish, I think that's a claim that requires a bit more research behind it.

Rochus 4y ago

It's not just an opinion; I'm a musician myself and had many production contracts in the past; I also studied law and am well familiar with the business and the legal issues. There are indeed some people who were able to make a good living from the money they received from the copyright collecting society, though they are a small minority; all musicians I know who are members of a copyright collecting society get a few hundered Swiss francs a year and don't live from their music. Some years ago I analyzed the yearly business report of SUISA, the Swiss copyright collecting society responsible for musicians, and found that of the 120'000'000 CHF payed by the society only one sixth was given to Swiss composers ("Urheber"), and that the probability of any of those composers would get enough money from SUISA to make a decent living is less than 0.1%; for comparison, the probability of being seriously injured or killed in a traffic accident in Switzerland is > 0.2%; the vast majority (> 97%) gets nothing to less than 1900 CHF. In comparison the administrative cost to run SUISA in the same year was 26 mio CHF (compared to the 20 mio CHF payed to musicians), and the publishers received 54 mio CHF. SUISA payed ~19 mio CHF to their 166 employees; in 2006 357'000 CHF was payed to the director alone.

coldtea 4y ago

>The system sure seems to have created a ton of music Because of it, or in spite of it?