Does file-sharing demand a new economic model? (long)

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Music has been around as long as mankind. People even created music before copyright existed, as impossible as that might seem.

I think this represents a misunderstanding of history. Before copyrights were legally recgnized there were other things which kept people from copying artists works. First of all, there were no recordings. So there was a technological barrier to copying. Secondly, artists did not publish thier work. When Motzart or Bethoven wrote symphonies, they did not publish them in any way comparable to the way music is published today. I don’t mean that the evil record companies took over, I mean that in many ways, music was not available to most people.

Perhaps lawboy can point to some historical information about this.

[Snag]

For those who feel that the printed word is fairly safe from the digital revolution, here’s an interesting article I came across.

Dipping Into Books Online

Also, I wanted to clarify a point I have talked about which is the notion of a more altruistic system. A friend pointed out that what I’m calling altruism doesn’t exactly conform to the common usage of the word. Altruism is generally defined as being unselfish, where one cares less for their own welfare then that of others. As an example, one might consider a married couple’s feelings towards each other, or their children, where they would do anything for them, not expecting to be compensated.

My usage is a somewhat different definition of altruism, one that might be found in terms of social interaction or game theory where it is a strategy to foster co-operation, where one is willing to give up some direct benefits although there may be some reciprocal benefits. By some short-term sacrifice, they are motivated by a sort of citizenship where at least, they and everyone benefits by supporting the system. Furthermore, they realize that they may put themselves in a position to receive some occasional, indirect reimbursements, such as in the way of favors, opportunities to have others share resources, etc.

Let me also say that I am not advocating replacing a capitalistic system with something else. I’m simply suggesting the notion that we are now so connected through our technology that we may have new and better ways to cooperate. This may give us leverage to figure out how to reshape what are currently economic obstructions into advantages.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
And yes, it would even the case with your independents who “give away” their work. Do you seriously think that they are all going to give away all rights? Maybe a few will, but not many. Charging nothing for their work is not the same as giving away all rights, you know. I give away plenty of stuff on my websites, but I don’t give away all rights.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of artists today who distribute their work under terms like the Open Audio License, which give away just about every right I’m concerned with. Certainly, a lot of artists wouldn’t be satisfied with those terms… but oh well, there are a lot who would. Music wouldn’t go away, it would only change faces.

You’re missing the point: you act as if these changes you’d like will actually happen. But there’s probably zero chance of that happening, at least not remotely in the way you envision.

I’m sorry if I gave you that impression. Of course it will never happen! (I’ll consider it a miracle if Congress and Big Content stop extending copyright long enough to let even a single work pass into the public domain.)

It’s as unlikely as Libertaria, a worldwide abortion ban, a cloning-induced halt to evolution, or any of the other scenarios that are regularly tossed around GD. None of those will come to pass… yet they’re good for thinking about changes, and the consequences of changes, and how best to compromise between principles and the reality of self-interest.

If by some bizarre happenstance they are allowed to happen, there would definitely be consequences that probably you wouldn’t anticipate, and trust me, you won’t like these consequences at all.

More likely, I’d like some and dislike others. Some people would be better off, and some would be worse off, just like any change of policy.

Originally posted by pervert
I think this represents a misunderstanding of history. Before copyrights were legally recgnized there were other things which kept people from copying artists works. First of all, there were no recordings. So there was a technological barrier to copying. Secondly, artists did not publish thier work. When Motzart or Bethoven wrote symphonies, they did not publish them in any way comparable to the way music is published today. I don’t mean that the evil record companies took over, I mean that in many ways, music was not available to most people.

Entire histories have been passed down without writing… surely some songs made the cut as well. Some folk songs have been around for centuries, and who knows how many used to exist that have simply been forgotten? Symphonies and grand performances may not have been available to most people, but I cannot believe there was no music at all.

[netscape_6]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
Some space shifting is probably not fair use, some is. I have no problem with taping a CD to play in the car, or copying a CD as a “backup.” I don’t even have a problem with sharing samples of a CD with a few friends,*

I don’t think space-shifting includes giving a copy to anyone else anymore then a modem includes file sharing. Space-shifting would seem to be required to give a friend a copy just as a modem would be required for filesharing*. However a modem is not file sharing.
*not all file sharing is bad. I use it to get linux isos for example. it’s a tool like a pocket knife. Some uses are good some bad. The conversion of the linux iso to cd is an example of space-shifting btw

[netscape_6]

ugh hit post instead of preview.

