4 ms·

how is it different from say, a book?

by dharma1 12y ago

graylights 12y ago
Well plenty of books are the same. Meant to be consumed, used up and then just take space. But a quality reference book doesn't really have an analogue in music. That book can be a key tool to someone performing their profession. This applies even in a digital medium.
- dharma1 12y ago
  Music usually performs a different function to non-fiction books in terms of conveying practical information, but an analogue for a quality reference book could be an original composition recorded by a master musician/composer. That recording can be a key tool to a another musician or composer learning her trade, no? Whether the book or recording is digital or not doesn't really matter
Zigurd 12y ago
That's the question, isn't it: Copyright became mainstream in the era of books, printed sheet music, and other publishable symbolic encoding of information. Performances were not protectable. Why do you think a recorded performance of a work should be protectable under copyright? It's NOT an original work of the intellect. It's a performance of what is often someone else's work. Just because it is recorded, should it be protected? Does the technological innovation of recording make it protect-able? And, if so, shouldn't the technological innovation of infinite copies at zero marginal cost make performances un-protectable?
- dharma1 12y ago
  There is plenty of music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music, and is original work of the intellect. I don't see any difference in a book and an original music recording in terms of why one should be subject to copyright and one not. Whether recordings or books are protectable in practice is another matter, as it is very easy to make digital copies of both. But if one takes the stand that an author of a book (be it an e-book or a printed one) has the right to set a price for a copy for her work, and benefit from protection by copyright if she so chooses to, I don't see how a recording of an original piece of music is any different.
  - Zigurd 12y ago
    I would be happy to limit copyright protection to recordings of "music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music." Despite the fact that I've been published by several major book publishers and I'm a "real" author with representation and the whole nine yards, I have not defended the continuing copyright protection of the written word, either. One of my publishers uses no copy protection (except for Kindle where they have no choice), and they distribute a large part of their backlist for free. The whole notion of copyright and publishing needs a rethink. Some publishers are farther along this path than others.

how is it different from say, a book?

by dharma1 12y ago

how is it different from say, a book?

Well plenty of books are the same. Meant to be consumed, used up and then just take space. But a quality reference book doesn't really have an analogue in music. That book can be a key tool to someone performing their profession. This applies even in a digital medium.

dharma1 12y ago
Music usually performs a different function to non-fiction books in terms of conveying practical information, but an analogue for a quality reference book could be an original composition recorded by a master musician/composer. That recording can be a key tool to a another musician or composer learning her trade, no? Whether the book or recording is digital or not doesn't really matter

Zigurd 12y ago

That's the question, isn't it: Copyright became mainstream in the era of books, printed sheet music, and other publishable symbolic encoding of information. Performances were not protectable. Why do you think a recorded performance of a work should be protectable under copyright? It's NOT an original work of the intellect. It's a performance of what is often someone else's work. Just because it is recorded, should it be protected? Does the technological innovation of recording make it protect-able? And, if so, shouldn't the technological innovation of infinite copies at zero marginal cost make performances un-protectable?

dharma1 12y ago
There is plenty of music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music, and is original work of the intellect. I don't see any difference in a book and an original music recording in terms of why one should be subject to copyright and one not. Whether recordings or books are protectable in practice is another matter, as it is very easy to make digital copies of both. But if one takes the stand that an author of a book (be it an e-book or a printed one) has the right to set a price for a copy for her work, and benefit from protection by copyright if she so chooses to, I don't see how a recording of an original piece of music is any different.
- Zigurd 12y ago
  I would be happy to limit copyright protection to recordings of "music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music." Despite the fact that I've been published by several major book publishers and I'm a "real" author with representation and the whole nine yards, I have not defended the continuing copyright protection of the written word, either. One of my publishers uses no copy protection (except for Kindle where they have no choice), and they distribute a large part of their backlist for free. The whole notion of copyright and publishing needs a rethink. Some publishers are farther along this path than others.