Evweebody know, it's dee AH-I-A-A dats de devil...
Posted on 09/22/2003 12:40:54 AM PDT by Prince Charles
MP3s Are Not the Devil
Since every penny I earn depends on copyright protection, I'm all in favor of reasonable laws to do the job.
But there's something kind of sad about the recording industry's indecent passion to punish the "criminals" who are violating their rights.
Copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government -- it creates the legal fiction that a piece of writing or composing (or, as technologies were created, a recorded performance) is property and can only be sold by those who have been licensed to do so by the copyright holder.
Without copyright, once a work was performed or printed, other people who saw or heard or read it could simply do their own performance or print their own editions, and keep all the money without paying a dime to the creator of the work.
At the same time, a book or song isn't land or even corporate stock. In exchange for the private monopoly of copyright, when it expires the work is then free for anyone to perform or print or record.
Until 1978, copyright only lasted 52 years in the U.S. -- and then only if you remembered to renew it. There were other technical lapses that could result in the inadvertent loss of copyright -- it wasn't really user-friendly.
And the most obnoxious feature of the law was that some authors outlived their copyright. Their most popular works would go into public domain while they were still alive and counting on the income. It's like revoking someone's Social Security at age 72, just because they had the temerity not to die when demographics predicted they would.
Since 1978, the law was changed so that copyright lasted until a certain number of years after the author's death. So not only did the author never outlive the copyright, but the author's dependents could continue to derive income from it for some time.
Also, copyright began, not when the work was listed with the Library of Congress, but rather from the moment of creation.
But there were loopholes. If you wrote something as an employee of a company that paid you a salary for creating it, then your writing was a "work made for hire" and the copyright belonged to the company. You had no rights.
Here's where the ugly stuff begins. A lot of publishers began routinely requiring writers to sign contracts that declared that what they wrote was a "work for hire," so that the authors wouldn't own any part of their own work. Of course the companies didn't actually hire the writers and give them benefits, like real employees. It was basically highway robbery -- the companies demanded that either the writers sign their names to a lie and give up all their rights, or the company wouldn't publish it.
Only a few of us were stubborn enough to refuse to sign work for hire contracts. It was an expensive moral quibble, but I have real objections to perjuring myself and pretending that I was hired by a company when in fact I never was. If I took all the risks and wrote something on spec, then the copyright should belong to me. I'd license them to do whatever was needed, but I wouldn't, in effect, declare them to be the author of my work.
Who Are the Thieves in This House?
So it's pretty hilarious to hear record company executives and movie studio executives get all righteous about copyright. They've been manipulating copyright laws for years, and all the manipulations were designed to steal everything they could from the actual creators of the work.
Do you think these companies care about the money that the actual creators of the work are being deprived of when people copy CDs and DVDs?
Here's a clue: Movie studios have, for decades, used "creative accounting" to make it so that even hit movies never manage to break even, thus depriving the creative people of their "percentage of profits." A few have dared to sue, but most figure that it isn't worth the ill will. (The sentence "You'll never work in this town again" runs through their minds. They remember what happened to Cliff Robertson after he blew the whistle on an executive who was flat-out embezzling!)
And record companies manage to skim enormous amounts of money from ever CD sold. As you can easily calculate by going to the computer store and figuring out the price of an individual recordable blank CD. Figure that the record companies have been paying a fraction of that price for years. Then subtract that from the price of a CD. Figure the songwriters and performers are getting some ludicrously small percentage -- less than twenty percent, I'd bet -- and all the rest flows to the record company.
In other words, the people complaining about all the internet "thieves" are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people's work.
And I say this with the best will in the world. In fact, these companies have expenses. There are salaries to pay. Some of the salaries are earned.
But remember that huge fortunes like, say, David Geffen's were made by getting ownership of record publishing companies. Count on it -- Geffen got a lot richer than any but a handful of the actual performers. And when their careers are over, the record company owner keeps right on earning.
Not only that, but the digital technologies that allow perfect-quality copying came as a huge windfall to the studios and record companies.
I basically replaced all my vinyl records and cassette tapes with CDs, and then replaced all our VHS tapes and laserdiscs with DVDs. The record companies and studios would have laughed if somebody said, "This is just an upgrade. I should be able to turn in my vinyl and cassettes for CDs and my videotapes for DVDs, for no more than the actual cost of production." Ha ha ha ha ha.
In all the ridiculously overblown "estimates" of how much the studios and record companies are "losing" from "piracy," nobody bothers to calculate just how much extra money they made from consumers paying full price for music and movies they had already paid full price for only a few years before.
That's all right, you see, because that helps the companies' bottom line, whereas piracy hurts it.
But how much?