The part that did not make it:
Space-shifting is not giving copies to friends.

[netscape_6]

*Originally posted by pervert *
** I mean that in many ways, music was not available to most people.
**

Alot of people either played their own or knew someone who did. Before Phonographs that was the only way you would hear it.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
There are hundreds, if not thousands of artists today who distribute their work under terms like the Open Audio License, which give away just about every right I’m concerned with.

"Hundreds if not thousands?" Ooooohh. I’m so impressed. “Maybe” thousands. And we’re just talking music here, you don’t have anything for writers or visual artists.

Certainly, a lot of artists wouldn’t be satisfied with those terms… but oh well, there are a lot who would.

More like a lot who wouldn’t. They probably would not stop creating, but they’d restrict what they released. Because they can’t sustain themselves by giving their work away to a bunch of ungrateful leeches who think that creative work is worth $0.

But hey! This is all just a bunch of navel gazing, because you already know that it will never happen.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**There are hundreds, if not thousands of artists today who distribute their work under terms like the Open Audio License, **

Well, a brief perusal of Open Music Registry shows 116 artists. While some of them are certainly groups, so that some names are actually more than one artist, I don’t think it can be stretched to thousands. Perhaps you have another cite to back up such a hopeful assertion?

And just so we are all clear, the OAL seems to rely on copyrights. It requires that any derived works be attributed to their original authors and that they also be released under the OAL. The ONLY enforcement tool for this is the current copyright law. And more specifically that the original author “retains the copyrights to works released under this license”

**Symphonies and grand performances may not have been available to most people, but I cannot believe there was no music at all. **

Certainly there was music. Just as there were technological developments. Anyone else remember how we got our food back then? Anyone like to go back to those good old days? The point being that you can expand the definition of music to fit just about anything. Anthropoligists like to describe our ancestors banging rocks together. While in a certain sense “music”, I’d hate to forego future Mozarts in favor of “The greatest hits of OG!”.

As long as we are on this track, however, I’d like to point out that nothing in the copyright act prevents Og or anyone else from playing folk music. It does not (as I suggested above) prevent artists who want to licensing their music for free. All it does is allow those artists who like to own their own labor to do so.

Now, we can certainly argue about how long the copyright term should be. We can certainly discuss the possibilities that the digital age requires new business models. But we won’t get anywhere blathering on about how copyrights are tyranical or stifling.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by netscape 6 *
**Alot of people either played their own or knew someone who did. Before Phonographs that was the only way you would hear it. **

Exactly. There was a technological barrier to copying someone else’s music. I propose this was one of the reasons why professional musicians were few and far between byu comparison to today’s standards. Virtually everyone has the option to listen to music almos all day long. I am proposing that the concept of copyrights have brought about (or at least was instrumental in) this musical popularization. And that therefore we would do well not to throw it out.

[netscape_6]

*Originally posted by pervert *
**Exactly. There was a technological barrier to copying someone else’s music.
**

No there was not. Human memory was where the, for lack of a better word, files were stored. The only limiting factor was someone’s memory and playing ability.

*Originally posted by pervert *
**I propose this was one of the reasons why professional musicians were few and far between byu comparison to today’s standards.
**

There were alot more amatures though, alot of them were pretty good too.

*Originally posted by pervert *
**Virtually everyone has the option to listen to music almos all day long. I am proposing that the concept of copyrights have brought about (or at least was instrumental in) this musical popularization. And that therefore we would do well not to throw it out. **

People like music, they liked it before phonographs and copyrights. It was quite popular then. I don’t doubt they would have listened to it just as much if not more then people do now, had the technology existed.

[Snag]

Many professional composers and performers a couple centuries ago were sponsored by royalty or the well to do, so the ownership of a song wasn’t such a big deal. They were taken care of so long as they did their job to the satisfaction of the sponsor.

If someone were stealing your songs and performing them a hundred miles away, it didn’t matter so much because, who knew? Only the people at the performance. That musician’s sponsor took care of him or her too.

