This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What Do You Think About the $8 Billion iPod?
Rob Reid's presentation was recently featured on Ted.com and , "unveils Copyright Math (TM), a remarkable new field of study based on actual numbers from entertainment industry lawyers and lobbyists."
The music industry and observers, including Professor Ken Sanney from Central Michigan University are now weighing in on the debate.
Sanney argues that "Complex issues that are oversimplified and distorted for comedic value are enjoyable and even valuable in providing us with a respite from serious deliberation on such things. But, if these oversimplifications and distortions are presented as truthful representations of facts -- that are just delivered in a funny way -- they risk undermining serious discussions that can create workable solutions. This TED Talk is simply a comedic straw man ... not an idea worth spreading! "
For his full blog on why and an explanation of the copyright laws which weren't fully discussed in Reid's talk, visit here: http://musiclaw-copyright.blogspot.com/2012/03/copyright-math-is-joke.html
What do you think? Is the oversimplification of complex issues breaking down communication barriers or creating new ones? Does either side have a fair assessment of this particular issue?
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Karl Sjostedt
The business is hurting their own pocketbooks by not believing the studies. Blinded by their own greed they deserve to face a real backlash. What the Pirate Party proposes: 7 year copyrights on media, a remixer owns his version, etc. is actually the path that will net the most benefit for the industry but greed stops people from seeing clearly and keeps them from maximizing their profits.
Simon Tam
The argument being made by Rob Reid - $150,000 in damages, is only for very limited situations. Sharing a song, you'd be on the hook for it's retail value (generally $0.99-$1.29) which is why most people don't follow up with persecution of those instances.
Also, not all major studies point to increased increased revenue do to file-sharing. There's data on both sides of that one; as a content creator who lost tens of thousands of dollars by having my work stolen from me, I can attest through personal examples. Some of my music was "shared" and filtered without credit; it even led to someone stealing the song, taking credit as their own with minor tweaks, and striking a deal through a major release (in the courts now).
Also, there are several open-source, free-form copyrights (such as the Creative Commons). Not saying that the laws are perfect now, just that they shouldn't be argued with rhetoric, over simplification, and biased. data. We're better than that. And artists deserve better than that.
Daniel Svensson
Sharing a song with a friend - OK
Taking a song idea from someone else and claiming copyright on it - Not OK
That's how I see it at least.
Simon Tam
It seems that this grey area has a lot of double standards. We don't take food out of a restaurant and give it out; that's something that's seen as inherently wrong. Yet there's a widespread notion that it's ok to giveaway someone else's music, software, etc. without the consent from the actual creator/owner.
"Sharing" with a friend as in showing them, lending, etc. is one thing. Creating torrent file systems or seeding entire databases of created works for anyone to download is another. But there's seems to be a slippery slope in that there's no real balance on what people do. It's easy to find justifications on why it happens - "because software is expensive," "because it helps the artist to have their art spread," and so on but ultimately the idea of sharing should be up to the ones most affected by it (for better or for worse).
Karl Sjostedt
I too am a content creator and I would like my work spread as far and wide as possible as long as I get credit. It sucks that someone tried to claim your work as their own as you don't even get a fan base from that.
I would like to point out that when a Star Trek style replicator exists I think it would be more than fair to COPY food from a restaurant and share with your friends. I could go to a store right now and look at a nice chair, go get some parts and construct my own copy of that chair. When I copy a song I am spending my own time and resources to copy that song. It may be much easier than copying a chair but I don't see how it is morally different. You don't have to release your music in such an easily copyable form. You probably don't want to do that because the benefit of the technology outweighs the negatives.
I would also like to point out that I have never heard of a musician living in a complete vacuum. In other words the music you make would not exist without the influence of musicians who came before you. Are you paying them a share of your profits since you are using their music in ways they have not directly approved of? As long as someone else isn't making money from selling your music I think it is too far from a direct link to call all sharing a lost sale.
The only studies I have read about that show sharing as costing content creators money are very small studies sponsored directly by those content companies. Every major study conducted by national governments have shown a net positive effect from filesharing.
Simon Tam
You're only looking at statutory damages which doesn't apply to all of these cases. From the article:
"Section 504(c) of the copyright act sets two types of damages:
(1) Actual Damages: which is actually the precise amount of harm from an infringement -- currently this would be somewhere between $.99 and $1.29 for a digital song
and
(2) Statutory Damages: which ranges from a low of $200 to a high of $150,000 per work infringed and depends on the intent of the infringing party."
and "The statutory damages clause of our Copyright Act is an indication of the value we place on innovation and creative endeavors. Statutory damages attempt to place a cost on the act of the theft itself and thereby deter such behavior and encourage innovation and creativity."
While I don't believe in all of the methods taken by the RIAA, they only represent one small component of the industry.
The reality of the situation is that while every artist would like their work to have greater exposure, there are vasts differences within the community on how they'd like it done. My argument is that philosophically and morally, those decisions should be up to the creator on whether or not they'd like their work shared for free or whether they'd like to sell it. It shouldn't be up to the consumer or perpetrator.
Another example - photographers. Thee are very strict laws on duplicating their work because (at least during the age of film), the bulk of photographers' living depended on selling prints (which is why they didn't release the original negatives). Unauthorized duplication tore into their incomes and ability to continue business which is why copyright laws were enacted in that arena.
Simon Tam
" As long as someone else isn't making money from selling your music I think it is too far from a direct link to call all sharing a lost sale." - This again is getting away from my point, which is that it should be up to the copyright holder, not the licensee. And prior to Content ID systems (which are still evolving), many people have been making money from sharing other artists' work through streaming, ads, etc.
Here are several well-noted studies by professors in that arena:
US music consumers "could have decreased their CD purchases (prior to 2004) by about 13 percent due to Internet file sharing." (from Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy by Norbert Miche)
Assessing the Economic Impact of Copyright Law: Evidence of the Effect of Free Music Downloads on the Purchase of Music CDs (by George Robert Barker
Centre for Law and Economics, ANU College of Law) link here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1990153
Neither of those were sponsored or connected by anyone either in government policy or lobbying groups representing content creators.
Karl Sjostedt
Claiming someone else's work as your own is not what happens in nearly 100% of filesharing cases. People who spend time, money and effort to share stuff on-line want people to be able to find and know what they are downloading so they are very careful to label everything. Often they more completely label content than the actual content companies do.
Simon Tam
Hence, why I wanted to further explore that concept in this area. I think it's irrelavent to the situation atthat I initially brought up: the oversimplification of complex issues being destructive to the conversation and the extreme bias which both sides of the copyright argument display. However, I wanted to make it clear that influence, derived works, and inspiration do not necessarily mean that those created ideas/works of art are violations of copyright. That's a completely different arena than copying a person's product and giving it out without that individual's consent.
Daniel Svensson
Music is going back to how it used to be, by people for people, not by companies for consumers. I think that's a good thing. While we're at it, why don't we make digital photos illegal as well? It steals money and jobs from camera shops.
Simon Tam
"While we're at it, why don't we make digital photos illegal as well? It steals money and jobs from camera shops. " The general concept is absurd, just as the idea of outlawing digital music files. For one thing, photography has been protected by copyright laws just as long as music - it has always been illgeal to duplicate a person's photos without their permission. This is why there are huge signs posted in camera shops and photo centers saying that they will not scan or print professional work. The files themselves are simply a product. It is the act of duplicating another's work without their permission (or in many cases, a direct violation of their request) the very concept that is being debated here, not the product.
(Prior to jumping into the music industry, I was a professional photographer and managed a camera shop/photo lab for several years)