The Hit-Making Machine
The real pirates -- people who make knock-off copies of CDs and DVDs and sell them in direct competition (or in foreign markets) -- make a lot of money in some markets, but most of those are overseas. It's a problem, but some reasonable combination of private investigation and police work and international treaties should deal with that.
Internet "pirates," though, usually are more like a long-distance group that trades CDs around.
If you got together with a few of your neighbors and each of you bought different CDs and then lent them to each other, that wouldn't even violate copyright.
In fact, the entire music business absolutely depends on the social interaction of kids to make hits. You stop kids from sharing music, and you've shut down the hit-making machine.
Copyright violation comes from the fact that digital copies -- even the compressed MP3 format -- are nearly perfect. And when you "lend" your copy to someone over the internet, you still have your original. And he can lend to ten more or a hundred more or a thousand more, and the record company is only paid for that first copy.
Well, that's not a good thing -- if that became the primary way music was published.
The record companies swear that it's making a serious inroad on sales, and they can prove it. How? By showing that their sales are way down in the past few years.
It couldn't possibly be because (a) most of us have already replaced all our old vinyl and cassettes, so all that windfall money is no longer flowing in, or (b) because the record companies have made some really lousy decisions as they tried to guess what we consumers would want to buy.
It couldn't possibly be that they've targeted all their marketing at precisely the market segment -- high school and college students -- who are most likely to be sharing MP3s over the internet.
Maybe if they started marketing more music that people my age would enjoy, they'd find that, lo and behold, there are customers who prefer to buy music the legal way!
It's All Happened Before
The irony is that we've played out this whole scenario before, more than once. When radio first started broadcasting records instead of live performances, the music publishing industry became livid. This was going to hurt sales! A compromise was reached whereby radio stations paid small fees to the publishers for each playing of a record.
But the truth is that it's a lot of bother for nothing. Radio didn't hurt record sales. Radio made record sales, because people wanted to own the records they heard on the radio. Radio let people hear musicians they might never have found otherwise.
Same thing with TV and movies. Yes, TV wiped out the B-movie market segment and it killed newsreels -- but it opened up a lucrative aftermarket that kept movies alive long after they would have stopped earning money. That's how Wizard of Oz and It's a Wonderful Life and many other movies became American icons.
And again, with the VCR, studios were terrified that people would tape things off the air and stop paying money for movies. (And the TV networks were terrified that people would tape shows and skip over the ads; they didn't realize that most of us are too lazy to skip over commercials.)
And rental videotapes! That was the end of the world!
When the studios finally stopped charging ninety bucks for a videotape, they discovered that the videotape (and now DVD) aftermarket was often bigger than the original theatrical release.
The internet is similar, but not identical, to these situations.
First, most of the people who are getting those free MP3s would not be buying the CDs anyway. They're doing this in order to get far more music than they can actually afford. That means that if they weren't sharing MP3s online, they would simply have less music -- or share CDs hand to hand. It does not mean that they would have bought CDs to get the tunes they're downloading from Napster-like sharing schemes.
That's why I laugh at their estimates of "lost sales."
Next week: Part 2
Copyright © 2003 by Orson Scott Card.
Evweebody know, it's dee AH-I-A-A dats de devil...
I have a right to own my creations and my family or estate should have the right to reap the fruits of my labor.
If I wish to sign my publishing away that's my choice, not yours and not the gubmints.
Current copyright law is fair and just.
Card is my all time favorite science fiction writer.
The government is the only entity capable of writing and enforcing copywrite protections. Therefore, it is very much the "gubmints" bizness.
If you want copywrite enforcement, the gubmit is the only place to go.
It shows. Card should stick to what he does best.
Using your same logic, we should just help ourselves to food in stores, since it's just a recomposition of dirt and organic stuff that's been around since the dawn of man.
I just am puzzled why so many people don't see the "value" of intellectual property....
That said, I don't care if "big music" dies. I can make in my little bedroom studio music that's just as "good" as anything you can buy at the store for $17. The prices are far far far too inflated, and "music superstars" should be a fading breed....
Aside from getting the best possible vinyl playback equipment and the best possible sound card to handle the A/D conversion, I recommend getting a copy of SoundForge and the noise reduction plugin. Academic versions are available for non-commercial use.
The noise reduction is very sophisticated. It has a click and pop remover that is infinitely configurable to prevent audible side-effects. If you don't trust the automatic mode you can mark each and every click and treat it individually.
There is also a very sophisticted noise reduction process that can sample a "silent" grove, build a noise profile, and remove the noise from the entire recording without introducing "breathing" effects. If a touch of crackle makes you feel better, you can apply these these processes lightly, getting rid of only the most annoying pops.