Amateurs rarely lived off of their musical output, they simply did it for enjoyment at the end of the day. Perhaps they saw some trivial profit.

Copyrights protecting music infringements came into their own when the information for a song was printed on sheet music and sold without the authors consent to great numbers of parlor musicians. When Stephen Foster, the eminent popular songwriter of his day, died penniless performing societies began enforcing copyrights on sheet music for musicians royalties.

By the way, shouldn’t ASCAP and BMI be handing out royalties to musicians for downloads? If not, why not?

[pervert]

Snag said it better, but I already typed this up, so I’m posting it.

*Originally posted by netscape 6 *
No there was not. Human memory was where the, for lack of a better word, files were stored. The only limiting factor was someone’s memory and playing ability.

Right. This is exactly what I was talking about. The only people capable of copying music were those who could listen to it and play it from memory. I don’t know how rare you think this is, but I think it is quite rare indeed. More rare than simple talent to play an instrument.

There were alot more amatures though, alot of them were pretty good too.

More amatures than there are today? Do you recall from history what life was like a couple hundred years ago? There were very few high school students much less high school students who fancied themselves as rock stars. And BTW, there were no rock stars to speak of. I don’t simply mean that rock music did not exist, I mean that extremely few people had any fame or success by practicing music. So there was virtually no incentive for people to practice seriously.

So, yes, there wer amatures. But no, there were not more of them. And those that were around were certainly not comparable to proffesional musicians.

**People like music, they liked it before phonographs and copyrights. It was quite popular then. I don’t doubt they would have listened to it just as much if not more then people do now, had the technology existed. **

Well, I don’t think so at all. Musical choices were quite a bit more limited than they are now. Look at the amount of music people enjoy now and remember that it competes with other far more enticing forms of entertainment.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
"Hundreds if not thousands?" Ooooohh. I’m so impressed. “Maybe” thousands.

That’s more artists than I have music by. And that’s just the size of a tiny fringe group today - who knows how many artists who currently distribute their work under other terms would be willing to distribute them under a license like the OAL. (Even you don’t know, but I doubt that will stop you from offering a pessimistic guess.)

Because they can’t sustain themselves by giving their work away to a bunch of ungrateful leeches who think that creative work is worth $0.

Well, good thing there aren’t a bunch of ungrateful leeches copying their work today, or I guess none of those artists would be able to sustain themselves.

But hey! This is all just a bunch of navel gazing, because you already know that it will never happen.

Yes… while some of us would rather gloat about the rights we have under today’s unbalanced copyright law than consider fixing the system, or even admit that the system is unbalanced… I must admit that pondering a future where there is no copyright is just the opposite extreme.

If you are willing to consider a realistic compromise, one that would reduce (but not eliminate) artists’ rights, then so will I.

Originally posted by pervert
Well, a brief perusal of Open Music Registry shows 116 artists. While some of them are certainly groups, so that some names are actually more than one artist, I don’t think it can be stretched to thousands. Perhaps you have another cite to back up such a hopeful assertion?

No, I seem to have misread the figures I found. Mea culpa. Still, I’m pleased that even 116 artists (of which I recognize at least one) are listed there.

And just so we are all clear, the OAL seems to rely on copyrights. It requires that any derived works be attributed to their original authors and that they also be released under the OAL. The ONLY enforcement tool for this is the current copyright law. And more specifically that the original author "retains the copyrights to works released under this license"

Of course, copyright is necessary to enforce those terms today, just like it’s necessary to enforce the GPL. But those terms could just as easily be codified into law, replacing copyright as we know it.

Retaining the copyright is little more than a legal footnote when they have already given the public “authorization to freely access, copy, distribute, modify, create derivative works from, and publicly perform the work” by releasing it under the OAL. At that point, copyright isn’t useful for much more than going after people who violate the OAL (e.g. creating derived works and refusing to let others copy them).

As long as we are on this track, however, I’d like to point out that nothing in the copyright act prevents Og or anyone else from playing folk music.

Nope, because that music was fortunate enough to be created before modern copyright laws. Two hundred years from now, will anyone be allowed to play any of the music we enjoy today? At this rate, it doesn’t seem like they will.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**If you are willing to consider a realistic compromise, one that would reduce (but not eliminate) artists’ rights, then so will I.

