4 ms·

I hesitate to post this, because I think current copyright law is ridiculous, as is SOPA, and I love mash-ups and mix-culture, etc. But.. the fact of the matte

I hesitate to post this, because I think current copyright law is ridiculous, as is SOPA, and I love mash-ups and mix-culture, etc. But.. the fact of the matter is that for music at least, I'm pretty sure that without copyright in the early days, we would never have had the variety and originality we've seen over the past 100 years or so. I remember an anecdote about the Rolling Stones, that they only started writing originals when they realized they could make money off of the publishing. I also notice that lots of early church hymns and political songs were merely new sets of lyrics put on the same melody over and over again. There was no incentive to make new melodies, so people reused. It was a far cry from the diversity we see in music today. People are pretty much forced to make something new all the time. That said, I love artists like Girl Talk, etc. I just don't know where the right line is.

econlaws 15y ago
There was an awful lot of great variety and originality in music in the few centuries before music copyright was enforced as strongly as it is today. Mozart, among others, did make a lot of derivative music but much of that was (and still is) earth-shatteringly fantastic, like most art (and code for that matter) that builds on existing work. Popular music would survive very well with much reduced copyright laws in the same way that fashion survives today. Jungle -> Drum and Bass -> Grime -> Dubstep, no one wants to listen to the previous trend - pay for access to the latest, pay for it as it comes out, pay for concerts and live events - there are lots of models that would leave music thriving if publishing rights went away tomorrow.
icebraining 15y ago
I'm pretty sure that without copyright in the early days, we would never have had the variety and originality we've seen over the past 100 years or so But that's not the question, is it? Conditions have changed, and hence we need to evaluate if copyright still makes sense, regardless of whatever benefits it brought in the past.
- michaelfeathers 15y ago
  That's fair. I think we get too bent out of shape trying to figure out what is right for all time.
elwin 15y ago
> I also notice that lots of early church hymns and political songs were merely new sets of lyrics put on the same melody over and over again. That's because those songs were meant to be singable by everyone, most of whom had no formal musical training. Tunes were reused because people could start singing the new lyrics right away if they were already familiar with the melody.
billpatrianakos 15y ago
It sucks that we have to qualify our opinions around here with "I'm against SOPA and copyright sucks but...". I wish we could just make a point without having to deal with fanatics jumping the gun and making opinions into something they're not. Let's all remember that there are little subtle nuances to everything. It's as if you felt like if you didn't qualify your opinion like that someone would automatically call you out saying "oh so you're in favor of SOPA, the death of the Internet, all our human rights, and you drink the blood of freshly slaughtered puppies! I'm downvoting you!". I don't know, at least that's how I feel whenever the copyright issue gets brought up around here.

econlaws 15y ago

There was an awful lot of great variety and originality in music in the few centuries before music copyright was enforced as strongly as it is today. Mozart, among others, did make a lot of derivative music but much of that was (and still is) earth-shatteringly fantastic, like most art (and code for that matter) that builds on existing work. Popular music would survive very well with much reduced copyright laws in the same way that fashion survives today. Jungle -> Drum and Bass -> Grime -> Dubstep, no one wants to listen to the previous trend - pay for access to the latest, pay for it as it comes out, pay for concerts and live events - there are lots of models that would leave music thriving if publishing rights went away tomorrow.

icebraining 15y ago

I'm pretty sure that without copyright in the early days, we would never have had the variety and originality we've seen over the past 100 years or so But that's not the question, is it? Conditions have changed, and hence we need to evaluate if copyright still makes sense, regardless of whatever benefits it brought in the past.

michaelfeathers 15y ago
That's fair. I think we get too bent out of shape trying to figure out what is right for all time.

elwin 15y ago

> I also notice that lots of early church hymns and political songs were merely new sets of lyrics put on the same melody over and over again. That's because those songs were meant to be singable by everyone, most of whom had no formal musical training. Tunes were reused because people could start singing the new lyrics right away if they were already familiar with the melody.

billpatrianakos 15y ago

It sucks that we have to qualify our opinions around here with "I'm against SOPA and copyright sucks but...". I wish we could just make a point without having to deal with fanatics jumping the gun and making opinions into something they're not. Let's all remember that there are little subtle nuances to everything. It's as if you felt like if you didn't qualify your opinion like that someone would automatically call you out saying "oh so you're in favor of SOPA, the death of the Internet, all our human rights, and you drink the blood of freshly slaughtered puppies! I'm downvoting you!". I don't know, at least that's how I feel whenever the copyright issue gets brought up around here.