Posted on 04/02/2005 4:37:22 AM PST by billorites
As the berobed Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sat pestering the suits who came before them days ago to contest Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. Grokster...
Conundrum #1: Has the Internet, the most powerful information pump the world has ever known, drowned the incentive to create in words or images?
Conundrum #2: Has the Internet effectively displaced the antique notion of the profit-motive with a newer, unstoppable reality that everything on the Internet is, if it wants to be, "free"?
Conundrum #3: How is it that millions of Americans who wouldn't cross the street against a red light will sleep like lambs after downloading onto their computers a Library of Alexandria's worth of music or movies--for free.
Even writers gotta eat. But this means one has to buy into the validity of eeeek, "profit." Absent that, there's no hope.
New business models like iTunes and techno-fixes such as micropayments matter a lot, but the unshakable reality is that digits and microchips are not like any previous reproducing technology. If you can digitize it, you can grab it, for free.
No matter what the Supreme Court decides about Grokster's 15 minutes of fame, this is a philosophical issue for the long run. The Web isn't just a technology; it's become an ideology. The Web's birth as a "free" medium and the downloading ethic have engendered the belief that culture--songs, movies, fiction, journalism, photography--should be clickable into the public domain, for "everyone."
What a weird ethic. Some who will spend hundreds of dollars for iPods and home theater systems won't pay one thin dime for a song or movie. So Steve Jobs and the Silicon Valley geeks get richer while the new-music artists sweating through three sets in dim clubs get to live on Red Bull. Where's the justice in that?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Oh, hey, me too, believe me. I'm just bored at work today, finished one project and am about to start another, and had a few hours of down-time.
And I have *no* musical talent. People pay me *not* to sing.
I am pretty certain there is 'stifling' that you aren't seeing. I think the 'Proud Mary' example is one strong bit of evidence, the 'bar' issue that jpsb talks about is another. There is a 'cost' to IP laws. I believe that most writings on the subject of IP discuss this cost.
The law-makers have misunderstood what 'ideas' and 'technology' are, and have labeled them 'property'. They once did the same for black folk. That doesn't mean they're right.
Music and literature are certainly education technologies, altho ones we've come to take for granted. Writing, in fact, is a 'technology'.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrggggggghhhhh!!!
I've never heard it, but it just *sounds* painful!
My point still remains, Ike and Tina's version is a *very* different song, even tho it is also very similar. They did "innovate". They created something "new".
Most 'innovation' is not "brand new ideas". Most innovation is taking an old idea and putting a new twist on it.
Without a doubt, Ike and Tina 'innovated' in their version of that song.
Absolutely, there are people who would make music for pay but can't because of current IP laws. That is a fact. That is 'stifling'. Now we allow a certain amount of this 'stifling', so the artist can get paid. But there has to be a balance. Or else society suffers from a lack of innovation.
That is true. So consider --
Hence I believe this is an excellent example of a the point that wins the debate.
The laws don't reflect reality -- that they did innovate. The law suppresses 'innovations' like they made, requiring payment to 'innovate'.
So music copyright laws do stifle music. There is music that would be made for money, but the current laws prevent. We allow a certain amount of such stifling, for a limited period of time. But there is a 'cost'. Music is stifled.
So the real debate should be, I think, over the duration of the monopoly.
That sounds like a hilarious album! I wonder if I can pick up a copy somewhere.
Hi,
I sent you a freepmail but I don't know if you received it. I was wondering if you or your husband had any noteworthy song credits? I have a stack of songs that I would like to pitch to someone. They are primarily country songs. Do you know anyone interesting in receiving demos of that kind? Some are for male singers, some are for female singers.
Because copyrights are not a basic human right, but rather a special privilege granted by government for a utilitarian purpose (to encourage creation of new works by providing a limited-term monopoly). Extending the monopoly excessively undercuts that purpose (if works don't mature into the public domain, the baseline available to everyone as a starting point doesn't advance).
Er, no. Copyrights are a privilege, not a right (it would be perfectly Constitutional for the Congress to decline to exersize its power to grant temporary monopolies, and let everything immediately mature into the public domain -- bad public policy, yes; a violation of rights, no).
But that doesn't answer my question. I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pass on the songs to their kiddies. How is that excessive? Especially given the extreme leniency of infringement law in songwriting? Anyone who wants can write a song called Jump, even tho songs called Jump have already been top 10 hits like 6 times. What useful art is being limited by longer copyrights for songs?
Er, no they didn't, and if they did they would deserve a spanking for judicial activism.
Congress has the enumerated power to grant copyrights (and, by clear implication, the ability to not use that power). Thus, the existence of copyrights is a political decision.
What's the argument about? The songwriter gets credit, even for an unusual arrangment. After all, without the song, there'd be nothing to arrange. That's why they give out one grammy for songwriters (song of the year) and one for artists/producers (record of the year.) Because arranging and/or performing a song is a separate thing from writing a song. Likewise, if you do your own arrangement of the song, you only pay the songwriter royalty. You don't pay a licensing fee or anything to do with the original arrangment. The original arrangement's got nothing to do with it.
Two errors in one sentence.
First, there are no "property rights" involved. There is a power granted to Congress to create limited-time monopolies to authors and inventors. Thus, the issue is one of a privilege granted for a public-policy purpose, not one of a property right.
Second, authors and inventors are both exactly equal -- Congress has the power to grant limited-time monopolies to each. Whether Congress graces the two equally, or at all, is a public-policy decision.
This is part of the public policy rationale behind the "mechanical license" (i.e. once the initial recording of a musical work is published, anyone may publish their own rendition -- they must pay a royalty rate set by law, but need not obtain permission).
Note that this does not apply to parodies, but only to renditions of the original with purely stylistic variations. The 2 Live Crew case put parodies in a rather confusing legal situation, which we need not go into at the moment.
Er, see my previous post. Once you publish a recording of a song, anybody else can cover it by paying you 8 cents a copy (current statutory rate).
Note that this is an example of why copyright is not a "property right" -- if it were, mechanical licensing would be a clear example of unconstitutional "taking". IIRC, occasionally somebody tries to advance this argument, and gets laughed out of court as quickly as the people who say they don't owe income taxes because Ohio wasn't properly admitted to the Union.
Karaoke at your friendly neighborhood bar. Taking your girl out for a spin on the dance floor at your friendly neigborhood bar. Jam night at your friendly neighborhood bar. Excessive copyrigth protections is killing music in thousands of friedly neighborhood bars all accross the country. Once the shakedown is complete live music will only be at big venues and only big name bands will performing. The little venues for the little bands will have been shutdown. Most bands will have an almost impossible time getting gigs.
Yes I know - I was properly corrected on that up-thread.
I already know what you think. I didn't ask you.
I didn't say you weren't allowed to. I just said I already know what you think. You sing one note. I'm no longer interested in your opinion, and I'm too tired to do the Dale Carnegie routine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.