Nope, because that music was fortunate enough to be created before modern copyright laws. Two hundred years from now, will anyone be allowed to play any of the music we enjoy today? At this rate, it doesn’t seem like they will. **

I’m sorry, but has anyone in here said that they agree with the extensions put into place by the Mickey Mouse laws or supported by the RIAA? I thought our whole argument centered around assuming that a shorter period of monopoly was best. Or were you dishonest in that?

Just for the record, I was not talking about repeating folk music that had already been created. I was talking about creating new folk music or all sorts. Your link proves that the current copyright laws do not prevent the creation of new music.

[pervert]

Ooh. I should have included a <snip> inbetween the two paragraphs I quoted of [bMr2001**'s in that last post. They were seperate parts of his post. Sorry about the confusion.

[jadagul]

pervert and yosemitebabe: thank you, you understood my suggestion in exactly the sense I meant it. That’s why the idea wasn’t aimed at you–I think we basically agree already. I was sort of more looking for an answer from one of the ‘I can do whatever I want with something I’ve bought’ people; if they said signing that contract was okay, your elaborations of my post were exactly where I was going to go.

So, for those of you who don’t like the copyright–would you object to that scheme? If not, is there a difference other than the expected practice?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
That’s more artists than I have music by.

You don’t have music by any more than 116 artists? Honey, that’s not a lot.

And that’s just the size of a tiny fringe group today - who knows how many artists who currently distribute their work under other terms would be willing to distribute them under a license like the OAL. (Even you don’t know, but I doubt that will stop you from offering a pessimistic guess.)

You still have not provided me with a list of writers and visual artists who would willingly give away all rights. Where are they?

I’m not impressed by your sole site. And, unlike you, I am a little more familiar with the mindset of many artists. I don’t think they’ll be lining up to give up all rights. Oh, some will, but not many. And of those who will, I doubt few would give up the rights to every single thing they’ve ever created in their whole life.

Do these 116 artists you cite give up rights to every single thing they’ve ever created? Is their entire body of work listed in your site? Do you know?

It’s one thing to cherry pick a few pieces here and there to “give away,” but I daresay that it would be a rare person indeed who would give it all away.

Well, good thing there aren’t a bunch of ungrateful leeches copying their work today, or I guess none of those artists would be able to sustain themselves.

And let me ask: do any of these 116 artists make a living soley off of their work? By giving away every single piece of work they’ve ever created in their whole life?

That’s something I’d like to know.

Yes… while some of us would rather gloat about the rights we have under today’s unbalanced copyright law than consider fixing the system, or even admit that the system is unbalanced… I must admit that pondering a future where there is no copyright is just the opposite extreme.

Mwahaahahaha!!!

Now that made my freakin’ day. Thank you for that.

“Unbalanced copyright.” Yeah, I know. It’s such a tragedy. It’s such a travesty that creative people get to actually have rights over the stuff that they created. Those evil artists who feel entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, who think that the stuff in their house is theirs. The people who think that when they take photos to be developed, the photos are theirs and should not be “shared” to the world by the workers in the photo labs.

Oh yeah, those evil, greedy people who hoard their own work and won’t let everyone else on the planet share copies of it—oh yes! (insert evil manical laugh here) yes, yes, yes! We will keep on “hoarding” our own stuff! Mwahahahaha!

If you are willing to consider a realistic compromise, one that would reduce (but not eliminate) artists’ rights, then so will I.

I’m sorry, but trying to be as polite as I possibly can, some of your desires regarding this subject are just way off of the chart. I don’t have any inclination to talk “compromise” with someone who seriously believes that it would be a good thing to be able to take stuff out of other people’s houses and “share it” with the world, against the artists’ wishes. That’s whacked. I also have no desire to discuss “compromise” with someone who seriously uses the term “hoard” to describe an artist who does not want to be forced to “share” their creative works with the world, as in, “They should not be** allowed** to hoard their work.” That, also, is whacked.