The point of copyright protection is to allow you to "reap the fruits of [your] labor". Certainly. But please tell me what other type of labor can I perform where I can sell the fruits of my labor, over and over again without performing additional labor, in perpetuity? And imagine, if you would, the impact of perpetual copyrights on the pool of music, literature, and written works that many current authors draw on.
If I wish to sign my publishing away that's my choice, not yours and not the gubmints.
And 12,000 years from now, do you think your heirs should still control who can copy what you wrote?
Current copyright law is fair and just.
On what grounds? That you deserve to get paid for the rest of your life for effort that you expending once? Do work once and get paid forever.
As many anti-IP people will tell you, if you take the food from a store, you are depriving the owner of that food and they cannot sell it to anyone else. That form of stealing is significantly different than the form of stealing that goes on when you copy a book, movie, or song. Most people intuitively realize this -- even those who believe in protecting works of authorshiop.
I just am puzzled why so many people don't see the "value" of intellectual property....
I most certainly do. I think it is very important that artists get compensated for their labors. Even handsomely so. But I don't think that compensation should last forever. It doesn't for any other labor.
Let's look at your food store example. When you buy an apple, you are compensating the farmer (and all of those along the distribution chain) for their labor and resources. But once that farmer grows that apple, if he wants to make more money next year, he needs to maintain his trees and grow more apples. And more apples the next year. And so on. Now let's compare that with a songwriter.
The songwriter spends time writing a song. And they should certainly get compensated for that effort. But once they've written that song, they can make copies of it with trivial effort. So with perpetual (or near perpetual) copyrights, an author performs labor once and then simply collects money for that labor forever. What would it mean to farming if farmers could hit it big on one harvest and then retire? Or automakers could hit it big on one car and then retire?
Current copyright law is a bastardization of what people in America had in the 1800s. Sheet music was sold but there was no "performance fee". When records came out, there was no "royalty payment" for each recording. When radio came along, there was no payment for each spin of the record.
In parts of Europe, it is possible to keep a copyright alive forever. The Doors got bit by this for a bit of classical Spanish guitar referenced by Robby Krieger in Spanish Caravan. They only have to pay a few pennies per performance, but it is still owed.
Copyright extensions are now exceeding 100 years. Popular recordings reside in the hands of a few big corporations. The reason we are hearing so much about this now is finally ALL works from the dawn of talking pictures (movies) and 1930s music would be lapsing into the public domain. It's taken them awhile to amass the ownership of these works and they don't want them to go PD now.
The reference to "Work For Hire" must have escaped you completely. The artists who created and starred in these works don't see crap for their creativity. Some go to sue the companies and those cases drag on for a decade or more.
There are some works that will cease to exist if we wait another 28 years to allow people to privately restore and release the materials.
The understanding is that these works would become a part of the fabric of our nation and a part of our culture. One person would build off the works of another. Mark Twain is public domain as is Edgar Allen Poe and there have been many adaptations of their works as well as much circulation of their writings.
Tarzan books are public domain but the ERB decendents have claimed to have trademarked the literary character (a bastardization of that notion). Any attempts to adapt Tarzan will be met with lawsuits. This was the first popular character to lapse into the public domain and this is where the fight began.
Corporations are immortal, so they can see definite benefits of maintaining the government created exclusive monopolies granted by copy right. I doubt you've have seen quite the lobbying push for the current life + 70 years than was the case.
Consider this: in 1967, the Disney company produced an animated cartoon of the Jungle Book. Guess when the copyright for that particular work expired? 1966. If the copyright law in 1920 had been the same then as it is today, the Disney corporation would have had to wait until 2006 until they could legally rip Mr. Rudyard Kipling and his decendants off, and make millions of dollars from a concept they'd not created. So far, they've made at least 2 cartoons and one live-action movie that I know of based on the Jungle Book. All of this is perfectly legal and proper by the way because that is exactly the way copyright was supposed to work. The author gets it for a while, then we get it forever. I can, if I so desire, print up and bind a copy of any of Mr. Kiplings books, poems, or shorts and sell them without paying him or his heirs a dime.
However, since the 50's or so, copyright terms have been steadily lengthening. Coincidentally, it would seem that just before Disney's Steamboat Willie would enter the public domain, they are able to buy off enough congresscritters to extend it for another 20 years. Hmmmm.... It's o.k. for THEM to use other people's stuff but not for anyone else to use theirs? Hmmmm...
This year the Supreme Court upheld the newly expanded copyright terms. For some reason, they seem to believe that the "limited times" as written in the constitution can be expressed mathimatically as Infinity-1.
The point to all this is this: I, personally, have zero respect for any copyright beyond 28 years. So, I do my bit to make sure that anyone who wants a copy of The Beatles' White Album, Glen Miller's Pennsylvania 6 5000, Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon or anything else more than 28 years old is available to anyone who wants it.
Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have to play.
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.