Copyright (or not?) in creative businesses

[peter5992]

Good afternoon everyone:

Here's an interesting presentation about other creative industries - notably the fashion industry - and how they apparently are able to survive quite well without copyright.

http://www.wimp.com/freeculture/

Food for thought.

Peter
http://www.summeroflovemusic.com

ps for the avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating that copyright should be diminished or abolished for the music business - we'd be all out of business if that were to happen.

[jonathanm]

In the fashion industry, you don't have the situation that exists in music, where every single consumer has the capability to exactly replicate and widely distribute someone else's work at no cost to themselves.

[onglee]

i saw this presentation a while back. though i enjoyed it very much, it cannot be applied to music unless:

- you are okay with listening to a song with a tag every other ten seconds (audio version of a visual logo)
- you are okay with paying a premium price for a song from the real singer, or if you're cheap, you're okay with paying for a cheaper copycat version (beyonce on expensive recording vs. beyonce wannabe on midi recording)
- there's an annual event where real artists can showcase their new music to a small, elite group of people while everyone else gets inundated with second-class, copycat versions
- if you're a songwriter or creator, it's okay if someone profits from your work and you never see a penny.

[jonathanm]

Also, you'll notice in the presentation that the fashion industry has attempted to gain copyright protection, but has not been able to. In other words, unlike this presenter, the people in that industry are not touting the benefits of not having copyright protection; they are telling the courts they need copyright protection.

[mojobone]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carn ... 05441.html

[elser]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rick-carn ... 05441.html

Good article. Here's one that shows how the 'file stealing' community is trying to gain corporate legitimacy.

http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/search/a ... 1004099016

[jonathanm]

All of these groups that want to do away with or reduce copyright protection typically claim it would be better for everyone. If that's the case, they should go ahead, produce music that draws a fan base, and then give it away. No one is forcing them to copyright their works. If these groups truly have a better open-handed model, as they claim, then let them prove it. They can enact their model without doing away with copyright protections for the rest of us. If their model works, more people will adopt it, I'm sure.

However, what is typically the case is these proposals are made by the consumers of copyright-protected works, not the producers of them. Their efforts are truly one-sided; we have to lose for them to gain, even though their proposals are framed as good for everyone. Again, they can pursue their sans-copyright business model all they want. No law is preventing them from doing so with their own product.

[mojobone]

All of these groups that want to do away with or reduce copyright protection typically claim it would be better for everyone. If that's the case, they should go ahead, produce music that draws a fan base, and then give it away. No one is forcing them to copyright their works. If these groups truly have a better open-handed model, as they claim, then let them prove it. They can enact their model without doing away with copyright protections for the rest of us. If their model works, more people will adopt it, I'm sure.

However, what is typically the case is these proposals are made by the consumers of copyright-protected works, not the producers of them. Their efforts are truly one-sided; we have to lose for them to gain, even though their proposals are framed as good for everyone. Again, they can pursue their sans-copyright business model all they want. No law is preventing them from doing so with their own product.

There is an alternative copyright proposal: http://creativecommons.org/

I don't feel it's ready for primetime, but there's an awful lot of friction in the sync market nowadays. I think standardization of contracts and a generally less litigious attitude (not to mention better bookkeeping and reporting) would be a better way to solve the problems than watering down copyright.

[eliotpister1]

I can't agree completely with what the presenter is saying, but I think we should all be aware of the spirit of this. Especially the bit about creating a personna that cannot be copied. Her analogy about comedians developing a certain 'style', that even if somebody else were to copy the material (jokes) of that artist/comedian, you wouldn't find it funny. Musical artists need to develop this as well I think, which insulates them from somebody else copying their material and being successful at it. For instance, I can rip off a Bob Dylan song, but I can't 'BE' Bob Dylan. That's an image that cannot be replicated.

I think it's important we lobby and fight for digital copyright protection, but we also need to be realistic and know that perhaps that horse has left the barn already, and we need to have a backup plan.

Ironically, those of us that are doing Production Music Library work are perhaps as guilty as anybody at 'knocking off' other artists' work. Has anybody thought of that!?

Great video and thanks for sharing it, Peter!

Cheers, Eliot.

[mazz]

Usually production music library folks do knock offs because if they didn't someone else would because that's what the client is asking for. A fact of life for a production music composer is that you have to be a musical chameleon sometimes in order to put food on the table.

Anyone who creates intellectual property should be entitled to protections afforded under law. If someone wants to give their creations away, that's fine, but don't then start advocating that everyone should do that!! I give my time at my day gig in exchange for money. Maybe the folks that are advocating these types of things should try giving their time at their jobs away for free for a while. What they're asking intellectual property creators to do is essentially the same thing. Let's see what tune they sing after a few months of donating their precious time to their boss. In fact, a lot of folks in every aspect of the business do a ton of work up front for no pay in hopes for some return later. Maybe the people advocating doing away with copyright should also have to work for 6 months until their review by their boss, at which time they will be paid an amount based on their performance. Again, they'd be living in the artist's shoes for a while and may have a different story to tell and may not be advocating the same things anymore. If these folks don't want to pay for music, then there's plenty of hungry people out there with home studios that would be happy to give them some music just to get it heard, and that's fine. But serious artists trying to develop careers should charge for and get paid for their efforts as they are coming up, via selling products and tickets, etc. This way they'll be able to afford to make more and better music as time goes by. This ties into the other thread about more and more mediocrity in music. Mediocrity should be free, after all, it's the most plentiful commodity on the planet, but those that strive for quality should be rewarded for it. IMO.

Caffeine fueled soap box. Sorry!

Mazz