Alas, we’re going down old territory here so I’ll just leave it at that. Suffice it to say, it’ll take me a long time to forget some of these previously (and vigorously) defended whacked-out notions.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
"Unbalanced copyright." Yeah, I know. It’s such a tragedy. It’s such a travesty that creative people get to actually have rights over the stuff that they created.

If I may play mediator for a second (yea, I know, everyone hates it when I do this) I’m not sure Mr2001 meant what you ascribe to him in this portion of his post. If I may take the liberty, Mr2001, I think he was talking explicitly about the recent increases in the time that copyrights apply. If I am not mistaken, they were recently extended to almost 100 years. I may be underestimating this. If taken in the context of the recent decisions to extend the period, they are effectively unlimited. As long as Disney et. al. continue to ask that Micky Mous continue to be copyrighted, the Congress seems to have zero inclination to deny them. Recently, of course, the Supreme Court said that as long as Congress does not say explicitly that copyrights are extended indeffinately, then they have not violated the Constitution.

So, the question is, would you be opposed to reducing the period that a copyright could be extended to 10, 20, 40 years?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by pervert *
If I may play mediator for a second (yea, I know, everyone hates it when I do this) I’m not sure Mr2001 meant what you ascribe to him in this portion of his post. If I may take the liberty, Mr2001, I think he was talking explicitly about the recent increases in the time that copyrights apply.

Yes, I am aware that is part of his complaint. But the whacked out aspect of “hoarding” art and thinking that it would be okay to copy work from a private home to “share” with the world is beyond bizarre and as far as I am concerned seriously damages any credibility he might have had in this matter.

So, the question is, would you be opposed to reducing the period that a copyright could be extended to 10, 20, 40 years?

I’m not sure what specifically you’re asking, but overall, I think that copyright should last at least the life of the artist, and probably some years afterwards, to benefit the heirs. Now, if you wanted to propose a scheme where copyright holders had to apply for extensions (so only those who were active in keeping their copyright would get it extended), well, that probably would be fine for the most part. That way, any work that was truly “abandoned” could be up for grabs. But I don’t think that it is wrong for a copyright holder to (as Mr2001 puts it) to “hoard” their own work, especially during their own lifetime. It’s their work, dammit, and they can and should be able to have control over it while they are still on this earth.

I also don’t think it’s horrible for the spouse or children of a copyright holder to be able to receive royalties for a while after the copyright holder’s death, though I do realize that in some cases this wouldn’t probably be needed. (I wouldn’t cry buckets of tears if the 50-year-old heir of a dead copyright holder could no longer receive royalties, for instance.) But, if a young mother or father dies and leaves valuable IP, I hope that the royalties would help pay for their kids’ support, rather than automatically being free for all. It would seem obscene to me to see the family of a recently deceased copyright holder scrape by while the valuable IP is being sold by publishing houses or music distributors and whatnot.

To that, many have responded with, “Boo hoo hoo. The owner of the IP should have gotten a real job.” Which, of course, gets down to the crux of it: some people don’t think that IP is real work. They have a latent contempt for the creator of the IP, but yet are outraged if this creator “hoards” their own work.

:shrug: All I can say is that I am damned glad that such a scenario will never happen, and yes, I am gloating that owners of IP will never have to see their own work given up to the public domain within their lifetime. The fact that Stephen Foster (whose music I love) died penniless is rather appalling to me, and I’m glad that such days will not be repeated, at least not anytime soon.

[pervert]

Well, I think we need to have a minimum amount of years. If you are going to get a publisher to invest in a book, for instance, he needs to know that he is investing in property. That is, he has to be sure that even if the author dies 2 days after 10,000 books are printed they still have rights to sell the book. I can find a good deal of reason in the suggestion that it should last for the authors life. I’m not personally sure if “life plus X years” or a “life or X years whichever is longer” policy is better. I am also ambivalent on whether an author can extend the copyright, nor whether it should be assumed or he has to apply to get the copyright. In any event, the recent extensions seem to be excessive.

They certainly pose a problem with software. Copying books or music seems to be somewhat straightforward. That is, it is not difficult to tell when someone has copied a complete work. Software seems to have problems. Given that there are many ways to write a program to do the exact same job, there seems to be some confusion as to what (or what should) constitute a partial copy of a work.

But I agree that discarding the copyright system in toto would be a terrible mistake.